Agenda packet — Ontario City Council, March 21, 2023 (part 12 of 24)

2. The Ontario HUB was one of the last remaining sites undeveloped in the region this would leave a lack of owls in the region necessary to maintain a healthy population capable of persisting overtime.

Single large mitigation sites can be subject to stochastic events (fire, disease, vandalism, 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 protected (not developed). There are many reasons why owls will not persist here in perpetuity even if you try to manage for them. Saving one property will not adequately support a population of owls.

The owl populations at naval weapons station seal beach and the Orange County fairgrounds and many other similar locations all met the same fate. They were surrounded by development and after several years the populations were extirpated. All of the development bring increased risk of mortality (predators, vehicle strikes, loss of foraging habitats 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. Saving part of the property would not result in long term owl occupation either.

3. 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.

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.

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 subject owls on the 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 2937
February 21, 2023

Page 3 ends

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 don’t provide long-term conservation value for the owl due to future development and predation pressure to name a few.

Anthropogenic disturbances associated with photographers that are putting up “perching” posts for the burrowing owls to capture a portfolio worthy photograph of the owls has also lead to the becoming more acclimated to human presence.

4. 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.

Numerous avian bird strikes have been reported on the Ontario International Airport, including various strikes from BUOW. 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 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 2938
February 21, 2023

Page 4 ends

and future breeding attempts.

5. As noted above, the project site is almost completely surrounded by existing development.

Translocating the owls to an area already under conservation that is surrounded by conserved land will provide greater biodiversity to the regional population of burrowing owls. The small, fragmented project site does not support as high of a level of biodiversity as the translocation site would.

EXHIBIT H
2940
Mead & Hunt | 180 Promenade Circle, Suite 240, Sacramento, CA 95834 | 916-971-3961 | meadhunt.com February 21, 2023 Sent via email
Rudy Zeledon
Planning Director, City of Ontario
303 East B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
Subject: Response to Comments Received from the Pamona Valley Audubon Society on proposed project “The Hub” at Ontario International Airport dated February 3, 2023 Dear Rudy:

Mead & Hunt, Inc. (Mead & Hunt) offers the following responses to comments received from the Pamona Valley Audubon Society (Audubon) on February 3, 2023, in association with “The Hub,” a proposed logistics/warehousing project at the Ontario International Airport (ONT). In the Audubon’s letter of February 2, 2023, Audubon alleges that the decision made by the Planning Commission to approve the proposed project “was not supported by the record because of the many misstatements of fact made by the applicant's consultants which were then repeated by some of the Commissioners.” Three of Audubon’s comments identifying alleged “misstatements of fact” are addressed below and discussed within the context of applicable FAA regulations and guidance pertaining to aviation and wildlife hazard management.

ALLEGED MISSTATEMENT NO. 1
Response No. 1
The FAA database contains records of more than 400 strikes with burrowing owls, and some have resulted in damage. Burrowing owls present a direct hazard as they can strike aircraft, and they present an indirect hazard because they can attract other species that are known to pose hazards, such as larger raptors.

National Wildlife Strike Database
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) publishes regulation and guidance pertaining to the presence of wildlife hazard management at commercial service airports and general aviation airports, and it maintains a database of known wildlife strike records from 1990 to the present. Burrowing owls have been associated with documented wildlife strikes at U.S. airports since 1992. A review of the FAA National Wildlife Strike Database (NWSD) conducted on February 19, 2023, identified a total of 410 documented strikes associated with the burrowing owl, 17 of which occurred at ONT.
1 1 Federal Aviation Administration. 2023. National Wildlife Strike Database. Available at: https://wildlife.faa.gov/search The owls are a risk to aviation. From FAA birdstrike data, Burrowing Owls are not a danger to avian [sic] from bird strikes. There is no evidence in that data record from 2008 to 2021 of a Burrowing Owl causing damage to an aircraft at Ontario Airport. https://wildlife.faa.gov/search 2941
Rudy Zeledon
February 21, 2023

Page 2 of 8 ends

Mead & Hunt | 180 Promenade Circle, Suite 240, Sacramento, CA 95834 | 916-971-3961 | meadhunt.com The NWSD includes records of damaging strikes with burrowing owls: Four strikes resulted in minor or uncertain damage to the following commercial-service aircraft: Boeing 727-200, Boeing 737-700, Boeing 737-800, and McDonnell Douglas MD 83. A 2015 strike with a commercially operated Flexjet Cessna LC41 resulted in substantial aircraft damage. Strikes with burrowing owls have occurred recently, as 26 of the documented strikes recorded at airports nationwide occurred during 2022. Evidence of burrowing owl strikes indicate that owl mortality occurs in every instance.

Academic Research on Hazards Posed by Burrowing Owls
Raptors, including burrowing owls, have been the subject of research associated with known wildlife strikes.

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, which together characterized 2,531 owl strikes involving at least 20 species.2 A total of 192 strikes were associated with burrowing owls (7.8 percent). Among the conclusions drawn in the report:
• Owl strikes typically occurred within the airfield environment itself. • Eighty-six percent of the strikes associated with owls occurred when the aircraft was at or below 30 meters above ground level (AGL).
• Owl strikes with US civil and USAF aircraft are a common event during flight operations within the USA and throughout the world.

ALLEGED MISSTATEMENT NO. 2
Response No. 2
The Airport prepared and maintains an FAA-approved Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (WHMP) to address raptors and other species identified as posing a hazard to aircraft.

The Ontario International Airport Authority (OIAA), in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services (USDA-WS), prepared a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (WHMP) in 2015 in accordance with FAA regulations set forth in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 139.337, “Wildlife Hazard Management.” The WHMP addresses the responsibilities, policies, and procedures necessary to reduce wildlife hazards at ONT and places emphasis on identification and abatement of wildlife hazards within the airfield. Wildlife attractants (e.g., lakes, ponds, landfills, etc.) within 5 miles of the airfield are also addressed as they could potentially attract wildlife in a manner that could jeopardize the safety of air traffic operating into and out of ONT. 2 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-withUS-Civil-and-US-Air-Force/10.3356/JRR-17-64.1.full Burrowing Owls will not be an attractor for large raptors if an airport has a good large raptor control program. Large raptors exist near all airports globally and every airport should have a good raptor control strategy. Evidently the Ontario International Airport does not have adequate raptor control because they allow tall poles which are an attractant to hawks throughout the proposed project land. 2942
Rudy Zeledon
February 21, 2023

Page 3 of 8 ends

Mead & Hunt | 180 Promenade Circle, Suite 240, Sacramento, CA 95834 | 916-971-3961 | meadhunt.com The proposed actions outlined in the WHMP would involve application of the most appropriate, effective, and biologically sound wildlife control methods available. This approach, known as Integrated Wildlife Damage Management, includes both habitat management and direct control of the species generally considered the most hazardous. The WHMP examines resolutions to detect and alleviate wildlife hazards that threaten human health and safety or aircraft operations operating out of ONT, including raptors. The WHMP was reviewed and approved by the FAA, and it is incorporated in the airport’s Airport Certification Manual and subject to annual FAA inspection.

ALLEGED MISSTATEMENT NO. 3
Response No. 3
The conservation of burrowing owls on airport property directly conflicts with Federal Aviation regulations and guidance associated with the safety of aircraft operations and the use airport property. Such regulation and guidance includes:
• 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, specifically assurance nos. 19, 20, and 21. • 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”3 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 the airport. Wildlife poses a direct threat when it has the potential to be involved in a collision or “strike” with aircraft. Wildlife poses an indirect threat when it causes damage to aircraft and/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 (e.g., wildlife that may attract predators such as raptors, coyote, etc.). 3 Available at: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-G/part-139/subpart-D/section-139.337 The FAA disallows conservation of burrowing owls. Airports across the country offer some of the best burrowing owl habitat, with successful conservation programs. The idea that the FAA does not allow this kind of conservation is patently false. Burrowing owls are able to thrive in airport and airport adjacent areas, making this habitat suitable for burrowing owls, 2943
Rudy Zeledon
February 21, 2023

Page 4 of 8 ends

Mead & Hunt | 180 Promenade Circle, Suite 240, Sacramento, CA 95834 | 916-971-3961 | meadhunt.com A certificate holder must formulate and implement a WHMP when the FAA Administrator determines that one is needed based on the results of a 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 Airports4 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 that the guidance be implemented at airports that receive funding under federal grant assistance programs, including the Airport Improvement Program. The FAA also recommends the AC for land-use planners and developers of projects, facilities, and activities on or near airports.

The proposed conservation of burrowing owls on airport-owned property would conflict with key recommendations identified in the AC below.

Maintaining an appropriate environment for safe and efficient aircraft operations.

As identified in AC, “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 because they can attract other hazardous wildlife, including predators such as coyotes and raptors. Providing burrowing owl conservation on airport property is contrary to the AC, as it would continue to attract potentially hazardous wildlife rather than deter wildlife from the airport.

Minimum separation criteria for land use practices that attract hazardous wildlife to the airport vicinity.

Chapter 1 of the AC 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).
4 Available at: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/150-5200-33C.pdf 2944
Rudy Zeledon
February 21, 2023

Page 5 of 8 ends

Mead & Hunt | 180 Promenade Circle, Suite 240, Sacramento, CA 95834 | 916-971-3961 | meadhunt.com 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 it is directly beneath the approach/departure airspace. 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 the AC 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 that include 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. 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. 2945
Rudy Zeledon
February 21, 2023

Page 6 of 8 ends

Mead & Hunt | 180 Promenade Circle, Suite 240, Sacramento, CA 95834 | 916-971-3961 | meadhunt.com Table 1. Grant Assurances Applicable to Wildlife Hazard Management Grant Assurance No./Title Description and Applicability

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.

20. Hazard Removal and
Mitigation
Description
The airport 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.

21. Compatible Land Use Description
The airport 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 a 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 19, 2023. Available at: https://www.faa.gov/sites/ faa.gov/files/airports/new_england/airport_compliance/assurances-airport-sponsors-2022-05.pdf 2946
Rudy Zeledon
February 21, 2023

Page 7 of 8 ends

Mead & Hunt | 180 Promenade Circle, Suite 240, Sacramento, CA 95834 | 916-971-3961 | meadhunt.com 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.

CONCLUSIONS
The conservation of burrowing owls, which have been involved in more than 400 wildlife strikes at airports nationwide, including 17 strikes at ONT, is an incompatible land use that conflicts with Chapter 2 of FAA AC 150/5200-33C. Burrowing owl conservation on airport property 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. As such, 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 requires compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act for proposed airport projects, and it does not oppose the creation mitigation or conservation areas that are constructed outside of the separation distances identified in AC 150/5200-33. 2947
Rudy Zeledon
February 21, 2023

Page 8 of 8 ends

Mead & Hunt | 180 Promenade Circle, Suite 240, Sacramento, CA 95834 | 916-971-3961 | meadhunt.com 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
Lisa Harmon Rick Jones
Aviation/Environmental Planner FAA Qualified Airport Wildlife Biologist. 2948

EXHIBIT I
2949
DATE: February 21, 2023
TO: Heather Riley, Allen Matkins
FROM: Haseeb Qureshi, Urban Crossroads, Inc.

JOB NO: 14274-05 RTC

CALIFORNIA LOGISTICS CENTER RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to submit the following responses to comments received on the proposed California Logistics Center development (Project), which is located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Airport Drive in the City of Ontario.

RESPONSE
The commenter’s claims that there is an inadequate accounting for greenhouse gas emissions and pollution, a lack of attention to noise, air quality, and truck trips and that both the addendum and the TOP 2050 do not address emissions in an appropriately cumulative manner are unfounded.

As previously noted in the findings of the TOP 2050 EIR:
“The SoCAB are designated nonattainment for O3, PM2.5, PM10, and lead (SoCAB: Los Angeles County only) under the California and/or National AAQS. Construction of cumulative projects would further degrade the regional and local air quality. Air quality would be temporarily impacted during construction activities. Implementation of mitigation measures for related projects would reduce cumulative impacts. Mitigation Measure 3-1 would reduce impacts associated with consistency with the South Coast AQMD. However, project-related construction emissions could still potentially exceed the South Coast AQMD significance thresholds on a project and cumulative basis.

Consequently, the Proposed Project’s contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would be cumulatively considerable and would therefore be significant.” And
“For operational air quality emissions, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily regional threshold values are not considered by South Coast AQMD to be a substantial source of air pollution and does not add significantly to a cumulative impact. Mitigation Measures 3-2 and new Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce impacts associated with consistency with the South Coast AQMD.

Nevertheless, operation of the Proposed Project would result in emissions in excess of the South Coast AQMD regional emissions thresholds for
2950
Heather Riley, Allen Matkins
February 21, 2023

Page 2 of 2 ends

14274-05 Response
long-term operation. Additionally, development under TOP 2050 would generate TACs that could contribute to elevated levels of risk. Therefore, the Proposed Project’s air pollutant emissions would be cumulatively considerable and therefore significant.” As noted, the TOP 2050 EIR acknowledged a significant and unavoidable impact with respect to air quality.

If you have any questions or comments, I can be reached at [email protected]. 2951

EXHIBIT J
2952
167737
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
1 1
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 BRIGGS LAW CORPORATION [FILE: 2097.01]
Cory J. Briggs (SBN 176284)
Janna M. Ferraro (SBN 328921)
99 East "C" Street, Suite 111
Upland, CA 91786
Telephone: 909-949-7115
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Petitioner Inland Valley
Advocates for the Environment

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO — CENTRAL DIVISION
INLAND VALLEY ADVOCATES FOR THE) Case no. CIVSB2201937

ENVIRONMENT,
Plaintiff and Petitioner,
vs.

ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT)
AUTHORITY; and DOES 1 through 100,
Defendants and Respondents.
• CANAM ONTARIO, LLC;and DOES 101 through
1,000,
Defendants and Real Parties in Interest.

VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY

RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF

MANDATE UNDER THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND

OTHER LAWS
Action Filed: January 21, 2022
Department: S23 (Hon. Donald R. Alvarez)
Plaintiff and Petitioner INLAND VALLEY ADVOCATES FOR THE ENVIRONMENT ("Petitioner") alleges as follows:

Parties

1. Petitioner is a non-profit organization formed and operating under the laws of the State of California. At least one of Petitioner's members resides near the Ontario International Airport and has an interest in, among other things, ensuring compliance with environmental laws and protecting the airport-influenced region's environment and quality of life.

2. Defendant and Respondent ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY ("OIAA") is a "public agency" under Public Resources Code Section 21063 and a "lead agency" under 2953
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
1 1
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Public Resources Code Section 21067. As a "public agency" and a "lead agency," OIAA is required to comply with California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. Defendant and Real Party in Interest CANAM ONTARIO, LLC ("CANAM"), is a business entity with some cognizable interest in the subject matter of this lawsuit.

3. The true names and capacities of the Defendants/Respondents/Real Parties in Interest identified as DOES 1 through 1,000 are unknown to Petitioner, who will seek the Court's permission to amend this pleading in order to allege the true names and capacities as soon as they are ascertained.

Petitioner is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that each of the fictitiously named DOES 1 through 100 has jurisdiction by law over one or more aspects of the proposed project that is the subject of this proceeding and DOES 101 through 1,000 has some other cognizable interest in the subject matter of this lawsuit.

Background Information

4. On or about December 23, 2021, OIAA's governing board adopted a resolution approving a Development and Entitlement Agreement (the "DEA") and a Ground Lease with CANAM (collectively, the "Project"). The DEA and the Ground Lease separately and together constitute a "project" under Public Resources Code Sections 21065(a) and 21080.

5. Prior to adopting the resolution approving the Project, OIAA did not make a determination that the Project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA and did not perform any environmental review under CEQA. Petitioner opposes the Project based on CITY's failure to subject the Project to CEQA.

Notice Requirements and Time Limitations

6. This lawsuit is being commenced not more than 35 days after the notice described in Public Resources Code Section 21167(d) was filed with the county clerk (if such a notice was filed).

7. Petitioner has caused a Notice of Commencement of Action to be served on Defendants/Respondents, as required by Public Resources Code Section 21167.5. A true and correct copy of the Notice of Commencement of Action is attached to this pleading as Exhibit "A." FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ETC. Page 2 2954
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
1 1
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 8. Petitioner will have caused a copy of this pleading to be served on the Attorney General not more than 10 days after the commencement of this lawsuit, as required by Public Resources Code Section 21167.7 and Code of Civil Procedure Section 388.

Jurisdiction and Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

9. Petitioner seeks review by and relief from this Court under Public Resources Code Sections 21168 and/or 21168.5, as applicable, and Code of Civil Procedure Sections 526a, 1060 et seq., and 1084 et seq., among other provisions of law.

10. Petitioner exhausted administrative remedies to the extent required by law. At least one of the persons who opposed the Project and submitted public comments in opposition to the Project at the public meeting held by ()IAA on December 23, 2021, is a member of Petitioner, which was formed after the December 23 meeting as authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21177(c). Alternatively and additionally, neither Public Resources Code Section 21177(a)-(b) nor any other exhaustion-ofremedies requirement may be applied to Petitioner. 1 1. Defendants/Respondents' conduct in approving the Project without complying with CEQA and other applicable laws constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion because, as alleged in this pleading, they failed to proceed in a manner required by law.

12. Petitioner has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, since its members and other members of the public will suffer irreparable harm as a result of Defendants/Respondents' violations of CEQA and other applicable laws. Defendants/Respondents' approval of the Project also rests on their failure to satisfy a clear, present, ministerial duty to act in accordance with the applicable laws. Even when Defendants/Respondents are permitted or required by law to exercise their discretion in approving projects under those laws, they remain under a clear, present, ministerial duty to exercise their discretion within the limits of and in a manner consistent with those laws. Defendants/Respondents have had and continue to have the capacity and ability to approve the Project within the time limits of and in a manner consistent with those laws, but Defendants/Respondents have failed and refused to do so and have exercised their discretion beyond the limits of and in a manner that is not consistent with those laws.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ETC. Page 3 2955
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
1 1
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 13. Petitioner has a beneficial right and interest in Defendants/Respondents' fulfillment of all their legal duties, as alleged in this pleading.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:

Illegal Approval of Project
(Against All Defendants/Respondents/Real Parties in Interest)

14. Paragraphs 1 through 13 are fully incorporated into this paragraph.

15. The Project does not comply with all applicable laws. By way of example and not limitation (including alternative theories of liability):

A. The Project violates CEQA. In particular:
i. CEQA applies to every discretionary project proposed to be carried out or approved by a public agency, unless the project is exempt from CEQA. Generally speaking, the public agency must review the potentially significant environmental impacts of every discretionary project subject to CEQA review that the agency proposes to carry out or approve. Such review involves determining whether the proposal is exempt, should be the subject of a negative declaration, or should be the subject of an environmental impact report.

The use of a CEQA exemption is inappropriate when a project may have significant environmental impacts or when there are potentially significant environmental impacts due to unusual circumstances.

The Project constitutes a "project" under CEQA because its approval involved the exercise of discretion and has the potential to cause significant direct, indirect, or cumulative adverse impacts (if not all such impacts) on the environment, including but not limited to parking and traffic problems, noise problems, and biological/wildlife impacts. iv. These significant direct, indirect, or cumulative adverse environmental impacts give rise to Defendants/Respondents' legal obligation to subject the Project to CEQA review. v. Defendants/Respondents' refusal to apply CEQA to the Project and subject it to environmental review constitutes a violation of CEQA. vi. As a result of Defendants/Respondents' violation of CEQA, Petitioner has been harmed insofar as Petitioner, its members, other members of the public, and the responsible decision-makers were not fully informed about the potential adverse environmental impacts of the FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ETC. Page 4 2956
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
1 1
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Project, and insofar as Petitioner, its members, and other members of the public did not have an opportunity to participate meaningfully in the analysis of such impacts prior to approval of the Project.

16. There is currently a dispute between Petitioner and Defendants/Respondents over the Project's legal force and effect. Petitioner contends that the Project has no legal force or effect because it violates CEQA and/or one or more other applicable laws. Defendants/Respondents dispute Petitioner's contention. The parties therefore require a judicial determination of the Project's legal force and effect (if any).

Prayer
FOR ALL THESE REASONS, Petitioner respectfully prays for the following relief against Defendants/Respondents (and any and all other parties who may oppose Petitioner in this lawsuit):

A. A judgment or other appropriate order determining or declaring that Defendants/Respondents failed to fully comply with CEQA and/or one or more other applicable laws as they relate to the Project and that there must be full compliance therewith before final approval and implementation of the Project may occur;
B. A judgment or other appropriate order determining or declaring that Defendants/Respondents failed to comply with CEQA and/or one or more other applicable laws as they relate to the Project and that its approval and implementation was illegal in at least some respect, rendering the approval and implementation null and void; C. Injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants/Respondents (and any and all persons acting at the request of, in concert with, or for the benefit of one or more of them) from taking any action on any aspect of, in furtherance of, or otherwise based on the Project unless and until Defendants/Respondents comply with CEQA and all other applicable laws, as determined by the Court; D. Any and all other relief that may be authorized by CEQA or other applicable laws, or any combination of them, but is not explicitly or specifically requested elsewhere in this Prayer; E. Any and all legal fees and other expenses incurred by Petitioner in connection with this proceeding, including but not limited to reasonable attorney fees as authorized by the Code of Civil Procedure; and
F. Any and all further relief that this Court may deem appropriate.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ETC. Page 5 2957
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
1 1
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Date: May 23, 2022. Respectfully submitted,
By:

BRIGGS LAW CORPORATION
Coeillinggs
44 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Petitioner Inland Valley Advocates for the Environment
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ETC. Page 6 2958

FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION

FOR WRIT OF MANDATE UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT AND OTHER LAWS
Exhibit "A"
2959

BIBRIGGS

L AW CORPORATION
20 January 2022
Mark Thorpe, CEO
Alan Wapner, President
Ontario International Airport Authority
1923 East Avion Street
Ontario, CA 91761
Re: Notice of Commencement of Action
Dear Messrs. Thorpe and Wapner:
99 East "C" Street, Suite 111
Upland, CA 91786
T: 909-949-7115
F: 909-949-7121
BLC File(s): 2097.01
Via E-mail to mthorpeAflyontario.com
Via E-mail to awapnerAontarioca.gov
I represent Inland Valley Advocates for the Environment and am sending this Notice of Commencement of Action on my client's behalf.

