Ontario City Council
March 21, 2023

Buildings 1 and 4. The general location of the site is illustrated on the Site Location Map, included as Plate 1 of this report.

The overall site is an irregularly-shaped area that is comprised of numerous contiguous parcels totaling 197.08± acres. The overall site is currently vacant and undeveloped. Our review of historical aerial photographs indicates that the parcels may have been previously subdivided as agricultural lots. The overall site is presently vacant and undeveloped. Ground surface cover consists of exposed soil with moderate to dense native grass and weed growth.

Detailed topographic information was not available at the time of this report. Based on elevations obtained from Google Earth and visual observations made at the time of the subsurface investigation, the site generally slopes to the south at a gradient of 1 to 1½± percent.

Proposed Development
Our office was provided with a conceptual site plan (Scheme 16, dated March 14, 2021), which was prepared by HPA. Based on our review of this plan, the site will be developed with a total of nine (9) buildings, identified as Buildings 1 through 9. It should be noted that the boring layout was based on a prior scheme, with slightly different building locations.

The buildings will range from 205,500± ft² to 927,370± ft² in size. The buildings will be dockhigh along the building walls facing new truck yard areas. Several of the buildings will be constructed in cross-dock configurations. It is expected that the buildings will be surrounded by asphaltic concrete pavements in the parking and drive lane areas, Portland cement concrete pavements in the loading dock areas, and isolated areas of concrete flatwork and landscape planters.

Based on conversation with the client, the proposed development will include on-site stormwater infiltration. We expect that at least one infiltration system will be constructed with each proposed building. Because this is a feasibility infiltration study, infiltration testing was only performed in four (4) different areas at the site and not for each of the proposed buildings. The bottom of the proposed infiltration systems was assumed to be approximately 10± feet below the existing site grades.

Concurrent Study
SCG concurrently conducted a geotechnical feasibility investigation at the subject site, referenced above. As a part of this study, ten (10) borings (identified as Boring Nos. B-1 through B-10) were advanced to depths of 20 to 25± feet below the existing site grades. A surficial layer of disturbed alluvium was encountered at the ground surface extending to depths of 1½ to 2½± feet. The disturbed alluvium consists of loose to medium dense silty fine sands with varying medium sand content. At greater depths, the native alluvium consists of loose to medium dense silty fine sands, fine sands, and fine sandy silts with varying medium sand content, extending to at least the maximum depth explored of 25± feet.
6119
Proposed California Logistics Center – Ontario, CA
Project No. 21G197-2

Groundwater
Free water was not encountered during the drilling of any of the borings. Based on the lack of any water within the borings and the moisture contents of the recovered soil samples, the static groundwater table is considered to have existed at a depth in excess of 25± feet at the time of the subsurface exploration.

Recent water level data was obtained from the California State Water Resources Control Board, GeoTracker, website, https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. One monitoring well on record is located 2,916± south of the site. Water level readings within this monitoring well indicate a high groundwater level of 231± feet below the ground surface in July 2021.

Subsurface Exploration
Scope of Exploration
The subsurface exploration conducted for the infiltration testing consisted of four (4) infiltration test borings, advanced to a depth of 10± feet below the existing site grades. The infiltration borings were advanced using a truck-mounted drilling rig, equipped with 8-inch-diameter hollowstem augers and were logged during drilling by a member of our staff. The approximate locations of the infiltration test borings (identified as I-1 and I-4) are indicated on the Infiltration Test Location Plan, enclosed as Plate 2 of this report.

Upon the completion of the infiltration borings, the bottom of each test boring was covered with 2± inches of clean ¾-inch gravel. A sufficient length of 3-inch-diameter perforated PVC casing was then placed into each test hole so that the PVC casing extended from the bottom of the test hole to the ground surface. Clean ¾-inch gravel was then installed in the annulus surrounding the PVC casing.

Geotechnical Conditions
Artificial Fill
Artificial fill soils were encountered at the ground surface at one of the infiltration boring locations, extending to a depth of 3± below the existing site grades. The fill soils generally consist of very dense fine sand, little silt. The fill soils possess a disturbed mottled appearance resulting in their classification as artificial fill.

Alluvium
A surficial layer of disturbed alluvium was encountered at the ground surface at most of the infiltration boring locations, extending to a depth of 3± feet. The disturbed alluvium generally consists of medium dense silty fine sands with varying medium to coarse sand content.

Native alluvial soils were encountered beneath the fill soils or disturbed alluvium at all of the infiltration boring locations, extending to at least the maximum depth explored of 10± feet below the existing site grades. The alluvial soils generally consist of medium dense to dense silty fine 6120
Proposed California Logistics Center – Ontario, CA
Project No. 21G197-2

sand, silty fine to medium sands, and fine sandy silts. The Boring Logs, which illustrate the conditions encountered at the boring locations, are included with this report.

Infiltration Testing
As previously mentioned, the infiltration testing was performed in general accordance with the guidelines published in Riverside County – Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook – Section 2.3 of Appendix A, which apply to San Bernardino County.

Pre-soaking
In accordance with the county infiltration standards for sandy soils, all infiltration test borings were pre-soaked 2 hours prior to the infiltration testing or until all of the water had percolated through the test holes. The pre-soaking process consisted of filling test borings by inverting a full 5-gallon bottle of clear water supported over each hole so that the water flow into the hole holds constant at a level at least 5 times the hole’s radius above the gravel at the bottom of each hole.

Pre-soaking was completed after all of the water had percolated through the test holes.

Infiltration Testing
Following the pre-soaking process of the infiltration test borings, SCG performed the infiltration testing. Each test hole was filled with water to a depth of at least 5 times the hole’s radius above the gravel at the bottom of each test hole. In accordance with the Riverside County guidelines, in areas where “non-sandy soils” were encountered at the bottom of the infiltration test borings (where 6 inches of water did not infiltrate into the surrounding soils in less than 25 minutes for two (2) consecutive readings), readings were taken at 30-minute intervals for a total of 6 hours at the test location. In areas where “sandy soils” were encountered at the infiltration test locations (where 6 inches or more of water infiltrated into the surrounding soils in less than 25 minutes), readings were taken at 10-minute intervals for a total of 1 hour following the presoak. The water level readings are presented on the spreadsheets enclosed with this report. The infiltration rates for each of the timed intervals are also tabulated on the spreadsheets.

The infiltration rates from the test are tabulated in inches per hour. In accordance with the typically accepted practice, it is recommended that the most conservative reading from the latter part of the infiltration tests be used as the design infiltration rate. The rates are summarized below:

Infiltration
Test No.

Depth
(feet)
Soil Description Infiltration Rate
(inches/hour)
I-1 10
Gray Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, trace
coarse Sand, trace fine Gravel 6.3
I-2 10 Gray Brown Silty fine to medium Sand 1.3
I-3 10 Gray Brown fine Sandy Silt 0.8
I-4 10 Gray Brown fine to medium Sandy Silt, little Clay 0.1 6121
Proposed California Logistics Center – Ontario, CA
Project No. 21G197-2

Laboratory Testing
Moisture Content
The moisture contents for the recovered soil samples within the borings were determined in accordance with ASTM D-2216 and are expressed as a percentage of the dry weight. These test results are presented on the Boring Logs.

Grain Size Analysis
The grain size distribution of selected soils collected from the base of each infiltration test boring have been determined using a range of wire mesh screens. These tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D-422 and/or ASTM D-1140. The weight of the portion of the sample retained on each screen is recorded and the percentage finer or coarser of the total weight is calculated. The results of these tests are presented on Plates C-1 and C-4 of this report.

Design Recommendations
Four (4) infiltration tests were performed at the subject site. As noted above, the infiltration rates at these locations vary from 0.1 to 6.3 inches per hour.

Infiltration Location Infiltration Rate (in/hr)
Northwest 6.3
Northeast 1.3
Southwest 0.8
Southeast 0.1
Please note that these infiltration rates are preliminary for each respective area since only one infiltration test was performed in each area at a depth of 10± feet. Additional infiltration testing will be necessary to provide design-level infiltration rates. In general, infiltration test results indicate the northwestern area of the site has better infiltration characteristics than the southeastern area of the site.

Infiltration Rate Considerations
The infiltration rates presented herein was determined in accordance with the San Bernardino County guidelines and are considered valid only for the time and place of the actual test. Varying subsurface conditions will exist in other areas of the site, which could alter the recommended infiltration rates presented above. The infiltration rates will decline over time between maintenance cycles as silt or clay particles accumulate on the BMP surface. The infiltration rate is highly dependent upon a number of factors, including density, silt and clay content, grainsize distribution throughout the range of particle sizes, and particle shape. Small changes in these factors can cause large changes in the infiltration rates.

Infiltration rates are based on unsaturated flow. As water is introduced into soils by infiltration, the soils become saturated and the wetting front advances from the unsaturated zone to the 6122
Proposed California Logistics Center – Ontario, CA
Project No. 21G197-2

saturated zone. Once the soils become saturated, infiltration rates become zero, and water can only move through soils by hydraulic conductivity at a rate determined by pressure head and soil permeability. Changes in soil moisture content will affect the infiltration rate. Infiltration rates should be expected to decrease until the soils become saturated. Soil permeability values will then govern groundwater movement. Permeability values may be on the order of 10 to 20 times less than infiltration rates. The system designer should incorporate adequate factors of safety and allow for overflow design into appropriate traditional storm drain systems, which would transport storm water off-site.

Location of Infiltration Systems
The use of on-site storm water infiltration systems carries a risk of creating adverse geotechnical conditions. Increasing the moisture content of the soil can cause the soil to lose internal shear strength and increase its compressibility, resulting in a change in the designed engineering properties. Overlying structures and pavements in the infiltration area could potentially be damaged due to saturation of the subgrade soils. The proposed infiltration systems for this site should be located at least 25 feet away from any structures, including retaining walls. Even with this provision of locating the infiltration system at least 25 feet from the building(s), it is possible that infiltrating water into the subsurface soils could have an adverse effect on the proposed or existing structures. It should also be noted that utility trenches which happen to collect storm water can also serve as conduits to transmit storm water toward the structure, depending on the slope of the utility trench. Therefore, consideration should also be given to the proposed locations of underground utilities which may pass near the proposed infiltration system.

The infiltration system designer should also give special consideration to the effect that the proposed infiltration systems may have on nearby subterranean structures, open excavations, or descending slopes. In particular, infiltration systems should not be located near the crest of descending slopes, particularly where the slopes are comprised of granular soils. Such systems will require specialized design and analysis to evaluate the potential for slope instability, piping failures and other phenomena that typically apply to earthen dam design. This type of analysis is beyond the scope of this infiltration test report, but these factors should be considered by the infiltration system designer when locating the infiltration systems. 6123
Proposed California Logistics Center – Ontario, CA
Project No. 21G197-2

Closure
We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. We look forward to providing additional consulting services during the course of the project. If we may be of further assistance in any manner, please contact our office.

Respectfully Submitted,
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.

Daryl Kas, CEG 2467
Senior Geologist
Gregory K. Mitchell, GE 2364
Principal Engineer

Distribution: (1) Addressee
Enclosures: Plate 1 - Site Location Map
Plate 2 - Infiltration Test Location Plan
Boring Log Legend and Logs (6 pages)
Infiltration Test Results Spreadsheets (4 pages)
Grain Size Distribution Graphs (4 pages)
6124
SITE

CALIFORNIA LOGISTICS CENTER
SCALE: 1" = 2000' DRAWN: MD
CHKD: GKM

SCG PROJECT
21G197-2
PLATE 1

SITE LOCATION MAP

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
SOURCE: USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF THE GUASTI
QUADRANGLE, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, 2018
6125
B-1 B-2 B-3 B-6 B-9 B-7 B-4 B-5 B-10 I-1 I-2 I-3 I-4 B-8 SCALE: 1" = 500' DRAWN: MD CHKD: GKM PLATE 2 SCG PROJECT 21G197-2CALIFORNIA LOGISTICS CENTER INFILTRATION TEST LOCATION PLAN APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION GEOTECHNICAL LEGEND ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA SoCalGeo
NORTH APPROXIMATE INFILTRATION TEST LOCATION (SCG PROJECT NO. 21G197-1) NOTE: SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY HPA ARCHITECTURE. AERIAL PHOTO OBTAINED FROM GOOGLE EARTH. 6126

BORING LOG LEGEND

SAMPLE TYPE GRAPHICAL

SYMBOL SAMPLE DESCRIPTION

AUGER SAMPLE COLLECTED FROM AUGER CUTTINGS, NO FIELD
MEASUREMENT OF SOIL STRENGTH. (DISTURBED)
CORE
ROCK CORE SAMPLE: TYPICALLY TAKEN WITH A
DIAMOND-TIPPED CORE BARREL. TYPICALLY USED
ONLY IN HIGHLY CONSOLIDATED BEDROCK.

GRAB 1 SOIL SAMPLE TAKEN WITH NO SPECIALIZED

EQUIPMENT, SUCH AS FROM A STOCKPILE OR THE
GROUND SURFACE. (DISTURBED)
CS
CALIFORNIA SAMPLER: 2-1/2 INCH I.D. SPLIT BARREL
SAMPLER, LINED WITH 1-INCH HIGH BRASS RINGS.

DRIVEN WITH SPT HAMMER. (RELATIVELY

UNDISTURBED)
NSR
NO RECOVERY: THE SAMPLING ATTEMPT DID NOT

RESULT IN RECOVERY OF ANY SIGNIFICANT SOIL OR
ROCK MATERIAL.

SPT
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST: SAMPLER IS A 1.4
INCH INSIDE DIAMETER SPLIT BARREL, DRIVEN 18
INCHES WITH THE SPT HAMMER. (DISTURBED)
SH
SHELBY TUBE: TAKEN WITH A THIN WALL SAMPLE
TUBE, PUSHED INTO THE SOIL AND THEN EXTRACTED.
(UNDISTURBED)
VANE
VANE SHEAR TEST: SOIL STRENGTH OBTAINED USING
A 4 BLADED SHEAR DEVICE. TYPICALLY USED IN SOFT
CLAYS-NO SAMPLE RECOVERED.

COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS
DEPTH: Distance in feet below the ground surface.

SAMPLE: Sample Type as depicted above.

BLOW COUNT: Number of blows required to advance the sampler 12 inches using a 140 lb hammer with a 30-inch drop. 50/3” indicates penetration refusal (>50 blows) at 3 inches. WH indicates that the weight of the hammer was sufficient to push the sampler 6 inches or more.

POCKET PEN.: Approximate shear strength of a cohesive soil sample as measured by pocket penetrometer.

GRAPHIC LOG: Graphic Soil Symbol as depicted on the following page.

DRY DENSITY: Dry density of an undisturbed or relatively undisturbed sample in lbs/ft3 .

