Sources of light and glare in the City include building lighting (interior and exterior), security lighting, sign illumination, ballfield lighting, and parking-area lighting. These sources are mostly associated with residential, commercial, and industrial uses and the larger community parks in the more developed areas of the City. Other sources of nighttime light and glare include streetlights, vehicular traffic along surrounding roadways, and ambient lighting from surrounding communities.
Policy Plan Amendment
New development would generate new sources of light and glare through increased urbanization and densification of the city, affecting day or nighttime views. Sources of light include nighttime street and building illumination, security lighting, nighttime traffic, and lighting associated with construction activities. Lighting introduced to undeveloped and open space areas has the potential to impact visual quality of the nighttime sky.
Like the approved project, the proposed project would result in additional sources of light or glare; however, the City of Ontario Development Code contains standards addressing lighting through its design policies. Adherence to the design standards of the City of Ontario Development Code would ensure that light and glare from new developments would be minimized and that significant impacts would not occur. Compared to the approved project, the proposed project does not introduce substantial new sources of light and glare, and impacts 758
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. 1 A E S T H ETI C S
3. 1- 18
would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project and this impact is less than significant. Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Specific Plan
Existing sources of artificial, exterior lighting associated with on-site uses include buildingmounted fixtures, streetlights, vehicle headlights, and lighting from surrounding developed properties.
New lighting introduced to the Specific Plan area would be subject to the requirements of the Specific Plan’s Development Regulations and Design Guidelines for lighting. In this regard, Section 6.7 of the EBPSP requires lighting to be shielded, diffused or indirect, to avoid glare to pedestrians or motorists. In addition, lighting fixtures are required to be selected and located to confine the area of illumination and minimize light spillage to surrounding properties. Lighting that could be mistaken for airport lighting in the eyes of pilots of aircraft using the nearby Chino Airport (CNO) or Ontario International Airport (ONT) would be prohibited.
Future development lighting plans would be subject to review and approval by the City’s Planning Department and Ontario Police Department (pursuant to the City’s Building Security Ordinance). Conformance with applicable glare provisions of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans for the nearby CNO and ONT would also be required prior to issuance of building permits.
With respect to glare, a majority of building materials within the Specific Plan would consist of tilt-up concrete panels. Secondary materials would include natural or fabricated stone, and fireresistant or synthetic wood siding, which are low reflective materials. Windows would be clear or lightly tinted with subtle reflectivity; highly reflective or silver-tinted glass would not be allowed. Glare effects would be further minimized by required setbacks and buffered by landscaping.
The EBPSP requires building roofs to be designed to accommodate solar photovoltaic (PV) systems. Rooftop PV panels are produced by numerous manufacturers with a variety of specifications and the exact configuration and specifications will be determined in conjunction with each building's architectural design in the future. Regardless, industry standard rooftop PV panels exhibit low reflectivity due to anti-reflective coatings and the industry objective of maximizing absorption rather than reflection. Because rooftop panels are mounted at shallow angles and generally face the sun’s path, any potential glare would be directed upward rather than horizontally toward roadways or sensitive viewers. Public vantage points are at-grade, substantially below the rooftop plane, limiting opportunities for direct reflection of glare towards sensitive receivers.
759
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. 1 A E S TH E TI C S
MA RC H 2026 3. 1- 19
Based on the preceding, implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in a significant source of light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views, and 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. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact AES-4: Buildout of the proposed project would generate additional light and glare, which would be minimized through adherence to the City of Ontario Development Code.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant aesthetic 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.
3.1.6 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Proposed Project
The CEQA Guidelines define a “cumulative impact” as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15355). Cumulative impacts related to aesthetics would be contiguous with the City boundaries. Cumulative projects in Ontario would have the potential to result in a cumulative impact to aesthetic resources if, in combination, they would result in the removal or substantial adverse change of one or more features that contribute to the valued visual character or image of a neighborhood, community, State scenic highway, or localized area, such as a designated landmark, historic resource, trees, or rock outcropping. 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.
Scenic Vistas and Scenic Resources
The City of Ontario does not designate scenic vistas. Growth within the City of Ontario could affect scenic vistas and specific scenic resources. Policy CD-1.5 of TOP 2050 ensure that views of 760
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. 1 A E S T H ETI C S
3. 1- 20
the San Gabriel Mountains are preserved. Development under the proposed project would be subject to goals, policies, and regulations intended to minimize impacts associated with the proposed project to less than significant levels, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to scenic vistas and scenic resources would be less than significant.
Visual Character and Quality
Growth anticipated in Ontario would fundamentally alter the visual character and quality of certain areas. However, because development under the proposed project would be subject to goals, policies, and regulations intended to minimize visual impacts to less than significant levels, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to visual character and quality would be less than significant.
Light and Glare
The construction and operation of cumulative projects in Ontario could introduce new sources of light and glare from development and redevelopment requiring nighttime lighting—such as security lighting in commercial areas—or from buildings constructed with reflective materials like large expanses of glass. Glare impacts are typically localized and not cumulative in nature; therefore, a significant cumulative impact related to glare would not occur. Furthermore, development under the proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s Development Code, which includes standards to minimize lighting impacts. As a result, light and glare impacts associated with the proposed project would be reduced to less than significant levels, and the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
Impacts of the proposed project would be less than cumulatively considerable. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Cumulative Impacts: The proposed project’s contribution to cumulative aesthetic impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
3.1.7 References
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2008. Scenic Highway Guidelines.
Caltrans. 2025, November 10 (accessed). California State Scenic Highway System Map. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057 116f1aacaa.
761
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. 1 A E S TH E TI C S
MA RC H 2026 3. 1- 21
DOF (California Department of Finance). 2025. E-5 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020–2025. https://www.dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics /Estimates/e-5/.
ELMT Consulting. 2025. Biological Resources Assessment for the Proposed Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan Located in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California. ELMT Consulting.
Ontario, City of. 2022. The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364. https://www.ontarioplan.org/environmental-impact-report/. 762
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. 1 A E S T H ETI C S
3. 1- 22
This page intentionally left blank.
763
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 .2 -1
3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
This section of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Report (SEIR) discusses the potential impacts from the loss of agricultural resources associated with TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment and EBPSP (proposed project) compared to the TOP 2050 (approved project) and impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
There were several comment letters received in response to the NOP related to Agricultural, Forestry Resources. The relevant issues raised in those comment letters are addressed throughout this section. For a summary of the comment letters, refer to Table 1-1 in Chapter 1, Introduction, or see Appendix A for the full comment letters.
3.2.1 Regulatory Framework
STATE
California General Plan Law
The California Government Code (Section 65302(d)) requires the general plan to include an open space and conservation element for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources—including water and its hydraulic force, forests, soils, rivers and other waters, harbors, fisheries, wildlife, minerals, and other natural resources. The conservation element must consider the effect of development on natural resources that are on public lands.
In October 2017, the state legislature passed SB 732, which authorizes a city to develop an agricultural land component of the open space element or a separate agricultural element in its general plan. For local governments that choose this option, the bill authorizes the Department of Conservation (DOC) to award grants, bond proceeds, and other assistance provided the element meets certain requirements.
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
The California Natural Resources Agency is charged with restoring, protecting, and maintaining the State’s natural, cultural, and historical resources. Within it, the California DOC provides technical services and information to promote informed land use decisions and sound management of the State’s natural resources. DOC manages the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, which supports agriculture throughout California by developing maps and statistical data for analyzing land use impacts to farmland. About every 2 years, the program publishes a field report for each county in the state. The field report categorizes land by agricultural production potential and according to the following classifications:
764
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 .2 A G RIC ULT U RE A ND FOR E STRY RES O U RCES
3 .2- 2
Prime Farmland has the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long-term agricultural production. Prime Farmland has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been used for irrigated agriculture production at some time during the 4 years prior to the mapping date.
Farmland of Statewide Importance is similar to Prime Farmland, but with minor shortcomings, such as steeper slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the 4 years prior to the mapping date.
Unique Farmland consists of lesser quality soils used for the production of the State’s leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California. Land must have been farmed at some time during the 4 years prior to the mapping date.
Farmland of Local Importance includes all farmable land not meeting the definitions of “prime farmland,” “farmland of statewide importance,” and “unique farmland.” This includes land that is or has been used for irrigated pasture, dryland farming, confined livestock or dairy facilities, aquaculture, poultry facilities, and dry grazing. It also includes lands previously designated by soil characteristics as “prime farmland,” “farmland of statewide importance,” and “unique farmland” that has since become idle.
Grazing Land is the land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock.
Confined Animal Agriculture lands include poultry facilities, feedlots, dairy facilities, and fish farms. In some counties, confined animal agriculture is a component of the farmland of local importance category.
Nonagricultural and Natural Vegetation includes heavily wooded, rocky, or barren areas; riparian and wetland areas; grassland areas that do not qualify for grazing land due to their size or land management restrictions; small water bodies; and recreational water ski lakes.
Constructed wetlands are also included in this category.
Semi-Agricultural and Rural Commercial Land includes farmstead, agricultural storage and packing sheds, unpaved parking areas, composting facilities, equine facilities, firewood lots, and campgrounds.
Vacant or Disturbed Land includes open field areas that do not qualify for an agricultural category, mineral and oil extraction areas, off road vehicle areas, electrical substations, channelized canals, and rural freeway interchanges.
Rural Residential Land includes residential areas of one to five structures per 10 acres. ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
765
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 .2 A GR IC ULT U RE A N D FO RE STRY RES O URCE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .2 -3
Urban and Built-Up Land is occupied by structures with a building density of at least one unit per 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel. Common examples include residential structures, industrial structures, commercial structures, institutional facilities, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment structures, and water control structures.
Water is used to describe perennial water bodies with an extent of at least 40 acres.
California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act)
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, known as the Williamson Act, conserves agricultural and open space lands through property tax incentives and voluntary restrictive land use contracts administered by local governments under State regulations. Private landowners voluntarily restrict their land to agricultural and compatible open space uses under minimum 10-year rolling term contracts, with counties and cities also acting voluntarily. In return, restricted parcels are assessed for property tax purposes at a rate consistent with their actual use, rather than potential market value. Nonrenewal status is applied to Williamson Act contracts that are within the 9-year termination process, during which the annual tax assessment for the property gradually increases.
Forestland and Timberland Protection
State regulations such as the Forest Taxation Reform Act of 1976 and the Z’berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973 (California Forest Practice Act) provide for the preservation of forest lands from encroachment by other, incompatible land uses and for oversight of the management of forest practices and forest resources.
Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)
Public Resources Code Section 12220(g) defines “forest land” for the purposes of CEQA.
According to the Code, “forest land” is land that can support 10 percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, waterquality, recreation, and other public benefits.
Government Code Section 51104(g)
The California Timberland Productivity Act of 1982, like the Land Conservation Act, was passed to encourage the production of timber resources. Government Code Section 51104(g) defines “Timber,” “Timberland,” and “Timberland Production Zone” for the purposes of CEQA and “Timberland Preserve Zone,” which may be used in city and county general plans. ■
■
766
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 .2 A G RIC ULT U RE A ND FOR E STRY RES O U RCES
3 .2- 4
“Timber” means trees of any species maintained for eventual harvest for forest production purposes, whether planted or of natural growth, standing or down, on privately or publicly owned land, including Christmas trees, but does not mean nursery stock. “Timberland” means privately owned land, or land acquired for State forest purposes, which is devoted to and used for growing and harvesting timber, or for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses, and which is capable of growing an average annual volume of wood fiber of at least 15 cubic feet per acre. “Timberland Production Zone” or “TPZ” means an area which has been zoned pursuant to Section 51112 or 51113 and is devoted to and used for growing and harvesting timber, or for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses, as defined in subdivision (h). With respect to the general plans of cities and counties, “Timberland Preserve Zone” means “Timberland Production Zone.”
County boards of supervisors may designate areas of timberland preserve, referred to as Timberland Production Zones, which restrict the land’s use to the production of timber for an initial 10-year term in return for lower property taxes.
REGIONAL
San Bernardino County Policy Plan
The San Bernardino Countywide Plan (Policy Plan) contains goals and policies to support agricultural uses. The Natural Resources Element includes policies to preserve important farmlands; encourage compatible agricultural uses; work with agencies to reduce soil erosion, improve soil quality, and address pest management; and encourage the conservation of forestlands and natural habitats in the county. Other policies encourage viable agricultural uses through land use regulation, Williamson Act contracts, tax incentive programs, and other land use programs (San Bernardino County 2020).
LOCAL
City of Ontario Municipal Code
The City of Ontario Municipal Code contains regulations pertaining to agricultural resources in the City, including:
Ontario Development Code, Chapter 5, Zoning and Land Use, Division 5.01.005, Establishment of Base Zoning Districts, Section F, Overlay Zoning Districts. The purpose of the AG (Agriculture) Overlay Zoning District is to accommodate the continuation of agricultural uses in the city on an interim basis and to allow for the establishment of general agricultural uses, such as dairies, within certain areas of concentrated agricultural use. ■
■
■
■
767
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 .2 A GR IC ULT U RE A N D FO RE STRY RES O URCE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .2 -5
3.2.2 Existing Condition
POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT
Regional Agriculture and Farmland
Table 3.2-1, San Bernardino County 2016–2018 Farmland Conversion, presents information from the 2018 California Farmland Conversion Report summarizing farmland conversion in San Bernardino County.
Table 3.2-1 San Bernardino County 2016–2018 Farmland Conversion Land Use Category
2016
Acreage
2018
Acreage
Acres
Lost
Acres
Gained
Net
Acreage
Changed
Prime Farmland 11,323 10,887 770 334 -436
Farmland of Statewide Importance 5,770 5,568 453 251 -202 Unique Farmland 2,738 2,700 67 29 -38
Farmland of Local Importance 561 546 12 0 -12
Important Farmland Subtotal 20,392 19,704 1,302 614 -688 Grazing Land 898,633 897,398 2,230 995 -1,235
Agricultural Land Subtotal 919,025 917,102 3,532 1,609 -1,923 DOC 2016.
Between 2016 and 2018, the latest data available from the California DOC, the County of San Bernardino experienced a net loss of 688 acres (20,392 acres to 19,704 acres) of Important Farmland and an increase of 2,027 acres of new Urban and Built-Up land (DOC 2018). Generally, agricultural land is in decline because more-stringent environmental regulations are causing dairies to relocate out of the region, resulting in a continued decline in the long-term viability of agricultural operations in southern Ontario. Land uses surrounding the City mostly support residential, commercial, and industrial uses, with minimal agricultural land parcels dispersed intermittently.
Local Agriculture and Farmland
Table 3.2-2, Existing Farmland in Ontario, presents information from the latest California DOC Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program for farmland in the City of Ontario. Existing 768
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 .2 A G RIC ULT U RE A ND FOR E STRY RES O U RCES
3 .2- 6
farmland in Ontario is shown on Figure 3.2-1, Important Farmland. There are 7,513 acres of farmland remaining in Ontario.
Table 3.2-2 Existing Farmland in Ontario
Land Use Category Acres
Prime Farmland 1,688.36
Farmland of Statewide Importance 45.76
Unique Farmland 261.81
Farmland of Local Importance 0
Grazing Land 700.04
Other Land 4,816.88
Total Farmland in Ontario 7,512.85
Source: DOC 2020.
Original Model Colony
Historically, the northern portion of the City was farmed with grapes, citrus, olives, and other fruit tree crops; however, the Original Model Colony (OMC) has mostly replaced agricultural land uses with residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. Limited agriculture land uses are currently permitted in areas zoned for Residential-Agricultural (AR), Residential Estate (RE), Public Facility (PF), Open Space (OS), Commercial (C-1 to C-4), and Industrial (M1 to M3) land uses, though these zoning designations are not intended for large-scale farming/agricultural operations. As shown in Figure 3.2-1, very little farmland remains in the OMC.
Ontario Ranch
The Ontario Ranch area covers 8,200 acres of the former 14,000-acre San Bernardino Agricultural Preserve, which was historically used for dairy or cattle farming. The Agricultural Preserve was divided and incorporated into the cities of Chino, Chino Hills, and Ontario in 1999, and the City of Ontario named its portion the “New Model Colony” (now Ontario Ranch). Until the mid-1990s, southern Ontario was part of the San Bernardino County Dairy Preserve.
The change of land use from agricultural to nonagricultural has mostly been due to increasing population, which has put pressure on cities in southern California to turn Important Farmland into uses that would support residential, economic, and employment needs. Dairies and farms in Ontario have also found that they are outcompeted by dairies and farms in the Central Valley, so they have either converted their land to more productive, nonagricultural uses or they have left Ontario for the Central Valley.
769
L-.j
/ I =
w
l
~
z CITY OF ~ z MONTCLAIR ~
z
W FOURTH ST
CITY OF
UPLAND
w
> <
0 z
0 1-
z
<
i= z z
::i: W G ST ~ 1-
z z ::>
0 W DST ~
z
W MISSION BLVD
w
> <
z W PHILLIPS ST
<{
1-
z
::>
0 ~
V,
CITY OF CHINO
w
~
Q
z
0 1-
z
<
z
<
V,
w
> <
0 ..;
u
::>
UJ
z
l
I
■
I
I
w
> <
<
z
..;
~
::>
V,
z
w
~
<
z
13 ::>
V,
V,
w
> <
V,
::>
Cl.
~
< u
z
w
> <
V,
::> "'
~
<
u
V,
r .. , .. e .. E IG HToH-s;r-,,
w
> <(
w
> 0
a::
I.!)
z
E G ST
E HOLT AVE
E PHll:ADELPHIA ST
E SCHAEFER AVE
-.:ISON AVE
w
> <
0 a::
~ w
z
>
z
w
~
0 a::
~ w
z
>
V,
IW.l_ .._.!lffl, •. _!_ .. _,
w
~
0 ..;
< !!2
:i:
\:I
a::
<(
z
w
> <
a::
w
z
a::
::>
Iv,
E
w
> <(
CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
l
..:,
I
:> <(
I
a::
u:,
z
~ <(
ON-JARIO fl:ANCH RD ~
.. ,
•I I ~ J .. ~·· EASTVALE _.,,.,,. .. .,,..,,,.
E INLAND EMPIRE BLVD
E SANTA ANA ST
!
_ .. J
I
I
GllY OF
FONTANA
County of Riverside
JURUPA VALLEY
3.2 AGRICULTURAL & FORESTRY RESOURCES
Figure 3.2-1
Important Farmland
c::J EBPSP Boundary
I.. ··1 Ontario City Boundary
I.. ··1 County Boundary
Developed Land
.. Prime Farmland
Farmland of Local Importance
Farmland of Statewide Importance
Grazing Land
Unique Farmland
Other Land
2 · 0 · 5·0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
ft ._______. FT
• I' O 2,500 5,000 10,000
Source: CADOC (Dept of Conservation) 2020 Dale: 12/10/2025 770
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 .2 A G RIC ULT U RE A ND FOR E STRY RES O U RCES
3 .2- 8
This page intentionally left blank.
771
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 .2 A GR IC ULT U RE A N D FO RE STRY RES O URCE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .2 -9
Agricultural Preserve Lands
In 1988, California voters approved Proposition 70, which allocated $20 million to San Bernardino County for the permanent acquisition and preservation of agricultural lands in the Chino Agricultural Preserve. The County used these funds to purchase 366.55 acres across 9 nonadjacent parcels in the Chino Agricultural Preserve, which included parcels in what is now Ontario Ranch. The Southern California Agricultural Land Foundation (SCALF) managed 200 acres of farmland within Ontario Ranch through a 1988 Park Bond Act with San Bernardino County. In 2010, Senate Bill 1124 was passed and allowed San Bernardino County to sell or exchange the properties as long as the proceeds were used to purchase replacement property for agricultural preservation, community gardens, or wildlife habitat. The City of Ontario is not a participant in the San Bernardino County Proposition 70 implementation. The County of San Bernardino deed restrictions remain in effect until either a conservation easement is recorded or until the County of San Bernardino sells or exchanges the property.
Purchase of Agricultural Easements Programs
Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easement (PACE) programs compensate property owners for keeping their land available for agriculture. Typically, PACE programs consider soil quality, threat of development, and future agricultural viability when selecting farms for protection.
They are usually administered by state or local governments but may also be operated by private conservation organizations.
The City of Ontario and San Bernardino County do not currently operate a PACE program for loss of farmland in the City or County. City of Ontario Resolution No. 2010-003, adopted by the City on January 27, 2010, found that that the replacement of agricultural resources off-site, including via establishment of conservation easements or preserves, would, given the lack of viability of such mitigation in the City, only be possible in parcels in another part of the state.
The Resolution found that “such distant mitigation would not reduce impacts because these mitigation parcels could have no bearing or relationship on the loss of agricultural lands within the City and this mitigation strategy would cause no net change in Important Farmland conversion within the state because new Important Farmland cannot be created.” California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act)
The Ontario Ranch has areas that are currently agriculture preserves under contract with San Bernardino County through the Williamson Act of 1965 (see Table 3.2-3, Remaining Agricultural Preserves in Ontario). The preservation of agricultural land through Williamson Act contracts today in Ontario is meant to discourage premature and unnecessary conversion to urban uses.
Once the Ontario Ranch annexed to the City, the City of Ontario became the administrating entity for the Williamson Act contracts. Under the Act, either the landowner or the planning jurisdiction (the City) has the ability to submit the property for nonrenewal. Property owners in this area with Williamson Act contracts have filed for nonrenewal because of the declining 772
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 .2 A G RIC ULT U RE A ND FOR E STRY RES O U RCES
3 .2- 1 0
profits from agriculture in the area and the potential development of these lands with nonagricultural uses. Current nonrenewed contracts would expire between 2027 and 2033.
Current Williamson Act areas in the City of Ontario are shown in Figure 3.2-2, Williamson Act Lands. Table 3.2-3 Remaining Agricultural Preserves in Ontario Land Use Category Acres
Active 308.24
Expires 2027 275.5
Expires 2028 93.4
Expires 2033 23.2
Total 700.34
Source: Ontario 2025.
Forest Land and Timberland
The City of Ontario contains no forest land or timberland that could fall under the definition of forest land per California Public Resource Code Section 12220(g).
SPECIFIC PLAN
Agricultural Resources
The existing zoning of the site is EBPSP with an Agricultural Overlay and Affordable Housing Overlay, indicating the site’s anticipated transition to urban uses. Under existing conditions, the majority of the Specific Plan area supports remnant pasture crop fields and cattle stockyards, residences, and inactive agricultural land. None of the Specific Plan parcels are San Bernardino County Agricultural Preserve Lands.
The majority of the Specific Plan area (170.72 acres) is mapped as “other land,” but small portions of grazing land (11.62 acres), and Prime Farmland (6.6 acres) are located on-site (DOC 2022). Please refer to Figure 3.2-3, EBPSP Farmland Map. Two parcels within the Specific Plan area have an active Williamson Act contract in place (APNs: 0216-231-01 and 0216-321-07).
Forestry and Timberland Resources
The City of Ontario does not contain forest land or timberland. The Specific Plan area is not zoned for forestry uses, nor is any on-site vegetation associated with forest land. Therefore, there are no forest or timberland resources within the Specific Plan area. 773
L_ .. l
/ ' =
w
I
1 z CITY OF 0 V't
MONTCLAIR ~ I
z
!
I
CITY OF
UPLAND
w
> <(
W FOURTH ST o
z
0 w ~ ~ <(
z z
:;j: W G ST ;;; >-
z
::,
O W DST ~
z
z
l- ul •• ~ W MISSION BLVD
J 7w w
: > ::c L- j'. z W PHILLIPS ST
-··r· .. -z ~ ~ z z ::, w 0
: 'f ~
_,._J f "' ~ >-
J i
w
::c
~ W PHILADELPHIA ST ~
~-" ··~
w
~
0 ::::i
u
::>
w
z
w
> <(
<(
z
~ ....,
::>
V't
z
LU
~
<(
z
13 ::,
V,
V,
w
> <(
V't
::,
"-
~
<(
u
z
w
::c
V,
::>
"-
~ <(
u
V't
LU
~
w
>
0 a:
Cl
... E-EIGHT-H-Sil°-"~ ..
LU
~
\ ~\
CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
0 a:
~ UJ
z l,,_,, _E-f©l!JR;T,H-SiT•••-••-u-••
E G ST
E D ST
E HOLT AVE
E PHILADELPHIA ST
>
z
LU
~
0 a:
~ w
z
>
V't
w
> <(
0 ....,
<(
Q'.l
::c
1:1
a:
<(
z
w
~
.., ~
~
3 w ~
> z <(
z
w
> <(
::c
z
I
~ .. J
I
I
w
::c
~ tel
E INLAND EMPIRE BLVD z
~
E JURl!IPA ST
w
> <(
----= ,:::4i~ld!i:l:--- ~ I
z
I
I
E SANTA ANA ST 1
LU
::c
~ CITY OF
i FONTANA z
<(
~
i;::
w
t
I I County of = San Bernardino ,._,,__,,,_,,___J __ ,,_ , County of Riverside
---==( 60 '.----- .. -----&aair----+~~-----====-=------------~-====;o---
CITY OF CHINO
LU
> 0
a:
(!)
• V,
E EDISON AVE
E RIVERSIDE DR
E CHINO AVE
0 < Q'.l
i:
u
a:
<(
V't
a:
w
z
a:
::,
>-
V't
z
UJ
~ ::c
"'
I
w
I
>
<(
11 a:
w
z
~
ONTARIO RANCH RD ~ 'I
•
I
.. J ~··..,.,,,,,- EASTVALE
L ,,_,,_,,_M,~Rll .... VE-.. ---"l _ _,.,,,,.--·
L~
_,,,,,,,,-··
JURUPA VALLEY
3.2 AGRICULTURAL & FORESTRY RESOURCES
Figure 3.2-2
Williamson Act Land
c:::J EBPSP Boundary
I.. "I Ontario City Boundary
[. "I County Boundary
Parcels with Williamson Act Contract
Expires
Active
1111 2027
2028
1111 2033
2·0·5·0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
0 0 2,500
Source: City of Ontario, 2025
5,000
FT
10,000
Dale: 12/10/2025
774
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 .2 A G RIC ULT U RE A ND FOR E STRY RES O U RCES
3 .2- 1 2
This page intentionally left blank.
775
•• ' r
• , r •
3.2 AGRICULTURAL & FORESTRY RESOURCES
Figure 3.2-3
EBPSP Farmland Map
D EBPSP Boundary
2 · 0 · 5 · 0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPP L EMENTAL EIR
·8 ~o Feet
Source: T&B 2026 Date: 03/03/2026
776
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 .2 A G RIC ULT U RE A ND FOR E STRY RES O U RCES
3 .2- 1 4
This page intentionally left blank.
777
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 .2 A GR IC ULT U RE A N D FO RE STRY RES O URCE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.2 -15
3.2.3 Standards for Analysis
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Appendix G, “Environmental Checklist Form,” of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states that,
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.
The proposed project would result in a significant impact to agricultural and forestry resources if it would:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g)).
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
778
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 .2 A G RIC ULT U RE A ND FOR E STRY RES O U RCES
3 .2- 1 6
METHODOLOGY
Documentation of current area conditions as well as maps available from the Department of Conservation (California Important Farmland Finder) and the City of Ontario (Zoning Map, Status of Williamson Act Contracts Map) were reviewed to assess the potential impacts to agriculture and forestry resources.
3.2.4 Relevant New and Modified General Plan Policies
The proposed project includes modifications to the following TOP 2050 policy for agricultural resources.
ER-5.4 Transition of Farms. We protect both existing farms and sensitive uses around them as agricultural areas transition to urban uses. When uses transition from agricultural to urban uses, we do not require replacement farmland, nor do we require the dedication or preservation of agricultural land outside of our city.
3.2.5 Environmental Impacts
2022 CERTIFIED EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR identified that the approved project would not result in impacts to agricultural or forest resources. The approved project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to nonagricultural use because the City no longer designates land for agricultural use under TOP 2050. Similarly, the approved project would not conflict with zoning for agricultural use or land under Williamson Act contracts because remaining contracts would still be subject to expiration or cancellation before development. The approved project would not conflict with zoning for forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production Zones, and no such designations exist in the City. Additionally, the approved project would not indirectly induce the conversion of farmland or forest land outside the City. In summary, the Certified EIR concluded that impacts to agricultural and forest resources would either result in no impact or remain less than significant. ■
779
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 .2 A GR IC ULT U RE A N D FO RE STRY RES O URCE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.2 -17
PROPOSED PROJECT
a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
The 2022 Certified EIR concluded that the City of Ontario’s land use plan no longer designates agricultural land uses in the City; therefore, TOP 2050 would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance to nonagricultural uses and would have no impact on land zoned for the purpose of agricultural uses. The 2010 Ontario Plan Certified EIR concluded that buildout of the City would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance because it converted all of the then-existing land under these categories to residential, commercial, mixed-use, and industrial land uses (Ontario 2010). Existing agricultural uses have been allowed to persist as nonconforming uses.
Policy Plan Amendment
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, the Draft SEIR evaluates the potential impacts from the change in land use designations and policies of the current TOP 2050 compared to the Policy Plan Amendment. Consistent with the TOP 2050, the City of Ontario no longer designates agricultural land uses within the City. While there is currently agricultural use in the Ontario Ranch, the planning framework to convert the land to nonagricultural land already occurred as a result of adoption of the current TOP 2050 in 2010, and prior to that as a result of annexation of the New Model Colony in 1999 from the County of San Bernardino. The proposed project would not result in any additional conversion of agricultural land in Ontario compared to the approved project.
The proposed project would redesignate land currently designated for residential to business park, increase residential densities, and allow mixed uses within developed areas, primarily on land in Ontario Ranch that is currently used for agricultural purposes. In addition, new mixeduse designations would be added for land surrounding the Ontario Sports Empire to align with recreational uses currently under development. Although the proposed project would increase residential densities and allow mixed uses in areas currently used for agricultural purposes and designated as Prime Farmland within the City, the land use plan no longer designates agricultural land uses and would not convert land from Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to nonagricultural uses. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on land zoned for agricultural purposes, and this impact would be less than significant.
780
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 .2 A G RIC ULT U RE A ND FOR E STRY RES O U RCES
3 .2- 1 8
Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Specific Plan
As shown in Figure 3.2-3, the majority of the Specific Plan area (170.72 acres) is mapped as “other land,” but small areas of grazing land (11.62 acres) and Prime Farmland (6.6 acres) are located on-site (DOC 2022). The City of Ontario no longer has land designated for agricultural use. The 2010 Ontario Plan Certified EIR concluded that buildout of the City would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance because it converted all of the then-existing land under these categories to residential, commercial, mixed-use, and industrial land uses (Ontario 2010). Subsequently, the 2022 Certified EIR concluded that, because the City of Ontario’s land use plan no longer designates agricultural land uses, TOP 2050 would not result in farmland impacts that were not previously disclosed. On this basis, the 2022 Certified EIR concluded that no impacts to farmland would result. Existing agricultural uses have been allowed to persist as nonconforming uses. The City adopted the Agricultural Overlay Zoning District in Section 9-1.2700 of the Ontario Municipal Code and Section 6.01.035.C.1 of the Development Code, which allows for the continuation of agricultural uses until development is approved for the Ontario Ranch subareas.
Impacts associated with the loss of farmland within the City were previously analyzed and disclosed as part of the 2010 Certified EIR. The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify further impacts regarding farmland. Similarly, implementation of the EBPSP, including the conversion of grazing land and Prime Farmland to a non-agricultural use, would not result in impacts not already previously disclosed. 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 AGF-1: The proposed project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance in Ontario to nonagricultural use.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant agricultural and forestry impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. The 2010 Certified EIR found that overall continuation of agriculture in Ontario Ranch is likely not feasible given the social pressures on these areas to meet the increasing population, and also because agricultural uses in this area are being driven out by competition from operations in other sectors. In addition, 781
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 .2 A GR IC ULT U RE A N D FO RE STRY RES O URCE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.2 -19
many of the support services that dairies rely on, including feed/hay for the cattle, have also closed.
New Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the proposed project, including the conversion of grazing land and Prime Farmland to a non-agricultural use, would not result in impacts not already previously disclosed.
No mitigation is required.
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
The 2022 Certified EIR determined that buildout of the approved project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts within the City. The 2022 Certified EIR would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands, impacts would be less than significant.
Policy Plan Amendment
The City of Ontario no longer designates agricultural land uses in the City. There are existing Williamson Act contracts in the City, as shown in Figure 3-2.2, and any land held in a Williamson Act contract would have to be filed for nonrenewal, and the contract would have to be allowed to expire before any development occurs on it. Because buildout of the proposed project would result in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, consistent with the approved project, the proposed project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands.
Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant Specific Plan
Two parcels within the Specific Plan area have an active Williamson Act contract in place (APNs:
0216-231-01 and 0216-321-07). An application to cancel the contract is required to be submitted to the City. The existing zoning of the site is Specific Plan with an Agricultural Overlay and Affordable Housing Overlay. The Agricultural Overlay was developed to allow for the continuation of agricultural uses until development is approved for the Ontario Ranch subareas.
Eventual removal of the Agricultural Overlay was anticipated in the 2022 Certified EIR.
As such, the EBPSP would not result in impacts not already previously disclosed. 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. 782
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 .2 A G RIC ULT U RE A ND FOR E STRY RES O U RCES
3 .2- 2 0
Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact AGF-2: The proposed project would not result in conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant impacts, and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
New Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would not result in conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. No mitigation is required.
c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
The 2022 Certified EIR determined there are no land use designations or zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production in the City of Ontario, and impacts were less than significant.
Policy Plan Amendment
Consistent with the 2022 Certified EIR, there are no land use designations or zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production in the City of Ontario.
Consequently, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Therefore, there is no land in Ontario that would be considered forest land. Consequently, implementation of the proposed project would not result in loss or conversion of timberland to non-forest uses, and no impact would occur. The proposed project would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.
Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: No impact Specific Plan
There are no land use designations or zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production in the City of Ontario. The existing zoning of the site is Specific Plan with 783
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 .2 A GR IC ULT U RE A N D FO RE STRY RES O URCE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.2 -21
an Agricultural Overlay and Affordable Housing Overlay. The EBPSP would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland production. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
Similarly, the 2022 Certified EIR did not identify any impacts regarding conflicts with zoning for forest land or timberland related uses. 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: No impact Impact AGF-3: The proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant agriculture and forestry impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
New Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. No mitigation is required. d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? The 2022 Certified EIR determined that there are no land use designations or zoning for forest land in the City of Ontario and there were no impacts.
Policy Plan Amendment
Consistent with the Certified EIR, there are no land use designations or zoning for forest land in the City of Ontario. Consequently, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land. There is no land in Ontario that would be considered forest land and implementation of the proposed project would not result in loss or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses. No impact would occur. The proposed project would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.
Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: No impact. 784
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 .2 A G RIC ULT U RE A ND FOR E STRY RES O U RCES
3 .2- 2 2
Specific Plan
The City of Ontario does not contain any forest land or timberland that could fall under the definition of forest land per California Public Resource Code Section 12220(g). As such, no forestry resources are located within the Specific Plan area or in the immediate vicinity. The EBPSP would have no impact in this regard.
Similarly, the 2022 Certified EIR did not identify any impacts regarding the loss or conversion of forest land. 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: No impact.
Impact AGF-4: No forest land would be affected by the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
New Mitigation Measures
No forest land would be affected by the proposed project. No mitigation is required. e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
The 2022 Certified EIR concluded that because the City of Ontario’s land use plan no longer designates agricultural land uses in the City, the TOP 2050 would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance to nonagricultural uses and would have no impact on land zoned for the purpose of agricultural uses.
The 2022 Certified EIR determined that there are no land use designations or zoning for forest land in the City of Ontario and there were no impacts.
Policy Plan Amendment
Consistent with the 2010 TOP and the TOP 2050, the City of Ontario no longer designates agricultural land uses. While the proposed project would redesignate some areas currently used for agricultural activities, these sites are not zoned or designated for agricultural purposes. 785
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 .2 A GR IC ULT U RE A N D FO RE STRY RES O URCE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.2 -23
Accordingly, the proposed project would not result in the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses, and this impact would be less than significant. Similarly, TOP 2050 does not identify any land use designations or zoning for forest land within the City. As a result, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land.
Because no forest land exists within the City of Ontario, the proposed project would not result in the loss or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses, and this impact would be less than significant. The proposed project will not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.
Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant Specific Plan
Although the majority of the Specific Plan area is currently used for agricultural purposes, the zoning of the site is Specific Plan, denoting the site’s eventual transition to more urban uses. All former agriculture areas in the City are now designated for nonagricultural uses. As previously discussed, impacts associated with the conversion of agricultural areas were disclosed as part of the 2010 Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report. The 2010 Certified EIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources because buildout would result in all agricultural areas being converted to nonagricultural uses, and because buildout would lead to cancellation or expiration of Williamson Act contracts (Ontario 2010).
Since impacts were analyzed and disclosed as part of the 2010 Certified EIR, the 2022 Certified EIR did not identify any further impacts related to the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, and concluded that impacts would be less than significant. EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.
There is no forest land located within the City; therefore, the Specific Plan would not result in conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant 786
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 .2 A G RIC ULT U RE A ND FOR E STRY RES O U RCES
3 .2- 2 4
Impact AGF-5: The proposed project would not involve other changes that would result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use that have not been previously disclosed.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant agricultural or forestry resource impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
New Mitigation Measures
The proposed project would not involve other changes that would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use that have not been previously disclosed. No mitigation is required.
3.2.6 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.
Mapped Important Farmland, Williamson Act Contracts, and Agricultural Zoning The 2022 Certified EIR determined that cumulative impacts related to agricultural resources would be less than significant since impacts would not exceed those already discussed in the previous document. Since the City of Ontario no longer includes agricultural zoning, implementation of the proposed project would not result in agricultural resource impacts that would combine with impacts in San Bernardino County to result in significant, cumulative impacts. Similarly, although the EBPSP would result in the conversion of 6.6 acres of Prime Farmland and the cancellation of a Williamson Act contract, impacts would not be new or more severe than those previously disclosed. As such, as determined by the 2022 Certified EIR, these impacts are not considered cumulatively considerable.
Forest Resources
The City of Ontario does not have any forest resources or timberland; therefore, no significant cumulative impact to forest resources would occur, and impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. 787
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 .2 A GR IC ULT U RE A N D FO RE STRY RES O URCE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.2 -25
Cumulative Impacts: Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant cumulative impacts to agricultural and forestry resources.
3.2.7 References
DOC (Department of Conservation). 2018. San Bernardino South 2018 Important Farmland Map.
DOC. 2022. California Important Farmland Finder.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.
DOC. (2025). Williamson Act Enrollment Finder.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/WilliamsonAct/.
Ontario, City of. 2010. The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report. SCH 2008101140.
Ontario, City of. 2022. TOP 2050 Draft Supplemental EIR. https://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf.
Ontario, City of. 2023. Williamson Act Status Map. https://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/ files/2025-01/williamson_act%20status%20map%20Dec%202023.pdf. 788
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 .2 A G RIC ULT U RE A ND FOR E STRY RES O U RCES
3 .2- 2 6
This page intentionally left blank.
789
ONTARIO POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 1
3.3 AIR QUALITY
This section of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) evaluates the potential for the TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment and EBPSP (proposed project) to impact air quality in comparison to the current TOP (approved project) and impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. This evaluation is based on the methodology recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD). The analysis focuses on air pollution from regional emissions and localized pollutant concentrations.
Criteria air pollutant emissions modeling for the Policy Plan Amendment is in Appendix C1. The operational HRA for changes to the City’s truck routes is Appendix C2. The analysis for the EBPSP is based on the EBPSP Air Quality Technical Study in Appendix C3 and the EBPSP Health Risk Assessment in Appendix C4 of this SEIR.
Two comment letters were received in response to the NOP related to air quality impacts. The relevant issues raised in those comment letters are addressed throughout this section. For a summary of the comment letters, refer to Table 1-1 in Chapter 1, Introduction, or see Appendix A for the complete comment letters.
Terminology
The following are definitions for terms used throughout this section.
AAQS: Ambient Air Quality Standards that define clean air, established to protect the health of sensitive communities.
CES: CalEnviroScreen, a mapping tool that helps identify the California communities most affected by many sources of pollution, and where people are often especially vulnerable to pollution’s effects.
Concentrations: The amount of pollutant material per volumetric unit of air. Concentrations are measured in parts per million (ppm), parts per billion (ppb), or micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3
).
Criteria Air Pollutants: Those air pollutants specifically identified for control under the Federal Clean Air Act (currently six: carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, lead, sulfur oxides, ozone, and particulates).
DPM: Diesel particulate matter, exhaust from trucks, buses, trains, ships, and other equipment with diesel engines, containing a mixture of gases and solid particles.
Emissions: The actual quantity of pollutant, measured in pounds per day or tons per year. ppm: Parts per million.
Sensitive receptor: Land uses that are considered more sensitive to air pollution compared to others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. These land uses include residential, retirement facilities, hospitals, and schools. ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
790
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 2
TAC: Toxic air contaminant.
µg/m3: Micrograms per cubic meter.
VMT: Vehicle miles traveled.
CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS
The pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are categorized as primary and/or secondary pollutants. Primary air pollutants are emitted directly from sources.
Carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gasses (ROG)/volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb) are primary air pollutants. Of these, CO, SO2, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), PM10, and PM2.5 are “criteria air pollutants,” which means that ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been established for them. ROG and NOX are criteria pollutant precursors that form secondary criteria air pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. Ozone (O3) and NO2 are the principal secondary pollutants.
Each of the primary and secondary criteria air pollutants and its known health effects are described below.
Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless, toxic gas produced by incomplete combustion of carbon substances, such as gasoline or diesel fuel. CO is a primary criteria air pollutant. CO concentrations tend to be the highest during winter mornings with little to no wind, when surface-based inversions trap the pollutant at ground levels. Because CO is emitted directly from internal combustion engines and motor vehicles operating at slow speeds are the primary source of CO in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB), the highest ambient CO concentrations are generally found near traffic-congested corridors and intersections. The primary adverse health effect associated with CO is interference with normal oxygen transfer to the blood, which may result in tissue oxygen deprivation (South Coast AQMD 2005, 2022; USEPA 2025a). The SoCAB is designated as being in attainment under the California AAQS and attainment (serious maintenance)1 under the National AAQS
(CARB 2025a).
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG)/Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) are composed primarily of hydrogen and carbon atoms. Internal combustion associated with motor vehicle usage is the major source of ROGs. Other sources include evaporative emissions from paints and solvents, asphalt paving, and household consumer products such as aerosols (South Coast AQMD 2005). There are no AAQS for ROGs; however, because they contribute to the 1 A maintenance area refers to a previously nonattainment area that has been redesignated to “maintenance” after it meets the standards and additional redesignation requirements in the Clean Air Act (Section 107(d)(3)(E)). ■
■
■
■
■
791
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 3
formation of O3, South Coast AQMD has established a significance threshold (South Coast AQMD 2023a). The health effects for ozone are described later in this section.
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) are a by-product of fuel combustion and contribute to the formation of ground-level O3, PM10, and PM2.5. The two major forms of NOX are nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). NO is a colorless, odorless gas formed from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes place under high temperature and/or high pressure.
The principal form of NOX produced by combustion is NO, but NO reacts quickly with oxygen to form NO2, creating the mixture of NO and NO2 commonly called NOX. NO2 is an acute irritant and more injurious than NO in equal concentrations. At atmospheric concentrations, however, NO2 is only potentially irritating. NO2 absorbs blue light; the result is a brownishred cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. NO2 exposure concentrations near roadways are of particular concern for susceptible individuals, including asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Current scientific evidence links short-term NO2 exposures, ranging from 30 minutes to 24 hours, with adverse respiratory effects, including airway inflammation in healthy people and increased respiratory symptoms in people with asthma.
Also, studies show a connection between elevated short-term NO2 concentrations and increased visits to emergency departments and hospital admissions for respiratory issues, especially asthma (South Coast AQMD 2005, 2022; USEPA 2025a). The SoCAB is designated in attainment (maintenance) under the National AAQS and attainment under the California AAQS (CARB 2025a).
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, pungent, irritating gas formed by the combustion of sulfurous fossil fuels. It enters the atmosphere as a result of burning high-sulfur-content fuel oils and coal and chemical processes at plants and refineries. Gasoline and natural gas have very low sulfur content and do not release significant quantities of SO2. When sulfur dioxide forms sulfates (SO4) in the atmosphere, together these pollutants are referred to as sulfur oxides (SOX). Thus, SO2 is both a primary and secondary criteria air pollutant. At sufficiently high concentrations, SO2 may irritate the upper respiratory tract. Current scientific evidence links short-term exposures to SO2, ranging from 5 minutes to 24 hours, with an array of adverse respiratory effects, including bronchoconstriction and increased asthma symptoms.
These effects are particularly adverse for asthmatics at elevated ventilation rates (e.g., while exercising or playing) at lower concentrations, and when combined with particulates, SO2 may do greater harm by injuring lung tissue. Studies also show a connection between shortterm exposure and increased visits to emergency facilities and hospital admissions for respiratory illnesses, particularly in at-risk populations such as children, the elderly, and asthmatics (South Coast AQMD 2005, 2022; USEPA 2025a). The SoCAB is designated as attainment under the California and National AAQS (CARB 2025a).
Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) consists of finely divided solids or liquids such as soot, dust, aerosols, fumes, and mists. Two forms of fine particulates are now recognized and regulated. Inhalable coarse particles, or PM10, include particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10
particles, or PM2.5, have an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less ■
■
■
microns or less (i.e., s0.01 millimeter). lnhalable fine 792
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 4
(i.e., millimeter). Particulate discharge into the atmosphere results primarily from industrial, agricultural, construction, and transportation activities. Both PM10 and PM2.5 may adversely affect the human respiratory system, especially in people who are naturally sensitive or susceptible to breathing problems. The US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) scientific review concluded that PM2.5, which penetrates deeply into the lungs, is more likely than PM10 to contribute to health effects and at far lower concentrations. These health effects include premature death in people with heart or lung disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms (e.g., irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing) (South Coast AQMD 2005, 2022). There has been emerging evidence that ultrafine particulates, which are even smaller particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of <0.1 microns or less (i.e., millimeter) have human health implications because their toxic components may initiate or facilitate biological processes that may lead to adverse effects to the heart, lungs, and other organs (South Coast AQMD 2022). The EPA and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have not adopted AAQS to regulate these particulates. Diesel particulate matter is classified by CARB as a carcinogen (CARB 1999, 2023d). Particulate matter can also cause environmental effects such as visibility impairment, 2 environmental damage, 3 and aesthetic
damage4
(South Coast AQMD 2005, 2022; USEPA 2023a). The SoCAB is a nonattainment area for PM2.5 under California and National AAQS and a nonattainment area for PM10 under the California AAQS (CARB 2025a).5
Ozone (O3) is a key ingredient of “smog” and is a gas that is formed when ROGs and NOX, both by-products of internal combustion engine exhaust, undergo photochemical reactions in sunlight. O3 is a secondary criteria air pollutant. O3 concentrations are generally highest during the summer months when direct sunlight, light winds, and warm temperatures create favorable conditions for its formation. O3 poses a health threat to those who already suffer from respiratory diseases as well as to healthy people. Breathing O3 can trigger a variety of health problems, including chest pain, coughing, throat irritation, and congestion.
It can worsen bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma. Ground-level O3 also can reduce lung function and inflame the linings of the lungs. Repeated exposure may permanently scar lung tissue. O3 also affects sensitive vegetation and ecosystems, including forests, parks, wildlife refuges, and wilderness areas. In particular, O3 harms sensitive vegetation during the 2 PM2.5 is the main cause of reduced visibility (haze) in parts of the United States. 3 Particulate matter can be carried over long distances by wind and then settle on ground or water, making lakes and streams acidic; changing the nutrient balance in coastal waters and large river basins; depleting the nutrients in soil; damaging sensitive forests and farm crops; and affecting the diversity of ecosystems. 4 Particulate matter can stain and damage stone and other materials, including culturally important objects such as statues and monuments. 5
CARB approved the South Coast AQMD’s request to redesignate the SoCAB from serious nonattainment for PM10 to attainment for PM10 under the National AAQS on March 25, 2010, because the SoCAB did not violate federal 24-hour PM10 standards from 2004 to 2007. The USEPA approved the State of California’s request to redesignate the South Coast PM10 nonattainment area to attainment of the PM10 National AAQS, effective on July 26, 2013.
S0.002.5
S0.0001
■
793
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 5
growing season (South Coast AQMD 2005, 2022; USEPA 2024a). The SoCAB is designated extreme nonattainment under the California AAQS (1-hour and 8-hour) and National AAQS (8-hour) (CARB 2025a).
Lead (Pb) is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as in manufactured products.
Once taken into the body, lead distributes throughout the body in the blood and accumulates in the bones. Depending on the level of exposure, lead can adversely affect the nervous system, kidney function, immune system, reproductive and developmental systems, and the cardiovascular system. Lead exposure also affects the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood. The effects of lead most commonly encountered in current populations are neurological effects in children and cardiovascular effects in adults (e.g., high blood pressure and heart disease). Infants and young children are especially sensitive to even low levels of lead, which may contribute to behavioral problems, learning deficits, and lowered IQ (South Coast AQMD 2005, 2022; USEPA 2025a). The major sources of lead emissions have historically been mobile and industrial sources. As a result of the USEPA’s regulatory efforts to remove lead from gasoline, emissions of lead from the transportation sector dramatically declined by 95 percent between 1980 and 1999, and levels of lead in the air decreased by 94 percent between 1980 and 1999. Today, the highest levels of lead in air are usually found near lead smelters. The major sources of lead emissions today are ore and metals processing and piston-engine aircraft operating on leaded aviation gasoline. In 2008 the USEPA and CARB adopted more strict lead standards, and special monitoring sites immediately downwind of lead sources recorded very localized violations of the new state and federal standards.6
Because emissions of lead are found only in projects that are permitted by South Coast AQMD, lead is not a pollutant of concern for the proposed project.
Table 3.3-1, Criteria Air Pollutant Health Effects Summary, summarizes the potential health effects associated with the criteria air pollutants.
6 Source-oriented monitors record concentrations of lead at lead-related industrial facilities in the SoCAB, which include Exide Technologies in the City of Commerce; Quemetco, Inc., in the City of Industry; Trojan Battery Company in Santa Fe Springs; and Exide Technologies in Vernon. Monitoring conducted between 2004 through 2007 showed that the Trojan Battery Company and Exide Technologies exceed the federal standards (South Coast AQMD 2012).
■
794
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 6
Table 3.3-1 Criteria Air Pollutant Health Effects Summary Pollutant Health Effects Examples of Sources Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
Chest pain in heart patients
Headaches, nausea
Reduced mental alertness
Death at very high levels
Any source that burns fuel such as cars,
trucks, construction and farming
equipment, and residential heaters and
stoves
Ozone (O3) Cough, chest tightness
Difficulty taking a deep breath
Worsened asthma symptoms
Lung inflammation
Atmospheric reaction of organic gases
with nitrogen oxides in sunlight
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
Increased response to allergens
Aggravation of respiratory illness
Same as carbon monoxide sources
Particulate Matter
(PM10 and PM2.5)
Hospitalizations for worsened
heart diseases
Emergency room visits for
asthma
Premature death
Cars and trucks (particularly diesels)
Fireplaces and woodstoves
Windblown dust from overlays,
agriculture, and construction
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
Aggravation of respiratory
disease (e.g., asthma and
emphysema)
Reduced lung function
Combustion of sulfur-containing fossil
fuels, smelting of sulfur-bearing metal
ores, and industrial processes
Lead (Pb) Behavioral and learning
disabilities in children
Nervous system impairment
Contaminated soil
Source: CARB 2025b.
TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS
CARB has identified other air pollutants as toxic air contaminants (TACs), which are pollutants that may cause serious, long-term effects. People exposed to TACs at sufficient concentrations and durations may have an increased chance of getting cancer or experiencing other serious health effects. These health effects can include damage to the immune system as well as neurological, reproductive (e.g., reduced fertility), developmental, respiratory, and other health problems (USEPA 2025b). By the last update to the TAC list in December 1999, CARB had designated 244 compounds as TACs (CARB 1999). Additionally, CARB has implemented control measures for a number of compounds that pose high risks and show potential for effective control. There are no air quality standards for TACs. Instead, TAC impacts are evaluated by ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
795
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 7
calculating the health risks associated with a given exposure. The majority of the estimated health risks from TACs can be attributed to relatively few compounds, the most relevant to the project being particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines.
Diesel Particulate Matter
In 1998, CARB identified particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines (DPM) as a TAC.
Previously, the individual chemical compounds in diesel exhaust were considered TACs. Almost all diesel exhaust particles are 10 microns or less in diameter. Because of their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung. Long-term (chronic) inhalation of DPM is likely a lung cancer risk. Short-term (i.e., acute) exposure can cause irritation and inflammatory symptoms and may exacerbate existing allergies and asthma symptoms (USEPA 2002).
CARB has promulgated specific rules to limit TAC emissions. The rules are in the California Code of Regulations (CCR).
13 CCR Chapter 10, Section 2485, Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling
13 CCR Chapter 10, Section 2480, Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit School Bus Idling and Idling at Schools
13 CCR Section 2477 and Article 8, Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets and Facilities Where TRUs Operate
Ambient air quality standards have been adopted at the state and federal levels for criteria air pollutants. In addition, both the state and federal government regulate the release of TACs. The proposed project is in the SoCAB and is subject to the rules and regulations imposed by the South Coast AQMD, the California AAQS adopted by CARB, and National AAQS adopted by the EPA. Federal, state, regional, and local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are potentially applicable to the proposed project are summarized in this section.
3.3.1 Regulatory Framework
FEDERAL AND STATE
Ambient Air Quality Standards
The Clean Air Act (CAA) was passed in 1963 by the US Congress and has been amended several times. The 1970 CAA amendments strengthened previous legislation and laid the foundation for the regulatory scheme of the 1970s and 1980s. In 1977, Congress again added several ■
■
■
796
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 8
provisions, including nonattainment requirements for areas not meeting National AAQS as well as the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program. The 1990 amendments represent the latest in a series of federal efforts to regulate the protection of air quality in the United States.
The CAA allows states to adopt more stringent standards or to include other pollution species.
The California Clean Air Act, signed into law in 1988, requires all areas of the state to achieve and maintain the California AAQS by the earliest practical date. The California AAQS tend to be more restrictive than the National AAQS.
The National and California AAQS are the levels of air quality considered to provide a margin of safety in the protection of the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect “sensitive receptors” most susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed.
Both California and the federal government have established health-based AAQS for seven air pollutants, which are shown in Table 3.3-2, Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Air Pollutants. These pollutants are O3, NO2, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and Pb. In addition, the state has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles.
These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety.
Table 3.3-2 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California
Standard1
Federal
Primary
Standard2
Major Pollutant Sources
Ozone (O3)3 1 hour 0.09 ppm * Motor vehicles, paints, coatings, and solvents. 8 hours 0.070 ppm 0.070
ppm
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Internal combustion engines, primarily gasoline-powered motor vehicles.
8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm
Nitrogen
Dioxide (NO2)
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
0.030 ppm 0.053
ppm
Motor vehicles, petroleum-refining
operations, industrial sources, aircraft,
ships, and railroads.
1 hour 0.18 ppm 0.100
ppm
797
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 9
Table 3.3-2 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California
Standard1
Federal
Primary
Standard2 Major Pollutant Sources
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)4 Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
* 0.010
ppm
Fuel combustion, chemical plants, sulfur
recovery plants, and metal processing.
1 hour 0.25 ppm 0.075
ppm
24 hours 0.04 ppm *
Respirable
Coarse
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
20 µg/m3
* Dust and fume-producing construction,
industrial, and agricultural operations,
combustion, atmospheric photochemical
reactions, and natural activities (e.g.,
wind-raised dust and ocean sprays). 24 hours 50 µg/m3
150 µg/m3 Respirable
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)5,6
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
12 µg/m3
9 µg/m3 Dust and fume-producing construction,
industrial, and agricultural operations,
combustion, atmospheric photochemical
reactions, and natural activities (e.g.,
wind-raised dust and ocean sprays). 24 hours * 35 µg/m3 Lead (Pb) 30-Day
Average
1.5 µg/m3 * Present source: lead smelters, battery
manufacturing & recycling facilities. Past
source: combustion of leaded gasoline.
Calendar
Quarter
* 1.5 µg/m3 Rolling 3-
Month
Average
* 0.15
µg/m3
Sulfates
(SO4)7
24 hours 25 µg/m3
* Industrial processes.
Visibility
Reducing
Particles
8 hours ExCo
=0.23/km
visibility of
No
Federal
Standard
Visibility-reducing particles consist of
suspended particulate matter, which is a
complex mixture of tiny particles that
consists of dry solid fragments, solid
cores with liquid coatings, and small
droplets of liquid. These particles vary
lO~miles
798
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 10
Table 3.3-2 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California
Standard1
Federal
Primary
Standard2 Major Pollutant Sources
greatly in shape, size and chemical
composition, and can be made up of
many different materials such as metals,
soot, soil, dust, and salt.
Hydrogen
Sulfide
1 hour 0.03 ppm No
Federal
Standard
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is a colorless gas
with the odor of rotten eggs. It is formed
during bacterial decomposition of sulfurcontaining organic substances. Also, it can be present in sewer gas and some
natural gas and can be emitted as the
result of geothermal energy exploitation.
Vinyl
Chloride
24 hours 0.01 ppm No
Federal
Standard
Vinyl chloride (chloroethene), a
chlorinated hydrocarbon, is a colorless
gas with a mild, sweet odor. Most vinyl
chloride is used to make polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) plastic and vinyl products.
Vinyl chloride has been detected near
landfills, sewage plants, and hazardous
waste sites, due to microbial breakdown
of chlorinated solvents.
Sources: CARB 2024; USEPA 2025c.
Notes: ppm: parts per million; g/m3: micrograms per cubic meter * Standard has not been established for this pollutant/duration by this entity. 1 California standards for O3, CO (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), SO2 (1 and 24 hour), NO2, and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.
2 National standards (other than O3, PM, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The O3 standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 µg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. 3 On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to
0.070 ppm.
4 On December 27, 2024, the secondary annual SO2 standard was revised to an annual average, averaged over three consecutive years, with a level of 10 parts per billion (ppb). µ
799
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 11
5 On December 14, 2012, the national annual PM2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 g/m3 to 12.0 µg/m3.
The existing national 24-hour PM2.5 standards (primary and secondary) were retained at 35 µg/m3, as was the annual secondary standard of 15 µg/m3. The existing 24-hour PM10 standards (primary and secondary) of 150 µg/m3 also were retained. The form of the annual primary and secondary standards is the annual mean, averaged over 3 years.
6 On February 7, 2024, the national annual PM2.5 standard was lowered from 12 g/m3 to 9 µg/m3. The existing national 24-hour PM2.5 standards (primary and secondary), secondary annual PM2.5 standard, and PM10 standards (primary and secondary) were retained
7 On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. The 1-hour national standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the 1-hour national standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm.
California has also adopted a host of other regulations that reduce criteria pollutant emissions:
Assembly Bill (AB) 1493: Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards. Pavley I is a clean-car standard that reduces greenhouse gas emissions from new passenger vehicles (light-duty auto to medium-duty vehicles) from 2009 through 2016. In January 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars program (formerly known as Pavley II) for model years 2017 through 2025.
20 CCR: Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards. The 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations (20 CCR Sections 1601–1608) were adopted by the California Energy Commission on October 11, 2006, and approved by the California Office of Administrative Law on December 14, 2006. The regulations include standards for both federally regulated appliances and non–federally regulated appliances.
24 CCR, Part 6: Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. Energy conservation standards for new residential and nonresidential buildings adopted by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the California Energy Commission) in June 1977.
24 CCR, Part 11: Green Building Standards Code. Establishes planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants. 7 In May 2025, Congress passed 3 Congressional Review Act resolutions to nullify a set of California’s CAA preemption waivers targeting California’s vehicle emissions program (Holland & Knight 2025).
H.J.Res. 87 disapproves the EPA’s waiver for multiple California heavy-duty vehicle programs, including Advanced Clean Trucks (requiring increasing percentages of zero- 7 The green building standards became mandatory in the 2010 edition of the code. µ
µ
■
■
■
■
■
800
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 12
emission truck sales), Zero Emission Airport Shuttles, and Zero-Emission Power Train Certification.
H.J.Res. 88 disapproves the EPA's waiver for Advanced Clean Cars II, which required all new passenger cars, trucks, and SUVs sold in California to be zero-emission by 2035.
H.J.Res. 89 disapproves the EPA's waiver for the "Omnibus" Low NOX regulation, which establishes more stringent emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles.
California Air Resources Board
CARB is a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency and responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and state air pollution control programs in California. In this capacity, CARB conducts research, sets the California AAQS (see Table 3.3-1), compiles emission inventories, develops suggested control measures, and provides oversight of local programs. CARB establishes emissions standards for motor vehicles sold in California, consumer products (such as hairspray, aerosol paints, and barbecue lighter fluid), and various types of commercial equipment. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions. CARB has primary responsibility for the development of California’s State Implementation Plan (SIP), working closely with the federal government and the local air districts. The SIP is required for the state to take over implementation of the federal CAA from the USEPA.
Nuisance Regulations
Health and Safety Code Section 41700 states,
... a person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever quantities of air contaminants or other material that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or that endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any of those persons or the public, or that cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.
This section also applies to objectionable odors.
Tanner Air Toxics Act and Air Toxics Hot Spot Information and Assessment Act Public exposure to toxic air contaminants (TACs) is a significant environmental health issue in California. In 1983, the California legislature enacted a program to identify the health effects of TACs and reduce exposure to them. The California Health and Safety Code defines a TAC as “an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health” (17 CCR Section 93000). A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant pursuant to Section 112(b) of the federal Clean Air Act (42 US Code Section 7412[b]) is a TAC. Under State law, the California ■
■
801
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 13
Environmental Protection Agency, acting through CARB, is authorized to identify a substance as a TAC if it is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.
California regulates TACs primarily through AB 1807 (Tanner Air Toxics Act) and AB 2588 (Air Toxics “Hot Spot” Information and Assessment Act of 1987). The Tanner Air Toxics Act set up a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB adopts an “airborne toxics control measure” for sources that emit that TAC. If there is a safe threshold for a substance (i.e., a point below which there is no toxic effect), the control measure must reduce exposure to below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the measure must incorporate “toxics best available control technology” to minimize emissions. To date, CARB has established formal control measures for 11 TACs that are identified as having no safe threshold.
Under AB 2588, TAC emissions from individual facilities are quantified and prioritized by the air quality management district or air pollution control district. High-priority facilities are required to perform a health risk assessment, and if specific thresholds are exceeded, are required to communicate the results to the public through notices and public meetings.
REGIONAL
Air Quality Management Planning
The South Coast AQMD is the agency responsible for improving air quality in the SoCAB and ensuring that the National and California AAQS are attained and maintained. South Coast AQMD is responsible for preparing the air quality management plan (AQMP) for the SoCAB in coordination with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The AQMP is a regional strategy plan to achieve air quality standards by examining emissions, looking at regional growth projections, and the impact of existing and proposed control measures to provide healthful air in the long-term. Since 1979, a number of AQMPs have been prepared.
The Clean Air Act requires CARB to develop a SIP that describes how an area will attain National AAQS. The AQMP provides the framework for air quality basins to achieve attainment of the State and National AAQS through the SIP. Areas are classified as attainment or nonattainment areas for a particular pollutant depending on whether they meet the AAQSs. 2022 AQMP
South Coast AQMD adopted the 2022 AQMP on December 2, 2022, as an update to the 2016 AQMP. On October 1, 2015, the EPA strengthened the National AAQS for ground-level ozone, lowering the primary and secondary ozone standard levels to 70 parts per billion (ppb) (2015 Ozone National AAQS). The SoCAB is currently classified as an “extreme” nonattainment for the 2015 Ozone National AAQS. Meeting the 2015 federal ozone standard requires reducing NOx emissions, the key pollutant that creates ozone, by 67 percent more than is required by adopted 802
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 14
rules and regulations by 2037. The only way to achieve the required NOx reductions is through extensive use of zero emission (ZE) technologies across all stationary and mobile sources. South Coast AQMD’s primary authority is over stationary sources, which account for approximately 20 percent of NOx emissions. The overwhelming majority of NOx emissions are from heavy-duty trucks, ships, and other State and federally regulated mobile sources that are mostly beyond the South Coast AQMD’s control. The region will not meet the standard without significant federal action. In addition to federal action, the 2022 AQMP requires substantial reliance on future deployment of advanced technologies to meet the standard. The control strategy for the 2022 AQMP includes aggressive new regulations and the development of incentive programs to support early deployment of advanced technologies. The two key areas for incentive programs are (1) promoting widespread deployment of available ZE and low-NOx technologies and (2) developing new ZE and ultra-low NOx technologies for use in cases where the technology is not currently available. South Coast AQMD is prioritizing distribution of incentive funding in environmental justice areas and seeking opportunities to focus benefits on the most disadvantaged communities (South Coast AQMD 2022).
South Coast AQMD PM2.5 Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan In 1997, the EPA adopted the 24-hour fine PM2.5 standard of 65 µg/m3. In 2006, this standard was lowered to a more health-protective level of 35 µg/m3 . The SoCAB is designated
nonattainment for both standards. In 2020, monitored data demonstrated that the SoCAB attained both 24-hour PM2.5 standards. The South Coast AQMD developed the “2021 Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan” for the 1997 and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards, demonstrating that the SoCAB has met the requirements to be redesignated to attainment for the 24-hour PM2.5 standards (South Coast AQMD 2021a).
Lead Implementation Plan
In 2008, the EPA designated the Los Angeles County (County) portion of the SoCAB as a nonattainment area under the federal lead (Pb) classification because of the addition of sourcespecific monitoring under the new federal regulation. This designation was based on two source-specific monitors in the City of Vernon and the City of Industry that exceeded the new standard in the 2007 to 2009 period. The remainder of the SoCAB, outside the county nonattainment area, remains in attainment of the new 2008 lead standard. On May 24, 2012, CARB approved the SIP revision for the federal lead standard, which the EPA revised in 2008.
Lead concentrations in this nonattainment area have been below the level of the federal standard since December 2011. The SIP revision was submitted to the EPA for approval and was approved in March 2014 (CARB 2014).
Assembly Bill 617, Community Air Protection Program
AB 617 (C. Garcia, Chapter 136, Statutes of 2017) requires local air districts to monitor and implement air pollution control strategies that reduce localized air pollution in communities 803
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 15
that bear the greatest burdens. In response to AB 617, CARB established the Community Air Protection Program.
Air districts are required to host workshops to help identify disadvantaged communities disproportionately affected by poor air quality. Once the criteria for identifying the highest priority locations have been identified and the communities have been selected, new community monitoring systems are installed to track and monitor community-specific air pollution goals. In 2018 CARB prepared an air monitoring plan (Community Air Protection Blueprint) that evaluates the availability and effectiveness of air monitoring technologies and existing community air monitoring networks. Under AB 617, the Blueprint is required to be updated every 5 years.
Under AB 617, CARB is also required to prepare a statewide strategy to reduce TACs and criteria pollutants in impacted communities; provide a statewide clearinghouse for best available retrofit control technology; adopt new rules requiring the latest best available retrofit control technology for all criteria pollutants for which an area has not achieved attainment of California AAQS; and provide uniform, statewide reporting of emissions inventories. Air districts are required to adopt a community emissions reduction program to achieve reductions for the communities impacted by air pollution that CARB identifies.
South Coast AQMD Rules and Regulations
All projects are subject to South Coast AQMD rules and regulations in effect at the time of activity, including:
Rule 401, Visible Emissions. This rule is intended to prevent the discharge of pollutant emissions from an emissions source that results in visible emissions. Specifically, the rule prohibits the discharge of any air contaminant into the atmosphere by a person from any single source of emission for a period or periods aggregating more than 3 minutes in any one hour that is as dark as or darker than designated No. 1 on the Ringelmann Chart, as published by the US Bureau of Mines.
Rule 402, Nuisance. This rule is intended to prevent the discharge of pollutant emissions from an emissions source that results in a public nuisance. Specifically, this rule prohibits any person from discharging quantities of air contaminants or other material from any source such that it would result in an injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public. Additionally, the discharge of air contaminants would also be prohibited where it would endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any number of persons or the public, or that cause, or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property. This rule does not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.
■
■
804
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 16
Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. This rule is intended to reduce the amount of particulate matter entrained in the ambient air as a result of anthropogenic (human-made) fugitive dust sources by requiring actions to prevent, reduce, or mitigate fugitive dust emissions. Rule 403 applies to any activity or human-made condition capable of generating fugitive dust and requires best available control measures to be applied to earth-moving and grading activities.
Rule 445, Wood Burning Devices. In general, the rule prohibits new developments from the installing wood-burning devices. This rule is intended to reduce the emission of particulate matter from such devices and applies to manufacturers and sellers of wood-burning devices, commercial sellers of firewood, and property owners and tenants that operate a woodburning device.
Rule 1113, Architectural Coatings. This rule serves to limit the VOC content of architectural coatings used on projects in the South Coast AQMD. Any person who supplies, sells, offers for sale, or manufactures any architectural coating for use on projects in the South Coast AQMD must comply with the current VOC standards in this rule.
Rule 1403, Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities. The purpose of this rule is to specify work practice requirements to limit asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities, including the removal and associated disturbance of asbestos-containing materials (ACM). The requirements for demolition and renovation activities include asbestos surveying, notification, ACM removal procedures and time schedules, ACM handling and clean-up procedures, and storage, disposal, and landfilling requirements for asbestos-containing waste materials. All operators are required to maintain records, including waste shipment records, and are required to use appropriate warning labels, signs, and markings.
Rule 1166, Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Decontaminated Soil. Under this rule, an excavation plan is required, and excavation operations are required to be monitored for VOC concentrations.
Rule 1466, Control of Particulate Emissions from Soils with Toxic Air Contaminants, to minimize the amount of off-site fugitive dust emissions containing TACs by reducing particulate emissions in the ambient air as a result of earthmoving activities, including excavating, grading, handling, treating, stockpiling, transferring, and removing soil that contains applicable TACs. Components of the fugitive dust control plan are required to include the following measures: fencing that is a minimum of 6 feet tall and at least as tall as the height of the tallest stockpile, with a windscreen with a porosity of 50 ± 5 percent; monitoring; notification; signage; and recordkeeping.
■
■
■
■
■
■
805
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 17
LOCAL
City of Ontario Municipal Code
The City’s Municipal Code is organized by volume, title, chapter, and article. The following regulations relate to air quality impacts.
Volume II, Title 10, Chapter 2, Parkway Trees, helps preserve parkway trees to regulate the maintenance and removal and planting requirements within the city.
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.
Volume I, Title 3, Chapter 10, Mobile Source Air Pollution Fees, supports South Coast AQMD’s imposition of a vehicle registration fee for the purpose of implementing programs to reduce air pollution from motor vehicles.
Volume I, Title 6, Chapter 13, Smoking, prohibits smoking in certain public and privately owned buildings.
3.3.2 Existing Conditions
SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
The project site is in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB), which includes all of Orange County and the nondesert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The SoCAB is in a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills and is bounded by the Pacific Ocean in the southwest quadrant, with high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter. The general region lies in the semi-permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. As a result, the climate is mild, tempered by cool sea breezes. This usually mild weather pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, and Santa Ana winds (South Coast AQMD 2005).
Meteorology
Temperature and Precipitation
The annual average temperature varies little throughout the SoCAB, ranging from the low to middle 60s, measured in degrees Fahrenheit (°F). With a more pronounced oceanic influence, coastal areas show less variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland ■
■
■
■
■
■
806
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 18
areas. The lowest average temperature is reported at 37.5°F in December and the highest average temperature is 92.4°F in August (USA.Com 2025).
In contrast to a very steady pattern of temperature, rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable. Almost all rain falls from October through April. Summer rainfall is normally restricted to widely scattered thundershowers near the coast, with slightly heavier shower activity in the east and over the mountains. Rainfall averages 20.78 inches per year in the vicinity of the area (USA.Com 2025).
Humidity
Although the SoCAB has a semiarid climate, the air near the earth’s surface is typically moist because of a shallow marine layer. This “ocean effect” is dominant except for infrequent periods when dry, continental air is brought into the SoCAB by offshore winds. Periods of heavy fog are frequent, especially along the coast. Low clouds, often referred to as high fog, are a characteristic climatic feature. Annual average humidity is 70 percent at the coast and 57 percent in the eastern portions of the SoCAB (South Coast AQMD 2005).
Wind
Wind patterns across the southern coastal region are characterized by westerly or southwesterly onshore winds during the day and easterly or northeasterly breezes at night.
Wind speed is somewhat greater during the dry summer months than during the rainy winter season.
Between periods of wind, periods of air stagnation may occur in the morning and evening hours. Air stagnation is one of the critical determinants of air quality conditions on any given day. During the winter and fall months, surface high-pressure systems over the SoCAB, combined with other meteorological conditions, can result in very strong, downslope Santa Ana winds. These winds normally continue a few days before predominant meteorological conditions are reestablished.
The mountain ranges to the east inhibit the eastward transport and diffusion of pollutants. Air quality in the SoCAB generally ranges from fair to poor and is similar to air quality in most of coastal Southern California. The entire region experiences heavy concentrations of air pollutants during prolonged periods of stable atmospheric conditions (South Coast AQMD 2005).
Inversions
In conjunction with the 2 characteristic wind patterns that affect the rate and orientation of horizontal pollutant transport, two distinct types of temperature inversions control the vertical depth through which pollutants are mixed. These inversions are the marine/subsidence inversion and the radiation inversion. The height of the base of the inversion at any given time is 807
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 19
known as the “mixing height.” The combination of winds and inversions are critical determinants in leading to the highly degraded air quality in summer and the generally good air quality in the winter in the Project area (South Coast AQMD 2005).
SoCAB Nonattainment Areas
The AQMP provides the framework for air quality basins to achieve attainment of the state and federal ambient air quality standards through the SIP. Areas are classified as attainment or nonattainment areas for particular pollutants depending on whether they meet the ambient air quality standards. Severity classifications for ozone nonattainment range in magnitude from marginal, moderate, and serious to severe and extreme.
Unclassified. A pollutant is designated unclassified if the data are incomplete and do not support a designation of attainment or nonattainment.
Attainment. A pollutant is in attainment if the AAQS for that pollutant was not violated at any site in the area during a 3-year period.
Nonattainment. A pollutant is in nonattainment if there was at least one violation of an AAQS for that pollutant in the area.
Nonattainment/Transitional. A subcategory of the nonattainment designation. An area is designated nonattainment/transitional to signify that the area is close to attaining the AAQS for that pollutant.
The attainment status for the SoCAB is shown in Table 3.3-3, Attainment Status of Criteria Air Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin.
■
■
■
■
808
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 20
Table 3.3-3 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin Pollutant State Federal
Ozone – 1-hour Extreme Nonattainment No Federal Standard Ozone – 8-hour Extreme Nonattainment Extreme Nonattainment PM10 Serious Nonattainment Attainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment1 CO Attainment Attainment NO2 Attainment Attainment
SO2 Attainment Attainment
Lead Attainment Nonattainment (Los Angeles County only)2 All others Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified Source: CARB 2025a.
1 The SoCAB is pending a resignation request from nonattainment to attainment for the 24-hour federal PM2.5 standards. The 2021 PM2.5 Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan demonstrates that the South Coast meets the requirements of the CAA to allow the EPA to redesignate the SoCAB to attainment for the 65 µg/m3 and 35 µg/m3 24-hour PM2.5 standards. CARB submitted the 2021 PM2.5 Redesignation Request to the EPA as a revision to the California SIP (CARB 2021).
2 In 2010, the Los Angeles portion of the SoCAB was designated nonattainment for lead under the new 2008 National AAQS as a result of large industrial emitters. Remaining areas for lead in the SoCAB are unclassified.
However, lead concentrations in this nonattainment area have been below the level of the federal standard since December 2011 (South Coast AQMD 2012). On May 24, 2012, CARB approved the SIP revision for the federal lead standard, which the USEPA revised in 2008. The SIP revision was submitted to the EPA for approval and was approved in March 2014 (CARB 2014).
Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study V
The Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES) is a monitoring and evaluation study on existing ambient concentrations of TACs and the potential health risks from air toxics in the SoCAB. In April 2021, South Coast AQMD released the latest update to the MATES study, MATES V. The first MATES analysis, MATES I, began in 1986 but was limited because of the technology available at the time. Conducted in 1998, MATES II was the first MATES iteration to include a comprehensive monitoring program, an air toxics emissions inventory, and a modeling component. MATES III was conducted in 2004 to 2006, with MATES IV following in 2012 to 2013.
MATES V uses measurements taken during 2018 and 2019, with a comprehensive modeling analysis and emissions inventory based on 2018 data. The previous MATES studies quantified the cancer risks based on the inhalation pathway only. MATES V includes information on the chronic noncancer risks from inhalation and non-inhalation pathways for the first time. Cancer risks and chronic noncancer risks from MATES II through IV measurements have been reexamined using current Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment and California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) risk assessment methodologies and modern statistical methods to examine the trends over time.
809
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 21
The MATES V study showed that cancer risk in the SoCAB decreased to 454 in a million from 997 in a million in the MATES IV study. Overall, air toxics cancer risk in the SoCAB decreased by 54 percent since 2012 when MATES IV was conducted. MATES V showed the highest risk locations near the Los Angeles International Airport and the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. DPM continues to be the major contributor to air toxics cancer risk (approximately 72 percent of the total cancer risk). Goods movement and transportation corridors have the highest cancer risk.
Transportation sources account for 88 percent of carcinogenic air toxics emissions, and the remainder is from stationary sources, which include large industrial operations such as refineries and power plants as well as smaller businesses such as gas stations and chromeplating facilities (South Coast AQMD 2021b).
Figure 3.3-1, South Coast AQMD MATES V Cancer Risk, shows the results of the inhalation cancer risk from the MATES V study. The potential cancer risk is expressed as the incremental number of potential cancer cases that could be developed per million people, assuming that the population is exposed to the substance at a constant annual average concentration over a presumed 70-year lifetime.
POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT
Existing Ambient Air Quality
Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical trends and projections in the vicinity of the project area are best documented by measurements taken by the South Coast AQMD. The project area is in Source Receptor Area (SRA) 33–Southwest San Bernardino Valley.8 The air
quality monitoring stations with the most recent data closest to the project area were reviewed.9
The Ontario Route 60 monitoring station, is 2.61 miles northeast of the Specific Plan area and report air quality statistics for NO2 and PM2.5. The Ontario Etiwanda monitoring station is 7.49 miles northeast of the Specific Plan area and reports air quality statistics for CO. The Pomona monitoring station is 8.12 miles northwest of the Specific Plan area and reports air quality statistics for O3. The Fontana monitoring station is 10.42 miles northeast of the Specific Plan area and reports air quality statistics for PM10. Table 3.3-4, Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary, shows that the area commonly exceeds the state and federal one-hour and eighthour O3 standards within the last 3 years. 8 Per South Coast AQMD Rule 701, an SRA is defined as follows: “A source area is that area in which contaminants are discharged and a receptor area is that area in which the contaminants accumulate and are measured. Any of the areas can be a source area, a receptor area, or both a source and receptor area.” There are 37 SRAs within the South Coast AQMD’s jurisdiction. 9
Locations of the SRAs and monitoring stations are shown at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ default-document-library/map-of-monitoring-areas.pdf.
810
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 22
Table 3.3-4 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary
Pollutant Standard
Year
2022 2023 2024
O3 Maximum Federal 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.131 0.147 0.143 Maximum Federal 8-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.096 0.113 0.094 Number of Days Exceeding State 1-Hour Standard > 0.09 ppm 28 38 53 Number of Days Exceeding State/Federal 8-Hour
Standard > 0.070 ppm 49 56 76
CO Maximum Federal 1-Hour Concentration > 35 ppm 1.3 1.1 1.5 Maximum Federal 8-Hour Concentration > 20 ppm 1.0 0.9 1.1 NO2 Maximum Federal 1-Hour Concentration > 0.100 ppm 0.085 0.076 0.076 Annual Federal Standard Design Value 0.029 0.027 0.026
PM10 Maximum Federal 24-Hour Concentration (µg/m3
) > 150 µg/m3 62 132 112
Annual Federal Arithmetic Mean (µg/m3) 31.5 33.0 37.0
Number of Days Exceeding Federal 24-Hour Standard > 150 µg/m3 0 0 0 Number of Days Exceeding State 24-Hour Standard > 50 µg/m3 8 9 48 PM2.5 Maximum Federal 24-Hour Concentration (µg/m3
) > 35 µg/m3 41.8 50.9 64.0
Annual Federal Arithmetic Mean (µg/m3) > 12 µg/m3 12.20 12.04 13.74 Number of Days Exceeding Federal 24-Hour Standard > 35 µg/m3 1 1 10 Source: Appendix C3.
811
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/
79d3b6304912414bb21ebdde80100b23/page/MainPage/?views=Click-tabs-for-other-data%2CCancer-Risk Chino Airport
Ontario
International
Airport
578
560
600
560
437
624
582
582
600
600
560
624
600
560
600
467
624
624
600
Upland
Rancho
Cucamonga
Ontario
10 Eastvale
County of Riverside
County of San Bernardino
453
60 CALIFORNIA Montclair
60 CALIFORNIA
10 E EUCALYPTUS WALKER
E SCHAEFER
E CHINO
E RIVERSIDE DR
E PHILADELPHIA ST
E EUCALYPTUS
W PHILADELPHIA ST
W FOURTH ST
E G ST
E D ST
E HOLT
W G ST
W D ST
E INLAND EMPIRE BLVD
E FOURTH ST
E EIGHTH ST
E JURUPA ST
E SANTA ANA
E AIRPORT DR
E MERRILL
E EDISON N CAMPUS AVE
E MISSION BLVD N SULTANA AVE N EUCLID AVE N SAN ANTONIO AVE N BENSON AVE N FOUNTAIN AVE N GROVE AVE N HAVEN AVE N VINEYARD AVE N MILLIKEN AVE S WINEVILLE AVE S VINTAGE AVE N ETIWANDA AVE S MILLIKEN AVE S ETIWANDA AVE S EUCLID AVE S GROVE AVE S HAVEN AVE S TURNER AVE S ARCHIBALD AVE S HAMNER AVE S SUMNER S BENSON AVE S FOUNTAIN AVE S SULTANA AVE S CAMPUS AVE •
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
_J
I -1
I
I
i
I
r.J
LI
---;, r-----, L.._.J ... .,
I
I
I
I
' J __
I
I
I
I
I
__________________ J
1. ______ J
I
....,....-_
•
3.3 AIR QUALITY
Figure 3.3-1
South Coast AQM D
MATES V Cancer Risk
c::::J EBPSP Boundary
- - Ontario City Limit
Residential Air Toxics Cancer Risk
Calculated from Model Data
Cancer Risk (per million)
lillii 1601 - 4800
lillii 1451-1600
lillii 1301-1450
b 1151-1300
1001 - 1150
b 851-1000
b 101- 850
b 551- 100
b 401- 550
b 251-400
b 101- 250
b 0-100
2·0·5· 0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
@ ._______, FT
0 2,500 5,000 10,000
Source: Date: 11/13/2025
812
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 24
This page intentionally left blank.
813
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 25
Permitted Sources of Emissions
South Coast AQMD regulates stationary sources of emissions through source-specific rules that have been adopted to reduce criteria air pollutant emissions and TACs. South Coast AQMD maintains the Facility Information Detail (FIND) database of permitted facilities in its region.
Permitted sources include smaller sources such as gas stations and chrome-plating facilities as well as large sources such as refineries and power stations. Figure 3.3-2, South Coast AQMD Permitted Facilities, identifies permitted sources of emissions in the project area that are regulated directly by South Coast AQMD. Permitted sources of emissions are generally clustered at major intersections of commercial corridors and in industrial areas of the project area.
Sensitive Receptors
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution (i.e., TACs) than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with cardiorespiratory diseases.
Residential areas are also considered sensitive to air pollution because residents (including children and the elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods, resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutants present. Other sensitive receptors include retirement facilities, hospitals, and schools. Recreational land uses are considered moderately sensitive to air pollution. Although exposure periods are generally short, exercise places a high demand on respiratory functions, which can be impaired by air pollution. In addition, noticeable air pollution can detract from the enjoyment of recreation. Industrial, commercial, retail, and office areas are considered the least sensitive to air pollution. Exposure periods are relatively short and intermittent, because the majority of the workers tend to stay indoors most of the time. In addition, the workforce is generally the healthiest segment of the population.
Figure 2-4, Current Land Use Plan, shows the existing land uses in Ontario. Industrial and employment-based centers are prominent, especially in the eastern portions of the City and areas surrounding the Ontario International Airport (ONT) and Chino Airport in Ontario Ranch.
In these areas, types of businesses include light manufacturing, research and development, and technology development as well as medical services, entertainment venues, retail stores, galleries, health clubs, financial institutions, day care facilities, and professional offices.
Placement of New Sensitive Receptors
Because placement of sensitive land uses falls outside CARB’s jurisdiction, CARB developed and approved the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (2005) to address the siting of sensitive land uses in the vicinity of freeways, distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome-plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline-dispensing facilities.
This guidance document was developed to assess compatibility and associated health risks when placing sensitive receptors near existing pollution sources. 814
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 26
CARB’s recommendations on the siting of new sensitive land uses are identified in Table 3.3-5, CARB Recommendations for Siting New Sensitive Land Uses. They were based on a compilation of recent studies that evaluated data on the adverse health effects ensuing from proximity to air pollution sources. The key observation in these studies is that proximity to air pollution sources substantially increases both exposure and the potential for adverse health effects. There are 3 carcinogenic TACs that constitute the majority of the known health risks from motor vehicle traffic: DPM from trucks and benzene and 1,3-butadiene from passenger vehicles.
Table 3.3-5 CARB Recommendations for Siting New Sensitive Land Uses Source/Category Advisory Recommendations
Freeways and HighTraffic Roads Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day.
Distribution Centers Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units [TRUs] per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week).
Take into account the configuration of existing distribution centers and avoid locating residences and other sensitive land uses near entry and exit points.
Rail Yards Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a major service and maintenance rail yard. Within one mile of a rail yard, consider possible siting limitations and mitigation approaches.
Ports Avoid siting of new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of ports in the most heavily impacted zones. Consult local air districts or CARB on the status of pending analyses of health risks.
Refineries Avoid siting new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of petroleum refineries. Consult with local air districts and other local agencies to determine an appropriate separation.
Chrome Platers Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a chrome plater.
Dry Cleaners Using
Perchloroethylene
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry cleaning operation. For operations with two or more machines, provide 500 feet. For operations with three or more machines, consult with the local air district.
Do not site new sensitive land uses in the same building with perchloroethylene dry cleaning operations.
Gasoline Dispensing
Facilities
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gas station (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater). A 50-foot separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities.
Source: CARB 2005.
815
%&'(
%&'(
%&'(
|ÿ
|ÿ
%&'(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
E RIVERSIDE DR
E G ST
W D ST
E PHILADELPHIA ST
W FOURTH ST
E D ST
W MISSION BLVD
W G ST
E FOURTH ST
W PHILADELPHIA ST
E EIGHTH ST
W FRANCIS ST
E JURUPA ST
E AIRPORT DR
AND EMPIRE BLVD
E EDISON
E SANTA ANA
E HOLT
E EUCALYPTUS
E SCHAEFER
E MERRILL
E CHINO
!( WALKER
E EUCALYPTUS
- L-·1
/" LJ.J
I
1 z CITY OF ~
MONTCLAIR ~ I
z
I
I
[---ul .. ,J
I , : 5
I 1 ..J.--j•__..z ---·· I e
,_J
v:,
z
LJ.J
co I
v:, I
J
....,
_,_:
LJ.J
:;::
z
~ z
::J
0 ~
z
LJ.J
:;::
z
~ z
::J
0 ~
v:,
CITY OF
UPLAND
LJ.J
:;::
0 z
0 fz
<(
z
<(
v:,
z
VI
VI
)>
z
)>
z
d
z
0 ~ "'
r--1•-=
CITY OF CHINO
LJ.J
:;::
Cl
::::;
u
::J
LJ.J
z
LJ.J
:;::
<(
z
~ ::J
v:,
z
LJ.J
:;::
<(
z
LJ.J
> <(
v:,
::J
0..
~
<(
u
z
~ w
::J :;:: v:,
v:, 'g
0..
:l:
<(
u
LJ.J
:;::
LJ.J
> 0
a:.
(!)
v:,
L,,_, __ _
Cl
a:.
~ LJ.J
z
>
LJ.J
:;::
Cl
a:.
;;!:
LJ.J
z
>
v:,
CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
z
LU
:::; "' __,
!
,_ .. J
I
I
3.3 AIR QUALITY
Figure 3.3-2
South Coast AQM D
Permitted Facilities
~ Permitted Facilities
l C.J Ontario City Boundary El
i C.J County Boundary
--============--~~== :======s~~~=---==i ::==s!!S::=.........,=-- c::::J EBPSP Boundary ~ LJ.J z >
LJ.J
:;::
Cl
...J
<(
co
:i::
u
a:.
<(
v:,
LJ.J
:;::
a:.
LJ.J
z
a:.
::J
CV:,
<(
z
LJ.J
> <(
:i::
z
z
LJ.J
:il:
:i::
v:,
LJ.J
:;::
z
LJ.J
"' ::::;
= -II
LJ.J LJ.J > <( > <(
LJ.J
...J LJ.J ...J (!)
> LJ.J ~ z z
3 >
v:, v:,
~
z
I
I
1 CITY OF
f FONTANA El
z
<C
5 ~ LJ.J
~ !
I County of I San Bernardino ,,-.,-,,--..1•--'-••--··-
County of Riverside
JURUPA VALLEY
2·0·5·0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
0 .________, FT
0 2,500 5,000 10,000
Source: The City of Ontario 2021 Date: 3/4/2022
816
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 28
This page intentionally left blank.
817
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 29
Environmental Justice Communities
The South Coast AQMD region has the worst levels of ground-level ozone (smog) and among the highest levels of PM2.5 in the nation. The air pollution levels in the region exceed both National and California AAQS for both these air pollutants. The health impacts associated with the high levels of air pollution cause respiratory and cardiovascular disease, exacerbate asthma, and can lead to premature death. EJ communities experience the brunt of the health effects from air pollution. In the 2022 AQMP, EJ communities are defined as census tracts in the top 25 percent in the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool. Approximately 37 percent of the SoCAB residents live in EJ communities (South Coast AQMD 2022). Figure 3.3-3, Environmental Justice Communities, shows the census tracts and associated neighborhoods in Ontario that have been identified as EJ communities through the SB 1000 process.
CalEnviroScreen Air Quality Indicators
CalEnviroScreen (CES) is a mapping tool the helps identify the California communities that are most affected by sources of pollution and where people are especially vulnerable to pollution’s effects. People in EJ areas identified by CES Version 4.0 (CES4) may be disproportionately affected by and vulnerable to poor air quality. CES’s “pollution burden” map identifies communities that are exposed to pollution from human activities, such as air pollution (ozone, PM2.5, DPM), water pollution (drinking water contaminants), hazardous materials (pesticide use, children’s lead exposure, toxic releases), and traffic density.
Figure 3.3-4, CES4 Indicator: Pollution Burden, shows the pollution burden percentile for Ontario by census tract. The CES pollution burden scope considers the disproportionate effect of pollution on EJ communities because the score weighs socioeconomic factors (e.g., educational attainment, poverty) and sensitivity of the population (e.g., asthma rates, cardiovascular disease). Lastly, though the causes of asthma are poorly understood, it is well established that exposure to traffic and outdoor air pollutants can trigger asthma attacks. Children, the elderly, and low-income Californians suffer disproportionately from asthma. Figure 3.3-5, CES4 Indicator: Asthma Percentile, shows the asthma percentile for project area by census tract.
SPECIFIC PLAN
The existing setting for the Specific Plan area is the same as that for the Policy Plan Amendment. 818
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 30
3.3.3 Standards for Analysis
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Appendix G, “Environmental Checklist Form,” of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states that, “Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.” The proposed project would result in a significant air quality impact if it would:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
SOUTH COAST AQMD THRESHOLDS
CEQA allows the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district to be used to assess impacts of a project on air quality.
South Coast AQMD has established thresholds of significance for air quality for construction activities and project operation in the SoCAB, as shown in Table 3.3-6, South Coast AQMD Regional Significance Thresholds. Table 3.3-6 South Coast AQMD Regional Significance Thresholds Air Pollutant Construction Phase Operational Phase
Reactive Organic Gases (ROGs)/
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 75 lbs./day 55 lbs./day Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 lbs./day 550 lbs./day
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 100 lbs./day 55 lbs./day
Sulfur Oxides (SOX) 150 lbs./day 150 lbs./day
Particulates (PM10) 150 lbs./day 150 lbs./day
Source: South Coast AQMD 2023.
819
%&'(
%&'(
%&'(
|ÿ
|ÿ
%&'(
E RIVERSIDE DR
E G ST
W D ST
E PHILADELPHIA ST
W FOURTH ST
E D ST
W MISSION BLVD
W G ST
E FOURTH ST
W PHILADELPHIA ST
E EIGHTH ST
W FRANCIS ST
E JURUPA ST
E AIRPORT DR
AND EMPIRE BLVD
ANCH RD
MERRILL AVE
E EDISO
E SANTA ANA ST
E HOLT AVE
E SCHAEFER AVE
E EUCALYPTUS AVE
E CHINO AVE WALKER
E EUCALYPTUS
CITY OF
MONTCLAIR
641
\ .,
CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
--·-
'\
\ L .. _,, __ ., ... ,,,._ .. _ .. _,,_,,_ ..
LU
co
"' I
J
......,---...... .......... __..._..._ ......... .,_.
L ~. ===!----1.1.===-~_.,___..___ ........ =-==----=r=-~~~=rr~-~~
CITY OF CHINO
I
- !
::::;
u
::::,
L ~
i
I
I
I
I
11 ~,·-··~·-
LJ.J
;;!c
LJ.J
>
0 a::
I.!)
Vl
LJ.J
;;!c
Cl
-' Vl
<t
co
:c
u
a::
<(
Vl
N AVE
.~ .. - .. -·,
L .. ~ -
LJ.J
> <t
z
LJ.J
> ,:(
:c
z
Vl
1,1,l
~
z
LU
~
:::;
__,
~
z
~ z
LJ.J "'
LJ.J
;;!c LJ.J
;;!c LJ.J
-' LJ.J
-' I.!)
~ ~ " z z
~ >
Vl Vl
·•-1•-··-··
JURUPA VALLEY
3.3 AIR QUALITY
Figure 3.3-3
Environmental Justice
Communities
Environmental Justice Community
C.J Ontario City Boundary
C.J County Boundary
c::::J EBPSP Boundary
2 - 0 · 5 · 0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
0 .________, FT
0 2,500 5,000 10,000
Source: CES4 2021, City ofOntario 2025 Date: 8/14/2025
820
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 32
This page intentionally left blank.
821
%&'(
%&'(
%&'(
|ÿ
|ÿ
%&'(
E RIVERSIDE DR
E G ST
W D ST
E PHILADELPHIA ST
W FOURTH ST
E D ST
W MISSION BLVD
W G ST
E FOURTH ST
W PHILADELPHIA ST
E EIGHTH ST
W FRANCIS ST
E JURUPA ST
E AIRPORT DR
LAND EMPIRE BLVD
E EDISON
E SANTA ANA
E HOLT
E EUCALYPTUS
E SCHAEFER
E MERRILL
E CHINO
E EUCALYPTUS WALKER
–
JURUPA VALLEY
3.3 AIR QUALITY
Figure 3.3-4
CES4 Indicator
Pollution Burden Percentile
c:::J EBPSP Boundary
C.J County Boundary
-+-+-+- Rail Network
Pollution Burden Percent
0.0 - 25.0%
25.1- 50.0%
50.1- 75.0%
75.1 - 100.0%
2 · 0 · 5 · 0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
8 0 2,500
Source: OEHHA 2021
5,000
FT
10,000
Date: 11/13/2025
822
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 34
This page intentionally left blank.
823
%&'(
%&'(
%&'(
|ÿ
|ÿ
%&'(
E RIVERSIDE DR
E G ST
W D ST
E PHILADELPHIA ST
W FOURTH ST
E D ST
W MISSION BLVD
W G ST
E FOURTH ST
W PHILADELPHIA ST
E EIGHTH ST
W FRANCIS ST
E JURUPA ST
E AIRPORT DR
LAND EMPIRE BLVD
E EDISON
E SANTA ANA
E HOLT
E EUCALYPTUS
E SCHAEFER
E MERRILL
E CHINO
E EUCALYPTUS WALKER
–
CITY OF CHINO
I ;
I
I
I
I
I
I
LJ.J
~
<i:
z
~ LJ.J
::., ~ V,
V, ~
0. ~
<i:
u
V,
V,
L .. -··-··-··
LJ.J
~
Cl
;;jj
c,:,
I
u
er:
<i:
V,
LJ.J
> <i:
CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
z
LJ.J
::::; "" ...,
~
z
LJ.J
~
LJ.J
~
LJ.J
-'
-'
> LJ.J
z
~
LJ.J
~
LJ.J
l9
~
>
V,
z
z I V, •
··-··-··-··__j
60 JURUPA VALLEY
County of Riverside
3.3 AIR QUALITY
Figure 3.3-5
CES4 Indicator
Asthma Percentile
c::::J EBPSP Boundary
C.J Ontario City Boundary
C.J County Boundary
-+-+-+- Rail Network
Asthma Percentile
0.0 - 25.0%
25.1- 50.0%
50.1 - 75.0%
75.1 - 100.0%
2 · 0·5 · 0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
0 0 2,500
Source: OEHHA 2021
5,000
FT
10,000
Date: 11/13/2025
824
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 36
This page intentionally left blank.
825
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 37
The table lists thresholds that are applicable for all projects uniformly, regardless of size or scope. As previously discussed, there is growing evidence that although ultrafine particulate matter contributes a very small portion of the overall atmospheric mass concentration, it represents a greater proportion of the health risk from PM exposure. EPA and CARB have not adopted AAQS to regulate ultrafine particulate matter; and therefore, South Coast AQMD has not developed thresholds for them.
Health Outcomes Associated with the South Coast AQMD Regional Significance Thresholds
Projects that exceed the South Coast AQMD’s regional significance threshold contribute to the nonattainment designation of the SoCAB. The attainment designations are based on the AAQS, which are set at levels of exposure that are determined to not result in adverse health effects.
Exposure to fine particulate pollution and ozone causes myriad health impacts, particularly to the respiratory and cardiovascular systems:
Increases cancer risk (PM2.5, TACs)
Aggravates respiratory disease (O3, PM2.5)
Increases bronchitis (O3, PM2.5)
Causes chest discomfort, throat irritation, and increased effort to take a deep breath (O3) Reduces resistance to infections and increases fatigue (O3) Reduces lung growth in children (PM2.5)
Contributes to heart disease and heart attacks (PM2.5)
Contributes to premature death (O3, PM2.5)
Contributes to lower birth weight in newborns (PM2.5) (South Coast AQMD 2015a) Exposure to fine particulates and ozone aggravates asthma attacks and can amplify other lung ailments such as emphysema and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Exposure to current levels of PM2.5 is responsible for an estimated 4,300 cardiopulmonary-related deaths per year in the SoCAB. In addition, University of Southern California scientists, in a landmark children’s health study, found that lung growth improved as air pollution declined for children aged 11 to 15 in 5 communities in the SoCAB (South Coast AQMD 2015b).
South Coast AQMD is the primary agency responsible for ensuring the health and welfare of sensitive individuals exposed to elevated concentrations of air pollutants in the SoCAB and has established thresholds that would be protective of these individuals. To achieve the healthbased standards established by the EPA, South Coast AQMD prepares an AQMP that details regional programs to attain the AAQS. Mass emissions thresholds shown in Table 3.3-6 are not correlated with concentrations of air pollutants, but mass emissions still contribute to the cumulative air quality impacts in the SoCAB. The thresholds are based on the trigger levels for the federal New Source Review Program, which was created to ensure projects are consistent ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
826
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 38
with attainment of health-based National AAQS. Regional emissions from a single project do not trigger a regional health impact, and it is speculative to identify how many more individuals in the air basin would be affected by the health effects listed previously. Projects that do not exceed the South Coast AQMD regional significance thresholds in Table 3.3-6 would not violate regional air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.
If projects exceed the emission levels presented in Table 3.3-6, those emissions would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment status of the air basin and would contribute to elevating health effects associated with these criteria air pollutants regionally. Known health effects related to ozone include worsening of bronchitis, asthma, and emphysema and a decrease in lung function. Health effects associated with particulate matter include premature death of people with heart or lung disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, decreased lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms. Reducing emissions would contribute to reducing possible health effects related to criteria air pollutants; however, for projects that exceed the emissions in Table 3.3-6, it is speculative to determine how exceeding the regional thresholds would affect the number of days the region is in nonattainment because mass emissions are not correlated with concentrations of emissions or how many additional individuals in the air basin would be affected by the health effects cited previously.
South Coast AQMD has not provided methodology to assess the specific correlation between mass emissions generated and the effect on health to address the issue raised in Sierra Club v.
County of Fresno (Friant Ranch, L.P.) (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, Case No. S21978. South Coast AQMD currently does not have methodologies that would provide the District with a consistent, reliable, and meaningful analysis to correlate specific health impacts that may result from a proposed project’s mass emissions.10 Ozone concentrations are dependent on a variety of complex factors, including the presence of sunlight and precursor pollutants, natural topography, nearby structures that cause building downwash, atmospheric stability, and wind patterns. Because of the complexities of predicting ground-level ozone concentrations in relation to the National and California AAQS, and the absence of modeling tools that could 10 In April 2019, the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) published an Interim Recommendation on implementing Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502 (“Friant Ranch”) in the review and analysis of proposed projects under CEQA in Sacramento County. Consistent with the expert opinions submitted to the court in Friant Ranch by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) and South Coast AQMD, the SMAQMD guidance confirms the absence of an acceptable or reliable quantitative methodology that would correlate the expected criteria air pollutant emissions of projects to likely health consequences for people from project-generated criteria air pollutant emissions. The SMAQMD guidance explains that while it is in the process of developing a methodology to assess these impacts, lead agencies should follow the Friant Court’s advice to explain in meaningful detail why this analysis is not yet feasible. Since this interim memorandum SMAQMD has provided methodology to address health impacts. However, a similar analysis is not available for projects within the South Coast AQMD region. 827
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 39
provide statistically valid data and meaningful additional information regarding health effects from criteria air pollutants generated by individual projects, it is not possible to link specific health risks to the magnitude of emissions exceeding the significance thresholds. If a project in the SoCAB exceeds the regional significance thresholds, the project could contribute to an increase in health effects in the basin until the attainment standards are met in the SoCAB.
Localized Significance Thresholds
Criteria Air Pollutants
South Coast AQMD identifies localized significance thresholds (LST), shown in Table 3.3-7, South Coast AQMD Localized Significance Thresholds. Emissions of NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 generated at a project site could expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of criteria air pollutants. Off-site mobile-source emissions are not included in the LST analysis. A project would generate a significant impact if it generates emissions that, when added to the local background concentrations, violate the AAQS.
