Ontario City Council
January 18, 2022

(4) Consider and adopt a resolution
approving the Development Plan, File No.

PDEV21-030, pursuant to the facts and
reasons contained in the staff report and
attached resolution.

PROJECT SETTING: The Project site is
comprised of 7.47 acres of land located on
the west side of Bon View Avenue,
approximately 132 feet north of Cedar
Street, and includes a 4.70-acre common lot
subdivision with 52 industrial condominium
parcels and one 2.77-acre parcel of land, as
depicted in adjacent Figure 1: Project
Location Map. The site is presently improved
with a mix of land uses and building types
which includes commercial, industrial, and
one single-family residence, which will all be
razed to facilitate the construction of the
proposed Project. Historically, the area was used for residential and agriculture purposes until at least 1960, when the first commercial building was constructed on the site.

Throughout the 1960s to the present day, the surrounding area has been predominately developed with industrial land uses.

At the southeast corner of the Project site, fronting onto Bon View Avenue, is a one-story, single-family structure that was constructed in 1914 (est.), in the Craftsman style of architecture. The building is 1,088 square feet in size and possesses the character-defining features of the Craftsman style of architecture, including a front-facing gable roof clad in horizontal wood siding, a porch with 4 square columns that covers the full width of the home and is fully clad in stone, a stoop constructed in stone, and the main entry door flanked with aluminum Chicago-style windows. A unique and distinguishing feature of the building is the stone-clad exterior. Alterations to the building include an enclosed porch addition at the rear and the replacement of wood-framed windows with aluminum. South of the structure is a detached garage that was built prior to 1980.

West of the residence is an 'L'-shaped commercial building constructed during the 1960s, two industrial buildings built after 1966 and before 1980, and an outdoor storage yard.

North of the residence are two multi-tenant industrial buildings that were built after 1986, and the remainder of the property is undeveloped. The existing surrounding land uses, zoning, and general plan land use designations are summarized in the "Surrounding Zoning & Land Uses" table located in the Technical Appendix of this report.

Figure1: Project Location Map
Project Site
154
Planning Commission Staff Report
File Nos.: PZC21-001, PHP21-015, and PDEV21-030
December 20, 2021

PROJECT ANALYSIS:
(1) Background — On September 1, 2021, the Applicant submitted File No. PDEV21- 030, a Development Plan to construct a 174,603-square-foot industrial building on the

7.47-acre Project site. The subject application was submitted in conjunction with three other application types that are essential to the proposed development, which include:
 A Certificate of Appropriateness (File No. PHP21-015) to allow for the demolition of a Tier III historic resource (a 1,008 square-foot Craftsman single-family structure) that exists on the subject site;
 A Zone Change (File No. PZC21-001) on a 2.77-acre portion of the subject site, changing the zoning designation from IL (Light Industrial) to IG (General Industrial); and
 A Lot Line Adjustment (File No. E202100860) consolidating three lots that comprise the Project site, into a single lot. Additionally, the recorded condominium plan over a portion of the Project site will be quitclaimed prior to the issuance of a building permit to construct the proposed Project.

On December 9, 2021, the Historic Preservation Subcommittee ("HPSC") conducted a hearing to consider the Certificate of Appropriateness and voted to recommend approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness application to the Historic Preservation Commission. The Historic Preservation Commission’s approval will not be final and complete until the related Zone Change (File No. PZC21-001) has been approved by the City Council.

On December 20, 2021, the Development Advisory Board (DAB) conducted a hearing to consider the Development Plan and concluded the hearing, voting to recommend that the Planning Commission approve the Application subject to conditions of approval, which are included as attachments to the Planning Commission resolution. The Planning Commission’s approval will not be final and complete until the related Zone Change (File No. PZC21-001) has been approved by the City Council.
(2) Zone Change (File No. PZC21-001) — The Applicant is requesting a Zone Change (File No. PZC21-001) to change the zoning designation of the southerly portion of the Project site from IL (Light Industrial) to IG (General Industrial), as depicted in Exhibit F— Zone Change, attached. The proposed Zone Change will serve to promote the orderly development of the subject site through the consolidation of the two adjacent parcels that comprise the Project site, making the site physically suitable for the anticipated future industrial development and related allowed land uses. The adjoining parcel to the south of the Project site will remain within the IL (Light Industrial) zoning district to serve as a buffer between the residential properties to the south, across Cedar Street, and the more intense industrial uses permitted to the north.
155
Planning Commission Staff Report
File Nos.: PZC21-001, PHP21-015, and PDEV21-030
December 20, 2021

(3) Certificate of Appropriateness (File No. PHP21-015) — The Applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness (File No. PHP21-015) for the demolition of a historic resource. The Development Code establishes criteria for Tier I, Tier II, or Tier III historic resources, with Tier I and II being the most historically significant. The tier system identifies those historic resources that have the highest preservation value in terms of their architectural and/or historical contribution to the City and establishes a method to evaluate the impacts of their loss in the case of major modification or demolition. Major modification or demolition should not occur to Tier I or Tier II historic resources, and preservation and/or avoidance of such historical resources in order to prevent demolition is strongly encouraged. Whereas Tier III historic resources may be modified or demolished under certain circumstances with appropriate mitigation measures in place.

Approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of historic resources, regardless of Tier Determination, and the new "replacement" project is required. On November 10, 2021, the Historic Preservation Subcommittee approved a Tier III Determination for the residence and determined all other buildings were not eligible for listing on the local register of historic resources (see Attachment A: Tier Determination of this report).

Preservation, rehabilitation (adaptive reuse), and relocation of the historic resource as alternatives to demolition were considered. Preserving and maintaining the historic resource on the site adjacent to the new industrial warehouse building is not suitable because the land uses are not compatible. Rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the historic resource at its current location would render the new development as proposed infeasible. Relocation of the historic resource off-site may be feasible but may not be practical due to the type of stone cladding material used on the residence; however, a condition of approval advertising and offering the residence at no cost for the relocation off-site is required prior to issuance of a demolition permit. It is staff's belief that the demolition of the Tier III historic residence and other buildings on-site and construction of the industrial warehouse building is appropriate with conditions of approval and mitigation measures as attached.

The Planning Commission, serving as the Historic Preservation Commission, must consider and clearly establish certain findings of facts for all Certificate of Appropriateness applications. The demolition of the Tier III historic resource is appropriate for the following reasons:
a) The proposed demolition is necessary because all efforts to restore, rehabilitate, and/or relocate the resource have been exhausted. Restoration nor rehabilitation for adaptive reuse of the residential historic resource is feasible at the Project site due to the proposed development and location within the IL (Light Industrial) zoning district. Such preservation treatments would result in an incompatibility of land uses and building types; however, relocation of the historic resource may be possible under certain conditions. Prior to demolition, the Project conditions of approval require 156
Planning Commission Staff Report
File Nos.: PZC21-001, PHP21-015, and PDEV21-030
December 20, 2021

advertisements be placed offering the home at no cost for those who can relocate the home off-site; and
b) The proposed demolition is necessary because restoration/rehabilitation is not practical because the extensive alterations required would render the resource not worthy of preservation. The proposed industrial development at the Project site is consistent with existing surrounding development and land use. Continuation of the residential use, which is considered a highly sensitive land use, in conjunction with the proposed industrial development, would further intensify adverse impacts due to the incompatibility of land use. Rehabilitation of the residential building for a new industrial use is not practical because State Building Code requirements to ensure health and safety would result in extensive alterations of the residential home that has the potential to render to the resource not worthy of preservation; and c) The proposed demolition is necessary because failure to demolish the resource would adversely affect or detract from the character of the District. The project site is not located in a potential, proposed, or designated historic district. The surrounding properties are developed with industrial buildings and are not worthy of preservation; and
d) The resource proposed to be demolished has been assigned a Tier III designation. The HPSC designated the single-family residence a Tier III historic resource on November 10, 2021, as included in Attachment "A" of this report. (4) Development Plan (File No. PDEV21-030)
(a) Site Design/Building Layout. The proposed industrial building is rectangular in shape and will have an overall height of 45 feet, consistent with the development standards of the IG (General Industrial) zoning district. The building will include 4,500 square feet of office space and 170,173 square feet of warehouse space, having a floor area ratio (“FAR”) of 0.54. Passenger vehicle parking is proposed along the north and south sides of the building. The building's main entrance and visitor parking are located adjacent to Bon View Avenue. An outdoor employee patio area is proposed at the northwest corner of the lot.

A yard area designed for tractor-trailer parking, truck maneuvering, loading activities, and outdoor staging is proposed along the north side of the building and will be screened from public view by a combination of landscaping and 14-foot-high tilt-up decorative screen walls. The screen wall height may be reduced based on a sight-line analysis/wall section plan which shows that all roll-up doors, truck trailers, and any items stored outdoors will be completely screened from view from the public street. The proposed screen wall has been designed to match the architecture of the proposed building. In addition, tubular steel fencing at 8 feet in height has been proposed along the north, west, and a portion of the south property lines, transitioning to a 6-foot-high decorative 157
Planning Commission Staff Report
File Nos.: PZC21-001, PHP21-015, and PDEV21-030
December 20, 2021

wall with pilasters which will be constructed along the south-easterly portion of the project site to provide screening for an existing single-family residence. (b) Site Access and Circulation. The Project site will have two points of access from Bon View Avenue by way of a 40-foot-wide north driveway and a 30-foot-wide south driveway, with truck yard access through a gate-controlled system. A 26-foot drive aisle provides the proposed internal circulation. Pursuant to the conditions of approval, decorative pavement will be provided at all driveway approaches, which will extend from the back of the driveway apron, to the first intersecting drive aisle or parking space. (c) Parking. The Project has provided the required off-street parking pursuant to the "Warehouse and Distribution" parking standards specified in the Development Code. The off-street parking calculations for each building are as follows:

Parking Requirements
Type of Use Building Area Parking Ratio Spaces
Required
Spaces
Provided
Warehouse / Distribution 170,173
One space per 1,000 SF (0.001/SF) for
portion of GFA <20,000 SF, plus 0.5 space
per 1,000 SF (0.0005/SF) for GFA > 20,000 SF;
and
One tractor-trailer parking space per 4
dock-high loading doors:
• 23 dock-high loading doors proposed
• 19 tractor-trailer parking spaces are
provided
98 100
Office 4,500 SF
4 spaces per 1,000 SF (0.004/SF) of GFA
(parking required when "general business
offices" and other associated uses, exceed
10 percent of the building GFA (17,000 SF of
office allowed unless additional parking is
provided)))
0 0
TOTAL 174,603 SF 98 100
The number of off-street parking spaces provided for the building meets the minimum number of parking spaces required by the Development Code for warehouse/distribution facilities. In addition, the City's off-street parking and loading standards require the site to provide a minimum of one tractor-trailer parking space for every four dock-high loading spaces. Therefore, the number of tractor-trailer parking spaces provided for the buildings meets the minimum number required. (d) Architecture. The proposed building will be of concrete-tilt-up construction with enhanced features such as smooth painted concrete, metal siding, inset reveals, storefront windows, anodized clear aluminum mullions, and steel canopies throughout the façade of the building as depicted in Exhibit D—Proposed Elevations, attached. Staff 158
Planning Commission Staff Report
File Nos.: PZC21-001, PHP21-015, and PDEV21-030
December 20, 2021

believes the proposed Project illustrates the type of high-quality architecture promoted by the Development Code, which is exemplified through the use of:
 Articulation in the building footprint, incorporating a combination of recessed and popped-out wall areas; and
 Articulation in the building parapet/roofline, which serves to accentuate the building's entries and breaks up large expanses of building wall; and  A mix of exterior materials, finishes, and fixtures; and  Incorporation of base and top treatments defined by changes in color, materials, and recessed wall areas; and
 The building was designed to ensure that its massing and proportion, along with its colors and architectural detailing, are consistent on all four building elevations. (e) Landscaping. The Project provides landscaping along Bon View Avenue and around the project perimeter. The Development Code requires a minimum of 10 percent landscape coverage, which the Project exceeds at 10.14 percent. The proposed on-site and off-site landscape improvements will assist in creating a walkable, safe area for pedestrians to access the project site. The landscape plan incorporates a combination of 48-inch and 24-inch box trees along Bon View Avenue, which includes a mix of Western Toyon, Chinese Flame Tree, Eastern Red Bud, Chinese Pistache, Yew Pine, California Sycamore, and Brisbane Box; in addition, a mix of 15-gallon and 24-inch box accent and shade trees will be provided throughout the project site that includes Island Oak. A variety of shrubs and groundcovers are also being provided, which are low water usage or drought-tolerant (see Exhibit E—Landscape Plan, attached). (f) Health Risk Assessment. The Project site is within 1,000 feet of existing residential land uses located within Industrial zoning and The Ontario Plan (“TOP”) Policy Plan land use designations. As such, the Applicant was required to prepare a Health Risk Assessment (“HRA”) to determine whether the proposed Project would pose a health risk to the existing housing units in the vicinity of the project site. The HRA analyzed the cancer burden estimates as well as the Project operational Toxic Air Contaminants (“TACs”) impact from Diesel Particulate Matter (“DPM”) emissions. Both analyses concluded that these factors would be less than significant; therefore, no mitigation is required for the Project beyond that which was previously analyzed in the TOP Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2008101140), as certified by the Ontario City Council on January 27, 2010.
(g) Utilities (drainage, sewer). Public utilities (water and sewer) are available to serve the Project. The Applicant submitted a Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (“PWQMP”), which establishes the Project's compliance with stormwater discharge/water quality requirements. The PWQMP includes site design measures that capture runoff and pollutant transport by minimizing impervious surfaces and maximizes low impact development (“LID”) best management practices (“BMPs”), such as retention and infiltration of biotreatment and evapotranspiration. The PWQMP proposes the use of an underground stormwater chamber system for the Project. Any overflow drainage will 159
Planning Commission Staff Report
File Nos.: PZC21-001, PHP21-015, and PDEV21-030
December 20, 2021

be conveyed to the 48-inch storm drain located within Bon View Avenue via an 18-inch storm service lateral.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE ONTARIO PLAN: The proposed Project is consistent with the principles, goals, and policies contained within the Vision, Governance, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of TOP. More specifically, the goals and policies of TOP that are furthered by the proposed Project are as follows:
(1) City Council Goals.
 Invest in the Growth and Evolution of the City's Economy  Operate in a Businesslike Manner
 Focus Resources in Ontario's Commercial and Residential Neighborhoods  Invest in the City's Infrastructure (Water, Streets, Sewers, Parks, Storm Drains and Public Facilities)
(2) Vision.

Distinctive Development:
 Commercial and Residential Development
 Development quality that is broadly recognized as distinctive and not exclusively tied to the general suburban character typical of much of Southern California. (3) Governance.

Decision Making:
 Goal G1: Sustained decision-making that consistently moves Ontario towards its Vision by using The Ontario Plan as a framework for assessing choices.  G1-2 Long-term Benefit. We require decisions to demonstrate and document how they add value to the community and support the Ontario Vision (4) Policy Plan (General Plan).

Land Use Element:
 LU1-6 Complete Community. We incorporate a variety of land uses and building types in our land use planning efforts that result in a complete community where residents at all stages of life, employers, workers, and visitors have a wide spectrum of choices of where they can live, work, shop and recreate within Ontario. (Refer to Complete Community Section of Community Economics Element).  Goal LU2: Compatibility between a wide range of uses. 160
Planning Commission Staff Report
File Nos.: PZC21-001, PHP21-015, and PDEV21-030
December 20, 2021

Community Economics Element:
 CE2-1 Development Projects. We require new development and redevelopment to create unique, high-quality places that add value to the community.  CE2-2 Development Review. We require those proposing new development and redevelopment to demonstrate how their projects will create appropriately unique, functional and sustainable places that will compete well with their competition within the region.
 CE2-4 Protection of Investment. We require that new development and redevelopment protect existing investment by providing architecture and urban design of equal or greater quality.
 CE2-5 Private Maintenance. We require adequate maintenance, upkeep, and investment in private property because proper maintenance on private property protects property values.

Safety Element:
 Goal S1: Minimized risk of injury, loss of life, property damage and economic and social disruption caused by earthquake-induced and other geologic hazards.  S1-1 Implementation of Regulations and Standards. We require that all new habitable structures be designed in accordance with the most recent California Building Code adopted by the City, including provisions regarding lateral forces and grading.

Community Design Element:
 CD1-3 Neighborhood Improvement. We require viable existing residential and non-residential neighborhoods to be preserved, protected, and enhanced in accordance with our land use policies.
 Goal CD2: A high level of design quality resulting in public spaces, streetscapes, and developments that are attractive, safe, functional and distinct.  CD2-1 Quality Architecture. We encourage all development projects to convey visual interest and character through:
• Building volume, massing, and height to provide appropriate scale and proportion;
• A true architectural style which is carried out in plan, section and elevation through all aspects of the building and site design and appropriate for its setting; and
161
Planning Commission Staff Report
File Nos.: PZC21-001, PHP21-015, and PDEV21-030
December 20, 2021

• Exterior building materials that are visually interesting, high quality, durable, and appropriate for the architectural style.
 CD2-7 Sustainability. We collaborate with the development community to design and build neighborhoods, streetscapes, sites, outdoor spaces, landscaping and buildings to reduce energy demand through solar orientation, maximum use of natural daylight, passive solar and natural ventilation, building form, mechanical and structural systems, building materials and construction techniques.  CD2-8 Safe Design. We incorporate defensible space design into new and existing developments to ensure the maximum safe travel and visibility on pathways, corridors, and open space and at building entrances and parking areas by avoiding physically and visually isolated spaces, maintenance of visibility and accessibility, and use of lighting.
 CD2-9 Landscape Design. We encourage durable landscaping materials and designs that enhance the aesthetics of structures, create and define public and private spaces, and provide shade and environmental benefits.  CD2-10 Surface Parking Areas. We require parking areas visible to or used by the public to be landscaped in an aesthetically pleasing, safe and environmentally sensitive manner. Examples include shade trees, pervious surfaces, urban runoff capture and infiltration, and pedestrian paths to guide users through the parking field.  CD2-11 Entry Statements. We encourage the inclusion of amenities, signage and landscaping at the entry to neighborhoods, commercial centers, mixed use areas, industrial developments, and public places that reinforce them as uniquely identifiable places.
 CD2-12 Site and Building Signage. We encourage the use of sign programs that utilize complementary materials, colors, and themes. Project signage should be designed to effectively communicate and direct users to various aspects of the development and complement the character of the structures.  CD2-13 Entitlement Process. We work collaboratively with all stakeholders to ensure a high degree of certainty in the efficient review and timely processing of all development plans and permits.
 CD3-3 Building Entrances. We require all building entrances to be accessible and visible from adjacent streets, sidewalks or public open spaces.  CD3-5 Paving. We require sidewalks and road surfaces to be of a type and quality that contributes to the appearance and utility of streets and public spaces. 162
Planning Commission Staff Report
File Nos.: PZC21-001, PHP21-015, and PDEV21-030
December 20, 2021

 CD3-6 Landscaping. We utilize landscaping to enhance the aesthetics, functionality and sustainability of streetscapes, outdoor spaces and buildings.  Goal CD5: A sustained level of maintenance and improvement of properties, buildings and infrastructure that protects the property values and encourages additional public and private investments.
 CD5-1 Maintenance of Buildings and Property. We require all public and privately owned buildings and property (including trails and easements) to be properly and consistently maintained.

HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE: The Project is consistent with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan (General Plan) component of TOP, as the project site is not one of the properties in the Available Land Inventory contained in Table A-3 (Available Land by Planning Area) of the Housing Element Technical Report Appendix.

AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN (ALUCP) COMPLIANCE: The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the Ontario International Airport Land use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. The proposed Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport and was evaluated and found to be consistent with the policies and criteria of the ALUCP. Any special conditions of approval associated with uses in close proximity to the airport are included in the conditions of approval provided with the attached Resolution.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The related Applications establish a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA") and an Initial Study/Addendum has been prepared to determine possible environmental impacts. Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Certified EIR and have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Certified EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed project, nothing further is required. The Project will introduce no new significant environmental impacts beyond those previously analyzed in the Certified EIR, and all mitigation measures previously adopted by the Environmental Impact Report, are a condition of project approval and are incorporated in the Initial Study/Addendum.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: See attached department reports. 163
Planning Commission Staff Report
File Nos.: PZC21-001, PHP21-015, and PDEV21-030
December 20, 2021

TECHNICAL APPENDIX:

Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:

Existing Land Use General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Site
Single-Family Residential
/Industrial/ Office and SelfstorageIndustrial (0.55 FAR) IL (Light Industrial) IG (General Industrial)
North Industrial Industrial (0.55 FAR) IG (General Industrial) South Single-Family Residential/
Storage Yard Industrial (0.55 FAR) IL (Light Industrial) East Industrial Industrial (0.55 FAR) IL (Light Industrial) West Industrial/ Storage Yard Industrial (0.55 FAR) IL (Light Industrial) and IG (General Industrial)
General Site & Building Statistics
Item Proposed Min./Max. Standard
Meets
Y/N
Project Area: 7.47 AC N/A Y
Lot/Parcel Size: 325, 285 SF 1 AC (Min.) Y
Building Area: 174,603 SF N/A Y
Floor Area Ratio: 0.54 0.55 (Max.) Y
Building Height: 45 FT 55 FT (Max.) Y
Off-Street Parking:

Type of Use Building Area Parking Ratio Spaces
Required
Spaces
Provided
Warehouse / Distribution 170,173
One space per 1,000 SF (0.001/SF) for
portion of GFA <20,000 SF, plus 0.5 space
per 1,000 SF (0.0005/SF) for GFA > 20,000 SF;
and
One tractor-trailer parking space per 4
dock-high loading doors:
• 23 dock-high loading doors proposed
• 19 tractor-trailer parking spaces are
provided
98 100
Office 4,500 SF
4 spaces per 1,000 SF (0.004/SF) of GFA
(parking required when "general business
offices" and other associated uses, exceed
10 percent of the building GFA (4,000 SF of
office allowed unless additional parking is
provided)))
0 0
164
Planning Commission Staff Report
File Nos.: PZC21-001, PHP21-015, and PDEV21-030
December 20, 2021

Exhibit A—EXISTING SITE
7 North Multi-Tenant
Building
6 South Multi-Tenant
Building
5 North Industrial Building
(Built 1966-1980)
4 South Industrial Building
(Built 1966-1980)
3 Commercial Building
(Built 1966-1980)
1 Craftsman Residence
(Est. 1914)
2 Detached Garage
(Built before 1980)
165
Planning Commission Staff Report
File Nos.: PZC21-001, PHP21-015, and PDEV21-030
December 20, 2021

Exhibit B—SITE PHOTOS
Primary Façade – East Elevation North Elevation
South Elevation West Elevation
Detached Garage (Built before 1980) Commercial Building (Built 1966-1980) 1 2 3
166
Planning Commission Staff Report
File Nos.: PZC21-001, PHP21-015, and PDEV21-030
December 20, 2021

Southern Industrial Building (Built 1966-1980) Northern Industrial Building (Built 1966-1980) South Multi-Tenant Building North Multi-Tenant Building 4 5
6 7
167
Planning Commission Staff Report
File Nos.: PZC21-001, PHP21-015, and PDEV21-030
December 20, 2021

Exhibit C—PROPOSED SITE PLAN
26’ Fire Lane
26’ Fire Lane
Office
N
168
Planning Commission Staff Report
File Nos.: PZC21-001, PHP21-015, and PDEV21-030
December 20, 2021

Exhibit D—PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
169
Planning Commission Staff Report
File Nos.: PZC21-001, PHP21-015, and PDEV21-030
December 20, 2021

Exhibit E—LANDSCAPE PLAN
170
Planning Commission Staff Report
File Nos.: PZC21-001, PHP21-015, and PDEV21-030
December 20, 2021

EXHIBIT F—ZONE CHANGE
AR-2, ResidentialAgriculturalPUD, Planned Unit
Development BP, Business Park OS-R, Open Space - Recreation RE-2, Rural Estate
MU, Mixed Use
1 – Downtown, 2-East Holt,
11-Francis&Euclid
IP, Industrial Park OS-C, Open SpaceCemetery
RE-4, Residential Estate CS, Corner Store IL, Light Industrial UC, Utilities Corridor LDR-5, Low Density
Residential
CN, Neighborhood
Commercial
IG, General
Industrial SP, Specific Plan
MDR-11, Low-Medium
Density Residential
CC, Community
Commercial
IH, Heavy
Industrial
SP(AG), Specific Plan
with Agricultural
Overlay
MDR-18, Medium Density
Residential
CCS, Convention
Center Support
ONT, Ontario Int'l
Airport
ES, Emergency Shelter
Overlay
MDR-25, Medium-High
Density Residential
OL, Low Intensity
Office CIV, Civic MTC, Multimodal Transit Center Overlay HDR-45, High Density
Residential
OH, High Intensity
Office RC, Rail Corridor ICC, Interim Community Commercial Overlay MHP, Mobile Home Park

EXISTING PROPOSED
TOP: Industrial (0.55 FAR) Industrial (0.55 FAR)
Zoning: IL (Light Industrial) IG (General Industrial)
Parcels: (1 Property)
1050-441-05
APN: 1050-441-05 APN: 1050-441-05
171
Planning Commission Staff Report
File Nos.: PZC21-001, PHP21-015, and PDEV21-030
December 20, 2021

Attachment A: TIER DETERMINATION
(Document follows this page)
172

HISTORIC PRESERVATION SUBCOMMITTEE/COMMISSION

Robert Morales, Assistant Planner

TIER DETERMINATION
Date: November 10, 2021
Location: 1948 South Bon View Avenue
Historic Name: None
APN: 1050-441-05
Description:

The 1,008 square foot residence was
constructed in 1914 (est.) in the Craftsman
architectural style. The residence is located at
the eastern end of the parcel, has a rectangular
footprint, a medium-pitched front-facing gabled
roof and is clad in stone on all façades. The
primary façade of the residence is symmetrical
with thin horizontal wood clapboard and a
square louver vent in the front-facing gable and
triangular knee braces under the eaves. The
primary façade is defined by its full-façade
porch with four square columns clad in stone
that extend from the roofline to the ground level.

The primary façade is inset below the primary
roofline. The porch is enclosed with an
approximately 2-foot-tall wall clad in stone. A
stoop constructed of stone, extends from the
center of the porch with concrete planters set
on top of the end caps. The door is flanked by
aluminum Chicago-style windows with sliding
sides and a central fixed light. Both windows
also have bold concrete headers and wood.

The southern façade has minimal eave
overhang. The façade has three single-hung
aluminum windows with wood surrounds and
concrete headers. The fourth window near the
center of the façade has been boarded.

The northern façade has minimal eave
overhang and window types including singlehung, fixed, and Chicago-style aluminum. An end-wall chimney constructed with stone is
located near the eastern end of the façade.

The western (rear) façade has an enclosed
porch addition. There is thin horizontal wood
clapboard and a square louver vent in the gable
Decision Date: November 10, 2021
Related Files: PHP21-018
Decision Making Body: HPSC
Tier Determination: III
Current Historic Status: Eligible
173
TIER DETERMINATION CONT.

Location: 1948 South Bon View Avenue

Robert Morales, Assistant Planner
and three triangular knee braces under the
eave.

INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY HISTORIC DISTRICT

TIER DETERMINATION
Tier I – Properties which should not be demolished or significantly altered. These properties are the most significant historical or cultural properties and must meet any of the following:

A property listed on the City’s List of Eligible Historical Resources and meets at least 1 of the architectural category and 3 criteria in the history category as listed below; A contributing structure in a district where the district meets 1 of the criterion in the architecture category and 3 criterion in the history category.

Tier II – Properties where demolition should be avoided. These properties must meet any of the following:

Any property listed or determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places; or
174
TIER DETERMINATION CONT.

Location: 1948 South Bon View Avenue

Robert Morales, Assistant Planner
Any property listed or determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources; or
A property listed on the City’s List of Eligible Historical Resources and meets at least 2 of the criteria in either the architecture or history categories; or A contributing structure in a Eligible Historic District where the district meets at least 2 of the criteria in either architecture or history categories.

Tier III – Properties where demolition should be avoided where possible but may be appropriate under certain circumstances. These properties must be one of the following:

Designated Historic Landmarks, or
Contributing structures in a Designated Historic District, or Eligible Historical Resources as defined in Section 7.01.010.

TIER CRITERIA
Architecture (Check all that apply)
The structure is (or the district contains resources which are) a prototype of, or one of the finest examples of a period, style, architectural movement, or construction in the City or a particular style of architecture or building type.

The structure is (or the district contains resources which are) the first, last, only, or one of the finest examples, notable works, or the best surviving work by an architect or designer or major importance to the City, state or nation.

Explanation:

The Craftsman style residence is a fine example of the early Craftsman style of architecture which is evidenced by the survival of the building’s character-defining features, such as the wide-open eaves and exposed rafters, large gable style dormer, and wood framed hung, fixed, and its cladding of local stone makes its construction unique within the City. The residence retains its location, design, materials, workmanship, setting, feeling, and association therefore the integrity is high.

History (Check all that apply)
It is the location of an historic event(s) that have had a significant contribution to the history of the City, state or nation.

It is associated with a business, company, or individual that has made a significant, cultural, social, or scientific contribution to the City, state, or nation.

It is identified with a person(s) who has exerted a major influence on the heritage or history of the City, state, or nation.

It embodies the ideals or principles of the “Model Colony” or furthers the ideals or principals established by the Chaffey Brothers.

It has a direct relationship to one of the principle historic contexts in the City’s history, including:

The Model Colony including the Chaffey Bros., and Ontario Land and Improvement Co. 175
TIER DETERMINATION CONT.

Location: 1948 South Bon View Avenue

Robert Morales, Assistant Planner
The Guasti Winery or the Wine Industry
The Dairy Preserve, or the Dairy Industry
The Citrus Context, or the Citrus Industry
It is related with a business, company or individual significant in the agricultural history of the City.

Explanation:.

Research information on property was limited due to location of property and temporary closure of public offices. As such, no information was found to suggest that the identified previous owners or residents were historic personages, or that any other individuals of historic significance were associated with the property.

Sources include Sapphos Environmental, Inc. 2021 Historic Resource Assessment 176
RESOLUTION NO. PC21-089

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL

APPROVE THE USE OF AN ADDENDUM TO THE ONTARIO PLAN

CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2008101140), FOR WHICH AN INITIAL STUDY

WAS PREPARED, ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AS AMENDED, FOR FILE NOS.

PZC21-001, PHP21-015, AND PDEV21-030.

WHEREAS, BON VIEW LAND 10, LLC & BV INVESTMENTS 10, LLC., (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant") has filed Applications for the approval of a Zone Change, File No. PZC21-001, Certificate of Appropriateness, File No. PHP21-015, and a Development Plan, File No. PDEV21-030, which consists of: (1) a Zone Change (File No.

PZC21-001) from IL (Light Industrial) to IG (General Industrial) on 2.77 acres of land; (2) a Certificate of Appropriateness (File No. PHP21-015) to facilitate the demolition of an existing Tier III historic eligible structure (1914 Craftsman Single-Family Residence) to accommodate a proposed industrial development; and (3) a Development Plan (File No.

PDEV21-030) to construct a 174,603-square-foot industrial building on 7.47 acres of land located on the west side of Bon View Avenue, 132 feet north of Cedar Street, in the City of Ontario, California (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and WHEREAS, The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2008101140) was certified by the City Council on January 27, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "Certified EIR"), in which development and use of the Project site was discussed; and
WHEREAS, prior to the adoption of this Resolution, the Planning Director of the City of Ontario prepared and approved for attachment to the certified Environmental Impact Report, an addendum to The Ontario Plan Certified Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2008101140) for File Nos. PZC21-001, PHP21-015, and PDEV21-030 (hereinafter referred to as "EIR Addendum"), all in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with State and local guidelines implementing said Act, all as amended to date (collectively referred to as "CEQA"); and
WHEREAS, the EIR Addendum concluded that implementation of the Project could result in a number of significant effects on the environment and identified mitigation measures that would reduce each of those significant effects to a less-than-significant level; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines Section 15164(a), a lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR 177
Planning Commission Resolution
File Nos. PZC21-001, PHP21-015, and PDEV21-030
December 20, 2021

if some changes or additions are necessary to a project, but the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not required; and
WHEREAS, the City determined that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact Report would occur from the Project, and that preparation of an addendum to the Environmental Impact Report was appropriate; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ontario is the lead agency on the Project, and the Planning Commission is the recommending authority for the Zone Change (File No. PZC21-001) and the Planning/Historic Preservation Commission is the decision-making authority for the Certificate of Appropriateness (File No. PHP21-015) and Development Plan (File No.

PDEV21-030) applications; and
WHEREAS, the Planning/Historic Preservation Commission’s actions on the Certificate of Appropriateness (File No. PHP21-015) and Development Plan (File No.

PDEV21-030) applications will not be final and complete until the Zone Change (File No.

PZC21-001) has been approved by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the EIR Addendum for the Project, has concluded that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent of supplemental Environmental Impact Report have occurred, and intends to take actions on the Project in compliance with CEQA and state and local guidelines implementing CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the EIR Addendum for the Project are on file in the Planning Department, located at 303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764, are available for inspection by any interested person at that location and are, by this reference, incorporated into this Resolution as if fully set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario, as follows:

SECTION 1: Environmental Determination and Findings. As the recommending authority for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
178
Planning Commission Resolution
File Nos. PZC21-001, PHP21-015, and PDEV21-030
December 20, 2021

(1) The environmental impacts of this project were reviewed in conjunction with an Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2008101140) adopted by City Council on January 27, 2010, in conjunction with File No. PGPA06-001; and
(2) The EIR Addendum and administrative record have been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
(3) The City's "Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" provide for the use of a single environmental assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed. This Application introduces no new significant environmental impacts; and (4) All previously adopted mitigation measures shall be a condition of project approval, as they are applicable to the Project, and are incorporated herein by this reference; and
(5) The EIR Addendum contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project, and reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and
(6) There is no substantial evidence in the administrative record supporting a fair argument that the project may result in significant environmental impacts.

SECTION 2: Additional Environmental Review Not Required. Based on the Addendum, all related information presented to the Planning Commission, and the specific findings set forth in Section 1, above, the Planning Commission finds that the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact Report is not required for the Project, as the Project:
(1) Does not constitute substantial changes to the Certified EIR that will require major revisions to the Certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and
(2) Does not constitute substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Certified EIR was prepared, that will require major revisions to the Certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects; and 179
Planning Commission Resolution
File Nos. PZC21-001, PHP21-015, and PDEV21-030
December 20, 2021

(3) Does not contain new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Certified EIR was certified/adopted, that shows any of the following:
(a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the Certified EIR; or
(b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the Certified EIR; or
(c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the City declined to adopt such measures; or (d) Mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed in the Certified EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but which the City declined to adopt.

SECTION 3: Planning Commission Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 and 2, above, the Planning Commission hereby finds that based upon the entire record of proceedings before it, and all information received, that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will constitute substantial changes to the Certified EIR, and does hereby recommend that the City Council approve the EIR Addendum, attached hereto as "Attachment A," and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 4: Indemnification. The Applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless, the City of Ontario or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Ontario or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul this approval. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding, and the City of Ontario shall cooperate fully in the defense.

SECTION 5: Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Ontario City Hall, 303 East "B" Street, Ontario, California 91764. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk of the City of Ontario.

SECTION 6: Certification to Adoption. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of the Resolution.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
180
181
182
Planning Commission Resolution
File Nos. PZC21-001, PHP21-015, and PDEV21-030
December 20, 2021

Attachment A—EIR Addendum
To view this Attachment -
Go to the City of Ontario Planning Department Website at Ontarioca.gov/Planning
(The document was too large to be included in the Agenda Packet.) 183

ADDENDUM TO THE ONTARIO PLAN EIR

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 2008101140)

BON VIEW PROJECT
Prepared For:

City of Ontario
303 East “B” Street
Ontario, California 91764
Prepared By:

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
3880 Lemon Street, Suite 420
Riverside, CA 92501
December2021
184
185
Table of Contents
The Ontario Plan EIR i Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Purpose of the Addendum......................................................................................................1 2 Description of Proposed Project ..............................................................................................3

2.1 Project Setting and Location ........................................................................................ 3

2.2 Project Description..................................................................................................... 4

2.3 Construction Schedule ................................................................................................ 5

2.4 Project Approvals....................................................................................................... 5 3 The Ontario Plan EIR Environmental Impact Analysis Summary..................................................21 4 Bon View Avenue Warehouse Project Environmental Impact Analysis and Project Approvals.........23

4.1 Aesthetics................................................................................................................24

4.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources.............................................................................27

4.3 Air Quality................................................................................................................29

4.4 Biological Resources..................................................................................................36

4.5 Cultural Resources.....................................................................................................40

4.6 Geology and Soils......................................................................................................43

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Global Climate Change).......................................................47

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials................................................................................49

4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality......................................................................................54

4.10 Land Use and Planning ...............................................................................................58

4.11 Mineral Resources.....................................................................................................60

4.12 Noise.......................................................................................................................61

4.13 Population and Housing .............................................................................................66

4.14 Public Services..........................................................................................................68

4.15 Recreation ...............................................................................................................70

4.16 Transportation..........................................................................................................71

4.17 Utilities and Service Systems.......................................................................................74

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources............................................................................................78

4.19 Energy.....................................................................................................................81

4.20 Wildfire ...................................................................................................................82 5 Determination of Appropriate CEQA Documentation ...............................................................85 6 Conclusion.........................................................................................................................89 7 References.........................................................................................................................91 186
Table of Contents
The Ontario Plan EIR ii Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report

LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map ..................................................................................................7 Exhibit 2: Project Vicinity Map ......................................................................................................9 Exhibit 3: Conceptual Site Plan....................................................................................................11 Exhibit 4.1: Elevations................................................................................................................13 Exhibit 4.2: Conceptual Elevations...............................................................................................15 Exhibit 5: Conceptual Landscape Plan ..........................................................................................17 Exhibit 6: Conceptual Grading Plan..............................................................................................19

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Assessor Parcel Numbers.................................................................................................3 Table 2: Construction Health Risk................................................................................................33 Table 3: Operational Health Risk .................................................................................................33 Table 4: Chronic and Acute Hazards.............................................................................................34 Table 5: Typical Construction Equipment Noise and Vibration Levels................................................63

LIST OF APPENDICES
A. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B. Cultural Resource Technical Report
C. Health Risk Assessment
D. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
187
Purpose of the Addendum
The Ontario Plan EIR 1 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
1 PURPOSE OF THE ADDENDUM
This Addendum has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000 et seq.); the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 15000 et seq.); and the rules, regulations, and procedures for implementing CEQA as set forth by the City of Ontario (City). The City is the lead agency under the CEQA.

Section 15164(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states that “the lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.” Pursuant to Section 15162(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, a subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) or Negative Declaration is only required when:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

The Ontario Plan (Ontario General Plan [GP]) and Final Environmental Impact Report (Ontario GP EIR) was adopted by the City Council on January 27, 2010.1 The Ontario GP is intended to guide the City’s growth and development. While the document was not created with an expiration timeline, the information used 1 City of Ontario. (2010). Monthly Activity Report—Actions Month of: January 2010. Page 2. Retrieved from:
https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/Monthly-Activity-Reports/january_2010.pdf (Accessed August 19, 2021)
188
Purpose of the Addendum
The Ontario Plan EIR 2 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
in its creation and goals that were created were based on a 2035 horizon year. Since its certification, the Ontario GP and Ontario GP EIR have been the basis for growth metrics in the City and act as the guidelines for continued development within the City. The Ontario Plan includes six components which create a more comprehensive guideline.

1. The Vision Component provides a broad outlook at the City’s character and the ideal direction of future growth. This component outlines the intention of the Ontario GP and the foundational concepts necessary for the creation of a prosperous community. These concepts include dynamic balance, a prosperous economy, distinctive development, and recognized leadership.

2. The Governance Manual contextualizes the Ontario GP as a business plan for the City. It explains how The Ontario Plan is a tool for decision making and communication.

3. The Policy Plan states long-term goals, principles, and policies for achieving Ontario’s Vision. This component acts as the direct guide for continued growth and development within the City and fully defines each aspect of life within the City. The policy plan addresses each aspect of life within the City through seven elements:
a. Land Use
b. Community Design
c. Community Economics
d. Environmental Resources
e. Safety
f. Social Resources
g. Mobility

4. The City Council Priorities consist of short term actions and objectives considered by the current City council. These goals span a single fiscal year with the current set of goals to be implemented in the 2020/2021 fiscal year.

5. Implementation describes the methods that the City intends to use in order to fully realize the goals of the Ontario GP. These methods include the formation of partnerships with other public or private entities and the adoption of master plans for physical developments or service systems including capital improvement programs and recreation master plans. Other methods relied upon to implement the City’s goals include the creation of city initiatives, the consistent continuation of operational programs, and the facilitation of development projects.

6. Tracking and Feedback includes a system for public employees and private residents to adequately communicate with City departments and provide transparency in City operations. 189
Description of Proposed Project
The Ontario Plan EIR 3 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT

2.1 Project Setting and Location
The Project site is located in the western portion of the City on the west side of Bon View Avenue approximately 130 feet north of the northwest corner of the intersection of Cedar Street and Bon View Avenue. Exhibit 1, Regional Location Map and Exhibit 2, Project Vicinity Map show the Project’s location within the overall City as well as the Project’s location within the surrounding community, respectively.

Regional access to the site would be via California State Highway 60 (CA-60) approximately 0.5milessouth of the Project site with the nearest exit/entrance ramp located approximately 0.7 miles southeast of the Project, at CA-60’s intersection with Grove Avenue.

The Project would occupy a 7.47 net acre site within the City and includes the following fifty-five (55) Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs): 1050-441-05, 1050-441-09, 1050-441-11 through -62, and 1050-441-73.

Note: The following APNs are condominium units via a previously recorded condominium plan, which will be removed prior to the Project’s construction commencement: 1050-441-11 through -62.

Table 1: Assessor Parcel Numbers
1050-441-05 1050-441-09 1050-441-11 1050-441-12 1050-441-13 1050-441-14 1050-441-15 1050-441-16 1050-441-17 1050-441-18 1050-441-19 1050-441-20 1050-441-21 1050-441-22 1050-441-23 1050-441-24 1050-441-25 1050-441-26 1050-441-27 1050-441-28 1050-441-29 1050-441-30 1050-441-31 1050-441-32 1050-441-33 1050-441-34 1050-441-35 1050-441-36 1050-441-37 1050-441-38 1050-441-39 1050-441-40 1050-441-41 1050-441-42 1050-441-43 1050-441-44 1050-441-45 1050-441-46 1050-441-47 1050-441-48 1050-441-49 1050-441-50 1050-441-51 1050-441-52 1050-441-53 1050-441-54 1050-441-55 1050-441-56 1050-441-57 1050-441-58 1050-441-59 1050-441-60 1050-441-61 1050-441-62 1050-441-73 The Project site is currently disturbed and developed with industrial uses and other improvements. The northern portion of the Project site contains two multi-tenant industrial buildings and surface lot improvements. The northeastern portion of the Project site includes three driveways connecting to Bon View Avenue. The remainder of the northern portion of the Project site consists of maintained grasses.

The southern portion of the Project site (APN 1050-441-05) contains four buildings, four shed structures, and one driveway connecting to Bon View Avenue. A residential building is located in the southeast corner of the Project site beside a large, shed structure. The southern portion of the Project, beside the residential property, is fully paved and used for parking and outdoor storage. Some trees are also present in both the northern and southern portions of the Project site. 190
Description of Proposed Project
The Ontario Plan EIR 4 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Surrounding land uses include:

North/Northwest: Five (5) industrial warehouse buildings.

South: Non-Conforming residential building with ancillary industrial truck parking/outdoor storage East: Bon View Avenue and two warehouse buildings.

West: Four (4) warehouse buildings.

The Project site’s General Plan land use and zoning designations are as follows:
• General Plan Land Use: Industrial2
• Zoning: General Industrial (IG), Light Industrial (IL)3 While all the Project parcels have a General Plan land use designation of Industrial, only APN 1050-441-05 is zoned as Light Industrial(IL), while the remaining parcels are zoned General Industrial(IG).

2.2 Project Description
The Project proposes the development of one 174,603 square foot (sf) warehouse building containing 170,103 sf of refrigerated warehouse space and approximately 4,500 sf of two-story office space in the southeast corner of the proposed building. The Project site would have a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.54 (0.55 FAR is the maximum allowed in Industrial land use areas) and the proposed building would have an approximate building height of 45’ (maximum of 55’ permitted). Project site improvements would also include surface parking, landscaping, and internal drive aisles. Access to the Project site would be established through two driveways along the eastern portion of the site connecting to Bon View Avenue.

The Project is speculative in nature; the end user, their use of the potential refrigerated warehouse space, and their hours of operation are unknown at this time. However, to be conservative, it has been assumed that the building would operate 24 hours per day/7 days per week for the Addendum’s Health Risk Assessment (Appendix C) referenced herein. Exhibit 3, Conceptual Site Plan, Exhibit 4.1, Elevations, and Exhibit 4.2, Conceptual Elevations visualizes the proposed Project’s dimensions and planned improvements.

2.2.1 Access
Regional
Regional access to the Project site is provided via CA-60, approximately 0.5 mile south of the Project site, with exits at Grove Avenue and Euclid Avenue.

Local
Local access to the Project site is provided via Bon View Avenue which is an 88’ Right of Way (ROW) collector street that trendsin a north-south direction. 2 City of Ontario. 2010. Exhibit LU-01 Land Use Plan. https://www.ontarioplan.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2021/05/TOPLUP_Map24x3610_6_20210524_V_1.pdf (accessed August 2021). 3 City of Ontario. Rev. 2021. Zoning Map. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/Documents/Zoning%20Map/Zoning_20210212.pdf (accessed August 2021). 191
Description of Proposed Project
The Ontario Plan EIR 5 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Project Site
Project site main ingress and egress driveway would be provided via one 40-foot wide driveway (north) and one 30’ – 6” wide driveway (south) located along the eastern border of the site along Bon View Avenue. The driveways would connect directly to Bon View Avenue and allow full access movement for both vehicles and trucks.

2.2.2 Parking
The Project would include the provision of 100 standard 9’x18’ stalls and 19 12’x45’ trailer parking stalls. Per City requirements, the Project is required to provide 98 standard stalls and six trailer stalls, and as such, provides sufficient parking.

2.2.3 Landscaping
The Project is anticipated to landscape approximately 10.14 percent (32,529 sf) of the Project site, which is greater than the minimum required 10 percent (32,529 sf) as required by the Ontario Development Code. For additional detail, please refer to Exhibit 5, Conceptual Landscape Plan.

2.2.4 Site Excavation and Grading Activities
The Project site is flat, sloping gently downward from north to the south and west to east, with change in ground surface elevation from approximately 872 feet to 864 feet. The soil cut would be 26,606 cubic yards (cy) and fill would also be 26,606 cy. As such, the Project site is anticipated to balance on-site and no need for soil import or export is anticipated; refer to Exhibit 6, Conceptual Grading Plan.

2.2.5 Site Drainage
There are five (5) onsite catch basins which convey stormwater via 12”-18” high-density polyethylene (HDPE)pipes into 206 underground infiltration chambers to treat the stormwater. Depending on the size of the storm event, the stormwater is either (1) entirely conveyed into the storm chambers where it is treatedby percolating into the soil, or (2) the 85th percentile percolates into the soil with the excess being discharged directly onto Bon View Avenue (there is no existing public storm drain to tie-into) through two (2) 4’-5’ parkway drains;refer to Exhibit 6, Conceptual GradingPlan.

2.3 Construction Schedule
Construction is anticipated to begin in July2022 and is anticipated to require nine (9) months, concluding in April 2023 (est.).

2.4 Project Approvals
The City is the Lead Agency as set forth in CEQA Statute Section 21067 and is responsible for reviewing and approving the Addendum to The Ontario Plan Ontario GP EIR. In addition to the Addendum, the City will consider the following discretionary approvals for the Project:
• Development Plan - Design of the proposed site and building improvements. 192
Description of Proposed Project
The Ontario Plan EIR 6 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
• Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) - Consolidation of three (3) parcels (currently 55 APN’s due to an existing, recorded condominium plan that is to be removed prior to the Project’s construction commencement) into one parcel.
• Zone Change – Rezone of southerly parcel totaling ±2.90 net acres (APN No. 1050-441-05) from Light Industrial (IL) to General Industrial (IG) to remove the existing “split” zoning on the Project site.
• Certificate of Appropriateness – Analysis of the approx. 1,008 square foot building located at 1948 S. Bon View Avenue (APN No. 1050-441-05) as a historic resource, and the required treatment thereof.
193
Not to scale
Source: Google Maps
Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map
Bon View Project
City of Ontario
Project Site
194
Description of Proposed Project
The Ontario Plan EIR 8 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
195
Not to scale
Source: Google Earth
Exhibit 2: Project Vicinity Map
Bon View Project
City of Ontario
E Cedar St
E Francis St
E Spruce St
E Boxwood Ct
E Birch Ct
S Campus Ave
S Bon View Ave
S Cucamonga Ave
196
Description of Proposed Project
The Ontario Plan EIR 10 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
197
Not to scale Exhibit 3: Conceptual Site Plan
Bon View Project
City of Ontario

PROJECT INFORMATION
198
Description of Proposed Project
The Ontario Plan EIR 12 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
199
Not to scale Exhibit 4: Conceptual Elevations
Bon View Project
City of Ontario
Elevations : Conceptua
Project
El Co 1: : Elevations
200
Description of Proposed Project
The Ontario Plan EIR 14 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
201
Not to scale Exhibit 4: Conceptual Elevations
Bon View Project
City of Ontario Elevations : Conceptua
Project
El Co 1: : 2: 1Elevations
Conceptual
: Elevations Elevations Conceptual Conceptua Elevations onceptual E
Elevations levations evations Conceptua
onceptual
Conceptua
202
Description of Proposed Project
The Ontario Plan EIR 16 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
203
Not to scale Exhibit 5: Conceptual Landscape Plan
Bon View Project
City of Ontario 204
Description of Proposed Project
The Ontario Plan EIR 18 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
205
Not to scale Exhibit 6: Conceptual Grading Plan
Bon View Project
City of Ontario 206
Environmental Impact Analysis Summary
The Ontario Plan EIR 20 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
207
Environmental Impact Analysis Summary
The Ontario Plan EIR 21 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
3 THE ONTARIO PLAN EIR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS SUMMARY The environmental impact findings of the Ontario GP EIR are summarizedbelow.

No Impact: The Ontario GP EIR determined that no impact would occur with respect to the following environmental topic areas below. These impacts were included in the Ontario GP EIR’s “Effects Found Not To Be Significant (EFNTBS)” section (Section 8.0 of the Draft EIR). • Aesthetics (EFNTBS I(b));
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials (EFNTBS VII(f)); and
• Noise (EFNTBS XI(f)).