MOISTURE CONTENT: Moisture content of a soil sample, expressed as a percentage of the dry weight.

LIQUID LIMIT: The moisture content above which a soil behaves as a liquid.

PLASTIC LIMIT: The moisture content above which a soil behaves as a plastic.

PASSING #200 SIEVE: The percentage of the sample finer than the #200 standard sieve.

UNCONFINED SHEAR: The shear strength of a cohesive soil sample, as measured in the unconfined state. 6127
SM
SP
COARSE

GRAINED
SOILS
SW

TYPICAL

DESCRIPTIONS

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -

SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO
FINES

SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -

SILT MIXTURES

GRAPH LETTER

POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS,

GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE

OR NO FINES
GC
GM
GP
GW

POORLY-GRADED SANDS,

GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO
FINES
SILTS
AND
CLAYS
MORE THAN 50%

OF MATERIAL IS

LARGER THAN
NO. 200 SIEVE
SIZE
MORE THAN 50%

OF MATERIAL IS

SMALLER THAN
NO. 200 SIEVE
SIZE
MORE THAN 50%

OF COARSE

FRACTION
PASSING ON NO.
4 SIEVE
MORE THAN 50%

OF COARSE

FRACTION
RETAINED ON NO.
4 SIEVE CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -

CLAY MIXTURES
FINE

GRAINED
SOILS

SYMBOLS MAJOR DIVISIONS

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
PT
OH
CH
MH
OL
CL
ML

CLEAN SANDS
SC

SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT

MIXTURES

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY

MIXTURES

INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE

SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR

CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY

SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO

MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY

CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS,

LEAN CLAYS

ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC

SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY

INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR

DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR

SILTY SOILS

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH

PLASTICITY

ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO

HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS

PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH

HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS
SILTS
AND
CLAYS

GRAVELS WITH
FINES
SAND
AND
SANDY

SOILS (LITTLE OR NO FINES)

SANDS WITH
FINES

LIQUID LIMIT
LESS THAN 50

LIQUID LIMIT
GREATER THAN 50

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS GRAVEL
AND

GRAVELLY
SOILS
(APPRECIABLE

AMOUNT OF FINES)
(APPRECIABLE

AMOUNT OF FINES)
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY

SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES
CLEAN

GRAVELS
6128
FILL: Gray Brown fine Sand, little Silt, very dense-dry to damp ALLUVIUM: Brown Silty fine Sand, medium dense-damp to moist Gray Brown fine to medium Sand, some Silt, trace coarse Sand, trace fine Gravel, medium dense-dry to damp
Boring Terminated at 10'
75/11"
12 13
12 4
9 12
3 LABORATORY RESULTS

COMMENTS
DRILLING DATE: 10/1/21
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Jamie Hayward
BLOW COUNTPASSING#200 SIEVE (%)
BORING NO.

I-1
DEPTH (FEET)DRY DENSITY(PCF)MOISTURECONTENT (%)
JOB NO.: 21G197-2
PROJECT: California Logistics Center
LOCATION: Ontario, California
PLATE B-1
5 10

DESCRIPTION
SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL

TEST BORING LOG SAMPLE

LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMIT
FIELD RESULTSPOCKET PEN. (TSF)
GRAPHIC LOGORGANICCONTENT (%)
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: ---
READING TAKEN: ---
TBL 21G197-2.GPJ SOCALGEO.GDT 10/26/21
6129
DISTURBED ALLUVIUM: Gray Brown Silty fine Sand, medium
dense-dry
ALLUVIUM: Gray Brown Silty fine Sand, medium dense-dry
Gray Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, medium dense-damp Boring Terminated at 10'
20 18
15 17
2 2
1 6

LABORATORY RESULTS

COMMENTS
DRILLING DATE: 10/1/21
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Jamie Hayward
BLOW COUNTPASSING#200 SIEVE (%)
BORING NO.

I-2
DEPTH (FEET)DRY DENSITY(PCF)MOISTURECONTENT (%)
JOB NO.: 21G197-2
PROJECT: California Logistics Center
LOCATION: Ontario, California
PLATE B-2
5 10

DESCRIPTION
SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL

TEST BORING LOG SAMPLE

LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMIT
FIELD RESULTSPOCKET PEN. (TSF)
GRAPHIC LOGORGANICCONTENT (%)
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: ---
READING TAKEN: ---
TBL 21G197-2.GPJ SOCALGEO.GDT 10/26/21
6130
DISTURBED ALLUVIUM: Gray Brown Silty fine Sand, trace
medium to coarse Sand, dense-dry to damp
ALLUVIUM: Gray Brown fine Sand, trace Silt, medium dense-dry to damp
Gray Brown Silty fine Sand, medium dense-damp
Gray Brown fine Sandy Silt, loose damp-moist
Boring Terminated at 10'
32 26
12 6
4 4
7 10

LABORATORY RESULTS

COMMENTS
DRILLING DATE: 9/30/21
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Jamie Hayward
BLOW COUNTPASSING#200 SIEVE (%)
BORING NO.

I-3
DEPTH (FEET)DRY DENSITY(PCF)MOISTURECONTENT (%)
JOB NO.: 21G197-2
PROJECT: California Logistics Center
LOCATION: Ontario, California
PLATE B-3
5 10

DESCRIPTION
SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL

TEST BORING LOG SAMPLE

LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMIT
FIELD RESULTSPOCKET PEN. (TSF)
GRAPHIC LOGORGANICCONTENT (%)
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: ---
READING TAKEN: ---
TBL 21G197-2.GPJ SOCALGEO.GDT 10/26/21
6131
DISTURBED ALLUVIUM: Brown Silty fine Sand, medium
dense-dry
ALLUVIUM: Gray Brown Silty fine Sand, dense-dry
@ 6 feet, little Iron Oxide staining, medium dense
Gray Brown fine to medium Sandy Silt, little Clay, medium dense, damp-moist
14 46
18 19
2 4
9 12

LABORATORY RESULTS

COMMENTS
DRILLING DATE: 9/30/21
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Jamie Hayward
BLOW COUNTPASSING#200 SIEVE (%)
BORING NO.

I-4
DEPTH (FEET)DRY DENSITY(PCF)MOISTURECONTENT (%)
JOB NO.: 21G197-2
PROJECT: California Logistics Center
LOCATION: Ontario, California
PLATE B-4
5 10

DESCRIPTION
SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL

TEST BORING LOG SAMPLE

LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMIT
FIELD RESULTSPOCKET PEN. (TSF)
GRAPHIC LOGORGANICCONTENT (%)
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: ---
READING TAKEN: ---
TBL 21G197-2.GPJ SOCALGEO.GDT 10/26/21
6132

INFILTRATION CALCULATIONS
Project Name
Project Location
Project Number
Engineer
Test Hole Radius 4 (in)
Test Depth 10.20 (ft)
Infiltration Test Hole I-1
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(in)
Did 6 inches of water
seep away in less than
25 minutes?
Sandy Soils or NonSandy Soils?
Initial 11:33 AM 7.20
Final 11:58 AM 9.71
Initial 12:00 PM 7.20
Final 12:25 PM 9.70
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(ft)
Average Head Height
(ft)
Infiltration Rate Q
(in/hr)
Initial 12:26 PM 7.20
Final 12:36 PM 8.84
Initial 12:37 PM 7.20
Final 12:47 PM 8.72
Initial 12:48 PM 7.20
Final 12:58 PM 8.61
Initial 12:59 PM 7.20
Final 1:09 PM 8.51
Initial 1:10 PM 7.20
Final 1:20 PM 8.50
Initial 1:21 PM 7.20
Final 1:31 PM 8.51
Per County Standards, Infiltration Rate calculated as follows:

Where: Q = Infiltration Rate (in inches per hour)
∆H = Change in Height (Water Level) over the time interval r = Test Hole (Borehole) Radius
∆t = Time Interval
Havg = Average Head Height over the time interval
California Logistics Center
Ontario. CA
21G197-2
Caleb Brackett
Soil Criteria Test
1 25.00 30.12 YES SANDY SOILS
2 25.00 30.00 YES SANDY SOILS
Test Data
1 10.00 1.64 2.18 8.39
2 10.00 1.52 2.24 7.58
3 10.00 1.41 2.30 6.87
4 10.00 1.31 2.35 6.26
5 10.00 1.30 2.35 6.20
6 10.00 1.31 2.35 6.26
)2Ht(r
H(60r) Q
 avg


6133

INFILTRATION CALCULATIONS
Project Name
Project Location
Project Number
Engineer
Test Hole Radius 4 (in)
Test Depth 10.10 (ft)
Infiltration Test Hole I-2
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(in)
Did 6 inches of water
seep away in less than
25 minutes?
Sandy Soils or NonSandy Soils?
Initial 9:39 AM 7.10
Final 10:04 AM 8.00
Initial 10:05 AM 7.10
Final 10:30 AM 7.78
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(ft)
Average Head Height
(ft)
Infiltration Rate Q
(in/hr)
Initial 10:32 AM 7.10
Final 10:42 AM 7.52
Initial 10:43 AM 7.10
Final 10:53 AM 7.49
Initial 10:54 AM 7.10
Final 11:04 AM 7.45
Initial 11:05 AM 7.10
Final 11:15 AM 7.43
Initial 11:16 AM 7.10
Final 11:26 AM 7.42
Initial 11:27 AM 7.10
Final 11:37 AM 7.42
Per County Standards, Infiltration Rate calculated as follows:

Where: Q = Infiltration Rate (in inches per hour)
∆H = Change in Height (Water Level) over the time interval r = Test Hole (Borehole) Radius
∆t = Time Interval
Havg = Average Head Height over the time interval
California Logistics Center
Ontario. CA
21G197-2
Caleb Brackett
Soil Criteria Test
1 25.00 10.80 YES SANDY SOILS
2 25.00 8.16 YES SANDY SOILS
Test Data
1 10.00 0.42 2.79 1.70
2 10.00 0.39 2.81 1.57
3 10.00 0.35 2.83 1.40
4 10.00 0.33 2.84 1.32
5 10.00 0.32 2.84 1.28
6 10.00 0.32 2.84 1.28
)2Ht(r
H(60r) Q
 avg


6134

INFILTRATION CALCULATIONS
Project Name
Project Location
Project Number
Engineer
Test Hole Radius 4 (in)
Test Depth 10.20 (ft)
Infiltration Test Hole I-3
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(in)
Did 6 inches of water
seep away in less than
25 minutes?
Sandy Soils or NonSandy Soils?
Initial 9:29 AM 7.20
Final 9:54 AM 7.81
Initial 9:55 AM 7.20
Final 10:20 AM 7.73
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(ft)
Average Head Height
(ft)
Infiltration Rate Q
(in/hr)
Initial 10:21 AM 7.20
Final 10:31 AM 7.51
Initial 10:32 AM 7.20
Final 10:42 AM 7.47
Initial 10:53 AM 7.20
Final 11:03 AM 7.45
Initial 11:04 AM 7.20
Final 11:14 AM 7.42
Initial 11:15 AM 7.20
Final 11:25 AM 7.41
Initial 11:26 AM 7.20
Final 11:36 AM 7.41
Per County Standards, Infiltration Rate calculated as follows:

Where: Q = Infiltration Rate (in inches per hour)
∆H = Change in Height (Water Level) over the time interval r = Test Hole (Borehole) Radius
∆t = Time Interval
Havg = Average Head Height over the time interval
California Logistics Center
Ontario. CA
21G197-2
Caleb Brackett
Soil Criteria Test
1 25.00 7.32 YES SANDY SOILS
2 25.00 6.36 YES SANDY SOILS
Test Data
1 10.00 0.31 2.85 1.24
2 10.00 0.27 2.87 1.07
3 10.00 0.25 2.88 0.99
4 10.00 0.22 2.89 0.86
5 10.00 0.21 2.90 0.82
6 10.00 0.21 2.90 0.82
)2Ht(r
H(60r) Q
 avg


6135

INFILTRATION CALCULATIONS
Project Name
Project Location
Project Number
Engineer
Test Hole Radius 4 (in)
Test Depth 10.20 (ft)
Infiltration Test Hole I-4
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(in)
Did 6 inches of water
seep away in less than
25 minutes?
Sandy Soils or NonSandy Soils?
Initial 8:00 AM 7.20
Final 8:25 AM 7.62
Initial 8:25 AM 7.20
Final 8:50 AM 7.61
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(ft)
Average Head Height
(ft)
Infiltration Rate Q
(in/hr)
Initial 8:51 AM 7.20
Final 9:21 AM 7.52
Initial 9:21 AM 7.20
Final 9:51 AM 7.50
Initial 9:51 AM 7.20
Final 10:21 AM 7.48
Initial 10:21 AM 7.20
Final 10:51 AM 7.45
Initial 10:51 AM 7.20
Final 11:21 AM 7.39
Initial 11:21 AM 7.20
Final 11:51 AM 7.36
Initial 11:51 AM 7.20
Final 12:21 PM 7.34
Initial 12:21 PM 7.20
Final 12:51 PM 7.31
Initial 12:51 PM 7.20
Final 1:21 PM 7.30
Initial 1:21 PM 7.20
Final 1:51 PM 7.31
Initial 1:51 PM 7.20
Final 2:21 PM 7.30
Initial 2:21 PM 7.20
Final 2:51 PM 7.30
Per County Standards, Infiltration Rate calculated as follows:

Where: Q = Infiltration Rate (in inches per hour)
∆H = Change in Height (Water Level) over the time interval r = Test Hole (Borehole) Radius
∆t = Time Interval
Havg = Average Head Height over the time interval
5 30.00 0.19 2.91 0.25
12 30.00 0.10 2.95 0.13
3 30.00 0.28 2.86 0.37
4 30.00 0.25 2.88 0.33
1 30.00 0.32 2.84 0.43
2 30.00 0.30 2.85 0.40
2 25.00 4.92 NO NON-SANDY SOILS
Test Data
California Logistics Center
Corona. CA
21G197-2
Caleb Brackett
Soil Criteria Test
1 25.00 5.04 NO NON-SANDY SOILS
6 30.00 0.16 2.92 0.21
7 30.00 0.14 2.93 0.18
11 30.00 0.10 2.95 0.13
8 30.00 0.11 2.95 0.14
9 30.00 0.10 2.95 0.13
10 30.00 0.11 2.95 0.14
)2Ht(r
H(60r) Q
 avg


6136
Sample Description I-1 @ 8.5'
Soil Classification ALLUVIUM: Gray Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, trace coarse Sand, trace fine Gravel California Logistics Center
Ontario, California
Project No. 21G197
PLATE C- 1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing by Weight
Grain Size in Millimeters
Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
US Standard Sieve Sizes
Coarse Gravel Fine Gravel Crs. Sand Med. Sand Fine Sand Fines (Silt and Clay) 2 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 1/4 #4 #8 #10 #16 #20 #30 #40 #50 #100 #200 6137
Sample Description I-2 @ 8.5'
Soil Classification ALLUVIUM: Gray Brown Silty fine to medium Sand California Logistics Center
Ontario, California
Project No. 21G197
PLATE C- 2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing by Weight
Grain Size in Millimeters
Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
US Standard Sieve Sizes
Coarse Gravel Fine Gravel Crs. Sand Med. Sand Fine Sand Fines (Silt and Clay) 2 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 1/4 #4 #8 #10 #16 #20 #30 #40 #50 #100 #200 6138
Sample Description I-3 @ 8.5'
Soil Classification ALLUVIUM: Gray Brown fine Sandy Silt California Logistics Center
Ontario, California
Project No. 21G197
PLATE C- 3
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing by Weight
Grain Size in Millimeters
Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
US Standard Sieve Sizes
Coarse Gravel Fine Gravel Crs. Sand Med. Sand Fine Sand Fines (Silt and Clay) 2 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 1/4 #4 #8 #10 #16 #20 #30 #40 #50 #100 #200 6139
Sample Description I-4 @ 8.5'
Soil Classification ALLUVIUM: Gray Brown fine to medium Sandy Silt, little Clay California Logistics Center
Ontario, California
Project No. 21G197
PLATE C- 4
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing by Weight
Grain Size in Millimeters
Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
US Standard Sieve Sizes
Coarse Gravel Fine Gravel Crs. Sand Med. Sand Fine Sand Fines (Silt and Clay) 2 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 1/4 #4 #8 #10 #16 #20 #30 #40 #50 #100 #200 6140
6141
6142
6143
6144
6145
6146
6147
6148
6149
6150
6151
6152
6153
6154
6155
6156
6157
6158
6159
6160
RESOLUTION NO. PC23-008

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FILE NO. PDEV21-047, A

DEVELOPMENT PLAN 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, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—
APN: 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.

