CITY OF ONTARIO
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE i CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
RESERVED FOR CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE ii CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
RESERVED FOR CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE iii CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
RECORD OF REVISIONS
REV. TITLE INITIALS DATE N/A DRAFT MRG 07/23/2011 N/A Approved by CalEMA/FEMA MRG 11/23/2011 N/A Adopted by City Council MRG 12/20/2011 N/A Final Approval by FEMA MRG 01/31/2012
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE iv CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE v CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ...... 1 Section 1 – Introduction ...... 2 1.1 Purpose ...... 2 1.2 Authority ...... 2 1.3 Community Profile ...... 3 1.3.1 Physical Setting ...... 3 1.3.2 History ...... 7 1.3.3 Demographics ...... 9 1.3.4 Existing Land Use (See Appendix C, D, E, F, G for more details) ...... 12 1.3.5 Development Trends (See Appendix C, D, E, F, G for more details) ...... 18 Section 2 – Plan Adoption ...... 20 2.1 Adoption by Local Governing Body ...... 20 2.2 Promulgation Authority ...... 20 2.3 Primary Point of Contact ...... 20 Section 3 – Planning Process ...... 21 3.1 Preparing for the Plan ...... 21 3.1.1 Planning Team ...... 21 3.2 Coordination with Other Jurisdictions, Agencies and Organizations ...... 22 3.3 Public Involvement/Outreach...... 22 3.4 Assess the Hazard ...... 22 3.5 Set Goals ...... 23 3.6 Review and Propose Mitigation Measures ...... 23 3.7 Draft the Hazard Mitigation Plan...... 23 3.8 Adopt the Plan ...... 23 Section 4 – Risk Assessment ...... 24 4.1 Hazard Identification ...... 24 4.1.1 Hazard Screening Criteria ...... 24 4.1.2 Hazard Assessment Matrix...... 25 4.1.3 Hazard Prioritization ...... 26 4.2 Hazard Profile (See Appendix N) ...... 27 4.2.1 Earthquake ...... 27
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE vi CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
4.2.2 Flooding ...... 41 4.2.3 High Winds ...... 42 4.2.4 Wildfires ...... 42 4.2.5 Water Shortage (formerly Drought) ...... 42 4.2.6 Other Hazards ...... 47 4.3 Inventory Assets ...... 47 4.3.1 Population ...... 47 4.3.2 Buildings ...... 47 4.3.3 Critical Facility List ...... 48 4.3.4 Non-Critical Facility List ...... 49 4.4 Vulnerability Assessment (see Appendix N, O, P, Q) ...... 49 4.4.1 Methodology ...... 49 4.5 Potential Lost Estimation ...... 50 4.5.1 Facility Replacement Cost Estimation ...... 50 4.5.2 Individual Hazard Economic Loss Estimation (See Appendix N, O) ...... 50 4.5.3 Individual Hazard Human Loss Estimation (See Appendix N, O) ...... 50 Section 5 – Community Capability Assessment ...... 51 5.1 Agencies and People ...... 51 5.2 Existing Plans ...... 51 5.3 Regulations, Codes, Policies and Ordinances ...... 51 5.4 Mitigation Programs ...... 51 5.5 Fiscal Resources ...... 52 5.6 Community Capability Assessment ...... 54 Section 6 – Mitigation Strategy ...... 55 6.1 Overview ...... 55 6.2 Mitigation 5 Year Progress Report ...... 57 6.3 Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Projects ...... 57 6.4 Mitigation Priorities ...... 57 6.5 Implementation Strategy ...... 58 Section 7 – Plan Maintenance ...... 60 7.1 Monitoring, Evaluating and Updating the Plan ...... 60 7.2 Implementation through Existing Programs ...... 60 7.3 Continued Public Involvement ...... 60 APPENDIX A - PLANNING TEAM/PUBLIC INPUT MEETINGS ...... 61
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE vii CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
APPENDIX B - CENSUS DEMOGRAPHICS ...... 62 APPENDIX B – CENSUS DEMOGRAPHICS ...... 63 APPENDIX B – CENSUS DEMOGRAPHICS ...... 64 APPENDIX B – CENSUS DEMOGRAPHICS ...... 65 APPENDIX B – CENSUS DEMOGRAPHICS ...... 66 APPENDIX C – LIFESTYLE CENTER LOCATION MAP ...... 67 APPENDIX D – OFFICE PROPERTIES - EXISTING CLASS A ...... 68 APPENDIX E – OFFICE PROPERTIES UNDER DEVELOPMENT ...... 69 APPENDIX F – HAZARD ID ...... 70 APPENDIX G – EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONES ...... 72 APPENDIX H – LIQUEFACTION SUSCEPTIBILITY ZONES ...... 73 APPENDIX I – FLOOD HAZARD AREAS ...... 74 APPENDIX J – FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES...... 75 APPENDIX K – DAM INUNDATION AREAS ...... 76 APPENDIX L – HAZARD PROFILE/HISTORY ...... 77 APPENDIX M – WEATHER AVERAGES ...... 91 APPENDIX N – RISK ASSESSMENT REGIONAL ...... 92 APPENDIX O – RISK ASSESSMENT ESSENTIAL FACILITIES ...... 95 APPENDIX P – CRITICAL FACILITY INFORMATION ...... 97 APPENDIX Q – NON-CRITICAL FACILITY INFORMATION ...... 102 ONTARIO CONVENTION CENTER ...... 106 CITIZENS BUSINESS BANK ARENA ...... 107 ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ...... 108 ONTARIO POLICE DEPARTMENT HQ ...... 109 ONTARIO FIRE DEPARTMENT HQ/STATION 1 ...... 110 ONTARIO LIBRARY ...... 111 KAISER PERMANENTE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING ...... 112
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE viii CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE ix CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
Executive Summary
Hazard mitigation is defined as any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long term risk to people and property from natural and man-made hazard events. Mitigation decreases the demand for emergency response resources, reduces the principal causes of injuries and deaths, enables a quicker lifesaving response and economic recovery because the community infrastructure remains intact, and it reduces the societal impacts of the emergency because it results in less disruption to the social environment. In essence, mitigation is the foundation of sustainable community development and building a disaster resilient community.
The City of Ontario developed this Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) to make the City infrastructure, business and residents less vulnerable to future incidents. This plan was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 so that the City will remain eligible for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Pre-Disaster Mitigation and Hazard Mitigation Grant programs.
The City followed a planning process prescribed by FEMA, which began with the designation of the Ontario Emergency Management Working Committee (EMWC), comprised of key City agency/department and external planning/response partner representatives as the Local Planning Team (LPT). The EMWC/LPT, in coordination with the San Bernardino County Operational Area (OA) and other municipalities in the County, utilized a consultant to assist in the development of this plan.
A risk assessment was conducted to identify and profile natural and man-made hazards that pose a risk to the City of Ontario, assess the City’s vulnerability to these hazards, and examine the capabilities in place to mitigate them. The City is vulnerable to several hazards that are identified, profiled, and analyzed in this plan. Earthquakes, flooding, and high winds are among the hazards that are considered to be high risk and subsequently can have a significant impact on the City.
Based on the risk assessment, goals and objectives for reducing the City’s vulnerability to these hazards were identified. The four goals of this multi-hazard mitigation plan are: Minimize loss of life and property from natural and man-made hazard events Protect public health and safety Increase public awareness of risk from natural and man-made hazards Enhance emergency systems including warning systems
To meet identified goals and objectives, the plan recommends several mitigation measures, which are summarized in the table that follows. In addition to the mitigation measures, the table includes the lead agencies to carry out the measures, potential sources of funding, the timeline in which the measures will be addressed, and the priority of the measures. This plan is formally adopted by the City and a schedule has been adopted to review and update the Plan annually.
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 1 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
Section 1 – Introduction
1.1 Purpose
Emergencies and disasters cause death or leave people injured or displaced, cause significant damage to our communities, businesses, public infrastructure and our environment, and cost tremendous amounts in terms of response and recovery dollars and economic loss. While we cannot prevent disasters from happening, their effects can be reduced or eliminated through a well-organized public education and awareness effort, preparedness and mitigation. For those hazards, which cannot be fully mitigated, the community must be prepared to provide efficient and effective response and recovery.
Hazard mitigation reduces or eliminates losses of life and property. After disasters, repairs and reconstruction are often completed in such a way as to simply restore to pre-disaster conditions. Such efforts expedite a return to normalcy; however, the replication of pre-disaster conditions results in a cycle of damage, reconstruction, and repeated damage. Hazard mitigation ensures that such cycles are broken and that post-disaster repairs and reconstruction result in a reduction in hazard vulnerability.
The primary purpose of this plan is to identify community policies, actions and tools for implementation over the long-term that will result in a reduction in risk and potential for future losses community wide. This is accomplished by using a systematic process of learning about the hazards that can affect the City, setting clear goals, identifying and implementing appropriate actions, and keeping the plan current. This plan is an integral part of the City’s multi-pronged approach to minimizing personal injury and property damage from natural and technological disasters, and it complements other planning documents and regulatory authorities governing pre- disaster land use planning and post-disaster response and recovery. It also acknowledges the numerous financial, regulatory and compliance issues government faces on a daily basis. It is intended to set the tone for the implementation of hazard mitigation practices that will build a disaster resistant and sustainable community.
One of the primary objectives of the 2010 update to the City of Ontario Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) is to improve the usability of the HMP. This includes improving readability, layout and organization; editing information into a more concise format which reduces document size while maintaining applicable content; and improving integration into the annual budget and city master plan (“The Ontario Plan”) process. For example, summary information is contained in the main body of the HMP while supporting information and details are contained in the appendices. Another example is the continued improvement in public and planning partner involvement in the plan update process, including long-term scheduling of annual reviews and updates coordinated with the budget and planning cycles. In addition, the HMP was reviewed for content accuracy. The HMP for the City of Ontario is both a fundamental planning document for the City and an annex of the overall San Bernardino County Operational Area HMP.
1.2 Authority
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000), Section 322 (a-d) requires that local governments, as a condition of receiving federal disaster mitigation funds, have a mitigation plan that describes the process for identifying hazards, risks and vulnerabilities, identify and prioritize mitigation actions, encourage the development of local mitigation and provide technical support for those efforts. This mitigation plan serves to meet those requirements.
City Council for the City of Ontario: Mayor…………………………………………….Paul S. Leon Mayor pro Tem………………………………….Debra Dorst-Porada Council Members……………………………….Alan D. Wapner, Sheila Mautz, Jim W. Bowman City Manager……………………………………Chris Hughes
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 2 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
1.3 Community Profile
1.3.1 Physical Setting
The City of Ontario is located in the Inland Empire in Western San Bernardino County, approximately 35 miles east of Los Angeles and 20 miles west of San Bernardino on a flat alluvial plain at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains. The City is bordered by the neighboring cities of Upland, Montclair, Chino, Rancho Cucamonga, and Fontana.
City of Ontario 303 East “B” Street Ontario, California 91764 Telephone: 909.395.2010 Fax: 909.395.2000 www.ci.ontario.ca.us
Latitude: 34° 03' N , Longitude:117° 37' W Elevation: 925 ft/288.257 m above sea level Land area: 49.8 square miles City Incorporated: 1891 Government Type: City Council/City Manager County: San Bernardino State: California Time Zone: Pacific Standard Time Area Code: (909) Zip Codes: 91758, 91761, 91762, 91764 Population (2010): 173,690
Nearest cities: Upland, CA – 4.7 miles Chino, CA – 4.9 miles Montclair, CA – 4.9 miles Rancho Cucamonga, CA – 5.9 miles Claremont, CA – 7.4 miles Chino Hills, CA – 8.5 miles Pomona, CA – 8.8 miles Fontana, CA – 14.2 miles
Nearest city with population 200,000+: Riverside, CA (17.5 miles, pop. 255,166)
Nearest city with population 1,000,000+: Los Angeles, CA (51.5 miles, pop. 3,694,820)
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 3 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 4 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
Climate (See Appendix O for more details) • Mediterranean-like climate: moderate temperatures & low humidity year-round • Average annual days of shine: 312 • Average median temperature: 83°F/24°C • Average annual rainfall: 16.1 inches • A few rainy days generally followed by many days of sunshine & clear skies
Major River/Watersheds
The City of Ontario is part of the Santa Ana River Watershed. A watershed is a region drained by a stream, lake, or other body of water. In other words, it is a bowl or basin-shaped area in which all water within the area (rain, snow, etc.) will flow to the same outlet point.
The Santa Ana River Watershed is located in southern California, south and east of the city of Los Angeles. The watershed includes much of Orange County, the northwestern corner of Riverside County, the southwestern corner of San Bernardino County, and a small portion of Los Angeles County. The EPA identifies the San Jacinto watershed as a separate watershed. For SAWPA (Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority) purposes, the San Jacinto watershed is considered to be part of the Santa Ana River watershed. The watershed is bounded on the south by the Santa Margarita watershed, on the east by the Salton Sea and Southern Mojave watersheds, and on the north/west by the Mojave and San Gabriel watersheds. The watershed is approximately 2,800 square miles in area.
Physiography
The watershed is located in the Peninsular Ranges and Transverse Ranges Geomorphic Provinces of Southern California (California Geological Survey Note 36). The highest elevations (upper reaches) of the watershed occur in the San Bernardino (San Gorgonio Peak -- 11,485 feet in elevation) and eastern San Gabriel Mountains (Transverse Ranges Province; Mt. Baldy -- 10,080 feet in elevation) and in the San Jacinto Mountains (Peninsular Ranges Province, Mt. San Jacinto – 10,804 ft). Further downstream, the Santa Ana Mountains and the Chino Hills form a topographic high before the river flows into the Coastal Plain (in Orange County) and into the Pacific Ocean. Primary slope direction is northeast to southwest, with secondary slopes controlled by local topography.
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 5 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
Geology
As is true for much of California, the geology of the Santa Ana River watershed is defined and created by seismic activity. The dominant structural feature is the San Andreas Fault zone, which trends in a southeast-northwest direction at the base of the San Bernardino Mountains; motion along this fault has caused the uplift of the San Bernardino and San Gabriel mountain ranges. Additional major fault structures include the San Jacinto fault zone and the Elsinore Fault Zone; the San Jacinto Mountains are caused by motion from both the San Andreas and San Jacinto zones. Fault zones/lines are shown in red on the figure below. The area between the San Jacinto zone and the Elsinore Zones is a down-dropped block, which is partly in-filled with sediments from the surrounding mountains.
There are too many geologic units in the watershed to describe separately, but the predominant features are intrusive rocks of the southern California batholiths (granitic and andesitic rocks) which have been uplifted/eroded to form the mountain ranges (shown in green shades below), alluvial/fluvial sediments (materials eroded from the mountains and deposited in the basins, shown in tan/light tones), and semi- consolidated sedimentary units (maroon/brown color).
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 6 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
1.3.2 History
History of Ontario
It was in the first week of August, 1881 when George Chaffey, a Canadian engineer, viewed the wastes known as the Cucamonga Desert and decided that this patch of land, if properly watered, could become productive and profitable. George and his brother William bought the "San Antonio lands," 6,218 acres with water rights for $60,000. This was the nucleus of their new model colony. They subsequently expanded to the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks on the south. On the north, they took in the Kincaid Ranch at San Antonio Canyon, an all-important source of water.
The Ontario Colony lands were quickly surveyed and went on sale in November, 1882. The centerpiece was Euclid Avenue, eight miles long and two hundred feet wide, the twin "driveways" separated by a parkway which was seeded in grass and lined with pepper trees. George named Euclid Avenue after the great Greek mathematician whose book Elements of Geometry had been a favorite subject for George in school.
The primary requirement, which had to be met before the land could be utilized, was that water had to be found and brought to the town. Chaffey laid miles of cement pipe for this purpose and later the San Antonio Water Co. drove a tunnel into the head of the canyon to tap the underground flow—then an innovation in the field. The need for electric power to lift water from deep wells led to the establishment of the Ontario Power Co.
Another innovation in the settlement of Ontario was the provision, whereby, purchasers of land automatically received shares in the water company. This would ensure purchasers that a share of water proportional to their acreage would be piped to their land. This eliminated many problems that faced settlers elsewhere, where land rights and water rights were kept separate.
The results of George Chaffey’s labors showed what could be achieved. All too soon, however, the Chaffey brothers went off to Australia to attempt a repeat performance of their success as city planners here.
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 7 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
Charles Frankish became the guiding force during Ontario’s early years. No matter what the activity he undertook, Frankish always threw himself into his work and was determined to do the best possible job.
In 1887, Ontario’s unique "gravity mule car" made its first run on Euclid Avenue. Charles Frankish and Godfrey Stamm established the Ontario and San Antonio Heights R.R. Co. Engineer John Tays of Upland added the pull-out trailer that allowed the mules to coast downhill after each laborious pull from Holt to Twenty–Fourth Street. The mule car served until 1895, when it was replaced by an electric streetcar and returned temporarily when a flood damaged the electrical generator in the powerhouse.
On Dec 10th, 1891, Ontario was incorporated as a city of the sixth class under the California Constitution. It adopted a City Council-City Manager form of government. The mayor was at first called the "President of the Board," and was chosen by the Council, or the Board of Trustees as it was then called, from among their number. Subsequently, the law was changed to allow the people to elect the mayor directly.
Ontario first developed as an agricultural community, largely but not exclusively devoted to citrus. A few of the lovely Victorian "grove houses" still survive, relics of the days when growers could pretend that they were living the graceful lives of the old Spanish dons—until it came time for harvest.
Chaffey College, which was located where the Chaffey brothers put it until 1960, originally emphasized agricultural subjects to give the growers a hand. It was there that Prof. George Weldon developed the Babcock peach, an adaptation to California’s mild winters. The college has moved to Rancho Cucamonga now, but Chaffey High School is still on what was originally a joint campus.
A reminder of the heyday of the orange groves, the Sunkist plant remains to this day. Even though the groves have gone from the West End, Ontario is still close to the "ton-mile center" of the industry. In addition to oranges, the production of peaches, walnuts, lemons and grapes was also important to the growth of Ontario and the adjoining city of Upland.
In 1923, Judge Archie Mitchell, Waldo Waterman, and some other airplane enthusiasts established Latimer Field. From that time on, the town became increasingly aviation conscious. Urban growth pushed the fliers progressively east, until they took up their present location, the Ontario International Airport. During World War II, this was a busy training center for pilots of the hot Lockheed P-38 "Lightning" twin- boom fighter.
Since World War II, Ontario has become a much more diversified community. The mean temperature of 61 degrees and the average rainfall of 18.4" continues to attract more residents; with an approximate population of 170,373. The city has expanded from the 0.38 square mile area incorporated back in 1891, up to almost 50 square miles. The economy now reflects an industrial and manufacturing base. Ten thousand acres are zoned for industrial use. With three major railroads, the San Bernardino, Pomona, and Devore Freeways (I-10, SR 60, and I-15), and the Ontario International Airport, Ontario is well provided with major transportation resources. Its proximity to Los Angeles ensures that Ontario will continue to grow in the years ahead.
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 8 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
1.3.3 Demographics
POPULATION/DEMOGRAPHICS (See Appendix B for more details)
Population 2010: 173,690 Population 2009: 171.602 (One of Southern California’s fastest growing cities for more than 25 years) Population growth between 2000 and 2009: 9.7%. Anticipated growth by 2020: 120,000, most in the 8,200 acre New Model Colony Greater Ontario area: 3.2 million people Greater Ontario anticipated growth by 2020: 1.8 million people, greater than 47 of 50 U.S. states (fourth only after California, Texas & Florida)
Ontario median age: 27.2 years California median age: 33.3 years Proportion of population over age 55: less than 14.1%
Race Hispanic 47.0% Caucasian 30.9% Other 17.2% Asian 3.9% African American 0.5% Pacific Islander 0.4% Native American 0.1% (Total can be greater than 100% because Hispanics could be counted in other races)
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 9 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
Ancestries German 5.9% Irish 4.3% English 3.9% United States 2.8% Italian 2.4% Dutch 1.5% For population 25 years and over in Ontario
Language 47.0% of residents of Ontario speak English at home 47.3% of residents speak Spanish at home 45% speak English very well 21% speak English well 20% speak English not well 14% don't speak English at all 1.7% of residents speak other Indo-European language at home 68% speak English very well 20% speak English well 11% speak English not well 1% don't speak English at all 3.6% of residents speak Asian or Pacific Island language at home 54% speak English very well 25% speak English well 18% speak English not well 4% don't speak English at all 0.4% of residents speak other language at home 58% speak English very well 17% speak English well 14% speak English not well 11% don't speak English at all Foreign born population: (31.0%, 29.9% are naturalized citizens)
Sex Males: 50.1% Females: 49.9%
Education High school or higher 62.5 % Bachelor’s degree or higher 10.5% Graduate or professional degree 2.7% For population 15 years and over in Ontario
Marital Status Never married 32.0% Now married 52.6% Separated 3.4% Widowed 4.1% Divorced 8.0%
Households 31.6% married couples with minor children at home
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 10 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
Average household size: Ontario: 3.6 people California: 2.9 people
Family households: Ontario: 79.7% California: 68.9%
Unmarried partner households: Ontario: 7.0% California: 5.9%
Unemployment (Apr 2010) Ontario: 14.9% California: 12.2%
Crime (2009)
Crime Total per 100,000 Murder 5 2.9 Rape 49 28.3 Robbery 286 165.1 Assault 392 226.3 Burglary 986 569.2 Theft 3207 1851.5 Auto Theft 953 550.2 Arson 47 27.1
Ontario Crime Index = 322.9 (higher means more crime) US Crime Index Average = 319.2
Location Violent Crime Property Ontario, CA 4.4 29.8 Los Angeles, CA 6.0 22.2 San Diego, CA 4.6 25.6 *per 1,000 city population
Ontario compared to California state average: Hispanic race population percentage significantly above state average. Median age significantly below state average. Foreign-born population percentage significantly above state average. Length of stay since moving in below state average. Household age below state average. Percentage of population with a bachelor's degree or higher significantly below state average.
SOURCES: City of Ontario, The Ontario Plan (TOP) http://www.ontarioplan.org/
City Data.com http://www.city-data.com/city/Ontario-California.html
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 11 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
1.3.4 Existing Land Use (See Appendix C, D, E, F, G for more details)
Economy
In Southern California, 35 miles inland from Los Angeles and strategically situated in the center of it all, Ontario is "The GATEWAY to Southern California." Home to LA-Ontario International Airport (ONT) and uniquely positioned within the hub of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, the City of Ontario provides easy access to Southern California's dynamic freeway system and all that Southern California has to offer.
With an exceptional pro-business environment, low cost land, reasonable lease, modern facilities, technical amenities, a skilled and affordable work force, and an innovation corridor of fourteen colleges and universities, the City of Ontario is the "economic engine" of one of the fastest growing regions in the United States. Ontario is the perfect location for establishing, relocating and expanding a business.
Ontario employers provide more than 107,069 jobs.
Location Cost of Living Index* 3-bedroom house price 2-bedroom apartment rent Ontario, CA 123 $292,850 $1,318 Los Angeles, CA 156 $333,000 $1,986 San Diego, CA 147 $359,000 $1,630 * 100 is National Average
Location Property Tax Sales Tax Median Household Income Ontario, CA 1.0% 8.75% $56,727 Los Angeles, CA 1.0% 9.75% $50,983 San Diego, CA 1.0% 8.75% $70,507
Industry
Ontario continues to have the hottest industrial real estate market in Southern California. Developers have found that sites in Ontario offer the best combination of highly valued attributes: flat, industrial-zoned land along transportation corridors. From a planning standpoint, firms find they are located next to one another with good freeway access and they are isolated from incompatible uses such as schools, retail outlets or residential neighborhoods. Clearly, Ontario is the place to be for manufacturing, warehousing and distribution.
Ontario is advantageously positioned with LA-Ontario International Airport (ONT) as well as easy access to Southern California's dynamic freeway system via the I–10, 1–15 and Route 60. These freeways provide primary east-west and north-south corridors and, along with ONT, secure Ontario's reputation as "The Gateway to Southern California" and national prominence as a first class logistics and distribution center.
