Cities Index.
Agenda packet

Ontario City Council
March 21, 2023

Document
Agenda packet
Meeting
March 21, 2023
Body
Ontario City Council
Pages
86
Original file
203.5 MB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on d3n9y02raazwpg.cloudfront.net. That file is the official record.

developed with a single-family residence and detached garage that were demolished in 1963 and replaced with a commercial building. The commercial building was demolished in 2005 and the site is currently vacant. The site is located within a wellestablished mixed-use neighborhood, with multiple-family residential to the north and west, single-family residential to the south, and commercial uses, including a parking lot and a church, to the east. The surrounding area was one of the first to be developed in the city, with the earliest residences constructed during the early 1900s and most of the residential development occurring during the 1920s, and some multiple-family residential developing in 1960. Existing residential buildings are one and two-stories and constructed in a variety of architectural styles including Victorian and Craftsman Bungalow. The existing surrounding land uses, zoning, and Policy Plan (general plan) designations are summarized in the "Surrounding Zoning & Land Uses" table located in the Technical Appendix of this report.

PROJECT ANALYSIS:
(1) Background — The Project site is located within the MU-1/LUA-3 (Downtown Mixed Use/Holt Boulevard) zoning district, requiring the preparation and approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to establish development standards, design guidelines, and infrastructure requirements for the site. On April 20, 2022, the Applicant filed a PUD application (File No. PUD22-003), concurrently with a Tentative Parcel Map (File No.

PMTT22-015) and Development Plan (File No. PDEV22-024) applications. Final approval of the Tentative Parcel Map and Development Plan is contingent upon the City Council adoption of the PUD for the Project site.

The Project site is located within the Center City Redevelopment Project Area, established in 1983. And while the redevelopment practice was eliminated by the State, the Center City Redevelopment Project Area Plan is still in effect and encourages the development of a high intensity, multi-use central business district. In addition, The Ontario Plan contains goals and policies for the City’s original downtown and the Downtown Mixed Use District, which further support the goals of the Center City Redevelopment Project Area Plan. The Center City Redevelopment Project Area Plan envisions revitalization of the City’s downtown area, in part, by infusing high-density residential and mixed-use developments into the downtown core. The Ontario Plan (“TOP”) furthers this vision and is intended to create an intensive mixture of retail, office, and residential uses in a pedestrian friendly atmosphere, ensure the historic character of the district is enhanced, and concentrate the most intense/dense development along Euclid Avenue and Holt Boulevard. Furthermore, The Ontario Plan specifies a residential density range of 25 to 75 units per acre and a maximum floor area ratio of 2.0 for commercial office and retail developments within the Downtown Mixed Use District. (2) Planned Unit Development (File No. PUD22-003) –
(a) Land Use and Development Regulations — The MU-1 (Downtown Mixed Use) zoning district allows for residential development at a density of 25.1 to 75 dwelling 2691
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PUD22-003, PMTT22-015 (TPM 20554), and PDEV22-024 February 28, 2023

Page 3 of 19 ends

units per acre. Consistent with the MU-1 zoning district and in keeping with the context of the existing neighborhood, the Fern Townhomes PUD allows for development of 3 to 7 dwelling units, with a maximum building height of 35 feet or 2 stories. The minimum building setback proposed along Fern Avenue is 7 feet and 5 feet for porches, patio coves and other architectural projections. Interior and rear property line setbacks are 5 feet, and the garage entry setback from the alley is 6 feet. (b) Landscaping — A conceptual landscape plan has been submitted with the Development Plan for construction of the Project site. The PUD provides a planting palette comprised of “California friendly” planting materials that are compatible with the overall architectural style established by the PUD. The PUD also requires the landscaping and irrigation to comply with AB 1881, and all other laws and regulations related to planting materials.
(c) Parking and Circulation — The PUD utilizes a combination of on-site and onstreet parking to provide an adequate parking supply to meet the anticipated parking demand for the Project. All resident parking will be provided on site, while guest parking spaces will be provided on-street. The Project site is located within a mixed-use area where on-street parking is available along the project frontage and on surrounding blocks.
(d) Access to Mass Transit — An existing bus stop is located on the northwest corner of Holt Boulevard and Vine Avenue for Omnitrans routes 61. Additionally, the future West Valley Connector Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line is proposed along Holt Boulevard. (e) Architectural Character — The PUD architectural style and design is a modern interpretation of the Mediterranean style. The design will provide low pitched, gabled roofs covered with clay tile, shallow eaves rough sawn beams, and a roof well for mechanical equipment. The unit with street frontage will have a covered porch. The garage doors will have beam accents in the overhang above. (3) Tentative Parcel Map No. 20554 (File No. PMTT22-015) — Proposed Tentative Parcel Map No. 20554 will subdivide the Project site into one lot for condominium purposes, to facilitate the construction and possible future sale of three attached townhouse units.

The Departmental Conditions of Approval for the Tentative Parcel Map require Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (“CC&R’s”) to be recorded with the Final Parcel Map, which will establish the rules, regulations, rights, and responsibilities of the property owner’s association and townhouse unit owners.
(4) Development Plan (File No. PDEV22-024)
(a) Site Design/Building Layout — The Project proposes the development of three attached townhome units, at a density of 27.27 dwelling units per acre. The alleyloaded two-story building is positioned in an east-west configuration, designed with garage access off the alley. The 2-story building will have an overall height of 26 feet. Unit 2692
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PUD22-003, PMTT22-015 (TPM 20554), and PDEV22-024 February 28, 2023

Page 4 of 19 ends

A, at the east end of the building, has been designed with the front entry facing Fern Avenue. Units B and C have access from the south side of the building, along a landscaped pedestrian pathway. The units range from 1,406 square feet to 1,430 square feet in area and contain 3 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms. The first-floor plan consists of a 2- car garage, laundry room, one bedroom, and one bathroom. Two bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, a private balcony, kitchen, and main living area are on the second floor.

North facing private balconies are located over the garages. Each unit contains a trash enclosure with a decorative iron gate and direct access to the alley. (b) Site Access/Circulation — Vehicular access to the site is provided by means of a 20-foot-wide alley to the north, extending west from Fern Avenue and aligning with Vesta Street further west. Pedestrian access to the site is taken from Fern Avenue via a 5- foot-wide paved pathway along the southern portion of the Project site. (c) Parking — Consistent with the PUD, the Project utilizes a combination of onsite and adjacent on-street parking. All required resident parking will be provided on-site within the enclosed garages, while required guest parking will be on-street. The existing street grid pattern allows for maximum opportunity of on-street parking that can be shared by guests of the site and the surrounding area. There are approximately 12 onstreet parking spaces located on Fern Avenue, adjacent to the site. Based on the available street parking and provided on-site parking, there is sufficient parking available to support the proposed development. As demonstrated in the Parking Summary table below, the Project provides the required number of parking spaces.

Type of Use Parking Ratio Spaces Required Spaces Provided Two or more Bedroom Unit 2.0 parking spaces per unit (at least one covered) 6 6
Guest 1 parking space per 5 units 1 1
TOTAL 7 7
(d) Architecture — The architectural style proposed for the Project is a modern Mediterranean style that is exemplified by the use of a combination of hipped and gable clay tile roofs, smooth stucco siding, arched openings, recessed windows and doors, decorative iron work, and wood trim details. Hung style windows are placed in a single or double pattern throughout the Project. Building projections on the east elevation and a one-story covered entryway enhance the street-facing east elevation. Second story, cantilevered projections on the remaining elevations are enhanced with windows, recessed niches, decorative brackets, and ironwork.
(e) Landscaping — Perimeter landscaping is provided in the front, side, and rear yards. The Conceptual Landscape Plan has been designed to utilize California native trees and drought tolerant planting materials. Planters and pocket vines provide additional landscaping throughout the Project site. The parkway along the Project frontage will be landscaped with a new street tree (Island Oak) and groundcover. 2693
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PUD22-003, PMTT22-015 (TPM 20554), and PDEV22-024 February 28, 2023

Page 5 of 19 ends

(f) Open Space – Private open space is provided by second floor balconies in each residential unit. Balconies are 30 square feet each and are a minimum of 5 feet in any direction. The required common open area is dispersed throughout the Project site in the form of passive landscaped areas.
(g) Utilities (drainage, sewer) — Public utilities (water and sewer) are available to serve the Project. Furthermore, the Applicant has submitted a Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan ("PWQMP"), which establishes the Project's compliance with storm water 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, biotreatment, and evapotranspiration. The PWQMP proposes the use of a dry well as storm water retention. Any overflow drainage will be conveyed to the public street by way of parkway drains and culverts.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: The subject application was advertised as a public hearing in at least one newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ontario (the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper). In addition, notices were mailed to all owners of real property located within a minimum of 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property that is the subject of the hearing, as shown on the records of the County Assessor.

CORRESPONDENCE: As of the preparation of this Decision, Planning Department staff has not received any written or verbal communications from the owners or occupants of properties surrounding the Project site or from the public in general, regarding the subject application.

AGENCY/DEPARTMENT REVIEWS: Each City agency/department has been provided the opportunity to review and comment on the subject application and recommend conditions of approval to be imposed upon the application. At the time of the Resolution preparation, recommended conditions of approval were provided and are appended to the attached Resolutions as "Attachment A."
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 ONT 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. As the recommending and decision-making body for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained 2694
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PUD22-003, PMTT22-015 (TPM 20554), and PDEV22-024 February 28, 2023

Page 6 of 19 ends

in the Application and supporting documentation against the ONT ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-2) and Safety Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the Planning Commission, therefore, finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ONT ALUCP.

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 The Ontario Plan ("TOP"). More specifically, the goals and policies of TOP that are furthered by the proposed Project are as follows:
(1) City Council Goals.
 Operate in a Businesslike Manner
 Focus Resources in Ontario's Commercial and Residential Neighborhoods (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.  G 1-2. 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:
2695
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PUD22-003, PMTT22-015 (TPM 20554), and PDEV22-024 February 28, 2023

Page 7 of 19 ends

 Goal LU-1 Balance: A community that has a spectrum of housing types and price ranges that match the jobs in the City and that make it possible for people to live and work in Ontario and maintain a quality of life.
 LU-1.1 Strategic Growth. We concentrate growth in strategic locations that help create place and identity, maximize available and planned infrastructure, foster the development of transit, and support the expansion of the active and multimodal transportation networks throughout the City.
 LU-1.6 Complete Community. We incorporate a variety of land uses and building types in our land use planning efforts that result in a complete community where residents at all stages of life, employers, workers, and visitors have a wide spectrum of choices of where they can live, work, shop and recreate within Ontario.  Goal LU-2 Compatibility: Compatibility between a wide range of uses and a resultant urban patterns and forms.
 LU-2.6 Infrastructure Compatibility. We require infrastructure to be aesthetically pleasing and in context with the community character.

Housing Element:
 Goal H-2 Housing Supply & Diversity: Diversity of types of quality housing that are affordable to a range of household income levels, accommodate changing demographics, and support and reinforce the economic sustainability of Ontario.  H-2.5 Housing Design. We require architectural excellence through adherence to City design guidelines, thoughtful site planning, environmentally sustainable practices, and other best practices.
 Goal H-5 Special Needs: A full range of housing types and community services that meet the special housing needs for all individuals and families in Ontario, regardless of income level, age, or other status.
 H-5.2 Family Housing. We support the development of larger rental apartments that are appropriate for families with children, including, as feasible, the provision of services, recreation, and other amenities.

Community Economics Element:
 Goal CE-1 Complete Community: A complete community that provides for all incomes and stages of life.
 CE-1.6 Diversity of Housing. We collaborate with residents, housing providers, and the development community to provide housing opportunities for every 2696
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PUD22-003, PMTT22-015 (TPM 20554), and PDEV22-024 February 28, 2023

Page 8 of 19 ends

stage of life; we plan for a variety of housing types and price points to encourage the development of housing supportive of our efforts to attract business in growing sectors of the community while being respectful of existing viable uses.  Goal CE-2 Placemaking: A City of distinctive neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and centers where people choose to be.
 CE-2.1 Development Projects. We require new development and redevelopment to create unique, high-quality places that add value to the community.  CE-2.2 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.
 CE-2.4 Protection of Investment. We require that new development and redevelopment protect existing investment by providing architecture and urban design of equal or greater quality.
 CE-2.5 Private Maintenance. We require adequate maintenance, upkeep, and investment in private property because proper maintenance on private property protects property values.

Safety Element:
 Goal S-1 Seismic & Geologic Hazards: Minimized risk of injury, loss of life, property damage, and economic and social disruption caused by earthquake-induced and other geologic hazards.
 S-1.1 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:
 Goal CD-1 Image & Identity: A dynamic, progressive city containing distinct and complete places that foster a positive sense of identity and belonging among residents, visitors, and businesses.
 CD-1.1 City Identity. We take actions that are consistent with the City being a leading urban center in Southern California while recognizing, enhancing, and preserving the character of our existing viable neighborhoods.  CD-1.2 Growth Areas. We establish Place Types in urban, mixed use, and transit-oriented areas to foster the City's identity as a premier community and require new 2697
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PUD22-003, PMTT22-015 (TPM 20554), and PDEV22-024 February 28, 2023

Page 9 of 19 ends

development within each Place Type to incorporate prescribed urban patterns, forms, and placemaking priorities.
 CD-1.3 Existing Neighborhoods. We require the existing character of viable residential and non-residential neighborhoods be preserved, protected, and enhanced.  Goal CD-2 Design Quality: A high level of design quality resulting in neighborhoods, public spaces, parks, and streetscapes that are attractive, safe, functional, human-scale, and distinct.
 CD-2.1 Quality Building Design and Architecture. We encourage all development projects to convey visual interest and character through:
• Building volume, massing, and height to provide context-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
• Exterior building materials that are articulated, high quality, durable, and appropriate for the architectural style.
 CD-2.2 Neighborhood Design. We create distinct residential neighborhoods that promote a sense of community and identity by emphasizing access, connectivity, livability, and social interaction through such elements as:
• A pattern of smaller, walkable blocks that promote activity, safety, and access to nearby amenities and services;
• Varied parcel sizes and lot configurations to accommodate a diversity of housing types;
• Traffic calming measures to slow traffic and promote walkability while maintaining acceptable traffic flows and emergency evacuation access; • Floor plans that encourage views onto the street and de-emphasize the visual and physical dominance of garages (introducing the front porch as the "outdoor living room"), as appropriate; and
• Landscaped parkways, with sidewalks separated from the curb and designed to maximize safety, comfort, and aesthetics for all users.  CD-2.7 Sustainability. We collaborate with the development community to design and build neighborhoods, streetscapes, sites, outdoor spaces, landscaping, and buildings to reduce energy demand through solar orientation, maximum use of natural daylight, passive solar and natural ventilation, building form, mechanical and structural systems, building materials, and construction techniques.  CD-2.8 Safe Design. We incorporate defensible space design into new and existing developments to ensure the maximum safe travel and visibility on pathways, 2698
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PUD22-003, PMTT22-015 (TPM 20554), and PDEV22-024 February 28, 2023

Page 10 of 19 ends

corridors, and open space and at building entrances and parking areas by avoiding physically and visually isolated spaces, maintaining visibility and accessibility, and using lighting.
 CD-2.9 Landscape Design. We encourage durable, sustainable, and drought-tolerant landscaping materials and designs that enhance the aesthetics of structures, create and define public and private spaces, and provide shade and environmental benefits.
 CD-2.10 Parking Areas. We require all development, including single-family residential, to minimize the visual impact of surface, structured, and garage parking areas visible from the public realm in an aesthetically pleasing, safe and environmentally sensitive manner. Examples include:
• Surface parking: Shade trees, pervious surfaces, urban run-off capture and infiltration, and pedestrian paths to guide users through the parking field; • Structured parking: facade articulation, screening, appropriate lighting, and landscaping; and
• Garage parking: providing access to single-family residential garages through alley access, recessing garages from the frontage to emphasize front doors or active living spaces.
 CD-2.13 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.
 Goal CD-3 Urban, Mixed Use, and Transit-Oriented Place Types: Vibrant urban environments that are organized around intense buildings, pedestrian and transit areas, public plazas, and linkages between and within developments that are conveniently located, visually appealing and safe during all hours.
 CD-3.4 Context-Aware and Appropriate Design. We require appropriate building and site design that complements existing development, respects the intent and identity of the Place Type, and provides appropriate transitions and connections between adjacent uses to ensure compatibility of scale, maintain an appropriate level of privacy for each use, and minimize potential conflicts.  CD-3.5 Active Frontages. We create lively pedestrian streetscapes by requiring primary building, business, and residential entrances, outdoor dining, and storefronts be located on ground floors adjacent to sidewalks or public spaces and designed to maximize safety, comfort, aesthetics, and the intended functionality (as defined by the Place Type).
2699
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PUD22-003, PMTT22-015 (TPM 20554), and PDEV22-024 February 28, 2023

Page 11 of 19 ends

 Goal CD-5 Protection of Investment: A sustained level of maintenance and improvement of properties, buildings, and infrastructure that protects the property values and encourages additional public and private investments.  CD-5.1 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.
 CD-5.2 Maintenance of Infrastructure. We require the continual maintenance of infrastructure.

HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE: The Project is consistent with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan (general plan) component of The Ontario Plan, as the Project site is not one of the properties in the Housing Element Sites contained in Tables B-1 and B-2 (Housing Element Sites Inventory) of the Housing Element Technical Report.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332 (Class 32, Infill Development Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines, and meets all of the following conditions: (a) the proposed Project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations; (b) the proposed development occurs within city limits and the area being developed is 0.11-acre, less than the maximum 5-acre threshold, and is substantially surrounded by urban land uses; (c) the Project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species; (d) approval of the Project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and (e) the site is adequately served by all required utilities and public services. 2700
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PUD22-003, PMTT22-015 (TPM 20554), and PDEV22-024 February 28, 2023

Page 12 of 19 ends

TECHNICAL APPENDIX:

Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:

Existing
Land Use
Policy Plan
Designation
Zoning
Designation
Site Vacant Mixed Use LUA-3 (Holt Boulevard District)/
MU-1 (Downtown Mixed Use)
North Multiple-Family Residential Mixed Use LUA-3 (Holt Boulevard District)/ MU-1 (Downtown Mixed Use)
South Single-Family Residential Mixed Use LUA-3 (Holt Boulevard District)/ MU-1 (Downtown Mixed Use)
East Parking Lot/Multiple-Family
Residential Mixed Use LUA-3 (Holt Boulevard District)/
MU-1 (Downtown Mixed Use)
West Multiple-Family Residential Mixed Use LUA-3 (Holt Boulevard District)/ MU-1 (Downtown Mixed Use)
General Site & Building Statistics
Item Required Min./Max. Provided (Ranges) Meets
Y/N
Project area (in acres): N/A 0.11 Y
Maximum project density
(dwelling units/ac): 25 to 75 DU/AC 27 Y
Maximum coverage (in %): N/A 72% N/A
Minimum lot size (in SF): N/A 4,792 SF N/A
Minimum lot depth (in FT): N/A 70 FT N/A
Minimum lot width (in FT): N/A 45 FT N/A
Front yard setback (in FT): 7 FT 7 FT Y
Side yard setback (in FT): 5 FT 5 FT Y
Rear yard setback (in FT): 5 FT 5 FT Y
Alley setback-Garage entry (in
FT): 6 FT 6 FT Y
Maximum height (in FT): 35 FT 26 FT Y
Parking – resident: 6 6 Y
Parking – guest: 1 1 Y
Open space – private: 30 SF/unit 30 SF/unit Y
2701
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PUD22-003, PMTT22-015 (TPM 20554), and PDEV22-024 February 28, 2023

Page 13 of 19 ends

Dwelling Unit Count:

Item Required Min./Max. Provided (Ranges) Meets
Y/N
Total no. of units 3-7 3 Y
Total no. of buildings N/A 1 N/A
No. units per building N/A 3 N/A
Dwelling Unit Statistics:

Unit Count Unit Size (in SF) No. Bedrooms No. Bathrooms No. Stories Private Open Space (in FT)
3 1,406 – 1,430 SF 3 3 2 30 SF
2702
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PUD22-003, PMTT22-015 (TPM 20554), and PDEV22-024 February 28, 2023

Page 14 of 19 ends

Exhibit A: PROJECT LOCATION MAP
Project Site
2703
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PUD22-003, PMTT22-015 (TPM 20554), and PDEV22-024 February 28, 2023

Page 15 of 19 ends

Exhibit B: SITE PLAN
2704
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PUD22-003, PMTT22-015 (TPM 20554), and PDEV22-024 February 28, 2023

Page 16 of 19 ends

Exhibit C: FLOOR PLAN

2705
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PUD22-003, PMTT22-015 (TPM 20554), and PDEV22-024 February 28, 2023

Page 17 of 19 ends

Exhibit D: EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
2706
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PUD22-003, PMTT22-015 (TPM 20554), and PDEV22-024 February 28, 2023

Page 18 of 19 ends

Exhibit E: SITE PHOTOS
Project Site – View looking southwest
Adjacent Alley – Project Site to the left
2707
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PUD22-003, PMTT22-015 (TPM 20554), and PDEV22-024 February 28, 2023

Page 19 of 19 ends

Exhibit E: SITE PHOTOS
Fern Avenue – Northeast of Project Site
Northwest of Project Site - Adjacent Multiple-Family
2708
RESOLUTION NO. PC23-009

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE FILE NO. PUD22-003, A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO

ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, DESIGN GUIDELINES, AND

INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
213 NORTH FERN AVENUE, WITHIN THE LUA-3 (HOLT BOULEVARD) DISTRICT OF THE MU-1 (DOWNTOWN MIXED USE) ZONING DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APN: 1048-572-06 WHEREAS, HDC Construction, Inc. ("Applicant") has filed an Application for the approval of a Planned Unit Development, File No. PUD22-003, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and WHEREAS, the Application applies to 0.11-acre of land generally located at the southwest corner of Fern Avenue and a public alley, at 213 North Fern Avenue, within LUA-3 (Holt Boulevard) of the MU-1 (Downtown Mixed Use) zoning district, and is presently vacant; and
WHEREAS, properties surrounding the Project Site are located within LUA-3 (Holt Boulevard) of the MU-1 (Downtown Mixed Use) zoning district. The properties north and west of the Project site are developed with multiple-family dwellings. The property to the east is developed with a parking lot. The property to the south is developed with singlefamily dwellings; and WHEREAS, on April 20, 2022, the Applicant submitted a Planned Unit Development (File No. PUD22-003) in conjunction with Tentative Parcel Map No. 20554 (File No. PMTT22-015), to subdivide the Project site into a single lot for condominium purposes, and a Development Plan (File No. PDEV22-024) to construct 3 attached townhome units at a density of 27.3 dwelling units per acre; and WHEREAS, the Project site is located within the Downtown Mixed Use District of the Policy Plan (general plan). The Policy Plan specifies that the Downtown Mixed Use District is to be implemented through the approval of an Area Plan or Planned Unit Development (“PUD”) prior to the development of properties within the District. In compliance with this requirement, the Applicant has submitted the Fern Townhomes Planned Unit Development (included as Attachment “A” of this Resolution), which is consistent with this vision, and goals and policies of the Policy Plan; and WHEREAS, the specific purpose of the Planned Unit Development is to secure a fuller realization of the Policy Plan than would otherwise result from the strict application of present zoning district regulations, and to promote high standards in urban design; encourage the development of exceptionally high quality, mixed-use, high intensity 2709
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PUD22-003
February 28, 2023

Page 2 ends

projects, while establishing regulations and standards for uses with unique regulatory and design needs; and, ensure harmonious relationships with surrounding land uses; and WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, commencing with Public Resources Code Section 21000 (hereinafter referred to as "CEQA"); and
WHEREAS, the Project is exempt from CEQA as the activity is covered by the common sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the Planning Commission the responsibility and authority to review and make recommendation to the City Council on the subject Application; and WHEREAS, the Project has been reviewed for consistency with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan, as State Housing Element law (as prescribed in Government Code Sections 65580 through 65589.8) requires that development projects must be consistent with the Housing Element, if upon consideration of all its aspects, it is found to further the purposes, principals, goals, and policies of the Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and is subject to, and must be consistent with, the policies and criteria set forth in the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (hereinafter referred to as "ALUCP"), which applies only to jurisdictions within San Bernardino County, and addresses the noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity; and
WHEREAS, City of Ontario Development Code Division 2.03 (Public Hearings) prescribes the manner in which public notification shall be provided and hearing procedures to be followed, and all such notifications and procedures have been completed; and
WHEREAS, on February 28, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. 2710
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PUD22-003
February 28, 2023

Page 3 ends

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:
(1) The administrative record has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and (2) The Project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that the activity is covered by the “common sense exemption” (also known as the “general rule exemption”) that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA; and (3) The determination of CEQA exemption reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission.

SECTION 2: Housing Element Compliance. Pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 3, Article 10.6, commencing with Section 65580, as the recommending authority for the Project, the Planning Commission finds that based on the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation, at the time of Project implementation, the project is consistent with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan (General Plan) component of The Ontario Plan, as the project site is not one of the properties in the Housing Element Sites Inventory contained in Tables B-1 and B-2 of the Housing Element Technical Report.

SECTION 3: 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, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of 2711
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PUD22-003
February 28, 2023

Page 4 ends

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. As the recommending body for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ONT ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-2) and Safety Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the Planning Commission, therefore, finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ONT ALUCP; and SECTION 4: Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above-referenced hearing, and upon the specific findings set forth in Sections 1 through 3, above, the Planning Commission hereby concludes as follows:
(1) The proposed Planned Unit Development is consistent with the goals, policies, plans and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan. The Project is consistent with Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan. Section 1.1, The Ontario Plan Objectives of the Planned Unit Development, describes the manner in which the Planned Unit Development complies with the Policy Plan goals and policies.
(2) The proposed Planned Unit Development, would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City. The Planning Commission has required certain safeguards, and has required certain changes, which have been established to ensure that: [i] the purposes of the Planned Unit Development are maintained; [ii] the project will not endanger the public health, safety or general welfare; [iii] the project will not result in any significant environmental impacts; [iv] the project will be in harmony with the area in which it is located; and [v] the project will be in full conformity with the Vision, City Council Priorities and Policy Plan components of The Ontario Plan.
(3) In the case of an application affecting specific property(ies), the proposed Planned Unit Development, will not adversely affect the harmonious relationship with adjacent properties and land uses. The Planned Unit Development area is situated in Ontario’s downtown and is adjacent to residential and commercial land uses and development. The surrounding development supports the objective of the Planned Unit Development to further commercial and residential mixed-use development. 2712
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PUD22-003
February 28, 2023

Page 5 ends

The Project will not affect the harmonious relationship with adjacent properties and land use.
(4) In the case of an application affecting specific property(ies), the subject site is physically suitable, including, but not limited to, parcel size, shape, access, and availability of utilities, for the request and anticipated development. In preparing the proposed Planned Unit Development, a thorough review and analysis of the proposed Project and the subject site’s physical suitability for the Project was completed, including analysis of the project size, shape, intensity of development, building height, building setbacks, site access, site landscaping and drainage, fences and walls, vehicle circulation, pedestrian connections, availability of mass transit, necessary street dedication and easements, public right-of-way improvements, availability of utilities and other infrastructure needs, off-street parking and circulation, building orientation and streetscapes, architectural character, building materials and color, and site signage.

Based upon this review and analysis, the subject site has been deemed physically suitable, including but not limited to parcel size, shape, access, and availability of utilities, for the proposed Planned Unit Development and the proposed development. (5) The proposed Planned Unit Development is superior to that which could be obtained through the application of the Development Code or a specific plan. The Planned Unit Development will establish minimum building setbacks, parking and open space requirements, allow on-street parking, and establish a planting palette.

These standards in the Planned Unit Development will facilitate the development of 3 attached single-family dwellings, related parking facilities and private and common open space areas. The proposed Planned Unit Development will allow for subsequent development that is superior to that which could be obtained through the application of the Development Code by itself.

SECTION 5: Planning Commission Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 through 4, above, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES the herein described Application, subject to each and every condition set forth in the Department reports attached hereto as "Attachment A," and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 6: 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 7: Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located 2713
2714
2715
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PUD22-003
February 28, 2023

Page 8 ends

ATTACHMENT A:

File No. PUD22-003
Fern Townhomes Planned Unit Development
2716
Fern Townhomes Ontario, California
Planned Unit Development
2717
PUD22‐003 Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue (Ordinance No. ) Page | 2 [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
2718
PUD22‐003 Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue (Ordinance No. ) Page | 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................5 Figure 1‐1: Project Location Map .................................................................................. 6 Figure 1‐2: Site Plan....................................................................................................... 7

2. OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................................9 The Ontario Plan...................................................................................................................9

2.1 Land Use Element Goals and Policies............................................................................9

2.2 Housing Element Goals and Policies........................................................................... 10

2.3 Community Design Element Goals and Policies.......................................................... 11

2.4 Fern Townhomes Objectives....................................................................................... 12 Figure 2‐1: Downtown Land Use District Map............................................................. 13

3. LAND USE PLAN .............................................................................................15

3.1 Land Use Plan / Allowable Uses................................................................................... 15 Figure 3‐1: Land Use District Map [Exhibit LU‐1 Land Use Plan of TOP].......................15

3.2 Residential Use.............................................................................................................16

3.3 Permitted Uses List.......................................................................................................16

4. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS......................................................................18

4.1 Residential Density........................................................................................................18

4.2 Project Density .............................................................................................................18

4.3 Building Height.............................................................................................................18

4.4 Building Setbacks..........................................................................................................19 Table 4‐1: Minimum Building Setbacks....................................................................... 19

4.5 Access...........................................................................................................................20

4.6 Open Space...................................................................................................................20

4.7 Private Space................................................................................................................20

4.8 Common Open Space.................................................................................................. 21

4.9 Site Landscaping ...........................................................................................................21

4.10 Screening....................................................................................................................22 Figure 4‐10: Landscape Planting Legend ..................................................................... 23 2719
PUD22‐003 Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue (Ordinance No. ) Page | 4

5. PARKING AND CIRCULATION.........................................................................25

5.1 Site Accessibility ...........................................................................................................25

5.2 Vehicle Circulation........................................................................................................25

5.3 Pedestrian Circulation ................................................................................................. 25

5.4 Access to Mass Transit ................................................................................................ 25 Figure 5‐1: Access to Mass Transit Map ...................................................................... 26

5.5 Public Right of Way Improvements............................................................................. 26

5.6 Infrastructure ...............................................................................................................27

5.7 Parking Onsite Parking Requirements...........................................................................27 Table 5‐1: Minimum Parking Requirements ............................................................... 28

6. DESIGN GUIDELINES ......................................................................................30

6.1 Building Orientation and Streetscapes........................................................................ 30

6.2 Architectural Character............................................................................................... 30

6.3 Architectural Details.....................................................................................................30

6.4 Materials and Colors ................................................................................................... 30

6.5 On‐Site Lighting ............................................................................................................31

6.6 Signage .........................................................................................................................31

6.7 On‐Site Improvements .................................................................................................31

7. ADMINISTRATION..........................................................................................33

7.1 Items Not Addressed in PUD....................................................................................... 33

7.2 Development Plan Applications .................................................................................. 33

7.3 Administrative Exceptions........................................................................................... 33 2720
PUD22‐003 Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue (Ordinance No. ) Page | 5

1. INTRODUCTION
This document is intended to function as a set of planning and design principles, development regulations and performance standards to guide and govern the development of an infill area of approximately 0.11 – acres of land, which is currently vacant, within a developed area. The development is comprised of a single vacant lot surrounded by existing residences. The lot is at the corner of North Fern Avenue (to the East) and West Vesta Street (existing Alley to the North). Access is available through the existing alley known as West Vesta Street (see Figure 1.1 Project Location Map).

The project site is located within The Ontario Plan Downtown Mixed Use Land Use District and the MU‐1 (Downtown Mixed Use) zoning district which requires the establishment of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) prior to development. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) is set forth in the Ontario Development code section 4.01.030 (Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Amendments). Upon approval, this PUD will establish the land use and development standards for this particular project site. The Fern Townhome Planned Unit Development (PUD) will provide development standards unless otherwise defined herein, definitions and interpretations contained in the Development code shall apply.

City staff and private developers shall rely on this PUD to determine whether precise plans for development will be adequate and will meet the City’s land use and design objectives. 2721
PUD ‐‐‐‐Townhomes at Fern ‐ 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD Page | 6 Figure 1‐1: Project Location Map
2722
PUD ‐‐‐‐Townhomes at Fern ‐ 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD Page | 7 Figure 1‐2: Site Plan
2723
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 8 [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
2724
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 9

2. OBJECTIVES
The Ontario Plan, which includes the City’s General Plan (Policy Plan), designates the project area as part of the Downtown Mixed Use District (see Figure 2‐1: Downtown Land Use District Map).

The Downtown Mixed Use District designation requires approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to develop the property. Additionally, the designation specifies a residential density range of 25.1‐75 units per acre and a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.0 for office and retail uses if required.

The Ontario Plan goals and policies furthered by this Planned Unit Development are as follows:

2.1. Land Use Element Goals and Policies
i. LU1 – Balance. A community that has a spectrum of housing types and price ranges that match the jobs in the city and that make it possible for people to live and work in Ontario and maintain a quality of life.
a. LU1‐1 Strategic Growth. We concentrate growth in strategic locationsthat help create place and identity, maximize available and planned infrastructure, and foster the development of transit.
• The PUD supports the goal by providing housing in the downtown core to maximize infrastructure and foster the development of transit. ii. LU2 – Compatibility. Compatibility between a wide range of uses and resultant urban patterns and forms.
a. LU2‐2 Buffers. We require new uses to provide mitigation or buffers between existing uses where potential adverse impacts could occur.

Additional mitigation is required when new uses could negatively impact environmental justice areas.
• The PUD takes into consideration the existing uses on the surrounding properties and provides privacy buffers with decorative masonry walls, landscaping and setbacks.
iii. LU3 – Flexibility. Staff, regulations and processes that support and allow flexible response to conditions and circumstances in order to achieve the Vision. a. LU3‐1 Development Standards. We maintain clear developmentstandards which allow flexibility to achieve our Vision.
• The PUD implements the flexibility anticipated by city development standards.
2725
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 10

2.2. Housing Use Element Goals and Policies
i. H1 – Neighborhoods and Housing. Stable neighborhoods of quality housing, ample community services and public facilities, well‐maintained infrastructure, and public safety that foster a positive sense of identity. a. H1‐4 Historical Preservation. We support the preservation and enhancement of residential structures, properties, street designs, lot configurations, and other reminders of Ontario’s past that are considered to be local historical or cultural resources.
• The PUD is located within the Residential District of Downtown Ontario. The PUD will ensure the architectural enhancements complement the existing historic housing surrounding the project. ii. H2 – Housing Supply and Diversity. Diversity of types of quality housing that are affordable to a range of household income levels, accommodate changing demographics, and support and reinforce the economic sustainability of Ontario. a. H2‐5 Housing Design. We require architectural excellence through adherence to City design guidelines, thoughtful site planning, environmentally sustainable practices and other best practices. • The PUD is located within the Residential District of Downtown Ontario. The PUD will ensure the architectural enhancements complement the existing historic setting of the project location. b. H2‐6 Infill Development. We support the revitalization of neighborhoods through the construction of higher‐density residential developments on underutilized residential and commercial sites.
• The PUD implements higher density residential development within the downtown core to support nearby businesses and assist in area revitalization.
2726
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 11

2.3. Community Design Element Goals and Policies
i. CD1 – Image and Identity. A dynamic, progressive city containing distinct and complete places that foster a positive sense of identity and belonging among residents, visitors, and businesses.
a. CD1‐1 City Identity. We take actionsthat are consistent with the City being a leading urban centerin Southern California while recognizing, enhancing, and preserving the character of our existing viable neighborhoods. • The PUD supports the policy goal by incorporating a diverse urban housing type into the downtown core.
b. CD1‐2 Place Types. We establish Place Types in urban, mixed use, and transit-oriented areas to foster the City’s identity as a premier community and require new development within each Place Type to incorporate prescribed urban patterns, forms, and placemaking priorities. • The PUD is located within the Residential District of Downtown Ontario. The PUD will ensure the architectural enhancements complement the existing historic setting of the project location. ii. CD2 – Design Quality. A high level of design quality resulting in neighborhoods, commercial areas, public spaces, parks, and streetscapes that are attractive, safe, functional, human-scale, and distinct.
a. CD2‐1 Quality Building Design and Architecture. We encourage all development projects to convey visual interest and character through:
• Building volume, massing, and height to provide context-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
• Exterior building materials that are articulated, high quality, durable, and appropriate for the architectural style.
• The PUD will ensure that architectural features and finishes which convey a particular style will be implemented to complement the existing historic setting of the project location.
2727
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 12

2.4. FernTownhomesObjectives
This Planned Unit Development provides guidelines for development of the project area. The following objectives are intended to provide a general framework for establishing development standards to ensure proper development of the project area.
i. Develop high quality, housing.
ii. Establish appropriate relationships among new residential neighborhoods as well as with adjacent land use.
iii. Provide new housing designed for families with children. iv. Provide area of private and passive open space with each unit to include private balconies and attractive entries.
v. Provide flexible spaces at ground level which can be used as a Home Office or additional living space.
2728
PUD ‐‐‐‐Townhomes at Fern ‐ 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD Page | 13 Figure 2‐1: Downtown Growth Area Map
2729
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 14 [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
2730
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 15

3. LAND USE PLAN

3.1. Land Use Plan /Allowable Uses
The Project site is located within the Downtown Mixed Use Area Policy Plan (General Plan) land use district, and the MU‐1 (Downtown Mixed‐Use) zoning district, which implements the Downtown Mixed Use area. The MU‐1 zoning district was established to accommodate and intensive mixture of vertical and horizontal retail and office uses at a development intensity of up to 2.0 FAR, and residential uses at a density of 25 to 75 dwelling units per acre. Development projects within the MU‐1 zoning district are intended to maintain a pedestrian friendly atmosphere, while at the same time enhancing the historic character of the area.

Consistent with the intent of the Downtown Mixed Use Area and the MU‐1 zoning district, the project site is designated Multiple Family Residential (MFR) land use designation. Exhibit 3.1 MU‐1 (Mixed Use Downtown) depicts the Planned Unit Development boundary and zoning designation.

Figure 3‐1: MU‐1 (Mixed Use Downtown) District Map
Project Area: Adjacent Uses:

Mixed Use Low‐Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
2731
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 16

3.2. Residential Use
The project site is envisioned to be developed with three attached housing units.

All units will be two story with two car parking garages below and the living areas on upper/second level. A landscape buffer with trees and a planter is provided along Fern Avenue. Units will be accessed via a new paved walkway. All units will have private balconies.

3.3. Permitted Uses List
The Permitted Land uses within the 213 N. Fern Avenue Planned Unit Development (PUD) are as follows:
i. Multiple family residential dwellings
ii. Motor vehicle parking ancillary to multiple family housing developments iii. Temporary uses as permitted within the residential districts of the City of Ontario Development Code subject to an Administrative Permit.
iv. Other land use compatible with multiple family residential development projects, as determined by the Zoning Administrator.

Uses may be prohibited through rental contracts and agreements as provided by the owner and project management, unless prohibited by Federal, State or local laws.
2732
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 17 [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
2733
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 18

4. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS

4.1. Residential Density
Residential density shall be 25.1 to 70 dwelling units per acre.

4.2. Project Density
This particular combined infill project site consists of 0.09 acres of land. This zone density will require a minimum of (3) dwellings and a maximum of (7) dwellings.

4.3. Building Height
No structure shall exceed 35 feet in height, except that the maximum height may be exceeded by roof mounted equipment, architectural projections, chimneys, elevator towers, parapet walls and any other roof top structures by up to 10% of the allowed building height. No rooftop equipmentshall be visible from anywhere on the project site, public streets or adjacent properties, and shall be fully screened with appropriate architectural parapet walls or appropriate roof treatments. Roof mounted equipment shall not exceed the height of the structures and appurtenances used to screen the equipment. i. No roof mounted equipment proposed. All HVAC units shall be placed within the attic space of the proposed roof structure, and condenser units shall be ground‐ mounted and properly screened.
2734
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 19

4.4. Building Setbacks
Table 4‐1: Minimum Building Setbacks
Minimum Setbacks: Distance
From North Fern Avenue (East):
■ Building 7 FT
■ Porches, Patio Covers, and Similar Architectural
Projections**
5 FT
From Vesta Street/Alley (North)
■ Building 5 FT
■ Garage Entry 6 FT
From Interior Property Line (South):
■ Building 5 FT
From Rear Property Line (West):
■ Building 5 FT
■ Porches, Patio Covers, and Similar Architectural
Projections**
5 FT
2nd story Architectural Projections and Balconies 3 FT
**No projection may encroach into any necessary easements i. All setbacks shall be measured from the property lines. Placement of buildings,structures, fences, walls, utility facilities, yards etc. will be based on the street’s rights of way and the property line dimensions. Allowable encroachments in yards include (maximum 6’‐0” high) property line fences and gates, landscaping, paving and public utilities.
2735
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 20

4.5. 4.6.

4.7. Access
Project vehicular access is from the northernly alley. Pedestrian access is from Fern Avenue.

Open Space
Open space shall be provided for the passive and the active recreation opportunities within the project site. Two types of open space are required, private and common open space. These open space areas are for the use of the on‐site residents and their guests. Required street setback areas are not counted towards the common open space requirements.

Private Open Space
Private open space shall be provided for each residential unit in order to provide private outdoor areas which can be enjoyed for the exclusive use by the occupant of the residential unit and their guests. Types of areas considered private open space include balconies, decks and patios and enclosed yard areas.

Private open spaces are achieved with second floor balconies in each residential unit and shall have direct access from each residential unit. Residential units shall have a minimum size of private open space pursuant to Section 6.01.010.E (Open Space Requirements for Single‐Family Small Lot Subdivisions, and Multiple‐ Family and Mixed‐Use Development Projects) of the Ontario Development Code.

The space may be provided in multiple areas (e.g. balconies, covered porches, a yard and a patio, etc.), as long as the total area of the spaces meets the minimum private open space requirement of 30 square feet for the unit. The minimum dimension for private open space shall be no less than 5 feet in any direction. Balconies shall be a minimum dimension of 5’‐0” x 6’‐0”. 2736
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 21

4.8. 4.9.

Common Open Space
Common Open Space shall be provided to allow for both passive and active types of recreation, along with the site landscape amenities. Common open space is achieved along the landscape buffer along Fern Avenue. These areas are for use by project residents and their guests. The Project site is located in an urbanized downtown area which provides access to many shared amenities including a public park (Ontario Town Square) within a quarter mile of the site.

Landscaping
Site Landscaping
A conceptual landscape plan shall be submitted with each Development Plan within the 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD area. The plan shall specify all landscape and hardscape elements for the development plan site. Detailed Landscape and Irrigation plans shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits.

The detailed plans shall show location of ground mounted utility boxes and equipment, along with the methods of screening for these items from the public right of way and adjacent residences where possible (see Figure 4‐1: Conceptual Landscape Planting Legend).

The Landscape and irrigation plan shall be designed with water conservation in mind, utilizing “California friendly” species and drought tolerant planting materials. The landscaping and irrigation shall comply with AB 1881, and all other laws and regulations related to planting materials.

Compliance with State and Federal Laws
a. Provide landscaping and an irrigation system, which promotes the conservation of water as required by the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881), commencing with the California Government Code Section 65591.
2737
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 22

4.10. Screening
i. General Requirements
a. All roof and ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened pursuant to the requirements of the Ontario Development Code. b. Screening shall include plant and building materials compatible with the project design so it is well integrated and hidden within the project area. c. Building and plant materials used for screening shall be compatible with the architectural style and planting palette used on the project area. d. All ground level screening shall comply with the requirements of the Ontario Development Code Section 6.02.030 (Protection of Intersection Visibility).
ii. Fences, Walls, and Hedges
Fences, walls and hedges shall comply with Section 6.02.030 (Protection of Intersection visibility) of the Ontario Development Code, Engineering Department corner sight distance standards, and all other applicable city standards. Fences and wall shall be made of decorative materials that are compatible with, or enhance the overall architectural character of the project. All fences, walls and hedges shall be in scale with the development, and shall be used for screening, site enhancement, and creating a safer living environment for residents and their guests. All decorative walls, monuments, and/or other similar features, shall not encroach in to the public street right of way.
2738
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 23 Figure 4‐10: Landscape Planting Legend
2739
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 24 [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
2740
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 25

5. PARKING AND CIRCULATION

5.1. Site Accessibility
The site shall be designed to promote safety for residents by only allowing limited vehicular and pedestrian access into and across the site. This can be achieved through building orientation and placement, and use of proper fences and gates to limit access to residents and their guests.

5.2. Vehicle Circulation
The project site shall be designed with parking access to the individual garages from alley, and shall provide all guest parking outside of development (on or off site) to ensure accessibility. Location of drive aisles and entries shall be approved ty the City Engineer. Vehicular circulation shall be designed in a way that promotes pedestrian safety and proper access to the parking garage areas.

5.3. Pedestrian Circulation
Site design must provide for safe pedestrian circulation across the project site by separating the pedestrian areas from the vehicular access. This includes, but is not limited to, accessibility from the parking motor court to garages area to unit entries, site amenities, and perimeter sidewalk areas. Fencing and gates may be used to limit public access to resident‐only areas.

5.4. Access to Mass Transit
Proposed Development Project within the PUD area should encourage the use of the existing bus stops by providing pedestrian connections to westbound line [Omnitrans 61] with a bus stop located on the northwest corner of Holt Boulevard and Vine Avenue (see Figure 5‐1: Access to Mass Transit). 2741
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 26 Figure 5‐1: Access to Mass Transit

5.5. Public Right‐of‐Way Improvements
i. The public right‐of‐way shall be improved with each proposed development. The public right‐of‐way improvements required are to include, but are not limited to the following: street pavement, curb & gutter, parkway landscaping, parkway irrigation, public sidewalk, traffic signing, striping and fiber optic infrastructure.

The extent of the required improvements shall be determined for each development plan. At a minimum the improvements shall incorporate all items along the street frontages of the properties to be developed with proper transitioning if the entire block frontage is not being installed with a particular development. Improvements along the street frontage for the entire block may be required at the time of development plan review.
2742
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 27

5.6. Infrastructure
Water service will be provided from the existing water infrastructure in Fern Avenue, and sewer connections will be made to the existing sewer infrastructure in the alley. A dry well, as storm water detention, will be constructed on site for on‐site storm water drainage and storm water runoff. The drywell shall be maintained by the property owner. In addition, there is a master‐planned storm drain fronting the property based on the City's Master Plan of drainage.

5.7. Parking Requirements
i. On‐Site Parking Requirements
The number of parking spaces provided is based on the number of bedrooms contained within each of the dwelling units proposed, and is subject to the following requirements.
a. All required resident parking spaces shall be provided on‐site, except fractional spaces may be provided off‐site;
b. Resident parking shall be provided in 2 car enclosed garages. c. Each dwelling unit isintended for occupancy by one family only, regardless of bedroom size (s) provided in a particular unit. Parking for dwellingsshall be provided on‐site, pursuant to the requirements of Table 5‐1: Minimum Parking Requirements below, except that guest parking may be provided on‐street, pursuant to Section 5.7.ii (On‐Street Parking) of this Planned Unit Development (PUD).
2743
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 28 Table 5‐1: Minimum Parking Requirements
Use Parking Spaces Required
Multiple‐Family Dwellings:
• One‐Bedroom Unit 1.75 parking spaces per unit (at least one space shall be in a garage or carport)
• Two or more Bedroom Unit 2.0 parking spaces per unit (at least one space shall be in a garage or carport)
Guest Parking 1 Space per 5 dwellings
ii. On‐street Parking Requirements
On‐street parking may be utilized to satisfy guest parking requirements, subject to the following conditions:
a. On‐street parking may be used to satisfy guest parking requirements only, and shall not be used for required resident parking.
b. On‐street parking shall only be counted along the public streets surrounding the projectsite, on the side of the street adjoining the project, excluding the alley to the north of the site (West Vesta Street). c. On‐street parallel parking spaces shall be calculated by the length of unobstructed curb adjacent to the project site.
iii. Parking Standards
All parking space size and location requirements shall conform to the standards set forth in Section 6.03.045 (Off‐Street Parking Standards) of the Ontario Development Code.
2744
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 29 [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
2745
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 30

6. DESIGN GUIDELINES

6.1. 6.2.