Less Than Significant Impact: The Ontario GP EIR identified less than significant impacts in the following environmental topic areas:
• Aesthetics(Impacts 5.1.1 through5.1.3);
• Air Quality (Impact 5.3-4);
• Biological Resources (Impacts 5.4-1 through 5.4-5);
• Cultural Resources (Impact 5.5-3);
• Geology and Soils (Impacts 5.7-1 through 5.7-3);
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Impacts5.8-1 through 5.8-6); • Hydrology and Water Quality (Impacts 5.9-1 through 5.9-6); • Land Use and Planning (Impacts 5.10-1 through 5.10-3); • Mineral Resources (Impact 5.11-1);
• Population and Housing (Impacts 5.13-1, 5.13-2);
• Public Services(Impacts 5.14-1 through 5.14-4);
• Recreation (Impacts 5.15-1, 5.15-2);
• Transportation/Traffic (Impacts 5.16-2 through 5.16-5); and • Utilities and Service Systems (Impacts 5.17-2 through 5.17-5).

Less Than Significant Impact with Incorporation of Mitigation: The Ontario GP EIR identified impacts that could bemitigatedtolessthansignificant levels withincorporationofmitigationmeasuresinthe following environmental topic areas:
• Cultural Resources (Impact 5.5-2);
• Noise (Impact 5.12-4); and
• Utilities and Service Systems (Impact 5.17-1).

Significant and Unavoidable Impact: The Ontario GP EIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts in the following environmental topic areas:
• Agriculture Resources (Impacts 5.2-1 through 5.2-3);
• Air Quality (Impacts 5.3-1, 5.3-2, 5.3-3, 5.3-5, 5.3-6); 208
Environmental Impact Analysis Summary
The Ontario Plan EIR 22 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
• Cultural Resources (Impact 5.5-1);
• Global Climate Change (Impact 5.6-1);
• Noise (Impact 5.12-1, 5.12-2, 5.12-3, 5.12-5, 5.12-6); and • Transportation/Traffic (Impact 5.16-1).
209
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 23 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
4 BON VIEW AVENUE WAREHOUSE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

ANALYSIS AND PROJECT APPROVALS
The scope of the City’s review of the Project is set forth in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. This review is limited to evaluating the environmental effects associated with the Project when compared to the Ontario GP as set forth in the Ontario GP EIR. This Addendum also reviews new information, if any, of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable due diligence at the time the Ontario GP EIR was certified. This evaluation includes a determination as to whether the changes proposed for the Project would result in any new significant impacts or more severe significant impact.

Although CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 does not stipulate the format or content of an Addendum, the topical areas identified in The Ontario Plan EIR were used as guidance for this Addendum. In addition, Section 15164(e) of the CEQA Guidelines states that “A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's findings on the Project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence.” This comparative analysis provides the City with the factual basis for determining whether any changes in the Project, any changes in circumstances, or any new information since the Ontario GP EIR was certified would require additional environmental review or preparation of an SEIR.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, the City has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that implementation of the Project does not propose substantial changes to the Ontario GP EIR, no substantial changes in circumstances would occur which would require major revisions to the Ontario GP EIR, and no new information of substantial importance has been revealed since the certification of Ontario GP EIR that would result in either new significant effects or an increase in the severity of previously analyzed significant effects.

A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)was adopted as a part of the Ontario GP EIR that minimized impacts associated with implementationof theOntario GP EIR. The previously adopted Ontario GP EIR mitigation measures applicable to the Project would be collectively imposed as the Project’s MMRP, which is contained in Appendix A.
210
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 24 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report

4.1 Aesthetics

4.1.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Ontario GP EIR concluded that further development of the City as proposed in the Ontario GP would not impact scenic vistas due to continued adherence to the applicable provisions of the Ontario Municipal Code (Ontario MC) andOntario Development Code. The visual character of the City would be accentuated with the implementation of the Ontario GP and its associated Community Design Element as well as continued compliance with the Ontario MC and Ontario Development Code. Furthermore, the Ontario GP’s continued adherence to the Ontario MC and Ontario Development Code was also anticipated to create a less than significant impact from the adverse generation of light and glare.

Impacts associatedwithscenic resources, long-term visual character, and light/glare were determined to be less than significant. No mitigation measures were deemed necessary.

4.1.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.1-1] No New or More Severe Impacts: The Project would not have a more severe or substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista than what was originally analyzed in the Ontario GP EIR. The Ontario GP EIR cited the San Gabriel Mountains as the main scenic vista visible from the City. It was concluded that the inclusion of provisions requiring retention of significant natural features and open space preservation of views, contour grading, natural landscaping, and architectural design that blends with the natural terrain of the City would ensure that future development would not interfere with the views of the City’s scenic vista.

The San Gabriel Mountains are visible north of the City and Project site. However, views of the San Gabriel Mountains are currently obstructed by existing development. As described in Section 2.1, Project Setting and Location, the Project would be developed within an area that has been previously developed for industrial and warehousing uses. This area is heavily developed with multiple warehousing buildings within the Project site as well as adjacent to the Project site to the north, south, east, and west.

Development of the Project would be required to comply with established City regulations regarding development and building dimensions. This includes those presented in Ontario Development Code Section 6.01.025 for industrial zoning districts. The Project would be within the acceptable threshold for building height, which would otherwise further impact views of the San Gabriel Mountains.

Accordingly, no new impacts relative to adverse effects on a scenic vista or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Ontario GP EIR would occur.

Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Ontario GP EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of no significant impact.

Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Ontario GP EIR
None identified in theOntario GP EIR.
211
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 25 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impact on a scenic vista(s). A less than significant impact was identified in the Ontario GP EIR with respect to scenic vistas. The Project would be designed consistent with the applicable guidelines and standards within the Ontario GP, Ontario MC, and Ontario Development Code. Therefore, no new and/or modified mitigation measures are required for issues related to aesthetics.

Threshold (b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a scenic highway? [Not analyzed in Ontario GP EIR]
Threshold (c) Conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.1-2]
No New or More Severe Impact: The Project site is not within or adjacent to a scenic highway. No eligible or officially designated highways exist within the City.4 The Project would change the site appearance from hosting four warehousing structures, a residential building, and outdoor storage areasto a warehouse building. The Project site is surrounded by land zoned for industrial use with a General Plan land use designation for industrial use. Accordingly, no new impacts relative to adverse aesthetic impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Ontario GP EIR would occur. As previously stated, the Project would comply with policies presented in the Ontario GP Community Design element. Compliance with the provisions of this element would ensure that the Project would be developed with not only modern architectural design sensibilities and materials, but also consistent with the established visual character of the area.

Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Ontario GP EIR
None identified in the Ontario GP EIR.

Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impacts on the City’s visual character or quality. A less than significant impact was identified in the Ontario GP EIR with respect to scenic vistas. The Project would be designedconsistent with the applicable guidelines and standards within the Ontario GP, Ontario MC, and Ontario Development Code. Therefore, no new and/or modified mitigation measures are required for issues related to aesthetics.
4 California Department of Transportation (CalTrans). (2018). California State Scenic Highway System Map. Retrieved from:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa (Accessed August 17, 2021) 212
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 26 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Threshold (d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.1-3] No New or More Severe Impact: As stated in the Ontario GP EIR, impacts regarding light and glare would remain less than significant as long as future projects complied with Ontario Development Code Section

6.01.025 (cited as Section 9-1.3325 in the Ontario GP EIR).

Consistent with theOntario Development Code, and as applicable, all exterior lighting shall be adequately controlled and shielded to prevent glare and undesirable illumination to adjacent properties or streets.

Adequate lighting levels shall be provided to ensure a safe environment, while not creating areas of intense light or glare. Light fixtures and poles shall also be designed and placed in a manner consistent and compatible with overall site and building design, and high-intensity security lighting fixtures shall not be substituted for site or landscape lighting or general building exterior illumination, but shall be limited to loading and storage locations or other similar service areas. In addition, all lighting provided to illuminate parking areas or buildings shall be positioned so as to direct light away from adjoining properties.

These regulations are considered to be either design measures or existing regulations pursuant to CEQA standards. Incorporation of such features into the Project would ensure proper design, installation, and operation of all exterior lighting, thereby reducing the potential for glare effects or light spillover onto adjacent properties. As such, consistency with the Ontario MC and Ontario Development Code would ensure that potential impacts associated with light and glare would be less than significant. Consistent with the Ontario GP EIR, no mitigation measures are required.

Accordingly, no new or more severe impacts relative to adverse aesthetic impacts would occur.

Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Ontario GP EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of no significant impact.

Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Ontario GP EIR
None identified in the Ontario GP EIR.

Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impacts from light or glare. No significant impacts associated with light and glare are identified in the Ontario GP EIR. The Project would be designed consistent with the applicable guidelines and standards within the Ontario MC and Ontario Development Code. Therefore, no new and/or modified mitigation measures are required for issues related to aesthetics.

Overall Aesthetics Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Statute Section 21166 and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts with respect to aesthetics. Therefore, the preparation of a SEIR is not warranted.
213
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 27 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report

4.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources

4.2.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The City of Ontario GP EIR identified the potential of agricultural impacts upon implementation of the Ontario GP due to the lack of agriculturally designated parcels or land. Furthermore, it was identified that no limitations were present in the City’s regulations that prevented agriculturally developed lands from transitioning to nonagricultural uses. Significant impacts were anticipated with the buildout of the Ontario GP due to conflicts with established Williamson Contracts and surrounding farms.

4.2.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.2-1]
Threshold (b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.2-2]
Threshold (c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? [Not analyzed in Ontario GP EIR] [Updated CEQA Appendix G Threshold]
Threshold (d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? [Not analyzed in Ontario GP EIR] [Updated CEQA Appendix G Threshold] Threshold (e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agriculturaluse or conversion of forest land to no-forest land? [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.2-3] No New or More Severe Impact: The Project would be developed in a portion of the City designated for industrial land uses. Furthermore, the parcels in which the Project would occupy are currently developed for industrial and warehousing uses. The parcels are also currently zoned for General Industrial (IG) and Light Industrial (IL) uses which do not include agriculture or forestry. Therefore, the Project site would not be suitable for designation as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Williamson Contract agriculture. Furthermore, the developed state of the Project would not cause its redevelopment to affect surrounding farms as no agricultural or forestry uses are adjacent or nearby to the Project site.

As such, no impacts related to the loss of farmland would occur. This is a lower level of impact severity than was found in the Ontario GP EIR. Because of the lack of agricultural impacts, no mitigationmeasures are necessary.

Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Ontario GP EIR
214
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 28 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
None identified in the Ontario GP EIR.

Overall Agricultural and Forestry Resources Impact Conclusion The Project would result in no new or more severe impact to agricultural or forestry resources. Despite the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the Ontario GP EIR, no significant impacts to agricultural resources are identified in relation to Project implementation. The Project is located within a previously developed and active area designated for industrial land uses; therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required for issues related to agricultural or forestry resources.

With regard to CEQA Statute Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts with respect to agricultural and forestry resources. Therefore, preparationof a SEIR is not warranted. 215
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 29 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report

4.3 Air Quality

4.3.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Ontario GP EIR concluded that implementation of the Ontario GP would conflict with the Air Quality Management Plan at full buildout. Similarly, in order to reach full buildout, developments would likely exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds established to minimize potential air quality degradation. Further, specific projects would potentially be located nearby developments and operations which produce subpar air quality emissions. Separately, impacts from transportation increases were not expected to generate significant air quality impacts.

4.3.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.3-1]
Threshold (b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.3-2, 5.3-3] [No longer included in CEQA Appendix G Thresholds]
A Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was conducted for the Project by Kimley-Horn and Associates in August 2021. The results of the HRA are summarized herein and included as Appendix C to this Addendum.

No New or More Severe Impact: The Project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) which includes parts of San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and Riverside counties and all of Orange County. The SCAQMD and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) monitor air quality within the Basin.

Air quality plans describe air pollution control strategies and measures to be implemented by a city, county, region, and/or air district. The primary purpose of an air quality plan is to bring an area that does not attain Federal and State air quality standards into compliance with the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act and California Clean Air Act. In addition, air quality plans are developed to ensure that an area maintains a healthful level of air quality based on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is prepared by SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The AQMP provides policies and control measures that reduce emissions to attain both State and Federal ambient air quality standards.

According to the SCAQMD, a project is consistent with the AQMP if the project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP. The Basin is designated as attainment for criteria pollutants Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) and Lead. However, the Basin is currently in nonattainment for Ozone (O3). Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) emissions, a precursor to O3, are far below the thresholds established by the SCAQMD. Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1113 would ensure reactive organic gasses (ROG) emissions are below SCAQMD threshold levels. Rule 1113 requires manufacturers, distributors, and end-users of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions from the use of these coatings, primarily by placing limits on the VOC content of various coating categories. The Basin is 216
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 30 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
also in nonattainment for particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less (PM10) and particulate matter

2.5 microns in diameter or less (PM2.5).

The SCAQMD’s CEQA Handbook, identifies two key indicators of consistency with the AQMP:

1. Whether a project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP.

2. Whether a project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the year of project buildout and phase.

The Project would be inconsistent with AQMP Criterion 1 since the Project would occupy an area that is currently developed and in use with industrial/warehousing activities and developments. Implementation of the Project would continue these uses at a seemingly larger scale. The larger size and subsequently larger operating activity would inevitably generate an increased rate of emissions. The Project would likely exceed the short-term construction standards as the construction activities would involve both construction of the Project structures and demolition of existing structures. Thus, the potential for significant impacts is anticipated due to the Project’s inconsistency with the first criterion.

Concerning Consistency Criterion No. 2, the AQMP contains air pollutant reduction strategies based on SCAG’s latest growth forecasts, and SCAG’s growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. The Project is consistent with the land use designation and development density presented in the Ontario GP and therefore would not exceed the population or job growth projections used by the SCAQMD to develop the AQMP. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur, as the Project is consistent with the second criterion.

The Ontario GP EIR identified impacts during construction as a significant and unavoidable impact on air quality. Mitigation Measure 3-1 was identified in the Ontario GP EIR to reduce air emissions from implementation of theOntario GP.

The Ontario GP EIR identified air quality operational impacts associated with the buildout of the Ontario GP as significant and unavoidable. It was concluded in the Ontario GP EIR that no mitigation measures proposed for Impact 5.3-1 would be feasible. As such, no mitigation is included.

Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Ontario GP EIR
Mitigation measures 3-1 and 3-2 were identified in the Ontario GP EIR. 3-1 The City of Ontario Building Department shall require that all new construction projects incorporate feasible mitigation measures to reduce air quality emissions. Potential measures shall be incorporated as conditions of approval for a project and may include:
• Requiring fugitive dust control measures that exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 403, such as:
o Requiring use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion. o Applying water every four hours to active soil disturbing activities. 217
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 31 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
o Tarping and/or maintaining a minimum of 24 inches of freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials.
• Using construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 3 or higher exhaust emission limits. • Ensuring construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer’s standards.
• Limiting nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five consecutive minutes.
• Using Super-Compliant VOC paints for coating of architectural surfaces whenever possible. A list of Super-Compliant architectural coating manufactures can be found on the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s website at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/brochures/Super-Compliant_AIM.pdf. 3-2 The City of Ontario shall evaluate new development proposals within the City and require all developments to include access or linkages to alternative modes of transportation, such as transit stops, bike paths, and/or pedestrian paths (e.g., sidewalks).

Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impact pertaining to conflict with or obstructing implementation of the AQMP. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable similarly to the certified Ontario GP EIR with no mitigation found feasible. The Project’s impacts would be consistent with development in the area and would follow applicable AQMP measures. Therefore, no new or more severe impactsrelative to air quality emissions from the previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Ontario GP EIR would occur with implementation of the Project and identified mitigation measures from the Ontario GP EIR. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Ontario GP EIR was certified is available that would change the significance determination in the Ontario GP EIR.

Threshold (c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable Federal or state ambient air quality standard? [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.3-2, 5.3-3]
Construction Emissions
No New or More Severe Impact: Construction associated with the Project would generate short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants. The criteria pollutants of primary concern within the Project area include O3-precursor pollutants (i.e., ROG and NOX) and PM10 and PM2.5. Construction-generated emissions are short term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, but would be considered a significant air quality impact if the volume of pollutants generated exceeds the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance. Construction associated with the Project would generate short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants. The criteria pollutants of primary concern within the Project area include O3-precursor pollutants (i.e., ROG and NOX) and PM10 and PM2.5. Construction-generated emissions are short term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, but would be considered a significant air quality impact if the volume of pollutants generated exceeds the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance.
218
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 32 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Fugitive dust emissions may also present a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. In addition, fugitive dust may be a nuisance to those living and working in the Project vicinity. Uncontrolled dust from construction can become a nuisance and potential health hazard to those living and working nearby.

SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 (prohibition of nuisances, watering of inactive and perimeter areas, track out requirements, etc.), are applicable to the Project. Rule 402 prohibits the discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. This rule does not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals. Rule 403 requires fugitive dust sources to implement best available control measures for all sources, and all forms of visible particulate matter are prohibited from crossing any property line. This rule is intended to reduce PM10 emissions from any transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust.

Project operations-generated emissions would be primarily associated with motor vehicle use and area sources, such as the use of landscape maintenance equipment and architectural coatings. As previously stated, the Project would be required to comply with Rule 1113 in order to minimize emissions due to architectural coatings. Furthermore, the Project would be within the intended usage of the Project site as analyzed in the Ontario GP EIR. The Project’s consistency with previously analyzed usage and the temporary nature of construction generated emissions would lead to a similarly significant environmental impact; consistent with the conclusions of the Ontario GP EIR. Despite the significant and unavoidable nature of this impact, mitigation measure 3-2 will continue to be applied.

Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Ontario GPEIR
See mitigation measure 3-1 and 3-2 from the Ontario GP EIR above.

Conclusion
Air quality impacts related to the Project are within the limit of impacts identified by the SCAQMD. Nonew impact relative to air quality or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Ontario GP EIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Ontario GP EIR was certified is available that would alter the Ontario GP EIR’s significance finding.

Threshold (d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.3-2, 5.3-4, 5.3-5]
No New or More Severe Impact: The State CEQA Guidelines indicate that a potentially significant impact could occur if a project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The Project’s potential to expose sensitive receptors to harmful pollutant concentrations was analyzed in a Health Risk Assessment prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates.5 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates. (2021). Health Risk Assessment Bon View Warehouse City of Ontario, California. Pages 18 through 19. 219
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 33 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Construction
The duration of construction activities for the Project is estimated to take approximately nine months.

Construction-related activities would result in Project-generated emissions of diesel PM (DPM) from the exhaust of off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site preparation (e.g., clearing, grading); paving; application of architectural coatings; on-road truck travel; and other miscellaneous activities. For construction activity, DPM is the primary toxic air contaminant of concern. On-road diesel-powered haul trucks traveling to and from the construction area to deliver materials and equipment are less of a concern because they would not stay on the site for long durations. Diesel exhaust from construction equipment operating at the site poses a health risk to nearby sensitive receptors. The closest sensitive receptors near the Project site are residential uses located to the south.

As noted above, maximum (worst case) PM10 exhaust construction emissions over the entire construction period were used in AERMOD to approximate construction DPM emissions. Risk levels were calculated based on the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) guidance document, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines (February 2015). Results of this assessment are summarized in Table 2, Construction Health Risk.

Table 2: Construction Health Risk
Exposure Scenario Pollutant
Concentration
(µg/m3)
[1] [2]
Maximum Cancer
Risk (Risk per
Million)
Chronic Noncancer
Hazard
Acute Noncancer
Hazard
Construction 0.00017 0.025 0.00003 0.00041
Threshold N/A 10 1.0 1.0
Threshold Exceeded No No No No
[1] Refer to Appendix A of the Health Risk Assessment
[2] The maximum cancer risk would be experienced at the residences to south of the Project site along Cedar Street.

Results of this Health Risk Assessment indicate that the unmitigated maximum concentration of PM10 during construction would be 0.00017 μg/m3 and resultant cancer risk of 0.025 in one million, which would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million. Non-cancer hazards for DPM would be below SCAQMD threshold of 1.0, with a chronic hazard index computed at 0.00003 and an acute hazard index of 0.00041. Therefore, construction risk levels would be less than SCAQMD thresholds and impacts would be less than significant.

Operations
Vehicle DPM emissions were estimated using emission factors for PM10 generated with the EMFAC developed by CARB. Truck emissions were modeled with AERMOD to determine pollutant concentrations.

As shown in Table 3, Operational Health Risk,the unmitigated calculated carcinogenic risk resulting from the Project is 0.88 per million, which would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million residents. Therefore, the carcinogenic risk associated with the Project would be less than significant.

Table 3: Operational Health Risk
Exposure Scenario Maximum Cancer Risk
(Risk per Million) [1] [2]
Significance Threshold
(Risk per Million)
Chronic Noncancer
Hazard
Residents 0.88 10 No
[1] Refer to Appendix A of the Health Risk Assessment
[2] The maximum cancer risk would be experienced at the residences to the south of the Project site along Philadelphia Street based on worst-case exposure durations for the Project, 95th percentile breathing rates, and 30-year averaging time. 220
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 34 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Non Carcinogenic Hazards
The significance thresholds for Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) exposure also require an evaluation of noncancer risk stated in terms of a hazard index. Non-cancer chronic impacts are calculated by dividing the annual average concentration by the Reference Exposure Level (REL)for that substance. The REL is defined as the concentration at which no adverse non-cancer health effects are anticipated. The potential for acute non-cancer hazards is evaluated by comparing the maximum short-term exposure level to an acute REL. RELs are designed to protect sensitive individuals within the population. The calculation of acute noncancer impacts is similar to the procedure for chronic non-cancer impacts.

Acute and chronic impacts are shown in Table 4, Chronic and Acute Hazards. An acute or chronic hazard index of 1.0 is considered individually significant. The hazard index is calculated by dividing the acute or chronic exposure by the reference exposure level. The highest maximum chronic and acute hazard index from the Project would be 0.0002 and 0.0013, respectively. Therefore, non-carcinogenic hazards are calculated to be within acceptable limits and a less than significant impact would occur.

Table 4: Chronic and Acute Hazards
Emissions Sources Chronic Hazard Acute Hazard
OperationalTrucks 0.0002 0.0013
SCAQMD Threshold 1.0 1.0
Threshold Exceeded No No
Refer to Appendix A of the Health Risk Assessment
As described above, impacts related to cancer risk would be less than significant. Additionally, noncarcinogenic hazards are calculated to be within acceptable limits. It should be noted that the impacts assess the Project’s incremental contribution to health risk impacts, consistent with the SCAQMD guidance and methodology. The SCAQMD has not established separate cumulative thresholds and does not require combining impacts from cumulative projects. The SCAQMD considers projects that do not exceed the project-specific thresholds to generally not be cumulatively significant. Therefore, impacts related to health risk from the Project would be less than significant.

Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Ontario GPEIR
Mitigation measures 3-1 and 3-3 were identified in the Ontario GP EIR. However, while mitigation measure 3-1 (shown above) is applicable to the Project, mitigation measure 3-3 would not apply to the Project because it is imposed solely upon the City, rather than the Project itself.

Conclusion
Air quality impacts related to the Project are within the limit of impacts identified by the SCAQMD. No new impact relative to air quality or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Ontario GP EIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Ontario GP EIR was certified is available that would alter the Ontario GP EIR’s significance finding. 221
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 35 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Threshold (e) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.[Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.3-6] The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies certain land uses as sources of odors. These land uses include the following: agriculture, wastewater treatment plant, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, diaries, and fiberglass molding. The Project is a warehouse facility and does not propose to include any odor-inducing uses on the Project site. The Project would not be a source of objectionable odors; no impact would occur.

Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
None identified in the Ontario GP EIR.

Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Project; therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required for issues related to air quality.

Overall Air Quality Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Statute Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts, with respect to air quality. Therefore, preparation of a SEIR is not warranted. 222
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 36 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report

4.4 Biological Resources

4.4.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Ontario GP EIR concluded that while the City contains suitable habitats for multiple sensitive bird species, their potential for occurrence would be low due to the City’s developed nature. However, no sensitive plant species were observed within the City and suitable sensitive species have a low probability of occurring. Additionally, no regional wildlife corridors were observed in the City. Furthermore, subsequent projects would be required to comply with Federal, State, and local policies and regulations.

It was concluded that implementation of the Ontario GP would not affect surface or jurisdictional waters, though subsequent projects would be required to comply with Federal, State, and local policies and regulations. Finally, the Ontario GP EIR concluded that implementation of the Ontario GP would not conflict with established habitat plans and that subsequent projects would need to analyze their individual impacts for compliance with habitat conservation plans and programs.

4.4.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.4-1] No New or More Severe Impact: The Project site is currently developed and in active use for industrial warehousing activities. These activities would inherently inhibit the potential for the formation of suitable habitat for both wildlife and sensitive vegetation. A large open grass area exists in the northwest portion of the Project site. However, this area is surrounding on all sides by ongoing industrial areas with consistent human activity. Furthermore, this area of grass would not suitably act as a nesting site for bird species since the few ornamental trees are located adjacent to areas with high human interaction.

According to Figure 5.4-1 of the Ontario GP EIR, the Project location falls outside of the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Critical Habitat, Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Ontario Recovery Unit, Oakmont Industrial Group Habitat Conservation Plan for Protection of Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly, and California Natural Diversity Database Occurrences (Ontario and Guasti Quadrangles). There were no peregrine falcon or burrowing owl observances within the Project area. In the time since the Ontario GP EIR was certified, the Project site has been developed with industrial uses which would continue to inhibit the natural formation of habitats for special status species or plants. Therefore, impacts to sensitive species and their habitats would be less than significant.

Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Ontario GP EIR
None identified in the Ontario GP EIR.

Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impact on natural habitats and sensitive species. A less than significant impact was identified in the Ontario GP EIR with respect to natural habitats and sensitive 223
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 37 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
species. The Project would be designedconsistent with the applicable guidelines and standards within the Ontario GP, Ontario MC, and Ontario Development Code. Therefore, no new and/or modified mitigation measures are required for issues related to biological resources.

Threshold (b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.4-2]
Threshold (c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or Federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.4-3] No New or More Severe Impact: The Ontario GP EIR determined that development within the City would not adversely affect the City’s surface waters, jurisdictional waters, wetlands, or riparian habitats as the areas that could be considered within these zones would be designated open space and allow for very limited development. Some areas noted as jurisdictional waters are owned and managed by the County.

Areas under County management would not be subject to land use controls from the City.

The Project site is previously developed with industrial uses and does not contain wetland or riparian features. A majority of the Project site is developed with industrial uses which does not include natural or manmade surface waters. The undeveloped grassy area in the northwest portion of the Project site does not contain water features and is not located adjacent to any of the City’s surface water features.

Therefore, no new impacts relative to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community would be caused due to the Project implementation.

Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Ontario GP EIR
None identified in the Ontario GP EIR.

Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impact on aquatic habitats and resources. A less than significant impact was identified in the Ontario GP EIR with respect to these resources. The Project would be designedconsistent with the applicable guidelines and standards within the Ontario GP, Ontario MC, and Ontario Development Code. Therefore, no new and/or modified mitigation measures are required for issues related to biological resources.

Threshold (d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.4-4] No New or More Severe Impact: Refer above to thresholds a and b above. The Ontario GP EIR concluded that the Citydoes not function as a suitable wildlife movement corridor, since the City is mostly developed, with most of the land converted to industrial, commercial, and residential uses. No regional wildlife movement corridors have been identified in the City as most of the City is ill-suited for the purposes of wildlife movement. Local movement corridors would consist of flood control channels and SCE corridors. 224
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 38 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
As previously stated, the Project has been previously developed with industrial and warehousing uses with manmade landscaping improvements that would not be suitable for the nesting of sensitive species.

Trees observed on the Project site were largely ornamental and adjacent to areas of high human traffic.

Therefore, the Project site would remain ill-suited for wildlife movement.

Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Ontario GP EIR
None identified in the Ontario GP EIR.

Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impact on wildlife movement. A less than significant impact was identified in the Ontario GP EIR. The Project would be designed consistent with the applicable guidelines and standards within the Ontario GP, Ontario MC, and Ontario Development Code. Therefore, no new and/or modified mitigation measures are required for issues related to biological resources.

Threshold (e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances related to protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.4-5] Threshold (f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.4-5]
No New or More Severe Impact: The Ontario GP EIR concluded that the majority of the City is outside of a conservation plan or areas of likelihood for sensitive species. According to the Ontario GP EIR, future Projects within established Habitat Conservation Plan areas should fully analyze potential impacts to natural species and special status species. One Habitat Conservation Plan exists within the City. The plan area is a 19-acre area near the intersection of Greystone Drive and the eastern City boundary established to protect the Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (DSFLF). The Project would be outside of this area. Further, a portion of Critical Habitat Unit 4 for San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR) exists in the northeastern corner of the City. The Project site would also be outside of this conservation area. Therefore, due to its existence outside of the City’s established Habitat Conservation Plan areas, the Project would be unlikely to substantially affect established Habitat Conservation Plans. Due to the Project site’s previously developed state, redevelopment activities would be unlikely to inhibit the goals of Habitat Conservation Plans as the area is currently developed for industrial uses.

Similarly, the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. While the Project would remove common shrubs and trees found on site, the Project would comply with the Ontario Development Code Section 1.01.005(L) and 6.05.020. Consistent with the Ontario GP EIR, impacts in this regard are considered less than significant following compliance with the provisions of the Development Code. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Ontario GP EIR was certified is available that would change the finding of less than significant impact under this threshold. 225
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 39 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Ontario GP EIR
None identified in the Ontario GP EIR.

Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impact on conservation plans and policies. A less than significant impact was identified in the Ontario GP EIR. The Project would be designedconsistent with the applicable guidelines and standards within the Ontario GP, Ontario MC, and Ontario Development Code.

Therefore, no new and/or modified mitigation measures are required for issues related to biological resources.

Overall Biological Resources Impacts Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts, with respect to biological resources. Therefore, preparation of a SEIR is not warranted. 226
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 40 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report

4.5 Cultural Resources

4.5.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Ontario GP EIR concluded that implementation of the Ontario GP would result in potential impacts to the City’s historical resources. This is attributed to the potential demolition of Tier III resources, since the Ontario GP would strongly encourage the preservation of Tier II resources and require the preservation of Tier I resources. As well, the Ontario GP EIR found that while impacts to archeological resources would be low, there is the potential to encounter previously unknown paleontological resources. As well, Bellevue Cemetery was identified as a Native American burial site. Potential impacts to Native American resources were found to be potentially significant but not unavoidable with the proper use of mitigation.

4.5.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
A Cultural Resource Technical Report (CRTR) was created for the Project by Sapphos Environmental, Inc. in August 2021. The results of the CRTR are summarized herein and included as Appendix B to this Addendum.

Threshold (a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant Section 15064.5? [Ontario GP Impact 5.5-1]
Threshold (b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? [Ontario GP Impact 5.5-1 and 5.5-2] No New or More Severe Impact: The Ontario GP found that despite the implementation of policies in the Ontario GP, there was still a present risk for future developments to significantly impact historical resources. These risks were concluded to remain significant and unavoidable even after mitigation.

However, a CRTR was conducted for the Project which included both a field survey of the Project area as well as record searches of the California Historical Resources Inventory Database (CHRID), the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), California Historical Landmarks, California Points of Interest, the City of Sierra Madre Historical Landmarks, and the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC). Literature reviews were also conducted to determine if the proposed Project would have the potential to have a significant impact on previously recorded historical resources.
6 The field survey conducted for the CRTR encountered no cultural resources within the Project site that would be deemed substantial or significant. The Project site was observed as heavily disturbed, with piles of fill material, rubble and modern construction debris scattered across the property. 7 Similarly, the
records search for the Project site found no significant cultural resources within the project site or

0.25-mile buffer study area.8 Furthermore, Project implementation would include the preparation of a Tier 3 Determination for consideration by the Historic Preservation Subcommittee (HPSC) along with the necessary Certificate of Appropriateness entitlement application (see Section 2.4 for more detail). This process would further reduce the potential for substantial impacts. 9 Mitigation is also proposed in order 6 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. (2021). 1948 S. Bon View Avenue, Ontario, California Cultural Resources Technical Report. Page 21. 7 Ibid. Page 22.
8 Ibid. Page 24.
9 Ibid Page 25.
227
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 41 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
to further minimize potential impacts. With mitigation implemented, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Ontario GP EIR
Mitigation measures 5-1 through 5-4 were proposed within the Ontario GP EIR to mitigate potential impacts. However, mitigation measure 5-1 is not applicable since the Project is not within a Focus area as demarcated by Figure 3-4 of the Ontario GP EIR. As well, mitigation measures 5-2 through 5-4 are not applicable to the Project, since neither a Specific Plan or General Plan Amendment are proposed as part of the Project and no signs of cultural or historical resources were identified in or around the Project site.

Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impact on a historic or archaeological resource. No new or more severe impact from previously identified significant impacts evaluated in the Ontario GP would occur. Furthermore, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Ontario GP was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant impact with mitigation under this threshold. The above-referenced mitigation measures from the Ontario GP EIR are applicable.

Threshold (c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. [Ontario GP Impact 5.5-2] [No longer included in this section per the 2021 CEQA Appendix G Thresholds]
No new or More Significant Impact: Paleontological resources and geologic features are discussed discussion 4.6(f) below.

Threshold (d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? [Ontario GP Impact 5.5-3]
No new or More Significant Impact: The CRTR found that no cemeteries or burial sites were observed as a result of the review of historic aerial photographs and historic topographic maps. As well, it was determined that the potential to encounter human remains were low based on the inherent characteristics and location of the Project area. However, tribal cultural resources may be encountered during ground moving activities. In order to minimize potential impacts, the Project would incorporate Standard Condition No. 1 from Public Resources Code Section 5097. This would allow impacts to remain less than significant.
228
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 42 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Ontario GP EIR
No mitigation measures are proposed within the Ontario GP EIR. However, compliance with Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 (Standard Condition No. 1 shown below) is proposed in the Ontario GP EIR to ensure no significant impacts.

Standard Condition No. 1
If the County Coroner determines that the remains are or are believed to be Native American, s/he shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento within 24 hours. In accordance with Section 5097.98 of the California PRC, the NAHC shall immediately notify the person(s) it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant of the deceased Native American. The descendants shall complete their inspection and make a recommendation within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The designated Native American representative would then determine, in consultation with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), the disposition of the human remains. The Most Likely Descendant’s recommendation shall be followed if feasible and may include scientific removal and non-destructive analysis of the human remains and any items associated with Native American burials. If Metro rejects the Most Likely Descendant’s recommendations, the agency shall rebury the remains with appropriate dignity on the property in a location that will not be subject to further subsurface disturbance (14 California Code of Regulations §15064.5(e)).

Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impact pertaining to the disturbance of human remains. The Project is consistent with the Ontario GP EIR. The CRTR did not find new potentially significant impacts associated with the Project regarding historical or archaeologicalresource, or human remains; therefore, no mitigation measures are required, but the Project must comply with the above referenced applicable FEIR mitigation measures.

Overall Cultural Resources Impacts Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Statute Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts with respect to cultural resources.

Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
229
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 43 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report

4.6 Geology and Soils

4.6.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Ontario GP EIR concluded that implementation of the Ontario GP would not result in significant impacts relative to geology and soils, and no mitigation was identified as necessary to reduce potential impacts.

4.6.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk loss, injury, or death involving:
(i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.7-1] (ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.7-1] (iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? [Ontario GP EIR Impact5.7-1] (iv) Landslides? [Not analyzed in the Ontario GP EIR]
Faulting and Seismicity
No New or More Severe Impact: The Alquist-Priolo Zones Special Studies Act defines active faults as those that have experienced surface displacement or movement during the last 11,000 years. The Ontario GP EIR identifies eight fault zones near the City. According to the Ontario GP EIR, none exist beneath the Project area boundaries. According to Figure 5.7-2 of the Ontario GP EIR the nearest fault line to the Project site is the Chino Central Valley Fault, located approximately five miles southwest of the Project site. Furthermore, all development would comply with the applicable Federal, State, and local regulations regarding seismicity and fault hazards such as the California Building Code (CBC) which was adopted on January 1, 2020. The CBC includes detailed design requirements related to structural design, soils and foundations, and grading to ensure that public safety risks due to seismic shaking are minimized to levels below significant.

Liquefaction and Landslides
No New or More Severe Impact: The general liquefaction susceptibility of the site was determined by research of the San Bernardino County Official Land Use Plan, General Plan, and Geologic Hazard Overlay.

Map FH27C
10 for the Chino USGS quadrangle indicates that the Project site is not located within an area of liquefaction or landslide susceptibility. Based on the mapping performed by the County, liquefaction is not considered to be a design concern for this Project. 10 San Bernardino County General Plan. 2007. Geologic Hazard Overlays. Available at http://www.sbcounty.gov/Uploads/lus/GeoHazMaps/FH27C_20100309.pdf. Accessed August 8, 2021 230
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 44 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Ontario GP EIR
None identified in the Ontario GP EIR.

Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impact due to susceptibility to landslide, liquefaction, or seismic effects. A less than significant impact was identified in the Ontario GP EIR. The Project would be designed consistent with the applicable guidelines and standards within the Ontario GP, Ontario MC, and Ontario Development Code. Therefore, no new and/or modified mitigation measures are required for issues related to geological hazards.

Threshold (b) Result in substantial erosion or loss of topsoil? [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.7-2] Threshold (c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.7-2] Threshold (d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.7-2]
No New or More Severe Impact: The Ontario GP EIR concluded that soils within the City have the potential to generate hazards in the form of ground subsistence, erosion, and unstable soils. It was determined that future projects’ compliance with the CBC would reduce impacts from unstable soils to insignificant levels.

Further, future projects’ adoption of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits and accompanied Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) would reduce potential risks of erosion.

The Project would not result in significant soil erosion or loss of topsoil because of the previously disturbed and developed nature of the Project site and the limited size and scope of the Project. Grading increases the potential for erosion by removing protective vegetation, changing natural drainage patterns, and constructing slopes. In addition, the City requires an erosion/dust control plan for projects located within this area. The Project would also be required to comply with all requirements set forth in the NPDES permit for construction activities (e.g., implementation of Best Management Practices [BMPs] through preparation of a SWPPP), reducing potential impacts to less than significant levels.

Additionally, the Project would also be required to comply with the CBC and undergo review of grading plans by the City Engineer who would ensure no significant impacts would occur.

Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Ontario GP EIR
None identified in the Ontario GP EIR.
231
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 45 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impact due to susceptibility to hazards from land failure and erosion. A less than significant impact was identified in the Ontario GP EIR. The Project would be designed consistent with the applicable guidelines and standards within the Ontario GP, Ontario MC, and Ontario Development Code. Therefore, no new and/or modified mitigation measures are required for issues related to geological hazards.

Threshold (e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewer are not available for the disposal of waste water? [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.7-3]
No New or More Severe Impact: The Ontario GP EIR notes that septic tanks are not used within the City as wastewater is serviced by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). Therefore, the Project would not require the support of septic tank usage. Further, the previous development which currently occupies the Project area would similarly utilize the IEUA instead of septic tanks. Furthermore, according to the Phase I study conducted for the Project, no underground storage tanks (USTs) were observed during reconnaissance of the Project site.11 Therefore, the Project would not propose the development of septic tanks and would not require the removal of septic tanks or other underground tanks.

Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Ontario GP EIR
None identified in the Ontario GP EIR.

Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impact due to the presence of septic tanks. A less than significant impact was identified in the Ontario GP EIR. The Project would be designed consistent with the applicable guidelines and standards within the Ontario GP, Ontario MC, and Ontario Development Code.

Therefore, no new and/or modified mitigation measures are required for issues related to soil hazards in relation to septic systems.

Threshold (f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? [Not analyzed in the Ontario GP EIR]
As previously stated, the Project site has been previously developed with residential and industrial uses which would have involved ground moving activities such as land clearing and grading during their construction. Redevelopment of the site would be unlikely to encounter new paleontological features.

Similarly, unique geological features would be unlikely to be encountered due to the developed state of the Project site. Impacts are anticipated to be less than significant.

Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Ontario GP EIR
None identified in the Ontario GP EIR.
11 Orion Environmental Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment South Bon View Avenue and East Cedar Street Ontario, California dated April 2021. Page 4-4.
232
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 46 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impact due to the presence of paleontological resources. A less than significant impact was identified in the Ontario GP EIR. The Project would be designed consistent with the applicable guidelines and standards within the Ontario GP, Ontario MC, and Ontario Development Code. Therefore, no new and/or modified mitigation measures are required for issues related to paleontological resources.

Overall Geology and SoilsImpacts Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts, with respect to geology and soils. Therefore, preparation of a SEIR is not warranted. 233
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 47 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Global Climate Change)

4.7.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Ontario GP EIR concluded that the buildout of the City would generate a significant and unavoidable impact due to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This was based on both emissions from construction and operations of each land use type. However, the Ontario GP EIR maintained that the City would be compliant with the established policies within the Senate Bill (SB) 375 Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS) and SCAG SCS. Therefore, impacts regarding climate change policies were concluded to be less than significant.

4.7.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, based on any applicable threshold of significance. [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.6-1]
Threshold (b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.6-1] A Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was conducted for the Project by Kimley-Horn and Associates in August 2021. The results of the HRA are summarized herein and included as Appendix C to this Addendum.

Background
Global climate change refers to changes in average climatic conditions on Earth as a whole, including temperature, wind patterns and precipitation. Global temperatures are moderated by naturally occurring atmospheric gases, including water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), as well as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These GHGs allow solar radiation (sunlight) into the Earth’s atmosphere but prevent radiative heat from escaping, thus warming the Earth’s atmosphere. GHGs are emitted by both natural processes and human activities.

Concentrations of GHG have increased in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. Human activities that generate GHG emissions include combustion of fossil fuels (CO2 and N2O); natural gas generated from landfills, fermentation of manure and cattle farming (CH4); and industrial processes such as nylon and nitric acid production (N2O).

GHGs have varying global warming potential (GWP). The GWP is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere; it is the “cumulative radiative forcing effect of a gas over a specified time horizon resulting from the emission of a unit mass of gas relative to a reference gas.” The reference gas for GWP is CO2; therefore, CO2 has a GWP factor of 1. The other main GHGs that have been attributed to human activity include CH4, which has a GWP factor of 28, and N2O, which has a GWP factor of 265. When accounting for GHGs, all types of GHG emissions are expressed in terms of CO2 equivalents (CO2e) and are typically quantified in metric tons (MT) or million metric tons (MMT).

Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, established a State goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, which would require a reduction of approximately 173 MMT net CO2e below “business as usual” emission levels. SB 97, a companion bill, directed the California Natural Resources Agency (Resources Agency) to certify and adopt guidelines for 234
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 48 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
the mitigation of GHGs or the effects of GHG emissions. SB 97 was the State Legislature’s directive to the Resources Agency to specifically establish that GHG emissions and their impacts are appropriate subjects for CEQA analysis. Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 was enacted in June 2005 and calls for an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050. SB 32 was signed into law in 2016 and establishes an interim GHG emission reduction goal for the State to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2030.

No New or Severe Impact: The Ontario Plan GP found that a significant unavoidable impact would occur from GHG emissions as a result of the Ontario GP implementation. It was calculated that through buildout, construction emissions in the City could average approximately 16,533 MT of CO2e per year. This was found to be a cumulatively considerable amount of GHG emissions. Operations activities within the City at full buildout would be 13.6 MMT. Although no numeric threshold was adopted at the time of the Ontario GP EIR, the emissions generated were still considered significant.

The Project site would maintain its current land use designations which were adopted with the Ontario GP EIR. Therefore, the land uses would remain consistent with those analyzed for the Ontario GP and the existing developments on the Project site. Since the Project would involve the demolition of existing structures despite the continuation of existing land uses, it is anticipated that emissions would remain significant. However, the Project would be developed in consistency with the Ontario GP and Ontario MC.

The provisions within these codes were found to suitably comply with applicable plans, policies, or regulations regarding GHG emissions. The Project would be required to comply with both Federal and State regulations regarding air quality and GHG emissions. Therefore, impacts would remain significant; consistent with the Ontario GP EIR.

Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Ontario GP EIR
Mitigation measures 6-1 through 6-6 are included in the Ontario GP EIR to mitigate impacts associated with climate change aggravating GHG emissions due to noncompliance with established policies and regulations. All of the Ontario GP EIR mitigation measures (6-1 through 6-5) are imposed solely upon the City, and are therefore not applicable to the Project.

Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impact on GHG emissions. A significant and unavoidable impact was identified in the Ontario GP EIR. The Project would be designed consistent with the applicable guidelines and standards within the Ontario GP, Ontario MC, and Ontario Development Code. Therefore, no new and/or modified mitigation measures are required for issues related to GHG emissions.

Overall Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts, with respect to GHG emissions. Therefore, preparation of a SEIR is not warranted. 235
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 49 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

4.8.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Ontario GP EIR concluded that implementation of the Ontario GP would not generate significant impacts in relation to hazardous materials. Furthermore, no mitigation was deemed necessary for each impact.

4.8.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.8-1] Threshold (b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.8-1]
Threshold (c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substance, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.8-1]
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was conducted for the Project by Orion Environmental, Inc. in April 2021. The results of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment are summarized herein and included as Appendix D to this Addendum.

No New or More Severe Impact: The proposed construction activities would involve the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials such as paints, solvents, oils, grease, and caulking which are typical with construction sites, including the construction of warehouse facilities. In addition, hazardous materials would be needed for fueling and servicing construction equipment on the site. These types of materials are not acutely hazardous, and all storage, handling, use, and disposal of these materials are regulated by Federal and State requirements, which the Project construction activities are required to strictly adhere to. These regulations include: the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act and Hazardous Materials Transportation Act; Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CalOSHA), and the State Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program. As a result, routine transport and use of hazardous materials during construction would be less than significant. Furthermore, the risks related to upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be adequately addressed through compliance with existing Federal, State, and local regulations.

Project operations would involve warehouse/logistics type uses that may involve the use and storage of common hazardous materials such as oils, paints, solvents, and cleaning products. Also, building mechanical systems and grounds and landscape maintenance could also use a variety of products formulated with hazardous materials, including fuels, cleaners, lubricants, adhesives, sealers, and pesticides/herbicides. The routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be limited to materials and solvents used for maintenance and operation of the facility, including the upkeep of landscaping and cleaning products. Furthermore, the use of these materials would not pose substantial risk to the surrounding population and would not affect nearby school, despite the nearby Bon View Elementary School located approximately 0.2 mile southeast of the Project site. 236
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 50 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Furthermore, hazardous materials would be used and stored in accordance with applicable regulations and such uses would be required to comply with Federal and State laws to reduce the potential consequences of hazardous materials accidents. With the implementation of the most current industry BMPs, this would protect human health and the environment should any accidental spills or releases of hazardous materials occur during operation of the Project. No new impact or increase in the severity of an identified impact would therefore occur with implementation of the Project.

Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Ontario GP EIR
None identified in the Ontario GP EIR.

Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impact due to the transport or storage of hazardous materials. A less than significant impact was identified in the Ontario GP EIR. The Project would be designed consistent with the applicable guidelines and standards within the Ontario GP, Ontario MC, and Ontario Development Code. Therefore, no new and/or modified mitigation measures are required for issues related to hazardous materials.

Threshold (d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.8-2] No New or More Severe Impact: Project site reconnaissance conducted for the Phase I study found no physical signs of previous hazardous material spills. No documented historical occurrences of hazardous material spills were found. No USTs were identified on the Project site while aboveground storage tanks included multiple compressed gas tanks and cylinders. The compressed gas tanks included one empty 55- gallon drum and two empty canisters of acetone. Hazardous material storage on-site included cleaning solutions for general housekeeping, paints, solvents, and oils. The storage of these materials was found to be in good condition and had not led to spills or environmental contamination. 12 Waste storage on the Project site included a containment pallet of four 55-gallon drums of hazardous waste oil. Waste collection on-site was observed to include the recycling of materials such as metals, cardboards, and plastics. No oil staining was observed around the storage containers or waste receptacles.

Waste storage containers on-site were confirmed to be in good condition with no sign of leakage or damage to the surrounding environment.13 The Phase I assessment found that the previous uses of the Project site are unlikely to pose an environmental risk from continued usage of the Project site.

Surrounding uses nearby the Project site were found to be unlikely to pose environmental risks to the Project site based on various conditions (i.e., distance from Target Property, groundwater flow direction, and absence of reported environmental regulatory violations). 14 According to the Ontario GP EIR, the City contains eight Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites which could still be leaking hazardous materials. However, based on the updated Cortese site list 12 Orion Environmental Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment South Bon View Avenue and East Cedar Street Ontario, California. Page 4-4. 13 Ibid Pages 4-4 through 4-5.
14 Ibid. Pages 5-5 through 5-6.
237
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 51 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
maintained by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the City does not contain any active hazardous waste substance sites.15 Potential hazards to construction workers and the public may occur as a result of construction activities on existing sites that could be contaminated. Future development of any of these documented hazardous materials sites would require prior remediation and cleanup under the supervision of the DTSC in order to meet Federal, State, and local standards.

Furthermore, the Project site has been previously developed with industrial and warehousing uses which would be consistent with the proposed uses. Because the proposed uses would be similar to the existing uses, no new impacts are anticipated as part of the Project and no new mitigation measures are recommended. Impacts would remain less than significant without mitigation applied.

Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Ontario GP EIR
None identified in the Ontario GP EIR.

Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impact due to the hazardous waste site. A less than significant impact was identified in the Ontario GP EIR. The Project would be designed consistent with the applicable guidelines and standards within the Ontario GP, Ontario MC, and Ontario Development Code.

Therefore, no new and/or modified mitigation measures are required for issues related to hazardous materials.

Threshold (e) For a Projectlocated within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working the project area? [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.8-3]
Threshold (f) For a project in the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.8-4] [Not included in the updated CEQA Appendix G Thresholds]
No New or More Severe Impact: The Ontario GP EIR concluded that although the City contains portions of the Los Angeles/Ontario International Airport (LAONT) and Chino Airport land use compatibility zones, the established land use policies within each zone would limit risks from future development. The Project is outside of the Chino Airport compatibility area entirely. However, the Project remains inside of the LAONT compatibility area. Despite this, the Project is outside of the LAONT safety zones as established by the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan which was updated in June 2018.16 The 15 Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2021). EnviroStor. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?page=5&cmd=search&business_name=&main_street_name=&city=&zip=&county=& status=ACT%2CBKLG%2CCOM&branch=&site_type=CSITES%2CFUDS&npl=&funding=&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCES+ SITE+LIST+%28CORTESE%29&reporttype=CORTESE&Federal_superfund=&state_response=&voluntary_cleanup=&school_cleanup=&operatin g=&post_closure=&non_operating=&corrective_action=&tiered_permit=&evaluation=&spec_prog=&national_priority_list=&senate=&cong r ess=&assembly=&critical_pol=&business_type=&case_type=&searchtype=&hwmp_site_type=&cleanup_type=&ocieerp=&hwmp=False&per mitted=&pc_permitted=&inspections=&inspectionsother=&complaints=&censustract=&cesdecile=&school_district=& orderby=city (accessed August 8, 2021).
16 The Ontario International Airport – Inter Agency Collaborative (ONT-IAC). (2018). Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (July 2018 Amendment) Map 2-2. Retrieved from: https://www.ont-iac.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/ONT-AIA-policy-map-2-2.pdf (Accessed August 9, 2021)
238
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 52 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Project would therefore not conflict with the established airport land use plans and would not result in a safety hazard.

Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Ontario GP EIR
None identified in the Ontario GP EIR.

Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impact due to proximity to airports. A less than significant impact was identified in the Ontario GP EIR. The Project would be designed consistent with the applicable guidelines and standards within the Ontario GP, Ontario MC, and Ontario Development Code.

Therefore, no new and/or modified mitigation measures are required for issues related to airport land use plans.

Threshold (g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.[Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.8-5] No New or More Severe Impacts: The Ontario GP EIR concluded that the City’s updated Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and regional emergency connections would provide proper emergency response and evacuation in cases of emergency. The City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan establishes that interstates would serve as emergency evacuation routes.17 The Project would not interfere with interstate capacity and would not include modifications to highway systems within the City. Furthermore, the Project would not modify the roadway in a way that would inhibit the traversal of emergency responders. Two driveways would be developed along Bon View Avenue to connect the Project site to the City’s circulation network.

This process would not impede the City’s emergency response capacity and would allow for greater response to potential emergencies within the Project site.

As such, future development within Project boundaries would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan and/or the emergency evacuation plan and less than significant impacts would occur.

Accordingly, no new or more severe impact from a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Ontario GP EIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Ontario GP EIR was certified is available that would change the impact finding.

Mitigation Program
Mitigation from the Ontario GP EIR
None identified in theOntario GP EIR.

Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impact due to the inhibition of emergency access. A less than significant impact was identified in the Ontario GP EIR. The Project would be designed consistent 17 City of Ontario. (2018). City of Ontario 2018 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Page 4-102. Retrieved from:
https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Emergency-Management/ReadyOntario/city_of_ontario_2018_hmp.pdf (Accessed August 9, 2021)
239
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 53 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
with the applicable guidelines and standards within the Ontario GP, Ontario MC, and Ontario Development Code. Therefore, no new and/or modified mitigation measures are required for issues related to emergency response capabilities.

Threshold (h) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.8-6] No New or More Severe Impacts: The Project would not expose people or structures to a risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. The Project site is located within an urbanized area and is surrounded by development on all sides. The Project site is not located within or adjacent to land designated as a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ). 18 Impacts related to wildland fires would not
be significant. Accordingly, no new or more severe impact from a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Ontario GP EIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Ontario GP EIR was certified is available that would change the impact finding.

Mitigation Program
Mitigation from the Ontario GP EIR
None identified in theOntario GP EIR.

Conclusion
The Project would result in less than significant impacts in relation to wildland fires. A less than significant impact was also identified in the Ontario GP EIR. The Project would be designed consistent with the applicable guidelines and standards within the Ontario GP, Ontario MC, and Ontario Development Code.

Therefore, no new and/or modified mitigation measures are required for issues related to wildland fires.

Overall Hazards and Hazardous Materials-Related Impacts Conclusion With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts, with respect to hazards and hazardous materials. Therefore, preparation of a SEIR is not warranted. 18 CAL FIRE FRAP (2021). Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ (Accessed August 9, 2021). 240
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 54 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report

4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality

4.9.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Ontario GP EIR concluded that implementation of the Ontario GP would not result in significant impacts relative to hydrology and water quality, and no mitigation is necessary to reduce potential impacts.

4.9.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.9-4] Threshold (i) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?[Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.9-4] No New or More Severe Impact: The Project would result in no new or more severe impacts as it pertains to any conflicts with water quality and groundwater plans. Based on the Ontario GP EIR findings, implementation of NPDES and SWPPP BMPS would effectively minimize impacts associated with water quality. As such, the Project would comply with Federal, State, and local regulations regarding the maintenance of water quality standards. This includes the development of an NPDES permit and the associated SWPPP. BMPs included in these permits may include actions such as:
• Site design standards that maximize permeable areas, use porous pavements, and focus on natural drainage systems;
• Structural source control that minimizes pollution of stormwater by such means as paving trash storage areas and fueling areas with impervious surfaces, and grading such areas to block run-off; and
• Treatment Control measures that Remove pollutants from stormwater by filtration, media absorption, or other means.

Therefore, no new and/or modified mitigation measures are required for issues related to potential water degradation through Project implementation.

Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Ontario GP EIR
None identified in the Ontario GP EIR.

Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impact due to water quality degradation. A less than significant impact was identified in the Ontario GP EIR. The Project would be designed consistent with the applicable guidelines and standards within the Ontario GP, Ontario MC, and Ontario Development Code.

Therefore, no new and/or modified mitigation measures are required for issues related to water quality. 241
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 55 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Threshold (b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.9-2]
The majority of the Project area is developed and urbanized, therefore, development of the area would not cause a significant increase in impervious surfaces and therefore would not substantially impact groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. The Project would not introduce a new inconsistent use to the Project area which would exceed the usages estimated with the land use designation associated with the Project. Therefore, the Project would not deplete or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality, nor would it substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basins.

The Project therefore would not result in new or more severe impacts related to groundwater.

Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Ontario GP EIR was certified is available that would change the impact determination. Accordingly, the Project would not significantly impact local groundwater recharge.

Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Ontario GP EIR
None identified in the Ontario GP EIR.

Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impact due to groundwater degradation. A less than significant impact was identified in the Ontario GP EIR. The Project would be designed consistent with the applicable guidelines and standards within the Ontario GP, Ontario MC, and Ontario Development Code.

Therefore, no new and/or modified mitigation measures are required for issues related to groundwater.

Threshold (c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfacesin a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on-or offsite. [Not analyzed in the Ontario GP EIR] Threshold (d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfacesin a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite? [Ontario GP Impact 5.9-1]
Threshold (e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces in a manner which would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. [Ontario GP Impact 5.9-1] 242
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 56 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
No New or More Severe Impact: As stated in the Ontario GP EIR, stormwater infrastructure would be designed to accommodate flows added through the implementation of the Ontario GP. As stated in Section 4.6, Geology and Soils, future projects including the Project would be required to attain an NPDES permit and associated SWPPP. These two processes and the associated BMPs would adequately minimize potential off-site water quality impacts. Construction-related BMPs would be identified based on sitespecific conditions during preparation of a SWPPP for the future development project. Long term operational BMPs would be identified through issuance of an NPDES permit through the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and would include water quality features to ensure that runoff is treated prior to discharge into the storm drain or regional conveyance facilities. Furthermore, based on the state of the Project site and consistency with existing uses, it is anticipated that the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.

The Project would also result in no new or more severe impact from erosion or siltation. Based on the Ontario GP EIR findings, the Project site is not located in an area prone to the previously mentioned natural or manmade disasters. Thus, the Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would create the above-mentioned disasters. A less than significant impact is anticipated from Project implementation. No new impact or increase in the severity of anidentified impact would therefore occur with implementation of the Project.

Threshold (f) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces in a manner which would in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? [Ontario GP Impact 5.9-3, 5.9-10] Threshold (g) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows? [Ontario GP Impact 5.9-3]
No New or More Severe Impact: According to Ontario GP EIR Figure 5.9-2, the Project site is not located within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated 100-year floodplain. Further, the current FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the Project area shows that it lies outside of known flood hazard zones. The Project involves the development of industrial warehousing facility in an area previously occupied by similar uses.

The Project would result in no new or more severe impacts as it pertains to flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, or risk the release of pollutants due to Project inundation. Based on the Ontario GP EIR findings, the Project site is not located in an area prone to the previously mentioned natural or manmade disasters. Thus, no pollutants would be released due to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.

Therefore, the Project would not involve the development of residential structures or impede flood flows.

Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Ontario GP EIR
None identified in the Ontario GP EIR.
243
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 57 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impact due to flood risks. A less than significant impact was identified in the Ontario GP EIR. The Project would be designed consistent with the applicable guidelines and standards within the Ontario GP, Ontario MC, and Ontario Development Code. Therefore, no new and/or modified mitigation measures are required for issues related to flooding.

Threshold (i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? [Ontario GP Impact 5.9-3] [Not included in the 2021 CEQA Appendix G Thresholds] No New or More Severe Impact: According to the Ontario GP EIR Figure 5.9-2, the Project site is located within the San Antonio Creek Dam Failure Inundation area. This would leave the Project site potentially flooded to a depth of up to four feet. However, it is stated that dam failure for the San Antonio Creek Dam is very low due to the City’s low potential for significant ground shaking earthquakes. 19 Furthermore, according to Ontario GP EIR Figure 5.9-2, in a case of dam failure, dam inundation would arrive at the Project site in approximately three to four hours, which would be enough to time to evacuate personnel and minimize human injury and hazards.

Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Ontario GP EIR
None identified in the Ontario GP EIR.

Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impact due to flood risks. A less than significant impact was identified in the Ontario GP EIR. The Project would be designed consistent with the applicable guidelines and standards within the Ontario GP, Ontario MC, and Ontario Development Code. Therefore, no new and/or modified mitigation measures are required for issues related to flooding.

Overall Hydrology and Water Quality-Related Impacts Conclusion With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts, with respect to hydrology and water quality. Therefore, preparation of a SEIR is not warranted. 19 City of Ontario. (2009). The Ontario Plan Draft EIR. 5.9 Hydrology. Page 5.9-23. Costa Mesa, CA: The Planning Center. 244
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 58 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report

4.10 Land Use and Planning

4.10.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
According to the Ontario GP EIR, implementation of the Ontario GP would not divide an established community. The Ontario GP includes a range of industrial, commercial, public, and residential uses. The Ontario GP EIR concluded that implementation of the Ontario GP would not result in significant impacts relative to land use and planning, and no mitigation is necessary to reduce potential impacts.

4.10.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Physically divide an established community?[Ontario GP Impact 5.10-1] No New or More Severe Impact: The Project site is largely developed with, and surrounded by, industrial warehousing uses (see Section 2.1 for more detail). Consistent with the Ontario GP EIR, the Project would not divide an established community. The Project proposes to implement a warehouse/logistics facility.

The Project would be similar and consistent with surrounding uses. Existing development within the Project area is already divided by the existing local roadway network, including Bon View Avenue, and the Project is not anticipated to create additional physical barriers between these uses. Therefore, there are no new or more severe impacts.

Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Ontario GP EIR
None identified in the Ontario GP EIR.

Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe land use impacts. A less than significant impact was identified in the Ontario GP EIR. The Project would be designed consistent with the applicable guidelines and standards within the Ontario GP, Ontario MC, and Ontario Development Code. Therefore, no new and/or modified mitigation measures are required for issues related to land use.

Threshold (b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? [Ontario GPEIR Impact 5.10-2]
No New or More Severe Impact: No potentially significant impacts related to land use and planning are identified in the Ontario GP EIR. The Project would not require an amendment to the Ontario Plan EIR Land Use Element, because warehousing uses are permitted uses by right within industrial zones. As such, the Project would be consistent with applicable land use plans, including the Ontario GP. The Project does, however, propose the implementation of a Zone Change for the Project site’s southern parcel (APN 1050-441-05) from zoning designation Light Industrial (IL) to General Industrial (IG). The Zone Change is intended to create a consistent zoning designation throughout the Project site. This change, however, is not expected to substantially affect established land use policies since both zoning designations allow for the Project’s proposed uses. The Project would therefore not cause a significant 245
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 59 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Ontario GP EIR
None identified in the Ontario GP EIR.

Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe land use impacts. A less than significant impact was identified in the Ontario GP EIR. The Project would be designed consistent with the applicable guidelines and standards within the Ontario GP, Ontario MC, and Ontario Development Code. Therefore, no new and/or modified mitigation measures are required for issues related to land use.

Threshold (c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.10-3] [Not included in the 2021 CEQA Appendix G Thresholds]
See Section 4.4, threshold (f) above.

Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Ontario GP EIR
None identified in the Ontario GP EIR.

Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe land use impacts. A less than significant impact was identified in the Ontario GP EIR. The Project would be designed consistent with the applicable guidelines and standards within the Ontario GP, Ontario MC, and Ontario Development Code. Therefore, no new and/or modified mitigation measures are required for issues related to land use.

Overall Land Use and Planning Impacts Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts, with respect to land use and planning. Therefore, preparation of a SEIR is not warranted. 246
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 60 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report

4.11 Mineral Resources

4.11.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
According to the Ontario GP EIR, two areas in the City are classified as Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ)-2:
one is in the northwestern portion of the City and the second is along the eastern City boundary. These two areas total approximately 6,132 acres, or approximately 19 percent of the City’s area; see Figure 5.11-1, Mineral Resource Zones of the Ontario GP EIR. The remainder of the City, approximately 81 percent of its area, is MRZ-3, where the significance of mineral deposits is unknown. Mineral resources in the City are limited to construction aggregates such as sand and gravel. There are currently no permitted mining operations in the City.

The Ontario GP EIR concluded that according to the Ontario Plan, it is not anticipated that the City would contain known deposits of precious gemstones, ores, or unique, or rare minerals within the Project vicinity and development projects would not result in significant impacts relative to mineral resources, and no mitigation measures were implemented.

4.11.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.11-1] Threshold (b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?[Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.11-1]
No New or More Severe Impact: Consistent with the Ontario GP EIR conclusions, the Project site is not located in an area known to contain mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State.20 Additionally, implementation of the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resources recovery site delineated in the Ontario GP or on California Department of Conservation mapping. No new or more severe impact relative to mineral resources not already evaluated in the Ontario GP EIR would occur with implementation of the Project. A less than significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Ontario GP EIR
None identified in the Ontario GP EIR.

Overall Mineral Resources Impacts Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts, with respect to mineral resources. Therefore, preparation of a SEIR is not warranted. 20 California Department of Conservation. 2021. Mineral Land Classification. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc (accessed August 21, 2021). 247
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 61 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report

4.12 Noise

4.12.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Ontario GP EIR considered noise from construction activities as well as noise from operations during full buildout of the Ontario GP, including vehicle traffic the potential exposure of nearby residents and other sensitive receptors to noise. With implementation of mitigation measures, all noise impacts were determined to remain significant and unavoidable, with the exception of Ontario GP EIR 5.12-4, whose impact was deemed less than significant. The potential for significant levels of groundborne vibrations and noise would be sufficiently mitigated to less than significant levels.

4.12.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.12-1, 5.12-2]
Threshold (c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.[Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.12-1, 5.12-2] [Notincluded in the 2021 CEQA Appendix G Thresholds]
No New or More Severe Impact: The Ontario GP EIR found that the buildout of the Ontario GP would create increased traffic which would generate substantial amounts of noise within the City. This would also affect sensitive receptors due to the citywide increase of ambient noise levels.

Figure 5.12-1 of the Ontario GP EIR shows that existing noise levels in the Project area was between 60 to 65 decibels (dBA). The City projected that these noise levels would remain the same as shown in Figure 5.12-6 of the Ontario GP EIR. Noise levels for the Project would be similar to those currently generated at the Project site due to the similarity of the proposed uses with the existing uses. The Project does not include roadway improvements which would alter traffic patterns in the surrounding area.

According to Figure 5.12-8 of the Ontario GP EIR, the Project site is not bounded by roadways which would experience increased noise levels. Because the Project would be consistent with the existing land use of the Project area, future noise impacts would be accounted for through the findings of the Ontario GP EIR.

However, despite the significant impact identified in the Ontario GP EIR, the Project would occupy a specific area of the City which would not experience increased noise levels through the buildout of the Ontario GP.

Mitigation was found to not be suitable to reduce the significance of Impact 5.12-1 in the Ontario GP EIR, however, because the Project is unlikely to generate a significant amount of noise compared to the City’s projections, mitigation is not required, and impacts would be less than significant. However, mitigation measure 12-1 was found suitable to reduce the significance of Impact 5.12-2 in the Ontario GP EIR. 248
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 62 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
Mitigation measure 12-1 was proposed in the Ontario GP EIR. However, mitigation measure 12-1 is not applicable to the Project because the Project (1) does not involve a noise-sensitive use and (2) is not located within the 65 dBA CNEL contour line.

Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe land use impacts. A significant and unavoidable impact was identified in the Ontario GP EIR. The Project would be designed consistent with the applicable guidelines and standards within the Ontario GP, Ontario MC, and Ontario Development Code. Despite the significant impacts identified in the Ontario GP EIR, Project impacts would be less than significant and no new and/or modified mitigation measures are required for issues related to noise levels.

Threshold (b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.12-3, 5.12-4]
No New or More Severe Impact: The Ontario GP EIR found that groundborne vibrations due to construction activities had the potential to create significant impacts at full buildout of the Ontario GP.

Construction of the Project could generate varying degrees of groundborne vibration depending on the construction procedure and the construction equipment used.

According to Ontario MC Section 5.29-04, manufacturing and industrial noise limits are 70 dBA during the 7 am to 10 pm period, and 70 dBA during the 10 pm to 7 am period. Furthermore, the Ontario GP states that vibrational annoyance are likely to occur once decibel velocity (VdB) exceeds 78 VdB within 25 feet of the sensitive receptor and structural damage is likely to occur once Root Mean Square (RMS) velocity exceeds 0.2 inches per second (in/sec) within 25 feet of a sensitive receptor. The nearest sensitive receptors are the multi-family residential uses approximately 200 feet south of the Project boundary.

Noise levels can be calculated using the following equation: Lv(D) = Lv(25 feet) - (30 x log10(D/25 feet)).

Vibrational levels can be calculated using the following equation: PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5 . For these
equations, PPVequip = the peak particle velocity in in/sec of the equipment adjusted for the distance; PPVref = the reference vibration level in in/sec, D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver, and Lv = the vibrational level.21
Table 7-4 of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual lists construction equipment noise and vibration levels at 25 feet (112 VdB). Table 5, Typical Construction Equipment Noise and Vibration Levels displays noise levels at 200 feet using the above noise and vibration equations.
21 Federal Transit Administration. (2018). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Page 185. 249
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 63 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Table 5: Typical Construction Equipment Noise and Vibration Levels Equipment
PPV at
25 Feet
(in/sec)
PPV at
200 Feet
(in/sec)
Exceed
Threshold?
(.2 in/sec)
Velocity at
25 Feet
(VdB)
Velocity at
200 Feet
(VdB)
Exceed
Threshold?
(78 VdB)
Pile Driver (Impact) Upper Range 1.518 0.0671 NO 112 84.9 YES Pile Driver (Impact) Typical 0.644 0.0285 NO 104 76.9 NO Pile Driver (Sonic) Upper Range 0.734 0.0324 NO 105 77.9 NO Pile Driver (Sonic) Typical 0.17 0.0075 NO 93 65.9 NO
Clam shovel drop (Slurry Wall) 0.202 0.0089 NO 94 66.9 NO Hydromill (Slurry Wall) in Soil 0.008 0.0004 NO 66 38.9 NO Hydromill (Slurry Wall) in Rock 0.017 0.0008 NO 75 47.9 NO Vibratory Roller 0.21 0.0093 NO 94 66.9 NO
Hoe Ram 0.089 0.0039 NO 87 59.9 NO
Large bulldozer 0.089 0.0039 NO 87 59.9 NO
Caisson drilling 0.089 0.0039 NO 87 59.9 NO
Loaded trucks 0.076 0.0034 NO 86 58.9 NO
Jackhammer 0.035 0.0015 NO 79 51.9 NO
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.0001 NO 58 30.9 NO
Source: Federal Transit Administration. (2018). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Table 7-4. Page 184.

The Project would generate vibrational levels well below the acceptable thresholds established by the FTA. Similarly, use of construction equipment would not generate noise levels beyond established levels except in the upper range of impact pile drivers. However, the upper range is not consistently used during construction activities and would occur in short-term temporary events. The typical range is more indicative of average equipment usage.

It is also acknowledged that construction activities would occur throughout the Project site and would not be concentrated at the point closest to the nearest residential structure. Therefore, vibration impacts associated with the Project would be less than significant.

Once operational, the Project would not be a source of groundborne vibration. Operations of the Project would include truck deliveries. Due to the rapid drop-off rate of ground-borne vibration and the short duration of the associated events, vehicular traffic-induced ground-borne vibration is rarely perceptible beyond the roadway right-of-way, and rarely results in vibration levels that cause damage to buildings in the vicinity. The nearest sensitive receptors are approximately 200 feet from the Project boundary. At 200 feet, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
Mitigation measures 12-2 and 12-3 were proposed in the Ontario GP EIR. However, mitigation measures 12-2 and 12-3 are not applicable because the Project would not generate noise or vibrations above established thresholds and is not directly adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad or Southern California Regional Rail Authority main lines.
250
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 64 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Conclusion
No new impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Ontario GP EIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Ontario GP EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of no significant impact under this issue area.

Threshold (d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.12-5] [Notincluded in the 2021 CEQA Appendix G Thresholds]
Construction
Construction-related activities would temporarily increase ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity.

Construction-related noise levels at and near the Project site would fluctuate depending on the level and type of construction activity on a given day. The analysis performed in the Final EIR used conservative assumptionsto calculate worst-case construction noise levels. Noise from Project construction activities could be audible at nearby residential uses. Construction noise would be intermittent and last for several days or a few weeks. Short-term noise impacts associated with excavation, earthmoving, and construction activities would be considered less than significant if: 1) construction activities are limited to daytime hours; 2) construction equipment is equipped with noise control filters, as appropriate; and 3) construction activity is monitored to ensure that noise reduction specifications and guidelines are met.

Project construction would be implemented in accordance with these conditions. It is not anticipated that construction of the Project would result in new short-term noise impacts or increase the severity of impacts previously analyzed in the Final EIR. Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure 12-4. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
Mitigation Measure 12-4 was identified in the Ontario GP EIR. However, mitigation measure 12-4 is not applicable to the Project since the analysis within this Addendum EIR provides suitable substantiation for the anticipation of less than significant noise impacts.

Conclusion
Mitigation Measure 12-4 would reduce construction noise levels. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Ontario GP EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of no significant impact under this issue area.

Threshold (e, f) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.12-6] No New or More Severe Impact: The Ontario International Airport is located approximately 1.4 miles northeast of the Project site. As stated in Section 4.8 (threshold f) above, the Project site is located within the Airport Influence Area of the LAONT. However, the Project site is located within the 60- 65 dB CNEL 251
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 65 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
noise impact zone of the airport.22 The Project’s proximity would not likely be significantly affected by overhead aircraft noise. According to Table 2-3 of the LAONT land use plan, industrial uses are considered normally compatible for noise levels ranging from less than 60 dBA to 70 dBA.23 Additionally, the Project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Accordingly, no new impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Ontario GP EIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Ontario GP EIR was certified is available that would change the impact finding.

Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
Ontario GP EIR mitigation measure 12-1 would be used tominimize impacts. However, mitigation measure 12-1 is not applicable to the Project because the Project (1) does not involve a noise-sensitive use and (2) is not located within the 65 dBA CNEL contour line.

Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Project; therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required.

Overall Noise Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Statute Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts, with respect to noise. Therefore, preparation of a SEIR is not warranted. 22 The Ontario International Airport – Inter Agency Collaborative (ONT-IAC). (2018). Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (July 2018 Amendment) Map 2-3. Retrieved from: https://www.ont-iac.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/ONT-AIA-policy-map-2-3rev2-

1.pdf (Accessed August 9, 2021)
23 Ibid. Table 2-3. Retrieved from: https://www.ont-iac.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/ALUCP-Chap-2-Table-2-3-Noise-CriteriaAmendment-July-2018-Final-Doc.pdf (Accessed August 9, 2021) 252
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 66 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report

4.13 Population and Housing

4.13.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
According to the Ontario GP EIR, buildout of the Ontario GP would not result in any significant impacts to existing residential units within the City. Should future development proposals result in the potential for displacement of residential uses, each development application would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for impacts. As such, the Ontario GP EIR concluded that impacts in this regard would be less than significant and no mitigation measures were recommended.

4.13.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.13-1] No New or More Severe Impact: The Ontario GP EIR concluded that the implementation of the Ontario GP would include population growth that exceeded SCAG projections. SCAG projections for 2035 were 337,095, and the Ontario GP anticipated a population of 360,851 persons. However, impacts were anticipated to be less than significant due to the creation of balanced land uses.

The Project would not induce population growth through the introduction of housing because no housing is associated with the development. Furthermore, the Project would not propose modifications to land uses and would involve similar activities to those currently conducted on the Project site. While the construction phase may temporarily generate employment, these jobs would not remain constant enough to generate population growth.

SB 330, the Housing Accountability Act, which is part of the Planning and Zoning Law, prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households or an emergency shelter unless the local agency makes specified written findings based on a preponderance of the evidence in the record.

In this instance, SB 330 is not applicable because as previously noted, the Project does not propose any housing and the Project site is not zoned for residential development. Due to the continuation of similar land uses, a less than significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
No mitigation measures were identified in the Ontario GP EIR.

Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Project; therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required.
253
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 67 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Threshold (b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.13-2] No New or More Severe Impact: The Project involves the development of new industrial uses in an area that is currently occupied by industrial warehousing land uses. The Project would be consistent with the established land use designations of the Project area and therefore the Ontario GP. As the Project does not remove currently occupied housing, or reduce the City’s capacity for housing, the provision of replacement housing would not be necessary. No impact would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Final EIR
No mitigation measures were identified in the Ontario GP EIR.

Conclusion
There are no new potentially significant impacts associated with the Project; therefore, no new and/or refined mitigation measures are required.

Overall Population and Housing Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Statute Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts, with respect to population and housing. Therefore, preparation of a SEIR is not warranted. 254
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 68 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report

4.14 Public Services

4.14.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Ontario GP EIR concluded that there is potential for service needs to increase relative to fire protection, police protection, and schools with the implementation of the Ontario GP. However, these increases in population would still remain within the City’s service capacity. The Ontario GP EIR also concluded that implementation of the Ontario GP would not significantly increase the demand for library services that would require construction of additional library facilities.

Threshold (a) Result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection services, police protection services, school services, parks services, and other public facilities? [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.14-1, 5.14-2, 5.14-3, 5.14-4]
No New or More Severe Impact: The Project does not include or require construction of any new or physically altered fire protection, police protection, school, or other public facilities. Prior to commencement of construction activities, the Project plans would be reviewed by applicable local agencies to ensure compliance with the Ontario MC and Ontario Development Code, as well as all applicable regulations to ensure adequate site signage, lighting, and other crime safety preventative measures. This includes fair use fees which are sourced from developers that are distributed to City services such as fire and police protection facilities. The nearest Ontario Fire Department (OFD) station is OFD Station 3 located approximately 0.8 miles northeast of the Project site. The nearest Ontario Police Department (OPD) is approximately 2.4miles southeast of the Project site.

Construction of the Project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered public facilities, and would not adversely affect service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. Compliance with applicable local regulations would ensure that Project construction would result in a less than significant impact to public services.

Since the Project site is already served by the existing fire station, and the Project would be constructed pursuant to existing California Fire Code regulations, the Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered police and/or fire department facilities that could cause significant environmental impacts.

The Project does not have a residential component and would therefore not directly introduce new residents to the City that would require public services.

No new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Ontario GP EIR was certified is available. Impacts to fire protection, police protection, schools, and other public facilities are anticipated to be less than significant. Lastly, the Project’s payment of the General City Development Impact Fees, a portion of which is allocated to the fire department(s), would aid in offsetting any potential impacts.
255
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 69 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Ontario GP EIR
No mitigation measures were identified in the Ontario GP EIR.

Overall Public Services Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Statute Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Project would not result in any new or more severe impactsfromthe previously identified impacts, with respect to public services. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not warranted. 256
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 70 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report

4.15 Recreation

4.15.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Ontario GP EIR concluded that future development associated with the Ontario GP would not result in a significant impact due to the inclusion of helpful policies. Although Project could create temporary employment opportunities through the construction phase, the overall use would be consistent with the established land use.

4.15.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Would the projectincrease the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.15-1] Threshold (b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.15-1]
No New or More Severe Impact: The Ontario GP EIR concluded that the population growth included in the implementation of the Ontario GP would increase demand for parkland and open space beyond the preferred ratio of three acres per 1,000 residents and would necessitate a policy change to increase this ratio to 5 acres per 1,000 residents (currently Policy PR1-5). Policy PR1-6 also provides a minimum of two acres of developed private park space per 1,000 residents.

The Project does not include residential uses which would directly increase the City’s population or demands on park facilities. Specifically, the Project is not anticipated to substantially increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated, nor would it include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Ontario GP EIR
No mitigation measures were proposed in the Ontario GP EIR.

Overall Recreation Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Statute Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Project would not result in any new or more severe impactsfrom the previously identified impacts, with respect to recreation. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not warranted. 257
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 71 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report

4.16 Transportation

4.16.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Ontario GP EIR identified one impact area which would create significant and unavoidable impacts.

The Ontario GP EIR found that through the buildout of the Ontario GP, traffic would increase and lower the service levels of intersections within the City significantly. Mitigation is proposed in order to reduce this impact; however, the impact was determined to be significant and unavoidable regardless of mitigation. Other potential impacts due to the implementation of the Project were found to be less than significant without the need for mitigation.

4.16.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a,g) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? [Updated to 2021 CEQA Appendix G Thresholds] [Ontario GP Impact 5.16-1 and 5.16-5] Threshold (b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? [Ontario GP Impact 5.16-1]
No New or More Severe Impact: The Ontario GP EIR did not study the intersections nearest to the Project site. However, the nearest major intersections would remain at a level of service (LOS) that is suitable and less than significant. These intersections include Campus Avenue and Philadelphia Street, Grove Avenue and Francis Avenue, and Grove Avenue and Philadelphia Street.

The Project would involve the development of a warehousing facility that is consistent with the land use designations and regulations of the Project area. Furthermore, the Project would be developed similarly to the current existing uses which consist of industrial structures and activities. The Project would not include roadway modification to adjacent streets (Cedar Street and Bon View Avenue) apart from the replacement of the five (5) existing driveways with two (2) proposed driveways to provide ingress and egress to/from the Project site. The similarity between the existing uses and the Project imply that traffic intensity would not substantially change. Further, the intersections studied by the Ontario GP EIR show a less than significant LOS through the implementation of the Ontario GP.

As well, The Project also does not include roadway improvements that would modify pedestrian, mass transit, or bicycle infrastructure. Roadways would continue to function under their current form.

Moreover, with respect to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 regarding the Project’s vehicles miles traveled (VMT) impact, the Project is screened out from VMT due to its location within a low VMT generating zone.

Therefore, impacts from the Project would be less than significant.

Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Ontario GP EIR
The Ontario GP EIR proposed mitigation measure 16-1 to minimize impacts to less than significant.

However, mitigation measure 16-1 is imposed solely upon the City, and is therefore not applicable to the proposed Project.
258
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 72 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Conclusion
The Project would not further exceed roadway usage capacities or traffic thresholds established within the City. No new impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Ontario GP EIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Ontario GP EIR was certified that would impact the prior finding under this issue area.

Threshold (c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.16-2] [Not included in the 2021 CEQA Appendix G Thresholds] No New or More Severe Impact: The Project does not involve the modification of air traffic infrastructure, plans, or policies. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Program
None identified in the Ontario GP EIR.

Conclusion
No new impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Ontario GP EIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Ontario GP EIR was certified that would impact the prior finding of no significant impact under this issue area.

Threshold (d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.16-3]
Threshold (e) Result in inadequate emergency access? [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.16-3] No New or More Severe Impact: The Project’s geometric design features, including the entrances and internal driveway system, have been designed to meet the standards for the turning radii of large trucks with trailers. This is also beneficial for the access of emergency response equipment, including a ladder fire truck. The Project area is currently developed, and no agricultural activities occur in the Project area; therefore, there would be no incompatible use with farm equipment.

Furthermore, the Ontario GP EIR found that the surrounding intersections would operate at a sufficient LOS. Despite Bon View Avenue not being analyzed in the Ontario GP EIR, the replacement of the five (5) existing driveways with two (2) proposed driveways is not expected to create hazardous driving conditions. The Project would, therefore, generate a less than significant traffic hazard impact, and no mitigation would be required.

Project construction activities could require the restriction of public access in its duration. Standard construction safety measures would also be applied which would include appropriate signage and flagmen visible to approaching motorists and pedestrians indicating access options and warnings. Emergency access would also be maintained during Project operations through the dual driveway access connected to Bon View Avenue. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 259
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 73 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Ontario GP EIR
None identified in the Ontario GP EIR.

Conclusion
The Project would result in no or more severe new impact as it pertains to geometric design feature or incompatible uses. No new impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Ontario GP EIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Ontario GP EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of no significant impact under this issue area.

Threshold (f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?[Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.16-4] [Not included in the 2021 CEQA Appendix G Thresholds]
No New or More Severe Impact: Parking requirements for the Project site’s land use designation require that for the development of warehousing, one parking space be provided for every 1,000 square feet for the initial 20,000 square feet of gross floor area, and one parking space provided for every 2,000 square feet thereafter. Additionally, the Project would be required to provide one (1) trailer parking space for every four (4) dock doors. Therefore, the proposed 174,603-square foot warehouse Project with twenty three (23) dock doors would be required to provide 97 auto parking stalls and 6 trailer stalls to maintain compliance with the Ontario Development Code. The Project is proposing 100 standard parking stalls and 19 trailer stalls, thereby exceeding the required parking for the Project site, and resulting in a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Ontario GP EIR
None identified in the Ontario GP EIR.

Conclusion
The Project would result in no or more severe new impact as it pertains to parking capacity. No new impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Ontario GP EIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Ontario GP EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of no significant impact under this issue area.

Overall Transportation Impact Conclusion
The Project would result in no or more severe new impact to transportation systems. With regard to CEQA Statute Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts, with respect to transportation. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR analysis is not warranted. 260
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 74 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report

4.17 Utilities and Service Systems

4.17.1 Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
The Ontario GP EIR concluded that implementation of the Ontario GP would not result in significant impacts relative to utilities and service systems. However, the implementation of the below referenced mitigation measures was recommended.

4.17.2 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a,e,h)Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.17-1, 5.17-3, 5.17-5] Threshold (b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.17-1]
No New or More Severe Impact: The Project is proposed for development in a manner that has been accounted for in the Ontario GP EIR, including the potential water and wastewater required for the site.

The Project would generate a water demand of 2,290 gallons per day per acre (gpd/ac).24 The 7.47 net acre Project site area would require approximately 17,106 gallons per day (gpd) or 19.16 acre-feet a year (AFY). This would have only comprised approximately 0.04 percent of the projected supply at the time of the Ontario GP EIR (47,741 acre-feet). Based on the updated Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), this would comprise 0.05 percent of the 2015 existing water supply (36,153 acre-feet). The Project would also comprise 0.04 percent of the water supply in the year 2025 (43,709 acre-feet).

Because the Project’s proposed warehousing use is consistent with the Project site’s existing and proposed zoning districts (General Industrial (IG) and Light Industrial (IL)), the Project is anticipated to have a negligible impact on the previously mentioned resources. Additionally, the Ontario GP EIR determined that impacts to storm water drainage facilities would be less than significant. The Project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide additional sources of polluted runoff.

The Ontario GP EIR concluded that sufficient stormwater infrastructure exists to service the buildout of the Ontario GP while projecting the development of new stormwater facilities in undeveloped areas. The Project would occupy a portion of the City which has been previously developed with current industrial uses. The Project would not require the development of additional stormwater facilities. As discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Project would be required to comply with an adopted NPDES and associated SWPPP containing BMPs meant to minimize impacts from drainage.

Furthermore, as previously addressed, the Project would be required to prepare a SWPPP that details construction and post-construction measures to control surface runoff in a manner that is consistent with master planning efforts. Therefore, associated impacts are considered less than significant with mitigation 24 Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (2016). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Appendix B. Page 16. Retrieved from:
https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Municipal-Utilities-Company/2015_urban_water_management_plan_update_9- 18-2018.pdf (accessed August 9, 2021)
261
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 75 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
applied. Accordingly, no new or more severe impact from a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the Ontario GP EIR would occur.

Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Ontario GP EIR
The Ontario GP EIR identified mitigation measures 17-1, 17-2, and 17-3 to reduce potential impacts.

However all of these mitigation measures (17-1 through 17-3) are imposed solely on the City, and are therefore not applicable to the Project.

Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe new impact as it pertains to placement of utilities and sewer systems. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Ontario GP EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of no significant impact.

Threshold (c) Would exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.17-2] [Not included the 2021 CEQA Appendix G Thresholds]
Threshold (d) Would result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.17-2]
No New or More Severe Impact: See discussion for Threshold (a) above. The City is a member agency of the IEUA, which provides the City contracting privileges with the IEUA for off-site collection, treatment, disposal, and reuse. The Ontario GP EIR concluded that the buildout of the Ontario GP would generate approximately 56.4 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater. The City has a total wastewater treatment capacity of 108 mgd.

The wastewater generated by the Project would be approximately 18,875 gallons per day or 0.019 mgd based on wastewater generation rates previously approved by IEUA (2,500 gallons per day per acre for industrial use). This represents a nominal increase in wastewater generation and is within the assumptions of the previous analysis contained within the Ontario GP EIR. No significant impacts are anticipated with respect to providing adequate wastewater facilities to serve the Project.

Mitigation Program
No mitigation was proposed for this impact in the Ontario GP EIR.

Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impact as it pertains to wastewater treatment capacity.

Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Ontario GP EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of no significant impact to wastewater treatment systems.
262
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 76 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Threshold (f) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.17-4]
Threshold (g) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? [Ontario GP EIR Impact 5.17-4] No New or More Severe Impact: The Ontario GP EIR determined that the Ontario GP would not result in significant impacts relative to solid waste. Implementation of the Project would be expected to generate additional waste during the temporary, short-term construction phase, as well as the long-term operational phase.

Solid waste service for the City is provided by the El Sobrante Landfill located southeast of the City.

According to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), the landfill has a maximum throughput of 16,054 tons per day. This landfill has a maximum permitted capacity of approximately 209.9 million cubic yards, and the landfill has a remaining capacity of approximately 144 million cubic yards. The landfill has an expected operational life through 2051. 25 According to the Ontario GP EIR, trash is generated at a rate of 1.85 tons per employee per year (tons/employee/year). According to the SCAG Employment Density Study, warehouse uses in San Bernardino County generate employees at a rate of one employee every 2,111 square feet. For the 174,603 square foot warehouse that would amount to approximately 82 employees. These 82 employees would therefore generate approximately 153tons of solid waste. This amounts to approximately one percent of the El Sobrante daily throughput. Furthermore, the Project would occupy an area currently occupied by a similar use. The removal and replacement of that use would further minimize the additional solid waste generated by the Project.

Additionally, the Project, as with all other development in the City, would be required to adhere to City ordinances with respect to waste reduction and recycling. As a result, no impacts related to State and local statutes governing solid waste are anticipated and no mitigation is required. Consistent with the Ontario GP EIR, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Ontario GP EIR
No mitigation was identified for the Ontario GP EIR.

Conclusion
The Project would result in no new or more severe impact as it pertains to conflict with solid waste standards and regulations. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the Ontario GP EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of no significant impact to solid waste generation. 25 CalRecycle. 2021. El Sobrante Landfill. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2280?siteID=2402 (Accessed August 9, 2021).
263
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 77 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Overall Utility and Service Systems Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Statute Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Project would not result in any new or more severe impactsfrom the previously identified impacts with respect toutilities and service systems. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not warranted. 264
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 78 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
The revised CEQA Guidelines include a new separate discussion for Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs). This section briefly examines potential impacts related to TCRs that could result from implementation of the Project. The analysis is based primarily on confidential cultural resource studies conducted for the Project.

Public Resource Code (PRC) language relevant to the TCR thresholds is below:

PRC Section 21074 defines a TCR as follows:
(a) “Tribal cultural resources” are either of the following:
(1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
(A) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources.
(B) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.
(2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
(b) A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) above is a tribal cultural resource to the extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape.
(c) A historical resource described in Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as defined in subdivision (g) of Section 21083.2, or a “nonunique archaeological resource” as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 21083.2 may also be a tribal cultural resource if it conforms with the criteria of subdivision (a).

Subdivision (k) of PRC Section 5020.1 is as follows:
(k) “Local register of historical resources” means a list of properties officially designated or recognized as historically significant by a local government pursuant to a local ordinance or resolution.

Subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1 is as follows:
(c) A resource may be listed as an historical resource in the California Register if it meets any of the following National Register of Historic Places criteria:
(1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
(2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. (3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values. (4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. 265
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 79 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report

4.18.1 Analysis of Proposed Project
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

Threshold (a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or Threshold (b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
A Cultural Resource Technical Report (CRTR)was created for the Project by Sapphos Environmental, Inc. in August 2021. The CRTR creation included a cultural resources records search described in Section 4.5 above, reconnaissance-level pedestrian cultural resources survey, and Sacred Lands File (SLF) Search with the NAHC. The result of the SLF check conducted through the NAHC found that there were potential sacred lands within the USGS 7.5 Quadrangle that the Project was within. However, this area is expansive, and it was deemed unlikely that any sacred lands were within the specific Project area due to its small scale and developed nature.
26 Assembly Bill (AB) 52, does not apply to this Project as the CEQA document is an Addendum to the Ontario GP EIR and not subject to the provisions of AB 52. Furthermore, record searches and the field survey did not reveal the presence of tribal cultural resources or burial sites within the area. 27 Evidence collected during the creation of the CRTR indicated a lack of tribal cultural resources, thereby minimizing potential for the discovery of previously undocumented cultural resources within the Project area. However, Standard Condition No. 1 from Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 would be implemented to ensure that any tribal cultural resource encountered during Project development would be handled correctly and respectfully. Based on the above, a less than significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Ontario GP EIR
No mitigation measures are proposed within the Ontario GP EIR. However, compliance with Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 (Standard Condition No. 1 shown below) is proposed in the Ontario GP EIR to ensure no significant impacts.

Conclusion
No new impact related to tribal cultural resources would occur. 26 Sapphos Environmental, Inc. (2021). 1948 S. Bon View Avenue, Ontario, California Cultural Resources Technical Report. Page 25. 27 Ibid Page 26.
266
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 80 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Overall Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Statute Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts with respect to tribal cultural resources.

Therefore, preparationof an SEIR is not warranted.
267
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 81 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report

4.19 Energy
The revised CEQA Guidelines include a new separate discussion for energy resources. This section briefly examines potential impacts related to energy resources that could result from implementation of the Project.

Threshold (a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Threshold (b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Energy usage was analyzed in theOntario Plan EIR Section 5.17, Utilities and Service Systems. The Ontario GP EIR concluded that although the buildout associated with the Ontario GP would inevitably increase energy demand within the City, energy demands would be able to be accommodated by existing service providers Southern California Edison (SCE) for electricity and Southern California Gas Company (SCG) for natural gas. As well, the construction of additional energy infrastructure within the City would be conducted by the City’s energy providers.

The Project would redevelop a previously developed portion of the City with industrial warehousing uses.

These uses would be consistent with the Ontario GP and the buildout analyzed in the Ontario GP EIR. As well, construction and operation of the Project would be required to comply with all relevant Federal, State, and local regulations involving energy usage, including the CBC.

The Project is not anticipated to result in an impact on the environment due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. A less than significant impact would occur from energy consumption from the Project implementation.

Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Ontario GP EIR
No mitigation measures were identified in the Ontario GP EIR.

Conclusion
No new or more significant impact from energy consumption would occur.

Overall Energy Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts, with respect to energy. Therefore, preparation of a SEIR is not warranted. 268
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 82 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report

4.20 Wildfire
The revised CEQA Guidelines include a new separate discussion for Wildfire hazards. This section briefly examines potential impacts related to wildfire hazards that could result from implementation of the Project.

4.20.1 Analysis of Proposed Project
Threshold (a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Threshold (b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Threshold (c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Threshold (d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
The Ontario GP EIR assessed that the City was at increased risk of wildfire hazards due to its location within Southern California. This risk was attributed to the region’s lower rate of precipitation, topography, and native vegetation. However, the development modern fire-resistant materials and tools have greatly reduced these risks. As well, the City’s continued compliance with State Fire Codes further reduce the risks of wildfire.

As stated in Impact discussion 4.8(h), the Project site is not located within or adjacent to land designated as a very high fire hazard severity zone.28 Furthermore, the Project site is located in a flat/leveled area which does not include wild habitat and is not located near hillsides. The Project site is surrounded by a fully developed industrial area in all directions. Additionally, the Project site would not require the installation of additional roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, or other features that could result in fire risks.

Finally, as discussed in Section 4.6 and Section 4.9, the Project site is not exposed to flooding, landslides, runoff conditions. Therefore, a less than significant impact is expected to occur.

Mitigation Program
Mitigation Measures from the Ontario GP EIR
No mitigation measures were identified in the Ontario GP EIR.

Conclusion
No new or more significant impacts due to wildfire risks would occur. 28 CAL FIRE FRAP (2021). Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ (Accessed August 9, 2021). 269
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 83 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Overall Wildfire Impact Conclusion
With regard to CEQA Statute Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the changes proposed by the Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts with respect to Wildfire. Therefore, preparation of an SEIR is not warranted.
270
Environmental Impact Analysis
The Ontario Plan EIR 84 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
271
Determination of Approprate CEQA Documentation
The Ontario Plan EIR 85 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
5 DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE CEQADOCUMENTATION
The following discussion lists the appropriate subsections of Sections 15162 and 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines and provides justification for the City to make a determination of the appropriate CEQA document for the Project, based on the environmental analysis provided above.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 ‒ Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations (a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that Project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the Project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

The City proposes to implement the Project within the context of the Ontario GP EIR, as describedin this Addendum. As discussed in the Environmental Impact Analysis section of this Addendum, no new or more severe significant environmental effects beyond what was evaluated in the Ontario GP EIR would occur. (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

As documented herein, no circumstances associated with the location, type, setting, or operations of the Project have substantively changed beyond what was evaluated in the Ontario GP EIR; and none of the Project elements would result in new or more severe significant environmental effects than previously identified. No major revisions to the Ontario GP EIR are required. (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant environmental effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
No new significant environmental effects beyond those addressed in the Ontario GP EIR were identified. (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
Significant Project-related effects previously examined would not be more severe than were disclosed in the Ontario GP EIR as a result of the Project. Impacts associated with all environmental resource areas would be the same as or less than disclosed in the adopted Ontario GP EIR. Implementation of the Project within the context of the Ontario GPwould not substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts.
272
Determination of Approprate CEQA Documentation
The Ontario Plan EIR 86 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or No mitigation measures or alternatives were found infeasible in the certified Ontario GP EIR. (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

No other mitigation measures or feasible alternatives have been identified that would substantially reduce significant impacts.
(b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subsection (a). Otherwise, the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation.

Subsequent to certification of the Ontario GP EIR in June 2009, additional technical analyses were performed for the Project and are the subject of this Addendum. Based on the analysis in this document, the Project would not result in any new significant environmental effects nor would it increase the severity of significant effects previously identified in the Ontario GP EIR. None of the conditions listed under subsection (a) would occur that would require preparation of a subsequent EIR. (c) Once a project has been approved, the lead agency’s role in project approval is completed, unless further discretionary approval on that project is required. Information appearing after an approval does not require reopening of that approval. If after the project is approved, any of the conditions described in subsection (a) occurs, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall only be prepared by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project, if any. In this situation, no other Responsible Agency shall grant an approval for the project until the subsequent EIR has been certified or subsequent negative declaration adopted.

None of the conditions listed in subsection (a) would occur as a result of the Project. No SEIR is required.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 ‒ Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration (a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.

As described above, none of the conditions described in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparationof a SEIR have occurred.
(b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. 273
Determination of Approprate CEQA Documentation
The Ontario Plan EIR 87 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
None of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR would occur as a result of the Project. Therefore, an addendum to the certified Ontario GP EIR is the appropriate CEQA document for the Project.
(c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the Ontario GP EIR or adopted negative declaration.

This Addendum will be attached to the Ontario GP EIR and maintained in the administrative record files at the City.
(d) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the Ontario GP EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project.

The City will consider this Addendum with the Ontario GP EIR prior to making a decision on the Project. (e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency’s required findings on the Project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence.

This document provides substantial evidence for City records to support the preparation of this Addendum for the Project.
274
Determination of Approprate CEQA Documentation
The Ontario Plan EIR 88 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
275
Conclusion
The Ontario Plan EIR 89 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
6 CONCLUSION
This Addendum has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the CEQA Statute and the CEQA Guidelines to document the finding that none of the conditions or circumstances that would require preparation of a SEIR, pursuant to Section 15162 and Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, exist in connection with the Project. No major revisions would be required to the Ontario GP EIR prepared for the Ontario GP as a result of the Project. No new significant environmental impacts have been identified.

Since the certification of the Ontario GP EIR, there has been no new information showing that mitigation measures or alternatives once considered infeasible are now feasible or showing that there are feasible new mitigation measures or alternatives substantially different from those analyzed in the EIR that the City declined to adopt. Therefore, preparation of a SEIR is not required and the appropriate CEQA document for the Project is this Addendum to the Ontario GP EIR. This document will be maintained in the administrative record files at the City.
276
Conclusion
The Ontario Plan EIR 90 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
277
References
The Ontario Plan EIR 91 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
7 REFERENCES
CAL FIRE FRAP (2021). Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ Accessed August 9, 2021.

California Department of Conservation. 2021. Mineral Land Classification. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc Accessed August 21, 2021.

California Department of Transportation (CalTrans). (2018). California State Scenic Highway System Map. Retrieved from:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e805 7116f1aacaa Accessed August 17, 2021.

CalRecycle. 2021. El Sobrante Landfill.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2280?siteID=2402 Accessed August 9, 2021.

City of Ontario. Rev. 2021. Zoning Map. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/Documents/Zoning%20Map/Zoning_20210212.pdf Accessed August 2021.

City of Ontario. (2018). City of Ontario 2018 Hazard Mitigation Plan. Page 4-102. Retrieved from:
https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/EmergencyManagement/ReadyOntario/city_of_ontario_2018_hmp.pdf Accessed August 9, 2021.

City of Ontario. 2010. Exhibit LU-01 Land Use Plan. Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioplan.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2021/05/TOPLUP_Map24x3610_6_20210524_V_1.pdf. Accessed August 2021.

City of Ontario. (2010). Monthly Activity Report—Actions Month of: January 2010. Page 2. Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/Monthly-ActivityReports/january_2010.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2021.