Table 3.3-7 South Coast AQMD Localized Significance Thresholds Air Pollutant (Relevant AAQS) Concentration
1-Hour CO Standard (CAAQS) 20 ppm
8-Hour CO Standard (CAAQS) 9.0 ppm
1-Hour NO2 Standard (CAAQS) 0.18 ppm
Annual NO2 Standard (CAAQS) 0.03 ppm
24-Hour PM10 Standard – Construction (South Coast AQMD)1 10.4 µg/m3 24-Hour PM2.5 Standard – Construction (South Coast AQMD)1 10.4 µg/m3 24-Hour PM10 Standard – Operation (South Coast AQMD)1 2.5 µg/m3 24-Hour PM2.5 Standard – Operation (South Coast AQMD)1 2.5 µg/m3 Annual Average PM10 Standard (South Coast AQMD)1 1.0 µg/m3 Source: South Coast AQMD 2023.
Notes: ppm – parts per million; µg/m3 – micrograms per cubic meter 1 Threshold is based on South Coast AQMD Rule 403. Since the SoCAB is in nonattainment for PM10 and PM2.5, the threshold is established as an allowable change in concentration. Therefore, background concentration is irrelevant.
CO Hotspots
Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called hotspots. These pockets have the potential to exceed the state one-hour standard of 20 ppm or the 8-hour standard of 9 ppm. Because CO is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into the atmosphere, adherence to the AAQS is typically 828
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 40
demonstrated through an analysis of localized CO concentrations. Hotspots are typically produced at intersections, where traffic congestion is highest because vehicles queue for longer periods and are subject to reduced speeds. With the turnover of older vehicles and introduction of cleaner fuels, as well as implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the SoCAB and the state have steadily declined.
In 2007, the SoCAB was designated in attainment for CO under both the California AAQS and National AAQS. The CO hotspot analysis conducted for attainment by South Coast AQMD did not predict a violation of CO standards at the busiest intersections in Los Angeles during the peak morning and afternoon periods.11 As identified in South Coast AQMD’s 2003 AQMP and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide, peak carbon monoxide concentrations in the SoCAB in years before the 2007 redesignation were a result of unusual meteorological and topographical conditions and not of congestion at a particular intersection. South Coast AQMD does not currently have a recommended screening criteria to utilize to determine potential CO hotspot generation; therefore, guidance from the Bay Area Air District is utilized to assess CO hotspots. According to the Bay Area Air District, a project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix—to generate a significant CO impact (Bay Area Air District 2023). 12 Toxic Air Contaminants Whenever a project would require use of chemical compounds that have been identified in South Coast AQMD Rule 1401, placed on CARB’s air toxics list pursuant to AB 1807, or placed on the EPA’s National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, a health risk assessment is required by the South Coast AQMD. Table 3.3-8, South Coast AQMD Toxic Air Contaminants Incremental Risk Thresholds, lists the TAC incremental risk thresholds for construction and operation of a project. The type of land uses that typically generate substantial quantities of criteria air pollutants and TACs from operations include industrial (stationary sources) and 11 The four intersections were: Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway; Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue; Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue; and La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard. The busiest intersection evaluated (Wilshire and Veteran) had a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day with LOS E in the morning peak hour and LOS F in the evening peak hour. 12 The CO hotspot analysis refers to the modeling conducted by the Bay Area Air District for its CEQA Guidelines because it is based on newer data and considers the improvement in mobile-source CO emissions. Although meteorological conditions in the Bay Area differ from those in the Southern California region, the modeling conducted by Bay Area Air District demonstrates that the net increase in peak hour traffic volumes at an intersection in a single hour would need to be substantial. This finding is consistent with the CO hotspot analysis South Coast AQMD prepared as part of its 2003 AQMP to provide support in seeking CO attainment for the SoCAB. Based on the analysis prepared by South Coast AQMD, no CO hotspots were predicted for the SoCAB. As noted in the preceding footnote, the analysis included some of Los Angeles’ busiest intersections, with daily traffic volumes of 100,000 or more peak hour vehicle trips operating at LOS E and F (South Coast AQMD 2003). 829
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 41
warehousing (truck idling) land uses (CARB 2005). Educational and recreational land uses do not use substantial quantities of TACs; thus, these thresholds are typically applied to new industrial projects’ operations only. Additionally, the purpose of this environmental evaluation is to identify the significant effects of the project on the environment, not the significant effects of the environment on the project (California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369 (Case No. S213478)).
Table 3.3-8 South Coast AQMD Toxic Air Contaminants Incremental Risk Thresholds Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk (Project-Level)
> 0.5 excess cancer cases
Hazard Index (project increment)
Source: South Coast AQMD 2023.
METHODOLOGY
The air quality evaluation was prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA to determine if significant air quality impacts are likely to occur in conjunction with future development that would be accommodated by the proposed project. The published South Coast AQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook and its updates on the South Coast AQMD website are intended to provide local governments with guidance for analyzing and mitigating projectspecific air quality impacts. It provides standards, methodologies, and procedures for conducting air quality analyses in EIRs that were used in this analysis.
Policy Plan Amendment
Community Emissions
The emissions inventory and forecast for the Policy Plan Amendment utilize a community emissions accounting method that includes sources that are in the indirect and direct jurisdictional control of the City of Ontario (geographic region).13 The community criteria air pollutant emissions inventory and forecast are based on activity data compiled for TOP 2050 (see Appendix C1). The following is a summary by sector of the assumptions used for the project area’s criteria air pollutant emissions inventory and forecast, included in Appendix C1.
Building Energy. Emissions associated with natural gas use for residential and nonresidential land uses in the city were based on the energy forecast without state actions conducted for the emissions inventory for the Community Climate Action Plan (2022). Forecasts for the 13 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.
2:: 10 in 1 million
Cancer Burden (in areas 2:: 1 in 1 million)
2:: 1.0
■
830
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 42
proposed project were adjusted for increases in dwelling units for residential natural gas use and non-residential square footage for non-residential natural gas use in the city.
Transportation. Transportation emissions forecasts were modeled using emissions data from CARB’s EMFAC2021 V1.0.2 web database with EMFAC off-model adjustment factors.
Model runs were based on daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) data provided by Fehr & Peers (see Appendix K1) and calendar year 2050 emission rates. The daily VMT is based on the origin-destination (OD) method 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 external-internal/internal-external trips based on the recommendations of CARB’s Regional Targets Advisory Committee under SB 375. 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 project are based on air quality and GHG 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 growth in the city. The light commercial/industrial equipment forecast for the proposed project is adjusted for changes in employment in the city.
Area Sources. Area sources are based on CalEEMod defaults for emissions generated from use of consumer products and cleaning supplies (CAPCOA 2022).
Truck Routes. For purposes of the operational health risk assessment (HRA), truck route emissions were quantified separately from total on-road transportation emissions used for the proposed Policy Plan Amendment analysis. For the HRA, all baseline and proposed truck routes were segmented to isolate geographic changes in the truck distribution throughout the City. For example, Archibald south of CA-60 was segmented into Mid-Archibald, South Archibald, and Archibald Southern Connection to maintain consistency in dispersion modeling methodology for proposed conditions when the South Archibald segment would be removed from the truck route network (see Appendix C2 for more information). Average daily light-, medium-, and heavy-duty truck volumes were identified for each modeled truck route segment by Fehr & Peers (2025) and used in idle, acceleration, and running exhaust emissions for the HRA. Emissions of PM10 exhaust were used to represent DPM emissions and were based on CARB’s EMFAC2021 on-road vehicle emissions database and the EPA’s EMFAC2021 adjustment factors, released in December 2025. Detailed calculations, methodology, and results for the operational HRA can be found in Appendix C2. ■
■
■
■
831
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 43
Current TOP Emissions
The project area consists of residential, retail/service, business park and industrial, open space, mixed residential and commercial, and public use. These uses currently generate criteria air pollutant emissions from natural gas use for energy, heating, and cooking; vehicle trips associated with each land use; and area sources such as landscaping equipment and consumer cleaning products.14 Table 3.3-9, Current TOP Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Inventory, shows the average daily emissions inventory currently associated with the approved project.
Table 3.3-9 Current TOP Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Inventory Sector
Current TOP Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day) ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Transportation1197 4,401 14,613 96 1,031 381
Energy2 154 2,720 1,828 17 213 213
Area – Off-Road Equipment3 221 2,407 12,425 4 94 85
Area – Consumer Products4 4,781
Total 5,352 9,528 28,866 117 1,337 679
1 EMFAC2021 Version 1.0.2 Emission Rates with Adjusted Factors. Based on daily VMT provided by Fehr & Peers (see Appendix K1).
2 Based on the emission inventory from Community Climate Action Plan (2022), excluding State actions. 3 Based on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions modeling conducted for the 2022 Certified EIR. 4 Based on CalEEMod 2022 User’s Guide methodology to calculate ROG/VOC emissions from use of household consumer cleaning products.
Truck Route Health Risk Assessment
The proposed project would involve a citywide redistribution of truck volumes by adding and removing select routes from the City’s truck route network through 2050. Therefore, the operational HRA focuses on the incremental change in health risk impact resulting in 2050 from the citywide redistribution of trucking activities based on those select truck route additions and removals. Truck route emissions modeling is based on particulate matter exhaust of an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10 exhaust) to represent DPM emissions from trucks on the affected truck routes.
For all affected truck routes, the change in daily light-, medium-, and heavy-duty truck volumes was calculated at each volume node provided by Fehr & Peers (2026) and averaged along the 14 Emissions from permitted sources are excluded from the Current TOP emissions inventory because the reductions associated with the Industrial sector are regulated separately by South Coast AQMD and are not under the jurisdiction of the City of Ontario.
832
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 44
contiguous truck route. The average daily truck volumes for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty trucks were proportioned for each route to determine the percentages of light-, medium-, and heavy-duty trucks for each truck route. Because each route has several stops and crossings, the total potential vehicle stops along each route were identified to account for emissions associated with vehicle idling while stopped and subsequent acceleration to reach posted speed limits. These truck volumes and route crossings were then used to quantify emissions along each individual truck route throughout the City.
CARB’s EMFAC2021 on-road emissions rate data set, including the EPA’s Off-Model Adjustment Factors to Remove the Impact of Advanced Clean Trucks, Zero-Emission Airport Shuttle, HeavyDuty Omnibus, and Warranty Phase I Regulations (“EMFAC2021 adjustment factors”) were utilized to estimate emissions along the truck routes based on the truck volumes provided by Fehr & Peers. All light-duty trucks were assumed to include EMFAC vehicle categories with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,501 to 14,000 pounds. All medium duty trucks were assumed to include EMFAC categories with a GVWR of 14,001 to 33,000 pounds, and all heavyduty trucks were assumed to include EMFAC categories with a GVWR of over 33,000 pounds.
Due to the uncertainty surrounding the future electric vehicle population, the electric vehicle population from trucks traveling throughout the City were conservatively reduced to zero in year 2050, and all truck volumes assumed non-electric vehicle fuel types for emission factors.
The running exhaust emissions for each truck route used the EMFAC2021 emission factors for the speed bin corresponding to that route’s posted maximum travel speed. Acceleration emissions were calculated by identifying number of potential crossings along each route and the average distance of travel for each speed bin for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty trucks along each route, then using those distances in corresponding speed bins from EMFAC2021 up to the posted maximum travel speed in speed bin increments of 5 miles per hour. The cumulative travel distance in speed bins lower than the posted maximum travel speed were subtracted from the overall travel distance along each route for the running exhaust emission calculations.
Truck idle emissions were calculated by identifying the total number of light-, medium-, and heavy-duty trucks along each route; multiplying each route’s truck volumes by the number of crossings along the segment to identify the cumulative number of trucks that would idle along each route; and multiplying each route’s cumulative truck crossing count with the idle emission rates in EMFAC2021 for the corresponding light-, medium-, and heavy-duty classifications.
Air dispersion modeling was performed using the AERMOD atmospheric dispersion model (Lakes AERMOD View, version 13.0.0). The model is a steady-state Gaussian plume model and is approved by South Coast AQMD for estimating ground-level impacts from emission sources in simple and complex terrain.
833
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 45
All proposed and existing truck routes were included in AERMOD, each as an individual line volume source. An existing conditions model was prepared to identify citywide pollutant concentrations in 2050 resulting from no changes to the City’s existing truck route network. A separate proposed conditions model was prepared to identify citywide pollutant concentrations in 2050 resulting from the proposed changes in the City’s truck route network. Because of the scale of modeling necessary for this analysis, a two-tier approach was employed. The first tier of modeling included a citywide receptor grid spaced at 600 meters to identify the “hotspots” of pollutant concentration changes, or areas where the greatest change in pollutant concentration—increase and decrease—would occur. The second tier’s refined modeling narrowed the model’s receptors to only capture areas that fall within the one-per-million cancer risk contours from the first-tier modeling, with receptors spaced at 100 meters.
To assist in risk calculations, CARB recommends its Hot Spots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP) to reduce human error in health risk estimations. Therefore, HARP was used to calculate cancer risk resulting from the proposed project. Detailed calculations, methodology, and results of the HRA are in Appendix C2.
Specific Plan
Construction and Operational Emissions
Land uses affect air quality through construction-source and operational-source emissions. 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 this model is to calculate construction-source and operational-source criteria pollutant (ROGs, NOX, SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5) 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 for the EBPSP to determine construction and operational air quality emissions (see Appendix C3).
Health Risk Assessment
The EBPSP Health Risk Assessment was conducted in accordance with the guidelines in South Coast AQMD’s 2003 “Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis,” and the EPA’s AERMOD model was used. The Lakes AERMOD View (version 13.0.0) was used to calculate annual average particulate concentrations associated with site operations and to incorporate the EPA’s latest AERMOD version 24142 (see Appendix C4).
834
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 46
On-Road Mobile Source Emissions
EMFAC 2021 and Off-Model Adjustment Factors
On-road mobile source emissions were estimated using the CARB’s EMFAC 2021 model. EMFAC 2021 is the most recent version of EMFAC approved by the EPA for use in State Implementation Plans (SIP) and federal transportation conformity determinations, and it remains the standard analytical platform for regional air quality planning in California.
In addition to the base EMFAC 2021 outputs, the analysis applies EMFAC 2021 off-model adjustment factors developed by CARB and approved by the EPA. These adjustment factors are multipliers applied to EMFAC 2021 emission estimates to account for the effects of certain mobile-source regulations or programs that are not fully embedded in the standard EMFAC 2021 model structure (see Appendix C3).
Impacts of the Environment on a Project
In 2016, the California Legislature passed Senate Bill 1000 (SB 1000), Planning for Healthy Communities Act, to incorporate environmental justice (EJ) into the local land use planning process. SB 1000 requires local governments to address pollution and other hazards that disproportionately impact low-income communities and communities of color in their jurisdictions. SB 1000 mandates that general plans address environmental justice but does not require CEQA analyses to address EJ issues. The proposed project addresses air quality and health risk impacts of implementing the approved project to sensitive land uses.
Buildout of the land use plan associated with the proposed project would site sensitive uses (e.g., residential) near sources of emissions (e.g., freeways, industrial uses, etc.). Developing new sensitive land uses near sources of emissions could expose persons that inhabit these sensitive land uses to potential air quality-related impacts. The purpose of this environmental evaluation is to identify the significant effects of the proposed project on the environment, not the significant effects of the environment on the proposed project. California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369 (Case No.
S213478). Thus, CEQA does not require analysis of the potential environmental effects from siting sensitive receptors near existing sources, and this type of analysis is not provided in Section 3.3.5; however, the Policy Plan Amendment includes policies that would require design features to minimize air quality impacts and to achieve appropriate health standards. The following policies are applicable:
LU-2.9: Methane Gas Sites. We require sensitive land uses and new uses on former dairy farms or other methane-producing sites to be designed to minimize health risks.
LU-2.10: Sensitive Uses. We monitor and share information with the community about stationary and non-stationary emission sources. We encourage siting and design of facilities ■
■
835
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 47
to minimize health and safety risks on existing and proposed sensitive uses, especially in environmental justice areas.
ER-4.2: Sensitive Land Uses. We prohibit the future siting of sensitive land uses within the distances defined by the California Air Resources Board for specific source categories, without sufficient mitigation.
ER-4.4: Indoor Air Quality. We will comply with State Green Building Codes relative to indoor air quality. We seek funding to improve indoor air quality for households with poor indoor air quality, with priority for lower income households in environmental justice areas.
3.3.4 Relevant New and Modified General Plan Policies
There are no applicable policy changes.
3.3.5 Environmental Impacts
2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR identified the following conclusions regarding the air quality emissions:
AQMP Consistency. The 2022 Certified EIR concluded that the buildout of the approved project would be consistent with the AQMP under the first criteria by providing a more efficient land use plan that reduces vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per resident and employee.
Population growth forecast and associated air pollutant emissions from the buildout of the approved project would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations in the SoCAB. While mitigation measures could reduce construction and operational impacts to the extent feasible, due to the magnitude of residential units that would be developed under the approved project, impacts were significant and unavoidable.
Construction-Related Regional Air Quality Impact. The 2022 Certified EIR concluded that, even with Mitigation Measure AIR-1-PPA (former MM 3-1), construction air emissions of the approved project could exceed South Coast AQMD’s significance thresholds as a result of the amount of development activity that is anticipated. Impacts were significant and unavoidable.
Operational Phase Regional Air Quality Impact. The 2022 Certified EIR concluded that, even with Mitigation Measures AIR-2-PPA (former MM 3-2) and AIR-3-PPA (former MM AQ-1), the long-term operational emissions associated with the approved project would exceed the daily South Coast AQMD thresholds for ROGs due to the increase in residential units. The emissions of ROGs that exceed the South Coast AQMD regional significance thresholds would contribute to the O3 nonattainment designation of the SoCAB. Impacts were significant and unavoidable.
■
■
■
■
■
836
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 48
Localized Air Quality Impact. The 2022 Certified EIR concluded that implementation of the approved project would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hotspot, and localized CO hotspot impacts would be less than significant. Compliance with South Coast AQMD Rule 1401 would ensure less than significant impacts related to TAC emissions from permitted stationary sources. Operation of industrial and warehousing land uses accommodated under the approved project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial TAC emissions and contribute to higher levels of cancer risk in the SoCAB.
Consequently, even with Policy ER-4.9 to require operational health risk assessment for projects that could generate a substantial number of diesel truck trips, the 2022 Certified EIR determined that buildout of the approved project would cumulatively contribute to health risk impacts, and impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Odors. The 2022 Certified EIR identified that odors generated in the city would not affect a substantial number of people, and impacts would be less than significant. Individual projects, including commercial, industrial, and residential projects, associated with the buildout of the approved project were required to comply with South Coast AQMD Rule 402 to prevent odors and avoid creation of a public nuisance. Impacts were less than significant.
Proposed Project
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
AQMP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
The 2022 Certified EIR identified that the approved project would be consistent with the South Coast AQMD AQMP under the first criteria. Air pollutant emissions associated with buildout of the approved project would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations in the SoCAB. Incorporation of Mitigation Measure AIR-2-PPA (former MM 3-2) and Mitigation Measure AIR-3-PPA (former MM AQ-1), as well as TOP 2050 goals and policies, would help reduce criteria air pollutant emissions. Due to the magnitude of population growth and associated emissions, the approved project was identified to conflict with the South Coast AQMD AQMP under the second criteria and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
The following describes potential air quality impacts of consistency with the AQMP from implementation of the proposed project compared to the approved project.
Policy Plan Amendment
The South Coast AQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from area, stationary, and mobile sources in the SoCAB to achieve the National and California AAQS and has responded to this requirement by preparing an AQMP. The South Coast AQMD Governing Board adopted the ■
■
837
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 49
2022 AQMP, which is a regional and multiagency effort (South Coast AQMD, CARB, SCAG, and EPA).
A consistency determination with the AQMP plays an important role in local agency project review by linking local planning and individual projects to the AQMP. It fulfills the CEQA goal of informing decision makers of the environmental efforts of the project under consideration early enough to ensure that air quality concerns are fully addressed. It also provides the local agency with ongoing information as to whether they are contributing to the clean air goals in the AQMP.
The 2 principal criteria for conformance with an AQMP are:
1. Whether the project would exceed the assumptions in the AQMP.
2. Whether the project would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timeline attainment of air quality standards.
SCAG is South Coast AQMD’s partner in the preparation of the AQMP, providing the latest economic and demographic forecasts and developing transportation measures. Regional population, housing, and employment projections developed by SCAG are based, in part, on general plan land use designations. These projections form the foundation for the emissions inventory of the AQMP.
Criteria 1: Consistency with Regional Growth Assumptions Table 3.3-10, Comparison of Population and Employment Forecast, compares the population and employment growth forecast under the approved project and the proposed project. The table shows that the proposed project would result in more VMT due to an increase in population; however, both the approved project and the proposed project would result in similar VMT per service population. This indicates that the proposed project would accommodate additional growth without substantially increasing travel demand per service population, reflecting an efficient land use plan. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the AQMP under the first criterion.
838
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 50
Table 3.3-10 Comparison of Population and Employment Forecast Category
Current TOP
2050
Policy Plan
Amendment
Change from
Current TOP 2050
Percent
Change
Population 411,268 427,741 16,473 4%
Employment 299,204 301,035 1,831 1%
Service Population (SP)1 710,472 728,776 18,304 3%
Daily VMT2 13,763,149 14,139,609 376,460 3%
VMT/SP 19.37 19.40 <1 <1%
Notes:
1 Service population (SP) consists of the aggregate of total employees and population in the city. 2 Daily VMT provided by Fehr & Peers, 2025 (Appendix K1).
Criterion 2: Consistency with Regional Emissions Forecasts The SoCAB is designated nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 under the California and National AAQS,15 nonattainment for PM10 under the California AAQS, and nonattainment for lead (Los Angeles County only) under the National AAQS (CARB 2025a). As identified in Air Quality Threshold b), the proposed project would result in a substantial increase in ROG and NOX compared to the approved project. Consequently, emissions generated by development projects under the proposed project, in addition to existing sources in the City, are considered to cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. Buildout of the proposed project could contribute to an increase in frequency or severity of air quality violations and delay attainment of the AAQS or interim emission reductions in the AQMP, and emissions generated from buildout of the proposed project would result in a significant air quality impact. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not be consistent with the AQMP under the second criterion and would result in a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project.
Summary
Buildout of the proposed project would be consistent with the AQMP under the first criteria; however, air pollutant emissions associated with buildout of the proposed project would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations in the SoCAB. Consistency with the AQMP was identified as significant and unavoidable in the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, the 15 The SoCAB is pending a redesignation request from nonattainment to attainment for the 24-hour federal PM2.5 standards. The 2021 PM2.5 Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan demonstrates that the South Coast meets the requirements of the CAA to allow the EPA to redesignate the SoCAB to attainment for the 65 µg/m3 and 35 µg/m324-hour PM2.5 standards. CARB will submit the 2021 PM2.5 Redesignation Request to the EPA as a revision to the California SIP (CARB 2021).
839
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 51
proposed project would not result in a new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to that identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. This impact is potentially significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Potentially significant.
Specific Plan
Impacts for the Specific Plan are embodied in the emissions tables (Tables 3.3-12 to 3.3-18) under Air Quality Threshold b). In summary, operational-source emissions would exceed applicable regional thresholds for emissions of ROG (summer only) and NOx during Phase 1; ROG, NOx, and CO (summer only) during Phase 2; and ROG, NOx, CO, and PM10 at buildout.
Accordingly, operation of the Specific Plan could increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations and would cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.
Growth projections from local general plans adopted by cities in the SoCAB are provided to SCAG, which develops regional growth forecasts that are used to develop air quality forecasts for the AQMP. Development consistent with the growth projections in City of Ontario Policy Plan is considered consistent with the AQMP. The EBPSP is not consistent with the approved project.
The EBPSP is considered inconsistent with the 2022 AQMP because the EBPSP has the potential to result in or cause violations of the National or California AAQS and would not be consistent with the approved project. Consistency with the AQMP was identified as a significant and unavoidable impact in the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, the EBPSP would not result in a new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the that identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. This would be a potentially significant impact. Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Potentially significant.
Impact AQ-1: The additional population growth forecast for the Policy Plan Amendment and Specific Plan and the associated emissions would exceed the assumptions of the South Coast AQMD’s AQMP.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
Mitigation measures applied to a development project’s operational phase would help reduce impacts associated with buildout of the proposed project; however, no mitigation measures are available that would reduce impacts associated with consistency with South Coast AQMD’s AQMP.
840
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 52
New Mitigation Measures
Policy Plan Amendment
No additional mitigation measures have been identified.
Specific Plan
Mitigation measures applied to the operational phases (Mitigation Measures AIR-5-SP through AIR-12-SP) for the Specific Plan would reduce regional air quality exceedances.
Significance After Mitigation
Policy Plan Amendment
As shown in Table 3.2-12, City of Ontario Regional Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Forecast, the proposed project would result in a substantial increase in ROG and NOX compared to the approved project. At the program level, ROG and NOX emissions cannot be mitigated because the primary sources are outside local control. ROG emissions largely come from consumer products that are regulated at the manufacturer level, and the City cannot control which products residents purchase or use. Similarly, NOX emissions from the transportation sector depend on the types of vehicles individuals choose to own and operate, which are governed by state and federal standards rather than local plans.
Accordingly, because of the magnitude and intensity of development accommodated by the proposed project, as well as regional air quality influences beyond the control of the City, impacts associated with consistency with the AQMP would remain significant and unavoidable. No additional feasible mitigation measures or mitigating policies at the program level would ensure consistency of the proposed project with the South Coast AQMD’s AQMP. The identification of this program-level impact does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant impacts for subsequent individual projects that meet applicable project-level thresholds of significance.
Policy Plan Amendment Significance with Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable.
Specific Plan
There is no feasible mitigation that would reduce impacts associated with consistency of the project with the AQMP to less than significant; Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Specific Plan Significance with Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable. 841
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 53
b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
CONSTRUCTION – REGIONAL EMISSIONS IMPACTS
The 2022 Certified EIR identified that, due to the scale of development activity associated under the approved project, the short-term emissions would likely exceed the South Coast AQMD regional significance thresholds.
Policy Plan Amendment
Construction emissions were not quantified due to the programmatic nature of the proposed project. Though mitigation measures were incorporated, the 2022 Certified EIR identified significant and unavoidable construction phase impacts associated with the approved project.
Construction activities under the proposed project would also temporarily increase PM10, PM2.5, ROG, NOX, SOX, and CO regional emissions in the SoCAB. The primary source of NOX, CO, and SOX emissions is the operation of construction equipment. The primary sources of particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) emissions are activities that disturb the soil, such as grading and excavation, road construction, and building demolition and construction. The primary sources of ROG emissions are the application of architectural coating and off-gas emissions associated with asphalt paving.
Construction activities associated with the proposed project would occur over the buildout horizon of the plan, causing short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants; however, information regarding specific development projects, soil types, and the locations of receptors would be needed to quantify the level of impact associated with construction activity. Due to the scale of development activity associated with buildout of the proposed project, emissions would likely exceed the South Coast AQMD regional significance thresholds. In accordance with the South Coast AQMD methodology, emissions that exceed the regional significance thresholds would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB.
Air quality emissions related to construction must be addressed on a project-by-project basis.
For the Policy Plan Amendment, which is a broad-based policy plan, it is not possible to determine whether the scale and phasing of individual projects would exceed the South Coast AQMD’s short-term regional or localized construction emissions thresholds. In addition to regulatory measures—e.g., South Coast AQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust control, Rule 1113 for architectural coatings, and CARB’s Airborne Toxic Control Measures—mitigation imposed at the project level may include extension of construction schedules and/or use of special equipment.
Furthermore, TOP 2050 includes a range of policies designed to reduce construction-related emissions, as listed below. Environmental Resources (ER) Element Policy 4.6 would support 842
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 54
reduction in particulate matter generated during construction activities. Safety (S) Element Policy S-5.1 requires the implementation of best management practices for dust control at all excavation and grading projects, and Policy S-5.2 prohibits excavation and grading during strong wind conditions.
ER-4.6: Particulate Matter. We support efforts to reduce particulate matter to meet State and Federal Clean Air Standards.
S-5.1: Dust Control Measures. We require the implementation of Best Management Practices for dust control at all excavation and grading projects.
S-5.2: Grading in High Winds. We prohibit excavation and grading during strong wind conditions, as defined by the Building Code.
While individual projects accommodated under the proposed project may not exceed the South Coast AQMD regional significance thresholds, the likely scale and extent of the combined construction activities associated with the future development under the proposed project would likely continue to exceed the relevant South Coast AQMD thresholds. Compared to the approved project, the proposed project would have similar impacts because the proposed project would result in an increase in land use intensity rather than development of new, previously undeveloped areas of the city which would require substantial landform modification.
Construction impacts of the approved project were identified as significant and unavoidable in the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the that identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. Like the approved project, construction-related regional air quality impacts of developments that would be accommodated by the proposed project would be potentially significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Potentially significant.
Specific Plan
Construction activities associated with the EBPSP would result in emissions of ROGs, NOx, SOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Construction-related emissions are expected from the following construction activities:
Demolition/Crushing
Site Preparation
Grading
Building Construction
Paving
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
843
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 55
Architectural Coating
Consistent with industry standards and typical construction practices, each piece of equipment is assumed to operate up to a total of eight hours per day. Estimated maximum daily construction emissions for Phases 1, 2, and 3 are summarized in Table 3.3-11, EBPSP Construction Emissions Summary: Phase 1; Table 3.3-12, EBPSP Construction Emissions Summary: Phase 2; and Table 3.3-13, EBPSP Construction Emissions Summary: Phase 3. As identified in these tables, EBPSP construction would not exceed any criteria pollutant thresholds established by the South Coast AQMD, and impacts would be less than significant. Construction impacts associated with the approved project were identified as significant and unavoidable in the Certified EIR. Therefore, the EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.
Table 3.3-11 EBPSP Construction Emissions Summary: Phase 1 Year
Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Summer 2027 4 44 74 0.16 11 5
2028 52 39 97 0.11 15 4
Winter 2027 4 44 70 0.16 13 5
2028 52 40 83 0.11 15 4
Maximum Daily Emissions 52 44 97 0.16 15 5
South Coast AQMDRegional Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Source: Appendix C3.
Note: Emissions may not total to 100 percent due to rounding. ■
844
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 56
Table 3.3-12 EBPSP Construction Emissions Summary: Phase 2 Year
Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Summer 2028 2 47 72 0.19 13 5
2029 51 35 73 0.09 10 3
Winter 2028 2 48 72 0.19 12 5
2029 50 36 64 0.09 10 3
Maximum Daily Emissions 51 48 73 0.19 13 5
South Coast AQMDRegional Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Source: Appendix C3.
Note: Emissions may not total to 100 percent due to rounding.
Table 3.3-13 EBPSP Construction Emissions Summary: Phase 3 Year
Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Summer 2030 2 46 71 0.19 13 5
2031 61 32 53 0.08 5 2
Winter 2030 2 47 71 0.19 12 5.00
2031 61 32 49 0.08 5 2
Maximum Daily Emissions 61 47 71 0.19 13 5
South Coast AQMD Regional Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Source: Appendix C3.
Note: Emissions may not total to 100 percent due to rounding.
Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 845
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 57
Impact AQ-2: Construction activities associated with future development that would be accommodated under the Policy Plan Amendment could generate short-term emissions in exceedance of the South Coast AQMD’s threshold criteria.
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 2022 Certified EIR are shown in strikethrough for deleted text and underlined for new, inserted text. The numbering of the mitigation measures has been updated for clarity, with the original mitigation number in the 2022 Certified EIR identified in brackets [Former MM].
Mitigation Measure AIR-1-PPA [Former MM 3-1]: Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Ontario for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts to the City of Ontario Planning Department for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology for assessing air quality impacts. If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD–adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Ontario Building Department shall require feasible mitigation measures to reduce air quality emissions. Potential measures shall be incorporated as conditions of approval for a project and may include:
Require fugitive dust control measures that exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 403, such as:
o Requiring use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion. o Applying water every four 4 hours to active soil disturbing activities. o Tarping and/or maintaining a minimum of 24 inches of freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials.
Using construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 4 interim or higher exhaust emission limits.
Ensuring construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer’s standards.
■
■
■
846
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 58
Limiting nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five 5 consecutive minutes.
Using Super-Compliant VOC paints for coating of architectural surfaces whenever possible. A list of Super-Compliant architectural coating manufactures can be found on the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s website at: http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/brochures/SuperCompliant_AIM.pdf. https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rulescompliance/compliance/vocs/architectural-coatings/super-compliantcoatings.
These identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City’s Planning Department.
New Mitigation Measures
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure AIR-1-PPA is applicable to the proposed project. No additional mitigation measures have been identified.
Specific Plan
Construction of the EBPSP would not result in emissions that would exceed any criteria pollutant threshold established by the South Coast AQMD. No mitigation is necessary.
Significance After Mitigation
Policy Plan Amendment
Buildout in accordance with the proposed project would generate short-term construction emissions that would exceed South Coast AQMD’s regional significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. Mitigation Measure AIR-1-PPA and applicable goals and policies of the proposed project would reduce constructionrelated air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. Construction emissions associated with the proposed project would be similar to the approved project, because the proposed project would result in an increase in land use intensity rather than development of new, previously undeveloped areas of the City that would require substantial landform modification; however, individual projects accommodated under proposed project may exceed the South Coast AQMD regional significance thresholds. Therefore, like the approved project, construction-related regional air quality impacts of developments that would be accommodated by the proposed project would remain significant and unavoidable.
■
■
847
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 59
Policy Plan Amendment Significance with Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable.
OPERATION – REGIONAL EMISSIONS IMPACTS
The 2022 Certified EIR identified that the approved project would generate long-term emissions that would exceed South Coast AQMD’s regional significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations in the SoCAB. Mitigation Measure AIR-2-PPA (former MM 3-2) and Mitigation Measure AIR-3-PPA (former MM AQ-1), in addition to the goals and policies of the approved project, would reduce air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. Due to the increase in ROGs from residential development associated with the approved project, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Policy Plan Amendment
The Policy Plan Amendment guides growth and development in the City by designating allowed land uses by parcel and through implementation of its goals and policies. New development would increase air pollutant emissions in the City and contribute to the overall emissions in the SoCAB. The Policy Plan Amendment sets up the framework for growth and development, but does not directly result in development. Before development can occur, it must be analyzed for conformance with the general plan, zoning requirements, and other applicable local and State requirements; comply with the requirements of CEQA; and obtain all necessary clearances and permits.
Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Forecast
While individual projects accommodated by the proposed project would be required to undergo their own environmental review, as applicable, some development projects may not be subject to CEQA or may result in significant air quality impacts that could contribute to existing or forecast violations of AAQS. Therefore, citywide emissions are evaluated to account for the cumulative, program-level contribution of development across the City that may not be fully captured through project-by-project review.
The emissions inventory for the City under the proposed project and the approved project is shown in Table 3.3-14, City of Ontario Regional Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Forecast. As shown in the table, buildout of the proposed project would generate an increase in long-term emissions that exceeds the daily South Coast AQMD thresholds for ROG and NOX. 848
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 60
Table 3.3-14 City of Ontario Regional Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Forecast Scenario
Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
(pounds per day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Current TOP
Transportation 197 4,401 14,613 96 1,031 381
Energy 154 2,720 1,828 17 213 213
Area - Offroad Equipment 221 2,407 12,425 4 94 85
Area - Consumer Products 4,781
Current TOP Total 5,352 9,528 28,866 117 1,337 679
Policy Plan Amendment
Transportation 203 4,569 15,002 99 1,066 395
Energy 159 2,807 1,877 18 220 220
Area - Offroad Equipment 226 2,412 12,532 4 94 85
Area - Consumer Products 5,144
Policy Plan Amendment Total 5,731 9,789 29,410 120 1,379 699 Net Change from Current TOP
Transportation 6 169 389 3 35 13
Energy 5 88 48 1 7 7
Area - Offroad Equipment 5 5 107 0 0 0
Area - Consumer Products 363
Total Change 379 261 544 4 42 20
South Coast AQMD Regional
Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Significant? YES YES NO NO NO NO
Source: See Appendix C1.
The increase in ROG emissions compared to the approved project is a result of the increase in residential uses, which results in a greater increase in consumer product use. Emissions of ROG that exceed the South Coast AQMD regional significance thresholds would contribute to the ozone (O3) nonattainment designation of the SoCAB. The increase in NOX emissions is a result of higher emissions from mobile sources and energy production within the City. NOX is a precursor to the formation of O3 as well as particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Consequently, the criteria air pollutant emissions that exceed South Coast AQMD’s regional significance thresholds would cumulatively contribute to the O3 and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) nonattainment designations of the SoCAB.
849
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 61
TOP 2050 includes a range of policies that would help reduce operational emissions associated with development projects, as listed below. Land Use (LU) Element policies LU-2.1 through LU-2.4 would promote compatible development patterns and regulate potential impacts from new development on adjacent land uses. Environmental Resources (ER) Element policies ER-3.2 through ER-3.6 would ensure that new development is designed to be energy efficient and to use fuel efficient vehicles. Policies ER-4.1, ER-4.5, ER-4.8, and ER-4.9 would help reduce longterm air pollution from new development by encouraging mixed-use projects to promote nonmotorized mobility, expand tree canopy, and require health risk assessment for land uses that generate high truck traffic. Community Design (CD) Element policy CD-2.7 would ensure that sustainability is considered in the design of new projects to reduce energy demand through solar orientation and other design standards. Mobility (M) Element policies M-1.4, M-1.6, M-2.1, and M-3.1 would reduce VMT by developing trails and corridors that support active transportation, implementing travel demand management strategies, and providing a comprehensive public transit system.
LU-2.1: Land Use Decisions. We minimize adverse impacts on adjacent properties when considering land use and zoning requests.
LU-2.2: Buffers. We require new uses to provide mitigation or buffers between existing uses where potential adverse impacts could occur. Additional mitigation is required when new uses could negatively impact environmental justice areas.
LU2.3: Hazardous Uses. We regulate the development of industrial and similar uses that use, store, produce, or transport toxic substances, air emissions, other pollutants, or hazardous materials.
LU-2.4: Regulation of Nuisances. We regulate the location, concentration, and operation of potential nuisances.
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.
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. ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
850
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 62
CD-2.7: Sustainability. We collaborate with the development community to design and build neighborhoods, streetscapes, sites, outdoor spaces, landscaping, and buildings to reduce energy demand through solar orientation, maximum use of natural daylight, passive solar and natural ventilation, building form, mechanical and structural systems, building materials, and construction techniques.
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.
ER-4.8: Tree Planting. We protect healthy trees within the City and plant new trees to increase carbon sequestration and help the regional/local air quality. We expand the tree canopy in environmental justice areas to enhance air quality and reduce the “heat island” effect.
ER-4.9: New Localized Air Pollution Sources Near Existing Sensitive Receptors. We require new developments to conduct a Health Risk Assessment for land uses that generate more than 100 trucks per day or 40 trucks per day by trucks operating transportation refrigeration units (TRU's) within 1,000 feet from sensitive land uses (California Health and Safety Code § 42705.5(a)(5)). If the health risk assessment determines the new development poses health hazards that increase the incremental cancer risk above the threshold established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD), we will only approve permits upon the condition that adequate mitigation measures are proposed and implemented for potential impacts on the sensitive uses around the site and along the route within Ontario taken by the trucks to and from freeways. We require new developments that must perform a health risk assessment to conduct additional public outreach by sending notifications in multiple languages to all residents living within 500 feet, and encourage hosting a public meeting.
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 ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
851
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 63
safe, comfortable, and accessible and connect residential areas, businesses, schools, parks, and other key destination points.
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.
Despite the applicable TOP 2050 policies, because ROG and NOX emissions would be substantially greater, the proposed project is considered to result in an increase in magnitude of impacts for ROG and NOX compared to the approved project. The increase in ROG emissions would contribute to the ozone nonattainment designation of the SoCAB, and the increase in NOX emissions would contribute to the ozone and particulate matter nonattainment designations of the SoCAB.
The proposed project would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact, as the 2022 Certified EIR already identified long-term operational impacts associated with the approved project as significant and unavoidable. Although the proposed project may result in higher ROG and NOX emissions compared to the approved project, this would not constitute a new or substantially more severe significant impact. Like the approved project, the proposed project would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB and operation-related regional air quality impacts of developments that would be accommodated by the proposed project would be potentially significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Potentially significant.
Specific Plan
Operational activities associated with the Specific Plan would result in emissions of ROGs, NOX, SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Operational emissions are expected from the following primary sources:
Mobile Source Emissions;
Area Source Emissions;
Energy Source Emissions;
Stationary Source Emissions; and
Cargo Handling Source Emissions.
Estimated peak operational emissions for all phases are summarized in Table 3.3-15, EBPSP Peak Operational Emissions Summary: Phase 1; Table 3.3-16, EBPSP Peak Operational Emissions Summary: Phases 1 and 2; and Table 3.3-17, EBPSP Peak Operational Emissions Summary:
Phases 1, 2, and 3. As shown in these tables, Phase 1 emissions would exceed the numerical thresholds of significance established by the South Coast AQMD for emissions of ROG (summer only) and NOx. Phase 1 and 2 emissions would exceed the South Coast AQMD significance ■
■
■
■
■
■
852
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 64
thresholds for emissions of ROG, NOx, and CO (summer only). At buildout, the EBPSP’s operational emissions would exceed the applicable South Coast AQMD significance thresholds for emissions of ROG, NOx, CO, and PM10. This would be a potentially significant impact. Longterm operational impacts associated with the approved project were identified as significant and unavoidable in the 2022 Certified EIR. Therefore, the EBPSP would not result in a new or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the 2022 Certified EIR.
Table 3.3-15 EBPSP Peak Operational Emissions Summary: Phase 1 Source
Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Summer Mobile 12 80 175 1 60 16
Area 42 1 77 0 0.14 0.10
Stationary 1 2 2 0 0.11 0.11
Cargo Handling Equipment 1 2 82 0 0.15 0.14
Maximum Daily Emissions 55 84 335 1 60 17
South Coast AQMDRegional Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? YES YES NO NO NO NO
Winter Mobile 11 84 148 1 60 16
Area 29 0 0 0 0 0
Stationary 1 2 2 0 0.11 0.11
Cargo Handling Equipment 1 2 82 0 0.15 0.14
Maximum Daily Emissions 42 88 232 1 60 17
South Coast AQMDRegional Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? NO YES NO NO NO NO
Source: Appendix C3.
Note: Emissions may not total to 100 percent due to rounding. 853
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 65
Table 3.3-16 EBPSP Peak Operational Emissions Summary: Phases 1 and 2 Source
Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Summer Mobile 31 154 394 2 133 36
Area 73 1 102 0.01 0.18 0.14
Stationary 1 4 4 0.01 0.21 0.21
Cargo Handling Equipment 1 3 148 0 0.26 0.24
Maximum Daily Emissions 107 162 648 2 134 37
South Coast AQMD Regional Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? YES YES YES NO NO NO
Winter Mobile 30 162 335 2 133 36
Area 57 0 0 0 0 0
Stationary 1 4 4 0.01 0.21 0.21
Cargo Handling Equipment 1 3 148 0 0.26 0.24
Maximum Daily Emissions 89 169 487 2 134 37
South Coast AQMD Regional Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? YES YES NO NO NO NO
Source: Appendix C3.
Note: Emissions may not total to 100 percent due to rounding.
Table 3.3-17 EBPSP Peak Operational Emissions Summary: Phases 1, 2, and 3 Source
Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Summer Mobile 34.57 186.25 448.56 2.50 168.99 45.93
Area 91.72 1.08 127.82 0.01 0.23 0.17
Stationary 1.80 5.05 4.60 0.01 0.27 0.27
Cargo Handling Equipment 1.27 4.09 178.00 0.00 0.32 0.30 Maximum Daily Emissions 129.36 196.45 758.99 2.52 169.81 46.66 South Coast AQMD Regional Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? YES YES YES NO YES NO
Winter Mobile 32.95 195.55 380.69 2.43 168.99 45.93
854
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 66
Table 3.3-17 EBPSP Peak Operational Emissions Summary: Phases 1, 2, and 3 Source
Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10T PM2.5T
Area 70.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Stationary 1.80 5.05 4.60 0.01 0.27 0.27
Cargo Handling Equipment 1.27 4.09 178.00 0.00 0.32 0.30 Maximum Daily Emissions 106.74 204.68 563.29 2.44 169.58 46.49 South Coast AQMD Regional Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? YES YES YES NO YES NO
Source: Appendix C3.
Note: Emissions may not total to 100 percent due to rounding.
Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Potentially significant.
Impact AQ-3: Implementation of the proposed project would generate additional, long-term emissions in exceedance of South Coast AQMD’s threshold criteria and cumulatively contribute to the South Coast Air Basin’s nonattainment designations.
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 2022 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 2022 Certified EIR identified in brackets [Former MM].
Mitigation Measure AIR-2-PPA [Former MM 3-2]: The City of Ontario shall evaluate new development proposals within the City and require all developments to include access or linkages to alternative modes of transportation, such as transit stops, bike paths, and/or pedestrian paths (e.g. sidewalks).
Mitigation Measure AIR-3-PPA [Former MM AQ-1]: Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Ontario for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operation-phase-related air quality impacts to the City of Ontario Planning Department for review and approval. The 855
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 67
evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If operationrelated air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD–adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Ontario Planning Department shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions could include, but are not limited to the following:
For site-specific development that requires refrigerated vehicles, the construction documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical service connections at loading docks for plug-in of the anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce idling time and emissions.
Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy storage and combined heat and power in appropriate applications to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use.
Site-specific developments with truck delivery and loading areas and truck parking spaces shall include signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles while parked for loading/unloading in accordance with California Air Resources Board Rule 2845 (13 CCR Chapter 10 sec. 2485).
Provide changing/shower facilities as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures).
Provide bicycle parking facilities per Section A4.106.9 of CALGreen (Residential Voluntary Measures).
Provide preferential parking spaces for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles per Section A5.106.5.1 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures).
Provide facilities to support electric charging stations per Section A5.106.5.3 and Section A5.106.8.2 A4.106.8 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures; Residential Voluntary Measures).
Applicant-provided appliances shall be Energy Star–certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency (e.g., dishwashers, refrigerators, ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
856
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 68
clothes washers, and dryers). Installation of Energy Star–certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified by the City during plan check.
New Mitigation Measures
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure AIR-2-PPA and AIR-3-PPA are applicable to the proposed project. At the programmatic level, this analysis relies on broad development assumptions rather than sitespecific design details. All feasible mitigation measures applicable at this stage, such as compliance with federal, state, and local air quality regulations, have already been incorporated.
Additional reductions in long-term operational emissions would depend on future projectspecific designs that are not yet known and therefore cannot be feasibly imposed programmatically. Accordingly, no additional feasible mitigation measures have been identified.
Specific Plan
Implementation of the following Mitigation Measures would be required for Specific Plan:
Mitigation Measure AIR-1-SP: To facilitate the future installation of infrastructure that would charge the batteries that power the motors of electric-powered trucks, the following shall be installed: 1) prior to the shell building permit approval, an electrical room(s) and/or exterior area(s) of the site shall be designated where future electrical panels would be located for the purpose of supplying power to on-site charging facilities for electric powered trucks. Conduit shall be installed from this designated area where the panel would be located to the onsite location where the charging facilities would be located and where electric-powered trucks would park and connect to charging facilities to charge the batteries that power the motors of the electric-powered trucks; 2) prior to issuance of a building permit for tenant improvements, tenants that plan to operate electric trucks would be required to construct electrical charging infrastructure in addition to the required conduits.
Mitigation Measure AIR-2-SP: In order to promote alternative fuels, and help support “clean” truck fleets, the developer/successor-in-interest shall provide building occupants with information related to South Coast AQMD’s Carl Moyer Program, or other such programs that promote truck retrofits or “clean” vehicles and information including, but not limited to, the health effect of diesel particulates, benefits of reduced idling time, and CARB regulations. Tenants shall be notified about the availability of: 1) alternatively fueled cargo handling equipment; 2) grant programs for diesel-fueled vehicle engine retrofit and/or replacement; 3) access to alternative fueling stations proximate to the 857
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 69
site that supply compressed natural gas; and 4) the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s SmartWay program.
Mitigation Measure AIR-3-SP: Idling Regulations. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, legible, durable, weather-proof signs shall be installed at truck access gates, loading docks, and truck parking areas that identify applicable California Air Resources Board (CARB) anti-idling regulations. At a minimum, each sign shall include the following instructions for truck drivers to shut off engines when not in use. a) Instructions for drivers of diesel trucks to restrict idling to no more than 5 minutes once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to “neutral” or “park” and the parking brake is engaged.
b) Telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and CARB to report violations.
Mitigation Measure AIR-4-SP: All future operations shall adhere to the following:
a) Sites shall clearly mark entry and exit points for trucks and service vehicles. b) Facility operators shall maintain records of their fleet equipment owned by the facility and ensure that all diesel-fueled Medium-Heavy Duty Trucks (MHDT) and Heavy-Heavy Duty Trucks (HHDT) use year CARB 2010 or newer engines. The records should be maintained on-site and be made available for inspection by the lead agency.
c) Facility operators shall train their managers and employees on efficient scheduling and load management to eliminate unnecessary queuing and idling of trucks. d) Signs should be posted in the appropriate locations and/or handouts should be provided that show the locations of nearest food options, fueling, truck maintenance services, and other similar convenience services.
e) Each Facility shall designate a Compliance Officer responsible for implementing the measures described herein and/or in the project conditions of approval and mitigation measures. Contact information shall be provided to the City and updated annually, and signs shall be posted in visible locations providing the contact information for the Compliance Officer to the surrounding community. The Compliance Officer also shall coordinate with CARB and South Coast AQMD to obtain the latest information about regional air quality concentrations, health risks, and trucking regulations.
858
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 70
f) Signs shall be posted in the appropriate locations heavy truck drivers to park and perform any self-maintenance of trucks in designated on-site areas and not within the surrounding community or on public streets.
g) Development plans and specifications shall include signs at every truck exit driveway providing directional information to the truck route.
Mitigation Measure AIR-5-SP: Electric Vehicle Charging and Future Truck Charging Capability. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following features shall be demonstrated on the EBPSP’s building plans to the extent feasible over minimum California Code of Regulations Title 24 requirements. Installation shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
a) For use by employees and visitors conducting business at the building, install automobile electric vehicle (EV) charging stations at the minimum number required by the California Code of Regulations Title 24. All charging stations shall be equipped with Level 2 or faster chargers. Signs shall be posted indicating that the charging stations are for exclusive use by the building’s employees and by visitors conducting business at the building.
b) Install appropriate electrical infrastructure sufficiently sized to accommodate the potential installation of additional auto and truck EV charging stations in the future. c) Install raceways for conduit to tractor trailer parking areas in logical, gated locations determined by the Applicant during construction document plan check, for the purpose of accommodating the future installation of EV truck charging stations at such time this technology becomes commercially available. The charging station location(s) are to be located inside the gated and secured truck courts.
Mitigation Measure AIR-6-SP: Water Efficient Fixtures. All water fixtures shall be water efficient (toilets/urinals (1.5 gallons per minute [gpm] or less), showerheads (2.0 gpm or less), and faucets (1.28 gpm or less)).
Mitigation Measure AIR-7-SP: City Review of Construction Documents. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following features shall be demonstrated on building and landscape plans to the extent feasible. Installation shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
a) Install Energy Star-rated heating, cooling, lighting, and appliances b) Structures shall be equipped with outdoor electric outlets in the front and rear to facilitate use of electrical lawn and garden equipment. 859
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 71
c) Install rooftop solar energy systems which generate enough electricity to meet 45% of the annual warehouse electricity demand.