6.3. 6.4.

Building Orientation and Streetscapes
Building orientation shall be designed to minimize noise impacts, aide in providing site safety, create proper accessibility to unit entries and parking garage areas.

Maximize views from each of the residential units. Design should be done in a way to maximize each unit’s ability to provide private and open space while prioritizing privacy for all tenants.

Architectural Character
The PUD Architectural style and design is a modern interpretation of the “Mediterranean” style. The design will provide gabled roofs, with clay tile eaves. lower roof pitch (3:12), rough sawn beams, and a roof well for mechanical equipment. The unit with street frontage will have a covered porch. The garage doors will have beam accents in the overhang above.

Architectural Details
The new building designed for this PUD, shall be consistent in design and detail with style throughout the project. Architectural details should complement and enhance openings and accentuate overall design of the buildings. Detailing can be achieved through the use of multi planes and recessed materials to create interesting exterior elevations.

Materials and Color
Materials and color scheme shall be compatible with, and complementary to the overall style of the development project. New Multiplex on the site will utilize light colors, pop outs and recesses to break up the building planes. Dark colored doors, trim, window casings, and sills will define openings and entries with black wrought iron accents at doors, eaves, gates and balconies. All colors shall be complementary to the architectural style and utilize primarily earth tones.

Materials specified will be a combination of smooth troweled stucco plaster and rough sawn exposed wood beams. A Mediterranean architectural style clay tile roof shall be used for the roof covering.
2746
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 31

6.5. On‐Site Lighting
i. Decorative light fixtures attached to the buildings shall be compatible with the architectural style of the buildings, shall be provided for this development. ii. All other on‐site lighting shall meet development standard of the Ontario Development Code.

6.6. Signage
Signs within the project area shall comply with the Division 8.01 (Sign Regulations) of the Ontario Development code.

6.7. Off Site Improvements
All off‐site improvements shall be installed in accordance with the City standards, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineering department. 2747
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 32 [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
2748
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 33

7. ADMINISTRATION

7.1. Items Not Addressed in PUD
Any terms, requirements, or regulations not addressed within this PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT document shall be governed by the City of Ontario Development Code, the regulations of the General Mixed Use zones and City Standards.

7.2. Development Applications
Development Plan approval, pursuant to the requirements of Ontario Development Code Section 4.02.025 (Development Plans), shall be required for the physical alteration of a lot, the construction of a building, or the addition or significant alteration of an existing building. A Development Plan application shall be submitted to the Planning Department on a City application form pursuant to the requirements of Ontario Development Code Division 2.02 (Application Filing and Processing), commencing with Subsection B (Discretionary Permits and Actions) of Section 2.02.015 (Application Processing Procedures).

7.3. Administrative Exceptions
Deviation from the development standards set forth in this document may be granted up to a maximum of 10 percent by the Zoning Administrator. Any deviation that is greater than 10 percent shall require variance approval. 2749
PUD-------Fern Townhomes 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ Page I 34 [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
2750
Fern Townhomes Ontario, California
Planned Unit Development
2751
PUD22‐003 Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue (Ordinance No. ) Page | 2 [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
2752
PUD22‐003 Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue (Ordinance No. ) Page | 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................5 Figure 1‐1: Project Location Map .................................................................................. 6 Figure 1‐2: Site Plan....................................................................................................... 7

2. OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................................9 The Ontario Plan...................................................................................................................9

2.1 Land Use Element Goals and Policies............................................................................9

2.2 Housing Element Goals and Policies........................................................................... 10

2.3 Community Design Element Goals and Policies.......................................................... 11

2.4 Fern Townhomes Objectives....................................................................................... 12 Figure 2‐1: Downtown Land Use District Map............................................................. 13

3. LAND USE PLAN .............................................................................................15

3.1 Land Use Plan / Allowable Uses................................................................................... 15 Figure 3‐1: Land Use District Map [Exhibit LU‐1 Land Use Plan of TOP].......................15

3.2 Residential Use.............................................................................................................16

3.3 Permitted Uses List.......................................................................................................16

4. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS......................................................................18

4.1 Residential Density........................................................................................................18

4.2 Project Density .............................................................................................................18

4.3 Building Height.............................................................................................................18

4.4 Building Setbacks..........................................................................................................19 Table 4‐1: Minimum Building Setbacks....................................................................... 19

4.5 Access...........................................................................................................................20

4.6 Open Space...................................................................................................................20

4.7 Private Space................................................................................................................20

4.8 Common Open Space.................................................................................................. 21

4.9 Site Landscaping ...........................................................................................................21

4.10 Screening....................................................................................................................22 Figure 4‐10: Landscape Planting Legend ..................................................................... 23 2753
PUD22‐003 Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue (Ordinance No. ) Page | 4

5. PARKING AND CIRCULATION.........................................................................25

5.1 Site Accessibility ...........................................................................................................25

5.2 Vehicle Circulation........................................................................................................25

5.3 Pedestrian Circulation ................................................................................................. 25

5.4 Access to Mass Transit ................................................................................................ 25 Figure 5‐1: Access to Mass Transit Map ...................................................................... 26

5.5 Public Right of Way Improvements............................................................................. 26

5.6 Infrastructure ...............................................................................................................27

5.7 Parking Onsite Parking Requirements...........................................................................27 Table 5‐1: Minimum Parking Requirements ............................................................... 28

6. DESIGN GUIDELINES ......................................................................................30

6.1 Building Orientation and Streetscapes........................................................................ 30

6.2 Architectural Character............................................................................................... 30

6.3 Architectural Details.....................................................................................................30

6.4 Materials and Colors ................................................................................................... 30

6.5 On‐Site Lighting ............................................................................................................31

6.6 Signage .........................................................................................................................31

6.7 On‐Site Improvements .................................................................................................31

7. ADMINISTRATION..........................................................................................33

7.1 Items Not Addressed in PUD....................................................................................... 33

7.2 Development Plan Applications .................................................................................. 33

7.3 Administrative Exceptions........................................................................................... 33 2754
PUD22‐003 Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue (Ordinance No. ) Page | 5

1. INTRODUCTION
This document is intended to function as a set of planning and design principles, development regulations and performance standards to guide and govern the development of an infill area of approximately 0.11 – acres of land, which is currently vacant, within a developed area. The development is comprised of a single vacant lot surrounded by existing residences. The lot is at the corner of North Fern Avenue (to the East) and West Vesta Street (existing Alley to the North). Access is available through the existing alley known as West Vesta Street (see Figure 1.1 Project Location Map).

The project site is located within The Ontario Plan Downtown Mixed Use Land Use District and the MU‐1 (Downtown Mixed Use) zoning district which requires the establishment of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) prior to development. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) is set forth in the Ontario Development code section 4.01.030 (Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Amendments). Upon approval, this PUD will establish the land use and development standards for this particular project site. The Fern Townhome Planned Unit Development (PUD) will provide development standards unless otherwise defined herein, definitions and interpretations contained in the Development code shall apply.

City staff and private developers shall rely on this PUD to determine whether precise plans for development will be adequate and will meet the City’s land use and design objectives. 2755
PUD ‐‐‐‐Townhomes at Fern ‐ 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD Page | 6 Figure 1‐1: Project Location Map
2756
PUD ‐‐‐‐Townhomes at Fern ‐ 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD Page | 7 Figure 1‐2: Site Plan
2757
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 8 [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
2758
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 9

2. OBJECTIVES
The Ontario Plan, which includes the City’s General Plan (Policy Plan), designates the project area as part of the Downtown Mixed Use District (see Figure 2‐1: Downtown Land Use District Map).

The Downtown Mixed Use District designation requires approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to develop the property. Additionally, the designation specifies a residential density range of 25.1‐75 units per acre and a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.0 for office and retail uses if required.

The Ontario Plan goals and policies furthered by this Planned Unit Development are as follows:

2.1. Land Use Element Goals and Policies
i. LU1 – Balance. A community that has a spectrum of housing types and price ranges that match the jobs in the city and that make it possible for people to live and work in Ontario and maintain a quality of life.
a. LU1‐1 Strategic Growth. We concentrate growth in strategic locationsthat help create place and identity, maximize available and planned infrastructure, and foster the development of transit.
• The PUD supports the goal by providing housing in the downtown core to maximize infrastructure and foster the development of transit. ii. LU2 – Compatibility. Compatibility between a wide range of uses and resultant urban patterns and forms.
a. LU2‐2 Buffers. We require new uses to provide mitigation or buffers between existing uses where potential adverse impacts could occur.

Additional mitigation is required when new uses could negatively impact environmental justice areas.
• The PUD takes into consideration the existing uses on the surrounding properties and provides privacy buffers with decorative masonry walls, landscaping and setbacks.
iii. LU3 – Flexibility. Staff, regulations and processes that support and allow flexible response to conditions and circumstances in order to achieve the Vision. a. LU3‐1 Development Standards. We maintain clear developmentstandards which allow flexibility to achieve our Vision.
• The PUD implements the flexibility anticipated by city development standards.
2759
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 10

2.2. Housing Use Element Goals and Policies
i. H1 – Neighborhoods and Housing. Stable neighborhoods of quality housing, ample community services and public facilities, well‐maintained infrastructure, and public safety that foster a positive sense of identity. a. H1‐4 Historical Preservation. We support the preservation and enhancement of residential structures, properties, street designs, lot configurations, and other reminders of Ontario’s past that are considered to be local historical or cultural resources.
• The PUD is located within the Residential District of Downtown Ontario. The PUD will ensure the architectural enhancements complement the existing historic housing surrounding the project. ii. H2 – Housing Supply and Diversity. Diversity of types of quality housing that are affordable to a range of household income levels, accommodate changing demographics, and support and reinforce the economic sustainability of Ontario. a. H2‐5 Housing Design. We require architectural excellence through adherence to City design guidelines, thoughtful site planning, environmentally sustainable practices and other best practices. • The PUD is located within the Residential District of Downtown Ontario. The PUD will ensure the architectural enhancements complement the existing historic setting of the project location. b. H2‐6 Infill Development. We support the revitalization of neighborhoods through the construction of higher‐density residential developments on underutilized residential and commercial sites.
• The PUD implements higher density residential development within the downtown core to support nearby businesses and assist in area revitalization.
2760
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 11

2.3. Community Design Element Goals and Policies
i. CD1 – Image and Identity. A dynamic, progressive city containing distinct and complete places that foster a positive sense of identity and belonging among residents, visitors, and businesses.
a. CD1‐1 City Identity. We take actionsthat are consistent with the City being a leading urban centerin Southern California while recognizing, enhancing, and preserving the character of our existing viable neighborhoods. • The PUD supports the policy goal by incorporating a diverse urban housing type into the downtown core.
b. CD1‐2 Place Types. We establish Place Types in urban, mixed use, and transit-oriented areas to foster the City’s identity as a premier community and require new development within each Place Type to incorporate prescribed urban patterns, forms, and placemaking priorities. • The PUD is located within the Residential District of Downtown Ontario. The PUD will ensure the architectural enhancements complement the existing historic setting of the project location. ii. CD2 – Design Quality. A high level of design quality resulting in neighborhoods, commercial areas, public spaces, parks, and streetscapes that are attractive, safe, functional, human-scale, and distinct.
a. CD2‐1 Quality Building Design and Architecture. We encourage all development projects to convey visual interest and character through:
• Building volume, massing, and height to provide context-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
• Exterior building materials that are articulated, high quality, durable, and appropriate for the architectural style.
• The PUD will ensure that architectural features and finishes which convey a particular style will be implemented to complement the existing historic setting of the project location.
2761
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 12

2.4. FernTownhomesObjectives
This Planned Unit Development provides guidelines for development of the project area. The following objectives are intended to provide a general framework for establishing development standards to ensure proper development of the project area.
i. Develop high quality, housing.
ii. Establish appropriate relationships among new residential neighborhoods as well as with adjacent land use.
iii. Provide new housing designed for families with children. iv. Provide area of private and passive open space with each unit to include private balconies and attractive entries.
v. Provide flexible spaces at ground level which can be used as a Home Office or additional living space.
2762
PUD ‐‐‐‐Townhomes at Fern ‐ 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD Page | 13 Figure 2‐1: Downtown Growth Area Map
2763
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 14 [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
2764
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 15

3. LAND USE PLAN

3.1. Land Use Plan /Allowable Uses
The Project site is located within the Downtown Mixed Use Area Policy Plan (General Plan) land use district, and the MU‐1 (Downtown Mixed‐Use) zoning district, which implements the Downtown Mixed Use area. The MU‐1 zoning district was established to accommodate and intensive mixture of vertical and horizontal retail and office uses at a development intensity of up to 2.0 FAR, and residential uses at a density of 25 to 75 dwelling units per acre. Development projects within the MU‐1 zoning district are intended to maintain a pedestrian friendly atmosphere, while at the same time enhancing the historic character of the area.

Consistent with the intent of the Downtown Mixed Use Area and the MU‐1 zoning district, the project site is designated Multiple Family Residential (MFR) land use designation. Exhibit 3.1 MU‐1 (Mixed Use Downtown) depicts the Planned Unit Development boundary and zoning designation.

Figure 3‐1: MU‐1 (Mixed Use Downtown) District Map
Project Area: Adjacent Uses:

Mixed Use Low‐Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
2765
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 16

3.2. Residential Use
The project site is envisioned to be developed with three attached housing units.

All units will be two story with two car parking garages below and the living areas on upper/second level. A landscape buffer with trees and a planter is provided along Fern Avenue. Units will be accessed via a new paved walkway. All units will have private balconies.

3.3. Permitted Uses List
The Permitted Land uses within the 213 N. Fern Avenue Planned Unit Development (PUD) are as follows:
i. Multiple family residential dwellings
ii. Motor vehicle parking ancillary to multiple family housing developments iii. Temporary uses as permitted within the residential districts of the City of Ontario Development Code subject to an Administrative Permit.
iv. Other land use compatible with multiple family residential development projects, as determined by the Zoning Administrator.

Uses may be prohibited through rental contracts and agreements as provided by the owner and project management, unless prohibited by Federal, State or local laws.
2766
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 17 [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
2767
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 18

4. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS

4.1. Residential Density
Residential density shall be 25.1 to 70 dwelling units per acre.

4.2. Project Density
This particular combined infill project site consists of 0.09 acres of land. This zone density will require a minimum of (3) dwellings and a maximum of (7) dwellings.

4.3. Building Height
No structure shall exceed 35 feet in height, except that the maximum height may be exceeded by roof mounted equipment, architectural projections, chimneys, elevator towers, parapet walls and any other roof top structures by up to 10% of the allowed building height. No rooftop equipmentshall be visible from anywhere on the project site, public streets or adjacent properties, and shall be fully screened with appropriate architectural parapet walls or appropriate roof treatments. Roof mounted equipment shall not exceed the height of the structures and appurtenances used to screen the equipment. i. No roof mounted equipment proposed. All HVAC units shall be placed within the attic space of the proposed roof structure, and condenser units shall be ground‐ mounted and properly screened.
2768
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 19

4.4. Building Setbacks
Table 4‐1: Minimum Building Setbacks
Minimum Setbacks: Distance
From North Fern Avenue (East):
■ Building 7 FT
■ Porches, Patio Covers, and Similar Architectural
Projections**
5 FT
From Vesta Street/Alley (North)
■ Building 5 FT
■ Garage Entry 6 FT
From Interior Property Line (South):
■ Building 5 FT
From Rear Property Line (West):
■ Building 5 FT
■ Porches, Patio Covers, and Similar Architectural
Projections**
5 FT
2nd story Architectural Projections and Balconies 3 FT
**No projection may encroach into any necessary easements i. All setbacks shall be measured from the property lines. Placement of buildings,structures, fences, walls, utility facilities, yards etc. will be based on the street’s rights of way and the property line dimensions. Allowable encroachments in yards include (maximum 6’‐0” high) property line fences and gates, landscaping, paving and public utilities.
2769
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 20

4.5. 4.6.

4.7. Access
Project vehicular access is from the northernly alley. Pedestrian access is from Fern Avenue.

Open Space
Open space shall be provided for the passive and the active recreation opportunities within the project site. Two types of open space are required, private and common open space. These open space areas are for the use of the on‐site residents and their guests. Required street setback areas are not counted towards the common open space requirements.

Private Open Space
Private open space shall be provided for each residential unit in order to provide private outdoor areas which can be enjoyed for the exclusive use by the occupant of the residential unit and their guests. Types of areas considered private open space include balconies, decks and patios and enclosed yard areas.

Private open spaces are achieved with second floor balconies in each residential unit and shall have direct access from each residential unit. Residential units shall have a minimum size of private open space pursuant to Section 6.01.010.E (Open Space Requirements for Single‐Family Small Lot Subdivisions, and Multiple‐ Family and Mixed‐Use Development Projects) of the Ontario Development Code.

The space may be provided in multiple areas (e.g. balconies, covered porches, a yard and a patio, etc.), as long as the total area of the spaces meets the minimum private open space requirement of 30 square feet for the unit. The minimum dimension for private open space shall be no less than 5 feet in any direction. Balconies shall be a minimum dimension of 5’‐0” x 6’‐0”. 2770
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 21

4.8. 4.9.

Common Open Space
Common Open Space shall be provided to allow for both passive and active types of recreation, along with the site landscape amenities. Common open space is achieved along the landscape buffer along Fern Avenue. These areas are for use by project residents and their guests. The Project site is located in an urbanized downtown area which provides access to many shared amenities including a public park (Ontario Town Square) within a quarter mile of the site.

Landscaping
Site Landscaping
A conceptual landscape plan shall be submitted with each Development Plan within the 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD area. The plan shall specify all landscape and hardscape elements for the development plan site. Detailed Landscape and Irrigation plans shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits.

The detailed plans shall show location of ground mounted utility boxes and equipment, along with the methods of screening for these items from the public right of way and adjacent residences where possible (see Figure 4‐1: Conceptual Landscape Planting Legend).

The Landscape and irrigation plan shall be designed with water conservation in mind, utilizing “California friendly” species and drought tolerant planting materials. The landscaping and irrigation shall comply with AB 1881, and all other laws and regulations related to planting materials.

Compliance with State and Federal Laws
a. Provide landscaping and an irrigation system, which promotes the conservation of water as required by the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881), commencing with the California Government Code Section 65591.
2771
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 22

4.10. Screening
i. General Requirements
a. All roof and ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened pursuant to the requirements of the Ontario Development Code. b. Screening shall include plant and building materials compatible with the project design so it is well integrated and hidden within the project area. c. Building and plant materials used for screening shall be compatible with the architectural style and planting palette used on the project area. d. All ground level screening shall comply with the requirements of the Ontario Development Code Section 6.02.030 (Protection of Intersection Visibility).
ii. Fences, Walls, and Hedges
Fences, walls and hedges shall comply with Section 6.02.030 (Protection of Intersection visibility) of the Ontario Development Code, Engineering Department corner sight distance standards, and all other applicable city standards. Fences and wall shall be made of decorative materials that are compatible with, or enhance the overall architectural character of the project. All fences, walls and hedges shall be in scale with the development, and shall be used for screening, site enhancement, and creating a safer living environment for residents and their guests. All decorative walls, monuments, and/or other similar features, shall not encroach in to the public street right of way.
2772
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 23 Figure 4‐10: Landscape Planting Legend
2773
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 24 [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
2774
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 25

5. PARKING AND CIRCULATION

5.1. Site Accessibility
The site shall be designed to promote safety for residents by only allowing limited vehicular and pedestrian access into and across the site. This can be achieved through building orientation and placement, and use of proper fences and gates to limit access to residents and their guests.

5.2. Vehicle Circulation
The project site shall be designed with parking access to the individual garages from alley, and shall provide all guest parking outside of development (on or off site) to ensure accessibility. Location of drive aisles and entries shall be approved ty the City Engineer. Vehicular circulation shall be designed in a way that promotes pedestrian safety and proper access to the parking garage areas.

5.3. Pedestrian Circulation
Site design must provide for safe pedestrian circulation across the project site by separating the pedestrian areas from the vehicular access. This includes, but is not limited to, accessibility from the parking motor court to garages area to unit entries, site amenities, and perimeter sidewalk areas. Fencing and gates may be used to limit public access to resident‐only areas.

5.4. Access to Mass Transit
Proposed Development Project within the PUD area should encourage the use of the existing bus stops by providing pedestrian connections to westbound line [Omnitrans 61] with a bus stop located on the northwest corner of Holt Boulevard and Vine Avenue (see Figure 5‐1: Access to Mass Transit). 2775
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 26 Figure 5‐1: Access to Mass Transit

5.5. Public Right‐of‐Way Improvements
i. The public right‐of‐way shall be improved with each proposed development. The public right‐of‐way improvements required are to include, but are not limited to the following: street pavement, curb & gutter, parkway landscaping, parkway irrigation, public sidewalk, traffic signing, striping and fiber optic infrastructure.

The extent of the required improvements shall be determined for each development plan. At a minimum the improvements shall incorporate all items along the street frontages of the properties to be developed with proper transitioning if the entire block frontage is not being installed with a particular development. Improvements along the street frontage for the entire block may be required at the time of development plan review.
2776
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 27

5.6. Infrastructure
Water service will be provided from the existing water infrastructure in Fern Avenue, and sewer connections will be made to the existing sewer infrastructure in the alley. A dry well, as storm water detention, will be constructed on site for on‐site storm water drainage and storm water runoff. The drywell shall be maintained by the property owner. In addition, there is a master‐planned storm drain fronting the property based on the City's Master Plan of drainage.

5.7. Parking Requirements
i. On‐Site Parking Requirements
The number of parking spaces provided is based on the number of bedrooms contained within each of the dwelling units proposed, and is subject to the following requirements.
a. All required resident parking spaces shall be provided on‐site, except fractional spaces may be provided off‐site;
b. Resident parking shall be provided in 2 car enclosed garages. c. Each dwelling unit isintended for occupancy by one family only, regardless of bedroom size (s) provided in a particular unit. Parking for dwellingsshall be provided on‐site, pursuant to the requirements of Table 5‐1: Minimum Parking Requirements below, except that guest parking may be provided on‐street, pursuant to Section 5.7.ii (On‐Street Parking) of this Planned Unit Development (PUD).
2777
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 28 Table 5‐1: Minimum Parking Requirements
Use Parking Spaces Required
Multiple‐Family Dwellings:
• One‐Bedroom Unit 1.75 parking spaces per unit (at least one space shall be in a garage or carport)
• Two or more Bedroom Unit 2.0 parking spaces per unit (at least one space shall be in a garage or carport)
Guest Parking 1 Space per 5 dwellings
ii. On‐street Parking Requirements
On‐street parking may be utilized to satisfy guest parking requirements, subject to the following conditions:
a. On‐street parking may be used to satisfy guest parking requirements only, and shall not be used for required resident parking.
b. On‐street parking shall only be counted along the public streets surrounding the projectsite, on the side of the street adjoining the project, excluding the alley to the north of the site (West Vesta Street). c. On‐street parallel parking spaces shall be calculated by the length of unobstructed curb adjacent to the project site.
iii. Parking Standards
All parking space size and location requirements shall conform to the standards set forth in Section 6.03.045 (Off‐Street Parking Standards) of the Ontario Development Code.
2778
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 29 [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
2779
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 30

6. DESIGN GUIDELINES

6.1. 6.2.

6.3. 6.4.

Building Orientation and Streetscapes
Building orientation shall be designed to minimize noise impacts, aide in providing site safety, create proper accessibility to unit entries and parking garage areas.

Maximize views from each of the residential units. Design should be done in a way to maximize each unit’s ability to provide private and open space while prioritizing privacy for all tenants.

Architectural Character
The PUD Architectural style and design is a modern interpretation of the “Mediterranean” style. The design will provide gabled roofs, with clay tile eaves. lower roof pitch (3:12), rough sawn beams, and a roof well for mechanical equipment. The unit with street frontage will have a covered porch. The garage doors will have beam accents in the overhang above.

Architectural Details
The new building designed for this PUD, shall be consistent in design and detail with style throughout the project. Architectural details should complement and enhance openings and accentuate overall design of the buildings. Detailing can be achieved through the use of multi planes and recessed materials to create interesting exterior elevations.

Materials and Color
Materials and color scheme shall be compatible with, and complementary to the overall style of the development project. New Multiplex on the site will utilize light colors, pop outs and recesses to break up the building planes. Dark colored doors, trim, window casings, and sills will define openings and entries with black wrought iron accents at doors, eaves, gates and balconies. All colors shall be complementary to the architectural style and utilize primarily earth tones.

Materials specified will be a combination of smooth troweled stucco plaster and rough sawn exposed wood beams. A Mediterranean architectural style clay tile roof shall be used for the roof covering.
2780
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 31

6.5. On‐Site Lighting
i. Decorative light fixtures attached to the buildings shall be compatible with the architectural style of the buildings, shall be provided for this development. ii. All other on‐site lighting shall meet development standard of the Ontario Development Code.

6.6. Signage
Signs within the project area shall comply with the Division 8.01 (Sign Regulations) of the Ontario Development code.

6.7. Off Site Improvements
All off‐site improvements shall be installed in accordance with the City standards, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineering department. 2781
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 32 [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
2782
PUD ------ Fern Townhomes - 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ (Ordinance Page | 33

7. ADMINISTRATION

7.1. Items Not Addressed in PUD
Any terms, requirements, or regulations not addressed within this PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT document shall be governed by the City of Ontario Development Code, the regulations of the General Mixed Use zones and City Standards.

7.2. Development Applications
Development Plan approval, pursuant to the requirements of Ontario Development Code Section 4.02.025 (Development Plans), shall be required for the physical alteration of a lot, the construction of a building, or the addition or significant alteration of an existing building. A Development Plan application shall be submitted to the Planning Department on a City application form pursuant to the requirements of Ontario Development Code Division 2.02 (Application Filing and Processing), commencing with Subsection B (Discretionary Permits and Actions) of Section 2.02.015 (Application Processing Procedures).

7.3. Administrative Exceptions
Deviation from the development standards set forth in this document may be granted up to a maximum of 10 percent by the Zoning Administrator. Any deviation that is greater than 10 percent shall require variance approval. 2783
PUD-------Fern Townhomes 213 N. Fern Avenue PUD ‐ Page I 34 [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
2784
Department: Planning
Prepared By: Edmelynne V Hutter
Staff Member Presenting:

Scott Murphy, Executive Director Community
Development
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 18
SUBJECT: A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE THE USE OF AN ADDENDUM TO THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050

SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2021070364) AND A DEVELOPMENT PLAN (FILE NO. PDEV21-047) TO CONSTRUCT NINE INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS TOTALING 4,263,454 SQUARE FEET ON 216.36 GROSS ACRES (196.83 NET ACRES) OF LAND LOCATED EAST OF HAVEN

AVENUE, WEST OF DOUBLEDAY AND DUPONT AVENUES, NORTH OF JURUPA

STREET AND SOUTH OF AIRPORT DRIVE

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
March 21, 2023
SECTION:

PUBLIC HEARINGS
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council consider and adopt a Resolution upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of the use of an Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364) and Development Plan (File No. PDEV21-047) and deny the appeal.

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Invest in the Growth and Evolution of the City's Economy Operate in a Businesslike Manner
Invest in the City's Infrastructure (Water, Streets, Sewers, Parks, Storm Drains and Public Facilities)
FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed Development Plan will facilitate the development of nine industrial buildings totaling 4,263,454 square feet. This will result in a one-time payment to the City for permitting and plan check fees, development impact fees, as well as increase in on-going property tax revenue for the City.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS: On December 15, 2021, the Applicant, McDonald Property Group, submitted a Development Plan (PDEV21-047) application requesting approval to develop 216.36 gross acres (196.83 net acres) of land with nine industrial buildings totaling 4,263,454 square feet.

The project is located east of Haven Avenue, west of Doubleday and Dupont Avenues, north of Jurupa Street and south of Airport Drive, within the Light Industrial land use district of the California Commerce Center Specific Plan, hereinafter referred to as “Project” or “Application”. The full project description is provided in the January 24, 2023, Planning Commission Agenda Report for the Project 2785
(See Attachment B).

On January 4, 2023, the Development Advisory Board conducted a hearing to consider the Application and recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Project subject to conditions. On January 24, 2023, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the Application and the Development Advisory Board’s recommendation. Following a presentation of Staff’s findings and after receipt of all public correspondence and testimony, the Planning Commission considered the Project and unanimously voted (4-0) to adopt Resolution Nos. PC23- 007 and PC23-008, approving the use of an Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearing House No. 2021070364) and the Development Plan, respectively.

APPEAL: On February 3, 2023, an appeal, hereinafter referred to as “Appeal”, was submitted by the following organizations: Pomona Valley Audubon Society – Suzanne Thompson; Center for Biological Diversity – Hallie Kutak; Endangered Habitat League – Dan Silver; and Los Angeles Audubon Society – Travis Longcore, hereinafter referred to as “Appellant”. The Appellant is appealing the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the use of an Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and approval of File No. PDEV21-047. A copy of the Appeal application and Appellant statement is included as Exhibit 1 of this report. The Appellant includes three points as the basis of the Appeal, which are summarized below:

Appeal Basis #1: The Appeal states that there was an abuse of discretion in that the individuals from the public were allotted three minutes to speak, and the Project applicant requested additional time, and was allowed additional time and that other individuals from the public were also allotted three minutes to speak but were not offered more time.

Appeal Basis #2: The Appeal states that the decision was not supported by the record in that there were misstatements of fact regarding Burrowing Owls present on the Project site and provides the following counter arguments: [a] Burrowing Owls do not live in storm drains; [b] the Project site is appropriate habitat for the owls; [c] other conditions such as events, police motorcycle training, semi-truck driver training, car shows, photo shoots, and spraying along Carnegie Avenue are the cause of the owls’ decline; [d] owls are not a risk to airplane bird strikes, and that the Ontario International Airport should have a large raptor control program; [e] owls can be translocated as close as 10.5 miles away, which can help genetic diversity among owls in the area; and [f] pending litigation with OIAA needs to be settled before the City can approve the Project.

Appeal Basis #3: The Appeal states that there is inadequate accounting for greenhouse gas emissions and pollution and that The Ontario Plan 2050 Certified Environmental Impact Report does not adequately account for cumulative impacts of warehouse infrastructure, biodiversity loss, and loss of bio-productive land, and impacts the Project would have as a warehouse development.

Requested Relief: The Appellant is requesting relief as follows: [1] revoke the approval of PDEV21- 047; [2] produce and circulate an EIR specific to this project; [3] and to ensure that the City Council is the final body to approve the Project.
2786
RESPONSE TO THE APPEAL: The City and Applicant have reviewed the Appeal and responses are provided in the discussion below and in the Exhibits to this report.

Response to Appeal Basis #1: Appellant alleges that applicant Bruce McDonald was given additional time to speak after his time expired, while other speakers were given only three minutes, and, as such, the Planning Commission did not provide the public with a fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard. Appellant’s allegations are legally incorrect and do not amount to an abuse of discretion.

The Appellant states that the applicant “Bruce McDonald, was given a three-minute time frame for his remarks. He ran out of time, asked the chair for more time, and was granted additional time approximately double to what he had been allotted.” A review of a video of the January 24, 2023, Planning Commission meeting (available online at ontarioca.gov under: Agendas, Planning Commission, January 4, 2023) confirms that, after receiving a presentation by staff on Public Hearing Item D, PDEV21-047, the Chair of the Planning Commission called on the Applicant, Mr.

McDonald, to make the Applicant’s presentation (applicant presentations always proceed public comments in support or in opposition to the project under consideration at a public hearing held by the PC). He made his timed presentation and then asked the Chairperson for additional time to speak, however, the video confirms that he ultimately spoke only for five (5) minutes. Five (5) minutes is the amount of time the Planning Commission’s Rules and Procedures D.6(f) grants an applicant to speak at a public hearing and was granted additional time. Even if Appellant believes Mr. MacDonald should only have spoken for 3 minutes, a 5-minute presentation is consistent with the Planning Commission’s Rules and Procedures, and, further, Per Chaffee v San Francisco Public Library Comm’n (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 109, 115, the Chair of the Planning Commission may exercise reasonable discretion in departing from the normal time limits allocated to speakers. In addition, separate from his presentation, Mr. McDonald answered multiple questions posed by multiple members of the Commission. Mr. McDonald, as the applicant, also presented a timed rebuttal presentation at the end of the public hearing and then, separate from his rebuttal, answered multiple questions posed by multiple members of the Commission. Per Ribakoff v. City of Long Beach (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 150, 172, the Planning Commission may impose time limits on each member of general public but is not required to impose time limits on comments by Commission members and invited speakers. As such, the Planning Commission was not required to limit the amount of time given to the Commission members in asking their questions of Mr.

McDonald.

Appellant also alleges that the public expected to have five minutes each for comments “based on the meeting agenda and the Ontario Planning Commission Rules and Procedures” and that limiting the public’s comments to three minutes while allowing Mr. McDonald additional time violated the Brown Act. Appellant is incorrect. The January 24, 2023, Agenda states, with regard to Public Hearings: “Members of the public will then be allowed five (5) minutes each to speak, unless there are a number of person’s wishing to speak and then the Chairperson will allow only three (3) minutes, to accommodate for more persons.” Per Chaffee v San Francisco Public Library Comm’n (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 109, 115, the Chair of the Planning Commission may exercise reasonable discretion in departing from the normal time limits allocated to public speakers. Here the Agenda contained multiple substantive items and the meeting was over four hours long, making the Chair’s decision to restrict speaking time, an action which the public was apprised by Agenda could happen, entirely reasonable.
2787
Response to Appeal Basis #2: The Appeal states that the decision was not supported by the record in that there were misstatements of fact regarding Burrowing Owls present on the Project site. The Appeal provides counter arguments including: a) Burrowing Owls do not live in storm drains; b) the Project site is appropriate habitat for the owls however; c) other conditions such as events, police motorcycle training, semi-truck driver training, car shows, photo shoots, and spraying along Carnegie Avenue are the cause of the owls’ decline; d) owls are not a risk to airplane bird strikes, and that the Ontario International Airport should have a large raptor control program; e) owls can be translocated at close as 10.5 miles away, which can help genetic diversity among owls in the area; and f) there is a pending lawsuit that could affect the Project and could put the City of Ontario at legal risk if the Project is approved. The following discussion addresses each sub-item above.

Response to Appeal Basis #2a, 2b, 2e: ELMT Consulting, the Applicant’s biologist consultant, prepared a response to the Appellant’s assertion that Burrowing Owls do not live in storm drains, that the Project site is appropriate habitat for Burrowing Owls, and that owls can be translocated closer to the Project site. The response from ELMT refutes the assertions and includes photographs showing evidence of owls in and around the storm drain inlet pipe including owl pellets, whitewash and use of a perch installed next to the inlet pipe. In addition, ELMT states that the Project site, as a habitat, would not be able to support owls in perpetuity because the Project site is surrounded by development and is essentially an island of undeveloped land. Other translocation efforts in the region, where the designated habitat is surrounded by development, were ultimately unsuccessful because the owls did not have the ability to safely disperse away from and into these areas, and that the same situation will likely present itself in this Project site.

The supporting studies conclude that the most appropriate solution to this safety issue is to relocate the owl from the project site to a safer site in some other location. The Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan ("Relocation Plan") prepared for the HUB OIA Project outlines a way to successfully achieve such relocation. The Appellant also provides erroneous information on the current and historic state of owls in the City, and more importantly, on the project site. The analysis included in the Addendum and TOP EIR adequately addresses the project’s potential impact on owls. As explained therein, the applicant will comply with the City’s existing regulations and TOP policies through implementation of a Relocation Plan, which is based on the most recent site-specific technical studies. Compliance with these requirements will ensure potential impacts to owls are less than significant. The Appellant's claims to the contrary are thus hyperbolic and inaccurate.

Response to Appeal Basis #2c: Regarding the Appellant's claim about events and activities taking place at the Project site, the City has not approved Temporary Use Permits for temporary events at the Project site. In regard to the Appellant’s statement that pesticide was being sprayed on burrow openings, in 2020 the City was made aware of the observed activity and investigated. It was determined that the activity observed was a City contractor conducting weed abatement activities and was spraying adjacent to the street curb within the public right-of-way and the contractor was instructed to avoid spraying along those streets.

Response to Appeal Basis #2d: The Appeal stated that Burrowing Owls are not a danger to aircraft.

However, the Federal Aviation Administration National Wildlife Strike Database documents 17 strike incidents that involve Burrowing Owls. The Wildlife Strike Database includes information and incidents of bird strikes reported by pilots, and/or discovery of remains or partial remains during 2788
aircraft inspections and runway inspections. Burrowing Owl bird strikes do occur at Ontario International Airport and risks to aircraft and risks to the owls exist. The Federal Aviation Administration issued Advisory Circular No. 150-5200-33C, which states in Section 2.8.4 that "Other Hazardous Wildlife Attractants. Other land uses (e.g., conservation easements, parks, wildlife management areas) or activities not addressed in this AC may have the potential to attract hazardous wildlife. Regardless of the source of the attraction, when hazardous wildlife is noted on a public-use airport, each certificate holder must take prompt remedial action(s) to protect aviation safety and all non-certified airports should take prompt remedial action(s) to protect aviation safety."
On behalf of the Applicant, Mead & Hunt, Inc. prepared a response, dated February 21, 2023, addressing the Appellant’s claim that the wildlife hazard information included in the January 4, 2023, Planning Commission Agenda Report made misstatements about Burrowing Owls and the hazards they pose for aircraft. The Mead & Hunt response provides and reiterates that Federal Aviation Administration data shows that 410 incidents nationwide involve Burrow Owl strikes, with 17 occurring at Ontario International Airport. The response goes on to explain that, as required, the Ontario International Airport Authority has prepared and maintains an FAA-approved Wildlife Hazard Management Plan to address raptors and other species identified as posing a hazard to aircraft. The Wildlife Hazard Management Plan includes responsibilities, policies and procedures to identify and abate wildlife hazards within the airfield and wildlife attractants in the surrounding area. In other words, the Ontario International Airport Authority, in compliance with the Federal Aviation Administration requirements, has a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan in place that includes raptor control.

Response to Appeal Basis #2f: The City is not involved in any litigation over the property and/or the Project. Rather, Inland Valley Advocates filed a legal challenge against OIAA and CanAm Ontario, LLC (an affiliate of McDonald). The City was not named in the lawsuit.

Response to Appeal Basis #3: The Appeal objects to the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions and pollution in the TOP 2050 EIR and to the “lack of attention to the Project’s cumulative impacts as they relate to noise pollution, air quality, and truck trips." The City Council certified TOP EIR (SCH # 2021070364) which analyzed the direct and physical changes in the environment that would be caused by implementation of TOP; focusing on changes to land use associated with the buildout of the proposed land use plan, and impacts resultant of population and employment growth in the City. The project proposes land uses consistent with TOP 2050. The significant unavoidable adverse impacts that were identified in TOP EIR included: agriculture resources, air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, noise and transportation/traffic.

To the extent that Appellants restate their objections to the TOP 2050 EIR, such objections are not appropriately before the City Council in this Appeal as the TOP 2050 EIR has been certified, the TOP 2050 approved, and those actions are now final and beyond challenge. Accordingly, the only question that may be considered by the City when evaluating the Project is whether one of the three exceptions triggering the need for a subsequent or supplemental EIR in CEQA Guidelines 15164 and 15162 exists.
2789
Based on the conclusions of the previously certified TOP EIR, the analysis in the Project Addendum, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, including Sections 15164 and 15162, the Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary, nor is there a need for additional mitigation with implementation of the number of conditions of approval required by the City based on the results of the site-specific technical studies for burrowing owl and airport safety.

The Appeal provides no substantial evidence that the Project’s impacts (whether project-level or cumulative) as to any environmental topic analyzed in the Addendum will result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR, nor any substantial evidence that any changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary, nor a need for additional mitigation.

The Project will be subject to all applicable mitigation measures adopted by the City with regard to the TOP 2050 EIR, including a number of conditions of approval required by the City per the TOP 2050 EIR and based on the results of the site-specific technical studies for burrowing owl and airport safety.
2790
2791
2792
2793
2794
2795
2796
2797
2798
2799
2800
2801
2802
2803
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 | Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543 Telephone: 213.622.5555 | Facsimile: 213.620.8816
www.allenmatkins.com
Heather S. Riley
File Number: 391180.00001/4873-9335-9953.1
Los Angeles | Orange County | San Diego | Century City | San Francisco Allen Matkins
Via Electronic Mail
February 28, 2023
Paul S. Leon, Mayor
Debra Porada, Mayor Pro Tem
Alan D. Wapner, Council Member
Jim W. Bowman, Council Member
Ruben Valencia, Council Member
City of Ontario, City Council
Ontario City Hall
303 East “B” Street
Ontario, CA 91764
Re: March 21, 2023 City Council Hearing
The HUB at Ontario International Airport
Appeal of File No. PDEV21-047
Dear Mayor Leon, Mayor Pro Tem Porada and Council Members Wapner, Bowman and Valencia:

This letter is submitted on behalf of McDonald Property Group (McDonald), the applicant of the HUB at Ontario International Airport (Project). As you are aware, the City of Ontario (City) Planning Commission unanimously approved the Project on January 24, 2023, and an appeal of that decision was submitted on February 3, 2023 (Appeal).

The Appeal raises a number of arguments in opposition to the Project. The abuse of discretion claims are best addressed by City staff so those are not addressed in this correspondence.

Instead, this letter focuses on the substantive issues raised by the appellants, all of which were properly rejected by the Planning Commission. We urge you to do the same for the reasons outlined below.

The Appeal claims that a number of misstatements were made at Planning Commission regarding the burrowing owls that currently inhabit the Project site. Those arguments, which address the occupancy of a site adjacent to the Ontario International Airport and McDonald’s proposed relocation plans, were soundly rejected by the Planning Commission. That decision was based on a lengthy discussion at the January 24, 2023 hearing, as well as the following correspondence:
2804
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Paul S. Leon, Mayor
February 28, 2023

Page 2 ends

• January 18, 2023 letter from Allen Matkins regarding the Coalition for Biological Diversity comment letter, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A; • January 18, 2023 letter from Allen Matkins regarding the coalition comment letter, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B;
• January 18, 2023 memo from MIG Riverside, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C;
• January 18, 2023 letter from Ontario International Airport Authority (OIAA), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit D;
• January 18, 2023 comments from ELMT Consulting, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit E; and
• January 18, 2023 letter from Mead & Hunt , a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit F.

Further support for the Planning Commission’s decision can be found in the attached comments provided by ELMT Consulting (Exhibit G), Mead & Hunt (Exhibit H) and Urban Crossroads (Exhibit I), which were prepared in response to the claims made in the Appeal.

As repeatedly explained in the above documents, the Project site cannot continue to support burrowing owls; the owls must be removed to a distant location; airport operations have been and will be negatively impacted by the owls’ ongoing presence; the Project’s potential environmental impacts were properly analyzed in an Addendum to The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Environmental Impact Report (EIR); the statute of limitations for challenges to TOP EIR has long passed; and, most importantly, the Project will not result in new or more severe significant and unmitigated impacts than those disclosed in TOP EIR. Appellants consistently ignore these facts and simply restate the same invalid arguments. The record undoubtedly supports the Planning Commission’s unanimous decision.

Finally, the day of the Planning Commission hearing, a coalition of opponents argued – for the very first time – that “the City of Ontario is in the midst of a lawsuit regarding the same property and project” and therefore, “proceeding with the project before the lawsuit is resolved could put the Commission and/or the City of Ontario at risk of legal action.” Appellants are absolutely mistaken – the City is not a party to any such litigation and the obliquely referenced lawsuit does not have an effect on this entitlement process. 2805
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Paul S. Leon, Mayor
February 28, 2023

Page 3 ends

First, the City is not involved in any litigation over the property and/or the Project. Rather, Inland Valley Advocates filed a legal challenge against OIAA and CanAm Ontario, LLC (an affiliate of McDonald). As can be seen in the Verified First Amended Complaint, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit J, the City was not named in the lawsuit.

Second, the litigation alleged a violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) when the OIAA adopted a resolution, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit K, that authorized a Development and Entitlement Agreement (Agreement) on December 23, 2021. The Agreement allowed CanAm the authority to submit an application to the City seeking entitlements for a proposed warehouse development on the Project site. Only after (1) the City’s approval process was complete, (2) all necessary CEQA review was conducted by the City, and (3) all other agency approvals were received, would the OIAA consider executing a ground lease for the Project site. This litigation does not have any effect on the City’s pending process; in fact, the exact opposite is true – the OIAA cannot and will not move forward with a ground lease unless or until the City and other interested agencies approve the Project. As such, appellants’ claims are erroneous and should be rejected out of hand.

In sum, we request that you disregard appellants’ inaccurate and inapplicable claims, deny the Appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision. McDonald and its consultant teams will be present at the appeal hearing should additional questions arise. We thank you in advance for your consideration and look forward to being development of the site in the near future.

Very truly yours,
Heather S. Riley
HSR:ptl
cc: Sheila Mautz, City Clerk
2806

EXHIBIT A
2807
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
One America Plaza
600 West Broadway, 27th Floor | San Diego, CA 92101-0903 Telephone: 619.233.1155 | Facsimile: 619.233.1158
www.allenmatkins.com
Heather S. Riley
E-mail: [email protected]
Direct Dial: 619.235.1564 File Number: 391180.00001/4854-6956-1929.2 Los Angeles | Orange County | San Diego | Century City | San Francisco Allen Matkins
Via Electronic Mail
January 18, 2023
Jim Willoughby, Chairperson
Nancy DeDiemar, Vice Chairperson
Guadalupe Anderson
Ken Dean
Rick Gage
D’Andre Lampkin
Nicola Ricci
City of Ontario, Planning Commission
Ontario City Hall
303 East “B” Street
Ontario, CA 91764
Re: January 24, 2023 Planning Commission Hearing
The HUB at Ontario International Airport
Environmental Assessment and Development Plan Review
(File No. PDEV21-047)
Honorable Chairperson Willoughby and Members of the Planning Commission:

This letter is submitted on behalf of McDonald Property Group (McDonald), the applicant of the HUB at Ontario International Airport (Project), in response to the January 3, 2023 letter of the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD Letter). The CBD Letter was submitted to the City of Ontario (City) the morning of the Development Advisory Board (DAB) hearing on the Project.

The CBD Letter displays a marked misunderstanding of planning and zoning law, as well as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP), which constitutes the City’s General Plan, considered full buildout of the City, including development of the exact proposed industrial uses on the Project site. The associated CEQA analysis addressed all potential impacts associated with buildout. There can be no question that the Project, which is proposed on an industrial designated site, was explicitly contemplated in TOP, and thus, the Project was adequately analyzed in the environmental impact report (EIR) certified for TOP.