City of Ontario. (2009). The Ontario Plan Draft EIR. Costa Mesa, CA: The Planning Center.

Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2021). EnviroStor. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?page=5&cmd=search&business_name=& main_street_name=&city=&zip=&county=&status=ACT%2CBKLG%2CCOM&branch=&site_type= CSITES%2CFUDS&npl=&funding=&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIS T+%28CORTESE%29&reporttype=CORTESE&Federal_superfund=&state_response=&voluntary_c leanup=&school_cleanup=&operating=&post_closure=&non_operating=&corrective_action=&ti ered_permit=&evaluation=&spec_prog=&national_priority_list=&senate=&congress=&assembly =&critical_pol=&business_type=&case_type=&searchtype=&hwmp_site_type=&cleanup_type= &ocieerp=&hwmp=False&permitted=&pc_permitted=&inspections=&inspectionsother=&compl aints=&censustract=&cesdecile=&school_district=&orderby=city (accessed August 8, 2021).

Federal Transit Administration. (2018). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.

Kimley-Horn and Associates. (2021). Health Risk Assessment Bon View Warehouse City of Ontario, California. Pages 18 through 19.
278
References
The Ontario Plan EIR 92 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (2016). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Appendix B. Page 16.

Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Municipal-UtilitiesCompany/2015_urban_water_management_plan_update_9-18-2018.pdf Accessed August 9, 2021.

Orion Environmental Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment South Bon View Avenue and East Cedar Street Ontario, California dated April 2021. Page 4-4 through 5-6.

San Bernardino County General Plan. 2007. Geologic Hazard Overlays. Available at http://www.sbcounty.gov/Uploads/lus/GeoHazMaps/FH27C_20100309.pdf.

Accessed August 8, 2021.

Sapphos Environmental, Inc. (2021). 1948 S. Bon View Avenue, Ontario, California Cultural Resources Technical Report. Pages 21 through 26.

The Ontario International Airport – Inter Agency Collaborative (ONT-IAC). (2018). Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (July 2018 Amendment) Map 2-2 and 2-3. Retrieved from:
https://www.ont-iac.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/ONT-AIA-policy-map-2-2.pdf Accessed August 9, 2021.
279

APPENDIX A

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
280
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
The Ontario Plan EIR 1 Bon View Project
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Measures Responsibility for
Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)

AIR QUALITY
MM 3-1: The City of Ontario Building Department shall require that all new construction projects incorporate feasible mitigation measures to reduce air quality emissions. Potential measures shall be incorporated as conditions of approval for a project and may include:
• Requiring fugitive dust control measures that exceed
South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 403, such as:
o Requiring use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to
reduce wind erosion.
o Applying water every four hours to active soil
disturbing activities.
o Tarping and/or maintaining a minimum of 24
inches of freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand,
soil, or other loose materials.
• Using construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 3 or
higher exhaust emission limits.
• Ensuring construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer’s standards.
• Limiting nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five consecutive minutes.
• Using Super-Compliant VOC paints for coating of
architectural surfaces whenever possible. A list of SuperCompliant architectural coating manufactures can be found on the South Coast Air Quality Management
District’s website at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/brochures/SuperCompliant_AIM.pdf.

Project Applicant Ongoing during
construction
City of Ontario Building
Department
MM 3-2: The City of Ontario shall evaluate new development proposals within the City and require all developments to include access or linkages to alternative modes of transportation, such as transit stops, bike paths, and/or pedestrian paths (e.g., sidewalks).

Project Applicant Prior to Issuance of
Building Permit
City of Ontario Building
Department
281

APPENDIX B

CULTURAL RESOURCE TECHNICAL REPORT
282
Bon View Project, Ontario, California

CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

PREPARED FOR:

BON VIEW LAND 10, LLC &
BV INVESTMENTS 10, LLC

AS TENANTS-IN-COMMON
2442 DUPONT DRIVE
IRVINE, CA 92612

PREPARED BY:

SAPPHOS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
430 NORTH HALSTEAD STREET
PASADENA, CA 91107

AUGUST 25, 2021

283
Bon View Project, Ontario, California Cultural Resources Technical Report August 25, 2021 Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTIONS PAGE
ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................1

1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................3

1.1 Goal of the Cultural Resources Technical Report....................................................3

1.2 Methods ...............................................................................................................3

1.3 Scope of Investigation ...........................................................................................3

2.0. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................4

2.1 Project Location....................................................................................................4

2.2 Project Description ...............................................................................................4

3.0. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ..........................................................................................5

4.0. HISTORIC CONTEXT .....................................................................................................10

4.1 Prehistoric Context..............................................................................................10

4.2 Prehistory ...........................................................................................................10

4.3 Gabrieleno Archaeology and Ethnography...........................................................12

4.4 Serrano Archaeology and Ethnography ................................................................13

4.5 Cahuilla Archaeology and Ethnography ...............................................................14

4.6 Historic Context..................................................................................................15

5.0. METHODS.....................................................................................................................20

5.1 Records Search ...................................................................................................20

5.2 Literature Review................................................................................................20

5.3 Archaeological Field Survey ................................................................................21

6.0. RESULTS........................................................................................................................23

6.1 Summary of Findings...........................................................................................23

6.2 Cultural Resources..............................................................................................23

6.3 Results of the Phase I Archaeological Resources Survey........................................24

6.4 Native American Sacred Sites and Human Remains .............................................24

6.5 Impact Analysis...................................................................................................24

7.0. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................25

8.0. REFERENCES..................................................................................................................26

TABLES PAGE

6.1-1 Previous Surveys within the Study Area...........................................................................23

6.2-1 Resources within the Study Area .....................................................................................23 284
Bon View Project, Ontario, California Cultural Resources Technical Report August 25, 2021 Page ii

FIGURES FOLLOWS PAGE

2.1-1 Vicinity Map ....................................................................................................................4

2.1-2 Project Area Map..............................................................................................................4

5.3-1 Overview of Project Area................................................................................................21 285
1948 S. Bon View Avenue, Ontario, California Cultural Resources Technical Report August 25, 2021 Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed project is located at 1948 S. Bon View Avenue in the City of Ontario (city), within San Bernardino County, California. The proposed project is located within the Ontario U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle map, on the center of the city. The site is operated as an industrial property.

The project proposes the development of one 175,047-square-foot (sf) building containing 170,547 sf of warehousing space and 4,500 sf of office space split between two floors. The office portion of the building would be located in its southeast corner. The project site has a proposed floor-area ratio (FAR) of 0.54, with a maximum of 0.55 allowed in Industrial land use areas. Project site improvements would also include surface parking, landscaping, and internal drive aisles. Access to the project site would be established through two driveways along the eastern portion of the site connecting to Bon View Avenue.

The purpose of this Cultural Resources Technical Report (CRTR) is to provide the client with a cultural resources assessment for the project such that construction, operation, and maintenance may be undertaken in a manner that avoids known or observed cultural resources afforded consideration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to the maximum extent feasible and practicable. The term cultural resources within this report refers to a historical resource under CEQA, defined as “a resource listed in, or determined eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or a resource included in a local register of historical resources,” including built and archaeological resources.1 Additionally, this CRTR addresses tribal cultural resources as required by CEQA. Where it is infeasible to avoid impacts, the consideration of mitigation measures and alternatives would be required.

Historical and Archaeological Resources
The consideration of potential impacts was based on an archives and records search; literature review; coordination with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and a site visit of the project area completed on August 12, 2021.

No (0) previously recorded historical resources or archaeological sites and no (0) previously recorded prehistoric or historic isolates have been identified in the study area. One locally eligible City of Ontario (City) Historic Landmark is located within the proposed project site, and no (0) designated City Landmarks are located within a 0.25-mile radius of the project site. The results of the Sacred Lands File search conducted by the Native American Heritage Commission were negative. No new archaeological resources were identified during the archaeological pedestrian survey.
1 California Environmental Quality Act Statue and Guidelines 2021, Section 15054.5 (a)(1)(2). 286
1948 S. Bon View Avenue, Ontario, California Cultural Resources Technical Report August 25, 2021 Page 2
Cemeteries and Human Remains
There are no formal cemeteries located within the proposed project area. In addition, there are no known human remains, grave goods, or funerary objects within the proposed project area.

Tribal Cultural Resources
As a result of the request for review of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) from the NAHC, it has been determined that there are no sacred lands recorded on the same 7.5-minute-scale quadrangle (approximately 50 square miles) as the project site.

Recommendations
This CRTR resulted in the determination that the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to listed or eligible for listing cultural resources from construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed project.
287
1948 S. Bon View Avenue, Ontario, California Cultural Resources Technical Report August 25, 2021 Page 3
SECTION 1.0

INTRODUCTION
The subject property is located at 1948 S. Bon View Avenue, Ontario, San Bernardino County, California. This Cultural Resource Technical Report (CRTR) was prepared to demonstrate compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); specifically, Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines for historical resources and tribal cultural resources (see Section 2.2, Project Description for full project description).

1.1 GOAL OF THE CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
This CRTR has been prepared to provide a historical and tribal cultural resources assessment for the proposed project such that construction, operation, and maintenance may be undertaken in a manner that avoids known or observed cultural resources afforded consideration pursuant to CEQA to the maximum extent feasible and practicable. This analysis was undertaken to determine if the proposed project would result in significant impacts to cultural resources, requiring the consideration of mitigation measures or alternatives in accordance with CEQA regulations. 2 1.2 METHODS
This report was prepared by Sapphos Environmental, Inc. The identification of existing resources and evaluation of potential impacts is based on information gathered from published and unpublished literature, South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) June 2021 record search results, August 2021 Native American Heritage Commission results, California Office of Historic Resources Built Environment Directory, a review of current and historic maps and aerial photographs, and a site visit completed on August 12, 2021, to characterize the existing conditions relative to cultural and tribal cultural resources. In addition, an intensive pedestrian archaeological survey of any unpaved, or non-landscaped areas was performed by a qualified archaeologist on August 12, 2021.

1.3 SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION
The investigation covers the areas required by CEQA including historical resources, archaeological resources, human remains, and tribal cultural resources. Databases were reviewed for the project site and a 0.25-mile buffer.
2 Section 15064.5 (b) CEQA Guidelines.
288
1948 S. Bon View Avenue, Ontario, California Cultural Resources Technical Report August 25, 2021 Page 4
SECTION 2.0

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed project is located at 1948 S. Bon View Avenue, Ontario, San Bernardino County, California (Figure 2.1-1, Vicinity Map; Figure 2.1-2, Project Area Map). The property is bounded by E. Francis Avenue to the north; S. Bon View Avenue to the east; E. Cedar Street to the south, and properties on the east side of S. Campus Avenue to the west. The project site is situated in the central portion of the city and is surrounded by commercial and industrial development to the south, north, east, and west.

2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project proposes the development of one 175,047-square-foot (sf) building containing 170,547 sf of warehousing space and 4,500 sf of office space split between two floors. The office portion of the building would be located in its southeast corner. The project site has a proposed floor-area ratio (FAR) of 0.54, with a maximum of 0.55 allowed in Industrial land use areas. Project site improvements would also include surface parking, landscaping, and internal drive aisles. Access to the project site would be established through two driveways along the eastern portion of the site connecting to Bon View Avenue. The project is speculative in nature; the end user and their hours of operation are unknown at this time. However, to be conservative, it has been assumed that the building would operate 24 hours per day/7 days per week.

Regional access to the project site is provided via CA-60, approximately 0.48 mile south of the project site with exits at Grove Avenue and Euclid Avenue. Local access to the project site is provided via Bon View Avenue which an 88-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) collector street that trends in a north-south direction. Project site main ingress and egress driveway would be provided via one 40-foot-wide, and one 30-foot-wide driveway located along the eastern border of the site along Bon View Avenue. The driveways would connect directly to Bon View Avenue and allow full access movement for both vehicles and trucks.

The project would include the provision of 109 standard 9-foot by 18-foot stalls and 21 trailer parking stalls. A project of this size would be required to provide 98 standard stalls and 6 trailer stalls. The project is anticipated to landscape approximately 10.11 percent (32,900 sf) of the project site which is higher the minimum required 10 percent (32,529 sf) as required by the City’s zoning code.
109 471 -
32, 0.
289
FIGURE 2.1-1
Vicinity Map
290
FIGURE 2.1-2
Project Area Map
291
1948 S. Bon View Avenue, Ontario, California Cultural Resources Technical Report August 25, 2021 Page 5
SECTION 3.0

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
This section of the report identifies the primary state laws and regulations that govern the conservation and protection of cultural resources that must be considered during the decisionmaking process for projects that have the potential to adversely affect cultural resources.

California Environmental Quality Act
Pursuant to CEQA, a historical resource is a resource listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). In addition, resources included in a local register of historic resources or identified as significant in a local survey conducted in accordance with state guidelines are also considered historical resources under CEQA, unless a preponderance of the facts demonstrates otherwise. According to CEQA, the fact that a resource is not listed in or determined eligible for listing in the California Register or is not included in a local register or survey shall not preclude a Lead Agency, as defined by CEQA, from determining that the resource may be a historical resource as defined in California Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.

CEQA applies to archaeological resources when (1) the archaeological resource satisfies the definition of a historical resource or (2) the archaeological resource satisfies the definition of a “unique archaeological resource.” A unique archaeological resource is an archaeological artifact, object, or site that has a high probability of meeting any of the following criteria:

1. The archaeological resource contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.

2. The archaeological resource has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.

3. The archaeological resource is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines3 provides a set of sample questions that guide the evaluation of potential impacts with regard to cultural resources.

Would the proposed project:
(a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
(b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5?
3 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3. Amended 6 October 2005. Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Appendix G.
292
1948 S. Bon View Avenue, Ontario, California Cultural Resources Technical Report August 25, 2021 Page 6
(c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
(d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? California Register of Historical Resources
Created in 1992 and implemented in 1998, the California Register is “an authoritative guide in California to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the State’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change.” Certain properties, including those listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) and California Historical Landmarks (CHLs) numbered 770 and higher, are automatically included in the California Register. Other properties recognized under the California Points of Historical Interest program, identified as significant in historic resources surveys, or designated by local landmarks programs may be nominated for inclusion in the California Register. A resource, either an individual property or a contributor to a historic district, may be listed in the California Register if the State Historical Resources Commission determines that it meets one or more of the following criteria, which are modeled on National Register criteria:

Criterion 1: It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.

Criterion 2: It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.

Criterion 3: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction; represents the work of an important creative individual; or possesses high artistic values.

Criterion 4: It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.

Resources nominated to the California Register must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. It is possible that a resource whose integrity does not satisfy National Register criteria may still be eligible for listing in the California Register. A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the California Register if, under Criterion 4, it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data. Resources that have achieved significance within the past 50 years also may be eligible for inclusion in the California Register, provided that enough time has lapsed to obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource. 4 4 Office of Historic Preservation. Undated. “Technical Assistance Bulletin 6: California Register and National Register, A Comparison (for purposes of determining eligibility for the California Register).” Available at:
www.ohp.parks.ca.gov
293
1948 S. Bon View Avenue, Ontario, California Cultural Resources Technical Report August 25, 2021 Page 7
California Historical Landmarks5
CHLs are buildings, structures, sites, or places that have anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific or technical, religious, experimental, or other value and that have been determined to have statewide historical significance by meeting at least one of the criteria listed below. The resource must also be approved for designation by the County Board of Supervisors (or the City or Town Council in whose jurisdiction it is located), be recommended by the State Historical Resources Commission, and be officially designated by the Director of California State Parks. The specific standards in use now were first applied in the designation of CHL No. 770. CHLs No. 770 and above are automatically listed in the California Register. To be eligible for designation as a Landmark, a resource must meet at least one of the following criteria:
• The first, last, only, or most significant of its type in the state or within a large geographic region (Northern, Central, or Southern California) • Associated with an individual or group having a profound influence on the history of California
• A prototype of, or an outstanding example of, a period, style, architectural movement or construction or one of the more notable works or the best surviving work in a region of a pioneer architect, designer, or master builder California Points of Historical Interest
6 California Points of Historical Interest are sites, buildings, features, or events that are of local (city or county) significance and have anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific or technical, religious, experimental, or other value. Points of Historical Interest designated after December 1997 and recommended by the State Historical Resources Commission are also listed in the California Register. No historical resource may be designated as both a Landmark and a Point. If a Point is later granted status as a Landmark, the Point designation will be retired. In practice, the Point designation program is most often used in localities that do not have a locally enacted cultural heritage or preservation ordinance. To be eligible for designation as a Point of Historical Interest, a resource must meet at least one of the following criteria:
• The first, last, only, or most significant of its type within the local geographic region (city or county)
• Associated with an individual or group having a profound influence on the history of the local area
• A prototype of, or an outstanding example of, a period, style, architectural movement or construction or one of the more notable works or the best surviving work in the local region of a pioneer architect, designer, or master builder 5 Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation, State of California. “California Historical Landmarks Registration Programs.” Available at: www.ohp.parks.ca.gov 6 Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation, State of California. “California Points of Historical Interest Registration Programs.” Available at: www.ohp.parks.ca.gov 294
1948 S. Bon View Avenue, Ontario, California Cultural Resources Technical Report August 25, 2021 Page 8
Native American Heritage Commission, Public Resources Code Sections 5097.9–5097.991 Section 5097.91 of the Public Resources Code established the NAHC, whose duties include the inventory of places of religious or social significance to Native Americans and the identification of known graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private lands. Under Section 5097.9, a state policy of noninterference with the free expression or exercise of Native American religion was articulated along with a prohibition of severe or irreparable damage to Native American sanctified cemeteries, places of worship, religious or ceremonial sites or sacred shrines located on public property. Section 5097.98 specifies a protocol to be followed when the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a county coroner. Section 5097.5 defines as a misdemeanor the unauthorized disturbance or removal of archaeological, historic, or paleontological resources located on public lands.

California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 2001 Codified in the California Health and Safety Code Sections 8010–8030, the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (Cal NAGPRA) is consistent with the federal NAGPRA. Intended to “provide a seamless and consistent state policy to ensure that all California Native American human remains and cultural items be treated with dignity and respect,” Cal NAGPRA also encourages and provides a mechanism for the return of remains and cultural items to lineal descendants. Section 8025 established a Repatriation Oversight Commission to oversee this process. The Act also provides a process for non-federally recognized tribes to file claims with agencies and museums for repatriation of human remains and cultural items.

Assembly Bill (AB) 52
AB 52 requires lead agencies to consult with California Native American Tribes that request such consultation prior to the agency’s release of a Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report or Notice of Intent of a Mitigated Negative Declaration on or after July 1, 2015.

Health and Safety Code, Sections 7050 and 7052
Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, declares that, in the event of the discovery of human remains outside a dedicated cemetery, ground disturbance must cease, and the county coroner must be notified. Section 7052 establishes a felony penalty for mutilating, disinterring, or otherwise disturbing human remains, except by relatives.

Penal Code, Section 622.5
Penal Code, Section 622.5, provides misdemeanor penalties for injuring or destroying objects of historic or archaeological interest located on public or private lands but specifically excludes the landowner.

City of Ontario
Section 9-1.2615 established Historic Landmark eligibility criteria as follows:

Historic Landmarks. Historic Landmarks shall include any property designated as an Historic Landmark prior to September 1, 2003 or any Historical Resource designated under this ordinance as an Historic Landmark.
295
1948 S. Bon View Avenue, Ontario, California Cultural Resources Technical Report August 25, 2021 Page 9
Any Historical Resource may be designated an Historic Landmark by the City Council pursuant to Section 9-1.2620 if:

1. It meets the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places; or

2. It meets the criteria for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources; or

3. It meets one or more of the following criteria:
a. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City’s history; b. It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history;
c. It is representative of the work of a notable builder, designer, architect, or artist; d. It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction;
e. It is a noteworthy example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; f. It embodies elements that represent a significant structural, engineering, or architectural achievement or innovation;
g. It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City; or, h. It is one of the few remaining examples in the City, region, state, or nation possessing distinguishing characteristics of an architectural or historical type or specimen.
296
1948 S. Bon View Avenue, Ontario, California Cultural Resources Technical Report August 25, 2021 Page 10
SECTION 4.0

HISTORIC CONTEXT
This section of the report characterizes the baseline conditions for cultural resources. This section includes information on prehistoric period context, regional ethnography, and regional and local historic context.

4.1 PREHISTORIC CONTEXT
This section of the report characterizes the baseline conditions for cultural resources and historic properties. The current project area lies at the geographic and cultural intersection of three prominent ethnohistoric territorial ranges. These include the Gabrielino, the Serrano, and the Cahuilla. Therefore, this section includes information on prehistoric period context, the three regional ethnographies, and regional and local historic context.

4.2 PREHISTORY
It is generally agreed that human occupation of Southern California began at least 10,000 years before present (BP). The archaeological record indicates that between approximately 10,000 and 6,000 years BP, a predominantly hunting and gathering economy existed, characterized by archaeological sites containing numerous projectile points and the remains of butchered large animals. The most heavily exploited species were likely those species still alive today. Bones of extinct species have been found in the region but, unlike other regions of the continent, are not definitively associated with cultural artifacts in California. Although small animal bones and plant grinding tools are rarely found within archaeological sites of this period, small game and vegetal foods were likely exploited on a widespread basis. A lack of intact stratified cultural deposits from this period suggests small groups practiced high residential mobility during this.

The three major periods of prehistory for the greater Southern California region have been refined by research using radiocarbon dates from archaeological sites in coastal Southern California:
7,8
• Millingstone Period (6,000–1,000 B.C., or about 8,000–3,000 years ago) • Intermediate Period (1,000 B.C.–A.D. 650, or 3,000–1,350 years ago) • Late Prehistoric Period (A.D. 650–about A.D. 1800, or 1,350–200 years ago) Around 6,000 years BP, a shift in focus from hunting toward a greater reliance on vegetal resources occurred. Archaeological evidence of this trend consists of a much greater number of milling tools (e.g., metates and manos) for processing seeds and other vegetable matter. This period, known to archaeologists as the Millingstone Period, was a long period of time characterized by small, mobile groups that likely relied on a seasonal round of settlements that included both inland and coastal residential bases. Seeds from sage and grasses, rather than acorns, provided calories and carbohydrates. Faunal remains from sites dating to this period indicate the same animals were still 7 Koerper, Henry C., Roger D. Mason, and Mark L. Peterson. 2002. “Complexity, Demography, and Change in Late Holocene Orange County.” In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, ed. M.

Erlandson and Terry L. Jones. Perspectives in California Archaeology. Vol. 6. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Los Angeles, Institute of Archaeology.
8 Mason, R.D., and M.L. Peterson. 1994. Newport Coast Archaeological Project: Newport Coast Settlement Systems, Analysis, and Discussion. On file at South Central Coastal Archaeological Center, California State University, Fullerton.
297
1948 S. Bon View Avenue, Ontario, California Cultural Resources Technical Report August 25, 2021 Page 11
being hunted during this era. Inland Millingstone sites are characterized by numerous manos, metates, and hammerstones. Shell middens are common at coastal Millingstone sites. Coarsegrained lithic materials, such as quartzite and rhyolite, are more common than fine-grained materials in flaked stone tools from this time. Projectile points are found in archaeological sites from this period, but they are far fewer in number than from sites dating to before 6,000 years BP.

An increase in the size of groups and the stability of settlements is indicated by deep, extensive middens at some sites from this period.
9 In sites post-dating roughly 3,000 years BP, archaeological evidence indicates the reliance on both plant gathering and hunting continued and was more specialized and locally adapted to particular environments. Mortars and pestles were added to metates and manos for grinding seeds and other vegetable material. Chipped-stone tools became more refined and specialized, and bone tools were more common. During this period, new peoples from the Great Basin began entering Southern California. These immigrants, who spoke an Uto-Aztecan language, seem to have displaced or absorbed the earlier population of Hokan-speaking peoples. The exact time of their entry into the region is not known; however, they were present in Southern California during the final phase of prehistory. During this period, population densities were higher than before; and settlement became concentrated in villages and communities along the coast and interior valleys.
10,11 During the Intermediate Period, mortars and pestles appeared, indicating the beginning of acorn exploitation. Use of the acorn, a high-calorie, storable food source, probably allowed greater sedentism and facilitated an increased level of social organization. Large projectile points from archaeological sites of this period indicate that the bow and arrow, a hallmark of the Late Prehistoric Period, had not yet been introduced; and hunting was likely accomplished using the atlatl (spear thrower) instead. Settlement patterns during this time are not well understood. The semi-sedentary settlement pattern characteristic of the Late Prehistoric Period may have begun during the Intermediate Period, although territoriality may not yet have developed partially because of lower population densities. Regional subcultures also started to develop, each with its own geographical territory and language or dialect.
12,13,14 These were most likely the basis for the groups encountered by the first Europeans during the 18th century. 15 Despite the regional differences,
many material culture traits were shared among groups, indicating a great deal of interaction. 16 The
Late Prehistoric Period is better understood than earlier periods largely through ethnographic analogy made possible by ethnographic and anthropological research of the descendants of these groups in in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
9 Wallace, William J. 1986. “Archaeological Research at Malaga Cove.” In Symposium: A New Look at Some Old Sites, ed. G.S. Breschini and T. Haversat. Salinas, CA: Coyote Press. 10 Erlandson, J.M., D.J. Kennett, B.L. Ingram, D.A. Guthrie, D.P. Morris, M.A. Tveshov, G.J. West, and P.L. Walker. 1996. “An Archaeological and Paleontological Chronology for Daisy Cave (CA-SMI-261), San Miguel Island, California.” Radiocarbon, 38: 355–373.
11 McCawley, W. 1996. The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Banning, CA: Malki Museum Press, 128–131.
12 Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78.

Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
13 McCawley, W. 1996. The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Banning, CA: Malki Museum Press, 128–131.
14 Moratto, M.J. 1984. California Archaeology. New York, NY: Academic Press, 103–13. 15 Erlandson, J.M., D.J. Kennett, B.L. Ingram, D.A. Guthrie, D.P. Morris, M.A. Tveshov, G.J. West, and P.L. Walker. 1996. “An Archaeological and Paleontological Chronology for Daisy Cave (CA-SMI-261), San Miguel Island, California.” Radiocarbon, 38: 355–373.
16 McCawley, W. 1996. The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Banning, CA: Malki Museum Press, 128–131.
298
1948 S. Bon View Avenue, Ontario, California Cultural Resources Technical Report August 25, 2021 Page 12

4.3 GABRIELENO ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETHNOGRAPHY
The Shoshonean migration marks the arrival of Uto-Aztecan speakers to Southern California. The Gabrieleno, a branch of Shoshonean, arrived around 500 BC. Their language has been identified as Cupon language which is part of the larger Uto-Aztecan. 17 At the time of Spanish contact, the Gabrieleno inhabited a rich coastal and inland region of Southern California consisting of present-day Los Angeles and Orange Counties and extending into western Riverside County, including San Nicolas, San Clemente and Santa Catalina Islands. 18 Second only to the Chumash, the Gabrielino were the wealthiest, most populous, and most powerful ethnic group in Southern California.
19 Settlement pattern studies concluded there is a
presence of both primary villages that were occupied year-round and secondary temporary camps inhabited at various times of the season. Both primary and temporary settlements seemed to be located near water sources.
20 Their culture was very similar to that of the Chumash despite marked differences in language, mortuary practices, and the manufacture and use of pottery. The Gabrieleno influenced cultures as far north as the San Joaquin Valley Yokuts, as far east as the Colorado River, and south into Baja California.

The majority of Gabrieleno artifacts reflect an ornate craftsmanship with everyday use items often decorated with asphaltum and shell inlaid, paintings and rare minerals. The Gabrieleno established a well-versed economic system focusing on trading goods, food reserves, and disturbed resources.

The Gabrieleno quarried steatite from Santa Catalina Island and often traded with neighboring tribes. Steatite items are highly diagnostic of the Gabrieleno, and it was used to make pipes, animal carvings, cooking vessels, and ornaments.
21 The Gabrieleno houses were circular structures thatched with tule, fern, or carrizo (weeds). Some houses were recorded as large as 60 feet in diameter. Sweathouses, menstrual huts, and ceremonial enclosures were other common structures found in villages.22 Unfortunately, most of the 17 Johnson, J.R., T.W. Stafford Jr., H.O. Ajie, and D.P. Morris. 2002. “Arlington Springs Revisited.” In Proceedings of the Fifth California Islands Symposium. ed. D. Browne, K. Mitchell, and H. Chaney. Santa Barbara, CA: USDI Minerals Management Service and The Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, 541–5. 18 Bean, L.J. and C.R. Smith. 1978. “Gabrielino.” In Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 8. California, ed. R.F.

Heizer. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
19 Erlandson, J.M., D.J. Kennett, B.L. Ingram, D.A. Guthrie, D.P. Morris, M.A. Tveshov, G.J. West, and P.L. Walker. 1996. “An Archaeological and Paleontological Chronology for Daisy Cave (CA-SMI-261), San Miguel Island, California.” Radiocarbon, 38: 355–373.
20 Johnson, J.R., T.W. Stafford Jr., H.O. Ajie, and D.P. Morris. 2002. “Arlington Springs Revisited.” In Proceedings of the Fifth California Islands Symposium. ed. D. Browne, K. Mitchell, and H. Chaney. Santa Barbara, CA: USDI Minerals Management Service and The Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, 541–5. 21 Johnson, J.R., T.W. Stafford Jr., H.O. Ajie, and D.P. Morris. 2002. “Arlington Springs Revisited.” In Proceedings of the Fifth California Islands Symposium. ed. D. Browne, K. Mitchell, and H. Chaney. Santa Barbara, CA: USDI Minerals Management Service and The Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, 541–5. 22 Johnson, J.R., T.W. Stafford Jr., H.O. Ajie, and D.P. Morris. 2002. “Arlington Springs Revisited.” In Proceedings of the Fifth California Islands Symposium. ed. D. Browne, K. Mitchell, and H. Chaney. Santa Barbara, CA: USDI Minerals Management Service and The Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, 541–5. 299
1948 S. Bon View Avenue, Ontario, California Cultural Resources Technical Report August 25, 2021 Page 13
Gabrielenos were gone long before systematic ethnographic studies could be completed. As a result, knowledge of their cultural and lifeways is sparse. 23 4.4 SERRANO ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETHNOGRAPHY
The Serrano language is classified as being within the Takik language family. 24 The Serrano lived in
the San Bernardino Mountains east of the Cajon Pass to as far east as present-day Twentynine Palms and as far south as the Yucaipa Valley.
25 The Serrano had exogamous moieties made up of
exogamous, patrilineal clans. Lineage and clan leaders were hereditary ceremonial leaders who controlled sacred bundles and lived in ceremonial houses. 26 The Serrano were organized into local lineages occupying favored territories but rarely claiming any territory far from the lineage’s home base.27 The estimated population of the Serrano before European contact was between 1,500 and 2,500. It is difficult to estimate the number of Serranos living in each village; however, it is likely that the villages held only as many Serranos as could be accommodated by water sources.
28 The Serrano lived in dwellings which were circular, domed structures built over an excavated area.

These structures were built with fire pits and primarily served as sleeping areas. Ceremonial houses were the only other buildings in the villages and were normally occupied by the village priest. 29 In the Serrano artifact assemblage, it is noted to be similar to that of the neighboring Cahuilla and includes musical instruments such as rattles and flutes; utensils and ornaments such as fire drills, mortars, metates, pipes, beads, awls, and projectile points from wood, shell, bone, and stone. The Serrano were talented pottery and basket makers. Their pots were made of coiled clay smoothed out with a paddle and set in the sun to dry before being fired in a pit. Serrano Brown ware was sometimes decorated with designs of circles and lines of either red or black. 30 The Serrano were also known for their petroglyphs. Abstract and geometric designs are often seen with representational figures of sheep, lizards (zoomorphs) and human beings (anthropomorphs). 23 Johnson, J.R., T.W. Stafford Jr., H.O. Ajie, and D.P. Morris. 2002. “Arlington Springs Revisited.” In Proceedings of the Fifth California Islands Symposium. ed. D. Browne, K. Mitchell, and H. Chaney. Santa Barbara, CA: USDI Minerals Management Service and The Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, 541–5. 24 Bean, Lowell J. 1972. Mukat's People: The Cahuilla Indians of Southern California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
25 Johnson, J.R., T.W. Stafford Jr., H.O. Ajie, and D.P. Morris. 2002. “Arlington Springs Revisited.” In Proceedings of the Fifth California Islands Symposium. ed. D. Browne, K. Mitchell, and H. Chaney. Santa Barbara, CA: USDI Minerals Management Service and The Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, 541–5. 26 Johnson, J.R., T.W. Stafford Jr., H.O. Ajie, and D.P. Morris. 2002. “Arlington Springs Revisited.” In Proceedings of the Fifth California Islands Symposium. ed. D. Browne, K. Mitchell, and H. Chaney. Santa Barbara, CA: USDI Minerals Management Service and The Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, 541–5. 27 Johnson, J.R., T.W. Stafford Jr., H.O. Ajie, and D.P. Morris. 2002. “Arlington Springs Revisited.” In Proceedings of the Fifth California Islands Symposium. ed. D. Browne, K. Mitchell, and H. Chaney. Santa Barbara, CA: USDI Minerals Management Service and The Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, 541–5. 28 Stickel, E.G. and L.J. Weinman-Roberts. 1980. An Overview of the Cultural Resources of the Western Mojave Desert. Bureau of Land Management Cultural Resources Publications. 29 Bean, Lowell J. 1972. Mukat's People: The Cahuilla Indians of Southern California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
30 Bean, Lowell J. 1972. Mukat's People: The Cahuilla Indians of Southern California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
300
1948 S. Bon View Avenue, Ontario, California Cultural Resources Technical Report August 25, 2021 Page 14
Researchers have proposed that the petroglyphs were records of important events, rough maps, and artistic representations of native life.
31 4.5 CAHUILLA ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETHNOGRAPHY
The Cahuilla occupied a roughly 2,400-square-mile territory that covered a wide ecological range extending from the San Jacinto Mountains to the desert to the Salton Sea and was divided into geographical areas claimed by corporate groups called a Sib, composed of several lineages and villages.
32 The territory was in a strategic location that provided access to resources through trade, as it was bisected by the major trade route, the Coco-Maricopa Trail. In addition, the territory was located at the periphery of two other routes, the Santa Fe Trail (which connected what is now the city of Needles to Cajon Pass) and the Yuman Trail which crossed the Borrego Desert, beginning in the city of Yuma and ending in San Diego.
33 The Cahuilla, although separated from neighboring
tribes by geographical features, still interacted with groups such as the Serrano, with whom the Cahuilla shared a similar ecological base, subsistence system, social and political structure, and belief system. They also regularly interacted with the Gabrieleno, a group essential in the diffusion of ideas and natural resources from the coast to inland. 34 Cahuilla settlements were occupied year-round, with portions of the population, (sometimes up to one-half or two-thirds) practicing residential mobility patterns. This residential mobility was marked by faction groups leaving the main settlements for days or weeks at a time to engage in hunting, gathering, and trading activities. The settlements were located near ecological and geographical features, such as rivers, springs, or caves and canyons to maximize availability of resources.

Hunting and gathering resources such as acorns, mesquite, pinyon, cacti, tubers, and wild game remained the primary lifeway through this time. Agriculture was minimally practiced and did not have a profound effect on settlement or subsistence patterns. The Cahuilla maximized food storage with the use of large granaries near households and ceremonial structures. 35 The first extensive contact with Europeans occurred when the Juan Bautista de Anza expedition passed through the area, setting up a trade route to provide resources to the missions by land.

While the first contact was hostile, later interaction included baptisms (at the surrounding missions) and, eventually, the adoption by the Cahuilla of Euro-American cattle and agricultural practices.

The Cahuilla managed to maintain their political and economic autonomy through the Spanish period, Mexican period, and into the American pioneer period. A smallpox epidemic in 1863 31 Bean, Lowell J. 1972. Mukat's People: The Cahuilla Indians of Southern California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
32 Bean, Lowell J. 1972. Mukat's People: The Cahuilla Indians of Southern California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 68-69, 70-75.
33 Bean, Lowell J. 1972. Mukat's People: The Cahuilla Indians of Southern California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 68-69, 70-75.
34 Johnson, J.R., T.W. Stafford Jr., H.O. Ajie, and D.P. Morris. 2002. “Arlington Springs Revisited.” In Proceedings of the Fifth California Islands Symposium. ed. D. Browne, K. Mitchell, and H. Chaney. Santa Barbara, CA: USDI Minerals Management Service and The Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, 541–5. 35 Johnson, J.R., T.W. Stafford Jr., H.O. Ajie, and D.P. Morris. 2002. “Arlington Springs Revisited.” In Proceedings of the Fifth California Islands Symposium. ed. D. Browne, K. Mitchell, and H. Chaney. Santa Barbara, CA: USDI Minerals Management Service and The Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, 541–5. 301
1948 S. Bon View Avenue, Ontario, California Cultural Resources Technical Report August 25, 2021 Page 15
decimated a large part of the population and weakened their sovereignty. The Cahuilla remained (for the most part) on their own lands until 1877 when reservations were established. 36 4.6 HISTORIC CONTEXT
Regional History
Euro-American settlement began in the area in the early 1800s as persons seeking land and fortunes made their way west from the mid-west and east coast of the United States (U.S.) or north from what is now known as Mexico. The Catholic missionaries were a catalyst in the expansion of Euro-American influences in this region. A group of missionaries, Native Americans, and soldiers from the San Gabriel Mission named San Bernardino in honor of the feast day of San Bernardino of Sienna when they entered the valley on May 10, 1810.
37 The Mission San Gabriel initially
attempted to expand its influence in the San Bernardino Valley when Father Dumetz was sent to the valley in 1810 to establish the mission station known as Politana. An earthquake in 1812 followed by raids from neighboring Native American tribes caused a lull of interest in the Politana by the Mission San Gabriel.
38 Beginning in the 1830s, the Mission San Gabriel established a branch at the Asistencia (California Historical Landmark No. 42). 39 The Asistencia is currently
located in the Mission District in eastern Loma Linda.
40 During the years 1822 through 1827, the
Mission Fathers traveled the San Bernardino-Sonora Road, also known as the Emigrant or Mormon Trail, (California Point of Historical Interest No. 96), which traversed Redlands, Old San Bernardino, Colton, and Agua Mansa, from the Mission San Gabriel to the San Bernardino Asistencia.
41 After Mexico achieved independence from Spain in 1821, the Mexican government seized ownership of church properties through the Secularization Act of 1833, and lands were redistributed as ranchos through a tribute system.
42 This land redistribution by the Mexican
government fostered the development of ranchos in what is now known as California.

As a result of the Mexican government seizing control of church properties, the Asistencia was largely abandoned by the late 1830s. The Lugo family, under leadership of Jose del Carmen Lugo, moved into the former Asistencia buildings in order to establish a colony. 43 Slover Mountain, also
known as El Cerrito Solo, was the natural landmark used for establishing the boundaries of the Lugos’ land grant within the San Bernardino Rancho.
44 What became known as San Bernardino
County originally consisted of the following ranchos: Canon de Santa Ana, Jurupa and El Rincon, 36 Johnson, J.R., T.W. Stafford Jr., H.O. Ajie, and D.P. Morris. 2002. “Arlington Springs Revisited.” In Proceedings of the Fifth California Islands Symposium. ed. D. Browne, K. Mitchell, and H. Chaney. Santa Barbara, CA: USDI Minerals Management Service and The Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, 541–5. 37 Federal Writers’ Project of the Works Project Administration for the State of California. 1939. California: A Guide to the Golden State. New York, NY: Hastings House Publishers, 616, 455, 456. 38 Scott, M.B. 1976. “Development of Water Facilities in the Santa Ana River Basin, California, 1810-1968.” 39 State of California Office of Historic Preservation, 2009b. 40 Loma Linda, City of. 2008. “Chapter 17.82 Historic Mission Overlay District; Loma Linda Municipal Code. Accessed March 5, 2009. Available at: http://ordlink.com/codes/lomalinda/index.htm 41 State of California Resources Agency. 31 January 1973. “Point of Historical Interest, San Bernardino-Sonora Road, Ontario.”
42 Van Horn, Kurt. 1974. “Tempting Temecula. The Making and Unmaking of a Southern California Community.” The Journal of San Diego History. Winter, Volume 20, Number 1. 43 Scott, M.B. 1976. “Development of Water Facilities in the Santa Ana River Basin, California, 1810-1968.” 44 State of California Resources Agency. 31 January 1973. “Point of Historical Interest, Slover Mountain.” 302
1948 S. Bon View Avenue, Ontario, California Cultural Resources Technical Report August 25, 2021 Page 16
Cucamonga, Santa Ana del Chino, San Bernardino, and Muscupiabe. 45 The ranchos largely
subsisted on cattle ranching and raising crops which were irrigated from the Mill Creek Zanja and other irrigation ditches.

In an effort to gain territory, the U.S. seized the territory of Texas from the Mexican government, which resulted in the Mexican-American War. The State of California was annexed by the U.S. in 1848 through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which ended the Mexican-American War (California Point of Historical Interest No. 151).46 The end of the war further paved the way for Euro-American settlement from the east. Ontario was sectioned as part of the public land survey system and was not owned as a rancho.

City of Ontario
The following historic context is quoted from the City of Ontario’s “History.” 47 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.
45 Schuiling, Walter C. 1984. San Bernardino County: Land of Contrasts. Brightwaters, NY: Windsor Publications. 46 State of California Office of Historic Preservation. 2009. California Historical Landmarks: Los Angeles County Accessed January 12, 2009. Available at: http://www.ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21476 47 City of Ontario. “Facts and History.” Available at: https://www.ontarioca.gov/FactsAndHistory 303
1948 S. Bon View Avenue, Ontario, California Cultural Resources Technical Report August 25, 2021 Page 17
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.

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.
304
1948 S. Bon View Avenue, Ontario, California Cultural Resources Technical Report August 25, 2021 Page 18
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
.

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. 305
1948 S. Bon View Avenue, Ontario, California Cultural Resources Technical Report August 25, 2021 Page 19
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. 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 (10, 60, and 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.

Ontario’s official song is "Beautiful Ontario," written by Paul Coronel in 1960. The official flower is the Charlotte Armstrong rose, developed by local nurseryman John Armstrong and named for his first wife. At different times, Ontario has adopted as its slogan or motto each of the following: The Model Colony; The Model City; The City That Charms; Ontario Offers Opportunity; Pulse of the Inland Empire; Stop and Grow with Ontario; Gateway to the Inland Empire; A Balanced Community; The Gateway to Southern California; and Southern California's Next Urban Center.
306
1948 S. Bon View Avenue, Ontario, California Cultural Resources Technical Report August 25, 2021 Page 20
SECTION 5.0

METHODS
This section of the report describes the methods employed in the characterization and evaluation of cultural and tribal cultural resources within the proposed project study area. The study methods were designed to provide the substantial evidence required to address the scope of analysis recommended in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA regulations related to cultural resources, Native American sacred sites, and human remains.

5.1 RECORDS SEARCH
Cultural Resources Records Search
A background records search was conducted to identify previously documented cultural resources within or near the project site. A record search was conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center, located at California State University, Fullerton, by staff on June 9, 2021. A Sacred Lands File search was conducted by the Native American Heritage Commission on August 24, 2021. The California Office of Historic Preservation Built Environment Resource Directory and City of Ontario California Historical Resources Inventory Database (CHRID) were reviewed on August 17, 2021. National, state, and local inventories of cultural resources were examined to identify significant events and personages, development patterns, and unique interpretations of architectural styles. The following inventories were consulted:
• National Register of Historic Places (2021)
• California Register of Historical Resources (2021)
• California Historical Landmarks
• California Points of Historical Interest
• City of Sierra Madre Historical Landmarks (Historical Landmarks) Staff conducted a record search at SCCIC on June 9, 2021 and included a 0.25-mile radius around the project site. The purpose of the literature search was to identify cultural resources previously recorded within and around the project site.

5.2 LITERATURE REVIEW
A literature review was completed to determine if the proposed project would have the potential to have a significant impact on previously recorded historical resources, thus requiring the consideration of avoidance and minimization measures, in accordance with CEQA Regulations.

Research included the examination of published and unpublished literature, local libraries, historic context statements, databases of previously completed surveys in the area, and a review of current and historic maps and aerial photographs. Historic aerial photographs were available and reviewed for the years 1952, 1953, 1954, 1964, 1972, 1977, 1978, 1980, 1994, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018. Additionally, historic topographic maps were available and reviewed for the years 1894, 1896, 1898, 1900, 1904, 1907, 1910, 1913, 1915, 1920, 1927, 1928, 1931, 1933, 1940, 1941, 1947, 1958, 1964, 1967, 1974, 1988, 1994, 1999, 2012, 2015, and 2018.
307
1948 S. Bon View Avenue, Ontario, California Cultural Resources Technical Report August 25, 2021 Page 21

5.3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD SURVEY
All cultural resource work was carried out under the direct supervision of qualified archaeologists who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology and History, and in accordance with the procedures for compliance with CEQA. Key cultural resources personnel who conducted the field survey and prepared the technical report include Sapphos Environmental, Inc.’s Mr. Daniel Woodward, MA, (RPA #989900) who is on the Riverside County Planning Department Cultural Consultant List as Professional Archaeologist.

Sapphos Environmental, Inc. archaeologists, Mr. Woodward conducted pedestrian archaeological field survey of the project area on August 12, 2021, to document the existing conditions of the portion of open land in the project area. The project area was surveyed using transects spaced no greater than 15 meters apart. Mr. Woodward were equipped with a sub-meter accurate GPS unit recording spatial data and documented the survey area and all findings with a high-resolution digital camera. The area surveyed was open area in the SW portion of the project and consisted of approximately 0.8 acre of surface area. The overall ground visibility during the pedestrian survey was fair (approximately 30 percent). The project area is heavily disturbed, with piles of fill material, rubble and modern construction debris scattered across the property (Figure 5.3-1, Overview of Project Area). Sapphos Environmental archaeologists followed the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation48 during the fieldwork.

The archaeologist examined exposed ground surface for artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, toolmaking debris, milling tools, ceramics), faunal remains (e.g., marine shell and bone), soil discoloration that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, and features indicative of the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., standing exterior walls, postholes, foundations) or historic debris (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics). Exposed subsurface soils resulting from rodent and other animal burrows were consistently identified and were visually inspected for cultural resources.

Appropriate personal protective equipment (i.e., snake gaiters, safety glasses, high-visibility safety vests, and appropriate boots) were used during the survey. Weather was ideal for survey; clear and sunny with a light breeze and a relative 85 degrees Fahrenheit. Survey methods included closeinterval 5-meter systematic transects and examination of all rodent spoil piles, exposed soil profiles, and disturbances. Extra time and effort were given to the examination of these disturbances in areas of decreased ground visibility, thereby supplementing the typical pedestrian survey methods with more intensive efforts.
48 Federal Register. 29 September 1983. Volume 48, Number 190, 44716. 308
1948 S. Bon View Avenue, Ontario, California Cultural Resources Technical Report August 25, 2021 Page 22
Figure 5.3-1. Overview of Project Area
SOURCE: Sapphos Environmental, Inc., 2021
309
1948 S. Bon View Avenue, Ontario, California Cultural Resources Technical Report August 25, 2021 Page 23
SECTION 6.0

RESULTS
This section of the report characterizes the baseline conditions for cultural resources; evaluates the potential for the proposed project to result in significant direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts, and identifies feasible measures capable of avoiding or reducing the significant impacts to cultural resources that would result from reasonably foreseeable development of the proposed project.

6.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A records search was conducted at the SCCIC on June 9, 2021. Results of the records search indicated that there have been zero (0) resources identified within the project site or 0.25-mile buffer study area. A search of the BERD indicated zero (0) properties were identified within the project site; however, one (1) property is located within the 0.25-mile buffer study area. One (1) report was identified within the 0.25-mile buffer study area (Table 6.1-1, Previous Surveys within the Study Area).

TABLE 6.1-1

PREVIOUS SURVEYS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
Report No. Year Report Title
Within
Project Site Author
SB-03901 2003
Cultural Resource Assessment:

Cingular Wireless Facility #SB 245-
01, Ontario, San Bernardino County,
CA.

No Caprice Harper

6.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES
The 2021 SCCIC records search indicated that there are no previously recorded cultural resources located within the project site or 0.25-mile buffer study area.

A review of the BERD indicated 840 E. Francis Street was previously indicated and assigned a status code of 7N, or “Needs to be reevaluated - formerly coded as may become NR eligible with specific conditions.” No additional resources were identified in the records and database searches (Table 6.2-1, Resources within the Study Area).

TABLE 6.2-1

RESOURCES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
Primary
No. Address Property Type
Status Code Within Project
Site
36-015808 840 E. Francis Street Building 7N N
310
1948 S. Bon View Avenue, Ontario, California Cultural Resources Technical Report August 25, 2021 Page 24
Local Agencies
City of Ontario
The results of the City of Ontario California Historical Resource Inventory Database (CHRID) review were negative for the project site and a 0.25-mile search radius.

6.3 RESULTS OF THE PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY The pedestrian archaeological resources survey was completed for the proposed project site on August 12, 2021. No cultural resources were identified during the survey.

6.4 NATIVE AMERICAN SACRED SITES AND HUMAN REMAINS
The results of the request for review of the SLF from the NAHC are negative; therefore, there are no sacred land within the project footprint. The record searches, supplemental research, and field surveys did not reveal any known cemeteries or burial sites within the action area.

6.5 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Based on the desktop review, record search results, site visit, and a review of Section 15064.5 (b) of the CEQA Guidelines, Sapphos Environmental, Inc. has determined that there would be a less than significant impact to cultural resources as a result of the proposed project.

Section 15064.5 (b) states “a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.” 49 A Statement of Overring Considerations was adopted with The Ontario Plan (General Plan) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the demolition of Tier 3 historic properties. Tier 1 and 2 historic properties require preparation of an EIR. The subject property is not currently on the Historic Resource Inventory, but staff will recommend the addition to the Historic Preservation Subcommittee- HPSC (the keeper) and will prepare a Tier 3 Determination for consideration. This process will be initiated with submittal of entitlement applications and the Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition application. Thus, a finding of less than significant impacts is recommended for the proposed project.
49 Section 15064.5 (b)(1) CEQA Guidelines, 177. 2021.
311
1948 S. Bon View Avenue, Ontario, California Cultural Resources Technical Report August 25, 2021 Page 25
SECTION 7.0

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This section of the report provides the conclusions and recommendations for minimizing potential impacts to cultural resources from the proposed project.

There are no previously recorded cultural resources on file with the SCCIC within the proposed project area or 0.25-mile buffer. The subject property is a Tier 3 property per The Ontario Plan and mitigation measures were previously approved through the Statement of Overriding Consideration.

Based on the negative archaeological resource survey, and because no archaeological resources were identified through the SCCIC records search, there is a low probability to encounter archaeological resources based on the inherent characteristics and location of the project area.