Please be advised that an action is to be commenced by my client in San Bernardino County Superior Court against your agency. The action will challenge your agency's approval of the subject matter of Item 7 on the Ontario International Airport Authority governing board's agenda for December 23, 2021 (contracts with CanAm Ontario, LLC) on the grounds that the approval violated the California Environmental Quality Act (PUB. RES. CODE § 21000 et seq.). The action may also challenge your agency's approval of item based on one or more violations of other laws.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

BRIGGS LAW CORPORATION
Cory J. Briggs
cc: [email protected]
•
Be Good to the Earth: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
t0,„ 2960
Cory Briggs
From: Alan Wapner <[email protected]>
To: Cory Briggs
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 3:46 PM
Subject: Read: Notice of Commencement of Action
Your message
To: Alan Wapner
Subject: Notice of Commencement of Action
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 2:55:27 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) was read on Thursday, January 20, 2022 3:46:09 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada). 2961
Cory Briggs
From: Tovar, Renee <[email protected]> on behalf of Thorpe, Mark <[email protected]>
To: Cory Briggs
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 3:03 PM
Subject: Read: Notice of Commencement of Action
Your message
To: Thorpe, Mark
Subject: Notice of Commencement of Action
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 2:55:27 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) was read on Thursday, January 20, 2022 3:02:24 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada). 2962
Cory Briggs
From: Microsoft Outlook
To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]' Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 2:56 PM
Subject: Relayed: Notice of Commencement of Action
Delivery to these recipients or groups is complete, but no delivery notification was sent by the destination server:
'[email protected] (mthoroe©flyontario.com)
ingonzaga0flyontario.comi (ngonzagaPflyontario.com)
Notice of
Commencemen...

Subject: Notice of Commencement of Action
1 2963
Cory Briggs
From: Microsoft Outlook
To: '[email protected]'
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 2:56 PM
Subject: Relayed: Notice of Commencement of Action
Delivery to these recipients or groups is complete, but no delivery notification was sent by the destination server:
'[email protected] ([email protected])
Notice of
Comrnencemen...

Subject: Notice of Commencement of Action
1 2964

PROOF OF SERVICE
NTY OF
arty to the within action; my business address is,
sewed the foregoing document described as
on
closed in scaled envelopes addressed as stated on the
e copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed
le in the mail at
postage thereon fully prepaid.
"...,%.11."..."4-:".." .0,v. A
2965

PROOF OF SERVICE
I. My name is Ruth Flores . I am over the age of eighteen. I am employed in the State of California, County of San Bernardino

2. My business residence address is Briggs Law Coiporation,99 East "C" Street,_Suite 111.

Upland, CA 91786

3. On May 23 , 2022 , I served an original copy ,(_a true and correct copy of the following documents: VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT_FOR DECLARATORY

RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE UNDER THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND OTHER LAWS

4.. I served the documents on the person(s) identified on the attached mailing/service list as follows:
by personal service. I personally delivered the documents to the person(s) at the address(es) indicated on the list.
./ by U.S. mall. I sealed the documents in an envelope or package addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) indicated on the list, with first-class postage fully prepaid, and then I deposited the envelope/package with the U.S. Postal Service I placed the envelope/package in a box for outgoing mail in accordance with my office's ordinary practices for collecting and processing outgoing mail, with which I am readily familiar. On the same day that mail is placed in the box for outgoing mail, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the U.S. Postal Service.

I am a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing occurred. The mailing occurred in the city of Upland, California.
by overnight delivery. I sealed the documents in an envelope/package provided by an overnight-delivery service and addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) indicated on the list, and then I placed the envelope/package forcollection and overnight delivery in the service's box regularly utilized for receiving items for overnight delivery or at the service's office where such items are accepted for overnight delivery. _____ by facsimile transmission. Based on an agreement of the parties or a court order, I sent the documents to the person(s) at the fax number(s) shown on the list. Afterward, the fax machine from which the documents were sent reported that they were sent successfully.
____ by e-mail delivery. Based on an agreement of the parties or a court order, I sent the documents to the person(s) at the e-mail address(es) shown on the list. I did not receive, within a reasonable period of time afterward, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws _ of the United States I of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date: May 23, 2022 Signat
2966

SERVICE LIST
Inland Valley Advocates etc. v. Ontario International Airport Authority San Bernardino County Superior Court Case No. CIVSB2201937 Kevin P. Sullivan
Kimberly A. Foy
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP
2762 Gateway Road
Carlsbad, California 92009
Telephone: (760) 431-9501
Facsimile: (760) 431-9512
[email protected]
[email protected]
Attorneys for Defendant,
Ontario International Airport Authority
2967

EXHIBIT K
2968

162
162
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-22

A RESOLUTION OF THE ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

AUTHORITY TO APPROVE AND ADOPT FINDINGS, INCLUDING AS TO "EXEMPT SURPLUS PROPERTY~, REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF

CERTAIN AIRPORT REAL PROPERTY, AND TO APPROVE AND

AUTHORIZE THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (CEO), OR THE CEO'S

DESIGNEE, TO EXECUTE NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION FOR A

DEVELOPMENT AND ENTITLEMENT AGREEMENT AND A LONG-TERM

GROUND LEASE FOR SUCH AIRPORT REAL PROPERTY WITH
CANAM ONTARIO, LLC.

WHEREAS, the Ontario International Airport Authority (OIAA or Authority) was established under a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement between the City of Ontario and the County of San Bernardino pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers Act of the State of California, for the purpose of operating, maintaining, managing, developing, and marketing the Ontario International Alrport (Airport) and related Airport facilities;
WHEREAS, the Authority owns approximately 197 acres on the eastern end of the Airport, east of Haven Road, north of Jurupa Avenue, and south of Airport Drive, which include Assessor's Parcel Numbers 0211-232-44-0-000, 0211-232-45-0-000, 0211-232-46~0-000, 0211-222-47-0- 000, 0211-222-48-0-000, 0211-222-52-0-000 AND 0211-222-53-0-000, 0211-222-54-0-000, 0211-222-55-0-000, 0211-232-11-0-000, 0211-232-12-0-000, 0211-232-13-0-000, 0211-232-14, 0211-232-15-0-000, 0211-232-16-0-000, 0211-232-17-0-000, 0211-232-18-0-000, 0211-232-19- 0-000, 0211-232-20-000, 0211-232-04-0-000, 0211-232-05-0·000, 0211-232-06-0-000, 0211- 232-07-0-000, and 0211-222-56-0-000 (collectively the Property). The Property is surrounded by industrial buildings and land uses to the north, east. and south; WHEREAS, in 2020, the Authority discussed with the Federal Aviation Adminis1ration (FAA) whether the possible lease and use of the Property for industrial logistics development related to the warehousing and distribution of goods and products would be subject to federal jurisdiction and approval. On November 23, 2020. the FAA issued to OtAA a letter under Section 163 of the FM Reauthorization Act of 2018 regarding a portion of the Property. On January 21, 2021, the FAA issued to OIM another letter under Section 163 of the Ad regarding the remaining portions of the Property. Collectively, the two FAA letters stated that the proposed use of the Property for industrial logistics development related to the warehousing and distribution of goods and products would (1) create revenue to help fund Airport operating costs and (2) not adversely impact aircraft operations at the Airport. The FM therefore determined it lacked authority to approve or disapprove any potential lease and development of the Property; WHEREAS, the Property has been vacant and unused for decades. OIAA has determined that the Property is not suited for land uses for typical Authority or Airport aeronautical purposes, such as for runways, taxiways, terminals, hangars, and similar Airport facilities pecause the Property is physically separated and removed from the balance of the Airport by Haven Avenue, which runs along or near the entire western limits of the Property. Accordingly, the Property is not required for other Authority purposes, and pursuant to Government Code section 37395, can be leased for up to 55 years:

WHEREAS, between April and June 2020, OIAA commissioned three (3) separate and independent appraisals of the Property for the purpose of determining fair market value related to a sale or long-term lease of the Property;

Page 1 of 10 ends

2969

163
163
WHEREAS, in February 2021, CBRE, Inc. (CBRE), on behalf of the OIAA, initiated an Offering of Memorandum for the proposed leasing and development of the Property. The Offering of Memorandum was distributed to CBRE's bidder fist, Which included more than 4,800 potential bidders nationwide. The first round offers received on April 9, 2021 , included seventeen (17) responsive bidders. The second round of offers received on April 26, 2021, included twelve (12) responsive bidders. The final round of offers received on May 12, 2021 , included five (5) responsive bidders. After the final round of offers/bids on June 23, 2021 , the OIAA selection committee held interviews to understand bidders' proposals related to development process, timing, due diligence and environmental analysis, as well as a further analysis of their proposed ground lease offerings. After interviews, USAA Real Estate Company (later CanAm Ontario, LLC) was the final selected responsive bidder as the company was determined to have presented the best proposal for a long-term lease of the Property based on the bidding process, which proposal exceeded the determinations of fair market value in the appraisals for the Property discussed above. OIAA staff presented this determination and report on the bid process to the OIAA Commission in July 2021 and thereafter moved forward with negotiating lease and development terms relating to the Property;
WHEREAS. CanAm Ontario, LLC (CanAm) proposes a long-term Ground Lease for the Property for industrial logistics development related to the warehousing and distribution of goods and products (the Project), which use is generally complimentary with Airport operations. As detailed in the Agenda Report on the proposed Development and Entitlement Agreement and Ground Lease between OIAA and CanAm to be considered at the OIAA Commission's December 23, 2021, Regular public meeting, operations and uses on the Property under the proposed Ground Lease would involve significant improvements to the Property (subject to all environmental reviews and approvals), and significant rental revenues paid to OIAA over the 55- year term of the Ground Lease;
WHEREAS, operations under the proposed Project and Ground Lease will be also consistent with supply chain improvements that are encouraged in Governor Newsom's Executive Order N-19-21 regarding supply chain issues. which Order recognized that "the movement of goods and health of supply and distribution chains across California is a matter of vital statewide importance .... ~
WHEREAS, given the unique circumstances. that the Property is non-aeronautical lands of the Airport, the City of Ontario will be (i) the lead agency for purposes of compliance by the Project with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq., and (ii) the zoning approval authority relating to the Property and the Project. Before approval by OIAA of any Ground Lease for the Property, or the allowance of any development activity on the Property related to the Project, CanAm shall be required to obtain all applicable land use, zoning, and CEQA reviews, approvals, and certifications for the Project (collectively "Government Approvals''), and shall implement any requirements under such Governmental Approvals, including, without limitation, any mitigation measures required as a result of compliance with CEQA;
WHEREAS, the Offering Memorandum and related request for proposals or bids process for the long-term Ground Lease and development of the Property summarized above confirmed that the proposed Ground Lease with CanAm will provide OIAA with fair market value for lease of the Property;
WHEREAS, certain State-imposed laws and regulations restrict and prevent use of the

Page 2 ends

2970
164
164
Property for residential purposes and for some, but not all, non-residential uses, due to safety concerns and high noise levels;
WHEREAS, certain FAA-imposed regulations restrict and prevent use of the Property for residential purposes and for some, but not all, non-residential uses, due to safety concerns and high noise levels;
WHEREAS, such State and FAA laws and regulations justify a determination and finding by OIAA under Government Code section 54221 (f)(1)(G) that the Property is ''exempt surplus property'' where housing would be prohibited;
WHEREAS, the OIAA Commission has reviewed and considered all materials identified and referred to in this Resolution, as well as all materials and documents discussed in and attached to the Agenda Report for this matter: and
WHEREAS, on December 20, 2021 , the Authority provided notice of the Regular OIAA Commission meeting, which includes consideration of this matter, scheduled for December 23, 2021 , in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code § 54950, et seq., and provided notice to Douglas Carstens, Esq.:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the OIAA Commission as follows:

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

All Whereas clauses or Recitals in this Resolution above are incorporated by reference into these Findings.

Further, the OIAA Commission, in light of the whole record before it including, but not limited to ( 1) the Agenda Report, including attachments to the Report, for this matter, and (2) other substantial evidence within the record and/or provided at this December 23, 2021 Regular public meeting (all of which administrative record materials for this matter are incorporated by reference into this Resolution No. 2021-__J, finds and determines as follows:

1. The Property Is not required for other Authority purposes, and pursuant to Government Code section 37395, can be leased for up to 55 years.

The Property has been vacant and unused for decades. OIAA has determined that the Property is not suited for land uses for typical Authority or Airport aeronautical purposes, such as for runways, taxiways, terminals, hangars, and similar Airport facilities because the Property is physically separated and removed from the balance of the Airport by Haven Avenue, which runs along or near the entire western limits of the Property. Accordingly, the Property is not required for other Authority purposes, and pursuant to Government Code section 37395, can be leased for up to 55 years.

2. State Law and the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Establish Legal Restrictions that Prohibit Residential Housing on the Property.

A State Law Requires an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Airport The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code section 21670 et seq.) requires each airport to adopt an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and requires

Page 3 ends

2971
165
165
affected agencies to adopt land use designations consistent with the terms therein. (Pub. Util. Code, §§ 21674,. 21675, 21676, 21676.5.) The intent of the Legislature under the Aeronautics Act is to "discourage incompatible land uses near existing airports." (Id. at§ 21674.7.)
The Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, amended July 2018 (linked at https.//www.ontarioca.gov/planninq/ont-iac at Compatibility Plan, and incorporated in its entirety into this Resolution No. 2021-__), limits certain land uses near the airport based on state and FAA requirements. (Compatibility Plan, pp. 1-1, 1- 2; see also Compatibility Plan, Appendix A, State Laws and Appendix B, Federal Aviation Regulations.) The Airport Compatibility Plan was created by the City of Ontario in coordination with the County of San Bernardino and other affected agencies, such as Riverside County and Los Angeles County. (Id. at pp. 1-3 through 1-4.) The policies set forth in the Compatibility Plan that limit land uses are requirements for surrounding jurisdictions, such as OIAA. (Id. at p. 2-4; see also Exhibit 2A: Affected Jurisdictions.) Affected agencies must modify, if necessary, any zoning and land use regulations to ensure they are consistent with the land use policies set forth in the Compatibility Plan. (Id. at p. 2-6; Gov. Code,§ 65302.3; Pub. Util. Code,§ 21676 (local agencies must comply with land use compatibility plans].) B. State-Mandated Safety Policies in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Prohibit Residential Housing and Uses on the Property.

The Airport Compatibility Plan required under State law adopts safety compatibility policies to minimize risks associated with off-airport accidents or emergency landings.

More safety restrictions are set on residential land uses because residential uses warrant a greater degree of protection. (Compatibility Plan, p. 2-14.) The Compatibility Plah creates five safety zones. (Compatibility Plan, p. 2-15.) ''Residential development is incompatible within all Safety Zones (1 through 5)." (Id. at p. 2-15; see pp. 2-34 and 2-41.) "New mixed-use developments will locate the residential component outside of all safety zones." (Id. at pp. 2-15; seep. 2-41.) The Property is located within Safety Zones 1, 2, and 3 in the Compatibility Plan. (See Safety Zone Map Exhibit 1-8, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit 1; see also Appendix I, at 1-13.) Residential development is therefore prohibited under State law for the Property under the Compatibility Plan's Safety Policies.

C. State-Mandated Noise Policies in the Airport Land Use CompatibiUty Plan Prohibit Residential Housing and Uses on the Property
The Airport Compatibility Plan also establishes noise polices based on state regulations, guidelines, and the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. (Id. at p. 2-21.) The purpose of the noise policies is to uavoid the establishment of noisesensitive land uses in the portions of the [Ontario International Airport] that are exposed to significant levels of aircraft noise." (Id. at p. 2-19.) Residential uses are incompatible with airport land areas with noise exposure CNEL 70 dB and above. (Id. at Tables 2-3 at p. 2-47.) Noise Policy SP3 states: "Residential infill development should not be allowed in areas exposed to exterior noise levels equal to or greater than CNEL 70 dB." (Id. at p, 2-34.)

Page 4 ends

2972
166
166
The Property is located directly below the flight path for the Airport. (Compatibility Plan, Modeled Flight Routes, Exhibit 1-13.) The Property is within the high noise impact zones of CNEL 70-75 dB and CNEL 75+ dB. (See Compatibility Plan, p. 1-10; Noise Map Exhibit 1-9, which Map is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit 2; see also Appendix I, at 1-5.) Thus, residential development is not allowed on the Property under the Compatibility Plan's noise policies. (Noise Map Exhibit 1-9; see a/so Appendix I, at 1-6 [map of areas with residential land' use designation, do not include the Property, or anywhere near the Property].

3. Federal Regulations Prohibit Residential Uses and Housing on the Property.

FAA regulations require OIAA to "take appropriate action .. . 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." (49 U .S.C. § 47107(a)(10); see also FAA Order 5190.6B, (linked at: FAA Order 5190.68 Change 1, Airport Compliance Manual, 22 November 2021 and incorporated in its entirety into this Resolution No. 2021-_.) This is considered a "federal obligation to ensure compatible land use." (FAA Order 5190.68, p. 20-2.)
"Incompatible land use at or near airports may result in the creation of hazards to air navigation and reductions in airport utility resulting from obstructions to flight paths or noise-related incompatible land uses resulting from residential construction too close to the airport.n (Id. at p. 20-1 .) "Residential housing and other land uses near airports must remain compatible with airports arid the airport approach/departure corridors." (Id. at p. 20-1.) i'Restricting residential development near the airport is essential in order to avoid noise-related problems." (Id. at p. 20-2.) FAA Order 5190.68 also states, "The general rule on residential use of land on or near airport property is that it Is incompatible with airport operations because of the impact of aircraft noise and, In some cases, for reasons of safety, depending on the location of the property." (Id. at p. 20-5.) In sum, FAA Order 5190.68 mandates that OIAA ensures compatible land uses with land on or immediately surrounding the Airport, and that it therefore restrict residential housing on the Property, which is located directly below the flight path for the Airport and is within areas affected by high noise levels.

4. The Property is Exempt Surplus Property under Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(G).

The State and federal laws and regulations discussed and referenced in Sections 2 and 3 (Findings) of this Resolution above warrant, justify, and result in a determination and finding by OIAA under Government Code section 54221 (f)(1 )(G) that the Property is "exempt surplus property'' where housing would be prohibited from being developed.

The Property is suitable for use and development of industrial uses regarding the Project consistent with the Airport Compatibility Plan.

Page 5 ends

2973
167
167

5. The Long-Tenn Ground Lease of the Property will Produce and Provide Fair Market Value to the Authority.
otAA's Offering Memorandum, through CBRE, and the related request for proposals or bids process for the long-term ground lease and development of the Property summarized above confirmed that the proposed Ground Lease with CanAm Ontario, LLC, will provide OIAA with fair market value for lease of the Property. The proposed Ground Lease between OJAA and CanAm will provide lease rentals and revenues for the Property that exceed the determinations of fair market value for the Property contained in the three (3) separate appraisals for the Property discussed above.

6. The Proposed Development and Use of the Property Under the Ground Lease Will be Consistent with Vital State Objectives Regardin.g the Movement of Goods and Health of Supply and Distribution Chains Across California.

The proposed Project would utilize the Property for industrial logistics development related to the warehousing and distribution of goods and products. Operations under the proposed Project and Ground Lease will therefore be consistent with supply chain improvements that are encouraged in Governor Newsom's Executive Order N-19-21 regarding supply chain issues, which Order recognized that "the movement of goods and health of supply and distribution chains across California is a matter of vital statewide importance .... "
SECTION 2. OIAA COMMISSION ACTIONS:

1. Approval of Findings: The OIAA Commission approves and adopts the Findings set forth in Section 1 of this Resolution above.

2. Approval of the Development and Entitlement Agreement with CanAm Ontario.

LLC: The OIAA Commission approves the Development and Entitlement Agreement (DEA) between CanAm Ontario, LLC, and OIAA included as Attachment A to the Agenda Report for this matter, and authorizes the OIAA's Chief Executive Officer (CEO), or the CEO's designee, to execute all documents related to the DEA.

3. Approval of the Ground Lease with CanAm Ontario, LLC: The OIAA Commission approves the Ground Lease between CanAm Ontario. LLC, and OIAA included as Attachment B to the Agenda Report for this matter, and, subject to satisfaction of each of the conditions stated and contained in Sections 2.2(a)(1), 2.3(d), 2.7,

4.1 (f), and 4.1 (g) of the DEA, authorizes the OIAA's Chief Executive Officer (CEO), or the CEO's designee, to execute all documents related to the Ground Lease.

Page (i of 10
2974
168
168
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of Dece
ALAN D. WAPNER, OIAA PRESIDENT
ATTEST:

NATALIE GONZAGA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:

Page 7 ends

2975
169
169

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

CITY OF ONTARIO )
I, Natalie Gonzaga, Commission Clerk of the Ontario lnternatfonal Airport Authority, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that foregoing Resolution No. 2021-22 was duly passed and adopted by the Commission of the Ontario lnternationa·1 Airport Authority at their Regular meeting held December 23, 2021 by the following roll call vote, to Wit:

AYES: COMMISSIONERS:

NOES: COMMISSIONERS:

ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
(SEAL)

HAGMAN, BOWMAN, LOVERIDGE,

PRESIDENT WAPNER
NONE
GOUW
NA~ ISTANT SECRETARY
The foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2021-22 duly passed and adopted by the Commission of the Ontario International Airport Authority at their Regular meeting held December 23, 2021_
(SEAL}

Page 8 of 10 ends

2976
170
170
EXHIBIT 1
OIAA RESOLUTION NO. 2021-
(SAFETY ZONES MAP)

Page 9 ends

2977
171
171
I
- w
=DI .L
._!L• n c n o C u c • mo n !I a
f-'
Gl'Ol-ric- Large Ab C.rrilr
S.!oty:Z.n.