Ontario has a Foreign Trade Zone, which allows products to be stored, manipulated, manufactured, exhibited and (if need be) destroyed without paying Customs duties unless the items leave the zone. The potential ability to increase international sales, realize greater export potential and succeed in global markets is often a deciding factor for location, relocation and expansion into Ontario.
Industrial firms are migrating to Ontario for its location, modern facilities and lower lease rates. While the average asking rate for Ontario's industrial space near ONT ranges from $ 0.22 to $ 0.44 per square foot, space with access to a major airport varies from $ 0.82 in Orange County to $ 0.58 in Los Angeles County. In addition to competitive space costs, an Ontario location offers firms a wide array of logistical advantages: ONT with its United Parcel Service (UPS) Western Region hub, the freeways that pass through the City, availability of major 'less than load' trucking firms and the rail lines of both the Union Pacific-Southern Pacific and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroads that traverse Ontario.
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 12 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
Ontario has an estimated total 80.3 million square feet of industrial space. Despite heavy absorption and because a significant number of new facilities continue to be built, Ontario is well-situated to receive new firms including: manufacturers often seeking sites in the 50,000 – 99,999 square foot range, and distributors needing 100,000 square feet and more.
Rank Employer Employees 1 LA/Ontario International Airport 7,690 2 United Parcel Service (UPS) 3,500 3 Pro’s Ranch Markets 1,575 4 City of Ontario 1,068 5 U.S. Merchants 1,000 6 Mag Instrument 900 7 Citizens Business Bank 719 8 The Icee Company 700 9 Marriott 624 10 Toyota 530
Industries providing employment Manufacturing 19.8% Educational, health and social services 14.6% Retail trade 12.3%
Retail
Ontario Mills Mall
Ontario Mills is a large enclosed shopping/outlet mall. It is one of the primary tourist attractions in the Inland Empire and California. It is located across the street from the former site of the Ontario Motor Speedway. Like all other Mills properties, it was first developed and once owned by the Mills Corporation. Ontario Mills is the first Mills landmark to have the racetrack layout and having a theme in its neighborhoods. One of the largest shopping malls in North America, the mall opened to the public in 1996. Ontario Mills was designed by the architectural firm, F+A Architects. The mall is near the LA/Ontario International Airport, as well as the interchange between the Ontario Freeway (Interstate 15) and the San Bernardino Freeway (Interstate 10). Visitors: over 20 million annually Size: 1.7 million sf all under one roof (expandable to 2 million sf) Anchors, specialty stores, carts & kiosks: more than 250 Restaurants: Chevys Fresh Mex, Dave & Buster's, Market Broiler, Olive Garden, Pat & Oscar’s, Rainforest Café, Red Lobster, New York Grill, Tokyo Wako, Outback Steakhouse Food court: Seating for 1,000 Movies: AMC 30 Movie Theater, Edwards 22 Cinema & IMAX Theater Entertainment: GameWorks, Improv Comedy Club 23 million visitors annually Five nearby hotels 6-7,000 jobs $6-7 million annual sales tax revenue
Transportation
The LA/Ontario International Airport provides domestic and limited international air travel. Because of the many manufacturing companies and warehouses in the city, the airport also serves as a major hub for freight, especially for FedEx and UPS. This airport is owned by the city of Los Angeles.
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 13 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
Because Ontario is a major hub for passengers and freight, the city is also served by several major freeways. Interstate 10 and the Pomona Freeway (State Route 60) run east-west through the city. Interstate 10 is north of the Ontario airport while the Pomona freeway is south of the airport. Interstate 15 runs in the north-south directions at the eastern side of the city. State Route 83, also known as Euclid Avenue, also runs in the north- south direction at the western side of the city.
Ontario also has a Metrolink station off Haven Avenue. It connects Ontario with much of the Greater Los Angeles area, Orange County and the San Fernando Valley. Public bus transportation is provided by Omnitrans.
Mean travel time to work – 30.5 mins.
Rail
Excellent rail service is available by the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroads. In addition, Ontario is served by MetroLink and the Los Angeles area Commuter Railway System. The Amtrak station is located at 228 S. Plum St.
Highways
There are more than 70 commercial trucking companies serving the City of Ontario with a wide range of services. Ontario is served by I-10, I-15 and Rt. 60.
Air
Airports Certified for Commercial Operations near Ontario
Name Distance Location ID LA/Ontario International Airport 2 miles Ontario, CA ONT San Bernardino International 28 miles San Bernardino, CA SBD March Air Force Base 30 miles Riverside, CA RIV
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 14 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
Other Public Use Airports near Ontario
Name Distance Location ID Cable Airport 6 miles Upland, CA CCB Chino Airport 6 miles Chino, CA CNO Brackett Field 10 miles La Verne, CA POC
LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) LA/Ontario International Airport (IATA: ONT, ICAO: KONT, FAA LID: ONT), formerly Ontario International Airport, is a public airport located 2 NM (3.7 km; 2.3 mi) east of the central business district of Ontario. The airport is located approximately 38 miles (61 km) east of downtown Los Angeles, 18 miles (29 km) west of downtown San Bernardino and 14 miles (23 km) northwest of downtown Riverside. The airport is owned and operated by the Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA), an agency of the city of Los Angeles. The airport covers 1,700 acres (690 ha) and has two runways. It is the third major airport in the area after Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) and John Wayne Airport (SNA). At the end of 2006, Ontario International Airport was renamed to LA/Ontario International Airport to entice travelers from the over-trafficked LAX and also to reduce confusion with Ontario, Canada. ONT currently has more than 70 daily departures and arrivals.
Medical/Healthcare
Kaiser Permanente Ontario Vineyard Medical Center Located on a 28-acre, master-planned campus, Kaiser Permanente's new Ontario Vineyard Medical Center includes four major elements:
Medical office building New central plant and IT building Surgery center Onsite and offsite developments including street improvements
The campus includes a four-story medical office building including a basement level radiation therapy center which houses linear accelerators, a cat scan machine, and a Ximatron. The 131,000-sq.-ft. structural steel building was built to OSHPD 3 standards. The central plant and IT building, also built to OSHPD standards, consists of 11,000 sq. ft. of masonry construction. Also included in the complex is a single-story, 55,000-sq.-ft. steel and stud framing surgery center that will house outpatient care. The medical office buildings are currently open, and the medical center is expected to open in 2011.
Healthcare Facilities In/Near Ontario Distance Location Kindred Hospital 0 miles 550 North Monterey, Ontario Kaiser Permanente Ontario Vineyard Medical 0 miles South Vineyard, Ontario Center (under construction) San Antonio Community Hospital 4 miles Upland, CA Canyon Ridge Hospital 5 miles Chino, CA Chino Valley Medical Center 5 miles Chino, CA
Community
Ontario Convention Center One of the most technologically advanced convention centers in the United States Located 2 blocks from LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) off Interstate 10 at Vineyard Avenue Total space: 225,000 square feet Exhibit space: 70,000 square feet of column-free exhibit space
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 15 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
Ballroom: 20,000 square feet divisible into 3 sections Meeting Rooms: 24 rooms occupying 24,000 square feet of meeting space Technology: fiber optic infrastructure linked through 30 miles of cabling and CAT 5 copper wire Fiber optic ports strategically stationed throughout the center Internet access and computer networking available anywhere in the building Telecommunications: video teleconferencing & satellite capabilities Audio-visual: extensive in-house services & equipment available Catering: full repertoire of corporate, fine dining & creative services Parking: 600 spaces on site, additional 700 across the street
Citizens Business Bank Arena The Citizens Business Bank Arena, originally known as the Ontario Community Events Center, is a multi- purpose arena. It hosts local sporting events and concerts. Construction officially began on March 7, 2007 and the arena was opened on October 18, 2008. It is suitable for indoor events, including basketball, ice hockey, ice shows, boxing and concerts. The arena's basketball capacity is 10,832. It also seats 9,736 for hockey and its full capacity is 11,089. The 225,000-square-foot (20,900 m2) venue also has 36 luxury suites on two levels. It is the biggest and most modern arena within the Inland Empire region of California.
The arena's construction cost was $150 million dollars, however, it was debt free due to the city selling different properties throughout the city. It was constructed on the old Ontario Motor Speedway property. The arena is owned by the City of Ontario and is operated by AEG Worldwide which operates arenas around the world and owns several sports franchises. The only tenant at the arena is the Ontario Reign of the ECHL which is owned by the arena's operator, AEG Worldwide and the Kemp Family.
The Ontario Senior Center (OSC) includes a total kitchen upgrade; a recreation room with billard tables and card tables; computers with Internet access; a fully equipped fitness center; rooms for classes, crafts and clubs, and to accommodate income tax assistance and meetings.
The Ontario Teen Center (OTC) includes 15,000 square feet with a 6,000 square-foot gymnasium including full basketball court, flooring and bleachers; a craft room; physical fitness/weight room; game room; and lounge.
The brand new Ontario Soccer Sports Complex is located on a 45-acre site, the $10.5 million project includes ten full Olympic-sized fields including one championship field with bleachers and lights, three other lighted soccer fields, and six fields that can be further divided for expanded use. The new Soccer Sports Complex also includes a covered multi-use court/rink, picnic area, playground, jogging trail and other amenities.
The Ontario Museum of History and Art provides popular, free public programs, exhibits and workshops. Permanent and temporary exhibits not only feature local Ontario history but explore a broad range of topics and artistic mediums within the museum's galleries.
The Ontario Main Library experienced a full renovation and expansion. A $13.5 million City of Ontario investment included the existing library's total renovation and 15,000 square foot expansion. The project enhanced the library and activities available for residents with considerable remodeling, new electronic workstations and additions such as a community room, children's story time room, coffee bar, cyber café and outdoor patio.
Community Centers Anthony Munoz Community Center Armstrong Community Center - Main Office De Anza Community & Teen Center Dorothy A. Quesada Community Center Ontario Senior Center Westwind Community Center
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 16 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
Facilities Jay Littleton Ball Park Ontario Soccer Park R. Jack Mercer Bandstand
Park Land Operated by City (Not City Owned) James Galanis Park James R. Bryant Park Kimball Park Mountain View School Park West Cucamonga Creek Trail
Parks Anthony Munoz Park Bon View Park Centennial Park Creekside Park Cypress Park De Anza Park Del Rancho Park Euclid Avenue Parkway George Gibbs Park Homer F. Briggs Park John Galvin Park Memorial Grove Park Nugent's Park Ontario Motor Speedway Park Ranch Park Sam Alba Park Veterans Memorial Park Vineyard Neighborhood Park Westwind Park
Neighborhood Parks Information Cucamonga-Guasti Regional Park, 150 acres: lake, swimming, fishing, boating, water slides, picnic areas, volleyball, horseshoes John Galvin Park, 42 acres: 2,500-seat baseball stadium, picnic areas, tot lots, tennis courts, swimming, volleyball West Cucamonga Creek Trails, 15 acres: 2.4 miles, biking, hiking, nature walks; 1.3 mile, equestrian trail Westwind Park, 23 acres: Little League, softball, soccer fields; volleyball, basketball, tennis courts; gymnasium; swimming pool De Anza Park, 20 acres: concert bowl, picnic areas, tot lot; softball, basketball, volleyball courts; swimming pool Whispering Lakes, 21 acres: fishing, natural amphitheater, trail system with trees and native landscaping Anthony Munoz Hall of Fame Park, 18 acres: picnic areas, tot lot, basketball court; open turf, bike and pedestrian paths Homer F. Briggs Park: equestrian area, Little baseball, basketball, picnic areas and tot lot Within City limits, more than 402 acres of parks, more than a dozen additional parks also provide a variety of venues and outdoor recreation
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 17 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
1.3.5 Development Trends (See Appendix C, D, E, F, G for more details)
Ontario Airport Expansion and Development
Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) is in the process of developing a new master plan for the Ontario International Airport. This master plan will help guide the development of the airport through the year 2030.
ONT is well situated to serve the future aviation needs of the Inland Empire and the southern California region for both cargo and passengers. Demand for air transportation will be created by the Inland Empire's rapid population growth as well as its growth as a manufacturing and distribution center. Furthermore, with limited potential for future expansion of LAX and other regional airports beyond their current capacities, ONT can be expected to play a vital role in fulfilling the future aviation needs of the Southern California region. The master plan study will determine how much of that growth ONT can accommodate while still minimizing the impacts to the local community.
Retail Development
Resident customer base within a 10 mile radius: more than 1 million people 2007 total taxable sales: $5.4 billion Per capita taxable sales: $31,524 (largest of the region’s cities of over 100,000 residents)
Office Properties Proposed/Under Development
Ontario has approximately 5 million square feet of Class A Office space proposed, under development or under construction. Ontario expects to realize 15 to 25 million square feet of new office space in the next 20 years to meet the growing demand for professional and technical firms in the Inland Empire.
Residential Development
The City of Ontario currently has approved plans for over 80 residential developments, more than 150 commercial developments and greater than 100 industrial development projects. These projects are approved by the city Planning Department and detailed information is available at City Hall in the form of "Building Activity Reports". These reports are updated quarterly and outline the progress of each project.
New Model Colony Residential Development
The 8,200 acre/13-square mile, New Model Colony is planned as an upscale residential development where homes and pathways are in close proximity to parks, retail centers, health facilities and schools. It is bounded by Riverside Drive to the north, Milliken Avenue and Hamner Avenue to the east, the Riverside County line and Merrill Avenue to the south, and Euclid Avenue to the west. With forethought in providing broadband communications, a "common fiber optic telecommunications network" is planned to be included as part of the supporting infrastructure. This fiber optic network will create an electronic "community" within the New Model Colony and provide homes with advanced video, data and phone services. The New Model Colony is expected to add at build out at about 120,000 residents, 31,000 homes and several thousand businesses to Ontario. Ultimately, the New Model Colony provides Ontario the opportunity to define its future with new, upscale neighborhoods possibly making Ontario the county's largest city.
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 18 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 19 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
Section 2 – Plan Adoption
2.1 Adoption by Local Governing Body
This Hazard Mitigation Plan was developed by the Emergency Management Working Committee and approved by the City of Ontario City Council.
2.2 Promulgation Authority
The City Council for the City of Ontario is the authority that approves the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.
2.3 Primary Point of Contact
Michael R. Gregory, CEM Emergency Manager City of Ontario 425 E. B Street Ontario, CA 91764 909-395-2545 (Office)
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 20 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
Section 3 – Planning Process
3.1 Preparing for the Plan
REFERENCES 2005 City of Ontario Hazard Mitigation Plan 2005 San Bernardino County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2010 State of California Hazard Mitigation Plan DMA 2000 State & Local Plan Criteria: Mitigation Planning Workshop for Local Governments Getting Started: Building Support For Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-1) Understanding Your Risks: Identifying Hazards And Estimating Losses (FEMA 386-2) Developing The Mitigation Plan: Identifying Mitigation Actions And Implementing Strategies (FEMA 386-3) Bringing the Plan to Life: Implementing the Hazard Mitigation Plan (FEMA 386-4) Using Benefit-Cost Review in Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-5) Integrating Historic Property and Cultural Resource Considerations into Hazard Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-6) Integrating Manmade Hazards Into Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-7) Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Planning (FEMA 386-8) Using the Hazard Mitigation Plan to Prepare Successful Mitigation Projects (FEMA 386-9) Planning for a Sustainable Future: The Link Between Hazard Mitigation and Livability (FEMA 364) Rebuilding for a More Sustainable Future: An Operational Framework (FEMA 365) FEMA 322 Public Assistance Guide HMP Update Guidance HMP Update Crosswalk HAZUS Local Database Stafford Act National Flood Insurance Act NOAA History of Significant Weather Events in Southern California City of Ontario Emergency Management Strategic Plan
Hazard mitigation planning is the process State, Tribal, and local governments use to identify risks and vulnerabilities associated with natural disasters, and to develop long-term strategies for protecting people and property from future hazard events.
The City of Ontario was part of the 2010 HMP Update Stakeholder group. HMP planning was conducted in coordination with the OA and other municipalities in the County. The City followed the lead of the consultant hired by the OA to assist in the development of the HMP. The Ontario HMP, while following a general guideline in order to provide consistency across the OA, is also flexible enough to allow for city specific information. For example, the OA Stakeholder group developed a template Table of Contents to reflect the areas that should be included in the HMP.
Various documents were used in the planning process, including The Ontario Plan, City of Ontario HMP, State of California 2010 HMP, the SB County Operational Area HMP, FEMA HMP Guidance, and DMA 2000 State & Local Plan Criteria: Mitigation Planning Workshop for Local Governments.
The 2010 Update was submitted to the San Bernardino County OES, and was then submitted to Cal EMA and FEMA for review, at the beginning of 2011. As the Plan comments were received in July 2011, it was decided to rename the Plan the 2011 HMP. The next annual review will occur in 2012.
3.1.1 Planning Team
The City of Ontario Emergency Management Working Committee (EMWC) served as the Hazard Mitigation Planning Team for the 2010 Update. Involving stakeholders is essential to building community-wide support
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 21 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011 for the plan. In addition to emergency managers, the planning process involves other government agencies (e.g., zoning, floodplain management, public works, community, and economic development), businesses, civic groups, environmental groups, and schools. The Planning Team was established to define and identify the strategies, goals, activities, and development of the HMP. The Planning Team represents a comprehensive team of subject matter experts from a variety of areas that could be affected by the planning effort or could provide great benefit to the team. Each Planning Team member is responsible for communicating the direction and status of the planning effort to their outside members and in return they are expected to bring to the team outside perspectives. The Planning Team will be lead by the City Emergency Manager. The Emergency Manager, as the Chair of the EMWC and the Planning Team, will take on the responsibilities of a Project Manager and will facilitate and coordinate activates.
3.2 Coordination with Other Jurisdictions, Agencies and Organizations
There are many jurisdictions, agencies, and organizations that are affected by or have influence on the City. As part of the planning process, the Planning Team took great efforts to engage and include as many members as possible. The City of Ontario Emergency Management Working Committee (EMWC), as an established group with a diverse membership, was an ideal platform for coordination efforts. The EMWC membership includes both internal and external emergency planning partners. In addition, the Emergency Manager works in coordination with many other groups. In addition, a Web Portal was established to share information, resources and ideas. All members of the EMWC were provided access to the portal.
3.3 Public Involvement/Outreach Public involvement is critical to the success of the emergency management program for the City of Ontario. Representatives for the public are involved in the HMP, as well as other key facets of the emergency management program. Public involvement was solicited throughout the process. The City uses the “Whole Community” approach, which says that emergency management and emergency preparedness must involve the entire community, including residents, businesses and government, to be successful.
Since the 2005 HMP approval, the City has continued to educate the public on the hazards facing the city. At all events, public opinion and comments are solicited. Public involvement for this update was primarily through the EMWC with the varied community representatives, and also included community events (such as Community Emergency Preparedness Fair and Fire Open House) and community presentations (such as Neighborhood Watch).
The City Council will review, approve and adopt the 2011 HMP. The City Council will issue a Resolution denoting approval of the HMP. Prior to the City Council approval, the HMP will be posted on the City website as part of the Agenda for the meeting. Any resident of the City may make comments or request information on the HMP during the regularly scheduled meeting. Only after the public has an opportunity to review and comment on the HMP will the Council take action on the agenda item.
3.4 Assess the Hazard
The EMWC facilitated discussions to identify hazards in the community. The EMWC started with the 2005 HMP. The first step was to validate the accuracy of the contents. The next step was to determine if any additional information or hazards should be included or removed. The EMWC used multiple sources for this information, using the subject matter expertise of the EMWC membership. This also assisted in determining hazard priorities in the community. In the 2005 HMP, a scoring system was used. This is now replaced by a non-numerical system of high, medium and low rankings for probability and impact. The hazards are placed in a matrix, which is used to determine planning and project priorities.
Probability Impact High: Highly Likely/Likely High: Catastrophic/Critical Medium: Possible Medium: Limited Low: Unlikely Low: Negligible
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 22 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
3.5 Set Goals
The EMWC identified goals for the HMP update. The EMWC reviewed the hazard probability and impacts, evaluated the 2005 Hazard Mitigation Plan Goals, then updated the goals for 2010. The EMWC also considered additions and deletions from the list of goals. The goals were reviewed to ensure consistency with various planning documents such as The Ontario Plan, State of California 2010 HMP, the SB County Operational Area HMP and other area jurisdictional HMP for consistency, compatibility and conflicts. The goals were then finalized.
3.6 Review and Propose Mitigation Measures
After the goals are set, mitigation measures are updated and developed. This includes a review of projects from the 2005 HMP. The mitigation measures also include goals and objectives from the City of Ontario Emergency Management Strategic Plan, After Action Reports, Corrective Action Plans and other operational documents. Once the mitigation measures are developed, they are then prioritized.
3.7 Draft the Hazard Mitigation Plan
The Hazard Mitigation Plan Update will be drafted by the Emergency Manager/OEM with input and comments from the EMWC and other participants. While the 2005 HMP is used as a starting point, many revisions and changes were incorporated to improve the usability of the HMP while still maintaining consistency with the OA guidance.
Once the HMP update has been drafted and reviewed by the EMWC, it will be forwarded to Cal EMA and FEMA for approval. If Cal EMA or FEMA have any review comments, they will be incorporated as needed and the revised HMP will be again forwarded for approval.
3.8 Adopt the Plan
After Cal EMA and FEMA have approved the plan, the HMP update will be adopted by the City of Ontario City Council. The item will be part of the consent calendar subject to a public hearing if necessary. The HMP will be listed on the agenda with the plan being made available electronically to the general public prior to the meeting date. Any member of the public can make comments on the HMP during the meeting.
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 23 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
Section 4 – Risk Assessment
The goal of mitigation is to reduce the future impacts of a hazard including property damage, disruption to local and regional economies, and the amount of public and private funds spent to assist with recovery. However, mitigation should be based on risk assessment.
A risk assessment is measuring the potential loss from a hazard event by assessing the vulnerability of buildings, infrastructure and people. It identifies the characteristics and potential consequences of hazards, how much of the community could be affected by a hazard, and the impact on community assets. A risk assessment consists of three components: hazard identification, hazard profile and historical review, vulnerability and risk analysis, and asset inventory.
FEMA defines the risk assessment process as a multi-step effort in “Understanding Your Risks: Identifying Hazards and Estimating Losses (FEMA 2001).” The steps include: 1) identify and screen your hazards, 2) profile hazard events, 3) inventory assets, and 4) estimate losses
4.1 Hazard Identification
4.1.1 Hazard Screening Criteria The first step in this process was to identify which natural hazards exist in the City. To assist with this identification, an extensive data collection and document review effort was conducted. Identifying new or emerging hazards, obtaining updated hazard maps, hazard probability research studies and reports, reviewing data from new or updated local plans and obtaining information about emergencies or disasters that have occurred since the 2005 HMP provided valuable insights into which parts of the risk assessment, and the overall HMP, required updates.
The hazards that were identified are: Earthquake Flood High Wind Wildfire Water Shortage Extreme Heat
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 24 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
Severe Storm Hazardous Materials Fire (Residential, Commercial, Industrial) Extreme Cold Dam Inundation Infestation Lightning Hail Tornado Pandemic Radiological Nuclear Explosion Transportation Communications Failure Civil Disturbance Cyber Attack Terrorism
The initial assessment of each hazard is based upon the following sources: Historic occurrence of the hazard: Assessment is based on frequency, magnitude and potential impact of the hazard. Mitigation potential for the hazard: This criteria considers if there are mitigation or counter measures possible to prevent or alleviate the risk. For example, although Ontario International Airport (ONT) is located within the City of Ontario and there are significant concerns over an airplane crash, an airplane crash is not the sort of hazard for which mitigation plans have proved successful. Expert opinion: Evaluation of threats includes a literature review and the expertise of the project team. Published data and information: Assessment is based on data and/or information from credible publications or websites; for example U.S. Geological Survey, California Geological Survey, National Weather Services, or academic publications.