Mitigation Measure AIR-8-SP: Tenant Lease Agreement. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the following language shall be included within tenant lease agreements in order to reduce operational air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible:
a) Information about energy efficiency, energy-efficient lighting and lighting control systems, energy management, and existing energy incentive programs. b) Information about funding opportunities, such as the Carl Moyer Program, that provide incentives for using cleaner-than-required engines and equipment. c) Requirements to use the cleanest technologies available and to provide the necessary infrastructure to support zero-emission vehicles, equipment, and appliances that would be operating on site at such time this technology becomes commercially available. This requirement shall apply to equipment such as forklifts, handheld landscaping equipment, yard trucks, office appliances, etc. d) Requirements to exclusively use zero-emission light and medium-duty delivery trucks and vans, when economically feasible.
e) Requirements to operate in compliance with, and to monitor compliance with, all current and applicable air quality regulations for on-road trucks including the California Air Resources Board’s Heavy-Duty (Tractor-Trailer) Greenhouse Gas Regulation, Periodic Smoke Inspection Program, and the Statewide Truck and Bus Regulation.
f) Requirements and identification of the responsible party to maintain, replace, and upgrade rooftop solar panels per the manufacturer’s recommendations for the life of the lease. The EBPSP would comply with existing solar requirements per the California Energy Code in effect during permitting (at the time of Construction Drawing Plan Check Submittal). In the case that the tenant requires additional solar capacity, this shall be addressed during the tenant improvement process. The EBPSP would be required to meet the CCR Title 24 energy efficiency standards in effect at the time building permit applications are submitted.
g) Requirements and identification of the responsible party to maintain, replace, and repair the legible, durable, weather-proof signs that were installed at initial building occupancy placed at truck access gates, loading docks, and truck parking areas that identify applicable CARB anti-idling regulations.
860
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 72
h) The tenant agreement shall include notification that the tenant shall comply with CARB Truck and Bus regulation, including requirements that only haul trucks meeting model year 2010 engine emission standards shall be used for the on-road transport of materials to and from the site.
i) Requirements for the building owner to provide a Green Cleaning Products and Paint Education Program available to the building tenant, to keep at the building’s office, break room, leasing space, or on an accessible website.
Significance After Mitigation
Policy Plan Amendment
Buildout in accordance with the proposed project would generate long-term emissions that would exceed South Coast AQMD’s regional significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. Mitigation Measure AIR-2-PPA and AIR-3-PPA, in addition to the goals and policies of the Policy Plan Amendment, would reduce air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. Impact AQ-3 would remain significant and unavoidable due to the increase in ROGs and NOX emissions from development associated with the proposed project compared to that of the approved project.
Health Impacts
Contributing to the nonattainment status would also contribute to elevating health effects associated to these criteria air pollutants. Known health effects related to ozone include worsening of bronchitis, asthma, and emphysema and a decrease in lung function. Health effects associated with particulate matter include premature death of people with heart or lung disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, decreased lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms. Reducing emissions would further contribute to reducing possible health effects related to criteria air pollutants.
It is speculative for this broad-based policy plan to determine how exceeding the regional thresholds would affect the number of days the region is in nonattainment since mass emissions are not correlated with concentrations of emissions, or how many additional individuals in the air basin would be affected by the health effects cited above. This SEIR quantifies the increase in criteria air pollutants emissions in the City; however, at a programmatic level analysis, it is not feasible to quantify the increase in TACs from stationary sources associated with the proposed project or meaningfully correlate how regional criteria air pollutant emissions above the South Coast AQMD significance thresholds correlate with basin wide health impacts.
To determine cancer and noncancer health risk, the location, velocity of emissions, meteorology and topography of the area, and locations of receptors are equally important as model parameters as the quantity of TAC emissions. The white paper in Appendix C1 “We Can Model 861
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 73
Regional Emissions, But Are the Results Meaningful for CEQA” describes several of the challenges of quantifying local effects—particularly health risks—for large-scale, regional projects, and these are applicable to both criteria air pollutants and TACs. Similarly, the 2 amicus briefs filed by the air districts on the Friant Ranch case (see Appendix C1) describe 2 positions regarding CEQA requirements, modeling feasibility, variables, and reliability of results for determining specific health risks associated with criteria air pollutants. The discussions also include the distinction between criteria air pollutant emissions and TACs with respect to health risks. Additionally, the South Coast AQMD’s Significance Thresholds and Monitoring demonstrate the infeasibility based on the current guidance/methodologies. The following summarizes major points about the infeasibility of assessing health risks of criteria air pollutant emissions and TACs associated with implementation of a general plan.
To achieve and maintain air quality standards, the South Coast AQMD has established numerical emission indicators of significance for regional and localized air quality impacts for both construction and operational phases of a local plan or project. The South Coast AQMD has established the thresholds based on “scientific and factual data that is contained in the federal and state Clean Air Acts” and recommends “that these thresholds be used by lead agencies in making a determination of significance.” The numerical emission indicators are based on the recognition that the air basin is a distinct geographic area with a critical air pollution problem for which ambient air quality standards have been promulgated to protect public health. The thresholds represent the maximum emissions from a plan or project that are expected not to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable national or state ambient air quality standard. By analyzing the plan’s emissions against the thresholds, an EIR assesses whether these emissions directly contribute to any regional or local exceedances of the applicable ambient air quality standards and exposure levels.
South Coast AQMD currently does not have methodologies that would provide the City with a consistent, reliable, and meaningful analysis to correlate specific health impacts that may result from a proposed project’s mass emissions.16 For criteria air pollutants, exceedance of the regional significance thresholds cannot be used to correlate a project to quantifiable health 16 In April 2019, the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) published an Interim Recommendation on implementing Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502 (“Friant Ranch”) in the review and analysis of proposed projects under CEQA in Sacramento County. Consistent with the expert opinions submitted to the court in Friant Ranch by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) and South Coast AQMD, the SMAQMD guidance confirms the absence of an acceptable or reliable quantitative methodology that would correlate the expected criteria air pollutant emissions of projects to likely health consequences for people from project-generated criteria air pollutant emissions. The SMAQMD guidance explains that while it is in the process of developing a methodology to assess these impacts, lead agencies should follow the Friant Court’s advice to explain in meaningful detail why this analysis is not yet feasible. Since this interim memorandum SMAQMD has provided methodology to address health impacts. However, a similar analysis is not available for projects within the South Coast AQMD region. 862
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 74
impacts unless emissions are sufficiently high to use a regional model. South Coast AQMD has not provided methodology to assess the specific correlation between mass emissions generated and their effect on health (see Appendix C1: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s amicus brief, and South Coast AQMD’s amicus brief).
Ozone concentrations depend on a variety of complex factors, including the presence of sunlight and precursor pollutants, natural topography, nearby structures that cause building downwash, atmospheric stability, and wind patterns. Secondary formation of particulate matter and ozone can occur far from sources as a result of regional transport due to wind and topography (e.g., low-level jet stream). Photochemical modeling depends on all emission sources in the entire domain (i.e., modeling grid). Low resolution and spatial averaging produce “noise” and modeling errors that usually exceed individual source contributions. Because of the complexities of predicting ground-level ozone concentrations in relation to the National and California AAQS, it is not possible to link health risks to the magnitude of emissions exceeding the significance thresholds.
Current models used in CEQA air quality analyses are designed to estimate potential project construction and operation emissions for defined projects. The estimated emissions are compared to significance thresholds, which are keyed to reducing emissions to levels that will not interfere with the region’s ability to attain the health-based standards. This serves to protect public health in the overall region, but there is currently no CEQA methodology to determine the impact of emissions (e.g., pounds per day) on future concentration levels (e.g., parts per million or micrograms per cubic meter) in specific geographic areas. CEQA thresholds, therefore, are not specifically tied to potential health outcomes in the region.
The SEIR must provide an analysis that is understandable for decision making and public disclosure. Regional-scale modeling may provide a technical method for this type of analysis, but it does not necessarily provide a meaningful way to connect the magnitude of a project’s criteria pollutant emissions to health effects without speculation. Additionally, this type of analysis is not feasible at a general plan level because the location of emissions sources and quantity of emissions are not known. Because cumulative development within the City would exceed the regional significance thresholds, the proposed project could contribute to an increase in health effects in the basin until the attainment standards are met in the SoCAB.
Policy Plan Amendment Significance with Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable.
Specific Plan
Although Mitigation Measures AIR-1-SP through AIR-8-SP are designed to reduce operationalsource criteria pollutant emissions of the EBPSP, there is no way to meaningfully quantify these reductions in CalEEMod, and therefore no numeric emissions credit has been taken in the 863
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 75
analysis. Therefore, even with application of these measures, EBPSP operational-source emissions impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. Specific Plan Significance with Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable. c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
CONSTRUCTION – LOCALIZED EMISSIONS IMPACTS
The 2022 Certified EIR identified that, due to the scale of development activity associated under the approved project, the short-term emissions could exceed the South Coast AQMD localized significance thresholds.
Policy Plan Amendment
Construction-Phase Localized Significance Thresholds
Buildout of the proposed project would occur over the buildout horizon of the plan via several smaller projects, each with its own construction time frame and equipment. Because a localized emissions analysis can only be conducted at the individual project-level, quantification of localized impacts is not applicable for a program-level environmental analysis. As potential development and redevelopment could occur close to existing sensitive receptors, future development projects that would be accommodated by the proposed project have the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Consequently, like the approved project, construction equipment exhaust (including DPM) combined with fugitive particulate matter emissions has the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of criteria air pollutant emissions and result in potentially significant impacts.
Construction-Phase Toxic Air Contaminants
The allowed development under the proposed project could elevate concentrations of TACs (i.e., DPM)in the vicinity of sensitive land uses during temporary construction activities that would use off-road equipment on-site, operating at different levels depending on the type of activity (e.g., during grading activities). Because potential development and redevelopment could occur close to existing sensitive receptors, future development projects that would be accommodated by the proposed project have the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial TAC concentrations. Consequently, like the approved project, construction equipment exhaust (including DPM) combined with fugitive particulate matter emissions has the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of TAC emissions and result in potentially significant impacts.
864
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 76
Summary
Construction-related criteria air pollutants and TACs from individual development projects within the City have the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of air pollutants. This is a potentially significant impact. 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.
Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Potentially significant.
Specific Plan
LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable National AAQS and California AAQS at the nearest residence or sensitive receptor. Receptor locations are off-site locations where individuals may be exposed to emissions from project activities. Receptors in the EBPSP study area are described below and illustrated in Figure 3.3-6, EBPSP Sensitive Receptor Locations. Location R1 represents the existing residence at 7697 Edison Avenue, approximately 668 feet north of the EBPSP site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the site, receptor point R1 in the model is placed at the building’s façade.
Location R2 represents the existing residence at 14213 Bon View Avenue, approximately 89 feet north of the EBPSP site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the site, receptor point R2 in the model is placed at the building’s façade.
Location R3 represents the existing residence at 14117 Grove Avenue, approximately 900 feet north of the EBPSP site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the site, receptor point R3 in the model is placed at the building’s façade.
Location R4 represents the existing residence at 8377 Edison Avenue, approximately 639 feet north of the EBPSP site. Receptor point R4 in the model is placed in the private outdoor living area (backyard) facing the site.
Location R5 represents the existing residence at 14303 Walker Avenue, approximately 109 feet east of the EBPSP site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the site, receptor point R5 in the model is placed at the building’s façade.
Location R6 represents the Ontario Fire Station 11 located at 7721 Eucalyptus Avenue, approximately 166 feet south of the EBPSP site. R6 is placed at the nearest building façade facing the site.
Location R7 represents the existing residence at 7566 Eucalyptus Avenue, approximately 164 feet south of the EBPSP site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the site, receptor point R7 in the model is placed at the building’s façade. ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
865
WALKER AVE
E EUCALYPTUS AVE CAMPUS AVE EUCLID AVE SULTANA AVE BON VIEW AVE CUCAMONGA AVE GROVE AVE COMET AVE Site
3.3 AIR QUALITY
Figure 3.3-6
EBPSP Sensitive Receptor
Locations
I" ' 1 Site Boundary
-·
□ EBPSP Boundary
0 Receptor Locations
-• Distance from Receptor to Project Site Boundary
(in feet)
2· 0·5· 0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
o~FT
0 300 1,000
Source: Urban Crossroads 2025 Date, 01/16/2026 866
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 78
This page intentionally left blank.
867
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 79
Location R8 represents the existing residence at 7511 Eucalyptus Avenue, approximately 105 feet west of the EBPSP site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the site, receptor point R8 in the model is placed at the building’s façade.
Location R9 represents the Crosspoint Children’s Center at 6950 Edison Avenue, approximately 3,442 feet northwest of the EBPSP site. Receptor point R9 in the model is placed at the nearest building façade facing the site.
Construction-Phase Localized Significance Thresholds
Based on South Coast AQMD’s LST Methodology, emissions of concern during construction activities include NOX, CO, PM2.5, and PM10. Table 3.3-18, EBPSP Construction Source LST Summary: Phase 1; Table 3.3-19, EBPSP Construction Source LST Summary: Phase 2; and Table 3.3-20, EBPSP Construction Source LST Summary: Buildout, present the constructionsource localized emissions that can be expected during each construction phase of the Specific Plan. As shown in these tables, emissions for all construction phases would not exceed South Coast AQMD’s localized significance thresholds at the maximally exposed receptors as a result of construction activities.
Table 3.3-18 EBPSP Construction-Source LST Summary: Phase 1 Phase 1 Construction
CO NO2 PM10 PM2.5 Averaging Time
1-Hour 8-Hours 1-Hour 24-Hours 24-Hours
Peak Day Localized Emissions 0.03 0.01 1.05E-02 0.84 0.41 Background Concentration 1.5 1.1 0.085 — —
Total Concentration 1.53 1.11 0.10 0.84 0.41
South Coast AQMD Threshold 20 9 0.18 10.40 10.40
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO
Source: Appendix C4.
■
■
I
868
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 80
Table 3.3-19 EBPSP Construction-Source LST Summary: Phase 2 Phase 2 Construction
CO NO2 PM10 PM2.5 Averaging Time
1-Hour 8-Hours 1-Hour 24-Hours 24-Hours
Peak Day Localized Emissions 0.04 0.01 1.40E-02 1.01 0.49 Background Concentration 1.5 1.1 0.085 — —
Total Concentration 1.54 1.11 0.10 1.01 0.49
South Coast AQMD Threshold 20 9 0.18 10.40 10.40
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO
Source: Appendix C4.
Table 3.3-20 EBPSP Construction-Source LST Summary: Buildout Phase 3 Construction
CO NO2 PM10 PM2.5 Averaging Time
1-Hour 8-Hours 1-Hour 24-Hours 24-Hours
Peak Day Localized Emissions 0.08 0.03 2.69E-02 1.59 0.77 Background Concentration 1.5 1.1 0.085 — —
Total Concentration 1.58 1.13 0.11 1.59 0.77
South Coast AQMD Threshold 20 9 0.18 10.40 10.40
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO
Source: Appendix C4.
Construction-Phase Toxic Air Contaminants
Construction-related DPM emissions are expected primarily as a function of the operation of heavy-duty construction equipment. Potential health risks to residents, workers, and school children were evaluated over a period of 30, 25, and 9 years of exposure, as discussed below.
Table 3.3-21, Summary of EBPSP Construction Health Risks, presents a summary of the previous discussions of EBPSP construction health risks.
I
I
869
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 81
Table 3.3-21 Summary of EBPSP Construction Health Risks Maximum Exposed
Location
Receptor
Location
Time Period
(Year)
Maximum
Lifetime
Cancer Risk1
Significance
Threshold1
Exceeds
Significance
Threshold?
Cancer Risk
Sensitive Receptor R5 4.50 1.39 10 NO
Worker Receptor R6 4.50 0.04 10 NO
Individual School Child R9 4.50 <0.01 10 NO
Maximum Exposed
Location
Receptor
Location Time Period
Maximum
Hazard
Index
Significance
Threshold
Exceeds
Significance
Threshold?
Non-Cancer Risk
Sensitive Receptor R5
Annual
Average <0.01 1 NO
Worker Receptor R6
Annual
Average <0.01 1 NO
Individual School Child R9 Annual
Average <0.01 1 NO
Source: Appendix C4.
1. risk per million
Residential Exposure Scenario
The location with the greatest potential exposure to construction-source DPM emissions is Location R5, approximately 109 feet east of the EBPSP site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the site, R5 is placed at the building façade facing the site. For the maximally exposed individual receptor (MEIR), the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to EBPSP construction-source DPM emissions is estimated at 1.39 in one million, which is less than the significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, nonof 1.0. Although Location R5 is not the nearest receptor to the EBPSP site, it would experience the highest concentrations of DPM during construction due to its location and meteorological conditions. Because all other modeled receptors would experience lower concentrations of DPM during construction, all other receptors in the vicinity of the EBPSP would be exposed to less emissions and therefore less risk than the MEIR identified. Therefore, the EBPSP would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent land uses as a result of construction activity.
Worker Exposure Scenario
The worker receptor land use with the greatest potential exposure to EBPSP constructionsource DPM emissions is Location R6, which represents the potential worker receptor cancer risks were estimated to be S0.01, which would not exceed the applicable threshold 870
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 82
approximately 166 feet south of the site. The maximally exposed individual worker (MEIW) is the worker receptor location that would experience the highest modeled concentrations of DPM, and thus the highest risk. For the MEIW, the maximum incremental cancer risk impact is calculated to be 0.04 in one million, which is less than the South Coast AQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million. Maximum non- , which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. Because all other modeled worker receptors would be exposed to lower concentrations of DPM, all other worker receptors in the vicinity of the EBPSP would be exposed to less emissions and therefore less risk than the MEIW identified. Therefore, construction would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent workers.
School Child Exposure Scenario
The nearest school and location of the maximally exposed individual school child (MEISC) is Crosspoint Children’s Center, approximately 3,442 feet northwest of the EBPSP site and represented by Location R9. For the MEISC, the maximum incremental cancer risk impact significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks attributable to the EBPSP ot exceed the applicable significance
threshold of 1.0. Because all other modeled school receptors would be exposed to lower concentrations of DPM, all other school receptors in the vicinity of the EBPSP would be exposed to less emissions and therefore less risk than the MEISC identified.
Summary
Based on the preceding, the potential for construction of the Specific Plan to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations 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. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact AQ-4: Construction activities associated with the Policy Plan Amendment could expose sensitive receptors to substantial air pollutant concentrations.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
Mitigation Measure AIR-1-PPA, identified above, is applicable to the proposed project and would help reduce localized construction impacts.
cancer risks at this same location were estimated to be S0.01 attributable to construction is calculated to be S0.01 in one million, which is less than the were calculated to be S0.01, which would n
871
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 83
New Mitigation Measures
Policy Plan Amendment
No additional mitigation measures have been identified.
Specific Plan
Construction of the EBPSP would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. No mitigation is necessary.
Significance After Mitigation
Policy Plan Amendment
Construction activities associated with the proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of criteria air pollutants and TACs. Mitigation Measure AIR-1-PPA would require that future development projects incorporate measures to reduce construction emissions that would minimize exposure of sensitive receptors to elevated concentrations of criteria air pollutant emissions and TACs. Additionally, review of development projects by South Coast AQMD for permitted sources of air toxics (e.g., industrial facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities) would ensure that health risks are minimized. Individual development projects would be required to achieve the incremental risk thresholds established by South Coast AQMD, and TACs would be less than significant.
Because existing sensitive receptors may be close to project-related construction activities and due to the programmatic nature of the proposed project, construction emissions generated by individual development projects have the potential to exceed SCAQMD’s LSTs and contribute to higher levels of cancer risk in the SoCAB. Consequently, Impact AQ-4 would remain significant and unavoidable. Policy Plan Amendment Significance with Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable.
OPERATION – LOCALIZED EMISSIONS IMPACTS
The 2022 Certified EIR identified that the approved project would not generate a CO hotspot and TAC emissions from permitted stationary sources would be less than significant. However, operation of warehouse and industrial land uses associated with buildout of the approved project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial TAC emissions and result in cumulative health risk impacts. Cumulative health risk was identified as a significant unavoidable impact in the 2022 Certified EIR.
872
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 84
Policy Plan Amendment
CO Hotspots
Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called hotspots. In 2007, the SoCAB was designated in attainment for CO under both the California AAQS and National AAQS. The CO hotspot analysis conducted for the attainment by South Coast AQMD did not predict a violation of CO standards at the busiest intersections in Los Angeles during the peak morning and afternoon periods.17 As identified in South Coast AQMD's 2003 AQMP and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan), peak carbon monoxide concentrations in the SoCAB in previous years, prior to redesignation, were a result of unusual meteorological and topographical conditions and not of congestion at a particular intersection (South Coast AQMD 1992; South Coast AQMD 2003a).
A project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix—in order to generate a significant CO impact (Bay Area Air District 2023). Implementation of the proposed project under horizon year conditions would not result in hourly traffic increases of this magnitude. This net increase would be below the screening criteria. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hotspot, and CO hotspots impacts would be less than significant.
Permitted Stationary Sources
Various industrial and commercial processes (e.g., manufacturing, dry cleaning) allowed under the proposed land use plan would be expected to release TACs. Industrial land uses, such as chemical processing facilities, chrome-plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline-dispensing facilities, have the potential to be substantial stationary sources that would require a permit from South Coast AQMD. Emissions of TACs would be controlled by South Coast AQMD through permitting and would be subject to further study and health risk assessment prior to the issuance of any necessary air quality permits under South Coast AQMD Rule 1401, which would ensure less than significant impacts. Although implementation of the proposed project may result in projects that emit TACs throughout the City, the incremental impact of the proposed project would be the same as that of the approved project. 17 The four intersections were: Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway; Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue; Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue; and La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard. The busiest intersection evaluated (Wilshire and Veteran) had a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day with LOS E in the morning peak hour and LOS F in the evening peak hour. 873
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 85
Non-permitted Sources (Warehousing and Industrial Land Uses) Warehousing or industrial operations generate substantial DPM emissions from off-road equipment use, truck idling, and/or use of transport refrigeration units for cold storage, which are area or mobile sources that are not directly regulated by South Coast AQMD. The proposed land use plan could result in a net increase of 6,370,304 square feet of industrial land use.
Though stationary sources associated with the proposed project would be required to comply with South Coast AQMD Rule 1401, truck idling does not fall under the purview of the air district.
New warehousing or industrial land uses in the City under the proposed project that use trucks, including trucks with TRUs, could generate an increase in DPM that would contribute to cancer and noncancer health risk in the SoCAB. These types of facilities could also generate particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) that could cause an exceedance or contribute to the continuing exceedance of the federal and state AAQS. These new land uses could be near existing sensitive receptors. In addition, trucks would travel on regional transportation routes through the SoCAB, contributing to near-roadway diesel particulate matter concentrations.
Implementation of the following TOP 2050 policy would reduce project-level localized impacts from industrial development:
ER-4.9: New Localized Air Pollution Sources Near Existing Sensitive Receptors. We require new developments to conduct a Health Risk Assessment for land uses that generate more than 100 trucks per day or 40 trucks per day by trucks operating transportation refrigeration units (TRU's) within 1,000 feet from sensitive land use (California Health and Safety Code Section 42505.5(a)(5)). If the health risk assessment determines the new development poses health hazards that increase the incremental cancer risk above the threshold established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD), we will only approve permits upon the condition that adequate mitigation measures are proposed and implemented for potential impacts on the sensitive uses around the site and along the route within Ontario taken by the trucks to and from freeways. We require new developments that must perform a health risk assessment to conduct additional public outreach by sending notifications in multiple languages to all residents living within 500 feet, and encourage hosting a public meeting.
Though individual projects would be required to have less than significant impacts, cumulative development in the City would result in an increase in DPM concentrations and could increase the environmental burden on sensitive populations, including environmental justice communities, in the SoCAB. Regional emissions are divided into 2 major source categories:
stationary/area and mobile sources.
■
874
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 86
Stationary and Area Sources of TACs
Similar to the approved project, the proposed project provides a land use plan that designates land uses for employment-generating uses, including Business Park and Industrial. The Business Park and Industrial land use categories cover a wide variety of potential uses. As a long-range planning document, the Policy Plan Amendment lacks sufficient detail on specific development projects that would potentially be developed in the future; therefore, it is not possible to determine what types of TACs would be generated on an individual site. Because the exact nature of the future industrial uses is not known, the quantity of TACs generated by the Policy Plan Amendment is also unknown. Furthermore, for warehouse development projects, cancer risk is predominately associated with diesel-powered cargo handling equipment rather than onsite truck idling. There is insufficient information available at this level of analysis to conduct a reasonable or scientifically valid analysis of DPM associated with on-site diesel-powered cargo handling equipment and trucks or other sources of TACs. Thus, for programmatic, general-planlevel assessments, it is not feasible to conduct regional dispersion modeling to determine the incremental contribution of risks associated with land use changes. Specific development projects in the City that have the potential to generate potentially significant risks associated with the release of TACs are required to undergo an analysis of their potential health risks associated with TACs based upon the specific details of each individual project (see Policy ER-4.9). Overall, because there are no specific development projects identified or approved under the Policy Plan Amendment and the location and exact nature of future development projects are unknown, determining health risk at this time is considered speculative pursuant to Section 15145 of the CEQA Guidelines. Health risk impacts from development of industrial and commercial land uses are considered a potentially significant cumulative impact.
Mobile Sources of TACs
The proposed project would also result in changes to the truck routes map to address the requirements of AB 98 (see Figure 2-8, Current Truck Routes, and Figure 2-9, Proposed Truck Routes, in Chapter 2, Project Description). The intent of AB 98 is to improve community health and the environment by strategizing how and where heavy-duty trucks travel to and from logistics and warehousing facilities. The primary direction of state law is to prioritize routes that maximize the use of freeways or state highways followed by larger local roads (arterial and collector roadways). Changes to the City’s truck routes are to avoid, when possible, routing trucks through residential areas and near concentrations of other sensitive uses (such as schools, hospitals, and parks).
As part of this SEIR, an operational HRA was conducted to evaluate impacts of changes to the City’s truck routes in Ontario Ranch in accordance with AB 98 compared to the current TOP. The results of the operational HRA are in Appendix C2 of this SEIR. As previously discussed, a twotier modeling approach was utilized in the HRA. 875
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 87
Coarse Modeling Results (600-meter spacing). The first tier of modeling results identify where the greatest DPM pollutant concentration changes occur as a result of changes to the City’s truck routes. Based on the coarse modeling results with receptors at 600 meter spacing, as shown in Figure 3.3-7, Truck Route Net Increase in DPM Concentrations: Coarse Results, the areas that would experience the greatest increase in DPM concentration would be along the I-10 corridor, truck route interchanges in the northeast section of the City, and truck route interchanges in the southwest section of the City. Figure 3.3-8, Truck Route Net Increase in Cancer Risk Per Million: Coarse Results, illustrates the net increase in cancer risk per million people citywide, conservatively assuming all receptors in the model are residential.
Refined Modeling Results (100-meter spacing). Then, refined modeling was conducted to focus on the areas with the greatest increase in DPM pollutant concentrations, with receptor spacing at 100 meters to disclose potential impacts to sensitive receptors. The refined modeling focused on areas in the City that would fall within the one-per-million cancer risk contours in Figure 3.3-8. As shown in Figure 3.3-9, Truck Route Net Increase in DPM Concentrations: Refined Results, and Figure 3.3-10, Truck Route Net Increase in Cancer Risk per Million: Refined Results, the greatest DPM concentration increase between the approved project and proposed project conditions would be near the intersection of Eucalyptus Avenue and Walker Avenue (also referred to as the Maximally Exposed Receptor or MER). Similar to the coarse modeling, the refined model receptors were conservatively assumed to be residential in nature to identify maximum potential individual health risk impacts.
Individual Health Risk Impacts
The calculated health risk values are based on the modeled receptor concentration over an average 70-year lifetime. Unmitigated results of the health risk assessment shown in Table 3.3-22, Ontario Ranch Truck Route Changes Operational Health Risk Summary, indicate that the maximum incremental cancer risk resulting from the proposed project would be less than the South Coast AQMD threshold of 10 in one million. The incremental risk shown in Table 3.3-22 reflects the net change between 2050 conditions for the approved project and 2050 conditions for the proposed project, focusing specifically on the change of route designations and redistribution of truck volumes on the designated truck route network for each 2050 scenario. As shown, the MER would experience a cancer risk of approximately 9.5 per million people. The MER would also not exceed the South Coast AQMD’s chronic hazard threshold of 1.0. Because the incremental cancer risk and hazard index do not exceed the South Coast AQMD thresholds, changes to the City’s truck routes (see Figure 2-9) in addition to the growth in truck traffic associated with the Policy Plan Amendment would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
■
■
876
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 88
Table 3.3-22 Ontario Ranch Truck Route Changes Operational Health Risk Summary Receptor
Incremental Increase
Cancer Risk (per million)
Incremental Increase
Chronic Hazard
Maximally Exposed Receptor 9.5 <0.1
South Coast AQMD Threshold 10 1.0
Significant? NO NO
Source: See Appendix C2.
Citywide Cancer Burden
South Coast AQMD has an additional health risk threshold, referred to as cancer burden, which identifies the excess cancer risk burden borne by a community from a given project. The cancer burden is the estimated increase in the occurrence of cancer cases in a population resulting from exposure to TAC emissions (e.g., DPM) over a 70-year exposure duration. The cancer burden for a population is the product of the number of people in that population and the estimated individual risk from TACs.
As noted by South Coast AQMD in their Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401, 1401.1, and 212 (South Coast AQMD 2024), to calculate the cancer burden for the proposed project, the population density of the City of Ontario must first be identified. Then, the individual cancer risk contours from Figure 3.3-8 and Figure 3.3-10 are used to quantify the total number of people that would be considered in the citywide cancer burden. The product identifies the net increase in cancer burden for the City resulting from the proposed project.
As discussed in Section 2.1, Project Location, of this SEIR, the City consists of approximately 50 square miles. As shown in Table 2-3, TOP 2050 Policy Plan Amendment Proposed Land Use Summary, the proposed project would result in an estimated 427,741 residents in the City under future conditions with the proposed project. Therefore, the City experiences an average population density of 8,555 people per square mile.
As shown in Figure 3.3-10, the proposed project would result in very few locations that would experience a cancer risk of 5 per million or above. These risk results are limited to the areas around the East Philadelphia Street connection between South Haven Avenue and Mission Boulevard and along Eucalyptus Avenue between Bon View Avenue and Carpenter Avenue.
These areas constitute a total estimated 0.4 square miles, and this analysis conservatively assumes this entire area experiences the MER risk of 9.5 per million. 877
1.0E-06
1.0E-05
1.0E-04
1.0E-03
2.0E-03
2.5E-03
3.0E-03
3.5E-03
3.8E-03
1.5E-03
EBPSP Boundary
Truck Routes (with and without project)
Ontario City Boundary
Truck Routes (Added with Project)
Truck Routes (Removed with Project)
Annual Average DPM Concentration µg/m3
10 60 LIFORNI
E 8TH ST
E FOURTH ST
E FOURTH ST
E AIRPORT DR
E JURUPA ST
W FRANCIS ST
E PHILADELPHIA ST
W MISSION BLVD
E RIVERSIDE DR
E D ST
E G ST
W PHILADELPHIA ST
E INLAND EMPIRE BLVD
W D ST
W G ST N GROVE AVE N SULTANA AVE N CAMPUS AVEN VINEYARD AVE N MOUNTAIN AVE N SAN ANTONIO AVE N EUCLID AVE S MOUNTAIN AVE S SAN ANTONIO AVE S WINEVILLE AVE S VINTAGE AVE S ETIWANTA AVE S GROVE AVE S VINEYARD AVE S SULTANA AVE S CAMPUS AVE N HAVEN AVE S HAVEN AVE S TURNER AVE S ARCHIBALD AVE 60 LIFORNI
15 10
15 HAMMER AVE
ONTARIO RANCH RD S MILLIKEN AVE S COMMERCE PKWY N BENSON AVE S BENSON AVE
MERRILL AVE
E CHINO AVE
E EUCALYPTUS AVE
E EDISON AVE
E SANTA ANA ST S EUCLID AVE
E HOLT AVE
E SCHAEFER AVE WALKER AVE CARPENTER AVE BON VIEW AVE HELMAN AVE S HELMAN AVE • ' " - ~ .. , • "'1t.r
-- ~::II & ;J ~ : •
t~ f :i )'~~ ~ ·: n~ I '
r-,
--
c::::J --
SECTION 3.3 AIR QUALITY
Figure 3.3-7
Truck Route Net Increase in
DPM Concentrations:
Coarse Results 2 · 0·5 · 0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
0 '---__J FT
0 2,500 5,000 10,000
Source: AERMOD 2026 Date: 01/08/2026
878
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 90
This page intentionally left blank.
879
0.0 1.00
2.00 3.00
EBPSP Boundary
Truck Routes (with and without project)
Ontario City Boundary
Truck Routes (Added with Project)
Truck Routes (Removed with Project)
Residential Cancer Risk Per Million People
E 8TH ST
E FOURTH ST
E FOURTH ST
E AIRPORT DR
E JURUPA ST
W FRANCIS ST
E PHILADELPHIA ST
E RIVERSIDE DR
E D ST
E G ST
W PHILADELPHIA ST
E INLAND EMPIRE BLVD
W D ST
W G ST N GROVE AVE N SULTANA AVE N CAMPUS AVE N VINEYARD AVE N MOUNTAIN AVE N SAN ANTONIO AVE N EUCLID AVE S MOUNTAIN AVE S SAN ANTONIO AVE S WINEVILLE AVE S VINTAGE AVE S ETIWANTA AVE S GROVE AVE S VINEYARD AVE S SULTANA AVE S CAMPUS AVE N HAVEN AVE S HAVEN AVE S TURNER AVE S ARCHIBALD AVE 60 LIFORNI
15 10
15 10
60 LIFORNI W MISSION BLVD HAMMER AVE
ONTARIO RANCH RD S MILLIKEN AVE S COMMERCE PKWY N BENSON AVE S BENSON AVE
MERRILL AVE
E CHINO AVE
E EUCALYPTUS AVE
E EDISON AVE
E SANTA ANA ST S EUCLID AVE
E HOLT AVE
E SCHAEFER AVE WALKER AVE CARPENTER AVE BON VIEW AVE HELMAN AVE S HELMAN AVE r-,
--
c::::J --
SECTION 3.3 AIR QUALITY
Figure 3.3-8
Truck Route Net Increase in
Cancer Risk Per Million:
Coarse Results 2 · 0·5 · 0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
0 .______, FT
0 2,500 5,000 10,000
Source: AERMOD 2026 Date: 01/08/2026
880
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 92
This page intentionally left blank.
881
1.1E-04
3.0E-04
5.0E-04
8.0E-04
3.0E-03
5.0E-03
8.0E-03
1.0E-02
1.2E-02
1.0E-03
Maximally Exposed Receptor (MER)
EBPSP Boundary
Truck Routes (with and without project)
Ontario City Boundary
Truck Routes (Added with Project)
Truck Routes (Removed with Project)
Annual Average DPM Concentration µg/m3 E 8TH ST
E FOURTH ST
E FOURTH ST
E HOLT AVE E AIRPORT DR
E JURUPA ST
W FRANCIS ST
E PHILADELPHIA ST
E RIVERSIDE DR
E D ST
E G ST
W PHILADELPHIA ST
E INLAND EMPIRE BLVD
W D ST
W G ST N GROVE AVE N SULTANA AVE N CAMPUS AVE N VINEYARD AVE N MOUNTAIN AVE N SAN ANTONIO AVE N EUCLID AVE S MOUNTAIN AVE S SAN ANTONIO AVE S WINEVILLE AVE S VINTAGE AVE S ETIWANTA AVE S GROVE AVE S VINEYARD AVE S SULTANA AVE S CAMPUS AVE N HAVEN AVE S HAVEN AVE S TURNER AVE S ARCHIBALD AVE 60 LIFORNI
15 10
15 10
60 LIFORNI W MISSION BLVD HAMMER AVE
ONTARIO RANCH RD S MILLIKEN AVE S COMMERCE PKWY N BENSON AVE S BENSON AVE
MERRILL AVE
E CHINO AVE
E EUCALYPTUS AVE
E EDISON AVE
E SANTA ANA ST S EUCLID AVE E SCHAEFER AVE WALKER AVE CARPENTER AVE BON VIEW AVE HELMAN AVE S HELMAN AVE ..f}
•
•
r-,
--c::::J -* -
SECTION 3.3 AIR QUALITY
Figure 3.3-9
Truck Route Net Increase in
DPM Concentrations:
Refined Results 2 · 0·5 · 0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
0 ._____, FT
0 2,500 5,000 10,000
Source: AERMOD 2026 Date: 01/08/2026
882
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 94
This page intentionally left blank.
883
0.000
1.000
2.000
3.000
5.000
6.000
7.000
8.000
9.000
4.000
Maximally Exposed Receptor (MER)
EBPSP Boundary
Truck Routes (with and without project)
Ontario City Boundary
Truck Routes (Added with Project)
Truck Routes (Removed with Project)
Residential Cancer Risk Per Million People
E 8TH ST
E FOURTH ST
E FOURTH ST
E AIRPORT DR
E JURUPA ST
W FRANCIS ST
E PHILADELPHIA ST
E RIVERSIDE DR
E D ST
E G ST
W PHILADELPHIA ST
E SCHAEFER AVE
E INLAND EMPIRE BLVD
W D ST
W G ST N GROVE AVE N SULTANA AVE N CAMPUS AVE N VINEYARD AVE N MOUNTAIN AVE N SAN ANTONIO AVE N EUCLID AVE S MOUNTAIN AVE S SAN ANTONIO AVE S WINEVILLE AVE S VINTAGE AVE S ETIWANTA AVE S GROVE AVE S VINEYARD AVE S SULTANA AVE S CAMPUS AVE N HAVEN AVE S HAVEN AVE S TURNER AVE S ARCHIBALD AVE 60 LIFORNI
15 10
60 LIFORNI
10 15
W MISSION BLVD HAMMER AVE WALKER AVE ONTARIO RANCH RD S MILLIKEN AVE S COMMERCE PKWY N BENSON AVE S BENSON AVE
MERRILL AVE
E CHINO AVE
E EUCALYPTUS AVE
E EDISON AVE
E SANTA ANA ST S EUCLID AVE
E HOLT AVE CARPENTER AVE BON VIEW AVE HELMAN AVE S HELMAN AVE i., . . g
.--.,, • l I ' ~ ~
., ~ r:::::11 •
' • •1'
.• '
•
•
r-,
--c::::J -* -
~
SECTION 3.3 AIR QUALITY
Figure 3.3-10
Truck Route Net Increase in
Cancer Risk Per Million:
Refined Results 2 · 0·5 · 0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
0 '-----' FT
0 2,500 5,000 10,000
Source: AERMOD 2026 Date: 01/08/2026
884
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 96
This page intentionally left blank.
885
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 97
Also shown in Figure 3.3-10, the proposed project would result in few locations that would experience a cancer risk of 2 to 5 per million. These risk results are limited to the areas around the East Philadelphia Street connection between South Haven Avenue and Mission Boulevard and along Eucalyptus Avenue between Bon View Avenue and Carpenter Avenue as pollutant concentrations attenuate away from areas of higher concentration. This cancer risk of 2 to 5 per million is also experienced along the I-10 corridor and in the southwest portion of the City north of Edison Avenue. These areas constitute a total estimated 1.2 square miles, and this analysis conservatively assumes this entire area experiences a cancer risk of 5 per million.
Figure 3.3-10 shows that the proposed project would result in numerous locations that would experience a cancer risk of 1 to 2 per million. These risk results are seen throughout the City, predominantly in the southwest portion of the City north of Edison Avenue and in the north and northeast portions of the City surrounding major truck route corridors and intersections. These areas constitute a total estimated 12.3 square miles, and this analysis conservatively assumes this entire area experiences a cancer risk of 2 per million.
The proposed project would result in a cancer risk of less than 1 per million for the remainder of the City. Moreover, as shown in Figure 3.3-8, the coarse modeling results that included receptors covering the entire City confirm that the remainder of the City would experience a cancer risk of less than 1 per million. As identified in Appendix C2, citywide receptors outside of the 1 cancer risk per million contour have an average risk of 0.26 per million. Therefore, this analysis conservatively assumes receptors that are outside of the risk contour representing a cancer risk of 1 per million would experience an average cancer risk as high as 0.5 per million.
As shown in Table 3.3-23, Unmitigated Cancer Burden Summary, the proposed project would result in a total cancer burden of 0.43, which would be below the South Coast AQMD’s significance threshold of 0.5. As a result, changes to the City’s truck routes (see Figure 2-9) in addition to the growth in truck traffic associated with the Policy Plan Amendment would not substantially increase cancer burden in the City.
Table 3.3-23 Unmitigated Cancer Burden Summary
Risk Contour Square Miles Population Cancer Burden
5 to 9 per million 0.3 2,567 0.02
2 to 5 per million 1.2 10,266 0.05
1 to 2 per million 12.3 105,227 0.21
<1 per million 36.2 309,691 0.15
Total Cancer Burden — — 0.43
South Coast AQMD Threshold — — 0.5
Significant? — — NO
Source: See Appendix C2.
886
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 98
Community Risk Improvements
While the operational HRA focuses on the net increase in DPM concentration and subsequent incremental increase in cancer and chronic health risk and citywide cancer burden, it should be noted that the proposed project would result in net decreases in DPM concentration and associated health risk in certain areas of the City. As shown in Figure 3.3-11, Truck Route Changes Net Decrease in Cancer Risk per Million: Coarse Results, the proposed project would result in the greatest reduction of cancer risk from diesel-fired trucks north of Edison Avenue between South Euclid Avenue and Walker Avenue and along the South Archibald Avenue corridor between CA-60 and Remington Avenue. These pollutant reductions would occur principally as the result of the removal of truck routes along Edison Avenue and South Archibald Avenue, thereby redistributing truck trips to other routes away from these areas. This would result in a net benefit in health impacts resulting from the proposed project for these areas.
These net decreases in cancer risk results are illustrated for informational purposes only and the corresponding decrease in health risk is not quantified.
Summary
As described above, long-term operation of the proposed project would not have the potential to generate CO Hotspots; however, long-term operation of the proposed project would result in a substantial increase in development that would generate an increase in criteria air pollutants and TACs in the City. Permitted sources of emissions would be regulated by South Coast AQMD and do not have the potential to result in elevated concentrations of air pollutants near sensitive receptors. Changes to the City’s Truck Routes would have a beneficial impact on existing sensitive receptors along Archibald Avenue and overall would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations along proposed truck routes in the City.
Overall long-term operation of area and mobile sources have the potential to expose sensitive receptor to substantial concentrations of air pollutants. This cumulative impact is potentially significant. With the increase in industrial land uses under the proposed project, the proposed project could potentially result in a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to that of the approved project and impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Potentially significant. 887
-0.007
-0.200
-0.300
-0.400
-0.500
-0.600
-0.100
EBPSP Boundary
Truck Routes (with and without project)
Ontario City Boundary
Truck Routes (Added with Project)
Truck Routes (Removed with Project)
Residential Cancer Risk Per Million People
E 8TH ST
E FOURTH ST
E FOURTH ST
E SANTA ANA ST
E AIRPORT DR
E JURUPA ST
W FRANCIS ST
E PHILADELPHIA ST
E CHINO AVE
E RIVERSIDE DR
E D ST
E G ST
W PHILADELPHIA ST
E INLAND EMPIRE BLVD
W D ST
W G ST N GROVE AVE N SULTANA AVE N CAMPUS AVE N VINEYARD AVE N MOUNTAIN AVE N SAN ANTONIO AVE N EUCLID AVE S MOUNTAIN AVE S SAN ANTONIO AVE S WINEVILLE AVE S VINTAGE AVE S ETIWANTA AVE S GROVE AVE S VINEYARD AVE S SULTANA AVE S CAMPUS AVE N HAVEN AVE S HAVEN AVE S TURNER AVE S ARCHIBALD AVE 60 LIFORNI
15 10
15 10
60 LIFORNI W MISSION BLVD HAMMER AVE
ONTARIO RANCH RD S MILLIKEN AVE S COMMERCE PKWY N BENSON AVE S BENSON AVE
MERRILL AVE
E EUCALYPTUS AVE
E EDISON AVE S EUCLID AVE
E HOLT AVE
E SCHAEFER AVE WALKER AVE HELMAN AVE CARPENTER AVE BON VIEW AVE S HELMAN AVE r-.J
c::::J --
SECTION 3.3 AIR QUALITY
Figure 3.3-11
Truck Route Changes Net
Decrease in Cancer Risk
Per Million: Coarse Results 2 · 0·5 · 0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
0 ._____, FT
0 2,500 5,000 10,000
Source: AERMOD 2026 Date: 01/08/2026
888
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 100
This page intentionally left blank.
889
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 101
Specific Plan
CO Hotspots
A CO hotspot is defined as a localized concentration of CO exceeding the state one-hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm. At the time the most recent CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) was published by South Coast AQMD, the air basin was designated as non-attainment, requiring projects to perform hotspot analyses to ensure they did not worsen the existing conditions. Over the last 2 decades, background CO concentrations have been significantly reduced due to regulatory controls on tailpipe emissions, which have culminated in the air basin achieving attainment status for CO.
In 2003, the South Coast AQMD, as part of its AQMP development process, prepared modeling to determine the potential for CO Hotspots at the four busiest intersections in the air basin. As summarized in the 2003 AQMP, even at one of the busiest intersections at that time, only 0.7 ppm of CO is attributable to vehicular traffic and the remaining 7.7 ppm were due to ambient background conditions. The 2003 AQMP’s findings underscore that CO hotspots are highly unlikely due to the reduced background concentrations and the effectiveness of California's air quality management strategies. The substantial reduction in CO levels from the vehicle fleet and the state’s attainment status for CO further diminish the need for detailed microscale hotspot analyses, reinforcing that existing monitoring and regulatory frameworks adequately address potential air quality concerns.
As such, EBPSP-related traffic at any intersections within the study area would not cause or contribute to a CO hotspot since the background concentrations are low and any contribution from EBPSP traffic would be negligible.
Operational-Source Localized Significance Thresholds
Table 3.3-24, EBPSP Operational Source LST Summary: Phase 1; Table 3.3-25, EBPSP Operational Source LST Summary: Phases 1 and 2; and Table 3.3-26, EBPSP Operational Source LST Summary: Phases 1, 2, and 3, present the operational-source localized emissions that can be expected during each operational phase of the Specific Plan. As shown, emissions for all operational phases would not exceed South Coast AQMD’s localized significance thresholds at the maximally exposed receptors as a result of operational activities. 890
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 102
Table 3.3-24 EBPSP Operational-Source LST Summary: Phase 1 Peak Operations
CO NO2 PM10 PM2.5 Averaging Time
1-Hour 8-Hours 1-Hour 24-Hours 24-Hours
Peak Day Localized Emissions 3.96E-02 3.43E-02 1.52E-03 0.23 0.09 Background Concentration 1.5 1.1 0.085
Total Concentration 1.54 1.13 0.09 0.23 0.09
South Coast AQMD Threshold 20 9 0.18 2.50 2.50
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO
Source: Appendix C4.
Table 3.3-25 EBPSP Operational-Source LST Summary: Phases 1 and 2 Peak Operations
CO NO2 PM10 PM2.5 Averaging Time
1-Hour 8-Hours 1-Hour 24-Hours 24-Hours
Peak Day Localized Emissions 4.65E-02 3.49E-02 2.28E-03 0.57 0.18 Background Concentration 1.5 1.1 0.085
Total Concentration 1.55 1.13 0.09 0.57 0.18
South Coast AQMD Threshold 20 9 0.18 2.50 2.50
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO
Source: Appendix C4.
Table 3.3-26 EBPSP Operational-Source LST Summary: Phases 1, 2, and 3 Peak Operations
CO NO2 PM10 PM2.5 Averaging Time
1-Hour 8-Hours 1-Hour 24-Hours 24-Hours
Peak Day Localized Emissions 5.20E-02 3.94E-02 2.65E-03 0.72 0.23 Background Concentration 1.5 1.1 0.085
Total Concentration 1.55 1.14 0.09 0.72 0.23
South Coast AQMD Threshold 20 9 0.18 2.50 2.50
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO
Source: Appendix C4.
I I
I I
I I
891
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 103
Operational-Source Health Risk Assessment
Table 3.3-27, Summary of EBPSP Operational Health Risks, presents a summary of the EBPSP operational health risk analysis.
Table 3.3-27 Summary of EBPSP Operational Health Risks
Maximum Exposed
Location
Receptor
Location
Time Period
(Year)
Maximum
Lifetime
Cancer Risk1
Significance
Threshold1
Exceeds
Significance
Threshold?
Cancer Risk
Sensitive Receptor R5 30 2.27 10 NO
Worker Receptor R6 25 0.21 10 NO
Individual School Child R9 9 0.04 10 NO
Maximum Exposed
Location
Receptor
Location
Time Period Maximum
Hazard
Index
Significance
Threshold
Exceeds
Significance
Threshold?
Non-Cancer Risk
Sensitive Receptor R5
Annual
Average <0.01 1 NO
Worker Receptor R6
Annual
Average <0.01 1 NO
Individual School Child R9 Annual
Average <0.01 1 NO
Source: Appendix C4.
Notes:
1. risk per million
Residential Exposure Scenario
The residential land use with the greatest potential exposure to operational-source DPM emissions is Location R5, which is 109 feet east of the EBPSP site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the EBPSP site, R5 is placed at the building façade facing the site. At this location, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to operationalsource DPM emissions is estimated at 2.27 in one million, which would not exceed the South Coast AQMD’s significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks , which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0.
Although Location R5 is not the nearest receptor to the EBPSP site, it would experience the highest concentrations of DPM from operations due to its location and meteorological conditions. Because all other modeled receptors would be exposed to lower concentrations of were estimated to be S0.01
892
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 104
DPM, all other receptors in the vicinity would be exposed to less emissions and therefore less risk than the MEIR identified herein. As such, operations of the EBPSP would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to nearby residences.
Worker Exposure Scenario
The worker receptor land use with the greatest potential exposure to operational-source DPM emissions is Location R6, which represents the potential worker receptor 166 feet south of the EBPSP site. The MEIW is the worker receptor location that would experience the highest modeled concentrations of DPM, and thus the highest risk. For the MEIW, the maximum incremental cancer risk impact is calculated to be 0.21 in one million, which is less than the South Coast AQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million. Maximum non-cancer risks at this same , which would not exceed the applicable significance
threshold of 1.0. Because all other modeled worker receptors would be exposed to lower concentrations of DPM, all other worker receptors in the vicinity would be exposed to less emissions and therefore less risk than the MEIW identified herein. As such, EBPSP operations would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent workers.
School Exposure Scenario
Proximity to sources of toxics is critical to determining the impact. In traffic-related studies, the additional non-cancer risk attributable to proximity was seen within 1,000 feet and was strongest within 300 feet. California freeway studies show about a 70 percent drop-off in particulate pollution levels at 500 feet. Based on CARB and South Coast AQMD emissions and modeling analyses, an 80 percent drop-off in pollutant concentrations is expected at approximately 1,000 feet from a distribution center.
The 1,000-foot evaluation distance is supported by research-based findings concerning TAC emission dispersion rates from roadways and large sources showing that emissions diminish substantially between 500 and 1,000 feet from emission sources.
A one-quarter mile radius, or 1,320 feet, is commonly utilized for identifying sensitive receptors, such as schools, that may be impacted by a proposed project. This radius is more robust than and therefore provides a more health protective scenario for evaluation than the 1,000-foot impact radius identified above. Notwithstanding, for full disclosure purposes, the nearest school was also evaluated.