IIIIICl<GAOLIND illND M.ETt-lOOOLOOT' CHi'i.,fl!ll 1
legend
Boundary Uno,
:=== ..... - ..... ------"""""lh CttyUmlltc
-;;;;;::::;;;;•- - ~~ Ru-y•-Hil
SalityZonu
.._
No •
--
Noles

1. G1,-rie UJ"11'~ Clnler -SafltylanttHWf'Cll!Ctdoria
Alfpcl\l.MdUHP1aiMlrlQ~(,,1111ual)'J00:r),
'nM;--1iCIMltfylOM1 fr ..... ~tf.tcrl;ft
•llddwrtdlnt:lu:lortpdaffllW&lrilC.6ktofdffllr:t
--'Wl!n~IAI.I g,acmnictlitipt,1 Wld •kait. n,.,. •..s.t)'zontt .. 11K1Wnf0rbd'l11'11dltlrtifW1llllrN.M, 1Vl'll!'ay~lllio1111.

2. 1lN"NoP,oje«t:ncu1a11YniNbl.-,Cttl\~
~-OOl'lll~®'IID _ ..... .. cut•nl .Wd
2978
172
172
EXHIBIT 2
OIAA RESOLUTION NO. 2021-
(NOISE IMPACT ZONES MAP)

Page 10 ends

2979
173
173
Mead&tJunr
-),o 1!,
--,~ .
. I' l
~r or • t11d
.
.
:, •
..

Lr
rL
U ,CKGRQUND AND .. ETHOOOl..00'1 ICMAl'TIR t
Legend
Boundoiy Unu
--•--Arflo11Pl'GpM;'~
----c-.ru.. ------ca,~ ----•-~Ft.l!Wlllf'I== No Prcj,e,ct Nots. ContRtn1 ........ °""- ~70cl:ICH6. IQ.«:IO .\IINIII O,.,,.,.t
- J'Or-1$•CNEL 7MO,ec,,£1.

Notes

1. S(:Mc..: ~"11,T~MMIOl'~IDlAWA,,Nollll•
Ooffcilr11Dtl_AJl(JNf'~~ A'lpott (JIJM

1.s. 200ti .

2. 'TN'Mol"'°f'd"lortcmMfU.lnN'11i11 ... ,:llacttwi\r IJIIICIIMNcor,nOloiddLHIIOl'l11t(UNl'l-'-l::I cortpdo,n.. h'P'Topol.tcll"ro)tct"knculklMHCI
onflt........_,~la'lllllw'lofh.tpo,1•bofli
~ltftlcl1ouflandM11of._.cr..rnl'lt
al;rmwm..N'!Nlllloper..,,_ ~1ol'IMfu1 ~--
ON'I&lll~ - ~~--- Ontario lntemaUonaJ Airport
und U.e Comp•tllJ/llly Pi.n
""72011-..1
Exhibit 1·9
Compatlblllty Factors:

Noise
2980
DATE: February 21, 2023
TO: Heather Riley, Allen Matkins
FROM: Haseeb Qureshi, Urban Crossroads, Inc.

JOB NO: 14274-05 RTC

Nevertheless, operation of the Proposed Project would result in emissions in excess of the South Coast AQMD regional emissions thresholds for
2981
Heather Riley, Allen Matkins
February 21, 2023

Page 2 of 2 ends

If you have any questions or comments, I can be reached at [email protected]. 2982
“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. 2983
February 21, 2023

Page 2 ends

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.

Page 3 ends

Page 4 ends

and future breeding attempts.

5. As noted above, the project site is almost completely surrounded by existing development.

6. The email correspondence provided in the comment states, “Based on our study, we found higher settlement for owls translocated more than 17.5km (~11 miles). Translocation distance was a secondary driver of settlement, with the presence of cues (i.e., conspecifics or playback/artificial whitewash) being the primary driver.”
The comment states that owls should be relocated a minimum of 10.5 miles away, while the correspondence email says that burrowing owls had a higher settlement when they were translocated more than 11 miles. The statement in the comment letter is contradictory to what was provided by the San Diego Zoo, that states that burrowing owls that were translocated a distance greater than 17.5km were more likely to settle.
2986
Mead & Hunt | 180 Promenade Circle, Suite 240, Sacramento, CA 95834 | 916-971-3961 | meadhunt.com February 21, 2023 Sent via email
Rudy Zeledon
Planning Director, City of Ontario
303 East B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
Subject: Response to Comments Received from the Pamona Valley Audubon Society on proposed project “The Hub” at Ontario International Airport dated February 3, 2023 Dear Rudy:

Page 2 of 8 ends

Academic Research on Hazards Posed by Burrowing Owls
Raptors, including burrowing owls, have been the subject of research associated with known wildlife strikes.

A 2018 article published in the Journal of Raptor Research entitled “Assessing Owl Collisions with U.S.

Page 3 of 8 ends

Each item and its applicability to the proposed preserve is discussed in the following paragraphs.

Page 4 of 8 ends

The proposed conservation of burrowing owls on airport-owned property would conflict with key recommendations identified in the AC below.

Maintaining an appropriate environment for safe and efficient aircraft operations.

Minimum separation criteria for land use practices that attract hazardous wildlife to the airport vicinity.

Page 5 of 8 ends

Land Uses that attract hazardous wildlife.

Page 6 of 8 ends

Page 7 of 8 ends

Page 8 of 8 ends

Sincerely
Lisa Harmon Rick Jones
Aviation/Environmental Planner FAA Qualified Airport Wildlife Biologist. 2994
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration
Advisory
Circular
Subject: Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or
near Airports
Date: 02/21/2020
Initiated By: AAS-300
AC No: 150/5200-33C
Change:
1 Purpose.

This Advisory Circular (AC) provides guidance on certain land uses that have the potential to attract hazardous wildlife on or near public-use airports. It also discusses airport development projects (including airport construction, expansion, and renovation) affecting aircraft movement near hazardous wildlife attractants. Appendix 1 provides definitions of terms used in this AC.
2 Cancellation.

This AC cancels AC 150/5200-33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or near Airports, dated August 28, 2007.
3 Application.

The Federal Aviation Administration recommends the guidance in this AC for land uses that have the potential to attract hazardous wildlife on or near public-use airports.

This AC does not constitute a regulation, is not mandatory, and is not legally binding in its own right. It will not be relied upon as a separate basis by the FAA for affirmative enforcement action or other administrative penalty. Conformity with this AC is voluntary, and nonconformity will not affect rights and obligations under existing statutes and regulations, except as follows:

1. Airports that hold Airport Operating Certificates issued under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 139, Certification of Airports, Subpart D, may use the standards, practices and recommendations contained in this AC as one, but not the only, acceptable means of compliance with the wildlife hazard management requirements of Part 139.

2. The FAA recommends the guidance in this AC for airports that receive funding under Federal grant assistance programs, including the Airport Improvement Program. See Grant Assurance #34.
2995
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
ii

3. The FAA recommends the guidance in this AC for projects funded by the Passenger Facility Charge program. See PFC Assurance #9.

4. The FAA recommends the guidance in this AC for land-use planners and developers of projects, facilities, and activities on or near airports. 4 Principal Changes.

Changes are marked with vertical bars in the margin. Change in this AC include:

1. Clarification by the FAA that non-certificated airports are recommended to conduct a Wildlife Hazard Assessment (Assessment) or a Wildlife Hazard Site Visit (Site Visit);

2. Table 1, Ranking of Hazardous Species, has been moved to Advisory Circular 150/5200-32, Reporting Wildlife Aircraft Strikes (5/31/2013);

3. Consolidation and reorganization of discussion on land uses of concern; and updated procedures for evaluation and mitigation. Discussion addresses off-airport hazardous wildlife attractants, followed by discussion of on-airport attractants. It also clarifies language regarding the applicability of the AC. 5 Background.

1. Information about the risks posed to aircraft by certain wildlife species has increased a great deal in recent years. Improved reporting, studies, documentation, and statistics clearly show that aircraft collisions with birds and other wildlife are a serious economic and public safety problem. While many species of wildlife can pose a risk1to aircraft safety, they are not equally hazardous2. These hazard rankings can help focus hazardous wildlife management efforts on those species or groups that represent the greatest risk to safe air and ground operations in the airport environment. Used in conjunction with a site-specific Assessment that will determine the relative abundance and use patterns of wildlife species, these rankings combined with a systematic risk analysis can help airport operators better understand the general threat level (and consequences) of certain wildlife species.

Also, the rankings can assist with the creation of a “high risk” list of hazardous species that warrant immediate attention.

2. Most public-use airports have large tracts of open, undeveloped land that provide added margins of safety and noise mitigation. These areas can also present potential hazards to aviation if they encourage wildlife to enter an airport’s approach or departure airspace or aircraft operations area. Constructed or natural areas— such as

1 Risk is the relationship between the severity and probability of a threat. It is the product of hazard level and abundance in the critical airspace, and is thus defined as the probability of a damaging strike with a given species. 2 Hazardous wildlife are species of wildlife (birds, mammals, reptiles), including feral and domesticated animals, not under control that may pose a direct hazard to aviation (i.e., strike risk to aircraft) or an indirect hazard such as an attractant to other wildlife that pose a strike hazard or are causing structural damage to airport facilities (e.g., burrowing, nesting, perching).
2996
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
iii
poorly drained locations, detention/retention ponds, roosting habitats on buildings, landscaping, odor-causing rotting organic matter (putrescible waste) disposal operations, wastewater treatment plants, agricultural or aquaculture activities, surface mining, wetlands, or some conservation-based land uses — can provide wildlife with ideal locations for feeding, loafing, reproduction, and escape. Even small facilities, such as fast food restaurants, taxicab staging areas, rental car facilities, aircraft viewing areas, and public parks, can produce substantial attractions for hazardous wildlife.

3. During the past century, wildlife-aircraft strikes have resulted in the loss of hundreds of lives worldwide, as well as billions of dollars in aircraft damage.

Hazardous wildlife attractants on and near airports can jeopardize future airport expansion, making proper community land-use planning essential. This AC provides airport operators and those parties with whom they cooperate with the guidance they need to assess and address potentially hazardous wildlife attractants when locating new facilities and implementing certain land-use practices on or near public-use airports.
6 Memorandum of Agreement Between Federal Resource Agencies.

The FAA, the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S.

Department of Agriculture - Wildlife Services signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to acknowledge their respective missions in protecting aviation from wildlife hazards. Through the MOA, the agencies established procedures necessary to coordinate their missions to address more effectively existing and future environmental conditions contributing to collisions between wildlife and aircraft (wildlife strikes) throughout the United States. These efforts are intended to minimize wildlife risks to aviation and human safety while protecting the Nation’s valuable environmental resources.
7 Feedback on this AC.

If you have suggestions for improving this AC, you may use the Advisory Circular Feedback form at the end of this AC.

John R. Dermody
Director of Airport Safety and Standards
2997
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C

CONTENTS
Paragraph Page
iv
Chapter 1. General Separation Criteria for Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports......................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Introduction................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 Airports Serving Piston-Powered Aircraft............................................................... 1-1

1.3 Airports Serving Turbine-Powered Aircraft............................................................ 1-2

1.4 Protection of Approach, Departure, and Circling Airspace. .................................. 1-2 Chapter 2. Land-Use Practices on or Near Airports that Potentially Attract Hazardous Wildlife................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 General......................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Waste Disposal Operations. ....................................................................................... 2-2

2.3 Water Management Facilities.................................................................................... 2-4

2.4 Wetlands. ..................................................................................................................... 2-8

2.5 Dredge Spoil Containment Areas. ........................................................................... 2-10

2.6 Agricultural Activities. ............................................................................................. 2-10

2.7 Aquaculture............................................................................................................... 2-12

2.8 Golf Courses, Landscaping, Structures and Other Land-Use Considerations. .. 2-14

2.9 Habitat for State and Federally-Listed Species on Airports................................. 2-16

2.10 Synergistic Effects of Surrounding Land Uses....................................................... 2-17 Chapter 3. Procedures for Wildlife Hazard Management by Operators of PublicUse Airports and Conditions for Non-Certificated Airports to Conduct Wildlife Hazard Assessments and Wildlife Hazard Site Visits........................................ 3-1

3.1 Introduction................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Coordination with Qualified Airport Wildlife Biologists........................................ 3-1

3.3 Wildlife Hazard Management at Airports: A Manual For Airport Personnel..... 3-1

3.4 Wildlife Hazard Site Visits and Wildlife Hazard Assessments............................... 3-2

3.5 Wildlife Hazard Management Plan........................................................................... 3-2

3.6 Local Coordination. .................................................................................................... 3-3

3.7 Operational Notifications of Wildlife Hazards......................................................... 3-3

3.8 Federal and State Depredation Permits.................................................................... 3-4 2998
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
v
Chapter 4. Recommended Procedures for the FAA, Airport Operators and Other Government Entities Regarding Off-Airport Attractants ................................... 4-1

4.1 FAA Notification and Review of Proposed Land-Use Practice Changes in the Vicinity of Public-Use Airports.................................................................................. 4-1

4.2 Waste Management Facilities. ................................................................................... 4-2

4.3 Other Land-Use Practice Changes. ........................................................................... 4-3

4.4 Coordination to Prevent Creation of New Off-Airport Hazardous Wildlife Attractants................................................................................................................... 4-4

4.5 Coordination on Existing Off-Airport Hazardous Wildlife Attractants. .............. 4-5

4.6 Prompt Remedial Action............................................................................................ 4-5

4.7 FAA Assistance............................................................................................................ 4-5 Appendix A. Definitions of Terms Used in this Advisory Circular........................ A-1 Appendix B. Additional Resources.......................................................................... B-1 2999
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
vi
Page Intentionally Blank
3000
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
1-1
CHAPTER 1. GENERAL SEPARATION CRITERIA FOR HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE

ATTRACTANTS ON OR NEAR AIRPORTS

1.1 Introduction.

1.1.1 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 hazardous to aircraft from congregating on airports. When considering proposed land uses, operators and sponsors of airports certificated under Part 139, local planners, and developers must take into account whether the proposed land uses, including new development projects, will increase wildlife hazards. Land-use practices that attract or sustain hazardous wildlife populations on or near airports, specifically those listed in Chapter 2, can significantly increase the potential for wildlife strikes.

1.1.2 The FAA urges regulatory agencies and planning and zoning agencies to evaluate proposed new land uses within the separation criteria and prevent the creation of land uses that attract or sustain hazardous wildlife within the separation distances.

1.1.3 The FAA recommends the use of minimum separation criteria outlined below for land-use practices that attract hazardous wildlife to the vicinity of airports. Please note that FAA criteria include land uses that cause movement of hazardous wildlife onto, into, or across the airport’s approach or departure airspace or aircraft operations area. (See the discussion of the synergistic effects of surrounding land uses in Paragraph 2.8 of this AC.). For the purpose of evaluating distance criteria, the delineation of the aircraft operations area may also consider future airport development plans depicted on the Airport Layout Plan (e.g., planned runway extension).

1.1.4 The separation distances are based on (1) flight patterns and performance criteria of piston-powered aircraft and turbine-powered aircraft, (2) the altitude at which most strikes happen (78 percent occur under 1,000 feet and 90 percent occur under 3,000 feet above ground level), and (3) National Transportation Safety Board recommendations.

1.2 Airports Serving Piston-Powered Aircraft.

Airports that do not sell Jet-A fuel normally serve piston-powered aircraft.

Notwithstanding more stringent requirements for specific land uses, the FAA recommends a separation distance of 5,000 feet from these airports for any of the hazardous wildlife attractants discussed in Chapter 2 or for new airport development projects meant to accommodate aircraft movement. This distance is to be maintained between the closest point of the airport’s aircraft operations area and the hazardous wildlife attractant. Figure 1 depicts an example of the 5,000-foot separation distance measured from the nearest aircraft operations area.
3001
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
1-2

1.3 Airports Serving Turbine-Powered Aircraft.

For airports serving turbine-powered aircraft, the FAA recommends a separation distance of 10,000 feet from these airports for any of the hazardous wildlife attractants discussed in Chapter 2 or for new airport development projects meant to accommodate aircraft movement. This distance is to be maintained between the closest point of the airport’s aircraft operations area and the hazardous wildlife attractant. Figure 1 depicts an example of the 10,000-foot separation distance from the nearest aircraft movement areas.

1.4 Protection of Approach, Departure, and Circling Airspace.

For all airports, the FAA recommends a distance of 5 miles between the closest point of the airport’s aircraft operations area and the hazardous wildlife attractant. Special attention should be given to hazardous wildlife attractants that could cause hazardous wildlife movement into or across the approach or departure airspace. Figure 1 depicts an example of the 5-mile separation distance measured from the nearest aircraft operations area.
3002
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
1-3
Figure 1. Example of recommended separation distances described in Chapter 1 within which hazardous wildlife attractants should be avoided, eliminated, or mitigated.

PERIMETER A: For airports serving piston-powered aircraft, it is recommended hazardous wildlife attractants be 5,000 feet from the nearest aircraft operations area.

PERIMETER B: For airports serving turbine-powered aircraft, it is recommended hazardous wildlife attractants be 10,000 feet from the nearest aircraft operations area.

PERIMETER C: Recommended for all airports, 5-mile range to protect approach, departure and circling airspace.
3003
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
1-4
Page Intentionally Blank
3004
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
2-1
CHAPTER 2. LAND-USE PRACTICES ON OR NEAR AIRPORTS THAT POTENTIALLY

ATTRACT HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE

2.1 General.

2.1.1 Many types of vegetation, habitats and land use practices can provide an attractant to animals that pose a risk to aviation safety. Hazardous wildlife use the natural or artificial habitats on or near an airport for food, water or cover. The wildlife species and the size of the populations attracted to the airport environment vary considerably, depending on several factors, including land-use practices on or near the airport. In addition to the specific considerations outlined below, airport operators should refer to Wildlife Hazard Management at Airports manual, prepared by FAA and U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA) staff. (This manual is available in English, Spanish, and French). This manual, as well as other helpful resources can be viewed and downloaded free of charge from the Wildlife Strike Resources section of the FAA’s wildlife hazard mitigation web site:
http://www.FAA.gov/airports/airport_safety/wildlife).

2.1.1.1 The USDA / Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) / Wildlife Services developed a new publication series on wildlife damage management and is available online. The Wildlife Damage Management Technical Series highlights wildlife species or groups of wildlife species that cause damage to agriculture, property and natural resources, and/or impact aviation and human health and safety. The publications can be found at:
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/wildlifedamage/sa_reports/ct_ wildlife+damage+management+technical+series.

2.1.1.2 Additional resources have been provided by the USDA / APHIS / Wildlife Services National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC) at:
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/wildlifedamage/programs/nwr c/sa_publications/ct_research_gateway. The NWRC Research Gateway contains research articles, reports, factsheets, technical notes, data and other materials on wildlife hazard mitigation, risk reduction, animal ecology, habitats, and advanced technologies and methodologies.

2.1.2 This section discusses land-use practices having the potential to attract hazardous wildlife and threaten aviation safety. The FAA has determined that the land uses listed below are generally not compatible with safe airport operations when they are located within the separation distances provided in Paragraphs 1.2 through 1.4.

2.1.3 As a reminder, these types of land uses or facilities often require permits from the appropriate permitting agency. The FAA may work with the permitting agency to include conditions for monitoring and mitigation measures, if necessary. Ultimately, the permittee is responsible for compliance to these conditions and the permitting agency is responsible for tracking compliance.
3005
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
2-2

2.2 Waste Disposal Operations.

Municipal solid waste landfills (municipal landfills) are known to attract large numbers of hazardous wildlife, particularly birds. Because of this, these operations, when located within the separations identified in the siting criteria in Paragraphs 1.2 through 1.4, are considered incompatible with safe airport operations.

2.2.1 Siting for New Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Subject to AIR 21.

2.2.1.1 Section 503 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (P. L. 106-181) (AIR 21), 49 U.S.C. § 44718(d), prohibits the construction or establishment of a new municipal landfill within 6 miles of certain public-use airports. Before these prohibitions apply, both the airport and the landfill must meet the very specific conditions described below. These restrictions do not apply to airports or landfills located within the state of Alaska.

2.2.1.2 The airport must (1) have received a Federal grant(s) under 49 U.S.C. § 47101, et. seq.; (2) be under control of a public agency; (3) serve some scheduled air carrier operations conducted in aircraft with less than 60 seats; and (4) have total annual enplanements consisting of at least 51 percent of scheduled air carrier enplanements conducted in aircraft with less than 60 passenger seats.

2.2.1.3 The proposed municipal landfill must (1) be within 6 miles of the airport, as measured from airport property line to the landfill property line, and (2) have started construction or establishment on or after April 5, 2001.

Section 44718(d) only limits the construction or establishment of some new landfills. It does not limit the expansion, either vertical or horizontal, of existing landfills.

2.2.1.4 Regarding existing municipal landfills and lateral expansions of landfills, 40 CFR § 258.10 requires owners or operators of a landfill units located within the separation distances provided in Paragraphs 1.2 through 1.4 to demonstrate that the unit is designed and operated so that it does not pose a bird hazard to aircraft. To accomplish this, follow the instructions provided in Paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3, document the wildlife monitoring and mitigation procedures that are cooperatively developed, and place this documentation in the operating permit of the facility.

2.2.2 Siting for New Municipal Landfills Not Subject to AIR 21.

If an airport and a municipal landfill do not meet the criteria of § 44718(d), then FAA recommends against locating the landfill within the separation distances identified in Paragraphs 1.2 through 1.4. In determining this distance separation, measurements should be made from the closest point of the airport property boundary to the closest point of the landfill property boundary.
3006
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
2-3

2.2.3 Considerations for Existing Waste Disposal Facilities Within the Limits of Separation Criteria.

The FAA recommends against airport development projects that would increase the number of aircraft operations or accommodate larger or faster aircraft near landfill operations located within the separations identified in Paragraphs 1.2 through 1.4. In addition, in accordance with 40 CFR § 258.10, owners or operators of existing landfill units that are located within the separations listed in Paragraphs 1.2 through 1.4 must demonstrate that the unit is designed and operated so it does not pose a bird hazard to aircraft. (See Paragraph 4.3.2 of this AC for a discussion of this demonstration requirement.)