4.1.2 Hazard Assessment Matrix
The EMWC moved the HMP from a quantitative to a qualitative ranking system for the 2010 update. A non- numerical rating (High, Medium, or Low) was determined for both the probability and expected impact from each screened hazard. Using the hazard rankings from the 2005 HMP, information on hazard occurrences during the last five years, and available data on specific hazard probabilities, the EMWC assessed each hazard.
Probability High: Highly Likely/Likely. There may or may not have been historic occurrences of the hazard in the community or region but experts feel that it is likely that the hazard will occur in the community. Citizens feel that there is a likelihood of occurrence. Medium: Possible. There may or may not have been a historic occurrence of the hazard in the community or region but experts feel that it is possible that the hazard could occur in the community. Citizens may feel that there is a likelihood of occurrence. Low: Unlikely. There have been no historic occurrences of the hazard in the community or region and both experts and citizens agree that it is highly unlikely that the hazard will occur in the community.
Impact High: Catastrophic/Critical. Both experts and citizens feel that the consequences will be significant in terms of building damage and loss of life.
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 25 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
Medium: Limited. Consequences are thought to be modest in terms of building damage and loss of life, limited either in geographic extent or magnitude. Low: Negligible
4.1.3 Hazard Prioritization
Once the Hazard Assessment Matrix is developed, the hazards are then given a priority ranking. In the Hazard Assessment Matrix below, the “Red” boxes represents the highest priority hazards, the “Yellow” middle priority and “Green” boxes lower priority.
As shown in Hazard Assessment Matrix, the three hazards that are considered to be the greatest threat to the City of Ontario are earthquake, flood, and high winds. The Hazard Profile section profiles these hazards in depth, reviews the exposure of assets to these hazards, and estimates losses or assesses risk for significant events associated with these hazards.
In compliance with the Disaster Mitigation Act (and as further specified by Interim Final Rule 44 CFR Section 206.401(c)(2)(i)) this HMP addresses, in substantial detail, the primary hazards facing the City. Lower priority hazards are addressed at a lesser level of detail due to their relatively fewer impacts, as identified in the hazard assessment discussion.
HAZARD ASSESSMENT MATRIX
IMPACT High Medium Low Earthquake Water Shortage Flood Wildfire
High Winds Extreme Heat High Severe Storm Hazardous Materials Fire Transportation Power Outage Extreme Cold Medium Communications Infestation Hail PROBABILITY Lightning Dam Inundation Civil Disturbance Tornado Terrorism Cyber Attack Low Pandemic Radiological Nuclear Explosion
The top three hazards (as required by FEMA HMP Guidelines) for the City of Ontario are in the red section of the Hazard Assessment Matrix and are addressed in the 4.2 Hazard Profile section of the HMP. In addition, some of hazards in the yellow section will be addressed in this version and the rest of the hazards will be addressed in future versions of the HMP. Ultimately, all of the identified hazards will be addressed in the HMP.
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 26 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
4.2 Hazard Profile (See Appendix N)
4.2.1 Earthquake
General Definition
An earthquake is a sudden, rapid shaking of the Earth caused by the breaking and shifting of rock beneath the Earth's surface. For hundreds of millions of years, the forces of plate tectonics have shaped the Earth as the huge plates that form the Earth's surface move slowly over, under, and past each other. Sometimes the movement is gradual. At other times, the plates are locked together, unable to release the accumulating energy. When the accumulated energy grows strong enough, the plates break free causing the ground to shake. Most earthquakes occur at the boundaries where the plates meet; however, some earthquakes occur in the middle of plates.
Ground shaking from earthquakes can collapse buildings and bridges; disrupt gas, electric, and phone service; and sometimes trigger landslides, avalanches, flash floods, fires, and huge, destructive ocean waves (tsunamis). Buildings with foundations resting on unconsolidated landfill and other unstable soil, and trailers and homes not tied to their foundations are at risk because they can be shaken off their mountings during an earthquake. When an earthquake occurs in a populated area, it may cause deaths and injuries and extensive property damage.
Earthquakes strike suddenly, without warning. Earthquakes can occur at any time of the year and at any time of the day or night. On a yearly basis, 70 to 75 damaging earthquakes occur throughout the world. Estimates of losses from a future earthquake in the United States approach $200 billion.
There are 45 states and territories in the United States at moderate to very high risk from earthquakes, and they are located in every region of the country. California experiences the most frequent damaging earthquakes; however, Alaska experiences the greatest number of large earthquakes—most located in uninhabited areas. The largest earthquakes felt in the United States were along the New Madrid Fault in Missouri, where a three-month long series of quakes from 1811 to 1812 included three quakes larger than a magnitude of 8. These earthquakes were felt over the entire Eastern United States, with Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi experiencing the strongest ground shaking.
Description
The alluvial plain that Ontario sits on was created by the formation and erosion of the San Gabriel Mountains. The mountains were created through the geologic activity of the San Andreas Fault, formed between 12 and 28 million years ago. The alluvial plain slopes south from the San Gabriel Mountains to the Santa Ana River and Santa Ana Mountains.
A major earthquake occurring in the City could cause numerous casualties, extensive property damage, fires, flooding, and other ensuing hazards. The effects could be aggravated by aftershocks and by the secondary effects of fire, infrastructure failure, and reservoir failure. The time of day and the season of the year would also have a profound effect on the number of dead and injured and the amount of damage sustained. Such an earthquake could be catastrophic in its effect on the community and the state. Damage control and disaster relief support could be required from other local governmental and private organizations, and from the state and federal governments.
A major earthquake occurring in or near this jurisdiction may cause many deaths and casualties, extensive property damage, fires and hazardous material spills and other ensuing hazards. The effects could be aggravated by aftershocks and by the secondary effects of fire, hazardous material/chemical accidents and possible failure of the waterways and dams. The time of day and season of the year would have a profound effect on the number of dead and injured and the amount of property damage sustained. Such an earthquake would be catastrophic in its affect upon the population and could exceed the response capabilities of the individual cities, SAN BERNARDINO County Operational Area and the State of California Emergency
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 27 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
Services. Damage control and disaster relief support would be required from other local governmental and private organizations, and from the state and federal governments.
Extensive search and rescue operations would be required to assist trapped or injured persons. Emergency medical care, food and temporary shelter could be required by injured or displaced persons. Identification and burial of many dead persons would pose difficult problems; public health would be a major concern. Mass evacuation may be essential to save lives, particularly in areas downwind from hazardous material releases. Many families would be separated particularly if the earthquake should occur during working hours, and a personal inquiry or locator system could be essential to maintain morale. Emergency operations could be seriously hampered by the loss of communications and damage to transportation routes within, and to and from, the disaster area and by the disruption of public utilities and services.
The economic impact on the City of Ontario from a major earthquake would be considerable in terms of loss of employment and loss of tax base. Also, a major earthquake could cause serious damage and/or outage of computer facilities. The loss of such facilities could curtail or seriously disrupt the operations of banks, insurance companies and other elements of the financial community. In turn, this could affect the ability of local government, business and the population to make payments and purchases.
Ground Shaking
The most significant earthquake action in terms of potential structural damage and loss of life is ground shaking. Ground shaking is the movement of the earth's surface in response to a seismic event. The intensity of the ground shaking and the resultant damages are determined by the magnitude of the earthquake, distance from the epicenter, and characteristics of surface geology. This hazard is the primary cause of the collapse of buildings and other structures.
It is generally understood that an earthquake does not in itself present a seismic hazard, but that it becomes a hazard when it occurs in a highly urbanized area. Therefore, the significance of an earthquake's ground shaking action is directly related to the density and type of buildings and number of people exposed to its effect.
Liquefaction
Many areas may have buildings destroyed or unusable due to the phenomenon of liquefaction. Liquefaction is a phenomenon involving the loss of shear strength of a soil. The shear strength loss results from the increase of poor water pressure caused by the rearrangement of soil particles induced by shaking or vibration. Liquefaction has been observed in many earthquakes, usually in soft, poorly graded granular materials (i.e., loose sands), with high water tables. Liquefaction usually occurs in the soil during or shortly after a large earthquake. In effect, the liquefaction soil strata behave as a heavy fluid. Buried tanks may float to the surface and objects above the liquefaction strata may sink. Pipelines passing through liquefaction materials typically sustain a relatively large number of breaks in an earthquake.
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 28 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 29 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
Damage to Vital Public Services, Systems and Facilities
Several of the acute care hospitals in San Bernardino County are expected to be lost due to structural damage. This will impair the number of beds available and create the need for several field hospitals.
Communications
Telephone systems will be affected by system failure, overloads, loss of electrical power and possible failure of some alternate power systems. Immediately after the event numerous failures will occur coupled with saturation overloads. This will disable up to 80% of the telephone system for one day. In light of the expected situation, emergency planners should not plan on the use of telephone systems for the first few days after the event. Radio systems are expected to be 40 to 75% effective; microwave systems, 30% effective or less.
Dam and Flood Control Channels
Because of the current design and construction practices and ongoing programs of review and modification, catastrophic dam failure is considered unlikely. Many flood control channels are expected to suffer damage.
Electrical Power
Major power plants are expected to sustain some damage due to liquefaction and the intensity of the earthquake. Up to 60% of the system load may be interrupted immediately following the initial shock. According to representatives of Southern California Edison Company, the electrical power will not be rerouted and will be lost for an undefined period of time. Much of the imported power is expected to be lost. In some areas of greatest shaking it should be anticipated that some of the distribution lines, both underground and surface, will be damaged. Much of the affected area may have service restored in days; damaged areas with underground distribution may require a longer time. Loss of Southern California Edison transmission lines is possible.
Fire Operations
Although total collapse of fire stations is not expected, possible disruption of utilities, twisted doors and loss of power can create major problems. Numerous fires due to disruption of power and natural gas networks can be expected. Many connections to major water sources may be out and storage facilities would have to be relied on; water supply could vary from little or none to inadequate. First response from fire personnel is expected to be assessment of the area to establish what is needed to determine response and recovery needs. Operations may take days because of the disruption of transportation routes for fire department personnel and equipment.
Secondary responses by the Fire Service after assessment will be placed upon diversion of resources to accomplish search and rescue of trapped persons. Major problems the Fire Service should expect are loss of power and water, jammed doors, restricted mobility due to debris, possible loss of primary dispatch capability and delays in reaching maximum effectiveness due to personnel shortages.
Highways and Bridges
Damage to freeway systems is expected to be major. Any inner surface transportation routes could be subject to delays and detours. A major portion of surface streets in the vicinity of freeways will be blocked due to collapsed overpasses. Many surface streets in the older central business districts will be blocked by debris from buildings, falling electrical wires and pavement damage.
Natural Gas
Damage to natural gas facilities will consist primarily of (a) some isolated breaks in major transmission lines,
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 30 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011 and (b) innumerable breaks in mains and individual service connections within the distribution systems, particularly in the areas of intense ground shaking. These many leaks in the distribution system will affect a major portion of the urban areas, resulting in a loss of service for extended periods. Fires should be expected at the sites of a small percentage of ruptures both in the transmission lines and the distribution system. Transmission pipelines serving the general basin area are most vulnerable to damage.
Petroleum Fuels
Most major pipelines cross the San Andreas Fault, and pipeline breakage is expected. Although refineries located on poor soil may be damaged, all of the major oil refineries in the region are likely to survive. Older pipelines in this area are located in areas of poor soil stability. There is a possibility of fire where pipeline failures occur. Priorities will have to be established to assure adequate fuel for emergency crews.
Railroads
It is expected that 21 of the 59 route segments serving the Southern California region could be unavailable for post earthquake service; the 21 segments include all major connections with the north. The post earthquake capacity to serve the San Bernardino County area would be very small—probably no more than 5 trains a day. This is a dramatic loss from the 120 to 140 trains per day that can currently enter the area. Many railroad bridges are susceptible to damage because of age, design and construction. Some lines could be blocked because of damage to freeway overpass structures.
Sanitation Systems
Many of the wastewater treatment facilities could be out of service from 4 to 6 months depending on the damage caused by the severity of intensity and liquefaction. There is a limited volume of storage available in the wastewater treatment plants; if the treatment train cannot be restored before storage is exceeded, the wastewater will require discharge with emergency chlorination to reduce health hazards. Overflow of sewage through manholes and from ponds can be expected due to breakage in mains and loss of power. As a result, there will be a danger of excessive collection of explosive gas in sewer mains, and flow of untreated sewage in some street gutters. Many house sewer connections will break and plug.
Water Supply
Two of the three major aqueducts serving Southern California are expected to be out of service from 3 to 6 months following the event; only the Colorado River Aqueduct is expected to remain in service. This indicates the imported water supply to San Bernardino County may be only partial for a 3 to 6 months period. Several ruptures are anticipated along the water pipelines in the County. Anticipated damage to reservoir outlet works could take weeks to repair. The majority of water wells are expected to be disabled by loss of electricity and the lack of backup power sources. In addition, shear forces could render about a third of the wells inoperative for an indefinite period. Water availability and distribution for needed life support, to treat the sick and injured and for fire suppression activities is of MAJOR concern to each community.
The entire City is not subject to dam failure. The entire City may be subject to flooding, due to flash flooding, urban flooding (storm drain failure/ infrastructure breakdown), river channel overflow, downstream flooding, etc.
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 31 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 32 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 33 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 34 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
Ontario Engineering
Geology and Soils
Potential impacts from, (1) rupture of a known earthquake fault as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, (2) seismic-related ground failure, (3) landslides, (4) constructing on an expansive soil, or (5) having soils to support alternative waste disposal systems were all found to be less than significant, and therefore are discussed in Section II – Effects Found Not Significant, of this document.
The focus of the following discussion pertains to the potential impacts from strong seismic ground shaking, constructing on an unstable geologic unit or soil and windblown sand.
Setting It is reasonable to assume that any portion of southern California is subject to earthquake damage. As shown on Figure HA-1, Regional Faults of the Ontario General Plan (1992), the City of Ontario is almost completely surrounded by known active, or potentially active earthquake faults. These faults are the San Jacinto, Chino, Cucamonga, San Andreas, Red Hill and Central Avenue faults. The closest known active faults are located less than ten miles from the City, but no known active faults are known to cross the City boundary (Figure III- 5-1, Generalized Geologic Map). The Cucamonga Fault Zone is located approximately 5.6 miles north of the project site and the Elsinore Fault Zone is located approximately 6.7 miles south of the project site.
As stated in the City’s General Plan, the City of Ontario is situated on an alluvial fan composed of unconsolidated coarse to medium-grained soil. This loosely compacted, silty, sandy, alluvial soil has properties that would magnify the effects of ground shaking. Therefore, an earthquake could potentially cause considerable damage to structures, pipelines and roadways in Ontario.
The Western Riverside County Soil Survey (1971) identifies the mapped soil type within the project boundary as Tujunga loamy sand (TuB), 0 to 5 percent slopes (Figure III-5-2, Soil Types). This soil type features excessively drained soils on alluvial plains and flood plains. Characteristically, runoff is slow and the potential for erosion is slight. Soil textures range from loamy sand at the top of the soil profile to gravelly coarse sand at 24 to 40 inches below ground surface (bgs) to sand from 40 to 60 inches bgs. Generally, loamy sand, gravelly coarse sand and sand soil textures do not exhibit expansive characteristics. In addition, the project site is not expected to experience liquefaction since it usually occurs where the groundwater table is within 50 feet of the surface; and the groundwater level in the area is estimated at 600 feet bgs. However, the unnaturally low level of groundwater may induce another condition called subsidence, local settling or sinking of the earth’s surface. The risk of subsidence is reduced by aquifer recharge efforts by all water purveyors who take their water from the Chino Basin. There is no known recorded evidence of seismically induced geologic instability within the project site.
The anticipated ground shaking generated by an earthquake presents a hazard to the structural integrity of buildings. Some of the structures in the project area consist of unreinforced concrete masonry, which is less likely to withstand earthquake damage than newer buildings, which have been constructed per current building codes. If the use of these unreinforced structures is continued, seismic retrofit of these structures will be required prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy.
According to Thirtieth Street Architects, historic structures architects who have analyzed the buildings within the project site, costs of seismic retrofit vary due to the condition of the existing building, the height of the structures and the strength of the existing mortar, but a complete seismic retrofit usually costs about $12-$20 per square foot of building area. Normally, complete building rehabilitation including façade restoration and systems replacements costs about $55-$70 per square foot of building area, or a little more than half the cost of constructing an equivalent new structure. See Section III-4, Cultural Resources of this document for related information.
A hazard that is unique to the alluvial plain on which the City of Ontario is located is blows and, or loose topsoil blown fast and far by the Santa Ana winds that come from the high desert beyond the San Gabriel Mountains. The City of Ontario is subject to high winds between September and April. Airborne loose topsoil,
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 35 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011 especially sandy material, impairs visibility and becomes a general nuisance to residents. Although the project site is not within a designated “Soil Erosion Control Area,” the project may be conditioned to incorporate measures to reduce the amount of exposed soil.
Criteria for Determining Significance
Impacts to geology and soils may be considered potentially significant if the proposed project would:
Expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving strong seismic ground shaking
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or could become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, including disruptive windblown sand
Project Compliance with Existing Regulations
The Uniform Building Code (UBC) establishes regulations for the design of structures for things such as excessive damage related to seismic conditions. Building construction plans that are developed within the Ontario Downtown Civic Center project area will be required to comply with all applicable standards of the UBC.
Historic Preservation Code of the City of Ontario
The Historic Preservation Code (Title 26 of the City of Ontario Development Code) contains criteria and procedures for the designation of historic resources, such as Historic Landmarks, Historic Districts, Architectural Conservation Areas and Automatic Designations. It identifies a set of criteria for determining if a potentially historic structure that is threatened by major modifications or demolition is a Tier I, Tier II or Tier III structure, with Tier I and II structures being of the highest historic value for preservation. The Code establishes required mitigation measures and mitigation fees if major modifications or demolitions are approved. It also contains guidelines for converting existing space within historic structures to other uses, and for new development of new buildings within historic districts or areas.
Secretary of Interior Standards
The Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings are guidelines developed by the federal government to assist owners/developers in the preservation, rehabilitation, protection and maintenance of their historic buildings. Any work proposed on historic resources within the City of Ontario should follow these guidelines as set forth in Article 26, Section 9-1.2685 of the Historic Preservation Ordinance in the City of Ontario Development Code.
Title 6, Chapter 12, Control of Blowing Sand and Prevention of Soil Erosion by Wind in the City’s Municipal Code, requires a valid permit from the Building Department for any disturbance of land greater than one acre. The permit shall contain requirements of the permit holder to prevent soil on said land from being eroded by wind and blown onto public roads or other public or private property by any reasonable means necessary.
The City of Ontario General Plan (1992) contains many Goals and Policies that apply to the proposed project. The following are separated into their appurtenant General Plan Elements and are considered the most applicable to the project:
Hazards Element Goals and Policies Continue to inventory existing structures and identify those, which are seismically unsound. Correct seismic problems or as a last resort remove dangerous buildings.
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 36 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
Require that developers clear only “necessary” acreage during construction. Acreage cleared should reflect the prospect of development in the immediate future as well as the contractor’s ability to control windblown dust during a high wind episode. Incorporate mandatory dust control measures similar to those required by the County into the City Development Code, including: (1) pre-watering and 24 hour sprinkler irrigation on jobsites; (2) vegetative cover with temporary irrigation on idle lands after grading is complete; (3) watering with reclaimed water is encouraged.
Community Development Element Goals and Policies Ensure a safe environment for downtown shoppers, workers, and residents.
As part of the project’s standard compliance with the General Storm water Permit Associated with Construction Activities (Order No. 99-08-DWQ, or more recent version at time of construction), wind erosion best management practices shall be incorporated. “The SWPPP shall include a description of the BMP’s to reduce wind erosion at all times, with particular attention paid to stock-piled materials (Section A.6.c.).”
Design Considerations
Other than compliance with the City of Ontario Development Code, and the most recent version of the UBC, the Historic Building Code and the Secretary of Interior Standards, the proposed project will not be designed to respond to geologic or soil conditions.
Masonry
Masonry A: Good workmanship, mortar, and design; reinforced, especially laterally, and bound together by using steel, concrete, etc.; designed to resist lateral forces.
Masonry B: Good workmanship and mortar; reinforced, but not designed in detail to resist lateral forces.
Masonry C: Ordinary workmanship and mortar; no extreme weaknesses like failing to tie in at corners, but neither reinforced nor designed against horizontal forces.
Masonry D: Weak materials, such as adobe; poor mortar; low standards of workmanship; weak horizontally.
Environmental Impacts before Mitigation
Threshold: The project would expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving strong seismic ground shaking.
The project proposes a maximum addition of approximately 1,000 new multi-family dwelling units into southern California, which is subject to frequent and sometimes devastating earthquakes. Compliance with UBC standards and mitigation measure MM Geo 2, below will minimize potential detrimental impacts from earthquakes on new and renovated buildings to less than significant levels.
Threshold: The project would result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil.
Existing regulation and mitigation measures to minimize the loss of soil via water-induced erosion is discussed in Section III-VI, Hydrology and Water Quality of this document. The loss of soil from wind-induced erosion is discussed herein. Due to the proximity of existing residences and work places to the project site, the impact of windblown sand originating from any construction area within the project site could be a significant nuisance and/or hazard to surrounding land uses. Therefore, with incorporation of the windblown sand regulations listed above, and mitigation measure MM Geo 1 listed below, impacts from substantial wind- induced soil erosion is reduced to a level below significant.
Threshold: The project would be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or would become unstable
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 37 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011 as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.
The project would be located on a geologic unit that is potentially unstable. The potential instability arises from overdraft of the underlying groundwater aquifer, which could cause subsidence. Liquefaction is historically and currently sporadically present in the City of Ontario, however the extremely low groundwater table underlying this area of the City does not provide the necessary element of shallow groundwater to create liquefaction hazards during an earthquake event.
The geologic unit is not expected to become unstable or subside (sink) as a result of the project, since downtown Ontario has been developed for over 100 years and no subsidence sites have become known within the area proposed for redevelopment. Impacts are considered less than significant through design of the proposed structures, and redevelopment of existing structures, using the most recent version of the UBC and mitigation measure MM Geo 2, below.
Proposed Mitigation Measures
To reduce impacts associated with erosion due to high winds, prior to construction, all development/redevelopment plans will apply for and adhere to the permit given by the City of Ontario and enforced by the Building Official found in Title 6, Chapter 12, sections 6-12.01 – 6-12.07. The permit lasts for one (1) year, therefore all construction lasting for a period of more than one calendar year from the date of issue will reapply for the permit and pay the annual fee of $250 plus $5 per acre for each acre over ten acres. Prior to approval of all development plans in the Downtown Ontario Civic Center project area, site- specific geotechnical report(s) shall be submitted to the City of Ontario’s Engineering Department for review and approval. The recommendations provided in the geotechnical report shall be incorporated into the design of the project, or portion of the project under construction.
Summary of Project-Specific Environmental Effects After Mitigation Measures are Implemented
All potential significant adverse environmental effects related to geology and soils are reduced to below the level of significance through implementation of the latest version of the UBC into project design and the proposed mitigation measures outlined above.
Summary of Cumulative Environmental Effects after Mitigation Measures are Implemented
As defined in Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines, a cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts. The only known proposed development within the vicinity of the proposed project is an office building to be located at the southeast corner of Holt Boulevard and Euclid Avenue. It is not known what, if any, other construction sites in proximity to the project site will be active at the time of construction of this project. Due to the fact that all construction in the City will be subject to the UBC, City inspections, and other standards that will reduce possible impacts from each development to less than significant levels; and due to the lack of other available construction sites immediately adjacent to the project site, cumulative impacts resulting from seismic activity, constructing on unstable soils, and blow sand are expected to be less than significant.
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 38 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 39 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 40 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
NOTE: On Flood Hazard Areas graphic, “See Table 5.9.2” refers to Ontario Plan EIR (Environmental Impact Report)
4.2.2 Flooding
General Definition
Floods are the most common and widespread of all natural disasters--except fire. Most communities in the United States have experienced some kind of flooding, after spring rains, heavy thunderstorms, or winter snow thaws.