There were no cemeteries or burial sites observed as a result of the review of historic aerial photographs and historic topographic maps. There is a low probability to encounter human remains based on the inherent characteristics and location of the project area based on this review.

Through the implementation of project design features, impacts to cultural resources are anticipated to be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse change to a historical resource (Section 15064.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. 312
1948 S. Bon View Avenue, Ontario, California Cultural Resources Technical Report August 25, 2021 Page 26
SECTION 8.0

REFERENCES
Bean, L.J. and C.R. Smith. 1978. “Gabrielino.” In Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 8.

California, ed. R.F. Heizer. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Bean, Lowell J. 1972. Mukat's People: The Cahuilla Indians of Southern California. Berkeley, CA:

University of California Press.

California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3. Amended 6 October 2005. Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Appendix G.

California Environmental Quality Act Statue and Guidelines 2021, Section 15054.5 (a)(1)(2).

City of Ontario. “Facts and History.” Available at: https://www.ontarioca.gov/FactsAndHistory Erlandson, J.M., D.J. Kennett, B.L. Ingram, D.A. Guthrie, D.P. Morris, M.A. Tveshov, G.J. West, and P.L. Walker. 1996. “An Archaeological and Paleontological Chronology for Daisy Cave (CA-SMI-261), San Miguel Island, California.” Radiocarbon, 38: 355–373.

Federal Register. 29 September 1983. Volume 48, Number 190, 44716.

Federal Writers’ Project of the Works Project Administration for the State of California. 1939.

California: A Guide to the Golden State. New York, NY: Hastings House Publishers, 616, 455, 456.

Johnson, J.R., T.W. Stafford Jr., H.O. Ajie, and D.P. Morris. 2002. “Arlington Springs Revisited.” In Proceedings of the Fifth California Islands Symposium. ed. D. Browne, K. Mitchell, and H.

Chaney. Santa Barbara, CA: USDI Minerals Management Service and The Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.

Koerper, Henry C., Roger D. Mason, and Mark L. Peterson. 2002. “Complexity, Demography, and Change in Late Holocene Orange County.” In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, ed. M. Erlandson and Terry L. Jones. Perspectives in California Archaeology. Vol. 6. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Los Angeles, Institute of Archaeology.

Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Loma Linda, City of. 2008. “Chapter 17.82 Historic Mission Overlay District; Loma Linda Municipal Code. Accessed March 5, 2009. Available at:
http://ordlink.com/codes/lomalinda/index.htm
Mason, R.D., and M.L. Peterson. 1994. Newport Coast Archaeological Project: Newport Coast Settlement Systems, Analysis, and Discussion. On file at South Central Coastal Archaeological Center, California State University, Fullerton. 313
1948 S. Bon View Avenue, Ontario, California Cultural Resources Technical Report August 25, 2021 Page 27
McCawley, W. 1996. The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Banning, CA:

Malki Museum Press.

Moratto, M.J. 1984. California Archaeology. New York, NY: Academic Press, 103–13.

Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation, State of California. “California Historical Landmarks Registration Programs.” Available at: www.ohp.parks.ca.gov Office of Historic Preservation. Undated. “Technical Assistance Bulletin 6: California Register and National Register, A Comparison (for purposes of determining eligibility for the California Register).” Available at: www.ohp.parks.ca.gov
Schuiling, Walter C. 1984. San Bernardino County: Land of Contrasts. Brightwaters, NY: Windsor Publications.

Scott, M.B. 1976. “Development of Water Facilities in the Santa Ana River Basin, California, 1810- 1968.”
Section 15064.5 (b)(1) CEQA Guidelines, 177. 2021.

State of California Office of Historic Preservation, 2009b.

State of California Office of Historic Preservation. 2009. California Historical Landmarks: Los Angeles County Accessed January 12, 2009. Available at:
http://www.ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21476
State of California Resources Agency. 31 January 1973. “Point of Historical Interest, San Bernardino-Sonora Road, Ontario.”
Stickel, E.G. and L.J. Weinman-Roberts. 1980. An Overview of the Cultural Resources of the Western Mojave Desert. Bureau of Land Management Cultural Resources Publications.

Van Horn, Kurt. 1974. “Tempting Temecula. The Making and Unmaking of a Southern California Community.” The Journal of San Diego History. Winter, Volume 20, Number 1.

Wallace, William J. 1986. “Archaeological Research at Malaga Cove.” In Symposium: A New Look at Some Old Sites, ed. G.S. Breschini and T. Haversat. Salinas, CA: Coyote Press.

Section 15064.5 (b) CEQA Guidelines.
314

APPENDIX C

HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
315

Health Risk Assessment
Bon View Project
City of Ontario, California
Prepared by:

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
1100 W. Town and Country Rd Suite 700
Orange, California 92868
Contact: Mr. Ryan Chiene
714.705.1343
August 2021
316
City of Ontario Bon View Project
Health Risk Assessment
August 2021
Page | ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Location.........................................................................................................................1

1.2 Project Description....................................................................................................................1 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

2.1 Climate.......................................................................................................................................5

2.2 Meteorology..............................................................................................................................5

2.3 Toxic Air Contaminants .............................................................................................................6

2.4 Sensitive Receptors...................................................................................................................7 3 REGULATORY SETTING

3.1 Federal.......................................................................................................................................8

3.2 State of California......................................................................................................................9

3.3 Regional...................................................................................................................................11 4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY

4.1 Health Risk Analysis Thresholds..............................................................................................13

4.2 Methodology ...........................................................................................................................13 5 POTENTIAL HEALTH RISK IMPACTS

5.1 Construction Health Risk Analysis...........................................................................................18

5.2 Operational Health Risk Analysis.............................................................................................19

5.3 Non-Carcinogenic Hazards......................................................................................................19 6 REFERENCES
References...............................................................................................................................21 TABLES
Table 1 Sensitive Receptors...................................................................................................................7 Table 2 Default Age Sensitivity Factors, Fraction of Time at Home, and Daily Breathing Rates.........16 Table 3 Construction Risk.....................................................................................................................18 Table 4 Operational Risk ......................................................................................................................19 Table 5 Chronic and Acute Hazards .....................................................................................................19

EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 Regional Location Map..............................................................................................................2 Exhibit 2 Project Site Vicinity Map ...........................................................................................................3 Exhibit 3 Conceptual Site Plan..................................................................................................................4

APPENDIX
Appendix A: Modeling Data
317
City of Ontario Bon View Project
Health Risk Assessment
August 2021
Page | iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
A absorption factor from inhalation
ACES Advanced Collaborative Emissions Study
ASF age sensitivity factor
AB Assembly Bill
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
APS auxiliary power system
AT averaging time
ATCM Air Toxic Control Measure
CARB California Air Resources Board
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CPF cancer potency factor
Cair air concentration from model
Ci air concentration of substance
DBR daily breathing rate
DOORS Diesel Off-Road Reporting System
DPM Diesel Particulate Matter
DRRP Diesel Risk Reduction Plan
Dose-air does through inhalation
EMFAC Emissions Factor Model
ED exposure duration
EF exposure frequency
°F Fahrenheit
FCAA Federal Clean Air Act
FAH fraction of time spent at home
GVWR gross vehicle weight rating
HAP hazardous air pollutant
HQ health quotient
HRA health risk assessment
kg kilograms
L liter
MATES Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study
MICR Maximum Individual Cancer Risk
mg milligrams
gm micrograms per cubic meter
MSAT Mobile Source Air Toxic
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NED National Elevation Dataset
NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOX nitrogen oxides
O3 ozone
OEHHA Office Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
318
City of Ontario Bon View Project
Health Risk Assessment
August 2021
Page | iv

LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS (CONTINUED)
PM particulate matter
PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter PERP Portable Equipment Registration Program
REL Reference Exposure Level
RELi Reference Exposure Level of substance
Riskinh-res residential inhalation cancer risk
SB Senate Bill
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
T-BACT toxics best available control technology
TAC Toxic Air Contaminant
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
319
City of Ontario Bon View Avenue Warehouse
Health Risk Assessment
June 2021
Page | 1
1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this Health Risk Assessment (HRA) is to evaluate potential health risks associated with Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) including Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) resulting from the implementation of the proposed the Bon View Project (Project). This HRA was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and guidance from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to determine if health risks are likely to occur from the Project. Technical data is included as see Appendix A: Modeling Data.

1.1 Project Location and Setting
The Project site is located at the northwest corner of South Bon View Avenue and East Cedar Street in the City of Ontario, California (City), County of San Bernardino (County), California. The site is generally located in the western portion of the City, approximately 0.50-mile north of State Route 60 (SR-60) and

0.65-mile east of Euclid Avenue (SR-83). Local access to the site is provided via Cedar Street to the south and Bon View Avenue to the east; refer to Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map and Exhibit 2: Project Vicinity Map.

The Project site is a rectangular lot that contains vacant parcels. The site’s existing land use designation is Industrial; the existing zoning is Light Industrial (IL) and General Industrial (IG). Immediate surrounding properties consist of industrial uses to the north, east, south, and west; multi-family residential uses are located further to the south of the Project site along Cedar Street.

1.2 Project Description
The proposed Project would involve the construction of a 175,047 square-foot (sf) warehouse building on an approximately 7.47-acre site, with associated facilities and improvements including approximately 4,500 square feet of office space, vehicle parking, loading dock doors, trailer parking, onsite landscaping, and related on-site and off-site improvements; refer to Exhibit 3: Conceptual Site Plan. The building height would be a approximately 45 feet and have a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.54. 320
Not to Scale EXHIBIT 1: Regional Location Map
Bon View Project
City of Ontario
West
Covina
Riverside
Los
Angeles
Santa Ana
Huntington
Beach
10 15
15 15
5 215
215
605
210
605
710
110
210
60 91
1 405

PROJECT
SITE
Rialto
Perris
74 Ontario
321
Not to Scale
Cedar St
Campus Ave
Bon View Ave
EXHIBIT 2: Project Vicinity Map
Bon View Project
City of Ontario

PROJECT
AREA
322
Not to scale EXHIBIT 3: Conceptual Site Plan Bon View Project City of Ontario 323
City of Ontario Bon View Project
Health Risk Assessment
August 2021
Page | 5
2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

2.1 Climate
The general region lies in the semi‐permanent high‐pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. The climate is mild and tempered by cool sea breezes. The usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds. The extent and severity of the air pollution problem in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is a function of the area’s natural physical characteristics (weather and topography), as well as man‐made influences (development patterns and lifestyle). Factors such as wind, sunlight, temperature, humidity, rainfall, and topography all affect the accumulation and/or dispersion of pollutants throughout the SCAB. These factors along with applicable regulations are discussed below.

The average annual temperature varies little throughout the SCAB, averaging 75 degrees Fahrenheit (°F).

However, with a less‐pronounced oceanic influence, the eastern inland portions of the SCAB show greater variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures. All portions of the SCAB have had recorded temperatures over 100°F in recent years.

2.2 Meteorology
Although the SCAB has a semi‐arid climate, the air near the surface is moist due to the presence of a shallow marine layer. Except for infrequent periods when dry, continental air is brought into the SCAB by offshore winds, the ocean effect is dominant. Periods with heavy fog are frequent, and low stratus clouds, occasionally referred to as “high fog,” are a characteristic climate feature. Annual average relative humidity is 70 percent at the coast and 57 percent in the eastern part of the SCAB. Precipitation in the SCAB is typically nine to 14 inches annually and is rarely in the form of snow or hail due to typically warm weather. The frequency and amount of rainfall is greater in the coastal areas of the SCAB.

A temperature inversion is defined as an increase in temperature with height, or to the layer within which such an increase occurs. The height of the inversion is important in determining pollutant concentration.

When the inversion is approximately 2,500 feet above sea level, the sea breezes carry the pollutants inland to escape over the mountain slopes or through the passes. At a height of 1,200 feet, the terrain prevents the pollutants from entering the upper atmosphere, resulting in a settlement in the foothill communities.

Below 1,200 feet, the inversion puts a tight lid on pollutants, concentrating them in a shallow layer over the entire SCAB. Usually, inversions are lower before sunrise than during the day. Mixing heights for inversions are lower in the summer and more persistent, being partly responsible for the high levels of ozone (O3) observed during summer months in the SCAB. Smog in southern California is generally the result of these temperature inversions combining with coastal day winds and local mountains to contain the pollutants for long periods of time, allowing them to form secondary pollutants by reacting with sunlight. The SCAB has a limited ability to disperse these pollutants due to typically low wind speeds.

The area in which the Project is located offers clear skies and sunshine yet is still susceptible to air inversions. These inversions trap a layer of stagnant air near the ground, where it is then further loaded with pollutants. These inversions cause haziness, which is caused by moisture, suspended dust, and a variety of chemical aerosols emitted by trucks, automobiles, furnaces, and other sources.

324
City of Ontario Bon View Project
Health Risk Assessment
August 2021
Page | 6

2.3 Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are airborne substances capable of causing short‐term (acute) and long‐ term (chronic or carcinogenic, i.e. cancer causing) adverse human health effects (i.e. injury or illness).

TACs include both organic and inorganic chemical substances. They may be emitted from a variety of common sources including gasoline stations, automobiles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, and painting operations. The current California list of TACs includes approximately 200 compounds, including particulate emissions from diesel‐fueled engines.

Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) is a term used by the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) that includes a variety of pollutants generated or emitted by industrial production activities. Identified as TACs under the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), ten have been singled out through ambient air quality data as being the most substantial health risk in California. Direct exposure to these pollutants has been shown to cause cancer, birth defects, damage to the brain and nervous system, and respiratory disorders. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) provides emission inventories for only the larger air basins.

TACs do not have ambient air quality standards because no safe levels of TACs can be determined. Instead, TAC impacts are evaluated by calculating the health risks associated with a given exposure. The requirements of the Air Toxic “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act (Assembly Bill [AB] 2588) apply to facilities that use, produce, or emit toxic chemicals. Facilities subject to the toxic emission inventory requirements of the act must prepare and submit toxic emission inventory plans and reports, and periodically update those reports.

Toxic contaminants often result from fugitive emissions during fuel storage and transfer activities, and from leaking valves and pipes. For example, the electronics industry, including semiconductor manufacturing, uses highly toxic chlorinated solvents in semiconductor production processes. Sources of air toxics go beyond industry, however. Automobile exhaust also contains toxic air pollutants such as benzene and 1,3‐butadiene. In California, on‐road diesel‐fueled engines contribute approximately 24 percent of the statewide total, with an additional 71 percent attributed to other mobile sources such as construction and mining equipment, agricultural equipment, and transport refrigeration units. Stationary sources contribute about 5 percent of total DPM. It should be noted that CARB has developed several plans and programs to reduce diesel emissions such as the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan (DRRP), the Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP), and the Diesel Off‐Road Reporting System (DOORS). The PERP and DOORS programs allow owners or operators of portable engines and certain other types of equipment can register their units in order to operate their equipment throughout California without having to obtain individual permits from local air districts.

Diesel exhaust and many individual substances contained in it (including arsenic, benzene, formaldehyde, and nickel) have the potential to contribute to mutations in cells that can lead to cancer. Long‐term exposure to diesel exhaust particles poses the highest cancer risk of any TAC evaluated by OEHHA. CARB estimates that about 70 percent of the cancer risk that the average Californian faces from breathing toxic air pollutants stems from diesel exhaust particles.

In its comprehensive assessment of diesel exhaust, OEHHA analyzed more than 30 studies of people who worked around diesel equipment, including truck drivers, railroad workers, and equipment operators. The studies showed these workers were more likely to develop lung cancer than workers not exposed to diesel emissions. These studies provide strong evidence that long‐term occupational exposure to diesel exhaust increases the risk of lung cancer. Using information from OEHHA’s assessment, CARB estimates that diesel 325
City of Ontario Bon View Project
Health Risk Assessment
August 2021
Page | 7
particle levels measured in California’s air in 2000 could cause 540 “excess” cancers in a population of 1 million people over a 70‐year lifetime. Other researchers and scientific organizations, including the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, have calculated cancer risks from diesel exhaust similar to those developed by OEHHA and CARB.

Exposure to diesel exhaust can have immediate health effects. Diesel exhaust can irritate the eyes, nose, throat, and lungs, and it can cause coughs, headaches, lightheadedness, and nausea. In studies with human volunteers, diesel exhaust particles made people with allergies more susceptible to the materials to which they are allergic, such as dust and pollen. Exposure to diesel exhaust also causes inflammation in the lungs, which may aggravate chronic respiratory symptoms and increase the frequency or intensity of asthma attacks.

Diesel engines are a major source of fine particulate pollution. The elderly and people with emphysema, asthma, and chronic heart and lung disease are especially sensitive to fine‐particle pollution. Numerous studies have linked elevated particle levels in the air to increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits, asthma attacks, and premature deaths among those suffering from respiratory problems. Because children’s lungs and respiratory systems are still developing, they are also more susceptible than healthy adults to fine particles. Exposure to fine particles is associated with increased frequency of childhood illnesses and can also reduce lung function in children. In California, diesel exhaust particles have been identified as a carcinogen.

2.4 Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive populations are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than is the general population.

Sensitive receptors that are in proximity to localized sources of toxics are of particular concern. Land uses considered sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, long‐term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. Sensitive land uses surrounding the Project consist of multi-family and single-family residences. The nearest sensitive land uses nearest to the Project are shown in Table 1: Sensitive Receptors.

Table 1: Sensitive Receptors
Receptor Description Distance and Direction from the Project Multi-Family Residences 155 feet to the south
Single-Family Residences 480 feet to the southwest
Multi-Family Residences 730 feet to the west
Source: Google Earth, 2021.
326
City of Ontario Bon View Project
Health Risk Assessment
August 2021
Page | 8
3 REGULATORY SETTING

3.1 Federal
Federal Clean Air Act
The FCAA was amended in 1990 to address the numerous air pollutants that are known to cause or may reasonably be anticipated to cause adverse effects to human health or adverse environmental effects. 188 specific pollutants and chemical groups were initially identified as HAPs, and the list has been modified over time. The FCAA Amendments included new regulatory programs to control acid deposition and for the issuance of stationary source operating permits.

In 2001, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its first Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule, which identified 21 mobile source air toxic (MSAT) compounds as being HAPs that required regulation. A subset of six of these MSAT compounds were identified as having the greatest influence on health and included benzene, 1,3‐butadiene, formaldehyde, acrolein, acetaldehyde, and DPM. More recently, the EPA issued a second MSAT Rule in February 2007, which generally supported the findings in the first rule and provided additional recommendations of compounds having the greatest impact on health. The rule also identified several engine emission certification standards that must be implemented.

Unlike the criteria pollutants, toxics do not have National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) making evaluation of their impacts more subjective.

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) were incorporated into a greatly expanded program for controlling toxic air pollutants. The provisions for attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS were substantially modified and expanded. Other revisions included provisions regarding stratospheric ozone protection, increased enforcement authority, and expanded research programs.

Section 112 of the FCAA Amendments governs the federal control program for HAPs. NESHAPs are issued to limit the release of specified HAPs from specific industrial sectors. These standards are technology‐ based, meaning that they represent the best available control technology an industrial sector could afford.

The level of emissions controls required by NESHAPs are not based on health risk considerations because allowable releases and resulting concentrations have not been determined to be safe for the general public. The FCAA does not establish air quality standards for HAPs that define legally acceptable concentrations of these pollutants in ambient air.

Federal Emissions Standards for On-Road Trucks
To reduce emissions from on-road, heavy-duty diesel trucks, the U.S. EPA established a series of increasingly strict emission standards for new engines, starting in 1988. The U.S. EPA promulgated the final and cleanest standards with the 2007 Heavy-Duty Highway Rule.1 The PM emission standard of 0.01 gram per horsepower-hour (g/hp-hr) is required for new vehicles beginning with model year 2007. Also, the NOX and nonmethane hydrocarbon (NMHC) standards of 0.20 g/hp-hr and 0.14 g/hp-hr, respectively, were phased in together between 2007 and 2010 on a percent of sales basis: 50 percent from 2007 to 2009 and 100 percent in 2010.
1 United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements, Final Rule. 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 69, 80, and 86. January 18, 2001.
327
City of Ontario Bon View Project
Health Risk Assessment
August 2021
Page | 9
Emission Standards for Nonroad Diesel Engines
To reduce emissions from off-road diesel equipment, the U.S. EPA established a series of cleaner emission standards for new off-road diesel engines. Tier 1 standards were phased in from 1996 to 2000 (year of manufacture), depending on the engine horsepower category. Tier 2 standards were phased in from 2001 to 2006. Tier 3 standards were phased in from 2006 to 2008. Tier 4 standards, which generally require add-on emission control equipment to attain them, are being phased in from 2008 to 2015.

3.2 State of California
California Air Resources Board
CARB’s statewide comprehensive air toxics program was established in 1983 with AB 1807 the Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Act (Tanner Air Toxics Act of 1983). AB 1807 created California's program to reduce exposure to air toxics and sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB adopts an airborne toxics control measure (ATCM) for sources that emit designated TACs. If there is a safe threshold for a substance at which there is no toxic effect, the control measure must reduce exposure to below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the measure must incorporate toxics best available control technology (T‐BACT) to minimize emissions.

CARB also administers the state’s mobile source emissions control program and oversees air quality programs established by state statute, such as AB 2588. Under AB 2588, TAC emissions from individual facilities are quantified and prioritized by the air quality management district or air pollution control district. High priority facilities are required to perform a health risk assessment and, if specific thresholds are exceeded, required to communicate the results to the public in the form of notices and public meetings. In September 1992, the AB 2588 was amended by Senate Bill (SB) 1731 which required facilities that pose a significant health risk to the community to reduce their risk through a risk management plan.

Diesel Risk Reduction Plan
The identification of DPM as a TAC in 1998 led CARB to adopt the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel‐Fueled Engines and Vehicles (DRRP) in October 2000. The DRRP's goals include an 85 percent reduction in DPM by 2020 from the 2000 baseline. 2 CARB estimates that emissions
of DPM in 2035 will be less than half those in 2010, further reducing statewide cancer risk and non-cancer health effects.3 The DRRP includes regulations to establish cleaner new diesel engines, cleaner in‐use diesel engines (retrofits), and cleaner diesel fuel.

Truck and Bus Regulation Reducing Emissions from Existing Diesel Vehicles On December 12, 2008, CARB approved the Truck and Bus Regulation to significantly reduce particulate matter (PM) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions from existing diesel vehicles operating in California.

The regulation requires diesel trucks and buses that operate in California to be upgraded to reduce emissions. Heavier trucks were required to be retrofitted with PM filters beginning January 1, 2012, and 2 California Air Resources Board, Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel‐Fueled Engines and Vehicles, October 2000.
3 California Air Resources Board, Overview: Diesel Exhaust & Health, available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health, accessed May 10, 2021. 328
City of Ontario Bon View Project
Health Risk Assessment
August 2021
Page | 10
older trucks were required to be replaced starting January 1, 2015. By January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses would need to have 2010 model year engines or equivalent.

The regulation applies to most privately and federally‐owned diesel fueled trucks and buses and to privately and publicly owned school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 14,000 pounds. Small fleets with three or fewer diesel trucks can delay compliance for heavier trucks and there are several extensions for low‐mileage construction trucks, early PM filter retrofits, adding cleaner vehicles, and other situations. Privately and publicly owned school buses have different requirements.

Heavy‐Duty Vehicle Idling Emission Reduction Program
The purpose of the CARB ATCM to Limit Diesel‐Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling is to reduce public exposure to diesel particulate matter and criteria pollutants by limiting the idling of diesel‐fueled commercial vehicles. The driver of any vehicle subject to this ATCM is prohibited from idling the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than five minutes at any location and is prohibited from idling a diesel‐ fueled auxiliary power system (APS) for more than five minutes to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on the vehicle if it has a sleeper berth and the truck is located within 100 feet of a restricted area (homes and schools).

CARB Final Regulation Order, Requirements to Reduce Idling Emissions from New and In‐Use Trucks, beginning in 2008, would require that new 2008 and subsequent model‐year heavy‐duty diesel engines be equipped with an engine shutdown system that automatically shuts down the engine after 300 seconds of continuous idling operation once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to “neutral” or “park”, and the parking brake is engaged.

CalEnviroScreen
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has developed CalEnviroScreen 3.0, which is a mapping tool that helps identify California communities that are most affected by many sources of pollution, and where people are often especially vulnerable to pollution’s effects. CalEnviroScreen uses environmental, health, and socioeconomic information to produce scores for every census tract in the State. The scores are mapped so that different communities can be compared.

An area with a high score is one that experiences a much higher pollution burden than areas with low scores.

According to CalEnviroScreen, the Project site is located within Census Tract 6071001813, which is within the 95-100th percentile. The residential uses to the south of the Project site are located within Census Tract 6071001810, which is within the 80-85th percentile. It should be noted that the CalEnviroScreen scores are not an expression of health risk, and do not provide quantitative information on increases in cumulative impacts for specific sites or projects. Further, as a comparative screening tool, the results do not provide a basis for determining when differences between scores are significant in relation to public health or the environment.

CARB Advanced Clean Truck Regulation
CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Truck Regulation in June 2020 requiring truck manufacturers to transition from diesel trucks and vans to electric zero-emission trucks beginning in 2024. By 2045, every new truck sold in California is required to be zero-emission. This rule directly addresses disproportionate 329
City of Ontario Bon View Project
Health Risk Assessment
August 2021
Page | 11
risks and health and pollution burdens and puts California on the path for an all zero-emission short-haul drayage fleet in ports and railyards by 2035, and zero-emission “last-mile” delivery trucks and vans by 2040. The Advanced Clean Truck Regulation accelerates the transition of zero-emission medium-and heavy-duty vehicles from Class 2b to Class 8. The regulation has two components including a manufacturer sales requirement, and a reporting requirement:
• Zero-Emission Truck Sales: Manufacturers who certify Class 2b through 8 chassis or complete vehicles with combustion engines are required to sell zero-emission trucks as an increasing percentage of their annual California sales from 2024 to 2035. By 2035, zero-emission truck/chassis sales need to be 55 percent of Class 2b – 3 truck sales, 75 percent of Class 4 – 8 straight truck sales, and 40 percent of truck tractor sales. • Company and Fleet Reporting: Large employers including retailers, manufacturers, brokers and others would be required to report information about shipments and shuttle services. Fleet owners, with 50 or more trucks, would be required to report about their existing fleet operations.

This information would help identify future strategies to ensure that fleets purchase available zero-emission trucks and place them in service where suitable to meet their needs.

3.3 REGIONAL
South Coast Air Quality Management District
The CCAA provides the SCAQMD with the authority to manage transportation activities at indirect sources and regulate stationary source emissions. Indirect sources of pollution are generated when minor sources collectively emit a substantial amount of pollution. An example of this would be the motor vehicles at an intersection, a mall, and on highways. As a State agency, CARB regulates motor vehicles and fuels for their emissions.

Air Toxics Control Plan
The Air Toxics Control Plan (March 2000, revised March 26, 2004) is a planning document designed to examine the overall direction of the SCAQMD’s air toxics control program. It includes development and implementation of strategic initiatives to monitor and control air toxics emissions. Control strategies that are deemed viable and are within the SCAQMD’s jurisdiction will each be brought to the SCAQMD Board for further consideration through the normal public review process. Strategies that are to be implemented by other agencies will be developed in a cooperative effort, and the progress will be reported back to the Board periodically.

Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study
The SCAQMD conducted an in‐depth analysis of the toxic air contaminants and their resulting health risks for all of Southern California. The Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the SCAB (MATES IV) shows that cancer risk has decreased more than 50 percent between MATES III (2008) and MATES IV (2015).

MATES IV is the most comprehensive dataset documenting the ambient air toxic levels and health risks associated with the SCAB emissions. Therefore, MATES IV study represents the baseline health risk for a cumulative analysis. MATES IV estimates the average excess cancer risk level from exposure to TACs is less than 400 in one million basin‐wide. These model estimates were based on monitoring data collected at 330
City of Ontario Bon View Project
Health Risk Assessment
August 2021
Page | 12
ten fixed sites within the SCAB. None of the fixed monitoring sites are near the Project site. However, MATES IV has extrapolated the excess cancer risk levels throughout the SCAB by modeling the specific grids. MATES IV modeling predicted an excess cancer risk of 772 in one million for the Project area.4 DPM is included in this cancer risk along with all other TAC sources. DPM accounts for 68 percent of the total risk shown in MATES IV. The SCAQMD is currently preparing MATES V, which will be the latest comprehensive study of levels of toxic air pollutants the region, MATES V will include an advanced monitoring component with a focus on refinery emissions.

Assembly Bill 617 – Community Air Protection Program
Passed by the California legislature in 2017, AB 617 is a law that focuses on reducing air pollution in environmental justice communities throughout the State. AB 617 requires a statewide strategy with focused actions for communities heavily impacted by air pollution. These actions include developing community air monitoring plans (CAMPs) and/or community emissions reduction plans (CERPs) to reduce emissions of toxic air contaminants (TACs) and criteria pollutants. The San Bernardino/Muscoy area was among three communities chosen for the program. The project site is approximately 17 miles west of the CERP’s boundary and approximately 16.5 miles west of the emissions study area boundary.

The San Bernardino/Muscoy CERP outlines the actions and commitments to reduce air pollution for the San Bernardino/Muscoy community. Implementation of the CERP is estimated to reduce NOX emissions by 40 to 50 tons per year and PM emissions by 0.5 to 0.6 tons per year. The CERP’s goal is to cut NOX and PM emissions 10 percent by 2024 and 21 percent and 15 percent, respectively, by 2029.

CERP implementation is to take place over approximately five years. Once adopted, the CERP would allow the SCAQMD to provide incentive funds to accelerate the replacement of old trucks with technology that is cleaner than required, focus enforcement to ensure rule compliance, develop new rules to reduce emissions, work with land use agencies to develop emissions reducing policies, and implement school programs to reduce indoor levels of pollution. The CERP does not includes project-specific requirements but would allow the SCAQMD and CARB to implement emissions reducing measures. Therefore, no further analysis is warranted.
4 South Coast Air Quality Management District, MATES IV Estimated Risk, https://scaqmdonline.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=470c30bc6daf4ef6a43f0082973ff45f 331
City of Ontario Bon View Project
Health Risk Assessment
August 2021
Page | 13
4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY

4.1 Health Risk Analysis Thresholds
Project health risks are determined by examining the types and levels of air toxics generated and the associated impacts on factors that affect air quality. While the final determination of significance thresholds is within the purview of the lead agency pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, the SCAQMD recommends that the following air pollution thresholds be used by lead agencies in determining whether the impacts from the Project are significant. If the lead agency finds that the Project has the potential to exceed the air pollution thresholds, the Project should be considered significant. The thresholds for air toxic emissions are as follows:
• Cancer Risk: Emit contaminants that exceed the maximum individual cancer risk of 10 in one million.
• Non‐Cancer Risk: Emit contaminants that exceed the maximum hazard quotient of 1 in one million.

Cancer risk is expressed in terms of expected incremental incidence per million population. The SCAQMD has established an incidence rate of 10 persons per million as the maximum acceptable incremental cancer risk due to DPM exposure. This threshold serves to determine whether or not a given project has a potentially significant development‐specific and cumulative impact. The 10 in one million standard is a health‐protective significance threshold. A risk level of 10 in one million implies a likelihood that up to 10 persons, out of one million equally exposed people would contract cancer if exposed continuously (24 hours per day) to the levels of toxic air contaminants over a specified duration of time. This risk would be an excess cancer that is in addition to any cancer risk borne by a person not exposed to these air toxics.

To put this risk in perspective, the risk of dying from accidental drowning is 1,000 in a million which is 100 times more than the SCAQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million.

The SCAQMD has also established non‐carcinogenic risk parameters for use in HRAs. Noncarcinogenic risks are quantified by calculating a "hazard index," (HI) expressed as the ratio between the ambient pollutant concentration and its toxicity or Reference Exposure Level (REL). An REL is a concentration at or below which health effects are not likely to occur. A hazard index less than 1.0 means that adverse health effects are not expected. Within this analysis, non‐carcinogenic exposures less than 1.0 are considered less than significant.

4.2 Methodology
This HRA evaluates potential health risks associated with the emission of diesel particulate matter resulting from the implementation of the proposed Project. Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic generate diesel exhaust, which is a known TAC. Diesel exhaust from construction equipment operating at the site poses a health risk to nearby sensitive receptors. Operational activities would also include the use of heavy-duty diesel trucks.

Construction Sources
Construction would generate DPM emissions from the use of off-road diesel equipment required for demolition, grading and excavation, paving, and other construction activities. For construction activity, DPM is the primary toxic air contaminant of concern. On-road diesel-powered haul trucks traveling to and 332
City of Ontario Bon View Project
Health Risk Assessment
August 2021
Page | 14
from the construction area to deliver materials and equipment were included in the analysis, although they are typically less of a concern because they would not stay on the site for long durations. Diesel exhaust from construction equipment operating at the site potentially poses a health risk to nearby sensitive receptors. The closest sensitive receptors to the Project site are residences located 155 feet away from the south boundary of the Project site.

Health-related risks associated with diesel-exhaust emissions are primarily linked to long-term exposure and the associated risk of contracting cancer. The use of diesel-powered construction equipment would be episodic and would occur throughout the Project site. Construction activities would limit idling to no more than five minutes, which would further reduce nearby sensitive receptors’ exposure to temporary and variable DPM emissions. Furthermore, even during the most intense period of construction, emissions of DPM would be generated from different locations on the Project Site rather than in a single location because different types of construction activities (e.g., site preparation and building construction) would not occur at the same place at the same time.

Operational Sources
Due to the increased truck traffic from the Project, the resulting emissions could also result in pollutant concentrations at existing sensitive receptors. Average daily trips from truck traffic to the Project were obtained from the Project Traffic Impact Study (May 2021). Emission rates for vehicle running and idling for PM10 (DPM) was calculated using trip data and CARB 2017 EMission FACtor model version 1.0.2 (EMFAC)5 data for San Bernardino County; refer to Appendix A. The emissions rate was calculated using 2022 emissions factors since Project construction would be completed in late-2021. The third trimester exposure used opening year (2022) emissions factors, 2-year factors (for infant exposure) reflect years 2023 and 2024 using 2023 emissions factors, 14-year average factors (for child exposure during years 2- 16) reflect emissions during the first 14 years of operation after infancy (2025 to 2038) using 2025 emissions factors, and the second 14 years of exposure (years 2039-2052) using 2039 emissions factors were used for assessment of exposure during years 16 to 30 and were derived for the South Coast Portion of San Bernardino County. The analysis includes onsite idling and truck traffic on the following roadways and vehicle speeds are:
• Bon View Avenue (25 to 40 miles per hour)
• Philadelphia Street (40 miles per hour)
• Euclid Avenue (40 miles per hour)
• Grove Avenue (40 miles per hour)
• Onsite Truck Traffic (15 miles per hour)
Dispersion Modeling
The air dispersion modeling for the HRA was performed using the U.S. EPA AERMOD dispersion model.

AERMOD is a steady‐state, multiple‐source, Gaussian dispersion model designed for use with emission sources situated in terrain where ground elevations can exceed the stack heights of the emission sources (not a factor in this case). AERMOD requires hourly meteorological data consisting of wind vector, wind speed, temperature, stability class, and mixing height. Surface and upper air meteorological data is provided by the SCAQMD. Surface and upper air meteorological data from the Fontana Monitoring Station was selected as being the most representative for meteorology based on proximity to the Project site. 5 California Air Resources Board, EMFAC 2017 Web Database, www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/2017/, accessed February 2021. 333
City of Ontario Bon View Project
Health Risk Assessment
August 2021
Page | 15
The AERMOD emission source for construction are line volume sources (comprised of smaller adjacent volume sources)6throughout the Project site. Heavy duty vehicle emissions were assigned a release height (i.e., average stack height) of 12 feet (3.6 meters), and a plume height of 20.4 feet (6.22 meters). AERMOD was run to obtain the 1‐hour and annual average concentration in micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) of PM10 at the nearby sensitive receptors. According to the SCAQMD’s Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for AB 2588, air dispersion modeling is required to estimate annual average concentrations to calculate the Maximum Individual Cancer Risk (MICR), the maximum chronic HI, the zones of impact, and excess cancer burden, as well as peak hourly concentrations to calculate the health impact from substances with acute non‐cancer health effects. To achieve these goals, a receptor grid was placed over the Project site to cover the zone of impact. According to the SCAQMD, in order “to identify the maximum impacted receptors (i.e. peak cancer risk and peak hazard indices) a grid spacing of 100 meters or less must be used” (see page 16 of SCAQMD’s Supplemental Guidelines). Due to the size of the Projectsite, receptors were modeled with a 50-meter grid spacing. In addition, National Elevation Dataset (NED) terrain data was imported into AERMOD for the Project. The modeling and analysis were prepared in accordance with the SCAQMD Modeling Guidance for AERMOD. 7 Note that the concentration estimate developed using this methodology is conservative and is not a specific prediction of the actual concentrations that would occur at the Project site any one point in time.

Actual 1-hour and annual average concentrations are dependent on many variables, particularly the number and type of vehicles and equipment operating at specific distances during time periods of adverse meteorology. A health risk computation was performed to determine the risk of developing an excess cancer risk calculated on these worst-case exposure duration scenarios. The chronic and carcinogenic health risk calculations are based on the standardized equations contained in the OEHHA Guidance Manual. Only the risk associated with the worst-case location of the Project was assessed.

Health Risk Computation
A health risk computation was performed to determine the risk of developing an excess cancer risk calculated on a 30‐year exposure scenario using CARB’s Risk Assessment Stand Alone Tool (RAST). The chronic and carcinogenic health risk calculations are based on the standardized equations contained in the U.S. EPA Human Health Evaluation Manual (1991) and the OEHHA Guidance Manual (2015).

Risk and Hazard Assessment
Cancer Risk
Based on the OEHHA methodology, residential inhalation cancer risk from annual average DPM and benzene concentrations are calculated by multiplying the daily inhalation dose, cancer potency factor, age sensitivity factor (ASF), frequency of time spent at home, and exposure duration divided by averaging time, yielding the excess cancer risk. These factors are discussed in more detail below. It is important to note that exposure duration is based on continual heavy truck operation along nearby roadways. Exposure through inhalation (Dose‐air) is a function of breathing rate, exposure frequency, and concentration of 6 Construction emissions would occur from heavy-duty equipment operating throughout the Project site. These sources were characterized as multiple volume sources (modeled as adjacent line volume sources that cover the disturbed areas of the project site) to represent construction equipment.
7 South Coast Air Quality Management District, SCAQMD Modeling Guidance for AERMOD, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/airquality/meteorological-data/modeling-guidance, accessed February 17, 2020. 334
City of Ontario Bon View Project
Health Risk Assessment
August 2021
Page | 16
substance in the air. To estimate cancer risk, the dose was estimated by applying the following formula to each ground‐level concentration:

Dose-air = Cair*(BR/BW)*A*EF*10-6
Dose-air = dose through inhalation (mg/kg/day)
Cair = air concentration (μg/m3) from air dispersion model (DBR/BW) = daily breathing rate normalized to body weight (L/kg bodyweight-day) A = inhalation absorption factor (unitless)
EF = exposure frequency (approximately 350 days per year for residential) 10-6 = conversion factor (micrograms to milligrams, liters to cubic meters) OEHHA developed ASFs to consider the increased sensitivity to carcinogens during early‐life exposure.

Fraction of time at home (FAH) during the day is used to adjust exposure duration and cancer risk from a specific facility’s emissions, based on the assumption that exposure to the facility’s emissions are not occurring away from home. The factors used in the health risk assessment are shown in Table 2: Default Age Sensitivity Factors, Fraction of Time at Home, And Daily Breathing Rates.

Table 2: Default Age Sensitivity Factors, Fraction of Time at Home, and Daily Breathing Rates Age
Default Age Sensitivity
Factor1(ASF)
Fraction of Time at Home
(FAH)
Daily Breathing Rate
(L/kg BW-day2)
Third trimester 10 100% 361
0 to 2 years 10 100% 1,090
Ages 2 through 15 years 3 100% 745
Ages 16 and greater 1 73% 335

1. Accounts for potential increased sensitivity to carcinogens during childhood.

2. 95th percentile daily breathing rate normalized to body weight (L/kg body weight - day) Source: California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Air Toxics Program Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, February 2015.

To estimate the cancer risk, the dose is multiplied by the cancer potency factor, the ASF, the exposure duration divided by averaging time, and the frequency of time spent at home (for residents only):

Riskinh‐res = (Doseair*CPF*ASF*(ED/AT)*FAH)
Riskinh-res = residential inhalation cancer risk (potential chances per million) Doseair = daily dose through inhalation (mg/kg-day)
CPF = inhalation cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day-1)
ASF = age sensitivity factor for a specified age group (unitless) ED = exposure duration (years)
AT = averaging time of lifetime cancer risk (years)
FAH = fraction of time spent at home (unitless)
Chronic Non‐Cancer Hazard
Non‐cancer chronic impacts are calculated by dividing the annual average concentration by the REL for that substance. The REL is defined as the concentration at which no adverse non‐cancer health effects are anticipated. The following equation was used to determine the non‐cancer risk:
335
City of Ontario Bon View Project
Health Risk Assessment
August 2021
Page | 17
Hazard Quotient = Ci/RELi
Ci = concentration in the air of substance i (annual average concentration in μg/m3) RELi = chronic noncancer Reference Exposure Level for substance (μg/m3) Acute Non-Cancer Hazard
The potential for acute non-cancer hazards is evaluated by comparing the maximum short-term exposure level to an acute REL. RELs are designed to protect sensitive individuals within the population. The calculation of acute non-cancer impacts is similar to the procedure for chronic non-cancer impacts. The equation is as follows:

Acute HQ = Maximum Hourly Air Concentration (μg/m3) / Acute REL (μg/m3) Health Risk Computation
A health risk computation was performed to determine the risk of developing an excess cancer risk calculated on a 30‐year exposure scenario using CARB’s Risk Assessment Stand Alone Tool (RAST). Health risk were analyzed at the point of maximum impact and are a conservative estimate. The pollutant concentrations are then used to estimate the long-term cancer health risk to an individual as well as the non-cancer chronic health index.

The off-site impacts would occur from the diesel trucks accessing the proposed Project. The cancer and chronic health risks are based on the annual average concentration of PM10 (used as a proxy for DPM). As DPM does not have short-term toxicity values, acute risks were conservatively evaluated using hourly PM10 concentrations and the REL for acrolein. The chronic and carcinogenic health risk calculations are based on the standardized equations contained in the U.S. EPA Human Health Evaluation Manual (1991) and the OEHHA Guidance Manual (2015).
336
City of Ontario Bon View Project
Health Risk Assessment
August 2021
Page | 18
5 POTENTIAL HEALTH RISK IMPACTS
CARB identified DPM as a TAC in 1998. Mobile sources (including trucks, buses, automobiles, trains, ships, and farm equipment) are by far the largest source of diesel emissions. The exhaust from diesel engines includes hundreds of different gaseous and particulate components, many of which are toxic. Diesel exhaust is emitted from a broad range of on‐ and off‐road diesel engines. As the Project is proposed near existing residences, an analysis of DPM was performed using the EPA‐approved AERMOD model.

5.1 Construction Health Risk Analysis
The duration of construction activities for the Project is estimated to take approximately nine months.

Construction-related activities would result in Project-generated emissions of diesel PM from the exhaust of off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site preparation (e.g., clearing, grading); paving; application of architectural coatings; on-road truck travel; and other miscellaneous activities. For construction activity, diesel PM is the primary toxic air contaminant of concern. On-road diesel-powered haul trucks traveling to and from the construction area to deliver materials and equipment are less of a concern because they would not stay on the site for long durations. Diesel exhaust from construction equipment operating at the site poses a health risk to nearby sensitive receptors. The closest sensitive receptors near the Project site are residential uses located to the south.

As noted above, maximum (worst case) PM10 exhaust construction emissions over the entire construction period were used in AERMOD to approximate construction DPM emissions. Risk levels were calculated based on the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) guidance document, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines (February 2015). Results of this assessment are summarized in Table 3: Construction Risk.

Table 3: Construction Risk
Exposure
Scenario
Pollutant
Concentration
(μg/m3)
1,2
Maximum Cancer Risk
(Risk per Million)
Chronic
Noncancer Hazard
Acute Noncancer
Hazard
Construction 0.00017 0.025 0.00003 0.00041
Threshold N/A 10 1.0 1.0
Threshold Exceeded No No No No

1. Refer to Appendix A.

2. The maximum cancer risk would be experienced at the residences to south of the Project site along Cedar Street.

Results of this assessment indicate that the unmitigated maximum concentration of PM10 during construction would be 0.00017 μg/m3 and resultant cancer risk of 0.025 in one million, which would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million. Non-cancer hazards for diesel PM would be below SCAQMD threshold of 1.0, with a chronic hazard index computed at 0.00003 and an acute hazard index of 0.00041. Therefore, construction risk levels would be less than SCAQMD thresholds and impacts would be less than significant.

337
City of Ontario Bon View Project
Health Risk Assessment
August 2021
Page | 19

5.2 Operational Health Risk Analysis
Carcinogenic Risk
Vehicle DPM emissions were estimated using emission factors for PM10 generated with the EMFAC developed by CARB. Truck emissions were modeled with AERMOD to determine pollutant concentrations.

As shown in Table 4: Operational Risk, the unmitigated calculated carcinogenic risk resulting from the Project is 0.88 per million, which would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million residents.

Therefore, the carcinogenic risk associated with the Project would be less than significant.

Table 4: Operational Risk
Exposure Scenario Maximum Cancer Risk
(Risk per Million)1, 2
Significance Threshold
(Risk per Million)
Exceeds Significance
Threshold?
Residents 0.88 10 No

1. Refer to Appendix A.

2. The maximum cancer risk would be experienced at the residences to the south of the Project site along Philadelphia Street based on worst-case exposure durations for the Project, 95th percentile breathing rates, and 30-year averaging time.

5.3 Non‐Carcinogenic Hazards
The significance thresholds for TAC exposure also require an evaluation of non‐cancer risk stated in terms of a hazard index. Non‐cancer chronic impacts are calculated by dividing the annual average concentration by the REL for that substance. The REL is defined as the concentration at which no adverse non‐cancer health effects are anticipated. The potential for acute non‐cancer hazards is evaluated by comparing the maximum short‐term exposure level to an acute REL. RELs are designed to protect sensitive individuals within the population. The calculation of acute non‐cancer impacts is similar to the procedure for chronic non‐cancer impacts.

Acute and chronic impacts are shown in Table 5: Chronic and Acute Hazards. An acute or chronic hazard index of 1.0 is considered individually significant. The hazard index is calculated by dividing the acute or chronic exposure by the reference exposure level. The highest maximum chronic and acute hazard index from the Project would be 0.0002 and 0.0013, respectively. Therefore, non‐carcinogenic hazards are calculated to be within acceptable limits and a less than significant impact would occur.

Table 5: Chronic and Acute Hazards
Emissions Sources Chronic Hazard Acute Hazard
Operational Trucks 0.0002 0.0013
SCAQMD Threshold 1.0 1.0
Threshold Exceeded? No No
Refer to Appendix A: Modeling Data.

Conclusion
As described above, impacts related to cancer risk would be less than significant. Additionally, non‐ carcinogenic hazards are calculated to be within acceptable limits. It should be noted that the impacts assess the Project’s incremental contribution to health risk impacts, consistent with the SCAQMD 338
City of Ontario Bon View Project
Health Risk Assessment
August 2021
Page | 20
guidance and methodology. The SCAQMD has not established separate cumulative thresholds and does not require combining impacts from cumulative projects. The SCAQMD considers projects that do not exceed the project-specific thresholds to generally not be cumulatively significant. 8 Therefore, impacts
related to health risk from the Project would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant impact.
8 South Coast Air Quality Management District, White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution, August 2003.
339
City of Ontario Bon View Project
Health Risk Assessment
August 2021
Page | 21
6 REFERENCES

1. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Land Use Projects, July 2009.

2. California Air Resources Board, EMFAC 2017 Web Database, www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/2017/, accessed February 2021.

3. California Air Resources Board, Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles, October 2000.

4. California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, August 2003.

5. California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, February 2015.

6. California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Draft CalEnvironScreen 4.0, https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/draft-calenviroscreen-40, accessed February 17, 2021.

7. Health Effects Institute, Advanced Collaborative Emissions Study (ACES): Lifetime Cancer and NonCancer Assessment in Rats Exposed to New-Technology Diesel Exhaust, January 2015.

8. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., Ontario – Bon View Trip Generation, May 2021.

9. Lakes Environmental, AERMOD View Gaussian Plume Air Dispersion Model, Version 9.9.0.

10. Ralph Propper, et al., Ambient and Emission Trends of Toxic Air Contaminants in California, Environmental Science and Technology, September 2015.

11. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Toxics Control Plan for the Next Ten Years, March 2000.

12. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Addendum to the Air Toxics Control Plan, March 2004.

13. South Coast Air Quality Management District, SCAQMD Meteorological Data for AERMOD, www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/air-quality-data-studies/meteorological-data/aermod-table-1, accessed February 17, 2021.

14. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES IV), May 1, 2015.

15. South Coast Air Quality Management District, SCAQMD Modeling Guidance for AERMOD, www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/air-quality-data-studies/meteorological-data/modeling-guidance, accessed February 17, 2021.

16. South Coast Air Quality Management District, White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution, August 2003.

17. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition, September 2011.

18. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements, Final Rule. 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 69, 80, and 86. January 18, 2001. 340
Appendix A
Modeling Data
341

APPENDIX D

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
342
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report
Phase I Environmental
Site Assessment
SouthBon View Avenue and EastCedar Street
Ontario, California
prepared for:

Panattoni Development Company, Inc.
7887 East Belleview Avenue, Suite 475
Denver, Colorado
April 2021
343
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report
29 April 2021
Project No. 72ONT2
Trevor McKune
Associate Risk Manager
Panattoni Development Company, Inc.
7887 E. Belleview Avenue, Suite 475
Denver, Colorado 80111
Subject: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Northwest Corner of South Bon View Avenue and East Cedar Street Ontario, California
Dear Mr. McKune:

Orion Environmental Inc., at the request of Panattoni Development Company, Inc. (Panattoni), has prepared this report documenting a Phase I Environmental Target Property Assessment for the approximately 7.5-acre property located at 21 through 52, 1906, 1914, 1930, 1944, and 1948 South Bon View Avenue (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 1050-441-05, 1050-441-09, 1050-441-11 through 1050-441-62, and 1050-441-73) in Ontario, California. We appreciate the opportunity to provide environmental services to Panattoni.

If you have questions or comments regarding this report, please contact Steve Hash at 562/988-2755 or [email protected].

Very truly yours,
ORION ENVIRONMENTAL INC.