2.2.4 Enclosed Trash Transfer Stations.

Enclosed waste-handling facilities that receive garbage behind closed doors; process it via compaction, incineration, or similar manner; and remove all residue by enclosed vehicles generally are compatible with safe airport operations, provided they are constructed and operated properly and are not located on airport property or within the Runway Protection Zone. These facilities should not handle or store putrescible waste outside or in a partially enclosed structure accessible to hazardous wildlife. Trash transfer facilities that are open on one or more sides; or store uncovered quantities of municipal solid waste outside, even if only for a short time; or use semi-trailers that leak or have trash clinging to the outside; or do not control odors by ventilation and filtration systems (odor masking is not acceptable) do not meet the FAA’s definition of fully enclosed trash transfer stations. The FAA considers fully enclosed waste-handling facilities constructed or operated incorrectly incompatible with safe airport operations if they are located closer than the separation distances specified in Paragraphs 1.2 through

1.4. 2.2.5 Composting Operations on or near Airport Property.

Composting operations that accept only yard waste (e.g., leaves, lawn clippings, or branches) generally do not attract hazardous wildlife. Sewage sludge, woodchips, and similar material are not municipal solid wastes and may be used as compost bulking agents. The compost, however, must never include food or other municipal solid waste.

Composting operations should not be located on airport property unless effective, riskreducing mitigations are in place. Off-airport property composting operations should be located no closer than the greater of the following distances: 1,200 feet from any aircraft operations area or the distance called for by airport design requirements (see AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design). This spacing should prevent material, personnel, or equipment from penetrating any Object Free Area, Obstacle Free Zone, Threshold Siting Surface, or Clearway. Airport operators should monitor composting operations located in proximity to the airport to ensure that steam or thermal rise does not adversely affect air traffic.

2.2.6 Underwater Waste Discharges.

The FAA recommends against the underwater discharge of any food waste (e.g., fish processing offal) within the separations identified in Paragraphs 1.2 through 1.4 because it could attract scavenging hazardous wildlife. 3007
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
2-4

2.2.7 Recycling Centers.

Recycling centers that accept previously sorted non-food items, such as glass, newspaper, cardboard, aluminum, electronic, and household wastes such as paint, batteries, and oil, are, in most cases, not attractive to hazardous wildlife and are acceptable.

2.2.8 Construction and Demolition Debris Facilities.

2.2.8.1 Construction and demolition landfills generally do not attract hazardous wildlife and are acceptable if maintained in an orderly manner, admit no putrescible waste, and are not co-located with other waste disposal operations. However, construction and demolition landfills have similar visual and operational characteristics to putrescible waste disposal sites.

When co-located with putrescible waste disposal operations, construction and demolition landfills are more likely to attract hazardous wildlife because of the similarities between these disposal facilities.

2.2.8.2 Therefore, a construction and demolition landfill co-located with another waste disposal operation should be located outside of the separations identified in Paragraphs 1.2 through 1.4.

2.2.8.3 Airport operators should be aware that on-site storage of construction and maintenance debris, as well as out-of-service aircraft or aircraft components, may provide an attractant for hazardous species (e.g., nesting or perching locations). The FAA recommends these on-site areas be monitored and/or mitigated, if necessary.

2.2.9 Fly Ash Disposal.

2.2.9.1 The incinerated residue from resource recovery power/heat-generating facilities that are fired by municipal solid waste, coal, or wood is generally not a wildlife attractant because it no longer contains putrescible matter.

Landfills accepting only fly ash are generally not considered to be wildlife attractants and are acceptable as long as they admit no putrescible waste of any kind, and are not co-located with other disposal operations that attract hazardous wildlife.

2.2.9.2 Since varying degrees of waste consumption are associated with general incineration (not resource recovery power/heat-generating facilities), the FAA considers the ash from general incinerators a regular waste disposal by-product and, therefore, a hazardous wildlife attractant if disposed of within the separation criteria outlined in Paragraphs 1.2 through 1.4.

2.3 Water Management Facilities.

Drinking water intake and treatment facilities, storm water and wastewater treatment facilities, associated retention and settling ponds, ponds built for recreational use, ponds 3008
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
2-5
and fountains for ornamental purposes, and ponds that result from mining activities often attract large numbers of potentially hazardous wildlife. Development of new open water facilities within the separation criteria identified in Paragraphs 1.2 through 1.4 should be avoided to prevent wildlife attractants. If necessary, land-use developers and airport operators may need to develop management plans, in compliance with local and state regulations, to support the operation of storm water management facilities on or near all public-use airports to ensure a safe airport environment. The FAA recommends these plans be developed in consultation with a Qualified Airport Wildlife Biologist3, to minimize hazardous wildlife attractants.

2.3.1 Existing Stormwater Management Facilities.

2.3.1.1 On-airport stormwater management facilities allow the quick removal of surface water, including discharges related to aircraft deicing, from impervious surfaces, such as pavement and terminal/hangar building roofs.

Existing on-airport detention ponds collect stormwater, protect water quality, and control runoff. Because they slowly release water after storms, they may create standing bodies of water that can attract hazardous wildlife. Where the airport has developed a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan, Part 139 regulations require the immediate correction of any wildlife hazards arising from existing stormwater facilities located on or near airports using appropriate wildlife hazard mitigation techniques. Airport operators should develop measures to minimize hazardous wildlife attraction in consultation with a Qualified Airport Wildlife Biologist.

2.3.1.2 Where possible, airport operators should modify stormwater detention ponds to allow a maximum 48-hour detention period for the design storm.

The combination of open water and vegetation is particularly attractive to waterfowl and other hazardous wildlife. Water management facilities holding water longer than 48 hours should be maintained in a manner that keeps them free of both emergent and submergent vegetation. The FAA recommends that airport operators avoid or remove retention ponds and detention ponds featuring dead storage to eliminate standing water.

Detention basins should remain totally dry between rainfalls. Where constant flow of water is anticipated through the basin, or where any portion of the basin bottom may remain wet, the detention facility should include a concrete or paved pad and/or ditch/swale in the bottom to prevent vegetation that may provide nesting habitat. Drainage basins with a concrete or paved pad should be maintained to prevent or remove any sediment build-up to prevent vegetation growth.

2.3.1.3 When it is not possible to drain a large detention pond completely, airport operators may use physical barriers, such as bird balls, wire grids, pillows,

3 See Advisory Circular 150/5200-36, Qualifications for Wildlife Biologist Conducting Wildlife Hazard Assessments and Training Curriculums for Airport Personnel Involved in Controlling Wildlife Hazards on Airports. 3009
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
2-6
or netting, to deter birds and other hazardous wildlife. When physical barriers are proposed, airport operators must evaluate their use, effectiveness and maintenance requirements. Airport operators must also ensure physical barriers will not adversely affect water rescue. Before installing any physical barriers over detention ponds on Part 139 airports, airport operators must get approval from the appropriate FAA Regional Airports Division Office.

2.3.1.4 The FAA recommends that airport operators encourage off-airport stormwater treatment facility operators to incorporate appropriate wildlife hazard mitigation techniques into stormwater treatment facility operating practices when their facility is located within the separation criteria specified in Paragraphs 1.2 through 1.4.

2.3.2 New Stormwater Management Facilities.

The FAA recommends that storm water management systems located within the separations identified in Paragraphs 1.2 through 1.4 be designed and operated so as not to create above-ground standing water. Stormwater detention ponds should be designed, engineered, constructed, and maintained for a maximum 48–hour detention period after the design storm and to remain completely dry between storms. To facilitate the control of hazardous wildlife, the FAA recommends the use of steepsided, rip-rap or concrete lined, narrow, linear-shaped water detention basins. When it is not possible to place these ponds away from an airport’s aircraft operations area (but still on airport property), airport operators may use physical barriers, such as bird balls, wire grids, floating covers, vegetation barriers (bottom liners), or netting, to prevent access of hazardous wildlife to open water and minimize aircraft-wildlife interactions.

Caution is advised when nets or wire grids are used for deterring birds from attractants.

Mesh size should be < 5 cm (2”) to avoid entangling and killing birds and should not be made of a monofilament material. Grids installed above and across water to deter hazardous birds (e.g., waterfowl, cormorants, etc.) are different than using a small mesh covering but also provides an effective deterrent. Grid material, size, pattern and height above water may differ on a case-by-case basis. When physical barriers are used, airport operators must evaluate their use and ensure they will not adversely affect water rescue. Before installing any physical barriers over detention ponds on Part 139 airports, a review by a Qualified Airport Wildlife Biologist should be conducted, prior to approval from the appropriate FAA Regional Airports Division Office. All vegetation in or around detention basins that provide food or cover for hazardous wildlife should be eliminated. If soil conditions and other requirements allow, the FAA encourages the use of underground storm water infiltration systems because they are less attractive to wildlife.

2.3.3 Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities.

2.3.3.1 The FAA recommends that airport operators immediately correct any wildlife hazards arising from existing wastewater treatment facilities located on or near the airport.
3010
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
2-7

2.3.3.2 Where required, a wildlife management plan will outline appropriate wildlife hazard mitigation techniques. Accordingly, airport operators should encourage wastewater treatment facility operators to incorporate measures, developed in consultation with a Qualified Airport Wildlife Biologist, to minimize hazardous wildlife attractants. Airport operators should also encourage those wastewater treatment facility operators to incorporate these mitigation techniques into their standard operating practices. In addition, airport operators should consider the existence of wastewater treatment facilities when evaluating proposed sites for new airport development projects and avoid such sites when practicable.

2.3.4 New Wastewater Treatment Facilities.

The FAA recommends against the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or associated settling ponds within the separations identified in Paragraphs 1.2 through

1.4. Appendix 1 defines wastewater treatment facility as “any devices and/or systems used to store, treat, recycle, or reclaim municipal sewage or liquid industrial wastes.” The definition includes any pretreatment involving the reduction or elimination of pollutants prior to introducing such pollutants into a treatment facility. When a wastewater treatment facility is proposed within the separation criteria, the airport operator, project proponent, and local jurisdiction should discuss the proposed project location with regard to its location near the airport and the separation distances identified in Paragraphs 1.2 through 1.4. If possible, a more suitable location for the proposed facility should be identified. If no other suitable location exists, FAA recommends that the proposed facility plans be reviewed by a Qualified Airport Wildlife Biologist to identify measures to avoid or reduce the facility’s potential to attract hazardous wildlife. If appropriate measures cannot be incorporated to reduce potential wildlife hazards, airport operators should document their opposition in a letter to the local jurisdiction.

2.3.5 Artificial Marshes.

In warmer climates, wastewater treatment facilities sometimes employ artificial marshes and use submergent and emergent aquatic vegetation as natural filters. These artificial marshes may be used by some species of flocking birds, such as blackbirds and waterfowl, for breeding or roosting activities. The FAA recommends against establishing artificial marshes within the separations identified in Paragraphs 1.2 through 1.4.

2.3.6 Wastewater Discharge and Sludge Disposal.

The FAA recommends careful consideration regarding the discharge of wastewater or biosolids (i.e., secondarily treated sewage sludge) on airport property. Such discharges might improve soil moisture and quality on unpaved areas and lead to improved turf growth. Depending on the airfield plant communities and habitats present, this can be an attractive food source for many species of animals or, conversely, could result in limited attractiveness to hazardous wildlife. Also, improved turf requires more frequent mowing and could attract geese. Airports should improve their turf with the goal of a monoculture of turf that is least attractive to wildlife. Wastewater or biosolids 3011
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
2-8
applications might assist in achieving this goal. Caution should be exercised when discharges saturate airfield areas adjacent to paved surfaces. The resultant soft, muddy conditions could restrict or prevent emergency vehicles from reaching accident sites in a timely manner.

2.4 Wetlands.

Wetlands provide a variety of functions and can be regulated by local, state, and Federal laws. Wetlands can be attractive to many types of wildlife, including many which rank high on the list of hazardous wildlife species (Table 1 - AC 150/5200-32).

Some types of wetlands are not as attractive to wildlife as others and they should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine the likelihood of proposed wetlands increasing the numbers of hazardous wildlife at the airport. Factors such as size, shape, location, canopy cover and vegetative composition among other things should be considered when determining compatibility.

Note: If questions exist as to whether an area qualifies as a wetland, contact the District Office of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, or a wetland consultant qualified to delineate wetlands.

2.4.1 Existing Wetlands on or near Airport Property.

If wetlands are located on or near airport property, airport operators should be alert to any wildlife use or habitat changes in these areas that could affect safe aircraft operations. At public-use airports, the FAA recommends immediately correcting, in cooperation with local, state, and Federal regulatory agencies, any wildlife hazards arising from existing wetlands located on or near airports within 5 miles of the aircraft operations area. Where required, a wildlife management plan will outline appropriate wildlife hazard mitigation techniques. Accordingly, airport operators should develop measures to minimize hazardous wildlife attraction in consultation with a FAA Qualified Airport Wildlife Biologist.

2.4.2 New Airport Development.

Whenever possible, the FAA recommends locating new airports using the separations from wetlands identified in Paragraphs 1.2 through 1.4. Where alternative sites are not practicable, or when airport operators are expanding an existing airport into or near wetlands, a Qualified Airport Wildlife Biologist, in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the state wildlife management agency should evaluate the wildlife hazards and prepare a wildlife management plan that indicates methods of minimizing the hazards.

2.4.3 Mitigation for Wetland Impacts from Airport Projects.

Wetland mitigation may be necessary when unavoidable wetland disturbances result from new airport development projects or projects required to correct wildlife hazards from wetlands. Wetland mitigation must be designed so it does not create a wildlife hazard. The FAA recommends that wetland mitigation projects that may attract hazardous wildlife be sited outside of the separations identified in Paragraphs 1.2 through 1.4.
3012
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
2-9

2.4.3.1 Onsite Mitigation of Wetland Functions.

Wetland mitigation/conservation easements must not inhibit the airport operator’s ability to effectively control hazardous wildlife on or near the mitigation site or effectively maintain other aspects of safe airport operations. Enhancing such mitigation areas to attract hazardous wildlife must be avoided. The FAA will review any onsite mitigation proposals to determine compatibility with safe airport operations and grant assurance compliance. Early coordination with the FAA is encouraged for any proposal to use airport land for wetland mitigation. A Qualified Airport Wildlife Biologist should evaluate any wetland mitigation projects that are needed to protect unique wetland functions and that must be located in the separation criteria in Paragraphs 1.2 through 1.4 before the mitigation is implemented. A wildlife management plan should be developed to reduce the wildlife hazards.

2.4.3.2 Offsite Mitigation of Wetland Functions.

2.4.3.2.1 The FAA recommends that wetland mitigation projects that may attract hazardous wildlife be sited outside of the separations identified in Paragraphs 1.2 through 1.4 unless they provide unique functions that must remain onsite (see 2.4.3.1). Agencies that regulate impacts to or around wetlands recognize that it may be necessary to split wetland functions in mitigation schemes. Therefore, regulatory agencies may, under certain circumstances, allow portions of mitigation to take place in different locations.

2.4.3.2.2 The FAA encourages landowners or communities supporting the restoration or enhancement of wetlands to do so only after critically analyzing how those activities would affect aviation safety. To do so, landowners or communities should contact the affected airport sponsor, FAA, and/or a Qualified Airport Wildlife Biologist.

2.4.3.2.3 Those parties should work cooperatively to develop restoration or enhancement plans that would not worsen existing wildlife hazards or create such hazards. See Paragraphs 4.1.1 – 4.1.3 for land-use modifications evaluation criteria.

2.4.3.2.4 If parties develop a mutually acceptable restoration or enhancement plan, the landowner or community proposing the restoration or enhancement must monitor the restored or enhanced site. This monitoring must verify that efforts have not worsened or created hazardous wildlife attraction or activity. If such attraction or activity occurs, the landowner or community should work with the airport sponsor, or a Qualified Airport Wildlife Biologist to reduce the hazard to aviation.
3013
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
2-10

2.4.3.3 Mitigation Banking.

Wetland mitigation banking is the creation or restoration of wetlands in order to provide mitigation credits that can be used to offset permitted wetland losses. Mitigation banking benefits wetland resources by providing advance replacement for permitted wetland losses; consolidating small projects into larger, better-designed and managed units; and encouraging integration of wetland mitigation projects with watershed planning. This last benefit is most helpful for airport projects, as wetland impacts mitigated outside of the separations identified in Paragraphs 1.2 through 1.4 can still be located within the same watershed.

Wetland mitigation banks meeting the separation criteria offer an ecologically sound approach to mitigation in these situations. Airport operators should work with local watershed management agencies or organizations to develop mitigation banking for wetland impacts on airport property.

2.5 Dredge Spoil Containment Areas.

The FAA recommends against locating dredge spoil containment areas (also known as Confined Disposal Facilities) within the separations identified in Paragraphs 1.2 through 1.4 if the containment area or the spoils contain material that would attract hazardous wildlife. Proposals for new dredge spoil containment areas located within the separation distances should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine the likelihood of resulting in an increase in hazardous wildlife. The FAA recommends that airport sponsors work with a Qualified Airport Wildlife Biologist and/or the FAA to review proposals for dredge spoil containment areas located within separation criteria.

2.6 Agricultural Activities.

Many agricultural crops can attract hazardous wildlife and should not be planted within the separations identified in Paragraphs 1.2 through 1.4. Corn, wheat, and other small grains in particular should be avoided. If the airport has no financial alternative to agricultural crops to produce the income necessary to maintain the viability of the airport, then the airport should consider growing crops that hold little food value for hazardous wildlife, such as grass hay. Attractiveness to hazardous wildlife species during all phases of production, from planting through harvest and fallow periods, should be considered when contemplating the use of airport property for agricultural production. Where agriculture is present, crop residue (e.g., waste grain) should not be left in the field following harvest. Also, airports should consult AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design, to ensure that agricultural crops do not create airfield obstructions or other safety hazards. Before planning or initiating any agricultural practices on airport property, operators should get approval from the appropriate FAA regional Airports Division Office and demonstrate that the additional cost of wildlife control and potential accidents is offset by revenue generated by agricultural leases. Annual review of the Airport Certification Manual by the Certification Inspector does not constitute approval and is insufficient to meet this requirement.
3014
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
2-11

2.6.1 Livestock Production.

Confined livestock operations (i.e., feedlots, dairy operations, hog or chicken production facilities, or egg laying operations) often attract flocking birds, such as blackbirds, starlings, or pigeons that pose a hazard to aviation. Therefore, the FAA recommends against such facilities within the separations identified in Paragraphs 1.2 through 1.4. The airport operator should be aware of any wildlife hazards that appear to be attracted to off-site livestock operations and consider working with a Qualified Airport Wildlife Biologist to identify reasonable and feasible measures that may be proposed to landowners to reduce the attractiveness of the site to the potentially hazardous wildlife species.

2.6.1.1 In exceptional circumstances, and following FAA review and approval, livestock may be grazed on airport property as long as they are off the airfield and separated behind fencing where they cannot pose a hazard to aircraft. The livestock should be fed and watered as far away from the airfield and approach/departure space as possible because the feed and water may attract birds. The wildlife management plan should include monitoring and wildlife mitigation for any areas where the livestock and their feed/water is located in case a wildlife hazard is detected. Airports without wildlife management plans should equally consider monitoring and mitigation protocols to identify and address any wildlife hazards associated with livestock and their feeding operations.

2.6.2 Alternative Uses of Agricultural Land.

2.6.2.1 Habitat modification both on and surrounding an airfield is one of the best and most economical long term mitigation strategies to decrease risk that wildlife pose to flight safety. Alternative land uses (e.g., solar and biofuel) at airports could help mitigate many of the challenges for the airport operator, developers, and conservationists. However, careful planning must first determine that proposed alternative energy production at airports does not create wildlife attractants or other hazards.

2.6.2.2 Some airports are surrounded by vast areas of farmed land within the distances specified in Paragraphs 1.2 through 1.4. Seasonal uses of agricultural land for activities such as hunting can create a hazardous wildlife situation. In some areas, farmers will rent their land for hunting purposes. Rice farmers, among others, flood their land to attract waterfowl or for conservation efforts. This is often done during waterfowl hunting season to obtain additional revenue by renting out duck blinds.

2.6.2.3 The waterfowl hunters then use decoys and call in hundreds, if not thousands, of birds, creating a threat to aircraft safety. It is recommended that a Qualified Airport Wildlife Biologist review, in coordination with local farmers and producers, these types of seasonal land uses and incorporate mitigating measures into the wildlife management plan, when possible.
3015
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
2-12

2.7 Aquaculture.

Aquaculture is the breeding, rearing, and harvesting of fish, shellfish, and plants in all types of water environments including ponds, rivers, lakes, and the ocean. Aquaculture is used to produce food fish, sport fish, bait fish, ornamental fish, and to support restoration activities. Aquacultured species are grown in a range of facilities including tanks, cages, ponds, and raceways. When an aquaculture facility is proposed within the separation criteria, the airport operator, project proponent, and local jurisdiction should discuss the proposed project location with regard to its attraction to hazardous species, location near the airport and the separation distances identified in Paragraphs 1.2 through 1.4. If a facility is identified as a possible significant attraction, a more suitable location for the proposed facility should be identified. If no other suitable location exists, it is recommended that the proposed facility plans be reviewed by a Qualified Airport Wildlife Biologist to identify measures to avoid or reduce the facility’s potential to attract hazardous wildlife.

2.7.1 Freshwater Aquaculture.

2.7.1.1 Freshwater aquaculture activities (e.g., catfish, tilapia, trout or bass production) are typically conducted outside of fully enclosed buildings in constructed ponds or tanks and are inherently attractive to a wide variety of birds and therefore pose a significant risk to airport safety when within the separation distances specified in Paragraphs 1.2 through 1.4.

Freshwater aquaculture should only be considered if extensive mitigation measures have been incorporated to eliminate attraction to hazardous birds. Examples of such mitigation include:

1. Netting or other material to exclude hazardous birds (e.g., eagles, osprey, gulls, cormorants);

2. Acoustic hazing including pyrotechnics, propane cannons, directional sonic/hailing devices and other similar technologies;

3. Feeding procedure cleanliness, exclusion techniques prohibiting birds from perching or accessing food; efficiency of feeding operation procedures that reduce fish food attraction to hazardous birds;

4. Operation procedure efficiency transferring live fish to and from enclosures or removal of dead fish; maintenance and upkeep of facility;

5. Monitoring, mitigation and communication protocols with nearby airports as a proactive safety feature in response to specific hazardous species in the event they are identified at the facility in unacceptable numbers.