WHEREAS, MCDONALD PROPERTY GROUP (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant") has filed an Application for the approval of a Development Plan, File No.

PDEV21-047, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Application applies to 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, encompassing twenty-four vacant parcels within the California Commerce Center Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the property to the north of the Project site is within the California Commerce Center Specific Plan zoning district and is developed with industrial warehouse buildings. The property to the east is within the California Commerce Center Specific Plan zoning district and is developed with industrial warehouse buildings and light manufacturing uses. The property to the south is within the California Commerce Center Specific Plan zoning district and is developed with industrial warehouse buildings.

The property to the west is within the Ontario International Airport and United Parcel Service Specific Plan zoning districts, and is developed with the Ontario International Airport and associated uses; and
WHEREAS, the Application is a Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA") and an initial study has been prepared to determine possible environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364) was certified on August 16, 2022 (hereinafter 6161
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023

referred to as "Certified SEIR"), in which development and use of the Project site was discussed; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director of the City of Ontario prepared and approved for attachment to the certified Environmental Impact Report, an Addendum to the Certified SEIR (hereinafter referred to as "SEIR Addendum") in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with State and local guidelines implementing said Act, all as amended to date (collectively referred to as "CEQA"); and
WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of this project were thoroughly analyzed in the SEIR Addendum, which concluded that implementation of the Project could result in a number of significant effects on the environment that were previously analyzed in the Certified SEIR, and that the Certified SEIR identified mitigation measures that would reduce each of those significant effects to a less-than-significant level; and WHEREAS, the City's "Local Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" provide for the use of a single environmental assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed; and
WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act — Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. — (hereinafter referred to as "CEQA") and an SEIR Addendum has been prepared to determine possible environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the Planning Commission the responsibility and authority to review and act on the subject Application; and
WHEREAS, the Project has been reviewed for consistency with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan, as State Housing Element law (as prescribed in Government Code Sections 65580 through 65589.8) requires that development projects must be consistent with the Housing Element, if upon consideration of all its aspects, it is found to further the purposes, principals, goals, and policies of the Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and is subject to, and must be consistent with, the policies and criteria set forth in the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (hereinafter referred to as "ALUCP"), which applies only to jurisdictions within San 6162
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023

Bernardino County, and addresses the noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity; and
WHEREAS, City of Ontario Development Code Division 2.03 (Public Hearings) prescribes the manner in which public notification shall be provided and hearing procedures to be followed, and all such notifications and procedures have been completed; and
WHEREAS, on January 4, 2023, the Development Advisory Board of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Addendum and the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to issue Decision Nos. DAB23-001 and DAB23-002, respectively, recommending that the Planning Commission approve the Application; and WHEREAS, as the first action on the Project, on January 24, 2023, the Planning Commission issued a Resolution adopting the SEIR Addendum, finding that the proposed Project introduces no new significant environmental impacts and applying all previously adopted mitigation measures to the Project, which were incorporated by reference; and WHEREAS, on January 24, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

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

SECTION 1: Environmental Determination and Findings. As the decisionmaking body for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Addendum, the initial study, and the administrative record for the Project, including all written and oral evidence provided during the comment period.

Based upon the facts and information contained in the Addendum, the initial study, and the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
(1) The environmental impacts of the Project were reviewed in conjunction with an Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364), certified by the Ontario City Council on August 16, 2022, in conjunction with File No. PGPA20-002; and
(2) The SEIR Addendum and administrative record have been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
6163
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023

(3) The City's "Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" provide for the use of a single environmental assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed. This Application introduces no new significant environmental impacts; and (4) All previously adopted mitigation measures shall be a condition of project approval, as they are applicable to the Project, and are incorporated herein by this reference; and
(5) The SEIR Addendum contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project, and reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and
(6) There is no substantial evidence in the administrative record supporting a fair argument that the project may result in significant environmental impacts.

SECTION 2: Subsequent or Supplemental Environmental Review Not Required. Based on the SEIR Addendum, all related information presented to the Planning Commission, and the specific findings set forth in Section 1, above, the Planning Commission finds that the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental Certified SEIR is not required for the Project, as the Project:
(1) Does not constitute substantial changes to the Certified SEIR that will require major revisions to the Certified SEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and
(2) Does not constitute substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Certified SEIR was prepared, that will require major revisions to the Certified SEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects; and (3) Does not contain new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Certified SEIR was certified/adopted, that shows any of the following:
(a) The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the Certified SEIR; or
(b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the Certified SEIR; or
6164
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023

(c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the City declined to adopt such measures; or (d) Mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed in the Certified SEIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but which the City declined to adopt.

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

SECTION 4: 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.
(1) On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the Ontario International Airport Land use Compatibility Plan, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of 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 has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ONT ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-2) and Safety Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the Planning Commission, therefore, finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ONT ALUCP; and SECTION 5: Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above-referenced hearing, 6165
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023

and upon the specific findings set forth in Sections 1 thru 4, above, the Planning Commission hereby concludes as follows:
(1) The proposed development at the proposed location is consistent with the goals, policies, plans and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan. The proposed Project is located within the Industrial land use district of the Policy Plan Land Use Map, and the Light Industrial land use designation of the California Commerce Center Specific Plan zoning district. The development standards and conditions under which the proposed Project will be constructed and maintained, is consistent with the goals, policies, plans, and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan.
(2) The proposed development is compatible with those on adjoining sites in relation to location of buildings, with particular attention to privacy, views, any physical constraint identified on the site and the characteristics of the area in which the site is located. The Project has been designed consistent with the requirements of the City of Ontario Development Code and the California Commerce Center zoning district, including standards relative to the particular land use proposed (warehouse and distribution), as-well-as building intensity, building and parking setbacks, building height, number of off-street parking and loading spaces, on-site and off-site landscaping, and fences, walls and obstructions.
(3) The proposed development will complement and/or improve upon the quality of existing development in the vicinity of the project and the minimum safeguards necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare have been required of the proposed project. The Development Advisory Board has required certain safeguards, and impose certain conditions of approval, which have been established to ensure that: [i] the purposes of the California Commerce Center Specific Plan are maintained; [ii] the project will not endanger the public health, safety or general welfare; [iii] the project will not result in any significant environmental impacts; [iv] the project will be in harmony with the area in which it is located; and [v] the project will be in full conformity with the Vision, City Council Priorities and Policy Plan components of The Ontario Plan, and the Cal.
(4) The proposed development is consistent with the development standards and design guidelines set forth in the Development Code, or applicable specific plan or planned unit development. The proposed Project has been reviewed for consistency with the general development standards and guidelines of the California Commerce Center Specific Plan that are applicable to the proposed Project, including building intensity, building and parking setbacks, building height, amount of off-street parking and loading spaces, parking lot dimensions, design and landscaping, bicycle parking, on-site landscaping, and fences and walls, as-well-as those development 6166
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023

standards and guidelines specifically related to the particular land use being proposed (warehouse and distribution). As a result of this review, the Planning Commission has determined that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the development standards and guidelines described in the California Commerce Center Specific Plan.

SECTION 6: Planning Commission Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 through 5, above, the Planning Commission hereby APPROVES the herein described Application, subject to each and every condition set forth in the Department reports attached hereto as "Attachment A," and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 7: Indemnification. The Applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Ontario or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Ontario or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul this approval. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding, and the City of Ontario shall cooperate fully in the defense.

SECTION 8: Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Ontario City Hall, 303 East "B" Street, Ontario, California 91764. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk of the City of Ontario.

SECTION 9: Certification to Adoption. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of the Resolution.
6167
6168
6169
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023

ATTACHMENT A:

File No. PDEV21-047
Departmental Conditions of Approval
(Departmental conditions of approval to follow this page) 6170

303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764 Phone: 909.395.2036 / Fax: 909.395.2420

LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Date Prepared: November 28, 2022
File No: PDEV21-047
Related Files: N/A
Project Description: 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; (APN(s): 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.

Prepared By: Edmelynne V. Hutter, Senior Planner
Phone: 909.395.2429 (direct)
Email: [email protected]
The Planning Department, Land Development Section, conditions of approval applicable to the above-described Project, are listed below. The Project shall comply with each condition of approval listed below:

1.0 Standard Conditions of Approval. The project shall comply with the Standard Conditions for New Development, adopted by City Council Resolution No. 2017-027 on April 18, 2017. A copy of the Standard Conditions for New Development may be obtained from the Planning Department or City Clerk/Records Management Department.

2.0 Special Conditions of Approval. In addition to the Standard Conditions for New Development identified in condition no. 1.0, above, the project shall comply with the following special conditions of approval:

2.1 Time Limits. Development Plan approval shall become null and void 2 years following the effective date of application approval, unless a building permit is issued and construction is commenced, and diligently pursued toward completion, or a time extension has been approved by the Planning Director. This condition does not supersede any individual time limits specified herein, or any other departmental conditions of approval applicable to the Project, for the performance of specific conditions or improvements.

2.2 General Requirements. The Project shall comply with the following general requirements:
6171
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PDEV21-047

(a) All construction documentation shall be coordinated for consistency, including, but not limited to, architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, landscape and irrigation, grading, utility and street improvement plans. All such plans shall be consistent with the approved entitlement plans on file with the Planning Department. (b) The project site shall be developed in conformance with the approved plans on file with the City. Any variation from the approved plans must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to building permit issuance. (c) The herein-listed conditions of approval from all City departments shall be included in the construction plan set for project, which shall be maintained on site during project construction.

2.3 Landscaping.
(a) The Project shall provide and continuously maintain landscaping and irrigation systems in compliance with the provisions of Ontario Development Code Division 6.05 (Landscaping).
(b) Comply with the conditions of approval of the Planning Department; Landscape Planning Division.
(c) Landscaping shall not be installed until the Landscape and Irrigation Construction Documentation Plans required by Ontario Development Code Division 6.05 (Landscaping) have been approved by the Landscape Planning Division. (d) Changes to approved Landscape and Irrigation Construction Documentation Plans, which affect the character or quantity of the plant material or irrigation system design, shall be resubmitted for approval of the revision by the Landscape Planning Division, prior to the commencement of the changes.
(e) A landscape and irrigation construction documentation plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Approving Authority prior to building permit issuance, pursuant to Development Code Section 6.05.015.B (Landscape and Irrigation Construction Documentation Plans).
(f) Landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department; Landscape Planning Section, in conjunction with construction plans. These plans shall be approved prior to issuance of building permits. (g) Where a parking lot contains 10 or more parking spaces and is visible from a street, not less than 7 percent of the total area, excluding any perimeter landscaping, shall be landscaped.
(h) There shall be provided within each row of parking spaces, planter islands at least 5 FT in width (exclusive of curbs), which extend the full length of the abutting parking space(s), located so as to prevent no more than 10 vehicles from being parked side-by-side in an abutting configuration.
6172
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PDEV21-047

(i) Throughout parking lots, tree wells, tree diamonds or center planter strips shall be provided to facilitate the planting of shade trees at the minimum rate of one tree for each 4 parking spaces. Tree wells shall be a minimum of 5 FT in width and 5 FT in length (exclusive of curbs).
(j) All rows of parking spaces shall be provided with landscape islands at each row terminus, at least 5 FT in width (exclusive of curbs) and extending the full length of the adjacent parking spaces, to protect parked vehicles, ensure visibility, confine moving traffic to drive aisles and driveways, and provide adequate space for landscaping. (k) Landscaped areas shall be delineated with a 6-inch wide concrete curb, except where a landscape area is parallel and adjacent to a parking stall, the curb shall be a minimum of 12-inches wide, to provide a step area for persons entering or exiting motor vehicles.

2.4 Walls and Fences. All Project walls and fences shall comply with the requirements of Ontario Development Code Division 6.02 (Walls, Fences and Obstructions). (a) Within industrial zoning districts, walls and fences within the front yard building setback area shall not exceed 6 FT in height, with at least 90 percent of the vertical surface open and non-view obstructing and shall be setback a minimum of 5 FT behind the street property line.
(b) Long expanses of fence or wall (50 or more FT in length) adjacent to a public right-of-way shall have offset areas (decorative pilasters or a jog in the wall) along its length and shall be architecturally designed to prevent monotony. Locations of wall pilasters and/or wall jogs shall be clearly shown on the construction drawings and submitted for plan check. (c) The height of a wall or fence shall be measured on the exterior side, at the highest point of the natural ground or finished grade at the base of the fence or wall to the top of the fence or wall above the same base point.
(d) For gated sites, sufficient area shall be provided in front (exterior side) of vehicular access gates, to allow stacking of at least one tractor/trailer outside of the public street right-of-way.
(e) Development plans and construction drawings shall indicate materials, colors, and height of proposed and existing walls/fences and shall include a cross-section of walls/fences indicating adjacent grades. Walls shall be designed as an integral part of the architecture for the development.
(f) Walls shall be treated with a graffiti-proof coating on wall surfaces visible to the public.