Steve Hash, P.E. Mike Purchase, P.E.

Senior Project Engineer Vice President
344
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Orion Environmental Inc. (Orion), at the request of Panattoni Development Company, Inc. (Panattoni), performed a Phase I Environmental Target Property Assessment (ESA) and Tier 1 Vapor Encroachment Screening (VES) of the property located at 21 through 52, 1906, 1914, 1930, 1944, and 1948 South Bon View Avenue, Ontario, California (Target Property). The Target Property consists of multiple parcels with an area of approximately 7.5-acres identified by Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN’s) 1050-441-05, 1050-441-09, 1050-441-11 through 1050-441-62, and 1050-441-73. The Target Property is located in a developed area of Ontario predominantly characterized by industrial developments.

According to historical documentation, the Target Property was used for agricultural purposes from at least the 1930’s until the 1980’s. Historical operations at adjoining or nearby properties appear to have included orchards, but Orion did not identify any records indicating pesticide-intensive agricultural operations at the Target Property. The Target Property was partially developed in the 1980’s and currently includes (1) two commercial condominiums with various commercial/industrial operations, (2) a metals fabrication operation, and (3) a single-family residence. The northern and northeastern portions of the Target Property have remained undeveloped.

Orion conducted this Phase I ESA in general accordance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Standard Practice for ESAs (E1527-13) unless otherwise noted. Similarly, the Vapor Screening Evaluation was conducted in accordance with ASTM’s Standard Guide for Vapor Encroachment Screening on a Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions (E2600-15). The purpose of the Phase I ESA was to identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs) and vapor encroachment conditions (VECs) as defined in the aforementioned ASTM Standards.

The ESA included a review of local regulatory agency files, review of State and federal regulatory databases, Target Property reconnaissance, and interviews with current employees at the Target Property.

Orion did not identify any RECs, historical RECs (HREC), controlled RECs (CRECs), or VECs during the Phase I ESA based on historical Target Property use, historical documentation, interviews, and Target Property reconnaissance. Orion observed an apparently fresh watersand mixture on the paved ground surface of the Target Property near previously decommissioned metals polishing equipment that contained caked sand/mud. Orion 345
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report ES-2
identified the presence of this mixture as a de minimis condition because of the potential presence of metals. Historical records indicated that hazardous materials and wastes were present at the Target Property including halogenated solvents, but no records identified a release of chemicals to the environment. Similarly, hazardous waste oil was observed in labeled drums on secondary containment during reconnaissance, although no leaks or staining were observed in the vicinity of the drums.

Based on information from the San Bernardino County Assessor’s Office, the single-family residence at the Target Property was constructed in 1979, while the remaining industrial structures were built in the 1980’s and 1990’s. Asbestos and lead sampling of existing structures at 1944 and 1948 South Bon View Avenue were performed by others during December 2018. The results indicated that (1) non-friable asbestos was present in 50 percent of roofing material samples collected and (2) lead-based paint does not appear to be present in painted surfaces.

After completing this Phase I ESA, Orion recommends the following:

1. A hazardous materials survey should be performed prior to demolition of existing structures to further evaluate the potential presence of asbestos or lead at the Target Property.

2. Based on the historical use of halogenated solvents, petroleum hydrocarbons, and metals, a Soil Management Plan should be prepared for potential future site redevelopment activities.

3. Samples of the caked sand/mud and water-sand mixture should be collected and analyzed for metals to appropriately characterize and manage these materials before removal and offsite disposal.

The Executive Summary section of this report is only intended to represent a brief summary of findings and is not a detailed account of all the information documented in this report.

The report should be reviewed in its entirety before drawing any final conclusions as to potential environmental conditions associated with the Target Property. 346
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... I

1.0 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................1-1

1.1 Objectives...............................................................................................1-1

1.2 Scope of Work.........................................................................................1-2

1.3 ASTM Non-Scope Considerations ............................................................1-3

2.0 SOURCES OF INFORMATION...........................................................................2-1

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................3-1

3.1 Target Property Location and Vicinity ......................................................3-1

3.2 Physical Setting........................................................................................3-2

3.3 Target Property Geology and Hydrogeology.............................................3-2

3.4 Nearby Water and Oil and Gas Wells......................................................3-3

4.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE AND INTERVIEWS......................................................4-1

4.1 Target Property Reconnaissance Methodology and Observations .............4-1

4.1.1 Building Interior and Exterior ........................................................4-1

4.1.2 Utilities.........................................................................................4-3

4.1.3 Chemicals and Materials Usage.....................................................4-4

4.1.4 Wastes..........................................................................................4-4

4.1.5 Adjacent Properties.......................................................................4-5

4.2 Interviews................................................................................................4-5

5.0 RECORDS REVIEW.............................................................................................5-1

5.1 Sanborn Map Review...............................................................................5-1

5.2 Historical Aerial Photography Review......................................................5-1

5.3 Historical Topographic Map Review ........................................................5-2

5.4 City Directory Review..............................................................................5-3

5.5 Database Review.....................................................................................5-5

5.5.1 1914 and 1930 South Bon View Avenue (Target Property) ............5-8

5.5.2 1944 South Bon View Avenue (Target Property) ............................5-9

5.5.3 R&I Industries, Inc.......................................................................5-10

5.5.4 Greenline Laboratories, Inc. ........................................................5-10

5.5.5 Sky Systems Co., Inc. ..................................................................5-11

5.5.6 Tom Guilfoyle – 840 E. Francis Street..........................................5-11

5.5.7 Riviera Tube Bending & Mfg. Co.................................................5-11

5.5.8 Lighting Resources, LLC ..............................................................5-12

5.5.9 Warfield Electric Co., Inc. ...........................................................5-13

5.5.10 Allied Mechanical Products ........................................................5-13

5.5.11 Southtown Industrial Park ...........................................................5-14

5.5.12 Ontario Drums............................................................................5-14 347
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report ii

5.5.13 Oakwood Interiors Site................................................................5-15

5.5.14 Sunshine Cleaners – Driftwood Village........................................5-16

5.5.15 Woodcrest Elementary/Jr. High School ........................................5-17

5.6 Local Agency Review.............................................................................5-17

5.7 Vapor Encroachment Screening (VES) ....................................................5-18

6.0 NON-SCOPE CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................................6-1

7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................7-1

8.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................8-1

9.0 RELIANCE AND LIMITATIONS...........................................................................9-1

10.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL STATEMENT............................................10-1 List of Tables
1 Database Report Table
List of Figures
1 Target Property Location Map
2 Target Property Plan
3 Target Property Vicinity
List of Appendices
A List of Federal and State Regulatory Databases
B ERIS Database Report
C User Questionnaire
D Target Property Reconnaissance Photographs
E Local Agency Files
F Tier 1 Vapor Encroachment Screening Report
348
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report 1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Orion was retained by Panattoni to perform a Phase I ESA at the property located at 21 through 52, 1906, 1914, 1930, 1944, and 1948 South Bon View Avenue, Ontario, California (Target Property; Figures 1 and 2). The Target Property consists of multiple parcels with an area of approximately 7.5-acres identified by APNs 1050-441-05, 1050- 441-09, 1050-441-11 through 1050-441-62, and 1050-441-73. The work was conducted in general accordance with Orion’s proposal dated 3 March 2021 and approved by Panattoni on 7 April 2021. The following sections summarize the Phase I ESA objectives and scope of work including potential non-scope considerations.

1.1 Objectives
The objectives of the Phase I ESA were to evaluate whether the Target Property may have been impacted by releases of hazardous materials from past or present activities at the Target Property or adjacent and nearby properties, which are considered Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs). ASTM Standard E1527-13 defines a REC as:

REC: “the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. De minimis conditions are not recognized environmental conditions.”
The term REC includes hazardous substances or petroleum products even under conditions in compliance with laws. The term is not intended to include de minimis conditions that generally do not pose a material risk of harm to public health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate government agencies. An example of de minimis conditions would include accidental leaks and spills associated with current Target Property operations.

In addition, the Phase I ESA was conducted to identify controlled or historical RECs (CRECs and HRECs, respectively) at the Target Property or surrounding properties. ASTM Standard E1527-13 defines CRECs and HRECs as the following:

CREC: “a recognized environmental condition resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the 349
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report 1-2
satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority (for example, as evidenced by the issuance of a no further action letter or equivalent, or meeting riskbased criteria established by regulatory authority), with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls (for example, property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls).” HREC: “a past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with the property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the property to any required controls (for example, property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls).” Data gaps may have been identified during the Phase I ESA process and are discussed later in this report. ASTM Standard E1527-13 defines data gaps as:

Data Gap: “a lack or inability to obtain information required by this practice despite good faith efforts by the environmental professional to gather such information. Data gaps may result from incompleteness in any of the activities required by this practice, including, but not limited to site reconnaissance (for example, an inability to conduct the site visit), and interviews (for example, an inability to interview the key site manager, regulatory officials, etc.).

A Tier 1 Vapor Encroachment Screening (VES) was conducted to identify any Vapor Encroachment Conditions (VECs) present at the Target Property or resulting from adjacent or nearby properties. ASTM Standard E2600-15 defines VECs as “the presence or likely presence of chemical of concern vapors in the vadose zone of the target property caused by the release of vapors from contaminated soil and/or groundwater on or near the target property as identified by Tier 1 or Tier 2 procedures.” Tier 1 Screening is conducted using information gathered during the Phase I ESA and is used to identify the presence of VECs at the Target Property. Tier 2 Screening is conducted if a VEC is identified by the Tier 1 Screening and would include numeric screening criteria to provide greater certainty to the existence of a VEC.

1.2 Scope of Work
To meet these objectives, Orion conducted the following scope of work in accordance with ASTM Standards E1527-13 and E2600-15 unless otherwise noted:
 Target Property and vicinity reconnaissance
350
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report 1-3
 Interview(s) with Target Property owner representative(s)  Review of historical information
 Review of State and federal environmental database information  Preparation of this report.

1.3 ASTM Non-Scope Considerations
ASTM non-scope considerations are sometimes assessed concurrently with a Phase I ESA, but were not included in Orion’s approved scope of work defined in the aforementioned proposal. Examples of non-scope considerations include:
 Asbestos-containing building materials  Health and safety  Lead-based paint  Industrial hygiene
 Lead in drinking water  Indoor air quality
 Radon  Mold
 Non-liquid polychlorinated biphenyls  Cultural and historic resources  Regulatory compliance  Ecological resources
 Diffuse anthropogenic pollution  Endangered species
 Biological agents  Wetlands

351
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report 2-1

2.0 SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Orion used various sources of information to perform the Phase I ESA for the Target Property.

Historical documentation was obtained through Environmental Risk Information Services (ERIS), of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. ERIS searched databases for historical Sanborn maps, city directories, topographic maps, aerial photographs, water well records, and regulatory records using the search radii defined in ASTM Standards E1527-13 and E2600-15. To evaluate the potential presence of oil and natural gas wells, Orion reviewed the California Department of Conservation Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) online database. Similarly, Orion reviewed the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) online database of well completion reports. Orion also contacted the following agencies to request records related to the Target Property:
 City of Ontario Fire Department
 City of Ontario Building Department
 City of Ontario Public Works Department
 San Bernardino County Fire Protection District (Fire Department)  San Bernardino County Environmental Health Services
 San Bernardino County Assessor’s Office.

In addition, Panattoni provided Orion with a copy of a Phase I ESA conducted for 1944 and 1948 South Bon View Avenue dated 26 November 2018. The Phase I ESA was prepared by Robin Environmental Management (REM) of San Dimas, California, on behalf of HK Ventures, Inc., UTR Diversified I, LLC, and UTR 1948 Bon View, LLC, of Brea, California (REM, 2018). Orion reviewed the Phase I ESA prepared by REM and incorporated findings into this report with references, as needed. No RECs were identified by REM as part of their Phase I ESA. Orion also reviewed a copy of an asbestos and lead survey report prepared for 1944 and 1948 South Bon View by Ambient Environmental, Inc. (Ambient), in December 2020 (Ambient, 2020).

Target Property reconnaissance was performed to observe for current land use conditions and physical indications of possible usage, storage, spillage, or dumping of hazardous, toxic, or petroleum substances on Target Property and, when possible, on adjacent properties. Historical documentation was compiled from the State and federal databases defined in ASTM Standards E1527-13 and E2600-15 (Appendix A). The results of historical 352
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report 2-2
database searches and agency correspondence are summarized in Section 5 of this Phase I ESA report, while ERIS’s database report is in Appendix B. 353
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report 3-1

3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
The following sections summarize the Target Property location and vicinity, physical setting, geology and hydrogeology, and nearby water and oil and gas wells.

3.1 Target Property Location and Vicinity
The Target Property is located at the northwest corner of South Bon View Avenue and East Cedar Street, Ontario, California, in an area predominantly characterized by mixed-use commercial and industrial properties (Figure 2). The Target Property consists of multiple parcels with an area of approximately 7.5-acres identified by APNs 1050-441-05, 1050-441-09, 1050-441-11 through 1050-441-62, and 1050-441-73. Based on information provided by Panattoni, a total of 13 entities own portions of the Target Property, which has been developed to include a commercial condominium with various commercial/industrial operations (1914 and 1930 South Bon View Avenue); metals fabrication company JLMC Inc. Custom Metals Fabricators (JLMC; 1944 South Bon View Avenue); and a single-family residence (1948 South Bon View Avenue). Remaining portions of the Target Property are undeveloped. The Target Property is adjoined by commercial/industrial properties to the north, south, and west and South Bon View Avenue to the east (Figure 2). The following table summarizes adjoining properties and properties in the immediate vicinity of the Target Property.

Direction
Relative to
Target Property Address
Parcel
Number Current Land Use
North 1856 S. Bon View Ave. 1050-431-26 Industrial
East 1915 S. Bon View Ave. 1050-451-04 Industrial
East 1945 S. Bon View Ave. 1050-451-03 Industrial
East-Southeast 901 E. Cedar St. 1050-451-07 Industrial
South 1954 & 1958 S. Bon View Ave. 1050-441-04 Industrial West-Southwest 799 E. Cedar St. 1050-441-72 Industrial
West 1999 S. Campus Ave. 1050-441-68 Industrial
West 1939 S. Campus Ave. 1050-441-65 Industrial
West 780 E. Francis St. 1050-431-17 Industrial
354
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report 3-2

3.2 Physical Setting
The average elevation of the Target Property is approximately 870 feet above mean sea level with the Target Property topography sloping downward towards the south-southeast based on U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5- and 15-minute topographic maps and Target Property reconnaissance. Outside of the existing buildings, the developed portion of the Target Property is predominantly covered in asphalt with grass and planters along the eastern property boundaries. The undeveloped portions of the Target Property at 21 through 52 and 1906 South Bon View Avenue (APNs 1050-441-31 through 1050-441-62 and 1050-441-09) are unpaved and predominantly grass. Surface and storm water are directed to two municipal drains near the eastern and southeastern boundaries of 1930 South Bon View Avenue.

3.3 Target Property Geology and Hydrogeology
USGS sources indicate that the Target Property is primarily underlain by Pliocene- to Holocene-aged quaternary alluvium and marine deposits. According to the Soil Survey Geographic database, the Target Property is underlain by Tujunga loamy sand, which is classified as Class A soils with high water transmission and low runoff potential when thoroughly wet. Based in subsurface investigations conducted at properties within the Phase I ESA search radius, shallow soils have been classified as silty sands and well- and poorly-graded sands to a maximum depth explored of 80 feet below ground surface (bgs; Clayton Group Services, Inc., 2006).

The Target Property is located within the South Coast Hydrologic Region, Upper Santa Ana Valley Basin, Chino Subbasin No. 8-002.01 (California Department of Water Resources, 2003). Groundwater within the subbasin is reported to drain southward toward the Santa Ana River. Based on subsurface investigations conducted at a property approximately

1.2 miles north of the Target Property, shallow groundwater in the area generally flows to the south-southwest with a depth to groundwater estimated as greater than 300 feet bgs (Geosyntec Consultants, 2021). For the purposes of the Phase I ESA, Orion assumed the groundwater flow direction beneath the Target Property as southwest. 355
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report 3-3

3.4 Nearby Water and Oil and Gas Wells
A total of 5 federal USGS wells and 78 well completion records were identified within 1 mile of the Target Property in historical records. Two records were identified in Public Water Systems Violations (PWSV) and Enforcement Data and Safe Drinking Water Information System (EDSDWIS) databases for Public Water System (PWS) No. CA3610034, which is part of the Ontario Municipal Utilities Company. The PWSV and EDSDWIS records were associated with 1425 South Bon View Avenue, which is the location of an Ontario Parks Department facility based on public mapping tools. Based on Geotracker, State Water Well No. 3610034-029 is also located at 1425 South Bon View Avenue and screened from 300 to 330 feet bgs and 342 to 368 feet bgs. During the 2014 sampling event, the contaminant of concern 1,2,3-tricloropropane was detected at a concentration equal to the California maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 0.005 micrograms per liter.

Remaining contaminants of concern (i.e., benzene, tetrachloroethane, trichloroethene, etc.) were either below detection limits or MCLs. The closest federal USGS monitoring location was listed as approximately 0.5-mile east-northeast of the Target Property and listed as a storm sewer drain. Remaining water wells are greater than 0.5 mile from the Target Property and are not considered a concern for the purposes of this Phase I ESA. Based on online DOGGR records, the Target Property is not within the administrative boundary of an oil field and no oil and gas wells were identified within 1 mile of the Target Property. 356
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report 4-1

4.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE AND INTERVIEWS

4.1 Target Property Reconnaissance Methodology and Observations On 13 April 2021, Orion personnel conducted reconnaissance of the Target Property under the supervision of Mr. Larry Ramoneda of RamCo Sheet Metal and Jose Monge of JLMC.

The Target Property was observed for current land use conditions and physical indications of possible usage, storage, spillage, or dumping of hazardous substances or petroleum products on Target Property and, when possible, on adjacent properties.

Orion did not observe underground storage tanks (USTs); polychlorinated bi-phenyl (PCB)-containing equipment; active, inactive, or abandoned wells; floor drains, sumps, and drywells; odors; septic systems or cesspools; pools of liquid; pits, ponds, or lagoons; signs of stressed vegetation; or other petroleum product transmission/storage during reconnaissance. The following sections summarize Target Property reconnaissance observations with photographs in Appendix D.

4.1.1 Building Interior and Exterior
Based on information from the San Bernardino County Assessor’s Office, the single-family residence at the Target Property was constructed in 1979, while the remaining industrial structures were built in the 1980’s and 1990’s. The following sections summarize the results of Orion’s site reconnaissance and interviews as well as Orion’s review of previous asbestos and lead sampling performed at portions of the Target Property by others.

The existing commercial condominium buildings at 1914 and 1930 South Bon View Avenue (Buildings 1 and 2) are accessible by two paved driveways on the east sides of the property (Figure 2). Both driveways slope southeast away from the buildings and surrounding paved areas. The buildings are surrounded by paved areas that include vehicle parking and pedestrian walkways. Each building contains 10 individual units with offices, restrooms, and a garage for each unit (total of 20 units). The first and second stories of the northwest portion of the buildings contain office spaces and janitorial supply closets. Orion noted the tenants currently occupying each unit when this information was readily available based on signage. The following table summarizes the use of each unit and equipment stored at each location:
357
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report 4-2
Unit
Number
Operation
(Tenant) Equipment/Chemicals Stored
1 X-Ray Photography
(Netshapes) X-Ray photography equipment and film development chemicals 2 and 3
Metals Machine Shop
(Materials Testing Lab)
Fabrication equipment and oil/lubricant
4, 13, 14,
17 and 19
Car Storage
(Larry Ramoneda)
Vintage cars, hydraulic lifts, small quantities of paint thinner, motor oils, and paints
5 Car Restoration
(Unknown)
Hydraulic lift, motor oil, hydraulic lubricant, and small quantities of solvents
6 Landscaping
(Unknown)
One truck and trailer with landscaping/land mowing equipment and two 5-gallon polyethylene fuel canisters
7 Car Repair
(Unknown) Parts cleaner, motor oil, alkaline solvent solution, and hydraulic lift 8 Acoustic Paneling
(SoCal Acoustical)
Wood and foam
9 Office Supplies Sales
(AEG Solutions)
Paper/office supply products
10 Car Repair
(Unknown) Car storage, motor oil, acetone, and paint thinner 11 Furniture Painting
(JC Vintage Furniture)
Paints and solvents for furniture restoration
12 and 20
Vehicle Parts
Manufacturing
(Atlas Truck Parts & Tarps)
Parts cleaner, sand blaster, hydraulic equipment and parts storage, air compressor, alkaline solvent solution, and compressed gases 15 Metals Fabrication
(RamCo Sheet Metal)
Sheet metal fabrication equipment
16 Utility Planning
(J’s Pipeline Construction)
Standard offices equipment and supplies
18 Ice Cream Vendor
(Unknown) Ice cream carts and freezers
The property at 1944/1948 South Bon View Avenue (1050-441-05) consists of an industrial development operated by JLMC and a single-family residence at the eastern property boundary. The property is accessible by one gated and paved driveway on the east. The driveway slopes southeast towards Bon View Avenue and away from industrial portions of the property. The property is surrounded by paved areas that include vehicle parking with the exception of the residence, which is surrounded by landscaping. The industrial development consists of four structures used for metals fabrication (Buildings 3 and 4), office administration (Building 5), and garage storage (Building 6; Figure 2). The single-family residence is occupied and shares the garage storage space with JLMC. The interior and exterior of the residence were briefly observed and no obvious signs of contamination were present.

JLMC manufactures metal bins and stores propane tanks, compressed gases, and scrap metal roll off bins on the exterior of Building 3, which is a 3-sided roofed structure. Building 3 358
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report 4-3
contains welding bays and fabrication machinery all of which appeared to be in good condition. No hoods were observed over any of the equipment. Building 4 contained sheet metal and metal parts storage areas as well as a water jet polishing unit. Orion observed a water-sand mixture on the asphalt ground surface near an area that reportedly contained an old water-jet polishing unit that was previously removed. The water-sand mixture led back to what appeared to be a metal containment pad for the old water jet polishing unit that contained an approximately 6-inch-thick layer of caked sand/mud. Immediately beyond this pad to the south was cracked pavement with patches of weedy grass and vines.

Mr. Monge of JLMC indicated that the old equipment was removed and replaced 5 years ago and metals from any polishing or sanding were contained inside the equipment and are not in the observed caked sand/mud. The caked material reportedly has not been removed yet because it’s biodegradable, although Orion has not confirmed the composition of these material as of this Phase I ESA report. The replacement water jet appeared to be in good condition and no staining or liquids observed in that area. While the presence of the apparently fresh water-sand mixture on the ground is noteworthy as the liquid may contain levels of metals, Orion considers this a de minimis finding for the Target Property because the issue appeared isolated and in a paved portion of the property. Additional information regarding chemicals and materials usage and wastes at JLMC are in Sections 4.1.3 and 4.1.4.

As discussed in Section 3.2, undeveloped portions of the Target Property at 21 through 52 and 1906 South Bon View Avenue (APNs 1050-441-31 through 1050-441-62 and 1050-441-09) are unpaved and predominantly grass. Orion walked the perimeter and transected the undeveloped area not identify any staining, distressed vegetation, or other indications of contamination. Municipal trash was observed in localized areas near South Bon View Avenue.

4.1.2 Utilities
Orion observed evidence of aboveground and underground municipal utilities throughout the Target Property. The City of Ontario provides potable water and sewer services for the Target Property, while electricity and natural gas are provided by Southern California Edison and the Southern California Gas Company, respectively. Additional utilities observed included fire alarms, landscape irrigation, streetlights, landline telephone, and fire suppression lines. As discussed in Section 3.2, surface and storm water are directed to two 359
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report 4-4
municipal drains near the eastern and southeastern boundaries of 1930 South Bon View Avenue.

4.1.3 Chemicals and Materials Usage
Orion did not observe evidence of any USTs at the Target Property during reconnaissance, while aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) were limited to compressed gas tanks and cylinders.

An area on the southern exterior of Building No. 3 of JLMC is designated for compressed gases including nitrogen, carbon dioxide, argon, and propane. The compressed gases are used to operate welding, fabrication equipment, and forklifts. One unlabeled empty 55-gallon drum and two empty canisters of acetone
Various cleaning solutions used for general housekeeping were observed in bathrooms and offices through the properties. Various paints, solvents, and oils were observed in multiple units on the 1914 and 1930 properties as well as on the 1944 property. In general, areas where paints, solvents, and oils were stored were in good condition with no observed staining or spills.

Orion observed two parts cleaning stations with self-contained reservoirs for an alkaline solvent solution in Unit Nos. 7 and 12 and the equipment appeared to be in good condition.

The parts cleaning equipment in Unit No. 7 is mounted directly to a storage drum. The tenant at Unit No. 12 indicated their storage drum-mounted equipment is maintained by the third-party manufacturer including periodic replacement of the alkaline solution. No spills of the alkaline solution were reported during Target Property reconnaissance or in historical documentation.

4.1.4 Wastes
Orion observed a roofed waste storage area inside Building 3 of JLMC (Figure 2). The storage area contained one secondary containment pallet with four 55-gallon drums at the time of Target Property reconnaissance. The drums and containment pallet appeared to be in good condition and were labeled as containing non-Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste oil.

Trash and metals recycling were observed outside of the commercial industrial units and the JLMC building to the west and south and included wooden pallets, cardboard boxes, and metal scraps. Metal scraps were observed in containers outside of the JLMC buildings 360
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report 4-5
and the scraps did not appear oily. Orion did not observe oil or oil staining around the dumpsters. At the time of Target Property reconnaissance, all dumpsters were open with no covers or padlocks. The dumpsters appeared to be in good condition, but did not appear to be equipped with secondary containment.

4.1.5 Adjacent Properties
As summarized in Section 3.1, the Target Property is surrounded by commercial/industrial properties to the north, east, and west and with residential properties to the south across East Cedar Street. Based on observations from South Bon View Avenue, Orion did not identify land use conditions and physical indications of possible usage, storage, spillage, or dumping of hazardous, toxic, or petroleum substances at nearby properties. Orion did not attempt to enter nearby properties as they are private. Orion did not identify any RECs associated with nearby properties based on Target Property reconnaissance.

4.2 Interviews
As discussed in Section 4.1, Orion completed reconnaissance of the Target Property on 12 April 2021 under the supervision of Mr. Larry Ramoneda of RamCo Sheet Metal and Jose Monge of JLMC. Mr. Ramoneda has reportedly been a tenant or owner at the Target Property for 25 years, while Mr. Monge’s employment tenure at JLMC is unknown. Mr.

Ramoneda and Mr. Monge were unaware of any current or historical cases of environmental contamination that required agency directive actions.
361
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report 5-1

5.0 RECORDS REVIEW
Orion requested historical regulatory and property information for the Target Property through ERIS as summarized in Section 2.0. Orion reviewed the compiled documents and the results are summarized in the sections below.

5.1 Sanborn Map Review
Sanborn fire insurance maps are available for 12,000 communities in the U.S. from 1867 to present. Sanborn maps were initially produced for the insurance industry to provide fire risk information for buildings or other structures. According to ERIS, no Sanborn maps are available for the Target Property as the area is reportedly unmapped.

5.2 Historical Aerial Photography Review
Orion reviewed a total of 16 historical aerial photographs taken between 1935 and 2020.

Observations regarding the Target Property history based on the photographs are summarized below.

Year Notes
1935 The Target Property and surrounding areas appear as agricultural areas. The Target Property appears to be divided into two distinct parcels, each largely agricultural with a building located along the eastern boundary. Adjoining properties to the south, southeast, and northwest appear to be occupied by orchards. 1938 The Target Property and surrounding areas remain relatively unchanged from the previous description.
1946 Some orchards at surrounding properties appear to have been replaced with crops. 1952 Structures appear to have been erected at surrounding properties to the east, northeast, and south. The Target Property and surrounding areas remain agricultural. 1960 The northern adjoining property has been converted to an orchard. Additional structures have been erected at the adjoining property to the south. Nearby properties to the northwest have been developed and now comprise residential neighborhoods.

Properties south and southeast of the Target Property have been developed to comprise residences or agricultural facilities.
1966 Properties west of the Target Property have been developed and now comprise residential neighborhoods.
1976 Properties north and northeast of the Target Property have been developed and now comprise large warehouses. The Target Property and adjoining properties remain agricultural.
1980 Properties south and southwest of the Target Property have been developed and now comprise residential neighborhoods. A large warehouse facility appears in the southern portion of the Target Property, which otherwise remains largely undeveloped. 362
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report 5-2
Year Notes
1985 Two additional warehouse facilities have been erected at the Target Property.

Properties south of the Target Property have been developed to comprise additional residences. Nearby properties north of the Target Property have been developed to comprise large industrial facilities.
1994 Northern and northeastern adjoining properties have been developed and now comprise large industrial facilities. Orchards are no longer present in the Target Property vicinity.
2002 Surrounding properties to the east have been developed. 2005, 2010,
2012, 2018, and
2020
The Target Property and surrounding areas remain generally unchanged from the previous description.

Based on review of aerial photographs, the Target Property and adjoining properties were previously used as agricultural land from at least the 1930’s and remained generally undeveloped until the 1980’s. Historical agricultural operations likely included the use of agricultural chemicals (e.g., pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers). Orchards were observed at surrounding properties until the early 1908’s. However, Orion did not observe any signs of pesticide production. Orion does not consider historical agricultural use a REC without additional lines of evidence regarding potential historical pesticide production or application.

5.3 Historical Topographic Map Review
Orion reviewed a total of 11 7.5- and 15-minute USGS topographic maps of the area dating from 1897 to 2015 (Appendix B). Orion did not identify any RECs as a result of the historical topographic map review. Observations regarding the Target Property history based on topographic maps are summarized in the table below.

Year Notes
1897,
1900,
1903
The Target Property area is located in the Santa Ana Del Chino land grant. The Target Property is located south of the Pacific Railroad and east of the Narrow Gauge Railroad and the Chino Branch of the Pacific Railroad.
1933,
1942
The Target Property area is located on Bon View Avenue, between East Francis and East Ely Streets.

The Narrow Gauge Railroad is no longer depicted. Gas tanks are shown approximately 1.1 miles north of the Target Property. Additional unspecified tanks are shown approximately 0.9 mile west of the Target Property.
1954 Three schools (Grove School, Euclid School, and Cypress School) are shown within 1.5 miles of the Target Property. A sewage disposal facility is shown approximately 0.7-mile northwest of the Target Property. The Ontario International Airport is shown approximately 1.7 miles northeast of the Target Property. Unspecified wells are shown approximately 1.2 miles southeast of the Target Property. Increased developments are shown northwest of the Target Property. 363
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report 5-3
Year Notes
1967 An aqueduct is shown approximately 0.9-mile southwest of the Target Property. Four additional schools (Ontario Christian High School, Sultana School, De Anza Junior High School, and Bon View School) are shown within approximately 0.6-mile of the Target Property. 1973 California State Route 60 is shown approximately 0.5-mile south of the Target Property. The Narrow Gauge Railroad is no longer shown. This is consistent in all maps after this date. 1981 Increased developments are shown to the west and south of the Target Property. A water tank is shown approximately 0.3-mile east of the Target Property. 2015 Euclid Avenue, located approximately 0.7-mile west of the Target Property, is shown as California State Route 80. Increased developments are shown to the south of the Target Property.

5.4 City Directory Review
Orion reviewed historical City directory listings for the Target Property and adjacent properties based on registries from 1926 to 2018. None of the addresses associated with the Target Property was not listed in the registries until 1931 when two occupants were identified as a poultry farm and a private individual. Commercial and industrial businesses were first listed at Target Property addresses beginning in 1988. The properties associated with 21 through 52 South Bon View Avenue were not listed in any of the city directories reviewed as part of this Phase I ESA. The following table summarizes registered owners and/or occupants for surrounding properties.

City Directory Listings for Surrounding Properties
Address(a)
Direction
Relative
to Target
Property
Groundwater
Gradient
Distance
from Target
Property
(miles) Years Registered Owners/Occupants(b)
Target Property
1906 S. Bon
View Avenue N/A(c) N/A N/A 1965 – 2001 Individual
1914 S. Bon
View Avenue N/A N/A N/A
1931 – 1934 Calder L E Poultry
1940 Vacant
1946 – 1965 Various Individuals
1988
AEC WFG, All Seasons Landscaping, American
Detection Services, Cannone J & Associates,

JAVCAN MFR
2001 Liberty International Ministries, Popla
International
2001 - 2009 ABS Global
2009 Auto Repair
2009 - 2018 AEG Solutions (Drafting Room Equipment &
Supplies)
364
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report 5-4
City Directory Listings for Surrounding Properties
Address(a)
Direction
Relative
to Target
Property
Groundwater
Gradient
Distance
from Target
Property
(miles) Years Registered Owners/Occupants(b)
1914 S. Bon
View Avenue N/A N/A N/A 2014 SoCal Acoustical Wall System (Wall Covering Installation)
1930 S. Bon
View Avenue N/A N/A N/A
1988
Butcher CE & Associates, Dilicias de Michch,
Formal Affairs, Gates Products, Owens Office,
Shamrock Sterling
1988 – 2009 Column Engineering
2001 – 2018 Flor de California (Ice Cream & Frozen Desserts) 2001 Daddato Industries, Multi Tech Products,
Quality Offset Printers
2009 Waste Cleaning Services
2014 Phase Transitions (Process & Logistics Consulting) 2014 – 2018 J’s Pipeline Construction, Truck Parts Tarps Inc. 1944 S. Bon
View Avenue N/A N/A N/A
1988 R&R Woodworking
2001 – 2018 Various Metal, Welding, and Metal Fabrication Companies
2018 CC K X Inc.
1948 S. Bon
View Avenue N/A N/A N/A
1931 – 1946 Various Individuals
1945 – 1951 Sosini Benj Poultry
1951 Ben’s Salvage Plumbing Supplies
1965 – 2001 Various Individuals
Surrounding Properties
1819 S. Bon
View Avenue Northeast Upgradient 0.10
1951 – 2001 Various Individuals
1971 – 1988 Gladhaven Kennels
2001 – 2018 Correa Concrete Construction
1856 S. Bon
View Avenue Northeast Upgradient 0.02
2001 Individual
2001 – 2018 Hub Construction
1901 S. Bon
View Avenue Northeast Upgradient 0.02
2001 Individual
2001 – 2009 The Soap Shoppe (Detergent Manufacturers)
2001 – 2018 Pouches Inc. (Manufacturers)
1915 S. Bon
View Avenue East Cross gradient 0.08
1931 Wright Justus Poultry
1934 – 1965 Various Individuals
2009 Capline International (Sporting and Recreation)
2009 – 2014 Nissin Corporation (Promotional Product
Manufacturer and Warehouse)
365
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report 5-5
City Directory Listings for Surrounding Properties
Address(a)
Direction
Relative
to Target
Property
Groundwater
Gradient
Distance
from Target
Property
(miles) Years Registered Owners/Occupants(b)
1945 S. Bon
View Avenue East Cross gradient 0.06
1951 Individual
1971 Hamiltons PDL PRLR
1988 Clasambra Kennels
1988 – 2001 Various Individuals
789 E. Cedar
Street Southwest Downgradient 0.07
2009 JZQuare (Automobile Accessories)
2014 – 2018 Jia-Nan Enterprises (Restaurant Management) 799 E. Cedar
Street Southwest Downgradient 0.05
2009 Platinum Plastics (Packaging Materials Wholesale)
2018 Maple Industries (Plumbing Fixtures and Supplies)
800 - 850 E.

Cedar Street South Downgradient 0.03 2001 Various Individuals 901 E. Cedar
Street Southeast Cross gradient 0.06
2009 Dura Micro (Computer Parts and Supplies)
2014 Providence Arrow
2014 – 2018 Solar Tech Power, FUH Indl (Awnings &
Canopies)
910 E. Cedar
Street Southeast Cross gradient 0.08
2009 – 2014 XCEL Distribution (Hardware Manufacturing)
2014 – 2018 XCEL Fence (Fence Contractors)
(a) All addresses are in the City of Ontario unless noted otherwise. (b) Abbreviations and company descriptions are written as described in the city directories and company websites. (c) N/A – not applicable.

Surrounding properties on East Cedar Street were not listed under their present-day addresses in the City directory prior to 2001. Upgradient addresses along South Bon View Avenue are predominantly commercial and industrial facilities. Addresses immediately south of the Target Property along East Cedar Street appear to be private residences, with commercial and industrial facilities located to the southeast and southwest, which is consistent with observations made during site reconnaissance. Orion did not identify any RECs as a result of the City directory review.

5.5 Database Review
ERIS identified 64 properties within ASTM-defined search radii in agency records. A complete list of these properties and records is in Table 1. Properties within the search area that contained records related to historical or current environmental impacts, hazardous wastes, or regulatory violations are discussed in more detail and are summarized in the table below. The locations of properties discussed in detail in Section 5.5 are also shown on 366
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report 5-6
Figure 3. Select properties are unlikely to pose environmental risks to the Target Property based on various conditions (i.e., distance from Target Property, groundwater flow direction, and absence of reported environmental regulatory violations) are not discussed in detail in this section. No unplottable records were identified by ERIS within 1 mile of the Target Property.

Property Address(a)
Direction
Relative
to Target
Property
Groundwater
Gradient
Distance
from
Target
Property
(miles) Database(b) Notes
Target Property
Larry Ramoneda 1914 S. Bon View
Avenue --
(c)
-- -- HAZNET No waste disposal
reported
ABS Global, Inc. 1914 S. Bon View
Avenue, Unit 3 -- -- -- SANBERN CUPA Hazardous materials(HM) storage Nova Men Auto
Repair
1914 S. Bon View
Avenue, Unit 4 -- -- --
SANBERN CUPA Hazardous waste
(HW) generation
HAZNET and disposal
Multi Tech
Products
1930 S. Bon View
Avenue, Unit 12 -- -- -- SANBERN CUPA HM handler
Column
Engineering
1930 S. Bon View
Avenue, Unit 20 -- -- --
SANBERN CUPA Halogenated solvent
disposal HAZNET
Quality Offset
Printers
1930 S. Bon View
Avenue, Unit 14 -- -- --

SANBERN CUPA
Halogenated
organics disposal
HAZNET
JLMC 1944 S. Bon View
Avenue -- -- --

SANBERN CUPA
HAZNET HW disposal

CERS HAZ
Flo-Bin Rentals 1944 S. Bon View
Avenue -- -- -- HAZNET No waste disposal reported
Surrounding Properties
R&I Industries,
Inc.
1871 & 1876 Taylor
Place
NorthnorthwestUpgradient /
Cross gradient 0.04

SANBERN CUPA
HW disposal

CERS HAZ
Greenline
Laboratories, Inc.
1851 S. Taylor
Place
NorthnorthwestUpgradient /
Cross gradient 0.05

SANBERN CUPA
HM operations

CERS HAZ
Sky Systems Co.,
Inc. 1825 Taylor Place Northnorthwest Cross gradient 0.08

SANBERN CUPA
HM operations

CERS HAZ
367
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report 5-7
Property Address(a)
Direction
Relative
to Target
Property
Groundwater
Gradient
Distance
from
Target
Property
(miles) Database(b) Notes
Tom Guilfoyle 840 E. Francis
Street, Unit T North Cross gradient 0.12 UST SWEEPS Historical Petroleum UST Riviera Tube
Bending &
Manufacturing
Co.
760 E. Francis
Street, Unit T Northwest Cross gradient 0.12

RCRA SQG
HW disposal

SANBERN CUPA
Lighting
Resources, LLC 805 E. Francis Street Northnorthwest
Upgradient /
Cross gradient 0.15

ENVIROSTOR
HM operations and
HW disposal PCB

INSP COMP ENF
Warfield Electric
Co., Inc.
1745 S. Bon View
Avenue
Northnortheast Upgradient 0.17 RCRA SQG Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) generator
Allied
Mechanical
Products
1720 S. Bon View
Avenue
Northnortheast Upgradient 0.22
SANBERN CUPA HM storage
CERS TANK History of violations
Southtown
Industrial Park
1701, 1703, 1705,
and 1707 S. Bon
View Avenue
Northnortheast Upgradient 0.23
HHSS Historical petroleum
UST SWEEPS USTs
Ontario Drums 1516 S. Bon View
Avenue North Upgradient / Cross gradient 0.39 CERCLIS Closed Superfund site Oakwood
Interiors Site
1333 S. Bon View
Avenue
Northnortheast Upgradient 0.67 ENVIROSTOR Land use restrictions Sunshine
Cleaners –
Driftwood
Village
2238 S. Euclid
Avenue, No. 2238 F
WestsouthwestDowngradien
t

0.75 ENVIROSTOR
Voluntary Cleanup
Agreement for
chlorinated solvents
Woodcrest
Elementary / Jr.

High School
2725 S. Campus
Avenue
SouthsouthwestDowngradien
t

0.94 ENVIROSTOR No Further Action
(a) All addresses are in the City of Ontario unless noted. (b) Database abbreviations are defined as follows:

CERS HAZ – California Environmental Reporting System (CERS) Hazardous Waste Sites CERS TANK – CERS Tanks
CERCLIS – Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System ENVIROSTOR – California EnviroStor Data Management System list of corrective action sites, tiered permit sites, historical Target sites, and evaluation/investigation sites HAZNET – Hazardous Waste Manifest Data
HHSS – Historical Hazardous Substance Storage Information Database INS COMP ENF – ENVIROSTOR Inspection, Compliance, and Enforcement LUST – Leaking Underground Storage Tank
PCB – PCB Notifiers
RCRA SQG – RCRA Small Quantity Generator (SQG)
368
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report 5-8
SANBERN CUPA – San Bernardino County Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) UST SWEEPS – UST Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System (c) “--” – Not applicable.

Orion identified five closed LUST cases between 0.5- and 1.0-mile upgradient to cross gradient of the Target Property. Each case involved potential petroleum contamination of soil and was closed between 1986 and 2000. ASTM Standard E127-13 defines the minimum search radius for State leaking storage tank lists as 0.5 mile. Orion did not identify any historical or current LUST cases within this search radius. Based on case closure and relative distance to the Target Property, Orion does not consider these upgradient closed LUST cases a REC for the Target Property.

5.5.1 1914 and 1930 South Bon View Avenue (Target Property) Two commercial condominiums are located at 1914 and 1930 South Bon View Avenue that each consist of 10 individual units (total of 20 units) with various commercial/industrial operations. Historical records related to hazardous materials and wastes at this portion of the Target Property are summarized below.
 Larry Ramoneda: As discussed in Section 4.2, Mr. Larry Ramoneda of RamCo Sheet Metal has reportedly been a tenant or owner at the Target Property for 25 years. A record from the HAZNET database indicated that Mr. Ramoneda obtained a hazardous waste identified number in 2008 that became inactive on 11 January 2009. While a unit number was not specified in the HAZNET record, Mr. Ramoneda owns Unit Nos. 4, 13, 14, 15, 17, and 19 of the commercial condominium and RamCo Sheet Metal currently occupies Unit No. 15. As discussed in Section 4.1.1, Orion observed small quantities of solvents, motor oils, and paints in Mr. Ramoneda’s units. Mr. Ramoneda indicated that waste oils are brought to retail automotive parts stores for recycling during reconnaissance.
 ABS Global Inc.: Permitted facility with the SANBERN CUPA that reportedly contained 1 to 3 hazardous materials specified as special chemicals. The facility permit became inactive on 28 February 2016. This record was reported for “Unit 3” of 1914 South Bon View Avenue. Currently, Unit No. 3 of the Target Property contains a metals machine shop. Orion observed oils and lubricants in Unit No. 3 during site reconnaissance, but no hazardous materials or wastes were observed or reported.
 Nova Men Auto Repair: Permitted facility with the SANBERN CUPA that was reportedly a special generator of hazardous wastes. A record from the HAZNET database reported that this entity disposed of approximately 5 tons 369
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report 5-9
of oil-water separation sludge in 2002. The facility special generator permit became inactive on 31 August 2007. This record was reported for “No. 4” of 1914 South Bon View Avenue, which is currently owned by Mr. Ramoneda and used for car storage.
 Multi Tech Products: Permitted facility with the SANBERN CUPA that was reportedly handled hazardous materials. The facility permit became inactive on 31 March 2006. This record was reported for “Unit 12” of 1914 South Bon View Avenue, which is currently occupied by Atlas Tarps & Parts, Inc. (Atlas), a manufacturer of vehicle tarp systems.
 Column Engineering: Permitted facility with the SANBERN CUPA that was reportedly a conditionally-exempt small quantity generator (CESQG) of hazardous wastes. Column Engineering intermittently disposed of halogenated solvents between 1996 and 2008 with the largest volume (approximately 0.46 ton) reported in 2001. The facility CESQG permit became inactive on 31 July 2019. This record was reported for “20” of 1914 South Bon View Avenue, which is currently occupied by Atlas.  Quality Offset Printers: Permitted facility with the SANBERN CUPA that was reportedly a CESQG of hazardous wastes. Quality Offset Printers intermittently disposed of liquids with halogenated organics between 2000 and 2008 with the largest volume (approximately 0.08 ton) reported in 2001.

This record was reported for “No. 14” of 1914 South Bon View Avenue, which is currently owned by Mr. Ramoneda and used for car storage.

While it is noteworthy that this portion of the Target Property consisted of operations that handled or disposed of hazardous wastes, Orion did not observe or identify records indicating a release to the environment has occurred at 1914 South Bon View Avenue and does not consider the historical records summarized above a concern for the Target Property.

5.5.2 1944 South Bon View Avenue (Target Property)
JLMC currently occupies 1944 South Bon View Avenue with operations focusing on sheet metal fabrication. JLMC is currently a permitted facility with the SANBERN CUPA and reportedly a CESQG of hazardous wastes. JLMC disposed of approximately 0.6 ton of unspecified organic liquid mixture during 1997 and approximately 0.3 ton of organic solids in 2003. The Fire Department inspects JLMC and no violations were identified in Orion’s Phase I ESA records review, although REM indicated that manifests were not available for review during a 2018 inspection event (REM, 2018). As discussed in Sections 4.1.3 and 370
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report 5-10

4.1.4, Orion observed four 55-gallon drums of non-RCRA hazardous waste oil on secondary containment in Building 3 and compressed gases and empty acetone containers on the exterior of Building 3 during reconnaissance, but no signs of leaks, spills, or surface staining in these areas (Figure 2).

Based on the Phase I ESA report prepared by REM, Flo-Bin Rentals started leasing the western portion of 1944 South Bon View Avenue for storage in 2016. As reported by REM, Flo-Bin Rentals disposed of 0.25 and 2.04 tons of organic solids in 2016 and 2017, respectively (REM, 2018). Based on Orion’s records review, the HAZNET database contained a record for Flo-Bin Rentals, but the record did not contain any details regarding hazardous waste disposal. Orion does not consider historical records associated with 1944 South Bon View Avenue a concern for the Target Property considering the absence of documented releases to the environment.

5.5.3 R&I Industries, Inc.
(0.04-mile upgradient/cross gradient)
The R & I Industries, Inc. (R&I Industries), property is currently a permitted facility with the SANBERN CUPA and reportedly a CESQG of hazardous wastes. R & I Industries is a metals fabricator that offers laser cutting, waterjet cutting, shearing, forming with press brakes, folding, tube bending, CNC turret punching, and welding based on their website (https://rimetal.com). Violations relating to hazardous waste storage were identified for 2016 and 2020 in CERS HAZ including improper labeling of storage drums and deficiencies in facility documentation. However, the facility returned to compliance for each documented violation. No inspection documentation was available after 2020. Orion did not identify any records related to a release to the environment and does not consider this property a concern or REC for the Target Property.

5.5.4 Greenline Laboratories, Inc.
(0.047-mile upgradient/cross gradient)
The Greenline Laboratories, Inc. (Greenline), property is currently a permitted facility with the SANBERN CUPA that contains hazardous materials. Greenline is a manufacturer of industrial, sanitary, food service, and specialty products according to their website (https://greenlinelabs.com). Based on the CERS HAZ database, Greenline was issued violations for deficient facility documentation in 2015 and 2018, but returned to 371
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report 5-11
compliance for each documented violation. No inspection documentation was available after 2018. Orion did not identify any records related to a release to the environment and does not consider this property a concern or REC for the Target Property.

5.5.5 Sky Systems Co., Inc.
(0.075-mile cross gradient)
The Sky Systems Co., Inc. (Sky Systems), property is currently a permitted facility with the SANBERN CUPA that contains hazardous materials. Sky Systems specializes in bag-in-box packaging systems with general and foamy soaps and a variety of other sanitary products based on their website (https://www.skysystemscoinc.com/). Based on the CERS HAZ database, Greenline was issued violations for deficient facility documentation in 2016 and 2019, but returned to compliance for each documented violation. No inspection documentation was available after 2019. Orion did not identify any records related to a release to the environment and does not consider this property a concern or REC for the Target Property.

5.5.6 Tom Guilfoyle – 840 E. Francis Street
(0.12-mile upgradient/cross gradient)
The property at 840 E. Francis Street contained a 500-gallon UST that reportedly contained vehicle fuel. The UST was removed in 1991 based on the UST SWEEPS database. Orion did not identify any other records related to this UST including the conditions of the tank or subsurface upon removal. While it is noteworthy that this property historically contained a fuel tank, Orion does not consider this property a concern or REC for the Target Property without documentation related to a potential release of field products to the subsurface.

5.5.7 Riviera Tube Bending & Mfg. Co.
(0.12-mile cross gradient)
The Riviera Tube Bending & Mfg. Co. (Riviera Tube) property was permitted with SANBERN CUPA as a handler and generator or hazardous wastes until 31 August 2005. Based on Orion’s records review, Riviera Tube was as small-quantity generator of benzene, tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and ignitable wastes. While the presence of these chemicals in close proximity to the Target Property is noteworthy, Orion did not identify any records related to a release to the environment and does not consider this property a concern or REC for the Target Property.
372
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report 5-12

5.5.8 Lighting Resources, LLC
(0.15- to 0.17-mile upgradient/cross gradient)
The Lighting Resources, LLC (Lighting Resources), property is separated from the Target Property to the north by a commercial development and E. Francis Street. Lighting Resources handles lighting waste, mercury-containing devices, and intact PCB-containing lighting ballasts and operates under a Standardized Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, Series A (Permit). Lighting Resources stores and crushes spent lamps and stores PCB containing light ballasts. End caps are collected and transported offsite for further recycling, while crushed glass and any mercury-containing powder is collected and transported offsite for recycling as a hazardous waste (Department of Toxic Substances Control [DTSC], 2020). Lighting Resources has a documented history of violations including failing to manage containers properly and maintain and operate permitted equipment to minimize the possibility of releasing mercury-containing phosphor powder because of a leakage in 2013. This violation resulted in a Consent Order and financial penalty.