A flood, as defined by the National Flood Insurance Program is: "A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of two or more acres of normally dry land area or of two or more properties (at least one of which is your property) from:
*Overflow of inland or tidal waters, *Unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source, or a mudflow. The collapse or subsidence of land along the shore of a lake or similar body of water as a result of erosion or undermining caused by waves or currents of water exceeding anticipated cyclical levels that result in a flood."
Floods can be slow, or fast rising but generally develop over a period of days. Mitigation includes any activities that prevent an emergency, reduce the chance of an emergency happening, or lessen the damaging effects of unavoidable emergencies. Investing in mitigation steps now, such as, engaging in floodplain management activities, constructing barriers, such as levees, and purchasing flood insurance will help reduce the amount of structural damage to your home and financial loss from building and crop damage should a flood or flash flood occur.
Flooding tends to occur in the summer and early fall because of the monsoon and is typified by increased humidity and high summer temperatures.
The standard for flooding is the so-called "100-year flood," a benchmark used by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to establish a standard of flood control in communities throughout the country. Thus, the 100-year flood is also referred to as the "regulatory" or "base" flood.
Actually, there is little difference between a 100-year flood and what is known as the 10-year flood. Both terms are really statements of probability that scientists and engineers use to describe how one flood compares to others that are likely to occur. In fact, the 500-year flood and the 10-year flood is only a foot apart on flood elevation-which means that the elevation of the 100-year flood falls somewhere in between. The term 100-year flood is often incorrectly used and can be misleading. It does not mean that only one flood of that size will occur every 100 years.
What it actually means is that there is a one percent chance of a flood of that intensity and elevation happening in any given year. In other words, it is the flood elevation that has a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded each year. And it could occur more than once in a relatively short period of time. (By comparison, the 10-year flood means that there is a ten percent chance for a flood of its intensity and elevation to happen in any given year.) Rod Bolin, The Ponca City News, July 18, 2002. Page 5-A
Description
Three types of flooding conditions exist in Ontario: flooding in channels, ponding (flooding due to East-West man made structures such as railroads, freeways and streets) and sheet flooding. Sheet flooding occurs through the most developed portions of the city. This takes place when existing flood control channels exceed capacity. Sheet Flow Flood is the major cause of damage during floods of record.
The City of Ontario participates in the National Flood Insurance Program. There is only one Repetitive Loss Property identified in the City.
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 41 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
The San Antonio Dam is the only dam that poses a threat to Ontario. It is considered a low probability threat. This dam is an earth filled dam located North of Ontario in the foothills and measures 160 feet high with a length of 3,850 feet. The San Antonio Dam is owned and operated by the Los Angeles District-Corps of engineers. It is located at the northerly city limits of Upland. It is normally empty except during or immediately after periods of significant runoff. The planned capacity of the San Antonio Dam is 9,285 acre-feet. Studies by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers show that if the dam were to be breached while at full capacity a wall of water seven feet high would reach the northern portions of Ontario within 30 minutes. While the dam would cause flooding, the dam inundation hazard will be specifically addressed in future updates to the HMP.
4.2.3 High Winds
General Definition
High winds can result from thunderstorm inflow and outflow, or downburst winds when the storm cloud collapses, and can result from strong frontal systems, or gradient winds (high or low pressure systems) moving across Oklahoma. High winds are speeds reaching 50 mph or greater, either sustaining or gusting.
Description
Straight-line winds are any winds not associated with the rotation of a tornado. Straight-line winds are responsible for most thunderstorm wind damage. Straight-line winds can exceed 125 mph, and knock down trees and power lines.
Damaging high wind events occurred in the area in 2007, when high winds and thunderstorms brought down trees and fences, and in 2010, when straight-line winds exceeding 60 miles per hour felled trees and damaged power lines.
Another type of high winds are the Santa Ana winds, which commonly occur between October and February, and can reach speeds of more than 100 miles per hour. Santa Ana winds are warm, dry winds which descend from the high desert, down the mountains into the Southern California Basin. The most significant hazard associated with Santa Ana winds is an increased wildfire danger, but Santa Ana winds can also cause downed trees and power lines, and property damage, as well as causing potentially hazardous conditions for aircraft and boaters.
4.2.4 Wildfires
Description
Even though the City is an urban area, the southern areas of the city present a potential for wildfires, especially in a region of relatively high temperatures, low humidity, and low precipitation during the summer. This long summer season is followed by a fall season that is famous for high velocity, very dry winds that come out of the desert. The Santa Ana winds very consistently arrive from the middle of October to the end of November. In and of themselves, these weather patterns would be of little significance, but the New Model Colony is still predominantly dairy farms and other vegetative growth areas. With immediate responses to initial fire starts, the vast majority of fires are successfully extinguished in short order. The potential for wildfires will remain, however, until the build out of the New Model Colony. (The New Model Colony is discussed in Section 1.3.5.)
4.2.5 Water Shortage (formerly Drought)
Causes A water shortage may be caused by a period of drier-than-normal conditions, by changes in the allocation of water, or by a disruption in the pumping, storage, and/or distribution systems. The City of Ontario is located within the Santa Ana Watershed. Water supply is derived from a combination of local and imported water, obtained primarily from four sources: Ontario wells within the Chino Groundwater Basin, treated groundwater
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 42 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011 from the Chino Desalter Authority, State Water Project water from the Water Facilities Authority, and recycled water from the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA).
As mentioned above, a water shortage may be caused by a period of drier-than-normal conditions. Precipitation (rain or snow) falls in uneven patterns across the country. When rainfall is less than normal for several weeks, months, or years, such as in drought conditions, the flow of streams and rivers declines, water levels in lakes and reservoirs fall, and the depth to water in wells decreases, which may lead to a shortage in the amount of water available for use. The effects of a drought on flow in streams and rivers or on water levels in lakes and reservoirs may not be noticed for several weeks or months. Water levels in wells may not reflect a shortage of rainfall for a year or more after the drought begins. Water is stored in reservoirs and tanks to provide adequate supplies during periods of shortage. Some areas of the United States are more likely to have droughts than other areas. In humid, or wet, regions, a drought of a few weeks is quickly reflected in a decrease in soil moisture and in declining flow in streams. In arid, or dry, regions, people rely on ground water and water in reservoirs to supply their needs. They are protected from short-term droughts, but may have severe problems during long dry periods because they may have no other water source if wells or reservoirs go dry. As water levels recede, water quality may suffer as contaminants in the water become less dilute. In this event, the water may require additional treatment in order to meet drinking water standards.
A water shortage may occur as a result of changes in the allocation or distribution of water. For example, water pumped from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta is transported to Southern California via the California Aqueduct. Recent court rulings intended to protect threatened species of fish have resulted in a reduction in the amount of water that is allowed to be pumped into the aqueduct. Water transported through the aqueduct must be shared by agricultural and urban users. Agricultural and urban users are co- dependent; the agricultural business could not survive without people to purchase food products, nor could people survive without food to eat. However, not receiving the allocation needed can result in a water shortage for affected users.
A water shortage may occur as a result of infrastructure failure. Fragile levees in the Delta region are extremely vulnerable to collapsing under harsh winter storm conditions and earthquakes, resulting in the loss of a major source of water for millions of people, both in Northern California and Southern California. Wells, reservoirs, treatment plants and distribution systems are also susceptible to damage from earthquakes.
Recent Developments On December 2007 a court ruling aimed at protecting a fish species, the Delta smelt, required reduced pumping resulting in a 30% reduction in water deliveries through the California Aqueduct. This ruling, along with two years of below-average precipitation affected water deliveries, and Governor Schwarzenegger declared a statewide drought on June 4th, 2008.
In November 2009 the California legislature passed a package of bills; SB7x. The newly enacted legislation includes rules and requirements for water conservation, with most localities being asked to reduce water use by 20 percent over the next 10 years, and a new system of governance for the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta. Also included is an expanded $11.14 billion dollar state general obligation bond that was to be placed before California voters in November of 2010, to finance a wide range of improvements and enhancements to the state’s water system as well as funds to restore and protect the Bay-Delta Estuary.
In August 2010, public support of the $11.14 billion dollar water bond was not expected, due to economic conditions. The governor signed AB1260 and AB1265 in August 2010, delaying the water bond vote until November 2012 and delaying the terms of the nine members of the California Water Commission, which would have allocated some of the bond money.
Actions Taken by Water Agencies The Department of Water Resources (DWR) updates the California Water Plan every five years. The Plan provides a framework for water managers, legislators, and the public to consider options and make decisions regarding California's water future. The 2009 Plan update addresses climate change by including multiple scenarios of future climate conditions, and stresses the inclusion of uncertainty, risk, and sustainability.
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 43 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
Additionally, DWR posted its draft Drought Contingency Plan in August 2010, and will hold a public workshop to provide information and answer questions.
Metropolitan Water District (MWD) issued a “Water Supply Alert” declaration in June 2008, urging all cities, counties, member agencies, and retail water agencies in the region to activate and enforce existing conservation and drought ordinances, accelerate conservation and recycling implementation, optimize implementation and operation of water recycling and groundwater recovery projects, and increase public messaging to create awareness of the water supply challenges.
The IEUA Regional Conservation Partnership, which includes Inland Empire Utilities Agency, Cucamonga Valley Water District, Fontana Water Company, Ontario Municipal Utilities Company, Monte Vista Water District, San Antonio Water Company, and the Cities of Chino, Chino Hills, Ontario, and Upland coordinates conservation programs on a regional basis. The Partnership is in the process of developing a Regional Water Use Efficiency Plan. The scope of the project includes analyzing local water use by sector (single family residential, multi-family residential, commercial, and industrial sectors) and researching cost, effectiveness, scalability, likelihood of public participation, and potential for outside funding for various conservation programs. The analysis will determine the course of the Partnership’s future conservation activities.
On April 15, 2003, the City authorized execution of an agreement with IEUA to participate in the Dry Year Yield (DYY) program. The DYY Program is a cooperative conjunctive use program involving MWD, IEUA, Chino Basin Watermaster, Three Valleys Municipal Water District, and the Chino Basin groundwater producers. The DYY Program allows MWD to store up to 100,000 acre-ft of water in the Chino Basin when surplus water is available during wet years, and produce 33,000 AFY in dry, drought or emergency periods. During years when MWD calls for extraction, the City’s WFA production is reduced compared to the previous year, and it extracts this amount of water from designated DYY wells. Because of this program, the City is less reliant on imported water supply in dry years and improves its groundwater capacity during wet weather cycles.
The City of Ontario has been actively expanding the use of recycled water for landscape irrigation and industrial process. Recycled water is a long-term sustainable water resource that is not subject to the same limitations under drought conditions as potable water supplies. The City currently has 166 recycled water connections. Recycled water is also used for groundwater recharge in the Chino Basin. Over the next several years, Ontario will continue to actively expand its purple pipe recycled water distribution system to meet future demands throughout the city.
Water Shortage Impacts to Water Agencies The fundamental impact on a water agency resulting from a water shortage is a reduction in available water supplies. Declining revenues and increasing operational costs are problems faced by most water agencies. Revenues decline as customers respond to calls for voluntary or mandatory reductions in water use. Costs increase, as agencies react to shortages by purchasing water, deepening wells, or implementing water education and conservation campaigns. Water agencies thus increase their rates to recover costs, sending a mixed message to the public: use less water, pay more. Some agencies not experiencing drought-induced water quantity problems nevertheless experience water quality problems. Increased extractions result in lowered water tables and resultant contaminant migration toward production wells.
Water Shortage Related Legislation Emergency Services Act - (Government Code Section 8550 et seq.) authorizes the Governor to proclaim a state of emergency where he or she finds that conditions of disaster or extreme peril exist, caused by conditions such as flood, fire, storm, epidemic, riot, drought, earthquake, or volcanic eruption. These conditions of emergency must be beyond the control, or likely control, of the services, personnel, equipment and facilities of any single city or county. The emergency must also require the combined forces of a mutual aid region to combat.
Generally, the act is triggered by a local emergency proclamation and a request to the Governor to proclaim an emergency. The Governor may also proclaim an emergency without such a local request, if he finds that a
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 44 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011 state of emergency exists, and local authority is inadequate to cope with the emergency. The Governor must proclaim the termination of the state of emergency at the earliest possible date that conditions warrant.
Where a state of emergency has been proclaimed, the Governor's authority to respond includes:
The Governor may make written orders and regulations, which have the force and effect of law.
The Governor may suspend the provisions of regulatory statutes, statutes prescribing procedures for conduct of state business, and state regulations, where he or she finds that strict compliance would impede mitigating the effects of an emergency.
The Governor may commandeer or use private property or personnel. Compensation must be paid.
The Governor has authority to exercise any police power of the State within the area designated in the emergency proclamation.
The Governor may direct State agencies to use their personnel, equipment and facilities to prevent or alleviate damage or threatened damage due to the emergency.
The Governor may undertake preparatory steps such as planning, mobilization of equipment, and training.
Drought differs from other emergencies in that it occurs over a period of time, instead of being a sudden occurrence like fire, flood, or earthquake. Accordingly, its burdens on cities and counties are likely to be cumulative, rather than sudden and overwhelming. To invoke the extraordinary remedies of the Emergency Services Act, conditions of disaster or extreme peril to the safety of persons and pro party should exist, and not be a matter of speculation. The act permits the Governor to assign a State agency any emergency response activity related to the powers and duties of that agency. This assignment may be accomplished by executive order without the need of the Governor having to proclaim a state of emergency.
Water Shortage and Emergency Management Actions If the Ontario City Council determines that water supplies are likely to be reduced or water conservation goals are not being met, then a stage 1, 2, 3, or 4 water shortage will be declared, in which case the following restrictions will go into effect:
Stage 1 Water Shortage - Water Supply Reduced by Up to 10%
No hose washing of sidewalks, walkways, driveways, parking areas or other paved surfaces, except as required for sanitary purposes. Washing of motor vehicles, trailers, boats and other types of mobile equipment shall be done only with a hand-held bucket or a hose equipped with a positive shutoff nozzle for quick rinses, except that washing may be done at the immediate premises of a commercial car wash or with reclaimed wastewater. No water shall be used to clean, fill or maintain levels in decorative fountains, ponds, lakes or other similar aesthetic structures unless such water is part of a recycling system. No restaurant, hotel, café, cafeteria or other public place where food is sold, served or offered for sale, shall serve drinking water to any customer unless expressly requested. All water customers of the City shall promptly repair all leaks from indoor and outdoor plumbing fixtures. Such leak shall be repaired in a timely manner after notification by the city, but in no case after notification in excess of seventy-two (72) hours for the first violation and then every seventy-two (72) hours thereafter for the second and third violations. No person shall sprinkle, water, or irrigate any shrubbery, trees, lawns, grass, groundcovers, plants, vines, gardens, vegetables, flowers, or any other landscaped or vegetated areas between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. In any event, such watering shall not be in excess of needs nor be of a manner that allows water to flow onto streets. The above mentioned plants may be watered by a hand-held hose
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 45 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011 equipped with a shut-off nozzle at any time of the day. This provision shall not apply to commercial nurseries, golf courses and other water- dependent industries. No water customer of the City shall cause or allow the water to run off landscape areas into adjoining streets, sidewalks or other paved areas due to incorrectly directed or maintained sprinkler or excessive watering. The use of water from fire hydrants shall be limited to fire fighting and related activities necessary to maintain the public health, safety, and welfare. An exception may be made for construction use through a proper city-designated meter. The use of potable water for construction activities shall be restricted in areas where recycled water is available for such use.
Stage 2 Water Shortage - Water Supply Reduced by 10% to 20%
All prohibitions and restrictions in effect under a Stage 1 Water Shortage shall be in effect, provided that more restrictive measures noted in this section shall take precedence. Commercial nurseries, golf courses, and other water dependent industries shall be prohibited from watering lawn, landscape, or other turf areas more than every other day. Irrigation shall occur between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. only. All water customers other than commercial nurseries, golf courses, and other water dependent industries shall be limited in the use of outdoor watering for sprinkling, watering, or irrigating any shrubbery, trees, lawns, grass, groundcovers, plants, vines, gardens, vegetables, flowers, or any other landscaped or vegetated areas to a two (2) day per week schedule between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. based on street address. All locations ending in an odd number shall have outdoor water scheduled on Mondays and Thursdays. All locations ending in an even number shall have outdoor water scheduled on Wednesdays and Saturdays. There shall be no outdoor watering on Tuesdays, Fridays, or Sundays. The use of a hand-held hose with shut-off valve shall be permitted at any time. The replenishment of swimming pools shall be limited to the same days as other outdoor watering. Filling or refilling empty swimming pools shall not occur without permission from the City Manager or his/her designee.
Stage 3 Water Shortage - Water Supply Reduced by More than 20% All the prohibitions and restrictions in effect under a Stage 2 Water Shortage shall be in effect, provided that the more restrictive measures noted in this section shall take precedence. Commercial nurseries, golf courses and other water dependent industries shall be prohibited from watering lawn, landscaping and other turf areas more often than every third day. Irrigation shall occur between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. only. There shall be no restriction on watering utilizing recycled water. The use of water from fire hydrants shall be limited to fire fighting and related activities and other uses of water for municipal purposes shall be limited to activities necessary to maintain the public health, safety and welfare. The use of potable water for construction activities shall be prohibited.
Stage 4 Water Shortage - Emergency Interruption in Water Supply
The following restrictions on the use of potable water shall be applicable during an emergency water shortage which may be declared in the event of a major earthquake, large-scale fire, or other so called “Act of God” which could have serious impacts on the City’s total available water supply:
All the prohibitions and restrictions in effect under a Stage 3 Water Shortage shall be in effect, provided that the more restrictive measures noted in this section shall take precedence. There shall be no use of outdoor water at any time except the minimal amount by hand-held hose equipped with a shut-off nozzle. Commercial nurseries, golf courses, and other water dependent industries shall be prohibited from the use of outside water except by a hand-held hose equipped with a shut-off nozzle.
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 46 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
All nonessential uses of water shall be prohibited including the filling, cycling, filtering, or refilling swimming pools, spas, Jacuzzis, fountains or other like devices.
Penalties for Violation of Any Water Use Restriction: For a first violation, the City shall issue a written warning to the water customer. For a second violation, the City shall impose a surcharge in an amount of $100.00 added to the water customer’s water bill. For a third violation, the City shall impose a surcharge in an amount of $200.00 added to the water customer’s water bill. For the fourth and any subsequent violation, the City shall impose a surcharge in an amount of Dollars $500.00 added to the water customer’s water bill. In addition to the surcharge, the City may also install a flow restricting device on the service of the customer at the premises at which the violation occurred for a period of not less than 48 hours. The City shall charge the water customer the reasonable costs incurred for installing and for removing the flow-restricting devices and for restoration of normal service. The charge shall be paid before normal service can be restored.
4.2.6 Other Hazards
This version of the HMP covers the minimum three hazards per FEMA requirements. This section is reserved for information regarding the other hazards as noted in the Hazard Assessment Matrix. This section will be updated and expanded in future versions of the HMP
4.3 Inventory Assets
This step in the Risk Assessment process describes the various assets exposed to the identified hazards, including residential, commercial, and industrial buildings throughout the impacted area, critical facilities, as well as critical infrastructure.
4.3.1 Population
The total vulnerable population of City of Ontario is approximately 173,690. Some hazards (such as earthquakes) may affect the entire community while others affect limited areas.
4.3.2 Buildings
The 2009 San Bernardino County Essential Facilities Risk Assessment (SBEFRA) Project provides an estimate of the number and size of buildings in the City, as well as the replacement value of the buildings and their contents. The data provides information by occupancy class (e.g., residential, commercial, etc.), as well as by construction type (e.g., concrete, wood frame, etc.). The project utilized Assessor’s data to create updated building inventory databases for use in HAZUS-MH, FEMA’s GIS-based earthquake, flood and hurricane loss assessment software. In addition, the SBEFRA project also collected and synthesized improved data for essential facilities countywide. These data were used to estimate economic and population impacts for selected earthquakes and floods using FEMA’s HAZUS-MH program.
Building Replacement Contents Building Square Building Inventory Value Replacement Footage Building General Occupancy ($1,000) Value ($1,000) (1,000 Sq. Ft.) Count Residential $7,284,249 $3,642,127 68,923 36,930 Commercial $5,572,206 $5,591,567 70,191 1,573 Industrial $2,546,485 $3,819,730 32,977 902 Other $775,312 $399,509 6,191 1,051 TOTAL $16,178,252 $13,452,933 178,282 40,456
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 47 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
Building Replacement Building % of Building Inventory Value Replacement Estimated Building Building General Building Type ($1,000) Value (%) Count Count Concrete $2,474,058 15.3% 685 2% Manufactured Housing $157,190 1.0% 2,023 5% Precast Concrete $1,882,567 11.6% 436 1% Reinforced Masonry $2,410,377 14.9% 1,060 3% Steel $309,346 1.9% 166 0% Unreinforced Masonry $116,576 0.7% 76 0% Wood Frame (Other) $3,228,139 20.0% 2,110 5% Wood Frame (Single-family) $5,599,999 34.6% 33,901 84% TOTAL $16,178,252 40,456
4.3.3 Critical Facility List
The 2009 San Bernardino County Essential Facilities Risk Assessment (SBEFRA) Project developed improved critical facility databases. The information is included in Appendix P.
The Ontario OEM and the Ontario Police Department are the primary agencies responsible to identify critical infrastructure in the City. The Emergency Management Working Committee Critical Infrastructure Committee was established to identify Critical Facilities throughout the City. Due to security concerns and issues related to terrorism, the complete database is not included in the HMP, but is available through OEM and is maintained on WebEOC. WebEOC is a secure platform for site-specific information needed by emergency personnel to respond to any type of emergency, including floor plans, photographs, entry/exit points, utility locations, ingress and egress locations, known hazardous materials on site, and emergency contact information for the responsible persons of the site. This information is also available through WebEOC at any Incident Command Post, Mobile Command Post, Department Operations Center, or the Emergency Operations Center.
Critical Facilities are facilities important to the community. They include essential facilities, transportation systems, lifeline utility systems, high potential loss facilities, and hazardous materials facilities.
Essential Facilities are essential to the health and welfare of the whole population and are especially important following hazard events. The potential consequences of losing them are so great that they should be carefully inventoried. Vulnerability is based on the service they provide rather than just their physical aspects; therefore, not only their structural integrity and content value should be considered, but also the effects of interrupting their functions. Essential facilities include hospitals and other medical facilities, police and fire stations, emergency operations centers and evacuation shelters, and schools.
Transportation Systems include airways – airports, airstrips, and heliports; highways – bridges, tunnels, roadbeds, overpasses, and transfer centers; railways – trackage, tunnels, bridges, rail yards, and depots; waterways – canals, locks, seaports, ferries, harbors, dry docks, and piers.
Lifeline Utility Systems such as potable water, wastewater, oil, natural gas, electric power, and communication systems. This includes such facilities as electrical sub stations, water treatment facilities, telephone central offices, and wastewater facilities.
High Potential Loss Facilities are facilities that would have a high loss associated with them, such as nuclear power plants, dams and military installations.
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 48 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
Hazardous Material Facilities include facilities housing industrial/hazardous materials, such as corrosives, explosives, flammable materials, radioactive materials, and toxins.
Other Possible Community Assets to Consider: Vulnerable Populations are people, such as non-English speakers or the elderly, who may require special response assistance or special medical care after a disaster. Locations identified may include senior citizen complexes, group homes or mobile home parks. Also included in this category are groups of properties that are vulnerable to certain hazards, such as FEMA flood zones.
Economic Elements are major employers and financial centers in the county that could affect the local or regional economy if significantly disrupted. Major employers are those with 50 employees or more, and may even be located outside the county, while still employing a significant number of county residents.
Historic and Cultural Resource Areas are historic properties and cultural facilities that are identified and protected on the State and National Register of Historic Places, as well as those identified by the Planning Committee as significant to local history and culture.