2.5 Parking, Circulation and Access.
(a) The Project shall comply with the applicable off-street parking, loading and lighting requirements of City of Ontario Development Code Division 6.03 (Off-Street Parking and Loading).
(b) The use of compact parking spaces is not permitted. 6173
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PDEV21-047

(c) The minimum dimensions for unenclosed parking spaces is 9 FT wide by 18 FT long. The parking space length may be reduced by up to 2 FT, provide 2 additional FT is added to the adjacent sidewalk and/or landscape area containing the parking overhang area. (d) The minimum width of two-way drive aisles is 24 FT. (e) Wheel stops shall be provided where necessary, to protect structures and parked vehicles.
(f) All drive approaches shall be provided with an enhanced pavement treatment. The enhanced paving shall extend from the back of the approach apron, into the site, to the first intersecting drive aisle or parking space. Final design and placement shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval.
(g) Areas provided to meet the City’s parking requirements, including off-street parking and loading spaces, access drives, and maneuvering areas, shall not be used for the outdoor storage of materials and equipment, nor shall it be used for any other purpose than parking.
(h) The required number of off-street parking spaces and/or loading spaces shall be provided at the time of site and/or building occupancy. All parking and loading spaces shall be maintained in good condition for the duration of the building or use. (i) Parking spaces specifically designated and conveniently located for use by the physically disabled shall be provided pursuant to current accessibility regulations contained in State law (CCR Title 24, Part 2, Chapters 2B71, and CVC Section 22507.8). (j) Bicycle parking facilities, including bicycle racks, lockers, and other secure facilities, shall be provided in conjunction with development projects pursuant to current regulations contained in CALGreen (CAC Title 24, Part 11). (k) Pedestrian ramp railings shall be decorative and designed to be compatible with the architectural design. Final design shall be determined at plan check, subject to Planning Department review and approval.

2.6 Refuse Storage (Trash Enclosures).
(a) All refuse shall be stored in an appropriate container. Furthermore, all refuse containers shall be stored within a City-approved enclosure, which shall be designed so as to be consistent with the building architecture on the project site. (b) The number of enclosures, and their precise locations, dimensions, and design shall be provided consistent with the Solid Waste Department Refuse and Recycling Planning Manual (the manual may be obtain online at
http://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Municipal-UtilitiesCompany/planning_manual-2016_update.pdf). 6174
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PDEV21-047

(c) Signs clearly identifying all recycling and refuse collection areas, and the materials accepted for recycling shall be posted adjacent to all points of access to each trash enclosure.
(d) When located outside of screened truck yard areas, trash enclosures shall be bordered by a minimum 5-FT wide planter and screened with landscaping on all exposed sides, excluding the side with bin access gates.

2.7 Outdoor Loading and Storage Areas.
(a) Loading facilities shall be designed and constructed pursuant to Development Code Division 6.03 (Off-Street Parking and Loading). (b) Areas designated for off-street parking, loading, and vehicular circulation and maneuvering, shall not be used for the outdoor storage of materials or equipment. (c) Outdoor loading and storage areas, and loading doors, shall be screened from public view pursuant to the requirements of Development Code Paragraph 6.02.025.A.2 (Screening of Outdoor Loading and Storage Areas, and Loading Doors) Et Seq. (d) Outdoor loading and storage areas shall be provided with gates that are view-obstructing by one of the following methods:
(i) Construct gates with a perforated metal sheet affixed to the inside of the gate surface (50 percent screen); or
(ii) Construct gates with minimum one-inch square tube steel pickets spaced at maximum 2-inches apart.
(e) The minimum gate height for screen wall openings shall be established based upon the corresponding wall height, as follows:

Screen Wall Height Minimum Gate Height
14 FT: 10 FT
12 FT: 9 FT
10 FT: 8 FT
8 FT: 8 FT
6 FT: 6 FT

2.8 Site Lighting.
(a) All off-street parking facilities shall be provided with nighttime security lighting pursuant to Ontario Municipal Code Section 4-11.08 (Special Residential Building Provisions) and Section 4-11.09 (Special Commercial/Industrial Building Provisions), designed to confine emitted light to the parking areas. Parking facilities shall be lighted from sunset until sunrise, daily, and shall be operated by a photocell switch.
6175
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PDEV21-047

(b) Unless intended as part of a master lighting program, no operation, activity, or lighting fixture shall create illumination on any adjacent property.

2.9 Mechanical and Rooftop Equipment.
(a) All exterior roof-mounted mechanical, heating and air conditioning equipment, and all appurtenances thereto, shall be completely screened from public view by parapet walls or roof screens that are architecturally treated so as to be consistent with the building architecture.
(b) All ground-mounted utility equipment and structures, such as tanks, transformers, HVAC equipment, and backflow prevention devices, shall be located out of view from a public street, or adequately screened through the use of landscaping and/or decorative low garden walls.

2.10 Security Standards. The Project shall comply with all applicable requirements of Ontario Municipal Code Title 4 (Public Safety), Chapter 11 (Security Standards for Buildings).

2.11 Signs.
(a) All Project signage shall comply with the requirements of Ontario Development Code Division 8.1 (Sign Regulations).

2.12 Sound Attenuation. The Project shall be constructed and operated in a manner so as not to exceed the maximum interior and exterior noised levels set forth in Ontario Municipal Code Title 5 (Public Welfare, Morals, and Conduct), Chapter 29 (Noise).

2.13 Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs)/Mutual Access and Maintenance Agreements.
(a) CC&Rs shall be prepared for the Project and shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit.
(b) The CC&Rs shall be in a form and contain provisions satisfactory to the City.

The articles of incorporation for the property owners association and the CC&Rs shall be reviewed and approved by the City.
(c) CC&Rs shall ensure reciprocal parking and access between parcels, and common maintenance of:
(i) Landscaping and irrigation systems within common areas; (ii) Landscaping and irrigation systems within parkways adjacent to the project site, including that portion of any public highway right-of-way between the property line or right-of-way boundary line and the curb line and also the area enclosed within the curb lines of a median divider (Ontario Municipal Code Section 7-3.03), pursuant to Ontario Municipal Code Section 5-22-02;
(iii) Shared parking facilities and access drives; and
(iv) Utility and drainage easements.
6176
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PDEV21-047

(d) CC&Rs shall include authorization for the City’s local law enforcement officers to enforce City and State traffic and penal codes within the project area. (e) The CC&Rs shall grant the City of Ontario the right of enforcement of the CC&R provisions.
(f) A specific methodology/procedure shall be established within the CC&Rs for enforcement of its provisions by the City of Ontario, if adequate maintenance of the development does not occur, such as, but not limited to, provisions that would grant the City the right of access to correct maintenance issues and assess the property owners association for all costs incurred.

2.14 Environmental Requirements.
(a) The environmental impacts of the Project were reviewed in conjunction with an Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364), certified by the Ontario City Council on August 16, 2022, in conjunction with File No. PGPA20-002. All previously adopted mitigation measures shall be a condition of project approval, as they are applicable to the Project and are incorporated herein by this reference.
(b) If human remains are found during project
grading/excavation/construction activities, the area shall not be disturbed until any required investigation is completed by the County Coroner and Native American consultation has been completed (if deemed applicable).
(c) If any archeological or paleontological resources are found during project grading/excavation/construction, the area shall not be disturbed until the significance of the resource is determined. If determined to be significant, the resource shall be recovered by a qualified archeologist or paleontologist consistent with current standards and guidelines, or other appropriate measures implemented.

2.15 Trip Reduction Measures.
(a) The Project shall comply with the following trip reduction measures, as applicable:
(i) Bicycle Parking and Shower/Changing Rooms. Safe and convenient access to bicycle racks shall be provided from public streets. Bicycle racks or other secure bicycle parking, and shower/changing rooms, shall be provided pursuant to current regulations contained in CALGreen (CAC Title 24, Part 11). (ii) On-Site Pedestrian Walkways. On-site pedestrian walkways shall be provided, which connect each building in a development to bicycle parking facilities (if required) and public streets.
(iii) Passenger Loading Areas. Passenger loading areas shall be provided pursuant to current regulations contained in CALGreen (CAC Title 24, Part 11). (iv) Carpool/Vanpool Parking Spaces. Parking spaces reserved for use by carpool/vanpool vehicles shall be provided pursuant to current regulations contained in CALGreen (CAC Title 24, Part 11).
6177
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PDEV21-047

(v) Transit Facilities. Transit facilities, such as bus shelters, bus pullouts, and bus pads, shall be provided if the Planning Director, in consultation with local transit providers, determines they are needed to serve the development.
(vi) On-Site Video Conferencing Facilities. On-site video conferencing facilities shall be provided for office buildings with a capacity of 1,000 employees or greater

2.16 Indemnification. The applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Ontario or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Ontario or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City of Ontario, whether by its City Council, Planning Commission or other authorized board or officer. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, and the City of Ontario shall cooperate fully in the defense.

2.17 Additional Fees.
(a) Within 5 days following final application approval, the Notice of Determination (“NOD”) filing fee shall be provided to the Planning Department. The fee shall be paid by check, made payable to the "Clerk of the Board of Supervisors", which shall be forwarded to the San Bernardino County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, along with all applicable environmental forms/notices, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Failure to provide said fee within the time specified will result in the extension of the statute of limitations for the filing of a CEQA lawsuit from 30 days to 180 days. (b) After the Project’s entitlement approval, and prior to issuance of final building permits, the Planning Department’s Plan Check and Inspection fees shall be paid at the rate established by resolution of the City Council.

2.18 Related Applications. Development Plan approval shall not be final and complete until such time that related File Nos. LLA22-008, LLA22-009, LLA22-010, LLA22-011, LA22-012, LLA22- 013, LLA22-014, LLA22-015 and LLA22-016 have been approved by the City and recorded.

2.19 Public Art. The Project is subject to the requirements of the City’s Public Art Ordinance (Ontario Municipal Code Section 5-33.05. Private Art for Public Enjoyment in Commercial and Industrial Development Projects).

2.20 Additional Requirements.
(a) Per ONT ALUCP the proposed landscape planting palette shall not include plant materials that provide food sources for wildlife such as fruit, nuts, or berries. Also, proposed trees shall be limited to varieties that are short in height to ensure mature canopy heights are less than the FAR Part 77 height limits.
(b) On development plans and construction drawings, all exterior roof-top mechanical, heating and air conditioning equipment shall be shown to be completely screened and treated with a neutral color (to blend with the building and roofing materials) when visible from a street or from adjoining properties. The plans shall include a cross-section drawing showing how the equipment is to be screened from view (include dimensions, materials, colors, etc.).

Building elevations seem to show roof at the same height as the proposed parapets. Provide the information, plans and elevations showing screening compliance accordingly. 6178
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PDEV21-047

(c) At plan check submittal, provide project-wide sections at the locations shown below.
(d) Architectural.
(i) Exterior building wall materials, roof types and colors shall be shown on development construction drawings.
(ii) Buildings shall not have the appearance of a false facade attached to the front of a uniform building shell. A building shall be designed to ensure that it’s massing and proportion, along with its colors and architectural detailing, are consistent on all building walls, giving a four-sided (360-degree) appearance. (iii) Roof access ladders shall be located on the inside of the building. (iv) All building drainage gutters, down spouts, vents, etc., shall be completely concealed from public view or shall be architecturally compatible (decorative) with the exterior building design and color.
(v) Exterior building walls in areas visible to the public shall be provided with a graffiti-resistant coating or paint, to a height of 12 FT, at the following locations. (vi) At locations where changes in parapet wall height meet, the taller parapet must return into the building for a minimum distance of 6 FT, so that the actual thickness of the parapet wall cannot be observed or readily discerned. Construction drawings shall clearly show the roof plan with parapet returns accordingly.
(vii) Exterior stairs and pedestrian ramps shall be screened and/or enhanced with landscaping. Landscape planter areas shall be located in front of and adjacent stairs and ramps to provide adequate landscape opportunities for screening and enhancement.

Final design shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval. 6179
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PDEV21-047

(e) Outdoor employee break areas. At plan check submittal, provide plan details, elevations, etc. for any proposed patio covers or other amenities for the outdoor employee break areas. Any proposed patio cover designs shall be architecturally compatible with the building design.
(f) Truck Yard Screening at Runway Protection Zone.
(i) Truck yard screening along Runway Protection Zones boundaries, shown in red per the exhibit below, shall be 14-FT high concrete tilt-up screen walls to provide full screening of trailers from Haven Avenue, subject to approval from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The applicant shall submit a copy of FAA approval of the screen walls at plan check submittal.
(ii) As an alternative to condition 2.20(f)(i), if FAA denies the proposed concrete tilt-up screen walls, the applicant shall install minimum 12-FT high tube steel fencing with 25 percent perforated metal backing or similar screening design. Final fencing design is subject to Planning Department plan check review.
(g) Fencing.
(i) The applicant shall replace existing chain link fencing along Haven Avenue and the Runway Protection Zone with a new 6-FT high steel tubular/wrought iron fencing and access gates at the locations shown on the exhibit, below. (ii) Install 6-FT high steel tubular/wrought iron fencing in the locations shown in blue, per the exhibit below, to further define, delineate and secure the Project site perimeter. Final fencing location subject to Planning Department review and approval. 6180
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PDEV21-047

Steel / Wrought
Iron Fencing
6181

AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLANNING
ĔēĘĎĘęĊēĈĞĊęĊėĒĎēĆęĎĔēĊĕĔėę
Project File No.:

Address:

APN:

Existing Land
Use:

Proposed Land
Use:

Site Acreage:

ONT-IAC Project Review:
$LUSRUW,QÀXHQFH$UHD

This proposed Project is: Exempt from the ALUCP Consistent Consistent with Conditions Inconsistent Reviewed By:

Date:

Contact Info:

Project Planner:

CD No.:

PALU No.:

The project is impacted by the following ONT ALUCP Compatibility Zones:

Safety Noise Impact Airspace Protection 2YHUÀLJKW1RWL¿FDWLRQ Zone 1
Zone 1A
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4
Zone 5
75+ dB CNEL
70 - 75 dB CNEL
65 - 70 dB CNEL
60 - 65 dB CNEL
High Terrain Zone
)$$1RWL¿FDWLRQ6XUIDFHV
Avigation Easement
Dedication
5HFRUGHG2YHUÀLJKW
1RWL¿FDWLRQ
Real Estate Transaction
'LVFORVXUH
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5
$LUSRUW3ODQQHU6LJQDWXUH

CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION
3URSRVHG6WUXFWXUH+HLJKW

Airspace Avigation
Easement Area
Allowable
Height:
$LUVSDFH2EVWUXFWLRQ
6XUIDFHV
The project is impacted by the following Chino ALUCP Safety Zones:

Zone 6
Allowable Height:

PDEV21-047
Generally the southeast corner of Haven Ave and Airport Drive Multiple Parcels
Vacant Land
A Development Plan to construct nine industrial buildings totaling 4,263,454 square feet
216.23 Ac
N/A
ONT
The proposed project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport (ONT) was evaluated and found to be consistent with the policies and criteria of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for ONT provided the attached conditions are met.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Lorena Mejia
909-395-2276
Edmelynne Hutter
12/21/2022
2021-072
N/A
51 FT
✔
30-135 FT
6182
CD No.:

PALU No.:

PROJECT CONDITIONS

AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLANNING
ĔēĘĎĘęĊēĈĞĊęĊėĒĎēĆęĎĔēĊĕĔėę

1. Project is located within Safety Zone 2 and 3, above ground storage of hazardous materials greater than 6,000 gallons is not allowed (ALUCP Policy S4b (Hazardous Material Storage).