Consistent with CEQA, the Addendum to the Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report (Addendum) prepared for the Project determines – based on the information included within the text and its appendices – that the Project will not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than were previously analyzed in TOP EIR. Nothing more is required by CEQA, despite the CBD’s Letter’s erroneous claims to the contrary.
2808
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Jim Willoughby, Chairperson
January 18, 2023

Page 2 ends

With regard to the Project’s potential biological impacts, the Addendum includes a complete review. As explained therein, the Project will comply with the City’s existing regulations and TOP policies through implementation of a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan, which was prepared based on the most recent site-specific technical studies, copies of which are included in Appendix B to the Addendum. Compliance with these requirements will ensure potential impacts to owls are less than significant.

Moreover, the Addendum includes an extensive Project-specific air quality analysis, which was completely ignored by the commenter. As explained therein:

A detailed air quality assessment (AQ Study) of the proposed project was conducted by Urban Crossroads in February 2022, to identify project-specific air pollutant impacts and recommend additional mitigation if necessary (i.e., other than those applicable measures already identified in TOP EIR). The AQ Study (Appendix A) determined the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality [threshold] because the project is consistent with the existing Industrial designation in the CCC SP. (Addendum, p. 34.) Similarly, the Addendum includes a thorough analysis of the Project’s potential impacts on nearby sensitive receptors, which was also overlooked by the CBD Letter. (See, Addendum, p. 39.) If CBD disagreed with TOP EIR’s certified air quality analysis, it was required to raise those concerns at the time the plan was approved in August of 2022. Since the Project would not result in any new or more significant air quality impacts than those analyzed in TOP EIR, no further analysis and/or mitigation is required at this time.

In light of the above responses, coupled with the information submitted by biological, aviation and air quality experts, the CBD Letter should be rejected. We therefore respectfully request that the Planning Commission approve the Addendum and the Development Plan, File No.

PDEV21-047. McDonald and its consultant team will be present should questions arise during the Planning Commission hearing. We thank you in advance for your consideration.

Very truly yours,
Heather S. Riley
HSR:ptl
cc: Scott Ochoa, City Manager
Rudy Zeladon, Planning Director
Edmelynne Hutter, Senior Planner
2809

EXHIBIT B
2810
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
One America Plaza
600 West Broadway, 27th Floor | San Diego, CA 92101-0903 Telephone: 619.233.1155 | Facsimile: 619.233.1158
www.allenmatkins.com
Heather S. Riley
E-mail: [email protected]
Direct Dial: 619.235.1564 File Number: . /0.0
Allen Matkins
Via Electronic Mail
January 18, 2023
Jim Willoughby, Chairperson
Nancy DeDiemar, Vice Chairperson
Guadalupe Anderson
Ken Dean
Rick Gage
D’Andre Lampkin
Nicola Ricci
City of Ontario, Planning Commission
Ontario City Hall
303 East “B” Street
Ontario, CA 91764
Re: January 24, 2023 Planning Commission Hearing
The HUB at Ontario International Airport
Environmental Assessment and Development Plan Review
(File No. PDEV21-047)
Honorable Chairperson Willoughby and Members of the Planning Commission:

This letter is submitted on behalf of McDonald Property Group (McDonald), the applicant of the HUB at Ontario International Airport (Project), in response to the January 4, 2023 letter submitted by a coalition of entities, including among others, the Robert Redford Conservancy for Southern California Sustainability and the Pomona Valley Audubon Society (Coalition Letter). The Coalition Letter was submitted to the City of Ontario (City) the morning of the Development Advisory Board (DAB) hearing on the Project.

At the outset, it is important to note that comments regarding the adequacy of the environmental impact report (EIR) prepared for The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP) are untimely and irrelevant. If the authors of the Coalition Letter disagreed with the City’s overall planning decisions, those concerns needed to be raised prior to August 16, 2022, the date the City Council certified that analysis. Opponents cannot use this Project to collaterally attack TOP EIR – they are five months too late. Moreover, any letters that were submitted to the City as part of TOP process cannot be relied upon at this time – those unknown claims are immaterial to the current discussion. 2811
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Jim Willoughby, Chairperson
January 18, 2023

Page 2 ends

The Coalition Letter raises a number of arguments about the adequacy of the Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report (Addendum) prepared for the Project. The majority of the claims are conclusory in nature and a number are flat out wrong. For instance, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not limit the type of document that can be prepared on the basis of so-called “topics of controversy.” The Coalition Letter completely misstates CEQA on that point.

Similarly, the City is not relying on a CEQA exemption to approve the Project.

Addendums, which are allowed under CEQA Guidelines section 15164, are totally unrelated to any statutory and/or categorical exemptions permitted under other provisions of CEQA and/or the CEQA Guidelines.

Likewise, the CEQA cases obliquely referenced in the Coalition Letter are inapplicable.

Merely noting caselaw without including an actual citation is improper, particularly where, as here, the case names and/or years are wrong in every instance. Even if we grant the Coalition Letter authors the benefit of the doubt, none of the closest approximations of potentially referenced cases involve an addendum and therefore, none apply to the current situation.

The Coalition Letter also presents a disingenuous and absolutely wrong argument when it claims that “piggy backing” on the environmental review completed for a General Plan limits the ability of the City’s elected officials to review individual land use decisions. There can be no question that the City Council fully understood that it was approving buildout of the City under TOP, it is indisputable that this Project is consistent with the goals and vision of that Citywide planning document and therefore, the potential environmental impacts of the Project were fully analyzed in TOP EIR. Consistent with the requirements of CEQA, the Addendum documents those facts and demonstrates that the Project will not result in any new or more severe impacts.

If an interested party disagrees with the Addendum’s conclusions and/or this Planning Commission’s ultimate decision on the Project, those individuals have the ability to file an administrative appeal. In that instance, the City Council will indeed have the opportunity to weigh in on this specific Project.

As for the public’s involvement in the democratic process, numerous opportunities to weigh in on this Project have and will continue to occur, including the DAB hearing, this Planning Commission and, as noted, in the event of an appeal, City Council. In fact, robust public participation is already evidenced by the submission of numerous comment letters to the DAB.

Next, the Coalition Letter presents inaccurate information on the current status of regional warehouse development and onsite burrowing owls. As to the WAREHOUSE CITY tool mentioned in the Coalition Letter, the website includes a number of caveats and is “based on best 2812
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Jim Willoughby, Chairperson
January 18, 2023

Page 3 ends

available information.”1 To that point, the mapping tool was not generated based on site specific data; instead general data was accumulated based on parcel size, use codes and land use categories to calculate a “best guess” situation that has an admitted “number of limitations.”2 The usefulness of the tool is therefore severely limited.

With regard to the burrowing owl, the Coalition Letter does not take into account the recent focused studies that were conducted for the Project site.3 Nor does the letter consider the fact that the Project site is located immediately adjacent to the Ontario International Airport (OIA) and within Safety Zone 1 (Runway Protection Zone), Safety Zone 2 (Inner Approach/Departure Zone) and Safety Zone 3 (Inner Turning Zone). The studies, combined with the information contained in the attached June 13, 2022 letter from the Ontario International Airport Authority to the Pomona Valley Audubon Society (an author of the Coalition Letter), demonstrate that the owls must be relocated to another, safer site.

Furthermore, contrary to the claims made in the Coalition Letter, the analysis included in the Addendum and TOP EIR adequately address the Project’s potential impact on owls. As explained therein, McDonald will comply with the City’s existing regulations and TOP policies through implementation of a Burrowing Owl Relocation Program, which was developed based on sitespecific technical studies. Compliance with these requirements will ensure potential impacts to burrowing owl are less than significant.

The Coalition Letter presents information claiming that ongoing OIA operations will result in increased greenhouse gas (GHG) emission impacts. Those claims are irrelevant to the current analysis, which considers the Project’s potential impact on the environment. Even if the claims were appropriate, and they are not, the City previously considered cumulative GHG emissions impacts. Notably, TOP EIR concluded that full buildout, which includes this Project, would result in significant direct and cumulative GHG emission impacts. Thus a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) was approved by the City Council when TOP EIR was certified.4

In fact, McDonald will implement a number of project design features to reduce GHG emissions as outlined in the City’s GHG Reduction Measures Screening Threshold Table, attached to the Addendum as Appendix A-2. The Coalition Letter ignores this information, which is clearly stated in the Addendum, and decries the City’s failure to consider cumulative impacts “at a broader scale.” Full buildout of the City is the absolute broadest scale possible for the analysis of potential 1 https://www.pitzer.edu/redfordconservancy/mapping-data-visualization/ 2 https://radicalresearch.shinyapps.io/WarehouseCITY/
3 Copies of these studies are included in Appendix B to the Addendum. 4 The Coalition Letter claims that the Project itself will result in significant and unmitigated impacts. That is simply not true. Buildout would cause significant and unmitigated Citywide impacts and therefore, the City Council adopted a SOC when TOP EIR was certified. 2813
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Jim Willoughby, Chairperson
January 18, 2023

Page 4 ends

GHG impacts. Nothing more is required by CEQA, despite the Coalition Letter’s erroneous claims to the contrary.

Similarly, general comments on industrial development as a whole are irrelevant to this current CEQA process. The authors of the Coalition Letter may disapprove of the City’s planning efforts, but that disapproval is not a valid criticism of this Addendum. And, in any event, the Addendum includes an evaluation of all of the Project’s potential environmental impacts, including noise, air quality and transportation. Vague and unsupported complaints about impacts allegedly associated with warehouse development must therefore be rejected.

Finally, complaints about the timing of the release of Project documents are misplaced. The City complied with all applicable state and local requirements, and even if the City erred – which it did not – there was no prejudice. The Coalition Letter and many others were submitted, considered and rejected by the DAB.

As can be seen, the Coalition Letter presents a host of misinformation. When viewed in the proper context, and in light of the information submitted by biological, aviation and other subjectmatter experts, the Coalition Letter should be dismissed out of hand.

We therefore respectfully request that the Planning Commission approve the Addendum and the Development Plan, File No. PDEV21-047. McDonald and its consultant team will be present should questions arise during the Planning Commission hearing. We thank you in advance for your consideration.

Very truly yours,
Heather S. Riley
HSR:ptl
Attachment
cc: Scott Ochoa, City Manager
Rudy Zeladon, Planning Director
Edmelynne Hutter, Senior Planner
2814
2815
2816

EXHIBIT C
2817

to Rudy Zeledon, Planning Director
from Kent Norton, AICP, REPA, MIG Riverside
re The HUB at Ontario International Airport Project
date January 18, 2023
On January 3-4, 2023 a group of environmental organizations and 44 individuals submitted comment letters or emails on Environmental Assessment and Development Plan PDEV21-047 under consideration by the City’s Development Advisory Board (DAB) on January 4. The development under consideration is referred to as the HUB at Ontario International Airport (HUB OIA Project) The following addresses the various comments and issues raised in those letters. The letters are also attached to this memo for reference. This information is provided to the Planning Commission for its deliberation on this project.

LETTER 1: JOINT ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS LETTER/SUSAN PHILLPS ET AL Comment 1 (Pages 1-4). Their first major issue was the proposed use of an Addendum to The Ontario Plan (TOP) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (Addendum) as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation for the proposed HUB OIA Project.

The commenter also refers to the City relying on a CEQA exemption. That is not the case here and such comments misstate the applicable law. An addendum, which is allowed under CEQA Guidelines section 15164, is totally unrelated to any statutory and/or categorical exemptions allowed under other provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

The commenter does not acknowledge that an addendum can be the appropriate CEQA compliance document for a project that is consistent with the General Plan and zoning when it can be demonstrated a project will not result in new or more significant impacts that those that were already examined in the EIR for which the addendum is prepared. The Addendum does just that.

In this case, the use of an addendum is appropriate as the HUB OIA Project is consistent with TOP land use designations and City zoning, therefore the potential impacts of the HUB OIA Project have been accounted for in TOP EIR.

In addition, general comments on industrial development in the City as a whole are irrelevant to this current CEQA process. Furthermore, the Addendum includes an evaluation of all of the project’s potential environmental impacts, including noise, air quality and transportation. Vague and unsupported complaints about impacts allegedly associated with warehouse development in general are simply incorrect.
2818
MIG, Inc. 2
Comment 2 (Page 3). The commenter expresses concern that the project has “topics of controversy” and so a separate EIR should be prepared. The commenter states….”If a topic of controversy exists regarding a proposed project, this can counter the use of a CEQA Determination Motion.” However, the commenter is citing CEQA incorrectly. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(f)(4) states…”The existence of public controversy over the environmental effects of a project will not require preparation of an EIR if there is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.” The key determinate is providing substantial evidence that there will be no significant impacts. In this case, the Addendum prepared for the HUB OIA Project provides substantial evidence, supported by information from TOP and TOP EIR, and a number of technical studies cited in the Addendum, to demonstrate the HUB OIA Project will not have new or more significant impacts on the environment that were not already evaluated in TOP EIR. This includes several studies on burrowing owl (owl) as well as air quality and health risk impacts of the project.

Comment 3 (Page 4). The commenter states…”There are significant impacts that can and should be mitigated but have not been properly considered. The City may not adopt a statement of overriding consideration to approve a project where feasible, less environmentally damaging alternatives exist and feasible mitigation measures have not been considered or adopted.” The commenter also argues the City must “deny approval of a project with significant adverse effects when feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures can substantially lessen such effects.” This comment fails to acknowledge the provision in CEQA for a lead agency to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) if the benefits of a project or plan outweigh the identified significant impacts. In this case the City Council adopted an SOC for TOP EIR.

The comment fails to acknowledge the City Council already adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations when it approved TOP, and the proposed HUB OIA Project is consistent with TOP land use designation for the site.

In addition, the comments on the adequacy of TOP EIR are untimely and irrelevant. If these groups disapproved of that document, they were required to raise those issues when the matter was before the City Council. Opponents cannot use this project to attack the certified TOP 2050 EIR now.

Criticisms on the City’s overall planning efforts are misplaced in the current context of a single project, one which has long been planned and allowed on this project site (i.e., CCCSP and TOP). Further, unnamed comment letters supposedly submitted regarding TOP 2050 EIR are immaterial, particularly when they are not provided to the City at this time.

Comment 4 (Page 5). The commenter argues that development of the HUB OIA Project will have irreparable impacts on the owl. The commenter argues that the project site is a critical part of the owl’s habitat in the region and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) actually encourages wildlife like the owl to co-exist on airport properties.

However, the various technical studies1 on the owl and airport safety clearly demonstrate that the project site (i.e., just east of OIA and under normal landing pattern operations) is absolutely not safe 1 Addendum Appendix B, BUOW Reports (Helix-Kidd 2020), BUOW site surveys (Helix or Wood 2019-2022), BUOW Relocation Plan (ELMT 2022), and Appendix E, Airport Safety Report (Mead & Hunt 1-2022) 2819
MIG, Inc. 3
(i.e., harmful) for both airport aircraft and the owls. Owls may not fly high enough to directly cause aircraft accidents as cited by the commenter. However, the presence of owls in this location attracts larger birds of prey into the landing airspace of OIA which does represent a safety hazard both for aircraft damage and potential injury/loss of life for passengers/crew. Without removing the attractor prey species, it is unlikely a raptor management program would be successful over the long-term.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides Wildlife Services (WS) through its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) program for airports to help prevent and resolve wildlife conflicts that threaten public health and safety from concentrated populations of birds and other wildlife at or near airports contribute to wildlife strikes. The Airport Wildlife Hazards Program2 supports an airport when preparing a Wildlife Hazards Management Plan (WMP) to document an airport’s wildlife hazards and how the airport plans to address and manage them. It guides operations, defines roles of airport personnel, and details training to reduce risks. A WMP often involves a variety of methods to resolve wildlife conflicts including the following:
o Habitat Modification — Altering vegetation and water, creating fences and barriers, and other activities to make the airport unattractive to wildlife. o Active Dispersal — Scaring and hazing wildlife away from airport environments. o Trapping and Relocation — Capturing and moving animals can be used for some species when legally allowed and feasible (e.g., hawks and owls). o Lethal Removal —Lethal removal may be used in some situations for the protection of the flying public and crew. Lethal removal is permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state wildlife agencies under airport depredation permits.

The OIA strives to meet APHIS requirements for wildlife management to minimize risks and hazards to aircraft and their passengers and crews. On February 21, 2021, Michelle Brantley, the Director of Planning for OIA, stated in an email to Suzanne Thompson with the Audubon Society, that “the biologist’s assessment [for the HUB project] concludes the only viable alternative is active relocation of the owls more than 10,000 feet away from the airport. I did discuss the draft report with the FAA.

My contacts emphatically agreed with the assessment and reinforced that they would not allow any mitigation within 10,000 feet of the airport.”
The supporting studies1 conclude that the most appropriate solution to this safety issue is to relocate the owl from the project site to a safer site in some other location. The Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan (Relocation Plan) prepared for the HUB OIA Project outlines a way to successfully achieve such relocation (see Appendix B).

The commenter also provides erroneous information on the current and historic state of owls in the City, and more importantly, on the project site. The analysis included in the Addendum and TOP EIR 2 USDA WS APHIS WMP Website
https://www.bing.com/search?q=USDA%20APHIS%20wildlife%20management%20plans%20for%20airports&msbd=%7B%22tri ggeringMode%22%3A%22Explicit%22%2C%22intent%22%3A%22UserHistory%22%7D&form=BFBBQF&cvid=B43D24A1DAF C42E8B9C5A09CBAE3E636&sp=3&ghc=1
2820
MIG, Inc. 4
adequately addresses the project’s potential impact on owls. As explained therein, the applicant will comply with the City’s existing regulations and TOP policies through implementation of a Relocation Plan, which is based on the most recent site-specific technical studies. Compliance with these requirements will ensure potential impacts to owls are less than significant. Opponents’ claims to the contrary are thus hyperbolic and inaccurate.

Comment 5 (Pages 5-7). The commenter next argues the project will have cumulative impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and habitat loss.

The commenter fails to acknowledge TOP EIR did examine these cumulative issues at City buildout, and the HUB OIA Project is consistent with TOP. Therefore, potential cumulative air quality, GHG, and habitat impacts of this project have already been addressed in TOP EIR and a SOC was adopted by the City Council as allowed under CEQA.

In addition, the information provided regarding ongoing airport operations and the allegedly resulting GHG impacts is irrelevant to the current analysis, which considers a single project’s potential impacts on the environment. TOP EIR concluded that buildout of the City, including this project, would result in significant direct and cumulative GHG emission impacts and thus, a SOC was approved by the City Council. The project site was analyzed in TOP EIR as an industrial site and the applicant will implement a number of project design features to reduce GHG emissions as outlined in the City’s GHG Reduction Measures Screening Threshold Table, attached to the Addendum as Appendix A2. Opponents ignore this information, which is clearly stated in the Addendum, and decry the City’s failure to consider cumulative impacts “at a broader scale.” Full buildout of the City is the absolute broadest scale possible for the analysis of potential GHG impacts. Opponents may dislike the City’s GHG analysis, but it does not diminish the fact that the analysis demanded by opponents was completed and TOP 2050 EIR was certified without challenge.

Comment 6 (Pages 7-9). The commenter states, within evidentiary support, that TOP EIR mitigation for owl impacts has not been successful (i.e., collection of new development fees to purchase habitat).

Regardless, however, a separate Relocation Plan has been prepared specially for this HUB OIA Project, and thus, a generic in-lieu fee is inapplicable. The Relocation Plan, which will be overseen by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), will govern before, during, and after project implementation to assure successful relocation of the owls from the unsafe project site.

In fact, no evidence was presented to show the Relocation Plan would result in alleged impacts, such as loss of biodiversity, avoiding inbreeding of dispersed juveniles, and/or cumulative impacts on owl populations. Moreover, the comments fail to acknowledge any benefits that may accrue from relocating owls from the project site, including survival of owls now and in the future.

Based on information in TOP, TOP EIR, and several technical studies3 prepared by qualified professionals (see Appendix B), the Relocation Plan is the most appropriate way to provide for the 3 Addendum Appendix B, BUOW Reports (Helix-Kidd 2020), BUOW site surveys (Helix or Wood 2019-2022), BUOW Relocation Plan (ELMT 2022), and Appendix E, Airport Safety Report (Mead & Hunt 1-2022) 2821
MIG, Inc. 5
long-term survival of the owls consistent with Policies ER5-1 and ER5-2 in TOP, as cited in the Addendum.

Letter 1 Summary. These responses, TOP, TOP EIR, the Addendum, and the various supporting technical studies1, provide substantial evidence that the HUB OIA Project will not have any new or more significant impacts than those identified in TOP EIR, and therefore, the Addendum satisfies the intent and requirements of CEQA.

LETTER 2: ANA RODRIGUEZ
Comment 1 (Email Page 1). The commenter makes a number of claims about owls relative to the HUB OIA Project. The commenter argues that owls are being “driven out of the City” and that a 90- acre preserve on the project site is needed to protect the owls.

The various technical studies4 on the owls and airport safety clearly demonstrate that the project site (i.e., just east of OIA and under normal landing pattern operations) is absolutely not safe (i.e., harmful) for both airport aircraft and the owls. The supporting studies3 conclude that the most appropriate solution to this safety issue is to relocate the owls from the project site to a safer site in some other location. That is why a separate Relocation Plan has been prepared specially for this HUB OIA Project, and thus, a generic in-lieu fee is not applicable. The Relocation Plan, which will be overseen by the CDFW, will govern before, during, and after project implementation to assure successful relocation of the owls from the unsafe project site.

No evidence was presented to show the Relocation Plan would result in alleged impacts, such as loss of biodiversity, avoiding inbreeding of dispersed juveniles, and/or cumulative impacts on owl populations. Moreover, the comments fail to acknowledge any benefits that may accrue from relocating owls from the project site, including survival of owls now and in the future.

Based on information in TOP, TOP EIR, and several technical studies3 prepared by qualified professionals, the Relocation Plan is the most appropriate way to provide for the long-term survival of the owls consistent with Policies ER5-1 and ER5-2 in TOP, as cited in the Addendum.

Letter 2 Summary. This response, TOP, TOP EIR, the Addendum, and the various supporting technical studies3, provide substantial evidence that the HUB OIA Project will not have any new or more significant impacts than those identified in TOP EIR, and therefore, the Addendum satisfies the intent and requirements of CEQA.
4 Addendum Appendix B, BUOW Reports (Helix-Kidd 2020), BUOW site surveys (Helix or Wood 2019-2022), BUOW Relocation Plan (ELMT 2022), and Appendix E, Airport Safety Report (Mead & Hunt 1-2022) 2822
MIG, Inc. 6
LETTER 3: BARBARA BARTON
Comment 1 (Email Page 1). The commenter makes a number of claims about owls relative to the HUB OIA Project. The commenter argues that owls are being “driven out of the City” and that a 90- acre preserve on the project site is needed to protect the owls.

The various technical studies5 on the owls and airport safety clearly demonstrate that the project site (i.e., just east of OIA and under normal landing pattern operations) is absolutely not safe (i.e., harmful) for both airport aircraft and the owls. Owls may not fly high enough to directly cause aircraft accidents as cited by the commenter. However, the presence of owls in this location attracts larger birds of prey into the landing airspace of OIA which does represent a safety hazard both for aircraft damage and potential injury/loss of life for passengers/crew. Without removing the attractor prey species, it is unlikely a raptor management program would be successful over the long-term.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides Wildlife Services (WS) through its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) program for airports to help prevent and resolve wildlife conflicts that threaten public health and safety from concentrated populations of birds and other wildlife at or near airports contribute to wildlife strikes. The Airport Wildlife Hazards Program6 supports an airport when preparing a Wildlife Hazards Management Plan (WMP) to document an airport’s wildlife hazards and how the airport plans to address and manage them. It guides operations, defines roles of airport personnel, and details training to reduce risks. A WMP often involves a variety of methods to resolve wildlife conflicts including the following:
o Habitat Modification — Altering vegetation and water, creating fences and barriers, and other activities to make the airport unattractive to wildlife. o Active Dispersal — Scaring and hazing wildlife away from airport environments. o Trapping and Relocation — Capturing and moving animals can be used for some species when legally allowed and feasible (e.g., hawks and owls). o Lethal Removal —Lethal removal may be used in some situations for the protection of the flying public and crew. Lethal removal is permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state wildlife agencies under airport depredation permits.

The OIA strives to meet APHIS requirements for wildlife management to minimize risks and hazards to aircraft and their passengers and crews. On February 21, 2021, Michelle Brantley, the Director of Planning for OIA, stated in an email to Suzanne Thompson with the Audubon Society, that “the biologist’s assessment [for the HUB project] concludes the only viable alternative is active relocation of the owls more than 10,000 feet away from the airport. I did discuss the draft report with the FAA. 5 Addendum Appendix B, BUOW Reports (Helix-Kidd 2020), BUOW site surveys (Helix or Wood 2019-2022), BUOW Relocation Plan (ELMT 2022), and Appendix E, Airport Safety Report (Mead & Hunt 1-2022) 6 USDA WS APHIS WMP Website
https://www.bing.com/search?q=USDA%20APHIS%20wildlife%20management%20plans%20for%20airports&msbd=%7B%22tri ggeringMode%22%3A%22Explicit%22%2C%22intent%22%3A%22UserHistory%22%7D&form=BFBBQF&cvid=B43D24A1DAF C42E8B9C5A09CBAE3E636&sp=3&ghc=1
2823
MIG, Inc. 7
My contacts emphatically agreed with the assessment and reinforced that they would not allow any mitigation within 10,000 feet of the airport.”
The supporting studies4 conclude that the most appropriate solution to this safety issue is to relocate the owls from the project site to a safer site in some other location. That is why a separate Relocation Plan has been prepared specially for this HUB OIA Project, and thus, a generic in-lieu fee is not applicable. The Relocation Plan, which will be overseen by the CDFW, will govern before, during, and after project implementation to assure successful relocation of the owls from the unsafe project site.

No evidence was presented to show the Relocation Plan would result in alleged impacts, such as loss of biodiversity, avoiding inbreeding of dispersed juveniles, and/or cumulative impacts on owl populations. Moreover, the comments fail to acknowledge any benefits that may accrue from relocating owls from the project site, including survival of owls now and in the future.

Based on information in TOP, TOP EIR, and several technical studies4 prepared by qualified professionals, the Relocation Plan is the most appropriate way to provide for the long-term survival of the owls consistent with Policies ER5-1 and ER5-2 in TOP, as cited in the Addendum.

Letter 3 Summary. This response, TOP, TOP EIR, the Addendum, and the various supporting technical studies7, provide substantial evidence that the HUB OIA Project will not have any new or more significant impacts than those identified in TOP EIR, and therefore, the Addendum satisfies the intent and requirements of CEQA.

LETTER 4: HALLIE KUTAK, CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY Comment 1 (Page 1). The commenter objects to the proposed use of an addendum as the CEQA documentation for the proposed HUB OIA Project.

The commenter does not acknowledge that an addendum can be the appropriate CEQA compliance document for a project that is consistent with the General Plan and zoning when it can be demonstrated a project will not result in new or more significant impacts that those that were already examined in the EIR for which the addendum is prepared. The Addendum does just that.

In this case, the use of an addendum is appropriate as the HUB OIA Project is consistent with TOP land use designations and City zoning, therefore the potential impacts of the HUB OIA Project have been accounted for in TOP EIR.

Comment 2 (Page 2). The commenter argues that the HUB OIA Project is not within the scope of TOP EIR, will have more severe significant impacts, and will require additional mitigation not found in TOP EIR. Their conclusion is a separate project-level EIR must be prepared for this project. 7 Addendum Appendices A through G
2824
MIG, Inc. 8
As noted above, the commenter fails to recognize that an addendum can be the appropriate CEQA compliance document for a project that is consistent with the General Plan and zoning when it can be demonstrated a project will not result in new or more significant impacts that those that were already examined in the EIR for which an addendum is prepared. The Addendum does just that.

In this case, the use of an addendum is appropriate as the HUB OIA Project is consistent with TOP land use designations and City zoning, therefore the potential impacts of the HUB OIA Project have been accounted for in TOP EIR.

In addition, the Addendum and the various supporting technical studies8 provide substantial evidence that the HUB OIA Project will not result in new or more severe significant impacts on the owls than those identified in TOP EIR, the Relocation Plan is consistent with TOP EIR mitigation, and the Addendum satisfies the intent and requirements of CEQA.

Comment 3 (Page 3). The commenter states the Addendum did not evaluate air quality impacts and health risks of the HUB OIA Project.

The Addendum states the following regarding Air Quality Significance Threshold 3.a, Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan:

The proposed project is consistent with TOP land use designations upon which the AQMP is based.

Furthermore, the project is consistent with the City’s participation in the AQMP and will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the plan. The project will be required to implement TOP EIR Mitigation Measures AQ 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 which include fugitive dust control measures pursuant to SCAQMD’s Rule 403, use of Tier 3 construction equipment, proper service and maintenance of construction equipment, limiting nonessential idling of construction equipment, use of Super-Compliant volatile organic compounds (VOC) paints for coating and architectural surfaces, providing non-vehicular access options, and calculate and reduce any significant health risks from future development on nearby sensitive receptors (MM 3-1 through 3-3, respectively). The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. The following measures from TOP EIR are applicable to the proposed project:

AQ 3-1: Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Ontario for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts to the City of Ontario Planning Department for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology for assessing air quality impacts. If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD–adopted thresholds of 8 Addendum Appendices A through G
2825
MIG, Inc. 9
significance, the City of Ontario Building Department shall require feasible mitigation measures to reduce air quality emissions. Potential measures shall be incorporated as conditions of approval for a project and may include:
• Require fugitive dust control measures that exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 403, such as:
− Requiring use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion. − Applying water every four hours to active soil disturbing activities. − Tarping and/or maintaining a minimum of 24 inches of freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials.
• Using construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 4 interim or higher exhaust emission limits. • Ensuring construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer’s standards
• 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/SuperCompliant_AIM.pdf.

These identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City’s Planning Department. (Addendum, pp. 32-33.)
The Addendum then determines the HUB OIA Project will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. (Addendum, pp 34-35.) That section provides a complete assessment of the air quality impacts of the HUB OIA Project relative to the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s regional significance thresholds for criteria pollutants and recommends implementation of TOP EIR Mitigation Measures AQ 3-1 through AQ 3-3.

The Addendum also states… “A detailed air quality assessment (AQ Study) of the proposed project was conducted by Urban Crossroads in February 2022, to identify project-specific air pollutant impacts and recommend additional mitigation if necessary (i.e., other than those applicable measures already identified in TOP EIR). The AQ Study (Appendix A) determined the project will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality because the project is consistent with the existing Industrial designation in the CCC SP.” (Addendum, p. 34.) It should also be noted the Addendum provides the full text of TOP EIR Mitigation Measures AQ 3-1 through 3-3 and explains how the project would implement them to address potential air quality impacts. 2826
MIG, Inc. 10
In addition, the Addendum concludes the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and therefore, it would not result in any new impacts beyond those identified in TOP EIR. Thus, no project specific mitigation was required for sensitive receptors. In sum, the HUB OIA Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary and no project specific mitigation is required.

Therefore, the commenter is incorrect as the Addendum did fully evaluate potential air quality impacts of the HUB OIA Project at a project level.

LETTER 5: JOEL HUSCHLE
Comment 1 (Email Page 1). The commenter makes a number of claims about owls relative to the HUB OIA Project. The commenter argues that owls are being “driven out of the City” and that a 90- acre preserve on the project site is needed to protect the owls.

The various technical studies9 on the owls and airport safety clearly demonstrate that the project site (i.e., just east of OIA and under normal landing pattern operations) is absolutely not safe (i.e., harmful) for both airport aircraft and the owls. Owls may not fly high enough to directly cause aircraft accidents as cited by the commenter. However, the presence of owls in this location attracts larger birds of prey into the landing airspace of OIA which does represent a safety hazard both for aircraft damage and potential injury/loss of life for passengers/crew. Without removing the attractor prey species, it is unlikely a raptor management program would be successful over the long-term.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides Wildlife Services (WS) through its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) program for airports to help prevent and resolve wildlife conflicts that threaten public health and safety from concentrated populations of birds and other wildlife at or near airports contribute to wildlife strikes. The Airport Wildlife Hazards Program10 supports an airport when preparing a Wildlife Hazards Management Plan (WMP) to document an airport’s wildlife hazards and how the airport plans to address and manage them. It guides operations, defines roles of airport personnel, and details training to reduce risks. A WMP often involves a variety of methods to resolve wildlife conflicts including the following:
o Habitat Modification — Altering vegetation and water, creating fences and barriers, and other activities to make the airport unattractive to wildlife. o Active Dispersal — Scaring and hazing wildlife away from airport environments. 9 Addendum Appendix B, BUOW Reports (Helix-Kidd 2020), BUOW site surveys (Helix or Wood 2019-2022), BUOW Relocation Plan (ELMT 2022), and Appendix E, Airport Safety Report (Mead & Hunt 1-2022) 10 USDA WS APHIS WMP Website
https://www.bing.com/search?q=USDA%20APHIS%20wildlife%20management%20plans%20for%20airports&msbd=%7B%22tri ggeringMode%22%3A%22Explicit%22%2C%22intent%22%3A%22UserHistory%22%7D&form=BFBBQF&cvid=B43D24A1DAF C42E8B9C5A09CBAE3E636&sp=3&ghc=1
2827
MIG, Inc. 11
o Trapping and Relocation — Capturing and moving animals can be used for some species when legally allowed and feasible (e.g., hawks and owls). o Lethal Removal —Lethal removal may be used in some situations for the protection of the flying public and crew. Lethal removal is permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state wildlife agencies under airport depredation permits.

The OIA strives to meet APHIS requirements for wildlife management to minimize risks and hazards to aircraft and their passengers and crews. On February 21, 2021, Michelle Brantley, the Director of Planning for OIA, stated in an email to Suzanne Thompson with the Audubon Society, that “the biologist’s assessment [for the HUB project] concludes the only viable alternative is active relocation of the owls more than 10,000 feet away from the airport. I did discuss the draft report with the FAA.

My contacts emphatically agreed with the assessment and reinforced that they would not allow any mitigation within 10,000 feet of the airport.”
The supporting studies7 conclude that the most appropriate solution to this safety issue is to relocate the owls from the project site to a safer site in some other location. That is why a separate Relocation Plan has been prepared specially for this HUB OIA Project, and thus, a generic in-lieu fee is not applicable. The Relocation Plan, which will be overseen by the CDFW, will govern before, during, and after project implementation to assure successful relocation of the owls from the unsafe project site.

No evidence was presented to show the Relocation Plan would result in alleged impacts, such as loss of biodiversity, avoiding inbreeding of dispersed juveniles, and/or cumulative impacts on owl populations. Moreover, the comments fail to acknowledge any benefits that may accrue from relocating owls from the project site, including survival of owls now and in the future.

Based on information in TOP, TOP EIR, and several technical studies7 prepared by qualified professionals, the Relocation Plan is the most appropriate way to provide for the long-term survival of the owls consistent with Policies ER5-1 and ER5-2 in TOP, as cited in the Addendum.

Letter 5 Summary. This response, TOP, TOP EIR, the Addendum, and the various supporting technical studies11, provide substantial evidence that the HUB OIA Project will not have any new or more significant impacts than those identified in TOP EIR, and therefore, the Addendum satisfies the intent and requirements of CEQA.

LETTER 6: KIMBERLY DILLBECK
Comment 1 (Email Page 1). The commenter makes a number of claims about owls relative to the HUB OIA Project. The commenter argues that owls are being “driven out of the City” and that a 90- acre preserve on the project site is needed to protect the owls. 11 Addendum Appendices A through G
2828
MIG, Inc. 12
The various technical studies8 on the owls and airport safety clearly demonstrate that the project site (i.e., just east of OIA and under normal landing pattern operations) is absolutely not safe (i.e., harmful) for both airport aircraft and the owls. Owls may not fly high enough to directly cause aircraft accidents as cited by the commenter. However, the presence of owls in this location attracts larger birds of prey into the landing airspace of OIA which does represent a safety hazard both for aircraft damage and potential injury/loss of life for passengers/crew. Without removing the attractor prey species, it is unlikely a raptor management program would be successful over the long-term.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides Wildlife Services (WS) through its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) program for airports to help prevent and resolve wildlife conflicts that threaten public health and safety from concentrated populations of birds and other wildlife at or near airports contribute to wildlife strikes. The Airport Wildlife Hazards Program12 supports an airport when preparing a Wildlife Hazards Management Plan (WMP) to document an airport’s wildlife hazards and how the airport plans to address and manage them. It guides operations, defines roles of airport personnel, and details training to reduce risks. A WMP often involves a variety of methods to resolve wildlife conflicts including the following:
o Habitat Modification — Altering vegetation and water, creating fences and barriers, and other activities to make the airport unattractive to wildlife. o Active Dispersal — Scaring and hazing wildlife away from airport environments. o Trapping and Relocation — Capturing and moving animals can be used for some species when legally allowed and feasible (e.g., hawks and owls). o Lethal Removal —Lethal removal may be used in some situations for the protection of the flying public and crew. Lethal removal is permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state wildlife agencies under airport depredation permits.

The OIA strives to meet APHIS requirements for wildlife management to minimize risks and hazards to aircraft and their passengers and crews. On February 21, 2021, Michelle Brantley, the Director of Planning for OIA, stated in an email to Suzanne Thompson with the Audubon Society, that “the biologist’s assessment [for the HUB project] concludes the only viable alternative is active relocation of the owls more than 10,000 feet away from the airport. I did discuss the draft report with the FAA.

My contacts emphatically agreed with the assessment and reinforced that they would not allow any mitigation within 10,000 feet of the airport.”
The supporting studies8 conclude that the most appropriate solution to this safety issue is to relocate the owls from the project site to a safer site in some other location. That is why a separate Relocation Plan has been prepared specially for this HUB OIA Project, and thus, a generic in-lieu fee is not 12 USDA WS APHIS WMP Website
https://www.bing.com/search?q=USDA%20APHIS%20wildlife%20management%20plans%20for%20airports&msbd=%7B%22tri ggeringMode%22%3A%22Explicit%22%2C%22intent%22%3A%22UserHistory%22%7D&form=BFBBQF&cvid=B43D24A1DAF C42E8B9C5A09CBAE3E636&sp=3&ghc=1
2829
MIG, Inc. 13
applicable. The Relocation Plan, which will be overseen by the CDFW, will govern before, during, and after project implementation to assure successful relocation of the owls from the unsafe project site.

No evidence was presented to show the Relocation Plan would result in alleged impacts, such as loss of biodiversity, avoiding inbreeding of dispersed juveniles, and/or cumulative impacts on owl populations. Moreover, the comments fail to acknowledge any benefits that may accrue from relocating owls from the project site, including survival of owls now and in the future.

Based on information in TOP, TOP EIR, and several technical studies8 prepared by qualified professionals, the Relocation Plan is the most appropriate way to provide for the long-term survival of the owls consistent with Policies ER5-1 and ER5-2 in TOP, as cited in the Addendum.

Letter 6 Summary. This response, TOP, TOP EIR, the Addendum, and the various supporting technical studies13, provide substantial evidence that the HUB OIA Project will not have any new or more significant impacts than those identified in TOP EIR, and therefore, the Addendum satisfies the intent and requirements of CEQA.

LETTER 7: MARCYN CLEMENTS
Comment 1 (Email Pages 1-2). The commenter makes a number of claims about owls relative to the HUB OIA Project. The commenter argues that owls are being “driven out of the City” and that a 90- acre preserve on the project site is needed to protect the owls.

The various technical studies14 on the owls and airport safety clearly demonstrate that the project site (i.e., just east of OIA and under normal landing pattern operations) is absolutely not safe (i.e., harmful) for both airport aircraft and the owls. Owls may not fly high enough to directly cause aircraft accidents as cited by the commenter. However, the presence of owls in this location attracts larger birds of prey into the landing airspace of OIA which does represent a safety hazard both for aircraft damage and potential injury/loss of life for passengers/crew. Without removing the attractor prey species, it is unlikely a raptor management program would be successful over the long-term.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides Wildlife Services (WS) through its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) program for airports to help prevent and resolve wildlife conflicts that threaten public health and safety from concentrated populations of birds and other wildlife at or near airports contribute to wildlife strikes. The Airport Wildlife Hazards Program15 supports an airport when preparing a Wildlife Hazards Management Plan (WMP) to document an airport’s wildlife hazards and how the airport plans to address and manage them. It guides operations, defines roles of 13 Addendum Appendices A through G
14 Addendum Appendix B, BUOW Reports (Helix-Kidd 2020), BUOW site surveys (Helix or Wood 2019-2022), BUOW Relocation Plan (ELMT 2022), and Appendix E, Airport Safety Report (Mead & Hunt 1-2022) 15 USDA WS APHIS WMP Website
https://www.bing.com/search?q=USDA%20APHIS%20wildlife%20management%20plans%20for%20airports&msbd=%7B%22tri ggeringMode%22%3A%22Explicit%22%2C%22intent%22%3A%22UserHistory%22%7D&form=BFBBQF&cvid=B43D24A1DAF C42E8B9C5A09CBAE3E636&sp=3&ghc=1
2830
MIG, Inc. 14
airport personnel, and details training to reduce risks. A WMP often involves a variety of methods to resolve wildlife conflicts including the following:
o Habitat Modification — Altering vegetation and water, creating fences and barriers, and other activities to make the airport unattractive to wildlife. o Active Dispersal — Scaring and hazing wildlife away from airport environments. o Trapping and Relocation — Capturing and moving animals can be used for some species when legally allowed and feasible (e.g., hawks and owls). o Lethal Removal —Lethal removal may be used in some situations for the protection of the flying public and crew. Lethal removal is permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state wildlife agencies under airport depredation permits.

The OIA strives to meet APHIS requirements for wildlife management to minimize risks and hazards to aircraft and their passengers and crews. On February 21, 2021, Michelle Brantley, the Director of Planning for OIA, stated in an email to Suzanne Thompson with the Audubon Society, that “the biologist’s assessment [for the HUB project] concludes the only viable alternative is active relocation of the owls more than 10,000 feet away from the airport. I did discuss the draft report with the FAA.

My contacts emphatically agreed with the assessment and reinforced that they would not allow any mitigation within 10,000 feet of the airport.”
The supporting studies16 conclude that the most appropriate solution to this safety issue is to relocate the owls from the project site to a safer site in some other location. That is why a separate Relocation Plan has been prepared specially for this HUB OIA Project, and thus, a generic in-lieu fee is not applicable. The Relocation Plan, which will be overseen by the CDFW, will govern before, during, and after project implementation to assure successful relocation of the owls from the unsafe project site.

No evidence was presented to show the Relocation Plan would result in alleged impacts, such as loss of biodiversity, avoiding inbreeding of dispersed juveniles, and/or cumulative impacts on owl populations. Moreover, the comments fail to acknowledge any benefits that may accrue from relocating owls from the project site, including survival of owls now and in the future.

Based on information in TOP, TOP EIR, and several technical studies11 prepared by qualified professionals, the Relocation Plan is the most appropriate way to provide for the long-term survival of the owls consistent with Policies ER5-1 and ER5-2 in TOP, as cited in the Addendum.

Letter 7 Summary. This response, TOP, TOP EIR, the Addendum, and the various supporting technical studies17, provide substantial evidence that the HUB OIA Project will not have any new or 16 Addendum Appendix B, BUOW Reports (Helix-Kidd 2020), BUOW site surveys (Helix or Wood 2019-2022), BUOW Relocation Plan (ELMT 2022), and Appendix E, Airport Safety Report (Mead & Hunt 1-2022) 17 Addendum Appendices A through G
2831
MIG, Inc. 15
more significant impacts than those identified in TOP EIR, and therefore, the Addendum satisfies the intent and requirements of CEQA.

LETTER 8: PAUL ROMERO/JESSICA GARCIACANO
Comment 1 (Email Pages 1-2). The commenter makes a number of comments about burrowing owl (owl) relative to the HUB OIA site and project. The commenter expresses concern about the collection of development fees to help protect the owl but is not aware if those funds have been used to protect owl habitat. The commenter states that land should be preserved in the City to protect the owl.

The various technical studies18 on the owls and airport safety clearly demonstrate that the project site (i.e., just east of OIA and under normal landing pattern operations) is absolutely not safe (i.e., harmful) for both airport aircraft and the owls. Owls may not fly high enough to directly cause aircraft accidents as cited by the commenter. However, the presence of owls in this location attracts larger birds of prey into the landing airspace of OIA which does represent a safety hazard both for aircraft damage and potential injury/loss of life for passengers/crew. Without removing the attractor prey species, it is unlikely a raptor management program would be successful over the long-term.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides Wildlife Services (WS) through its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) program for airports to help prevent and resolve wildlife conflicts that threaten public health and safety from concentrated populations of birds and other wildlife at or near airports contribute to wildlife strikes. The Airport Wildlife Hazards Program19 supports an airport when preparing a Wildlife Hazards Management Plan (WMP) to document an airport’s wildlife hazards and how the airport plans to address and manage them. It guides operations, defines roles of airport personnel, and details training to reduce risks. A WMP often involves a variety of methods to resolve wildlife conflicts including the following:
o Habitat Modification — Altering vegetation and water, creating fences and barriers, and other activities to make the airport unattractive to wildlife. o Active Dispersal — Scaring and hazing wildlife away from airport environments. o Trapping and Relocation — Capturing and moving animals can be used for some species when legally allowed and feasible (e.g., hawks and owls). o Lethal Removal —Lethal removal may be used in some situations for the protection of the flying public and crew. Lethal removal is permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state wildlife agencies under airport depredation permits. 18 Addendum Appendix B, BUOW Reports (Helix-Kidd 2020), BUOW site surveys (Helix or Wood 2019-2022), BUOW Relocation Plan (ELMT 2022), and Appendix E, Airport Safety Report (Mead & Hunt 1-2022) 19 USDA WS APHIS WMP Website
https://www.bing.com/search?q=USDA%20APHIS%20wildlife%20management%20plans%20for%20airports&msbd=%7B%22tri ggeringMode%22%3A%22Explicit%22%2C%22intent%22%3A%22UserHistory%22%7D&form=BFBBQF&cvid=B43D24A1DAF C42E8B9C5A09CBAE3E636&sp=3&ghc=1
2832
MIG, Inc. 16
The OIA strives to meet APHIS requirements for wildlife management to minimize risks and hazards to aircraft and their passengers and crews. On February 21, 2021, Michelle Brantley, the Director of Planning for OIA, stated in an email to Suzanne Thompson with the Audubon Society, that “the biologist’s assessment [for the HUB project] concludes the only viable alternative is active relocation of the owls more than 10,000 feet away from the airport. I did discuss the draft report with the FAA.

My contacts emphatically agreed with the assessment and reinforced that they would not allow any mitigation within 10,000 feet of the airport.”
The supporting studies13 conclude that the most appropriate solution to this safety issue is to relocate the owls from the project site to a safer site in some other location. That is why a separate Relocation Plan has been prepared specifically for this HUB OIA Project, and thus, a generic in-lieu fee is not applicable. The Relocation Plan, which will be overseen by the CDFW, will govern before, during, and after project implementation to assure successful relocation of the owls from the unsafe project site.

No evidence was presented to show the Relocation Plan would result in alleged impacts, such as loss of biodiversity, avoiding inbreeding of dispersed juveniles, and/or cumulative impacts on owl populations. Moreover, the comments fail to acknowledge any benefits that may accrue from relocating owls from the project site, including survival of owls now and in the future.