2.7.2 Marine Aquaculture.

Marine aquaculture (Mariculture) refers to the culturing of species that live in the ocean. When appropriately managed and mitigated as necessary, mariculture facilities do not pose a significant risk to airport safety.
3016
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
2-13

2.7.2.1 Finfish Mariculture.

2.7.2.1.1 U.S. finfish mariculture primarily produces salmon and steelhead trout as well as lesser amounts of cod, moi, yellowtail, barramundi, seabass, and seabream. Maricultures use rigid and non-rigid enclosures (e.g., cages) at the surface or submerged in the water column. These enclosures may be fully enclosed, or be open at the top or covered with netted material to negate losses from depredation by birds or other predators. Different facilities employ different designs and operational protocols.

2.7.2.1.2 While mariculture operations typically do not pose a significant attractant to hazardous birds, design and operational features can be incorporated as permit conditions to mitigate attraction and effectively reduce this risk.

Examples of such mitigation include:

1. Fully enclosed cages using netting or other material to exclude hazardous birds (e.g., gulls, cormorants, pelicans) and to insure retention of fish;

2. Submerged enclosures to reduce attraction to hazardous birds;

3. Feed barge cleanliness, exclusion techniques prohibiting birds from perching or accessing food; efficiency of feeding operation procedures that reduce fish food attraction to hazardous birds;

4. Operation procedure efficiency transferring live fish to and from enclosures or removal of dead fish; maintenance and upkeep of facility;

2.7.2.2 Shellfish Mariculture.

U.S. shellfish mariculture primarily produces oysters, clams, mussels, lobster and shrimp. Shellfish may be grown directly on the bottom, in submerged cages or bags, or on suspended lines. These types of mariculture operations do not typically present a significant attractant to hazardous birds. For those operations that are found to pose a significant risk, design and operation features that diminish possible attraction to hazardous bird species (e.g., reducing areas for perching or feeding) can effectively reduce this risk.

2.7.2.3 Plant Mariculture.

2.7.2.3.1 Microalgae, also referred to as phytoplankton, microphytes, or planktonic algae constitute the majority of cultivated algae. Macroalgae, commonly known as seaweed, also have many commercial and industrial uses. 3017
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
2-14

2.7.2.3.2 While few commercial seaweed farms exist, the sector is growing. These types of mariculture operations do not typically present an attractant to hazardous birds.

2.8 Golf Courses, Landscaping, Structures and Other Land-Use Considerations.

2.8.1 Golf Courses.

The large grassy areas and open water found on most golf courses are attractive to hazardous wildlife, particularly Canada geese and some species of gulls. These species can pose a threat to aviation safety. If golf courses are located on or near airport property, airport operators should be alert to any wildlife use or habitat changes in these areas that could affect safe aircraft operations. Accordingly, airport operators should develop, at a minimum, onsite measures to minimize hazardous wildlife attraction in consultation with a Qualified Airport Wildlife Biologist. Existing golf courses located within these separations that have been documented to attract hazardous wildlife are encouraged to develop a program to reduce the attractiveness of the sites to species that are hazardous to aviation safety. The FAA recommends against construction of new golf courses within the separations identified in Paragraphs 1.2 through 1.4 if determined that the new facility would create a significant wildlife hazard attractant by a Qualified Airport Wildlife Biologist. Airport operators should ensure these golf courses are monitored on a continuing basis for the presence of hazardous wildlife. If hazardous wildlife is detected, corrective actions should be immediately implemented.

2.8.2 Landscaping and Landscape Maintenance.

2.8.2.1 Depending on its geographic location, landscaping can attract hazardous wildlife. The FAA recommends that airport operators approach landscaping with caution and confine it to airport areas not associated with aircraft movements. Vegetation that produces seeds, fruits, or berries, or that provides dense roosting or nesting cover should not be used. Airports should develop a landscape plan to include approved and prohibited plants. The landscape plan should consider the watering needs of mature plants. A Qualified Airport Wildlife Biologist should review all landscaping plans. Airport operators should also monitor all landscaped areas on a continuing basis for the presence of hazardous wildlife. If hazardous wildlife is detected, corrective actions should be immediately implemented.

2.8.2.2 Turf grass areas on airports have the potential to be highly attractive to a variety of hazardous wildlife species. Research conducted by the USDA Wildlife Services’ National Wildlife Research Center has shown that no one airfield vegetation management regimen will deter all species of hazardous wildlife in all situations. The composition and height of airfield grasslands should be properly managed to reduce their attractiveness to hazardous wildlife. In many situations, an intermediate height, monoculture turf grass might be most favorable. In cooperation with a 3018
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
2-15
Qualified Airport Wildlife Biologist, airport operators should develop airport turf grass management plans on a prescription basis, including cultivar selection during reseeding efforts, that is specific to the airport’s geographic location, climatic conditions, and the type of hazardous wildlife likely to frequent the airport.

2.8.2.3 Airport operators should ensure that plant varieties attractive to hazardous wildlife are not used on the airport. Disturbed areas or areas in need of revegetating should not be planted with seed mixtures containing millet or any other large-seed producing grass. For airport property already planted with seed mixtures containing millet, rye grass, or other large-seed producing grasses, the FAA recommends disking, plowing, or another suitable agricultural practice to prevent plant maturation and seed head production. Plantings should follow the specific recommendations for grass management and seed and plant selection made by the State University Cooperative Extension Service, the local office of Wildlife Services, or a Qualified Airport Wildlife Biologist. Airport operators should also consider developing and implementing a preferred/prohibited plant species list, reviewed by a Qualified Airport Wildlife Biologist, which has been designed for the geographic location to reduce the attractiveness to hazardous wildlife for landscaping airport property.

2.8.3 Structures.

2.8.3.1 Certain structures attract birds for loafing and nesting. Flat rooftops can be attractive to many species of gulls for nesting, hangars provide roosting / nesting opportunities for rock doves, towers, light posts and navigation aids can provide loafing / hunting perches for raptors and aircraft can provide loafing / nesting sites for European starlings, blackbirds and other species. These structures should be monitored and mitigated, if located onsite. Off-site structural attractions may require additional coordination to effectively mitigate their use by hazardous species.

2.8.3.2 Cellular communications towers are becoming increasingly more attractive to large birds (e.g., osprey, eagles, herons, vultures) for nesting and rearing their young. This problem is a growing concern because once the young fledge from nests built on manmade structures they are more likely to return to these kinds of sites to reproduce in future years.

2.8.4 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 publicuse airport, each certificate holder must take prompt remedial action(s) to protect aviation safety and all non-certificated airports should take prompt remedial action(s) to protect aviation safety.
3019
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
2-16

2.9 Habitat for State and Federally Listed Species on Airports.

An airport’s air operations area is an artificial environment that has been created and maintained for aircraft operations. Because an aircraft operations area can be markedly different from the surrounding native landscapes, it may attract wildlife species that do not normally occur, or that occur only in low numbers in the area. Some of the grassland species attracted to an airport’s aircraft operations area are at the edge of their natural ranges, but are attracted to habitat features found in the airport environment.

Also, some wildlife species may occur on the airport in higher numbers than occur naturally in the region because the airport offers habitat features the species prefer.

Some of these wildlife species are Federal or state-listed threatened and endangered species or have been designated by state resource agencies as species of special concern.

2.9.1 State-Listed Species Habitat Concerns.

2.9.1.1 Many state wildlife agencies have requested that airport operators facilitate and encourage habitat on airports for state-listed threatened and endangered species or species of special concern. 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.

2.9.1.2 Not all state-listed threatened and endangered species or species of concern pose a direct threat to aviation safety. However, these species may pose an indirect threat and be hazardous because they attract other wildlife species or support prey species attractive to other species that are directly hazardous. Also, the habitat management practices that benefit these statelisted threatened and endangered species and species of special concern may attract other hazardous wildlife species. On-airport habitat and wildlife management practices designed to benefit wildlife that directly or indirectly create safety hazard where none existed before are incompatible with safe airport operations.

2.9.2 Federally Listed Species Habitat Concerns.

2.9.2.1 The FAA supports efforts to protect threatened and endangered species, as a matter of principle and consistent with the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The FAA must balance these requirements with our requirements and mission to maintain a safe and efficient airport system. 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. If endangered species are present on an airport, specific obligations may apply under the Endangered 3020
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
2-17
Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. and the airport operator should contact the Airports District Office Environmental Protection Specialist.

2.9.2.2 The designation of critical habitat for listed species under the Endangered Species Act on airport lands may be an incompatible land use in conflict with the intended and dedicated purpose of airport lands and may limit or preclude the ability of the airport to develop new infrastructure and growth capacity to meet future air carrier service demand. In addition, depending on the listed species (primarily but not limited to avian species), the designation of critical habitat within the separation distances provided in paragraphs 1.2 - 1.4 can represent a hazardous wildlife attractant in conflict with 14 CFR Part 139.337.

2.10 Synergistic Effects of Surrounding Land Uses.

There may be circumstances where two or more different land uses would not, by themselves, be considered hazardous wildlife attractants or are located outside of the separations identified in Paragraphs 1.2 through 1.4 but collectively may create a wildlife corridor directly through the airport and/or surrounding airspace. An example involves a lake located outside of the separation criteria on the east side of an airport and a large hayfield on the west side of an airport. These two land uses, taken together, could create a flyway for Canada geese directly across the airspace of the airport.

Airport operators must consider the entire surrounding landscape and community when developing the wildlife management plan.
3021
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
2-18
Page Intentionally Blank
3022
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
3-1
CHAPTER 3. PROCEDURES FOR WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT BY OPERATORS

OF PUBLIC-USE AIRPORTS AND CONDITIONS FOR NON-CERTIFICATED AIRPORTS TO

CONDUCT WILDLIFE HAZARD ASSESSMENTS AND WILDLIFE HAZARD SITE VISITS

3.1 Introduction.

In recognition of the increased risk of serious aircraft damage or the loss of human life that can result from a wildlife strike, the FAA recommends all airports conduct a Wildlife Hazard Site Visit or Wildlife Hazard Assessment unless otherwise mandated after an initial triggering events defined in Part 139 Section 139.337. After the airport has completed the site visit or assessment and implemented a wildlife management plan, investigations should be conducted following subsequent triggering events to determine if the original assessment and plan adequately address the situation or if conditions have changed that would warrant an update to the plan. In this section, airports that are certificated under 14 C.F.R. § 139.337 are referred to as “certificated airports” and all others are referred to as “non-certificated airports.” When a statement refers to both certificated and non-certificated airports, “airport” or “all airports” is used.

3.2 Coordination with Qualified Airport Wildlife Biologists.

Hazardous wildlife management is a complex discipline and conditions vary widely across the United States. Therefore, only airport wildlife biologists meeting the qualification requirements in Advisory Circular 150/5200-36, Qualifications for Wildlife Biologist Conducting Wildlife Hazard Assessments and Training Curriculums for Airport Personnel Involved in Controlling Wildlife Hazards on Airports, can conduct Site Visits and Assessments. Airports must maintain documentation that the Qualified Airport Wildlife Biologist meets the qualification requirements in Advisory Circular 150/5200-36.

3.3 Wildlife Hazard Management at Airports: A Manual For Airport Personnel.

3.3.1 The Wildlife Hazard Management at Airports manual, prepared by FAA and USDA Wildlife Services staff, contains a compilation of information to assist airport personnel in the development, implementation, and evaluation of wildlife management plans at airports. The manual includes specific information on the nature of wildlife strikes, legal authority, regulations, wildlife management techniques, Assessments, Plans, and sources of help and information. The manual is available in three languages: English, Spanish, and French. It can be viewed and downloaded free of charge from the FAA’s wildlife hazard mitigation web site:
https://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/wildlife. This manual only provides a starting point for addressing wildlife hazard issues at airports. FAA recommends that airports consult with a Qualified Airport Wildlife Biologists to assist with development of a wildlife management plan and the implementation of management actions by airport personnel.
3023
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
3-2

3.3.2 There are many other resources complementary to this manual for use in developing and implementing wildlife management plans. Several are listed in the manual’s bibliography or on the FAA Wildlife Mitigation website:
https://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/wildlife

3.4 Wildlife Hazard Site Visits and Wildlife Hazard Assessments.

3.4.1 Operators of certificated airports are encouraged to conduct an initial assessment regardless of whether the airport has experienced one of the triggering events. Doing so would allow the airport to take proactive action and mitigate the wildlife risk before experiencing an incident. All other airports are encouraged to conduct an assessment or site visit (as defined in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-38) conducted by a Qualified Airport Wildlife Biologist (as defined in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-36). Part 139 certificated airports are currently required to ensure that an assessment is conducted consistent with 14 C.F.R. § 139.337.

3.4.2 The intent of a site visit is to provide an abbreviated analysis of an airport’s wildlife hazards and to provide timely information that allows the airport to expedite the mitigation of these hazards. The FAA also recommends that airports conduct an assessment or site visit as soon as practicable in order to identify any immediate wildlife hazards and/or mitigation measures.

3.4.3 Non-certificated airports should submit the results of the site visit or assessment to the FAA for review. The FAA will review the submitted site visit or assessment and make a recommendation regarding the development of a wildlife management plan. A wildlife management plan can be developed based on a site visit and will be required if the non-certificated airport is going to request federal grants for the purpose of mitigating wildlife hazards.

3.5 Wildlife Hazard Management Plan.

3.5.1 The FAA will consider the results of the assessment, along with the aeronautical activity at the airport and the views of the airport operator and airport users, in determining whether a wildlife management plan is needed for certificated airports, or recommended for non-certificated airports.

3.5.2 If the FAA determines that a wildlife management plan is needed for a certificated airport, the airport operator must formulate a plan, using the assessment as its basis and submit to the FAA for approval. If the FAA recommends that a non-certificated airport develop a plan, either an assessment or a site visit can be used as the basis for the wildlife management plan. Airports should consult AC 150/5200-38, Protocol for the Conduct and Review of Wildlife Hazard Site Visits, Wildlife Hazard Assessments, and Wildlife Hazard Management Plans, for further information on preparation and implementation requirements for their wildlife management plan. 3024
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
3-3

3.5.3 The goal of an airport’s wildlife management plan is to minimize the risk to aviation safety, airport structures or equipment, or human health posed by populations of hazardous wildlife on and around the airport. For wildlife management plans to effectively reduce wildlife hazards on and near airports, accurate and consistent wildlife strike reporting is essential. Airports should consult AC 150/5200-32, Reporting Wildlife Aircraft Strikes, for further information on responsibilities and recommendations concerning wildlife strikes.

3.5.4 The wildlife management plan must identify hazardous wildlife attractants on or near the airport and the appropriate wildlife management techniques to minimize the wildlife hazard. It must also prioritize the management measures.

3.6 Local Coordination.

The FAA recommends establishing a Wildlife Hazards Working Group to facilitate the communication, cooperation, and coordination of the airport and its surrounding community necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the wildlife management plan. The cooperation of the airport community is essential to prevent incompatible development in the airport vicinity. Whether on or off the airport, input from all involved parties must be considered when a potentially hazardous wildlife attractant is being proposed.

Based on available resources, airport operators should undertake public education activities with the local planning agencies because some activities in the vicinity of an airport, while harmless under normal conditions, can attract wildlife and present a danger to aircraft (see Paragraphs 4.5 to 4.8). For example, if public trails are planned near wetlands or in parks adjoining airport property, the public should know that feeding birds and other wildlife in the area may pose a risk to aircraft.

3.7 Operational Notifications of Wildlife Hazards.

3.7.1 Operational notifications include active correspondence addressing wildlife issues on or near an airport, notifications and alerts. If an existing land-use practice creates a wildlife hazard and the land-use practice or wildlife hazard cannot be immediately eliminated, airport operators must issue a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) and encourage the land owner or manager to take steps to control the wildlife hazard and minimize further attraction. Permanent attractions that cannot be eliminated or mitigated may be noted in the Airport/Facility Directory. NOTAMS and Airport/Facility Directory notifications are not appropriate for short-term or immediate advisories that can be relayed via Pilot Reports, direct air traffic control voice communications, or temporary Automated Terminal Advisory System alerts. Care should be given to avoid the continual broadcast of general warnings for extended periods of time.

General warnings such as “birds in the vicinity of the aerodrome” offer little timely information to aid pilots and eventually may be ignored if not updated.

3.7.2 The Automated Terminal Advisory System (ATIS) is a continuous broadcast of recorded aeronautical information for aerodromes and their immediate surroundings.

ATIS broadcasts contain essential information, such as current weather information, 3025
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
3-4
active runways, available approaches, wildlife hazards and any other information required by the pilots. They indicate significant (moderate or severe) wildlife activity, as reported by an approved agency that presents temporary hazards on the ATIS broadcast. Pilots take notice of available ATIS broadcasts before contacting the local control unit, which reduces the controllers’ workload and relieves frequency congestion. The recording is updated in fixed intervals or when there is a significant change in the information. Although ATIS broadcasts involving wildlife should be timely and specific, pilots do not need to know species-specific information. General descriptive information detailing size and number of animals, locations and timing of occurrence provides useful, actionable information for pilots.

3.7.3 A pilot report (PIREP) is reported by a pilot to indicate encounters of hazardous weather (e.g., icing or turbulence) and hazardous wildlife. Pilot reports are short-lived warnings providing immediate information on pilot observations that are transmitted in real-time to air traffic control. Large animals near active surfaces, soaring vultures and raptors within approach/ departure corridors and waterfowl such as geese feeding in grassy areas next to runways are all examples of pilot reports generated by pilots.

3.8 Federal and State Depredation Permits.

The FAA recommends that airports maintain federal and state depredation permits to allow mitigation and/ or removal of hazardous species. All protected species require special permits for lethal mitigation or capture and relocation procedures. Similarly, endangered or threatened species mitigation also requires special permits. The FAA recommends that airports work closely with a Qualified Airport Wildlife Biologist during the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service consultation and permitting process. The following Orders can help airports reduce risks from hazardous species by allowing private citizens to control hazardous species off airport properties without the need for a Federal depredation permit.

3.8.1 Standing Depredation Orders.

3.8.1.1 Federal law allows people to protect themselves and their property from damage caused by migratory birds. Provided no effort is made to kill or capture the birds, a depredation permit is not required to merely scare or herd depredating migratory birds other than endangered or threatened species or bald or golden eagles (50 CFR 21.41).

3.8.1.2 In addition, certain species of migratory birds may be mitigated without a federal permit under specific circumstances, many of which relate to agricultural situations. The following Standing Depredation Orders have applicability near airports:
 50 CFR § 21.49- Control Order for Resident Canada Geese at Airports and Military Airfields.
 50 CFR § 21.50- Depredation Order for Resident Canada Geese Nests and Eggs.
3026
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
3-5
 50 CFR § 21.43 - Depredation Order for Blackbirds, Cowbirds, Crows, Grackles, and Magpies.
 50 CFR § 21.54 - Control Order for Muscovy Ducks in the United States.
 50 CFR § 21.55 - Control Order for Invasive Migratory Birds in Hawaii.
3027
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
3-6
Page Intentionally Blank
3028
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
4-1
CHAPTER 4. RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES FOR THE FAA, AIRPORT OPERATORS

AND OTHER GOVERNMENT ENTITIES REGARDING OFF-AIRPORT ATTRACTANTS

4.1 FAA Notification and Review of Proposed Land-Use Practice Changes in the Vicinity of Public-Use Airports.

4.1.1 For projects that are located within 5 miles of the airport’s aircraft operations area, the FAA may review development plans, proposed land-use changes, operational changes, major federal actions or wetland mitigation plans to determine if such changes increase risk to airport safety by attracting hazardous wildlife on and around airports. The FAA is not a permitting agency for land use modifications that occur off airport properties, therefore, such reviews are typically initiated by state or federal permitting agencies seeking FAA input on new or revised permits. Each of the land uses listed in Chapter 2 of this AC has the potential to pose a risk to airport operations when they are located within the separation distances provided in Paragraphs 1.2 through 1.4.

4.1.2 Off-site land use modifications near airports may include an assessment of risk for facilities and land-use changes and, if necessary, mitigation strategies that may reduce risk to an acceptable level. However, the FAA recognizes that individual facilities or land-use modifications may present a range of attractants to different species, resulting in varying levels of risk. Therefore, the FAA considers each proposal on a case-by-case basis.

4.1.3 The FAA analyzes each land-use modification or new facility proposal prior to its establishment or any significant planned changes to design or operations that may increase the risk level. As part of a review, the FAA considers several factors that include, but are not limited to:

1. Type of attractant;

2. Size of attractant;

3. Location/distance of attractant from airport;

4. Design (e.g., construction, material, mitigation techniques employed into design);

5. Operation (e.g., cleanliness, constancy/ volume of use, seasonality, time of day);

6. Monitoring protocols (e.g., frequency, documentation, evaluation, species identification and number thresholds that trigger actions of communication or mitigation, baseline wildlife data);

7. Mitigation protocols (e.g., responsibilities, methods, intensity, pre-determined objectives, documentation, evaluation); and

8. Communication protocols to airport and/ or air traffic control tower;

4.1.4 The review of these factors may result in FAA recommended additions or modifications to a conditional use permit that allows the permitting agency to track compliance with the permittee obligations. Such conditions placed within a permit 3029
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
4-2
may involve a comprehensive outline and recognition of individuals responsible for monitoring, communication, and mitigation measures if certain action thresholds are met. Action thresholds are defined in this instance as those pre-determined parameters (e.g., number, location, behavior, time of day) of specific hazardous species that would trigger a mitigation response. Additionally, baseline data should be used to determine the effect, if any, on wildlife populations at the proposed off-site location and/or at the airport.

4.1.5 Baseline data may need to be collected, depending on the existence of useful data and timeline for site modification. If, after taking into account the factors above, FAA determines that a facility poses a significant risk to airport safety, FAA will object to its establishment or renewal.

4.1.6 For projects that are located within 5 miles of the airport’s aircraft operations area, the FAA Airport District Office may review development plans, proposed land-use changes, operational changes, major federal actions or wetland mitigation plans to determine if such changes present potential wildlife hazards to aircraft operations.