2. Attached are the land use intensity calculations for the proposed buildings. Future land uses that deviate from what is currently being approved must meet the policies and criteria of the Ontario ALUCP.

3. The maximum height limit for the project site is 52-58 feet and as such, any construction equipment such as cranes or any other equipment exceeding 50 feet in height will need a determination of "No Hazard" from the FAA. An FAA Form 7460-1 for any temporary objects will need be filed and approved by the FAA prior to operating such equipment on the project site during construction.

4. New development located within any of the Ontario International Airport Safety Zones are required to have a"Property Located within Ontario International Airport Safety Zone Notification appearing on the Property Deed and Title incorporating the following language:

NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY: This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (for example: noise, vibration, or odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any, are associated with the property before you complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you.) The property is presently located in a Safety Zone which limits land uses and the number of people on site.

Land uses are required to meet the policies and criteria of the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

5. This project is located within Safety Zone 2 and 3 and is required to file and record an Avigation Easement with the OIAA prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy.

6. The applicant shall adhere to the conditions set forth in the attached FAA Aeronautical Studies. 2021-072
6183
6184
CE No.: 2021-072 Intensity Calculations for PDEV21-047
Building 1 Intensity Calculations
Load Factors
Sitewide Average
Calculations (Zone 2 =
60 P/AC max)
Sitewide Average
Calculations
(Zone 3 = 100 P/AC
max)
Zone 2 Single
Acre Land Use
SF (Zone 2 =
120 P/AC
max)
Single Acre Intensity
Calculations
(Zone 3 = 250 P/AC max)
Building No. Proposed Land Use Zone 2 Land Use SF Zone 3 Land Use SF ALUCP Load Factor ALUCP Load Factor ALUCP Load Factor ALUCP Load Factor Building 1 Warehouse - 262,494 1,000 0 262 0 44
Office - - 215 0 0 - 0
Totals 0 20.9 0 44
Site Information
Safety Zone Acreage Square Footage
Zone 2 5.09 221,720
Zone 3 12.58 547,985
Totals 17.67 769,705 Single Acre Intensity Calculation is for Zone 3, there are no buildings proposed within Zone 2. ONT single acre criteria for Zone 3 allows a maximum of 250 people. The proposed project would generate a single acre intensity of 44 people as indicated in the above calculations.

Sitewide Average Calculation
Safety Zone 2 = 0
Safety Zone 3 = 21
Single Acre Intensity Calculation
Safety Zone 2 = 0
Safety Zone 3 = 44
Site Wide Average Calculation is for Zone 3, there are no buildings proposed within Zone 2. ONT criteria for Zone 3 allows a maximum of 100 people. The proposed project would generate a site wide average of 21 people as indicated in the calculations above. 6185
CE No.: 2021-072 Intensity Calculations for PDEV21-047
Building 2 Intensity Calculations
Load Factors
Sitewide Average
Calculations (Zone 2 =
60 P/AC max)
Sitewide Average
Calculations
(Zone 3 = 100 P/AC
max)
Zone 2 Single
Acre Land Use
SF (Zone 2 =
120 P/AC
max)
Single Acre Intensity
Calculations
(Zone 3 = 250 P/AC max)
Building No. Proposed Land Use Zone 2 Land Use SF Zone 3 Land Use SF ALUCP Load Factor ALUCP Load Factor ALUCP Load Factor ALUCP Load Factor Building 2 Warehouse 660,004 256,095 1,000 660 256 38.56 39 Office 5,000 5,000 215 23 23 23 23
Totals 26 21.7 62 62
Site Information
Safety Zone Acreage Square Footage
Zone 2 26.79 1,166,972
Zone 3 12.87 560,617
Totals 39.66 1,727,590 Site Wide Average Calculation is for Zone 2. ONT criteria for Zone 2 allows a maximum of 60 people. The proposed project would generate a site wide average of 26 people as indicated in the calculations above. Site Wide Average Calculation Zone 3. ONT criteria for Zone 3 allows a maximum of 100 people. The proposed project would generate a site wide average of 22 people as indicated in the calculations above.Single Acre Intensity Calculation is for Zone 2. ONT single acre criteria for Zone 2 allows a maximum of 120 people. The proposed project would generate a single acre intensity of 62 people as indicated in the above calculations. Single Acre Intensity Calculation is for Zone 3. ONT single acre criteria for Zone 3 allows a maximum of 250 people. The proposed project would generate a single acre intensity of 62 people as indicated in the above calculations.

Sitewide Average Calculation Single Acre Intensity Calculation Safety Zone 2 = 26 Safety Zone 3 = 22
Safety Zone 2 = 62 Safety Zone 3 = 62
6186
CE No.: 2021-072 Intensity Calculations for PDEV21-047
Building 3 Intensity Calculations
Load Factors
Sitewide Average
Calculations (Zone 2 =
60 P/AC max)
Sitewide Average
Calculations
(Zone 3 = 100 P/AC
max)
Zone 2 Single
Acre Land Use
SF (Zone 2 =
120 P/AC
max)
Single Acre Intensity
Calculations
(Zone 3 = 250 P/AC max)
Building No. Proposed Land Use Zone 2 Land Use SF Zone 3 Land Use SF ALUCP Load Factor ALUCP Load Factor ALUCP Load Factor ALUCP Load Factor Building 3 Warehouse 343,780 193,615 1,000 344 194 38.56 39 Office 5,000 5,000 215 23 23 23 23
Totals 27 18.8 62 62
Site Information
Safety Zone Acreage Square Footage
Zone 2 13.83 602,435
Zone 3 11.54 502,682
Totals 25.37 1,105,117 Site Wide Average Calculation is for Zone 2. ONT criteria for Zone 2 allows a maximum of 60 people. The proposed project would generate a site wide average of 27 people as indicated in the calculations above. Site Wide Average Calculation Zone 3. ONT criteria for Zone 3 allows a maximum of 100 people. The proposed project would generate a site wide average of 19 people as indicated in the calculations above.Single Acre Intensity Calculation is for Zone 2. ONT single acre criteria for Zone 2 allows a maximum of 120 people. The proposed project would generate a single acre intensity of 62 people as indicated in the above calculations. Single Acre Intensity Calculation is for Zone 3. ONT single acre criteria for Zone 3 allows a maximum of 250 people. The proposed project would generate a single acre intensity of 62 people as indicated in the above calculations.

Sitewide Average Calculation Single Acre Intensity Calculation Safety Zone 2 = 27 Safety Zone 3 = 19
Safety Zone 2 = 62 Safety Zone 3 = 62
6187
CE No.: 2021-072 Intensity Calculations for PDEV21-047
Building 4 Intensity Calculations
Load Factors
Sitewide Average
Calculations (Zone 2 =
60 P/AC max)
Sitewide Average
Calculations
(Zone 3 = 100 P/AC
max)
Zone 2 Single
Acre Land Use
SF (Zone 2 =
120 P/AC
max)
Single Acre Intensity
Calculations
(Zone 3 = 250 P/AC max)
Building No. Proposed Land Use Zone 2 Land Use SF Zone 3 Land Use SF ALUCP Load Factor ALUCP Load Factor ALUCP Load Factor ALUCP Load Factor Building 4 Warehouse - 14,776 1,000 0 15 - 15
Office - 5,000 215 0 23 - 23
Totals #DIV/0! 25.4 0 38
Site Information
Safety Zone Acreage Square Footage
Zone 2 0 0
Zone 3 1.5 65,340
Totals 1.5 65,340 Site Wide Average Calculation is for Zone 3, there are no buildings proposed within Zone 2. ONT criteria for Zone 3 allows a maximum of 100 people. The proposed project would generate a site wide average of 25 people as indicated in the calculations above.Single Acre Intensity Calculation is for Zone 3, there are no buildings proposed within Zone 2. ONT single acre criteria for Zone 3 allows a maximum of 250 people. The proposed project would generate a single acre intensity of 38 people as indicated in the above calculations.

Sitewide Average Calculation Single Acre Intensity Calculation Safety Zone 2 = 0
Safety Zone 3 = 25
Safety Zone 2 = 0
Safety Zone 3 = 38
6188
CE No.: 2021-072 Intensity Calculations for PDEV21-047
Building 5 Intensity Calculations
Load Factors
Sitewide Average
Calculations (Zone 2 =
60 P/AC max)
Sitewide Average
Calculations
(Zone 3 = 100 P/AC
max)
Zone 2 Single
Acre Land Use
SF (Zone 2 =
120 P/AC
max)
Single Acre Intensity
Calculations
(Zone 3 = 250 P/AC max)
Building No. Proposed Land Use Zone 2 Land Use SF Zone 3 Land Use SF ALUCP Load Factor ALUCP Load Factor ALUCP Load Factor ALUCP Load Factor Building 5 Warehouse 410,108 4,442 1,000 410 4 38.56 4
Office 10,000 - 215 47 0 23 0
Totals 28 1.4 62 4
Site Information
Safety Zone Acreage Square Footage
Zone 2 16.35 712,206
Zone 3 3.12 135,907
Totals 19.47 848,113 Site Wide Average Calculation is for Zone 2. ONT criteria for Zone 2 allows a maximum of 60 people. The proposed project would generate a site wide average of 28 people as indicated in the calculations above. Site Wide Average Calculation Zone 3. ONT criteria for Zone 3 allows a maximum of 100 people. The proposed project would generate a site wide average of 1 person as indicated in the calculations above.Single Acre Intensity Calculation is for Zone 2. ONT single acre criteria for Zone 2 allows a maximum of 120 people. The proposed project would generate a single acre intensity of 62 people as indicated in the above calculations. Single Acre Intensity Calculation is for Zone 3. ONT single acre criteria for Zone 3 allows a maximum of 250 people. The proposed project would generate a single acre intensity of 4 people as indicated in the above calculations.

Sitewide Average Calculation Single Acre Intensity Calculation Safety Zone 2 = 28
Safety Zone 3 = 1
Safety Zone 2 = 62
Safety Zone 3 = 4
6189
CE No.: 2021-072 Intensity Calculations for PDEV21-047
Building 6 Intensity Calculations
Load Factors
Sitewide Average
Calculations (Zone 2 =
60 P/AC max)
Sitewide Average
Calculations
(Zone 3 = 100 P/AC
max)
Zone 2 Single
Acre Land Use
SF (Zone 2 =
120 P/AC
max)
Single Acre Intensity
Calculations
(Zone 3 = 250 P/AC max)
Building No. Proposed Land Use Zone 2 Land Use SF Zone 3 Land Use SF ALUCP Load Factor ALUCP Load Factor ALUCP Load Factor ALUCP Load Factor Building 6 Warehouse 307,827 173,283 1,000 308 173 38.56 39 Office 5,000 5,000 215 23 23 23 23
Totals 26 25.2 62 62
Site Information
Safety Zone Acreage Square Footage
Zone 2 12.77 556,261
Zone 3 7.81 340,204
Totals 20.58 896,465 Site Wide Average Calculation is for Zone 2. ONT criteria for Zone 2 allows a maximum of 60 people. The proposed project would generate a site wide average of 26 people as indicated in the calculations above. Site Wide Average Calculation Zone 3. ONT criteria for Zone 3 allows a maximum of 100 people. The proposed project would generate a site wide average of 25 person as indicated in the calculations above.Single Acre Intensity Calculation is for Zone 2. ONT single acre criteria for Zone 2 allows a maximum of 120 people. The proposed project would generate a single acre intensity of 62 people as indicated in the above calculations. Single Acre Intensity Calculation is for Zone 3. ONT single acre criteria for Zone 3 allows a maximum of 250 people. The proposed project would generate a single acre intensity of 62 people as indicated in the above calculations.

Sitewide Average Calculation Single Acre Intensity Calculation Safety Zone 2 = 26 Safety Zone 3 = 25
Safety Zone 2 = 62 Safety Zone 3 = 62
6190
CE No.: 2021-072 Intensity Calculations for PDEV21-047
Building 7 Intensity Calculations
Load Factors
Sitewide Average
Calculations (Zone 2 =
60 P/AC max)
Sitewide Average
Calculations
(Zone 3 = 100 P/AC
max)
Zone 2 Single
Acre Land Use
SF (Zone 2 =
120 P/AC
max)
Single Acre Intensity
Calculations
(Zone 3 = 250 P/AC max)
Building No. Proposed Land Use Zone 2 Land Use SF Zone 3 Land Use SF ALUCP Load Factor ALUCP Load Factor ALUCP Load Factor ALUCP Load Factor Building 7 Warehouse 194,510 - 1,000 195 0 38.56 0
Office 10,000 - 215 47 0 23 0
Totals 25 #DIV/0! 62 0
Site Information
Safety Zone Acreage Square Footage
Zone 2 9.71 422,968
Zone 3 00
Totals 9.71 422,968 Site Wide Average Calculation is for Zone 2. ONT criteria for Zone 2 allows a maximum of 60 people. The proposed project would generate a site wide average of 25 people as indicated in the calculations above. Single Acre Intensity Calculation is for Zone 2. ONT single acre criteria for Zone 2 allows a maximum of 120 people. The proposed project would generate a single acre intensity of 62 people as indicated in the above calculations.