Based on information in TOP, TOP EIR, and several technical studies13 prepared by qualified professionals, the Relocation Plan is the most appropriate way to provide for the long-term survival of the owls consistent with Policies ER5-1 and ER5-2 in TOP, as cited in the Addendum. Letter 8 Summary. This response, TOP, TOP EIR, the Addendum, and the various supporting technical studies20, provide substantial evidence that the HUB OIA Project will not have any new or more significant impacts than those identified in TOP EIR, and therefore, the Addendum satisfies the intent and requirements of CEQA.

LETTER 9: SUZANNE THOMPSON, POMONA VALLEY AUDUBON SOCIETY, BURROWING OWL

COMMITTEE
Comment 1 (Email Pages 1-3). The commenter makes a number of comments about burrowing owl (owl) relative to the HUB OIA site and project. The commenter argues that this development will have irreparable impacts on the owl. The commenter argues that the project site is a critical part of owl habitat in the region and the FAA actually encourages wildlife like the owl to co-exist on airport properties. The commenter also states TOP EIR mitigation for owl impacts has not been successful (i.e., collection of new development fees to purchase habitat).

The various technical studies21 on the owls and airport safety clearly demonstrate that the project site (i.e., just east of OIA and under normal landing pattern operations) is absolutely not safe (i.e., harmful) for both airport aircraft and the owls. Owls may not fly high enough to directly cause aircraft accidents 20 Addendum Appendices A through G
21 Addendum Appendix B, BUOW Reports (Helix-Kidd 2020), BUOW site surveys (Helix or Wood 2019-2022), BUOW Relocation Plan (ELMT 2022), and Appendix E, Airport Safety Report (Mead & Hunt 1-2022) 2833
MIG, Inc. 17
as cited by the commenter. However, the presence of owls in this location attracts larger birds of prey into the landing airspace of OIA which does represent a safety hazard both for aircraft damage and potential injury/loss of life for passengers/crew. Without removing the attractor prey species, it is unlikely a raptor management program would be successful over the long-term.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides Wildlife Services (WS) through its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) program for airports to help prevent and resolve wildlife conflicts that threaten public health and safety from concentrated populations of birds and other wildlife at or near airports contribute to wildlife strikes. The Airport Wildlife Hazards Program22 supports an airport when preparing a Wildlife Hazards Management Plan (WMP) to document an airport’s wildlife hazards and how the airport plans to address and manage them. It guides operations, defines roles of airport personnel, and details training to reduce risks. A WMP often involves a variety of methods to resolve wildlife conflicts including the following:
o Habitat Modification — Altering vegetation and water, creating fences and barriers, and other activities to make the airport unattractive to wildlife. o Active Dispersal — Scaring and hazing wildlife away from airport environments. o Trapping and Relocation — Capturing and moving animals can be used for some species when legally allowed and feasible (e.g., hawks and owls). o Lethal Removal —Lethal removal may be used in some situations for the protection of the flying public and crew. Lethal removal is permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state wildlife agencies under airport depredation permits.

The OIA strives to meet APHIS requirements for wildlife management to minimize risks and hazards to aircraft and their passengers and crews. On February 21, 2021, Michelle Brantley, the Director of Planning for OIA, stated in an email to Suzanne Thompson with the Audubon Society, that “the biologist’s assessment [for the HUB project] concludes the only viable alternative is active relocation of the owls more than 10,000 feet away from the airport. I did discuss the draft report with the FAA.

My contacts emphatically agreed with the assessment and reinforced that they would not allow any mitigation within 10,000 feet of the airport.”
The supporting studies15 conclude that the most appropriate solution to this safety issue is to relocate the owls from the project site to a safer site in some other location. That is why a separate Relocation Plan has been prepared specially for this HUB OIA Project, and thus, a generic in-lieu fee is not applicable. The Relocation Plan, which will be overseen by the CDFW, will govern before, during, and after project implementation to assure successful relocation of the owls from the unsafe project site.

No evidence was presented to show the Relocation Plan would result in alleged impacts, such as loss of biodiversity, avoiding inbreeding of dispersed juveniles, and/or cumulative impacts on owl 22 USDA WS APHIS WMP Website
https://www.bing.com/search?q=USDA%20APHIS%20wildlife%20management%20plans%20for%20airports&msbd=%7B%22tri ggeringMode%22%3A%22Explicit%22%2C%22intent%22%3A%22UserHistory%22%7D&form=BFBBQF&cvid=B43D24A1DAF C42E8B9C5A09CBAE3E636&sp=3&ghc=1
2834
MIG, Inc. 18
populations. Moreover, the comments fail to acknowledge any benefits that may accrue from relocating owls from the project site, including survival of owls now and in the future.

Based on information in TOP, TOP EIR, and several technical studies23 prepared by qualified professionals, the Relocation Plan is the most appropriate way to provide for the long-term survival of the owls consistent with Policies ER5-1 and ER5-2 in TOP, as cited in the Addendum.

Letter 9 Summary. This response, TOP, TOP EIR, the Addendum, and the various supporting technical studies24, provide substantial evidence that the HUB OIA Project will not have any new or more significant impacts than those identified in TOP EIR, and therefore, the Addendum satisfies the intent and requirements of CEQA.

LETTER 10: TRUDE HURD
Comment 1 (Page 1). The commenter laments the loss of owl habitat over the years throughout the region, and claims it would be appropriate for an owl preserve on the HUB OIA Project site.

The commenter is incorrect that the HUB OIA Project site is “perfect for a burrowing owl preserve.” The various technical studies25 on the owls and airport safety clearly demonstrate that the project site (i.e., just east of OIA and under normal landing pattern operations) is absolutely not safe (i.e., harmful) for both airport aircraft and the owls. Owls may not fly high enough to directly cause aircraft accidents as cited by the commenter. However, the presence of owls in this location attracts larger birds of prey into the landing airspace of OIA which does represent a safety hazard both for aircraft damage and potential injury/loss of life for passengers/crew. Without removing the attractor prey species, it is unlikely a raptor management program would be successful over the long-term.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides Wildlife Services (WS) through its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) program for airports to help prevent and resolve wildlife conflicts that threaten public health and safety from concentrated populations of birds and other wildlife at or near airports contribute to wildlife strikes. The Airport Wildlife Hazards Program26 supports an airport when preparing a Wildlife Hazards Management Plan (WMP) to document an airport’s wildlife hazards and how the airport plans to address and manage them. It guides operations, defines roles of airport personnel, and details training to reduce risks. A WMP often involves a variety of methods to resolve wildlife conflicts including the following:
23 Addendum Appendix B, BUOW Reports (Helix-Kidd 2020), BUOW site surveys (Helix or Wood 2019-2022), BUOW Relocation Plan (ELMT 2022), and Appendix E, Airport Safety Report (Mead & Hunt 1-2022) 24 Addendum Appendices A through G
25 Addendum Appendix B, BUOW Reports (Helix-Kidd 2020), BUOW site surveys (Helix or Wood 2019-2022), BUOW Relocation Plan (ELMT 2022), and Appendix E, Airport Safety Report (Mead & Hunt 1-2022) 26 USDA WS APHIS WMP Website
https://www.bing.com/search?q=USDA%20APHIS%20wildlife%20management%20plans%20for%20airports&msbd=%7B%22tri ggeringMode%22%3A%22Explicit%22%2C%22intent%22%3A%22UserHistory%22%7D&form=BFBBQF&cvid=B43D24A1DAF C42E8B9C5A09CBAE3E636&sp=3&ghc=1
2835
MIG, Inc. 19
o Habitat Modification — Altering vegetation and water, creating fences and barriers, and other activities to make the airport unattractive to wildlife. o Active Dispersal — Scaring and hazing wildlife away from airport environments. o Trapping and Relocation — Capturing and moving animals can be used for some species when legally allowed and feasible (e.g., hawks and owls). o Lethal Removal —Lethal removal may be used in some situations for the protection of the flying public and crew. Lethal removal is permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state wildlife agencies under airport depredation permits.

The OIA strives to meet APHIS requirements for wildlife management to minimize risks and hazards to aircraft and their passengers and crews. On February 21, 2021, Michelle Brantley, the Director of Planning for OIA, stated in an email to Suzanne Thompson with the Audubon Society, that “the biologist’s assessment [for the HUB project] concludes the only viable alternative is active relocation of the owls more than 10,000 feet away from the airport. I did discuss the draft report with the FAA.

My contacts emphatically agreed with the assessment and reinforced that they would not allow any mitigation within 10,000 feet of the airport.”
The supporting studies18 conclude that the most appropriate solution to this safety issue is to relocate the owls from the project site to a safer site in some other location. That is why a separate Relocation Plan has been prepared specially for this HUB OIA Project, and thus, a generic in-lieu fee is not applicable. The Relocation Plan, which will be overseen by the CDFW, will govern before, during, and after project implementation to assure successful relocation of the owls from the unsafe project site.

No evidence was presented to show the Relocation Plan would result in alleged impacts, such as loss of biodiversity, avoiding inbreeding of dispersed juveniles, and/or cumulative impacts on owl populations. Moreover, the comments fail to acknowledge any benefits that may accrue from relocating owls from the project site, including survival of owls now and in the future.

Based on information in TOP, TOP EIR, and several technical studies18 prepared by qualified professionals, the Relocation Plan is the most appropriate way to provide for the long-term survival of the owls consistent with Policies ER5-1 and ER5-2 in TOP, as cited in the Addendum.

Letter 10 Summary. This response, TOP, TOP EIR, the Addendum, and the various supporting technical studies27, provide substantial evidence that the HUB OIA Project will not have any new or more significant impacts than those identified in TOP EIR, and therefore, the Addendum satisfies the intent and requirements of CEQA.
27 Addendum Appendices A through G
2836
MIG, Inc. 20
LETTER 11: DAN SILVER, ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE
Comment 1 (Email Page 1). The commenter argues that owl relocation does not work and the HUB OIA Project site should include an owl preserve.

The commenter is incorrect that the HUB OIA Project site is “perfect for a burrowing owl preserve.” The various technical studies28 on the owls and airport safety clearly demonstrate that the project site (i.e., just east of OIA and under normal landing pattern operations) is absolutely not safe (i.e., harmful) for both airport aircraft and the owls. Owls may not fly high enough to directly cause aircraft accidents as cited by the commenter. However, the presence of owls in this location attracts larger birds of prey into the landing airspace of OIA which does represent a safety hazard both for aircraft damage and potential injury/loss of life for passengers/crew. Without removing the attractor prey species, it is unlikely a raptor management program would be successful over the long-term.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides Wildlife Services (WS) through its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) program for airports to help prevent and resolve wildlife conflicts that threaten public health and safety from concentrated populations of birds and other wildlife at or near airports contribute to wildlife strikes. The Airport Wildlife Hazards Program29 supports an airport when preparing a Wildlife Hazards Management Plan (WMP) to document an airport’s wildlife hazards and how the airport plans to address and manage them. It guides operations, defines roles of airport personnel, and details training to reduce risks. A WMP often involves a variety of methods to resolve wildlife conflicts including the following:
o Habitat Modification — Altering vegetation and water, creating fences and barriers, and other activities to make the airport unattractive to wildlife. o Active Dispersal — Scaring and hazing wildlife away from airport environments. o Trapping and Relocation — Capturing and moving animals can be used for some species when legally allowed and feasible (e.g., hawks and owls). o Lethal Removal —Lethal removal may be used in some situations for the protection of the flying public and crew. Lethal removal is permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state wildlife agencies under airport depredation permits.

The OIA strives to meet APHIS requirements for wildlife management to minimize risks and hazards to aircraft and their passengers and crews. On February 21, 2021, Michelle Brantley, the Director of Planning for OIA, stated in an email to Suzanne Thompson with the Audubon Society, that “the biologist’s assessment [for the HUB project] concludes the only viable alternative is active relocation of the owls more than 10,000 feet away from the airport. I did discuss the draft report with the FAA. 28 Addendum Appendix B, BUOW Reports (Helix-Kidd 2020), BUOW site surveys (Helix or Wood 2019-2022), BUOW Relocation Plan (ELMT 2022), and Appendix E, Airport Safety Report (Mead & Hunt 1-2022) 29 USDA WS APHIS WMP Website
https://www.bing.com/search?q=USDA%20APHIS%20wildlife%20management%20plans%20for%20airports&msbd=%7B%22tri ggeringMode%22%3A%22Explicit%22%2C%22intent%22%3A%22UserHistory%22%7D&form=BFBBQF&cvid=B43D24A1DAF C42E8B9C5A09CBAE3E636&sp=3&ghc=1
2837
MIG, Inc. 21
My contacts emphatically agreed with the assessment and reinforced that they would not allow any mitigation within 10,000 feet of the airport.”
The supporting studies30 conclude that the most appropriate solution to this safety issue is to relocate the owls from the project site to a safer site in some other location. That is why a separate Relocation Plan has been prepared specially for this HUB OIA Project, and thus, a generic in-lieu fee is not applicable. The Relocation Plan, which will be overseen by the CDFW, will govern before, during, and after project implementation to assure successful relocation of the owls from the unsafe project site.

No evidence was presented to show the Relocation Plan would result in alleged impacts, such as loss of biodiversity, avoiding inbreeding of dispersed juveniles, and/or cumulative impacts on owl populations. Moreover, the comments fail to acknowledge any benefits that may accrue from relocating owls from the project site, including survival of owls now and in the future.

LETTER 12: SETH THOMPSON
Comment 1 (Email Page 1). The commenter suggests TOP EIR is a “flawed document”.

Comments on the adequacy of TOP 2050 EIR are untimely and irrelevant. Objections to that document were required to be raised when the matter was before the City Council. Opponents cannot now use the current project to attack the certified TOP EIR. Moreover, criticism of the City’s overall planning efforts are misplaced in the current context of a single project, one which has long been planned and allowed on the project site (i.e., CCCSP and TOP).

Comment 2 (Email Page 1). The commenter states TOP Addendum for the HUB OIA Project relies on an owl mitigation plan that has already failed but does not elaborate on the nature of the failure.

The commenter also states…“there is incontrovertible scientific evidence that even the best translocation efforts result in high mortality.” However, the commenter does not provide any documentation to support that statement.

The various technical studies31 on the owls and airport safety clearly demonstrate that the project site (i.e., just east of OIA and under normal landing pattern operations) is absolutely not safe (i.e., harmful) for both airport aircraft and the owls. Owls may not fly high enough to directly cause aircraft accidents as cited by the commenter. However, the presence of owls in this location attracts larger birds of prey into the landing airspace of OIA which does represent a safety hazard both for aircraft damage and potential injury/loss of life for passengers/crew. Without removing the attractor prey species, it is unlikely a raptor management program would be successful over the long-term. 30 Addendum Appendix B, BUOW Reports (Helix-Kidd 2020), BUOW site surveys (Helix or Wood 2019-2022), BUOW Relocation Plan (ELMT 2022), and Appendix E, Airport Safety Report (Mead & Hunt 1-2022) 31 Addendum Appendix B, BUOW Reports (Helix-Kidd 2020), BUOW site surveys (Helix or Wood 2019-2022), BUOW Relocation Plan (ELMT 2022), and Appendix E, Airport Safety Report (Mead & Hunt 1-2022) 2838
MIG, Inc. 22
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides Wildlife Services (WS) through its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) program for airports to help prevent and resolve wildlife conflicts that threaten public health and safety from concentrated populations of birds and other wildlife at or near airports contribute to wildlife strikes. The Airport Wildlife Hazards Program32 supports an airport when preparing a Wildlife Hazards Management Plan (WMP) to document an airport’s wildlife hazards and how the airport plans to address and manage them. It guides operations, defines roles of airport personnel, and details training to reduce risks. A WMP often involves a variety of methods to resolve wildlife conflicts including the following:
o Habitat Modification — Altering vegetation and water, creating fences and barriers, and other activities to make the airport unattractive to wildlife. o Active Dispersal — Scaring and hazing wildlife away from airport environments. o Trapping and Relocation — Capturing and moving animals can be used for some species when legally allowed and feasible (e.g., hawks and owls). o Lethal Removal —Lethal removal may be used in some situations for the protection of the flying public and crew. Lethal removal is permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state wildlife agencies under airport depredation permits.

The OIA strives to meet APHIS requirements for wildlife management to minimize risks and hazards to aircraft and their passengers and crews. On February 21, 2021, Michelle Brantley, the Director of Planning for OIA, stated in an email to Suzanne Thompson with the Audubon Society, that “the biologist’s assessment [for the HUB project] concludes the only viable alternative is active relocation of the owls more than 10,000 feet away from the airport. I did discuss the draft report with the FAA.

My contacts emphatically agreed with the assessment and reinforced that they would not allow any mitigation within 10,000 feet of the airport.”
The supporting studies22 conclude that the most appropriate solution to this safety issue is to relocate the owls from the project site to a safer site in some other location. That is why a separate Relocation Plan has been prepared specially for this HUB OIA Project, and thus, a generic in-lieu fee is not applicable. The Relocation Plan, which will be overseen by the CDFW, will govern before, during, and after project implementation to assure successful relocation of the owls from the unsafe project site.

No evidence was presented to show the Relocation Plan would result in alleged impacts, such as loss of biodiversity, avoiding inbreeding of dispersed juveniles, and/or cumulative impacts on owl populations. Moreover, the comments fail to acknowledge any benefits that may accrue from relocating owls from the project site, including survival of owls now and in the future. 32 USDA WS APHIS WMP Website
https://www.bing.com/search?q=USDA%20APHIS%20wildlife%20management%20plans%20for%20airports&msbd=%7B%22tri ggeringMode%22%3A%22Explicit%22%2C%22intent%22%3A%22UserHistory%22%7D&form=BFBBQF&cvid=B43D24A1DAF C42E8B9C5A09CBAE3E636&sp=3&ghc=1
2839
MIG, Inc. 23
Comment 3 (Email Page 1). The commenter states, without evidentiary support, that owls that…”survive the trauma of translocation represent a loss of distinct biodiversity” and that “loss of the Ontario Airport owls will have damaging effects on Chino Burrowing Owls and cascading negative effects on the few indigenous Burrowing Owls in the Pomona Valley.” The various technical studies33 on the owls and airport safety clearly demonstrate that the project site (i.e., just east of OIA and under normal landing pattern operations) is absolutely not safe (i.e., harmful) for both airport aircraft and the owls. Owls may not fly high enough to directly cause aircraft accidents as cited by the commenter. However, the presence of owls in this location attracts larger birds of prey into the landing airspace of OIA which does represent a safety hazard both for aircraft damage and potential injury/loss of life for passengers/crew. Without removing the attractor prey species, it is unlikely a raptor management program would be successful over the long-term.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides Wildlife Services (WS) through its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) program for airports to help prevent and resolve wildlife conflicts that threaten public health and safety from concentrated populations of birds and other wildlife at or near airports contribute to wildlife strikes. The Airport Wildlife Hazards Program34 supports an airport when preparing a Wildlife Hazards Management Plan (WMP) to document an airport’s wildlife hazards and how the airport plans to address and manage them. It guides operations, defines roles of airport personnel, and details training to reduce risks. A WMP often involves a variety of methods to resolve wildlife conflicts including the following:
o Habitat Modification — Altering vegetation and water, creating fences and barriers, and other activities to make the airport unattractive to wildlife. o Active Dispersal — Scaring and hazing wildlife away from airport environments. o Trapping and Relocation — Capturing and moving animals can be used for some species when legally allowed and feasible (e.g., hawks and owls). o Lethal Removal —Lethal removal may be used in some situations for the protection of the flying public and crew. Lethal removal is permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state wildlife agencies under airport depredation permits.

The OIA strives to meet APHIS requirements for wildlife management to minimize risks and hazards to aircraft and their passengers and crews. On February 21, 2021, Michelle Brantley, the Director of Planning for OIA, stated in an email to Suzanne Thompson with the Audubon Society, that “the biologist’s assessment [for the HUB project] concludes the only viable alternative is active relocation of the owls more than 10,000 feet away from the airport. I did discuss the draft report with the FAA. 33 Addendum Appendix B, BUOW Reports (Helix-Kidd 2020), BUOW site surveys (Helix or Wood 2019-2022), BUOW Relocation Plan (ELMT 2022), and Appendix E, Airport Safety Report (Mead & Hunt 1-2022) 34 USDA WS APHIS WMP Website
https://www.bing.com/search?q=USDA%20APHIS%20wildlife%20management%20plans%20for%20airports&msbd=%7B%22tri ggeringMode%22%3A%22Explicit%22%2C%22intent%22%3A%22UserHistory%22%7D&form=BFBBQF&cvid=B43D24A1DAF C42E8B9C5A09CBAE3E636&sp=3&ghc=1
2840
MIG, Inc. 24
My contacts emphatically agreed with the assessment and reinforced that they would not allow any mitigation within 10,000 feet of the airport.”
The supporting studies23 conclude that the most appropriate solution to this safety issue is to relocate the owls from the project site to a safer site in some other location. . If the owls were to remain on the project site, raptors will continue to hunt the owls by perching on the large buildings and trees in the surrounding area. There is no indication that relocation of the owls to an appropriate site in the area would result in significant impacts to the biodiversity or genetic pool for owls in the Pomona Valley.

Comment 4 (Email Page 1). The commenter argued there was insufficient time to respond to the project documents over the holidays.

The HUB OIA Project has been in process for some time. The City properly noticed the January 4, 2023 Development Advisory Board hearing per California Government Code Sections 54950-54963 (Ralph M. Brown Act) and the Ontario Municipal Code (OMC) Titles 1 and 2 (General Provisions and Administration). Regarding this noticing, a number of individuals and entities – including this one – were able to provide comments prior to the start of the meeting. Regardless, the HUB OIA Project requires Planning Commission approval and all interested parties will have an opportunity to provide written and/or oral comments at that time.

Letter 12 Summary. These responses, TOP, TOP EIR, the Addendum, and the various supporting technical studies35 provide substantial evidence that the HUB OIA Project will not have any new or more significant impacts than those identified in TOP EIR, and therefore, the Addendum satisfies the intent and requirements of CEQA.

LETTER 13: NATASHA WALTON, INLAND VALLEY ADVOCATES FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (IVAE)
Comment 1 (Email Page 1). The commenter questioned reliance on TOP EIR but did not acknowledge that an EIR Addendum can be the appropriate CEQA compliance document for a project that is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations when it can be demonstrated the Pa project will not result in new or more have significant impacts that those that were not already examined in the EIR for which the Addendum is prepared. The Addendum does just that. In this case, the use of an TOP Addendum is appropriate as the HUB OIA Project is consistent with TOP land use designations and City zoning designations, therefore the cumulative potential impacts of the HUB OIA Project have been accounted for in TOP EIR.
35 Addendum Appendices A through G
2841
MIG, Inc. 25
For additional information, see separate responses in letters from Allen Matkins regarding comments in the “Coalition Letter” and the “Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) Letter”.

Comment 2 (Email Page 1). The commenter argued the HUB OIA Project did not conduct a proper noise study involving airport noise. However, the commenter failed to note the Addendum clearly evaluated both Project-related and Airport-related noise impacts. Page 71 of the Addendum states… TOP EIR found stationary and transportation noise impacts of future development under TOP to be less than significant with implementation of Safety Element Policy S-4.1, Noise Mitigation, which utilizes the City’s Noise Ordinance, building codes, and subdivision and development code regulations to reduce noise from future development projects (SEIR p. 5.13-32).

The project site was previously analyzed by TOP EIR as supporting industrial uses and the project will not expose people to or generate noise levels in excess of the standards established in TOP EIR (Section 5.12). The project site is surrounded on the north, east, and south sides by industrial or commercial/office uses, and to the west by the OIA. The I-10 is just north of the site, the I-15 is just east of the site, and the site is within the OIA’s Safety Zones. The issue of the project’s consistency with the ALUCP is addressed in Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials (airport-related hazards) and potential noise impacts are addressed in detail in Section

9.3e. As discussed therein PDF/COA included in the Mead & Hunt airport study (Appendix E) have been incorporated into the project.

Both the Addendum and the Mead & Hunt report on airport safety included analyses of airport noise impacts.

Comment 3 (Email Pages 1-2). The remaining comments were regarding burrowing owl and are similar to those raised in Letters 14 through 44 below. 2842
MIG, Inc. 26
NOTE: The following 31 letters make essentially the same comments so they are addressed with one response after the list of commenters:

LETTER 14: DAVE MACIAS
LETTER 15: DEENA LIGORRIA
LETTER 16: GLORIA KARIMI
LETTER 17: GUS OCON
LETTER 18: JACOB LIGORRIA
LETTER 19: LAURA JAOUI
LETTER 20: LORI GALLOWAY
LETTER 21: MADELINE ALLINDER
LETTER 22: MARCYN DEL CLEMENTS
LETTER 23: MARIA BENNETT
LETTER 24: MARTINA EBERT
LETTER 25: MYRIAM RODRIGUEZ
LETTER 26: PATRICIA ANIS
LETTER 27: PATRICIA GLEESON
LETTER 28: RACHAEL INNES
LETTER 29: REBECA BYERLEY
LETTER 30: ROBERT HOLCOMB
LETTER 31: SCOTT MARNOY
LETTER 32: ALAN DAVIS
LETTER 33: SHEA MILLAN
LETTER 34: SIDNEY SILLIMAN
LETTER 35: ANDY GEORGES
LETTER 36: JIMMY+APRIL CHERTKOW
LETTER 37: PAM NELSON
LETTER 38: CAREN HANSON
LETTER 39: JOEL HUSCHLE
LETTER 40: JAZMYN RIVERA
LETTER 41: JEFF STROGEN
LETTER 42: KELLY COYNE
LETTER 43: ERIK KNUTZEN
LETTER 44: SHARI WASSON
2843
MIG, Inc. 27
Comment 1 (Email Page 1). The commenters argue that owl relocation does not work and the HUB OIA Project site should include an owl preserve.

The HUB OIA Project site is not an appropriate location for an owl preserve. The various technical studies36 on the owls and airport safety clearly demonstrate that the project site (i.e., just east of OIA and under normal landing pattern operations) is absolutely not safe (i.e., harmful) for both airport aircraft and the owls. Owls may not fly high enough to directly cause aircraft accidents as cited by the commenter. However, the presence of owls in this location attracts larger birds of prey into the landing airspace of OIA which does represent a safety hazard both for aircraft damage and potential injury/loss of life for passengers/crew. Without removing the attractor prey species, it is unlikely a raptor management program would be successful over the long-term.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides Wildlife Services (WS) through its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) program for airports to help prevent and resolve wildlife conflicts that threaten public health and safety from concentrated populations of birds and other wildlife at or near airports contribute to wildlife strikes. The Airport Wildlife Hazards Program37 supports an airport when preparing a Wildlife Hazards Management Plan (WMP) to document an airport’s wildlife hazards and how the airport plans to address and manage them. It guides operations, defines roles of airport personnel, and details training to reduce risks. A WMP often involves a variety of methods to resolve wildlife conflicts including the following:
o Habitat Modification — Altering vegetation and water, creating fences and barriers, and other activities to make the airport unattractive to wildlife. o Active Dispersal — Scaring and hazing wildlife away from airport environments. o Trapping and Relocation — Capturing and moving animals can be used for some species when legally allowed and feasible (e.g., hawks and owls). o Lethal Removal —Lethal removal may be used in some situations for the protection of the flying public and crew. Lethal removal is permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state wildlife agencies under airport depredation permits.

The OIA strives to meet APHIS requirements for wildlife management to minimize risks and hazards to aircraft and their passengers and crews. On February 21, 2021, Michelle Brantley, the Director of Planning for OIA, stated in an email to Suzanne Thompson with the Audubon Society, that “the biologist’s assessment [for the HUB project] concludes the only viable alternative is active relocation of the owls more than 10,000 feet away from the airport. I did discuss the draft report with the FAA.

My contacts emphatically agreed with the assessment and reinforced that they would not allow any mitigation within 10,000 feet of the airport.”
36 Addendum Appendix B, BUOW Reports (Helix-Kidd 2020), BUOW site surveys (Helix or Wood 2019-2022), BUOW Relocation Plan (ELMT 2022), and Appendix E, Airport Safety Report (Mead & Hunt 1-2022) 37 USDA WS APHIS WMP Website
https://www.bing.com/search?q=USDA%20APHIS%20wildlife%20management%20plans%20for%20airports&msbd=%7B%22tri ggeringMode%22%3A%22Explicit%22%2C%22intent%22%3A%22UserHistory%22%7D&form=BFBBQF&cvid=B43D24A1DAF C42E8B9C5A09CBAE3E636&sp=3&ghc=1
2844
MIG, Inc. 28
The supporting studies25 conclude that the most appropriate solution to this safety issue is to relocate the owls from the project site to a safer site in some other location. That is why a separate Relocation Plan has been prepared specially for this HUB OIA Project, and thus, a generic in-lieu fee is not applicable. The Relocation Plan, which will be overseen by the CDFW, will govern before, during, and after project implementation to assure successful relocation of the owls from the unsafe project site.

No evidence was presented to show the Relocation Plan would result in alleged impacts, such as loss of biodiversity, avoiding inbreeding of dispersed juveniles, and/or cumulative impacts on owl populations. Moreover, the comments fail to acknowledge any benefits that may accrue from relocating owls from the project site, including survival of owls now and in the future. 2845

EXHIBIT D
2846
2847
2848
www.flyontario.com
Appendix A
OIAA Correspondence to Pomona Valley Audubon Society, June 13, 2022. 2 pages.
2849
COPY
2850
COPY
2851

EXHIBIT E
2852
“Responsible Planning Through Environmental Leadership” 2201 N. Grand Avenue #10098 | Santa Ana, CA 92711-0098 | (714) 716-5050 www.ELMTConsulting.com
January 18, 2023
SUBJECT: Response to Comments – Group Letter dated January 4, 2023, challenging the HUB at Ontario International Airport.

1. The Ontario Plan mitigation that started around 2007 has been collecting fees from developers to mitigate the loss of large sections of habitat. The City has been working with the Inland Empire Resources Conservation District (IERCD) and Dan Silver to allocate the collected funds towards preserving lands around the Prado Basin.

2. The Ontario HUB is one of the last remaining sites undeveloped in this region. There is currently an insufficient quantity of owls to maintain a healthy population capable of persisting overtime.

Single large mitigation sites can be subject to stochastic events (fire, disease, vandalism, predators, feral cats/dogs, etc.) that can lead to the loss of remnant populations. Several mitigation sites that are connected through greenbelts or areas allowing safe travel is necessary for dispersal between mitigation sites.

Regarding the Hub property, the owls will not persist here forever even if the site was preserved and undeveloped. There are many reasons which demonstrate that owls will not persist in the subject site in perpetuity, despite if a monitoring and management program was established.

Preservation of this subject site will not adequately support a population of owls.

The owl populations at the Seal Beach naval weapons station and the Orange County fairgrounds and many other similar locations all met the same fate. They were surrounded by urbanization and development and after several years the populations were extirpated. Development brings increased risk of mortality (predators, vehicle strikes, loss of foraging habitats, vandalism, etc.). Eventually these island patches of fragmented habitats supporting owls will blink out. They won’t support owls in perpetuity as supported by these similar situations at the OC fair grounds and Seal Beach (and many other locations). The ability to safely disperse away from and into these island patches are critical for a regional population but as this area loses more habitat and dispersal becomes more difficult (increases risk of mortality), then it’s more likely owls will be extirpated. Preservation of portion of the property would not result in long term owl occupation either.

3. Prior to the 1980’s southwestern San Bernardino supported a robust breeding BUOW population with hundreds of pairs from the base of the San Bernardino Mountains south to the Prado Basin.

After decades of development pressure and the complete absence of meaningful mitigation, only a few remaining breeding pairs and winter migrants are known to persist. The remaining highly fragmented landscape which lacks suitable, large, protected sites with connectivity to and between extant breeding sites creates a bottleneck and prevents the existence of a healthy source population. 2853
January 18, 2023

Page 2 ends

With the continued development pressure and lack of adequate mitigation required by the resource agencies, the BUOW population in this region is tenuous at best and will likely never recover from what was once a robust breeding source population (Kidd et al. 2003, 2007).

A current review of BUOWs previously reported near the Ontario Airport includes 45 records from 1989-2017. These 45 records are located within seven nearby 7.5min USGS quads (Ontario, Prado, Corona North, Fontana, Cucamonga Peak and Mt. Blady) and Guasti quad where the airport is located (CNDDB 2020). The nearest owl locations reported south of the airport were evicted approximately ten years ago during development of industrial warehouses. Mitigation included the installation of artificial burrows in a barrow pit on the west side of the nearby retired landfill and the owls were evicted from their burrows prior to grading. Owls are no longer known to occupy this site south of the airport. The existence of two (2) breeding owl pairs, currently surveyed by the 2022 Helix report, which are located at the subject OIAA property along the east side of Haven Avenue are included in the list of 45 owl records. Several reported owls north of Interstate 10 that are located west and north of Ontario Mills Mall are some of the only possible extant owls near the airport. All of these owls are surrounded by development and located on small, highly fragmented sites that will not provide long-term conservation value for the owl due to future development and predation pressure to name a few.

Further, the sites chosen for relocation are preserved sites and will be connected to large open areas that support existing burrowing owl populations, that are already in conserved areas, allowing increased survivability and genetic diversity to avoid inbreeding.

4. The Conclusions and Management Implications section of the study “Release Strategies and Ecological Factors Influence Mitigation Translocation Outcomes for Burrowing Owls: A Comparative Evaluation” (S.M. Hennessey, et. al.) states the following:
“Even if there is a survival penalty associated with translocation, it is important for managers and regulatory agencies to consider that translocation may achieve conservation goals better than displacement. The long-term value of translocation exceeds that of displacement when there are plausible projections of increasing future threats on the unprotected landscape around displacement sites. As the pace of development continues without any apparent de-escalation, wildlife such as BUOW experience ‘serial eviction’ as one habitat patch after another is lost to infrastructure expansion. Under these circumstances, it may be wise to consider translocation to protected areas that can manage these threats, conduct restoration activities to enhance habitat suitability, and include extra management support following release.”
Except for the undeveloped interstitial areas associated with the Ontario International Airport runway to the west of the project site, the project site is almost entirely surrounded by existing development (industrial buildings) to the north, east and south. In accordance with the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owls, BUOW burrow exclusion and closure is employed only where there are adjacent natural burrows and non-impacted sufficient habitat for BUOW to occupy with permanent protection mechanism in place. Since the project site is surrounded by development on 2854
January 18, 2023

Page 3 ends

three of its boundaries, BUOW burrow exclusion and closure would likely result in BUOW moving from The HUB @ ONT project site to the Ontario International Airport runway, which would put the BUOW at risk of creating additional bird strike hazards with aircraft.

The presence of BUOWs at ONT is one wildlife hazard that the OIAA is required to abate under federal regulations (14 Code of Federal Regulations §139.337). These regulations require the OIAA, as part of ONT’s certification with FAA, to “alleviate or eliminate wildlife hazards to air carrier operations.” The ONT WHMP identifies BUOW as a wildlife hazard to airport operations that must be addressed, along with other hazards, under the WHMP.

While the subject site is zoned for industrial uses, the change of use incorporating the creation of a burrowing owl preserve site on airport property east of Haven Street would directly conflict with FAA regulations and guidance associated with the safety of aircraft operations and the use airport property. The following regulations and FAA guidance would apply to the proposed establishment of burrowing owl preserve on airport property:
• Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 139.339, Wildlife Hazard Management • FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33, Wildlife Hazard Attractants on and Near Airports • FAA Grant Assurances
• CertAlert 06-07, Requests by State Wildlife Agencies to Facilitate and Encourage Habitat for State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Special Concern on Airports Each item and its applicability to the proposed preserve is discussed in the following paragraphs.

Numerous avian bird strikes have been reported on the Ontario International Airport, including various strikes from BUOW. Due to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations for avian bird strikes, flight safety, and USDA depredation permits in situ, onsite conservation of this subject site is not feasible. Translocation is needed for the long-term survival of the BUOWs on The HUB @ ONT project site.

USDA (Animal Plant Health Inspection Service; APHIS) is hired by OIAA to reduce strike hazards caused by various wildlife species. Per FAA rules and regulations, OIAA can’t engage in restoration, mitigation or any actions that increase wildlife hazards within zones at and around an FAA certified airport. Any airport can lose their FAA certificate and funding if they are found to be out of compliance with this rule. Any mitigation efforts within 10,000 feet of the airport (the project site is located well within 10,000 feet of the airport) would be considered out of compliance and would likely result in wasted efforts as APHIS has the authority to haze, evict or lethally remove any hazardous wildlife.

Installing artificial burrows and/or encouraging owls to inhabit lands on or directly adjacent to the OIAA property violates FAA rules and is not a viable strategy because of the expected increased presence of other larger hazardous birds (e.g. red-tailed hawks, golden eagles, ferruginous hawks, red-shouldered hawks, Cooper’s hawks, turkey vultures, and common ravens) who would attempt to predate or scavenge owls, squirrels or rabbits that would likely use the artificial burrows. Hawks 2855
January 18, 2023

Page 4 ends

and vultures are those struck by aircraft at the highest rates and those known to cause the most damage per strike. These species are often involved in aircraft strikes while they are hover hunting or circling over the approach or departure ends of the airport within the glide slopes. Bird strikes in these situations (landing and take-off) are the most dangerous and can lead to catastrophic events that can kill hundreds of passengers and crew on jetliners.

Evicting the owls along Haven Avenue outside the airfield could result in owls moving to areas within the airfield, making a more hazardous situation. Owls are often found seeking refuge very close to taxiways and runways under lights, signs and other man-made structures that support refuge and areas for squirrels to create burrows. Many burrowing owls that are struck at airports are those crossing runways as aircraft are departing and arriving. This will generally not lead to a catastrophic accident however even small birds like burrowing owls are capable of causing tens of thousands of dollars in damage to aircraft per event.

Further, relocating or encouraging owls to reside on a commercial airfield would violate FAA rules, will result in APHIS having to remove the owls in the future, and creates potential liability for the resource agencies or biologists promoting the in-situ conservation of owls at or near an airport.

In summary, the act of attempting to conduct any form of “mitigation” including in situ or eviction on or directly adjacent to the airfield is not supported by the FAA, APHIS, or past direction from CDFW Headquarters. The best approach for owl mitigation at and adjacent to OIAA property should involve active relocation. This will better ensure for safe flight operations and compliance with FAA regulations while also attempting to provide the owls with a greater chance of survival and future breeding attempts.

Sincerely,
Travis McGill, ELMT Consulting
2856

EXHIBIT F
2857
Mead & Hunt | 1360 19th Hole Drive, Suite 200, Windsor, CA 95492-7717 | 707-526-5010 | meadhunt.com January 18, 2023 sent via email
Rudy Zeledon
Planning Director, City of Ontario
303 East B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
Phone: 909-395-2036
RE: EIR for Proposed Development at the Ontario Airport Dear Rudy:

Mead & Hunt, Inc. (Mead & Hunt) offers the following responses to comments received in association with proposed development of “The Hub,” a proposed logistics/warehousing project at the Ontario International Airport (ONT). The following comment responses pertain to FAA wildlife hazard management regulations and guidance as well as policies set forth in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for the Ontario Airport. The same or similar comments are grouped to avoid duplication, and commentors are identified in association with each comment.

COMMENT TOPIC NO. 1
Burrowing Owls Are Not a Hazard to Aviation
Comment 1a: Contrary to statements in the Helix Environmental report, Burrowing Owls are not a hazard to aviation. They are small birds that fly close to the ground and do not fly in flocks.

According to the FAA bird strike data, there were 21 reports of airstrikes involving these owls since 2008. Eight turned out to be other wildlife species or the species were unknown; for eleven a carcass or wing was found but no airstrike was reported by pilots; and two involved a Burrowing Owl strike but no damage was reported. In all these years there we no instances of a Burrowing Owl causing damage to a plane. If Burrowing Owls that live right next to the runways are not a threat to aviation, how much less a threat are the owls that live east of Haven.

Another argument is that Burrowing Owl attract larger raptors that might cause damage to a plane. This problem can be addressed through a raptor control problem, something that all airports need to have in place, whether or not they have Burrowing Owls near their property. Many other airports protect plans [sic] from large raptors using control strategies that do not kill or harm or trap the raptors.

Finally, none of the Helix Environmental statements that the FAA will not allow mitigation for Burrowing Owls near an airport are backed up with reference to FAA regulations or communications. If you look at the FAA regulations that discuss Wildlife Hazards, you will find that Burrowing Owls are not mentioned. If Burrowing Owls are NOT a hazard to aviation, the owl mitigation can be done on the boot property.

Commentors: Suzanne C. Thompson, Chair, Pomona Valley Audubon Society Burrowing Owl Committee (Letter submitted by email on January 4, 2023).
2858
Rudy Zeledon
EIR for Proposed Development at the Ontario Airport
January 18, 2023

Page 2 ends

Mead & Hunt | 1360 19th Hole Drive, Suite 200, Windsor, CA 95492-7717 | 707-526-5010 | meadhunt.com Susan A. Phillips, Director, Robert Redford Conservancy for Southern California and Sustainability Professor of Environmental Analysis, Pitzer College, with B. Elliott, D. Silver, C. Schlotterbeck, K. Floyd, S. Sheakley, A. Gonzolez, C. R. Smith, R. Bekendam, L. S.

Dieter, and A. J. Noriega (Letter submitted by email on January 4, 2023) RESPONSE TO COMMENT TOPIC NO. 1
A recent review of Wildlife strike records in the FAA’s National Wildlife Strike Database (NWSD) indicate that burrowing owls have been associated with recorded wildlife strikes at U.S. airports since 1992. The NWSD identifies a total of 407 strikes associated with the Burrowing Owl, with 23 strikes (5.6 percent of the total strikes) occurring in 2022. Five burrowing owl strikes resulted in minor or minor/uncertain damage to the following commercial service aircraft: Boeing 727-200, Boing 737-700, Boeing 737-800, and McDonnell Douglas MD80. A 2015 strike with a commercially operated Cessna LC-41 resulted in substantial aircraft damage, which is defined as damage or structural failure which adversely affects the structure strength, performance or flight characteristics of the aircraft and would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component.1
The recent FAA/USDA publication Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft, 1990 to 2021 analyzes and interprets NWSD strike records. The analysis of NWSD records indicates that approximately 71 percent of all strikes from 1990 to 2021 occurred at elevations below 500 feet above ground level (AGL), with many occurring while aircraft were on the ground. The number of strikes above 500 feet AGL declined by 32 percent for each 1,000-foot gain in height for commercial transport aircraft and by 43 percent for general aviation aircraft. Strikes that occur on the ground or at low altitudes may cause comparatively less damage to aircraft than strikes that occur at higher elevations, but they occur more frequently and cause a negative effect on flight, such as an aborted takeoff, engine shutdown, precautionary landing, or other negative effect because they occur during sensitive takeoff and landing cycles.2 As indicated by this data, the conclusion that burrowing owls do not fly high enough to cause bird strikes is incorrect.

Both civil and military aviation agencies understand that the burrowing owl poses direct hazards to aircraft operations, and the burrowing owl has been the subject of research. A 2018 article published in the Journal of Raptor Research entitled “Assessing Owl Collisions with U.S. Civil and U.S. Air Force Aircraft” considered the FAA NWSD, and the U.S. Air Force’s Birdstrike Database identified 2,531 strikes that involved at least 20 species of owls. A total of 192 of the strikes (7.8 percent) were associated with burrowing owls. Among the conclusions drawn in the report:
• Owl strikes typically occurred within the airfield environment itself. • Of the strikes associated with owls, 86 percent occurred when the aircraft was at or below 30 feet AGL.
• Owl strikes with US civil and USAF aircraft are a common event during flight operations within the USA and throughout the world.3
1 FAA National Wildlife Strike Database. 2023. Database search for strikes associated with Burrowing Owl. Accessed January 2023. Available at: https://wildlife.faa.gov/search 2 FAA and USDA. 2022. Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft in the United States, 1990-2021. Available at:
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2022-07/Wildlife-Strike-Report-1990-2021.pdf 3 Journal of Raptor Research. 2018. Assessing Owl Collisions with U.S. Civil and U.S. Air Force Aircraft. Vol. 52 (3):
2820290. Available at: https://bioone.org/journals/journal-of-raptor-research/volume-52/issue-3/JRR-17-64.1/ Assessing-Owl-Collisions-with-US-Civil-and-US-Air-Force/10.3356/JRR-17-64.1.full 2859
Rudy Zeledon
EIR for Proposed Development at the Ontario Airport
January 18, 2023

Page 3 ends

Mead & Hunt | 1360 19th Hole Drive, Suite 200, Windsor, CA 95492-7717 | 707-526-5010 | meadhunt.com The FAA and USDA have considered burrowing owls as both a direct and indirect hazard to aircraft operations, as the burrowing owl can be prey for other hazardous species. Burrowing owls are opportunists who often use abandoned ground squirrel burrows for nesting. The combined presence of ground squirrels and the small owls attracts birds of prey such as red-tailed and Swainson’s hawks, which are large enough to cause damage to aircraft. Burrowing owls were determined to pose a sufficient hazard at Naval Air Station Lemoore to cause the U.S. Navy and U.S. Fish and Wildlife to relocate the population to a remote area of the 19,000-acre installation.4 Vultures, hawks, and other raptors are routinely addressed in the integrated wildlife hazard management plans prepared by civil airports.

The response to comment Topic No. 2 identifies FAA regulations and guidance that would conflict with the establishment of a burrowing owl preserve on airport property east of Haven Avenue.

COMMENT TOPIC NO. 2
Suggested Creation of a 90-acre Burrowing Owl Preserve on Airport Property Comment 2a: More than 30 comments refer to the land that OIAA owns east of Haven Avenue and suggest that the creation of a “90-acre burrowing owl preserve on the site that is properly endowed and well managed will help keep the remaining Ontario owls safe….” Commentors: G. Sidney Silliman (email dated January 3, 202), Lori Galloway (email dated January 1, 2023), Laura Jaoui (email dated January 2, 2023), Shea Millan (email dated January 2, 2023), Dave Macias, (email dated January 2, 2023), Gus Ocon (email dated January 2, 2023), Jacob Ligorria (email dated January 2, 2023), Maria Holcomb (email dated January 3, 2023), Miriam Rodriguez (email dated January 2, 2023), Patty Anis (email dated January2, 2023), Patricia Gleason (email dated January 2, 2023), Rachel Innes (Email dated January 1, 2023), Deena Ligorria (email dated January 2, 2023), Rebecca Byerley (email dated January 2, 2023), Andy Georges (email dated January 2, 2023), Alan Davis (email dated January 2, 2023); Madeline Allinder (email dated January 2, 2023), Maria Bennett (email dated January 1, 2023), Martina Ebert, Ph.D (email dated January 3, 2023), Dan Silver (email dated January 2, 2023), Scott Marnoy, MD (email dated January 2, 2023), Robert Holcomb (email dated January 1, 2023), Pamela Nelson (email dated January 4, 2023), Barbara Barton (email dated January 3, 2023), Caren Hanson (email dated January 4, 2023), Joel Huschle (email dated January 4, 2023), Jazmyn Rivera (email dated January 4, 2022), Jeff Strogen (email dated January 4, 2023), Kelly Coyne (email dated January 4, 2023), Ana Rodriguez (email dated January 3, 2023), Erik Knutzen (email dated January 4, 2023), Kimberly Dillbeck (email dated January 3, 2023), Marcyn Del Clements (email dated January 4, 2023), April D. Chertkow (email dated January 4, 2023), Comment 2b: I support the proposed 90-acre Burrowing Owl Reserve at that site. Please do not destroy one of the last remnants of Burrowing Owl habitat in our valley.