More recently, the DTSC issued a violation in 2020 based on observations of white powder on lamp crushing equipment (Lamp Machine), the floor beneath, and the roof of the building where the equipment vents. The Lamp Machine uses a remanufacturing process to crush the outer glass of fluorescent lamps and separate the glass, metal end caps, and mercury-containing phosphor powder. The remanufacturing process utilizes an enclosed machine with vacuum system. The vacuum system connects to a High-Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filtration system and an activated carbon canister, which absorbs mercury vapor before discharging to the atmosphere. The vacuum system maintains a negative pressure to prevent phosphor dust and mercury vapor from leaking and contaminating the surrounding breathing space. Under the approved Permit, Lighting Resources is required to monitor mercury vapor every 2 hours and collect periodic grab samples of crushed glass for laboratory analysis of mercury (DTSC, 2020).

DTSC conducted a facility inspection during June 2019 and observed white powders on the reportedly poorly sealed floor near the Lamp Machine. Wipe samples collected from the floor underneath the Lamp Machine contained a mercury concentration of 3.4 micrograms per wipe, which is greater than the regulatory limit. Similarly, the results of “sweep” samples showed mercury concentrations of 0.662 milligrams per kilogram. A previous inspection 373
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report 5-13
was cited where DTSC indicated mercury levels in a room next to the Lamp Machine were unsafe and warranted donning a mask. Lighting Resources reportedly committed to retaining a licensed engineer to design a “secondary containment system” and committed to re-sealing the floor of their warehouse with an epoxy coating (DTSC, 2020). During March 2021, Lighting Resources was issued three Class 2, minor violations for improper storage and labeling of universal wastes, but these violations were listed as returned to compliance in the summary of inspection observations (DTSC, 2021). It should be noted that Orion did not observe white power at the Target Property during reconnaissance. While the potential release of mercury to the environment through emissions is noteworthy, Orion does not consider the Lighting Resources property a REC for the Target Property without additional lines of evidence indicating widespread and sustained discharge of mercury-containing emissions from this facility.

5.5.9 Warfield Electric Co., Inc.
(0.17-mile upgradient)
The Warfield Electric Co., Inc. (Warfield Electric), is a motor and motor component manufacturer. The property was identified as a Small Quantity Generator (SQG) in RCRA SQG under U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) federal identification number CAR000072769. According to the RCRA SQG database, Warfield Electric is a SQG of tetrachloroethylene (PCE). As a chlorinated volatile organic compound (VOC), PCE is a drinking water contaminant that can be highly mobile in groundwater and is not readily degraded by naturally occurring processes. However, as of January 2021 there have been no Compliance Monitoring or Enforcement violation records associated with the Warfield Electric facility. Although the upgradient presence of PCE should be noted, Orion does not consider the property to be a REC to the Target Property based on the lack of evidence suggesting the occurrence or likely occurrence of a release of hazardous materials at the Warfield Electric facility.

5.5.10 Allied Mechanical Products
(0.22-mile upgradient)
The Allied Mechanical Products facility fabricates and manufactures aerospace components and machinery. This facility appears in both the CERS TANK and SANBERN CUPA databases as an active large quantity generator, onsite waste-generating recycler, and hazardous materials storage facility with at least one reported onsite AST. According to the 374
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report 5-14
CERS TANK database, the property has been cited for various violations between 2013 and 2020 relating to the improper labeling, storage, and documentation of hazardous materials, including mislabeling drums containing hazardous wastes as “Nonhazardous” and leaving containers of hazardous waste open when not in use. All violations have been resolved and returned to compliance. Although violations involving hazardous waste storage at an upgradient property is noteworthy, Orion does not consider the property to be a REC to the Target Property without records indicating a release of hazardous materials to the environment.

5.5.11 Southtown Industrial Park
(0.23-mile upgradient)
The Southtown Industrial Park property appears to be a collection of commercial/industrial buildings including a construction management company. The property was identified in both the HHSS and UST SWEEPS databases as having historically contained two petroleum USTs. The USTs were both installed in 1979 and contained unleaded motor vehicle fuel.

Orion did not identify any other records related to these USTs including the dates of removal or the tank or subsurface conditions upon removal. While it is noteworthy that this property historically contained a fuel tank, Orion does not consider this property a concern or REC for the Target Property without records indicating a release to the environment.

5.5.12 Ontario Drums
(0.39-mile upgradient/cross gradient)
Ontario Drums was a Superfund site (EPA ID No. CA000906085) that involved the release of an unknown amount of an unidentified hazardous material. In May 2004, an abandoned commercial transportation trailer reportedly containing 138 steel and poly drums was discovered at 1516 South Bon View Avenue. The property was and is currently occupied by a towing service company and the abandoned trailer was not affiliated with the normal site operations. A highly corrosive liquid was observed to be leaking from the drums, through the bottom of the trailer, and onto the soil. As part of the emergency response, the trailer was towed from the property and all drums were removed from the trailer and placed into salvage drums to contain the leakage. According to a 25 May 2004 memorandum, removal of contaminated soil was considered sufficient to address impacts to the environment without the need for long term remediation (EPA, 2004). The Ontario Drums site represents a release to the environment of a hazardous substance. However, the source 375
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report 5-15
of the release appeared to be removed immediately after detection along with impacted environmental media. As discussed in Section 3.3, groundwater is estimated to be at a depth greater than 300 feet bgs and was unlikely to be impacted by the release. Orion does not consider the release a REC or HREC for the Target Property based on (1) the apparent speed and effectiveness of the emergency response in removing the source of the release, (2) the relatively deep groundwater table, (3) the lack of evidence suggesting another release is likely to occur based on current site operations, and (4) the lack of regulatory agencymandated long-term remediation.

5.5.13 Oakwood Interiors Site
(0.67-mile upgradient)
The Oakwood Interiors Site has historically been used for industrial operations including automotive polishing, plating, and finishing from approximately 1964 until 1992. Historical operations required the use of solvents, heavy metals, hydraulic fluids, biocides, and sulfuric acid. In 1996, Oakwood Interiors, began occupying the site as a furniture manufacturer.

Under this operator, chemicals including stain, acetone, water-based lacquer thinner, and motor oil were stored at the site in 55-gallon drums. Waste at the site was also stored in 55-gallon drums and transported offsite by a licensed hazardous materials transporter.

Historical site operations and chemical use appear to have contributed to the release of VOCs, semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), and metals to soil and groundwater.

Subsurface site investigations conducted between 1988 and 1991 indicated that chromium and nickel were present in soil at maximum concentrations of 1,950 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) and 2,900 mg/kg, respectively. A Phase I ESA conducted in 1992 identified environmental concerns including stained soils and pavement, evidence of chromium and nickel spills, former petroleum USTs, and storage of hazardous chemicals (Clayton Group Services, 2006).

In 2000, the DTSC and the property owner entered into a voluntary cleanup agreement (VCA) to address nickel, chromium, and petroleum hydrocarbon contamination at the site.

In 2008, the City of Ontario placed a land use restriction on the property prohibiting future use as a residence, school, hospital, childcare facility, or elderly care facility, citing unacceptable cancer risks (City of Ontario, 2008). Additionally, the concrete/asphalt cover to be maintained to eliminate risk to current and future commercial/industrial workers.

Pursuant to the land use restriction covenant, the property owner must inspect the property 376
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report 5-16
on an annual basis and submit a report documenting observations and any violations.

According to the most recent annual inspection report dated January 2021, the concrete/asphalt cover is in acceptable condition and no covenant violations were noted (Infrastructure Engineering Corporation, 2021).

Remaining impacts in soil are separated from groundwater, which is estimated to be at a depth greater than 300 feet bgs. VOCs detected in soil vapor samples were below California Human Health Screening Levels with the exception of PCE and 1,1-dichloroethane.

Subsequent risk assessment indicated that risk levels were below applicable thresholds for commercial/industrial scenarios, while the potential residential scenario was not evaluated.

DTSC expressed concerns regarding construction and intrusive workers and recommended appropriate actions be taken to address these scenarios such avoiding fugitive emissions.

Orion has not identified a REC or CREC for the target property based on (1) the relative distance from the target property and (2) the separation between impacted soil and groundwater at the Oakwood Interiors Site.

5.5.14 Sunshine Cleaners – Driftwood Village
(0.75-mile downgradient)
Sunshine Cleaners is a dry-cleaning facility located in a multi-tenant commercial shopping center. Between approximately 1982 and 1990, Safeway Cleaners conducted dry-cleaning operations at a unit within the shopping center, while Sunshine Cleaners has had ongoing operations since 1990. Together these two facilities comprise EnviroStor Case No. 60002433 in the DTSC Site Cleanup Program, which was opened in December 2016 to investigate and remediate trichloroethylene (TCE) and PCE in soil, soil vapor, and indoor air. Based on investigation activities conducted between 2016 and 2019, groundwater does not appear to have been impacted by TCE, PCE, or other chlorinated VOCs. Soil samples collected in 2019 indicated concentrations of VOCs were generally below laboratory reporting limits across the site. Soil vapor samples collected in 2019 indicated PCE concentrations ranging from below laboratory reporting limits to 10,300 ug/m3, with maximum concentrations occurring at a depth of 60 feet bgs. According to a 2019 Abbreviated Site Assessment Report, impacts to soil vapor have not been fully delineated, but PCE concentrations exceeding regulatory screening levels for commercial properties do not appear to extend beyond the property boundary (Civil-Environmental-Survey Group, 2019). As of the date of this Phase I ESA report, EnviroStor Case No. 60002433 remains 377
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report 5-17
open to further investigate and remediate the extend of soil vapor impacts. Orion has not identified a REC for the Target Property based on relative downgradient distance and the apparent lack of impacts to groundwater.

5.5.15 Woodcrest Elementary/Jr. High School
(0.94-mile downgradient)
The Woodcrest Elementary/Junior High School property currently consists of Liberty Elementary School and Woodcrest Junior High School. Prior uses at the property have included agricultural farming prior to 1954 and dairy operations between approximately 1962 and 1992. Based on historical records, no hazardous materials appear to have been released at the property. However, soil vapor investigations conducted in 1999 indicated that maximum methane concentrations of 186,000 parts per million by volume (ppmv) were present at the property. Historically elevated methane concentrations were likely attributed to former dairy operations. Concentrations of methane between the lower and upper explosive limits (50,000 and 150,000 ppmv, respectively) can pose an explosion risk if an ignition source is present. A methane mitigation management system was installed between 2003 and 2005 with approval from the DTSC. The system operated between 2005 and 2011 under EnviroStore Case No. 36010007. The DTSC issued a no further remedial action certification in 2011 after methane concentrations decreased below regulatory screening levels of 5,000 ppmv (Miller Brooks Environmental, 2000). Orion has not identified a REC for the Target Property based on relative downgradient distance and regulatory closure.

5.6 Local Agency Review
Orion contacted local agencies defined in Section 2.0 for records associated with the Target Property and neighboring properties. Orion did not identify any RECs after reviewing local agency records that were available at the time of this report. Findings from the records review are summarized below and copies of the records are in Appendix E.

Agency Findings
City of Ontario Fire
Department
Minor violations related to housekeeping, documentation, and permitting were identified for the Target Property, but no records indicative of a release to the environment. Records for neighboring properties were not obtained. 378
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report 5-18
Agency Findings
City of Ontario Building
Department
The properties associated with 1914, 1930, 1944 and 1948 S. Bon View Avenue have undergone multiple tenant improvement projects requiring building permits since the late 1970’s. One violation was identified for the property associated with 1948 S. Bon View Avenue relating to the lack of necessary permits for construction project in 1981. No reports of permit violations were found in agency records for the other addresses associated with the Target Property.

Records for neighboring properties were not obtained.

City of Ontario Public
Works Department
No records associated with the Target Property address were found and records for neighboring properties were not obtained.

SBC Fire Protection
District
Records indicate that as of March 2019, JLMC is an active, conditionally exempt SQG of hazardous materials at the facility located at 1944 S. Bon View Avenue.

One complaint was identified for the JLMC facility relating to the illegal shipment of materials and cutting of metals. The complaint was closed after an investigation was unable to verify the allegations. Various occupants of facilities associated with 1914 and 1930 S. Bon View Avenue have historically had permits to generate, handle, or store hazardous materials, but these permits are currently inactive. No site remediation records or permits for the removal, installation, or modification of USTs were found for any addresses associated with the Target Property. Records for neighboring properties were not obtained.

SBC Environmental
Health Department
No records associated with the Target Property address were found and records for neighboring properties were not obtained.

5.7 Vapor Encroachment Screening (VES)
Orion conducted a Tier 1 VES in conjunction with the Phase I ESA at the subject Target Property using default Area of Concern parameters and minimum search distances defined in ASTM E2600-15. The Tier I VES was conducted to evaluate whether a vapor encroachment condition (VEC) exists from subsurface contaminants at or near the Target Property. Orion has not identified any VECs and considers a minor spill reported at the Target Property a de minimis condition and no LUST-related records were identified within the Area of Concern. While Ontario Drums and the Oakwood Interiors Site are outside the Area of Concern, Orion evaluated these properties for potential VECs considering the documented releases to the environment and associated remedial responses. However, Orion has not identified a VEC related to the releases based on the information presented in Section 5.5. Details of the Tier 1 VES are included in Appendix F. 379
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report 6-1

6.0 NON-SCOPE CONSIDERATIONS
Non-scope issues as per Section 13 of the ASTM E1527-13 were not addressed as part of this Phase I ESA as discussed in Section 1.3 of this report. However, Orion reviewed an asbestos and lead survey report prepared by Ambient on behalf of HK Ventures for the portion of the Target Property at 1944 and 1948 South Bon View Avenue. Ambient performed the survey during November 2018 and summarized the results in a report submitted to HK Ventures during December 2018 (Ambient, 2018). Ambient reported that the property consisted of three single-story buildings, one single-story residence with a detached garage, and storage sheds. Exterior walls were covered with wood or metal siding extending up to the roof level, while interior walls and ceilings were covered with drywall and joint compound or exposed metal or wood. Floors were covered with hardwood, vinyl flooring with associated mastic, ceramic tile, or exposed concrete. Roofs were covered with typical composite roofing and associated mastic. The heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system was metal ducting with fiberglass insulation. After performing a visual inspection, Ambient collected samples from accessible homogeneous building materials for analysis of (1) asbestos content using polarized light microscopy by EPA Method 600/R-93-116 Visual Area Estimation and (2) lead content using x-ray fluorescence (Ambient, 2020). The results indicated that (1) non-friable asbestos was present in 50 percent of roofing material samples collected and (2) lead-based paint does not appear to be present in painted surfaces. Orion did not conduct lead or asbestos surveys to confirm the presence or absence of these materials at the Target Property. 380
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report 7-1

7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on Target Property reconnaissance, interviews, and historical file reviews, Orion has not identified any RECs, CRECs, HRECs, or VECs for the Target Property. According to historical documentation, the Target Property was used for agricultural purposes from at least the 1930’s until the 1980’s. Historical operations at adjoining or nearby properties appear to have included an orchard, but Orion did not identify any records indicating pesticide-intensive agricultural operations at the Target Property.

Orion observed an apparently fresh water-sand mixture on the paved ground surface of the Target Property near previously decommissioned metals polishing equipment that contained caked sand/mud. Orion identified the presence of this mixture as a de minimis condition because of the potential presence of metals. Historical records indicated that hazardous materials and wastes were present at the Target Property including halogenated solvents, but no records identified a release of chemicals to the environment. Similarly, hazardous waste oil was observed in labeled drums on secondary containment during reconnaissance, although no leaks or staining were observed in the vicinity of the drums.

Based on information from the San Bernardino County Assessor’s Office, the single-family residence at the Target Property was constructed in 1979, while the remaining industrial structures were built in the 1980’s and 1990’s. Asbestos and lead sampling of existing structures at 1944 and 1948 South Bon View Avenue were performed by others during December 2018. The results indicated that (1) non-friable asbestos was present in 50 percent of roofing material samples collected and (2) lead-based paint does not appear to be present in painted surfaces.

After completing this Phase I ESA, Orion recommends the following:

1. A hazardous materials survey should be performed prior to demolition of existing structures to further evaluate the potential presence of asbestos or lead at the Target Property.

2. Based on the historical use of halogenated solvents, petroleum hydrocarbons, and metals, a Soil Management Plan should be prepared for potential future site redevelopment activities.
381
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report 7-2

3. Samples of the caked sand/mud and water-sand mixture should be collected and analyzed for metals to appropriately characterize and manage these materials before removal and offsite disposal.
382
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report 8-1

8.0 REFERENCES
Ambient Environmental Inc., 2020. “Asbestos/Lead Survey, For the Property located at:
1944-1948 South Bon View Avenue, Ontario, California,” prepared for HK Ventures, December.

ASTM International, 2013. “Designation: E1527-13, Standard Practice for Environmental Target Property Assessments: Phase I Environmental Target Property Assessment Process.” ASTM International, 2015. “Designation: E2600-15, Standard Guide for Vapor Encroachment Screening on Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions.” California Department of Water Resources, 2003. “California’s Groundwater, Bulletin 118, Update 2003.”
City of Ontario, 2008. “Covenant to Restrict Use of Property, Environmental Restriction, Re:

Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 1049-421-01, 1049-421-02, & 1049-431-06 of Bryant Tract M.B. 12/55, Map Book 12, Page 55 as filed in the Office of the Recorder of Said Count. (DTSC site code: 400844),” 9 December.

Civil-Environmental-Survey Group, 2019. “Abbreviated Site Assessment Report, Driftwood Village Station, Sunshine Cleaners & Former Safeway Plaza Cleaners, 223402254 S. Euclid Avenue, Ontario, California, DTSC SITE CODE 4017,”28 October.

Clayton Group Services, Inc., 2006. “Site Investigation Report, 1333 South Bon View Corporation, 1333 South Bon View Avenue, Ontario, California,” prepared for Oakwood Interiors, 6 November.

Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2020. “Issuance of Amended Inspection Report and Amended Notice of Provisional Inspection Violation Score,” letter from Maria G.

Durand to Mr. Daniel P. Gillespie of Lighting Resources, LLC, 24 January.

Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2021. “Summary of Violations, Lighting Resources Inc (LRI), 805 East Francis Street, Ontario, California 91761,” 29 & 30 March.

Geosyntec Consultants, 2021. “2020 Second Semiannual Soil Vapor, Indoor Air, and Groundwater Monitoring Report, Former Alger Manufacturing Facility, Ontario, California,” prepared for Seaview-AGI Acquisitions, February.

Infrastructure Engineering Corporation, 2021. “2020 Annual Inspection Report, Former Oakwood Interior Site, 1333 South Bon View Avenue, Ontario, California,” prepared for Ontario Municipal Utilities Company, 25 January.
383
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report 8-2
Miller Brooks Environmental, Inc., 2000. “Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Report, Chino Valley Unified School District, Proposed Woodcrest School Sites, Ontario, California,” prepared for Chino Valley Unified School District, 12 September.

Robin Environmental Management, 2018. “Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, 1944-1948 South Bon View Avenue (APN 1050-441-05), Ontario, CA 91761,” prepared for HK Ventures, Inc., UTR Diversified I, LLC, and UTR 1948 Bon View, LLC, 26 November.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2004. “Memorandum: Documentation of an Emergency Removal Action at the Ontario Drums Site, 1516 Bon View, Ontario, San Bernardino, County, CA,” 25 May.
384
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report 9-1

9.0 RELIANCE AND LIMITATIONS
Orion has prepared this report for the exclusive use of Panattoni Development Company, Inc., Bon View Land 10, LLC, and BV Investments 10, LLC, as it pertains to the property located at 21 through 52, 1906, 1914, 1930, 1944, and 1948 South Bon View Avenue in Ontario, California. Any use of or reliance on this report by a third party shall be at such party’s sole risk.

The scope of this environmental Target Property assessment was limited to visual observation of surface conditions at the Target Property, interviews with personnel familiar with the Target Property, and a review of reasonably available relevant data.

The data reviewed included reports and literature issued by federal, State, and local agencies. Orion has not conducted an independent investigation of the accuracy of these secondary sources and has assumed them to be accurate and complete. Sampling and analysis were not conducted for asbestos, radon, lead-based paint, and lead in drinking water. Investigations of the following conditions were not part of the scope of work and would not have been revealed by the investigation:
 Naturally occurring toxics
 Toxicity of substances common in current habitable environments, such as stored household products, building materials, and consumables  Biological pathogens
 A contaminant plume below the ground surface originating from an offsite source
 Contaminants or contaminant concentrations that do not violate present regulatory standards but that may violate future such standards  Unknown Target Property contamination, such as "midnight dumping" or accidental spillage of waste other than the debris observed and noted in this report.

No warranty or guarantee concerning the findings and conclusions of this ESA is offered or intended. Rather, it is represented that the scope and performance of the professional services rendered are in accordance with the current state of practice being conducted in the Target Property region by similarly qualified practitioners. 385
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report 10-1

10.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL STATEMENT
Orion declares that, to the best of our professional knowledge and belief, we meet the definition of “environmental professional” as defined in Part 312.10 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR). Orion personnel have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the subject property. We have developed and performed all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312. 29 April 2021
Steve Hash, PE Date
Senior Project Engineer
29 April 2021
Michael P. Purchase, PE Date
Vice President
386
TABLE 1

DATABASE REPORT TABLE
S. BON VIEW AVENUE AND E. CEDAR STREET

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
PANATTONI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC.

Company Address
Distance
(miles)
Direction
Relative
to Site Groundwater Gradient Database
Discussed in
Report?
(Yes / No)
Property Included
in VES?
(Yes / No)
Larry Ramoneda 1914 S. Bon View Avenue HAZNET Yes Yes
Custom Color Frame 1914 S. Bon View Avenue EMISSIONS No Yes SANBERN CUPA Yes
FINDS/FRS No
SANBERN CUPA Yes
HAZNET Yes
Multi Tech Products 1930 S. Bon View Avenue, Unit 12 SANBERN CUPA Yes Yes SANBERN CUPA Yes
HAZNET Yes
SANBERN CUPA Yes
HAZNET Yes
HAZNET Yes
SANBERN CUPA Yes
HAZNET Yes
HAZNET Yes
FINDS/FRS NoFINDS/FRS No
CERS HAZ Yes
RCRA NON GEN No
FINDS/FRS No
RCRA SQG No
Flo-Bin Rentals 1944 S. Bon View Avenue HAZNET Yes Yes
Corporate Resource Services 1944 S Bon View Avenue FINDS/FRS No Yes W. H. Thornton Co. 1948 S. Bon View Avenue EMISSIONS No Yes OSS Inc. 1945 S. Bon View Avenue 0.013 ESE Upgradient / Cross Gradient HAZNET No Yes HAZNET No
RCRA NON GEN No
FINDS/FRS NoFINDS/FRS No
SSTS No
ICIS No
SANBERN CUPA No
RCRA NON GEN No
YesYesYesYesYesYesYes
ABS Global Inc.

Peterson Pipeline Inc.

JLMC, Inc.

Quality Offset Printers
Column Engineering
Nova Men Auto Repair
Pouches, Inc. 1901 S. Bon View Avenue
1914 S. Bon View Avenue, Unit 3
1914 S. Bon View Avenue, No.4
1930 S. Bon View Avenue, 20
1930 S. Bon View Avenue, No. 14
1944 S. Bon View Avenue1945 S. Bon View Avenue
Target Property

0.0130.0160.030
NE
ESE Upgradient / Cross Gradient
Upgradient
387
TABLE 1

DATABASE REPORT TABLE
S. BON VIEW AVENUE AND E. CEDAR STREET

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
PANATTONI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC.

Company Address
Distance
(miles)
Direction
Relative
to Site Groundwater Gradient Database
Discussed in
Report?
(Yes / No)
Property Included
in VES?
(Yes / No)
Ontario Fire Dept 1856 South Bon View Avenue 0.017 NE Upgradient CHMIRS No Yes HAZNET No
FINDS/FRS No
DELISTED HAZ No

0.029 SANBERN CUPA No
Private Residence 830 E. Cedar Street, No. D 0.033 S Downgradient CDL No Yes Private Residence 830 E. Cedar Street, Apt. A 0.033 S Downgradient CDL No Yes

0.039 RCRA NON GEN No
SANBERN CUPA Yes
CERS HAZ Yes
SANBERN CUPA Yes
CERS HAZ Yes
RCRA NON GEN No
Devious Customs 915 E. Greviella Court 0.049 NE Upgradient SANBERN CUPA No Yes SANBERN CUPA Yes
CERS HAZ Yes
Private Residence 2032 S. Bon View, Apt. D 0.093 SSE Downgradient CDL No Yes Reliable 780 E. Francis Street, Unit N 0.12 NNW Upgradient / Cross Gradient SANBERN CUPA No Yes Certified Welding 780 E. Francis Street, Unit M 0.12 NNW Upgradient / Cross Gradient SANBERN CUPA No Yes Tom Guilfoyle 840 E. Francis Street 0.12 N Upgradient / Cross Gradient UST SWEEPS Yes Yes RCRA SQG Yes
SANBERN CUPA Yes
Island Petroleum Builders, Inc. 760 E. Francis Street, A 0.12 NW Cross Gradient SANBERN CUPA No YesLarry Ciaburri (Z & L Cabinets) 760 E. Francis Street 0.12 NW Cross Gradient EMISSIONS No Yes New Era Automotive 760 E. Francis Street, Suite A 0.12 NW Cross Gradient RCRA NON GEN No Yes Arrowhead Engineering 760 E. Francis Street, Unit F 0.12 NW Cross Gradient RCRA NON GEN No Yes E & L Quality Machining 760 E. Francis Street, Unit T 0.12 NW Cross Gradient RCRA NON GEN No Yes Chaffey Joint Union High School 901 E. Francis Street 0.13 NNE Upgradient EMISSIONS No Yes DELISTED HAZ No
SANBERN CUPA NoSANBERN CUPA No
EMISSIONS No
Amish Country Gazebos 739 E. Francis Street 0.13 NNW Upgradient / Cross Gradient SANBERN CUPA No No Yes
No
YesYesYesYesYes
Sky Systems Co., Inc.

Riviera Tube Bending & Mfg. Co.

City Tool Works Inc.

Long Run Trailers
Hub Construction Specialties, Inc. 1856 S. Bon View Street R&I Industries, Inc.

Greenline Laboratories, Inc.
907 E. Francis Street
1843 S. Campus Avenue
1871 & 1876 Taylor Place
1851 S. Taylor Place
1825 Taylor Place
760 E. Francis Unit, T

0.017
NE

0.040
NNW

0.047 NNW0.075 NNW

0.12 NW

0.13 NNE

0.13 WNW
Cross Gradient
Upgradient
Cross Gradient
Upgradient
Upgradient / Cross GradientUpgradient / Cross Gradient
Cross Gradient
388
TABLE 1

DATABASE REPORT TABLE
S. BON VIEW AVENUE AND E. CEDAR STREET

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
PANATTONI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC.

Company Address
Distance
(miles)
Direction
Relative
to Site Groundwater Gradient Database
Discussed in
Report?
(Yes / No)
Property Included
in VES?
(Yes / No)
SANBERN CUPA No
RCRA NON GEN No
Honor Tek 1823 S. Campus Avenue 0.13 WNW Cross Gradient SANBERN CUPA No No

0.13 SANBERN CUPA No
EMISSIONS NoEMISSIONS NoEMISSIONS No
Brothers VW Machine Shop 743 E. Francis Street 0.14 NW Cross Gradient SANBERN CUPA No No Superior Oak Design 741 E. Francis Street 0.14 NW Cross Gradient SANBERN CUPA No No R&O McIntyre Inc. 921 E. Francis Street 0.14 NE Upgradient EMISSIONS No Yes SANBERN CUPA No
EMISSIONS No
RCRA NON GEN No
Poly Extrusions 730 E. Francis Street 0.14 NW Cross Gradient SANBERN CUPA No No UV Wood Finishing 936 E. Francis Street, Unit A 0.14 NE Upgradient SANBERN CUPA No Yes Best Ink and Thread 1752 S. Bon View Avenue 0.15 NNE Upgradient RCRA NON GEN No No RCRA TSD No
RCRA LQG No
SANBERN CUPA No
ENVIROSTOR YesENVIROSTOR Yes
HWP NoHWP No
PCB Yes
RCRA TSD NoRCRA TSD No
RCRA SQG No
RCRA NON GEN No
INSP COMP ENF YesINSP COMP ENF Yes
Coast Plastics Inc. 936 E. Francis Street 0.15 NE Upgradient RCRA NON GEN No No SANBERN CUPA No
RCRA NON GEN No
Walkers Air Brakes 921 E. Francis Street 0.16 NNE Upgradient SANBERN CUPA No Yes NoNoNoNo
Yes
R & R Industrial Services, Inc.

U.S. Tooling and Spas Manufacturing
Hudson Technologies Company
Lighting Resources, LLC
Mico West
757 E. Francis Street753 E. Francis Street747 E. Francis Street805 E. Francis Street701 E. Francis Street

0.14 NW0.150.17
NNW

0.16 NW0.13 NNW0.14
Upgradient / Cross Gradient
Cross GradientCross Gradient
Upgradient / Cross Gradient
NW
Cross Gradient
389
TABLE 1

DATABASE REPORT TABLE
S. BON VIEW AVENUE AND E. CEDAR STREET

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
PANATTONI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC.

Company Address
Distance
(miles)
Direction
Relative
to Site Groundwater Gradient Database
Discussed in
Report?
(Yes / No)
Property Included
in VES?
(Yes / No)
Hardware Specialties 761 E. Francis Street 0.16 NNW Upgradient / Cross Gradient SANBERN CUPA No No SANBERN CUPA No
RCRA NON GEN No
Mission Landscape Companies, Inc. 952 Francis Street 0.17 NE Upgradient RCRA NON GEN No No

0.17 RCRA NON GEN No No

0.19 SANBERN CUPA No Yes
EMISSIONS No
SANBERN CUPA No
RCRA SQG Yes
Star Metals Inc. 1715 S. Bon View Avenue 0.19 NNE Upgradient SANBERN CUPA No Yes Inland Signs Inc. 1715 S. Bon View Avenue 0.19 NNE Upgradient RCRA NON GEN No Yes Sera's Wholesale Nursery 943 E. Francis Street 0.21 NE Upgradient SANBERN CUPA No Yes Yolanda V. Hernandez 1740 S. Campus Avenue 0.21 NW Cross Gradient RCRA NON GEN No No SANBERN CUPA Yes
CERS TANK Yes
RCRA SQG No
RCRA NON GEN No
Neff Construction, Inc. 1701 S. Bon View Avenue 0.22 NNE Upgradient SANBERN CUPA No Yes

0.23 HHSS Yes

0.24 UST SWEEPS Yes
RCRA NON GEN NoRCRA NON GEN No
RCRA TSD No
RCRA NON GEN NoRCRA NON GEN NoRCRA NON GEN NoRCRA NON GEN NoRCRA NON GEN NoRCRA NON GEN No Inland Valley Rubber Co. Inc. 1725 S. Campus Avenue 0.24 NW Cross Gradient SANBERN CUPA No No

0.37 SEMS No0.39 CERCLIS Yes
Oakwood Interiors Site 1333 S. Bon View Avenue 0.67 NNE Upgradient ENVIROSTOR Yes Yes Yes
No
YesYesYesYes
Allied Mechanical Products
Southtown Industrial Park
Bomel Construction Co. Inc.

Elite Truck and RV LLC
Warfield Electric Co., Inc.

AMD International Technologies
Ontario Drums 1516 S. Bon View Avenue
939 E. Francis Street
1742 S. Bon View Avenue1745 S. Bon View Avenue1720 S. Bon View Avenue 1701, 1703, 1705, and
1707 S. Bon View Avenue
1725 S. Campus Avenue 0.24

0.16 NE0.17 NNE0.22 NNE
Cross Gradient
NNE
UpgradientUpgradient
NW
Upgradient / Cross Gradient
Upgradient
NNE Upgradient
Upgradient
N
390
TABLE 1

DATABASE REPORT TABLE
S. BON VIEW AVENUE AND E. CEDAR STREET

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
PANATTONI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC.

Company Address
Distance
(miles)
Direction
Relative
to Site Groundwater Gradient Database
Discussed in
Report?
(Yes / No)
Property Included
in VES?
(Yes / No)
Subshine Cleaners - Driftwood Village 2238 S. Euclid Avenue, No. 2238F 0.75 WSW Downgradient ENVIROSTOR Yes No Woodcrest Elementary / Jr. High School 2725 S. Campus Avenue 0.94 SSW Downgradient ENVIROSTOR Yes No (a) Database acronyms are defined as follows:

CDL - Clandestine Drug Lab Sites
CERCLIS - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System CERS HAZ - California Environmental Reporting System (CERS) Hazardous Waste SitesCERS Tank - CERS TanksCHMIRS - California Hazardous Material Incident Report SystemCLEANUP SITES - List of Cleanup Program sites in the state of California made available through the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)DELISTED HAZ - Delisted CERS Hazardous Waste SitesDELISTED TNK - Delisted Storage Tanks that were removed by the SWRCB in California's Environmental Protection Agency and the Cal FIRE Office of State Fire MarshalEMISSIONS - Toxic pollutant emissions facilitiesENVIROSTOR - California EnviroStor Data Management System list of corrective action sites, tiered permit sites, historical sites, and evaluation/investigation sites ERNS - Emergency Response Notification SystemFINDS/FRS - Facility Index/Facility Registry ServiceHAZNET - Hazardous Waste Manifest DataHHSS - Historical Hazardous Substance Storage Information Database HIST TANK - Historical Hazardous Substance Storage Container InformationHWP - ENVIROSTOR Hazardous Waste Facility ICIS - Integrated Compliance Information System
INS COMP ENF - ENVIROSTOR Inspection, Compliance, and Enforcement LUST - Leaking Underground Storage Tanks within the Cleanup Sites in the GeoTracker database PCB - PCB NotifiersRCRA LQG - RCRA Large Quantity GeneratorRCRA NON GEN - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) verified Non-generatorRCRA SQG - RCRA Small Quantity GeneratorRCRA TSD - RCRA non-corrective action sites listed as Treatment, Storage, and/or Disposal facilities of hazardous wasteSANBERN CUPA - San Bernardino County Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA)SEMS - Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS) List 8R Active Site Inventory SSTS - Section Seven Tracking System list of active EPA-registered foreign and domestic pesticide-producing and device-producing establishmentsUST SWEEPS - Underground Storage Tank Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning SystemVCP - Voluntary Cleanup Program. (b) VES - Vapor Encroachment Screening.(c) "--" - Not applicable.(d) N/A - Not available. 391
S. Bon View Avenue and E.

Cedar Street Source/Year : USGS, 2015 Scale: 1:18000
Target Property Location Map
S. Bon View Avenue and E. Cedar Street, Ontario,
CA
Date: 4/21/2021
Project No. 72ONT2
Figure No:
1 392
S. Bon View Avenue and E.

Cedar Street Source/Year : Google Base Map Scale: 1:2000 Target Property Plan
S. Bon View Avenue and E. Cedar Street, Ontario,
CA
Date: 4/21/2021
Project No. 72ONT2
Figure No:
2 393
Scale: 1:18000
Target Property Vicinity
S. Bon View Avenue and E. Cedar Street, Ontario,
CA
Date: 4/21/2021
Project No. 72ONT2
Figure No:
3 Source/Year : Google Base Map
394
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report

APPENDIX A

LIST OF FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATORY DATABASES
395
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report

APPENDIX A

LIST OF FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATORY DATABASES
Orion reviewed the following regulatory agency databases to obtain information on potential environmental liabilities. Search radii for each database are defined in ASTM International’s Standard Practice for Environmental Target Property Assessments: Phase I Environmental Target Property Assessment Process (E1527-13) and Standard Guide for Vapor Encroachment Screening on a Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions (E2600-15).
 Federal sources:
 National Priority List (NPL)
 Delisted NPL
 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS)
 CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP)
 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) databases including:
◼ RCRA corrective action sites (CORRACTS)
◼ Hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities
◼ TSD facilities with reported violations
◼ Large and small quantity hazardous waste generators
 Federal institutional control and engineering control registries  Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) list of reported releases of oil and hazardous substances
 Toxic Release Inventory System (TRIS)
 State sources:
 Hazardous waste sites identified for investigation or remediation  State-equivalent NPL
 State-equivalent CERCLIS
 Landfill and/or solid waste disposal sites including the Solid Waste Information System (SWIS)
 Leaking storage tank lists
 Registered storage tank lists
 Institutional control and engineering control registries  Voluntary cleanup sites
 Brownfield sites
 California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA)
 Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)  Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC).
396
S:\Clients\2021-0429-72ONT2-Phase I ESA Report

APPENDIX B

ERIS DATABASE REPORT
397
1 erisinfo.com| Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 21040800524p Property Information
Order Number: 21040800524p
Date Completed: April 8, 2021
Project Number: 72ONT2-1-1
Project Property: S. Bon View Avenue and E. Cedar Street S. Bon View Avenue and E. Cedar Street Ontario CA 91761 Coordinates:

Latitude: 34.03861034
Longitude: -117.63838892
UTM Northing: 3766620.79153 Meters
UTM Easting: 441072.394215 Meters
UTM Zone: UTM Zone 11S
Elevation: 870.10 ft
Slope Direction: SSE
Topographic Information........................................................................................................................................2 Hydrologic Information...........................................................................................................................................4 Geologic Information..............................................................................................................................................7 Soil Information......................................................................................................................................................9 Wells and Additional Sources..............................................................................................................................12 Summary..........................................................................................................................................................13 Detail Report....................................................................................................................................................15 Radon Information...............................................................................................................................................43 Appendix..............................................................................................................................................................44 Liability Notice......................................................................................................................................................46 The ERIS Physical Setting Report - PSR provides comprehensive information about the physical setting around a site and includes a complete overview of topography and surface topology, in addition to hydrologic, geologic and soil characteristics. The location and detailed attributes of oil and gas wells, water wells, public water systems and radon are also included for review.

The compilation of both physical characteristics of a site and additional attribute data is useful in assessing the impact of migration of contaminants and subsequent impact on soils and groundwater.

Disclaimer
This Report does not provide a full environmental evaluation for the site or adjacent properties. Please see the terms and disclaimer at the end of the Report for greater detail.
398
Topographic Information
399
Topographic Information
3 erisinfo.com| Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 21040800524p The previous topographic map(s) are created by seamlessly merging and cutting current USGS topographic data. Below are shaded relief map(s), derived from USGS elevation data to show surrounding topography in further detail.

Topographic information at project property:

Elevation: 870.10 ft
Slope Direction: SSE
400
Hydrologic Information
401
Hydrologic Information
402
Hydrologic Information
6 erisinfo.com| Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 21040800524p The Wetland Type map shows wetland existence overlaid on an aerial imagery. The Flood Hazard Zones map shows FEMA flood hazard zones overlaid on an aerial imagery. Relevant FIRM panels and detailed zone information is provided below.

Available FIRM Panels in area: 06071C8638H(effective:2008-08-28) 06071C8616H(effective:2008-08-28) 06071C8620H(effective:2008-08-28) 06071C8617J(effective:2015-02-18) 06071C8636J(effective:2015-02-18) 06037C1750F(effective:2008-09-26) Flood Zone D-01
Zone: D
Zone subtype:

Flood Zone X-01
Zone: X
Zone subtype: 0.2 PCT ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD
Flood Zone X-12
Zone: X
Zone subtype: AREA OF MINIMAL FLOOD HAZARD
Flood Zone X-14
Zone: X
Zone subtype: AREA WITH REDUCED FLOOD RISK DUE TO LEVEE 403
Geologic Information
404
Geologic Information
8 erisinfo.com| Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 21040800524p The previous page shows USGS geology information. Detailed information about each unit is provided below.

Geologic Unit Q
Unit Name: Quaternary alluvium and marine deposits
Unit Age: Pliocene to Holocene
Primary Rock Type: alluvium
Secondary Rock Type: terrace
Unit Description: Alluvium, lake, playa, and terrace deposits; unconsolidated and semiconsolidated. Mostly nonmarine, but includes marine deposits near the coast. 405
Soil Information
406
Soil Information
10 erisinfo.com| Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 21040800524p The previous page shows a soil map using SSURGO data from USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Detailed information about each unit is provided below.

Map Unit Hr (0.26%)
Map Unit Name: Hilmar loamy fine sand
Bedrock Depth - Min: null
Watertable Depth - Annual Min: null
Drainage Class - Dominant: Somewhat poorly drained
Hydrologic Group - Dominant: C - Soils in this group have moderately high runoff potential when thoroughly wet. Water transmission through the soil is somewhat restricted.

Major components are printed below
Hilmar(85%)
horizon A(0cm to 33cm) Loamy fine sand
horizon C1(33cm to 41cm) Loamy sand
horizon C2(41cm to 58cm) Loamy sand
horizon 2C3(58cm to 152cm) Stratified loamy sand to loam Component Description:

Minor map unit components are excluded from this report.

Map Unit: Hr - Hilmar loamy fine sand
Component: Hilmar (85%)
The Hilmar component makes up 85 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. This component is on alluvial fans, alluvial plains. The parent material consists of alluvium derived from granite. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is somewhat poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is rarely flooded. It is not ponded.

There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 1 percent.

Nonirrigated land capability classification is 4w. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. The calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 3 percent. The soil has a slightly saline horizon within 30 inches of the soil surface.

Component: Delhi (10%)
Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Delhi soil is a minor component.

Component: Tujunga (5%)
Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Tujunga soil is a minor component.

Map Unit TuB (99.74%)
Map Unit Name: Tujunga loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes Bedrock Depth - Min: null
Watertable Depth - Annual Min: null
Drainage Class - Dominant: Somewhat excessively drained Hydrologic Group - Dominant: A - Soils in this group have low runoff potential when thoroughly wet. Water is transmitted freely through the soil.

Major components are printed below
Tujunga(85%)
horizon A(0cm to 15cm) Loamy sand
horizon C1(15cm to 46cm) Loamy sand
horizon C2(46cm to 152cm) Loamy sand
Component Description:
407
Soil Information
11 erisinfo.com| Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 21040800524p Minor map unit components are excluded from this report.

Map Unit: TuB - Tujunga loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes Component: Tujunga (85%)
The Tujunga, loamy sand component makes up 85 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 5 percent. This component is on alluvial fans, alluvial plains. The parent material consists of alluvium derived from granite. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is somewhat excessively drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches (or restricted depth) is low. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is rarely flooded. It is not ponded.

There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 1 percent.

Nonirrigated land capability classification is 4e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.

Component: Tujunga (10%)
Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Tujunga soil is a minor component.

Component: Hanford (5%)
Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Hanford soil is a minor component. 408
Wells and Additional Sources
409
Wells and Additional Sources Summary
13 erisinfo.com| Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 21040800524p Federal Sources
Public Water Systems Violations and Enforcement Data
Map Key PWS ID Distance (ft) Direction
3 CA3610034 2,966.89 N
Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS)
Map Key PWS ID Distance (ft) Direction
3 CA3610034 2,966.89 N
USGS National Water Information System
Map Key Monitoring Loc Identifier Distance (ft) Direction 2 USGS-340228117374401 2,598.15 ENE
4 USGS-340248117375501 3,003.91 NNE
6 USGS-340303117383501 4,408.10 NNW
12 USGS-340255117390401 5,094.82 NW
13 USGS-11073493 5,244.32 E
State Sources
Oil and Gas Wells
Map Key ID Distance (ft) Direction
No records found
Periodic Groundwater Level Measurement Locations
Map Key ID Distance (ft) Direction
No records found
Well Completion Reports
Map Key WCR No Distance (ft) Direction
1 WCR0298658 714.00 NNE
1 WCR1994-012370 714.00 NNE
1 WCR2007-009669 714.00 NNE
1 WCR2007-009670 714.00 NNE
1 WCR2009-009670 714.00 NNE
1 WCR0285997 714.00 NNE
1 WCR1776-007459 714.00 NNE
1 WCR1983-006749 714.00 NNE
1 WCR2010-009991 714.00 NNE
1 WCR2009-010028 714.00 NNE
1 WCR1983-007113 714.00 NNE
1 WCR0173757 714.00 NNE
5 WCR1776-008734 4,080.43 S
410
Wells and Additional Sources Summary
14 erisinfo.com| Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 21040800524p 5 WCR0226299 4,080.43 S
5 WCR2006-010234 4,080.43 S
5 WCR1776-007836 4,080.43 S
5 WCR1957-001829 4,080.43 S
5 WCR0279636 4,080.43 S
5 WCR0322600 4,080.43 S
5 WCR1976-005714 4,080.43 S
5 WCR1972-003123 4,080.43 S
5 WCR1977-010461 4,080.43 S
5 WCR1929-000197 4,080.43 S
5 WCR1973-003493 4,080.43 S
5 WCR0213054 4,080.43 S
5 WCR1976-005715 4,080.43 S
5 WCR1963-001520 4,080.43 S
5 WCR1997-010979 4,080.43 S
5 WCR1999-011371 4,080.43 S
5 WCR2006-010341 4,080.43 S
5 WCR1995-012429 4,080.43 S
5 WCR1954-002486 4,080.43 S
5 WCR2002-012406 4,080.43 S
5 WCR1954-001990 4,080.43 S
5 WCR1971-002483 4,080.43 S
5 WCR1997-011007 4,080.43 S
5 WCR1936-000189 4,080.43 S
5 WCR1776-007812 4,080.43 S
5 WCR1957-001716 4,080.43 S
5 WCR1978-008572 4,080.43 S
5 WCR1997-011377 4,080.43 S
5 WCR1776-011724 4,080.43 S
5 WCR2006-010342 4,080.43 S
5 WCR1963-001867 4,080.43 S
5 WCR0118375 4,080.43 S
5 WCR1978-007968 4,080.43 S
5 WCR1997-011376 4,080.43 S
7 WCR2019-008760 4,501.39 WSW
8 WCR2019-008759 4,596.32 WSW
9 WCR1925-000099 4,666.16 WNW
9 WCR1993-010851 4,666.16 WNW
9 WCR2000-011005 4,666.16 WNW
9 WCR1994-011880 4,666.16 WNW
9 WCR1957-001673 4,666.16 WNW
9 WCR1994-011123 4,666.16 WNW
9 WCR1994-011881 4,666.16 WNW
9 WCR1992-014975 4,666.16 WNW
9 WCR1993-010850 4,666.16 WNW
9 WCR1993-010852 4,666.16 WNW
9 WCR1910-000061 4,666.16 WNW
9 WCR2000-010961 4,666.16 WNW
9 WCR2000-011003 4,666.16 WNW
9 WCR1992-017050 4,666.16 WNW
9 WCR2000-011004 4,666.16 WNW
9 WCR2000-010962 4,666.16 WNW
9 WCR1994-011879 4,666.16 WNW
9 WCR2000-012827 4,666.16 WNW
9 WCR1992-017049 4,666.16 WNW
9 WCR1999-011233 4,666.16 WNW
9 WCR1998-010474 4,666.16 WNW
9 WCR2000-012656 4,666.16 WNW
9 WCR1999-011494 4,666.16 WNW
9 WCR2000-012970 4,666.16 WNW
9 WCR1998-009745 4,666.16 WNW
9 WCR1999-011495 4,666.16 WNW
9 WCR2000-011002 4,666.16 WNW
10 WCR2019-008756 4,707.64 WSW
11 WCR2019-016170 4,959.08 NNE
411
Wells and Additional Sources Detail Report
15 erisinfo.com| Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 21040800524p Public Water Systems Violations and Enforcement Data
Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 3 N 0.56 2,966.89 910.51 PWSV
Address Line 2:

State Code: CA
Zip Code: 91761
City Name: ONTARIO
Address Line 1: 1425 S. BON VIEW AVE.

PWS ID: CA3610034
PWS Type Code: CWS
PWS Type Description: Community Water System
Primary Source Code: SWP
Primary Source Desc: Purchased Surface Water
PWS Activity Code: A
PWS Activity Description: Active
PWS Deactivation Date:

Phone Number: 909-395-2682
--Details--
Population Served Count: 167382
City Served: ONTARIO
County Served: San Bernardino
State Served: CA
Zip Code Served:

Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS)
Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 3 N 0.56 2,966.89 910.51 SDWIS
PWS ID: CA3610034
PWS Type: Community water system
No of Facilities: 95
No of Violations: 1
No of Site Visits: 13
Cities Served: ONTARIO
Counties Served: San Bernardino
Population Served Count: 175,841
Primacy Agency: California
EPA Region: Region 9
USGS National Water Information System
Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 2 ENE 0.49 2,598.15 877.77 FED USGS
412
Wells and Additional Sources Detail Report
16 erisinfo.com| Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 21040800524p Organiz Identifier: USGS-CA Formation Type:

Organiz Name: USGS California Water Science
Center
Aquifer Name:

Well Depth: Aquifer Type:

Well Depth Unit: Country Code: US
Well Hole Depth: Provider Name: NWIS
W Hole Depth Unit: County: SAN BERNARDINO
Construction Date: Latitude: 34.0413333
Source Map Scale: 24000 Longitude: -117.6291389
Monitoring Loc Name: STORM DRAIN FRANCIS AND GROVE NR ONTARIO CA Monitoring Loc Identifier: USGS-340228117374401
Monitoring Loc Type: Facility: Storm sewer
Monitoring Loc Desc:

HUC Eight Digit Code: 18070203
Drainage Area:

Drainage Area Unit:

Contrib Drainage Area:

Contrib Drainage Area
Unit:

Horizontal Accuracy: Unknown
Horizontal Accuracy Unit: Unknown
Horizontal Collection
Mthd:

Mapping grade GPS unit (handheld accuracy range 12 to 40 ft) Horiz Coord Refer
System:

NAD83
Vertical Measure: 880
Vertical Measure Unit: feet
Vertical Accuracy: 5
Vertical Accuracy Unit: feet
Vertical Collection Mthd: Interpolated from topographic map.

Vert Coord Refer System: NGVD29
Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 4 NNE 0.57 3,003.91 902.46 FED USGS
Organiz Identifier: USGS-CA Formation Type:

Organiz Name: USGS California Water Science
Center
Aquifer Name: California Coastal Basin aquifers
Well Depth: 428 Aquifer Type:

Well Depth Unit: ft Country Code: US
Well Hole Depth: Provider Name: NWIS
W Hole Depth Unit: County: SAN BERNARDINO
Construction Date: Latitude: 34.0466783
Source Map Scale: 24000 Longitude: -117.6328314
Monitoring Loc Name: 001S007W32A002S
Monitoring Loc Identifier: USGS-340248117375501
Monitoring Loc Type: Well
Monitoring Loc Desc:
413
Wells and Additional Sources Detail Report
17 erisinfo.com| Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 21040800524p HUC Eight Digit Code: 18070203
Drainage Area:

Drainage Area Unit:

Contrib Drainage Area:

Contrib Drainage Area
Unit:

Horizontal Accuracy: 1
Horizontal Accuracy Unit: seconds
Horizontal Collection
Mthd:

Interpolated from MAP.