Natural Resource and Recreation Areas include major natural resource and recreational areas that are considered unique or valuable to the community. Possible resources include major water bodies, streams, wetlands, parks, forested areas, and large areas potentially susceptible to wildfires.
High Density Development Areas are areas of high-density residential or commercial development that, if damaged, could result in high death tolls and injury rates.
Facilities Providing Important Services are facilities that provide important services, such as government buildings, banks and certain commercial establishments, such as grocery stores, hardware stores and gas stations.
Agricultural Areas are properties that are actively used for agricultural purposes.
4.3.4 Non-Critical Facility List
The 2009 San Bernardino County Essential Facilities Risk Assessment (SBEFRA) Project developed improved critical facility databases. The information is included in Appendix Q.
4.4 Vulnerability Assessment (see Appendix N, O, P, Q)
This section provides an assessment of vulnerability for the three hazards (earthquake, floods, and high winds) that pose significant threats to the City of Ontario. This is the final step in the four-step risk assessment process and utilizes data and information collected from the city and various external agencies. This approach is primarily based on a qualitative review of information with some quantitative analysis. It provides loss estimates and vulnerability of general buildings, key facilities with critical functions and governance relationships, and people living and working in the City of Ontario. The vulnerability assessment provides a solid basis for analyzing the risk, the potential exposure, and consequences to city operations and safety.
4.4.1 Methodology
To conduct the vulnerability assessment, a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches was used. For example, a quantitative assessment of earthquake risk was performed with city provided GIS data, 2009 San Bernardino County Essential Facilities Risk Assessment (SBEFRA) Project data and HAZUS® software. The 2009 SBEFRA project provided county wide and individual jurisdictional data for earthquake and flooding scenarios. For qualitative analysis, expert judgment, GIS information and reports available from the city and various other public sources were used.
There is only one property in the City of Ontario that has been identified as a repetitive loss structure.
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 49 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
4.5 Potential Lost Estimation
The 2009 San Bernardino County Essential Facilities Risk Assessment (SBEFRA) Project provided county wide and individual jurisdictional data for earthquake and flooding scenarios.
4.5.1 Facility Replacement Cost Estimation
FACILITY REPLACEMENT IMPACT CONTENTS Ontario Civic Center $23,897,973 $140,000,000 $3,200,595
Old City Hall $2,307,044 $25,000 $83,212 Ontario Convention Center $150M $90,000,000 Citizens Business Bank Arena $150M $90,000,000 OPD HQ $40,617,084 $25,000,000 $6,000,000 OPD Ontario Mills Substation $50,000 $50,000 Ontario Fire Station #1/HQ $3,100,000 $1,000,000 $150,000 Ontario Fire Station #2 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $50,000 Ontario Fire Station #3 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $50,000 Ontario Fire Station #4 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $50,000 Ontario Fire Station #5 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $50,000 Ontario Fire Station #6 $3100000 $1,000,000 $50,000 Ontario Fire Station #7 $3100000 $1,000,000 $50,000 Ontario Fire Station #8 $3100000 $1,000,000 $50,000 Police/Fire Dispatch Center $5,000,000 $10,000,000 Emergency Operations Center $1,000,000 $3,000,000 Ontario Soccer Sports Complex $10.5M $1,000,000 Ontario Teen Center $2.8M $1,000,000 Ontario Senior Center $2.5M $1,000,000 Ontario Municipal Services Center $2,788,011 $350,000,000 $1,053,917 Chino Basin Desalters $160,000,000 $5,000,000 Ion Exchange Treatment Plant $7,000,000 $2,504,000 Wells and Reservoirs Wells $72,000,000, $28,000,000 Reservoirs $49,206,500 Agua de Lejos Treatment Plant $75,000,000 $1,000,000 Sewer System $66,000,000 $5,102,000 Storm Drain System $121,000,000 $121,000,000 Water Distribution System * $177,000,000 $40,000,000 Colony Park $433,755 $100,000 $24,198 De Anza Park $612,277 $100,000 $45,945 Bon View Park $801,407 $100,000 $44,118 John Galvin Park $642,987 $100,000 $486,000 Westwind Park $50,000 $20,000 $59,180 Colony High Branch Library $3,811,635 $25,000 $20,000 Ovitt Family Community Library $13.5M $1,000,000 City Bridges $100,000,000 $2,000,000 Ontario International Airport $270,000,000 $5,400,000,000 *Water Services Interruption Report Feb 2003
4.5.2 Individual Hazard Economic Loss Estimation (See Appendix N, O)
4.5.3 Individual Hazard Human Loss Estimation (See Appendix N, O)
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 50 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
Section 5 – Community Capability Assessment
5.1 Agencies and People
City of Ontario Mayor/City Council City Manager Planning Department Engineering Department Building Department Information Technology Department Information Technology Department/GIS Section Community and Public Services Agency Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Police Department Fire Department Risk Management Emergency Management Ontario Chamber of Commerce Inland Empire Economic Partnership Inland Empire Small Business Development Center American Red Cross NOAA/National Weather Service US Geological Survey California Institute of Technology Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority
5.2 Existing Plans
City of Ontario Emergency Operations Plan The Ontario Plan (TOP) New Model Colony Plan Amendment City Of Ontario Retail Center Guide San Bernardino County EOP San Bernardino County HMP
5.3 Regulations, Codes, Policies and Ordinances
City of Ontario Municipal Code Title 4 Chapter 3 Emergency Organization City of Ontario Municipal Code Title 4 Chapter 4 Fire Code City of Ontario Municipal Code Title 2 Chapter 2 Commissions and Boards City of Ontario Municipal Code Title 2 Chapter 11 Code Enforcement City of Ontario Municipal Code Title 6 Chapter 6 Stormwater Drainage City of Ontario Municipal Code Title 8 Building City of Ontario Municipal Code Title 9 Development
5.4 Mitigation Programs
Emergency Management Program Stormwater Drainage Floodplain Management Urban Water Management California Building Code
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 51 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
California Fire Code Weed Abatement Household Hazardous Waste Collection Business Emergency Planning Workshop Community Emergency Preparedness Fair
5.5 Fiscal Resources
City General Fund Utility User Taxes Property Taxes Sales Taxes Business License Tax Motor Vehicle-In-Lieu Tax Transient Occupancy Tax Permits and Fees Fines Developers fees
State Funding Sources Caltrans, for evaluating and strengthening local bridges Infrastructure State Revolving Fund, provides low-cost financing for some infrastructure projects Proposition 50 funds, administered by the Water Resources Control Board, for a variety of water projects Clean Water State Revolving Fund, low-interest loans related to water treatment Seismic Safety New Construction Exclusions: The State Revenue and Taxation Code was amended in 2001 to provide property tax relief to property owners who undertake seismic retrofit projects. Sections 70(d) provides a15-year new construction exclusion for improvements to unreinforced masonry buildings undertaken to comply with local ordinances on seismic safety. Section 74.5 provides a new construction exclusion for seismic retrofitting improvements and improvements utilizing earthquake hazard mitigation technologies for existing structures other than unreinforced masonry buildings.
Federal Funding Sources Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP): This FEMA administered program provides grants to states and local governments following a presidential disaster declaration. The funds can be used to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures. According to the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, communities must have a Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) approved to receive HMGP funds after May 1, 2005. Funds will be granted only to projects that conform to local and state mitigation plans. Federal grant funds can provide 75% of a project’s total cost; other sources must provide 25% matching funds. After any federally declared disaster, up to 20% of the amount spent by FEMA on disaster response and relief costs is made available in the form of HMGP grants to communities in the affected state. Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM): FEMA developed the PDM program to coincide with the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 that requires communities to prepare local hazard mitigation plans, such as this plan. Funds are authorized by Congress on an annual basis for PDM competitive grants, technical assistance and program support. FEMA grants can fund 75 percent of a project; other non-federal sources must provide 25 percent matching funds. Funds are only granted to communities with an approved HMP, and supported projects must be identified in those plans. Community Development Block Grants: Block grants are administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to fund housing, economic development, public works, community facilities and public service activities serving lower income people. These funds can
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 52 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
be used for mitigation works. CDBG funds are considered local funds once they are received, and thereby are eligible to provide the 25 percent local match required for receipt of the HMGP funds. Assistance to Firefighter Grant Program: The purpose of these grants is to assist state, regional, national or local organizations to address fire prevention and safety. Funds can be used to purchase equipment or fund planning, vegetation management and other preparedness activities. These grants are administered by the Department of Homeland Security. Communities must match the federal grant with a 30 percent contribution. Emergency Operations Center Grant: The purpose of the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Grant is to provide funding for construction (up to $1 million) or renovation (up to $250,000) of state, local or tribal level EOCs based on identified deficiencies and needs. Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness Grant: U.S. Department of Transportation HMEP Grant for the development, improvement, and implementation of hazardous material emergency plans, as well as exercises that test the emergency plans, hazards analysis, response procedures for hazardous material emergencies. Stafford Act: . Assistance to Households Grant Program . Public Assistance Program . Individual Assistance Program
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 53 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
5.6 Community Capability Assessment
Storm Water Management Ordinances: Yes Stream Management Ordinances: Yes Zoning Management Ordinances: Yes Subdivision Management Ordinances: Yes Erosion Management Ordinances: Yes Floodplain Management Ordinances: Yes Floodplain Management Plan Published Date: 3/18/1996 Floodplain Management Last Delineation Date: 3/18/1996 Elevation Certificates Maintained: No National Flood Insurance Program Community: Yes National Flood Insurance Join Date: 1/19/1988 NFPI Number: 060278 NFPI Rating: NFPI Rating Date: 1/19/1998 Initial FIRM: 08/09/74 Current Effective Map Date: 12/02/80 Reg-Emer: 08/28/08 Initial FHBM 12/02/80 Land Use Plan: Yes Land Use Plan Last Update: 1/19/1998 Community Zoned: Yes Zoned Date: 1/15/1946 Established Building Codes: Yes Building Codes Last Updated: 7/15/2001 Type of Building Codes: Uniform Building Code Local Electric Utilities: Southern California Edison Local Water Utilities: City of Ontario Local Sewage Treatment Utilities: Inland Empire Utilities Agency Local Natural Gas Utilities: Southern California Gas Company Local Telephone Utilities: Verizon Fire Insurance Rating: Class 2 ISO Fire Insurance Rating Date: 12/15/1998 Receiving and handling fire alarms: 9.60% out of 10.0% Fire Department: 39.72% out of 50.0% Water Supply: 38.30% out of 40.0% Divergence: 3.26% Total Credit: 84.36%
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 54 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
Section 6 – Mitigation Strategy
6.1 Overview
The City of Ontario mitigation strategy is derived from the in-depth review of the existing vulnerabilities and capabilities outlined in previous sections of this plan, combined with a vision for creating a disaster resistant and sustainable community for the future. This vision is based on informed assumptions, recognizes both mitigation challenges and opportunities, and is demonstrated by the goals and objectives outlined below. The mitigation measures identified under each objective are prioritized by the Local Planning Team and include an implementation plan for each measure. The measures were evaluated during discussions of mitigation alternatives and the conclusions used as input when priorities were decided. All priorities are based on consensus of the Local Planning Team. Mitigation measures are categorized generally for all hazards and specifically for the three high risk hazards facing the City that were extensively examined in the risk assessment section: earthquakes, floods, and high winds. Because mitigation strategies are required to include the community’s involvement in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), that is discussed at the end of this section.
Priority Hazards The hazard identification and risk assessment process detailed in this HMP clearly identifies the earthquake risk as the single natural hazard that has the most potential for causing major damage and disruption to the City of Ontario. Earthquakes present both the greatest challenge and the greatest opportunity for cost effective mitigation in the City of Ontario.
Buildings and Infrastructure The cornerstone of mitigation in the City of Ontario is to ensure all construction is properly sited and built. This is best accomplished through the City’s land use, zoning, and building code requirements. City codes for new construction are consistent with the state building code. Code upgrades triggered by remodeling and rehabilitation projects will gradually improve the existing building stock’s resilience to earthquakes, landslides, and/or fires. Implicit in this plan is the assumption that the City will continue to enforce the existing policies, plans, and codes, thus limiting vulnerability of new development and redevelopment. The greatest challenge the City faces in mitigating the impacts of future natural hazard events lies in the vulnerability of its existing public and private buildings and infrastructure to the earthquake hazard. The City’s ability to respond to and recover from earthquakes and/or other significant events is dependent upon its facilities and personnel surviving the event. The age and construction type of City owned important buildings indicates these structures are particularly vulnerable to earthquake damage. Critical infrastructure and communication facilities also are exposed to the earthquake hazard. There is a need for a systematic technical assessment of all important City buildings and infrastructure in high hazard zones that requires outside engineering and geological expertise to identify their specific vulnerabilities and to identify cost effective mitigation solutions. Private buildings are also vulnerable to the earthquake hazard. The City does not currently have mandatory retrofit requirements for the most hazardous existing private buildings, such as non-ductile concrete or tilt-up buildings constructed prior to current codes. Additionally, although not posing a significant life safety threat, the age and construction of the city’s single family housing stock, if not retrofit, will result in significant damage and pose serious sheltering and housing recovery issues following a major earthquake. A successful seismic retrofit program for privately owned buildings will require a strong public education program coupled with financial incentives to achieve community support.
Emergency Management The City of Ontario recognizes that effective mitigation is a long-term and incremental process. Therefore, it also must focus on those measures that improve the community’s ability to prepare for, respond to and recover from its most serious hazards which have been defined as earthquakes, hazmat releases, and human threat events/terrorism. To do this, the City must improve its emergency response capabilities, including developing a more robust and integrated emergency management organization, an operational, safe, and secure emergency operations center, improved warning and communications systems (internal
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 55 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011 and external), a comprehensive training program for city staff, and increased public information and education programs targeted to preparedness and mitigation for all-hazards.
Implementation Challenges Finally, it must be recognized that increasing the disaster resiliency and sustainability of the City will require a substantial investment of resources. Improvements can continue to be made through traditional programs; however many of the mitigation objectives and actions included in this plan cannot be implemented without external funding sources. Implicit in this plan is the need for the City to maintain and augment internal budgeting mechanisms, aggressively pursue external state and federal grants, and develop financial incentives to encourage private sector support of mitigation activities.
The National Flood Insurance Program The City of Ontario joined the NFIP in 1979. To maintain its good standing in the NFIP, the city monitors all new construction and building permits and annually evaluates the status to ensure that it is in compliance with changes made to the federal law.
City Council Goals The HMP Goals must coincide with the City Council Goals and The Ontario Plan.
City Council Primary Goal:
Develop Strategies and Take Actions to Minimize the Negative Impacts of the Global Financial Downturn on Ontario's Economy and the City's Fiscal Health.
City Council Supporting Goals:
Invest in the Growth and Evolution of the City's Economy Maintain the Current High Level of Public Safety Operate in a Businesslike Manner Pursue City's Goals and Objectives by Working with Other Governmental Agencies Focus Resources in Ontario's Commercial and Residential Neighborhoods Invest in the City's Infrastructure (Water, Streets, Sewers, Parks, Storm Drains and Public Facilities) Encourage. Provide or Support Enhanced Recreational, Educational, Cultural and Healthy City Programs, Policies and Activities Ensure the Development of a Well Planned, Balanced, and Self-Sustaining Community in the New Model Colony
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 56 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
6.2 Mitigation 5 Year Progress Report
PROJECT COMPLETED HAZARDS Earthquake, Flood, Wind, Wildfire, MPW-2004-02 Tree Maintenance 2007/On-Going Water Shortage MPE-2004-04 Well Facility Backup Power 2009 Earthquake, Water Shortage MPD-2004-08 Agency to agency water interconnectionsWorking Earthquake, Water Shortage MPD-2004-11 Recycled water system 2007 Earthquake, Flood, Water Shortage MPE-2004-03 Water Supply Seismic Protection 2005 Earthquake, Water Shortage Earthquake, Flood, Wind, Wildfire, MPD-2004-09 Special project 2007 Water Shortage MPD-2004-10 Recycled water master plan 2005 Flood, Water Shortage Earthquake, Flood, Wind, Wildfire, MPD-2004-12 Water service main/lateral extensions 2008 Water Shortage Earthquake, Flood, Wind, Wildfire, MPD-2004-13 Urban Water Conservation Plan 2005 Water Shortage NOTE: These are completed and ongoing projects from the 2005 Hazard Mitigation Plan. They have been renumbered and reprioritized.
6.3 Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Projects
The Local Planning Team has established four overall mitigation goals to guide the establishment and priorities of specific goals, objectives, and mitigation measures for each high risk hazard. These are: 1. Save lives and reduce injuries 2. Avoid damage to property 3. Protect the environment 4. Promote hazard mitigation as an integrated policy
Specific Projects Water Supply Seismic Protection Reservoir Piping Seismic Retrofit I-10 Interchange at Grove/4th Street Mission Blvd. Widening EOC Infrastructure Prado Basin Ecosystem Restoration Tree Maintenance Well Facility Backup Power Water Supply Planning Reservoir Automatic Shutoff Agency to Agency Water Interconnections Dry Year Yield Facility Installation Water Service Main/Lateral Extensions Recycled Water Master Plan Update Recycled Water System Urban Water Management Plan Water System Valve Location Data Update Flood Control CDA Expansion Pipeline Replacement Program
6.4 Mitigation Priorities
Multiple factors were considered to establish the mitigation priorities included in this plan. Highest priority rankings were assigned to those mitigation measures that met three primary criteria: 1) greatest potential
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 57 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011 for protecting life and property; 2) greatest potential for maintaining critical city functions and operability following a disaster; and 3) achievability in terms of community support, and cost effectiveness. All rankings were determined by the consensus of the Local Planning Team.
As described in the previous section on hazard and risk assessment, clearly earthquakes have the potential to affect the largest number of people, critical facilities, and buildings and to cause the greatest economic losses. This fact combined with the relatively high probability of an earthquake occurrence in the next several decades makes increasing disaster resistance and readiness to earthquakes a high priority.
Given the extreme importance of maintaining critical government functions in times of disaster and the large number of the population who depend and rely on government services and infrastructure, those mitigation measures that improve government disaster resistance, readiness, or recovery capacity are generally given higher priority than mitigation of privately owned buildings in which the loss or damage affects relatively few.
6.5 Implementation Strategy
An implementation strategy is the key to any successful planning effort. The implementation strategy identifies who has lead responsibility for the action, the estimated timeframe for completion, and potential funding source(s) to support implementation, and the priority ranking, defined as follows: Lead Agency: City Agency/Department/Unit assigned lead responsibility Timeframe: Short-term (less than 2 years); long-term (more than 2 years) Funding source: Potential internal and external funding source(s) Priority Ranking: Critical, High, Moderate or Low
NOTE: the order of listing in the following table is not necessarily the order of priority.
Action Lead Funding Timeframe Priority Source Ensure all new development and Development, Local Long C redevelopment is sited and constructed in Redevelopment accordance with the Ontario Plan and zoning. Implement specific projects Development, Local, Long C Redevelopment, grant OMUC, OEM, IT, other Conduct a risk assessment of the City’s water OMUC Local Short C treatment plant and City reservoirs Conduct a city wide assessment of City OEM Local Short C employee earthquake preparedness Establish a nonstructural hazard evaluation OMUC Local Short C and risk reduction program for city buildings and departments housing critical functions Improve damage assessment process and OEM, OMUC, Local Short C procedures CPS Improve the building and infrastructure OMUC Local, Short C inventory for HAZUS Grant Develop the primary Emergency Operations Development Local, Short C Center Grant Conduct an assessment of City facility seismic OMUC Local Long H hardening Perform assessment of city parks for mass OMUC, OEM Local Short H care locations
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 58 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
Action Lead Funding Timeframe Priority Source Update Disaster Council OEM Local Short H Continue comprehensive emergency training OEM Local Long H for all city personnel Continue comprehensive emergency OEM Local Long H exercises for all city personnel Evaluate City facility warning systems to IT Local Short H determine efficacy in reaching all people within the building Assess City facility evacuation/shelter in place OEM Local Short H procedures Update the mass notification system IT Local, Long H Grant Create emergency management website IT Local Short H Continue to sponsor annual Community OEM Local, Long H Emergency Preparedness Fair Grant Enhance Emergency Management Working OEM Local Long M Committee membership Improve emergency management public OEM Local Long M education material distribution
Development: Development Agency Redevelopment: Redevelopment Agency OMUC: Ontario Municipal Utilities Company OEM: Office of Emergency Management IT: Information Technology Department
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 59 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
Section 7 – Plan Maintenance
7.1 Monitoring, Evaluating and Updating the Plan
The Ontario Emergency Management Working Committee serves as the Hazard Mitigation Planning Group. The Ontario EMWC meets monthly. The Ontario EMWC will be the lead group for annual reviews and updates to the HMP. The Emergency Manager in the Ontario Office of Emergency Management is responsible to schedule the annual reviews.
The HMP will be reviewed on an annual basis. The current HMP will be used as one of the guidance documents for annual budget development. All city agencies and departments will review the HMP for guidance on mitigation projects and strategies. After the annual budget is formally adopted, the EMWC will conduct the annual HMP review session. The goals and objectives for review are to determine the effectiveness of the current plan based on current conditions in the city. The plan will be updated to reflect changes in land development or additional hazards that may affect mitigation priorities. The plan will be evaluated for changes in the nature or magnitudes of risks. Current resources will be evaluated for additional needs and changes that may be needed to implement any new hazards. The risk assessment will be updated to meet any changes to the city. The EMWC members are responsible for evaluating and monitoring the progress of any mitigation projects and strategies in the plan, and to notify the OEM of these changes. Project managers will provide a status report on mitigation projects. The EMWC will make changes to the plan relevant to changes in policies, ordinances and/or conditions within the city.
7.2 Implementation through Existing Programs
The HMP is a foundation of the overall emergency management program for the city. It will be utilized along with the Emergency Operations Plan, Standard/Emergency Operating Procedures (including those from the Police Department, Fire Department, Community and Public Services Agency, Ontario Municipal Utilities Company, and other city agencies and departments), and the Master Plan for the city, The Ontario Plan. The HMP is to be used in conjunction with all areas of new construction and redevelopment. Any capital improvements, zoning procedures, site reviews and the permit process are to be made in coordination with the HMP. Along with up to date building codes the plan will insure a high degree of public safety related to new and existing areas of the city.
7.3 Continued Public Involvement
Public involvement will continue to be an important component of the HMP. The public is able to directly comment on and provide feedback about the HMP. The public will be able to review the plan at anytime on the City web site. The HMP will be available at all Community Emergency Preparedness Fairs, Business Emergency Planning Workshops, CERT Courses, and community education presentations. HMP meeting dates will be publicized through various informational sources, including City Council meetings. As stated above, public participation in reviews and updates to The Ontario Plan will include reviews of the HMP.
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 60 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
APPENDIX A - PLANNING TEAM/PUBLIC INPUT MEETINGS
DATE MEETING 06/10/2010 HMP Stakeholders Meeting 07/04/2010 Independence Day/Westwind Park * 07/01/2010 HMP Stakeholder Conference Call 07/13/2010 Emergency Management Working Committee 07/15/2010 HMP Stakeholders Meeting 07/20/2010 Inland Empire Disabilities * 07/29/2010 HMP Stakeholder Conference Call 08/03/2010 Ontario Night Out * 08/10/2010 Emergency Management Working Committee 08/12/2010 HMP Stakeholders Meeting 08/19/2010 HMP Stakeholder Conference Call 08/19/2010 Industry Connections Networking Event * 08/26/2010 HMP Stakeholder Conference Call 09/01/2010 Ontario City Library meeting 09/09/2010 HMP Stakeholder Conference Call 09/14/2010 Emergency Management Working Committee 09/23/2010 HMP Stakeholder Conference Call 09/25/2010 Ontario Community Emergency Preparedness Fair * 09/28/2010 Ontario Neighborhood Watch Meeting * 09/29/2010 Ontario Neighborhood Watch Meeting * 09/30/2010 Ontario City Library meeting 10/02/2010 Ontario Fire Dept Open House * 10/07/2010 HMP Stakeholder Conference Call 10/12/2010 Emergency Management Working Committee 10/13/2010 Community Emergency Response Team training * 10/28/2010 HMP Stakeholder Conference Call 11/09/2010 Emergency Management Working Committee 12/02/2010 HMP Stakeholder Conference Call 12/14/2010 Emergency Management Working Committee
Emergency Management Working Committee: consists of representatives from all City agencies/departments, as well as external planning and response partners. Rosters and minutes maintained by OEM. HMP Stakeholders: consists of County/Operational Area representatives coordinating on the Hazard Mitigation Plan update, includes contractor/consultant. Rosters and minutes maintained by contractor/consultant. Ontario Community Emergency Preparedness Fair: Annual event held at Ontario Mills Mall, open to the public. Ontario Night Out: Ontario participation in National Night Out, open to the public. * denotes public meetings.