Sitewide Average Calculation Single Acre Intensity Calculation Safety Zone 2 = 25
Safety Zone 3 = 0
Safety Zone 2 = 62
Safety Zone 3 = 0
6191
CE No.: 2021-072 Intensity Calculations for PDEV21-047
Building 8 Intensity Calculations
Load Factors
Sitewide Average
Calculations (Zone 2 =
60 P/AC max)
Sitewide Average
Calculations
(Zone 3 = 100 P/AC
max)
Zone 2 Single
Acre Land Use
SF (Zone 2 =
120 P/AC
max)
Single Acre Intensity
Calculations
(Zone 3 = 250 P/AC max)
Building No. Proposed Land Use Zone 2 Land Use SF Zone 3 Land Use SF ALUCP Load Factor ALUCP Load Factor ALUCP Load Factor ALUCP Load Factor Building 8 Warehouse 238,209 286,083 1,000 238 286 38.56 39 Office 5,000 5,000 215 23 23 23 23
Totals 23 26.8 62 62
Site Information
Safety Zone Acreage Square Footage
Zone 2 11.46 499,198
Zone 3 11.53 502,247
Totals 22.99 1,001,444 Site Wide Average Calculation is for Zone 2. ONT criteria for Zone 2 allows a maximum of 60 people. The proposed project would generate a site wide average of 23 people as indicated in the calculations above. Site Wide Average Calculation Zone 3. ONT criteria for Zone 3 allows a maximum of 100 people. The proposed project would generate a site wide average of 27 person as indicated in the calculations above.Single Acre Intensity Calculation is for Zone 2. ONT single acre criteria for Zone 2 allows a maximum of 120 people. The proposed project would generate a single acre intensity of 62 people as indicated in the above calculations. Single Acre Intensity Calculation is for Zone 3. ONT single acre criteria for Zone 3 allows a maximum of 250 people. The proposed project would generate a single acre intensity of 62 people as indicated in the above calculations.

Sitewide Average Calculation Single Acre Intensity Calculation Safety Zone 2 = 23 Safety Zone 3 = 27
Safety Zone 2 = 62 Safety Zone 3 = 62
6192
CE No.: 2021-072 Intensity Calculations for PDEV21-047
Building 9 Intensity Calculations
Load Factors
Sitewide Average
Calculations (Zone 2 =
60 P/AC max)
Sitewide Average
Calculations
(Zone 3 = 100 P/AC
max)
Zone 2 Single
Acre Land Use
SF (Zone 2 =
120 P/AC
max)
Single Acre Intensity
Calculations
(Zone 3 = 250 P/AC max)
Building No. Proposed Land Use Zone 2 Land Use SF Zone 3 Land Use SF ALUCP Load Factor ALUCP Load Factor ALUCP Load Factor ALUCP Load Factor Building 9 Warehouse - - 1,000 0 0 - 0
Office - - 215 0 0 - 0
Totals #DIV/0! 0.0 0 0
Site Information
Safety Zone Acreage Square Footage
Zone 2 0 0
Zone 3 0.09 3,920
Totals 0.09 3,920 Building 9 is located outside of Zone 2 and 3, intensity calculations do not apply to this building.

Sitewide Average Calculation Single Acre Intensity Calculation Safety Zone 2 = N/A Safety Zone 3 = N/A
Safety Zone 2 = N/A Safety Zone 3 = N/A
6193
Federal Aviation Administration
February 09, 2022
TO:

Ontario Int'l Airport Authority
Attn: Kevin Keith
1923 E Avion St
Ontario, CA 91761
[email protected]
CC:

ONTARIO INTL AIRPORT

AUTHORITY
1923 EAST AVION STREET
ONTARIO, CA 91761
[email protected]
CC:

Mead & Hunt
Attn: Chuck McCormick
3110 Guasti Road, Suite 330
Ontario, CA 91761
[email protected]

RE: (See attached Table 1 for referenced case(s))
**FINAL DETERMINATION**
Table 1 - Letter Referenced Case(s)
ASN Prior ASN Location Latitude
(NAD83)
Longitude
(NAD83)
AGL
(Feet)
AMSL
(Feet)
2021-
AWP-4393-NRA
ONTARIO,CA 34-03-39.51N 117-34-30.98W 51 1001
2021-
AWP-4394-NRA
ONTARIO,CA 34-03-34.76N 117-34-31.02W 45 995
2021-
AWP-4395-NRA
ONTARIO,CA 34-03-39.45N 117-34-20.93W 51 997
2021-
AWP-4396-NRA
ONTARIO,CA 34-03-35.29N 117-34-20.91W 48 994
2021-
AWP-4397-NRA
ONTARIO,CA 34-03-38.05N 117-34-30.99W 54 1004
2021-
AWP-4398-NRA
ONTARIO,CA 34-03-38.00N 117-34-20.89W 54 1000
Description: This 7460 airspace case is for Building 1 of 9 buildings for the California Logistics Center that is located at Ontario Int'l Airport. This case is 1 of 6 airspace cases for Building 1. There are two attachments, one for the overall site layout and the other specific to Building 1.

We do not object with conditions to the construction described in this proposal provided:

You comply with the requirements set forth in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-2, "Operational Safety on Airports During Construction."
The proponent is required to coordinate all associated activities with the Airport Manager/Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) 5 business days prior to the beginning of the project.

This determination is subject to review if disruption to FAA Operations should occur.

The new development must be coordinated with the Airport Sponsor and Airport District Office and included on the next update to the Airport Layout Plan (ALP).

Your proposal impacts the following National Airspace System (NAS) equipment:
6194

The proposed building is on the approach path of 26R/L to Ontario (ONT) Airport. The building is expected to create reflective surfaces that will add and increase false targets in the area. The ONT Mode-S System can automatically create dynamic reflectors that will mitigate the new reflection surfaces and false targets. If the mitigations of the Mode-S system are insufficient, the STARS system has the capability of adding fixed reflectors to alleviate any new reflections and eliminate false targets from being displayed.

The Airport sponsor shall notify the FAA's Air Traffic Organization (ATO) Planning and Requirements (P&R) Service Area office a minimum of 45 days prior to the "physical construction start date" for this project. Submit FAA Form entitled Airport Sponsor Strategic Event Submission Form including all date, time and/or duration changes via email to 9-AJV-SEC- [email protected].

A separate notice to the FAA is required for any construction equipment, such as temporary cranes, whose working limits would exceed the height and lateral dimensions of your proposal.

This determination does not constitute FAA approval or disapproval of the physical development involved in the proposal. It is a determination with respect to the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and with respect to the safety of persons and property on the ground.

In making this determination, the FAA has considered matters such as the effects the proposal would have on existing or planned traffic patterns of neighboring airports, the effects it would have on the existing airspace structure and projected programs of the FAA, the effects it would have on the safety of persons and property on the ground, and the effects that existing or proposed manmade objects (on file with the FAA), and known natural objects within the affected area would have on the airport proposal.

This determination expires on August 9, 2023 unless:
(a) extended, revised or terminated by the issuing office. (b) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for the completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application.

NOTE: Request for extension of the effective period of this determination must be obtained at least 15 days prior to expiration date specified in this letter.

If you have any questions concerning this determination contact Lloyd E. Lewis (424) 405-7316 [email protected]. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2021-AWP-4393-NRA.

Lloyd E. Lewis
DivUser
Signature Control No: 503136727-511323141
6195
Federal Aviation Administration
February 09, 2022
TO:

Ontario Int'l Airport Authority
Attn: Kevin Keith
1923 E Avion St
Ontario, CA 91761
[email protected]
CC:

ONTARIO INTL AIRPORT

AUTHORITY
1923 EAST AVION STREET
ONTARIO, CA 91761
[email protected]
CC:

Mead & Hunt
Attn: Chuck McCormick
3110 Guasti Road, Suite 330
Ontario, CA 91761
[email protected]

RE: (See attached Table 1 for referenced case(s))
**FINAL DETERMINATION**
Table 1 - Letter Referenced Case(s)
ASN Prior ASN Location Latitude
(NAD83)
Longitude
(NAD83)
AGL
(Feet)
AMSL
(Feet)
2021-
AWP-4400-NRA
ONTARIO,CA 34-03-38.50N 117-34-17.94W 52 989
2021-
AWP-4401-NRA
ONTARIO,CA 34-03-16.59N 117-34-18.12W 52 978
2021-
AWP-4402-NRA
ONTARIO,CA 34-03-38.44N 117-34-13.66W 56 993
2021-
AWP-4403-NRA
ONTARIO,CA 34-03-38.02N 117-34-12.95W 55 992
2021-
AWP-4404-NRA
ONTARIO,CA 34-03-16.56N 117-34-13.13W 55 981
2021-
AWP-4405-NRA
ONTARIO,CA 34-03-27.45N 117-34-18.03W 52 984
2021-
AWP-4406-NRA
ONTARIO,CA 34-03-38.48N 117-34-14.73W 58 995
2021-
AWP-4407-NRA
ONTARIO,CA 34-03-27.84N 117-34-14.82W 58 990
2021-
AWP-4408-NRA
ONTARIO,CA 34-03-16.57N 117-34-14.91W 58 984
Description: This 7460 airspace case is for Building 2 of 9 buildings for the California Logistics Center that is located at Ontario Int'l Airport. This case is 1 of 9 airspace cases for Building 2. There are two attachments, one or the overall site layout and the other specific to Building 1.

We do not object with conditions to the construction described in this proposal provided:

You comply with the requirements set forth in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-2, "Operational Safety on Airports During Construction."
The proponent is required to coordinate all associated activities with the Airport Manager/Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) 5 business days prior to the beginning of the project.

This determination is subject to review if disruption to FAA Operations should occur. 6196

The new development must be coordinated with the Airport Sponsor and Airport District Office and included on the next update to the Airport Layout Plan (ALP).

Your proposal impacts the following National Airspace System (NAS) equipment:

The proposed building is on the approach path of 26R/L to Ontario (ONT) Airport. The building is expected to create reflective surfaces that will add and increase false targets in the area. The ONT Mode-S System can automatically create dynamic reflectors that will mitigate the new reflection surfaces and false targets. If the mitigations of the Mode-S system are insufficient, the STARS system has the capability of adding fixed reflectors to alleviate any new reflections and eliminate false targets from being displayed.

The Airport sponsor shall notify the FAA's Air Traffic Organization (ATO) Planning and Requirements (P&R) Service Area office a minimum of 45 days prior to the "physical construction start date" for this project. Submit FAA Form entitled Airport Sponsor Strategic Event Submission Form including all date, time and/or duration changes via email to 9-AJV-SEC- [email protected].

A separate notice to the FAA is required for any construction equipment, such as temporary cranes, whose working limits would exceed the height and lateral dimensions of your proposal.

This determination does not constitute FAA approval or disapproval of the physical development involved in the proposal. It is a determination with respect to the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and with respect to the safety of persons and property on the ground.

In making this determination, the FAA has considered matters such as the effects the proposal would have on existing or planned traffic patterns of neighboring airports, the effects it would have on the existing airspace structure and projected programs of the FAA, the effects it would have on the safety of persons and property on the ground, and the effects that existing or proposed manmade objects (on file with the FAA), and known natural objects within the affected area would have on the airport proposal.

This determination expires on August 9, 2023 unless:
(a) extended, revised or terminated by the issuing office. (b) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for the completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application.

NOTE: Request for extension of the effective period of this determination must be obtained at least 15 days prior to expiration date specified in this letter.
6197

If you have any questions concerning this determination contact Lloyd E. Lewis (424) 405-7316 [email protected]. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2021-AWP-4400-NRA.

Lloyd E. Lewis
DivUser
Signature Control No: 503141834-511333713
6198
Federal Aviation Administration
February 10, 2022
TO:

Ontario Int'l Airport Authority
Attn: Kevin Keith
1923 E Avion St
Ontario, CA 91761
[email protected]
CC:

ONTARIO INTL AIRPORT

AUTHORITY
1923 EAST AVION STREET
ONTARIO, CA 91761
[email protected]
CC:

Mead & Hunt
Attn: Chuck McCormick
3110 Guasti Road, Suite 330
Ontario, CA 91761
[email protected]

RE: (See attached Table 1 for referenced case(s))
**FINAL DETERMINATION**
Table 1 - Letter Referenced Case(s)
ASN Prior ASN Location Latitude
(NAD83)
Longitude
(NAD83)
AGL
(Feet)
AMSL
(Feet)
2021-
AWP-4409-NRA
ONTARIO,CA 34-03-14.11N 117-34-24.24W 52 969
2021-
AWP-4410-NRA
ONTARIO,CA 34-03-07.98N 117-34-24.29W 49 966
2021-
AWP-4411-NRA
ONTARIO,CA 34-03-14.64N 117-34-13.00W 49 966
2021-
AWP-4412-NRA
ONTARIO,CA 34-03-07.91N 117-34-13.06W 49 966
2021-
AWP-4413-NRA
ONTARIO,CA 34-03-11.37N 117-34-24.26W 58 975
2021-
AWP-4414-NRA
ONTARIO,CA 34-03-11.30N 117-34-13.03W 58 975
Description: This 7460 airspace case is for Building 3 of 9 buildings for the California Logistics Center that is located at Ontario Int'l Airport. This case is 1 of 6 airspace cases for Building 3. There are two attachments, one or the overall site layout and the other specific to Building 3.

We do not object with conditions to the construction described in this proposal provided:

You comply with the requirements set forth in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-2, "Operational Safety on Airports During Construction."
The proponent is required to coordinate all associated activities with the Airport Manager/Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) 5 business days prior to the beginning of the project.

This determination is subject to review if disruption to FAA Operations should occur.

The new development must be coordinated with the Airport Sponsor and Airport District Office and included on the next update to the Airport Layout Plan (ALP).

Your proposal impacts the following National Airspace System (NAS) equipment:
6199

The proposed building is on the approach path of 26R/L to Ontario (ONT) Airport. The building is expected to create reflective surfaces that will add and increase false targets in the area. The ONT Mode-S System can automatically create dynamic reflectors that will mitigate the new reflection surfaces and false targets. If the mitigations of the Mode-S system are insufficient, the STARS system has the capability of adding fixed reflectors to alleviate any new reflections and eliminate false targets from being displayed.

The Airport sponsor shall notify the FAA's Air Traffic Organization (ATO) Planning and Requirements (P&R) Service Area office a minimum of 45 days prior to the "physical construction start date" for this project. Submit FAA Form entitled Airport Sponsor Strategic Event Submission Form including all date, time and/or duration changes via email to 9-AJV-SEC- [email protected].

A separate notice to the FAA is required for any construction equipment, such as temporary cranes, whose working limits would exceed the height and lateral dimensions of your proposal.

This determination does not constitute FAA approval or disapproval of the physical development involved in the proposal. It is a determination with respect to the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and with respect to the safety of persons and property on the ground.

In making this determination, the FAA has considered matters such as the effects the proposal would have on existing or planned traffic patterns of neighboring airports, the effects it would have on the existing airspace structure and projected programs of the FAA, the effects it would have on the safety of persons and property on the ground, and the effects that existing or proposed manmade objects (on file with the FAA), and known natural objects within the affected area would have on the airport proposal.

This determination expires on August 10, 2023 unless:
(a) extended, revised or terminated by the issuing office. (b) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for the completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application.

NOTE: Request for extension of the effective period of this determination must be obtained at least 15 days prior to expiration date specified in this letter.

If you have any questions concerning this determination contact Lloyd E. Lewis (424) 405-7316 [email protected]. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2021-AWP-4409-NRA.