The FAA considers sensitive airport areas as those that lie under or next to approach or departure airspace. This brief examination should indicate if further investigation is warranted.

4.1.7 Where a Qualified Airport Wildlife Biologist has conducted a further study to evaluate a site’s compatibility with airport operations, the FAA may use the study results to make a determination.

4.2 Waste Management Facilities.

4.2.1 Notification of New/Expanded Project Proposal.

4.2.1.1 49 U.S.C. § 44718(d), prohibits the construction or establishment of new municipal landfills within 6 miles of certain public-use airports, when both the airport and the landfill meet specific conditions. See Paragraph 2.2 of this guidance for a more detailed discussion of these restrictions.

4.2.1.2 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires any landfill operator proposing a new or expanded waste disposal operation within 5 miles of a runway end to notify the appropriate FAA Regional Airports Division Office and the airport operator of the proposal. See 40 CFR § 258, Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Section 258.10, Airport Safety. The EPA also requires owners or operators of new landfill units, or lateral expansions of existing MSWLF landfill units, that are located within 10,000 feet of any airport runway end used by turbine-powered aircraft, or within 5,000 feet of any airport runway end used only by piston-type aircraft, to demonstrate successfully that such units are not hazards to aircraft. (See 4.3.2 below.)
3030
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
4-3

4.2.1.3 When new or expanded municipal landfills are being proposed near airports, landfill operators must notify the airport operator and the FAA of the proposal as early as possible pursuant to 40 CFR § 258.

4.2.1.4 The FAA discourages the development of waste disposal and other facilities, discussed in Chapter 2, located within the separation criteria specified in Paragraphs 1.2 through 1.4. To show that a waste-handling facility sited within the separations identified in Paragraphs 1.2 through

1.4 does not attract hazardous wildlife and does not threaten aviation, the developer must establish the facility will not handle putrescible material other than that as outlined in 2.2.4. The FAA recommends against any facility other than those outlined in 2.2.4 (enclosed transfer stations). The FAA will use this information to determine if the facility will be a hazard to aviation.

4.3 Other Land-Use Practice Changes.

4.3.1 The FAA encourages operators of public-use airports who become aware of proposed land use practice changes that may attract hazardous wildlife within 5 miles of their airports to notify their assigned Airport Certification Safety Inspector or Airports District Office Program Manager. The FAA also encourages proponents of such land use changes to notify the FAA as early in the planning process as possible. Advanced notice affords the FAA an opportunity (1) to evaluate the effect of a particular landuse change on aviation safety and (2) to support efforts by the airport sponsor to restrict the use of land next to or near the airport to uses that are compatible with the airport.

4.3.2 The airport operator, project proponent, or land-use operator may use FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, or other suitable documents similar to FAA Form 7460-1 to notify the appropriate FAA Regional Airports Division Office. Project proponents can contact the appropriate FAA Regional Airports Division Office for assistance with the notification process prior to submitting Form 7460-1.

4.3.3 It is helpful if the notification includes a 15-minute quadrangle map of the area identifying the location of the proposed activity. The land-use operator or project proponent should also forward specific details of the proposed land-use change or operational change or expansion. In the case of solid waste landfills, the information should include the type of waste to be handled, how the waste will be processed, and final disposal methods.

4.3.4 Airports that have Received Federal Assistance.

Airports that have received Federal assistance are required under their grant assurances to take appropriate actions to restrict the use of land next to or near the airport to uses that are compatible with normal airport operations. See Grant Assurance 21. The FAA recommends that airport operators oppose off-airport land-use changes or practices, to 3031
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
4-4
the extent practicable, within the separations identified in Paragraphs 1.2 through 1.4, which may attract hazardous wildlife. Failure to do so may lead to noncompliance with applicable grant assurances. The FAA will not approve the placement of airport development projects pertaining to aircraft movement in the vicinity of hazardous wildlife attractants without appropriate mitigating measures. Increasing the intensity of wildlife control efforts is not a substitute for preventing, eliminating or reducing a proposed wildlife hazard. Airport operators should identify hazardous wildlife attractants and any associated wildlife hazards during any planning process for airport development projects.

4.4 Coordination to Prevent Creation of New Off-Airport Hazardous Wildlife Attractants.

Airport operators should work with local and regional planning and zoning boards to be aware of proposed land-use changes, or modification of existing land uses, that could create hazardous wildlife attractants within the separations identified in Paragraphs 1.2 through 1.4. Pay particular attention to proposed land uses involving creation or expansion of wastewater treatment facilities, development of wetland mitigation sites, or development or expansion of dredge spoil containment areas. At the very least, it is recommended that airport operators are on the notification list of the local planning board or equivalent review entity for all communities located within 5 miles of the airport, so they will receive notification of any proposed project and have the opportunity to review it for attractiveness to hazardous wildlife. This may be accomplished through one or more of the following:

4.4.1 Site-specific Criteria.

The airport should establish site-specific criteria for assessment of land uses attractive to hazardous wildlife and locations that would be of concern based on wildlife strikes and on wildlife abundance and activity at the airport and in the local area. These criteria may be more selective, but should not be less restrictive than this guidance.

4.4.2 Outreach.

Airports should actively seek to provide educational information and/ or provide input regarding local development, natural resource modification or wildlife-related concerns that affect wildlife hazards and safe air travel.

4.4.2.1 External Outreach.

Airport operators and a Qualified Airport Wildlife Biologist should consider outreach to local planning and zoning organizations on land uses of concern or to local organizations responsible for natural resource management (including wildlife, wetlands, and parks.) Airports should also consider developing and distributing position letters and educational materials on airport-specific concerns regarding wildlife hazards, wildlife activity and attraction. Finally, airports should provide formal comments on local procedures, laws, ordinances, plans, and regulatory actions such as permits related to land uses of concern.
3032
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
4-5

4.4.2.2 Internal Outreach.

Airports should consider developing and distributing position letters and educational materials on airport-specific concerns regarding species identification and mitigation procedures, wildlife hazards, wildlife activity and attraction to employees and personnel with access to the aircraft operations area.

4.5 Coordination on Existing Off-Airport Hazardous Wildlife Attractants.

Airports are encouraged to work with landowners and managers to cooperatively develop procedures to monitor and manage hazardous wildlife attraction. If applicable, these procedures may include:

1. Conducting a wildlife hazard site visit by a wildlife biologist meeting the qualification requirements of Advisory Circular 150/5200-36, Qualifications for Wildlife Biologist Conducting Wildlife Hazard Assessments and Training Curriculums for Airport Personnel Involved in Controlling Wildlife Hazards on Airports

2. Conducting regular, standardized, wildlife monitoring surveys;4

3. Establishing threshold numbers of wildlife which would trigger certain actions and/or communications;

4. Establishment of procedures to deter or remove hazardous wildlife.

4.6 Prompt Remedial Action.

For attractants found on and off airport property, and with landowner or manager cooperation, Part 139 certificated airports must take immediate action in accordance with their Airport Certification Manual and the requirements of Part 139.337, to alleviate wildlife hazards whenever they are detected. It is also recommended that noncertificated airports take immediate action to alleviate wildlife hazards whenever they are detected. In addition, airports should take prompt action to identify the source of attraction and cooperatively develop procedures to mitigate and monitor the attractant.

For Part 139 Certificated airports, immediate actions are required in accordance with 139.337(a).

4.7 FAA Assistance.

If there is a question on the implementation of any of the guidance in this section, contact the FAA Regional Airports Division for assistance.

4 Recommended survey protocols can be found in AC 150/5200-38, Protocol for the Conduct and Review of Wildlife Hazard Site Visits, Wildlife Hazard Assessments, and Wildlife Hazard Management Plans, and DeVault, T.L., B.F.

Blackwell, and J.L. Belant, eds. 2013. Wildlife in Airport Environments: Preventing Animal–Aircraft Collisions through Science-Based Management. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, USA. 181 pp. 3033
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
4-6

4.7.1 Airport Documentation Procedures.

Airports should document on-site and off-site wildlife attractants as part of their “Wildlife Hazard Management Plan Annual Review,” “Wildlife Hazard Management Plan Review Following a Triggering Event,” and the airport’s Continual Monitoring Annual Report (as outlined in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-38). As a best management practice, airports may choose to keep a log to track contacts from landowners or managers, permitting agencies, or other entities concerning land uses near the airport.
3034
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
A-1
APPENDIX A. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN THIS ADVISORY CIRCULAR A.1 General.

This appendix provides definitions of terms used throughout this AC.

1. Air operations area. Any area of an airport used or intended to be used for landing, takeoff, or surface maneuvering of aircraft. An air operations area includes such paved areas or unpaved areas that are used or intended to be used for the unobstructed movement of aircraft in addition to its associated runway, taxiways, or apron.

2. Airport operator. The operator (private or public) or sponsor of a public-use airport.

3. Approach or departure airspace. The airspace, within 5 statute miles of an airport, through which aircraft move during landing or takeoff.

4. Bird balls. High-density plastic floating balls that can be used to cover ponds and prevent birds from using the sites.

5. Certificate holder. The holder of an Airport Operating Certificate issued under 14 C.F.R. Part 139.

6. Construct a new municipal landfill. To begin to excavate, grade land, or raise structures to prepare a municipal solid waste landfill as permitted by the appropriate regulatory or permitting agency.

7. Detention ponds. Storm water management ponds that hold storm water for short periods of time, a few hours to a few days.

8. Establish a new municipal landfill. When the first load of putrescible waste is received on-site for placement in a prepared municipal solid waste landfill.

9. Fly ash. The fine, sand-like residue resulting from the complete incineration of an organic fuel source. Fly ash typically results from the combustion of coal or waste used to operate a power generating plant.

10. General aviation aircraft. Any civil aviation aircraft operating under 14 CFR Part

91. 11. Hazardous wildlife. Species of wildlife (birds, mammals, reptiles), including feral and domesticated animals, not under control that may pose a direct hazard to aviation (i.e., strike risk to aircraft) or an indirect hazard such as an attractant to other wildlife that pose a strike hazard or are causing structural damage to airport facilities (e.g., burrowing, nesting, perching).

12. Municipal Landfill. A publicly or privately owned discrete area of land or an excavation that receives household waste and that is not a land application unit, surface impoundment, injection well, or waste pile, as those terms are defined under 40 CFR § 257.2. A municipal landfill may receive other types wastes, such as commercial solid waste, non-hazardous sludge, small-quantity generator waste, and 3035
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
A-2
industrial solid waste, as defined under 40 CFR § 258.2. A municipal landfill can consist of either a stand-alone unit or several cells that receive household waste.

13. New municipal landfill. A municipal solid waste landfill that was established or constructed after April 5, 2001.

14. Piston-powered aircraft. Fixed-wing aircraft powered by piston engines.

15. Piston-use airport. Any airport that does not sell Jet-A fuel for fixed-wing turbinepowered aircraft, and primarily serves fixed-wing, piston-powered aircraft.

Incidental use of the airport by turbine-powered, fixed-wing aircraft would not affect this designation. However, such aircraft should not be based at the airport.

16. Public agency. A state or political subdivision of a state, a tax-supported organization, or an Indian tribe or pueblo (49 U.S.C. § 47102(19)).

17. Public airport. An airport used or intended to be used for public purposes that is under the control of a public agency; and of which the area used or intended to be used for landing, taking off, or surface maneuvering of aircraft is publicly owned (49 U.S.C. § 47102(20)).

18. Public-use airport. An airport used or intended to be used for public purposes where the area used or intended to be used for landing, taking off, or surface maneuvering of aircraft may be under the control of a public agency or privately owned and used for public purposes (49 U.S.C. § 47102(21)).

19. Putrescible waste. Solid waste that contains organic matter capable of being decomposed by micro-organisms and of such a character and proportion as to be capable of attracting or providing food for birds (40 CFR §257.3-8).

20. Putrescible-waste disposal operation. Landfills, garbage dumps, underwater waste discharges, or similar facilities where activities include processing, burying, storing, or otherwise disposing of putrescible material, trash, and refuse.

21. Retention ponds. Storm water management ponds that hold water for more than 48 hours.

22. Risk. Risk is the relationship between the severity and probability of a threat. It is the product of hazard level and abundance in the critical airspace, and is thus defined as the probability of a damaging strike with a given species.

23. Runway protection zone. An area off the runway end to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground (see AC 150/5300-13). The dimensions of this zone vary with the airport design, aircraft, type of operation, and visibility minimum.

24. Scheduled air carrier operation. Any common carriage passenger-carrying operation for compensation or hire conducted by an air carrier or commercial operator for which the air carrier, commercial operator, or their representative offers in advance the departure location, departure time, and arrival location. It does not include any operation that is conducted as a supplemental operation under 14 CFR Part 119 or as a public charter operation under 14 CFR Part 380 (14 CFR § 119.3). 3036
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
A-3

25. Sewage sludge. Any solid, semi-solid, or liquid residue generated during the treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works. Sewage sludge includes, but is not limited to, domestic septage; scum or solids removed in primary, secondary, or advanced wastewater treatment process; and a material derived from sewage sludge.

Sewage does not include ash generated during the firing of sewage sludge in a sewage sludge incinerator or grit and screenings generated during preliminary treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works. (40 CFR § 257.2)

26. Sludge. Any solid, semi-solid, or liquid waste generated form a municipal, commercial or industrial wastewater treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility or any other such waste having similar characteristics and effect. (40 CFR § 257.2).

27. Solid waste. Any garbage, refuse, sludge, from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant or air pollution control facility and other discarded material, including, solid liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community activities, but does not include solid or dissolved materials in domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved material in irrigation return flows or industrial discharges which are point sources subject to permits under section 402 of the Clean Water Act, or source, special nuclear, or by product material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.(40 CFR § 257.2).

28. Turbine-powered aircraft. Aircraft powered by turbine engines including turbojets and turboprops but excluding turbo-shaft rotary-wing aircraft.

29. Turbine-use airport. Any airport that sells fuel for fixed-wing turbine-powered aircraft.

30. Wastewater treatment facility. Any devices and/or systems used to store, treat, recycle, or reclaim municipal sewage or liquid industrial wastes, including publicly owned treatment works, as defined by Section 212 of the Clean Water Act. This definition includes any pretreatment involving the reduction of the amount of pollutants, the elimination of pollutants, or the alteration of the nature of pollutant properties in wastewater prior to or in lieu of discharging or otherwise introducing such pollutants into a publicly owned treatment system. (See 40 CFR § 403.3 (q), (r), & (s)).

31. Wildlife. Any wild animal, including without limitation any wild mammal, bird, reptile, fish, amphibian, mollusk, crustacean, arthropod, coelenterate, or other invertebrate, including any part, product, egg, or offspring thereof. 50 CFR § 10.12.

As used in this AC, wildlife includes feral animals and domestic animals out of the control of their owners (14 CFR Part 139, Certification of Airports).

32. Wildlife attractants. Any human-made structure, land-use practice, or humanmade or natural geographic feature that can attract or sustain hazardous wildlife within the landing or departure airspace or the airport’s aircraft operations area.

These attractants can include architectural features, landscaping, waste disposal sites, wastewater treatment facilities, agricultural or aquaculture activities, surface mining, or wetlands.
3037
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
A-4

33. Wildlife hazard. A potential for a damaging aircraft collision with wildlife on or near an airport.

34. Wildlife strike. A wildlife strike is deemed to have occurred when:
a. A strike between wildlife and aircraft has been witnessed; b. Evidence or damage from a strike has been identified on an aircraft; c. Bird or other wildlife remains, whether in whole or in part, are found:
i. Within 250 feet of a runway centerline or within 1,000 feet of a runway end unless another reason for the animal’s death is identified or suspected, unless another reason for the animal’s death is identified or; ii. On a taxiway or anywhere else on or off airport that there is reason to believe was the result of a strike with an aircraft.
d. The presence of birds or other wildlife on or off the airport had a significant negative effect on a flight (i.e., aborted takeoff, aborted landing, high-speed emergency stop, aircraft left pavement area to avoid collision with animal). 3038
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
B-1
APPENDIX B. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
B.1 Regulations
 14 CFR § 139.337, Wildlife Hazard Management
 40 CFR § 258, Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills B.2 Advisory Circulars
 AC 150/5200-32, Reporting Wildlife Aircraft Strikes
 AC 150/5200-33, Hazard Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports  AC 150/5200-34, Construction or Establishment of New Landfills Near Public Airports
 AC 150/5200-36, Qualifications for Wildlife Biologist Conducting Wildlife Hazard Assessments and Training Curriculums for Airport Personnel Involved in Controlling Wildlife Hazards on Airports
 AC 150/5200-38, Protocol for the Conduct and Review of Wildlife Hazard Site Visits, Wildlife Hazard Assessments, and Wildlife Hazard Management Plans  AC 150/5220-25, Airport Avian Radar Systems
 AC 150/5210-24, Airport Foreign Object Debris (FOD) Management B.3 Certification Alerts
 Certalert No. 97-09, Wildlife Hazard Management Plan Outline (11/17/1997)  Certalert No. 98-05, Grasses Attractive To Hazardous Wildlife (9/21/1998)  Certalert No. 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 (11/21/2006)
 Certalert No. 13-01, Federal and State Depredation Permit Assistance (1/30/2013)  Certalert No.14-01, Seasonal Mitigation of Hazardous Species at Airports:

Attention to Snowy Owls (2/26/2014)
 Certalert No. 16-03, Recommended Wildlife Exclusion Fencing (8/2016) 3039
2/21/2020 AC 150/5200-33C
B-2
B.4 Airport Cooperative Research Program Reports
These, and other wildlife / aviation reports, are available from the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies (TRB) at
http://www.trb.org/Publications/Publications.aspx.
 ACRP Research Report 198: Wetland Mitigation, Volume 2, A Guidebook for Airports (2019)
 ACRP Synthesis 92: Airport Waste Management and Recycling Practices (2018)  ACRP Research Report 174: Guidebook and Primer (2018)  ACRP Report 122: Innovative Airport Responses to Threatened / Endangered Species (2015)
 ACRP Report 125: Balancing Airport Stormwater and Bird Hazard Management (2015)
 ACRP Report 145: Applying an SMS Approach to Wildlife Hazard Management (2015)
 ACRP Synthesis 39 Report: Airport Wildlife Population Management (2013)  ACRP Synthesis 52 Report: Habitat Management to Deter Wildlife at Airports (2014)
 ACRP Synthesis 23 Report: Bird Harassment, Repellent, and Deterrent Techniques for Use on and Near Airports (2011)
 ACRP Report 32: Guidebook for Addressing Aircraft/Wildlife Hazards at General Aviation Airports (2010)
B.5 Manuals
 Wildlife Hazard Management at Airports - A Manual for Airport Personnel (2005) B.6 Orders
 50 CFR § 21.49, Control Order for Resident Canada Geese at Airports and Military Airfields
 50 CFR § 21.50, Depredation Order for Resident Canada Geese Nests and Eggs  50 CFR § 21.43, Depredation Order for Blackbirds, Cowbirds, Crows, Grackles, and Magpies
 50 CFR § 21.54, Control Order for Muscovy Ducks in the United States  50 CFR § 21.55, Control Order for Invasive Migratory Birds in Hawaii 3040
Advisory Circular Feedback
If you find an error in this AC, have recommendations for improving it, or have suggestions for new items/subjects to be added, you may let us know by (1) mailing this form to Manager, Airport Safety and Operations Division, Federal Aviation Administration ATTN: AAS-300, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington DC 20591 or (2) faxing it to the attention of AAS-300 at (202) 267-5257.

Subject: AC 150/5200-33C Date:

Please check all appropriate line items:
☐ An error (procedural or typographical) has been noted in paragraph on page .
☐ Recommend paragraph ______________ on page ______________ be changed as follows:
☐ In a future change to this AC, please cover the following subject:
(Briefly describe what you want added.)
☐ Other comments:
☐ I would like to discuss the above. Please contact me at (phone number, email address).

Submitted by: Date:
3041
Case Planner: Edmelynne V. Hutter Hearing Body Date Decision Action Planning Director
Approval:

DAB 1/4/2023 Approval Recommend
PC 1/24/2022 Final
Submittal Date: December 15, 2021 CC
FILE NO: PDEV21-047
SUBJECT: A public hearing to consider an Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and a Development Plan (File No. PDEV21- 047) to construct nine industrial buildings totaling 4,263,454 square feet and associated site improvements on 216.39 gross acres (196.83 net acres) of land generally located east of Haven Avenue, west of Doubleday and Dupont Avenues, north of Jurupa Street and south of Airport Drive, within the IL (Light Industrial) land use district of the California Commerce Center Specific Plan (APNs: 0211-222-47, 0211-222-48, 0211-222-52, 0211-222- 53, 0211-222-54, 0211-222-55, 0211-222-56, 0211-232-04, 0211-232-05, 0211-232-06, 0211- 232-07, 211-232-011, 0211-232-12, 0211-232-13, 0211-232-14, 0211-232-15, 0211-232-16, 0211-232-17, 0211-232-18, 0211-232-19, 0211-232-20, 0211-232-44, 0211-232-45, and 0211- 232-46); submitted by McDonald Property Group.

PROPERTY OWNER: Ontario International Airport Authority RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the Planning Commission consider and adopt the following:
(1) The resolution approving the use of an Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report; and
(2) The resolution approving the
Development Plan, File No. PDEV21-
047, pursuant to the facts and
reasons contained in the staff report
and resolution, and subject to the
conditions of approval appended
to the attached resolutions as
"Attachment A”.

PROJECT SETTING: The Project site is
comprised of 216.39 gross acres
(196.83 net acres) of land located
east of Haven Avenue, west of
Doubleday and Dupont Avenues,
303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764 Phone: 909.395.2036 / Fax: 909.395.2420

PLANNING COMMISSION

AGENDA REPORT
January 24, 2023
Figure 1: Project Location
3042
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023

Page 2 of 31 ends

north of Jurupa Street and south of Airport Drive, within the California Commerce Center Specific Plan (see Figure 1: Project Location). The existing site is comprised of 24 vacant lots with the following existing public streets traversing through the Project site: Carnegie Avenue, Commerce Center Parkway, Santa Ana Street, and La Salle Street. The Project site is located east of the Ontario International Airport runway and abuts the airport’s runway protection zone. The existing surrounding land uses, zoning, and Policy Plan (general plan) and specific plan land use designations are summarized in the "Surrounding Zoning & Land Uses" table located in the Technical Appendix of this report.