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 61 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
APPENDIX B - CENSUS DEMOGRAPHICS
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 62 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
APPENDIX B – CENSUS DEMOGRAPHICS
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 63 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
APPENDIX B – CENSUS DEMOGRAPHICS
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 64 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
APPENDIX B – CENSUS DEMOGRAPHICS
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 65 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
APPENDIX B – CENSUS DEMOGRAPHICS
All Ages 18 Years and Over Subject Number Percent Number Percent
RACE
Total Population 158,007 100.0 103,703 100.0 One Race 149,640 94.7 99,058 95.5 White 75,575 47.8 52,947 51.1 Black or African American 11,864 7.5 7,650 7.4 American Indian and Alaska Native 1,682 1.1 1,113 1.1 Asian 6,125 3.9 4,555 4.4 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 587 0.4 327 0.3 Some Other Race 53,807 34.1 32,466 31.3 Two or more races 8,367 5.3 4,645 4.5
HISPANIC OR LATINO AND RACE
Total Population 158,007 100.0 103,703 100.0 Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 94,610 59.9 56,983 54.9 Not Hispanic or Latino 63,397 40.1 46,720 45.1 One race 60,557 38.3 45,080 43.5 White 42,048 26.6 32,403 31.2 Black or African American 11,317 7.2 7,400 7.1 American Indian and Alaska Native 475 0.3 368 0.4 Asian 5,914 3.7 4,436 4.3 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 519 0.3 293 0.3 Some Other Race 284 0.2 180 0.2 Two or more races 2,840 1.8 1,640 1.6 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, Matrices PL1, PL2, PL3, and PL4.
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 66 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
APPENDIX C – LIFESTYLE CENTER LOCATION MAP
1. Piemonte at Ontario Center (Target, 6. Tuscany Village Best Buy) 7. New Model Colony 2. Euclid Avenue 8. Ontario Airport District Towers 3. Historic Guasti 9. Mountain Peak District Center 4. Ontario Gateway 5. Ontario Airport Plaza
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 67 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
APPENDIX D – OFFICE PROPERTIES - EXISTING CLASS A
1. Centre Lake Plaza 12. Airport Corporate Center 2. Concours Corporate Center 13. University Plaza 3. Empire Towers IV 14. Waterside Center 4. Empire Towers V 15. Lakeview Center 5. Empire Towers III 16. Lakeview Center 6. Empire Towers II 17. One Lakeshore Centre 7. Empire Towers I 18. Ontario Gateway II 8. Shelby Office Park 19. Ontario Corporate Center 9. Jurupa Business Center 20. Elma Court Commerce Center 10. Haven Airport Centre 21. Piemonte 11. Haven Business Center 22. Ontario Airport Towers
Class A. These buildings represent the highest quality buildings in their market. They are generally the best looking buildings with the best construction, and possess high quality building infrastructure. Class A buildings also are well-located, have good access, and are professionally managed. As a result of this, they attract the highest quality tenants and also command the highest rents.
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 68 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
APPENDIX E – OFFICE PROPERTIES UNDER DEVELOPMENT
1. Piemonte 2. Historic Guasti District 3. Ontario Airport Towers 4. Ontario Gateway 5. Waterside Center 6. 888 Haven Avenue 7. Parkway Business Center 8. Ontario Airport Corporate Park 9. Ontario Airport Plaza 10. 4100 Concours St. 11. Majestic Haven Gateway
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 69 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
APPENDIX F – HAZARD ID
-
FD
SD
PD
City of of City
Ontario Ontario Ontario Ontario
Ontario
View ESD View Montclair Montclair OWNER Mountain Fire School School FACILITY TYPE Stations EOC Stations Buildings Buildings # % # % # % # % # % Total # of Buildings 9 1 1 596 65 Fire Hazard Severity Zones -
Local Responsibility Area Very High 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Fire Hazard Very High 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Severity Zones - FireHazards High 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% State Responsibility Area Moderate 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Zone A - no base flood elevations determined 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Zone AE - base flood Special Flood elevations determined 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Hazard Areas Zone AH - Flood depths of Subject to 1 - 3 feet (usually areas of Inundation by ponding); base flood the 1% Annual
elevations determined 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Chance (100- Zone AO - Flood depths of year) Flood 1 - 3 feet (usually sheet flow on sloping terrain); average depths
Flood Hazards Flood determined. 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Zone X (Shaded) - areas of 0.2% annual chance (500 yr) flood; areas of 1% Other flood annual chance flood with areas average depths of less that 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile. 7 78% 0 0% 0 0% 143 24% 0 0%
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 70 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
Zone X Protected by Levee - areas protected by levees from the 1% annual chance flood 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 54 83% Zone D - areas in which flood hazards are undetermined, but possible 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Other Areas Zone X (Unshaded) - areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance (500-year)
floodplain 2 22% 1 100% 0 0% 453 76% 11 17%
Dam Inundation Dam In mapped dam inundation area 1 11% 0 0% 0 0% 41 7% 0 0% None 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Very Low 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Liquefaction Low 5 56% 1 100% 0 0% 503 84% 0 0% Susceptibility Moderate 4 44% 0 0% 1 100% 93 16% 65 100% High 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Very High 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Alquist-
Earthquake Hazards Earthquake Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Inside mapped fault zone 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 71 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
APPENDIX G – EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONES
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 72 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
APPENDIX H – LIQUEFACTION SUSCEPTIBILITY ZONES
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 73 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
APPENDIX I – FLOOD HAZARD AREAS
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 74 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
APPENDIX J – FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 75 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
APPENDIX K – DAM INUNDATION AREAS
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 76 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
APPENDIX L – HAZARD PROFILE/HISTORY
EARTHQUAKE Name Date Chino Hills 07/29/2008 Northridge 01/17/1994 Landers 06/28/1992 Big Bear 06/28/1992 Upland 02/28/1990 Loma Prieta 10/17/1989 Upland 06/26/1988 Whittier 10/01/1987 Coalinga 05/02/1983
Significant Southern California earthquakes since 1857
Date Time Location Magnitude
01.09.1857 8:24 am Fort Tejon 7.9 2.24.1892 11:20 pm Laguna Salada 7.3 12.25.1899 4:25 am San Jacinto/Hemet 6.7 04.21.1918 2:31 pm San Jacinto 6.8 06.29.1925 7:42 am Santa Barbara 6.8 11.04.1927 5:51 pm Offshore Lompoc 7.1 03.10.1933 5:54 pm Long Beach 6.4 05.18.1940 8:37 pm Imperial Valley 6.9 04.10.1947 7:58 am Manix 6.5 07.21.1952 3:52 am Kern County 7.5 04.09.1968 6:29 pm Borrego Mountain 6.6 02.09.1971 6:01 am San Fernando 6.6 10.15.1979 4:16 pm Imperial Valley 6.4 07.08.1986 2:21 am North Palm Springs 5.7 10.01.1987 7:42 am Whittier Narrows 5.9 11.24.1987 5:15 am Superstition Hills 6.6 06.28.1991 7:43 am Sierra Madre 5.8 04.22.1992 9:50 pm Joshua Tree 6.1 06.28.1992 4:57 am Landers 7.3 06.28.1992 8:05 am Big Bear 6.3 01.17.1994 4:30 am Northridge 6.7 10.16.1999 2:46 am Hector Mine 7.1 12.22.2003 11:15 am San Simeon 6.5 07.29.2008 11:42 am Chino Hills 5.4 04/04/2010 3:40 pm Mexicali 7.2
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 77 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
1. Hector Mine 10/16/1999
TIME October 16, 1999 / 2:46:44 am PDT LOCATION 34° 36' N, 116° 16' W 32 miles north of the town of Joshua Tree 47 miles east-southeast of Barstow HYPOCENTRAL DEPTH 0.01 km MAGNITUDE MW 7.1 TYPE OF FAULTING right-lateral strike-slip - ANIMATION FAULTS RUPTURED the Lavic Lake fault and the central section of the Bullion fault; some slip may have occurred along other nearby fault zones (current studies are working on this issue) SURFACE RUPTURE LENGTH approx. 41 km (26 miles) MAXIMUM SURFACE OFFSET 5.2 meters
At 2:46:44 am on the morning of Saturday, October 16, 1999, most of southern California, as well as parts of Arizona and Nevada, shook and rattled in the seismic wake of the largest earthquake to strike the area since the M 7.3 Landers earthquake of June 28, 1992. Originally measured at magnitude 7.0, this earthquake was centered in such a remote part of the Mojave Desert that, instead of being named for the nearest town or the community that suffered the greatest damage, it was named after the closest spot in the list of reference points used by the Southern California Seismic Network: the Hector Mine, an open pit quarry 14 miles (22 km) northwest of the epicenter.
The Hector Mine earthquake was preceded by a small cluster of foreshocks that begin about 20 hours before the onset of the main shock. The largest of these foreshocks was a magnitude 3.8 tremor that occurred at 7:41 pm PDT on October 15. These foreshocks were in the same location as a cluster of aftershocks triggered by the 1992 Landers earthquake.
When the main shock struck, just before 2:47 am PDT, the rupture was somewhat slow in starting. But within about 10 seconds it was over, having ruptured in both directions (bilaterally) from the epicenter: north along the Lavic Lake fault for about 15 kilometers, and south along the Lavic Lake fault and the central Bullion fault for another 26 kilometers.
The location of the earthquake was so remote that it caused relatively negligible damage for a magnitude 7.1 earthquake. The surface rupture was located entirely within the boundaries of the Twentynine Palms Marine
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 78 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
Corps Base, and crossed neither paved roads nor structures (unlike the Landers rupture of 1992).
2. Landers 6/28/1992
TIME June 28, 1992 / 4:57:31 am PDT LOCATION 34° 13' N, 116° 26' W 6 miles north of Yucca Valley MAGNITUDE MW 7.3 TYPE OF FAULTING right-lateral strike-slip - ANIMATION RUPTURE LENGTH 85 km (53 miles) FAULTS RUPTURED Johnson Valley, Landers, Homestead Valley, Emerson, and Camp Rock; several other faults experienced minor rupture, rupture during large aftershocks, or triggered slip AVERAGE SLIP about 3 to 4 meters; maximum slip of 6 meters DEPTH 1.1 km LARGEST AFTERSHOCK Big Bear earthquake, MS 6.4 (Southern California Earthquake Data Center)
3. Big Bear 6/28/1992
TIME June 28, 1992 / 8:05:30 am PDT LOCATION 34° 12' N, 116° 49.6' W 8 km (5 miles) SE of Big Bear Lake 40 km (25 miles) east of San Bernardino MAGNITUDE MS 6.4 TYPE OF FAULTING left-lateral strike-slip - ANIMATION DEPTH 5 km
While technically an "aftershock" of the Landers earthquake (indeed, the largest aftershock), the Big Bear earthquake occurred over 40 km west of the Landers rupture, on a fault with a different orientation and sense of slip than those involved in the main shock -- an orientation and slip which could be considered "conjugate" to the faults which slipped in the Landers rupture.
The Big Bear earthquake rupture did not break the surface; in fact, no surface trace of a fault with the proper orientation has been found in the area. However, the earthquake produced its own set of aftershocks, and from these, we know the fault geometry -- left-lateral slip on a northeast-trending fault.
Following the Landers main shock by three hours (it occurred while TV news coverage of the Landers earthquake was being broadcast live from Caltech), the Big Bear earthquake caused a substantial amount of damage in the Big Bear area, but claimed only one life. Landslides triggered by the jolt blocked roads in the San Bernardino Mountains, however, aggravating the clean-up and rebuilding process.
4. Upland 2/28/1990
TIME February 28, 1990 / 3:44 pm PST LOCATION 34° 08' N, 117° 42' W about 3 km (2 miles) NW of Upland about 48 km (30 miles) east of Los Angeles MAGNITUDE ML 5.4 DEPTH 4.5 km TYPE OF FAULTING left-lateral strike-slip - ANIMATION FAULT INVOLVED San Jose fault
The 1990 Upland earthquake was much more damaging than the quake of 1988. It triggered landslides, which blocked roads in the Mount Baldy area, and it caused some damage to the San Antonio Dam, which lies across the path of the main watershed coming south from Mount Baldy. Thirty-eight people sustained minor injuries, and damage was considerable near the epicenter. The quake was felt as far away, northeast, as Las Vegas, Nevada, and as far south as Ensenada, Mexico
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 79 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
5. San Jacinto 7/22/1923
Saunders (1986) indicates that the sparse instrumental and intensity data for this event are consistent with a location on the San Jacinto fault zone near Loma Linda. Richter (1958) estimated M6.2 for this event. At San Bernardino chimneys fell and brick walls were badly cracked. At the Patton State Hospital many brick walls were cracked and some of the older ones were partially destroyed, and parts of the roof caved in. Doser (1992) found that results of seismic waveform modeling for the 1923 event are more consistent with rupture on the SJFZ than rupture along the San Andreas Fault or buried cross fault.
TIME July 22, 1923 / 11:28 pm, PST LOCATION 34° 00' N, 117° 15' W 11 km (7 miles) south of San Bernardino about 88 km (55 miles) east of Los Angeles MAGNITUDE ML 6.3 TYPE OF FAULTING right-lateral strike-slip - ANIMATION FAULT INVOLVED San Jacinto fault
Damage from this quake, which awoke sleepers across southern California, was greatest in San Bernardino and Redlands, though it consisted primarily of minor damage -- chimneys thrown down, broken windows, and the like. Two people were critically injured, but no one was killed. Those buildings, which sustained significant damage in the shaking, were generally of poor construction. The San Bernardino County Hospital and the Hall of Records were badly damaged. Probably the greatest damage occur\ red at the State Hospital at Patton, about two miles from the epicenter. Trees fell in the nearby San Bernardino Mountains. In Los Angeles, damage was slight. The shaking was felt as far away as Needles and Santa Barbara. (Southern California Earthquake Data Center)
6. San Jacinto 4/21/1918
TIME April 21, 1918 / 2:32 pm, PST LOCATION 33° 45' N, 116° 53' W near the town of San Jacinto about 112 km (70 miles) ESE of Los Angeles MAGNITUDE ML 6.8 TYPE OF FAULTING right-lateral strike-slip - ANIMATION FAULT INVOLVED San Jacinto fault
While the damage caused by the San Jacinto earthquake of 1918 was high, its timing was fortunate, and kept the number of fatalities and injuries low. Most of the damage caused by the quake occurred in the business districts of the towns of San Jacinto and Hemet, where large masonry structures collapsed in the shaking. Luckily, the quake struck on a Sunday afternoon, when the business districts were empty. Still, as it was, several people were injured and one death was reported. Two miners were trapped in a mine near Winchester, but were eventually rescued, uninjured. In another display of amazingly good fortune, two men in an automobile were swept off a road by a landslide, and would have rolled several hundred feet down a hillside had they not been stopped by a large tree, before they had moved far very off the road at all.
The shaking cracked the ground, concrete roads, and concrete irrigating canals, but none of the cracks left behind were thought to represent actually surface rupture, though in one place, the alignment of a road was said to be off by about 7.5 centimeters (3 inches). Landslides, as mentioned above, were triggered, and the road from Hemet to Idyllwild was blocked in several places. Huge boulders rolled down nearby slopes. The flow rates of several springs in the area were altered, and it is claimed that the temperature of nearby hot springs changed. Sand craters were formed on one farm, and an area near Blackburn Ranch seemed to have "sunk" roughly one meter during the quake.
The earthquake caused minor damage outside the San Jacinto area, as well, and was felt as far away as Taft (west of Bakersfield), Seligman (Arizona), and Baja California. (California Earthquake Data Center)
7. Fort Tejon 1/9/1857
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 80 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
TIME January 9, 1857 / about 8:20 am PST LOCATION 35° 43' N, 120° 19' W about 72 km (45 miles) Northeast of San Luis Obispo, about 120 km (75 miles) northwest of Bakersfield, as shown on the map (epicenter location uncertain). MAGNITUDE MW 8.0 (approx.) TYPE OF FAULTING right-lateral strike-slip - ANIMATION FAULT RUPTURED San Andreas fault LENGTH OF SURFACE RUPTURE about 360 km (225 miles) MAXIMUM SURFACE OFFSET about 9 meters (30 feet)
The Fort Tejon earthquake of 1857 was one of the greatest earthquakes ever recorded in the U.S., and left an amazing surface rupture scar over 350 kilometers in length along the San Andreas fault. Yet, despite the immense scale of this quake, only two people were reported killed by the effects of the shock -- a woman at Reed's Ranch near Fort Tejon was killed by the collapse of an adobe house, and an elderly man fell dead in a plaza in the Los Angeles area (?).
The fact that only two lives were lost was primarily due to the nature of the quake's setting; California in 1857 was sparsely populated, especially in the regions of strongest shaking, and this fact, along with good fortune, kept the loss of life to a minimum. The effects of the quake were quite dramatic, even frightening. Were the Fort Tejon shock to happen today, the damage would easily run into billions of dollars, and the loss of life would likely be substantial, as the present day communities of Wrightwood, Palmdale, Frazier Park, and Taft (among others) all lie upon or near the 1857 rupture area.
As a result of the shaking, the current of the Kern River was turned upstream, and water ran four feet deep over its banks. The waters of Tulare Lake were thrown upon its shores, stranding fish miles from the original lakebed. The waters of the Mokelumne River were thrown upon its banks, reportedly leaving the bed dry in places. The Los Angeles River was reportedly flung out of its bed, too. Cracks appeared in the ground near San Bernardino and in the San Gabriel Valley. Some of the artesian wells in Santa Clara Valley ceased to flow, and others increased in output. New springs were formed near Santa Barbara and San Fernando. Ridges (moletracks) several meters wide and over a meter high were formed in several places. In Ventura, the mission sustained considerable damage, and part of the church tower collapsed. At Fort Tejon, where shaking was greatest, damage was severe. All around southern and central California, the strong shaking caused by the 1857 shock was reported to have lasted for at least one minute, possibly two or three!
The surface rupture caused by the quake was extensive. The San Andreas fault broke the surface continuously for at least 350 km (220 miles), possibly as much as 400 km (250 miles), with an average slip of 4.5 meters (15 feet), and a maximum displacement of about 9 meters (30 feet) (possibly greater) in the Carrizo Plain area. Kerry Sieh (1978) noted that the Elkhorn Thrust, a low-angle thrust fault near the San Andreas, may have slipped simultaneously in the 1857 quake -- an observation that a team of researchers (1996) have recently used to support the idea that future movements along the San Andreas fault zone might produce simultaneous rupture on thrust faults in and near the Los Angeles area, causing a terrible "double earthquake".
The location of the epicenter of the Fort Tejon earthquake is not known. As the name suggests, one idea is to locate it near the area of strongest reported shaking -- Fort Tejon. However, because there is evidence that foreshocks to the 1857 earthquake may have occurred in the Parkfield area, it is located on this map near the northwestern end of the surface rupture, just southeast of Parkfield, near Cholame (Southern California Earthquake Data Center).
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 81 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
FLOODING Name Date Flood/Storm 01/31/2010
Flood of 1969 1/15/1969
Flood of 1966 12/6/1966 Flood of 1938 11/1/1937
Flood of 1969 1/15/1969
The January and February 1969 Floods were the most damaging floods of record in San Bernardino County. Unprecedented damages were sustained by property in the County. The storms and floods caused the deaths of at least 13 persons. 19 inches of rain fell in Ontario over 24 hours. This event caused FEMA to redefine flood plain boundaries.
Flood damages in San Bernardino County from both floods were more than $54,000,000. In the Santa Ana River drainage areas, the flood damages from the January flood were slightly greater than the flood damages from the February flood ($22,165,000 in the January and $20,622,000 in February). However, in the Mojave River drainage areas, monetary damages from the February flood were more than 10 times greater than those caused by the January flood ($1,020,000 in January and $10,380,000 in February.)
Damages to residential property in the County were widespread, totaling about $12,000,000. Damages in the Cucamonga area were particularly heavy: More than $2,000,000 in damages occurred to residential property, and hundreds of people were forced to leave their homes – some for as long as 3 months. Damages to business and industrial property in San Bernardino County also were great, totaling more than $8,000,000. Damages to business and industrial property were also especially severe in the Cucamonga area, where more than $5,000,000 in damages was sustained. Agricultural losses were very severe. Intangible losses in the County were also great. Except for fatalities and injuries sustained during the floods, probably the greatest intangible damages sustained were the damages to morale of people whose homes were damaged or destroyed in the January and February floods. Other intangible dames included the disruption of normal community business and social activities, transportation and communications facilities, and public-utility services. Flood-damaged sewer-lines and sewage-treatment plants posed a threat to the lives and health of many residents of San Bernardino County.
Floods of 1966 12/6/1966
Santa Ana River floodwaters threatened Redlands $650,000 sewage treatment plant for the second time in two years. The Santa Ana River struck the sewer plant after washing out the west end of a long earthen dike constructed by the County Flood Control District after the November, 1965 flood. About three-fourths of the dike was still intact this morning, but it was being slowly washed away. A six-foot high wire fence strung along the channel in front of the sewage plant appeared to be reducing the force of the flow, but was not stopping the erosion. Southern California Edison Plant No. 3 above East Highland was cut off when the rampaging river carried away a footbridge. Greenspot Road was washed out near the bridge between East Highland and Mentone. The south approach to the waterman Avenue Bridge, undamaged a year ago, was almost lost. The north approach to the Tippecanoe Avenue Bridge was washed out, closing Tippecanoe Avenue for probable two or three months. Flow across Alabama Street caused closure of the street.
Mill Creek – Wild waters in Mill Creek Canyon destroyed at least two homes, chewed through the State Highway, created fears that two men had drowned, and knocked out electric power. A residence at 4 Alder drive in Mountain Home Village, badly damaged in last year’s flood, collapsed. Another home in Mountain Home Village, undermined in last year’s flood, was destroyed. In addition, Mountain Home Creek, a tributary to Mill Creek, jumped its banks, causing erosion and uprooting trees. State Highway 38 was washed out a
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 82 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011 short distance inside the mouth of the canyon. In the village there was much local damage, such as the destruction again of lower Alder Drive, bordering Mill Creek, and the outage of the Mountain Home Creek Bridge at Kilkare Road.
The Mill Creek Channel suffered heavy debris flows and “some levee damage”. Flows broke through a levee at one point and cut across a corner of the Lockheed Propulsion Company property near Mentone. Highway 38 was washed out at the old fish hatchery at the same location washed out last year, forcing a detour through Yucaipa in order to reach Upper Mill Creek Canyon. Mill Creek was high enough to flow over the top of the Garnet Street Bridge east of Mentone, washing out bridge approaches as well.
Mission-Zanja Creek – On the night of December 5, the overtaxed Zanja Storm Drain flowed out of its banks between two railroad bridges north of Church Street and poured through a portion of the Redlands downtown area flooding business establishments and depositing debris. To the west of the city, the Kansas Street Bridge lay cocked at a crazy angle, one of its abutments undercut and dropped down west, the rampaging stream dangerously eroded the north approach to the Alabama Street Bridge across the Mission-Zanja Channel.