Lloyd E. Lewis
DivUser
Signature Control No: 503146889-511510370
6200
Federal Aviation Administration
February 15, 2022
TO:

Ontario Int'l Airport Authority
Attn: Kevin Keith
1923 E Avion St
Ontario, CA 91761
[email protected]
CC:

ONTARIO INTL AIRPORT

AUTHORITY
1923 EAST AVION STREET
ONTARIO, CA 91761
[email protected]
CC:

Mead & Hunt
Attn: Chuck McCormick
3110 Guasti Road, Suite 330
Ontario, CA 91761
[email protected]

RE: (See attached Table 1 for referenced case(s))
**FINAL DETERMINATION**
Table 1 - Letter Referenced Case(s)
ASN Prior ASN Location Latitude
(NAD83)
Longitude
(NAD83)
AGL
(Feet)
AMSL
(Feet)
2021-
AWP-4415-NRA
ONTARIO,CA 34-03-05.66N 117-34-31.77W 51 961
2021-
AWP-4416-NRA
ONTARIO,CA 34-02-55.28N 117-34-31.85W 51 961
2021-
AWP-4417-NRA
ONTARIO,CA 34-02-55.15N 117-34-31.65W 51 961
2021-
AWP-4418-NRA
ONTARIO,CA 34-03-05.64N 117-34-28.33W 44 954
2021-
AWP-4419-NRA
ONTARIO,CA 34-02-55.13N 117-34-28.42W 45 955
2021-
AWP-4420-NRA
ONTARIO,CA 34-03-05.65N 117-34-30.89W 52 961
2021-
AWP-4421-NRA
ONTARIO,CA 34-02-55.15N 117-34-30.97W 52 961
Description: This 7460 airspace case is for Building 4 of 9 buildings for the California Logistics Center that is located at Ontario Int'l Airport. This case is 1 of 7 airspace cases for Building 4. There are two attachments, one for the overall site layout and the other specific to Building 4.

We do not object with conditions to the construction described in this proposal provided:

You comply with the requirements set forth in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-2, "Operational Safety on Airports During Construction."
The proponent is required to coordinate all associated activities with the Airport Manager/Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) 5 business days prior to the beginning of the project.

This determination is subject to review if disruption to FAA Operations should occur.

The new development must be coordinated with the Airport Sponsor and Airport District Office and included on the next update to the Airport Layout Plan (ALP).
6201

Your proposal impacts the following National Airspace System (NAS) equipment:

The proposed building is on the approach path of 26R/L to Ontario (ONT) Airport. The building is expected to create reflective surfaces that will add and increase false targets in the area. The ONT Mode-S System can automatically create dynamic reflectors that will mitigate the new reflection surfaces and false targets. If the mitigations of the Mode-S system are insufficient, the STARS system has the capability of adding fixed reflectors to alleviate any new reflections and eliminate false targets from being displayed.

The Airport sponsor shall notify the FAA's Air Traffic Organization (ATO) Planning and Requirements (P&R) Service Area office a minimum of 45 days prior to the "physical construction start date" for this project. Submit FAA Form entitled Airport Sponsor Strategic Event Submission Form including all date, time and/or duration changes via email to 9-AJV-SEC- [email protected].

A separate notice to the FAA is required for any construction equipment, such as temporary cranes, whose working limits would exceed the height and lateral dimensions of your proposal.

This determination does not constitute FAA approval or disapproval of the physical development involved in the proposal. It is a determination with respect to the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and with respect to the safety of persons and property on the ground.

In making this determination, the FAA has considered matters such as the effects the proposal would have on existing or planned traffic patterns of neighboring airports, the effects it would have on the existing airspace structure and projected programs of the FAA, the effects it would have on the safety of persons and property on the ground, and the effects that existing or proposed manmade objects (on file with the FAA), and known natural objects within the affected area would have on the airport proposal.

This determination expires on August 15, 2023 unless:
(a) extended, revised or terminated by the issuing office. (b) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for the completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application.

NOTE: Request for extension of the effective period of this determination must be obtained at least 15 days prior to expiration date specified in this letter.

If you have any questions concerning this determination contact Lloyd E. Lewis (424) 405-7316 [email protected]. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2021-AWP-4415-NRA.

Lloyd E. Lewis
DivUser
Signature Control No: 503151163-511971484
6202
Federal Aviation Administration
March 11, 2022
TO:

Ontario Int'l Airport Authority
Attn: Kevin Keith
1923 E Avion St
Ontario, CA 91761
[email protected]
CC:

ONTARIO INTL AIRPORT

AUTHORITY
1923 EAST AVION STREET
ONTARIO, CA 91761
[email protected]
CC:

Mead & Hunt
Attn: Chuck McCormick
3110 Guasti Road, Suite 330
Ontario, CA 91761
[email protected]

RE: (See attached Table 1 for referenced case(s))
**FINAL DETERMINATION**
Table 1 - Letter Referenced Case(s)
ASN Prior ASN Location Latitude
(NAD83)
Longitude
(NAD83)
AGL
(Feet)
AMSL
(Feet)
2022-AWP-85-NRA ONTARIO,CA 34-03-32.40N 117-34-10.67W 51 986 2022-AWP-86-NRA ONTARIO,CA 34-03-21.18N 117-34-10.77W 51 986 2022-AWP-87-NRA ONTARIO,CA 34-03-32.37N 117-34-06.29W 48 983 2022-AWP-88-NRA ONTARIO,CA 34-03-21.15N 117-34-05.67W 45 980 2022-AWP-89-NRA ONTARIO,CA 34-03-32.39N 117-34-09.09W 53 988 2022-AWP-90-NRA ONTARIO,CA 34-03-21.17N 117-34-09.19W 53 988 Description: This 7460 airspace case is for Building 5 of 9 buildings for the California Logistics Center that is located at Ontario Int'l Airport. This case is 1 of 6 airspace cases for Building 5. There are two attachments, one for the overall site layout and the other specific to Building 5.

We do not object with conditions to the construction described in this proposal provided:

You comply with the requirements set forth in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-2, "Operational Safety on Airports During Construction."
The proponent is required to coordinate all associated activities with the Airport Manager/Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) 5 business days prior to the beginning of the project.

This determination is subject to review if disruption to FAA Operations should occur.

The new development must be coordinated with the Airport Sponsor and Airport District Office and included on the next update to the Airport Layout Plan (ALP).

A separate notice to the FAA is required for any construction equipment, such as temporary cranes, whose working limits would exceed the height and lateral dimensions of your proposal.

This determination does not constitute FAA approval or disapproval of the physical development involved in the proposal. It is a determination with respect to the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and with respect to the safety of persons and property on the ground. 6203

In making this determination, the FAA has considered matters such as the effects the proposal would have on existing or planned traffic patterns of neighboring airports, the effects it would have on the existing airspace structure and projected programs of the FAA, the effects it would have on the safety of persons and property on the ground, and the effects that existing or proposed manmade objects (on file with the FAA), and known natural objects within the affected area would have on the airport proposal.

This determination expires on September 11, 2023 unless:
(a) extended, revised or terminated by the issuing office. (b) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for the completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application.

NOTE: Request for extension of the effective period of this determination must be obtained at least 15 days prior to expiration date specified in this letter.

If you have any questions concerning this determination contact Lloyd E. Lewis (424) 405-7316 [email protected]. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2022-AWP-85-NRA.

Lloyd E. Lewis
DivUser
Signature Control No: 506612859-517303195
6204
Federal Aviation Administration
March 11, 2022
TO:

Ontario Int'l Airport Authority
Attn: Kevin Keith
1923 E Avion St
Ontario, CA 91761
[email protected]
CC:

ONTARIO INTL AIRPORT

AUTHORITY
1923 EAST AVION STREET
ONTARIO, CA 91761
[email protected]
CC:

Mead & Hunt
Attn: Chuck McCormick
3110 Guasti Road, Suite 330
Ontario, CA 91761
[email protected]

RE: (See attached Table 1 for referenced case(s))
**FINAL DETERMINATION**
Table 1 - Letter Referenced Case(s)
ASN Prior ASN Location Latitude
(NAD83)
Longitude
(NAD83)
AGL
(Feet)
AMSL
(Feet)
2022-AWP-91-NRA ONTARIO,CA 34-03-18.72N 117-34-10.79W 55 973 2022-AWP-92-NRA ONTARIO,CA 34-03-05.90N 117-34-10.90W 55 973 2022-AWP-93-NRA ONTARIO,CA 34-03-18.69N 117-34-05.69W 48 967 2022-AWP-94-NRA ONTARIO,CA 34-03-05.87N 117-34-05.80W 49 968 2022-AWP-95-NRA ONTARIO,CA 34-03-18.71N 117-34-09.26W 57 976 2022-AWP-96-NRA ONTARIO,CA 34-03-05.89N 117-34-09.37W 57 976 Description: This 7460 airspace case is for Building 6 of 9 buildings for the California Logistics Center that is located at Ontario Int'l Airport. This case is 1 of 6 airspace cases for Building 6. There are two attachments, one for the overall site layout and the other specific to Building 6.

We do not object with conditions to the construction described in this proposal provided:

You comply with the requirements set forth in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-2, "Operational Safety on Airports During Construction."
The proponent is required to coordinate all associated activities with the Airport Manager/Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) 5 business days prior to the beginning of the project.

This determination is subject to review if disruption to FAA Operations should occur.

The new development must be coordinated with the Airport Sponsor and Airport District Office and included on the next update to the Airport Layout Plan (ALP).

A separate notice to the FAA is required for any construction equipment, such as temporary cranes, whose working limits would exceed the height and lateral dimensions of your proposal.

This determination does not constitute FAA approval or disapproval of the physical development involved in the proposal. It is a determination with respect to the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and with respect to the safety of persons and property on the ground. 6205

In making this determination, the FAA has considered matters such as the effects the proposal would have on existing or planned traffic patterns of neighboring airports, the effects it would have on the existing airspace structure and projected programs of the FAA, the effects it would have on the safety of persons and property on the ground, and the effects that existing or proposed manmade objects (on file with the FAA), and known natural objects within the affected area would have on the airport proposal.

This determination expires on September 11, 2023 unless:
(a) extended, revised or terminated by the issuing office. (b) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for the completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application.

NOTE: Request for extension of the effective period of this determination must be obtained at least 15 days prior to expiration date specified in this letter.

If you have any questions concerning this determination contact Lloyd E. Lewis (424) 405-7316 [email protected]. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2022-AWP-91-NRA.

Lloyd E. Lewis
DivUser
Signature Control No: 506757036-517303258
6206
Federal Aviation Administration
March 11, 2022
TO:

Ontario Int'l Airport Authority
Attn: Kevin Keith
1923 E Avion St
Ontario, CA 91761
[email protected]
CC:

ONTARIO INTL AIRPORT

AUTHORITY
1923 EAST AVION STREET
ONTARIO, CA 91761
[email protected]
CC:

Mead & Hunt
Attn: Chuck McCormick
3110 Guasti Road, Suite 330
Ontario, CA 91761
[email protected]

RE: (See attached Table 1 for referenced case(s))
**FINAL DETERMINATION**
Table 1 - Letter Referenced Case(s)
ASN Prior ASN Location Latitude
(NAD83)
Longitude
(NAD83)
AGL
(Feet)
AMSL
(Feet)
2022-AWP-97-NRA ONTARIO,CA 34-03-27.50N 117-34-02.18W 51 985 2022-AWP-98-NRA ONTARIO,CA 34-03-21.14N 117-34-02.23W 51 985 2022-AWP-99-NRA ONTARIO,CA 34-03-27.48N 117-33-58.51W 48 982 2022-AWP-100-NRA ONTARIO,CA 34-03-21.11N 117-33-57.85W 45 979 2022-AWP-101-NRA ONTARIO,CA 34-03-27.50N 117-34-01.00W 53 987 2022-AWP-102-NRA ONTARIO,CA 34-03-21.13N 117-34-01.05W 53 987 Description: This 7460 airspace case is for Building 7 of 9 buildings for the California Logistics Center that is located at Ontario Int'l Airport. This case is 1 of 6 airspace cases for Building 7. There are two attachments, one for the overall site layout and the other specific to Building 7.

We do not object with conditions to the construction described in this proposal provided:

You comply with the requirements set forth in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-2, "Operational Safety on Airports During Construction."
The proponent is required to coordinate all associated activities with the Airport Manager/Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) 5 business days prior to the beginning of the project.

This determination is subject to review if disruption to FAA Operations should occur.

The new development must be coordinated with the Airport Sponsor and Airport District Office and included on the next update to the Airport Layout Plan (ALP).

A separate notice to the FAA is required for any construction equipment, such as temporary cranes, whose working limits would exceed the height and lateral dimensions of your proposal.

This determination does not constitute FAA approval or disapproval of the physical development involved in the proposal. It is a determination with respect to the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and with respect to the safety of persons and property on the ground. 6207

In making this determination, the FAA has considered matters such as the effects the proposal would have on existing or planned traffic patterns of neighboring airports, the effects it would have on the existing airspace structure and projected programs of the FAA, the effects it would have on the safety of persons and property on the ground, and the effects that existing or proposed manmade objects (on file with the FAA), and known natural objects within the affected area would have on the airport proposal.

This determination expires on September 11, 2023 unless:
(a) extended, revised or terminated by the issuing office. (b) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for the completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application.

NOTE: Request for extension of the effective period of this determination must be obtained at least 15 days prior to expiration date specified in this letter.

If you have any questions concerning this determination contact Lloyd E. Lewis (424) 405-7316 [email protected]. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2022-AWP-97-NRA.

Lloyd E. Lewis
DivUser
Signature Control No: 506764531-517303500
6208
Federal Aviation Administration
March 11, 2022
TO:

Ontario Int'l Airport Authority
Attn: Kevin Keith
1923 E Avion St
Ontario, CA 91761
[email protected]
CC:

ONTARIO INTL AIRPORT

AUTHORITY
1923 EAST AVION STREET
ONTARIO, CA 91761
[email protected]
CC:

Mead & Hunt
Attn: Chuck McCormick
3110 Guasti Road, Suite 330
Ontario, CA 91761
[email protected]

RE: (See attached Table 1 for referenced case(s))
**FINAL DETERMINATION**
Table 1 - Letter Referenced Case(s)
ASN Prior ASN Location Latitude
(NAD83)
Longitude
(NAD83)
AGL
(Feet)
AMSL
(Feet)
2022-AWP-103-NRA ONTARIO,CA 34-03-18.06N 117-34-02.25W 55 972 2022-AWP-104-NRA ONTARIO,CA 34-03-01.41N 117-34-02.39W 55 972 2022-AWP-105-NRA ONTARIO,CA 34-03-18.04N 117-33-57.85W 48 965 2022-AWP-106-NRA ONTARIO,CA 34-03-01.39N 117-33-57.99W 49 966 2022-AWP-107-NRA ONTARIO,CA 34-03-18.06N 117-34-01.08W 57 974 2022-AWP-108-NRA ONTARIO,CA 34-03-01.41N 117-34-01.22W 57 974 Description: This 7460 airspace case is for Building 8 of 9 buildings for the California Logistics Center that is located at Ontario Int'l Airport. This case is 1 of 6 airspace cases for Building 8. There are two attachments, one for the overall site layout and the other specific to Building 8.