PROJECT ANALYSIS:
(1) Background — The California Commerce Center Specific Plan (“CCCSP”) was adopted in May 1983 and established the land use designations, development standards, and design guidelines on approximately 1,400 acres of land, and allows for various land uses such as industrial, office, and commercial. Over the years, multiple specific plan amendments have been adopted to modify specific plan requirements, including land use designations, roadway alignments, development intensities, and development standards.

Previous land use designations for the Project site were Light Industrial, Office, Airport Reservation and Commercial. Previous specific plan amendments have been adopted to reclassify the Project site parcels to the Light Industrial land use designation. Other specific plan amendments include revisions to reflect updated airport clear zone requirements and low employee intensity areas, in response to Ontario International Airport operations and safety requirements.

On January 27, 2010, the Ontario City Council certified The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report in conjunction with File No. PGPA06-001 (City Council Resolution No. 2010- 006). The Ontario Plan and associated Environmental Impact Report analyzed the Project site and established guidelines for development, including but not limited to general land use (Light Industrial), maximum 0.55 Floor Area Ratio (FAR), and assumed building area (approximately 4,736,449 square feet).

On August 16, 2022, the Ontario City Council certified The Ontario Plan 2050 Update Supplemental Environmental Impact Report in conjunction with File No. PGPA20-002 (City Council Resolution No. 2022-129). The Project site’s land use district remained unchanged as part of the Citywide updates.

On December 15, 2021, the Applicant, and their consultant, MIG Inc., submitted a Development Plan to facilitate the development of nine industrial buildings totaling 4,263,454 square feet on the Project site. The Applicant has also submitted Lot Line Adjustment applications to the Engineering Department requesting to realign property boundaries throughout the Project site to accommodate the proposed building layouts. 3043
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023

Page 3 of 31 ends

On January 4, 2023, the Development Advisory Board (“DAB”) voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Development Plan application to the Planning Commission.

Prior to the DAB meeting, 45 written public comments were received in opposition to the Project, citing concerns about Burrowing Owls and desire to use the property as a Burrowing Owl preserve. During the DAB meeting, four persons from the public spoke in opposition to the project, citing concerns about Burrowing Owls, air quality, and traffic. (2) Site Design/Building Layout — The Project site consists of nine vacant building sites encompassing 216.39 gross acres (196.83 net acres) of land located east of the Ontario International Airport runway and Haven Avenue. The overall floor area ratio (“FAR”) for the Project is 0.50, which complies with the maximum FAR of 0.55 under The Ontario Plan Policy Plan. The associated Lot Line Adjustment applications are currently under review by the Engineering Department. Project approval is contingent on City approval of the associated Lot Line Adjustment applications. The Project site is irregular in shape, with the existing streets dictating the orientation and size of the proposed buildings. For purposes of clarity in this report, the Project site can be portioned into three areas, the West Project Area, Central Project Area, and East Project Area (see Exhibit B, attached). (a) West Project Area. The West Project Area is bounded by Airport Drive, Carnegie Avenue, La Salle Avenue, Jurupa Street, and Haven Avenue. Buildings 1 through 4 are proposed in this portion, ranging from 254,677 square feet to 926,100 square feet in area.

The site for Building 1 is 23.6 acres in size, L-shaped, and is located at the southeast corner of Airport Drive and Haven Avenue. Building 1 is 850 feet wide and 480 feet deep, in an east-west orientation, with the primary office entrance oriented toward Airport Drive. The gross floor area for this building is 359,960 square feet, with a FAR of 0.35. The parking lots are located to the north and west of the building, and the screened truck docks and truck yard are located on the south side of the building.

The site for Building 2 is 40.6 acres in size and generally rectangular in shape, with the north property line flaring wider due to the curve of Airport Drive. Building 2 is 926,100 square feet in size, 2,211 feet wide, and 420 feet deep. The building is placed in a northsouth orientation and parallels Carnegie Avenue. The proposed FAR for this building is

0.52. The parking lots are primarily located on the east side of the building, along Carnegie Avenue. The truck yard is located on the west side of the building and screened from street view by the building and 14-foot-high screen walls with view-obstructing gates.

The site for Building 3 is at the northwest corner of Carnegie Avenue and La Salle Street, encompassing 25.4 acres of land, and generally is rectangular in shape with an additional triangular area near the southwest corner of the site. Building 3 is proposed at 547,395 square feet in size, is 560 feet wide, and 945 feet deep, with the primary office area facing Carnegie Avenue. The proposed FAR is 0.50. The passenger vehicle parking lots are located on the east and west sides of the building. The north side of the building 3044
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023

Page 4 of 31 ends

is designed with truck docks and trailer parking, while the south side of the building only has truck docks. The trailer parking is located in the rectangular area on the west and will be screened from street views by 14-foot-high screen walls with view-obstructing gates.

The 11.7-acre site for Building 4 is located at the southeast corner of La Salle Street and Haven Avenue, north of Jurupa Street. Building 4 is 1,062 feet wide and 280 feet deep, 254,677 square feet in area, and positioned in a north-south direction. The proposed FAR is 0.50. The primary office faces La Salle Street with parking lot areas on the north and south sides of the building. The truck yard and trailer parking are located on the east side of the building and is screened from street views by the building and screen walls with view-obstructing gates. The west side of the project site provides a 45-foot building setback, which will be fully landscaped to further enhance the street view of the west building elevation.
(b) Central Project Area. The Central Project Area is bounded by Commerce Parkway to the north and east, Carnegie Avenue to the north and west, and an existing industrial land use to the south. The north tip of the central portion is at the southwest corner of the Airport Drive and Carnegie Avenue intersection. Buildings 5 and 6 are proposed in this area, with building areas of 424,550 square feet and 491,110 square feet, respectively.

The site for Building 5 is 19.5 acres in area and located at the northwest corner of Commerce Parkway and Santa Ana Street. Building 5, proposed at 424,550 square feet, has a width of 1,134 feet and depth of 429 feet, and is oriented in a north-south direction, with the primary office located in the northwest corner of the building. The proposed FAR is 0.50. The main parking lot is located on the north end of the Project site, with a smaller parking lot south of the building. The fully screened truck yard with trailer parking is located on the east side, adjacent to Commerce Parkway.

The 20.6-acre site for Building 6 is located at the southwest corner of Santa Ana Street and Commerce Parkway. Building 6, which is 491,110 square feet in area, has dimensions of 1,296 feet wide and 429 feet deep, with the primary office entrance at the southeast corner of the building. The proposed FAR is 0.55. The parking lots are located on the north and south ends of the site, and the truck yard is located on the east side of the building, which is screened from street views by the building and 14-foot-high screen walls. The west elevation of the building is setback 35 feet from Carnegie Avenue, and landscaping will be installed within this setback area to enhance the building’s street view from Carnegie Avenue.
(c) East Project Area. The East Project Area is bounded by Doubleday Avenue to the east, Jurupa Street to the south, Commerce Way to the west, and existing industrial land use to the north. This eastern area is proposed with Buildings 7, 8, and 9, which range from 204,510 square feet to 534,292 square feet in area. The eastern portion is L-shaped, with Buildings 7 and 8 located between the parallel streets of Doubleday Avenue and 3045
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023

Page 5 of 31 ends

Commerce Parkway, and Building 9 is located along Jurupa Street, between Commerce Parkway and Dupont Avenue.

Building 7, with 204,510 square feet and a proposed FAR of 0.48, is located north of Santa Ana Street and is 643 feet wide by 369 feet deep. The site for Building 7 is 9.7 acres in area. The building is oriented in a north-south direction, with the primary office located at the northwest corner of the building. The passenger vehicle parking lots are located on the south and north sides of the building, and the truck yard is located on the east side, along Doubleday Avenue, and is fully screened from street views by the building and screen walls with view-obstructing gates.

The site for Building 8 is 24.1 acres in area and is located south of Santa Ana Street. The building is 534,292 square feet in area, measures 1,683 feet wide and 370 feet deep, and has a FAR of 0.51. Building 8 is situated in a north-south direction, with passenger vehicle parking lots located on the north and south sides on the building. The primary office is located at the southwest corner of the building. The truck yard and trailer parking are located on the east side of the site and are fully screened by 14-foot-high screen walls with view-obstructing gates.

Building 9 is located along Jurupa Street, between Dupont Avenue and Commerce Way, on 21.7 acres of land. The building is 520,860 square feet in area and has a FAR of 0.55.

The site layout provides parking lots on the east and west sides of the building. The truck yard is located on the north side of the building and is fully screened from street views by the building and 14-foot-high screen walls. The proposed primary office is placed at the southeast corner of the building, near the Dupont Avenue and Jurupa Street intersection. (3) Site Access/Circulation — The Project site will be accessible from existing public streets surrounding and traversing through the Project site, with each building site having at least three ingress/egress points for passenger vehicles and/or trucks. Where possible, shared drive approaches are provided for the building sites, which minimizes the number of drive approaches along any given street. As conditioned, reciprocal parking and circulation access will be available for building sites with shared access.

The Project includes public improvements such as new sidewalks, repair and replace deteriorated pavement, new landscaping, rehabilitated landscaping, and upgraded traffic signals with new cameras.
(4) Parking — The Project has provided off-street parking pursuant to the Warehouse/ Distribution parking standards specified in the Development Code. The number of offstreet parking spaces provided for each individual building site meets or exceeds the minimum parking requirement for the proposed buildings. The off-street parking calculations for the Project are summarized in the table below:
3046
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023

Page 6 of 31 ends

(5) Architecture — The industrial buildings are proposed in a Contemporary Architectural style. The proposed buildings will be of concrete tilt-up construction with a variety of wall finishes, including monochromatic color blocking, score patterns, inset reveals, and color banding (see Exhibit D: Elevations, attached). Accent materials such as metal awnings, metal canopies, and glazing are applied at the corners of the buildings where offices are proposed and where they are highly visible from public streets.

The proposed architecture also includes angled metal eaves at the office corners. These eaves extend beyond the wall planes to create additional dimension to the office elevations.

An additional and unique feature of the proposed design is the incorporation of translucent acrylic panels with internal lighting, which are strategically placed at the primary office entrance. The design proposes three colors (green/“Turtle”, orange/ Butternut” and blue/“Lago”), which will be strategically assigned to the nine buildings.

These panels are proposed to be 10 feet wide and reach the full height of the building.

When lit, the tower of acrylic panels will present a soft illumination that enhances each building and presents a themed Project-wide design.

The proposed floor plan for each building varies based on each site layout. The buildings are speculative and include basic floor plan components such as future office areas, electrical rooms, and truck docks. Exhibit C, attached, provides an example of a typical floor plan for the Project.
(6) Landscaping — The CCCSP does not specify a minimum landscape coverage percentage; however, developments within CCCSP area are required to provide landscaping within building setback areas, parking lots, and adjacent to buildings.

Parking Summary
Bldg.

No. Type of Use Building Area (in SF)
Trailer Parking Vehicle Spaces
Required Provided Required Provided
1 Warehouse / Distribution 359,960 13 305 190 276
2 Warehouse / Distribution 926,100 35 172 473 513
3 Warehouse / Distribution 547,395 24 131 284 284
4 Warehouse / Distribution 254,677 13 14 137 138
5 Warehouse / Distribution 424,550 15 33 222 343
6 Warehouse / Distribution 491,110 18 59 256 256
7 Warehouse / Distribution 204,510 7 28 112 112
8 Warehouse / Distribution 534,292 24 86 277 277
9 Warehouse / Distribution 520,860 16 64 270 270
Parking Totals: 4,263,454 165 892 2,221 2,469
3047
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023

Page 7 of 31 ends

The street rights-of-way abutting the Project site are currently partially landscaped with shrubs and trees. As proposed and conditioned, the applicant will prepare a landscape plan for plan check that proposes new landscaping, landscape rehabilitation, and protection of existing street trees to the greatest extent possible.

The Project provides substantial landscaping along the perimeters of the Project site and within the required building and parking lot setbacks. The Project also includes right-ofway improvements (street, curb, gutter, sidewalks, and parkway) along the surrounding streets. A typical landscape plan is provided in Exhibit E, attached, showing plant species and planning layout. The proposed on-site and off-site landscape improvements will assist toward creating a walkable, safe area for pedestrians to access the Project site. (7) Signage — All Project signage is required to comply with sign regulations provided in Ontario Development Code Division 8.1. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the installation of any new on-site signage, the Applicant is required to submit Sign Plans for Planning Department review and approval.
(8) ONT ALUCP — This project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport (“ONT”) and was evaluated and found to be consistent with the policies and criteria of the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (“ONT ALUCP”). The Project site is located adjacent to and east of the ONT runways and is impacted by height restrictions, Safety Zone 2 (Inner Approach/Departure Zone) and Safety Zone 3 (Inner Turning Zone), as shown in Exhibit G, attached. The allowable building heights range from 30 to 130 feet across the site from west to east. As a result, the project was required to submit their project to FAA for review and received a “Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation” for all proposed building/structure heights. The project land uses were also restricted only permitting low people intensity uses such as warehouse distribution centers. Special conditions of approval have been placed on the project to conform with OIAA, FAA and City standards, and are attached to this report. Additionally, the project has been conditioned to limit the height of trees to be less than the FAR Part 77 height limits.
(9) 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 underground stormwater drywells in detention areas. 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 3048
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023

Page 8 of 31 ends

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 AND PUBLIC COMMENTS: As of the preparation of this report, Planning Department staff received 48 public comment submissions (see Exhibit H, attached). Of the 48, 45 comments were submitted prior to the Development Advisory Board (“DAB”) meeting on January 4, 2023, including two submissions from one individual, and three comments were received after the DAB meeting. The comments were in opposition to the project and the majority of the correspondence were regarding concerns for Burrowing Owls on the Project site, stating that the Project site should be used for a Burrowing Owl preserve, there is higher mortality for translocated owls, potential loss of biodiversity with the removal of the owls, and the identified mitigation has failed in previous efforts. One comment discussed the timing of the DAB Agenda Report publication coinciding with the holidays and encouraged postponing the decision to allow more time to consider the project and information. Another comment stated concern about air quality and potential pollution generated by the Project.

The public comments provided during the DAB meeting were consistent with the written comments received.

The Applicant has prepared responses to the written correspondence and public comments received (see Exhibits I and J, attached). In summary, staff concurs with the responses in that:
• TOP 2050 SEIR and proposed Addendum to the SEIR, along with supporting technical studies, provide substantial evidence that the Project will not have any new or more significant impacts than those previously identified in the TOP 2050 SEIR.
• The presence of Burrowing Owls creates a hazard for airport operations. The Relocation Plan prepared for the Project is appropriate and consistent with the TOP 2050 policies.
• According to the Helix Environmental / Kidd Biological, Inc. 2020 report, mitigation options such as “in situ”, or conserving owls on the Project site, and eviction of the owls are not supported by California Department of Fish and Wildlife Headquarters, the Federal Aviation Administration, and U.S. Department of Agriculture – Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. The report concluded that the best approach for owl mitigation is active relocation. • Impacts on air quality have been addressed in the TOP 2050 SEIR and a Statement of Overriding Consideration has been issued regarding air quality impacts.

In addition, Ontario International Airport Administration office submitted a letter to the City dated January 18, 2023, (see Exhibit K, attached) providing background information regarding Burrowing Owls located on Airport properties. In summary, the letter states that the FAA-approved Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (“WHMP”) identifies that Burrowing Owls are a wildlife hazard to Airport operations and must be abated. The letter also states 3049
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023

Page 9 of 31 ends

that creating a Burrowing Owl preserve on the Project site is inconsistent with the WHMP and therefore not feasible.

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 Decision preparation, recommended conditions of approval were provided and are appended to the attached Resolution as "Attachment B."
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 decision-making body for the Project, the Planning Commission Board 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.

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.
 Invest in the Growth and Evolution of the City's Economy  Maintain the Current High Level of Public Safety
 Operate in a Businesslike Manner
 Invest in the City's Infrastructure (Water, Streets, Sewers, Parks, Storm Drains and Public Facilities)
(2) Vision.
3050
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023

Page 10 of 31 ends

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:
 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.

Community Economics Element:
 Goal CE-1 Complete Community: A complete community that provides for all incomes and stages of life.
3051
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023

Page 11 of 31 ends

 CE-1.6 Diversity of Housing. We collaborate with residents, housing providers, and the development community to provide housing opportunities for every 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. 3052
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023

Page 12 of 31 ends

 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 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-2.5 Streetscapes. We design new and, when necessary, retrofit existing streets to improve walkability, bicycling and transit integration, strengthen connectivity, and enhance community identity through improvements to the public right-of-way such as sidewalks, street trees, parkways, curbs, street lighting and street furniture.  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, 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.
3053
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023

Page 13 of 31 ends

 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-2.11 Entry Statements. We encourage the inclusion of amenities, signage, and landscaping at the entry to neighborhoods, commercial centers, mixed use areas, industrial developments, and public places that reinforce them as uniquely identifiable places.
 CD-2.12 Site and Building Signage. We encourage the use of sign programs that utilize complementary materials, colors, and themes. Project signage should be designed to effectively communicate and direct users to various aspects of the development and complement the character of the structures.  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-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 Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA") and 3054
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023

Page 14 of 31 ends

an Initial Study/Addendum has been prepared to determine possible environmental impacts. Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Certified EIR, and have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Certified EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed project, nothing further is required. The Project will introduce no new significant environmental impacts beyond those previously analyzed in the Certified EIR, and all mitigation measures previously adopted by the Environmental Impact Report, are a condition of project approval and are incorporated in the Initial Study/Addendum (see Attachment A—Initial Study/Addendum to the related resolution). 3055
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023

Page 15 of 31 ends

TECHNICAL APPENDIX:

Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:

Existing
Land Use
Policy Plan
Designation
Zoning
Designation
Specific Plan
Land Use
Site Vacant Industrial California Commerce
Center Specific Plan Light Industrial
North Light Industrial Industrial California Commerce
Center Specific Plan Rail Industrial
South Light Industrial Industrial California Commerce
Center Specific Plan Rail Industrial
East Light Industrial, Well Site Industrial California Commerce Center Specific Plan
Light Industrial, Rail
Industrial
West Airport Airport, Industrial
Ontario International
Airport, United Parcel
Service Specific Plan
Airport
General Site & Building Statistics
Item Proposed Min./Max. Standard Meets
Y/N
Project Area: 216.39 gross acres
(196.83 net acres) 1 acre (Min.) Y
Lot/Parcel Size: 9.71 acres to 40.64 acres 1 acre (Min.) Y Building Area: 204,510 SF to 926,100 SF N/A Y
Floor Area Ratio:

0.35 to 0.55
Overall: 0.50

0.55 (Max.) Y
Building Height: 48 FT 55 FT (Max.)
Subject to ALUCP Y
3056
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023

Page 16 of 31 ends

Exhibit A: PROJECT LOCATION MAP
3057
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023

Page 17 of 31 ends

Exhibit B: SITE PLAN
West Project Area
Central Project Area
East Project Area
3058
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023

Page 18 of 31 ends

Exhibit C: FLOOR PLAN
Floor Plan Example
3059
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023

Page 19 of 31 ends

Exhibit D: EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
Building 1
Building 2
3060
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023

Page 20 of 31 ends

Building 3
Building 4
3061
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023

Page 21 of 31 ends

Building 5
Building 6
3062
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023

Page 22 of 31 ends

Building 7
Building 8
3063
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023

Page 23 of 31 ends

Building 9
Proposed Building Materials
3064
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023

Page 24 of 31 ends

Architectural Rendering – Daytime View
Architectural Rendering – Evening View
3065
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023

Page 25 of 31 ends

Exhibit E: TYPICAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
3066
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023

Page 26 of 31 ends

Exhibit F: SITE PHOTOS
Photo Key Map
3067
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023

Page 27 of 31 ends

3068
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023

Page 28 of 31 ends

3069
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023

Page 29 of 31 ends

3070
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023

Page 30 of 31 ends

3071
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023

Page 31 of 31 ends

Exhibit G: ONT SAFETY ZONES
3072
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023
Exhibit H: PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED
(Exhibit follows this page)
3073
January 4, 2023

CITY OF ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
1/4/23
Re: Agenda Item B at the January 4, 2023
Development Advisory Board Meeting
Agenda Item B Summary: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW FOR FILE NO. PDEV21-047: A public hearing to consider a Development Plan (File No.

PDEV21-047) to construct nine industrial buildings totaling 4,263,454 square feet and associated site improvements on 197.74 acres of land generally located east of Haven Avenue, west of Doubleday and Dupont Avenues, north of Jurupa Street and south of Airport Drive, within the IL (Light Industrial) land use district of the California Commerce Center Specific Plan. An Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364), which was certified by the City Council on August 16, 2022, was prepared. This application introduces no new significant environmental impacts. The proposed project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport and was evaluated and found to be consistent with the policies and criteria of the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan; (APNs: 0211-222-47, 0211-222-48, 0211-222-52, 0211-222-53, 0211-222-54, 0211-222-55, 0211-222-56, 0211-232-04, 0211-232-05, 0211-232-06, 0211- 232-07, 211-232-011, 0211-232-12, 0211-232-13, 0211-232-14, 0211-232-15, 0211-232-16, 0211-232- 17, 0211-232-18, 0211-232-19, 0211-232-20, 0211-232-44, 0211-232-45, and 0211-232-46) submitted by McDonald Property Group. Planning Commission action is required. 1. CEQA Determination Motion to recommend Approval / Denial of an Addendum to a previously approved EIR 2. File No. PDEV21-047 (Development Plan) Motion to recommend Approval/Denial
3074
2 Dear City of Ontario Development Advisory Board:

We write to oppose the Development Plan (File No. PDEV21-047) to construct nine industrial buildings totaling 4,263,454 square feet and associated site improvements on 197.74 acres of land generally located east of Haven Avenue, west of Doubleday and Dupont Avenues, north of Jurupa Street and south of Airport Drive, within the IL (Light Industrial) land use district of the California Commerce Center Specific Plan.