Commentor: Scott Marnoy, MD, email dated January 2, 2023.

Comment 2c: I implore the City to ensure that if this project moves forward, requires the project developer to conserve land, forever to protect burrowing owl within the City of Ontario. 4 Hendron. 2017, Solving the unsolvable:wise conservation solution protects owls and aviators at NAS Lemoore. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/story/2021-06/solving-unsolvable 2860
Rudy Zeledon
EIR for Proposed Development at the Ontario Airport
January 18, 2023

Page 4 ends

Mead & Hunt | 1360 19th Hole Drive, Suite 200, Windsor, CA 95492-7717 | 707-526-5010 | meadhunt.com Commentor: Paul Romario (email dated January 4, 2023) – PDF P. 34 Comment 2d: This bird is an important part of the natural heritage of Ontario and the Inland Valley. The vestigial habitat and owl population are true treasures that the City and Airport have the unique opportunity to capitalize on and share with not just the local community, but with travelers near and far. Instead of allowing the land to be developed, this land should be set aside for preservation of the burrowing owl. In doing so, the City and Airport will be taking a leadership role in helping conserve the burrowing owl….

Commentor: Shari Wasson, Certified California Naturalist and Co-Founder of Inland Valley Advocates for the Environment (IVAE)
Comment 2e: The burrowing owl is perhaps the signature species that makes Ontario unique—so signature, in fact, that the entire airport could be named after and themed as the Burrowing Owl Ontario Airport. Conserving this sensitive species—that has long been on the cusp of endangered species status—would position Ontario as a leader in innovative conservation strategies. This would open opportunities for the city to develop ecotourism opportunities, interpretive displays, artwork, and educational stations within the airport to celebrate the local owl population. Including the Burrowing Owl habitat east of the Airport could be part of the Airport’s plan for greening and electrification. …The benefits of having burrowing owls on airport land include their role as natural pest controllers and their potential to attract ecotourism.

Commentor: Susan A. Phillips, et al. (Letter submitted by email dated January 4, 2023.) Comment 2f: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) does not list the burrowing owl as a species that poses danger to aircraft. In fact, the FAA actively promotes the conservation of burrowing owls and other wildlife at airports through its Airport Wildlife Hazard Management Program.

This program provides guidance and resources for airport operators to develop and implement effective wildlife hazard management strategies that prioritize safety, while also promoting the conservation of wildlife on and around airport property (Federal Aviation Administration, 2019). The FAA also recognizes the important of conserving wildlife at airports, and takes steps to ensure that safety is prioritized while also promoting the conservation of species like the burrowing owl (Federal Aviation Administration. (2019).

AIrport wildlife hazard management. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov /airports_safety/wildlife. U.S. Fish and wildlife Service (2020, and Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). Retrieved https://fws.gov.southeasxt/wildlife/bird.burrowing-owl/).

Commentor: Susan A. Phillips et al. (Letter submitted by email dated January 4, 2023.) Comment 2g: Please find a way to keep Airport Burrowing Owls in Ontario with a professionally managed and properly endowed preserve for the owls on site or nearby.

Commentor: Susan A. Phillips et al. (Letter submitted by email dated January 4, 2023.) Comment 2h: Surely the best use for this property is to become a Burrowing Owl preserve. 2861
Rudy Zeledon
EIR for Proposed Development at the Ontario Airport
January 18, 2023

Page 5 ends

Mead & Hunt | 1360 19th Hole Drive, Suite 200, Windsor, CA 95492-7717 | 707-526-5010 | meadhunt.com Commentor: Trude Hurde (letter dated January 2, 2023)
RESPONSE TO COMMENT TOPIC NO. 2
The creation of a burrowing owl preserve site on airport property east of Haven Street would directly conflict with FAA regulations and guidance associated with the safety of aircraft operations and the use airport property. The following regulations and FAA guidance would apply to the proposed establishment of burrowing owl preserve on airport property:
• Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 139.339, Wildlife Hazard Management • FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33, Wildlife Hazard Attractants on and Near Airports • FAA Grant Assurances
• CertAlert 06-07, Requests by State Wildlife Agencies to Facilitate and Encourage Habitat for StateListed Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Special Concern on Airports Each item and its applicability to the proposed preserve is discussed in the following paragraphs.

Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 139.337, Wildlife Hazard Management The Ontario International Airport (ONT) holds an operating certificate from the FAA in accordance with Title 14 Part 193, “Airport Certification.” As a certificated airport, the City, as the Airport Operator, must meet the requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 139.337, Wildlife Hazard Management (14 CFR Part 139.337). As stated in the regulation, “The operator of certificated airport, must take immediate action to alleviate wildlife hazards whenever they are detected (14 CFR 139.337, (a)).” In this context, a wildlife hazard refers to the potential to cause a damaging aircraft collision with wildlife on or near an airport. Wildlife poses a direct threat when it has the potential be involved in a collision or “strike” with aircraft. Wildlife poses an indirect threat when it causes damage to aircraft or aviation facilities, such as nesting in aircraft or navigational equipment, chewing through wires, or by attracting other wildlife that could pose a direct hazard, such as wildlife that may attracts predators, such as raptors, coyote, etc.

A certificate holder must formulate an implement a wildlife hazard management plan when the FAA Administrator determines that one is needed based on the results of Wildlife Hazard Assessment (14 CFR 139.337 (e)). The City of Ontario has developed an FAA-approved WHMP as requested by the FAA Administrator. FAA regulations at 14 CFR Part 139.337 also refers to other FAA resources that are acceptable for managing wildlife at airports. Paragraph (g) states that “FAA Advisory Circulars contain methods and procedures for wildlife hazard management at airports that are acceptable to the Administrator.”
FAA AC 150/5200-33C, Wildlife Hazard Attractants On and Near Airports Available at: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/150-5200-33C.pdf The FAA issues several Advisory Circulars (ACs) and CertAlerts to help airport operators address specific issues associated with airport operations and management. AC 150/5200-33C provides guidance on certain land uses that have the potential to attract hazardous wildlife on or near public-use airports, and the FAA recommends the guidance for airports that receive funding under Federal grant assistance programs, 2862
Rudy Zeledon
EIR for Proposed Development at the Ontario Airport
January 18, 2023

Page 6 ends

Mead & Hunt | 1360 19th Hole Drive, Suite 200, Windsor, CA 95492-7717 | 707-526-5010 | meadhunt.com including the Airport Improvement Program, and the 39 grant assurances (obligations) associated with the receipt of federal funds, specifically FAA grant assurance nos. 9 and 34.

The FAA also recommends the AC 150/5200-33C for land-use planners and developers of projects, facilities, and activities on or near airports. The proposed creation of a burrowing owl preserve on Airportowned property would conflict with key recommendation identified in the AC 150/5200-33C:
• Maintaining an appropriate environment for safe and efficient aircraft operations. As identified in AC 150/5200-33C, “Airport operators should maintain an appropriate environment for the safe and efficient operation of aircraft, which entails mitigating wildlife strike hazards by fencing, modifying the landscape in order to deter wildlife, or by hazing or removing wildlife hazards to aircraft from congregating at airports” (paragraph 1.1.1).

Burrowing owls are known to pose direct and indirect strike hazards to aircraft operations – burrowing owls have been struck at ONT and other airports – and they can pose indirect hazards as they can attract other hazardous wildlife, including predators such as coyote and raptors.

Contrary to the AC, creating a burrowing owl preserve would attract potentially hazardous wildlife rather than deter wildlife from congregating on airports. • Minimum Separation criteria for land use practices that attract hazardous wildlife to the airport vicinity. Chapter 1 of AC 150/5200-33C identifies minimum separation distances between aircraft movement areas and land use practices that attract hazardous wildlife. As stated in paragraph 1.1.3, “FAA criteria include land uses that cause movement of hazardous wildlife onto, into, or across an airport’s approach or departure airspace or aircraft movement areas.” For airports that support turbine-powered aircraft (i.e., jets), the FAA recommends maintaining a separation of 10,000 feet “between the closest point of the airport’s aircraft operation area and the hazardous wildlife attractant” (paragraph 1.3). To protect approach, departure, and circling airspace, “the FAA recommends a distance of 5 miles between closest point of the airport’s aircraft operations area and the hazardous wildlife attractant” (paragraph 1.4).

As measured using aerial photography, the east side of Haven Avenue is less than 2,100 feet from aircraft pavements associated with Runways 26L and 26R and is directly beneath the approach/departure airspace; therefore, the creation of a wildlife preserve at this location would conflict with FAA guidance set forth in the AC.
• Land Uses that attract hazardous wildlife. Chapter 2 of AC 150/5200-33C discusses land use practices that have the potential to attract hazardous wildlife and threaten aviation safety (paragraph 2.1.2). Among the land uses identified are mitigation banks and other land uses including conservation easements, parks, wildlife management areas, and other activities that may have the potential to attract hazardous wildlife.

The AC states, “Regardless of the source of the attraction, when hazardous wildlife is noted on a public use airport, each certificate holder must take prompt remedial action(s) to protect aviation safety” (paragraph 2.8.4).

Section 2.9 specifically refers to habitat for state and federally listed species on airports. The AC notes that airports provide an artificial environment that may vary from surrounding native landscapes, and some wildlife species may be attracted to the airport in higher numbers because the airport may offer features the species prefer, including state and federally listed species and species of concern.
2863
Rudy Zeledon
EIR for Proposed Development at the Ontario Airport
January 18, 2023

Page 7 ends

Mead & Hunt | 1360 19th Hole Drive, Suite 200, Windsor, CA 95492-7717 | 707-526-5010 | meadhunt.com The guidance clearly states:
“Airport operators should exercise caution in adopting new management techniques because they may increase wildlife hazards and be inconsistent with safe airport operations.

Managing the on-airport environment to facilitate or encourage the presence of hazardous wildlife species can create conditions that are incompatible with, or pose a threat to, aviation safety” (paragraph 2.9.1.1).

In referring to state listed species and species of concern, the FAA acknowledges that not all species of concern pose a direct threat to aviation safety, but “may pose and indirect threat and be hazardous because they attract other species or support prey species attractive to other species that are directly hazardous” (paragraph 2.9.1.2).

FAA Grant Assurances (Obligations)
When airport owners or sponsors, such as the City, accept funds from FAA-administered airport financial assistance programs, they must agree to certain obligations or assurances that require the recipients to maintain and operate their facilities safely and efficiently and in accordance with specified conditions.

Table 1 identifies specific Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant assurances that are applicable to wildlife hazard management and the creation of a burrowing owl preserve on airport property.

Table 1: Grant Assurances Applicable to Wildlife Hazard Management Grant Assurance
No. / Title Description and Applicability
GA 19
Operation and
Maintenance
Description
The airport and all facilities which are necessary to serve the aeronautical users of the airport, other than facilities owned or controlled by the United States, shall be operated at all times in a safe and serviceable condition and in accordance with the minimum standards as may be required or prescribed by applicable Federal, state, and local agencies for maintenance and operation. It will not cause or permit any activity or action thereon which would interfere with its use for airport purposes” (paragraph a).

Applicability
The creation of a burrowing owl preserve would create a hazardous wildlife attractant on airport property, which conflicts with the requirement to operate the airport at all times in a safe and serviceable condition.

GA 20
Hazard Removal
and Mitigation
Description
It will take appropriate action to assure that such terminal airspace as is required to protect instrument and visual operations to the airport (including established minimum flight altitudes) will be adequately cleared and protected by removing, lowering, relocating, marking, or lighting or otherwise mitigating existing airport hazards and by preventing the establishment or creation of future airport hazards.

Applicability
The creation of a wildlife preserve for the burrowing owl would create a hazardous wildlife attractant beneath terminal airspace. Such action would conflict with the terms of the grant assurance, which require the airport operator to adequately clear and protect the terminal airspace.
2864
Rudy Zeledon
EIR for Proposed Development at the Ontario Airport
January 18, 2023

Page 8 ends

Mead & Hunt | 1360 19th Hole Drive, Suite 200, Windsor, CA 95492-7717 | 707-526-5010 | meadhunt.com GA 21
Compatible
Land Use
Description
It will take appropriate action, to the extent reasonable, including the adoption of zoning laws, to restrict the use of land adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the airport to activities and purposes compatible with normal airport operations, including landing and takeoff of aircraft.

Applicability
The proposed burrowing owl preserve would be located on airport property and within the Airport Influence Area for ONT as designated by the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The development of wildlife preserve is considered an incompatible use within the context of ALUCP policies, the purpose of which is to restrict the use of land in the airport vicinity to activities and purposes that are compatible with normal operations. The proposed preserve would conflict with the ALUCP and the grant assurance.

Source: AIP Grant Assurances for Airport Sponsors. 2022. Accessed January 2022. Available at:
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/airports/new_england/airport_compliance/assurances-airportsponsors-2022-05.pdf CertAlert 06-07, Requests by State Wildlife Agencies to Facilitate and Encourage Habitat for StateListed Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Special Concern on Airports CertAlerts provide the FAA Airports Safety and Operations Division with additional guidance about Part 139 Airport Certification and related issues. Cert Alert 06-07 describes procedures for responding to requests by state wildlife agencies to facilitate and encourage habitat for state-listed species or species of special concern that occur on airports and may pose a threat to aviation safety. Some of the guidance set forth in this CertAlert is reiterated in AC 150/5200-33C. The CertAlert states:

Airport operators must decline to adopt habitat management techniques that jeopardize aviation safety. Adopting such techniques could place them in violation of their obligations and subject to an FAA enforcement action and possible civil penalties under 49 U.S.C. §44706, as implemented by 14 CFR § 139.337. In particular, an airport operator that has received federal grant-in-aid assistance is obligated through its grant assurances to maintain compatible land uses. Failure to do so may lead to noncompliance with its grant obligations. Further, airports that serve commercial air carriers are required to be certificated under 49 U.S.C. §44706, as implemented by 14 CFR Part 139. Title 14 CFR § 139.337(a) requires airport operators holding a Part 139 certificate to “take immediate action to alleviate wildlife hazards whenever they are detected.” Although the proposal to create a burrowing owl preserve was not issued by a state agency, the burrowing owl is a state species of concern. The CertAlert is clear in that airport operators should not manage airport property for the preservation of state list species/species of concern based on their potential to attract potentially hazardous wildlife and pose conflicts with FAA regulations, grant assurances, and guidance.

COMMENT TOPIC NO. 3
Undeveloped Airport Safety Zones
Two comment letters indicated that the creation of a burrowing owl preserve would maintain the project area as “undeveloped safety zones for the airport” and that these “undeveloped areas provide emergency landing zones for aircraft, if needed.”
Commenters: Natasha Walton, Planning Director, Inland Valley Advocates for the Environment (IVAE) (January 4, 2023); Trude Hurd, Lake Forest, CA (January 2, 2023) 2865
Rudy Zeledon
EIR for Proposed Development at the Ontario Airport
January 18, 2023

Page 9 ends

Mead & Hunt | 1360 19th Hole Drive, Suite 200, Windsor, CA 95492-7717 | 707-526-5010 | meadhunt.com RESPONSE TO COMMENT TOPIC NO. 3
While having undeveloped land around airports is desirable, designating open land as a wildlife preserve conflicts with federal, state, and local airport land use compatibility guidance due to wildlife hazard concerns (as noted in the above sections). For the purposes of “The Hub” project, buildings and other structures were sited in a manner that keep the following critical aeronautical areas clear of obstructions:
• Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)
Trapezoidal in shape, centered about the extended runway centerline, and typically located off each runway end. The full standards and dimensions for RPZs are in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design. The purpose of the RPZ is to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground by clearing RPZ areas (and keeping them clear) of objects and activities that would impact the safety of people and property on the ground. • Safety Zones
The ONT safety zones are established in the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), which was adopted by the City of Ontario (the City) in 2011 and amended in July 2018.

The ONT safety zones are based upon the generic safety zones provided in the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (January 2011) and published by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Aeronautics. Safety Zone 1 is adjusted to match the ONT RPZs. The intent of the safety compatibility policies is to minimize the risks associated with an offairport aircraft accident or emergency landing. The policies focus on reducing the potential consequences of such events when they occur.
• Airspace Surfaces
Three-dimensional airspace areas that surround a runway and are used by the FAA through Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of National Airspace, to evaluate whether a structure or vegetation is or could be a hazard to air navigation.

The dimensions of the ONT imaginary surfaces are based upon individual runway characteristics.

Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)
As shown in Exhibit 1, approximately 14.56 acres of the project site fall within the Runway Protection Zones (RPZs) for Runways 26L and 26R. The proposed site plan keeps this zone clear of future structures and parking lots. As such, no compatibility conflicts exist in the RPZs, which is the most restrictive of all the safety zones.
2866
Rudy Zeledon
EIR for Proposed Development at the Ontario Airport
January 18, 2023

Page 10 ends

Mead & Hunt | 1360 19th Hole Drive, Suite 200, Windsor, CA 95492-7717 | 707-526-5010 | meadhunt.com Exhibit 1: Runway Protection Zones
Safety Zones
The ONT ALUCP establishes intensity limits for nonresidential uses (i.e., maximum number of people per acre) and other safety considerations within each of the five safety zones established for ONT. As shown in Exhibit 2, the project site spans Safety Zones 1, 2, and 3.

As noted above, Safety Zone 1 is clear of structures and satisfies ALUCP safety criteria. For Safety Zones 2 and 3, the individual proposed building sites are subject to the ALUCP usage intensity (people per acre) limits for each zone. The City of Ontario controls the ultimate determination of compliance with the ALUCP intensity criteria, and those determinations will occur when a potential tenant(s) is identified for each building and a specific land use is proposed. The intensity limits for each building will be incorporated into the tenant lease agreement. As such, no compatibility conflicts exist in Safety Zones 2 and 3. 2867
Rudy Zeledon
EIR for Proposed Development at the Ontario Airport
January 18, 2023

Page 11 ends

Mead & Hunt | 1360 19th Hole Drive, Suite 200, Windsor, CA 95492-7717 | 707-526-5010 | meadhunt.com Exhibit 2: Safety Zones
Airspace Surfaces
Airspace protection compatibility policies seek to prevent the creation of land use features that can pose hazards to the airspace required by aircraft in flight and have the potential for causing an aircraft accident.

The project has been conceptually designed to keep all future structures below the Part 77 obstruction surfaces; therefore, the project does not pose any air space hazards.

Additionally, FAA Form 7460-1 has been submitted to the FAA for an aeronautical study for all nine buildings in The Hub (see Exhibit 3 for an example). The FAA has issued “Final Determination” letters for each of the nine project buildings in 2022. None of the buildings were determined to be a hazard to air navigation subject to the conditions stipulated.
2868
Rudy Zeledon
EIR for Proposed Development at the Ontario Airport
January 18, 2023

Page 12 ends

Mead & Hunt | 1360 19th Hole Drive, Suite 200, Windsor, CA 95492-7717 | 707-526-5010 | meadhunt.com Exhibit 3: The Hub
2869
Rudy Zeledon
EIR for Proposed Development at the Ontario Airport
January 18, 2023

Page 13 ends

Mead & Hunt | 1360 19th Hole Drive, Suite 200, Windsor, CA 95492-7717 | 707-526-5010 | meadhunt.com

CONCLUSIONS
The creation of a burrowing owl preserve would create an incompatible land use that conflicts with Chapter 2 of FAA AC150/5200-33C; it would create habitat for a species that has caused both direct and indirect threats to aircraft operations. Although the FAA supports efforts to protect threatened and endangered species and must review proposed projects for the consistency with the Endangered Species Act, the FAA cannot do so to the detriment of safe aircraft operations. As stated in the AC, “Requests to enhance or create habitat for threatened and endangered species often conflict with the safety of the traveling public and may place the protected species at risk of mortality by aircraft collisions. The FAA does not support the creation, conservation, or enhancement of habitat or refuges to attract endangered species on airports” (paragraph 2.9.2.1).

The FAA’s continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world, and the safety of aviators and the traveling public must remain paramount. FAA regulations pertaining to hazardous wildlife seek to prevent the development of new wildlife hazard attractants within specified separation distances to protect the traveling public; however, the FAA supports conservation and seeks to avoid and minimize effects to protected species. The FAA complies with the National Environmental Policy Act for proposed airport actions, and it does not oppose the creation, mitigation, or conservation of areas that are constructed outside of the separation distances identified in AC 150/5200-33.

Mead & Hunt appreciates this opportunity to review the comments received on The Hub, a proposed logistics project on Ontario International Airport. Please do not hesitate to contact Lisa Harmon by email ([email protected]) should you have comments on the material discussed in this letter.

Sincerely,
MEAD & HUNT, Inc.

Lisa Harmon Rick Jones
Aviation/Environmental Planner FAA Qualified Airport Wildlife Biologist.

Attachment: Annotated CEQA Comments
2870
2871
 


  

 

!"
#
$

 
%&'
()
*+*,
-


!"-
'
$
"
. /0
.
"')
%&'
*)
*+*,
1+2,(2+1
!. 345
6789:
;<=5
>?@765A9
B7;;?C9:A=
94:B
<=5A><
:956
:A@87>5B
B5D5C<8 6:BB9<9565A9B
?E
E<@9
<A>
C5E5C5A@5B
9?
<
E8<F5>
5<C8:5C
>?@765A9G
<88 ;7C;?C9:A=
9?
B7;;?C9
945
A?9:?A
94<9
945C5
<C5
A?
;?95A9:<8 5AD:C?A65A9<8
4<C6B
E8?F:A=
E?C6
945
;C?;?B5>
>5D58?;65A9
B@4565H

34:B :B
@85<C8I
A?9
945
@<B5J

K
945
>?@765A9
C58:5B
?A
<
6:9:=<9:?A
;8<A
E?C
L7CC?F:A=
MF8B
94<9 4<B
<8C5<>I
E<:85>N

K
945C5
:B
:A@?A9C?D5C9:O85
B@:5A9:E:@
5D:>5A@5
94<9
5D5A
945
O5B9 9C<AB8?@<9:?A
5EE?C9B
C5B789

:A
4:=4
6?C9<8:9IN

K
94?B5
?F8B
F4?
B7CD:D5
945
9C<76<
?E
9C<AB8?@<9:?A
C5;C5B5A9
< 8?BB
?E
>:B9:A@9
O:?>:D5CB:9IN

K
8?BB
?E
945
MA9<C:?
P:C;?C9
?F8B
F:88
4<D5
><6<=:A=
5EE5@9B
?A Q4:A?
L7CC?F:A=
MF8B
<A>
@<B@<>:A=
A5=<9:D5
5EE5@9B
?A
945
E5F :A>:=5A?7B
L7CC?F:A=
MF8B
:A
945
R?6?A<
S<885IH T76;:A=
<
6<BB:D5
>?@765A9
B7;;?C9:A=
?A5
<=5A><
:956
:A
945
6:>>85
?E
< 4?8:><I
F55U
5A>
<A>
;?B5B
<A
<86?B9
:AB7C6?7A9<O85
?OB9<@85
E?C <>D:B?CI
O?<C>
656O5CB
F4?
F<A9
9?
@?AB@:5A9:?7B8I
F5:=4
945
:A95C5B9B ?E
MVPPG
945
8?@<8
@?667A:9:5BG
<A>
945
OC?<>5C
=??>
?E
945
C5=:?AH VE
V
F5C5
<
656O5C
?E
945
O?<C>G
VW>
F<A9
9?
B<IG
XF4?<G
859WB
=:D5
94:B ;C?;?B<8
945
9:65
<A>
<995A9:?A
:9
>5B5CD5B
<A>
9<O85
94:B
<=5A>< :956HY

V
5A@?7C<=5
I?7
9?
>?
945
B<65H
2872
 


  

 

!"
#
$

 
%&'
()
*+*,
-


!"-
'
$
"
. /0
.
"')
%&'
*)
*+*,
1+2(32+4
!. 567
89:;<
=>?7
@AB987C;
D9==AE;<C?
;6<D
>?7C@>
<;78
<CB:9@7D
D7F7E>: 8<DD;>;787C;D
AG
G>B;
>C@
E7G7E7CB7D
;A
>
G:>H7@
7>E:<7E
@AB987C;I
>:: =9E=AE;<C?
;A
D9==AE;
;67
CA;<AC
;6>;
;67E7
>E7
CA
=A;7C;<>: 7CF<EAC87C;>:
6>E8D
G:AH<C?
GEA8
;67
=EA=AD7@
@7F7:A=87C;
DB6787J
K9;
;6<D
L>:@
D;>;787C;
E7M9<E7D
NA9
;A
<?CAE7
;67
@<D8>:

G><:9E7
AG
;67 89B6
6N=7@
;E>CD:AB>;<AC
DB6787
<C
;67
O<;N
AG
PC;>E<A
>C@
;67
L7D; >F><:>L:7
DB<7CB7
AC
K9EEAH<C?
PH:
=A=9:>;<AC
@NC>8<BDJ 567
;<8<C?
AG
G<::<C?
;6<D
@AB987C;
<C
;67
8<@@:7
AG
>
6A:<@>N
H77Q7C@ >:8AD;
?9>E>C;77D
;6>;
;67
878L7ED
AG
;67
>@F<DAEN
LA>E@
H<::

CA;
6>F7 ;<87
;A
;6A9?6;G9::N
E7F<7H
<;
>C@
8>Q7
>
=E9@7C;
E7BA887C@>;<ACJ 567
878L7ED
AG
;67
>@F<DAEN
LA>E@
>C@
;67
:>E?7E
BA889C<;N
@7D7EF7 L7;;7EJ

R:7>D7
;>L:7
;6<D
<;78
9C;<:

NA9
6>F7
6>@
>
B6>CB7
;A
?<F7
<; ;67
DQ7=;<B>:

DBE9;<CN
<;
@7D7EF7DJ
2873
 





 



 

!

"
#$
%
&'()*)+
,
-

!
,
.#
/



 01
2&
.
(%
&+()*)+345+4))!/ 6789:;<=>7?@A@B7CD@:;EFA>G7=HI7<=F JKLM@N;8EO@:F<P;@DI<;;Q@R<:K<=HSTUTV?@A@B7CD@:;EFA>G7=HI7<=FW@@;>:O IK==7X>:O9XBGY<Z<B>[7=:><GC@N>@G7[GC@N><BN7:N@=:YX@=@7:N@:KD@=7KG>:9:;<=>7<:F ZQ>:7<:F7:;Q@B<:F7[XQ<;>G:7X;Q@9:;<=>7E>=C7=;\]>F@GC=@<FF@A@B7CD@:;Q<G =@GKB;@F>:<G>O:>[>N<:;F@N=@<G@>:;Q@>=:KDL@=G<GB>;;B@X<GF7:@;7@:GK=@;Q@GK=A>A<B7[ ;Q@G@K:>^K@L>=FG\67F<HYX@:@@F;7C=7;@N;;Q@=@D<>:>:OB<:FXQ@=@;Q@9XBG:@G;<:F =<>G@;Q@>=H7K:O\  6Q@=@<=@<;B@<G;[7K=_S`G>O:>[>N<:;<:F:@O<;>A@@:A>=7:D@:;<B@[[@N;G7[;Q@C=7C7G@FCB<:\ 6Q@G@Q<A@:7;L@@:N7:G>F@=@F7=D>;>O<;@F[7=\6Q@G@<=@8_a`;Q@CB<:C=7C7G@GKG>:O< D>;>O<;>7:CB<:[7=IK==7X>:O9XBG;Q<;Q<G<B=@<FH[<>B@F<:FX>BB=@GKB;>:Q>OQD7=;<B>;Hb _T`B7GG7[F>G;>:N;L>7F>A@=G>;H[7=;Q@;=<:GB7N<;@F7XBGb_V`:@O<;>A@@[[@N;G7:;Q@ZQ>:7 IK==7X>:O9XBGb<:F_S`7A@=<BBQ>OQ@=D7=;<B>;H7[;=<:GB7N<;@F7XBG\P:GQ7=;YN7:;=<=H;7 ;Q@C=7C7G@F?@A@B7CD@:;EFA>G7=HI7<=FF@N>G>7:Y;Q@C=7M@N;X>BBQ<A@<G>O:>[>N<:; :@O<;>A@@[[@N;7:IK==7X>:O9XBG\ 
6Q@B<:F;Q<;9PEE7X:G@<G;7[c<A@:EA@:K@>G<C=>D<=H:@G;>:OG>;@[7=;Q@9XBG\dB@<G@ F7:7;F@G;=7H>;X>;QD7=@X<=@Q7KG@GeEfUg<N=@IK==7X>:O9XBC=@G@=A@7:;Q@G>;@;Q<;>G C=7C@=BH@:F7X@F<:FX@BBgD<:<O@FX>BBQ@BCh@@C;Q@=@D<>:>:O9:;<=>79XBGG<[@G7;Q@H N<:N7:;>:K@;7B>A@>:;Q@>=:<;>A@Q<L>;<;\JNQ77BNQ>BF=@:Y[<D>B>@GY<:F<BB7[KGN<:@:M7H Q<A>:O;Q@7XBG:@<=LH;7G;KFH<:F@:M7H\  J>F:@HJ>BB>D<:
iiUW<H[B7X@=jF ZB<=@D7:;YZEfakaa OGG>BB>D<:lNCC\@FK  2874
 


  

 
  



!"
#


$
%
&

'()*)+
,
-"
, .
#

/  01

2&
(
%
&

3(
)*)+
45365)'
/ 789:;<
=>9?@
ABC
789:;<
D>9?
E
<>
>F9
G<:H<CI
JK
LMLN
O9P9QBR?9:>
7;P=SBCI
EB<C; T99>=:8

UB
>F9
V:><C=B
O9P9QBR?9:>
7;P=SBCI
EB<C;K EHCCBW=:8
VWQS
W9C9
B:X9
:H?9CBHS
=:

V:><C=B
<:;
YF=:B
ZH>
F<P9
Z99:
;C=P9:

BH>
B[ >F9
<C9<
;H9
>B
W=;9SRC9<;
;9P9QBR?9:>
>F<>
;=;
:B>
RCB>9X>
>F9?\
]9
:99;
>B
RCB>9X>
>F9 C9?<=:=:8
Q<:;
WF9C9
>F9
BWQS
:9S>
<:;
C<=S9
>F9=C
IBH:8\

UF9C9
<C9
<>
Q9<S>
[BHC
S=8:=[=X<:>
:98<>=P9
9:P=CB:?9:><Q
9[[9X>S
B[
>F9
RCBRBS9;
RQ<: >F<>
F<P9
:B>
Z99:

XB:S=;9C9;
BC
?=>=8<>9;
[BC\
UF9S9
<C9@
HS=:8
<
?=>=8<>=B:

RQ<:
[BC
EHCCBW=:8
VWQS
>F<>
F<S
<QC9<;I
^_`abc
<:;
d`aa ebfgah
`i
j`kj
lmeh_a`hnK
amff
m^
c`fh`ioh
p`mc`qbef`hn
^me
hjb
he_ifamo_hbc
mdafr c_l_k`ik
b^^bohf
mi
sj`im
tgeemd`ik
udafr
_ic
mqbe_aa
j`kjbe
lmeh_a`hn
m^
he_ifamo_hbc
mdaf\
YB:>C<CI
>B
>F9
RCBRBS9;
O9P9QBR?9:>
7;P=SBCI
EB<C;
;9X=S=B:K
>F9 RCBv9X>
W=QQ
F<P9
<
f`ki`^`o_ih
ibk_h`qb
b^^boh
B:

EHCCBW=:8
VWQSK
<
wxyxz
w{z|}zw
~ w{z|}y€
|~|z‚ƒ

UF9
Q<:;
>F<>
VD77
BW:S
9<S>
B[
„<P9:
7P9:H9
=S
<
{‚}
y‚†
:9S>=:8
S=>9
[BC
>F9 BWQS\
‡€zywz
ˆ~
~x
ˆzwx‚~†
}x
w~

~‚z
‰y‚zŠ~‹wzw
|y
Œz
yˆˆzˆ
x~
xy‚}~Ž
7 M<XC9 EHCCBW=:8
VWQ
RC9S9CP9
B:
>F9
S=>9
>F<>
=S
RCBR9CQI
9:;BW9;
<:;
W9QQ?<:<89;
W=QQ F9QR
‘99R
>F9
C9?<=:=:8
V:><C=B
BWQS
S<[9
SB
>F9I
X<:

XB:>=:H9
>B
Q=P9
=:
>F9=C
:<>=P9 F<Z=><>\
’XFBBQXF=Q;C9:K
[<?=Q=9SK
<:;
<QQ
B[
HS
X<:
9:vBI
F<P=:8
>F9
BWQS
:9<CZI
>B
S>H;I <:;
9:vBI\
“BC=
”<QQBW<I

2875
  



 







!
"
#

$
%&
'(')
*
+!

*
,
-
"

.
 /0
.
-&

 -
'&
'(')
1(2'12'3
. 45
678
9:6;<=5
>8?8@5AB8:6
CD?=E5<F
G5;<DH

GI<<5J=:K
9J@E
J8<8
5:L8
:IB8<5IE
=:
9:6;<=5
;:D
M7=:5
NI6
7;?8
N88:

D<=?8:
5I6
5O
678 ;<8;
DI8
65 J=D8EA<8;D
D8?8@5AB8:6
67;6
D=D
:56
A<568L6
678BP
Q8
:88D
65 A<568L6
678 <8B;=:=:K
@;:D
J78<8
678
5J@E
:8E6
;:D
<;=E8
678=<
F5I:KP

478<8
;<8
;6
@8;E6
O5I<
E=K:=O=L;:6
:8K;6=?8
8:?=<5:B8:6;@
8OO8L6E
5O
678
A<5A5E8D
A@;:
67;6 7;?8
:56
N88:

L5:E=D8<8D
5<
B=6=K;68D
O5<P
478E8
;<8R
IE=:K
;
B=6=K;6=5:

A@;:

O5<
GI<<5J=:K 9J@E
67;6
7;E
;@<8;DF
O;=@8D
;:D
J=@@
<8EI@6
=:
7=K7
B5<6;@=6FH
@5EE
5O
D=E6=:L6
N=5D=?8<E=6F
O5< 678
6<;:E@5L;68D
5J@EH
D;B;K=:K
8OO8L6E
5:

M7=:5
GI<<5J=:K
9J@EH
;:D
5?8<;@@
7=K78< B5<6;@=6F
5O
6<;:E@5L;68D
5J@EP
M5:6<;<F
65 678
A<5A5E8D
>8?8@5AB8:6
CD?=E5<F
G5;<D D8L=E=5:H
678
A<5S8L6
J=@@
7;?8
;
E=K:=O=L;:6
:8K;6=?8
8OO8L6
5:

GI<<5J=:K
9J@EH
;
E6;68
EA8L=8E 5O
EA8L=;@
L5:L8<:P

478
@;:D
67;6
9TCC
5J:E
8;E6
5O
U;?8:

C?8:I8
=E
;
A<=B;<F
:8E6=:K
E=68
O5<
678
5J@EP
V@8;E8 D5
:56
D8E6<5F
=6
E5
B5<8
J;<875IE8E
L;:

N8
;DD8D
65 9:6;<=5W
C
XYZ;L<8
GI<<5J=:K
9J@ A<8E8<?8
5:
678
E=68
67;6
=E
A<5A8<@F
8:D5J8D
;:D
J8@@ZB;:;K8D
J=@@
78@A
[88A
678
<8B;=:=:K 9:6;<=5
5J@E
E;O8
E5
678F
L;:

L5:6=:I8
65 @=?8
=:
678=<
:;6=?8
7;N=6;6P
\L755@L7=@D<8:H
O;B=@=8EH ;:D
;@@
5O
IE
L;:
8:S5F
7;?=:K
678
5J@E
:8;<NF
65 E6IDF
;:D
8:S5FP \=:L8<8@FH
];I<;
^;5I=H
_`a
U;<<=E5:

C?8PH
M@;<8B5:6H
MC
Xbcbb
2876
 

  



 



!
"#
$%&$'&($()
*
+!

*
,-
" 



.!! /0

 -#
1 2 -
(#
($()
'3((34'

56789:
;<7=>
?@A
56789:

B<7=
C
:<
<D7
E:8F:AG
HI
JKJL
M7N7O@P=78<
59N;Q@AG
C@:A9 R77<;86

S@
<D7
T8<:A;@
M7N7O@P=78<
59N;Q@AG
C@:A9I CFAA@U;86
TUOQ
U7A7
@8V7
8F=7A@FQ
;8
T8<:A;@
:89
WD;8@
XF<
D:N7
X778
9A;N78
@F<
@Y
<D7 :A7:
9F7
<@
U;97QPA7:9
97N7O@P=78<
<D:<
9;9
8@<
PA@<7V<
<D7=Z
[7
8779
<@
PA@<7V<
<D7 A7=:;8;86
O:89
UD7A7
<D7
@UOQ
87Q<
:89
A:;Q7
<D7;A
G@F86Z

SD7A7
:A7
:<
O7:Q<
Y@FA
Q;68;Y;V:8<
876:<;N7
78N;A@8=78<:O
7YY7V<Q
@Y
<D7
PA@P@Q79
PO:8
<D:< D:N7
8@<
X778
V@8Q;97A79
@A
=;<;6:<79
Y@AZ
SD7Q7
:A7>
FQ;86
:
=;<;6:<;@8
PO:8
Y@A
CFAA@U;86 TUOQ
<D:<
D:Q
:OA7:9G
Y:;O79
:89
U;OO
A7QFO<
;8
D;6D
=@A<:O;<GI
O@QQ
@Y
9;Q<;8V<
X;@9;N7AQ;<G
Y@A <D7
<A:8QO@V:<79
@UOQI
9:=:6;86
7YY7V<Q
@8
WD;8@
CFAA@U;86
TUOQI
:89
@N7A:OO
D;6D7A =@A<:O;<G
@Y
<A:8QO@V:<79
@UOQZ
W@8<A:AG
<@
<D7
PA@P@Q79
M7N7O@P=78<
59N;Q@AG
C@:A9 97V;Q;@8I
<D7
PA@\7V<
U;OO
D:N7
:

Q;68;Y;V:8<
876:<;N7
7YY7V<
@8
CFAA@U;86
TUOQI
:

Q<:<7
QP7V;7Q @Y
QP7V;:O
V@8V7A8Z

SD7
O:89
<D:<
TB55
@U8Q
7:Q<
@Y
]:N78
5N78F7
;Q
:

PA;=:AG
87Q<;86
Q;<7
Y@A
<D7
@UOQZ
^O7:Q7 9@
8@<
97Q<A@G
;<
Q@
=@A7
U:A7D@FQ7Q
V:8
X7
:9979
<@
T8<:A;@_
5 `Ka:VA7
CFAA@U;86
TUO PA7Q7AN7
@8
<D7
Q;<7
<D:<
;Q
PA@P7AOG
789@U79
:89
U7OOa=:8:679
U;OO
D7OP
b77P
<D7
A7=:;8;86 T8<:A;@
@UOQ
Q:Y7
Q@
<D7G
V:8
V@8<;8F7
<@
O;N7
;8
<D7;A
8:<;N7
D:X;<:<Z
cVD@@OVD;O9A78I
Y:=;O;7QI :89
:OO
@Y
FQ
V:8
78\@G
D:N;86
<D7
@UOQ
87:AXG
<@
Q<F9G
:89
78\@GZ

SD:8b
G@FI cD7:

R;OO:8 d;V7
WD:;A c;7AA:

WOFX
c:8<:

R:A6:A;<:
eA@FP
2877
 


   


 

  !"
#$
% &'( ) &*'*+*,-.+/.*+% 01234567289:;<012345=728>577?2@53A5<BCDEFEGDH2I2J;K823704I6L;<B>;5<4 M227631 
N;7?2O375<6;H2I2J;K823704I6L;<B>;5<4D >A<<;P631OPJLP2<2;3Q23A82<;AL63O375<6;534R?63;SA7?5I2S2234<6I23;A7;T7?2 5<254A27;P642LK<25442I2J;K82377?574643;7K<;72Q77?28UV232247;K<;72Q77?2 <28563631J534P?2<27?2;PJLW32L7534<56L27?26<B;A31U  N?2<25<257J25L7T;A<L6136T6Q537321576I223I6<;382375J2TT2Q7L;T7?2K<;K;L24KJ537?57 ?5I23;7S223Q;3L642<24;<867615724T;<UN?2L25<29AL631586761576;3KJ53T;<>A<<;P631 OPJL7?57?5L5J<254BT56J24534P6JJ<2LAJ763?61?8;<75J67BDJ;LL;T46L763Q7S6;46I2<L67BT;< 7?27<53LJ;Q5724;PJLD458516312TT2Q7L;3R?63;>A<<;P631OPJLD534;I2<5JJ?61?2< 8;<75J67B;T7<53LJ;Q5724;PJLUR;37<5<B7;7?2K<;K;L24H2I2J;K823704I6L;<B>;5<4 42Q6L6;3D7?2K<;X2Q7P6JJ?5I25L6136T6Q537321576I22TT2Q7;3>A<<;P631OPJLD5L7572LK2Q62L ;TLK2Q65JQ;3Q2<3U  N?2J5347?57O=00;P3L25L7;TY5I230I23A26L5K<685<B32L7631L672T;<7?2;PJLUZJ25L2 4;3;742L7<;B67L;8;<2P5<2?;AL2LQ53S2544247;O375<6;[0\F]5Q<2>A<<;P631OPJ K<2L2<I2;37?2L6727?576LK<;K2<JB234;P24534P2JJ]8535124P6JJ?2JK^22K7?2<28563631 O375<6;;PJLL5T2L;7?2BQ53Q;3763A27;J6I2637?26<3576I2?5S6757U_Q?;;JQ?6J4<23DT586J62LD 5345JJ;TALQ5323X;B?5I6317?2;PJL325<SB7;L7A4B53423X;BU  _63Q2<2JBD `abcdaefag
2878
 

    

 


 !"#
$ !%
&'()*+,+- . /!  .0(%1 
23 1(*&'(+*+,+-4"+5"6)1 789:;<=>9?@ABC789:;<D>9?E<>>F9G<:H<CIJKLMLNO9P9QBR?9:>7;P=SBCIEB<C; T99>=:8  UB>F9V:><C=BO9P9QBR?9:>7;P=SBCIEB<C;K 
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`Q9<S9 ;B:B>;9S>CBI=>SB?BC9W<C9FBHS9SX<:Z9<;;9;>BV:><C=Ba7bMc<XC9EHCCBW=:8VWQ RC9S9CP9B:>F9S=>9>F<>=SRCBR9CQI9:;BW9;<:;W9QQc?<:<89;W=QQF9QRd99R>F9C9?<=:=:8 V:><C=BBWQSS<[9SB>F9IX<:XB:>=:H9>BQ=P9=:>F9=C:<>=P9F<Z=><>\eXFBBQXF=Q;C9:K[<?=Q=9SK <:;<QQB[HSX<:9:^BIF<P=:8>F9BWQS:9<CZI>BS>H;I<:;9:^BI\  e=:X9C9QIK
fHSVXB:
2879
 

 
  


  




 !
" 


#
$

%
&'
()
*+*,
- . 

-
/ '
$ 
0
 12
0 ')
&'
*)
*+*,
3!+*!*4
0 56789:
;<7=>
?@A
56789:

B<7=
C
:<
<D7
E:8F:AG
HI
JKJL
M7N7O@P=78<
59N;Q@AG
C@:A9 R77<;86

S@
<D7
T8<:A;@
M7N7O@P=78<
59N;Q@AG
C@:A9I

CFAA@U;86
TUOQ
U7A7
@8V7
8F=7A@FQ
;8
T8<:A;@
:89
WD;8@
XF<
D:N7
X778
9A;N78
@F<
@Y
<D7 :A7:
9F7
<@
U;97QPA7:9
97N7O@P=78<
<D:<
9;9
8@<
PA@<7V<
<D7=Z
[7
8779
<@
PA@<7V<
<D7 A7=:;8;86
O:89
UD7A7
<D7
@UOQ
87Q<
:89
A:;Q7
<D7;A
G@F86Z

SD7A7
:A7
:<
O7:Q<
Y@FA
Q;68;Y;V:8<
876:<;N7
78N;A@8=78<:O
7YY7V<Q
@Y
<D7
PA@P@Q79
PO:8
<D:< D:N7
8@<
X778
V@8Q;97A79
@A
=;<;6:<79
Y@AZ
SD7Q7
:A7>
FQ;86
:
=;<;6:<;@8
PO:8
Y@A
CFAA@U;86 TUOQ
<D:<
D:Q
:OA7:9G
Y:;O79
:89
U;OO
A7QFO<
;8
D;6D
=@A<:O;<GI
O@QQ
@Y
9;Q<;8V<
X;@9;N7AQ;<G
Y@A <D7
<A:8QO@V:<79
@UOQI
9:=:6;86
7YY7V<Q
@8
WD;8@
CFAA@U;86
TUOQI
:89
@N7A:OO
D;6D7A =@A<:O;<G
@Y
<A:8QO@V:<79
@UOQZ
W@8<A:AG
<@
<D7
PA@P@Q79
M7N7O@P=78<
59N;Q@AG
C@:A9 97V;Q;@8I
<D7
PA@\7V<
U;OO
D:N7
:

Q;68;Y;V:8<
876:<;N7
7YY7V<
@8
CFAA@U;86
TUOQI
:

Q<:<7
QP7V;7Q @Y
QP7V;:O
V@8V7A8Z

SD7
O:89
<D:<
TB55
@U8Q
7:Q<
@Y
]:N78
5N78F7
;Q
:

PA;=:AG
87Q<;86
Q;<7
Y@A
<D7
@UOQZ
^O7:Q7 9@
8@<
97Q<A@G
;<
Q@
=@A7
U:A7D@FQ7Q
V:8
X7
:9979
<@
T8<:A;@_
5 `Ka:VA7
CFAA@U;86
TUO PA7Q7AN7
@8
<D7
Q;<7
<D:<
;Q
PA@P7AOG
789@U79
:89
U7OOa=:8:679
U;OO
D7OP
b77P
<D7
A7=:;8;86 T8<:A;@
@UOQ
Q:Y7
Q@
<D7G
V:8
V@8<;8F7
<@
O;N7
;8
<D7;A
8:<;N7
D:X;<:<Z
cVD@@OVD;O9A78I
Y:=;O;7QI :89
:OO
@Y
FQ
V:8
78\@G
D:N;86
<D7
@UOQ
87:AXG
<@
Q<F9G
:89
78\@GZ

defghihjkl
mngop
qeroiien
stojjhrh
peojork
uvwxhfv
nfx
uhnpeix
ihuhnigyhiz
2880
 



  


 
 

 

!
"

 
#
$

%
&'(
)*
+,+-
.
/
.
0 (
$


 12

3'0 (*
&'(
-*
+,+-
4!,-!5-
 67
89:
;<8=>?7
@:A:B7CD:<8
EFA?G7>H
I7=>FJ

IK>>7L?<M
;LBG
L:>:
7<N:
<KD:>7KG
?<
;<8=>?7
=<F
O9?<7
PK8
9=A:

P::<
F>?A:<
7K8
7Q
89: =>:=
FK:
87 L?F:GC>:=F
F:A:B7CD:<8
89=8
F?F
<78
C>78:N8
89:DR
S:
<::F
87 C>78:N8
89: >:D=?<?<M
B=<F
L9:>:
89:
7LBG
<:G8
=<F
>=?G:
89:?>
H7K<MR

69:>:
=>:
=8
B:=G8
Q7K>
G?M<?Q?N=<8
<:M=8?A:
:<A?>7<D:<8=B
:QQ:N8G
7Q
89:

C>7C7G:F
CB=<
89=8 9=A:
<78
P::<
N7<G?F:>:F
7>
D?8?M=8:F
Q7>R
69:G:
=>:T
KG?<M
=
D?8?M=8?7<
CB=<
Q7>
IK>>7L?<M ;LBG
89=8
9=G
=B>:=FH
Q=?B:F
=<F
L?BB
>:GKB8
?<
9?M9
D7>8=B?8HJ
B7GG
7Q
F?G8?<N8
P?7F?A:>G?8H
Q7> 89:
8>=<GB7N=8:F
7LBGJ
F=D=M?<M
:QQ:N8G
7<
O9?<7
IK>>7L?<M
;LBGJ
=<F
7A:>=BB
9?M9:> D7>8=B?8H
7Q
8>=<GB7N=8:F
7LBGR
O7<8>=>H
87 89:

C>7C7G:F
@:A:B7CD:<8
EFA?G7>H
I7=>F F:N?G?7<J
89:

C>7U:N8
L?BB
9=A:
=
G?M<?Q?N=<8
<:M=8?A:
:QQ:N8
7<
IK>>7L?<M
;LBGJ
=
G8=8:

GC:N?:G 7Q
GC:N?=B
N7<N:><R

69:

B=<F
89=8
;VEE
7L<G
:=G8
7Q
W=A:<
EA:<K:
?G
=
C>?D=>H
<:G8?<M
G?8:

Q7>
89:
7LBGR
XB:=G: F7
<78
F:G8>7H
?8
G7
D7>:

L=>:97KG:G
N=<
P:
=FF:F
87 ;<8=>?7Y
E
Z[\=N>:

IK>>7L?<M
;LB C>:G:>A:
7<
89:

G?8:
89=8
?G
C>7C:>BH
:<F7L:F
=<F
L:BB\D=<=M:F
L?BB
9:BC
]::C
89:
>:D=?<?<M ;<8=>?7
7LBG
G=Q:

G7
89:H
N=<
N7<8?<K:
87 B?A:
?<
89:?>
<=8?A:
9=P?8=8R
^N977BN9?BF>:<J
Q=D?B?:GJ =<F
=BB
7Q
KG
N=<
:<U7H
9=A?<M
89:
7LBG
<:=>PH
87 G8KFH
=<F
:<U7HR _`abc`
defbe_g
2881
 

   
 
  

!"