Day Creek – West End Substation deputies evacuated about 40 persons living along Day Creek Wash at Baseline Road when flood waters eating away at the banks threatened to topple eight homes into the flooded creek. Flood control officials said the only thing that saved the homes was a rupture in the dike near Highland Avenue. Water coming down the Wash was believed to be more than six feet deep at its crest. The overflow channeled into vineyards east of the wash, creating an island around the homes and trapping residents.
Lytle Creek – Lytle Creek went on a rampage last Tuesday Afternoon, washing out Devore Road at Neely Corner and Baseline Road. A number of persons were evacuated from the area.
Highland Avenue at Lytle Creek was closed due to flooding.
Cucamonga Creek – Cucamonga Creek closed every street it crossed and washed out half of Baseline. A car was washed into Cucamonga Creek from Edison Street west of Archibald Avenue. The “G” Street Bridge was badly damaged and the adjacent roadway approach completely washed out.
Big Bear – Almost isolated by the storm, Big Bear received 9.43 inches of rain in 24 hours. The storms raised the level of big bear lake to 55 feet, 6 inches as of 3:00 p.m. yesterday. This was well over the top of most of the old dam and the highest level the lake has been since 1948. A total of 22.04 inches of rain fell at the lake’s dam in the five-day series of storms.
San Antonio Creek – One cabin lost a wall and a dozen others were seriously endangered by undermining as normally docile San Antonio Creek went on a torrential rampage here Wednesday. Trouble began Tuesday night at Buckhorn Bridge above Baldy Village as the swiftly moving creek waters swelled to 30 feet wide and eroded a path through the Buckhorn Café.
A temporary dike was constructed on the west side of the creek in an effort to save the bridge and many of the homes in the village below. Although this action probably saved a majority of the cabins, the shifting of the stream was responsible for a two-foot depth of water running through one home. At least six families, permanent residents of the Bear Avenue area, evacuated their homes during the peak of the overflow Wednesday.
Estimates placed the water flow at 500 to 700 feet a second through the customarily three-foot wide creek bed. The earth-moving force of the water is emphasized at the east end of Bear Avenue where the creek bed, usually 50 feet below the homes, now is level with the street.
Plunge & Oak Creek – Northeast of Redlands, Plunge and Oak Creek both overflowed into Greenspot Avenue.
Etiwanda Creek – Monday night the eastbound lanes of the San Bernardino Freeway were badly flooded near
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 83 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
Etiwanda Avenue.
Montclair Basins – A Montclair man was believed drowned late Tuesday when his car dropped into a 45-foot deep washout on Moreno Street. Scuba divers probed a lake created by floodwaters in a flood control percolation basin between Moreno and San Jose streets. The washout occurred between two percolation basins, separated by 200 feet, lying north and south of Moreno Street. Surface water from Upland and Montclair drains into the northern basin while Claremont surface water is channeled into the southern basin. The washout was about 45 feet deep, 100 feet across at its widest point, and 200 feet long.
Damage Loss – Estimates on storm damages suffered by the county earlier this month have now climbed to $3.5 million.
Disaster Area – Governor Edmund G. Brown yesterday declared San Bernardino County a disaster area as a result of flooding.
Disaster Area – The Board of Supervisors on Monday declared San Bernardino County a “disaster area”, after receiving a report indicating that the recent rains did damage totaling $3,500,000 to county roads, bridges and drainage facilities. The flow of water in some cases exceeded that of the disastrous 1938 flood. Many areas had flooding conditions, which come only once in 40 years, while lake Arrowhead had a 100-year rainfall.
Flood of 1938 11/1/1937
During the winter of 1937-38 California was visited by two disastrous floods, one in December 1937, in the northern part of the state, and the other in March 1938, in the southern part of the State.
A series of heavy rainstorms in the coastal area, extending from San Diego on the south to San Luis Obispo on the north and inland to parts of the Mojave Desert, produced extreme floods. These floods, which appear to have been the greatest within the last 70 years, caused the loss of 87 lives and damage estimated at $78,602,000.
The storm seems to have centered in the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountain areas tributary to the Los Angeles, San Gabriel, Santa Ana, and Mojave River Basins. These mountain areas are among the highest in southern California, ranging in altitude from about 1,000 to 11,485 feet above sea level. Their average precipitation for the period February 27 to March 4 was about 22.5 inches, and the greatest precipitation recorded for 32.20 inches at Kelly’s Kamp, in the San Gabriel Mountains between Ontario and Cucamonga Peaks, at an altitude of 8,300 feet.
The typical drainage areas within this mountain region are small, short rough, and steep, the average land slope ranging from about 35 to 65 percent. In much of the region, considerably more than half of the average rainfall of 22.5 inches was absorbed in the soil mantle and underlying rock and held in storage at the end of the storm period, notwithstanding the many factors conducive to rapid surface runoff.
The rates of rainfall during the storm period of March 1938 were not particularly high as compared with the rates in other storm periods in the same region. Only for periods as long as 24 hours do the maximum rates of rainfall appear to equal or exceed those earlier storms. The maximum discharge coming at the culmination of those maximum 24-hour periods produced in some areas a runoff of more than 1,000 second-feet per square mile. These high rates of flood runoff occurred at a time when antecedent rainfall has been such as to fill most of the space available for subsurface storage.
During the flood of March 1938 the streams moved down their mountain channels a great quantity of debris, much of which had accumulated since the time of previous major floods. Measured on a real basis the debris load in parts of the region exceeded 70 acre-feet per square mile. This movement of debris from the stream channels had the effect of reducing the storage capacity of many of the mountain reservoirs as much as 78 percent.
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 84 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
The rains that caused the severe flood of March 1938 in southern California began with a general light fall on February 27 and during the early hours of February 28. The later hours of February 28 were marked by generally intense and continuous precipitation. On March 1 there was a lull, followed on March 2 by the heaviest rains of the storm and on March 3 by light and intermittent rain, which continued in some places through March 4. Although the storm in generally referred to as that of February 27 to March 4, it had ceased over most of the area on March 3.
The heavy rains covered the Pacific coast area for about 250 miles north of the boundary with Mexico and extended inland 50 to 100 miles. The storm appears to have centered in the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountain areas tributary to the Santa Ana, San Gabriel, and Los Angeles Rivers. Many of the rainfall records indicated from 20 to 30 inches of rain during the period February 27 to March 4.
During the period February 27 to March 3 the total direct flood runoff from the mountain areas, in mean depth in inches, ranged from less than 1-inch to more than 13-inches. Rates of maximum discharge ranged from 200 to 600 second-feet per square mile and were estimated to be as high as 1,000 second-feet per square mile in some places. The streams flowing in the steep, narrow canyons moved enormous quantities of debris and greatly disturbed the material in the bottom of the canyons. The damage in the canyons, however, where the population is sparse, was small in comparison with that on the outer slopes and floors of the valleys.
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 85 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
HIGH WINDS Name Date High Winds 02/28/2003 High Winds 02/15/2003 High Winds 01/31/2003 High Winds 01/15/2003 High Winds 11/15/1983
02/28/2003 Winds Heavy Santa Ana Winds swept through the City of Ontario causing heavy damage to trees in the city. Crews removed damaged and dead trees. Over $26000 in damage was reported.
01/31/03 Winds Heavy Santa Ana Winds swept through the City of Ontario causing heavy damage to trees in the city. Crews removed damaged and dead trees. Over $50,000 in damage was reported.
01/15/2003 Winds Heavy Santa Ana Winds swept through the City of Ontario causing heavy damage to trees in the city. Crews removed damaged and dead trees. Over $38000 in damage was reported.
2/15/2003 Winds 2/2/1999 Heavy Santa Ana Winds swept through the City of Ontario causing heavy damage to trees in the city. Crews removed damaged and dead trees. Over $18500 in damage was reported.
01/05/2000 07:00 PM High Wind 81 kts. 0 2 400K 0 Santa Ana winds blew over four semi-tractor trailer rigs on Interstates 10, 15, 215 and State Highway 60 between Devore and Ontario, causing a ten hour traffic delay between the AppleValley and the Inland Empire. Elsewhere around the Inland Empire, blowing sand and dust drifted across roads and reduced visibilities to near zero, further disrupting travel. In Rialto, several roofs had shingles ripped off and one plate glass window was blown in. Trees and power lines and poles were also blown down, causing power outages to 10,000 customers. Sparks from power lines banging together started a house fire with the winds blowing embers onto adjacent fields and starting a wild fire.
01/02/2001 09:55 AM High Wind 52 kts. 0 1 50K 0 Santa Ana winds gusting to 60 mph ripped branches off trees across the Inland Empire. In Chino, 3 power poles were knocked down. In Ontario, power lines were blown down and started small brush fires. A car was knocked off of a jack, pinning the man working underneath it. Blowing tumbleweeds covered Interstate 10, bringing traffic to a complete stop.
01/30/2001 07:00 AM High Wind 70 kts. 1 1 0 0 A camper shell was blown off of a pickup truck traveling on Interstate 15 near the Fontana-Rancho Cucamonga border. A 19 year old male inside the camper shell was injured. A passing vehicle struck the camper, which in turn struck the pickup truck driver who was moving toward it to rescue the occupant. The driver was killed by the impact. Sustained winds between 40 and 45 mph were reported at the Rialto Airport shortly after the time of the accident.
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 86 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
11/27/2001 09:00 AM High Wind 50 kts. 0 4 55K 0 A semi-tractor trailer rig was blown over at the Interstate 15 and State Highway60 interchange in Ontario. A 24 foot research boat, eight miles west of Newport Beach was capsized by 5 foot waves whipped up by the strong offshore winds.
01/05/2003 08:16 PM High Wind 87 kts. 2 11 3.3M 28.0M M52VE, F49OU Throughout this three day Santa Ana wind event, numerous trees and power poles were blown down. At least 60 communities were affected. Interstates 8, 10, and 15 were blocked for several hours by large trucks blown over. Blowing dust and sand reduced visibility to zero, closing Interstate 215. Planes were diverted from landing at Ontario International airport as winds gusted to 90 mph. One large commercial transport plane sustained damage. A commuter train was delayed for several hours in Orange County when power poles were blown down onto the track. A brush fire whipped by the winds, damaged 5 houses and burned 150 acres. Sparks from downed power lines started numerous small brush fires, but these were quickly contained. Many houses and at least 300 parked automobiles were damaged by falling trees. In Riverside, wind flung debris smashed into a vehicle, killing the front seat passenger. In San Diego, a woman was killed when a tree fell onto her. Three others outdoors in San Diego County were also struck by falling trees and sustained broken bones. Six people riding in a commuter bus were injured when a tree fell onto it. The avocado crop in San Diego County lost about 20 million pounds of fruit.
12/16/2004 09:10 AM High Wind 60 kts. 0 0 150K 0 Four big rigs were blown over on Inland Empire freeways by gusty Santa Ana winds. A wind gust of 69 mph was recorded in northwest San Bernardino at about the same time as the accidents. Another big rig was blown over on the Ramona Expressway near San Jacinto. The gusty winds forced the CHP to close Interstate 15 between Rancho Cucamonga and Devore. The top of Victoria Garden's 65-foot Christmas tree snapped off. Trees were blown over and power lines brought down by the strong winds.
11/29/2006 12:25 PM High Wind 50 kts. 0 0 30K 0K EPISODE NARRATIVE: A strong offshore pressure gradient in combination with upper level support from a trough over the Intermountain West caused a period of gusty Santa Ana Winds across portions of Southern California. The strongest winds were observed in the Inland Empire as well as in and below passes and canyons of the Santa Ana Mountains. Fremont Canyon RAWS measured a wind gust of 73 mph, and later measured a sustained wind of 54 mph. Elsewhere, Ontario International Airport reported a 58 mph wind gust and blowing dust. Between noon and 4 PM, Caltrans responded to 100 calls regarding downed street signs, trees, and power lines. There were even a few reports of overturned big rigs. In Highland, a Eucalyptus Tree fell through an upstairs apartment, temporarily trapping the residents. In Mira Loma, the wind blew roof shingles off homes, snapped tree branches, and blew over a light pole at an apartment complex. In Orange County, an estimated 15,000 people lost power during the high winds. Damage to tree branches and roof shingles was reported in Costa Mesa and a 40-foot palm tree fell onto a 2002 Mercedes Benz in Santa Ana.
01/05/2007 11:19 AM High Wind 56 kts. 0 0 250K 0K EPISODE NARRATIVE: An extended period of offshore flow caused strong to high winds across much of Southern California. The first high wind event occurred during the afternoon and evening hours of the 5th as the upper level support was peaking. High winds were realized in many locations despite the fact that this peak occurred during the diurnally least favored time for Santa Ana winds. Wind gusts reached 75 mph at Fremont Canyon, 64 mph at Rancho Cucamonga, 63 mph at El Cariso, 59 mph at Rialto, 57 mph at Case Springs, 55 mph at Ontario. Winds were sustained 55 mph at Rancho Cucamonga, 52 mph at Fremont Canyon, and 40 mph at Ontario. Damaged or downed power poles were reported in Nuevo, Yucaipa, and Perris, while widespread damage to trees or tree limbs was reported in many other areas. Blowing dust reduced visibility to near zero along interstate 215 and the Ramona Expressway. Elsewhere, high winds in the San Bernardino Mountains near Rim Forest forced vehicles to slide across and off icy stretches of highway 18. Large trees fell onto homes and cars in the Lake Arrowhead area. Small, wind-driven wildfires were reported along interstate 15 near Mormon Rocks and the Cajon Pass. The second high wind event occurred during the early morning hours of the 7th and the 8th. Wind gusts measured 84 mph at Fremont Canyon and 62 mph at Rialto. Sustained winds at these locations
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 87 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011 measured 51 mph and 45 mph respectively. The winds caused more damage to trees, flipped over a semi, and left numerous residents without power. As is typical of most Santa Ana events, Fremont Canyon experienced the worst of the winds. Between the 5th and the 7th, Fremont Canyon RAWS measured 24 wind gusts of 60 mph or greater, 6 wind gusts of 70 mph or greater, and 2 wind gusts in excess of 80 mph.
01/14/2007 00:00 AM Frost/freeze N/A 0 0 15K 40.0M EPISODE NARRATIVE: A combination of Arctic air, weak offshore flow, cold air advection, low humidity, and mostly clear nights resulted in bitterly cold mornings, huge crop losses, and extensive property damage. Numerous long standing records were broken as temperatures dipped into the 20s and 30s along the coast, the teens in the valleys, the single digits to below zero in the mountains, and into the single digits to teens in the deserts. Except for right along the immediate coastline, the freeze lasted for up to a week or longer. Local farmers were hit the hardest by the freeze. Crop damage was estimated at $114.7 million in San Diego County, $86 million in Riverside County, and 11.1 million in San Bernardino County. All three of these counties were eventually declared Disaster Areas. Plumbing pipes froze and burst in many valley, mountain, and desert locations. For example, more than $600,000 in damage from broken pipes was reported just in the San Bernardino County mountains and deserts. The famed golf courses of the Palm Springs area didn't escape the freeze either. It will cost an estimated $20,000 just to repair one golf course in Indian Wells alone. At the onset of the freeze, snow was reported in the valleys of San Bernardino, Riverside, and San Diego Counties at elevations as low as 500 ft. Gusty winds at times made it feel much colder. During the freeze, the air temperature dropped to 7 degrees below zero at Fawnskin, 2 degrees below zero at Big Bear Lake and Wrightwood, 5 degrees in the high desert city of Hesperia, 6 degrees at Mount Laguna in San Diego County, 8 degrees in Apple Valley, 10 degrees at the Anza-Borrego Valley Airport, 11 degrees at Idyllwild, 12 degrees near the Mexico border at Campo, 13 degrees at the top of the Palm Springs Tramway, 16 degrees at Ramona, Pine Cove, Angelus Oaks, Potrero, and Twentynine Palms, 18 degrees at Thermal, Julian, and Palomar, 19 degrees at Hemet and Moreno Valley, and 20 degrees at Chino and Camp Pendleton. Closer to the coast, low temperatures were generally in the mid to upper 20s.
10/21/2007 03:18 AM High Wind 69 kts. 0 0 35.0M 0K EVENT NARRATIVE: A strong Santa Ana wind event caused widespread wind damage across the Inland Empire. Wind gusts in excess of 70 mph snapped power poles, toppled trees, overturned big rigs, and damaged roofs. In one of the hardest hit areas, the wind caused an estimated $2.6 million in damage at Mt. San Jacinto College. Many of the surrounding homes sustained minor to major roof damage. Elswhere, a portion of the 215 freeway between Devore and I-10 was shut down as a result of the high wind, overturned big rigs, and blowing dust. Wind gusts of 50 mph or greater were observed for 19 consecutive hours at Beaumont and 14 hours (5 consecutive hours) at Ontario. A peak wind gust of 79 mph was measured at Palm Avenue Elemntary School in San Bernardino. EPISODE NARRATIVE: Very strong surface high pressure over the Great Basin and extreme packing of the isobars along the crest of the Transverse and Peninsula Ranges resulted in an extended period of very strong, damaging, Santa Ana winds in the mountains and valleys of Southern California. During the morning of the 22nd, the pressure gradient averaged an impressive 0.2 to 0.3 mb/mile across the mountain crests. For example, a 10 mb pressure gradient was observed over a distance of just 45 miles between Ontario and Apple Valley, a 9 mb pressure gradient was observed over a distance of just 35 miles between Borrego Springs airport and Ramona airport, and an 8 mb offshore pressure gradient was observed over a distance of just 25 miles between Rialto airport and Big Bear City airport. Widespread wind gusts in excess of 65 mph with local gusts near 80 mph were reported in the Inland Empire, San Bernardino foothills, Santa Ana mountains and foothills, and San Diego County mountains and foothills. Several locations in and below passes and canyons experienced tropical storm force winds or greater for more than 36 hours. A peak wind gust of 85 mph was measured at Fremont Canyon, 79 mph at Palm Elementary in San Bernardino, 75 mph at Descanso and Mira Loma, 74 mph at Fallbrook and Rancho Cucamonga, 69 mph at Potrero, 67 mph at Beaumont, 66 mph at Ontario, 63 mph at Case Springs and El Cariso, 62 mph at Campo prior to the power outage, 59 mph at Julian and Alpine, and 58 mph at Cameron and Chino. The strong winds downed countless trees and power poles, damaged many roofs, damaged fences, damaged or destroyed
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 88 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011 outbuildings, damaged or destroyed road signs, overturned several high-profile vehicles, generated large dust storms, and fanned the flames of several large and devastating wildfires.
12/25/2007 04:53 AM High Wind 50 kts. 0 0 50K 0K EVENT NARRATIVE: A 58 mph wind gust was measured at Ontario Airport. Gusty winds in the Inland Empire downed power lines, uprooted trees, and overturned high profile vehicles. EPISODE NARRATIVE: Strong offshore flow on Christmas Day caused sporadic power outages, uprooted trees, and overturned semi-tractor trailer rigs. The strongest winds were confined to areas below the Cajon Pass in the Inland Empire and in the Santa Ana Mountains and Foothills.
01/17/2008 01:53 AM High Wind 56 kts. 0 0 250K 0K Description: EVENT NARRATIVE: A 65 mph wind gust was measured at Palm Avenue Elementary School. Elsewhere, the Ontario Airport ASOS measured sustained winds of 40 mph with a peak gust of 59 mph. EPISODE NARRATIVE: A strong Santa Ana wind event caused widespread tree and property damage in the Inland Empire. One hanger at Corona Airport sustained major damage, numerous tractor-trailers were overturned, hundreds of trees were blown over, and power was knocked out.
03/02/2008 10:07 AM High Wind 64 kts. 0 0 5K 0K EVENT NARRATIVE: A peak wind gust of 74 mph was measured at Palm Avenue Elementary School. Elsewhere, wind gusts reached 61 mph near Riverside, 54 mph at Devore and Ontario International Airport, and 46 mph at Corona Airport. At least one big rig was blown over due to the gusty winds. EPISODE NARRATIVE: An upper trough of low pressure moving through the interior west in combination with surface high pressure near the Great Basin caused gusty east to northeast winds below the local passes and canyons. Wind gusts between 60 and 80 mph on the 2nd caused the usual problems with overturned big rigs and broken tree branches in the Inland Empire and the Santa Ana Mountains. The activity shifted south into San Diego County on the 3rd where wind gusts in excess of 60 mph forced the closure of Interstate 8 to all high-profile vehicles.