The nearest school and location of the MEISC is Crosspoint Children’s Center, approximately 3,442 feet northwest of the EBPSP site and represented by Location R9. At the MEISC, the maximum incremental cancer risk impact attributable to operations is calculated to be 0.04 in one million, which is less than the significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, nonnot exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. Because all other modeled school location were estimated to be S0.01
cancer risks attributable to the EBPSP were calculated to be S0.01, which would 893
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 105
receptors would be exposed to lower concentrations of DPM, all other school receptors in the vicinity would be exposed to less emissions and therefore less risk than the MEISC identified herein.
Construction and Operational Impacts Combined
The analysis considers a conservative scenario in which a child at a nearby residence is exposed to construction-related DPM emissions from birth for the expected 4.5 years of construction, and is then exposed to operational emissions for the remaining 25.5 years of the 30-year residential exposure scenario.
The land use with the greatest potential exposure to construction-source and operationalsource DPM emissions is Location R5. As shown in Table 3.3-28, Summary of EBPSP Construction and Operational Health Risks Combined, at the MEIR, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to construction-source and operational-source DPM emissions is estimated at 2.38 in one million, which is less than the threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, nonld not exceed the applicable threshold of
1.0. As such, the EBPSP would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent land uses as a result of construction and operational activity. All other receptors during construction and operational activity would experience less risk than what is identified for this location.
Table 3.3-28 Summary of EBPSP Construction and Operational Health Risks Combined Maximum Exposed
Location
Receptor
Location
Time Period
(Year)
Maximum
Lifetime
Cancer Risk1
Significance
Threshold1
Exceeds
Significance
Threshold?
Cancer Risk
Sensitive Receptor R5 30 2.38 10 NO
Maximum Exposed
Location
Receptor
Location
Time Period Maximum
Hazard
Index
Significance
Threshold
Exceeds
Significance
Threshold?
Non-Cancer Risk
Sensitive Receptor R5
Annual
Average <0.01 1 NO
Source: Appendix C4.
1. risk per million
Summary
Based on the preceding, the potential for operations of the EBPSP to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations is considered less than significant. Accordingly, the cancer risks were estimated to be S0.01, which wou
894
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 106
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 AQ-5: Operation of industrial and warehousing land uses accommodated under the Policy Plan Amendment would cumulatively contribute to elevated levels of toxic air contaminants in the South Coast AQMD region.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
TOP 2050 Policy ER-4.9, New Localized Air Pollution Sources Near Existing Sensitive Receptors, would require an operational health risk assessment for projects that have the potential to generate a substantial number of diesel truck trips. Therefore, no additional mitigation measures were identified.
New Mitigation Measures
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measures AIR-2-PPA and AIR-3-PPA are applicable to the proposed project. TOP 2050 Policy ER-4.9, New Localized Air Pollution Sources Near Existing Sensitive Receptors, would require an operational health risk assessment for projects that have the potential to generate a substantial number of diesel truck trips. Therefore, no additional mitigation measures were identified.
Specific Plan
Operation of the EBPSP would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. No additional mitigation is necessary.
Significance After Mitigation
Policy Plan Amendment
Buildout of the proposed project and the approved project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of TACs. Buildout could result in new sources of criteria air pollutant emissions and/or TACs near existing or planned sensitive receptors. Review of development projects by South Coast AQMD for permitted sources of air toxics (e.g., industrial facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities) would ensure that health risks are minimized.
Additionally, Policy ER-4.9 would ensure mobile sources of TACs not covered under South Coast AQMD permits are considered during subsequent project-level environmental review by the 895
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 107
City of Ontario. Individual development projects would be required to achieve the incremental risk thresholds established by South Coast AQMD, and TACs would be less than significant; however, implementation of the proposed project would generate TACs that could contribute to elevated levels in the air basin. This effect is more substantial with the proposed project compared to the approved project because of the increase in industrial land use allowed under the proposed project. While individual projects may achieve the project-level risk threshold of 10 per million, they would nonetheless contribute to the higher levels of cancer risk in the SoCAB and, therefore, would result in a cumulatively considerable impact. Therefore, the proposed project’s cumulative contribution to health risk is significant and unavoidable. Policy Plan Amendment Significance with Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable. d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
ODOR IMPACTS
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify any significant odor impacts associated with the approved project. Growth within the City under the proposed project could generate new sources of odors. Nuisance odors from land uses in the SoCAB are regulated under South Coast AQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, which states:
A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property. The provisions of this rule shall not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.
Policy Plan Amendment
Industrial Land Uses
Buildout permitted under the approved project and the proposed project could include new sources of odors, such as compost facilities, landfills, solid-waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), asphalt batch manufacturing plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities. Similar to the approved project, areas where these types of uses could be developed under the proposed project would be generally limited to the areas designated Industrial (see Figure 2-5, Proposed TOP 2050 Land Use Plan). Future environmental review would be required for these types of 896
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 108
industrial projects, which would ensure that sensitive land uses are not exposed to objectionable odors. Industrial land uses associated with the proposed project also would be required to comply with South Coast AQMD Rule 402. Therefore, impacts from potential odors generated from industrial land uses associated with the proposed project are considered less than significant.
Residential and Other Land Uses
Like the approved project, residential and other nonresidential, nonindustrial land uses that would be accommodated by the proposed project could result in the generation of odors such as exhaust from landscaping equipment and from cooking. Unlike industrial land uses, these are not considered potential generators of odor that could affect a substantial number of people.
Nuisance odors are regulated under South Coast AQMD Rule 402, which requires abatement of any nuisance generating a verified odor complaint. Therefore, impacts from potential odors generated from residential and other nonresidential land uses associated with the proposed project are considered less than significant.
Construction
Like the approved project, during construction activities of development projects that would be accommodated by the proposed project, construction equipment exhaust and application of asphalt and architectural coatings would temporarily generate odors. Any construction-related odor emissions would be temporary and intermittent. Noxious odors would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the construction equipment in use. By the time such emissions reached any sensitive receptor sites, they would be diluted to well below any level of air quality concern.
Short-term construction-related odors are expected to cease upon the drying or hardening of odor-producing materials. Therefore, impacts associated with construction-generated odors from development under the proposed project are considered less than significant.
Summary
Odors generated from future land uses and construction of future land uses in the City would not generate odors that would adversely affect sensitive receptors. Impact are less than significant. The proposed project would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project.
Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Specific Plan
The odor impacts of the Specific Plan are the same as for the Policy Plan Amendment.
Therefore, the Specific Plan would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts compared to the approved project.
897
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 109
Moreover, the Specific Plan does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. Potential odor sources may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities and the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with long-term operational uses.
Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts from construction. Any construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction. It is expected that refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with current solid waste regulations. The EBPSP would also be required to comply with South Coast AQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, odors and other emissions (such as those leading to odors) associated with construction and operations activities within the Specific Plan area 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 AQ-6: Operation of land uses accommodated under the proposed project would not result in other emissions, such as those leading to odors, that would adversely affect a substantial number of people.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant odor 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.
3.3.6 Cumulative Impact Analysis
The cumulative setting for air quality is the SoCAB. In accordance with the South Coast AQMD methodology, any project that produces a significant project-level regional air quality impact in an area that is in nonattainment contributes to the cumulative impact. Cumulative projects include new development and general growth within the SoCAB. The SoCAB is nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. Due to the extent of the area potentially impacted from cumulative project emissions, South Coast AQMD considers a project cumulatively significant when projectrelated emissions exceed the regional emissions thresholds. Specifically, the South Coast AQMD published a report on how to address cumulative impacts from air pollution: “White Paper on 898
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 110
Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution.” In this report the South Coast AQMD clearly states:
…the AQMD uses the same significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts for all environmental topics analyzed in an Environmental Assessment or EIR. The only case where the significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts differ is the Hazard Index (HI) significance threshold for toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions. The project specific (project increment) significance threshold is HI > 1.0 while the cumulative (facility-wide) is HI > 3.0. It should be noted that the HI is only one of three TAC emission significance thresholds considered (when applicable) in a CEQA analysis. The other two are the maximum individual cancer risk (MICR) and the cancer burden, both of which use the same significance thresholds (MICR of 10 in 1 million and cancer burden of 0.5) for project specific and cumulative impacts.
Projects that exceed the project-specific significance thresholds are considered by the South Coast AQMD to be cumulatively considerable. This is the reason project-specific and cumulative significance thresholds are the same. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the project-specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant. (South Coast AQMD 2003c, p. D-3) As identified in Impact AQ-2 (regional construction impacts), Impact AQ-3 (regional operation impacts), Impact AQ-4 (localized construction impacts), and Impact AQ-5 (operational health risk), implementation of the proposed project would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the air basins and expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and cumulative impacts are significant.
Construction
The SoCAB is designated nonattainment for O3, PM2.5, and PM10 under California and/or National AAQS. Construction of cumulative projects would further degrade the regional and local air quality. Air quality would be temporarily impacted during construction activities.
Implementation of mitigation measures for related projects would reduce cumulative impacts; however, project-related construction emissions could still potentially exceed the South Coast AQMD significance thresholds on a project and cumulative basis. Consequently, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would be cumulatively considerable and would therefore be significant.
Operation
For operational air quality emissions, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily regional threshold values are not considered by South Coast AQMD to be a substantial source of air pollution and does not add significantly to a cumulative impact. 899
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 111
Operation of the proposed project would result in emissions in excess of the South Coast AQMD regional emissions thresholds for long-term operation. Additionally, future individual development under the proposed project would generate TACs that could contribute to elevated levels of risk even though the operational HRA specific to the truck route changes demonstrated that impacts resulting from the distribution of trucks throughout the City would not exceed South Coast AQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, the proposed project’s air pollutant emissions would be cumulatively considerable and would therefore be significant.
Overall, the proposed project’s construction and operational phase emissions would cumulatively contribute to air quality impacts in the SoCAB, and impacts are significant. Cumulative Impacts: The proposed project’s contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would be cumulatively considerable.
3.3.7 References
Bay Area Air District. 2023, April. 2022 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Chapters. https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act -ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines.
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). 1999. Final Staff Report: Update to the Toxic Air Contaminant List.
CARB. 2005, April. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/california-air-resources -board-air-quality-and-land-use-handbook-a-community-health-perspective.pdf.
CARB. 2014, March 6. 2014 California Infrastructure SIP Revision. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ resources/documents/2014-california-infrastructure-sip-revision.
CARB. 2021, December 9. Staff Report, CARB Review of the South Coast 2021 Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-10/ Staff_Report_for_the_South_Coast_PM2.5_Redesignation_Request_and_Maintenance_ Plan.pdf.
CARB. 2024, July 16. Ambient Air Quality Standards. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/ 2024-08/AAQS%20Table_ADA_FINAL_07222024.pdf.
900
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 112
CARB. 2025a, May 12 (accessed). Maps of State and Federal Area Designations. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-area -designations.
CARB. 2025b, May 12 (accessed). Common Air Pollutants. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/ common-air-pollutants.
CARB. 2025c, November 11 (accessed). Air Pollution Data Monitoring Cards (2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024). http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php.
Holland & Knight. 2025, May 23. Up in the Air: Congress Nullifies Clean Air Act Waivers for California. https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/05/up-in-the-air -congress-nullifies-clean-air-act-waivers-for-california.
OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2021, October 13. CalEnviroScreen (CES) 4.0 Report. https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/report/ calenviroscreen40reportf2021.pdf.
OEHHA. 2023, May 1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0. California Environmental Protection Agency https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40.
OEHHA. 2025, November 17 (accessed). CalEnviroScreen (CES) 4.0 Indicator Map. https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/ed5953d89038431dbf4f22ab9abfe40d/.
South Coast AQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 1992. Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide.
South Coast AQMD. 1993. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook. South Coast AQMD. 2003a, August. 2003 Air Quality Management Plan. Appendix V. https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan/ 2003-aqmp.
South Coast AQMD. 2003b. Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis.
South Coast AQMD 2003c. Cumulative White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts From Air Pollution.
South Coast AQMD. 2005, May. Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/ air-quality-guidance/complete-guidance-document.pdf.
901
O N TA RI O P O L I C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N T A R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A LI TY
MA RC H 2026 3. 3- 113
South Coast AQMD. 2012, May 4. Final 2012 Lead State Implementation Plan: Los Angeles County. http://www3.aqmd.gov/hb/attachments/2011-2015/2012May/ 2012-May4-030.pdf.
South Coast AQMD. 2013, February. 2012 Final Air Quality Management Plan. https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan/ final-2012-air-quality-management-plan.
South Coast AQMD. 2015a. Health Effects of Air Pollution. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/ default-source/publications/brochures/the-health-effects-of-air-pollution-brochure.pdf.
South Coast AQMD. 2015b, October. “Blueprint for Clean Air: 2016 AQMP White Paper.” 2016 AQMP White Papers web page. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/ aqmp/white-paper-working-groups/wp-blueprint-final.pdf.
South Coast AQMD. 2021a, October. Draft Final 2021 Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the 2006 and 1997 24-Hour PM2.5 Standards for South Coast Air Basin. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-10/draft-final-pm2-5-redesignation -request-and-maintenance-plan.pdf.
South Coast AQMD. 2021b, August. Final Report: Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study V (MATES V). http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/air-quality-studies/health-studies/mates-v.
South Coast AQMD. 2022, December. 2022 Air Quality Management Plan. https://www.aqmd .gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2022-air -quality-management-plan/final-2022-aqmp/final-2022-aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=16.
South Coast AQMD. 2023, March. South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/south-coast-aqmd-air -quality-significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=25.
South Coast AQMD. 2024, October. Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401, 1401.1, and 212. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/permitting/hra-procedures/ hraprocedures9-0_103124.pdf?sfvrsn=8.
USA.Com. 2025, November 12 (accessed). Ontario, CA Weather. http://www.usa.com/ontario-ca-weather.htm.
USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2002, May. Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust. EPA/600/8-90/057F. Prepared by the National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC, for the Office of Transportation and Air Quality.
902
O N TA R I O P O LI C Y P LA N A M EN D M EN T DR A F T S U P P L EM EN TA L EI R
C I T Y O F O N TA R I O
3. 3 A I R Q U A L I T Y
3. 3- 114
USEPA. 2025a, November 3 (last updated). Criteria Air Pollutants. https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants.
USEPA. 2025b, February 25 (updated). Health and Environmental Effects of Hazardous Air Pollutants. https://www.epa.gov/haps/health-and-environmental-effects-hazardous-air -pollutants.
USEPA. 2025c, November 4 (last updated). NAAQS Table.
https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table. 903
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 .4 -1
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This section of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) evaluates the potential biological resources impacts associated with implementation of the Ontario Policy Plan Amendment and the EBPSP (proposed project) in comparison to the current TOP 2050 (approved project) and the impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
The analysis for the EBPSP is based on the “Biological Resources Assessment for the Proposed Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan Located in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California” prepared by ELMT Consulting and considers both onsite and offsite impacts associated with the EBPSP (see Appendix D).
There was one comment letter received in response to the NOP related to impacts to biological resources. The relevant issues raised in that comment letter is 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 response comment letters.
3.4.1 Regulatory Framework
FEDERAL
Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973, as amended, protects and conserves any species of plant or animal that is endangered or threatened with extinction, as well as the habitats where these species are found. “Take” of endangered species is prohibited under Section 9 of the FESA. “Take” means to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Section 7 of the FESA requires federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on proposed federal actions that may affect any endangered, threatened, or proposed (for listing) species or critical habitat that may support the species. Section 4(a) of the FESA requires that critical habitat be designated by the USFWS “to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, at the time a species is determined to be endangered or threatened.” This provides guidance for planners/managers and biologists by indicating locations of suitable habitat and where preservation of a particular species has high priority. Section 10 of the FESA provides the regulatory mechanism for incidental take of a listed species by private interests and nonfederal government agencies during lawful activities. Habitat conservation plans (HCP) for the impacted species must be developed in support of incidental take permits to minimize impacts to the species and formulate viable mitigation measures.
In 2025, the USFWS announced the following 5 proposed amendments to the FESA:
904
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
3 .4- 2
Definition of harm (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] part 17 and part 222): Rescinds the regulatory definition of “harm.”
Listing and critical habitat (50 CFR part 424): Changes associated with delisting and critical habitat determinations are proposed including, creation of a two-step process for designating unoccupied habitat, redefining “foreseeable future”, and adding flexibility to determine when designating critical habitat is not prudent.
Interagency cooperation (50 CFR part 402): Redefines “effects of the action” and “environmental baseline,” removes the 2024 “offset” provisions, and restoring Section 7 procedures. These changes respond directly to the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises et al. v. Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce, et al. 603 US (2024), which overturned the Chevron deference standard.
Threatened species protections (50 CFR part 17, section 4(d)): Eliminate the “blanket rule” option and require species-specific 4(d) rules tailored to each threatened species.
Critical habitat exclusions (50 CFR part 17, section 4(b)(2)): Reinstates its 2020 rule on how economic, national security, and other relevant impacts are weighed when determining whether to exclude areas from critical habitat.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) affirms and implements the United States’ commitment to 4 international conventions—with Canada, Japan, Mexico, and Russia—to protect shared migratory bird resources. The MBTA governs the take, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests. It prohibits the take, possession, import, export, transport, sale, purchase, barter, or offering of these items, except under a valid permit or as permitted in the implementing regulations. USFWS administers permits to take migratory birds in accordance with the MBTA.
Clean Water Act
Sections 401 and 402
Section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) specifies that any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may result in any discharge into navigable waters shall provide the federal permitting agency with a certification, issued by the state in which the discharge originates, that any such discharge will comply with the applicable provisions of the CWA. In California, the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) must certify that the project will comply with water quality standards. Permits requiring Section 401 certification include Section 404 permits and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Section 402 of the ■
■
■
■
■
905
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 .4 BI O LO GI CAL RES OUR CE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .4 -3
CWA. NPDES permits are issued by the applicable RWQCB. The City of Ontario is in the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB (Region 8).
Section 404
Under Section 404 of the federal CWA, potential Waters of the U.S., including wetlands, may be regulated by USACE. The limit of USACE jurisdiction for non-tidal watercourses (without adjacent wetlands) is defined in 33 CFR 328.4(c)(1) as the “ordinary high-water mark” (OHWM).
The OHWM is defined as the line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.
The upstream limits of other waters are defined as the point where the OHWM is no longer perceptible.
Jurisdictional waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) are delineated in accordance with the “Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’” rule, published in the Federal Register in 2022 and, which became final on January 18, 2023. This rule, set forth by the EPA and USACE, was consistent with the pre-2015 regulatory definition as all waters that are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate commerce, including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. This definition also includes all interstate waters, including interstate wetlands, interstate lakes, rivers, streams (including all intermittent and ephemeral streams), mudflats, sand flats, sloughs, and prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds where the use, degradation, or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce. Under this rule, WOTUS do not include prior converted cropland.
The definition of WOTUS in accordance with this rule (40 CFR 230.3[s]), is summarized below.
All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
All interstate waters including interstate wetlands;
All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters: (i) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or (ii) From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or (iii) Which are used or could be used for industrial purpose by industries in interstate commerce; ■
■
■
906
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
3 .4- 4
All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the U.S. under the definition; Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (s)(1)–(4) of this section; The territorial sea; and
Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (s)(1) through (6) of this section; waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA (other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 423.11(m) which also meet the criteria of this definition) are not WOTUS.
On May 25, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted a narrower definition of WOTUS in Sackett v.
Environmental Protection Agency. Under the majority opinion, WOTUS refers to “geographical features that are described in ordinary parlance as ‘streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes’ and to adjacent wetlands that are ‘indistinguishable’ from those bodies of water due to a continuous surface connection.” On August 29, 2023, the agencies issued a final rule to amend the final “Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’” rule to conform the definition of “waters of the United States” to the U.S. Supreme Court’s May 25, 2023, decision in Sackett v.
Environmental Protection Agency. Parts of the January 2023 Rule are invalid under the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the CWA in the Sackett decision. Therefore, the agencies have amended key aspects of the regulatory text to conform to the court’s decision. Key changes under the amendment include:
Definition of “adjacent” is now “having a continuous surface connection;” Only tributaries that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water (or tributaries with a continuous surface connection to those) are considered jurisdictional;
Interstate wetlands are no longer jurisdictional just by virtue of being interstate; and Significant nexus test is eliminated.
Where areas jurisdictional to the USACE are present and will be impacted by a project, the project proponent must usually apply for permitting with the agency, which generally consists of submittal of a Pre-construction Notification under Section 404 of the CWA. As of the writing of this report, we do not know the details of how the individual USACE offices will implement the conforming rule for permitting purposes.
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
907
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 .4 BI O LO GI CAL RES OUR CE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .4 -5
STATE
California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) generally parallels the main provisions of the FESA and is administered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Its intent is to prohibit take and protect state-listed endangered and threatened species of fish, wildlife, and plants. Unlike its federal counterpart, CESA also applies the take prohibitions to species petitioned for listing (state candidates). Candidate species may be afforded temporary protection as though they were already listed as threatened or endangered at the discretion of the Fish and Game Commission. Unlike the FESA, CESA does not include listing provisions for invertebrate species. Under certain conditions, CESA has provisions for take through a 2081 permit or memorandum of understanding. In addition, some sensitive mammals and birds are protected by the state as “fully protected species.” California “species of special concern” are species designated as vulnerable to extinction due to declining population levels, limited ranges, and/or continuing threats. This list is primarily a working document for the CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), which maintains a record of known and recorded occurrences of sensitive species. Informally listed taxa are not protected per se, but warrant consideration in the preparation of biological resources assessments.
Fully Protected Species
The State of California first began to designate species as “fully protected” prior to the creation of the FESA and CESA. Lists of fully protected species were initially developed to provide protection to animals that were rare or faced possible extinction, and included fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Most fully protected species have since been listed as threatened or endangered under the FESA and CESA. Previously, the regulations that implement the Fully Protected Species Statute (California Fish and Game Code Section 4700) provide that fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time; however, as of July 10, 2023, Senate Bill 147 (SB 147) was signed into law, authorizing CDFW to issue take permits under the California ESA for fully protected species for qualifying projects through 2033. As stated in section 2081.15 of SB 147, qualifying projects include:
A maintenance, repair, or improvement project to the State Water Project, including existing infrastructure, undertaken by the Department of Water Resources; A maintenance, repair, or improvement project to critical regional or local water agency infrastructure;
A transportation project, including any associated habitat connectivity and wildlife crossing project, undertaken by a state, regional, or local agency, that does not increase highway or street capacity for automobile or truck travel;
■
■
■
908
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
3 .4- 6
A wind project and any appurtenant infrastructure improvement, and any associated electric transmission project carrying electric power from a facility that is located in the state to a point of junction with any California based balancing authority; and A solar photovoltaic project and any appurtenant infrastructure improvement, and any associated electric transmission project carrying electric power from a facility that is located in the state to a point of junction with any California-based balancing authority.
California Fish and Game Code
Native Plant Protection Act
The Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) of 1977 (California Fish and Game Code Sections 1900– 1913) was created with the intent to “preserve, protect and enhance rare and endangered plants in this State.” The NPPA is administered by CDFW. The California Fish and Game Commission has the authority to designate native plants as “endangered” or “rare” and to protect endangered and rare plants from take. The CESA of 1984 (California Fish and Game Code Sections 2050–2116) provided further protection for rare and endangered plant species, but the NPPA remains part of the California Fish and Game Code.
Streambed Alteration Agreement
Pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) application must be submitted for “any activity that may substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake”. In Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 1.72, the CDFW defines a stream (including creeks and rivers) as “a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life.
This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation.”
In Chapter 9, Section 2785 of the Fish and Game Code, riparian habitat is defined as “lands which contain habitat which grows close to, and which depends upon, soil moisture from a nearby freshwater source.”
The CDFW’s jurisdiction includes drainages with a definable bed, bank, or channel and areas associated with a drainage channel that support intermittent, perennial, or subsurface flows; supports fish or other aquatic life; or supports riparian or hydrophytic vegetation. It also includes areas that have a hydrologic source.
The CDFW will determine if the proposed actions will result in diversion, obstruction, or change of the natural flow, bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake that supports fish or wildlife. If warranted, the CDFW will issue an SAA that includes measures to protect affected ■
■
909
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 .4 BI O LO GI CAL RES OUR CE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .4 -7
fish and wildlife resources; this SAA is the final proposal agreed upon by the CDFW and the applicant.
Migratory Birds
The CDFW enforces the protection of nongame native birds in Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800 of the California Fish and Game Code. Section 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits the possession or take of birds listed under the MBTA. These sections mandate the protection of California nongame native birds’ nests and also make it unlawful to take these birds. All raptor species are also protected from “take” pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5 and are protected at the federal level by the MBTA of 1918.
Bats and Bat Roosts
Bats in California are currently protected directly and indirectly by the California Fish and Game Code, Sections 86, 1600, 2000, 2014, 3007, and 4150; California Public Resources Code, Division 14, Section 21000 et seq.; and 14 CCR, including but not limited to Section 251.1, CEQA regulations (Section 15000 et seq.), and Section 15382, Significant Effect on the Environment.
Regulations of particular relevance to the protection of bats and bat roosts include Title 14, Section 251.1 of the CCR, which prohibits harassment (defined in that section as an intentional act that disrupts an animal’s normal behavior patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering) of nongame mammals (e.g., bats), and California Fish and Game Code Section 4150, which prohibits take or possession of all nongame mammals or parts thereof. Any activities resulting in bat mortality (e.g., the destruction of an occupied bat roost that results in the death of bats), disturbance that causes the loss of a maternity colony of bats (resulting in the death of young), or various modes of nonlethal pursuit or capture may be considered take as defined in Section 86 of the California Fish and Game Code. In addition, impacts to bat maternity colonies, which are considered native wildlife nursery sites, could be considered significant under CEQA.
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act requires “any person discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, within any region that could affect the waters of the State to file a report of discharge” with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) through State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (23 CCR Section 3855; SWRCB 2021). Waters of the State is defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the State (California Water Code Section 13050[e]). Pollution is defined as an alteration of the quality of the waters of the state by waste to a degree that unreasonably affects its beneficial uses (California Water Code Section 13050) and includes filling in waters of the State. Note that 23 CCR Section 3855 applies only to individual water quality certifications, but the new State Wetland Definition and 910
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
3 .4- 8
Procedures extend the application of Section 3855 to individual waste discharge requirements for discharges of dredged or fill material to waters of the State and waivers thereof.
A permit for impacts to waters of the State would likely be required under the CWA and/or Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. To determine whether a project should be regulated pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the RWQCB considers whether project activities could impact the quality of waters of the State.
On September 27, 2023, the EPA published its final 2023 Clean Water Act Section 401 Quarter Quality Certification Improvement Rule (88 Federal Register 66558.) The final 2023 Rule revises and replaces the 2020 Rule’s regulatory requirements for water quality certification that were adopted by the prior federal administration. The updates realign the scope of the Section 401 certification process with established practices while also restoring the roles of states, territories, and authorized tribes as certifying agencies.
REGIONAL
San Bernardino County Biotic Resources Overlay
The San Bernardino County Biotic Resources Overlay was established by the Land Use Plan and Land Use Zoning Districts (Subsection 82.01.020) and the Overlays (Subsection 82.01.0230) of the County of San Bernardino. The ORSC site and Offsite Improvement Area is within the Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (DSFLF) Ontario Recovery Unit.
LOCAL
City of Ontario Development Code
Tree Preservation Policy and Protection Measures
Section 6.05.020, Tree Preservation Policy and Protection Measures, of the Ontario Development Code establishes policies and measures that will further the preservation, protection, and maintenance of established and healthy heritage trees within the city. A Heritage Tree is one that is designated for preservation as a tree of historic or cultural significance, or a tree of importance to the community due to any one of the following factors:
It is one of the largest or oldest trees of species located within the city and has a trunk diameter of 18 inches or greater when measured at 54 inches above grade; It has a historical significance due to association with a historic building, site, street, person, or event;
It is a defining landmark or significant outstanding feature of a neighborhood or district, typical of early Ontario Landscapes. This includes Camphor Tree (Cinnamomum camphora), ■
■
■
911
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 .4 BI O LO GI CAL RES OUR CE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3 .4 -9
Deodar Cedar (Cedrus deodara), London Planetree (Platanus acerifolia), Cork Oak (Quercus suber), Holly Oak (Quercus ilex), and California Pepper (Schinus molle); It is a Native Tree. This means that it is one of the following California native tree species with a trunk diameter of more than 8 inches, measured at 54 inches above natural grade:
California Sycamore (Platanus racemose), Torrey Pine (Pinus torreyana), Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), Engelmann Oak (Quercus engelmannii), Valley Oak (Quercus lobata), or California Bay (Umbellularia californica).
Healthy Heritage Trees that are approved for removal shall be replaced with new trees with a total trunk diameter equal to the tree(s) removed, or as deemed appropriate by the Approving Authority based on lot size and available planting space. Replacement trees are to be in addition to the quantity of trees required for landscaping. The Approving Authority is responsible for reviewing the landscape plan and approving appropriate species for tree replacement.
Parkway Tree Regulations
Title 10, Parks and Recreation, Chapter 2, Parkway Trees, of the City’s Municipal Code provides provisions on the preservation, regulation on the maintenance and removal of parkway trees, and establishes types and the locations for planting parkway trees. Parkway is defined as “…that portion of any public street right-of-way between the right-of-way boundary line and the curb line, and also the area enclosed within the curb lines of a medial divider.” The property owner abutting a public right-of-way is responsible for watering any tree in the parkway and for trimming that can be done from the ground to preserve the neat appearance and non-obstructed use of the parkway; the City is responsible for all major pruning. Removal or relocation of any parkway tree requires prior authorization from the City Public Works Agency through a permit process, and planting a replacement tree, whenever feasible, is a condition on any permit issued by the City for the removal of a parkway tree. Alternatively, an in-lieu deposit may be accepted as an alternate to the actual planting of any required parkway tree based on a fair value established by the Public Facilities Manager.
Sphere of Influence General Plan Amendment, Final EIR, and Settlement Agreement
In January 1998, the Ontario City Council approved a general plan amendment (GPA) and associated Final EIR for the sphere of influence (SOI), which is now known as the Ontario Ranch (previously the New Model Colony [NMC]). The GPA designated Ontario Ranch for a range of urban and suburban uses, including residential, commercial, business park, industrial, and open space. Most of Ontario Ranch was then in agricultural use. The Final EIR for the GPA assessed the impacts on biological resources of the conversion of Ontario Ranch from agricultural uses to developed urban and suburban uses. Before mitigation, significant impacts were identified for waterfowl and waterfowl habitat, raptors and raptor habitat, and the DSFLF Ontario Recovery ■
912
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
3 .4- 1 0
Unit. The EIR for the SOI GPA included three mitigation measures for impacts to biological resources:
Mitigation Measure BR-1 modified the general plan to require the creation of new waterfowl habitat and specified a mitigation ratio of 2:1 for each acre of such habitat lost.
This is off-site mitigation in the Prado Basin.
Mitigation Measure BR-2 stipulated that the City shall create a Waterfowl and Raptor Conservation Area (WRCA), and included requirements and definitions for it; mitigation is off-site in the Prado Basin.
Mitigation Measure BR-3 required the City to cooperate with the USFWS in taking specified actions to mitigate impacts to the DSFLF Recovery Unit.
Subsequent to the 1998 adoption of the SOI GPA and EIR, a lawsuit was filed against the City of Ontario by the Endangered Habitats League and the Sierra Club, challenging the City’s CEQA compliance and approval of the SOI GPA. A Settlement Agreement was reached and agreed to by all parties that set forth revised mitigation measures for potential impacts in the New Model Colony (referred to as Annexation Area 163 in the agreement) to the burrowing owl, DSFLF, raptor foraging and wildlife habitat, loss of open space, actual and potential habitat and agricultural land, and sensitive (listed and non-listed) species (City of Ontario, Endangered Habitats League, Inc., and Sierra Club 2001). These measures will be in effect until all the developable acres in the Ontario Ranch reach full buildout, as determined by the City.
Prior to issuance of grading permits, Ontario shall impose a $4,320 per net acre mitigation fee on proposed developments in Annexation Area 163 that require discretionary approval or permitting from the City.
Ontario, in consultation with CDFW, will identify, through CEQA review, lands occupied by burrowing owl and suitable as long-term habitat. The City will require avoidance of those lands to maintain a viable territory and require long-term maintenance through dedication in fee or grant of easement to the Land Trust. If the site is not viable long-term habitat, the developer shall pay the mitigation fee and make provisions for relocation of the owls.
Since habitat that benefits DSFLF can be expected to benefit burrowing owl, up to 25 percent of the mitigation fee maybe used by the City for DSFLF recovery.
All mitigation fees collected shall be used for the above-described purposes and may be used to purchase property, conservation easements, or other land with long-term conservation value for the environmental impacts; enhance/restore lands with such values; maintain and operates these lands; and pay for related administrative costs (not to exceed 10 percent of the total fees).
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
913
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 .4 BI O LO GI CAL RES OUR CE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.4 -11
Land/easements dedicated, conveyed, or purchased to benefit wildlife, waterfowl, raptors, and/or burrowing owl must have long-term conservation value for those species and must be managed by the land trust. The parcels must be in the habitat area designated as part of the settlement agreement. Unacceptable properties are those that would otherwise be purchased by another entity or group as open space mitigation for environmental impacts.
City of Ontario Biological Resources Habitat Mitigation Fee Since the Settlement Agreement, the City has established a habitat mitigation fee to cover potential environmental impacts to the burrowing owl, DSFLF, raptor foraging, loss of open space, and agricultural lands. Development impact fees for new development in Ontario Ranch were adopted on June 23, 2003, by the City Council. The Ontario Ranch development impact fees include a habitat mitigation fee of $4,320 per net acre for proposed residential, commercial, hotel and restaurant, office, and industrial development. Mitigation fees have been collected by the City and have been deposited into a trust fund to be used for the acquisition, restoration, rehabilitation, and maintenance of lands deemed to have long-term conservation value. Up to $500 of the fees may be used for DSFLF. In addition, current City procedures require a habitat assessment to determine existing habitat and biological resources on proposed development sites. If the assessment determines that there is potential habitat for sensitive species, focused protocol surveys are required. If potential DSFLF habitat is present, two-year (consecutive) protocol surveys per the USFWS Interim General Survey Guidelines for DSFLF are required.
The land use plan for Ontario Ranch originally provided for establishment of the WRCA, a wetlands and habitat area near the confluence of the Cucamonga Creek and the Lower Deer Creek Channels. Creation of the WRCA as part of Ontario Ranch was intended to provide a concentrated area for wetlands that would receive storm drainage from the west. Funding for the environmental restoration of the existing 85-acre Lower Cucamonga flood control basin under the WRCA would have been provided through the USACE with matching funds from the City of Ontario. This conservation area plus acquisition of 145 acres of off-site mitigation land were intended to provide mitigation for impacts resulting from development of Ontario Ranch; however, under the conditions of the settlement agreement, the WRCA is no longer proposed.
In 2010, the Ontario City Council approved the selection of the Riverside Land Conservancy (today known as River and Land Conservancy) as the administrator of the habitat mitigation fees and to create a habitat program pursuant to the requirements of the Settlement Agreement between the City of Ontario, the Endangered Habitats League, and the Sierra Club; however, due to the economic downturn shortly after 2010, the contract between the City and the Riverside Land Conservancy was never ratified. It was anticipated that once development in Ontario Ranch began to commence, the City would ratify the contract. ■
914
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
3 .4- 1 2
In 2022, the City went out with a Request for Proposals to select a nonprofit land trust and/or organization specializing in habitat conservation. On November 21, 2023, a memorandum of agreement (MOA) became effective between the City of Ontario and the Inland Empire Resource Conservation District (IERCD). IERCD is the nonprofit trust entity to be responsible for the administration of the habitat mitigation fees and creation of a habitat program pursuant to the requirements of the settlement agreement between the City of Ontario, the Endangered Habitats League, and the Sierra Club. IERCD is responsible for maintaining interactive mapping and a current inventory of the burrowing owl occurrences and to select adequate lands for passive relocation.
This MOA aids in the implementation of a Habitat Mitigation Fee as well as the requirements and mitigation measures set forth in the Greater Prado Basin Habitat Conservation Program (GPBHCP). The mitigation measures in the GPBHCP are aimed at reducing potential impacts to sensitive wildlife species, including burrowing owl, DSFLF, raptor foraging and wildlife habitat, and other sensitive (listed and non-listed species), within Ontario Ranch. The Habitat Mitigation Fee is $2,000 per net acre with funds used for the acquisition, restoration, rehabilitation, and maintenance of lands determined to have long-term conservation value for the aforementioned species and their habitat.
With respect to burrowing owl and DSFLF, this MOA ensures:
A mitigation fee will be applied to development projects within Ontario Ranch that will impact burrowing owls or their habitat;
The City of Ontario will identify lands occupied by burrowing owl or DSFLF and suitable longterm habitat for these species to be avoided and maintained; In the case of burrowing owls being present on proposed development sites that are not viable long-term habitat, developers can pay the Habitat Mitigation Fee and relocate the owls in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife; and Up to 25 percent of the Habitat Mitigation Fee collected for burrowing owls can be used for the recovery of the DSFLF.
3.4.2 Existing Conditions
POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT
Habitat and Vegetation
Native habitats and vegetation communities are mostly gone throughout Ontario. The Original Model Colony (OMC) area, the part of the city north of Riverside Drive, consists primarily of structures and paved surfaces and supports very little vegetation. At one time, the developed ■
■
■
■
915
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 .4 BI O LO GI CAL RES OUR CE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.4 -13
OMC was a major agricultural area. Native alluvial sage scrub was removed from the region in the late 1800s and early 1900s for vineyards and other forms of cultivation, including citrus groves and field crops; however, agricultural uses in the OMC have been replaced by urban land uses. The present plants have limited biological resource value—turf, weeds, nonnative grasses, and nonnative trees and plants used for landscaping. Recent biological assessments for development projects in the OMC, including the Pacific Gateway Cargo Center, Tessier Work/Live Project, and Ontario Downtown Civic Center Project, found no sensitive natural communities, riparian habitat, or sensitive plant or animal species on the developed and/or highly disturbed project sites (Ontario 2022).
Historically, Ontario Ranch, the portion of the city south of Riverside Drive, was dominated by Riversidean sage scrub, a form of coastal sage scrub found on alluvial fans and drainages along the base of the Transverse and Peninsular ranges. Due to the long-standing agricultural use, Ontario Ranch supports little native vegetation. Cucamonga and Deer Creeks once supported riparian vegetation; however, these drainages are now completely channelized where they traverse the city.
Currently, low- and medium-density residential and industrial uses make up the majority of the land uses in Ontario Ranch. Mixed use, open space, and commercial uses are also scattered throughout the area. Although Ontario Ranch was extensively altered from natural conditions and agricultural use to residential and industrial uses, the land still provides foraging and breeding habitat for a variety of common and sensitive wildlife species. In particular, windrows and surface water areas, such as agricultural ponds, water impoundments, and drainage channels, provide habitat for migratory birds, including raptors. Though native terrestrial vegetation communities are not present in the city, there are four nonnative vegetation communities, known as vegetation associations, concentrated in Ontario Ranch:
Surface water areas
Flood control channel areas
Agricultural fields
Developed areas
Surface Water Areas
Open water bodies in the OMC include detention basins, man-made lakes associated with Guasti-Cucamonga Park and golf courses, and concrete-lined drainages that frequently hold surface water. Water bodies in Ontario Ranch include ponds associated with dairy and poultry operations (state-mandated dairy manure water retention basins that serve as runoff collection/water treatment ponds), livestock-water ponds, and freshwater irrigation ponds.
Most fallow fields accumulate surface waters in ponds or ditches. The portions of Cucamonga and Deer Creek channels that traverse Ontario Ranch also frequently contain surface water and ■
■
■
■
916
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
3 .4- 1 4
are concrete-lined drainages. Perennially wet ponds can support native shrubs and trees typical of riparian habitats, including mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia) and willow (Salix spp.).
Flood Control Channels
Flood control channels occur throughout the city. Vegetation, if present in these areas, is limited to aquatic species, including pondweed (Potamegeton spp.), common water nymph (Najas guadelupensis), and hornwort (Ceratophyllum demersum). Hydrophytes (plants that are able to live either in water or in very moist soils), including cattail (Typha spp.), sedge (Cyperus spp.) and rush (Juncus spp.), occasionally emerge in areas along flood control channels where sediment accumulates and ponding occurs.
Agricultural Fields
Four types of agricultural fields are present in city.
Agricultural Industry includes feedlots, cattle holding pens, dairy and poultry operations, and equestrian activities. These areas are typically devoid of vegetation due to the continuous presence of domesticated animals such as cattle, horses, and chickens, and due to intensive disturbance from farming or other human activities.
Cultivated Fields include irrigated row crops of alfalfa, barley, and strawberries. These fields are typically grazed after harvest then left fallow.
Fallow Fields develop characteristic ruderal vegetation,1including nonnative grasses and forbs (herbaceous plants other than grasses and sedges) such as black mustard (Brassica nigra), lambs quarters (Chenopodium album), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), puncture vine (Tribulus terrestris), cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), stinging nettle (Urtica dioica), common sunflower (Helianthus annuus), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), wild radish (Raphanus sativus), London rocket (Sisymbrium irio), tumbleweeds (Amaranthus spp.), sow-thistle (Sonchus oleraceus), dock (Rumex spp.), and other introduced grasses such as bromes (Bromus spp.), wild oats (Avena spp.), barleys (Hordeum spp.), and Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon). Native species can also be present in ruderal areas, including sandbur (Ambrosia acanthicarpa), horseweed (Conyza canadensis), jimsonweed (Datura wrightii), and spurge (Camaesyce sp.).
Vineyards were formerly extensive, but are currently limited to 2 parcels in the southeast portion of Ontario Ranch, at 11248 S Turner Avenue (Hofer Ranch) and 2802 S Milliken Avenue (San Antonio Winery). 1
Pioneering herbaceous plants that readily colonize disturbed ground. ■
■
■
■
917
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 .4 BI O LO GI CAL RES OUR CE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.4 -15
Windrows of trees are the tallest vegetation in the agricultural fields and are prevalent along internal roadways in areas designated as agricultural industry and cultivated fields. The most common windrow tree is blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus), although other species are used, including olive (Olea europaea), pine (Pinus spp.), salt cedar (Tamarix aphylla), and cypress (Cupressus spp.). These species and other trees, including ash (Fraxinus spp.), mulberry (Morus spp.), and various landscape and fruit trees, are found in residential yards and dairy frontages.
Developed
Developed areas contain structures, asphalt/concrete paved areas, residences, commercial and industrial buildings, schools, roadways and infrastructure (including Southern California Edison [SCE] transmission corridors), the power substation, barren ground, and ornamental vegetation.
These areas support very limited amounts of vegetation. Vegetation that is present typically consists of nonnative ornamental species planted for their aesthetic and utilitarian values.
Wildlife
Ontario has undergone extensive alteration from natural conditions by urbanization of the northern portion and extensive agriculture and dairy production in the southern portion. Native habitat is mostly gone throughout the OMC. Common wildlife species, particularly birds and mammals, use trees throughout the city and may be found in the scattered, undeveloped, vacant parcels. Common species in urban areas, such as the domestic dog (Canis familiaris) and cat (Felis catus), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), and house mouse (Mus musculus) are also found throughout Ontario. Raptors forage in the city and roost and nest in city trees. Migratory birds may also use detention basins and flood control channels with open water. Species previously found in the OMC area included hawks, quail, roadrunners, owls, hummingbirds, thrashers, sparrows, finches, wrens, warblers, woodpeckers, opossums, weasels, coyotes, rabbits, mice, gophers, squirrels, skunks, toads, frogs, salamanders, king snakes, lizards, whipsnakes, rattlesnakes, and gopher snakes (Ontario 2022).
Ontario Ranch supports a diversity of wildlife that persists in agricultural areas despite the lack of native habitat. The absence of dense urbanization provides open spaces that may still support native wildlife species, especially birds. These agricultural habitats may be open water, agricultural fields, windrows, or dairy operations/residences. Virtually all the land is subject to changing patterns of grazing, agricultural, and related operations. While these habitats would not be classified as native or natural, they still provide value for wildlife in a region characterized by rapid urban growth.
The mostly flat topography of the agricultural areas contributes to the accumulation of standing water throughout Ontario Ranch in dairy runoff retention ponds and low spots that collect surface runoff, stormwater, and floodwaters. Other water bodies—flood control channels, detention basins, and creeks—attract numerous birds. Migratory and resident bird species use the open water and shorelines for food, protection from predators, and shelter. Large impounds 918
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
3 .4- 1 6
at the confluence of Cucamonga and Deer Creeks support large concentrations of wintering bird species. Windrows provide important perching and nesting sites for raptors. The agricultural fields include areas of open fields that may be covered with crops, grazed by cattle, left fallow, or disked.
Wildlife that has been observed and/or is expected in Ontario Ranch is discussed in the following paragraphs. Sensitive wildlife species are also listed in Table 3.4-2, Sensitive Wildlife Species Known or With Potential to Exist in the City of Ontario, and are discussed separately.
Amphibians
Amphibians require moisture for at least a portion of their life cycle and many require standing or flowing water for breeding. Amphibians are expected to be uncommon in open fields, but more likely to be in the numerous wet areas and standing waters in Ontario Ranch. Few species are expected due to the lack of vegetation around most open water, frequent disturbance, and the often poor quality of surface water resulting from agricultural practices.
Reptiles
Reptile diversity and abundance typically varies with vegetation association type and character.
Many species will forage in a variety of habitat types. Due to the history of land use in Ontario Ranch, the number of reptile species is expected to be low.
Birds
The open water areas of dairy runoff retention ponds, reservoirs, drainages, and low areas subject to flooding are the preferred locations for migratory birds in Ontario Ranch. Areas of open water that accumulate in the agricultural fields also attract wading birds, which forage on small animals that concentrate in the wet areas. Notable open water areas include the holding ponds adjacent to the confluence of Cucamonga and Deer Creeks and the larger stock and flood control ponds scattered throughout Ontario Ranch.
The 1996 Envicom surveys found 49 species in Ontario Ranch. Nearly half (21 species) were found in open water and wet areas. Numerous raptor species are attracted to windrows, including red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), American kestrel (Falco spaverius), and whitetailed kite (Elanus leucurus). Raptors use agricultural fields as foraging habitat, because small rodents or birds are most likely to be visible. The raptors may perch on trees in windrows and on utilities poles and transmission lines overlooking open fields or may soar over the fields to forage. In open fields, ferruginous hawks (Buteo regalis) may roost on the ground where vegetation is low.
Several other bird species observed in open and wet fields include cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis), white-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi), American crow (Corvus brachyrhunchos), western meadowlark 919
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 .4 BI O LO GI CAL RES OUR CE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.4 -17
(Sturnella neglecta), red-winged blackbird (Aegilaius phoeniceus), brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis), and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). Nonnative and common species observed around areas with structures, human activity, and livestock include house sparrow (Passer domesticus), rock dove (Colombia livia), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), and domestic chicken (Gallus domesticus). Less common species include house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus) and Brewer’s blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus).
Mammals
Agricultural fields also provide habitat for various small mammals such as mice (several species) and California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi beecheyi). Mammals observed during biological monitoring for the Ontario Ranch include Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), California ground squirrel, raccoon (Procyon lotor), and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis). Some of these mammals, particularly raccoon and opossum, may use the trees in the windrows.
Common bat species have not been observed in surveys, but are also expected to use the trees.
Nonnative mammal species expected in the area include domestic dog and cat, cattle/domestic cow (Bos taurus), horse (Equus caballus), and other livestock. Norway rat and house mouse feed on grains, produce, and garbage and are common near agricultural facilities and urban uses.
Sensitive Biological Resources
Sensitive biological resources include vegetation types and habitats that are either unique, of relatively limited distribution in a region, or of particularly high value to wildlife. These resources include a variety of plant and animal species that are specialized and endemic to a particular habitat type. Due to loss of habitat, some of these species have been designated by federal and state government resource agencies as threatened or endangered. Species listed as threatened are those whose numbers have dropped to such low levels and/or whose populations are so isolated that the continuation of the species could be jeopardized.
Endangered species are those with such limited numbers or subject to such extreme circumstances that they are considered in imminent danger of extinction.
Other government agencies and resource organizations also identify sensitive species, those that are naturally rare and that have been locally depleted and put at risk by human activities.
While not in imminent danger of jeopardy or extinction, sensitive species are considered vulnerable and can become candidates for future listing as threatened or endangered. These include plants identified as sensitive by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), wildlife considered as species of special concern, special animals, or fully protected species in California.
Sensitive Natural Communities
Ontario is part of 4 CNDDB quadrangles: Ontario, Guasti, Corona North, and Prado Dam. The CNDDB lists 6 sensitive natural communities for these 4 quadrangles—California walnut 920
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
3 .4- 1 8
woodland, Riversidian alluvial fan sage scrub, Southern California arroyo chub/Santa Ana sucker stream, southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, southern sycamore alder riparian forest, and southern willow scrub (CNDDB 2025). Surface water areas can support native trees and shrubs such as mulefat and willow. Willow species have been reported in southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, southern sycamore alder riparian forest, and southern willow scrub.
Mulefat has been reported in southern cottonwood willow riparian forest and southern sycamore alder riparian forest. Surface water areas are considered sensitive natural communities. Such areas in the city include detention basins and other man-made lakes, including those in golf courses, dairy manure water retention ponds, livestock watering ponds, and irrigation ponds.
Sensitive Plants
No sensitive plant species have been observed in Ontario since 1992. The CNDDB and CNPS reports for the Ontario and Guasti quadrangles identified known occurrences of several sensitive plant species, which are listed in Table 3.4-1, Sensitive Plant Species Known or With Potential to Exist in the City of Ontario (CNDDB 2025; CNPS 2025). Of these recorded occurrences, mesa horkelia (Horkelia cuneata ssp. puberula), prostrate navarretia (Navarretia prostrata) and Robinson’s pepper grass (Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii) were observed just within or immediately adjacent to the city, as seen in Figure 3.4-1, Areas of Potential Occurrence of Sensitive Species; however, these recorded occurrences were all prior to 1992, and the majority of sightings or collections were prior to 1937. These species have most likely been eliminated due to substantial development in the area subsequent to the sightings. No federalor state-listed plant species are known or expected to occur. The potential for sensitive plant species in the city is low because of the absence of suitable habitat, the high levels of development, and the history of land alteration and disturbance by agricultural activities.
Sensitive Wildlife
Several sensitive wildlife species have been recorded or are expected to appear in the city, mostly Ontario Ranch. Several species have also been observed in biological surveys for other proposed projects. The sensitive wildlife species (51 species) listed in Table 3.4-2 were identified in the CNDDB reports for the Ontario and Guasti quadrangles (CDFW 2025) or in other previous biological reports. Several migrant raptor species that may fly over, forage, or roost in the planning area are also included. Species with designated critical habitat (discussed below) within the city boundaries are included. Five species are federally listed as endangered or threatened (one insect, 2 birds, and 2 mammals). Nine species are state-listed as threatened or endangered (one insect, 6 birds, and 2 mammals). The remaining species are listed as state species of special concern, listed by other agencies or organizations as sensitive, or were included in the CNDDB because they are considered rare or sensitive and their conservation status may be of concern.
921
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.4 - 19
Table 3.4-1 Sensitive Plant Species Known or With Potential to Exist in the City of Ontario Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Federal/State
Listing Status
CNPS
Designation Potential to Exist
Atriplex coulteri Coulter's saltbush Saline or alkaline soils on coastal bluffs, coastal sage scrub, or grasslands.
None/None 1B.2 Low. No suitable
habitat.
Berberis nevinii Nevin’s barberry Alluvial scrub, coastal sage scrub, oak woodland, riparian scrub or woodland, and chamise chaparral
of inland canyons and foothills. Widely in gardens
and parks.