#
$
"

%

&


'
(


)*
+,+-
./

". 0
&

  12!
*
(


+*
+,+-
3#-4#5-
 67
89:
;<8=>?7
@:A:B7CD:<8
EFA?G7>H
I7=>FJ

IK>>7L?<M
;LBG
L:>:
7<N:
<KD:>7KG
?<
;<8=>?7
=<F
O9?<7
PK8
9=A:

P::<
F>?A:<
7K8
7Q
89:
=>:= FK:
87 L?F:GC>:=F
F:A:B7CD:<8
89=8
F?F
<78
C>78:N8
89:DR
S:
<::F
87 C>78:N8
89:
>:D=?<?<M
B=<F L9:>:
89:
7LBG
<:G8
=<F
>=?G:
89:?>
H7K<MR

69:>:
=>:
=8
B:=G8
Q7K>
G?M<?Q?N=<8
<:M=8?A:
:<A?>7<D:<8=B
:QQ:N8G
7Q
89:

C>7C7G:F
CB=<
89=8
9=A: <78
P::<
N7<G?F:>:F
7>
D?8?M=8:F
Q7>R
69:G:
=>:T
KG?<M
=
D?8?M=8?7<
CB=<
Q7>
IK>>7L?<M
;LBG
89=8 9=G
=B>:=FH
Q=?B:F
=<F
L?BB
>:GKB8
?<
9?M9
D7>8=B?8HJ
B7GG
7Q
F?G8?<N8
P?7F?A:>G?8H
Q7>
89:
8>=<GB7N=8:F 7LBGJ
F=D=M?<M
:QQ:N8G
7<
O9?<7
IK>>7L?<M
;LBGJ
=<F
7A:>=BB
9?M9:>
D7>8=B?8H
7Q
8>=<GB7N=8:F 7LBGR
O7<8>=>H
87 89:

C>7C7G:F
@:A:B7CD:<8
EFA?G7>H
I7=>F
F:N?G?7<J
89:

C>7U:N8
L?BB
9=A:
= G?M<?Q?N=<8
<:M=8?A:
:QQ:N8
7<
IK>>7L?<M
;LBGJ
=
G8=8:

GC:N?:G
7Q
GC:N?=B
N7<N:><R

69:

B=<F
89=8
;VEE
7L<G
:=G8
7Q
W=A:<
EA:<K:
?G
=
C>?D=>H
<:G8?<M
G?8:

Q7>
89:
7LBGR
XB:=G:

F7 <78
F:G8>7H
?8
G7
D7>:

L=>:97KG:G
N=<
P:
=FF:F
87 ;<8=>?7Y
E
Z[\=N>:

IK>>7L?<M
;LB
C>:G:>A:
7< 89:

G?8:
89=8
?G
C>7C:>BH
:<F7L:F
=<F
L:BB\D=<=M:F
L?BB
9:BC
]::C
89:
>:D=?<?<M
;<8=>?7
7LBG G=Q:

G7
89:H
N=<
N7<8?<K:
87 B?A:
?<
89:?>
<=8?A:
9=P?8=8R
^N977BN9?BF>:<J
Q=D?B?:GJ
=<F
=BB
7Q
KG
N=< :<U7H
9=A?<M
89:
7LBG
<:=>PH
87 G8KFH
=<F
:<U7HR

_`abcdcefg
hfd`ij
klmd`nocp
2882
 

  



 







!




"
#

$
%
&
'(
)*)+
,-


,

#

.

 /0
.

 (
%
&
)(
)*)+
1 12 32
. 456789
:;6<=
>?@
456789
A;6<
B
9;
;C6
D97E9@F
GH
IJIK
L6M6N?O<67;
48M:P?@F
B?9@8 Q66;:75 R?
;C6
S7;9@:?
L6M6N?O<67;
48M:P?@F
B?9@8H BE@@?T:75
STNP
T6@6
?7U6
7E<6@?EP
:7
S7;9@:?
978
VC:7?
WE;
C9M6
W667
8@:M67
?E;
?X
;C6 9@69
8E6
;?
T:86PO@698
86M6N?O<67;
;C9;
8:8
7?;
O@?;6U;
;C6<Y
Z6
7668
;?
O@?;6U;
;C6 @6<9:7:75
N978
TC6@6
;C6
?TNP
76P;
978
@9:P6
;C6:@
F?E75Y RC6@6
9@6
9;
N69P;
X?E@
P:57:X:U97;
7659;:M6
67M:@?7<67;9N
6XX6U;P
?X
;C6
O@?O?P68
ON97
;C9; C9M6
7?;
W667
U?7P:86@68
?@
<:;:59;68
X?@Y
RC6P6
9@6=
EP:75
9 <:;:59;:?7
ON97
X?@
BE@@?T:75 STNP
;C9;
C9P
9N@698F
X9:N68
978
T:NN
@6PEN;
:7
C:5C
<?@;9N:;FH
N?PP
?X
8:P;:7U;
W:?8:M6@P:;F
X?@ ;C6
;@97PN?U9;68
?TNPH
89<95:75
6XX6U;P
?7
VC:7?
BE@@?T:75
STNPH
978
?M6@9NN
C:5C6@ <?@;9N:;F
?X
;@97PN?U9;68
?TNPY
V?7;@9@F
;?
;C6
O@?O?P68
L6M6N?O<67;
48M:P?@F
B?9@8 86U:P:?7H
;C6
O@?[6U;
T:NN
C9M6
9 P:57:X:U97;
7659;:M6
6XX6U;
?7
BE@@?T:75
STNPH
9 P;9;6
PO6U:6P ?X
PO6U:9N
U?7U6@7Y RC6
N978
;C9;
SA44
?T7P
69P;
?X
\9M67
4M67E6
:P
9 O@:<9@F
76P;:75
P:;6
X?@
;C6
?TNPY
]N69P6 8?
7?;
86P;@?F
:;
P?
<?@6
T9@6C?EP6P
U97
W6
98868
;?
S7;9@:?^
4 _J`9U@6
BE@@?T:75
STN O@6P6@M6
?7
;C6
P:;6
;C9;
:P
O@?O6@NF
678?T68
978
T6NN`<979568
T:NN
C6NO
a66O
;C6
@6<9:7:75 S7;9@:?
?TNP
P9X6
P?
;C6F
U97
U?7;:7E6
;?
N:M6
:7
;C6:@
79;:M6
C9W:;9;Y
bUC??NUC:N8@67H
X9<:N:6PH 978
9NN
?X
EP
U97
67[?F
C9M:75
;C6
?TNP
769@WF
;?
P;E8F
978
67[?FY RC97a
F?E
X?@
F?E@
U?7P:86@9;:?7Y b:7U6@6NFH
]9;@:U:9
4Y
47:P ]?<?79
c9NN6F
4E8EW?7
b?U:6;F ]9;;F97:Pd5<9:NYU?<
2883
 



  




 




 !
"




#

$
%& '
()
*+*,
- 

-
 '
#

.

/0
.
')
%& '
*)
*+*,
1!*(!*2
. 345678
9:5;<
=>?
345678
@:5;
A
8:
:B5
C86D8?E
FG
HIHJ
K5L5M>N;56:
37L9O>?E
A>8?7
P55:964 Q>
:B5
R6:8?9>
K5L5M>N;56:
37L9O>?E
A>8?7G SM58O5
N?>:5T:

AD??>U964
RUMO
96 >D?
8?58V

QB5O5
O;8MMG
O867E
T>M>?57
>UMO
U9:B
M>64G
OM5675?
M54O
867 W?94B:

E5MM>U
5E5O
8?5
8 O:8:5
ON5T95O
>X
ON5T98M
T>6T5?6
867
8MO>
8 M>T8M
T>6T5?6
7D5
:>
75L5M>N;56:

UB9TB
:B?58:56O
:B59?
B8W9:8:V
Y6M9Z5
>:B5?
>UMOG
AD??>U964
RUMO
8?5
8T:9L5
96 :B5
78E:9;5V
QB5E
M9L5
867
BD6:
>6
:B5
4?>D67G
867
N5>NM5
T86
O55
B>U
ON5T98M
:B5E
8?5
96 :B5
XDMM
M94B:
>X
:B5
OD6V

@6
:B5
N8O: AD??>U964
RUMO
U5?5
>6T5
8WD6786:
96 R6:8?9>
867
[B96>G
WD:
;86E
>X
:B5O5
>UMO
B8L5
W556
7?9L56
>D: >X
:B5
8?58
7D5
:>
U975ON?587
75L5M>N;56:
:B8:
797
6>:

N?>:5T:
:B5
M867
UB5?5
:B5O5
W58D:9XDM
>UMO
65O: 867
?89O5
:B59?
E>D64V
QB5E
8?5
U>?:B
O8L964
867
O8X54D8?7964V QB5?5
8?5
8:

M58O:

X>D?
O9469X9T86:
6548:9L5
56L9?>6;56:8M
5XX5T:O
>X
:B5
N?>N>O57
NM86
:B8:

B8L5
6>:

W556 T>6O975?57
>?
;9:948:57
X>?
:B5
T>6O975?8:9>6
>X
:B5O5
>UMOV

QB5
;9:948:9>6
NM86
X>?
:B5
AD??>U964
RUMO B8O
8M?587E
X89M57
867
U9MM
?5ODM:
96 8
B94B
;>?:8M9:EG
867
:B5?5
9O
8 M>OO
>X
79O:96T:

W9>79L5?O9:E
X>?
:B5 :?86OM>T8:57
>UMOV

QB5?5
9O
8MO>
8 78;84964
5XX5T:
>6
[B96>
AD??>U964
RUMO
867
>L5?8MM
B94B5?
;>?:8M9:E >X
:?86OM>T8:57
>UMOV
[>6:?8?E
:>
:B5
N?>N>O57
K5L5M>N;56:
37L9O>?E
A>8?7
K5T9O9>6G
:B5
N?>\5T:

U9MM B8L5
8 O9469X9T86:
6548:9L5
5XX5T:
>6
AD??>U964
RUMO
UB9TB
8?5
8M?587E
8 O:8:5
ON5T95O
>X
ON5T98M T>6T5?6V QB5
M867
:B8:

R@33
>U6O
58O:
>X
]8L56
3L56D5
9O
8 N?9;8?E
65O:964
O9:5
X>?
:B5
>UMOV

SM58O5
7>
6>: 75O:?>E
:B59?
B8W9:8:

O>
:B8:
;>?5
U8?5B>DO5O
T86
W5
87757
:>
R6:8?9>V

3 ^I_8T?5
AD??>U964
RUM
N?5O5?L5
>6
:B5
O9:5
:B8:
9O
N?>N5?ME
567>U57
867
U5MM_;868457
U9MM
B5MN
Z55N
:B5
?5;896964
R6:8?9> >UMO
O8X5
O>
:B5E
T86
T>6:96D5
:>
M9L5
96 :B59?
68:9L5
B8W9:8:G
867
OTB>>MTB9M7?56G
X8;9M95O
867
58TB
>65
>X DO
T86
O:D7E
867
56\>E
:B5
W58D:E
>X
>D?
M>T8M
AD??>U964
RUMO
96 :B5
XD:D?5V SM58O5
B5MN
:B5
ON5T95O
:>
OD?L9L5
96 >D?
8?58
WE
N?>:5T:964
AD??>U964
RUMO
867
:B59?
65O:964
O9:5
58O:
>X ]8L56
3L56D5V QB86Z
E>DV `96T5?5ME
E>D?OG S8:?9T98
aM55O>6 bHJcI
P846>M98
3L5V [B96>G
[3
^bdbI N>?:Z55eE8B>>VT>; f^I^ghdJ_diH^
2884
  


  


 


 

!"
#

 


!
$



%&'
()
*+*,

-

.!

-'
$
/

 01

2& ')
%&'
3)
*+*,
3+"+3"33
/ 456789
:;6<=
>?@
456789
A;6<
B
9;
;C6
D97E9@F
GH
IJIK
L6M6N?O<67;
48M:P?@F
B?9@8 Q66;:75

R?
;C6
S7;9@:?
L6M6N?O<67;
48M:P?@F
B?9@8H BE@@?T:75
STNP
T6@6
?7U6
7E<6@?EP
:7
S7;9@:?
978
VC:7?
WE;
C9M6
W667
8@:M67
?E;
?X
;C6 9@69
8E6
;?
T:86PO@698
86M6N?O<67;
;C9;
8:8
7?;
O@?;6U;
;C6<Y
Z6
7668
;?
O@?;6U;
;C6 @6<9:7:75
N978
TC6@6
;C6
?TNP
76P;
978
@9:P6
;C6:@
F?E75Y

RC6@6
9@6
9;
N69P;
X?E@
P:57:X:U97;
7659;:M6
67M:@?7<67;9N
6XX6U;P
?X
;C6
O@?O?P68
ON97
;C9; C9M6
7?;
W667
U?7P:86@68
?@
<:;:59;68
X?@Y
RC6P6
9@6=
EP:75
9 <:;:59;:?7
ON97
X?@
BE@@?T:75 STNP
;C9;
C9P
9N@698F
X9:N68
978
T:NN
@6PEN;
:7
C:5C
<?@;9N:;FH
N?PP
?X
8:P;:7U;
W:?8:M6@P:;F
X?@ ;C6
;@97PN?U9;68
?TNPH
89<95:75
6XX6U;P
?7
VC:7?
BE@@?T:75
STNPH
978
?M6@9NN
C:5C6@ <?@;9N:;F
?X
;@97PN?U9;68
?TNPY
V?7;@9@F
;?
;C6
O@?O?P68
L6M6N?O<67;
48M:P?@F
B?9@8 86U:P:?7H
;C6
O@?[6U;
T:NN
C9M6
9 P:57:X:U97;
7659;:M6
6XX6U;
?7
BE@@?T:75
STNPH
9 P;9;6
PO6U:6P ?X
PO6U:9N
U?7U6@7Y

RC6
N978
;C9;
SA44
?T7P
69P;
?X
\9M67
4M67E6
:P
9 O@:<9@F
76P;:75
P:;6
X?@
;C6
?TNPY
]N69P6 8?
7?;
86P;@?F
:;
P?
<?@6
T9@6C?EP6P
U97
W6
98868
;?
S7;9@:?^
4 _J`9U@6
BE@@?T:75
STN O@6P6@M6
?7
;C6
P:;6
;C9;
:P
O@?O6@NF
678?T68
978
T6NN`<979568
T:NN
C6NO
a66O
;C6
@6<9:7:75 S7;9@:?
?TNP
P9X6
P?
;C6F
U97
U?7;:7E6
;?
N:M6
:7
;C6:@
79;:M6
C9W:;9;Y
bUC??NUC:N8@67H
X9<:N:6PH 978
9NN
?X
EP
U97
67[?F
C9M:75
;C6
?TNP
769@WF
;?
P;E8F
978
67[?FY

RC97a
F?EH c9UC96N
A776P
2885
 


  


 









!

"

#
$ % &
'(
)*)+
,-


,
.&
" 

/

01/
&(
$ % &
)(
)*)+
23334
/

56789:
;<7=>
?@A
56789:

B<7=
C
:<
<D7
E:8F:AG
HI
JKJL
M7N7O@P=78<
59N;Q@AG
C@:A9
R77<;86

S@
<D7
T8<:A;@
M7N7O@P=78<
59N;Q@AG
C@:A9I

CFAA@U;86
TUOQ
U7A7
@8V7
8F=7A@FQ
;8
T8<:A;@
:89
WD;8@
XF<
D:N7
X778
9A;N78
@F<
@Y
<D7 :A7:
9F7
<@
U;97QPA7:9
97N7O@P=78<
<D:<
9;9
8@<
PA@<7V<
<D7=Z
[7
8779
<@
PA@<7V<
<D7 A7=:;8;86
O:89
UD7A7
<D7
@UOQ
87Q<
:89
A:;Q7
<D7;A
G@F86Z

SD7A7
:A7
:<
O7:Q<
Y@FA
Q;68;Y;V:8<
876:<;N7
78N;A@8=78<:O
7YY7V<Q
@Y
<D7
PA@P@Q79
PO:8
<D:< D:N7
8@<
X778
V@8Q;97A79
@A
=;<;6:<79
Y@AZ
SD7Q7
:A7>
FQ;86
:
=;<;6:<;@8
PO:8
Y@A
CFAA@U;86 TUOQ
<D:<
D:Q
:OA7:9G
Y:;O79
:89
U;OO
A7QFO<
;8
D;6D
=@A<:O;<GI
O@QQ
@Y
9;Q<;8V<
X;@9;N7AQ;<G
Y@A <D7
<A:8QO@V:<79
@UOQI
9:=:6;86
7YY7V<Q
@8
WD;8@
CFAA@U;86
TUOQI
:89
@N7A:OO
D;6D7A =@A<:O;<G
@Y
<A:8QO@V:<79
@UOQZ
W@8<A:AG
<@
<D7
PA@P@Q79
M7N7O@P=78<
59N;Q@AG
C@:A9 97V;Q;@8I
<D7
PA@\7V<
U;OO
D:N7
:

Q;68;Y;V:8<
876:<;N7
7YY7V<
@8
CFAA@U;86
TUOQI
:

Q<:<7
QP7V;7Q @Y
QP7V;:O
V@8V7A8Z

SD7
O:89
<D:<
TB55
@U8Q
7:Q<
@Y
]:N78
5N78F7
;Q
:

PA;=:AG
87Q<;86
Q;<7
Y@A
<D7
@UOQZ
^O7:Q7 9@
8@<
97Q<A@G
;<
Q@
=@A7
U:A7D@FQ7Q
V:8
X7
:9979
<@
T8<:A;@_
5 `Ka:VA7
CFAA@U;86
TUO PA7Q7AN7
@8
<D7
Q;<7
<D:<
;Q
PA@P7AOG
789@U79
:89
U7OOa=:8:679
U;OO
D7OP
b77P
<D7
A7=:;8;86 T8<:A;@
@UOQ
Q:Y7
Q@
<D7G
V:8
V@8<;8F7
<@
O;N7
;8
<D7;A
8:<;N7
D:X;<:<Z
cVD@@OVD;O9A78I
Y:=;O;7QI :89
:OO
@Y
FQ
V:8
78\@G
D:N;86
<D7
@UOQ
87:AXG
<@
Q<F9G
:89
78\@GZ

defghihjkl
mhhfn
oepqiien
2886
 




 

  






 
!


" #$
%&

'
(




)'
)*)+
,-+.-)*
% /0
123
4516780
93:3;0<=351
>?:8@07A
B067?C

BD770E85F
4E;@
E373
05G3
5D=370D@
85 4516780
65?
H2850
ID1
26:3
I335
?78:35
0D1
0J
123 6736
?D3
10 E8?3@<736?
?3:3;0<=351
1261
?8?
501
<7013G1
123=K
L3
533?
10 <7013G1
123 73=68585F
;65?
E2373
123
0E;M@
53@1
65?
768@3
12387
A0D5FK

/2373
673
61 ;36@1
J0D7
@8F58J8G651
53F618:3
35:8705=3516;
3JJ3G1@
0J
123
<70<0@3?
<;65
1261 26:3
501
I335
G05@8?373?
07 =818F613?
J07K
/23@3
673N
D@85F
6 =818F61805
<;65
J07
BD770E85F 4E;@
1261
26@
6;736?A
J68;3?
65?
E8;;
73@D;1
85 28F2
=0716;81AC
;0@@
0J
?8@185G1
I80?8:37@81A
J07 123
1765@;0G613?
0E;@C
?6=6F85F
3JJ3G1@
05 H2850
BD770E85F
4E;@C
65?
0:376;;
28F237 =0716;81A
0J
1765@;0G613?
0E;@K
H051767A
10 123
<70<0@3?
93:3;0<=351
>?:8@07A
B067? ?3G8@805C
123
<70O3G1
E8;;
26:3
6 @8F58J8G651
53F618:3
3JJ3G1
05 BD770E85F
4E;@C
6 @1613
@<3G83@ 0J
@<3G86;
G05G375K

/23
;65?
1261
4P>>
0E5@
36@1
0J
Q6:35
>:35D3
8@
6 <78=67A
53@185F
@813
J07
123
0E;@K
R;36@3 ?0
501
?3@170A
81 @0
=073
E67320D@3@
G65
I3
6??3?
10 4516780S
>
TUV6G73
BD770E85F
4E; <73@37:3
05 123
@813
1261
8@
<70<37;A
35?0E3?
65?
E3;;V=656F3?
E8;;
23;<
W33<
123
73=68585F 4516780
0E;@
@6J3
@0
123A
G65
G05185D3
10 ;8:3
85 12387
5618:3
26I8161K
XG200;G28;?735C
J6=8;83@C 65?
6;;
0J
D@
G65
35O0A
26:85F
123
0E;@
5367IA
10 @1D?A
65?
35O0AK
YZ[\]
^_`a bcdce[
fgchicg
jkj
lmnopjjn
2887
 


  


 

 !
"
#" $%
&
 '
(!
)'
)*)+
),-.,)*
& /0
123
4516780
93:3;0<=351
>?:8@07A
B067?C

BD770E85F
4E;@
E373
05G3
5D=370D@
85 4516780
65?
H2850
ID1
26:3
I335
?78:35
0D1
0J
123 6736
?D3
10 E8?3@<736?
?3:3;0<=351
1261
?8?
501
<7013G1
123=K
L3
533?
10 <7013G1
123 73=68585F
;65?
E2373
123
0E;@
53@1
65?
768@3
12387
A0D5FK

/2373
673
61 ;36@1
J0D7
@8F58J8G651
53F618:3
35:8705=3516;
3JJ3G1@
0J
123
<70<0@3?<;65
1261
26:3 501
I335
G05@8?373?
07 =818F613?
J07K
/23@3
673M
D@85F
6 =818F61805
<;65
J07
BD770E85F
4E;@ 1261
26@
6;736?A
J68;3?
65?
E8;;
73@D;1
85 28F2
=0716;81AC
;0@@
0J
?8@185G1
I80?8:37@81A
J07
123 1765@;0G613?
0E;@C
?6=6F85F
3JJ3G1@
05 H2850
BD770E85F
4E;@C
65?
0:376;;
28F237
=0716;81A
0J 1765@;0G613?
0E;@K
H051767A
10 123
<70<0@3?
93:3;0<=351
>?:8@07A
B067?
?3G8@805C
123
<70N3G1
E8;;
26:3
6 @8F58J8G651
53F618:3
3JJ3G1
05 BD770E85F
4E;@C
6 @1613
@<3G83@
0J
@<3G86; G05G375K

/23
;65?
1261
4O>>
0E5@
36@1
0J
P6:35
>:35D3
8@
6 <78=67A
53@185F
@813
J07
123
0E;@K
Q;36@3 ?0
501
?3@170A
81 @0
=073
E67320D@3@
G65
I3
6??3?
10 4516780R
>
STU6G73
BD770E85F
4E; <73@37:3
05 123
@813
1261
8@
<70<37;A
35?0E3?
65?
E3;;U=656F3?
E8;;
23;<
V33<
123
73=68585F 4516780
0E;@
@6J3
@0
123A
G65
G05185D3
10 ;8:3
85 12387
5618:3
26I8161K
WG200;G28;?735C
J6=8;83@C 65?
6;;
0J
D@
G65
35N0A
26:85F
123
0E;@
5367IA
10 @1D?A
65?
35N0AK X3F67?@C >5?A
Y307F3@
W351
J70=
=A
8Q2053
2888
 


 


 ! " #$
%&'()'
(*
*+*,
*,
-
. /012345617 89:;<=>?:@ABCD89:;<=E?:@F=??G:H=;I=DJKLMNMOP:Q:RCS@:;?8<Q>TCDJFC=D< U::?>;9  VC?G:W;?=D>CP:Q:RCS@:;?8<Q>TCDJFC=D<L FIDDCX>;9WXRTY2Z0[00656\Y5]2302^_3`023]a\Y5]5]\Y053Y_b0cd_e0302ff`6004 b_3040Z0f_gb06\hhh if02]0^56426_\Y03f_j2\5_6^_340Z0f_gb06\aSDC?:k?561?G:D:@=>;>;9R=;<XG:D:?G: CXRT;:T?=;<D=>T:?G:>DJCI;95]j3lj52f\_\Y053]l3Z5Z2fm nY26o`_la pf_352q235b5 2889
 


    

 

!"
#$%&%'()
*+
,-!.
/012/'0'3'('4$34$5. 6789:;<=8>? @AB6789:;C=8>D;==E8F;9G;BHIJKLKM N8O8PAQ>89=6:O<RABHDA;B:S88=<97  TA=E8U9=;B<AN8O8PAQ>89=6:O<RABHDA;B:J @AB=E8Q;R=R<VH8;BRJCE;O8W889<9OAPO8:<98XXAB=R=A>A9<=AB=E89G>W8BRAXWGBBAY<97AYPR<9AGB;B8;Z 6=A98=<>8=E8B8Y8B8>;9H9;=<O8WGBBAY<97AYPR<9RAG=E8B9[;P<XAB9<;WG=E8;OH:8O8PAQ>89=E;R :B<O89=E8>\PAR8=A8P<><9;=<A9Z]8O8B;PR>;PP7BAGQRAX=E8>;B8R=<PP98R=<97<9=E8U9=;B<A;9:[E<9A ;B8;R;9:988:=AW8QBA=8\=8:WHQB8R8BO<97=E8;B8;RYE8B8=E8HP<O8;9:98R=Z CG9:8BR=;9:=E;==E8N8O8PAQ>89=6:O<RABHDA;B:<R\A9R<:8B<97:8O8PAQ>89=R=E;=Y<PPR8B<AGRPH 89:;978BAB8P<><9;=8=E8R8WGBBAY<97AYPQAQGP;=<A9RZTE8B8;B8;=P8;R=XAGBR<79<X<\;9=987;=<O8 89O<BA9>89=;P8XX8\=RAX=E8QBAQAR8:QP;9=E;=E;O89A=W889\A9R<:8B8:AB><=<7;=8:XABZTE8R8;B8?GR<97 ;><=<7;=<A9QP;9XABDGBBAY<97UYPR=E;=E;R;PB8;:HX;<P8:;9:Y<PPB8RGP=<9E<7E>AB=;P<=HJPARRAX :<R=<9\=W<A:<O8BR<=HXAB=E8=B;9RPA\;=8:AYPRJ:;>;7<978XX8\=RA9[E<9ADGBBAY<97UYPRJ;9:AO8B;PP E<7E8B>AB=;P<=HAX=B;9RPA\;=8:AYPRZ[A9=B;BH=A=E8QBAQAR8:N8O8PAQ>89=6:O<RABHDA;B::8\<R<A9J=E8 QBA^8\=Y<PPE;O8;R<79<X<\;9=987;=<O88XX8\=A9DGBBAY<97UYPRJ;R=;=8RQ8\<8RAXRQ8\<;P\A9\8B9Z  TE8P;9:=E;=UC66AY9R8;R=AX_;O896O89G8<R;9<>QAB=;9=98R=<97R<=8XAB=E8R8AYPRZ`P8;R8:A9A= :8R=BAH<=RA>AB8Y;B8EAGR8R\;9W8;::8:=AU9=;B<AZ6aLb;\B8DGBBAY<97UYPQB8R8BO8A9=E8R<=8=E;= <RQBAQ8BPH89:AY8:;9:Y8PPb>;9;78:Y<PPE8PQc88Q=E8B8>;<9<97U9=;B<AAYPRR;X8RA=E8H\;9\A9=<9G8 =AP<O8<9=E8<B9;=<O8E;W<=;=Z]\EAAP\E<P:B89JX;><P<8RJ;9:;PPAXGR\;989^AHE;O<97=E8AYPR98;BWH=A R=G:H;9:89^AHZTE8H;B8;9<>QAB=;9=Q;B=AX;E8;P=EH89O<BA9>89==E;=Y8;PP988:=AP<O8<9Z  ]<9\8B8PHJ 6P;9N;O<R
2890
 




   




  




 !
"

#
$
%&
'(
)*)+
 ,
-!

,
.&
"
 

 /0

1%
&(
$
%&
2(
)*)+
342)4)5


67 89:
;<8=>?7
@:A:B7CD:<8
EFA?G7>H
I7=>FJ

IK>>7L?<M
;LBG
L:>:
7<N:
<KD:>7KG
?<
;<8=>?7
=<F
O9?<7
PK8
9=A:

P::<
F>?A:<
7K8
7Q
89: =>:=
FK:
87 L?F:GC>:=F
F:A:B7CD:<8
89=8
F?F
<78
C>78:N8
89:DR
S:
<::F
87 C>78:N8
89: >:D=?<?<M
B=<F
L9:>:
89:
7LBG
<:G8
=<F
>=?G:
89:?>
H7K<MR

69:>:
=>:
=8
B:=G8
Q7K>
G?M<?Q?N=<8
<:M=8?A:
:<A?>7<D:<8=B
:QQ:N8G
7Q
89:

C>7C7G:F
CB=<
89=8 9=A:
<78
P::<
N7<G?F:>:F
7>
D?8?M=8:F
Q7>R
69:G:
=>:T
KG?<M
=
D?8?M=8?7<
CB=<
Q7>
IK>>7L?<M ;LBG
89=8
9=G
=B>:=FH
Q=?B:F
=<F
L?BB
>:GKB8
?<
9?M9
D7>8=B?8HJ
B7GG
7Q
F?G8?<N8
P?7F?A:>G?8H
Q7> 89:
8>=<GB7N=8:F
7LBGJ
F=D=M?<M
:QQ:N8G
7<
O9?<7
IK>>7L?<M
;LBGJ
=<F
7A:>=BB
9?M9:> D7>8=B?8H
7Q
8>=<GB7N=8:F
7LBGR
O7<8>=>H
87 89:

C>7C7G:F
@:A:B7CD:<8
EFA?G7>H
I7=>F F:N?G?7<J
89:

C>7U:N8
L?BB
9=A:
=
G?M<?Q?N=<8
<:M=8?A:
:QQ:N8
7<
IK>>7L?<M
;LBGJ
=
G8=8:

GC:N?:G 7Q
GC:N?=B
N7<N:><R

69:

B=<F
89=8
;VEE
7L<G
:=G8
7Q
W=A:<
EA:<K:
?G
=
C>?D=>H
<:G8?<M
G?8:

Q7>
89:
7LBGR
XB:=G: F7
<78
F:G8>7H
?8
G7
D7>:

L=>:97KG:G
N=<
P:
=FF:F
87 ;<8=>?7Y
E
Z[\=N>:

IK>>7L?<M
;LB C>:G:>A:
7<
89:

G?8:
89=8
?G
C>7C:>BH
:<F7L:F
=<F
L:BB\D=<=M:F
L?BB
9:BC
]::C
89:
>:D=?<?<M ;<8=>?7
7LBG
G=Q:

G7
89:H
N=<
N7<8?<K:
87 B?A:
?<
89:?>
<=8?A:
9=P?8=8R
^N977BN9?BF>:<J
Q=D?B?:GJ =<F
=BB
7Q
KG
N=<
:<U7H
9=A?<M
89:
7LBG
<:=>PH
87 G8KFH
=<F
:<U7HR

_=F:B?<:

EBB?<F:> ^:<8
Q>7D
DH
?X97<:
2891
  


 
  




!


"
#$%
&'
()(*
+,!

+ -%


 '


$. 
/.- 01
2$%'
#$%
3'
()(*
(4)54&(

 67
89:
;<8=>?7
@:A:B7CD:<8
EFA?G7>H
I7=>FJ

IK>>7L?<M
;LBG
L:>:
7<N:
<KD:>7KG
?<
;<8=>?7
=<F
O9?<7
PK8
9=A:

P::<
F>?A:<
7K8
7Q
89: =>:=
FK:
87 L?F:GC>:=F
F:A:B7CD:<8
89=8
F?F
<78
C>78:N8
89:DR
S:
<::F
87 C>78:N8
89: >:D=?<?<M
B=<F
L9:>:
89:
7LBG
<:G8
=<F
>=?G:
89:?>
H7K<MR

69:

PK>>7L?<M
7LB
M>7KC
Q7>D:>BH B7N=8:F
=8
89:

O9?<7
E?>C7>8
?<
TUTVJ
F?F
<78
>:8K><
?<
TUTTJ
FK:
87 N7<G8>KN8?7<
=<F
789:> ?GGK:GR

69:>:
=>:
=8
B:=G8
Q7K>
G?M<?Q?N=<8
<:M=8?A:
:<A?>7<D:<8=B
:QQ:N8G
7Q
89:

C>7C7G:F
CB=<
89=8 9=A:
<78
P::<
N7<G?F:>:F
7>
D?8?M=8:F
Q7>R
69:G:
=>:W
KG?<M
=
D?8?M=8?7<
CB=<
Q7>
IK>>7L?<M ;LBG
89=8
9=G
=B>:=FH
Q=?B:F
=<F
L?BB
>:GKB8
?<
9?M9
D7>8=B?8HJ
B7GG
7Q
F?G8?<N8
P?7F?A:>G?8H
Q7> 89:
8>=<GB7N=8:F
7LBGJ
F=D=M?<M
:QQ:N8G
7<
O9?<7
IK>>7L?<M
;LBGJ
=<F
7A:>=BB
9?M9:> D7>8=B?8H
7Q
8>=<GB7N=8:F
7LBGR
O7<8>=>H
87 89:

C>7C7G:F
@:A:B7CD:<8
EFA?G7>H
I7=>F F:N?G?7<J
89:

C>7X:N8
L?BB
9=A:
=
G?M<?Q?N=<8
<:M=8?A:
:QQ:N8
7<
IK>>7L?<M
;LBGJ
=
G8=8:

GC:N?:G 7Q
GC:N?=B
N7<N:><R

69:

B=<F
89=8
;YEE
7L<G
:=G8
7Q
Z=A:<
EA:<K:
?G
=
C>?D=>H
<:G8?<M
G?8:

Q7>
89:
7LBGR
[B:=G: F7
<78
F:G8>7H
?8
G7
D7>:

L=>:97KG:G
N=<
P:
=FF:F
87 ;<8=>?7\
E
]U^=N>:

IK>>7L?<M
;LB C>:G:>A:
7<
89:

G?8:
89=8
?G
C>7C:>BH
:<F7L:F
=<F
L:BB^D=<=M:F
L?BB
9:BC
_::C
89:
>:D=?<?<M ;<8=>?7
7LBG
G=Q:

G7
89:H
N=<
N7<8?<K:
87 B?A:
?<
89:?>
<=8?A:
9=P?8=8R
`N977BN9?BF>:<J
Q=D?B?:GJ =<F
=BB
7Q
KG
N=<
:<X7H
9=A?<M
89:
7LBG
<:=>PH
87 G8KFH
=<F
:<X7HR

69=<_
H7KJ a=>?=
I:<<:88

2892
 



  



  





! "
#

$
%
&'
()
*+*,
-."

-
/'
#


0
/-
$
1

2
3 #&4


54/ 67
8&/ ')
%
&'
,)
*+*,
90(,0:9


;<
=>?
@A=BCD<
E?F?G<HI?A=
JKFDL<CM
N<BCKO

NPCC<QDAR
@QGL
Q?C?
<AS?
API?C<PL
DA
@A=BCD<
BAK
T>DA<
UP=
>BF?
U??A
KCDF?A
<P=
<V
=>? BC?B
KP?
=<
QDK?LHC?BK
K?F?G<HI?A=
=>B=
KDK
A<=
HC<=?S=
=>?IW
X?
A??K
=<
HC<=?S=
=>? C?IBDADAR
GBAK
Q>?C?
=>?
<QGL
A?L=
BAK
CBDL?
=>?DC
M<PARW

;>?C?
BC?
B=
G?BL=
V<PC
LDRADVDSBA=
A?RB=DF?
?AFDC<AI?A=BG
?VV?S=L
<V
=>?
HC<H<L?K
HGBA
=>B= >BF?
A<=
U??A
S<ALDK?C?K
<C
ID=DRB=?K
V<CW
;>?L?
BC?Y
PLDAR
B
ID=DRB=D<A
HGBA
V<C
NPCC<QDAR @QGL
=>B=
>BL
BGC?BKM
VBDG?K
BAK
QDGG
C?LPG=
DA
>DR>
I<C=BGD=MO
G<LL
<V
KDL=DAS=
UD<KDF?CLD=M
V<C
=>? =CBALG<SB=?K
<QGLO

KBIBRDAR
?VV?S=L
<A
T>DA<
NPCC<QDAR
@QGLO
BAK
<F?CBGG
>DR>?C
I<C=BGD=M
<V =CBALG<SB=?K
<QGLW
T<A=CBCM
=<
=>?
HC<H<L?K
E?F?G<HI?A=
JKFDL<CM
N<BCK
K?SDLD<AO
=>?
HC<Z?S=
QDGG
>BF?
B
LDRADVDSBA=
A?RB=DF?
?VV?S=
<A
NPCC<QDAR
@QGLO
B
L=B=?
LH?SD?L
<V
LH?SDBG S<AS?CAW

;>?
GBAK
=>B=
@[JJ
<QAL
?BL=
<V
\BF?A
JF?AP?
DL
B

HCDIBCM
A?L=DAR
LD=?
V<C
=>?
<QGLW
]G?BL?
K< A<=
K?L=C<M
D=
L<
I<C?
QBC?><PL?L
SBA
U?
BKK?K
=<
@A=BCD<^
J
_`aBSC?
NPCC<QDAR
@QG HC?L?CF?
<A
=>?
LD=?
=>B=
DL
HC<H?CGM
?AK<Q?K
BAK
Q?GGaIBABR?K
QDGG
>?GH
b??H
=>?
C?IBDADAR @A=BCD<
<QGL
LBV?
L<
=>?M
SBA
S<A=DAP?
=<
GDF?
DA
=>?DC
AB=DF?
>BUD=B=W
cS><<GS>DGKC?AO
VBIDGD?LO BAK
BGG
<V
PL
SBA
?AZ<M
>BFDAR
=>?
<QGL
A?BCUM
=<
L=PKM
BAK
?AZ<MW

cDAS?C?GMO

dBC=DAB
eU?C=O
]>WEW fgh
EPS>?LA?
T<PC= TGBC?I<A=O
TJ
_ijii k_`_l
mifammnf dBC=DABWeU?C=oH<I<ABW?KP
2893
 

  

 
 


 ! "#"$! %& '! 

(& )*

+ '* ,
 -.
,*!