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 89 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
WILDFIRES Name Date Walker Fire 10/23/2007
Walker Fire (Ontario) Acres: 160. Containment: Firefighters have surrounded the fire, but have not yet considered the fire contained. Destroyed: Damaged: Injuries: Point of origin: Schaefer Ave and S Walker Ave, dairy land southeast of the intersection
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 90 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
APPENDIX M – WEATHER AVERAGES
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Avg. Temp (F) 55.0 56.6 57.4 61.0 64.8 69.5 74.5 75.1 73.1 67.0 59.8 55.2 High Temp (F) 67.8 69.1 69.5 74.2 77.1 82.7 88.9 89.6 87.1 80.6 73.4 68.5 Low Temp (F) 42.2 44.0 45.3 47.9 52.5 56.3 60.0 60.5 59.0 53.3 46.1 41.7 Precipitation (in) 4.2 4.4 3.7 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.7 1.4 2.2 Days w/ precipitation 6 5 5 3 1 0 0 0 1 2 3 5 Wind speed (mph) 5.2 6.0 6.7 7.4 7.1 7.0 6.8 6.6 6.2 5.6 5.2 5.0 Morning Humidity. (%) 76 78 80 80 81 82 82 82 83 81 79 77 Afternoon Humidity. (%) 53 54 55 51 55 56 54 53 54 54 53 52 Sunshine (%) 71 71 71 70 62 62 71 72 72 70 75 72 Days clear of clouds 12 10 11 12 10 12 18 19 15 13 13 13 Days partly cloudy 8 7 9 10 13 12 11 10 11 11 8 8 Days cloudy 11 11 11 8 8 6 2 2 4 7 8 10 Snowfall (in) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 91 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
APPENDIX N – RISK ASSESSMENT REGIONAL
Earthquake Scenario M7.8 ShakeOut M6.7 San Jacinto M6.7 Chino Scenario Fault (including Hills Fault (including Liquefaction) (including Liquefaction) Liquefaction)
Direct Economic Losses for Buildings ($1,000)
Total Building Exposure Value 16,178,252
Cost of Structural Damage 211,423 22,425 70,898 Cost of Non-Structural Damage 667,048 127,729 354,643 Total Building Damage (Str. + Non-Str.) 878,471 150,154 425,540 Building Loss Ratio % 5.4% 0.9% 2.6% Cost of Contents Damage 283,519 77,892 178,641
Capital Stock Losses Stock Capital Inventory Loss 21,058 6,649 11,717
Relocation Loss 102,938 9,983 37,746
Capital-Related Loss 25,114 1,615 5,559
Losses Rental Income Loss 63,043 5,783 19,681 Income Income Wage Losses 49,242 3,664 11,443 Total Direct Economic Loss 1,423,385 255,740 690,327 % Of Countywide Loss 6.6% 5.1% 22.7% Casualties Casualties - 2 pm Fatalities 11 0 0 Trauma injuries 3 0 0 Other (non-trauma) hospitalized injuries 20 0 0 Total hospitalized injuries 23 0 0 Injuries requiring Emergency Department Visits 586 22 94
Day Casualties Day Injuries treated on an Outpatient basis 1,044 46 193 Total injuries 1,664 68 287 Hospital visits requiring EMS transport 40 0 3 Casualties - 2 am
Fatalities 6 0 0
Trauma injuries 2 0 0 Other (non-trauma) hospitalized injuries 13 0 0 Total hospitalized injuries 15 0 0 Injuries requiring Emergency Department Visits 714 31 135
Night Casualties Night Injuries treated on an Outpatient basis 1,309 65 282 Total injuries 2,044 96 417 Hospital visits requiring EMS transport 44 1 3
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 92 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
Shelter
Number of Displaced Households 1,822 56 941
Shelter Number of People Requiring Short-term Shelter 894 30 391 Debris (thousands of tons)
Brick, Wood & Other (Light) Debris 221 22 70 Concrete & Steel (Heavy) Debris 473 27 76 Debris Total Debris 694 49 146 Building Damage Count by General Building Type None 218 554 358
Slight 199 109 230 Moderate 156 21 90 Extensive 79 1 7 Concrete Complete 32 0 0 TOTAL 685 685 685
None 0 430 119 Slight 3 744 381 Moderate 79 802 1,069 Extensive 612 46 435 Complete 1,329 0 19 Manuf. Housing Manuf. TOTAL 2,023 2,023 2,023
None 188 319 177 Slight 181 100 183 Moderate 65 17 73 Extensive 1 0 2 Complete 0 0 0
Precast Concrete Precast TOTAL 436 436 436 None 572 927 580
Slight 309 115 344 Moderate 129 18 128
Extensive 41 0 8 Masonry Reinforced Reinforced Complete 10 0 0 TOTAL 1,060 1,060 1,060 None 29 134 78 Slight 41 27 57 Moderate 64 5 29
Steel Extensive 26 0 2 Complete 6 0 0 TOTAL 166 166 166
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 93 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
None 6 42 11
Slight 8 24 23 Moderate 17 10 31
Extensive 25 1 10 Masonry
Unreinforced Unreinforced Complete 19 0 1 TOTAL 76 76 76 None 932 1,827 1,039
Slight 609 269 870 Moderate 371 14 192
Extensive 168 0 8 (Other)
Wood Frame Frame Wood Complete 29 0 0 TOTAL 2,110 2,110 2,110
None 20,336 30,133 16,203 Slight 12,195 3,672 15,914
family) Moderate 1,337 94 1,740 - Extensive 33 1 41
Wood Frame Frame Wood Complete 0 0 3 (Single TOTAL 33,901 33,901 33,901 None 22,282 34,366 18,565
Slight 13,546 5,060 18,002
Moderate 2,218 980 3,351
TYPES Extensive 984 50 512
Complete 1,426 1 25 ALL BUILDING BUILDING ALL TOTAL 40,456 40,456 40,456
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 94 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
APPENDIX O – RISK ASSESSMENT ESSENTIAL FACILITIES
Earthquake Scenario
M7.8 ShakeOut M6.7 San M6.7 Chino Scenario Jacinto Fault Hills Fault (including (including (including FACILITY TYPE Liquefaction) Liquefaction) Liquefaction) Ontario Fire Department Total Number of Buildings 9 Damage:
# Buildings with >50% Probability of Moderate or Greater Damage 0 0 0 # Buildings with >50% Probability of Complete Damage 0 0 0
Fire Stations Fire Functionality: Functionality < 50 % on Day 1 2 0 1 Functionality 50 - 75% on Day 1 3 0 5 Functionality >75% Day 1 4 9 3 City of Ontario Total Number of Buildings 1 Damage: # Buildings with >50% Probability of Moderate or
Greater Damage 0 0 0 # Buildings with >50% Probability of Complete EOC Damage 0 0 0 Functionality: Functionality < 50 % on Day 1 0 0 0 Functionality 50 - 75% on Day 1 1 0 1 Functionality >75% Day 1 0 1 0 Ontario Police Department Total Number of Buildings 1
Damage:
# Buildings with >50% Probability of Moderate or Greater Damage 0 0 0 # Buildings with >50% Probability of Complete Damage 0 0 0
Functionality: Police Facilities Police Functionality < 50 % on Day 1 0 0 0 Functionality 50 - 75% on Day 1 0 0 0 Functionality >75% Day 1 1 1 1
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 95 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
Ontario-Montclair School District Total Number of Buildings 596 Damage:
# Buildings with >50% Probability of Moderate or
Greater Damage 8 0 5 # Buildings with >50% Probability of Complete
Schools Schools Damage 4 0 0 Functionality: Functionality < 50 % on Day 1 82 0 383 Functionality 50 - 75% on Day 1 510 9 197 Functionality >75% Day 1 4 587 16 Mountain View School District Total Number of Buildings 65 Damage:
# Buildings with >50% Probability of Moderate or
Greater Damage 0 0 0 # Buildings with >50% Probability of Complete
Schools Schools Damage 0 0 0 Functionality: Functionality < 50 % on Day 1 2 0 2 Functionality 50 - 75% on Day 1 59 2 63 Functionality >75% Day 1 4 63 0
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 96 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
APPENDIX P – CRITICAL FACILITY INFORMATION
Ontario City Hall. City government complex. Ontario Police Department. City law enforcement headquarters and two sub-stations. OPD Air Ops at Ontario Airport Ontario Fire Department. City fire headquarters and eight fire stations. Water Distribution System. Includes 556 miles of water mains and 5 booster stations. Ontario Municipal Services Center (OMSC). Water & sewer services, solid waste collection, and building, fleet, parks, and street maintenance. Wells and Reservoirs. Includes 24 wells and 12 reservoirs, with a total storage capacity of 75 million gallons. Agua de Lejos Water Treatment Plant. Water treatment facilities. Chino Basin Desalters. Water treatment facilities. Ion Exchange Treatment Plant. Water treatment facilities. Sewer System. The City’s sewer collection system consists of approximately 1.9 million feet of gravity lines, 7,600 associated manholes and cleanouts, two City owned lift stations, one privately owned/City maintained lift station, over 7,000 feet of associated forcemains and five siphons. Inland Empire Utilities Agency Wastewater Treatment Plants RP-1 and RP-4. Sewage treatment plants. Ontario Police and Fire Dispatch/Communications Center Ontario EOC SCE Plant Gas Co. gas line system 10, 15 and 60 freeways. I–10, I–15 & Rt. 60 freeways: east-west and north-south corridors for pure trucking operations & intermodal connections when combined with area air and rail transport. SP and UP Railroads, Metro-link Transcontinental rail connections (Union Pacific and Burlington, Northern & Santa Fe)
Community Facilities Ontario Soccer Sports Complex 45 acre Ontario Teen Center Ontario Senior Center Anthony Munoz, Bon View, De Anza & Westwind Neighborhood Community Centers
SCHOOLS Public high schools in Ontario:
Chaffey High (Students: 3,609; Location: 1245 N. EUCLID AVE.; Grades: 09 - 12) Ontario High (Students: 3,002; Location: 901 W. FRANCIS ST.; Grades: 09 - 12) Valley View High (CONT.) (Students: 939; Location: 1801 E. SIXTH ST.; Grades: 09 - 12) Canyon View High (CONT) (Students: 199; Location: 557 W. FIFTH ST.; Grades: 11 - 12) Chaffey Community Day (Students: 33; Location: 1305 N EUCLID AVE.; Grades: 09 - 12)
Ontario Mills Mall Ontario Mills is a large enclosed shopping/outlet mall. It is one of the primary tourist attractions in the Inland Empire and California. It is located across the street from the former site of the Ontario Motor Speedway. Like all other Mills properties, it was first developed and once owned by the Mills Corporation. Ontario Mills is the first Mills landmark to have the racetrack layout and having a theme in its neighborhoods. One of the largest shopping malls in North America, the mall opened to the public in 1996. Ontario Mills was designed by the architectural firm, F+A Architects. The mall is near the LA/Ontario International Airport, as well as the interchange between the Ontario Freeway (Interstate 15) and the San Bernardino Freeway (Interstate 10).
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 97 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
Visitors: over 20 million annually Size: 1.7 million square feet all under one roof Anchors, specialty stores, carts & kiosks: more than 250 Restaurants: Chevys Fresh Mex, Dave & Buster's, Market Broiler, Olive Garden, Pat & Oscar’s, Rainforest Café, Red Lobster, New York Grill, Tokyo Wako, Outback Steakhouse Food court: Seating for 1,000 Movies: AMC 30 Movie Theater, Edwards 22 Cinema & IMAX Theater Entertainment: GameWorks, Improv Comedy Club
Ontario Convention Center One of the most technologically advanced convention centers in the United States Located 2 blocks from LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) off Interstate 10 at Vineyard Avenue Total space: 225,000 square feet Exhibit space: 70,000 square feet of column-free exhibit space Ballroom: 20,000 square feet divisible into 3 sections Meeting Rooms: 24 rooms occupying 24,000 square feet of meeting space Technology: fiber optic infrastructure linked through 30 miles of cabling and CAT 5 copper wire Fiber optic ports strategically stationed throughout the center Internet access and computer networking available anywhere in the building Telecommunications: video teleconferencing & satellite capabilities Audio-visual: extensive in-house services & equipment available Catering: full repertoire of corporate, fine dining & creative services Parking: 600 spaces on site, additional 700 across the street
LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT) LA/Ontario International Airport (IATA: ONT, ICAO: KONT, FAA LID: ONT), formerly Ontario International Airport, is a public airport located 2 NM (3.7 km; 2.3 mi) east of the central business district (CBD) of Ontario. The airport is located approximately 38 miles (61 km) east of downtown Los Angeles, 18 miles (29 km) west of downtown San Bernardino and 14 miles (23 km) northwest of downtown Riverside. Motorists can either use the San Bernardino Freeway (Interstate 10), Ontario Freeway (Interstate 15), or the Pomona Freeway (State Route 60) to access the airport. It is also served by Omnitrans bus route 61, and by private shuttles, though most passengers drive or are picked up at the airport. The airport is owned and operated by the Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA), an agency of the city of Los Angeles. In 2008, 6.2 million passengers used the airport, a decline of 13.5 % compared to 2007.
The airport covers 1,700 acres (690 ha) and has two runways. It is the third major airport in the area after Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) and John Wayne Airport (SNA). LA/Ontario International Airport is typically less crowded than LAX; according to Forbes.com it is one of the five best alternate airports in America. The airport is dominated by Southwest Airlines who carried 49.38% of passengers in 2007. The other four airlines in the top five were United Airlines/United Express (8.64%), Delta Air Lines (7.93%), US Airways (7.08%), and American Airlines (6.18%). It is the West Coast air and truck hub for UPS and is a major distribution point for FedEx Express. LA/Ontario International Airport was a hub for the independent operations of ExpressJet Airlines, which began service to 14 destinations in April 2007. This service ended on September 2, 2008. The corporate jet facility hosts Guardian Jet Center/Guardian Air Service.
Thanks to Ontario's long runways (runway 8L/26R is longer than any of those at LAX), it is often used as an alternate landing site for large aircraft when LAX is inaccessible due to weather conditions or other reasons. It is an important alternate airport, since many trans-Pacific flights headed to LAX may have insufficient fuel remaining to reach other major airports. Due to Ontario's relatively small customs facilities and limited options for connecting flights, such rerouted flights typically do not disembark passengers at Ontario. Instead, the airport is usually used to refuel the aircraft, which then depart for a short flight to LAX once landing conditions there have improved.
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 98 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
By the end of 2006 Ontario International Airport was renamed to LA/Ontario International Airport to entice travelers from the over-trafficked Los Angeles International Airport and also to reduce confusion with Ontario, Canada. ONT currently has more than 70 daily departures and arrivals.
ONT Passenger Service $270 million twin terminals Size: 265,000 square feet each Lobby: vaulted, glass-enclosed, completely sky-lit with views of the San Gabriel Mountains Ground floor: ticketing & baggage claim Second level: aircraft gates & passenger services Total gates: 35 Airport capacity: 10 million passengers Future projected volume: 30 million passengers Passengers in 2009: 5 million Shops and services: 14 restaurants and 18 retail stores Parking: total airport parking is 13,400 spaces Airport shuttles: free 24-hour shuttles between terminals, parking lots and car rentals Rental cars: ground transportation center includes 10 car rental companies Hotel rooms: more than 4,500 hotel rooms are within minutes of the airport
ONT Air Cargo 2nd only to LAX in cargo volume in Southern California 4th largest in cargo volume in the State of California 2008 air cargo volume: 530,909 tons Largest cargo carrier: United Parcel Service (UPS) - 70% (Western Regional Hub) Second largest cargo carrier: Federal Express (FedEx) - 25% I – 10, I – 15 & Rt. 60 freeways: east-west and north-south corridors for pure trucking operations & intermodal connections when combined with area air and rail transport Transcontinental rail connections (Union Pacific and Burlington, Northern & Santa Fe) Access to the Ports of Long Beach & Los Angeles Adjacent to the Ontario Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ)
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 99 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
Nearby warehouses include sophisticated centers with state-of-art information management
Kaiser Permanente Ontario Vineyard Medical Center Located on a 28-acre, master-planned campus, Kaiser Permanente's new Ontario Vineyard Medical Center includes four major elements:
Medical office building New central plant and IT building Surgery center Onsite and offsite developments including street improvements
The campus includes a four-story medical office building including a basement level radiation therapy center which houses linear accelerators, a cat scan machine, and a Ximatron. The 131,000-sq.-ft. structural steel building was built to OSHPD 3 standards. The central plant and IT building, also built to OSHPD standards, consists of 11,000 sq. ft. of masonry construction. Also included in the complex is a single-story, 55,000-sq.-ft. steel and stud framing surgery center that will house outpatient care. The medical office buildings are currently open, and the medical center is expected to open in 2011.
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 100 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
Name Facility Type Critical Rank Ontario Civic Center Government Facilities High Old City Hall Government Facilities Average Emergency Operations Center Emergency Response Facilities Critical Police and Fire Dispatch Center Emergency Response Facilities Critical Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Emergency Response Facilities Average Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Water and Sewer High Ontario Sewer System Water and Sewer Critical Ontario Storm Drain System Water and Sewer Critical Pump House 1 - 36 Water and Sewer Critical Agua de Lejos Treatment Plant Water and Sewer Critical City Bridges Major Roads/Bridges Average Ontario Police Department Police Stations Critical Ontario Fire Station #1 Fire Stations Critical Ontario Fire Station #2 Fire Stations Critical Ontario Fire Station #3 Fire Stations Critical Ontario Fire Station #4 Fire Stations Critical Ontario Fire Station #5 Fire Stations Critical Ontario Fire Station #6 Fire Stations Critical Ontario Fire Station #7 Fire Stations Critical Ontario Fire Station #8 Fire Stations Critical Ontario International Airport Emergency Response Facilities Critical Ontario Soccer Sports Complex Community Facility/Emergency Shelter Critical Ontario Teen Center Community Facility/Emergency Shelter Critical Ontario Senior Center Community Facility/Emergency Shelter Critical Anthony Munoz, Bon View, De Anza & Community Facility/Emergency Shelter Critical Westwind Community Centers
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 101 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
APPENDIX Q – NON-CRITICAL FACILITY INFORMATION
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Ontario Family Community Library (Operating income: $3,5M; Location: 215 E. C ST.; 187,000 books; 23,400 audio/visual materials; 686 serial subscriptions, 44 public computers, 220 reader seats) Open 2006 New Colony High Branch Library (Joint Use Facility at Colony High School) (Operating income: $475K; Location: 3850 East Riverside Drive; 69,000 books; 5,500 audio/visual materials; 60 serial subscriptions, 7 public computers, 70 reader seats) Open 2003 Ontario/NASA Science & Technology Learning Centers Ontario Museum of History & Art
NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
Within City limits: more than 300 acres of parks
Cucamonga-Guasti Regional Park, 150 acres: lake, swimming, fishing, boating, water slides, picnic areas, volleyball, horseshoes John Galvin Park, 42 acres: 2,500 seat baseball stadium, picnic areas, tot lots, tennis courts, swimming, volleyball West Cucamonga Creek Trails, 15 acres: 2.4 miles, biking, hiking, nature walks; 1.3 mile, equestrian trail Westwind Park, 23 acres: Little League, softball, soccer fields; volleyball, basketball, tennis courts; gymnasium; swimming pool De Anza Park, 20 acres: concert bowl, picnic areas, tot lot; softball, basketball, volleyball courts; swimming pool Whispering Lakes, 21 acres: fishing, natural amphitheater, trail system with trees and native landscaping Anthony Munoz Hall of Fame Park, 18 acres: picnic areas, tot lot, basketball court; open turf, bike and pedestrian paths Homer F. Briggs Park: equestrian area, Little baseball, basketball, picnic areas and tot lot More than a dozen additional parks also provide a variety of venues and outdoor recreation
SCHOOLS
Private high school in Ontario:
Ontario Christian High (Students: 395; Location: 931 W PHILADELPHIA ST; Grades: 9 - 12)
Public primary/middle schools in Ontario:
Richard Haynes Elementary (Students: 1,241; Location: 715 W. FRANCIS ST; Grades: KG - 06) Mission Elementary (Students: 1,174; Location: 5555 HOWARD ST.; Grades: KG – 06) Vina Danks Middle (Students: 1,148; Location: 1020 N. VINE AVE.; Grades: 06 - 08) Grace Yokley Elementary (Students: 1,132; Location: 2947 S. TURNER AVE.; Grades: 06 - 08) Berlyn Elementary (Students: 1,059; Location: 1320 N. BERLYN AVE.; Grades: KG – 06) Sultana Elementary (Students: 1,057; Location: 1845 S. SULTANA AVE.; Grades: KG - 06) Mariposa Elementary (Students: 1,046; Location: 1605 EAST D ST.; Grades: KG – 06) DeAnza Middle (Students: 1,041; Location: 1450 S. SULTANA AVE.; Grades: 06 - 08) Oaks Middle (Students: 1,036; Location: 1221 SOUTH OAKS AVE.; Grades: 07 - 08) Hawthorne Elementary (Students: 972; Location: 705 W. HAWTHORNE ST.; Grades: KG - 06)
Private primary/middle schools in Ontario:
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 102 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
Ontario Christian Elementary (Students: 779; Location: 1907 S EUCLID AVE; Grades: PK - 8) St. George Elementary (Students: 256; Location: 322 WEST D STREET; Grades: KG - 8) Redeemer Lutheran (Students: 197; Location: 920 WEST SIXTH STREET; Grades: KG - 8) San Antonio Junior Academy (Students: 140; Location: 1722 E EIGHTH ST; Grades: KG - 10) Echos of Faith Christian (Students: 126; Location: 11255 CENTRAL AVE; Grades: KG - 8) Kids Club (Students: 59; Location: 1825 N VINEYARD; Grades: PK - KG) Ontario Progressive Montessori (Students: 20; Location: 328 W PHILLIPS ST; Grades: PK - 1) Liberty Christian (Students: 13; Location: 1168 EAST G STREET; Grades: 1 - 7) La Petite Academy Inc (Students: 8; Location: 2999 S HAVEN AVE; Grades: KG - KG)
COLLEGES / UNIVERSITIES IN ONTARIO
International Air Academy (Full-time enrollment: 344; Location: 2980 INLAND EMPIRE BLVD; Private, for-profit; Website: www.airacademy.com) Nova Institute of Health Technology (FT enrollment: 294; Location: 520 N EUCLID AVE; Private, for- profit; Website: www.novainstitute.com) Platt College – Los Angeles Inc (FT enrollment: 268; Location: 3700 INLAND EMPIRE BLVD; Private, for-profit; Website: plattcollege.edu) United Education Institute – Ontario Campus (FT enrollment: 133; Location: 3880 SHELBY AVE; Private, for-profit; Website: WWW.UEIGLOBAL.COM) California Institute of Customer Engineering (FT enrollment: 133; Location: 1609 S GROVE AVE; Private, for-profit) Marinello School of Beauty (FT enrollment: 58; Location: 940 N MOUNTAIN AVE; Private, for-profit; Website: www.marinello.com) Richards Beauty College (FT enrollment: 23; Location: 200 N EUCLID AVE; Private, for-profit) Chaffey Adult School (Location: 211 W 5TH ST; Public) Addison Career Inc (Location: 320 S MILLIKEN ST; Private, for-profit)
Colleges/universities with over 2000 students near to Ontario:
Chaffey Community College (about 8 miles; RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA; FT enrollment: 7,749) California State Polytechnic University - Pomona (about 11 miles; POMONA, CA; FT enrollment: 15,527) DeVry Institute of Technology - Pomona (11 miles; POMONA, CA; FT enrollment: 3,006) University of La Verne (about 11 miles; LA VERNE, CA; FT enrollment: 4,718) Mt San Antonio College (about 16 miles; WALNUT, CA; FT enrollment: 14,954) Citrus College (about 17 miles; GLENDORA, CA; FT enrollment: 6,830) Riverside Community College (about 20 miles; RIVERSIDE, CA; FT enrollment: 10,798)
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 103 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
Name Facility Type Critical Rank
Ovitt Family Community Library Other Low Colony Park Other Low De Anza Park High Traffic Areas Low Bon View Park High Traffic Areas Low John Galvin Park High Traffic Areas Average Westwind Park Other Low
LODGING NAME ADDRESS
American Inn 755 N. Euclid Avenue
Americas Best Value Inn And Suites Ontario 2425 S. Archibald Avenue
Ayres Boutique Suites 204 N. Vineyard Avenue
Ayres Hotel And Suites Ontario Convention Center 1945 East Holt Boulevard
Ayres Inn And Suites Ontario Mills Mall 4395 East Ontario Mills Parkway
Ayres Suites Ontario Mills Mall 4370 Mills Circle
Best Western Innsuites Airpark Ontario Hotel And Suites 3400 Shelby Street
Best Western Ontario Airport 209 N. Vineyard Avenue
Comfort Suites Ontario Airport 1811 East Holt Boulevard
Country Inn and Suites By Carlson At Ontario Mills 4674 Ontario Mills Parkway
Country Inn Ontario 2359 S. Grove Avenue
Days Inn Ontario Airport 1405 East Fourth Street
Doubletree Hotel Ontario Airport 222 N. Vineyard Avenue
Econo Inn 724 S. San Antonio Avenue
Econo Lodge Airport South 2301 S. Euclid Avenue
Econo Lodge Ontario 1655 East Fourth Street
Embassy Suites Ontario-Airport 3663 East Guasti Road
Extended Stay America Ontario 3990 East Inland Empire Boulevard
Fairfield Inn By Marriott 3201 East Centre Lake Drive
Golden Bear Inn 661 West Holt Boulevard
Hampton Inn Suites Ontario 4500 East Mills Circle
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 104 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
NAME ADDRESS
Hilton Ontario Airport 700 N. Haven Avenue
Holiday Inn Express Hotel And Suites Ontario Airport 2280 S. Haven Avenue
Holiday Inn Ontario Airport 2155 East Convention Center Way
Hyatt Place Ontario Mills 4760 East Mills Circle
Knights Inn Ontario 1120 East Holt Boulevard
La Quinta Inn And Suites Ontario Airport 3555 Inland Empire
Motel 6 231 N. Vineyard Avenue
Motel 6 1560 East Fourth Street
Ontario Airport Inn 1801 East G Street
Ontario Grand Inn & Suites 3333 Shelby Street
Peppertree Motel Ontario 1241 East Holt Blvd
Quality Inn Ontario Airport 514 N. Vineyard Avenue
Radisson Hotel Ontario Airport 2200 East Holt Boulevard
Ramada Ontario Airport 1841 East G Street
Red Carpet Motel 1117 N. Baker Avenue
Red Roof Inn Ontario Airport 1818 East Holt Boulevard
Residence Inn Ontario Airport 2025 East Convention Center Way
Rodeway Inn Ontario Airport 1150 N. Grove Ave.
Rodeway Inn Ontario Mills Mall 4075 East Guasti Road
Sheraton Ontario Airport Hotel 429 N. Vineyard Avenue
Super 8 Ontario SR 60 Exit Euclid Ave S.
West Coast Inn 1211 N. Grove Avenue
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 105 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
ONTARIO CONVENTION CENTER
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 106 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
CITIZENS BUSINESS BANK ARENA
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 107 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 108 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
ONTARIO POLICE DEPARTMENT HQ
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 109 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
ONTARIO FIRE DEPARTMENT HQ/STATION 1
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 110 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
ONTARIO LIBRARY
Ovitt Family Library
Colony High Library
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 111 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
KAISER PERMANENTE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 112 CITY OF ONTARIO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2011
PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
REVISED: 07/23/2011 F3 PAGE 113