FE/SE 1B.1 Low. No suitable
habitat.
Calochortus
plummerae
Plummer’s mariposa
lily
Coastal scrub, chaparral, valley and foothill
grassland, woodland, lower montane coniferous
forest. Occurs on rocky and sandy sites, usually of
granitic or alluvial material.
None/None 1B Low. No suitable
habitat.
Calystegia felix Lucky morning-glory Alkali meadow, seeps, springs, wet meadow, and well-watered landscaping on recent development.
None/None 1B.1 Low. No suitable
habitat.
Centromadia
pungens ssp. laevis
smooth tarplant Alkaline soils found in chenopod scrub, meadows, and seeps.
None/None 1B.1 Low. No suitable
habitat.
Chorizanthe parryi
var. parryi
Parry’s spineflower Coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and sandy or rocky openings. Annual.
None/None 1B.1 Low. No suitable
habitat.
Dodecahema
leptoceras
Slender-horned
spineflower
Coastal sage scrub, chaparral, alluvial scrub, scale
broom scrub, and drought prone areas.
FE/SE 1B.1 Low. No suitable
habitat.
Horkelia cuneata
ssp. puberula
mesa horkelia Chaparral, woodland, coastal scrub. Occurs on sand or gravelly sites.
None/None 1B.1 Low. No suitable
habitat.
Lepidium
virginicum var.
robinsonii
Robinson’s peppergrassChaparral, coastal scrub. Occurs in dry soils, shrubland.
None/None 4.3 Low. No suitable
habitat.
Navarretia
prostrata
Prostrate navarretia Coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools. Occurs on alkaline soils in grassland, or in
vernal pools.
None/None 2B.2 Low. No suitable
habitat.
Phacelia stellaris Brand’s star phacelia Coastal strand, dunes, coastal, and coastal sage scrub.
None/None 1B.1 Low. No suitable
habitat.
922
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
3 .4- 2 0
Table 3.4-1 Sensitive Plant Species Known or With Potential to Exist in the City of Ontario Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Federal/State
Listing Status
CNPS
Designation Potential to Exist
Pseudognaphalium
leucocephalum
White rabbittobacco Coastal sage scrub and chaparral. None/None 2B.2 Low. No suitable habitat.
Sidalcea
neomexicana
salt spring
checkerbloom
Alkali playas, brackish marshes, chaparral, coastal
scrub, lower montane coniferous forest, Mojavean
desert scrub.
None/None 2B.2 Low. No suitable
habitat.
Symphyotrichum
defoliatum
San Bernardino
aster
Meadows and seeps, marshes and swamps, coastal
scrub, woodland, lower montane coniferous forest,
grassland. Occurs in moderately moist grassland, or
near ditches streams, springs, and disturbed areas.
None/None 1B.2 Low. No suitable
habitat.
Thysanocarpus
rigidus
Rigid fringepod Oak and pine woodland, rocky slopes. None/None 1B.2 Low. No suitable habitat.
Calystegia felix Lucky morning-glory Alkali meadow, seeps, springs, wet meadow, and well-watered landscaping on recent development.
None/None 1B.1 Low. No suitable
habitat.
Source: CDFW 2025; CNPS 2025.
Notes:
1B – Plants considered by CNPS to be rare or endangered in California or elsewhere. 2B – Plants considered by CNPS to be rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but that are more common elsewhere. 4 – Plants are of limited distribution or infrequent throughout a broader area in California. 923
-l I ' ~~ ,,_.,] i~:~~ "~;::;;' • ·=-···e-SIGHT•H-W-"--"\.. Cl~~::i~~Q ,...,'";;:,;,o . - ~
CITY OF
MONTCLAIR
Mesa Horl<elia
w
z > , / San Bernardino
~ z -- ~ ~ ~ KangltrooRat ~
T g //) 7i $ !
W FOURTH ST
u.
>
4'.
z
~ W G ST
> <t w w uJ
> >
Q > <( <t <t z <( V')
0 0 z :::, f- :::; ~ Q..
z u ~ <t :::, _, w :::, <(
z V'l u <( z z z V'l I_ E G ST ;;§ ".? 3 E INLA:ND EMPIRE BLVD ~ --.:::~=i::::::=-I===-==----------= ...... ~= - ~=:11Ii]p;:1;1!J1:-.. 1 -- E D ST I ~ ~ :- ~ ! z
:::,
0 W DST
z Coastal
E HOLT AVE ' z ~ I ~
z
Galifornia Crotch'S Gnatcatcher Bumble Bee
Pallid Bat
[-, j W MO~OON BLVD ! ~ E SANTA ANA ST
1 ,:
I 7w w - ~ ~ ~ ~ .!c
L- ' ~ z W PHILLIPS ST DelhiSands 0
~ - (: "'11 Coast Flower-Loving E JURUPA ST Z -"f' .. ~ ~ SslOJv Homed Fly r ~ w> ~ ~ ~ 8lf.,-D Uzard <£ w ~ , , ! ~~~= ~~ 1iff : t
Galifornia
Glossy Snake
w w w
> > > <( <( <(
0 <( V'l
z :::,
z 0..
CITY OF
FONTANA
_,._J T ~ Legless Uzard .,., ~ ~ !
J
• ~ ~ ! ~ I Countyof
~-,,._,_ = San Bernardino
i-..,. W PHILAOHPHIA ST E PHILADELPHIA~ ~- =-=====~::==:::;;;;;;-;;' - ••- " ____,J_ ,,_ ,, 0 ~ -' 2 f- :::, <(
z V'l u <(
V, V>
z
<(
V,
® I 5 ~~~~ ,- . r-••-:
V'l
Sall Spring
Checkerbloom
Robinson'S
Pepper-Grass
American
Bumble Bee
-... Western
yeBJ-w~illed
Cuckoo
' \. 6 oulterS
, " s~iibj sh
Swainson'S
Hawk
CITY OF CHINO
ca,Jia ~ Black R,· ail a
:::;
u . :::,
~
I
I
I
I
Lucky I San
Morning-GIO[Y Bernardino
! Aster
Golden Eagle I
uJ
> 0
a:
(!)
V')
-
E SCHAEFER AVE
E EDISON AVE
E EUCALYPTUS AVE
E RIVERSIDE DR
E &iNO AVE
L .. - "-r,-"""'"''""""",_ .. _,,_ .. l
Smooth
Tarp/ant L .. ....,,,,,,,. ..
1/
uJ
> <(
a:
uJ
z
a:
:::,
fV'l
7,
J
_/ I
w
::>
l
% i
V'l
ONTARIO RANCH RD ~
1 ~
EASTVALE
JURUPA VALLEY
Stephens'
Kangaroo Rat
Least
Betrs Vireo
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Figure 3.4-1
Areas of Potential Occurrence
of Sensitive Species
I.. "I Ontario City Boundary
I.. "I County Boundary
~ Burrowing Owl
Channels
1111 Detention Basins
Known Sensitive Species Location
Birds
Dicots
Fish
Mammals
Inland Waters
Insects
Reptiles
Riparian
2 · 0 · 5 · 0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
0 ._______, FT
0 2,500 5,000 10,000
Source: California Natural Diversity Database, Date: 12/8/2025 2020 924
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
3 .4- 2 2
This page intentionally left blank.
925
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.4 - 23
Table 3.4-2 Sensitive Wildlife Species Known or With Potential to Exist in the City of Ontario Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Federal/State
Listing Status
Other
Designations Potential to Exist
Insects
Bombus crotchii Crotch’s bumble
bee
Inhabits grasslands and shrublands and requires
a hotter and drier environment than other
bumblebee species.
None/SC None Moderate. CNDDB
reports latest
occurrences in 2024
on the east side of
Ontario Airport.
Rhaphiomidas
terminates
abdominalis
Delhi Sands
flower-loving fly
Wholly or partially consolidated dunes (Delhi
soils series), open sand. Fine, sandy soils with
sparse vegetation cover of California buckwheat,
croton, deerweed, and evening primrose.
FE/None None Low. Limited
potential for
occurrence. Delhi
Sands built on and/or
highly disturbed.
Amphibians
Spea (Scaphiopus)
hammondi
western
spadefoot toad
Seasonal pools in coastal sage scrub, chaparral,
and grasslands.
FC/None CSC/BLM Low. No suitable
habitat. Expected
only rarely.
Reptiles
Anniella stebbinsi Southern
California legless
lizard
Broadleaved upland forest, chaparral, coastal
dunes, and coastal scrub. Occurs in sandy or
loose loamy soils under sparse vegetation.
Generally in moist, loose soil.
None/None CSC/FS Low. Limited to no
suitable habitat.
Expected only rarely.
Previous CNDDB
reports near
Cucamonga Creek.
Arizona elegans
occidentalis
California glossy
snake
Generalist reported from a range of scrub and
grassland habitats, often with loose or sandy
soils.
None/None CSC Low. Limited to no
suitable habitat.
Expected only rarely.
926
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
3 .4- 2 4
Table 3.4-2 Sensitive Wildlife Species Known or With Potential to Exist in the City of Ontario Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Federal/State
Listing Status
Other
Designations Potential to Exist
Aspidoscelis tigris
stejnegeri
(Cnemidophorus
tigris multiscutatus)
coastal (western)
whiptail
Open, often rocky areas with little vegetation or
sunny microhabitats within shrub or grassland
associations.
None/None CSC Low. Limited to no
suitable habitat.
Expected only rarely.
Didophus punctatus
modestus
San Bernardino
ringneck snake
Chaparral, coastal sage scrub, grassland, riparian,
and woodlands.
None/None None/FS Low. Limited suitable
habitat. Expected
only rarely.
Emys (Clemmys)
marmorata pallida
southwestern
(western) pond
turtle
Slow-moving permanent or intermittent streams,
small ponds and lakes, reservoirs, gravel pits,
permanent and ephemeral shallow wetlands,
stock ponds and treatment lagoons. Abundant
basking sites and cover necessary.
None/None CSC/FS/BLM Low. Limited to no
suitable habitat.
Expected only rarely.
Phrynosoma
coronatum
(blainvillii
population)
coast (San Diego)
horned lizard
Open areas of sandy soil with coastal sage scrub,
chaparral, grassland, riparian, and washes and
watercourses.
None/None CSC/BLM Low. Limited suitable
habitat. Expected
only rarely.
Salvadora hexalepis
virgultea
coast (western)
patch-nosed
snake
Desert scrub, coastal chaparral, washes, sandy
flats, and rocky areas. Broad generalist in its
habitat requirements.
None/None CSC Low. Limited suitable
habitat. Expected
only rarely.
Thamnophis
hammondii
Two-striped garter
snake
Marsh and swamp, riparian scrub, riparian
woodland, and wetland. Highly aquatic, found in
or near permanent fresh water. Often along
streams with rocky beds and riparian growth.
None/None CSC/BLM Low. Limited suitable
habitat. Expected
only rarely.
Birds1 Accipiter cooperi
(nesting)
Cooper’s hawk Oak and riparian woodlands, windrows, open fields. Known to use urban areas, occupying
trees among residential and commercial uses.
None/None CSC Moderate. Suitable
foraging, limited
suitable nesting
habitat. Expected
927
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.4 - 25
Table 3.4-2 Sensitive Wildlife Species Known or With Potential to Exist in the City of Ontario Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Federal/State
Listing Status
Other
Designations Potential to Exist
occasionally.
Observed.
Accipiter striatus
(nesting)
sharp-shinned
hawk
Variety of residential, chaparral, grassland, sage
scrub, crop land, riparian, and oak woodland,
windrows, open fields.
None/None CSC High. Suitable
foraging habitat.
Uncommon winter
visitor. Observed
Agelaius tricolor Tricolored
blackbird
Marshes and grasslands. Breeding colonies
require nearby water, nesting substrate, and
open range foraging habitat of natural grassland,
woodland, or agricultural cropland.
None/ST CSC/BCC/ BLM High for foraging.
Suitable foraging
habitat. Low for
nesting. Limited
suitable nesting
habitat. Observed.
Aquila chrysaetos golden eagle2 Grasslands, brushlands, deserts, oak savannas, open coniferous forests and montane valleys.
Nests rock outcrops and ledges.
None/None CSC/SFP/
BCC/BLM/FS
Low. Potential for
foraging. None for
nesting.
Ardea alba
(Casmerodius
albus) (rookery)
great egret Wet areas, fields, margins of open water. None/None SA/FS Moderate to High.
Fairly common
resident. Observed.
Ardea herodias
(rookery)
great blue heron Wet areas, fields, margins of open water. None/None SA/FS Moderate to High.
Fairly common
resident. Observed.
Athene cunicularia burrowing owl Shortgrass prairies, grasslands, lowland scrub, agricultural lands, coastal dunes, desert floors,
and some artificial open areas. Uses abandoned
ground squirrel burrows and artificial structures
such as berms, culverts, and underpasses.
None/SC CSC/BCC/
BLM/FS
Low to Moderate.
Suitable foraging and
nesting habitat.
CNDDB reports latest
occurrences in 2011
and 2016.
928
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
3 .4- 2 6
Table 3.4-2 Sensitive Wildlife Species Known or With Potential to Exist in the City of Ontario Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Federal/State
Listing Status
Other
Designations Potential to Exist
Buteo regalis
(wintering)
ferruginous hawk Grasslands and other open terrain of the plains and foothills. Wintering species. Primarily open
fields with low vegetation.
None/None CSC/BCC/ BLM Moderate. Suitable
foraging, limited
nesting habitat.
Expected
occasionally.
Observed.
Buteo swainsoni
(nesting)
Swainson’s hawk Grasslands and other open terrain. None/ST FS/BLM Low. Potential for foraging. None for
nesting. Expected
only rarely.
Charadrius
montanus
mountain plover Dry upland prairies and plains, semidesert, bare dirt fields.
None/None CSC/BCC Low. Limited suitable
foraging habitat.
Expected only rarely.
Observed.
Circus cyaneus
(nesting)
northern harrier Grasslands and other open terrain. Soars over open fields, low perches.
None/None CSC Low. Suitable
foraging, limited
nesting habitat.
Expected only rarely.
Observed.
Coccyzus
americanus
occidentalis
western yellowbilled cuckoo Riparian. Uncommon to rare summer resident of valley foothill and desert riparian habitats.
FC/SE None/BCC/ FS Low. No suitable
habitat. Not
expected.
Egretta thula
(rookery)
snowy egret Wet areas, fields, margins of open water. None/None SA Moderate to high.
Fairly common
resident. Observed.
Elanus leucurus
(nesting)
white-tailed kite Open woodlands and grasslands, windrows.
Hovers over open fields.
None/None None/SFP Moderate. Suitable
foraging, limited
nesting habitat.
Expected
929
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.4 - 27
Table 3.4-2 Sensitive Wildlife Species Known or With Potential to Exist in the City of Ontario Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Federal/State
Listing Status
Other
Designations Potential to Exist
occasionally.
Observed.
Eremophila
alpestris actia
California horned
lark
Variety of open habitats, usually where trees and
large shrubs are absent.
None/None CSC Low. Uncommon
resident.
Falco columbarius
(wintering)
merlin Grasslands, coastal sage scrub and estuaries,
windrows, open fields.
None/None CSC Low. Suitable
foraging habitat, no
nesting habitat.
Expected only rarely.
Winter visitor.
Observed.
Falco mexicanus
(nesting)
prairie falcon Grasslands, coastal sage scrub, and estuaries. None/None CSC/BCC Low. Potential habitat for foraging,
none for nesting.
Expected only rarely.
Winter visitor.
Observed
Falco peregrinus
anatum (nesting)
peregrine falcon Estuaries, wetlands, and coastal bluffs. Breeding habitat in high cliffs along the coast.
Delisted/
Delisted
None/BCC/
SFP
Low. Suitable
foraging, no nesting
habitat. Observed.
Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike Grasslands and open scrub. Forages in open country, using low perches (fences etc.) for
scanning, nests in dense scrub and brush.
None/None CSC/BCC Moderate. Suitable
foraging and nesting
habitat. Expected
occasionally.
Observed.
Larus californicus
(nesting colony)
California gull Nearly all types of fresh and salt water, cropland, landfills, refuse areas, open lawns.
None/None CSC High. Common in
winter. Occasional in
summer. Expected.
Observed.
930
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
3 .4- 2 8
Table 3.4-2 Sensitive Wildlife Species Known or With Potential to Exist in the City of Ontario Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Federal/State
Listing Status
Other
Designations Potential to Exist
Laterallus
jamaicensis
coturniculus
California black
rail
Brackish marsh, freshwater marsh, marsh and
swamp, salt marsh, wetland. Inhabits freshwater
marshes, wet meadows and shallow margins of
saltwater marshes bordering large bays.
None/ST CSC/BBC/ BLM Low. Limited suitable
habitat. Expected
only rarely.
Numenius
americanus
long-billed curlew Coastal estuaries, upland herbaceous areas,5 croplands, wet areas, open fields, shores of open
water.
None/None CSC Moderate. Expected
occasionally.
Observed.
Phalacrocorax
auritus
double-crested
cormorant
Lakes, fresh, salt, and estuarine waters. None/None CSC Moderate to high.
Suitable foraging, no
suitable nesting
habitat. Fairly
common in winter.
Occasional in
summer. Observed.
Plegadis chihi
(rookery site)
white-faced ibis Freshwater marshes and brackish areas. None/None CSC Low. Limited suitable habitat. Expected
only rarely.
Observed.
Polioptila
californica
californica
coastal California
gnatcatcher
Low elevation coastal sage scrub and coastal
bluff scrub.
FT/None CSC No suitable habitat.
Not expected.
Vireo bellii pusillus least Bell's vireo Riparian (riverside) corridors with dense, lowgrowing vegetation like willows, mulefat, and mugwort.
FE/SE None Low. No suitable
habitat. Not
expected.
Mammals
Antrozous pallidus pallid bat Chaparral, coastal scrub, desert wash, Great Basin grassland, Great Basin scrub, Mojavean
desert scrub, riparian woodland, Sonoran desert
None/None CSC/FS/BLM Potential for
occurrence.
931
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.4 - 29
Table 3.4-2 Sensitive Wildlife Species Known or With Potential to Exist in the City of Ontario Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Federal/State
Listing Status
Other
Designations Potential to Exist
scrub, upper montane coniferous forest, and
valley and foothill grassland. Oak and grassland
ecotones.6 Prefers foraging in the open. Roosts in
attics or rock cracks; in the open, near foliage at
night.
Chaetodipus (Perog
nathus) fallax fallax
northwestern San
Diego pocket
mouse
Coastal sage scrub, sage scrub/grassland
ecotones, and chaparral communities.
Moderately gravelly and rocky substrates,
disturbed grassland and open sage scrub
vegetation with sandy-loam to loam soils.
None/None CSC Low. Uncommon.
Corynorhinus
townsendii
Townsend’s bigeared bat A wide variety of habitats including woodlands and arid grasslands. Roosts in mines and caves.
None/None CSC/FS/BLM Potential for
occurrence.
Dipodomys
merriammi parvus
San Bernardino
kangaroo rat
Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub and sandy
loam soils, alluvial fans and flood plains, and
along washes with nearby sage scrub. Prefers
sandy loam substrates. Santa Ana River, Cajon
Creek Wash, Lytle Creek Wash, City Creek, and
upper Etiwanda Wash in San Bernardino County,
and sites in western Riverside County
FE/SE CSC Low. Limited to no
suitable habitat. Not
expected.
Dipodomys
stephensi
Stephens’
kangaroo rat
Primarily annual and perennial grasslands, but
also occurs in coastal scrub and sagebrush with
sparse canopy cover.
FT/ST None Low. Uncommon.
Eumops perotis
californicus
Western mastiff
bat
Open areas with high cliffs. None/None CSC/BLM Possible roosting opportunities.
Lasiurus xanthinus western yellow
bat
Desert regions of the southwestern US, southern
California. Capture sites are often associated
with water features; open grassy areas and
scrub, canyons and riparian areas, orchards.
None/None SA Possible roosting
opportunities.
932
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
3 .4- 3 0
Table 3.4-2 Sensitive Wildlife Species Known or With Potential to Exist in the City of Ontario Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Federal/State
Listing Status
Other
Designations Potential to Exist
Particular association with palms in oases and
ornamental palms in landscaping.
Lepus californicus
bennettii
San Diego blacktailed jackrabbit Coastal sage scrub and on the margins between shrub and herbaceous areas. Also know to occur
in agricultural and ruderal areas.
None/None CSC Low. Expected only
rarely.
Myotis ciliolabrum small-footed
myotis
Feeds among trees or over brush. Roosts in
caves, mines, and in cliff or rock openings.
None/None CSC/BLM Possible roosting
opportunities.
Myotis yumanensis Yuma myotis Water and wooded canyon bottoms. Roosts in caves and abandoned buildings.
None/None CSC/BLM Possible roosting
opportunities.
Neotoma lepida
intermedia
San Diego desert
woodrat
Riversidean and coastal sage scrub, chaparral
and nonnative grasslands. Shrub and desert
habitats, primarily associated with rock
outcroppings, boulders, cacti, or areas of dense
undergrowth.
None/None CSC Low to moderate.
Expected
occasionally.
Nyctinomops
femorosaccus
pocketed freetailed bat Desert habitats. Roosts in rock crevices in cliffs. None/None CSC Possible roosting opportunities.
Nyctinomops
macrotis
big free-tailed bat Desert habitats. Roosts in rock crevices in cliffs. None/None CSC Possible roosting opportunities.
Perognathus
longimembris
brevinasus
Los Angeles
pocket mouse
Inhabits open ground of fine sandy composition.
Probably prefers sparsely vegetated habitats.
None/None CSC/FS Low. Expected only
rarely.
Source: CDFW 2025
Notes: Federal Designations:
FE–Federally listed as Endangered; FT–Federally listed as Threatened; FC–Federal Candidate; BLM–US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management sensitive species; FS–US Forest Service sensitive species; BCC–USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern; Delisted–Delisted species are monitored for 5 years State Designations:
933
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.4 - 31
SE–State listed as Endangered; CSC–California Species of Special Concern; SFP–State Fully Protected Species; SA–Special Animal. Taxa of concern to the California Natural Diversity Data Base regardless of their current legal or protected status; None – not listed or designated as sensitive; Observed – recorded observation during previous surveys.
1. “Nesting” or “rookery” indicates sensitivity due to loss of suitable nesting locations. “Wintering” indicates species that breed to the north, but whole habitat for winter is declining.
2. The golden eagle is also protected under the federal Bald Eagle Protection Act, June 8, 1949, as amended in 1959. 934
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
3 .4- 3 2
San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat
The San Bernardino kangaroo rat is federally and state listed endangered and a California species of special concern. It is one of 19 recognized subspecies of Merriam’s kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriammi). In coastal southern California, it is the only species of kangaroo rat with 4 toes on each of its hind feet. The species are typically found on alluvial fans, in floodplains, along washes, in adjacent upland areas, and in areas with historically braided channels, which are areas where one main channel is subdivided into several smaller interconnecting channels. Currently they occupy approximately 3,240 acres of suitable habitat divided among 7 widely separated locations in San Bernardino and Riverside counties. An additional 13,193 acres are distributed within the Santa Ana River Wash, Lytle and Cajon creeks, and San Jacinto River. The San Bernardino kangaroo rat may potentially be present in the city.
There is low to moderate potential for occurrence in the remnant alluvial wash north of I-10 and west of Etiwanda Avenue, and in flood control channels in the same area. Focused surveys would be needed to determine presence or absence if projects are proposed in these areas.
Swainson’s Hawk
Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) is state listed as threatened. Typical habitat of the Swainson’s hawk is open desert, sparse shrublands, grassland or row grain, and hay cropland containing scattered large trees or small groves. It roosts in large trees, especially along stream courses or in open woodlands, but will roost on the ground if no trees are available.
The species is in decline because of habitat destruction, a reduction in its main prey species, and pesticide use. There are probably no key population areas in the city, but migratory stopovers and flights in the region have been observed along the Santa Ana River, where they may roost due to the access to trees. They may occur within the city during migration wherever there are foraging and roosting opportunities. There are potential foraging and roosting areas for this species in Ontario Ranch, but none for nesting. This species is expected to occur only rarely.
Peregrine Falcon
The peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) was formerly federally and state listed as endangered and is a state fully protected animal. Throughout the species’ range, peregrines are found in a large variety of open habitats, including tundra, marshes, seacoasts, savannahs, and high mountains. The species breeds mostly in woodland, forest, and coastal habitats. Riparian areas and coastal and inland wetlands are important habitats year-round, especially in nonbreeding seasons. During migration, the peregrine falcon may be found near marshes, lakes, and ponds that have high concentrations of waterfowl, shorebirds, and other birds, and they often travel along mountain ridges on both eastern and western coastlines. In southern California, peregrine falcons are primarily found at coastal estuaries and inland oases. The species breeds and winters throughout the state, except in desert areas. There is suitable 935
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 .4 BI O LO GI CAL RES OUR CE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.4 -33
foraging habitat within the city. The species has been observed foraging over Ontario Ranch, but it is a very uncommon breeding resident and is uncommon as a migrant.
Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo
The western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) is a federal candidate threatened species and state-listed endangered species. Its range historically extended from southern British Columbia to northern Mexico. Currently the only known populations of breeding western yellow-billed cuckoos are in California, Arizona, and western New Mexico. In California, the species requires dense, wide riparian woodlands with well-developed understories for breeding. It occurs in densely foliaged deciduous trees and shrubs—especially willows—which are required for roost sites. It is an uncommon summer resident of valley, foothill, and desert riparian habitats in scattered locations in California. Up to 5 western yellowbilled cuckoo populations have been documented in the Prado Basin and adjacent reach of the Santa Ana River, southwest of Ontario; however, this species is not expected in Ontario due to the lack of suitable dense riparian habitat.
Coast (San Diego) Horned Lizard
The coast (San Diego) horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillii) is a California species of special concern. This species is found in a wide variety of vegetation types, including coastal sage scrub, annual grassland, chaparral, oak woodland, riparian woodland, and coniferous forest. In inland areas, this species is restricted to areas with pockets of open microhabitat created by disturbance (e.g., floods, fire, roads, grazed areas, fire breaks). It prefers open areas of loose, crumbly, sandy soil in coastal sage scrub, chaparral, grassland, and riparian habitats and washes and watercourses. In California, coast (San Diego) horned lizard ranges from the Transverse Ranges south to the Mexican border west of the deserts, although the species occurs on scattered sites along the extreme western desert slope of the Peninsular Ranges. No occurrences of the species have been documented in the city; however, evidence but no direct observation of coast (San Diego) horned lizard was noted during biologic surveys of the United Parcel Service Cargo Hub area in 1987. This species is rarely expected to be present because there is limited suitable habitat in the city.
Burrowing Owl
Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) is a state species of special concern and is a candidate for listing under the CESA. They are found in open, dry grasslands, agricultural and range lands, and desert habitats often associated with burrowing animals, particularly prairie dogs, ground squirrels, and badgers. They can also inhabit grass, forb, and shrub stages of pinyon and ponderosa pine habitats. This semicolonial species requires large open expanses of sparsely vegetated areas on gently rolling or level terrain with an abundance of active small mammal burrows, which they use for roosting and nesting cover. They occur in all states west of the Mississippi Valley and breed south through the western and Midwestern states and across 936
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
3 .4- 3 4
grassland regions in Canada. It is a resident in the open areas of the lowlands over much of the southern California region. Burrowing owl has been observed in the central and northwestern portion of Ontario Ranch. There is a CNDDB recorded occurrence in the vicinity of Ontario Mills and several other sightings in 2010, 2011, and 2016 in various locations throughout the city.
Burrowing owls have also been observed in the Chino Airport area as well as the Ontario Sports Empire area. Parts of the closed Milliken Waste Disposal Site in the OMC are considered suitable for preservation or enhancement as burrowing owl habitat (Riverside Land Conservancy 2008).
Crotch’s Bumble Bee
Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) is a candidate species for listing status by the CESA. It is a colonial species that lives almost exclusively from coastal California east to the Sierra-Cascade Crest and can be found uncommonly in western Nevada and south through Baja California.
Crotch’s bumble bee inhabits grassland and scrub habitats in hotter and drier climates than most other bumblebee species and is only capable of tolerating a narrow range of climatic conditions. This species feeds on a variety of annual and perennial plant species, classifying it as a dietary generalist. It usually nests underground, often in abandoned rodent dens. Queens are active from March to May, with peak activity in April; workers are active from April to August, with peak activity between May and June; and males are active from May to September, with peak activity in July. Generally, for all bumble bee species, high-quality habitat has 3 major components: a diverse supply of flowers for nectar and pollen, nesting locations, and subterranean spaces for overwintering queens.
Coastal California Gnatcatcher
The coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), a subspecies of the California gnatcatcher, is a federally listed threatened, California species of special concern. The species is a resident of arid coastal-sage-scrub-dominated plant communities from southern Ventura County through Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties into Baja California, Mexico.
Even in the early 1900s, the coastal California gnatcatcher population was described as being scarce and irregularly distributed, but by the 1940s habitat was noticeably reduced. In the United States, loss of coastal sage scrub habitat has been estimated at 70 to 90 percent, with 33 percent lost since 1993 when the species was federally listed as threatened. Brood parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds and loss of habitat to urban development have been cited as causes of the coastal California gnatcatcher population decline. In Ontario, though coastal sage scrub was historically the dominant vegetation in alluvial fans and drainages, it has long since been removed by development and agricultural production. Coastal California gnatcatcher is not expected to be present in the Ontario planning area due to lack of suitable habitat.
937
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 .4 BI O LO GI CAL RES OUR CE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.4 -35
Southwestern Pond Turtle
Southwestern pond turtle (Emys [Clemmys] marmorata pallida) is a California species of special concern. The turtle is an aquatic animal that moves to upland areas for egg laying. It winters in underground burrows in upland habitats. In the warmer months it will bask on rocks and logs near slow-moving streams. Its habitat includes permanent or intermittent streams, small ponds, small lakes, reservoirs, abandoned gravel pits, permanent and ephemeral shallow wetlands, stock ponds, and sewage treatment lagoons. Pools are the preferred habitat in streams, with abundant logs, rocks, submerged vegetation, mud, undercut banks, and ledges as necessary habitat components for cover, basking, and nesting sites. Currently, it ranges south of San Francisco Bay to northern Baja California, Mexico, and integrates with northwestern pond turtle ([Clemmys] marmorata marmorata) over a large area in central California. Previous sightings of southwestern pond turtle were noted in a drainage in the Chino Airport area, immediately outside of the southwestern corner of the city; however, the species was not observed in 2004 surveys of the Chino Airport site. There is limited suitable habitat for southwestern pond turtle in Ontario.
Existing Conservation Plans and Areas
Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly
The most prominent sensitive wildlife species in the region is the DSFLF (Rhaphiomidas terminatus), a federally listed endangered species. The DSFLF is restricted (endemic) to the Colton Dunes (consisting of Delhi soil series). Delhi soils are fine sandy soils, often wholly or partly sand dunes stabilized by sparse native vegetation. These soils cover approximately 40 square miles in Riverside and San Bernardino counties, underlying portions of Ontario and other neighboring cities. By 1997, studies indicated that over 97 percent of the area containing this soil type had been converted to agriculture, developed for urban or commercial uses, or otherwise altered. There is a CNDDB-recorded occurrence of DSFLF in northeastern Ontario.
The DSFLF was emergency listed on September 23, 1993, because extinction within the foreseeable future was likely—the distribution of the DSFLF at that time encompassed less than 2 percent of its former range. Critical habitat has not been designated for this species. All existing populations of the DSFLF occur within 8 miles of each other. The distribution straddles I10 in the vicinity of Colton and Rialto on county, public utility, and private lands. In 1998, only 6 sites, totaling less than 45 acres, were known to be occupied, and only one is permanently protected. The Recovery Plan for the DSFLF was prepared in 1997 and amended in 2019. The former range of the species was divided into 3 recovery units: Jurupa, Colton, and Ontario.
Approximately 60 percent of the Ontario unit is in the city, covering approximately 21.7 square miles of the city, as shown on Figure 3.4-1. According to the Recovery Plan, there is restorable habitat for the DSFLF along the SCE right-of-way, along a shallow wash in southwestern Ontario (West Cucamonga Channel), and at a few other locations in the Ontario recovery unit. The 938
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
3 .4- 3 6
planned recovery of the DSFLF is partially dependent on the restoration, management, and preservation of such areas.
There is one approved HCP in the city. The Oakmont Industrial Group HCP was established for the protection of the DSFLF on approximately 19 acres adjacent to the intersection of Greystone Drive and Stanford Avenue near the eastern city boundary (Ontario 2022).
Migratory Corridors and Linkages
Wildlife corridors link areas of suitable habitat that are otherwise separated by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance. Corridors are links between different populations of a species and mitigate the effects of habitat fragmentation by 1) allowing animals to move between remaining habitats (which allows replenishment of depleted populations and promotes genetic diversity); 2) providing escape routes from fire, predators, and human disturbances that put populations or local species at risk; and 3) serving as travel routes for individuals moving within their home ranges for food, water, mates, and shelter. Wildlife movement activities usually fall into one of 3 movement categories: dispersal, seasonal migration, or movements related to home range activities. Large open spaces will generally support a diverse wildlife community engaging in all types of movement. Wildlife movement may range from nonmigratory movement of amphibians, reptiles, and some birds on a local level to the many-square-mile home ranges of large mammals moving at a regional level.
Ontario is almost completely developed with urban and agricultural uses. There are no large open spaces with native habitat in the city. Available open space consists of agricultural fields, parks and golf courses, and scattered vacant lots. Further, the city is generally surrounded by highly developed areas. The north–south watercourses that flow through the city provide open water areas used by resident and migratory birds. These drainages can also be wildlife corridors, but because they are concrete channels, they provide limited habitat cover and do not directly link natural open spaces within and in the immediate vicinity of the city. In the region, Cucamonga and Deer Creeks flow from the San Gabriel Mountains to the Prado Dam Flood Control Basin, which contains over 2,100 acres of riparian habitat upstream of the dam. These creeks are concrete-lined channels where they travel through Ontario. Regional movement of larger mammal species with expansive home ranges, such as mountain lion (Felis concolor) or mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), is not likely in the channels. Insects, amphibians, reptiles, bird species, and small- and medium-sized mammals—including urban-adapted species such as raccoon, Virginia opossum, striped skunk, and coyote—are likely to use the channels as local wildlife movement corridors within the city. In addition to flood control channels, there are 2 SCE utility corridors in the city, both of which generally extend northeast-southwest in the eastern part of the city and are shown on Figure 3.4-2, Vegetation and Land Cover. These corridors are likely also used for local movement by insects, reptiles, and small- and mediumsized mammals (Ontario 2022). 939
940
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
3 .4- 3 8
This page intentionally left blank.
941
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 .4 BI O LO GI CAL RES OUR CE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.4 -39
Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands
The USACE and CDFW have jurisdiction over streams, watercourses, and wetlands. Wetlands that fall under USACE jurisdiction must exhibit specific characteristics related to hydrology, soils, and hydrophytic plants, which are plants that grow in soils that are permanently or periodically saturated. In the absence of wetlands, USACE jurisdiction in nontidal waters such as rivers, lakes, and intermittent streams extends to the ordinary high-water mark. Pursuant to Sections 1600 to 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code, CDFW regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake that supports fish or wildlife. There are differences between USACE and CDFW jurisdictions. The CDFW uses less defined and more ecologically based criteria in its jurisdiction determinations.
For a watercourse to be considered under CDFW jurisdiction, it must have a terminus, banks, and channel through which water can flow, at least periodically, and needs to exhibit evidence of an ordinary high water mark. CDFW jurisdiction may only exhibit one of the 3 USACE indicators related to hydrology, soils, and hydrophytic plants. Generally, CDFW jurisdiction may extend to the wider limit of riparian vegetation associated with the watercourse, encompassing the entire limits of USACE jurisdiction.
The major watercourses that traverse the city potentially fall under USACE or CDFW jurisdiction.
West Cucamonga Channel and Cucamonga, Deer, Day, and Etiwanda Creeks enter the city from the north and flow generally to the south. Cucamonga Creek and its tributary, the Lower Deer Creek Channel, once supported riparian vegetation; however, all drainages that traverse Ontario, (except for an approximately 1,000-foot section of the Etiwanda Creek Channel between I-10 and 4th Street) have been channelized. In these channels there may be areas where sediment has accumulated and riparian vegetation has developed. These channels also discharge to numerous detention basins throughout the city. Riparian vegetation may also be present in the detention basins, particularly where flowing or standing water persists. These riparian resources, including any wetlands that may occur along drainages, potentially fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE and CDFW (Ontario 2022).
Other open water bodies include dairy manure water retention basins, irrigation ponds, livestock watering ponds, and man-made lakes. In addition, fields under cultivation or left fallow accumulate surface waters in ponds or ditches. These waters would likely be considered isolated wetlands and would not fall under USACE jurisdiction after the 2001 Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County decision, which limited the scope of the USACE CWA Section 404 permitting as applied to isolated waters of the United States (those that are not adjacent to or connected to a navigable water body, such as a river, lake, or ocean); however, CDFW may still take jurisdiction over these surface waters.
942
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
3 .4- 4 0
SPECIFIC PLAN
Vegetation Communities
Due to historic and current land uses, no native plant communities or natural communities of special concern are present within or adjacent to the Specific Plan area. The site primarily supports developed and undeveloped land that has been subjected to roughly a century of anthropogenic disturbances associated with historic and ongoing land uses (i.e., dairy ranches).
These disturbances have eliminated the natural plant communities that historically occurred within the site and general vicinity. As illustrated in Figure 3.4-3, EBPSP Vegetation Communities, the Specific Plan area supports four land cover types that would be classified as Disturbed, Developed, Active Dairy, and Stock Pond (Appendix D). These land use types are described below.
Disturbed
Disturbed land within the Specific Plan area includes remnant agricultural fields and grazing paddocks and, as such, is dominated by non-native, invasive, weedy, and/or early successional species which are often associated with grazing pastures. These species include downy chess (Bromus tectorum), nettle-leaved goosefoot (Chenopodiastrum murale), flax-leaved horseweed (Erigeron bonariensis), foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum), and golden crownbeard (Verbesina encelioides). Other common plant species observed in the disturbed portions of the Specific Plan area include mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia), grazing brome (Bromus catharticus), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), lambs quarters (Chenopodium album), pitseed goosefoot (Chenopodium berlanderi), sacred datura (Datura wrightii), shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), cheese weed (Malva parviflora), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), stinknet (Oncosiphon pilulifer), annual beard grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), mediterranean grass (Schismus barbatus), London rocket (Sisymbrium irio), black nightshade (Solanum nigrum), smilo grass (Stipa miliacea), puncturevine (Tribulus terrestris), and stinging nettle (Urtica dioica).
Developed
Developed land generally encompasses all buildings/structures and paved or otherwise impervious surfaces. On-site developed areas include existing residences, garages, barns, pens, concrete pads, walkways, staging areas, roadways, and watering areas associated with cattle stockyards and accompanying dwellings. These areas are generally devoid of vegetation except for sparse occurrences of especially hardy weedy species. Ornamental landscaping associated with the on-site residences is also considered developed since these areas have been maintained that way for several decades.
943
' . ,· .. , . ' . . . ,· .. . ' ..
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Figure 3.4-3
EBPSP Vegetation Communities
□ EBPSP Boundary
IMM M Off-site Improvement Areas
D Disturbed
1111 Developed
CJ Active Dairy
CJ Stock Pond
2 · 0 · 5 · 0
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
@ 0~00 Feet
Source: ELMT Consulting 2025 Date: 12/16/20
944
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
3 .4- 4 2
This page intentionally left blank.
945
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 .4 BI O LO GI CAL RES OUR CE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.4 -43
Active Dairy
The majority of the Specific Plan area has been utilized as active dairy facilities, including dry lots, milking parlors/feed storage facilities, and housing. These areas are either devoid of vegetation or dominated by ornamental, ruderal, non-native, or weedy species commonly detected in disturbed habitats, including Palmer’s amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri), summer cypress (Bassia scoparia), horseweed (Erigeron canadensis), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), prostrate knotweed (Polygonum aviculare), cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), red-stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium), castor bean (Ricinus communis), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), truncate finger grass (Chloris truncata), barnyard grass (Echinochloa crusgalli), goose grass (Eleusine indica), wild oat (Avena fatua), foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum), and ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus).
Stock Pond
Several dairy stock ponds are present within the Specific Plan area. Most of these features were inundated with water at the time of the field investigation, which followed recent storm events.
Plant species surrounding the stock ponds include several ruderal, invasive, and/or weedy species as outlined in the disturbed areas on-site on Figure 3.4-3. No hydrophytic or riparian vegetation was observed in the stock pond areas.
Wildlife
Plant communities provide foraging habitat, nesting/denning sites, and shelter from adverse weather or predation. Wildlife detections were based on calls, songs, scat, tracks, burrows, and direct observation. The Specific Plan area provides limited habitat for wildlife species adapted to a high degree of anthropogenic disturbances and development (Appendix D).
Fish
No fish were observed on or within the vicinity of the Specific Plan area. Though remnant water retention basins are supported in the northern portion of the site, these are effluence ponds that primarily function to retain animal waste and other runoff associated with dairy farming practices. These basins do not bear upstream or downstream connectivity to suitable fish habitat. Therefore, no fish are expected, and they are presumed absent from the Specific Plan area.
Amphibians
No amphibians were observed on or within the vicinity of the Specific Plan area. The active agriculture, remnant water retention basins, and ornamental landscaping supported within the site provide limited foraging and cover habitat for local amphibian species adapted to development and routine anthropogenic disturbances. Common amphibians that could be 946
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
3 .4- 4 4
expected to occur within the Specific Plan area include western toad (Anaxyrus boreas) and black-bellied salamander (Batrachoseps nigriventis). Due to the high level of development and routine anthropogenic disturbances, no special-status amphibian species are expected within the Specific Plan area.
Reptiles
The Specific Plan area provides limited foraging and cover habitat for reptile species adapted to a high degree of anthropogenic disturbance. Reptiles observed during the field investigation include western side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana elegans) and Great Basin fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis longipes). Other common reptilian species that could be expected include the San Diego alligator lizard (Elgaria multicarinata webbii). Due to the high level of anthropogenic disturbance and on-site and surrounding development, no special-status reptilian species are expected within the Specific Plan area.
Birds
The Specific Plan area provides suitable foraging and nesting habitat for avian species adapted to development and a high degree of routine anthropogenic disturbance. Bird species detected during the field investigation include red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), common raven (Corvus corax), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), yellow headed blackbird (Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), Eurasian collared dove (Streptopelia decaotco), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), and Cassin's kingbird (Tyrannus vociferans).
Mammals
The Specific Plan area provides limited foraging and cover habitat for mammalian species that are adapted to a high degree of anthropogenic disturbance. Mammalian species observed during the field investigation include California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), and pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae). Additional common mammalian species that could occur include coyote (Canis latrans), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), house mouse (Mus musculus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and black rat (Rattus rattus). Although heavily disturbed, the Specific Plan area has the potential to provide suitable foraging and/or roosting habitat for common and special-status bat species. 947
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 .4 BI O LO GI CAL RES OUR CE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.4 -45
Sensitive Biological Resources
Special-Status Plants
No special-status plant communities or species were observed within the Specific Plan area during the field investigation. The site supports disturbed and developed land that has been subject to a variety of anthropogenic disturbances for several decades. Historic and ongoing land uses have eliminated the natural plant communities that once occurred within the site which has significantly reduced the quality of on-site habitat and its potential to support special-status plant species known to occur in the general vicinity. Based on habitat requirements for specific special-status plant species and the availability and quality of habitat needed by each species, it was determined that the Specific Plan area does not have the potential to support any of the special-status plant species known to occur in the area and all are presumed to be absent (Appendix D).
Special-Status Animals
No special-status wildlife species were observed within the Specific Plan area during the habitat assessment. The site consists of disturbed and developed land that has been subject to a variety of anthropogenic disturbances. These disturbances have eliminated the natural plant communities that once occurred within the site, greatly reducing potential foraging opportunities for wildlife species. Based on habitat requirements for specific species and the availability and suitable habitats, it was determined that the site has a high potential to support northern harrier (Circus hudsonius); a moderate potential to support Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), great egret (Ardea alba), great blue heron (Ardea Herodias), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), Costa’s hummingbird (Calypte costae), snowy egret (Egretta thula), Califonria horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), California gull (Larus californicus), and white-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi); and a low potential to support whitetailed kite (Elanus leucurus), merlin (Falco columbarius), prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), and loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). It was further determined that the Specific Plan area does not have the potential to support any of the other special-status wildlife species known to occur in the area and all are presumed to be absent.
Due to regional significance, the potential occurrence of burrowing owl and Crotch’s bumble bee are discussed in further detail below.
Burrowing Owl
As identified above, burrowing owl is a candidate species for listing under the CESA. Despite a systematic search of the Specific Plan area, no burrowing owls or sign (i.e., pellets, feathers, castings, or whitewash) were observed during the field investigation. Undeveloped portions of the site are unvegetated and/or vegetated with a variety of low-growing plant species that allow 948
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
3 .4- 4 6
for line-of-sight observation favored by burrowing owl. In addition, suitable burrows were observed within berms surrounding the remnant pasture fields and water retention basins, and additional roosting opportunities were observed within rubble piles located in the northeast portion of the site. The site is surrounded by tall trees, structures, and electrical towers that provide suitable perching opportunities for large raptors (i.e., red-tailed hawk) that prey on burrowing owl. Additionally, a red-tailed hawk was observed foraging over the site during the field investigation. Existing and continuous anthropogenic disturbances likely preclude burrowing owl from occupying the Specific Plan area (Appendix D).
Crotch’s Bumble Bee
As identified above, Crotch’s bumble bee is a candidate species for listing status by the CESA.
Generally, high-quality habitat for all bumble bee species has 3 major components: a diverse supply of flowers for nectar and pollen, nesting locations, and subterranean spaces for overwintering queens. Based on the results of the survey, it was determined that the Specific Plan area does not provide suitable habitat for Crotch’s bumble bee. No bumble bees were observed within the site during the field investigation (Appendix D).
DSFLF Suitability Assessment
A DSFLF suitability assessment was conducted concurrently with the biological resources assessment to evaluate the quality or purity of the on-site soils and their potential to support DSFLF. The eastern limits of the Specific Plan area are mapped as being underlain by Delhi fine sand soils.
As a result of historic land uses, soils underlying the site have been heavily mixed with alluvial soils (Hilmar fine loamy sand) and compacted. In addition, the majority of the site is developed and mostly consists of heavily disturbed soils from agricultural and cattle use with no undisturbed soils present. Undeveloped areas support recently graded, disturbed land with remnant agricultural fields. Further, the site is surrounded by additional development and no longer has connectivity to upwind areas containing Delhi sands soils, areas subjected to aeolian processes, or areas supporting DSFLF populations. Since the Specific Plan area does not support open areas of undisturbed Delhi sands soils and has been heavily disturbed and developed, it was determined that the site does not support suitable habitat for DSFLF, and DSFLF is presumed absent. The Specific Plan area no longer supports clean Delhi sand soils and was rated as unsuitable habitat with a habitat rating of 1 (Appendix D).
Critical Habitat
Under the federal Endangered Species Act, “Critical Habitat” is designated at the time of listing of a species or within one year of listing. Critical Habitat refers to specific areas within the geographical range of a species at the time it is listed that include the physical or biological features that are essential to the survival and eventual recovery of that species. Maintenance of 949
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 .4 BI O LO GI CAL RES OUR CE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.4 -47
these physical and biological features requires special management considerations or protection, regardless of whether individuals of the species are present or not. All federal agencies are required to consult with the USFWS regarding activities they authorize, fund, or permit which may affect a federally listed species or its designated Critical Habitat. The purpose of the consultation is to ensure that projects will not jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species or adversely modify or destroy it’s designated Critical Habitat. The designation of Critical Habitat does not affect private landowners, unless a project they are proposing is on federal lands, uses federal funds, or requires federal authorization or permits (e.g., funding from the Federal Highways Administration or a CWA Permit from the USACE). If there is a federal nexus, then the federal agency that is responsible for providing the funding or permit would consult with USFWS.
The Specific Plan area is not within federally designated Critical Habitat. The nearest Critical Habitat designation is approximately 3.4 miles to the south for least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), and southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) (Appendix D).
Migratory Corridors and Linkages
Habitat linkages provide connections between larger habitat areas that are separated by development. Wildlife corridors are similar to linkages but provide specific opportunities for animals to disperse or migrate between areas. A corridor can be defined as a linear landscape feature of sufficient width to allow animal movement between two comparatively undisturbed habitat fragments. Adequate cover is essential for a corridor to function as a wildlife movement area. It is possible for a habitat corridor to be adequate for one species yet still inadequate for others. Wildlife corridors are features that allow for the dispersal, seasonal migration, breeding, and foraging of a variety of wildlife species. Additionally, open space can provide a buffer against both anthropogenic disturbance and natural fluctuations in resources.
According to the 2022 Certified EIR and the San Bernardino County General Plan, the Specific Plan area has not been identified in a wildlife corridor or linkage. As designated by the San Bernardino County General Plan Open Space Element, the nearest major open space area documented in the vicinity of the Specific Plan area is approximately 4 miles to the south in the Prado Basin. The Specific Plan area is separated from this open space area by existing development (Appendix D).
Nesting Birds
A single red-tailed hawk nest was observed in the eucalyptus stand on the eastern boundary of the Specific Plan area. At the time of the field investigation a red-tailed hawk was observed bringing nesting material to the nest. No other active nests or nesting behavior were observed on the site during the field survey, which was conducted during the typical breeding season.
Although heavily disturbed, the Specific Plan area has the potential to provide suitable nesting habitat for year-round and seasonal avian residents as well as migrating songbirds that are 950
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
3 .4- 4 8
adapted to development and agricultural environments. In addition, tall trees and structures within the site provide suitable nesting opportunities for raptors (Appendix D).
Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands
The USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) and the United State Geological Survey (USGS) National Hydrography Dataset were reviewed to determine if any blueline streams or riverine resources have been documented within the Specific Plan area. Based on this review, eight Freshwater Ponds and three Freshwater Emergent Wetlands were mapped as occurring within the boundaries of the site. These features were mapped using one-meter (or less) digital, true color imagery from 2006. These features correspond to on-site water retention basins associated with agriculture and dairy effluence.
During the field investigation, 38 water stock ponds were observed on the site. The stock ponds were vegetated with a variety of non-native, weedy annual species, and no aquatic plant species were present. The artificially created unvegetated dairy effluent retention ponds are isolated in uplands and currently rotated in use resulting in a wet (inundated) and dry phase. All of the retention ponds are devoid of wetland vegetation.
The stock ponds found on-site are artificially created in upland areas primarily for dairy effluence. They do not exhibit hydraulic connectivity to upstream or downstream aquatic resources (Appendix D).
3.4.3 Standards for Analysis
Appendix G, “Environmental Checklist Form,” of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states that the proposed project would result in a significant impact on biological resources if it would:
a) Have a substantial effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. 951
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 .4 BI O LO GI CAL RES OUR CE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.4 -49
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan; Natural Community Conservation Plan; or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
METHODOLOGY
Specific Plan
A literature review and records search were conducted to determine which biological resources have the potential to occur on or within the general vicinity of the Specific Plan area. In addition, a general habitat assessment and field investigation of the site was conducted. The field investigation was conducted to document existing conditions and assess the potential for special-status biological resources to occur.
Literature Review
Prior to conducting the field study, species and habitat information was gathered from the reports related to the site and relevant databases for the Prado Dam, Corona North, Ontario, and Guasti USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles to identify species and habitats known to occur locally.