 "! "#"$ /#01201" ), 3456478 9: 9;9< =5>47?@ ABCBD@EFB5> GHC?I@78 J@47H K?>8 @L =5>47?@ MNOPPQPRSQTUVWXTYXPWOTQXVOZRX[ \]^ _`ab`cd ef ghgif jklm nf olplqrsmlak tupvwrcd nr`cu xllkvay AB47 zBF{B7I @L >|B J@47H} ~5H45B7BH €4{?>4>I B46B ‚~€ƒ @{„B
>I >@ ED45I >@ H?IED4
B J677@†?5 =†DI L7@F >|B E7@„B
> I?>B‡ ˆ@7 8@67 7BLB7B5
B: ~€ ?I 4 ‰@6>|B75 K4D?L@75?4 7B?@54D
@5IB7C4>?@5 7@6E‡ J677@†?5 =†DI †B7B @5
B 56FB7@6I ?5 =5>47?@ 45H K|?5@ {6> 47B ?5 I|47E HB
D?5B H6B >@ HBCBD@EFB5> >|4> |4I 5@> {BB5 ED455BH >@ {B @FE4>?{DB †?>| @†D I67C?C4D‡ Š|B E7@EB7>8 @†5BH {8 =‹GG B4I> @L €4CB5 GCB56B ?I 4 E7?F478 5BI>?5 I?>B L@7 >|B @†DI‡ Š|B E7@E@IBH >745ID@ 4>?@5 ED45 L@7 >|B @†DI ?I ?54HBŒ64>B: DB4C?5 65F?>?4>BH I?5?L? 45> ?FE4
>I >|4> 7BŒ6?7B 45 ~‹‡ Š|B E7@E@IBH I
|BFB H@BI 5@> |4CB 4 >74
Ž 7B
@7H @L D@5 >B7F I6

BII 45H †?DD
46IB F@7>4D?>8‡ ‹> †?DD 4DI@ 7BI6D> ?5 B5B>?
HBEDB>?@5 @L 7BF4?5?5 @†DI ?5 >|B 47B4‡ 4>|B7:
@FFB7
?4D HBCBD@EFB5> I|@6DH {B I?>BH @5 4 IF4DD L@@>E7?5>: DB4C?5 4 C?4{DB: F454BH @†D E7BIB7CB‡ K@FE4>?{D8 @L @†DI †?>| 4?7E@7> @EB74>?@5I |4I {BB5 4 |?BCBH BDIB†|B7B‡
B 67B 8@6 >@ I>BE {4
Ž 45H
@5I?HB7 @>|B7 @E>?@5I L@7 >|?I |?|D8 IB5I?>?CB 45H HBEDB>BH IEB ?BI‡
‰?5
B7BD8:

A45 ‰?DCB7B7: ~B
6>?CB A?7B
>@7 ~5H45B7BH €4{?>4>I B46B ‘’9’ ‰45>4 z@5?
4 JDCH‡: ‰6?>B G “”9 @I G5BDBI: KG ”;;•”–’9•— 9˜<–‘;’–9—“; HI?DCB7D4™FB‡ @F |>>EI}ššB|DB46B‡@7 ›B|DB46B‡@7œ
2894
 

  


 





!
"
#

$
%
!
&!' ()


*
+
,


-*
-.-/
001--123
&
456789:
;<=<>:?@<56
AB=9C:8D
E:78B ;<78
F98CG

HI9C
9C
6:
=:9J<
@D
:??:C969:5
6:
6I<
?>755<B
B<C68KJ69:5
:L
6I<
EK88:M95N
4M> I7O9676
>:J76<B
<7C6
:L
6I<
798?:86P

EK88:M95N
4M>C
78<
7 C676<
F?<J9<C
:L
F?<J97>
Q:5J<85
75B 6I<
?8:?:C<B
6875C>:J769:5
:L
6I<C<
:M>C
9C
89CRD
75B
96C
CKJJ<CC
9C
K5?8:=<5P

AC
75 7>6<85769=<S
T
CK??:86
6I<
?8:?:C<B
UV
7J8<
EK88:M95N
4M>
W8<C<8=<
76 6I76
C96<P

W><7C<
B:
5:6 B<C68:D
:5<
:L
6I<
>7C6
8<@5756C
:L
EK88:M95N
4M>
I7O9676
95 :K8
=7>><DP
F95J<8<>DS FJ:66
X785:DS
X; Q>78<@:56S
QA
2895
  


  

 
 


 
!
" #

!
$
" #
%

&


'(
)*
+,+-
 .
/ 

"#.0(
&#
1  23

#(*
'(
4*
+,+-
5!-)!))
1 67
89:
;<8=>?7
@:A:B7CD:<8
EFA?G7>H
I7=>FJ

IK>>7L?<M
;LBG
L:>:
7<N:
<KD:>7KG
?<
;<8=>?7
=<F
O9?<7
PK8
9=A:

P::<
F>?A:<
7K8
7Q
89:
=>:=
PH
L?F:GC>:=F
F:A:B7CD:<8
89=8
F?F
<78
C>78:N8
89:DR
69?G
D?G8=S:

DKG8
<78
P:

D=F:
=M=?<R

T:
<::F
87 C>78:N8
89:
>:D=?<?<M
B=<F
L9:>:
89:
7LBG
<:G8
=<F
>=?G:
89:?>
H7K<MR

69:>:
=>:

G?M<?Q?N=<8
<:M=8?A:
:<A?>7<D:<8=B
?DC=N8G
7Q
89:

C>7C7G:F
CB=<
89=8
9=A:
<78 P::<
N7<G?F:>:F
7>
Q7>
L9?N9
=F:UK=8:

D?8?M=8?7<
=N8?7<G
9=A:
<78
P::<
?F:<8?Q?:FR
697G:

D?8?M=8?7< =N8?7<G
NK>>:<8BH
P:?<M
C>7C7G:F
Q7>
IK>>7L?<M
;LBG
EVW

OXWEVXY
Z[E@W\]E6WJ
9=A:
^EZXW@
?<
89:

C=G8J =<F
L?BB
>:GKB8
?<
_Z`_
a;V6EXZ6Y
=<F
X;bb
;^
@Zb6Z[O6
IZ;@ZcWVb?6Y
Q7>
89:
8>=<GB7N=8:F
C7CKB=8?7<J

69:

C>7C7G:F
@:A:B7CD:<8
EFA?G7>H
I7=>F
F:N?G?7<
Q=?BG
87 >:N7M<?d:
89=8
89:

C>7e:N8J
=G
C>7C7G:FJ
L?BB
9=A:
=
G?M<?Q?N=<8
<:M=8?A:
:QQ:N8
7<
IK>>7L?<M
;LBGJ
=
G8=8:

GC:N?:G
7Q
GC:N?=B
N7<N:><R

69:

B=<F 89=8
;ZEE
7L<G
:=G8
7Q
_=A:<
EA:<K:
?G
7<:
7Q
=
cWVY
baEXX
<KDP:>
7Q
C>?D=>H
<:G8?<M
G?8:G
Q7>
89:
7LBGR
69:G:
7LBG
=>:
=
CKPB?N
=<F
=
N7DDK<?8H
>:G7K>N:J
=<F
89?G
N>?8?N=B
<:G8?<M
=>:=
DKG8
<78
P:

F:G8>7H:F
Q7>
89:

Q?<=<N?=B
M=?<
7Q
=
Q:L
7>
G97>8fG?M98:F
>:A:<K:
?<N>:=G:GR

;<N:

B7G8J
89?G
CKPB?N
>:G7K>N:

N=<<78 P:
>:G87>:FR

E
>:=G7<=PB:
=NN7DD7F=8?7<
<::FG
87 P:
=F7C8:FR

E
ghf=N>:

IK>>7L?<M
;LB
C>:G:>A:
7<
89: G?8:
89=8
?G
C>7C:>BH
:<F7L:F
=<F
L:BBfD=<=M:F
L?BB
9:BC
S::C
89:
>:D=?<?<M
;<8=>?7
7LBG
G=Q:

G7
89:H N=<
N7<8?<K:
87 B?A:
=<F
P>::F
?<
89:?>
<=8?A:
9=P?8=8R
bN977BN9?BF>:<J
Q=D?B?:GJ
=<F
=BB
7Q
KG
N=<
:<e7H 9=A?<M
7K> 7LBG
<:=>PH
87 G8KFH
=<F
:<e7HR V7P:>8
iR
_7BN7DP
2896
 

  

 

!"
#
$

%



&
'(
)*)+

,
-

"#,.
%#
/

 01!2
#
.# (
&
'(
)*)+
3*4'54+5
"/ 6789:;
<=8>?
@AB
6789:;
C=8>
D
;=
=E8
F;9G;BH
IJ
KLKM
N8O8PAQ>89=
6:O<RABH
DA;B: S88=<97

TA
=E8
U9=;B<A
N8O8PAQ>89=
6:O<RABH
DA;B:J DGBBAV<97
UVPR
V8B8
A9W8
9G>8BAGR
<9
U9=;B<A
;9:

XE<9A
YG=
E;O8
Y889
:B<O89
AG=
AZ
=E8 ;B8;
:G8
=A
V<:8RQB8;:
:8O8PAQ>89=
=E;=
:<:
9A=
QBA=8W=
=E8>[
\8
988:
=A
QBA=8W=
=E8 B8>;<9<97
P;9:

VE8B8
=E8
AVPR
98R=
;9:

B;<R8
=E8<B
HAG97[

TE8B8
;B8
;=
P8;R=
ZAGB
R<79<Z<W;9=
987;=<O8
89O<BA9>89=;P
8ZZ8W=R
AZ
=E8
QBAQAR8:

QP;9
=E;= E;O8
9A=
Y889
WA9R<:8B8:

AB
><=<7;=8:

ZAB[
TE8R8
;B8?
GR<97
;
><=<7;=<A9
QP;9
ZAB
DGBBAV<97 UVPR
=E;=
E;R
;PB8;:H
Z;<P8:
;9:

V<PP
B8RGP=
<9
E<7E
>AB=;P<=HJ
PARR
AZ
:<R=<9W=
Y<A:<O8BR<=H
ZAB =E8
=B;9RPAW;=8:

AVPRJ
:;>;7<97
8ZZ8W=R
A9
XE<9A
DGBBAV<97
UVPRJ
;9:

AO8B;PP
E<7E8B >AB=;P<=H
AZ
=B;9RPAW;=8:

AVPR[
XA9=B;BH
=A
=E8
QBAQAR8:

N8O8PAQ>89=
6:O<RABH
DA;B: :8W<R<A9J
=E8
QBA]8W=
V<PP
E;O8
;
R<79<Z<W;9=
987;=<O8
8ZZ8W=
A9
DGBBAV<97
UVPRJ
;
R=;=8
RQ8W<8R AZ
RQ8W<;P
WA9W8B9[

TE8
P;9:
=E;=
UC66
AV9R
8;R=
AZ
^;O89
6O89G8
<R
;
QB<>;BH
98R=<97
R<=8
ZAB
=E8
AVPR[
_P8;R8 :A
9A=
:8R=BAH
<=
RA
>AB8
V;B8EAGR8R
W;9
Y8
;::8:
=A
U9=;B<A`
6 aLb;WB8
DGBBAV<97
UVP QB8R8BO8
A9
=E8
R<=8
=E;=
<R
QBAQ8BPH
89:AV8:
;9:

V8PPb>;9;78:

V<PP
E8PQ
c88Q
=E8
B8>;<9<97 U9=;B<A
AVPR
R;Z8
RA
=E8H
W;9
WA9=<9G8
=A
P<O8
<9
=E8<B
9;=<O8
E;Y<=;=[
dWEAAPWE<P:B89J
Z;><P<8RJ ;9:
;PP
AZ
GR
W;9
89]AH
E;O<97
=E8
AVPR
98;BYH
=A
R=G:H
;9:
89]AH[ F;>8R
XE8B=cAV
2897
 



 






!"#$%

&
'


(



)
 *
+,
-.-/

0 

%&0*
( &
1 
 23$"4
&

& *,
)
 *
+,
-.-/
56/768-
%1 9:;<
=>
=?;@A:=
BCDCE=FGC?;
@BD:H=A<
I=@AB
GCC;:?J
HKIG:;;CB 9=GGC?;H LMNMOP

AQR
@SQTUV
:WQX
I
VW
WYQ
ZVT[V\]
N^
O_OP
BQ`QabcXQTW
@U`deb\]
IbV\U
GQQWdTS

I[\\bfdTS
=fae
fQ\Q
bTgQ
T[XQ\b[e
dT
=TWV\db
VTU
9YdTb
h[W
U[Q
Wb
fdUQec\QVU UQ`QabcXQTW
WYVW
UdU
TbW
c\bWQgW
hdbabSdgVa
\Qeb[\gQe^
WYQ
bfae
V\Q
iVeW
UdeVccQV\dTSj
kQ
TQQU VgWdbT
Tbf
Wb
c\bWQgW
I[\\bfdTS
=fa
YVhdWVW
VTU
Vaabf
WYQeQ
adWWaQ
hd\Ue
Wb
gbTWdT[Q
Wb
ad`Q
bT dT
=TWV\db
Ve
WYQ]
YV`Q
ib\
Y[TU\QUe
bi
]QV\ej
;YQ
c\QeQTgQ
bi
V
WY\d`dTS
cbc[aVWdbT
bi I[\\bfdTS
=fae
dT
=TWV\db
de
V
hdbabSdgVa
VeeQW
ib\
WYQ
gbXX[TdW]
VTU
V
gYVTgQ
ib\
gYdaU\QT VTU
Vaa
bi
[e
Wb
eQQ
WYQ
bfae
gabeQ
h]
dT
WYQd\
TVWd`Q
YVhdWVWj
;YQ
cQbcaQ
bi
=TWV\db
TQQU c\bWQgWdbT
ib\
WYQd\
TVWd`Q
ecQgdQe^
TbW
Xb\Q
fV\QYb[eQej

lmnon
pon
pq
rnpsq
tuvo
swxywtwzpyq
ynxpqw{n
nttnzqs
uy
qmn
ny{wouy|nyq
qmpq
}wrr
~n
zpvsn ~€
py
yuq
|wqwxpqn
~€
qmn
zvoonyq
rpy‚

=TQ^
dW
de
eYbgƒdTS
WYVW
WYQ
B@I
de
e[SSQeWdTS
WYVW
WYQ
=TWV\db
FaVT
XdWdSVWdbT
ib\
I[\\bfdTS =fae
fVe
dT
VT]
fV]
e[ggQeei[a
VTU
WYVW
dW
de
VT
Vcc\bVgY
Wb
hQ
[eQU
ib\
WYQ
bfae
QVeW
bi „V`QT
@`QT[Qj
;YQ
=TWV\db
FaVT
XdWdSVWdbT
eWV\WQU
V\b[TU
O__

VTU
:

Vee[XQ
dW
de
gbTWdT[dTSj >\bX
O__

bT^
WYQ
9dW]
bi
=TWV\db
gbaaQgWQU
iQQe
i\bX
UQ`QabcQ\e
Wb
XdWdSVWQ
WYQ
abee
bi
aV\SQ eQgWdbTe
bi
YVhdWVWj
;YQ
dUQV
fVe
WYVW
WYQ
i[TUe
fb[aU
hQ
[eQU
Wb
c[\gYVeQ
XdWdSVWdbT
aVTUj
: UbT†W
ƒTbf
Ybf
X[gY
YVe
hQQT
cVdU
h]
UQ`QabcQ\e
h[W
Ve
bi
V
iQf
]QV\e
VSb^
dW
fVe
Vhb[W
‡LN XdaadbTj
ˆuyn
bi
WYVW
YVe
hQQT
ecQTW
ib\
XdWdSVWdbTj
F\bhVha]
L__e
bi
IK=ke
fQ\Q
Q`dgWQU i\bX
WYQd\
YbXQe
VTU
Tb
XdWdSVWdbT
aVTU
fVe
c[\gYVeQU
WYVW
WYQ]
gb[aU
Sb
Wbj
FaQVeQ
UbT†W
WQaa [e
WYVW
Tbf
L‰
]QV\e
ViWQ\
WYQ
id\eW
Q`dgWdbTe
WYVW
WYQ
gdW]
de
W\]dTS
Wb
idTU
V
aVTU
W\[eW
Wb QeWVhadeY
V
XdWdSVWdbT
edWQj
;YVW
UbQeT†W
\QcVd\
WYQ
UVXVSQ
UbTQ
h]
]QV\e
bi
Q`dgWdTS
bfae fdWYb[W
V
XdWdSVWdbT
edWQj

;fb^
VTbWYQ\
edSTdidgVTW
TQSVWd`Q
QiiQgW
bi
W\VTeabgVWdTS
bfae
Wb
edWQe
iV\
i\bX
WYQd\
TVWd`Q
aVTU de
WYQ
abee
bi
UdeWdTgW
hdbUd`Q\edW]j
ŠQaa]
IV\\^
Š\deWdT
A[QSS
VTU
bWYQ\e
YV`Q
ib[TU
SQTQWdgVaa] UdeWdTgW
cbc[aVWdbTe
bi
I[\\bfdTS
=fae
WYVW
V\Q
V
UdeWVTgQ
VcV\W
Q`QT
fdWYdT
9Vadib\TdV ‹@a`V\VUb^
Ibee[
QW
Vaj^
O_OOŒj
;\VTeabgVWdTS
bfae
P_
Wb
N_
XdaQe
i\bX
WYQd\
TVWVa
edWQ
\deƒe XddTS
WYQ
UdeWdTgW
S\b[cej
FbeedhaQ
VU`VTWVSQe
bi
WYQ
SQTQWdg
UdiiQ\QTgQe
WYVW
XdSYW
dTg\QVeQ e[\`d`VhdadW]
dT
V
cV\Wdg[aV\
abgVWdbT
fb[aU
hQ
abeW
Wb
WYQ
bfaej

;Y\QQ^
I[\\bfdTS
=fae
TQQU
Wb
YV`Q
bWYQ\
edWQe
TQV\h]
fdWYdT
WYQ
[e[Va
\VTSQ
bi
Ž[`QTdaQ UdecQ\edbT
‹i\bX
j‰
Wb
LP
XdaQeŒ
eb
]b[TS
VU[aW
bfae
gVT
V`bdU
dTh\QQUdTS
‹AbeQThQ\S^ JQ\`Vde^

;\[adb^
O__
Œj
;YQ
CVeW
bi
„V`QT
=TWV\db
I[\\bfdTS
=fae
V\Q
VT
V`Q\VSQ
bi

Wb
 XdaQe
i\bX
eQ`Q\Va
I[\\bfdTS
=fa
TQeWdTS
edWQe
dT
WYQ
9YdTb
V\QVj
;Y[e^
WYQ
@d\cb\W
V\QV
bfae XVƒQ
dW
cbeedhaQ
ib\
V
YQVaWY]
QgYVTSQ
bi
]b[TS
VU[aWe
idTUdTS
XVWQe
hQWfQQT
WYQ
Wfb
edWQej Ebee
bi
WYQ
CVeW
bi
„V`QT
edWQ
gb[aU
eQ\db[ea]
[TUQ\XdTQ
WYQ
`dVhdadW]
bi
fYVW
V\Q
Tbf
YQVaWY] cbc[aVWdbTe
bi
I[\\bfdTS
=fae
dT
9YdTb^
gbTW\dh[WdTS
Wb
WYQ
abee
bi
Vaa
I[\\bfdTS
=fae
i\bX WYQ
FbXbTV
DVaaQ]j

2898
 


 









 
 


 

 


  

 

 


 
 

 


 



  

  

 

   

 







 


!

 "#






  

 




 

 
$%&'()(*'%'+,-./)&)0*1213'+,4(%5,6'7200+)8,)129&2:26)&'&,9)'28,,::,6'%& /;((%72&9<7013)1')',14,62,1%:14,62)06%&6,(&  

  
=>



?

@

 




 



?

"


 
 
 
 
A
 

  


    
 









 

B

 
 
?

"



C
 


D

  




 
=>



 ?

"


 

C
 


!



 

  




 
B
#

  ##
B

 
E


B



 


"#


F>
  
    


B

G









 


B

 
G

 

?

"
B 





 

 


  &%2&1')&6,1
?

"






 


?

"
 

 
=   




 
 
 





 

 






 
#
 



 
?

"

 


 
 

 




 


!





 


 



 

 




 


 
  
?

"


   H

 

  




 








 

 B 
 
 
 
 




 
=>







 
 ##
 
 


?

"





 

B 
 ##








B
 ##



 



I

C

 
 
?

"


 

?

"

J"!

C
 


 
 






    
 

  
  
  






 B "

# ?

"

 "



 










 


  
I


  




 @D




 
 
 


 


 
 

  K


L

M


 

I
 
 

 

  




   






 




 
N

NC

!

D
O

P
#
N ?

"D  
@

#

#
?

DH



@K?
@#J

#@ON !?

QD@



R
 S

















 

 2899
 





 






 





 !





"


"

#






#"
$

%

%
#

&'()*+,-'./01*2(-' 
!
$
3456
37
378
#
9
:;<
=!


4 >68

"8?

%

@%
7"

A
$8 

?
 "5



#
 
2900
 

  
 
  

 



 
 ! 
" #$% %

 %
&$

'
( # )*

+


(" ,$( -" ./.0 11!..!0. 23 456786 97:; :6<7=>?6 6:?>@A:96:=75 6BB6C=8 BA@ =D6 E7@6DAF86 G6?65AH96:= CA:8>G6@6G =AG7;I JF@@AE>:< AE5 D7K>=7= >8 A:6 AB =D69I JF@@AE>:< AE58 E6@6 A:C6 :F96@AF8 =D@AF<DAF= LI M75>BA@:>7 7:G 68H6C>755; >: N:=7@>A 7:G MD>:AI OD6; 7@6 :AE 7 L=7=6 8H6C>68 AB CA:C6@:I P6?65AH96:= AB 755 =;H68 D7?6 :A= K66: Q>:G =A =D>8 E>5G5>B6 8H6C>68 8>:C6 =D6; 5>?6 K68= A: =D6 8796 =;H6 AB 57:G =D7= DF97:8 5>Q6 =A G6?65AHI

RSTUT VUT VW XTVYW Z[\U Y]^_]Z]`V_W _T^VW]aT T_a]U[_bT_WVX TZZT`WY [Z WST cU[c[YTd cXV_ WSVW SVaT _[W eTT_ `[_Y]dTUTd [U b]W]^VWTd Z[Uf RSTYT VUTg \Y]_^ V b]W]^VW][_ cXV_ Z[U h\UU[i]_^ jiXY WSVW SVY VXUTVdk ZV]XTd V_d i]XX UTY\XW ]_ S]^S b[UWVX]Wkl X[YY [Z d]YW]_`W e][d]aTUY]Wk Z[U WST WUV_YX[`VWTd [iXYl dVbV^]_^ TZZT`WY [_ mS]_[ h\UU[i]_^ jiXYl V_d [aTUVXX S]^STU b[UWVX]Wk [Z WUV_YX[`VWTd [iXYf m[_WUVUk W[ WST cU[c[YTd nTaTX[cbT_W oda]Y[Uk h[VUd dT`]Y][_l WST cU[pT`W i]XX SVaT V Y]^_]Z]`V_W _T^VW]aT TZZT`W [_ h\UU[i]_^ jiXYl V YWVWT YcT`]TY [Z YcT`]VX `[_`TU_f RST XV_d WSVW jqoo [i_Y TVYW [Z rVaT_ oaT_\T ]Y V cU]bVUk _TYW]_^ Y]WT Z[U WST [iXYf sXTVYT d[ _[W dTYWU[k ]W Y[ b[UT iVUTS[\YTY `V_ eT VddTd W[ j_WVU][t o uvwV`UT h\UU[i]_^ jiX cUTYTUaT [_ WST Y]WT WSVW ]Y cU[cTUXk T_d[iTd V_d iTXXwbV_V^Td i]XX STXc xTTc WST UTbV]_]_^ j_WVU][ [iXY YVZT Y[ WSTk `V_ `[_W]_\T W[ X]aT ]_ WST]U _VW]aT SVe]WVWf y`S[[X`S]XdUT_l ZVb]X]TYl V_d VXX [Z \Y `V_ T_p[k SVa]_^ WST [iXY _TVUek W[ YW\dk V_d T_p[kf RSV_x k[\l sVb zTXY[_ `SV]Ul yV_WV {VU^VU]WV |U[\c}y]TUUV mX\e ~`[bbT_W]_^ VY V_ ]_d]a]d\VXl _[W UTcUTYT_W]_^ WST mX\e 2901
  


 





 






!





"




#
$
%&
'(
)*)+
,
-

,.
&



/

0
12"3 34//5678
!94/
!9"568
4!
7:5
14;8 <=
7%.
&(
$
%&
+(
)*)+
> ') >+
/

?@
ABC
DEAFGH@
ICJCK@LMCEA
NOJHP@GQ
R@FGOS RTGG@UHEV
DUKP
UCGC
@EWC
ETMCG@TP
HE
DEAFGH@
FEO
XBHE@
YTA
BFJC
YCCE
OGHJCE
@TA
@Z

ABC FGCF
OTC
A@

UHOCPLGCFO
OCJCK@LMCEA
ABFA
OHO
E@A
LG@ACWA
ABCM[
\C
ECCO
A@
LG@ACWA

ABC GCMFHEHEV
KFEO
UBCGC
ABC
@UKP
ECPA
FEO
GFHPC
ABCHG
Q@TEV[

?BCGC
FGC
FA
KCFPA
Z@TG

PHVEHZHWFEA

ECVFAHJC
CEJHG@EMCEAFK

CZZCWAP
@Z
ABC
LG@L@PCO
LKFE

ABFA BFJC
E@A
YCCE
W@EPHOCGCO
@G

MHAHVFACO
Z@G[
?BCPC
FGC]
TPHEV
F
MHAHVFAH@E
LKFE
Z@G
RTGG@UHEV DUKP
ABFA
BFP

FKGCFOQ
ZFHKCO
FEO
UHKK
GCPTKA
HE
BHVB
M@GAFKHAQS
K@PP
@Z

OHPAHEWA
YH@OHJCGPHAQ
Z@G ABC
AGFEPK@WFACO
@UKPS

OFMFVHEV

CZZCWAP
@E
XBHE@
RTGG@UHEV
DUKPS
FEO
@JCGFKK
BHVBCG M@GAFKHAQ
@Z
AGFEPK@WFACO
@UKP[
X@EAGFGQ
A@
ABC
LG@L@PCO
ICJCK@LMCEA
NOJHP@GQ
R@FGO OCWHPH@ES
ABC
LG@^CWA
UHKK
BFJC
F

PHVEHZHWFEA

ECVFAHJC
CZZCWA
@E
RTGG@UHEV
DUKPS
F
PAFAC
PLCWHCP @Z

PLCWHFK
W@EWCGE[

?BC
KFEO
ABFA
D_NN
@UEP
CFPA
@Z
`FJCE
NJCETC
HP
F

LGHMFGQ

ECPAHEV
PHAC
Z@G
ABC
@UKP[
aKCFPC O@
E@A
OCPAG@Q
HA
P@
M@GC
UFGCB@TPCP
WFE
YC
FOOCO
A@
DEAFGH@b
N
cdeFWGC
RTGG@UHEV

DUK LGCPCGJC
@E
ABC
PHAC
ABFA
HP
LG@LCGKQ
CEO@UCO
FEO
UCKKeMFEFVCO
UHKK
BCKL
fCCL
ABC
GCMFHEHEV DEAFGH@
@UKP
PFZC
P@
ABCQ
WFE
W@EAHETC
A@
KHJC
HE
ABCHG
EFAHJC
BFYHAFA[
gWB@@KWBHKOGCES

ZFMHKHCPS FEO
FKK
@Z
TP
WFE
CE^@Q
BFJHEV
ABC
@UKP
ECFGYQ
A@
PATOQ
FEO
CE^@Q[ RFGYFGF
N[
RFGA@E gCEA
ZG@M
MQ
HaFO
2902
 

 



 




!  " #  $%
&'

' ()*
(+),-,.//0+102345 6789:8;9<=<8>9?@A88<A@BC<;8<?978DD8E?:DCB?F8G9B8FCH:8I8A87CJ;8<? EC<:@I8B8I?CI9=KLHBBCG@<>CG7F9M@?9?@:C<8CD?F8;KLHBBCG@<>CG7:G8B8C<E8 <H;8BCH:?FBCH>FCH?NKO97@DCB<@99<I8:J8E@977=@<P<?9B@C9<IOF@<CKQF8=9B8<CG 9N?9?8:J8E@8:CDEC<E8B<KR8A87CJ;8<?CD977?=J8:F9A8<C?M88<S@<I?C?F@: G@7I7@D8:J8E@8::@<E8?F8=7@A8M8:?C<?F8:9;8?=J8CD79<I?F9?FH;9<:7@S8?C I8A87CJK

TUVWVXWVXYZVX[Y\]^W[_`a_\_bXaYaV`XY_cVVac_W]adVaYXZV\\VbY[]\YUVeW]e][VfeZXaYUXY UXcVa]YgVVab]a[_fVWVf]Wd_Y_`XYVf\]WhTUV[VXWVi^[_a`Xd_Y_`XY_]aeZXa\]Wj^WW]k_a` lkZ[YUXYUX[XZWVXfm\X_ZVfXafk_ZZWV[^ZY_aU_`Ud]WYXZ_YmnZ][[]\f_[Y_abYg_]f_cVW[_Ym\]W YUVYWXa[Z]bXYVf]kZ[nfXdX`_a`V\\VbY[]aoU_a]j^WW]k_a`lkZ[nXaf]cVWXZZU_`UVW d]WYXZ_Ym]\YWXa[Z]bXYVf]kZ[ho]aYWXWmY]YUVeW]e][VfpVcVZ]edVaYqfc_[]Wmj]XWf fVb_[_]anYUVeW]rVbYk_ZZUXcVX[_`a_\_bXaYaV`XY_cVV\\VbY]aj^WW]k_a`lkZ[nX[YXYV[eVb_V[ ]\[eVb_XZb]abVWah  TUVZXafYUXYlsqq]ka[VX[Y]\tXcVaqcVa^V_[XeW_dXWmaV[Y_a`[_YV\]WYUV]kZ[huZVX[V f]a]YfV[YW]m_Y[]d]WVkXWVU]^[V[bXagVXffVfY]laYXW_]vqwxyXbWVj^WW]k_a`lkZ eWV[VWcV]aYUV[_YVYUXY_[eW]eVWZmVaf]kVfXafkVZZydXaX`Vfk_ZZUVZezVVeYUVWVdX_a_a` laYXW_]]kZ[[X\V[]YUVmbXab]aY_a^VY]Z_cV_aYUV_WaXY_cVUXg_YXYh{bU]]ZbU_ZfWVan\Xd_Z_V[n XafXZZ]\^[bXaVar]mUXc_a`YUV]kZ[aVXWgmY][Y^fmXafVar]mh oXWVatXa[]a uW]rVbY|XaX`VW]\j^YYVW\Zm}XWfVa[\]WYUV{_VWWXoZ^g{XaYX|XW`XW_YX}W]^e bXWVaUXa[]ag~€`dX_Zhb]d 2903
 

    
 


!
"!

#$
%&
&'(

'
)(
*+*,
-./+.,*
01 234567
894:;
<=>
234567
?94:
@
79 9A4
B75C7>D
EF
GHGI
J4K4L=M:459
26K8N=>D
@=7>6 O449853

P=
9A4
Q597>8=
J4K4L=M:459
26K8N=>D
@=7>6F @C>>=R853
QRLN
R4>4
=5S4
5C:4>=CN
85 Q597>8=
756
TA85=
UC9
A7K4
U445
6>8K45
=C9
=V
9A4 7>47
6C4
9=
R864NM>476
64K4L=M:459
9A79
686
5=9
M>=94S9
9A4:W
X4
5446
9=
M>=94S9
9A4 >4:785853
L756
RA4>4
9A4
=RLN
54N9
756
>78N4
9A48>
D=C53W

PA4>4
7>4
79 L47N9
V=C>
N8358V8S759
543798K4
45K8>=5:4597L
4VV4S9N
=V
9A4
M>=M=N46
ML75
9A79 A7K4
5=9
U445
S=5N864>46
=>
:89837946
V=>W
PA4N4
7>4;
CN853
7 :8983798=5
ML75
V=>
@C>>=R853 QRLN
9A79
A7N
7L>476D
V78L46
756
R8LL
>4NCL9
85 A83A
:=>97L89DF
L=NN
=V
68N985S9
U8=68K4>N89D
V=> 9A4
9>75NL=S7946
=RLNF
67:73853
4VV4S9N
=5
TA85=
@C>>=R853
QRLNF
756
=K4>7LL
A83A4> :=>97L89D
=V
9>75NL=S7946
=RLNW
T=59>7>D
9=
9A4
M>=M=N46
J4K4L=M:459
26K8N=>D
@=7>6 64S8N8=5F
9A4
M>=Y4S9
R8LL
A7K4
7 N8358V8S759
543798K4
4VV4S9
=5
@C>>=R853
QRLNF
7 N9794
NM4S84N =V
NM4S87L
S=5S4>5W

PA4
L756
9A79
Q?22
=R5N
47N9
=V
Z7K45
2K45C4
8N
7 M>8:7>D
54N9853
N894
V=>
9A4
=RLNW
[L47N4 6=
5=9
64N9>=D
89 N=
:=>4
R7>4A=CN4N
S75
U4
76646
9=
Q597>8=\
2 ]H^7S>4
@C>>=R853
QRL M>4N4>K4
=5
9A4
N894
9A79
8N
M>=M4>LD
456=R46
756
R4LL^:757346
R8LL
A4LM
_44M
9A4
>4:785853 Q597>8=
=RLN
N7V4
N=
9A4D
S75
S=5985C4
9=
L8K4
85 9A48>
5798K4
A7U8979W
`SA==LSA8L6>45F
V7:8L84NF 756
7LL
=V
CN
S75
45Y=D
A7K853
9A4
=RLN
547>UD
9=
N9C6D
756
45Y=DW

PA75_
D=CF B=4L
ZCNSAL4
2904
 



  
 
 
 


 


!"#$%&'(
!
 

) 

*
)***+
)

 ,-
.**
/0

+
/
'0
#&#1
231'3##
)4 56789
:;<
=;>
?6@
;AA;>?<8B?:
?;
C;DD@8?
;8
?6@
E@F@G;AD@8?
HG78
HEIJKLMNOP I8FB>;8D@8?7G
QRR@RRD@8?
78S
QSS@8S<D
QAA>;F7G
;8
?;S7:TR
7U@8S7
=;>
?6@
VB?:
;=
W8?7>B; E@F@G;AD@8?
QSFBR;>:

X;7>SY

Z
7D
8;?
7F7BG7[G@
?;
7??@8S
?;S7:TR
D@@?B8U
[<?
\;<GS
GB9@
?; F;BC@
D:

C;8C@>8
=;>
7AA>;F7GY

Z
67F@
GBF@S
B8
W8?7>B;
D:
@8?B>@
GB=@
7R
\@GG
7R
D:

A7>@8?R 78S
C6BGS>@8Y
Z
7D
F@>:

C;8C@>8@S
>@U7>SB8U
?6@
A>;A;R@S
S@F@G;AD@8?
78S
7C?B;8R
?79@8 ?;\7>SR
?6@
[<>>;\B8U
;\G
A;A<G7?B;8
;8MRB?@Y

56BR
[<>>;\B8U
;\G
A;A<G7?B;8
67R
U7>8@>@S \;>GSM\BS@
7??@8?B;8
78S
67R
@8?6>7GG@S
?6@
A<[GBCY

Z
7D
7\7>@
?67?
?6@
VZ?:
;=
W8?7>B;
67R
C;GG@C?@S
=@@R
=>;D
S@F@G;AD@8?]
A7>?BC<G7>G:
\B?6B8 ?6@
W8?7>B;
^78C6
_A@CB=BC
HG78
B8
>@RA;8R@
?;
[<>>;\B8U
;\G
DB?BU7?B;8]
[<?
Z
7D
8;?
7\7>@] 78S
?6@
7SS@8S<D
7GR;
>@=@>R
?67?
?6@R@
D;8@:R
67F@
8;?
[@@8
<R@S
?;
A<>C67R@
78S
C;8R@>F@ [<>>;\B8U
;\G
DB?BU7?B;8Y

56BR
S@=@>D@8?
;=
DB?BU7?B;8
BR
B>>@RA;8RB[G@
78S
67>DR
?6@ [<>>;\B8U
;\G
A;A<G7?B;8
B8
?6@
VB?:
;=
W8?7>B;Y
56@>@
8@@SR
?;
[@
?>78RA7>@8C:
;8
6;\
?6@R@ =@@R
\BGG
[@
<?BGB`@S
=;>
DB?BU7?B8U
BDA7C?RY
56@
VB?:
;=
W8?7>B;
7R
7 G@7S
7U@8C:]
8@@SR
?;
[@ >@RA;8RB[G@
78S
D;F@
=;>\7>S
\B?6
=<G=BGGB8U
B?R
;[GBU7?B;8R]
7R
\@GG
7R
C;8RBS@>
?6@ C<D<G7?BF@
BDA7C?R
=>;D
?6BR
S@=@>D@8?Y 56BR
D7:
[@
;8@
;=
?6@
G7R?
R<CC@RR=<GG:
>@A>;S<CB8U
A;A<G7?B;8R
;=
[<>>;\B8U
;\G
B8
?6@
VB?: ;=
W8?7>B;Y

56@:
67F@
B8
>@C@8?
:@7>R
;[R@>F@S
67FB8U
<A
?;
a
C6BC9R]
B8
;8@
[<>>;\b

Z BDAG;>@
?6@
VB?:
?;
@8R<>@
?67?
B=
?6BR
A>;c@C?
D;F@R
=;>\7>S]
78S
?6@
;\GR
7>@
D;F@S]
?6@
VB?: >@d<B>@R
?6@
A>;c@C?
S@F@G;A@>
?;
C;8R@>F@
G78S]
=;>@F@>
?;
A>;?@C?
[<>>;\B8U
;\G
\B?6B8
?6@ VB?:
;=
W8?7>B;Y

e@
R6;<GS
8;?
R<[c@C?
?6@R@
;\GR
?;
D;F@
\B?6;<?
A@>D78@8?
C;8R@>F7?B;8Y 56@
=@@R
7>@
8;?
7CC@A?7[G@
B8
?6BR
C7R@Y

56@R@
;\GR
8@@S
G78S
78S
\B?6;<?
C;DA@8R7?;>: DB?BU7?B;8
;=
67[B?7?]
?6@
BDA7C?R
?;
?6BR
A>;c@C?
7>@
RBU8B=BC78?
<8S@>
VIfQ
7R
?6@:
\BGG
67F@ 7
R<[R?78?B7G
@==@C?
@B?6@>
SB>@C?G:
;>
?6>;<U6
67[B?7?
D;SB=BC7?B;8R
;8
7 RA@CB7G
R?7?<R
RA@CB@RY
_B8C@>@G:]
H7<G
^;D@>;
W8?7>B;]
VQ
aLPgK
2905
 

  



 

!
"
#
$
%

&

'

()
*+*,
- 

"#.

%#
/
 01
2#
.#
)

'

()
*+*,
334+(45,
"/ 67
89:
;<8=>?7
@:A:B7CD:<8
EFA?G7>H
I7=>FJ

IK>>7L?<M
;LBG
L:>:
7<N:
<KD:>7KG
?<
;<8=>?7
=<F
O9?<7
PK8
9=A:

P::<
F>?A:<
7K8
7Q
89: =>:=
FK:
87 L?F:GC>:=F
F:A:B7CD:<8
89=8
F?F
<78
C>78:N8
89:DR
S:
<::F
87 C>78:N8
89: >:D=?<?<M
B=<F
L9:>:
89:
7LBG
<:G8
=<F
>=?G:
89:?>
H7K<MR

69:>:
=>:
=8
B:=G8
Q7K>
G?M<?Q?N=<8
<:M=8?A:
:<A?>7<D:<8=B
:QQ:N8G
7Q
89:

C>7C7G:F
CB=<
89=8 9=A:
<78
P::<N7<G?F:>:F
7>
D?8?M=8:F
Q7>R
69:G:
=>:T
KG?<M
=
D?8?M=8?7<
CB=<
Q7>
IK>>7L?<M ;LBG
89=8
9=G
=B>:=FH
Q=?B:F
=<F
L?BB
>:GKB8
?<
9?M9
D7>8=B?8HJ
B7GG
7Q
F?G8?<N8
P?7F?A:>G?8H
Q7> 89:
8>=<GB7N=8:F
7LBGJ
F=D=M?<M
:QQ:N8G
7<
O9?<7
IK>>7L?<M
;LBGJ
=<F
7A:>=BB
9?M9:> D7>8=B?8H
7Q
8>=<GB7N=8:F
7LBGR
O7<8>=>H
87 89:

C>7C7G:F
@:A:B7CD:<8
EFA?G7>H
I7=>F F:N?G?7<J
89:

C>7U:N8
L?BB
9=A:
=
G?M<?Q?N=<8
<:M=8?A:
:QQ:N8
7<
IK>>7L?<M
;LBGJ
=
G8=8:

GC:N?:G 7Q
GC:N?=B
N7<N:><R

69:

B=<F
89=8
;VEE
7L<G
:=G8
7Q
W=A:<
EA:<K:
?G
=
C>?D=>H
<:G8?<M
G?8:

Q7>
89:
7LBGR
XB:=G: F7
<78
F:G8>7H
?8
G7
D7>:

L=>:97KG:G
N=<
P:
=FF:F
87 ;<8=>?7Y
E
Z[\=N>:

IK>>7L?<M
;LB C>:G:>A:
7<
89:

G?8:
89=8
?G
C>7C:>BH
:<F7L:F
=<F
L:BB\D=<=M:F
L?BB
9:BC
]::C
89:
>:D=?<?<M ;<8=>?7
7LBG
G=Q:

G7
89:H
N=<
N7<8?<K:
87 B?A:
?<
89:?>
<=8?A:
9=P?8=8R
^N977BGJ
N9?BF>:<J Q=D?B?:GJ
=<F
=BB
7Q
KG
N=<
:<U7H
9=A?<M
89:
7LBG
<:=>PH
87 G8KFH
=<F
:<U7HR
2906
 

   






  !
" # 

$ %
& '( )*)+ ,
-"
,.

& #

/
 01
2 . &( %
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
 

  





 






!
"

#
$
%
&'
()(*
+
,!


+-

"

.
 /0
1
- '
$
%
&'
()(*
223)4325

. 67
89:
;<8=>?7
@:A:B7CD:<8
EFA?G7>H
I7=>FJ

K:L
EM:<F=
N8:D
I
=8
89:

O=<P=>H
QJ
RSRT
@:A:B7CD:<8
EFA?G7>H
I7=>F U::8?<M N
=M>::

V?89
=<F
GPCC7>8
89:

W7BB7V?<M
G8=8:D:<8L IP>>7V?<M
;VBG
V:>:
7<X:
<PD:>7PG
?<
;<8=>?7
=<F
Y9?<7
ZP8
9=A:

Z::<
F>?A:<
7P8
7W
89: =>:=
FP:
87 V?F:GC>:=F
F:A:B7CD:<8
89=8
F?F
<78
C>78:X8
89:D[
\:
<::F
87 C>78:X8
89:
>:D=?<?<M
B=<F
V9:>:
89:
7VBG
<:G8
=<F
>=?G:
89:?>
H7P<M[

69:>:
=>:
=8
B:=G8
W7P>
G?M<?W?X=<8
<:M=8?A:
:<A?>7<D:<8=B
:WW:X8G
7W
89:

C>7C7G:F
CB=<
89=8 9=A:
<78
Z::<
X7<G?F:>:F
7>
D?8?M=8:F
W7>[
69:G:
=>:L
PG?<M
=
D?8?M=8?7<
CB=<
W7>
IP>>7V?<M ;VBG
89=8
9=G
=B>:=FH
W=?B:F
=<F
V?BB
>:GPB8
?<
9?M9
D7>8=B?8HJ
B7GG
7W
F?G8?<X8
Z?7F?A:>G?8H
W7> 89:
8>=<GB7X=8:F
7VBGJ
F=D=M?<M
:WW:X8G
7<
Y9?<7
IP>>7V?<M
;VBGJ
=<F
7A:>=BB
9?M9:>
D7>8=B?8H
7W
8>=<GB7X=8:F
7VBG[
Y7<8>=>H
87 89:

C>7C7G:F
@:A:B7CD:<8
EFA?G7>H
I7=>F F:X?G?7<J
89:

C>7]:X8
V?BB
9=A:
=
G?M<?W?X=<8
<:M=8?A:
:WW:X8
7<
IP>>7V?<M
;VBGJ
=
G8=8: GC:X?:G
7W
GC:X?=B
X7<X:><[

69:

B=<F
89=8
;NEE
7V<G
:=G8
7W
^=A:<
EA:<P:
?G
=
C>?D=>H
<:G8?<M
G?8:

W7>
89:
7VBG[ _B:=G:

F7
<78
F:G8>7H
?8
G7
D7>:

V=>:97PG:G
X=<
Z:
=FF:F
87 ;<8=>?7`
E
aSb=X>:

IP>>7V?<M ;VB
C>:G:>A:
7<
89:

G?8:
89=8
?G
C>7C:>BH
:<F7V:F
=<F
V:BBbD=<=M:F
V?BB
9:BC
c::C
89: >:D=?<?<M
;<8=>?7
7VBG
G=W:

G7
89:H
X=<
X7<8?<P:
87 B?A:
?<
89:?>
<=8?A:
9=Z?8=8[ dX977BX9?BF>:<J
W=D?B?:GJ
=<F
=BB
7W
PG
X=<
:<]7H
9=A?<M
89:
7VBG
<:=>ZH
87 G8PFH
=<F
:<]7H[

89=<c
H7PJ e:BBH
Y7H<:

2908
 

   




 !
" 
 #"


 $# %  & '
( )* +,+- .
/# 
.0

( %


1 23
40
(* '
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`abcdedfgh
ibj klmeanodp
2909
 


 



 

 !"#

$
"
%&
'

(
)

*
+,
-.-/
01&

$"02*
'"
3
 45
6"
2"*,
)

*
+,
-.-/
77#-8#79
$3 :;
<=>
?@<ABC;
D>E>F;GH>@<
IJECK;BL
M;ABJN

O>P
IQ>@JA
R<>H
M
A<
<=>
SA@TABL
UN
VWVX
D>E>F;GH>@<
IJECK;BL
M;ABJ Y>><C@Q R
AQB>>
ZC<=
A@J
KTGG;B<
<=>
[;FF;ZC@Q
K<A<>H>@<P MTBB;ZC@Q
?ZFK
Z>B>
;@\>
@TH>B;TK
C@
?@<ABC;
A@J
]=C@;
^T<
=AE>
^>>@
JBCE>@
;T<
;[
<=> AB>A
JT>
<;
ZCJ>KGB>AJ
J>E>F;GH>@<
<=A<
JCJ
@;<
GB;<>\<
<=>H_
`>
@>>J
<;
GB;<>\<
<=>
B>HAC@C@Q
FA@J
Z=>B>
<=>
;ZFK
@>K<
A@J
BACK>
<=>CB
L;T@Q_

:=>B>
AB>
A<
F>AK<
[;TB
KCQ@C[C\A@<
@>QA<CE>
>@ECB;@H>@<AF
>[[>\<K
;[
<=>
GB;G;K>J
GFA@
<=A< =AE>
@;<
^>>@
\;@KCJ>B>J
;B
HC<CQA<>J
[;B_
:=>K>
AB>P
TKC@Q
A
HC<CQA<C;@
GFA@
[;B
MTBB;ZC@Q ?ZFK
<=A<
=AK
AFB>AJL
[ACF>J
A@J
ZCFF
B>KTF<
C@
=CQ=
H;B<AFC<LN
F;KK
;[
JCK<C@\<
^C;JCE>BKC<L
[;B <=>
<BA@KF;\A<>J
;ZFKN
JAHAQC@Q
>[[>\<K
;@
]=C@;
MTBB;ZC@Q
?ZFKN
A@J
;E>BAFF
=CQ=>B
H;B<AFC<L
;[
<BA@KF;\A<>J
;ZFK_
];@<BABL
<;
<=>
GB;G;K>J
D>E>F;GH>@<
IJECK;BL
M;ABJ J>\CKC;@N
<=>
GB;a>\<
ZCFF
=AE>
A
KCQ@C[C\A@<
@>QA<CE>
>[[>\<
;@
MTBB;ZC@Q
?ZFKN
A
K<A<> KG>\C>K
;[
KG>\CAF
\;@\>B@_

:=>
FA@J
<=A<
?RII
;Z@K
>AK<
;[
bAE>@
IE>@T>
CK
A

GBCHABL
@>K<C@Q
KC<>
[;B
<=>
;ZFK_ cF>AK>
J;
@;<
J>K<B;L
C<
K;
H;B>
ZAB>=;TK>K
\A@
^>
AJJ>J
<;
?@<ABC;d
I
eWfA\B>
MTBB;ZC@Q ?ZF
GB>K>BE>
;@
<=>
KC<>
<=A<
CK
GB;G>BFL
>@J;Z>J
A@J
Z>FFfHA@AQ>J
ZCFF
=>FG
g>>G
<=> B>HAC@C@Q
?@<ABC;
;ZFK
KA[>
K;
<=>L
\A@
\;@<C@T>
<;
FCE>
C@
<=>CB
@A<CE>
=A^C<A<_ h\=;;F\=CFJB>@N
[AHCFC>KN
A@J
AFF
;[
TK
\A@
>@a;L
=AEC@Q
<=>
;ZFK
@>AB^L
<;
K<TJL
A@J
>@a;L_

<=A@g
L;TN iBCg
j@T<k>@
2910








 !
"#$
%
&'#
(
)
 $* "#

+
%
&'#  $ !
#

,&%
&'# -
) $
.
+%
&'# $*
/
+ -&&

#& &*
+%
&'# 0* -##

1 %
&'# "-* 2

*%
&'#
$*
3
 4&5

 $ &
 %
&'# 678 "&


#8%
&'#
9:;
"<2='"->
?@
ABC@
#
.
!


 !
D 6* &
 8


8*EE
*$
E!#&
<
* FGHIJHKLM#
#
*$
EN


 !
O A


&

E
"<2='"->
?@
ABC<F",&
LC
&
&
 

8
#

#A
P AQA RE

 &



?SB'BA & '
T
#


8U
* 8


&
&
#
*

* ",&
U*

 
EE&
8U#U R
 &
&


*
 EE&

*U+

*$
O

Q
N
 7"'6*  8


&
*

*",&
UR


EE


 
#
 
*U &E&+

&


*

3
"#
&-
.&
(
<"-.(C'4
*  8


&
 

*$
O &
&&  '6*
*$
 R

 ,&
@ &E& 8 R

&

<-.(C
*
+
*
@ &E&EE&
E
*",&



&
 






#
   E
* ,&

6*$
 @E
8&


#+


&



* 
&
E
 & 

**8


*#* && & 

U' 6*$
* ?'B8 
&


*#*
$E

* 5

3 
 '6*$
* U1
E

&



U
E  & 
U
R
 
R
EEE
*$
EN

3!
$
' 2911












 !""
!
#





$ 


" !
!
 




 %&'()*+),,+-+.),/01)2+,1(3(145678( )&+()29,/01)2 +,1(3(1(*,1)+/3)&1):+(//3)& /01) (179(
7+(+/37))(:+)/ 9 99()(/7*()(
)(/*++3/ )&,/01)+.(9-'4;<=%&>,,7*)7

/
**)(14:(/*)75*,1)6,/)?
456@3/)&

A
B7
79(9/)9(+17/+ +33(1()-+7(9) /9(9()78 /(179+33(1()7))(:+)//*()( )(/ *++3/ )&+()29,/01)2+,1(3(1(*,1)+/3)& /01) 9)&3/)&
/01)(+/) C()&()&+1/,/3)&
456=
D9'4;< 79
1*+)78+-+.)+()2+,1(3(1,/01))&)(+ EFGHIIJKLMNLJIFOLOEEFGPIJQRSTUGJIUIFVKLIWXIUXIFUXIYNZYI[NILUEFG\IHUKY]HGLYKYUILU WKUX^OLJ]WKUXKLUXIYHGEIG_UXIEFG\IHUGFEFGMFOVHGPIFIJZ`^UXIEFIPKGNYa`21)(3(9 456 9(3()C(77&://*/99()(/7/*/+:+(
(3(1)331)+/.(99()(/7 *()(
)(/*++)&)C/)789()&,(/
456=
-=6+='/9 b
c
de?-@2?1@f ce'7='/96
+=bcAcgh?1ijkiljHijminoXILOaIOJOMILH`XOYEFIEOFIJOEFKGFQRSTl]UXI [NIYUKGL_GFOHGNFUFIPKIWKLMOLOMILH`pYJIHKYKGLLGUUGNYI)(94563/7),/01)(+ GLIG_aOWn^qrsstuuvvwrxyvvz{|}{utr~rwuv€‚t~v‚rrƒz„ {~†x{~‡tˆ‡r‰}~t„€x{~ˆƒ„ Š‹v~‡Œ?

cg@g'7=<,,=A)&c
 c
A
?

cg@f
tvxx{q|}Žz„qr}~uŒrw
{~tv‹r?

ce@
c '7=<,,=e)&ccA
ccge=
XIHOYIaOWVO‘IYHaIOFUXOUOEFG\IHUKY]HGLYKYUILUWKUX^OLJ]WKUXKLUXIYHGEIG_^UXI ,(/456(3()(+++)(77,)/3)&+*,/01)789()& 4569)&),/01)C+ +,1(3(177(9)(3(9 78999(+1++9)+()2+,1(3(17:7/39)(7()& 456=?> =
=
tvxx{q|}Žz„qr}~uŒrw
r~rs{ g'7=<,,=e)&c
 ccd2
c?cdd
@f†xtv~’ˆrw ‰{ssruz„€r“~rw‰{ssru‚{”vˆ h
'7=<,,=e)&Acc A
h2
d?

@f•{u}x{|yvˆr}x‡vˆ vwv~ˆvqr}~‡t|–—~‡„z„qtuŒrw‚rˆŠ~‹v|vˆ c '7=<,,=e)&
gh
hc2hA?