First, we oppose the use of a CEQA Determination Motion to streamline this project’s approval process.

The proposed land uses are environmentally detrimental and introduce significant environmental impacts.

To avoid creating an individualized EIR in this case—especially due to the wholesale habitat destruction of the increasingly rare burrowing owl community—is arguable in court. Burrowing owl considerations were not adequately addressed in TOP 2050, as well as within the documents associated with this agenda item. In addition, since TOP 2050, new data have come forward through the recently released and updated Warehouse CITY tool, which allows municipalities to calculate their cumulative warehouse impact.

Case law supports countering a city's ability to utilize a CEQA Determination Motion in certain cases. In Friends of the East Sacramento Grid v. City of Sacramento (2017), the court found that the city's approval of an addendum to a previously approved EIR was improper because the addendum did not adequately address the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The court stated that "the addendum must address new information that was not considered in the original EIR and must explain why the new information does not require any changes to the EIR's conclusions or mitigation measures." Additional environmental case law counters a city's ability to utilize a CEQA Determination Motion, including but not limited to:

1. Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2002): In this case, the California Court of Appeals ruled that the city of West Hollywood violated CEQA when it failed to consider the impacts of a proposed development on a historic site. The court held that the city's reliance on a CEQA Determination Motion to approve the project was not sufficient, as the motion did not adequately address the potential impacts on the historic site.

2. Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy v. City of Malibu (2000): In this case, the California Court of Appeals ruled that the city of Malibu violated CEQA when it approved a development project without adequately analyzing the potential impacts on the environment. The court held that the city's reliance on a CEQA Determination Motion to approve the project was not sufficient, as the motion did not adequately address the potential environmental impacts.

3. Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency (1999): In this case, the California Court of Appeals ruled that the Sonoma County Water Agency violated CEQA when it approved a water project without adequately analyzing the potential impacts on the environment. The court held that the agency's reliance on a CEQA Determination Motion to approve the project was not sufficient, as the motion did not adequately address the potential environmental impacts.

In this case, the use of a CEQA Determination Motion is subject to legal challenge because the addendum to the TOP 2050 does not adequately address the potential environmental impacts. This includes lack of substantive analysis regarding environmental impacts, and the interrelationship between cumulative impact and the incremental impact of the project—issues that were already weak within Ontario’s TOP 2050 and to which some of the signatories objected to at that time. In addition are erroneous conclusions 3075
3 regarding the FAA’s stance on the burrowing owl and legitimacy of considering burrowing owl habitat conservation within the Ontario Airport Sphere of Influence, which we outline below.

We also hereby incorporate previous opposition letters to TOP 2050. Opposition letters to a previously approved general plan may be used to oppose a land use plan in which a CEQA Determination motion is used. In the case of Friends of the Eel River v. North Coast Railroad Authority (2005), the court considered opposition letters and other evidence submitted by environmental groups who were challenging a land use plan that included the construction of a railroad. The court found that the opposition letters and other evidence were relevant and could be considered in determining whether the land use plan complied with CEQA.

In addition, loss of Burrowing Owl Habitat and Warehouses can be considered CEQA Topics of Controversy, which limits a city’s ability to utilize a CEQA Determination Motion.

Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a "topic of controversy" is defined as an issue that has been the subject of public disagreement or debate. This might include issues related to the environmental impacts of a proposed project, or the need for the project in the first place.

This land use decision involves two topics of controversy within the City of Ontario. The first is the eviction of burrowing owls and destruction of their historic habitat, which has been debated for years and which has included media coverage, litigation, and promised mitigation. The second is continued warehouse construction in Ontario, which has been the subject of recent controversy, lawsuits, and media coverage.

CEQA Determination Motions are used by public agencies to determine whether a project is exempt from CEQA review, or if an environmental impact report (EIR) is required. If a topic of controversy exists regarding a proposed project, this can counter the use of a CEQA Determination Motion.

For example, if a public agency is considering a proposed project that would have significant environmental impacts—in this case the building of a warehouse, generation of additional pollution and GHGs, and loss of habitat for a sensitive species—and there is significant public disagreement or debate over whether the project should be allowed to proceed, it can be considered a topic of controversy. In this case, the use of a CEQA Determination Motion to exempt the project from CEQA review is inappropriate because the topic of controversy requires public input and further environmental analysis and consideration through the CEQA process.

Piggy backing specific land use decisions on a general plan update such as TOP 2050 can also limit the ability of elected officials to make decisions on individual land use issues. The general plan may be adopted by a city council or planning commission, but individual land use decisions may be made by a different body or process. This can lead to a disconnect between the overall vision and goals of the general plan and the specific land use decisions being made, potentially undermining democratic involvement in the decision-making process.

In addition, the idea that an EIR is unnecessary due to the passage of TOP 2050 does not support the democratic spirit of municipal decision-making in which public voice is considered. TOP 2050 was an overwhelming process that took place when the Ontario residents were also embroiled in the historic redistricting process. The use of a CEQA determination can compromise democratic involvement in municipal decision making in a few ways. First, it may not allow for adequate public input and participation. The general plan update process may not be as well-publicized as a standalone land use decision, leading to less public awareness and engagement—and certainly less engagement in a decision based on over 3000 pages of materials made public at one of the busiest times of the year—and released 3076
4 on a federal holiday (Jan 1, with many offices closed on Jan 2) when people are most distracted. This left even less time than the three days typically accorded for review in the City of Ontario. Additionally, the approval process approached in this way will not provide the same opportunities for public comment and participation as a standalone land use decision.

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.

We recommend that the DAB not forward this to the Planning Commission without insisting that appropriate environmental review and associated public comment process are adopted, and that feasible alternatives, including alternative project plans, are considered.

The “policy of the state” reflected in the California Environmental Quality Act is that projects with significant environmental impacts may not be approved “if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects . . .” (Pub. Resources Code § 21002.) More specifically, CEQA states:

Pursuant to the policy stated in Sections 21002 and 21002.1, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out
unless …:
(a). . . (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations . . . make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. (Pub. Resources Code § 21081.)
It is settled law that:

CEQA contains substantive provisions with which agencies must comply. The most important ... is the provision requiring agencies to deny approval of a project with significant adverse effects when feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures can substantially lessen such effects.
(Sierra Club v. Gilroy City Council (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 30, 41, italics added.) Indeed, in a case decided on July 7, 2006, a court analyzed the “substantive mandate” of CEQA, then set aside a college campus master plan project because there was not substantial evidence to support a college district’s findings of economic and legal infeasibility of mitigation. (County of San Diego v. Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College (2006) –Cal. App.--, slip opinion, pp. 18-29.) “Feasible” is defined as “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (Pub. Resources Code § 21061.1.) The definition does not require the agreement of the project applicant. “Each public agency shall mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment of projects that it carries out or approves whenever it is feasible to do so.” (Lincoln Place Tenants Ass'n v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1491, 1508, emphasis added.)

This project has impacts that can and must be mitigated due to burrowing owl habitat destruction, GHG emissions, emission of pollutants, and increased truck traffic. These are inappropriately labeled as 3077
5 unavoidable, but they in fact may be avoided by properly adopting mitigation measures and alternatives to the existing plan.

Given the points above, we call for this item to be halted until the DAB can guarantee the City’s ability to take into account community voice, conduct environmental impact review of loss of habitat and plans for mitigation, and consider significant harms to communities that reside in proximity of the project.

Burrowing Owls were once numerous in Ontario and Chino but due to widespread development that did not protect biological resources, the owls are fast disappearing. We need action now to protect Burrowing Owl habitat and allow these little birds to continue to live on in Ontario as they have for hundreds of years. The presence of a thriving population of Burrowing Owls in Ontario is a biological asset for the community and a chance for children and all of us to see the owls close by in their native habitat. The people of Ontario need protection for their native species, not more warehouses. Wouldn’t it be better if Ontario children could tell the story of how their city protected this vulnerable species? 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 important 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, interactive 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 Aiport’s plan for greening and electrification.

Some counterbalance to the overwhelming focus on industrial development is needed if the city plans to live up to its carbon and green promises in the TOP 2050, its prior promises of Burrowing Owl mitigation, its motto of a balanced city, and to prepare itself for a climate-compromised future. You simply can’t have it both ways. Preservation of burrowing owl habitat would do wonders for Ontario’s reputation as a green city. Destruction of habitat would simply further Ontario’s reputation as being hungry for warehouses at all costs.

Cumulative Impact—Air Quality and Habitat Loss
According to the Ontario International Airport's 2019 Environmental Management Plan, the airport generated approximately 79,000 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions from cargo and passenger aircraft in 2018. This accounted for approximately 76% of the airport's total greenhouse gas emissions for that year. The majority of these emissions were from jet fuel consumption during aircraft takeoff and landing operations. The airport plans to implement various initiatives to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, including the use of alternative fuels, electrification, and the implementation of energyefficient technologies. However, the significant increase in air travel in recent years has led to an overall increase in greenhouse gas emissions from the airport (Ontario International Airport, 2019).

According to the Ontario International Airport Expansion Project Environmental Impact Report, the expansion of logistics operations at the airport is expected to result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions of approximately 36,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. This increase is primarily due to increased air traffic and vehicle activity associated with the expansion, as well as the energy consumption of the expanded facilities. The EIR states that these emissions will be offset through the implementation of various mitigation measures, including the use of renewable energy sources and the implementation of energy efficiency measures (Ontario International Airport Expansion Project Environmental Impact Report, 2018). Despite efforts to green the Airport, flights will continue to be dirty, thus expanding GHG heavy infrastructure into the future. 3078
6 According to researchers such as B. O'Neill and L. Bunting, industrial warehouses contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions and are a major contributor to climate change. The transportation of goods to and from warehouses requires a significant amount of energy, resulting in high levels of pollution and negative impacts on environmental and human health.

We request that the City of Ontario consider both the cumulative impact of all Ontario warehouses and their relationship to the incremental impact of the project, as outlined below, and as per CEQA requirements, in the most robust way possible.

In general, Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have not sufficiently analyzed the cumulative impacts that continued industrial development have on the health of Inland residents. The IE has been and continues to remain on the EPA’s Nonattainment status for air quality (PM and Ozone). Municipal leaders choose to allow developers to perpetuate the nonattainment status despite the rules of the Clean Air Act 42U.S.C 7401 et seq, which requires them to mitigate projects to achieve attainment status. Developers have chosen to ignore the cumulative impacts of all warehouses in the region. Developers and municipal leaders accept language of “significant and unavoidable impacts,” with little regard for alternative plans. Instead, they focus on the incremental impact a specific project has towards increasing “severe and extreme” nonattainment status or increased cancer risk. In other words, because our air quality is already in the worst possible condition, a little more won’t hurt.

According to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15355, projects must analyze cumulative impacts at a broader scale, in addition to individual impacts—in other words, they must consider the result of past, present, and future projects. This project and TOP 2050 have failed to consider the cumulative pollution burden of past, current, and future projects and the inequitable zoning that has resulted in historical conditions of environmental injustice. Garcia et. al. conclude that, when viewed together with past, current, and future projects, “a project’s contribution may be individually and incrementally insignificant but would make a considerable contribution to the overall cumulative impact and be cumulatively significant when combined with existing conditions. The existing, often hazardous, environmental conditions in DACs must be taken into account when evaluating cumulative pollution burden impacts.”
The focus on industrial development has also led to cumulative habitat loss within the City of Ontario for burrowing owls. Industrial development also often comes at the expense of other types of development, such as affordable housing or green spaces, leading to negative impacts on the overall livability of a city.

According to SCAG's recent Economic Analysis, continued investment in logistics in the Inland Empire may not be good for the economy because it can lead to a reliance on low-wage, low-skill jobs and a lack of diversification in the economy. Logistics jobs tend to be lower paying and have less room for advancement compared to other industries, which can lead to a stagnant or declining wage growth for workers. Additionally, reliance on logistics can make the region vulnerable to economic downturns or shifts in global trade patterns, as the Inland Empire is heavily dependent on the logistics industry.

Diversifying the economy and investing in other industries can help to create more sustainable, higher paying jobs and reduce the risk of economic instability.

The global supply chain is becoming increasingly unstable due to factors such as trade tensions and natural disasters, leading to uncertainty and risk for investors in industrial warehouses. Authors such as J.

Glaser and J. Rabin have argued that the proliferation of industrial warehouses in cities has negative consequences for local communities. These warehouses often bring with them noise and air pollution, as well as traffic congestion, which can disrupt the quality of life for residents. Right now, due to problems at the Ports of LA and Long Beach, goods are being increasingly re-routed to East Coast or Gulf Coast 3079
7 ports. The current and future precarity of global logistics does not justify building more warehouses in Ontario; in fact, the opposite is true. Alternative plans must be considered.

Importance of Biodiversity for Local Municipalities
Biodiversity helps to maintain the integrity and stability of ecosystems. Different species interact with one another in complex ways, and the loss of one species can affect the populations of other species. There is a growing body of evidence that suggests that maintaining biodiversity is important for local municipalities. For example, a study by Daily et al. (1997) found that areas with high levels of biodiversity had more stable and productive ecosystems, which provided a range of benefits to local communities. Another study by Balmford et al. (2002) found that the loss of biodiversity was associated with a decline in the provision of ecosystem services, such as the regulation of water quality and the control of pests and diseases.

There is intrinsic value for a municipality to maintain a species such as the burrowing owl nearing endangered status. The burrowing owl is an excellent animal protagonist that is well known across the country. The reputation of the City of Ontario is at risk if its leaders choose to green light yet another warehouse—far from an endangered species in this neck of the woods—instead of doing all it can to protect this cute, puffy feathered, vulnerable, unique creature and longtime friend to Ontario schoolchildren.

Burrowing owls are a sensitive species that are at risk of extinction due to habitat loss and human disturbance (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2020). Protecting this species is important for maintaining biodiversity and the overall health of the ecosystem. The benefits of having burrowing owls on airport land include their role as natural pest controllers and their potential to attract ecotourism.

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, there are currently 12 airports in the United States that have implemented burrowing owl habitat conservation programs (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2020).

These programs aim to protect and enhance the habitat of the burrowing owl, a species that is classified as threatened in some states and endangered in others (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2020).

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) does not list the burrowing owl as a species that poses a 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 (Federal Aviation Administration, 2019). This program provides guidance and resources for airport operators to develop and implement effective wildlife 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 importance 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/airport safety/wildlife/ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2020), and Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). Retrieved https://www.fws.gov/southeast/wildlife/bird/burrowingowl/).

There are at least four significant negative effects on the environment that will be caused by and not mitigated by the current plan.

The Ontario Plan mitigation for Burrowing Owls has not been successful and is not an approach to be used for the owls east of Haven Avenue. The Ontario Plan mitigation started around 2007. From 2007 on, the City of Ontario collected fees from developers to mitigate the loss of large sections of habitat. The idea was that the funds would be used to purchase mitigation land. 3080
8 The City has a mitigation program in place to compensate for BUOW impacts in the former Annexation Area 163. This property would contribute substantially success of that program. None of the money that the City has collected in mitigation fees has been spent for Burrowing Owl mitigation. It is particularly troubling that this project to destroy further habitat is being done based on similar promises that have had so many years for lack of follow through.

Two, another significant negative effect of translocating owls to sites far from their native land is the loss of distinct biodiversity. Kelly Barr, Kristin Ruegg and others have found genetically distinct populations of Burrowing Owls that are a distance apart even within California (Alvarado, Bossu et al., 2022).

Translocating owls 30 to 40 miles from their natal site risks mixing the distinct groups. Possible advantages of the genetic differences that might increase survivability in a particular location would be lost to the owls.

Three, Burrowing Owls need to have other sites nearby within the usual range of juvenile dispersion (from .5 to 13 miles) so young adult owls can avoid inbreeding (Rosenberg, Gervais, & Trulio, 2007).

The East of Haven Ontario Burrowing Owls are an average of 7 to 8 miles from several Burrowing Owl nesting sites in the Chino area. Thus, the Airport area owls make it possible for a healthy exchange of young adults finding mates between the two sites. Loss of the East of Haven site could seriously undermine the viability of what are now healthy populations of Burrowing Owls in Chino, contributing to the loss of all Burrowing Owls from the Pomona Valley.

Four, mitigation translocation for burrowing owls is an option that suits the preferences of land developers, but it does not provide a superior life for the owls. In fact, owls that are translocated from their home habitat are subject to higher mortality than those who are protected on site or nearby (Hennessey et al., 2022). The removal of all the OIA owls will be a significant blow to the possibility of success of owls in the area.

Contrary to the conclusion of the analysis of the DAB decision, the project will have a significant negative effect on Burrowing Owls, a state species of special concern.

In fact, Helix Environmental’s Biological Resources report also states that leaving Burrowing Owls on site is the best option for the owls. Unfortunately, the report goes on to reject that option for invalid reasons such as the mistaken notion that Burrowing Owls are a hazard to aviation.

Contrary to the 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 birdstrike data, there were 21 reports of airstrikes involving these owls at OIA since 2008. Eight turned out to be other wildlife 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 were 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 program, something that all airports need to have in place, whether or not they have Burrowing Owls near their property. Many other airports protect plans 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 3081
9 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, then owl mitigation can be done on the boot property.

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. Please also consider whether this is the time to continue to expand warehouse infrastructure, as it is encroaching nearer to residential communities at a time when we have very little or no time to reverse the negative effects of climate change, rather than enhance them, as this plan is doing. Do this for our children, grandchildren, schoolchildren, and all the residents of Ontario who care about their environment and who want to make Ontario the special place we all know it can be.

Sincerely,
Susan A. Phillips, Director
Robert Redford Conservancy for Southern California Sustainability Professor of Environmental Analysis, Pitzer College
Brian Elliott, Conservation Director
Pomona Valley Audubon Society
Dan Silver, Executive Director
Endangered Habitats League
Claire Schlotterbeck, Executive Director
Hills For Everyone
Kim Floyd, Conservation Chair
Sierra Club San Gorgonio Chapter
Susan Sheakley, Chair, Conservation Committee
Sea and Sage Audubon Society
Ana Gonzalez
Executive Director, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice Cynthia Robin Smith, Chair
Diamond Bar - Pomona Valley Sierra Club Task Force, Angeles Chapter Randy Bekendam, Executive Director
Southern California Agricultural Land Foundation
Lois Sicking Dieter
Inland Valley Advocates for the Environment
Anthony J. Noriega
Director, District 5 League of United Latin American Citizens LULAC de Inland Empire
3082
From: Ana Rodriguez
To: Planning Director
Subject: Fwd: Agenda item: For Agenda Item B at the January 4, 2023 Development Advisory Board Meeting Date: Tuesday, January 3, 2023 5:45:51 PM
To the Ontario Development Advisory Board,
Burrowing Owls were once numerous in Ontario and Chino but have been driven out of the area due to widespread development that did not protect them. We need to protect the remaining land where the owls nest and raise their young.

There are at least four significant negative environmental effects of the proposed plan that have not been considered or mitigated for. These are: using a mitigation plan for Burrowing Owls that has already failed and will result in high mortality, loss of distinct biodiversity for the translocated owls, damaging effects on Chino Burrowing Owls, and overall higher mortality of translocated owls. Contrary to the proposed Development Advisory Board decision, the project will have a significant negative effect on Burrowing Owls, a state species of special concern.

The land that OIAA owns east of Haven Avenue is a primary nesting site for the owls. Please do not destroy it so more warehouses can be added to Ontario! A 90-acre Burrowing Owl preserve on the site that is properly endowed and well-managed will help keep the remaining Ontario owls safe so they can continue to live in their native habitat. Schoolchildren, families, and all of us can enjoy having the owls nearby to study and enjoy.

Sincerely,
Ana Rodriguez
3083
From: Barbara Barton
To: Planning Director
Subject: Agenda item: For Agenda Item B at the January 4, 2023 Development Advisory Board Meeting. PUBLIC

COMMENTS FROM FRIENDS OF THE BUOWS
Date: Tuesday, January 3, 2023 5:42:53 PM
To the Ontario Development Advisory Board,
Burrowing Owls were once numerous in Ontario and Chino but have been driven out of the area due to widespread development that did not protect them. We need to protect the remaining land where the owls nest and raise their young.

Barbara A. Barton
Sent from my iPad
3084
January 3, 2023
Sent via email
Development Advisory Board, [email protected] Rudy Zeledon, Chairman, Planning Department, [email protected] James Caro, Building Department, [email protected]
Elda Zavala, Community Improvement, [email protected] Charity Hernandez, Economic Development Agency, [email protected] Khoi Do, Engineering Department, [email protected]
Paul Ehrman, Fire Department, [email protected]
Christy Stevens, Municipal Utilities Company, [email protected] Tony Galban, Police Department, [email protected]
Re: Development Plan (File No. PDEV21-047) - Agenda Item B Dear Development Advisory Board:

These comments are submitted on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity (the “Center”) regarding the City of Ontario Development Advisory Board’s January 4, 2023 consideration of Development Plan (File No. PDEV21-047) (“Project”) to construct nine industrial buildings totaling 4,263,454 square feet and associated site improvements on 197.74 acres. As explained in greater detail below, there is substantial evidence indicating that the Project will have additional or more severe environmental effects on burrowing owls, air quality, cumulative impacts, and other adverse effects, than were analyzed in the City’s 2050 Ontario General Plan. There also is substantial evidence that the Project will require additional or different alternatives or mitigation measures than were specifically analyzed and included in the 2022 Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR). Moreover, there is no substantial evidence to support the City’s contrary conclusions. Thus, the City is required to prepare a project-specific subsequent environmental impact report (EIR) that analyzes the sitespecific effects of the Project in detail and includes additional alternatives to and mitigation measures for this project
The Center is a non-profit, public interest environmental organization dedicated to the protection of native species and their habitats through science, policy, and environmental law.

The Center has over 1.7 million members and online activists throughout California and the United States. The Center has worked for many years to protect imperiled plants and wildlife, open space, air and water quality, and overall quality of life for people in the City of Ontario and San Bernardino County.
3085
January 3, 2023

Page 2 ends

Ontario City CouncilMarch 21, 2023

Ontario City Council
March 21, 2023