These quadrangles were queried due to the proximity of the Specific Plan area to quadrangle boundaries and regional topography. The literature review sources included:
USFWS threatened and endangered species occurrence GIS overlay USFWS Designated Critical Habitat Maps
CNDDB Rarefind 5
International Union for Conservation of Naturae
CNDDB Biogeographic Information and Observation System
CNPS Electronic Inventory database
Calflora Database
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)
Soil Survey
USFWS NWI
EPA Water Program “My Waters” data layers
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
952
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
3 .4- 5 0
Google Earth Pro historic aerial imagery (1985–2024)
San Bernardino County General Plan
USFWS Critical Habitat designations for Threatened and Endangered Specie The literature review provided a baseline from which to inventory the biological resources potentially occurring within the Specific Plan area. The CNDDB database was used, in conjunction with ArcGIS software, to locate the nearest recorded occurrences of special-status species and determine the distance from the site.
Field Investigation
Plant communities identified on aerial photographs during the literature review were verified in the field (including a 50-foot buffer when accessible). The plant communities were evaluated for their potential to support special-status plant and wildlife species. In addition, any natural corridors and linkages that could support the movement of wildlife through the area were identified.
The plant communities were evaluated for their potential to support special-status plant and wildlife species. Plant communities were mapped using 7.5-minute USGS topographic base maps and aerial photography. The ArcGIS application was used to compute the area of each plant community in acres.
Common plant species observed during the field survey were identified by visual characteristics and morphology in the field and recorded in a field notebook. Unusual and less familiar plants were photographed in the field and identified in the laboratory using taxonomic guides.
Wildlife species detected during field surveys by sight, calls, tracks, scat, or other sign were recorded during surveys in a field notebook. Field guides were used to assist with identification of wildlife species during the survey.
Soil Series Assessment
Soils underlying the Specific Plan area were researched prior to the field investigation using the USDA NRCS Soil Survey for San Bernardino County, Southwestern Part. In addition, a review of the local geological conditions and historical aerial photographs was conducted to assess the ecological changes that the Specific Plan area has undergone.
Jurisdictional Drainages and Wetlands
Aerial photography was reviewed prior to conducting a field investigation in order to locate and inspect any potential natural drainage features, ponded areas, or water bodies that could fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE, RWQCB, or CDFW. In general, surface drainage features indicated as blue-line streams on USGS maps that are observed or expected to exhibit evidence ■
■
■
953
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 .4 BI O LO GI CAL RES OUR CE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.4 -51
of flow are considered potential riparian/riverine habitat and are also subject to state and federal regulatory jurisdiction. In addition, jurisdictional waters information was reviewed through examining historical aerial photographs to gain an understanding of the impact of landuse on natural drainage patterns in the area. The USFWS NWI and EPA Water Program “My Waters” data layers were also reviewed to determine whether any hydrologic features and wetland areas have been documented on or within the vicinity of the Specific Plan area.
DSFLF Suitability Assessment
In addition to the general biological resources assessment, a habitat suitability assessment was conducted to determine the presence or absence of unconsolidated Delhi sand deposits and to determine its quality as it pertains to DSFLF. The habitat suitability assessment consisted of a visual and tactile inspection of all areas within the Specific Plan area. The soils, where applicable, were evaluated for the quality or purity of Delhi Sands and for its potential to support DSFLF. Areas were assigned one or more ratings ranging between 1 and 5, with 5 being the best quality and most suitable habitat:
1. Unsuitable. Soils dominated by heavy deposits of alluvial material including coarse sands and gravels with little or no Delhi sand soils and evidence of soil compaction. Developed areas, non-Delhi sands soils with high clay, silt, and/or gravel content. Delhi sands extensively and deeply covered by dumping of exotic soils, rubble, trash, or organic debris.
2. Very Low Quality. Delhi sand soils are present, but the soil characteristics include a predominance of alluvial materials (Tujunga Soils and Hilmar loamy sand), or predominance of other foreign contamination. Severe and frequent disturbance (such as maintenance yard or high use roadbed).
3. Low Quality. Although not clean, sufficient Delhi sand soils are present to prevent soil compaction. Moderately contaminated Delhi sands. Delhi sands with moderate to high disturbance (such as annual disking). Sufficient Delhi sands are present to prevent soil compaction (related to contamination by foreign soils). Some sandy soils exposed on the surface due to fossorial animal activity.
4. Moderate Quality. Abundant clean Delhi sand soils with little or no foreign soils present (such as alluvial material, Tujunga soils, or Hilmar loamy sand). Moderate abundance of exposed sands on the soil surface. Low vegetative cover. Evidence of moderate degree of fossorial animal activity by vertebrates and invertebrates. May represent high quality habitat with mild or superficial disturbance.
5. High Quality. Sand dune habitat with clean Delhi sand soils. High abundance of exposed sands on the soil surface. Low vegetative cover. Evidence (soil surface often gives under foot) of high degree of fossorial animal activity by vertebrates and invertebrates. Sand associated plants and arthropod species may be abundant. 954
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
3 .4- 5 2
3.4.4 Relevant New and Modified General Plan Policies
There are no applicable policy changes.
3.4.5 Environmental Impacts
2022 CERTIFIED EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR determined that the approved project would not directly affect sensitive species. The 2022 Certified EIR also identified that compliance with existing regulations would ensure that implementation of the approved project would not have an adverse impact on riparian or sensitive habitats. Compliance with the CESA and the FESA, including requirements of the USFWS regarding critical habitat; mitigation fees paid by projects in Ontario Ranch; acquisition and management of habitat using those fees would; and policies in TOP would ensure less-than-significant impacts to sensitive species and habitat.
The 2022 Certified EIR identified that compliance with existing regulations would ensure that implementation of the approved project would not have an adverse impact on jurisdictional waters. Projects that have the potential to result in impact to waters of the State would be subject to approval by the CDFW and/or the USACE and may require a Section 404 permit under the CWA or consultation with the EPA for a Section 7 take permit, in accordance with the applicable permits, and impacts to jurisdictional waters in the city would be less than significant.
The 2022 Certified EIR identified that implementation of the approved project would not adversely affect wildlife movement. No regional wildlife movement corridors have been identified in the city. Additionally, all projects would comply with the MBTA for migratory birds and the TOP policies to ensure less-than-significant impacts to wildlife movement corridors.
The 2022 Certified EIR identified that TOP would not conflict with the DSFLF HCP because the approved project would increase land use intensity but would not result in development of new, previously undeveloped areas of the city. Impacts were found to be less than significant.
PROPOSED PROJECT
a) Would the project have a substantial effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS? The 2022 Certified EIR found that development in accordance with the approved project could result in the loss of sensitive species. However, the approved project did not have substantial 955
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 .4 BI O LO GI CAL RES OUR CE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.4 -53
adverse impacts on sensitive animal species after compliance with the requirements of the CESA and FESA, including USFWS requirements regarding critical habitat; mitigation fees paid by projects in Ontario Ranch; and acquisition and management of habitat using those fees.
Policy Plan Amendment
The following sensitive species have been observed in Ontario, and suitable habitat for each of these species is present in the city: great egret (Ardea alba), great blue heron (Ardea Herodias), snowy egret (Egretta thula), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), and long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus). Several additional species have been observed for which the city has suitable foraging habitat but limited or no suitable nesting habitat: ferruginous hawk, mountain plover (Charadrius montanus), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), merlin (Falco columbarius), prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), peregrine falcon, and white-faced ibis. Several sensitive bat species are considered to have possible roosting opportunities in the city and are listed in Table 3.4-2.
No sensitive plant species have been observed in Ontario, and the only such species that are considered potentially present in the city have a low potential due to lack of suitable habitat.
Therefore, implementation of the Policy Plan Amendment would not have substantial adverse impacts on sensitive plant species.
Nearly the entire city is developed with urban and agricultural uses, and there is very little native habitat remaining. Vacant land in the city may have low habitat value—much of it is barren ground and does not support vegetation, and many areas of vacant land are small, surrounded by developed urban uses, and isolated from other vacant land. There is nonetheless a chance that some sensitive species occur in remnant or disturbed habitats, and focused surveys may be warranted for individual sites that are the subject of development proposals.
The assessment of the need for focused surveys would be carried out on a project-by-project basis in accordance with existing federal, state, and local regulations. This would apply equally to the OMC and Ontario Ranch.
Most potential biological resources in the city are in Ontario Ranch because the rest of the city is almost entirely built out. Some parts of Ontario Ranch that were previously used as dairies have undergone surveys for DSFLF, and the USFWS has determined that the likelihood of occupancy by DSFLF in these areas is low enough that further surveys would not be required; however, project applicants would need to consult with the USFWS on a case-by-case basis to determine survey requirements.
The settlement agreement for the City of Ontario SOI GPA governs mitigation for biological resources impacts in Ontario Ranch associated with potential impacts to the burrowing owl, DSFLF, raptor foraging and wildlife habitat, loss of open space, actual and potential habitat and 956
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
3 .4- 5 4
agricultural land, and sensitive species (listed and unlisted). The terms of the settlement agreement are discussed in Section 3.4.1, Regulatory Framework, under “City of Ontario Sphere of Influence General Plan Amendment, Final EIR, and Settlement Agreement.” While the habitat mitigation fee established as part of the settlement agreement would cover potential impacts to the burrowing owl, DSFLF, raptor foraging and wildlife habitat, loss of open space, and agricultural land, impacts related to federal- and state- covered species and habitat would be subject to a separate process under FESA and CESA.
Parts of the closed Milliken Waste Disposal Site in the OMC are also considered suitable for preservation or enhancement as burrowing owl habitat (Riverside Land Conservancy 2008).
The Policy Plan Amendment primarily involves modifying the TOP land use pattern and making associated updates to the various elements of the TOP Policy Plan. Implementation of the proposed project would not directly result in removal of vegetation or wildlife in the city because TOP does not confer entitlements for development. Development in accordance with the proposed project could result in habitat modification and removal. Such development could also result in the introduction of nonnative species of weeds, insects, and domestic animals that could adversely impact sensitive species.
TOP includes policies that support the protection of biological resources through the restoration and conservation of habitat areas and compliance with state and federal regulations regarding protected species (e.g., Policies ER-5.1 and ER-5.2). Projects in Ontario Ranch would pay a mitigation fee that would be deposited into a trust fund to be used for the acquisition, restoration, rehabilitation, and maintenance of lands deemed to have long-term conservation value. While adherence to the TOP policies protecting biological resources and payment of the mitigation fee for projects in Ontario Ranch would assist in reducing impacts, future development projects under the proposed project could impact sensitive species.
Under the FESA and CESA, future development projects would require more detailed evaluations of biological resources and formulation of mitigation measures, if needed, by a qualified biologist. If potential habitat were found on-site, focused surveys for sensitive species potentially present would be required. If sensitive species were found, the project proponent would be required to consult with the CDFW regarding impacts to sensitive species and ensuing mitigation. Mitigation for impacts to sensitive species is often in the form of acquisition or restoration of habitat, on-site or off-site, at a ratio to the area of impacted land that would be determined by the CDFW or USFWS. For projects that are sited within critical habitat for a listed species and are proposed by federal agencies or involve federal permits or funding, the project proponent would be required under the FESA to consult with the USFWS regarding impacts and mitigation. Therefore, this impact is potentially significant.
Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Potentially significant. 957
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 .4 BI O LO GI CAL RES OUR CE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.4 -55
Specific Plan
No special-status or federal or State-listed plant species were observed in the Specific Plan area during the field surveys. The site supports disturbed and developed land that have been subject to a variety of anthropogenic disturbances for several decades. Historic and ongoing land uses have eliminated the natural plant communities that once grew on the site, and this has significantly reduced the quality of habitat and its potential to support special-status plant species known to occur in the general vicinity. Based on habitat requirements for specific special-status plant species and the availability and quality of habitat needed by each species, it was determined that the Specific Plan area does not have the potential to support any of the special-status plant species known to occur in the area, and all are presumed to be absent.
Implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in any significant impacts to any specialstatus plant species.
No special-status wildlife species were observed within the Specific Plan area during the habitat assessment. However, the site has a high potential to support northern harrier (Circus hudsonius); a moderate potential to support Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), great egret (Ardea alba), great blue heron (Ardea Herodias), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), Costa’s hummingbird (Calypte costae), snowy egret (Egretta thula), California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), California gull (Larus californicus), and whitefaced ibis (Plegadis chihi); and a low potential to support white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), merlin (Falco columbarius), prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), and loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus).
As discussed in Section 3.4.2, Existing Conditions, due to lack of on-site habitat, Crotch’s bumble bee and DSFLF are considered absent and would not be affected by development of the Specific Plan area.
No burrowing owls or sign (i.e., pellets, feathers, castings, or whitewash) were observed during the field investigation. Undeveloped portions of the Specific Plan area are unvegetated and/or vegetated with a variety of low-growing plant species that allow for line-of-sight observation favored by burrowing owl. In addition, suitable burrows were observed within berms surrounding the remnant pasture fields and water retention basins, and additional roosting opportunities were observed within rubble piles in the northeast portion of the site.
Additionally, there is potential for bats to roost in large ornamental trees within the Specific Plan area. This would be a potentially significant impact if the population of bats impacted is 25 or more individuals of non-special-status species, or a single individual of special-status species.
Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Potentially significant. 958
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
3 .4- 5 6
Impact BIO-1: Implementation of the proposed project could impact special-status species, as well as nesting birds, burrowing owls, and roosting bat species.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant biological resources impacts, and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
New Mitigation Measures
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure BIO-1-PPA: Biological Resources Assessment. Applicants for future development projects on non-infill sites with suitable natural habitat shall conduct a biological resources assessment of the proposed project footprint (including proposed access roads, proposed staging and laydown areas, and a suitable buffer surrounding the project footprint). The biological resources assessment shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and summarized in a biological resources letter report or biological resources technical report that will be submitted to the Ontario Planning Department for review and approval prior to being issued a grading permit. Biological resources assessments for infill redevelopment projects may be required, subject to the discretion of the Executive Director Community Development.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2-PPA: Biological Reconnaissance-Level Survey. The biological reconnaissance-level survey shall include, but not be limited to:
An analysis of available literature and biological databases including but not limited to: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW); California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB); California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, National Wetland Inventory Database (NWI); USGS National Hydrographic Dataset (NHD); EcoAtlas; and database searches of the US Fish and Wildlife Service Critical Habitat, Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS), and Information, Planning, and Conservation System (IPaC). The literature review shall be performed prior to the field survey to identify sensitive biological resources that were reported previously from the proposed development project ■
959
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 .4 BI O LO GI CAL RES OUR CE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.4 -57
vicinity and to help determine the type of sensitive biological resources that may be in the survey area.
A review of current land use and land ownership within the proposed development project vicinity.
A field assessment survey that includes mapping vegetation communities in the proposed development project (including but not limited to project footprint, proposed access roads, staging and laydown areas, and a suitable buffer) utilizing the Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd edition (MCV) and the National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS) or the currently accepted standard for vegetation mapping and classification. An evaluation of each mapped vegetation community’s State and Global rarity ranks shall be determined using CDFW’s Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program (VegCAMP).
An evaluation of the proposed development project’s potential to support special status plant and wildlife species.
An evaluation of nesting habitat for migratory and special status bird species.
An evaluation of potential impacts to bats and roosts from ground-disturbing activities.
A general assessment of potential jurisdictional areas, including wetlands and riparian habitats.
An evaluation of potential local and regional wildlife movement corridors.
Mitigation Measure BIO-3-PPA: Focused Species Surveys. If one or more special status plant or animal species has the potential to occur within the proposed development project area (including but not limited to project footprint, proposed access roads, staging and laydown areas, and a suitable buffer), a qualified biologist shall conduct additional focused surveys for said species using the most recently updated protocols recommended by natural resource agencies or, if not available, standards accepted in the professional biological community to survey that taxonomic group, community, or species. If an established protocol is not available for a special status species, the qualified biologist will consult with the City and CDFW or USFWS to determine the appropriate survey protocol. The focused species survey(s) will be at a level to determine the presence/absence of these species and to adequately evaluate potential direct and/or indirect impacts to these species. Adjoining properties shall also be ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
960
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
3 .4- 5 8
surveyed (as access permits) where direct or indirect project effects, such as those from fuel modification or herbicide application, could potentially extend off-site. To the extent possible, the focused species surveys shall be conducted during nondrought years at the time of year when species are both evident and identifiable. The focused survey shall record the location and boundary of special status species by use of global positioning system (GPS). The number of individuals shall be counted (if population is small) or estimated (if population is large). If applicable, information about the percentage of individuals in each life stage shall be provided (seedlings, reproductive individuals, adults, nestlings, juveniles, transients or migrant individuals, etc.). Images of the target species and/or representative habitats shall be included to support information and descriptions. Results of focused species surveys shall be summarized in the proposed development project’s Biological Technical Report.
Mitigation Measure BIO-4-PPA: Biological Resources Report. The results of the biological survey for proposed development projects with no significant impacts may be presented in a biological survey letter report. For proposed development projects with significant impacts that require mitigation to reduce the impacts to below a level of significance, and/or agency consultation and permitting, the results of the biological survey shall be presented in a biological technical report. The impact analysis shall consider impacts from areas subject to fuel modification and grading to accommodate the development.
Mitigation Measure BIO-5-PPA: Special-Status Species, Sensitive Habitats, Wetlands, Other Non-wetland Waters, Native Wildlife Nursery Sites, and Wildlife Corridors. If a sensitive biological resource is identified during field surveys (see Mitigation Measures BIO-2-PPA and BIO-3-PPA), the City shall require implementation of mitigation measures at the project level that fully account for the adversely affected resource. Mitigation measures shall adhere to the following order of priority to reduce adverse impacts of a proposed project to the resource: avoid impacts, minimize impacts, and compensate for impacts. Mitigation measures shall be used on a project-level basis and be tailored to on-site conditions and sensitive biological resources present.
Priority 1, Avoidance of Impacts. Proposed development shall avoid impacts to the maximum extent feasible, as determined by a qualified biologist, by not taking certain actions or parts of an action. Projects shall be sited to avoid direct or indirect impacts on the resource and include measures such as implementing no-disturbance buffers (e.g., nesting bird buffer areas during ■
961
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 .4 BI O LO GI CAL RES OUR CE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.4 -59
construction, siting staging areas outside buffer area) or implementing project-specific design features (e.g., wildlife-friendly fencing and lighting in a wildlife corridor), such that indirect adverse effects of project development are avoided. This shall include flagging all plants and/or perimeter of populations; stop-work buffers around plants and/or populations (e.g., flagged perimeter plus 50 feet); restrictions on ground-disturbing activities within protected areas; relocation of staging and other material piling areas away from protected areas; restrictions on herbicide use and/or type of herbicide and/or application method within 100 feet of sensitive plants; and worker education and training.
Priority 2, Minimize Impacts. Proposed development shall be conditioned to minimize adverse impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation to less than significant. Other mitigation measures may include reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action.
Measures to mitigate the spread of invasive plant species and invasive wildlife species (e.g., New Zealand mudsnail) shall include but will not be limited to: cleaning of equipment, footwear, and clothing before entering a construction site and the identification and treatment of significant infestations of invasive plant species within a project site.
Priority 3, Offset Impacts. Offsetting impacts can be done by replacing or providing substitute resources or by rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment.
Offset mitigation ratios for protected sensitive resources will be established based on the rarity of the resource, quality of affected habitat associated with the resource, temporary and permanent losses to habitat function, the type of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, preservation, establishment), and other requirements associated with state or federal permits. Mitigation ratios will be determined at the project level in consultation with the City, the qualified biologist, and, where applicable, federal or state agencies with jurisdiction over the resource (e.g., CDFW, USACE, USFWS).
If impacts on a protected sensitive biological resource are unavoidable, then the project proponent shall mitigate for the type of resource as follows:
■
■
962
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
3 .4- 6 0
Endangered, Rare, Threatened, or Candidate Species. The applicant shall obtain incidental take authorization from USFWS (16 US Code Section 1531 et seq.) or CDFW (California Fish and Game Code Sections 2050–2115.5) prior to commencing development of the project site; apply minimization measures or other conditions required under the incidental take authorization; and provide equivalent compensation for the unavoidable losses of these resources. Compensation may include purchasing credits from a USFWS- or CDFW-approved mitigation bank or restoring or enhancing habitat within the project site or outside of the project site.
Special Status Species (not listed). The applicant shall provide equivalent compensation for impacts on special status species by restoring or significantly enhancing existing habitat where the species occurs or by acquiring or protecting land that provides habitat function for affected species and is at least equivalent to the habitat function removed or degraded as a result of project implementation.
If impacts on sensitive habitats, wetlands, other nonwetland waters, riparian habitats, native wildlife nursery sites, and wildlife corridors cannot be avoided, the project applicant shall:
Federal- or State-Protected Sensitive Habitats. Obtain the required regulatory authorization (e.g., Section 404 permits for impacts on waters of the United States, 401 water quality certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, a Streambed Alteration Agreement for impacts on aquatic or riparian habitats within CDFW jurisdiction under Fish and Game Code Section 1600), and provide equivalent compensation for the unavoidable losses of the above-mentioned resources such that there is no net loss.
Mitigation Measure BIO-6-PPA: Demarcate Work Area Boundary. The proposed development proponent shall prevent impacts to unprotected common and sensitive vegetation communities in areas adjacent to the project area. Prior to the initial vegetation clearing activities or ground disturbance in new areas, the approved project grading limits shall be marked with stakes or other highly visible materials that will be clearly visible to equipment operators and biological monitors during all vegetation clearing or ground disturbing activities. All equipment operators and project personnel shall be instructed about the restrictions the boundary markers represent and that ■
■
■
963
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 .4 BI O LO GI CAL RES OUR CE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.4 -61
vegetation removal or other disturbance outside of the boundary markers shall be avoided.
Mitigation Measure BIO-7-PPA: Preconstruction Special Status Species Surveys. If sensitive biological resources are identified as having potential to occur within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development project area, a preconstruction special status species survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to ground disturbing activities to ensure unsubstantiated impacts are avoided or minimized. In addition, for species with potential to occur within or adjacent to the proposed development project area and having species-specific preconstruction or take avoidance survey guidelines (e.g. burrowing owl), surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the most recent survey guidelines by a qualified biologist for that species.
Mitigation Measure BIO-8-PPA: Pre-disturbance Nesting Bird Surveys. The City of Ontario shall require applicants for future development projects with suitable natural habitat to contract with a qualified biologist with experience in conducting breeding bird surveys to conduct a preconstruction general nesting bird survey within all suitable nesting habitats that may be directly (active nest destruction, direct mortality) or indirectly (nest abandonment, exposure) impacted by active construction during the general avian breeding season (February 1 through August 31). The pre-disturbance surveys shall be conducted no more than 5 days prior to initiation of construction inclusive of staking and fencing of project limits, demolition activities, staging of equipment, and all vegetation trimming and removal activities (regardless of stage of construction). Results of pre-disturbance nesting bird surveys are typically valid for a period of 3 to 5 days. Additional pre-disturbance nesting bird surveys and/or nest monitoring may be required at the discretion of the qualified biologist based on observations of breeding behavior, phased removal of breeding bird habitat during the breeding season, establishment of nest buffers, delays in construction activities that could allow for breeding birds to establish a nest, or if the project is cleared/demolished/constructed over the course of multiple breeding seasons. Results will be summarized in a pre-disturbance survey report that describes the dates of the surveys, methods, results of the surveys, and any nest protection measures that will need to be employed. The pre-disturbance nesting bird survey report will be submitted to the City within 30 days of completion of the initial pre-disturbance nesting bird survey.
964
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
3 .4- 6 2
Mitigation Measure BIO-9-PPA: Active Nest Avoidance and No-Work Buffers. If active nests of avian species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code are detected within the proposed development project area or within a 300-foot buffer (500-foot buffer for raptors and listed species) of the proposed development project area, a no-work buffer will be established around the nest (typically 300 feet for passerines and 500 feet for raptors and listed species) and construction shall be restricted in the area until the young have fledged; there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting if the nest attempt has failed, as determined by the qualified biologist; or until appropriate protection measures (installation of noise and/or visual barriers, intermittent halting or rerouting of high noise-producing construction activities to other portions of the project area, biological monitoring, and/or noise monitoring to ensure effectiveness of no-work buffers and/or noise reduction measures, etc.) that respond to the specific situation have been developed and implemented in consultation with the City and regulatory agencies. A figure showing the locations of no-work buffers established during the preclearance nesting survey shall be included in the predisturbance survey report (see Mitigation Measure BIO-8-PPA) Mitigation Measure BIO-10-PPA: Nest Monitoring. Periodic nest monitoring will be conducted at the discretion of the qualified biologist to ensure compliance with established no-work buffers and document progression of the nest. The qualified biologist will monitor the nest from a distance and determine active/inactive status based on direct observations or evidence of breeding behavior (nest exchanges, food carries, fecal sac removal, nestling vocalizations, etc.). The qualified biologist will keep the nest monitoring as brief as possible to avoid causing undue stress to the adult(s) and young. For nests where contents are difficult to determine (e.g., gourd nests, cavity nests) or nests that seem inactive prior to the estimated fledge date, the nest will be considered inactive once nesting activity is no longer observed at the nest site during two consecutive monitoring visits by the qualified biologist. Two consecutive monitoring visits may not be necessary if strong evidence (e.g., nest is on the ground or evidence of predation on young) indicates the nest is no longer active or if the nest is unlikely to be affected by immediate project activities. Once a nest is deemed inactive by the qualified biologist and there is no evidence of a second nest attempt or other active nests in the same area, the biologist will deactivate the nest buffer and construction activities may resume in that area. CDFW will not need to concur with the nest “deactivation” determination prior to work resuming in the area. Project-related activities that result in loss of a nest (“take”) will be immediately reported to the City and appropriate agencies 965
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 .4 BI O LO GI CAL RES OUR CE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.4 -63
(CDFW, USFWS). A summary of all nest monitoring activities (if any) will be submitted to the City in a brief memo at the completion of each breeding season.
Specific Plan
Mitigation Measure BIO-1-SP: Pre-disturbance Nesting Bird Surveys, Avoidance, and Monitoring. If construction occurs between February 1st and August 31st, a preconstruction clearance survey for nesting birds shall be conducted within 3 days of the start of any vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction. The biologist conducting the clearance survey shall document a negative survey with a brief letter report indicating that no impacts to active avian nests will occur. If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre-construction clearance survey, construction activities shall stay outside of a nodisturbance buffer, which is typically 50 to 100 feet for songbird nests and 100 to 300 feet for raptors; however, the ultimate size of the no-disturbance buffer will be determined by the wildlife biologist and will depend on the level of construction noise and/or surrounding anthropogenic disturbances, line of sight between the nest and the construction activity, type and duration of construction activity, species habituation, and topographical barriers. These factors will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis when developing buffer distances. Limits of construction to avoid an active nest will be established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers; and construction personnel will be instructed about the sensitivity of nest areas. A biological monitor shall be present to monitor the active nest to ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affected by the construction activity. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, construction activities within the buffer area can occur.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2-SP: Preconstruction Burrowing Owl Surveys. To ensure burrowing owl are still absent from the Specific Plan area, a pre-construction burrowing owl clearance survey shall be conducted in accordance with CDFW’s 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Two surveys shall be conducted, the first 14 to 30 days prior to ground-disturbing activities, and the second within 24 hours before grounddisturbing activities. If no burrowing owls are observed within the Specific Plan area, no further review will be required.
If burrowing owls are found within the Specific Plan area during the pre-construction clearance surveys, coordination with the CDFW will be required to determine if avoidance and minimization measures can be implemented to avoid any direct or 966
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
3 .4- 6 4
indirect impacts to burrowing owl, or if an Incidental Take Permit under Section 2081 of the CESA will need to be prepared and approved by CDFW.
Mitigation Measure BIO-3-SP: Pre-disturbance Roosting Site Survey and Bat Management Plan. If on-site clearing or grading will take place between late spring and late summer and/or in the fall (generally mid-March through late October), a qualified biologist shall be retained to determine whether potential roosting sites for bats may be affected. For large ornamental trees and palms suitable for bat roosting/nursery, exit counts and acoustic surveys shall be performed prior to initial ground disturbance or vegetation or structure removal to determine whether the Specific Plan area (and a 300- foot buffer) supports a nursery or roost. Any bat species present shall also be identified.
If the results of the bat survey find a single roosting individual of a special-status bat species or 25 or more individuals of a non-special status bat species with potential to be present in the Specific Plan area (i.e., hoary bat, western yellow bat), a Bat Management Plan shall be developed to ensure mortality to bats does not occur. For each location confirmed to be occupied by bats, the plan shall provide details both in text and graphically where exclusion devises and/or staged tree removal will need to occur, the timing for exclusion work, and the timeline and methodology needed to exclude the bats. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by CDFW prior to disturbance of the roosts.
Significance After Mitigation
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measures BIO-1-PPA through BIO-4-PPA would require that future development projects conduct a biological resources assessment in compliance with the CESA and FESA to determine if sensitive biological resources could be present within and/or adjacent to the proposed development project. Mitigation Measures BIO-5-PPA through BIO-7-PPA would require preconstruction surveys prior to the start of ground disturbing activities. Mitigation Measures BIO-8-PPA through BIO-10-PPA require pre-disturbance nesting bird surveys, avoidance of active nests, and nest monitoring, to protect birds in compliance with MBTA.
Sensitive biological resources include special status species, sensitive natural communities, wetlands and jurisdictional waters, wildlife movement corridors and nursery sites, and other items identified in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Each project proponent would be responsible for determining the potential for occurrence of and impacts to sensitive vegetation communities, special status species, wildlife movement corridors, and nursery sites.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1-PPA through BIO-10-PPA would ensure that impacts to special status species are avoided and/or minimized. Impacts would be less than significant.
967
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 .4 BI O LO GI CAL RES OUR CE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.4 -65
The 2022 Certified EIR concluded that with project-specific surveys and subsequent consultation with CDFW (as required by the Policy Plan Amendment mitigation measures listed above), impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species would be less than significant. Policy Plan Significance with Mitigation: Less than significant.
Specific Plan
Mitigation Measures BIO-1-SP through BIO-3-SP would require pre-construction surveys for nesting birds, burrowing owl, and roosting bat species, thus precluding significant impacts to these species. With the incorporation of these measures, impacts would be less than significant. Specific Plan Significance with Mitigation: Less than significant. b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Ontario is almost completely developed with urban and agricultural uses, with no large open areas of native habitat. Available open space consists of agricultural fields, parks and golf courses, and scattered vacant lots. The 2022 Certified EIR found that the approved project would not have substantial adverse impacts to surface water areas or to riparian or aquatic vegetation in surface water areas or flood control channels. Detention basins would be designated Open Space–Non-recreation or Open Space–Parkland. Projects affecting riparian habitat would be required to mitigate potential impacts to riparian areas through the existing permitting process.
Policy Plan Amendment
Surface water areas are assumed to contain sensitive natural communities if they support plants such as mulefat and willow, which are member plants of sensitive communities listed in the CNDDB as occurring in the region. Surface water areas in the city include detention basins and other man-made lakes, such as those in golf courses, as well as dairy manure water retention basins, irrigation ponds, and livestock-watering ponds associated with agricultural uses in Ontario Ranch.
Detention basins would retain the Open Space–Non-recreation and Open Space–Parkland designations under the Policy Plan Amendment. The basins would not be developed with other land uses.
968
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
3 .4- 6 6
The Policy Plan Amendment primarily involves modifying the TOP land use pattern and making associated updates to the various elements of the TOP Policy Plan. Implementation of the Policy Plan Amendment would not result in direct vegetation removal in surface water areas in the city; however, projects approved pursuant to the Policy Plan Amendment could indirectly result in such removal. Projects that would result in impacts to surface water areas determined to be jurisdictional to the state would require CDFW approval pursuant to the Fish and Game Code in the form of Streambed Alteration Agreements (Section 1600, et. seq.). Such impacts would require mitigation, also subject to CDFW approval. Furthermore, TOP Policy ER-5.1 would support avoidance of adverse impacts to protected wetlands, waters of the United States, and waters of the State.
Compared to the approved project, the proposed project would have similar impacts to sensitive habitat because it would not result in development of new, previously undeveloped areas of the city that were not planned for under the approved project, even though it would result in an increase in land use intensity. Individual projects undergoing environmental review under CEQA would be required to determine whether there is potential habitat on-site for sensitive species. If sensitive species were found on-site, the project proponent would be required to consult with the CDFW regarding impacts to sensitive species and ensuing mitigation. Projects in Ontario Ranch would pay a mitigation fee that would be deposited into a trust fund to be used for the acquisition, restoration, rehabilitation, and maintenance of lands deemed to have long-term conservation value. In conclusion, projects affecting riparian habitat in the city would be required to mitigate potential impacts to riparian areas through the existing permitting process. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts to riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities compared to the approved project. This impact is less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Specific Plan
The existing on-site stock ponds are artificially created in upland areas primarily for dairy effluence. They do not exhibit hydraulic connectivity to upstream or downstream aquatic resources. Plant species surrounding the stock ponds include several ruderal, invasive, and/or weedy species. No hydrophytic or riparian vegetation was observed in the stock pond areas. No riparian or other special-status plant communities were observed within the Specific Plan area.
The EBPSP would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts to riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities compared to the approved project.
This impact is less than significant. Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 969
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 .4 BI O LO GI CAL RES OUR CE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.4 -67
Impact BIO-2: Compliance with existing regulations would ensure that implementation of the proposed project would not have an adverse impact on riparian or sensitive habitats.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant impacts to riparian or sensitive habitats and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
New Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? The 2022 Certified EIR found that the approved project would not have substantial adverse impacts on jurisdictional waters. Flood control channels and detention basins would be designated Open Space–Non-recreation or Open Space–Parkland. Projects that have the potential to result in impacts to waters of the state would be subject to approval by CDFW or USACE; require a Section 404 permit under the CWA or consultation with EPA for a Section 7 take permit, as applicable; and require mitigation in accordance with the applicable permits.
Policy Plan Amendment
The Cucamonga Creek and Deer Creek channels and portions of the Lower Deer Creek, Day Creek, Etiwanda Creek, and West Cucamonga Creek channels are owned and maintained by San Bernardino County (Ontario 2022); they are not subject to land use controls by the City of Ontario and would not be affected by the proposed project. Remaining segments of the Lower Deer Creek, Day Creek, Etiwanda Creek, and West Cucamonga Creek channels that are owned by the City would retain the Open Space–Non-recreation designation under the Policy Plan Amendment and would not be developed with other land uses. The Cucamonga, Ely, Wineville, and Chris detention basins are also owned and maintained by the County (Ontario 2022) and would not be affected by the proposed project.
Ontario Ranch contains dairy manure water retention basins, irrigation ponds, livestockwatering, and man-made lakes. In addition, fields under cultivation or left fallow accumulate surface water in ponds or ditches. The CDFW may have jurisdiction over these water bodies, but they are not expected to come under USACE jurisdiction. 970
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
3 .4- 6 8
The Policy Plan Amendment primarily involves modifying the TOP land use pattern and making associated updates to the various elements of the TOP Policy Plan. Implementation of the Policy Plan Amendment would not result in direct impacts to waters of the State because the Policy Plan Amendment does not grant specific entitlements for development. Tributaries to any channels in the city, plus areas that are fed by surface waters, are considered waters of the State and are jurisdictional to CDFW. Projects resulting in impacts to waters of the State would be subject to approval by CDFW through Streambed Alteration Agreements and would require mitigation as determined by the CDFW for any consequent impacts.
Individual projects undergoing environmental review under CEQA would be required to determine whether there is potential habitat on-site for sensitive species. If sensitive species were found, the project proponent would be required to consult with the CDFW regarding impacts to sensitive species and ensuing mitigation. Projects in Ontario Ranch would pay a mitigation fee that would be deposited into a trust fund to be used for the acquisition, restoration, rehabilitation, and maintenance of lands deemed to have long-term conservation value.
Compared to the approved project, the proposed project would have similar impacts to jurisdictional waters. This is because the proposed project would result in an increase in land use intensity but would not result in development of new, previously undeveloped areas of the city that were not planned for under the approved project. In conclusion, because projects that have the potential to result in impact to waters of the State would be subject to approval by CDFW and USACE, require a Section 404 permit under the CQA or consultation with the EPA for a Section 7 take permit, and mitigation would be required in accordance with the applicable permits, impacts to jurisdictional waters in the city associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts to jurisdictional waters compared to the approved project. This impact is less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Specific Plan
No wetlands are in the Specific Plan area. The existing on-site stock ponds are artificially created in upland areas primarily for dairy effluence. Plant species surrounding the stock ponds include several ruderal, invasive, and/or weedy species. All of the retention ponds are devoid of wetland vegetation. The EBPSP would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts to jurisdictional waters compared to the approved project. This impact is less than significant. Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 971
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 .4 BI O LO GI CAL RES OUR CE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.4 -69
Impact BIO-3: Compliance with existing regulations would ensure that implementation of the proposed project would not have an adverse impact on jurisdictional waters.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant biological resources impacts to jurisdictional waters and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
New Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? The 2022 Certified EIR found that no regional wildlife movement corridors have been identified in the city. Therefore, the approved project did not result in substantial adverse effects to wildlife movement.
Policy Plan Amendment
No regional wildlife movement corridors have been identified in the city, most of which is ill suited for wildlife movement. The flood control channels and the SCE corridors could serve as local corridors for movement within the city and between the San Gabriel Mountains to the north and the Prado Basin to the south. The segments of flood control channels in the city would retain the Open Space–Non-Recreation designation under the proposed project and would not be developed with other land uses. The SCE corridors would retain the Open Space– Non-Recreation designation. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to substantially impair the use of flood control channels or SCE corridors in the city as wildlife movement corridors.
There are trees and shrubs scattered throughout the city that may be used for nesting or roosting by migrating birds.
The Policy Plan Amendment primarily involves modifying the TOP 2050 land use pattern and making associated updates to the various elements of the TOP 2050 Policy Plan. The proposed project would not grant specific entitlements for development; therefore, implementation of the Policy Plan Amendment would not directly impact vegetation that could be used by migrating birds.
972
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
3 .4- 7 0
TOP 2050 Policy ER-5.1 would encourage efforts to conserve flood control channels and transmission line corridors as wildlife movement corridors; however, future development projects under the proposed project could impact migratory birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code. Therefore, this impact is potentially significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Potentially significant.
Specific Plan
As previously discussed in Section 3.4.2, Existing Conditions, the Specific Plan area has not been identified as being within a wildlife corridor or linkage. The nearest major open space area documented in the vicinity of the site is approximately 4 miles to the south in the Prado Basin.
The Specific Plan area is separated from this open space area by existing development.
Development of the Specific Plan would be confined to areas that have previously been heavily disturbed or developed and are isolated from regional wildlife corridors and linkages. In addition, there are no riparian corridors, creeks, or useful patches of steppingstone habitat (natural areas) within or connecting the site to a recognized wildlife corridor or linkage.
Therefore, the Specific Plan area is not expected to contribute to local wildlife movement opportunities, and no significant impacts to wildlife corridors or linkages would occur from Specific Plan implementation.
During the field reconnaissance undertaken (during breeding season) as part of the Biological Resources Assessment, a single red-tailed hawk was observed preparing a nest. Implementation of the Specific Plan has the potential to impact active bird nests if vegetation is removed during the nesting season. Raptors, migratory birds, and other avian species are protected by the federal MBTA.
Additionally, there is potential for bats to roost in large ornamental trees within the Specific Plan area. This would be a potentially significant impact if the population of bats impacted is 25 or more individuals of non-special-status species, or a single individual of special-status species.
Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Potentially significant.
Impact BIO-4: Implementation of the proposed project could affect wildlife movement.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant biological resources impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. 973
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 .4 BI O LO GI CAL RES OUR CE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.4 -71
New Mitigation Measures
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measure BIO-11-PPA: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-8-PPA (Predisturbance Nesting Bird Surveys).
Mitigation Measure BIO-12-PPA: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-9-PPA (Active Nest Avoidance and No-Work Buffers).
Mitigation Measure BIO-13-PPA: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-10-PPA (Nest Monitoring).
Specific Plan
Mitigation Measure BIO-4-SP: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1-SP (Pre-disturbance Nesting Bird Surveys, Avoidance, and Monitoring).
Mitigation Measure BIO-5-SP: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-3-SP (Pre-disturbance Roosting Site Survey and Bat Management Plan).
Significance After Mitigation
Policy Plan Amendment
Mitigation Measures BIO-8-PPA through BIO-10-PPA would require preconstruction nesting bird surveys and avoidance of impacts (direct and indirect) to active nests, avoidance, and active nest monitoring of bird species protected by federal and state laws. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-8-PPA through BIO-10-PPA would ensure impacts to migratory birds would be less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance with Mitigation: Less than significant.
Specific Plan
Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1-SP and BIO-3-SP would preclude significant impacts to nesting birds and roosting bats. As such, the Specific Plan’s potential to impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites would be less than significant. Specific Plan Significance with Mitigation: Less than significant. 974
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
3 .4- 7 2
e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? The 2022 Certified EIR found that the approved project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.
Policy Plan Amendment
As a condition of developing in Ontario Ranch, projects would be required to pay the City’s habitat mitigation fee, which was established to cover potential environmental impacts to burrowing owl, DSFLF, raptor foraging, loss of open space, and agricultural lands.2 Projects in Ontario Ranch would also comply with City procedures requiring a habitat assessment to determine potential habitat for sensitive species through focused protocol surveys.
The City also requires that projects comply with the City’s Tree Preservation Policy and Protection Measures (Development Code Section 6.05.020).
The proposed project primarily involves modifying the TOP land use pattern and making associated updates to the various elements of the TOP 2050. The proposed project would not grant specific entitlements for development; therefore, implementation of the Policy Plan Amendment would not directly conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Such projects would be required to comply local policies and ordinances, as outlined in Section 3.4.1, Regulatory Framework, under “Local,” including the Tree Preservation Policy.
Therefore, the proposed project would comply with all applicable local regulations and plans that protect biological resources.
Compared to the approved project, the proposed project would have similar impacts related to conflict with local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources. Though the proposed project would increase land use intensity, projects would still be required to comply with local policies and ordinances. Like the approved project, the proposed project would not conflict with local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts to conflict with local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources compared to the approved project and impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. This impact is less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 2 While the habitat mitigation fee would cover potential impacts to the burrowing owl, DSFLF, raptor foraging and wildlife habitat, loss of open space, and agricultural land in Ontario Ranch, impacts related to federal- and statecovered species and habitat would be subject to a separate process under FESA and CESA (see impact discussion (a)).
975
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 .4 BI O LO GI CAL RES OUR CE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.4 -73
Specific Plan
Uses implemented pursuant to the Specific Plan would be required to pay the City’s habitat mitigation fee, which is specific to the Settlement Agreement regarding potential environmental impacts within Ontario Ranch addressing the burrowing owl, DSFLF, raptor foraging, loss of open space, and agricultural lands.3
City of Ontario Municipal Code Section 6.05.020, Tree Preservation Policy and Protection Measures, establishes policies and measures related to the preservation, protection, and maintenance of established and healthy heritage trees within the City (see Section 3.4.1).
Healthy Heritage Trees that are approved for removal shall be replaced with new trees with a total trunk diameter equal to the tree(s) removed, or as deemed appropriate by the City based on lot size and available planting space. Replacement trees are to be in addition to the quantity of trees required for landscaping. The City is responsible for reviewing the landscape plan and approving appropriate species for tree replacement.
Consistent with City Municipal Code requirements, a tree inventory would be prepared by a City approved certified arborist or qualified horticulturalist, to determine the presence/absence of Heritage Trees including assessment of health, structure, condition, and expected life span of all affected specimens.
If Heritage Trees are identified as occurring, a Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan would be prepared by a licensed landscape architect, horticulturalist, certified arborist, or other related professional. Said plan would be submitted concurrent with a Development Plan or building permit request for any on-site alterations, and reviewed and approved by the City.
The Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan would show all existing on-site trees, and those existing trees on abutting lots and public rights-of-way with a canopy or root zone that extends onto the site or within 8 feet of a construction, staging or storage area, or graded site.
Furthermore, the Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan would identify Tree Protection Areas and trees requested to be removed, and shall show replacement trees.
Mandatory compliance with existing Municipal Code requirements would ensure that implementation of the EBPSP would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The EBPSP would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the 3 While the habitat mitigation fee would cover potential impacts to the burrowing owl, DSFLF, raptor foraging and wildlife habitat, loss of open space, and agricultural land in Ontario Ranch, impacts related to federal- and statecovered species and habitat would be subject to a separate process under FESA and CESA (see impact discussion (a)).
976
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
3 .4- 7 4
magnitude of impacts when compared to the approved project. This impact is less than significant. Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Impact BIO-5: Compliance with the City’s Biological Resources Habitat Mitigation Fee would ensure that implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources in the city.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant biological resources impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
New Mitigation Measures
No impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are required. f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan; Natural Community Conservation Plan; or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
The 2022 Certified EIR found that the approved project would not conflict with the requirements of the DSFLF Ontario Recovery Unit or critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. Since 2008, the critical habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat is no longer in Ontario (USFWS 2008; DataBasin 2012).
Policy Plan Amendment
The Ontario Recovery Unit for the DSFLF includes 21.7 square miles of Ontario, mostly in the eastern and southwestern portions of the city, including portions of Ontario Ranch. Projects proposed within the Ontario Recovery Unit would be required to conduct focused surveys for DSFLF on the project site and consult with the USFWS regarding mitigation of impacts on any DSFLF found, pursuant to Section 7 of the FESA. In some parts of Ontario Ranch that were previously used as dairies, the USFWS has concluded from the findings of previous focused surveys that DSFLS is very unlikely to occur; therefore, no focused surveys for DSFLF areas are required in these areas. Projects proposed pursuant to the proposed project would need to ascertain requirements for focused surveys for DSFLF from the USFWS on a case-by-case basis.
There is one HCP in the city, a 19-acre area near the intersection of Greystone Drive and the eastern city boundary, established to protect the DSFLF. The HCP area would remain designated 977
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 .4 BI O LO GI CAL RES OUR CE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.4 -75
Industrial under the proposed project. Any project proposed for development within this HCP pursuant to the proposed project would be required to consult with the USFWS regarding project impacts on DSFLF and mitigation of any such impacts. Therefore, the proposed project would comply with this HCP.
The proposed project primarily involves modifying the TOP land use pattern and making associated updates to the various elements of the TOP 2050 Policy Plan. The proposed project would not grant specific entitlements for development and would not conflict with FESA requirements and USFWS regulations regarding critical habitat. Furthermore, TOP Policy ER-5.1 would support efforts to conserve high-quality habitat for the DSFLF. Individual projects undergoing environmental review under CEQA would be required to determine whether there is a potential for habitat on-site for sensitive species. If sensitive species were found on-site, the project proponent would be required to consult with the CDFW regarding impacts to sensitive species and ensuing mitigation.
Compared to the approved project, the proposed project would have similar impacts regarding consistency with an HCP. This is because the proposed project would increase land use intensity but would not result in development of new, previously undeveloped areas of the city that were not planned for under the approved project. Like the approved project, the proposed project would not conflict with the DSFLF HCP.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts to an HCP compared to the approved project and impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR. This impact is less than significant. Policy Plan Amendment Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.
Specific Plan
The Specific Plan area is not located within any adopted Habitat Conservation, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify any significant habitat or conservation plan conflicts. Accordingly, the EBPSP would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts to an HCP when compared to the approved project. This impact is less than significant. Specific Plan Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 978
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
3 .4- 7 6
Impact BIO-6: The proposed project would not conflict with a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Communities Conservation Plan.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures from the 2022 Certified EIR
The 2022 Certified EIR did not identify significant biological resources impacts and therefore no mitigation measures were identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
New Mitigation Measures
No impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are required.
3.4.6 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Proposed Project
The area considered for cumulative impacts to biological resources is the CDFW inland deserts region. 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.
The proposed project would result in potential impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species, including raptors, migratory birds, nesting birds, and roosting bats protected under State law. The proposed project, including the EBPSP, would comply with the City’s Habitat Mitigation Fee per Ontario Ranch Settlement Agreement, which would reduce impacts with respect to the cumulative loss of habitat for sensitive species. Additionally, mitigation measures would reduce impacts to sensitive species that may be present on future development sites, as well as the EBPSP and off-site improvements, to less than significant. Projects in the CDFW inland deserts region, including future development in accordance with the Policy Plan Amendment, would be required to comply with existing state regulations protecting biological resources, which could include the preparation of biological reports and surveys. Impacts of the proposed project would be less than cumulatively considerable with implementation of mitigation. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. 979
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 .4 BI O LO GI CAL RES OUR CE S
M ARC H 2 0 2 6 3.4 -77
Cumulative Impacts: Implementation of the proposed project, in combination with other development in the city, would not make a cumulatively considerable impacts to biological resources.
3.4.7 References
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2025, November. California Natural Diversity Database. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB.
City of Ontario, Endangered Habitats League, Inc., and Sierra Club. 2001, November 28.
Settlement Agreement regarding the New Model Colony (Annexation Area 163) and revised mitigation measures for burrowing owl and other environmental impacts. DataBasin. 2012, August 3. Final Critical Habitat for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys Merriami Parvus) within Jurisdiction of the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (CFWO). Map. Accessed October 31, 2025.
https://databasin.org/maps/new/#datasets=b60e8e40b0ad42da96204bd59eb022bc.
Ontario, City of. 2022, May. The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report.
State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364. https://www.ontarioplan.org/environmental -impact-report/.
Riverside Land Conservancy, The. 2008, March. Greater Prado Basin Habitat Conservation Program
USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 2008. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus).” Federal Register 73, no. 74 (April 16, 2008). Accessed 10/31/2025. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2008-04-16/pdf/E8-6874.pdf#page=1. 980
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 .4 BI O LO G ICAL RES OU RCE S
3 .4- 7 8
This page intentionally left blank.
981
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
MA RC H 2026 3. 5- 1
3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
This section of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) evaluates the potential cultural resources impacts associated with implementation of the Ontario Policy Plan Amendment and the EBPSP (proposed project) in comparison to the current TOP 2050 (approved project) and impacts identified in the 2022 Certified EIR.
Impacts for the Policy Plan Amendment are analyzed at a programmatic level. Cultural resources include prehistoric and historic sites, structures, districts, places, and landscapes or any other physical evidence associated with human activity considered important to a culture, a subculture, or a community for scientific, traditional, religious, or any other reason. The analysis in this section is based in part on the result of the California Historical Resources Information System search (see Appendix E1) and historic resource evaluations for the Ontario Ranch (see Appendix E2).
The analysis for the EBPSP is based on the “Cultural Resources Study for the Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan Project” prepared by BFSA Environmental Services (BFSA) and considers both on-site and off-site impacts associated with the EBPSP (see Appendix E3).
The analysis in this section is also based in part on the results of the Native American consultation conducted by the City in compliance with State Bill 18 (SB 18) and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) including the Sacred Lands File search. The results of the SB 18 and AB 52 Tribal Consultation and discussion of impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources are in Section 3.18, Tribal Cultural Resources.
3.5.1 Regulatory Framework
FEDERAL
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 coordinates public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect the nation’s historic and archaeological resources. The act authorized the National Register of Historic Places, which lists districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture.
Section 106 (Protection of Historic Properties) of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties.
Section 106 Review ensures that historic properties are considered during federal project planning and implementation. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, an independent federal agency, administers the review process with assistance from state historic preservation offices.
982
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. 5 C U L TU RA L RE S O U RC E S
3. 5- 2 P l a c e W o r k s
National Register of Historic Places
The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is the nation's official list of buildings, structures, objects, sites, and districts worthy of preservation because of their significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture. The NRHP recognizes resources of local, state, and national significance which have been documented and evaluated according to uniform standards and criteria.
Authorized under the NHPA, the NRHP is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect historic and archeological resources.