@fŠsvxt‡{~ q{~Œr~qrss}~tuŒz„qtuŒrwŠsvxt‡{~q{~Œr~ ceA'7=<,,=e)&c g
c

2?

g@f qv~uvxwrx
tvxx{•vz{’{qr~ˆvxz{utr~z„qr}~uŒrw˜|rx{’r

'7=<,,=e)&ccAg cc
2  ccA2?

c
@f
tvxx{q|}Žz„qr}~uŒrw
{~tv‹r
c'7=<,,=e)&)cce2g=@
™aaG_UXIYIHOYIYOaYGXGaJUXOUOEFG\IHUKYLGU]HGLYKYUILUWKUX^GF]WKUXKLUXIYHGEIG_^  456(3)&),:(/+:(/*)79/1*)9(9/)1/)*,7)/78)&+()29 ,/01)2+,1(3(1331)+/3)&+-+.),/01)9)&/+331)+/)/)&C(+1/:9( )& 456=—’=f13=‚{ut~rˆš~t’rˆ’v•{ƒ{z„qtuŒrw•{ƒ{

c'7=<,,=e)&cd

2 ?

c@ ?:(+(/+)/&/+(
7*)/3
7,7C+C()&()&+1/,/3,(/
4563/
7 ,7=
› )&
/01)(+/)1/+(+))C()&/C()&()&+1/,/3)&
456-1+()C+/) +,1(3(177(9)(3(9 789/9(+1++9()& 456 9)&
4569(9/)99++)&+()2 9,/01)2+,1(3(1(*,1)+/3)&(+,/01)=%& 456*79(+1++9)&(*,1)+
77/3 (9+)(779+1)
/ C&(1&(179+]:()/3(9+)(7++ (179(
2912










 
!"#$%&


& &
&




'$
($ $
($
($)
$'$&%&'&

($*+%
&$
'&&&$

$ %

&$

'&)
$'$&'
$ ,'

$'
($ $&&


' ''$-,

& 
($ 
!"# $&,
&$' 
& &'


& !
 
&%.$

&

/



$& $$
$
'
&



0 &'%123456371 &$ $ 

'
 
'&
8!9*$'
&


%
'$%$



!:;*+


&&<

''$'&

($"  
%
$&'&
%$,
&'
!"#* <&


&&
%
&

$<&
  %&
($$
&%&%&
=
&& 
&$>)
$'$$'
($


$ <&

%$


?

!"# &@
($*<&

$A 
$
@
!"#.BCDEC 
$'$$$&


'$$'
($)&
&&
$

 
'$$&CFGHF+IECGJEKLBBEFGEGCMLIEFIHCNBEFOLP 



($

$

 
$$&
($&&%&))
'$<&

$$
($&& 

$QRSTUVSTWXSTRYUZVU[\R]Y^_`RXY\aUVUaRVWaaVUYYUa2bcd7efghijh1kl  *+LmFCGBH++HLFnIoEpq"#
($)
$'$<&

$ 
&&$>$'
!"#*+IoJEEBHIHrCIHLFBEC+OJE+mHNNsE <

''$'
$&
($ 
*+$$&
 

%$&

&
8!9+BO+IEJt
- 
($$
'
!"# '

$ 
 &%$ 
($&&%)
$'$

$ <&


&@$&
!"# ' 8&


<!"#'
($&@
 

$&
uuvwxywz{|uxy

>'


$

}%&


&-&~
}!

)
€}$

$% 8



($)
$'$


&&%$$&

')
$'$!"#< 



$&''
 


&$$$& !"# 2913 






 ! "#### 
$%%%%%% # $&
'   ()% %%   () 

%
 
%(
*+ )  (,%%%%  -./01-23-4.50%6.1.7218923-4:;% &<
==>?&>@ABCDEF GBBHIHBJEHKLEMNOOPQRSTJEHLBHPBTHK

U(&+&U ?RV %% %%% %W  ()   $ %%5  
  %X$YXY 
.Z7[,;72\/]:0Z7.^:-4_`ab&&&c9dPBTFKeBfgHhFiEQR STJEHLBHPBTHK

==(&+& = j&V %%# % %  %k % (,    $ %
%  %k
 ) (,%  $Z-,;1./1.;.Z-0-:6.; &l%# %%  LFKEHhCLh  (=%%%@%  %) k# #%&

%% (##%  $%%  ()  %)& m

noW m##+pm(+% (#q r =
=
q%) msj

tW% (+u>=
VvU=
j"?==? WWw
%&

2914
 



  


!"#
$

%
&''(
)
*
+,%
-.
/0/1.

2
3
(
4'
2 56" 
(#(%.
+,%
-.
/0/1
7/8/981:
3 ;<=>
?@AB
CD
EFA=>@C
;<G<HCIJ<FA
KLG@MC>B
NC=>LO

P<Q
RFH=FL
S=HH<B
KLGCT=A<M
DC>
AU<
VFG@>CFJ<FA

WRSKVXQ
=MY
AU=A
BCZ
[\]^__\`a
a\`bcd
^e

fg\ hc`ic[j
kl
mnmol
cp\`ac
bf\_
q
AC
AU<
EFA=>@C
rH=FF@Fs
?CJJ@MM@CF
><s=>L@Fs
AU<
WtX
u?VvK w?=H@DC>F@=
VFG@>CFJ<FA=H
vZ=H@AB
KTAx
;<A<>J@F=A@CF
yCA@CF
AC
><TCJJ<FL
KII>CG=H
z
;<F@=H
CD
=F KLL<FLZJ
AC
=
I><G@CZMHB
=II>CG<L
VR{
wVFG@>CFJ<FA=H
RJI=TA
{<IC>AxQ|
=FL
W}X
u~@H<
C€
r;VS}t‚ƒ„ W;<G<HCIJ<FA
rH=FX
yCA@CF
AC
><TCJJ<FL
KII>CG=Hz;<F@=H€|

U<
;<G<HCIJ<FA
rH=F
W~@H<
C€
r;VS}t ‚ƒ„X
@M
AC
TCFMA>ZTA
F@F<
@FLZMA>@=H
†Z@HL@FsM
ACA=H@Fs
ƒQ}‡ˆQƒ‰ƒ
MŠZ=><
D<<A
=FL
=MMCT@=A<L
M@A< @JI>CG<J<FAM
CF
t‹„€„ƒ
=T><M
CD
H=FL
s<F<>=HHB
HCT=A<L
<=MA
CD
Œ=G<F
KG<FZ<Q
<MA
CD
;CZ†H<L=B
=FL
;ZICFA
KG<FZ<MQ
FC>AU
CD
ŽZ>ZI=
A><<A
=FL
MCZAU
CD
K@>IC>A
;>@G<Q
@AU@F
AU<
R
W@sUA
RFLZMA>@=HX
H=FL
ZM< L@MA>@TA
CD
AU<
?=H@DC>F@=
?CJJ<>T<
?<FA<>
I<T@D@T
rH=F€

EF<
CD
AU<
J=@F
><=MCFM
UB
<
=MY
BCZ
AC
L<FB
><TCJJ<FL=A@CF
CD
=s<FL=
@A<J
N
@M
†<T=ZM<
‘\ ab’cp[\\
‘bfg
fg\
“bfj
^e
”`fc[b^•’
“–—˜
a\f\[_b`cfb^`
e^[
fg\
™\š\d^›_\`f
œdc`
WIˆ‚
CD
ƒ‚ƒ
II
@F AU<
tzƒz}‚}}
J<<A@Fs
=s<FL=X€

U@M
L<A<>J@F=A@CF
@M
AU=A
u=HAUCZsU
AU<
I>CICM<L
I>C<TA
TCZHL
U=G<
= M@sF@D@T=FA
<DD<TA
CF
AU<
<FG@>CFJ<FAQ
†<T=ZM<
=HH
ICA<FA@=HHB
M@sF@D@T=FA
<DD<TAM
W=X
U=G<
†<<F
=F=HBž<L =L<ŠZ=A<HB
@F
=F
<=>H@<>
VR{
IZ>MZ=FA
AC
=IIH@T=†H<
MA=FL=>LMQ
=FL
W†X
U=G<
†<<F
=GC@L<L
C>
J@A@s=A<L IZ>MZ=FA
AC
AU=A
<=>H@<>
VR{Q
@FTHZL@Fs
><G@M@CFM
C>
J@A@s=A@CF
J<=MZ><M
AU=A
=><
@JICM<L
ZICF
AU< I>CICM<L
I>C<TAQ
FCAU@Fs
DZ>AU<>
@M
><ŠZ@><L€|

Ÿ
¡¢£¤
¥¦¡¥
¥¦
§¨©¢ª§« §¥¡¬
©«­¡®¥¯
ª°
¥¦  ­¢ª­ª¯ ±
­¢ª² ®¥
³©§®¬¤±©§£
¯©£§©°©®¡§¥
ª§ ¯´
¦¡¨
§ª¥
µ  §
¡± ¶¤¡¥ ¬·
¡§¡¬·¸ ±
¡§±
­¢ ¯ §¥ ±
¤§± ¢
¥¦
¹¤£¤¯¥
º»ºº
¼§¥¡¢©ª
½¬¡§
º»¾»
¿¤­­¬ « §¥¡¬
ÀÁÂÃ
¡§±
¥¦
­¤µ¬©®
¡§±
­¤µ¬©®
¡£ §®· ¢ ¨© Ä
ª°
¥¦ ¯
­ª¥ §¥©¡¬
©«­¡®¥¯
±ª ¯
§ª¥
Å©¯¥Æ
Ǧ ¯
§¨©¢ª§« §¥¡¬
©«­¡®¥¯
©§®¬¤± Ã
µ¤¥
¡¢
§ª¥ ¬©«©¥ ±
¥ªÃ

¥¦
±©¢ ®¥Ã
©§±©¢ ®¥
¡§±
®¤«¤¬¡¥©¨
©«­¡®¥¯
ª°
¥¦©¯
­¢ª² ®¥
ª§
£¢  §¦ª¤¯
£¡¯
«©¯¯©ª§¯Ã ¥¢¡§¯­ª¢¥¡¥©ª§È¥¢¡°°©®Ã
¡£¢©®¤¬¥¤¢¡¬
¢ ¯ª¤¢® ¯Ã
¦¡¸¡¢±¯
¡§±
¦¡¸¡¢±ª¤¯
«¡¥ ¢©¡¬¯Ã
¡©¢
¶¤¡¬©¥·Ã
§ª©¯ Ã
¡§± µ©ª¬ª£©®¡¬
¢ ¯ª¤¢® ¯Æ
Ǧ¤¯Ã
¡
¦©£¦ ¢
¬ ¨ ¬
±ª®¤« §¥
®ª§¯©¯¥©§£
ª°
¡
ÉÀʹ
À§¨©¢ª§« §¥¡¬
Á«­¡®¥
 ­ª¢¥
¯¦ª¤¬±
µ
®ª«­¬ ¥ ±
¥ª
¡¬¬ªÄ
°¤¢¥¦ ¢
¯¥¤±·
¡§±
­¤µ¬©®
¢ ¨© Ä
ª°
¥¦©¯
­¢ª² ®¥
¤§± ¢
ÉÀÊ¹Æ ÀÅ¡«­¬ ¯
ª°
©§¡± ¶¤¡¥
¡§¡¬·¯ ¯
¡§±
®ª§®¬¤¯©ª§¯
©§®¬¤±
¥¦
°ª¬¬ªÄ©§£Ë C
D@<HL
MAZL@<M
CD
TZ>><FA
FC@M<
H<G<HM
U=G<
†<<F
TCFLZTA<L
=A
AU<
I>CICM<L
I>C<TA
AC
U<HI L<A<>J@F<
AU<
<ÌI<TA<L
H<G<H
CD
FC@M<
=A
AU<
I>C<TA
M@A<
U@TU
@M
HCT=A<L
@AU@F
AC
J@H<M
CD
= IZ†H@T
@FA<>F=A@CF=H
=@>IC>A€
U<
I>CICM<L
I>C<TA
CZHL
U=G<
=
M@sF@D@T=FA
F<s=A@G<
<DD<TA
CF
†Z>>C@Fs
CHM
¡§±
¥¦©¯
°° ®¥ T=FFCA
†<
J@A@s=A<L
†B
=
I>CICM<L
><HCT=A@CF
IH=FÍ
><s=>LH<MM
CD
AU<
=LL<FLZJÎM
TCFTHZM@CFMQ
AU< I><G@CZMHB
=II>CG<L
VR{
L@L
FCA
@FTHZL<Q
=LL><MMQ
C>
<G=HZ=A<
AU<
ICA<FA@=H
M@sF@D@T=FA
<DD<TAM
CD
=><UCZM<
L<G<HCIJ<FAM
CF
@HLH@D<
MZTU
=M
AU<
†Z>>C@Fs
CH€
RF
=LL@A@CFQ
FC
LCTZJ<FA<L TCFTZ>><FT<
U=M
†<<F
><T<@G<L
D>CJ
AU<
?=H@DC>F@=
;<I=>AJ<FA
CD
~@MU
=FL
P@HLH@D<
AU=A
AU< I>CICM<L
I>C<TA
@AU
=
†Z>>C@Fs
CH
><HCT=A@CF
IH=F
CZHL
U=G<
=
H<MM
AU=F
M@sF@D@T=FA
@JI=TA
CF AU<
HCT=H
†Z>>C@Fs
CH
W=
MI<T@=HMA=AZM
MI<T@<MX
ICIZH=A@CFQ
=M
<HH
=M
CF
AU<
ICIZH=A@CF
CD †Z>>C@Fs
CHM
AU=A
CZHL
†<
><T<@G@Fs
AU<
><HCT=A<L
CHM€ KFCAU<>
J=C>
><=MCF
AC
L<FB
><TCJJ<FL=A@CF
CD
=s<FL=
@A<J
N
@M
¯ª
¥¦¡¥
ÏÐ
ÑÒÓ
ÔÕÐÖÐÕ×Ð
fg\
’ce\fj c`a
Øicdbfj
^e
dbe\
^e
^i[
]^__i`bfj
c`a
^i[
d^]cd
‘bdadbe\Í
AU<
I>CICM<L
I>C<TA
=><=
MUCZHL
@FTHZL<
=F
=HA<>F=A@G<
I>C<TA
AU=A
CZHL
I>CA<TA
AU<
I>C<TA
=><=
=M
=
F=AZ><
I><M<>G<
=FL
FCA
†<
L<G<HCI<L
DC>
=FB
Y@FL
CD
@FLZMA>@=H
D=T@H@AB€
¿¤®¦
¡
§¡¥¤¢
­¢ ¯ ¢¨
Τ¬±
§ª¥
ª§¬·
­¢ ¯ ¢¨
¥¦
¡¢ ¡
¡¯
¤§± ¨ ¬ª­ ± ¯¡° ¥·
¸ª§ ¯
°ª¢
¥¦
¡©¢­ª¢¥Ã
µ¤¥
©¥
TCZHL
<G<F
L>=
@F
AU<
C>HL
AC
G@M@A
CZ>
MI<T@=H
@HLH@D<
><M@L<FAM
H@Y< AU<
†Z>>C@Fs
CH
U@TU
H@G<M
=FL
F<MAM
=FFZ=HHB
CF
AU@M
H=FL€ 2915



 


 



   





 






 





















 



 






!"#$%&"'()*!+&%,-./(0/*.!%.1/)..+%0.23


 








4



 

 


 5

6
7"8(/7(





9

: 
  


5









 9




 


 
;
<
 =
>< ?.'.1!@(-.'ABCD"!@E*)@)*'(F*.).G*&/
2916
2917
 


 










!"
!#
$
%&
'
(!
)*

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
 


  



  

 !"#
$
%&'

('
)*
+
$
!,- ./
01
1
2 3
&

42 5657
895694:
!
;<=>?@
AB=CD
EFG
;<=>?@
HB=C
I
@B
BJ=
K@>L@GM
NO
PQPR S=T=UFVC=>B
;?TAWFGM
IF@G?
X==BA><

YF
BJ=
Z>B@GAF
S=T=UFVC=>B
;?TAWFGM
IF@G?O S=@G
[AGWO

ILGGF\A><
Z\UW
\=G=
F>]=
>LC=GFLW
A>
Z>B@GAF
@>?
^JA>F _LB
J@T=
_==>
?GAT=>
FLB
F`
BJ=
@G=@
?L=
BF
\A?=WVG=@? ?=T=UFVC=>B
BJ@B
?A?
>FB
VGFB=]B
BJ=Ca
b=
>==?
BF
VGFB=]B
BJ= G=C@A>A><
U@>?
\J=G=
BJ=
F\UW
>=WB
@>?
G@AW=
BJ=AG
MFL><a

YJ=G=
@G=
@B
U=@WB
`FLG
WA<>A`A]@>B
>=<@BAT=
=>TAGF>C=>B@U =``=]BW
F`
BJ=
VGFVFW=?
VU@>
BJ@B
J@T=
>FB
_==>
]F>WA?=G=?
FG CABA<@B=?
`FGa
YJ=W=
@G=D
LWA><
@
CABA<@BAF>
VU@>
`FG
ILGGF\A>< Z\UW
BJ@B
J@W
@UG=@?M
`@AU=?
@>?
\AUU
G=WLUB
A>
JA<J
CFGB@UABMO UFWW
F`
?AWBA>]B
_AF?AT=GWABM
`FG
BJ=
BG@>WUF]@B=?
F\UWO ?@C@<A><
=``=]BW
F>
^JA>F
ILGGF\A><
Z\UWO
@>?
FT=G@UU JA<J=G
CFGB@UABM
F`
BG@>WUF]@B=?
F\UWa
^F>BG@GM
BF
BJ=
VGFVFW=? S=T=UFVC=>B
;?TAWFGM
IF@G?
?=]AWAF>O
BJ=
VGFc=]B
\AUU
J@T=
@ WA<>A`A]@>B
>=<@BAT=
=``=]B
F>
ILGGF\A><
Z\UWO
@
WB@B=
WV=]A=W F`
WV=]A@U
]F>]=G>a

YJ=
U@>?
BJ@B
ZH;;
F\>W
=@WB
F`
d@T=>
;T=>L=
AW
@
VGAC@GM >=WBA><
WAB=
`FG
BJ=
F\UWa
eU=@W=
?F
>FB
?=WBGFM
AB
WF
CFG= \@G=JFLW=W
]@>
_=
@??=?
BF
Z>B@GAFf
;
gQh@]G=
ILGGF\A>< 2919
 











 

















 




 


 











 










 










 

 
2920
 



  

 

!
"#$
%
& '(
)**
+,-
$
+.,/0/12034130/56 7
%

"

85*"
+#

*, 
#$
%
 
$
$%


*9
:$
":*"
$ *$
 *8
**"

8
**
8
)*
8
 

* 


*
+
$:;



 
7



;
$;

""


;;
; 8
8 *8


"
:
**

*;
7
$


8
;
#$
%





*+;

*
* 

$




+,


;*:
*"+;




*

,*

;;
 9
#$
%
,
*
"




+
;



*

9

+
8
8 *"

85*"
+#

**
,8
< 


"
=>?@>A>(@ @
?( >B

AA
@CD>@?EDF=G(= (
=H
>
=A=H
>(F @
@I

7
*
%J55


;K
"5"$
8
+;


 

*
+
:$
*


$
+



*+
* & 5L0M
#$
%
8"

8
8
+*
*
* 

M 

* 


8N8
%




;
+

$

" 
"
:
!
"
$;$$
**
O

$
;
"
+
** K
"


**
PJQK7!
"#$
%
;
;$$ 


*

*:+R
8
 !
+,
58
9N

2921
 



  


 






 !

"##


$

%
&'
(#
)
*+


'
'%
,  %
-
./.0

1.2.3200
4 5678
9:;<
=>
?@;78:=
56A6B=CD6@;
EFA:G=8<
H=78FI
J
7GK
;L7;
<=M

NOPQRROST
TOSUVW
QX
YZO
[VS\VN]
^_
`a`b_
VcOSTV
UYOR
d
;=
;L6
?@;78:=
eB7@@:@f
9=DD:GG:=@
86f78F:@f
;L6
ghi
j9klE
m97B:>=8@:7 k@A:8=@D6@;7B
lM7B:;<
En;o
56;68D:@7;:=@
p=;:=@
;=
86n=DD6@F ECC8=A7B
q
56@:7B
=>
7@
EFF6@FMD
;=
7 C86A:=MGB<
7CC8=A6F
kJrst
7@F
gui jv:B6
w=x
e5kyuhz{|}
g56A6B=CD6@;
eB7@i
p=;:=@
;=
86n=DD6@F ECC8=A7Bq56@:7Bxt
~L6
56A6B=CD6@;
eB7@
gv:B6
w=x
e5kyuhz{|}i
:G
;= n=@G;8Mn;
@:@6
:@FMG;8:7B
M:BF:@fG
;=;7B:@f
|su€s|‚|
GƒM786
>66;
7@F 7GG=n:7;6F
G:;6
:DC8=A6D6@;G
=@
h„}x}|
7n86G
=>
B7@F
f6@687BB<
B=n7;6F 67G;
=>

7A6@
EA6@M6s
†6G;
=>
5=MB6F7<
7@F
5MC=@;
EA6@M6Gs
@=8;L
=> ‡M8MC7
ˆ;866;
7@F
G=M;L
=>
E:8C=8;
58:A6s
†:;L:@
;L6
J‰
g‰:fL;
J@FMG;8:7Bi B7@F
MG6
F:G;8:n;
=>
;L6
97B:>=8@:7
9=DD68n6
96@;68
ˆC6n:>:n
eB7@x

EG
7 B=@fz;:D6
86G:F6@;
=>
;L6
J@B7@F
y7BB6<
7@F
n=DDM@:;<
D6D68
†L=
A7BM6G
=M8
@7;:A6
†:BFB:>6s
J
7D
f867;B<
n=@n68@6F
7=M;
;L6
C8=C=G6F F6A6B=CD6@;
CB7@
7@F
;L6
F6A7G;7;:@f
n=@G6ƒM6@n6G
:;
†:BB
L7A6
>=8 ?@;78:=ŠG
86D7:@:@f
M88=†:@f
=†B
C=CMB7;:=@x

~L:G
M@:ƒM6
B:;;B6
:8Fs
†L:nL
†7G
=@n6
n=@G:F686F
n=DD=@
7@F
7M@F7@;s :G
@=†
F6G:f@7;6F
7G
7 GC6n:6G
=>
GC6n:7B
n=@n68@
<
97B:>=8@:7
56C78;D6@; =>
v:GL
7@F
‹:BFB:>6
g95v‹ix

7:;7;
B=GG
FM6
;=
F6A6B=CD6@;
L7G
66@ =@6
=>
;L6
G;8=@f6G;
F8:A:@f
>=8n6G
6L:@F
;L:Gx
5M6
;=
;L6
L:fL
B6A6BG
=> F6A6B=CD6@;
;L7;
;L6
J@B7@F
y7BB6<
L7G
G66@
:@
;L6
B7G;
G6A687B
F6n7F6Gs ;L6
8=MfLB<
u{{
7n86G
;L7;
;L6
9:;<
=>
?@;78:=
7@F
?@;78:=
J@;68@7;:=@7B E:8C=8;
786
CB7@@:@f
;=
F6A6B=C
†:;L
<6;
D=86
†786L=MG6G
:G
@=†
=@6
=> ;L6
B7G;
86D7:@:@f
C78n6BG
=>
M88=†:@f
=†B
L7:;7;
:@
?@;78:=x

~L:G
:8F
:G
7@
:DC=8;7@;
C78;
=>
;L6
@7;M87B
L68:;7f6
=>
?@;78:=
7@F
;L6 J@B7@F
y7BB6<x

~L:G
A6G;:f:7B
L7:;7;
7@F
=†B
C=CMB7;:=@
786
;8M6
;867GM86G ;L7;
;L6
9:;<
7@F
E:8C=8;
L7A6
;L6
M@:ƒM6
=CC=8;M@:;<
;=
n7C:;7B:Œ6
=@
7@F GL786
†:;L
@=;
MG;
;L6
B=n7B
n=DDM@:;<s
M;
†:;L
;87A6B68G
>8=D
=;L
@678 2922
















 
 



 
















 








 











 

































 














































 





 















  
 












 











 


































 
!"#$%&##&'())&*+,("+&*,-.&*+-/$&)01-2&+(*$%&3/$,42 /*-+&5"-$&3678+&$&#)/*-$/(*!(#$%/29&:&;(<)&*$=;-*>

?
@

A 















 BCDEFGFHIJ BKLGCMLNNOD PFGQCRCFSPLHCROGDCLTLQUGLHCNQ POVROUDSFGORWDHLDSXLHHFIYSZOELQFNROGQKF[DZCGOD\FDQ]WXY[^ BFDQRGO\_UQHOO`aL`Lb\Nc 2923
 







  

 
!"#!$%!&
%%'! 

 !(!)*+&!%$(,-*
*$!!%,# 
#!$%!&

&&"



 ./
0 1"+2),3'!,#%*3*-,$!!(!)*+&!%)4,)!*/  0 15%*3*-%3%,!,$-%,)2,)$,#-%*%),# 6 7-8!9!!%$--*3,%!$-,%! ,&+*(!&!%-*:1/13!-*9)$#!!)))*3%!$!-%*9;(!(!! <!-%*9*2)!$$ +*%(!!- *%'*9+ %!!%$-*%'*9,+*%,(! <,%',%'!4,#'%$-%,)5)$ -!$,-%,3%*9%'! ),9*,
*&&!3!
!%!
+!3,9,3)/$$!$&%*'!%,*)

7  (,*&!%)&+3%!+*%4
%%!
)!,#'*-!*/

1 65 <',3'<-3!%,9,!$2%'!
,%
*3,)*#-%6 

<-+!+!$/',-++),3%,*,%*$3!-*!<-,#,9,3%!(,*&!%) ,&+3%-/'!+*+*-!$+*=!3%,-)*3%!$<,%',%'!,+*%9)!3!!*9%,*%!%,*) ,+*%$<-!()%!$$9*$%*2!3*-,-%!%<,%'%'!+*),3,!-$3,%!,*9%'!%,* %!%,*),+*%$>-! *&+%,2,),%)?4-"

0 01 

0 0@ 

0 07


0 07


0 07 

0 077 

0 076 

0 0
 

0 0
7 

0 0
6 

0 0
1 
0 0


0 0


0 0


0 0 

0 07 

0 06 

0 0 1 

0 0@ 

0 0: 

0 0



0 0 

0 07 $

0 065-2&,%%!$2 3*)$*+!%
*+/),#
*&&,--,*3%,*,-!8,!$//
A!%!&,%,**%,*%* !3*&&!$++*() !,)*9$$!$&%*+!(,*-)++*(!$ /,)!*/
0 1 4!(!)*+&!%)5*%,*%*!3*&&!$++*() !,)  2924





 

 


 
 


 
 



 !"#$%&'
(
 )( ) *)+
+%,-.,%/%0)
 
(  
 
"1&&%(

+

(   

2), 


)*
)
 ),
 

3))4  
) 

 
 ,  56
6+ 5) ') ( 

 


( 
4(
( 

 ,

 )

 7  
8

9:;9<=>?@AB=9CA;D<:E=F9G;>DD<:H>@D<:F=;;I J 
)
 
   
)(+
( 
 (  J

( +)K 5L (M( )
 
*   )( 


 (+
*)
+
(
)
M+)*(
) )
+
(
 
 
0) 
J
$/$,  
() 
(   +  5 
,(J
$/$, (


 
)+ ( 

) 
)5JN

,(
)( 
(()  ()) 
) (  
)
 (
) +(
O*

) K 7  
8

( (5


   4(
P


4(

$"&', (
) 

)   (
O


)

)

 5L
*() )
0) 
  
 
 ( 

 


Q( J(
)     R ) ) 

 
  
(
 
+ 5L) S
  

 


0)
(+
  5LO(
()

 + 
)R 
 

 ((
) (
O*

) K 7  
8

, ()+*) 
 
 
"4J


 2




$$'5 (, 


) 

)   (


 2




  7 

(
 ( 

 


 

( J(
)    (
O(
 7
  
8



 
Q( 
)

( , 


0) 
  
 ( 
 
(  
4 8
(8
) 
(



8*)
$$$'5 (, 


) 

)   (


8*)
  7 

 
Q(   
) 0) 

K+ 
 ( 
 
 J(
)     (
O(
 7  
8



 
Q( 
)

( ,  


0) 
 
 
 (  
.


  L4


)
 +(

"111'5 (, 

 
) 

)   4


)
 +(

  7 
  
Q(  
) 0) 

K+ 
 ( 
 
 J(
)     +(
O(
 7  
8



 
Q( 
 )

( , 


0) 
 
 
 (  
5 (, )

 7  
8

)*Q( 
+(+*() )
 J
$/$

0) 
 
 
 ( J()(T

 )*  
++
 ( ,   
* ())  (  ( ( 

 
Q( M)  =<=>@<=>UVW=>XWA9CABYB9><A:G;ZY[ $/$ (


 +

*Q( 
    5 


)(
()
 2925

 




  

  
   


 

!"#"!$"!$
%!
"&"
'
!('$

)*)+,

-#$"$#
,!+"
.
+#/ 
0  +
$

.1"
'
!
'

",
''
"!"+
!!

!2%34565/%''
"!"+
!!

! '

",
+1 ''

78


+'+ 9 1.
,

7!''

 + 7,

'+ "#$"$ :;<&=
!

9" !"9!""
 ,

7/*!$


)>
"
7
)!$
;
+?"

/@
!$:
!? "+
 7&,!$
"!1A4556B-!$
,
! 
"7

7''
"!"+
!!

 7!$


"7


,.9"!!
7.1
"
9
! +8
,'
#$#

 $ ++
8"8 + 7,

'+ !$ !"+,7
7!$

!
,!") 
"+
 7/2$
,
!),7!$ !!$
 ''
"!"+
!!

 7!$


"7

#



+
! 7,+7.

"7

7"7
!

9""8#$
!$

!$
 + 7,

'+ 9'+"
7#"!$:;<&/ 
CDEFFGHGIDJKILLIMNOPPIQGDRSQKTEUGHEHEDFVEPWXIOLWLYEDUWYIDLGFWPWFZ[\]^I_GYLIM ZIDHPI`WPLaJQXGYXKGbGHLcdefghiEUGKGHaHIOHGKGjWEZ[\]kWHWPbGDEHGIDlIHGIDm  n7

!$
: +")
" ;"
9
! +<, +"!1&!A:;<&B- o!'")!


1o"
7
)"
7
 "

,
 !$ !$
.

!$

,.p
!)',.+"7"
8 9
!
7
. !
/2$"
9"8$!"+,7
"

,



+ !
7!!$


"
9
! +"9' !
) '
'

7'
p
!-
!$


7)
!$
'
p
!"!$
)"

!'+ 
/ 
2$"
+ 7,

7
"
""+

!#!'"
)!


1#"!$"!$
:"!1)%!
"/2$
)"

!"
!$

"!").,

#"8#+
 77

!
,!")!$
"
$"
!
"$ ."! !-#$"$$
.

7
. !
7)
1

 7 #$"$$
"+,7
79
7" 

8 -+"!"8 !"- 7'
9"

79"!"8 !"/2$


7"
!",
7 #

$,


!
,!""%!
"-#$"$$
.

!$

,.p
!)


!!


1-+ #
,"!
- 79
7"  

8 / 
:;<&=
!

9" !"q!"


,

7.1',.+" 8
"

!7
!

9"
#$
!$

 '
p
!"

r
9'!)
9 :;<&

"
#-
") 
"
9
! +"9' !

'
!A;*?B"


s,"

7/*) !'")!


1
r"
!


8 7"8 '
'

7'
p
!-!$"
 ,!

!$
,

) :;<&=
!

9" !"q!"/ 
>

r 9'+
-") ',.+" 8
1"

"7

"8 '
'

7'
p
!!$ !#,+7$

"8")" !
"
9
! +"9' !
t"!$"


!$
.,"+7"8) #

$,

-8


!") 77"!" +'++,!" 7 uvu
- 7+

)$ ."! !)
 


"!"

'
"

t 7!$

"

"8")" !',.+"7"
8 9
!
7
. !
 

#$
!$

!$
'
p
!
$,+7.
 ++#
7!'


7-"! .

"7

7 !'")!


1/*!$"
 

-!$
,

) :;<&=
!

9" !"q!"!
r
9'!!$
'
p
!)
9:;<&

"
#"
" ''
'
" !
 .
 ,

!$
!'")!


1

s,"

',.+""',! 7),
!$


"
9
! +  +1
"
 7 
"7

!"!$
,8$!$
:;<&'


/ 
3"881. w"8
'
")"+ 7,

7
"
"
 8


+'+ ,'7 !

,$
2%34565  +
+"9"!!$
 ."+"!1)
+
!
7))"" +
!9 w
7
"
"
"7""7, ++ 7,

"

,

/2$
8


+'+ 9 1.
 7'!
7.1 "!1,"+
'+ "899"

"-.,!"7""7, ++ 7,

7
"
"
9 1.
9 7
.1  7"))

!.71
'


/2$"
 +
7! 7"

!.
!#

!$


++"
" 78 +
)!$

8 

+'+  7!$

'
")"+ 7,

7
"
"
.
"89 7
-'!
!" ++1,7

9""87
9
!" "+
9 !"!$
7
"
"x9 w"8'


/ 
* 77"!"-!$
"7
!$ ! ;*?"
,


17,
!!$
'

8 )2%345657

!
,''
!!$
 7
9
!"
'"
"!)9,""' +7
"
"x9 w"8"#$"$',.+""
"

"7

7/2%34565#
  

#$
+9"8'


!$ !!w'+ 
#$
!$
%!
"

"7
!
#

 +


9. "+
7"!$
$"
!
"

7"
!
"!"8'


/2$
,

) :;<&7
!

9" !" 9'
9"

7
9
!""+
9 !" 9,""' +7
"
"9 w"8" )
## 1
/>"

!-"!9 1! ++#)
 7
s, !
',.+""',! 7 '
!""' !"/2$
8


+'+ ,'7 !
'


9 1!.

#
++x',.+""y
7
 
! 7 +
+ 7,

 7
"
"-+
7"8!+

',.+" #



 7
8 8
9 !t 7

! "+1+


8 8
9 !" 7
"
" .

7

555' 8

)9 !

" +
9 7
',.+" !
)!$
.,
"

!!"9

)!$
1

t 7

+

7 2926

 











 
 


 










   













  

  






 


  

  !

  




 

 

  
"





!

"! 

! 


 







"
 
 
 #
 
!

 



"
"
 

$

!


"
 

!
    
%&'&()**&+,-./--.&012+)-3)'4/',-.56-)-.&78/++5+9:)**5665)+45-.);-5+656-5+9-./- /<<')<'5/-&&+=5')+*&+-/8'&=5&4/+,/66)(5/-&,<;>85(()**&+-<')(&66/'&/,)<-&,?/+,-./- 3&/65>8&/8-&'+/-5=&6?5+(8;,5+9/8-&'+/-5=&<')@&(-<8/+6?/'&()+65,&'&,A BCDEFGHIJKGLMCDNMOMDPQDLHDJMDRISMCDTOHILGQSIOUSVIQGSWDSMOHXYOHIMKZJMINMCOMFQG[DJMN\IMC  "





]^_`abcDOFFQGVDREILMCDQDOQDLDONIcHDOHMDQSOMIVDNGQLDONIcHD  
"
 


!




 !
HHKHDNNDSMCDNIdSILIJOSMDSVIQGSWDSMOHDLLDJMNeeeP f !g  hiij 




klm f  




n
iiii !

"



  
 
  # 






  
! 








  
"






 


 #
 
 
  YSHDNNop 
qn



"




"

 
 
 
r


!



"
  
 










  f !g 
his t



m
kl
uvwub^`bxyz 







"
 



 

 


 {

""

 

 #

 
"


 

!

 

 
!


"
   !



 
 
|xz}}^~vwy€x}a_~xb_~av`‚xƒƒi

qqi


t
 JONDRDJIRDRGS„YHK
†‡ˆˆ‰†OJGYQMOSOHKŠDRMCDENYcNMOSMIVDWOSROMDPGLTUXZ†MCDSNDMONIRD 

"  
 #! 
  !



   JGHHDdDRINMQIJM‹NLISRISdNGLDJGSGWIJOSRHDdOHISLDONIcIHIMKGLWIMIdOMIGSe~av`b_aŒ|^`xzŽa y€}auu]a`b~v_^]^‚^~a]]v`xb_~azŽzii‘ 
’’



s’ƒ 
E“DONIcHDPINRDLISDRONEJOFOcHDGL!
"



 
 


 !


r
"
 







"

 LOJMGQNeP”•Yce–DNGYQJDNTGRD—‡˜ˆ‰˜e˜e™BCDRDLISIMIGSšazu`ab { 
" 
  #

EUOJCFYcHIJOdDSJKNCOHHWIMIdOMDGQOVGIRMCDNIdSILIJOSMDLLDJMNGSMCD 

 #


   
›œz`zyz}IMINLDONIcHDMGRGNGeP”x`‚a` ž^‚zŸz`^`bu uu¡`y€~xb_aŒau `Žzzuii¢qi 

Ģis


  

 #


 !

" ! 
"

!
 
£¤£ 






  r 

 
 



!
 2927

 









 

 


 


 



!"
#$%"

&'
($))*"+ #
,"%
 $)
-.
)
/01($
2.$+$

34567389: $%);"$<

"$((".
(",,.
;
"(
&("
-.(

+"
,

$),!$(+


'"*)"##"* $%$$
-!)$
#*"+,2$"
&$
-("
#-
+#2
*($
 $+,#"(",,.

# $+
#-

 !+"=,;"*
!+">
(? 
@ABA
A



B C
 
A

 



   







A

 
D


A
@A BA

 

A





 


B

 
 
E




@ABA
B




  


 




A






E
 


B








A

FGHIJKLM




 B





A








N 
E

AA





O
BP
Q


 







 


@ABA
BRC
 



Q




 



QA
 B






EA



 











 

AO
 

 A






A

S
 
@ABA


 
RTGHIJUVWXYMGZM[V\]WGYML^WIXKZGY_YVVK]K_XKJVIVTMY]Z]TXM]GK`  a






A

 











 



EBbcdd

@ABA
 




 





e

f ^]gWIhTXKLM[XiV]MUGM[jXh^`b


AA

A
 A
ZGYkKMXY]GL^ YVWHMXM]GKX^X_YVVKT]Mh`lV^MYHTM]GKGZ[XU]MXMjGHIJ^]gWIhZHYM[VYkKMXY]GL^YVWHMXM]GKX^UV]K_ A 


 
m.,.)$

n,!$(o0+p.$);$
-q$%$r"## 
R 
BS

Rscdtuv

w

b


 




xy&zzz,
+("
#"*2+

".#
2$#
,##"
#*+",($+2"$
-!$##

2 + $+(+$*
{z|}E


~€
s




 
E



A




 O
 
 
E














 










 





e




‚A















 






ƒBS

R
cdtu„ 
R 
BS

Rvb
v

S













(+
$#

2+

".#
2$#
,##"
#"*$!!+"=,$
);†‡&zzz,
+("
#"*($+%"
-"=-

ˆ.
$)

!
+;
$+?E

 
 


 



A


A









E
vS




A




 







 



A




 
 








ƒBS

Rvb
 v

S


cdt‰„Š





R

A




 
 
 ‹‚‹



 2928











 

 
























 















 


  




!














 

"

 
  


"



 
"

 
 

 
#

!





$









"






 




 


 





 






 

$%& 
!

 







 


 
' 

% "

'

(


)%'(* 

 


$ % "

&

 
)$%&*"
 




 
+




"






 
 


"


 "
 



'  




'%


 
 




  

%,-./  







!

),0 +
*0  






"










  

















$
 
1234$5167



! 
!










 





"








8
"


"







 

"






 



 8
"


 
  







 9/:;<:=:>?<@?<AB<?CD:A?EFG:HI?>@/JKL:@MF:@@FGNG;?NA=DN?F@GN<?@:CGIF?</OP</@G?AJ@MGQ=D>B  

 :<>NGHG<@?F:HI?>@?/IG>:=:>INDRG>@M?/@DL?NA/:<>NG?/:<;9/GCGNG?<AGS@NGHGK<D<?@@?:<HG<@/@?@B/   

 

T' 





!




 



 


 
  ?F:@@FGHDNGLD<.@MBN@O 


4


$%&U


4

 7VWVV 






 
+


"




 


 
 
 "


X 















 

 

 

 




 


 ,26V6"








"
 
  
 



 

 



 


!

+ 







 

  


"





U

 



"






 

 

?<A=B@BNGINDRG>@/J9?INDRG>@./>D<@N:EB@:D<H?QEGYZ[Y\Y[]^__`^Z[YZabcdcZe^__` YZfYgZYhYa^Zei]ejk]_[d^lc^akZfY[cb^i_cakZebYi]eYkZekemck\cb^__a]d]_^eY\cYdn^ae^Z[ic a]d]_^eY\c_`fYgZYhYa^ZejmcZakdiYZc[jYemcoYfeYZgakZ[YeYkZfp 
q




+

"

 

 8$





T




"



"
 
  EBNAG<:HI?>@/OK 


  


"








"





 

$


 

' 


"











q






"



















"



 

"
"



 

4$U



% 
 



 
 "

 



 

'  %



 





 





 


 
 r

r
T

 T "


  


 












 

 "



 " 






 



 






 




 T


 

 
 



 
T




 "



 





 


 





'  %



"




 





 


 8"






 

  "


 

 



 
 








 


 



 




T
 




 



 
 



 

















  







 



 
T "


  








s U

 s( "






 

  




 






"
 

!




 














 

  
 
 




  



!






(

 

 





,

 






 




r


%

$

U$

 2929




















 















 
!"#$%&'(")*+",+-(#.+$/)"#0"'%123&+'+!%1+$+(. 
4









5








 



6




















 











 


7
6


5
89::;







 




























4
8<==<;







 





















>






 


























6 


?










@?










 



A








?

A

 


















>







 




 
4 








?
6





 


8BC7
D
C



<=<=;E





 




















 





















BC7
D
C










9<

B
C












8BC7
D
C



<=<=;





















 










8BC7
D
C



<=<=; 
FG(H(,(#%1I-+%$+"&I, +&+.$#%$+"&JHIIK,"(.&"$1+.$$G(L3##"M+&N"M1%.%.!('+(.$G%$!".(. %,%&N(#$"%+#'#%)$OP 


7













 




D
QRS

87





<=9:;












 












R












87





<=9:;

 7



R









?





 
R










?



87




8<=9:;


R

T



UVV
VVW
V
VBC7
D
C



8<=<=;
 4
8







;T



UVV
V


V
VV
X V; 
FG(#(%#(%$1(%.$)"3#.+N&+)+'%&$&(N%$+-(())('$."&$G((&-+#"& (&$$G%$M+11L('%3.(,L/%&, &"$ +$+N%$(,L/$G('3##(&$!1%&O 

E4














Q







E

<==7<==
 

@

















 












 2930


 
















 



  !" 
"


 






#
 
  

!




"
 



$

 
   "


%!
  
"

"
!"

!







&
!


  


'

 
(




&









&
!


 !
"!&

) 
()
* 


!

& !

 !
 

  




!



&

+&

!(



(,-,,.







-/-






'


!

 

0

"
!&




!






&&
" 

 

 !" 


 
( 

!
&


" 



% &!

 +

1


.
  

! 


&!"!
+*
"
(2&

(3 (,--4.
 5

6
&
 




&

4



&
 
 







(




'

"

 

  

! 
!



"


7

5

6
&
 !

  !
&
" 


  

 

(" 
 


 


0

8

 
9 (




" 








! !&
(" !
&!



$
(





!
 

"


"%


 


!

"  +6

 

(,-,,.

&

$
"



"

" 






 

 




:!
(%
&



 
& 

(







 
;<=>?@ABCDEFG<HEIJ<KC<@>DLMNEJDJOE?>DPCMJQI?CMICRJI@>DMJM@>@CM@S>@DC>HE<ONQIIJTE<OUTDMJ< 
"


 
 (

%
&
! 








'
 




V
!
&

 

 



65&

( 




V
!

&

 


"!

 

 !
!! '

!
9 "!
'!

(,


'
&&



$
,--
5
 !  "!

 'W&






 !" 

'

!" 
W
!&&!
 

'" !



!
$

 

(XYZX[\]X^_[
 



!




$ 
 

&
 





&
(






 
&

6
&
 





 











!





 "

"
!!

!





(






!
& 
( 
& 



`
 



 











!'





 
9
 (65&






9


  





"
'! 9







$ 2931

 




 
 

 

 

 




!
 " 


  #



#  $$
 
 
%

 

$
$ 

 
$


$$


$

"




#
%







 

  
 
&$


  
 



 

 

 
  





"
"
 
 

 
"




 "


 












$
'











 
  

# 


"

 
  


 

$
$

 #

 
(

 (

%
$'
  )#
 )
*
"(

*( #  %
+"

 
% 
*

 
+ *
" '
  %
,

#(
 
'("
+&
 "
'
  +

#  -

 
*
(

#
+&
 "
'
  
+"

 
.

*
" *
 (
*#(/*
$
 
((


*
*
" *



 (
(

#(
 

/
 +&
 "
'
 *

*

 
 +"

 0 
 
*
)#(

*
 '
1%
,
(
*#!




*
$
 
)


+&
 "
'
  (

*
 -
  
-('

 ,

"


+"

  


0
 
 '
 '  2-

3
- 

* 
 -3-
*
+
$
 
2932
 







  


 


 
!
 
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

EL>-31C#3
C155%$0/'C#$C15-2080/#$73-#&$#D1%//>-D0131<'#$70$/-&-8/0$<#7#4/#/01$81;/>-0& ;-#/>-&-7$-0<>D1&E@>037&-$C#$8/%7'9%&&1=0$<.=380$8C>113B%8/30I-.&#$<-@1%$/'8C>113 C>037&-$3-#&$#D1%//>-/>&-#/-$-7T-8/-&$F$1='U312-&#31$</>-0&C1#8/30$-E  68#&-50$7-&)/>-8-D0&78#&-8/#/-4&1/-C/-7#$7C#$$1/D->#&5-70$#$'=#'EL&#440$<#$7 5120$</>-508$1/;-#80D3-#$7>#8&-8%3/-70$>0<>51&/#30/'E68#D0131<08/)A#514418-7/1 />087-2#8/#/0$<;#03-743#$EVWXYZ[\]^_`YW^a\ZXbc^c_Z\XcdXcef[Ze^YWeXbc[ZWc^X^[XcWcceX\ D-C#&-;%33'&-20-=-781/>-&-#&-g.$-<#/02-054#C/8EL>0808/>-3#=;%3#$7&0<>//>0$</171E  L>#$I'1%;1&308/-$0$</1#$-#&D'&-807-$/=>1-$B1'8/>-9%&&1=0$<.=381;.$/#&01E L&%7-N%&7 ?#I-:1&-8/)@6   2933




 










 




















 












 

!

 


"#





!
 

"#

$



%






 


"&
2934

EXHIBIT G
2935
“Responsible Planning Through Environmental Leadership” 2201 N. Grand Avenue #10098 | Santa Ana, CA 92711-0098 | (714) 716-5050 www.ELMTConsulting.com
SUBJECT: Appeal - Response to Comments

1. Burrowing owls will use storm drains, concrete rubble piles, open pipes, rolled up carpets, etc. for shelter and roosting. The burrowing owls used the onsite storm drains (or the risers on-site) as a burrow. Please see photos below from the focused surveys that show the burrowing owls utilizing these as a sentinel burrow and as a main burrow. The amount of pellets and whitewash in and around the riser shows that the owls were not just using the riser to escape predators. Further, one of the photos includes a perch that photographers installed and shows the owls were using that riser as part of their burrow complex or at least as an active burrow. 2936
February 21, 2023

Page 2 ends
← All documents from this meeting