Horiz Coord Refer
System:

NAD83
Vertical Measure:

Vertical Measure Unit:

Vertical Accuracy:

Vertical Accuracy Unit:

Vertical Collection Mthd:

Vert Coord Refer System:

Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 6 NNW 0.83 4,408.10 928.39 FED USGS
Organiz Identifier: USGS-CA Formation Type:

Organiz Name: USGS California Water Science
Center
Aquifer Name: California Coastal Basin aquifers
Well Depth: 444 Aquifer Type:

Well Depth Unit: ft Country Code: US
Well Hole Depth: Provider Name: NWIS
W Hole Depth Unit: County: SAN BERNARDINO
Construction Date: Latitude: 34.0508448
Source Map Scale: 24000 Longitude: -117.6439429
Monitoring Loc Name: 001S007W29N001S
Monitoring Loc Identifier: USGS-340303117383501
Monitoring Loc Type: Well
Monitoring Loc Desc:

HUC Eight Digit Code: 18070203
Drainage Area:

Drainage Area Unit:

Contrib Drainage Area:

Contrib Drainage Area
Unit:

Horizontal Accuracy: 1
Horizontal Accuracy Unit: seconds
Horizontal Collection
Mthd:

Interpolated from MAP.

Horiz Coord Refer
System:

NAD83
Vertical Measure:

Vertical Measure Unit:

Vertical Accuracy:
414
Wells and Additional Sources Detail Report
18 erisinfo.com| Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 21040800524p Vertical Accuracy Unit:

Vertical Collection Mthd:

Vert Coord Refer System:

Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 12 NW 0.96 5,094.82 922.51 FED USGS
Organiz Identifier: USGS-CA Formation Type:

Organiz Name: USGS California Water Science
Center
Aquifer Name: California Coastal Basin aquifers
Well Depth: 672 Aquifer Type:

Well Depth Unit: ft Country Code: US
Well Hole Depth: Provider Name: NWIS
W Hole Depth Unit: County: SAN BERNARDINO
Construction Date: Latitude: 34.0486226
Source Map Scale: 24000 Longitude: -117.6519986
Monitoring Loc Name: 001S007W30Q001S
Monitoring Loc Identifier: USGS-340255117390401
Monitoring Loc Type: Well
Monitoring Loc Desc:

HUC Eight Digit Code: 18070203
Drainage Area:

Drainage Area Unit:

Contrib Drainage Area:

Contrib Drainage Area
Unit:

Horizontal Accuracy: 1
Horizontal Accuracy Unit: seconds
Horizontal Collection
Mthd:

Interpolated from MAP.

Horiz Coord Refer
System:

NAD83
Vertical Measure:

Vertical Measure Unit:

Vertical Accuracy:

Vertical Accuracy Unit:

Vertical Collection Mthd:

Vert Coord Refer System:

Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 13 E 0.99 5,244.32 852.22 FED USGS
Organiz Identifier: USGS-CA Formation Type:

Organiz Name: USGS California Water Science
Center
Aquifer Name:

Well Depth: Aquifer Type:

Well Depth Unit: Country Code: US
Well Hole Depth: Provider Name: NWIS
415
Wells and Additional Sources Detail Report
19 erisinfo.com| Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 21040800524p W Hole Depth Unit: County: SAN BERNARDINO
Construction Date: Latitude: 34.0375119
Source Map Scale: 24000 Longitude: -117.6200532
Monitoring Loc Name: W BR CUCAMONGA CHANNEL AB ELY PERC BASIN A ONTARIO Monitoring Loc Identifier: USGS-11073493
Monitoring Loc Type: Stream
Monitoring Loc Desc:

HUC Eight Digit Code: 18070203
Drainage Area: 6.01
Drainage Area Unit: sq mi
Contrib Drainage Area:

Contrib Drainage Area
Unit:

Horizontal Accuracy: 1
Horizontal Accuracy Unit: seconds
Horizontal Collection
Mthd:

Interpolated from MAP.

Horiz Coord Refer
System:

NAD83
Vertical Measure: 850
Vertical Measure Unit: feet
Vertical Accuracy: 2.5
Vertical Accuracy Unit: feet
Vertical Collection Mthd: Interpolated from topographic map.

Vert Coord Refer System: NGVD29
Well Completion Reports
Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 1 NNE 0.14 714.00 878.51 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR0298658 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.04129 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.04129 Decimal Longitude: -117.63712 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63712
Location(OSWCR): None
City(OSWCR): None
Location: None
City: None
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 1 NNE 0.14 714.00 878.51 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1994-012370 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.04129 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.04129 Decimal Longitude: -117.63712 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63712
416
Wells and Additional Sources Detail Report
20 erisinfo.com| Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 21040800524p Location(OSWCR): Cucamonga Avenue
City(OSWCR): Ontario
Location: Cucamonga Avenue
City: Ontario
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 1 NNE 0.14 714.00 878.51 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR2007-009669 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.04129 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.04129 Decimal Longitude: -117.63712 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63712
Location(OSWCR): Bon View & Philadelphia
City(OSWCR): Ontario
Location: Bon View & Philadelphia
City: Ontario
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 1 NNE 0.14 714.00 878.51 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR2007-009670 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.04129 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.04129 Decimal Longitude: -117.63712 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63712
Location(OSWCR): Bon View & Philadelphia
City(OSWCR): Ontario
Location: Bon View & Philadelphia
City: Ontario
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 1 NNE 0.14 714.00 878.51 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR2009-009670 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.04129 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.04129 Decimal Longitude: -117.63712 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63712
Location(OSWCR): Bon View Avenue & E Philadelphia Street City(OSWCR): Ontario
Location: Bon View Avenue & E Philadelphia Street
City: Ontario
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California 417
Wells and Additional Sources Detail Report
21 erisinfo.com| Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 21040800524p Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 1 NNE 0.14 714.00 878.51 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR0285997 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.04129 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.04129 Decimal Longitude: -117.63712 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63712
Location(OSWCR): None
City(OSWCR): None
Location: None
City: None
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 1 NNE 0.14 714.00 878.51 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1776-007459 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.04129 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.04129 Decimal Longitude: -117.63712 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63712
Location(OSWCR): CAMPUS, PHILLIPS
City(OSWCR): None
Location: CAMPUS, PHILLIPS
City: None
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 1 NNE 0.14 714.00 878.51 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1983-006749 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.04129 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.04129 Decimal Longitude: -117.63712 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63712
Location(OSWCR): 1425 S Bon View AVE
City(OSWCR): Ontario
Location: 1425 S Bon View AVE
City: Ontario
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 1 NNE 0.14 714.00 878.51 WATER WELLS
418
Wells and Additional Sources Detail Report
22 erisinfo.com| Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 21040800524p WCR No: WCR2010-009991 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.04129 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.04129 Decimal Longitude: -117.63712 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63712
Location(OSWCR): S Bon View Avenue & E Philadelphia Stree City(OSWCR): Ontario
Location: S Bon View Avenue & E Philadelphia Stree
City: Ontario
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 1 NNE 0.14 714.00 878.51 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR2009-010028 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.04129 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.04129 Decimal Longitude: -117.63712 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63712
Location(OSWCR): S Bon View Avenue & E Philadelphia Stree City(OSWCR): Ontario
Location: S Bon View Avenue & E Philadelphia Stree
City: Ontario
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 1 NNE 0.14 714.00 878.51 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1983-007113 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.04129 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.04129 Decimal Longitude: -117.63712 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63712
Location(OSWCR): 1425 S Bon View
City(OSWCR): Ontario
Location: 1425 S Bon View
City: Ontario
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 1 NNE 0.14 714.00 878.51 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR0173757 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.04129 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.04129 Decimal Longitude: -117.63712 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63712
419
Wells and Additional Sources Detail Report
23 erisinfo.com| Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 21040800524p Location(OSWCR): None
City(OSWCR): None
Location: None
City: None
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 5 S 0.77 4,080.43 817.40 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1776-008734 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.02668 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.02668 Decimal Longitude: -117.63703 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63703
Location(OSWCR): SULTANA, ELY
City(OSWCR): None
Location: SULTANA, ELY
City: None
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 5 S 0.77 4,080.43 817.40 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR0226299 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.02668 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.02668 Decimal Longitude: -117.63703 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63703
Location(OSWCR): None
City(OSWCR): None
Location: None
City: None
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 5 S 0.77 4,080.43 817.40 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR2006-010234 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.02668 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.02668 Decimal Longitude: -117.63703 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63703
Location(OSWCR): 2431 S Euclid Avenue
City(OSWCR): Ontario
Location: 2431 S Euclid Avenue
City: Ontario
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California 420
Wells and Additional Sources Detail Report
24 erisinfo.com| Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 21040800524p Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 5 S 0.77 4,080.43 817.40 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1776-007836 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.02668 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.02668 Decimal Longitude: -117.63703 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63703
Location(OSWCR): WALNUT ST, BON VIEW
City(OSWCR): Chino
Location: WALNUT ST, BON VIEW
City: Chino
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 5 S 0.77 4,080.43 817.40 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1957-001829 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.02668 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.02668 Decimal Longitude: -117.63703 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63703
Location(OSWCR): EUCLID, RIVERSIDE DR
City(OSWCR): None
Location: EUCLID, RIVERSIDE DR
City: None
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 5 S 0.77 4,080.43 817.40 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR0279636 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.02668 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.02668 Decimal Longitude: -117.63703 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63703
Location(OSWCR): None
City(OSWCR): None
Location: None
City: None
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 5 S 0.77 4,080.43 817.40 WATER WELLS
421
Wells and Additional Sources Detail Report
25 erisinfo.com| Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 21040800524p WCR No: WCR0322600 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.02668 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.02668 Decimal Longitude: -117.63703 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63703
Location(OSWCR): None
City(OSWCR): None
Location: None
City: None
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 5 S 0.77 4,080.43 817.40 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1976-005714 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.02668 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.02668 Decimal Longitude: -117.63703 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63703
Location(OSWCR): None
City(OSWCR): None
Location: None
City: None
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 5 S 0.77 4,080.43 817.40 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1972-003123 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.02668 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.02668 Decimal Longitude: -117.63703 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63703
Location(OSWCR): PINE AVE, JOHNSON AVE
City(OSWCR): None
Location: PINE AVE, JOHNSON AVE
City: None
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 5 S 0.77 4,080.43 817.40 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1977-010461 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.02668 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.02668 Decimal Longitude: -117.63703 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63703
422
Wells and Additional Sources Detail Report
26 erisinfo.com| Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 21040800524p Location(OSWCR): CUCAMONGA, RIVERSIDE
City(OSWCR): None
Location: CUCAMONGA, RIVERSIDE
City: None
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 5 S 0.77 4,080.43 817.40 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1929-000197 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.02668 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.02668 Decimal Longitude: -117.63703 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63703
Location(OSWCR): WALNUT AVE, CUCAMONGA AVE
City(OSWCR): None
Location: WALNUT AVE, CUCAMONGA AVE
City: None
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 5 S 0.77 4,080.43 817.40 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1973-003493 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.02668 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.02668 Decimal Longitude: -117.63703 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63703
Location(OSWCR): WALNUT, GROVE
City(OSWCR): None
Location: WALNUT, GROVE
City: None
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 5 S 0.77 4,080.43 817.40 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR0213054 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.02668 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.02668 Decimal Longitude: -117.63703 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63703
Location(OSWCR): None
City(OSWCR): None
Location: None
City: None
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California 423
Wells and Additional Sources Detail Report
27 erisinfo.com| Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 21040800524p Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 5 S 0.77 4,080.43 817.40 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1976-005715 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.02668 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.02668 Decimal Longitude: -117.63703 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63703
Location(OSWCR): None
City(OSWCR): None
Location: None
City: None
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 5 S 0.77 4,080.43 817.40 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1963-001520 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.02668 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.02668 Decimal Longitude: -117.63703 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63703
Location(OSWCR): SULTANA, RIVERSIDE DR
City(OSWCR): Ontario
Location: SULTANA, RIVERSIDE DR
City: Ontario
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 5 S 0.77 4,080.43 817.40 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1997-010979 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.02668 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.02668 Decimal Longitude: -117.63703 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63703
Location(OSWCR): 7601 E Walnut Street
City(OSWCR): Ontario
Location: 7601 E Walnut Street
City: Ontario
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 5 S 0.77 4,080.43 817.40 WATER WELLS
424
Wells and Additional Sources Detail Report
28 erisinfo.com| Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 21040800524p WCR No: WCR1999-011371 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.02668 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.02668 Decimal Longitude: -117.63703 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63703
Location(OSWCR): 12804 S Sutana
City(OSWCR): Ontario
Location: 12804 S Sutana
City: Ontario
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 5 S 0.77 4,080.43 817.40 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR2006-010341 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.02668 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.02668 Decimal Longitude: -117.63703 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63703
Location(OSWCR): 2431 S Euclid Avenue
City(OSWCR): Ontario
Location: 2431 S Euclid Avenue
City: Ontario
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 5 S 0.77 4,080.43 817.40 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1995-012429 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.02668 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.02668 Decimal Longitude: -117.63703 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63703
Location(OSWCR): 7410 Walnut Street
City(OSWCR): Ontario
Location: 7410 Walnut Street
City: Ontario
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 5 S 0.77 4,080.43 817.40 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1954-002486 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.02668 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.02668 Decimal Longitude: -117.63703 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63703
425
Wells and Additional Sources Detail Report
29 erisinfo.com| Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 21040800524p Location(OSWCR): PEDLEY AVE
City(OSWCR): Norco
Location: PEDLEY AVE
City: Norco
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 5 S 0.77 4,080.43 817.40 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR2002-012406 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.02668 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.02668 Decimal Longitude: -117.63703 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63703
Location(OSWCR): 2946 S Campus Avenue
City(OSWCR): Ontario
Location: 2946 S Campus Avenue
City: Ontario
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 5 S 0.77 4,080.43 817.40 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1954-001990 County: Los Angeles
County(OSWCR): Los Angeles Decimal Latitude: 34.02668
Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.02668 Decimal Longitude: -117.63703 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63703
Location(OSWCR): EUCLID AVE, RIVERSIDE DR, BON VIEW AVE City(OSWCR): None
Location: EUCLID AVE, RIVERSIDE DR, BON VIEW AVE
City: None
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 5 S 0.77 4,080.43 817.40 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1971-002483 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.02668 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.02668 Decimal Longitude: -117.63703 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63703
Location(OSWCR): GROVE AVE, PHILADELPHIA AVE, ROUTE 60, W City(OSWCR): None
Location: GROVE AVE, PHILADELPHIA AVE, ROUTE 60, W
City: None
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California 426
Wells and Additional Sources Detail Report
30 erisinfo.com| Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 21040800524p Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 5 S 0.77 4,080.43 817.40 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1997-011007 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.02668 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.02668 Decimal Longitude: -117.63703 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63703
Location(OSWCR): 7601 E Walnut Street
City(OSWCR): Ontario
Location: 7601 E Walnut Street
City: Ontario
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 5 S 0.77 4,080.43 817.40 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1936-000189 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.02668 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.02668 Decimal Longitude: -117.63703 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63703
Location(OSWCR): RIVERSIDE DR, BON VIEW ST, BOND SIERRA S City(OSWCR): Chino
Location: RIVERSIDE DR, BON VIEW ST, BOND SIERRA S
City: Chino
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 5 S 0.77 4,080.43 817.40 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1776-007812 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.02668 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.02668 Decimal Longitude: -117.63703 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63703
Location(OSWCR): ELY ST, SULTANA, CAMPUS
City(OSWCR): None
Location: ELY ST, SULTANA, CAMPUS
City: None
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 5 S 0.77 4,080.43 817.40 WATER WELLS
427
Wells and Additional Sources Detail Report
31 erisinfo.com| Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 21040800524p WCR No: WCR1957-001716 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.02668 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.02668 Decimal Longitude: -117.63703 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63703
Location(OSWCR): EUCLID AVE, RIVERSIDE DR, CAMPUS
City(OSWCR): None
Location: EUCLID AVE, RIVERSIDE DR, CAMPUS
City: None
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 5 S 0.77 4,080.43 817.40 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1978-008572 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.02668 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.02668 Decimal Longitude: -117.63703 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63703
Location(OSWCR): None
City(OSWCR): None
Location: None
City: None
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 5 S 0.77 4,080.43 817.40 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1997-011377 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.02668 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.02668 Decimal Longitude: -117.63703 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63703
Location(OSWCR): 7601 E Walnut Street
City(OSWCR): Ontario
Location: 7601 E Walnut Street
City: Ontario
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 5 S 0.77 4,080.43 817.40 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1776-011724 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.02668 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.02668 Decimal Longitude: -117.63703 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63703
428
Wells and Additional Sources Detail Report
32 erisinfo.com| Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 21040800524p Location(OSWCR): Walnut Street, BON VIEW
City(OSWCR): Chino
Location: Walnut Street, BON VIEW
City: Chino
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 5 S 0.77 4,080.43 817.40 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR2006-010342 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.02668 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.02668 Decimal Longitude: -117.63703 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63703
Location(OSWCR): 2431 S Euclid Avenue
City(OSWCR): Ontario
Location: 2431 S Euclid Avenue
City: Ontario
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 5 S 0.77 4,080.43 817.40 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1963-001867 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.02668 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.02668 Decimal Longitude: -117.63703 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63703
Location(OSWCR): Walnut Street, GROVE AVE
City(OSWCR): Chino
Location: Walnut Street, GROVE AVE
City: Chino
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 5 S 0.77 4,080.43 817.40 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR0118375 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.02668 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.02668 Decimal Longitude: -117.63703 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63703
Location(OSWCR): None
City(OSWCR): None
Location: None
City: None
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California 429
Wells and Additional Sources Detail Report
33 erisinfo.com| Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 21040800524p Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 5 S 0.77 4,080.43 817.40 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1978-007968 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.02668 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.02668 Decimal Longitude: -117.63703 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63703
Location(OSWCR): None
City(OSWCR): None
Location: None
City: None
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 5 S 0.77 4,080.43 817.40 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1997-011376 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.02668 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.02668 Decimal Longitude: -117.63703 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.63703
Location(OSWCR): 7601 E Walnut Street
City(OSWCR): Ontario
Location: 7601 E Walnut Street
City: Ontario
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 7 WSW 0.85 4,501.39 841.11 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR2019-008760 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.03184 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.03184 Decimal Longitude: -117.652373 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.652373
Location(OSWCR): 2261 S Fern AVE
City(OSWCR): Ontario
Location: 2261 S Fern AVE
City: Ontario
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 8 WSW 0.87 4,596.32 839.50 WATER WELLS
430
Wells and Additional Sources Detail Report
34 erisinfo.com| Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 21040800524p WCR No: WCR2019-008759 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.03184 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.03184 Decimal Longitude: -117.652731 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.652731
Location(OSWCR): 2261 S Fern AVE
City(OSWCR): Ontario
Location: 2261 S Fern AVE
City: Ontario
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 9 WNW 0.88 4,666.16 886.15 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1925-000099 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.04123 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.04123 Decimal Longitude: -117.65465 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.65465
Location(OSWCR): E FRANCIS ST, EUCLID AVE
City(OSWCR): None
Location: E FRANCIS ST, EUCLID AVE
City: None
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 9 WNW 0.88 4,666.16 886.15 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1993-010851 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.04123 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.04123 Decimal Longitude: -117.65465 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.65465
Location(OSWCR): 501 W FRANCIS ST, ONTARIO
City(OSWCR): None
Location: 501 W FRANCIS ST, ONTARIO
City: None
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 9 WNW 0.88 4,666.16 886.15 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR2000-011005 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.04123 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.04123 Decimal Longitude: -117.65465 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.65465
431
Wells and Additional Sources Detail Report
35 erisinfo.com| Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 21040800524p Location(OSWCR): S Euclid Avenue
City(OSWCR): Ontario
Location: S Euclid Avenue
City: Ontario
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 9 WNW 0.88 4,666.16 886.15 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1994-011880 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.04123 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.04123 Decimal Longitude: -117.65465 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.65465
Location(OSWCR): 501 FRANCIS
City(OSWCR): Ontario
Location: 501 FRANCIS
City: Ontario
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 9 WNW 0.88 4,666.16 886.15 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1957-001673 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.04123 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.04123 Decimal Longitude: -117.65465 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.65465
Location(OSWCR): DESSAU, VINE
City(OSWCR): None
Location: DESSAU, VINE
City: None
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 9 WNW 0.88 4,666.16 886.15 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1994-011123 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.04123 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.04123 Decimal Longitude: -117.65465 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.65465
Location(OSWCR): BONITA ON GREVILLEA, ONTARIO
City(OSWCR): None
Location: BONITA ON GREVILLEA, ONTARIO
City: None
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California 432
Wells and Additional Sources Detail Report
36 erisinfo.com| Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 21040800524p Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 9 WNW 0.88 4,666.16 886.15 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1994-011881 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.04123 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.04123 Decimal Longitude: -117.65465 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.65465
Location(OSWCR): 501 FRANCIS
City(OSWCR): Ontario
Location: 501 FRANCIS
City: Ontario
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 9 WNW 0.88 4,666.16 886.15 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1992-014975 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.04123 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.04123 Decimal Longitude: -117.65465 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.65465
Location(OSWCR): None
City(OSWCR): None
Location: None
City: None
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 9 WNW 0.88 4,666.16 886.15 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1993-010850 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.04123 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.04123 Decimal Longitude: -117.65465 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.65465
Location(OSWCR): FERN & MAPLE, ONTARIO
City(OSWCR): None
Location: FERN & MAPLE, ONTARIO
City: None
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 9 WNW 0.88 4,666.16 886.15 WATER WELLS
433
Wells and Additional Sources Detail Report
37 erisinfo.com| Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 21040800524p WCR No: WCR1993-010852 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.04123 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.04123 Decimal Longitude: -117.65465 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.65465
Location(OSWCR): SAN ANTONIO & MAPLE
City(OSWCR): None
Location: SAN ANTONIO & MAPLE
City: None
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 9 WNW 0.88 4,666.16 886.15 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1910-000061 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.04123 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.04123 Decimal Longitude: -117.65465 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.65465
Location(OSWCR): FRANCES ST, EUCLID AVE
City(OSWCR): None
Location: FRANCES ST, EUCLID AVE
City: None
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 9 WNW 0.88 4,666.16 886.15 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR2000-010961 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.04123 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.04123 Decimal Longitude: -117.65465 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.65465
Location(OSWCR): S Euclid Avenue
City(OSWCR): Ontario
Location: S Euclid Avenue
City: Ontario
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 9 WNW 0.88 4,666.16 886.15 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR2000-011003 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.04123 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.04123 Decimal Longitude: -117.65465 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.65465
434
Wells and Additional Sources Detail Report
38 erisinfo.com| Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 21040800524p Location(OSWCR): S Euclid Avenue
City(OSWCR): Ontario
Location: S Euclid Avenue
City: Ontario
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 9 WNW 0.88 4,666.16 886.15 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1992-017050 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.04123 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.04123 Decimal Longitude: -117.65465 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.65465
Location(OSWCR): CEDAR ST, VINE AVE
City(OSWCR): Ontario
Location: CEDAR ST, VINE AVE
City: Ontario
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 9 WNW 0.88 4,666.16 886.15 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR2000-011004 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.04123 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.04123 Decimal Longitude: -117.65465 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.65465
Location(OSWCR): S Euclid Avenue
City(OSWCR): Ontario
Location: S Euclid Avenue
City: Ontario
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 9 WNW 0.88 4,666.16 886.15 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR2000-010962 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.04123 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.04123 Decimal Longitude: -117.65465 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.65465
Location(OSWCR): S Euclid Avenue
City(OSWCR): Ontario
Location: S Euclid Avenue
City: Ontario
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California 435
Wells and Additional Sources Detail Report
39 erisinfo.com| Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 21040800524p Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 9 WNW 0.88 4,666.16 886.15 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1994-011879 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.04123 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.04123 Decimal Longitude: -117.65465 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.65465
Location(OSWCR): 501 FRANCIS
City(OSWCR): Ontario
Location: 501 FRANCIS
City: Ontario
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 9 WNW 0.88 4,666.16 886.15 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR2000-012827 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.04123 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.04123 Decimal Longitude: -117.65465 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.65465
Location(OSWCR): E Bud Street
City(OSWCR): Ontario
Location: E Bud Street
City: Ontario
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 9 WNW 0.88 4,666.16 886.15 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1992-017049 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.04123 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.04123 Decimal Longitude: -117.65465 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.65465
Location(OSWCR): EUCLID AVE, LOCUST ST
City(OSWCR): Ontario
Location: EUCLID AVE, LOCUST ST
City: Ontario
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 9 WNW 0.88 4,666.16 886.15 WATER WELLS
436
Wells and Additional Sources Detail Report
40 erisinfo.com| Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 21040800524p WCR No: WCR1999-011233 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.04123 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.04123 Decimal Longitude: -117.65465 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.65465
Location(OSWCR): E Bud Street
City(OSWCR): Ontario
Location: E Bud Street
City: Ontario
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 9 WNW 0.88 4,666.16 886.15 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1998-010474 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.04123 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.04123 Decimal Longitude: -117.65465 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.65465
Location(OSWCR): 1724 S Euclid Avenue
City(OSWCR): Ontario
Location: 1724 S Euclid Avenue
City: Ontario
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 9 WNW 0.88 4,666.16 886.15 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR2000-012656 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.04123 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.04123 Decimal Longitude: -117.65465 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.65465
Location(OSWCR): E Bud Street
City(OSWCR): Ontario
Location: E Bud Street
City: Ontario
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 9 WNW 0.88 4,666.16 886.15 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1999-011494 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.04123 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.04123 Decimal Longitude: -117.65465 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.65465
437
Wells and Additional Sources Detail Report
41 erisinfo.com| Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 21040800524p Location(OSWCR): 501 W Francis Street
City(OSWCR): Ontario
Location: 501 W Francis Street
City: Ontario
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 9 WNW 0.88 4,666.16 886.15 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR2000-012970 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.04123 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.04123 Decimal Longitude: -117.65465 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.65465
Location(OSWCR): E Bud Street
City(OSWCR): Ontario
Location: E Bud Street
City: Ontario
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 9 WNW 0.88 4,666.16 886.15 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1998-009745 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.04123 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.04123 Decimal Longitude: -117.65465 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.65465
Location(OSWCR): 2105 S Oakland Avenue
City(OSWCR): Ontario
Location: 2105 S Oakland Avenue
City: Ontario
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 9 WNW 0.88 4,666.16 886.15 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR1999-011495 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.04123 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.04123 Decimal Longitude: -117.65465 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.65465
Location(OSWCR): E Budd Street & S Euclid Avenue
City(OSWCR): Ontario
Location: E Budd Street & S Euclid Avenue
City: Ontario
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California 438
Wells and Additional Sources Detail Report
42 erisinfo.com| Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 21040800524p Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 9 WNW 0.88 4,666.16 886.15 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR2000-011002 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.04123 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.04123 Decimal Longitude: -117.65465 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.65465
Location(OSWCR): S Euclid Avenue
City(OSWCR): Ontario
Location: S Euclid Avenue
City: Ontario
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 10 WSW 0.89 4,707.64 838.46 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR2019-008756 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.03184 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.03184 Decimal Longitude: -117.653148 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.653148
Location(OSWCR): 2261 S Fern AVE
City(OSWCR): Ontario
Location: 2261 S Fern AVE
City: Ontario
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports Map Key Direction Distance (mi) Distance (ft) Elevation (ft) DB 11 NNE 0.94 4,959.08 923.51 WATER WELLS
WCR No: WCR2019-016170 County: San Bernardino
County(OSWCR): San Bernardino Decimal Latitude: 34.051819 Decimal Lat(OSWCR): 34.051819 Decimal Longitude: -117.630789 Decim Long(OSWCR): -117.630789
Location(OSWCR): 989 S Cucamonga AVE
City(OSWCR): Ontario
Location: 989 S Cucamonga AVE
City: Ontario
Original Source: California Department of Water Resources - OSWCR(Well Numbers), as of Apr 29, 2020; California Department of Water Resources - Well Completion Reports 439
Radon Information
43 erisinfo.com| Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 21040800524p This section lists any relevant radon information found for the target property.

Federal EPA Radon Zone for SAN BERNARDINO County: 2
Zone 1: Counties with predicted average indoor radon screening levels greater than 4 pCi/L Zone 2: Counties with predicted average indoor radon screening levels from 2 to 4 pCi/L Zone 3: Counties with predicted average indoor radon screening levels less than 2 pCi/L Federal Area Radon Information for SAN BERNARDINO County No Measures/Homes: 17
Geometric Mean: 0.5
Arithmetic Mean: 0.7
Median: 0.7
Standard Deviation: 1
Maximum: 2.9
% >4 pCi/L: 0
% >20 pCi/L: 0
Notes on Data Table: TABLE 1. Screening indoor
radon data from the EPA/State
Residential Radon Survey of
California conducted during
1989-90. Data represent 2-7
day charcoal canister
measurements from the lowest
level of each home tested.
440
Appendix
44 erisinfo.com| Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 21040800524p Federal Sources
FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer FEMA FLOOD
The National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) data incorporates Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) databases published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and any Letters Of Map Revision (LOMRs) that have been issued against those databases since their publication date. The FIRM Database is the digital, geospatial version of the flood hazard information shown on the published paper FIRMs. The FIRM Database depicts flood risk information and supporting data used to develop the risk data. The FIRM Database is derived from Flood Insurance Studies (FISs), previously published FIRMs, flood hazard analyses performed in support of the FISs and FIRMs, and new mapping data, where available.

Indoor Radon Data INDOOR RADON
Indoor radon measurements tracked by the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) and the State Residential Radon Survey.

Public Water Systems Violations and Enforcement Data PWSV List of drinking water violations and enforcement actions from the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) made available by the Drinking Water Protection Division of the US EPA's Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water. Enforcement sensitive actions are not included in the data released by the EPA.

Address information provided in SWDIS may correspond either with the physical location of the water system, or with a contact address.

Radon Zone Level RADON ZONE
Areas showing the level of Radon Zones (level 1, 2 or 3) by county. This data is maintained by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) SDWIS
The Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) contains information about public water systems as reported to US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by the states. Addresses may correspond with the location of the water system, or with a contact address.

Soil Survey Geographic database SSURGO
The Soil Survey Geographic database (SSURGO) contains information about soil as collected by the National Cooperative Soil Survey at the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Soil maps outline areas called map units. The map units are linked to soil properties in a database. Each map unit may contain one to three major components and some minor components.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Wetland Data US WETLAND
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Wetland layer represents the approximate location and type of wetlands and deepwater habitats in the United States.

USGS Current Topo US TOPO
US Topo topographic maps are produced by the National Geospatial Program of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The project was launched in late 2009, and the term "US Topo" refers specifically to quadrangle topographic maps published in 2009 and later.

USGS Geology US GEOLOGY
Seamless maps depicting geological information provided by the United States Geological Survey (USGS).

USGS National Water Information System FED USGS
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)'s National Water Information System (NWIS) is the nation's principal repository of water resources data. This database includes comprehensive information of well-construction details, time-series data for gage height, streamflow, groundwater level, and precipitation and water use data.

State Sources
Oil and Gas Wells OGW
A list of Oil and Gas well locations. This is provided by California's Department of Conservation Division of 441
Appendix
45 erisinfo.com| Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 21040800524p Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources.

Periodic Groundwater Level Measurement Locations MONITOR WELLS Locations of groundwater level monitoring wells in the Department of Water Resources (DWR)'s Periodic Groundwater Levels dataset. The DWR Periodic Groundwater Levels dataset contains seasonal and longterm groundwater level measurements collected by the Department of Water Resources and cooperating agencies.

Well Completion Reports WATER WELLS
List of wells from the Well Completion Reports data made available by the California Department of Water Resources' (DWR) Online System for Well Completion Reports (OSWCR). Please note that the majority of well completion reports have been spatially registered to the center of the 1x1 mile Public Land Survey System section that the well is located in.
442
Liability Notice
46 erisinfo.com| Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 21040800524p Reliance on information in Report: The Physical Setting Report (PSR) DOES NOT replace a full Phase I Environmental Site Assessment but is solely intended to be used as a review of environmental databases and physical characteristics for the site or adjacent properties.

License for use of information in Report: No page of this report can be used without this cover page, this notice and the project property identifier. The information in Report(s) may not be modified or re-sold.

Your Liability for misuse: Using this Service and/or its reports in a manner contrary to this Notice or your agreement will be in breach of copyright and contract and ERIS may obtain damages for such mis-use, including damages caused to third parties, and gives ERIS the right to terminate your account, rescind your license to any previous reports and to bar you from future use of the Service.

No warranty of Accuracy or Liability for ERIS: The information contained in this report has been produced by ERIS Information Inc. ("ERIS") using various sources of information, including information provided by Federal and State government departments. The report applies only to the address and up to the date specified on the cover of this report, and any alterations or deviation from this description will require a new report. This report and the data contained herein does not purport to be and does not constitute a guarantee of the accuracy of the information contained herein and does not constitute a legal opinion nor medical advice. Although ERIS has endeavored to present you with information that is accurate, ERIS Information Inc. disclaims, any and all liability for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in such information and data, whether attributable to inadvertence, negligence or otherwise, and for any consequences arising therefrom. Liability on the part of ERIS is limited to the monetary value paid for this report.

Trademark and Copyright: You may not use the ERIS trademarks or attribute any work to ERIS other than as outlined above. This Service and Report(s) are protected by copyright owned by ERIS Information Inc. Copyright in data used in the Service or Report(s) (the "Data") is owned by ERIS or its licensors. The Service, Report(s) and Data may not be copied or reproduced in whole or in any substantial part without prior written consent of ERIS. 443
Project Property:

Project No:

Requested By:

Order No:

Date Completed:

S. Bon View Avenue and E. Cedar Street
S. Bon View Avenue and E. Cedar Street
Ontario CA 91761
72ONT2-1-1
Orion Environmental, Inc.
21040800524
April 09, 2021
Please note that no information was found for your site or adjacent properties. 444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
Project Property:

Project No:

Requested By:

Order No:

Date Completed:

S. Bon View Avenue and E. Cedar Street
S. Bon View Avenue and E. Cedar Street
Ontario CA 91761
72ONT2-1-1
Orion Environmental, Inc.
21040800524
April 09, 2021
463
Topographic Maps included in this report are produced by the USGS and are to be used for research purposes including a phase I report.

Maps are not to be resold as commercial property.

No warranty of Accuracy or Liability for ERIS: The information contained in this report has been produced by ERIS Information Inc.(in the US) and ERIS Information Limited Partnership (in Canada), both doing business as 'ERIS', using Topographic Maps produced by the USGS.

This maps contained herein does not purport to be and does not constitute a guarantee of the accuracy of the information contained herein.

Although ERIS has endeavored to present you with information that is accurate, ERIS disclaims, any and all liability for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in such information and data, whether attributable to inadvertence, negligence or otherwise, and for any consequences arising therefrom. Liability on the part of ERIS is limited to the monetary value paid for this report.

We have searched USGS collections of current topographic maps and historical topographic maps for the project property. Below is a list of maps found for the project property and adjacent area. Maps are from 7.5 and 15 minute topographic map series, if available.

Year Map Series

2015 7.5
1981 7.5
1973 7.5
1967 7.5
1954 7.5
1942 7.5
1933 7.5
1954 15
1903 15
1900 15
1897 15
464
2015
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map
Order No. 21040800524
0 0.2 0.4 0.8
Miles
Quadrangle(s): Ontario,CA
465
1981
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map
Order No. 21040800524
0 0.2 0.4 0.8
Miles
Quadrangle(s): Ontario,CA
466
1973
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map
Order No. 21040800524
0 0.2 0.4 0.8
Miles
Quadrangle(s): Ontario,CA
467
1967
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map
Order No. 21040800524
0 0.2 0.4 0.8
Miles
Quadrangle(s): Ontario,CA
468
1954
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map
Order No. 21040800524
0 0.2 0.4 0.8
Miles
Quadrangle(s): Ontario,CA
469
1942
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map
Order No. 21040800524
0 0.2 0.4 0.8
Miles
Quadrangle(s): Ontario and Vicinity,CA
470
1933
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map
Order No. 21040800524
0 0.2 0.4 0.8
Miles
Quadrangle(s): Ontario,CA
471
1954
Source: USGS 15 Minute Topographic Map
Order No. 21040800524
0 0.2 0.4 0.8
Miles
Quadrangle(s): Ontario,CA
472
1903
Source: USGS 15 Minute Topographic Map
Order No. 21040800524
0 0.2 0.4 0.8
Miles
Quadrangle(s): Cucamonga,CA
473
1900
Source: USGS 15 Minute Topographic Map
Order No. 21040800524
0 0.2 0.4 0.8
Miles
Quadrangle(s): Cucamonga,CA
474
1897
Source: USGS 15 Minute Topographic Map
Order No. 21040800524
0 0.2 0.4 0.8
Miles
Quadrangle(s): Cucamonga,CA
475
Project Property: S. Bon View Avenue and E. Cedar Street S. Bon View Avenue and E. Cedar Street
Ontario, CA 91761
Project No: 72ONT2-1-1
Requested By: Orion Environmental, Inc.

Order No: 21040800524
Date Completed: April 13, 2021
476
Search Results Summary
Date Source Comment
2018 DIGITAL BUSINESS DIRECTORY
2014 DIGITAL BUSINESS DIRECTORY
2009 DIGITAL BUSINESS DIRECTORY
2001 HAINES
1988 HAINES
1971 HAINES
1965 GENERAL TELEPHONE OF CALIFORNIIA
1951 LA DIRECTORY CO
1951 LOS ANGELES DIRECTORY CO
1945-46 LA DIRECTORY CO
1945 LOS ANGELES DIRECTORY CO
1940 LOS ANGELES DIRECTORY CO
1940 POLKS
1934 LA DIRECTORY CO
1934 LOS ANGELES DIRECTORY CO
1931 LA DIRECTORY CO
1931 LOS ANGELES DIRECTORY CO
1926 LOS ANGELES DIRECTORY CO
April 13, 2021
RE: CITY DIRECTORY RESEARCH
S. Bon View Avenue and E. Cedar Street
S. Bon View Avenue and E. Cedar Street Ontario, CA
Thank you for contacng ERIS f or an City Directory Search for the site described above. Our staff has conducted a reverse lisng City Dir ectory search to determine prior occupants of the subject site and adjacent properes. W e have provided the nearest addresses(s) when adjacent addresses are not listed. If we have searched a range of addresses, all addresses in that range found in the Directory are included.

Note: Reverse Lisng Dir ectories generally are focused on more highly developed areas. Newly developed areas may be covered in the more recent years, but the older directories will tend to cover only the "central" parts of the city. To complete the search, we have either uliz ed the ACPL, Library of Congress, State Archives, and/or a regional library or history center as well as mulple digiz ed directories. These do not claim to be a complete collecon of all r everse lisng city dir ectories produced.

ERIS has made every effort to provide accurate and complete informaon but shall not be held liable f or missing, incomplete or inaccurate informaon. To complete this search we used the general range(s) below to search for relevant findings. If you believe there are addional addr esses or streets that require searching please contact us at 866-517-5204.

Search Criteria:
1742-2048 of S Bon View Avenue
709-995 of E Cedar Street
477
Page: 2
Report ID: 21040800524 - 4/13/2021
www.erisinfo.com
709 SEAVENGER...Women's Apparelretail
709 SEAVENGER...Clothing-retail
709 SEAVENGER...Nonclassified Establishments
739 CYBERESL.COM...Advertising-computer
739 PINUP GIRL CLOTHING...Clothing-retail
789 JIA-NAN ENTERPRISES USA INC...Restaurant Management 799 MAPLE INDUSTRIES INC...Plumbing Fixtures & Supplies-wholesale 901 F U H INDL INC...Awnings & Canopies
901 F U H INDL INC...Distribution Centers (whls)
901 SOLAR TECH POWER INC...Solar Energy Equipment-wholesale 910 XCEL FENCE...Fence Contractors
955 TURNDA INTERNATIONAL...Furniture-dealers-retail
990 CROWN TECHINICAL SYSTEMS...Controls Control Systems/regulatorsmfrs 990 CROWN TECHINICAL SYSTEMS...Engineers-electrical
990 MULTI DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING...Veterinarians Equipment & Suplsmfrs 990 MULTI DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING...Federal Government Contractors 990 MULTI DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING...Medical Imaging Equip & Systems (whls) 990 MULTI DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING...Chiropractors Equipment & Supply (whls) 990 MULTI DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING...Veterinarians Equipment & Supls (whls) 995 JPI DISPLAY INC...Display Designers & Producers
995 JPI DISPLAY INC...Christmas Lights & Decorations
2018 E CEDAR STREET
SOURCE: DIGITAL BUSINESS DIRECTORY
1742 TANK PRODUCTS INC...Tank Measuring Devices (mfrs)
1745 WARFIELD ELECTRIC CO INC...Electric Motors-manufacturers 1745 WARFIELD ELECTRIC CO INC...Electric Motors-dlrs/repairing (whls) 1752 POPLA INTERNATIONAL INC...Food Products (whls)
1752 POPLA INTERNATIONAL INC...Health Food Productswholesale 1819 CORREA CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION...Concrete Contractors 1856 HUB CONSTRUCTION SPECIALTIES...Readymixed Concretemanufacturers 1856 HUB CONSTRUCTION SPECIALTIES...Contractors-equip/supls-dlrs/svc (whls) 1856 HUB CONSTRUCTION SPECIALTIES...Hydraulic Equipmentmanufacturers 1856 HUB CONSTRUCTION SPECIALTIES...Concrete Prods-ex Block & Brick (mfrs) 1856 HUB ONTARIO...Building Contractors
1901 POUCHES INC...Manufacturers
1901 POUCHES INC...Photographerscommercial
1901 POUCHES INC...Manufacturers
1914 AEG SOLUTIONS...Exporters (whls)
1914 AEG SOLUTIONS...Drafting Room Equipment & Supls (whls) 1930 FLOR DE CALIFORNIA...Ice Cream & Frozen Desserts-distr (whls) 1930 FLOR DE CALIFORNIA...Ice Cream & Frozen Desserts (mfrs) 1930 J'S PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION...Building Construction-consultants 1930 J'S PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION...Residential Designers
1930 RAMCO SHEET METAL...Sheet Metal Work Contractors
1930 TRUCK PARTS & TARPS INC...Truck Canopies, Caps & Shells 1944 C C K X INC...Nonclassified Establishments
1944 JLMC...Metal Fabricators
1944 JLMC...Welding
2023 RODRIGUEZ BROTHERS ENGINEERING...Heating Contractors 2023 RODRIGUEZ BROTHERS ENGINEERING...Plumbing Drain & Sewer Cleaning 2018 S BON VIEW AVENUE
SOURCE: DIGITAL BUSINESS DIRECTORY
478
Page: 3
Report ID: 21040800524 - 4/13/2021
www.erisinfo.com
739 PINUP GIRL CLOTHING...Family Clothing Stores
789 JIA-NAN ENTERPRISES USA INC...Food Svc Contrs
901 F U H INDL INC...Nonclassified Establishments
901 PROVIDENCE ARROW LLC...Nonclassified Establishments 901 SOLAR TECH POWER INC...Plumbing Equip Merchant Whols 910 XCEL DISTRIBUTION INC...Hardware Mfg
910 XCEL DISTRIBUTION INC...Hardware-wholesale
910 XCEL FENCE...All Other Specialty Trade Contrs
990 MULTI IMAGER...Diagnostic Imaging Centers
990 MULTI IMAGER SVC INC...Medical Laboratories
995 JPI DISPLAY INC...Display Advertising
2014 E CEDAR STREET
SOURCE: DIGITAL BUSINESS DIRECTORY
1742 TANK PRODUCTS INC...Tank Measuring Devices (manufacturers) 1745 WARFIELD ELECTRIC CO INC...Motor & Generator Mfg
1745 WARFIELD ELECTRIC CO INC...Electric Motors-dlrs/repairing (whls) 1752 FORGED RACING...Automobile Accessories
1752 FORGED RACING...Racetracks
1752 POPLA INTERNATIONAL INC...Packaged Frozen Food Merchant Whols 1819 CORREA CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION...Poured Concrete Structure Contrs 1856 HUB CONSTRUCTION SPECIALTIES...Concrete Constr Forms & Acces (whls) 1856 HUB CONSTRUCTION SPECIALTIES...Concrete Prods-ex Block & Brick (mfrs) 1856 HUB CONSTRUCTION SPECIALTIES...Construction Equip Merchant Whols 1856 HUB ONTARIO...Commercial Building Construction
1901 POUCHES INC...All Other Misc Mfg
1914 AEG SOLUTIONS...Other Professional Equip Merchant Whols 1914 AEG SOLUTIONS...Drafting Room Equipment & Supls (whls) 1914 SO CAL ACCOUSTICAL WALL SYSTEM...Drywall & Insulation Contrs 1914 SO CAL ACCOUSTICAL WALL SYSTEM...Wallpapers & Wallcoverings-installation 1915 NISSIN CORP...Hats Caps & Millinery (mfrs)
1915 NISSIN CORP...Advertising-specialties (whls)
1915 NISSIN CORP...All Other Durable Goods Merchant Whols 1930 FLOR DE CALIFORNIA...Dairy Prod Merchant Whols
1930 J'S PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION...Architectural Svcs
1930 PHASE TRANSITIONS...Process & Logistics Consulting Svcs 1930 PHASE TRANSITIONS...Consultant Brokers
1930 TRUCK PARTS TARPS INC...Recreational Vehicle Dealers 1944 JLMC...Site Preparation Contrs
2023 RODRIGUEZ BROTHERS ENGINEERING...Septic Tank & Related Svcs 2040 GRENLOCH MULTIMEDIA PRODUCTION...Motion Picture & Video Production 2014 S BON VIEW AVENUE
SOURCE: DIGITAL BUSINESS DIRECTORY
479
Page: 4
Report ID: 21040800524 - 4/13/2021
www.erisinfo.com
709 AAI BUDDYCLUB USA...Automobile Parts & Supplies-retail-new 709 AAI MOTORSPORTS/BUDDYCLUB USA...Auto, Home Sups Str 709 ATOMIC STREET...Mail Order & Catalog Shopping
709 ATOMIC STREET...Catalog,mail-order
789 JZQUARE...Auto, Home Sups Str
789 JZQUARE...Automobile Accessories
799 PLATINUM PLASTICS...Packaging Materials-wholesale
799 PLATINUM PLASTICS...Packaging Materials
901 DURA MICRO INC...Computer Parts & Supplies
901 DURA MICRO INC...Computer,softwr Str
910 XCEL DISTRIBUTION INC...Hardware-wholesale
910 XCEL DISTRIBUTION INC...Misc Mtl Pdt & Hdwr
990 CROWN TECHNICAL SYSTEMS...Controls Control Systs/regulators (whol) 990 CROWN TECHNICAL SYSTEMS...Environmental Ctrl
2009 E CEDAR STREET
SOURCE: DIGITAL BUSINESS DIRECTORY
1745 WARFIELD ELECTRIC CO...Electric Motors-dlrs/repairing (whol) 1745 WARFIELD ELECTRIC CO INC...Motors & Generators
1752 TRINIS LANDSCAPE CENTER...Landscape Services
1819 CORREA CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION...Concrete Contractors 1819 CORREA CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION...Concrete Work
1856 HUB CONSTRUCTION SPC CO...Whol Construction/mining Equipment Mfg Sheet Metalwork 1856 HUB CONSTRUCTION SPECIALTIES...Concrete Constr Forms & Acces (whol) 1856 HUB CONSTRUCTION SPECIALTIES...Mfg Concrete Pdts
1901 SOAP SHOPPE...Mfg Soap/other Detergents Accounting/auditing/bookkeepi 1901 SOAP SHOPPE...Soap,rel Detergents
1914 ABS GLOBAL INC...Management Consulting Services
1914 AEG SOLUTIONS...Computer Graphics
1914 NDCBU #6109...General Auto Repair
1914 NDCBU #6109...Professional Eqp
1915 CAPLINE INTERNATIONAL...Spg,recreational Gd
1915 NISSIN CAPS...Whol Men's/boy's Clothing
1915 NISSIN CORP...Hats Caps & Millinery (manufacturers) 1915 NISSIN CORP...Hats,caps,millinery
1930 COLUMN ENGINEERING INC...Laboratories-analytical
1930 FLOR DE CALIFORNIA...Ice Cream & Frozen Desserts-distributors 1930 NDCBU #6110...Waste Cleaning Svcs
1930 NDCBU #6110...Ice Cream /frozen Dessrts
1930 RAMCO SHEET METALS...Roofing/siding Contractor
1930 TRB & SONS ELECTRICAL CONTRS...Electrical Contractor 1944 JLMC...Metal Stampings Nec
1944 R & R INDUSTRIES...Fabricated Strl Mtl
1944 R & R INDUSTRIES...Steel-structural (manufacturers) 2023 RODRIGUEZ BROTHERS CNSTRCTN...Plumbing Drain & Sewer Cleaning 2023 RODRIGUEZ BROTHERS CNSTRCTN...Waste Cleaning Svcs
2040 APTS NBU-#6135...Mpicture,video Prod
2040 APTS NBU-#6135...Video Production & Taping Service 2009 S BON VIEW AVENUE
SOURCE: DIGITAL BUSINESS DIRECTORY
480
Page: 5
Report ID: 21040800524 - 4/13/2021
www.erisinfo.com
2001 E CEDAR STREET
SOURCE: HAINES
2001 S BON VIEW AVENUE
SOURCE: HAINES
481
Page: 6
Report ID: 21040800524 - 4/13/2021
www.erisinfo.com
1988 E CEDAR STREET
SOURCE: HAINES
1988 S BON VIEW AVENUE
SOURCE: HAINES
482
Page: 7
Report ID: 21040800524 - 4/13/2021
www.erisinfo.com

NO LISTINGS IN RANGE
1971 E CEDAR STREET
SOURCE: HAINES
1971 S BON VIEW AVENUE
SOURCE: HAINES
483
Page: 8
Report ID: 21040800524 - 4/13/2021
www.erisinfo.com

NO LISTINGS IN RANGE
1965 E CEDAR STREET
SOURCE: GENERAL TELEPHONE OF CALIFORNIIA
1965 S BON VIEW AVENUE
SOURCE: GENERAL TELEPHONE OF CALIFORNIIA
484
Page: 9
Report ID: 21040800524 - 4/13/2021
www.erisinfo.com
1951 S BON VIEW AVENUE
SOURCE: LA DIRECTORY CO

STREET NOT LISTED
1951 E CEDAR STREET
SOURCE: LOS ANGELES DIRECTORY CO
485
Page: 10
Report ID: 21040800524 - 4/13/2021
www.erisinfo.com
1945-46 S BON VIEW AVENUE
SOURCE: LA DIRECTORY CO