The NHRP is administered by the National Park Service, which is part of the U.S. Department of the Interior.
To be eligible for listing in the NRHP, a resource must meet at least one of the following criteria:
A. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
B. Is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.
Archaeological Resources Protection Act
The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 regulates the protection of archaeological resources and sites on federal and Indian lands.
American Indian Religious Freedom Act and Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act recognizes that Native American religious practices, sacred sites, and sacred objects have not been properly protected under other statutes. It establishes as national policy that traditional practices and beliefs, sites (including right of access), and the use of sacred objects shall be protected and preserved. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act is a federal law passed in 1990 that mandates museums and federal agencies to return certain Native American cultural items—such as human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony—to lineal descendants or culturally affiliated Indian tribes.
983
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. 5 C U L TU RA L RE S O U RC E S
MA RC H 2026 3. 5- 3
STATE
California Public Resources Code
Archaeological, paleontological, and historical sites are protected under a wide variety of state policies and regulations in the California Public Resources Code (PRC). In addition, cultural and paleontological resources are recognized as nonrenewable resources and receive protection under the PRC and CEQA.
PRC Sections 5020 to 5029.5 continued the former Historical Landmarks Advisory Committee as the State Historical Resources Commission. The commission oversees the administration of the California Register of Historical Resources and is responsible for designating State Historical Landmarks and Historical Points of Interest.
PRC Sections 5079 to 5079.65 define the functions and duties of the Office of Historic Preservation, which administers federal- and state-mandated historic preservation programs in California as well as the California Heritage Fund.
California Register of Historical Resources
Created in 1992 and implemented in 1998, the CRHR is “an authoritative guide in California to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change” (PRC Sections 21083.2 and 21084.1). Certain properties, including those listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP and California Historical Landmarks numbered 770 and higher are automatically included in the CRHR. Other properties recognized under the California Points of Historical Interest program, identified as significant in historical resources surveys, or designated by local landmarks programs may be nominated for inclusion in the CRHR.
Resources eligible for listing include buildings, sites, structures, objects, or historic districts that retain historical integrity and are historically significant at the local, state, or national level under one or more of the following four criteria:
1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
2. It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
984
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. 5 C U L TU RA L RE S O U RC E S
3. 5- 4 P l a c e W o r k s
4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history.
When evaluating a historic resource, integrity is the authenticity of the resource’s physical identity clearly indicated by the retention of characteristics that existed during its period of construction. It is important to note that integrity is not the same as condition. Integrity directly relates to the presence or absence of historic materials and character-defining features, while condition relates to the relative state of physical deterioration of the resource. In most instances, integrity is more relevant to the significance of a resource than condition. There are 7 aspects of integrity used in evaluating a historic resource; although not all 7 need to be present for eligibility. If the overall sense of the past time and place is evident, a resource may still qualify. The 7 aspects are:
Location is the place where a resource was constructed or where an event occurred.
Integrity of location was assessed by reviewing historical records and aerial photographs in order to determine if the buildings had always existed at their present locations or if they had been moved, rebuilt, or their footprints significantly altered.
Design results from intentional decisions made during the conception and planning of a resource. Design includes form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. Integrity of design was assessed by evaluating the spatial arrangement of the buildings and any architectural features present.
Setting applies to a physical environment, the character of a resource’s location, and a resource’s relationship to the surrounding area. Integrity of setting was assessed by inspecting the elements of the property, which include topographic features, open space, views, landscape, vegetation, man-made features, and relationships between buildings and other features.
Materials comprise the physical elements combined or deposited in a particular pattern or configuration to form a property. Integrity of materials was assessed by determining the presence or absence of original building materials, as well as the possible introduction of materials that may have altered the architectural design of the buildings.
Workmanship consists of the physical evidence of crafts employed by a particular culture, people, or artisan, which includes traditional, vernacular, and high styles. Integrity of workmanship was assessed by evaluating the quality of the architectural features present in the buildings.
Feeling relies upon present physical features of a property to convey and evoke an aesthetic or historic sense of past time and place. Integrity of feeling was assessed by evaluating whether or not the resources’ features, in combination with their setting, conveyed a historic sense of the property during the period of construction. ■
■
■
■
■
■
985
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. 5 C U L TU RA L RE S O U RC E S
MA RC H 2026 3. 5- 5
Association directly links a property with a historic event, activity, or person of past time and place, and requires the presence of physical features to convey the property’s character.
Integrity of association was assessed by evaluating the resources’ data or information and their ability to answer any research questions relevant to the history of the Ontario area or the state of California.
Not all 7 qualities identified above need to be present to be eligible as long as the overall sense of the past time and place is evident, per the Office of Historic Preservation criteria. Resources nominated to the CRHR must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to convey the reasons for their significance. Resources whose historic integrity does not meet NRHP criteria may still be eligible for listing in the CRHR.
California Health and Safety Code
California Health and Safety Code Section 7052 states that it is a felony to disturb Native American cemeteries. Section 7050.5 requires that construction or excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the County Coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. Section 7050.5(b) outlines the procedures to follow should human remains be inadvertently discovered in any location other than a dedicated cemetery. The section also states that the County Coroner, upon recognizing the remains as being of Native American origin, is responsible to contact the NAHC within 24 hours. The NAHC has various powers and duties to provide for the ultimate disposition of any Native American remains, as does the assigned Most Likely Descendant.
State Laws Pertaining to Human Remains
Any human remains encountered during ground-disturbing activities are required to be treated in accordance with California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5(e) (CEQA), PRC Section 5097.98, and the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. California law protects Native American burials, skeletal remains, and associated grave goods regardless of their antiquity, and provides for the sensitive treatment and disposition of those remains. Specifically, Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code states that in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered has determined whether or not the remains are subject to the coroner’s authority. If the human remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the county coroner must contact the California NAHC within 24 hours of this identification. An NAHC representative will then identify a Native American MLD to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 specifies the procedures to be followed in case of the discovery of human remains on nonfederal land. The disposition of Native American burials falls within the jurisdiction of the NAHC.
■
986
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. 5 C U L TU RA L RE S O U RC E S
3. 5- 6 P l a c e W o r k s
LOCAL
City of Ontario Historic Preservation Program
The Advance Planning division is responsible for administering the City’s Historic Preservation Program. Planning staff, along with the Historic Preservation Subcommittee and Historic Preservation Commission, review all historic preservation applications, including proposed alterations to the exterior of historic buildings and alterations to public improvements, such as street trees, in Ontario’s historic neighborhoods.
The Historic Preservation Program implements the processing of certificates of appropriateness or waivers for minor alterations, restoration, rehabilitation, and new (infill) construction in historic district or areas with sensitive historic contextual settings; landmark designations for local, state, and national registers; historic property evaluations; historic property surveys; and environmental compliance. The program offers incentives for historic preservation such as the Mills Act Contract (preservation agreements), bronze plaques, and the city-council-hosted Model Colony awards for historic resources.
In April 2001, the City of Ontario became a certified local government (CLG) in the State of California. The California Office of Historic Preservation (COHP) requires all CLGs to submit an annual report. The report serves 2 major functions: 1) it is a vital means of communicating local historic preservation issues to the Office of Historic Preservation; and 2) it serves as a tool to monitor local government activities that are required to maintain CLG status. The annual report demonstrates compliance with the 6 basic requirements:
Maintain a comprehensive local historic preservation plan that identifies the preservation mission, goals, and priorities of the local government.
Enforce appropriate local legislation for designation and protection of historic properties.
Establish and maintain an adequate and qualified historic preservation review commission and noncommissioned staff.
Maintain a system for the survey and inventory of historic properties.
Provide for adequate public participation in the local historic preservation program.
Review and recommendation of historic properties within the local jurisdiction to the National Register of Historic Places. (Ontario 2022)
Ontario Development Code
Chapter 4, Permits, Actions and Decisions, and Chapter 7, Historic Preservation, of the Ontario Development Code address historic preservation. The code identifies procedures for designating ■
■
■
■
■
■
987
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. 5 C U L TU RA L RE S O U RC E S
MA RC H 2026 3. 5- 7
local historical landmarks and districts, historic resource tiering, and architectural conservation areas (Section 4.02.040).
Local Landmark Designation
A historic resource may be designated a “historic landmark” by the City if it meets the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historic Resources, or it meets one or more of the following criteria (Section 4.02.040.B.2):
A. The historic resource exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City’s history.
B. The historic resource is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history.
C. The historic resource is representative of the work of a notable builder, designer, architect, or artist.
D. The historic resource embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction.
E. The historic resource is a noteworthy example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship.
F. The historic resource embodies elements that represent a significant structural, engineering, or architectural achievement or innovation.
G. The historic resource has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community, or the city.
H. The historic resource is one of the few remaining examples in the city, region, state, or nation, possessing distinguishing characteristics of an architectural or historical type or specimen.
I. The historic resource has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important to the city’s history or prehistory.
Local Historic District Designation
A neighborhood or area listed as a historic resource may be designated a “Local Historic District” by the City if the neighborhood meets the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historic Resources, or it meets one or more of the following criteria (Section 4.02.040.B.3):
988
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. 5 C U L TU RA L RE S O U RC E S
3. 5- 8 P l a c e W o r k s
The historic resource is a geographically definable area possessing a concentration of historic resources or a thematically related grouping of structures that contribute to each other and are unified by plan, style, or physical development, and embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values.
The historic resource reflects significant geographical patterns, including those associated with different eras of settlement and growth, particular transportation modes, or distinctive examples of a park landscape, site design, or community planning.
The historic resource is associated with, or the contributing resources are unified by, events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.
The historic resource is, or the contributing resources are, associated with the lives of persons important to the city, state, or national history.
Historic Resources Tiering System
The Historic Preservation Commission is responsible for the adoption of the Historic Resource Tier Determination list, which is maintained by the Historic Preservation Subcommittee. A historic resource may be designated as Tier I, Tier II, or Tier III under Subsection 4.02.040.G, Historic Resource Tiering System, of the City’s Development Code. Tiers I, II, and III historic resources are judged based upon their determined degree of significance, pursuant to the criteria in Subsection 4.02.040.H, Historic Resource Tiering Criteria.
Tier I. Tier I historic resources are historic resources that should not be demolished or significantly altered under any circumstances, regardless of their designation status.
Resources within this Tier are determined to be the City’s most significant historical or cultural resources. Tier I historic resources meet one or more of the following:
A resource listed on the Ontario Register that meets at least one of the criteria within the Architecture/Form category, and 3 criteria within the History category, listed in Subsection 4.02.040.H (Historic Resource Tiering Criteria).
A contributing resource within a district that meets at least one of the criteria within the Architecture/Form category and 3 criteria within the History category, listed in Subsection 4.02.040.H, (Historic Resource Tiering Criteria).
Tier II. Tier II historic resources are historic resources wherein demolition of these properties should be avoided. Tier II historic resources shall meet one or more of the following:
■
■
■
■
■
•
•
■
989
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. 5 C U L TU RA L RE S O U RC E S
MA RC H 2026 3. 5- 9
Any historic resource listed or determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
Any historic resource listed or determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources.
A historic resource listed on the Ontario Register and meets at least 2 criteria within the Architecture/Form or History categories, listed in Subsection 4.02.040.H (Historic Resource Tiering Criteria).
A contributing resource within an eligible historic district wherein the district meets at least 2 of the criteria in either the Architecture/Form or History categories, listed in Subsection 4.02.040.H (Historic Resource Tiering Criteria).
Tier III. Tier III consists of historic resources that are Designated Local Historic Landmarks, are contributing properties within Designated Local Historic Districts, or are eligible historic resources. Demolition of these resources should be avoided where possible but may be appropriate under certain circumstances.
3.5.2 Existing Conditions
POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT
Prehistory
The archaeological record of southern California is a rich and complex continuum traditionally divided into time units based on changes in artifact types and styles. Archaeological data and correlations with ethnographic data have resulted in the determination of the following chronology for prehistoric southern California:
Early Man Horizon. This period, predating 6,000 BC, is characterized by the presence of large projectile points and scrapers, suggesting reliance on hunting rather than gathering.
Milling Stone Horizon. This period, from 6,000 BC to 1,000 BC, is characterized by the presence of hand stones, milling stones, choppers, and scraper planes; tools associated with seed gathering and shellfish processing with limited hunting activities; and evidence of a major shift in the exploitation of natural resources.
Intermediate Horizon. This period, from 1,000 BC to AD 750, reflects the transitional period between the Milling Stone and Late Prehistoric Horizons. Little is known of this period, but evidence suggests interactions with outside groups and a shift in material culture reflecting this contact.
•
•
•
•
■
■
■
■
990
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. 5 C U L TU RA L RE S O U RC E S
3. 5- 10 P l a c e W o r k s
Late Prehistoric Period. This period, from AD 750 to European contact, is characterized by the presence of small projectile points; use of the bow and arrow; steatite containers and trade items; asphaltum; cremations; grave goods; mortars and pestles; and bedrock mortars.
Cultural Traditions
The earliest inhabitants of the Ontario region lived in the area on a seasonal basis approximately 10,000 years ago. Later, permanent settlements formed along streams and creeks as populations used newer technologies and food resources. By 2,000 years ago, the Tongva (or Gabrielino), a group of Uto-Aztecan, Takic-speaking people, used both the coastal and inland areas on a seasonal basis. The Tongva Native Americans were intensive huntergatherers, gathering a variety of wild plants in the desert, mountains, and coastal areas. The Tongva are believed to have been one of the most populous and wealthy Native American tribes in southern California prior to European contact. They lived in villages that ranged from 50 to 200 inhabitants, each village owning in common the area surrounding the village. Kinship was organized by groups, with each group composed of several related families.
By the 1700s, local Native Americans in southern California had contact with Europeans. One of the earliest known records of this contact is based upon Father Garcés’ trip from the Mojave Desert to the coast of California through the Cajon Pass. In 1771, the Spanish established the Mission San Gabriel Arcangel about 40 miles west of the area later known as the City of Ontario.
Following the Spanish custom of naming local Native American tribes after nearby missions, the Tongva were called Gabrielino. At its peak, the Mission San Gabriel furnished food and supplies to settlements and other missions throughout California. By the end of the century, the Gabrielino population significantly declined due to diseases introduced by Europeans. The Gabrielino people fragmented as individuals succumbed to Spanish control, fled the region, or died; however, in late 20th century there was a revival of Gabrielino culture.
Historical Setting of Ontario
George and William Chaffey were among the early pioneers in the region. In 1881, they believed that if the land were properly irrigated it could be converted to profitable agriculture property.
They bought approximately 6,000 acres of land in 1882 that was arid and covered by patches of scrub brush. The land would eventually become the cities of Ontario and Upland. George and William Chaffey derived the name of the City from their native province of Ontario in Canada.
Initially, development was slow due to the lack of water in the region. The Chaffey brothers developed Ontario by designing a water system that brought water to every parcel. The brothers helped lay miles of cement pipe and later the San Antonio Water Company drove a tunnel into the head of the San Antonio canyon to tap the underground flow. The City was referred to as the “Model Colony” after receiving an award at the World Fair identifying it as a “Model Irrigation Colony” for its innovation of water rights and technology that assisted in attracting settlers. The City of Ontario incorporated in 1891 and was one of the early towns in ■
991
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. 5 C U L TU RA L RE S O U RC E S
MA RC H 2026 3. 5- 11
San Bernardino County. Charles Frankish, an early citizen of Ontario, guided and encouraged early development in the City. He was successful in attracting the Southern Pacific Railway to locate a depot in the center of town on Euclid Avenue, making it an important feature of the City. The establishment of the Southern Pacific Railroad depot transformed Ontario into an agricultural center. Ontario focused primarily on the citrus industry, but also grew walnuts, peaches, and grapes. There was a large gentry class of citrus growers who constructed many grand ornamental Victorian houses throughout the City.
In 1923, airplane enthusiasts such as Judge Archie Mitchell and Waldo Waterman established Latimer Field, and from that point on, Ontario became an aviation town. Urban growth pushed the fliers progressively east until they took up their present location and established the Ontario Municipal Airport in 1929. During World War II, the airport was a busy training center for pilots.
In 1946, the airport was renamed Ontario International Airport and was eventually rededicated to civil aviation in 1947 and commercial service in 1949. The economy shifted from an agricultural to an industrial and manufacturing economy. Today, Ontario retains its history through many recognized historic neighborhoods, buildings, and agricultural districts.
Ontario Ranch
In 1967, the County of San Bernardino designated 14,000 acres of agriculture land in Chino Valley as an agriculture preserve. The area was protected by the Williamson Act and the Land Conservation Act. It had been dominated by dairy farms since the early 1900s. By the 1980s, the area had more cows per acre and higher milk yields than anywhere else in the world (Ontario 2022).
By the 1990s, increased demand for housing and high operation costs pressured farmers in the San Bernardino Agricultural Preserve to consider relocating their dairies and annexing their land to adjoining cities. Anticipating the expiration of the Williamson Act contracts, this area was divided and portions were ultimately incorporated into the cities of Ontario, Chino, and Chino Hills. In 1996 prior to the City’s annexation, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) required the City to prepare a general plan amendment and EIR. In 1998, Ontario adopted the New Model Colony General Plan Amendment and EIR. Eight thousand two-hundred acres of the former San Bernardino Agriculture Preserve, referred to as the New Model Colony, were officially annexed into the City in 1999. In 2015, the New Model Colony became known as the Ontario Ranch for the purpose of rebranding and marketing Ontario Ranch (Ontario 2022).
Historical Resources
Historical resources are buildings, structures, objects, sites, and districts of significance in history, archaeology, architecture, and culture. These resources may include intact structures of any type that are typically 50 years or more of age. They are sometimes called the built environment and can include, in addition to houses, structures such as irrigation works and engineering features. Historical resources are preserved because they provide a link to a 992
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. 5 C U L TU RA L RE S O U RC E S
3. 5- 12 P l a c e W o r k s
region’s past and a frame of reference for a community. Often these sites are a source of pride for a city.
National Register of Historic Places
The National Register of Historic Places is the nation’s official list of buildings, structures, objects, sites, and districts worthy of preservation. The National Register was established by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and is maintained by the National Park Service. The purpose of the act is to ensure that properties significant in national, state, and local history are considered in the planning of federal undertakings, and to encourage historic preservation initiatives by state and local governments and the private sector. Registration is an integral part of the four essential components of historic preservation: identification, evaluation, registration, and protection. Effects of National Register designation include tax incentives, consideration in federally funded projects under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, limited protection through environmental review under CEQA, and restrictions imposed locally through CEQA or local zoning and land use planning regulations.
The National Register recognizes resources of local, state, and national significance. Six resources in Ontario are listed on the National Register:
Ontario Baseball Park, listed 2021, demolished (destroyed by fire) Dr. Orville S. Ensign House, listed in 2012
Euclid Avenue between Philadelphia Street, in Ontario, and 24th Street in Upland, listed in 2005
Hofer Ranch, listed in 1993
Ontario State Bank Block, listed in 1982, demolished (destroyed by fire) Frankish Building, listed in 1980 (NPS 2025)
California Register of Historic Resources
The State Historic Resources Commission has designed the California Register of Historic Resources for use by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify, evaluate, register, and protect California’s historical resources. The California Register is the authoritative guide to the state’s significant historical and archaeological resources.
The California Register program encourages public recognition and protection of resources of architectural, historical, archaeological, and cultural significance; identifies historical resources for state and local planning purposes; determines eligibility for state historic preservation grant funding; and affords certain protections under the California Environmental Quality Act. Six properties in Ontario are listed in the California Register—the same ones listed in the National Register.
■
■
■
■
■
■
993
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. 5 C U L TU RA L RE S O U RC E S
MA RC H 2026 3. 5- 13
California Historical Landmarks and Points of Historical Interest Historical Landmarks are sites, buildings, features, or events that are of statewide significance and have anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific or technical, religious, experimental, or other value. In order to be considered a California Historical Landmark, the landmark must meet at least one of the following criteria:
1) associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; 2) associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; 3) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction; represents the work of a master; or possesses high artistic values; and 4) has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
If a site is primarily of local or countywide interest, it may meet the criteria for the California Point of Historical Interest Program. Points of Historical Interest are sites, buildings, features, or events that are of local (city or county) significance and have anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific or technical, religious, experimental, or other value.
To be eligible for designation as a Point of Historical Interest, a resource must meet at least one of the following criteria: 1) the first, last, only, or most significant of its type in the local geographic region (city or county); 2) be associated with an individual or group having a profound influence on the history of the local area; 3) a prototype of, or an outstanding example of, a period, style, architectural movement or construction; or 4) is one of the more notable works or the best surviving work in the local region of a pioneer architect, designer, or master builder. Points of Historical Interest designated after December 1997 and recommended by the State Historical Resources Commission are also listed in the California Register. No historical resource may be designated as both a Landmark and a Point of Interest. If a Point of Interest is subsequently granted status as a Landmark, the Point of Interest designation will be retired.
The 4 California Points of Historical Interest in Ontario are:
Ontario State Bank Block Site, Howells House Site, listed in 1975 Mule Car, listed in 1974
De Anza Park Marker/Anza Trail, listed in 1973
San Bernardino–Sonora Road, listed in 1973 (COHP 2025)
Historic Districts
The City has designated 8 local historic districts (Ontario 2021). Each district is a defined geographical area with a concentration of properties that possess design, setting, materials, workmanship, integrity, and architectural periods or styles typical to the history of the City. The City has followed this type of historic designation according to the National Register of Historic ■
■
■
■
994
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. 5 C U L TU RA L RE S O U RC E S
3. 5- 14 P l a c e W o r k s
Places and the California Register of Historical Resources guidelines. The historic districts are shown on Figure 3.5-1, Historic Districts. Armsley Square Historic District College Park Historic District
El Morado Court Historic District
Euclid Avenue Historic District
Graber Olive House Historic District
La Deney Drive Historic District
Rosewood Court Historic District
Villa Historic District
The City has identified other areas that may merit district designation. These areas are proposed or potential historic districts. Proposed districts were evaluated in a 1980s historic resource survey as meeting the local criteria for district designation. Potential districts appear to meet local criteria for district designation but have not been evaluated.
The City has 4 proposed historic districts. These are also depicted in Figure 3.5-1.
Downtown Proposed Historic District
Downtown West Proposed Historic District
Guasti Proposed Historic District
Parkside Proposed Historic District
The Planning Department is also considering designation of 5 potential but not yet proposed historic districts (see Figure 3.5-1):
Downtown Potential Historic District Addition
Downtown West Potential Historic District Addition
Granada Potential Historic District
La Deney Drive Potential Historic District Addition
Parkside Potential Historic District Addition
City of Ontario List of Historic Resources
The City of Ontario maintains a list of local historic resources on its website (Ontario n.d.). The City’s list of historic resources includes properties that appear eligible for local, state, and/or national listing and properties that have been designated local, state, and/or national landmarks. Properties that have been surveyed; catalogued; determined to meet local, state, or national significance criteria; and designated local landmarks are listed in Table 3.5-1, Designated Historic Landmarks in the City of Ontario.
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
995
w
~ W FOURTH ST
4 CITY OF
UPLAND
Q 6 w w z w > >
0 ~ ;----- -----< < )- - .. , c:( V"'I
Z O , z :::, ~--- - _ ... - - ---s- ... _ ,7. - ~<(-- --- 0.. z ~ : t:j ~ c( UJ : => "! ~ · - - .. . . .. .. . . • V"I 'i' i z 9 z i I w G ST I
I I I
'
, -I I I
: '
z
E G ST
0 a::
< >
...
z
>
CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
E INLAND EMPIRE BLVD
I :-·------ : 12 14 ~-----t
: : 13 i I ! 1 :--•• ---- ---. ! :::::::::======:::;:===~~-========== .. -, : W DST . r- -->-•E•0a.s1--.---------------------------- o ,., • I I , I _, • ·; : I • I ~ I : :--- - I 15 : :i: /-.----- , • ··:- --·: 10 t_ t : : ~ --<'/ ._.,
• : 11 , 1 : < \ 16 r - 1 : '. I : E HOLT AVE I Z{ J • , I I L I : · 1 L ------------=--=- - -.;:--~-------· I .:
~-~ ------------------- ---------- - - --- .,.---~ ----------------... ---L---------------------- w
:it w w
0 ~ ~ z 0 < ~ W ~ISSION BLVD ::; z
z 13 u < :::,
UJ :::,
z .,, < V'I
"' .,,
.,,
W PHILLIPS Si
E PHILLIPS ST
UJ
:it
.,,
:::,
a.
::E
5 V'I
UJ
:it
UJ
> 0
a::
\!l
UJ
~
0 a::
~ w
z
>
.,, E JURUPA ST
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Figure 3.5-1
Historic Districts
L-_-J Proposed Growth Areas
I,. "I Ontario City Boundary
I.. "I County Boundary
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: Potential Historic Distict
[ _=-J Proposed Historic Distict
Designated
I. Armsley Square
1111 2, La Deney Drive
4, Euclid Avenue
1111 5, College Park
Potential
Proposed
6, Rosewood Court
8, Villa
9, El Morado Court
17, Graber Olive House
3, La Deney Drive Addition
7, Granada
11, Downtown Addition
13, Downtown West Addition
15, Parkside Add~ion
ID, Downtown
12, Downtown West
14, Parkside
16, Guasti
2 · 0·5 - 0
J
THE ONTARIO PLAN
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
0 0 1,000 2,000
Source: The City of Ontario 2021
FT
4,000
Date: 11/5/2025
996
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. 5 C U L TU RA L RE S O U RC E S
3. 5- 16 P l a c e W o r k s
This page intentionally left blank.
997
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. 5 C U L TU RA L RE S O U RC E S
MA RC H 2026 3. 5- 17
Table 3.5-1 Designated Historic Landmarks in the City of Ontario No.
Assessor’s
Parcel
Number Street Address
Year
Built
Designation
Date Historic Name
1 104902119 122 South Vine Avenue 1960 05/18/1993 William Barton Fallis House 2 104906202 225 South Euclid Avenue 1886 09/07/1993 Old City Hall 3 104906201 225 South Euclid Avenue 1937 09/07/1993 Frankish Fountain 4 104904304 304 South Laurel Avenue
& 200 West Main Street
1893 09/20/1994 Dr. O.S. Ensign House
5 104956401 1120 South Euclid
Avenue
1919 10/04/1994 Euclid A venue School
6 104835411 401 North Euclid Avenue 1942 06/06/1995 Ontario Laundry Co. 7 104834212 456 West Carriage Alley - 10/17/1995 Carriage House 8 104906302 214 East Holt Boulevard - 04/05/1996 Dietz Garage 9 104754309 328 East Princeton Street 1884 02/18/1997 Avenue Boarding House 10 104905703 100 South Euclid Avenue 1930 01/20/1998 First National Bank 11 104905705 110 & 112 South Euclid
Avenue
- 01/20/1998 Envoy Hotel
12 104905803 200 South Euclid Avenue 1916 01/20/1998 Frankish Building 13 104904304 101 & 103 North Euclid
Street & 104, 108, 110 &
112 West Holt Boulevard
1895 01/20/1998 Citizens Bank Block
14 104856408 105 North Euclid Avenue - 01/20/1998 Holbrook Block 15 104856407 107, 109 & 111 North
Euclid Avenue
1889 01/20/1998 Rose Block
16 104855313 114 North Euclid Avenue - 01/20/1998 Citizens Bank 17 104856406 121 & 123 North Euclid
Avenue
- 01/20/1998 Friend Block/
L.O.O.F./Somerset Hall/
People’s Store
18 104855316 122 North Euclid Avenue - 01/20/1998 Lerch Building 19 104855317 126, 128, 130 & 132
North Euclid Avenue
1920 01/20/1998 Commercial Hotel
20 104856510 203 North Euclid Avenue - 01/20/1998 Ostran's Department Store 998
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. 5 C U L TU RA L RE S O U RC E S
3. 5- 18 P l a c e W o r k s
Table 3.5-1 Designated Historic Landmarks in the City of Ontario No.
Assessor’s
Parcel
Number Street Address
Year
Built
Designation
Date Historic Name
21 104856504,
104856505
231 & 223 North Euclid
Avenue
1950 01/20/1998 Masonic Hall
22 104856505 235 North Euclid Avenue - 01/20/1998 People's Mutual Building & Loan
23 104856607 303 North Euclid Avenue 1926 01/20/1998 Emmon's Building (Granada Theater)
24 104836201 536 North Euclid Avenue - 01/20/1998 Bethel Congregational Church
25 104835603 625 North Euclid Avenue 1893 01/20/1998 Moore House 26 104905705 108 South Euclid Avenue 1920 01/20/1998 McCann Block 27 104856402 115-119 West "B" Street 1948 06/02/1998 Ontario Herald Building 28 104856511 112 West "B" Street - 06/02/1998 Int'l Order of Odd Fellows (I.O.O.F.)
29 104856509 207 North Euclid Avenue - 06/02/1998 W.W. Smith Grocery 30 104824134 738 North Euclid Avenue 1960 06/02/1998 Women's Club 31 104827116 747 North Euclid Avenue 1920 06/02/1998 Oscar Arnold House 32 104824135 748 & 750 North Euclid
Avenue
1960 06/02/1998 Bungalow Court
33 104825241 802 North Euclid Avenue 1960 - Woodlawn Apartments 34 104825147 836 North Euclid Avenue - 06/02/1998 William W. Fischer 35 104836104 128 East "G" Street 1960 06/02/1998 Edward E. Bassat House 36 104906404 217 South Lemon Avenue - 06/02/1998 Ontario Power Co. Building 37 104905805 211 & 215 South Laurel
Avenue
1960 - Pacific Electric Bus Depot
38 104905801 125 West Transit Street 1932 06/02/1998 Old Post Office – Paul Williams Architect
39 104905701 123 West Holt Boulevard - 06/02/1998 United States Post Office 40 104804313 907 North Euclid Avenue 1960 01/19/1999 Colonel J.P. Robertson House
41 104807150 936 North Euclid Avenue - 01/19/1999 The Town House 999
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. 5 C U L TU RA L RE S O U RC E S
MA RC H 2026 3. 5- 19
Table 3.5-1 Designated Historic Landmarks in the City of Ontario No.
Assessor’s
Parcel
Number Street Address
Year
Built
Designation
Date Historic Name
42 104807151 938 & 940 North Euclid
Avenue
1960 01/19/1999 Hollinsworth Apartments
43 104804310 939 North Euclid Avenue 1960 - James E. Douglas House 44 104807152 942 North Euclid Avenue 1928 0119/1999 Neman E. Draper House 45 104807153 944 North Euclid Avenue 1926 01/19/1999 Clayton C. Dyke House 46 104804309 945 North Euclid Avenue 1960 01/19/1999 Charles Latimer House 47 104804308 951 North Euclid Avenue 1901 01/19/1999 Judge James R. Pollock House
48 104807101 956 North Euclid Avenue 1930 01/19/1999 Leo J. Lucas House 49 104804307 957 North Euclid Avenue 1901 01/19/1999 Miss Mary Pollock House 50 104806221 1004 North Euclid
Avenue
1920 01/19/1999 Charles Mead House
51 104805210 1007 North Euclid
Avenue
1960 01/19/1999 Herbert C. Oakley House
52 104806224 1012 North Euclid A
venue
1928 01/19/1999 Charles McGready House
53 104806201 1022 North Euclid
Avenue
1960 01/19/1999 A.R. Gemmel House
54 104805206 1043, 1045 & 1047 North
Euclid Avenue
1960 01/19/1999 Bungalow Court
55 104805205 1049 North Euclid
Avenue
1919 01/19/1999 A.L. Davenport House
56 104805204 1055 North Euclid
Avenue
1923 01/19/1999 Richard J. George House
57 104806101 1056 North Euclid
Avenue & 116 & 118 East
Fourth Street
1940
1960
1960
01/19/1999 Atchley Apartments
58 104755101,
104755102,
104757149,
104757150,
104757151,
1245 North Euclid
Avenue
1930 01/19/1999 Chaffey High School
1000
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. 5 C U L TU RA L RE S O U RC E S
3. 5- 20 P l a c e W o r k s
Table 3.5-1 Designated Historic Landmarks in the City of Ontario No.
Assessor’s
Parcel
Number Street Address
Year
Built
Designation
Date Historic Name
104758101,
104758112
59 104736116 1310 North Euclid
Avenue
1901 01/19/1999 Clarence Peabody House
60 104736117 1316 North Euclid
Avenue
1912 01/19/1999 Thomas M. Henry House
61 104736118 1322 North Euclid
Avenue
1913 01/19/1999 Clara Peabody House
62 104733216 1327 North Euclid
Avenue
1960 01/19/1999 A.J. Dinkey House
63 104733103 1341 North Euclid
Avenue
1923 01/19/1999 John D. Paschke House
64 104823302 616 East H Street 1925 10/05/1999 Raymond A. Gillette House 65 - North Euclid Avenue - 12/21/1999 Euclid Avenue Nativity Display
66 104834103 403 West G Street 1990 0 7/18/2000 John Stewart House 67 - Euclid Avenue between
Philadelphia Street & I-10
- 01/16/2001 Euclid Avenue
68 104734102 421 West Sixth Street 1935 02/19/2002 Alan A. Clements House 69 104807137 307 East Plaza Serena
Street
1914 02/19/2002 Mrs. Mary Grotholtman
House
70 104833207 527 West Flora Street 1922 05/07/2002 Mrs. Mary N. Davis House 71 104808130 655 East Plaza Serena
Street
1933 09/17/2002 Virgil M. Roose House
72 104837303 312 East "E" Street 1910 11/19/2002 Olin C. Stark House 73 104753107 1240 North Euclid
Avenue
1926 09/16/2003 Peter H. Vanden Berg
House
74 104814103 1322 East Fourth Street 1937 09/16/2003 Ontario Ballpark 75 21121112
and
21121113
11274 Turner Avenue - 11/07/2003 Hofer Ranch
76 104825211 304 East Granada Court 1920 11/18/2003 Royal E. Bumstead House 1001
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. 5 C U L TU RA L RE S O U RC E S
MA RC H 2026 3. 5- 21
Table 3.5-1 Designated Historic Landmarks in the City of Ontario No.
Assessor’s
Parcel
Number Street Address
Year
Built
Designation
Date Historic Name
77 104853203 510 East Lynn Haven
Court
1910 05/04/2004 Mrs. Mary E. Todd House
78 104734306 213 West Sixth Street - 05/04/2004 Thomas T. Parker House 79 100826118 830 West Sixth Street 1960 06/28/2005 W.B. Stewart House 80 104809122 1044 North Sultana
Avenue
1939 09/20/2005 The Squires House
81 104809211 558 East Rosewood Court 1930 07/20/2006 W.H. Joss House 82 104724103 205 East Sixth Street - 10/19/2006 Dr. Robert N. Williams House
83 104733206 201 West Bonnie Brae
Court
- 05/15/2007 Virgil E. Wymore House
84 104837609 427 East "F" Street - 09/18/2008 The Harry Walker House 85 104825127 419 East Granada Court - 11/03/2009 Dr. T.C. Hardy House 86 104855219 200 North Euclid Avenue - 02/02/2010 The Bank of Italy Building 87 104855219 109 East "B" Street - 02/02/2010 Bumstead Bicycles Building 88 104734103 413 West Sixth Street - 08/16/2011 The James Finley House 89 104753105 1232 North Euclid
Avenue
- 08/23/2011 Clifford M Hurston House
90 104829116 537 West "I" Street - 05/15/2012 Ross Anthony House 91 104857102 423 West "D" Street - 05/15/2012 The VanPelt House 92 104839113 509 East E Street - 05/07/2013 Rudi and Lena Pock House 93 104825115 324 East I Street - 09/17/2013 Hansen House 94 104734304 227 West Sixth Street - 04/15/2014 Charles B. Jones House 95 104834207 410 West E Street - 08/19/2014 James R. MacGregor House 96 104807221 428 Plaza Serena - 01/19/2016 John J. Voss House 97 104754333 318 East Princeton Street - 10/17/2017 Fred and Verna Clapp House
98 104839318 535 East D Street - 8/18/2020 Mr. and Mrs. Durfee House 1002
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. 5 C U L TU RA L RE S O U RC E S
3. 5- 22 P l a c e W o r k s
Table 3.5-1 Designated Historic Landmarks in the City of Ontario No.
Assessor’s
Parcel
Number Street Address
Year
Built
Designation
Date Historic Name
99 104754301 301 East Fourth Street - 10/20/2020 Clifford C. Graber House 100 104831411 409 North San Antonio
Avenue
11/15/2022 Maurice Johnson House
Source: Ontario 2026.
Ontario Ranch Resources Survey
The Ontario Ranch Historic Context Statement and Resource Survey was prepared to aid the City in evaluating all remaining historic dairy properties in Ontario Ranch for eligibility under the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), and the Ontario Historic Resources Inventory (Local Register). The Regulatory Framework section of the report contains NRHP, CRHR, and Local Register criteria, as well as information on Historic Properties and Historical Resources pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This study entirely replaces the New Model Colony (NMC) Historic Context (2004). The New Colony Historic Context (2004) was developed in conjunction with a reconnaissancelevel cultural resource survey of the NMC area to assist with understanding the built environment. The survey and historic context provided a framework for interpreting and preserving the area’s history, and established a foundation for integrating historic preservation into future land use planning efforts, including specific plans, site plans, and development proposals.
Nearly half of the Ontario Ranch area have since been planned and developed through the adoption of specific plans. With each subsequent development, intensive-level historic resource surveys were prepared by project applicants, then reviewed, analyzed, and approved by the City. These surveys provided important opportunities for discovery and documentation, contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of the area’s historic dairy farms, ranchstyle residences, and the individuals and families who lived and worked there.
In 2014, the Historic Preservation Subcommittee (HPSC) reviewed 5 dairy properties and considered local designation and Tier Determination criterion. The HPSC determined that the properties met the local designation criteria under the Art Deco/ Streamline Moderne and the Ranch architectural styles and the 1930-160 Dairy Property themes. They further found that the properties were likely to meet the California Register of Historic Resources. They approved adding the properties on the local register and assigned a Tier II Determination. Those 1003
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. 5 C U L TU RA L RE S O U RC E S
MA RC H 2026 3. 5- 23
properties are listed in Table 3.5-2, Previously Surveyed Properties Determined Eligible by the City. Building upon this accumulated knowledge, the updated Ontario Ranch Historic Context Statement and Resource Survey have been prepared in 2025 to address the remaining undeveloped former agricultural lands, ensuring that future planning decisions continue to reflect and preserve the area’s history and significance.
Table 3.5-2 Previously Surveyed Properties Determined Eligible by the City Address Identifier City of Ontario Eligibility
Determination
Determination Applied
To
8484 Schaefer Avenue Basque American Dairy Tier II property Eligible under CRHR 3 / Local
Register 4
Art Deco Milk Parlor only
13948 S. Walker Avenue1 Gorzeman Dairy #2 Tier II property Eligible under CRHR 3 / Local
Register 4
Art Deco Milk Parlor and
1931-1949 Dry Lot to
Mechanized Dairy
14117 Grove Avenue2 14117 Grove Avenue2 Tier II property Eligible under CRHR 3 / Local
Register 4
Milk Parlor and Ranch
Style house
14251 Euclid Avenue Basque American Dairy Tier II property Eligible under CRHR 3 / Local
Register 4
Milk Parlor only
8314 Edison Avenue18314 Edison Avenue Tier II property Eligible under CRHR 3 / Local
Register 4
Art deco Milk Parlor, and
1931-1949 Dry Lot to
Mechanized Dairy
property
Source: Appendix E2
Note: Date of determination for the properties was November 13, 2014. 1 Updated survey yields differing results.
2 2025 survey recorded as 8185 Edison Ave.
Approximately, 385 parcels within Ontario Ranch were still unevaluated. Review of parcel locations and ownership resulted in consolidating the documentation and evaluation effort to 150 properties, generally composed of multiple contiguous parcels under single ownership. Of these properties, 147 contain historic-era built environmental resources constructed within one or more periods of significance referenced in the updated historic context statement. Properties with historic-era resources were assessed for significance and eligibility under the new themes and associated significance considerations and integrity thresholds contained within the Ontario Ranch Historic Context Statement. Of the 147 evaluated properties, 25 were deemed significant 1004
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. 5 C U L TU RA L RE S O U RC E S
3. 5- 24 P l a c e W o r k s
and eligible for designation and listing on the NRHP, CRHR, or City’s Register Additionally, Ontario Ranch Survey No. 78 was found to be ineligible for listing, but remains on Table 3.5-3, Properties with Potentially Historic Resources and Tier II Historic Resources in Ontario Ranch due to City action which added the property to the local inventory and assigned a Tier Determination. In addition to the Ontario Ranch Historic Context and Resource Survey, the Thommen property, located at 7365 Schaefer Avenue, was evaluated for historic significance and eligibility listing on the NRHP, CRHR, or City’s Register through an induvial effort. The survey resulted in a finding that the property was significant and met local designation criteria and is also included in Table 3.5-3.
Table 3.5-3 Properties with Potentially Historic Resources and Tier II Historic Resources in Ontario Ranch
OR Survey
No. Resource Name/Address Historic Name
CRHR Status
Code
1 13142-13144 Campus
Avenue
Bidart Dairy 3S/3CS/5S3
2 8321-8455 Schaefer Avenue Not Identified 3S/3CS/5S3
5 8919-8929 Chino Avenue Vander Dussen Dairy 3S/3CS/5S3 24 8314 Edison Avenue De Groot Dairy 3S/3CS/5S2/E-T2
41 7587-7697 Edison Avenue Paul Brockmeier Property/De Groot Dairy
3S/3CS/5S3
45 7993 Schaefer Avenue Frederick A. Wyman Property/Dick De Groot Dairy
3S/3CS/5S3
63 8484 Schaefer Avenue Basque American Dairy 3S/3CS/5S2/E-T2 64 13510 Walker Avenue Not Identified 3S/3CS/5S3
66 7325 Edison Avenue S.N.S. Dairy 3S/3CS/5S3
68 7659 Riverside Drive Hohberg Farm 3S/3CS/5S3
69 13715-13751 Grove Avenue,
13817-13819 Grove Avenue,
8270-8292 Edison Avenue
Hofstra Dairy 3S/3CS/5S3
71 13566 S. Bon View Avenue Henry Koetsier Dairy/Veenendaal Dairy
3S/3CS/5S3
78 13948 S. Walker Avenue Gorzeman Dairy #2 6Z/E-T2
79 7941 Chino Avenue Not Identified 3S/3CS/5S3
80 8074 Chino Avenue- 13107
Cucamonga Avenue
Mathieu Etchart Farm 3S/3CS/5S3
1005
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. 5 C U L TU RA L RE S O U RC E S
MA RC H 2026 3. 5- 25
Table 3.5-3 Properties with Potentially Historic Resources and Tier II Historic Resources in Ontario Ranch
OR Survey
No. Resource Name/Address Historic Name
CRHR Status
Code
85 8146 Chino Avenue Reuben Holland Dairy/DeWitte Dairy 3S/3CS/5S3 86 14437 Euclid Avenue Not Identified 3S/3CS/5S3
95 7325, 7387, and 7407- 7439
E. Riverside Drive
Not Identified 3S/3CS/5S3
112 8185 Edison Avenue Not Identified 3S/3CS/5S2/E-T2
114 8335-8381 Edison Avenue John T. Veenstra Dairy/De Hoog Dairy/Three D Dairy
3S/3CS/5S3
119 13456 Walker Avenue Alta-Dena Dairy No. 4, Joe Heim & Sons Dairy
3S/3CS/5S3
121 13567 Whispering Lakes
Lane
Desperado Dairy 3S/3CS/5S3
125 13511-13611 Walker
Avenue
Vanderham Brothers Dairy 3S/3CS/5S3
135 8625-8657 E. Riverside
Drive and 13100 Baker
Avenue
Enjar Knudsen Dairy 3S/3CS/5S3
139 14251 Euclid Avenue Peter De Witt Dairy, Basque
American Dairy
3S/3CS/5S2/E-T2
141 13403-13429 Grove Avenue John Koopman Dairy/Pedro Dairy/ Van Der Laan Dairy
3S/3CS/5S3
NA 7365 Schaefer Avenue Thommen Property 5B
Source: Appendix E2
Notes: California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) and Local Status Code Descriptions 2S2: Individually determined eligible for National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) by the Keeper. Listed in the CRHR.
3S: Appears eligible for NRHP individually through survey evaluation. 3CS: Appears eligible for CRHR individually through survey evaluation. 5B: Locally significant both individually (listed, eligible, or appears eligible) and as a contributor to a district that is locally listed, designated, determined eligible or appears eligible through survey evaluation. 5S2: Individually eligible for local listing or designation. 5S3: Appears to be individually eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation.
E-T2: Determined Eligible for local listing and assigned a Tier II by the local government 1006
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. 5 C U L TU RA L RE S O U RC E S
3. 5- 26 P l a c e W o r k s
Archaeological Resources
Archaeological resources are the physical remains of past human activities and can be either prehistoric or historic. Archaeological sites contain significant evidence of human activity.
Generally, a site is defined by a significant accumulation or presence of food remains, waste from the manufacturing of tools, tools, concentrations or alignments of stones, modification of rock surfaces, unusual discoloration or accumulation of soil, and/or human skeletal remains.
The earliest identified archaeological traditions were primarily in the southern California desert, San Diego County, and Channel Islands. These date to the Late Pleistocene or Early Holocene period and are variously termed either the Early Man Horizon or the San Dieguito Tradition. In southern San Bernardino County, very early human occupation has not been documented, but it is generally accepted that people lived in the region at least 10,000 years ago. It is understood that these people hunted, gathered, and collected the various plants and animals available from the lakes, rivers, foothills, marshlands, and grassland areas in the region. The records review at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton, identified 20 archeological resources in the City; however, due to the sensitive nature of cultural resources, archaeological site locations were not released. Based on the results of the research, there is potential archaeological sensitivity throughout the City (see Appendix E1).
SPECIFIC PLAN
Environmental Setting
The Specific Plan area is mapped as being underlain by late Quaternary (middle Holocene) young sandy alluvial fan deposits, which in turn overlie, at shallow depths, middle to late Quaternary (middle to late Pleistocene) very old sandy alluvial fan deposits. Additionally, late Pleistocene to early Holocene young sandy axial channel deposits occur in steam channels near the southernmost areas of the Specific Plan and late Pleistocene to early Holocene young alluvial fan deposits occur east of the northern off-site alignments.
During the prehistoric period, vegetation near the site provided sufficient food resources to support prehistoric human occupants. Animals that inhabited the area during prehistoric times included mammals such as rabbits, squirrels, gophers, mice, rats, deer, and coyotes, in addition to a variety of reptiles and amphibians. The natural setting of the site during the prehistoric occupation offered a rich nutritional resource base. Fresh water was likely obtainable from the Chino and Cucamonga creeks, and the Santa Ana River.
Cultural Resources Records Search
A total of 11 resources (10 historic and 1 prehistoric) have been recorded within one mile of the Specific Plan area. No previously recorded cultural resources have been mapped as overlapping 1007
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. 5 C U L TU RA L RE S O U RC E S
MA RC H 2026 3. 5- 27
the Specific Plan area or the proposed off-site improvements. The prehistoric resource consists of mano isolate, which would be considered an archeological resource.
Six historic addresses (14306, 14316, and 14366 Bon View Avenue, 14361 South Grove Avenue, 7634 Eucalyptus Avenue, and 14350 Walker Avenue) have been documented within the Specific Plan area’s limits of disturbance by the City of Ontario California Historical Resource Inventory Database (CHRID). No formal site records have been filed for the 6 addresses; however, the historic sources list them as historic structures built from 1925 to 1973.
Consistent with the Ontario Ranch Historic Context and Resource Survey (Appendix E2), 3 additional historic properties that overlap the Specific Plan area but do not have historic-age structures within the limits of disturbance have been documented by CHRID (7587-7697 Edison Avenue, 8061 Edison Avenue, and 8335-8381 Edison Avenue). Additionally, although outside the limits of disturbance, one historic property (7721-7891 Edison Avenue and 14203 Bon View Avenue) recorded by CHRID is adjacent to the off-site road improvements and the Specific Plan area.
The records search results indicate that 34 studies have been conducted within one mile of the Specific Plan area. Three of the previous studies overlap the Specific Plan area boundaries: one to the south along Eucalyptus Avenue and two to the east along Walker Avenue. In addition to these studies, the entire Specific Plan area was surveyed for historic resources for the Ontario Ranch Historic Context Statement and Resource Survey (2025, Appendix E2) and are listed in Table 3.5-3, Properties with Potentially Historic Resources and Tier II Historic Resources in Ontario Ranch. As a result of the survey, three properties with buildings eligible for the NRHP and CRHR were identified within the Specific Plan area (7587-7697 Edison Avenue, 8185 Edison Avenue, and 8335-8381 Edison Avenue). A complete list of resources located within one mile of the Specific Plan area is provided as Table 1.3-1 of Appendix E3.
Field Survey
Field surveys of the Specific Plan area were conducted on April 29 and 30, and May 2, 2025.
Ground visibility was limited due to active dairy operations, dense vegetation, development, pavement, and gravel. The entire Specific Plan area appears to have been previously rough graded, including the off-site improvement areas. Multiple structures currently exist within the Specific Plan area, including residences, garages, pole barns, dairy facilities, and other ancillary structures, some of which are at least 50 years old. These structures, identified as Sites Temp-1 through Temp-15, are shown on Figure 3.5-2, EBPSP Historic-Age Resource Location Map, and summarized in Table 3.5-4, EBPSP Historic-Age Sites.
1008
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. 5 C U L TU RA L RE S O U RC E S
3. 5- 28 P l a c e W o r k s
Table 3.5-4 EBPSP Historic-Age Sites
Site Description
1 7634, 7556 Eucalyptus Avenue. Two single-family residences, one detached garage, one ancillary structure, and foundation remnants.
(Appendix E2 Survey No. 124)
2 14330 Bon View Avenue. Single-family residence and barn. (Appendix E2 Survey No. 124)
3 14366, 14316, 14306 Bon View Avenue. Two single-family residences, barn/outbuilding, shed, pole barn, and three ancillary structures. (Appendix E2 Survey No. 4 and 8)
4 14451, 14457, 14343, 14353 Bon View Avenue. Three single-family residences, two detached garages, a dairy farm (one milking parlor, one carport, one hay storage structure, and several pole barns), and two standpipes. (Appendix E2 Survey No. 48)
5 14213, 14239, 14297, 14283 Bon View Avenue. Three single-family residences, two detached garages, and a dairy farm (milking parlor, ancillary structure, hay storage structure, and several pole barns). 1
(Appendix E2 Survey No. 48)
6 14400 South Grove Avenue. Single-family residence, detached garage, and a dairy farm (milking parlor, ancillary structure, and several pole barns). (Appendix E2 Survey No. 148)
7 14441, 14474 South Grove Avenue. Two single-family residences, one detached garage, and a dairy farm (milking parlor, several pole barns, and one ancillary structure).
(Appendix E2 Survey No. 110)
8 14361 South Grove Avenue. Single-family residence, detached garage, and a dairy farm (milking parlor, two ancillary structures, several pole barns). (Appendix E2 Survey No. 111)
9 14350 Walker Avenue, 8485 Edison Avenue. Two single-family residences, two detached garages, and a dairy farm (milking parlor, one ancillary structure, and several pole barns).
(Appendix E2 Survey No. 115)
10 7587-7697 Edison Avenue. Two single-family residences, two detached garages, and a dairy farm (milking parlor, farm equipment storage building, ancillary structures, and several pole barns).
(Appendix E2 Survey No. 41)
11 7721-7891 Edison Avenue, 14203 Bon View Avenue. Two single-family residences, a detached garage and storage building, dairy farm (a milking parlor, ancillary building, several ancillary structures, and a pole barn).1 (Appendix E2 Survey No. 109) 1009