We do not object with conditions to the construction described in this proposal provided:

You comply with the requirements set forth in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-2, "Operational Safety on Airports During Construction."
The proponent is required to coordinate all associated activities with the Airport Manager/Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) 5 business days prior to the beginning of the project.

This determination is subject to review if disruption to FAA Operations should occur.

The new development must be coordinated with the Airport Sponsor and Airport District Office and included on the next update to the Airport Layout Plan (ALP).

A separate notice to the FAA is required for any construction equipment, such as temporary cranes, whose working limits would exceed the height and lateral dimensions of your proposal.

This determination does not constitute FAA approval or disapproval of the physical development involved in the proposal. It is a determination with respect to the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and with respect to the safety of persons and property on the ground. 6209

In making this determination, the FAA has considered matters such as the effects the proposal would have on existing or planned traffic patterns of neighboring airports, the effects it would have on the existing airspace structure and projected programs of the FAA, the effects it would have on the safety of persons and property on the ground, and the effects that existing or proposed manmade objects (on file with the FAA), and known natural objects within the affected area would have on the airport proposal.

This determination expires on September 11, 2023 unless:
(a) extended, revised or terminated by the issuing office. (b) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for the completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application.

NOTE: Request for extension of the effective period of this determination must be obtained at least 15 days prior to expiration date specified in this letter.

If you have any questions concerning this determination contact Lloyd E. Lewis (424) 405-7316 [email protected]. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2022-AWP-103-NRA.

Lloyd E. Lewis
DivUser
Signature Control No: 506768281-517303608
6210
Federal Aviation Administration
March 11, 2022
TO:

Ontario Int'l Airport Authority
Attn: Kevin Keith
1923 E Avion St
Ontario, CA 91761
[email protected]
CC:

ONTARIO INTL AIRPORT

AUTHORITY
1923 EAST AVION STREET
ONTARIO, CA 91761
[email protected]
CC:

Mead & Hunt
Attn: Chuck McCormick
3110 Guasti Road, Suite 330
Ontario, CA 91761
[email protected]

RE: (See attached Table 1 for referenced case(s))
**FINAL DETERMINATION**
Table 1 - Letter Referenced Case(s)
ASN Prior ASN Location Latitude
(NAD83)
Longitude
(NAD83)
AGL
(Feet)
AMSL
(Feet)
2022-AWP-109-NRA ONTARIO,CA 34-02-59.00N 117-34-01.83W 49 957 2022-AWP-110-NRA ONTARIO,CA 34-02-54.46N 117-34-01.87W 55 963 2022-AWP-111-NRA ONTARIO,CA 34-02-58.32N 117-33-46.54W 52 960 2022-AWP-112-NRA ONTARIO,CA 34-02-54.37N 117-33-46.57W 55 963 2022-AWP-113-NRA ONTARIO,CA 34-02-55.75N 117-34-01.88W 58 966 2022-AWP-114-NRA ONTARIO,CA 34-02-55.66N 117-33-46.55W 58 966 Description: This 7460 airspace case is for Building 9 of 9 buildings for the California Logistics Center that is located at Ontario Int'l Airport. This case is 1 of 6 airspace cases for Building 9. There are two attachments, one for the overall site layout and the other specific to Building 9.

We do not object with conditions to the construction described in this proposal provided:

You comply with the requirements set forth in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-2, "Operational Safety on Airports During Construction."
The proponent is required to coordinate all associated activities with the Airport Manager/Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) 5 business days prior to the beginning of the project.

This determination is subject to review if disruption to FAA Operations should occur.

The new development must be coordinated with the Airport Sponsor and Airport District Office and included on the next update to the Airport Layout Plan (ALP).

A separate notice to the FAA is required for any construction equipment, such as temporary cranes, whose working limits would exceed the height and lateral dimensions of your proposal.

This determination does not constitute FAA approval or disapproval of the physical development involved in the proposal. It is a determination with respect to the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and with respect to the safety of persons and property on the ground. 6211

In making this determination, the FAA has considered matters such as the effects the proposal would have on existing or planned traffic patterns of neighboring airports, the effects it would have on the existing airspace structure and projected programs of the FAA, the effects it would have on the safety of persons and property on the ground, and the effects that existing or proposed manmade objects (on file with the FAA), and known natural objects within the affected area would have on the airport proposal.

This determination expires on September 11, 2023 unless:
(a) extended, revised or terminated by the issuing office. (b) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for the completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application.

NOTE: Request for extension of the effective period of this determination must be obtained at least 15 days prior to expiration date specified in this letter.

If you have any questions concerning this determination contact Lloyd E. Lewis (424) 405-7316 [email protected]. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2022-AWP-109-NRA.

Lloyd E. Lewis
DivUser
Signature Control No: 506770479-517303772
6212

CITY OF ONTARIO

MEMORANDUM
TO: Scott Murphy, Community Development Director (Copy of memo only) Rudy Zeledon, Planning Director (Copy of memo only)
Diane Ayala, Advanced Planning Division (Copy of memo only) Charity Hernandez, Economic Development
James Caro, Building Department
Raymond Lee, Engineering Department
Jamie Richardson, Landscape Planning Division
Dennis Mejia, Municipal Utility Company
Jeremy Phillips, Police Department
Paul Ehrman, Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal
Jay Bautista, Traffic/Transportation Manager
Lorena Mejia, Airport Planning
Tricia Espinoza, Engineering/NPDES
Angela Magana, Community Improvement (Copy of memo only) Jimmy Chang , IT Department
Ben Mayorga, Integrated Waste
FROM: Edmelynne Hutter, Senior Planner
DATE: November 03, 2022
SUBJECT: FILE #: PDEV21-047 Finance Acct#:

The following project has been resubmitted for review. Please send one (1) copy and email one (1) copy of your DAB report to the Planning Department by .

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Development Plan to construct nine industrial buildings totaling 4,281,128 square feet on 196.89 acres of land generally located east of Haven Avenue, west of Doubleday Avenue and Dupont Avenue, 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).

The conditions contained in the attached report must be met prior to scheduling for Development Advisory Board.

The plan does not adequately address the departmental concerns.

Standard Conditions of Approval apply
Report attached (1 copy and email 1 copy)
No comments
The plan does adequately address the departmental concerns at this time.

See previous report for Conditions
Department Signature Title Date
REVISION #2
6213

CITY OF ONTARIO

LANDSCAPE PLANNING DIVISION
303 East “B” Street, Ontario, CA 91764

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Sign Off
11/17/2022
Jamie Richardson, Sr. Landscape Planner Date
Reviewer’s Name:

Jamie Richardson, Sr. Landscape Planner
Phone:
(909) 395-2615
D.A.B. File No.:

PDEV21-047
Case Planner:

Edmelynne Hutter
Project Name and Location:
9 Industrial Buildings
East of Haven, West of Doubleday, North of Jurupa, and South of Airport Applicant/Representative:

MIG, Inc. Pamela Steele, [email protected] (951) 733-5240 1650 Spruce Street, Suite 106
Riverside, CA 92507
Preliminary Plans (dated 11/3/2022) meet the Standard Conditions for New Development and have been approved considering that the following conditions below be met upon submittal of the landscape construction documents.

Preliminary Plans (dated) have not been approved. Corrections noted below are required before Preliminary Landscape Plan approval.

A RESPONSE SHEET IS REQUIRED WITH RESUBMITTAL OR PLANS WILL BE RETURNED INCOMPLETE.

Landscape construction plans with plan check number may be emailed to:
[email protected]
DIGITAL SUBMITTALS MUST BE Previous Comments – 1/12/2022 10MB OR LESS.

Civil/ Site Plans

1. Before permit issuance, stormwater infiltration devices located in landscape areas shall be reviewed and plans approved by the Landscape Planning Division. Any stormwater devices in parkway areas shall not displace street trees.

2. Show and dimension transformers set back 5’ from paving all sides. Coordinate with landscape plans.

3. Show and dimension backflow devices set back 4’ from paving all sides. Locate on level grade

4. Locate utilities including light standards, fire hydrants, water, drain, and sewer lines to not conflict with required tree locations—coordinate civil plans with landscape plans.

5. Note for compaction to be no greater than 85% at landscape areas. All finished grades at 1 ½” below finished surfaces. Slopes to be maximum 3:1.

6. Dimension all planters to have a minimum 5’ wide inside dimension.

7. Dimension, show and call out for step-outs at parking spaces adjacent to planters; a 12” wide monolithic concrete curb, DG paving, or pavers with edging.

8. Add Note to Grading and Landscape Plans: Landscape areas where compaction has occurred due to grading activities and where trees or stormwater infiltration areas are located shall be loosened by soil fracturing. For trees, a 12’x12’x18” deep area; for stormwater infiltration, the entire area shall be loosened. Add the following information on the plans: The backhoe method of soil fracturing shall be used to break up compaction. A 4” layer of Compost is spread over the soil surface before fracturing is begun. The backhoe shall dig into the soil lifting and then drop the soil immediately back into the hole. The bucket then moves to the adjacent soil and repeats. The Compost falls into the spaces between the soil chunks created. Fracturing shall leave the soil surface quite rough with large soil clods. These must be broken by additional tilling. Tilling in more Compost to the surface after fracturing per the soil report will help create 6214
an A horizon soil. Imported or reused Topsoil can be added on top of the fractured soil as needed for grading. The Landscape Architect shall be present during this process and provide certification of the soil fracturing. For additional reference, see Urban Tree Foundation – Planting Soil Specifications.

Landscape Plans

9. During plan check, coordinate with Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC) to submit irrigation plans for recycled water systems to [email protected]. OMUC shall review and approve irrigation systems utilizing recycled water before final landscape approval.

Submit an electronic approval letter or memo from OMUC with resubmittal of the landscape package.

10. Show median nose design in 3’ planter space with 18” wide compacted decomposed granite (DG) maintenance strip alternating with 18” wide low shrubs; reverse pattern every 25’ after each 6’ wide uncompacted DG tree planting space. Refer to Engineering standard detail 1109 and see attached. Show LU trees within the median nose; see attached conceptual median nose example.

11. Locate light standards, fire hydrants, water, and sewer lines to not conflict with required tree locations. Coordinate civil plans with landscape plans

12. Show all utilities on the landscape plans. Coordinate so utilities are clear of tree locations.

13. Locate utilities including light standards, fire hydrants, water, drain, and sewer lines to not conflict with required tree locations—coordinate civil plans with landscape plans.

14. Dimension all planters to have a minimum 5’ wide inside dimension with 6” curbs and a total of 12” wide curbs where parking spaces are adjacent to planters.

15. Use ornamental grasses as accents only (difficult to maintain in masses), note for Lantana m. ‘Alba and use in areas 8’ or larger, Magnolia (City Council directive), use Agaves as accents only in protected areas. Replace Pennisteum; consider Festuca mairei.

16. Landscape construction plans shall meet the requirements of the Landscape Development Guidelines. See http://www.ontarioca.gov/landscape-planning/standards

17. After a project’s entitlement approval, the applicant shall pay all applicable fees for landscape plan check and inspections at a rate established by resolution of the City Council. Landscape construction plans with building permit number for plan check may be emailed to:
[email protected]
6215
6216
Project File No. PDEV21-047
Project Engineer: Raymond Lee
DAB Date: 1/4/2023
Last Revised 1/3/2023 Page 2 of 20

THIS PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN THE GENERAL STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL (RESOLUTION NO. 2017-027) AND THE PROJECT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SPECIFIED HEREIN. ONLY APPLICABLE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ARE CHECKED. THE APPLICANT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COMPLETION OF ALL

APPLICABLE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO FINAL MAP OR PARCEL MAP APPROVAL, ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND/OR OCCUPANCY CLEARANCE, AS SPECIFIED IN THIS REPORT.

1. PRIOR TO FINAL MAP OR PARCEL MAP APPROVAL, APPLICANT SHALL: Check When Complete

1.01 Dedicate to the City of Ontario, the right-of-way, described below:
____________ feet on _______________________________________________________________ Property line corner ‘cut-back’ required at the intersection of __________________________________ and___________________________________________.

1.02 Dedicate to the City of Ontario, the following easement(s): ___________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

1.03 Restrict vehicular access to the site as follows: ________________________________

1.04 Vacate the following street(s) and/or easement(s):
a. All interfering on-site easements shall be quitclaimed, vacated, and/or submit non-interference letter from affected owner/utility company.

1.05 Submit a copy of a recorded private reciprocal use agreement or easement. The agreement or easement shall ensure, at a minimum, common ingress and egress and joint maintenance of all common access areas and drive aisles.

1.06 Provide (original document) Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) as applicable to the project and as approved by the City Attorney and the Engineering and Planning Departments, ready for recordation with the County of San Bernardino. The CC&Rs shall provide for, but not be limited to, common ingress and egress, joint maintenance responsibility for all common access improvements, common facilities, parking areas, utilities, median and landscaping improvements and drive approaches, in addition to maintenance requirements established in the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), as applicable to the project. The CC&Rs shall also address the maintenance and repair responsibility for public improvements/utilities (sewer, water, storm drain, recycled water, etc.) located within open space/easements. In the event of any maintenance or repair of these facilities, the City shall only restore disturbed areas to current City Standards.

1.07 For all development occurring south of the Pomona Freeway (60-Freeway) and within the specified boundary limits (per Boundary Map found at http://tceplumecleanup.com/), the property developer/owner is made aware of the South Archibald Trichloroethylene (TCE) Plume “Disclosure Letter”. Property owner may wish to provide this Letter as part of the Real Estate Transfer Disclosure requirements under California Civil Code Section 1102 et seq. This may include notifications in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) or other documents related to property transfer and disclosures. Additional information on the plume is available from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board at http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report?global_id=T10000004658.

1.08 File an application for Reapportionment of Assessment, together with payment of a reapportionment processing fee, for each existing assessment district listed below. Contact the Financial Services Department at (909) 395-2124 regarding this requirement.

(1) ___________________________________
(2) ___________________________________

1.09 Prepare a fully executed Subdivision Agreement (on City approved format and forms) with accompanying security as required, or complete all public improvements. 6217
Project File No. PDEV21-047
Project Engineer: Raymond Lee
DAB Date: 1/4/2023
Last Revised 1/3/2023 Page 3 of 20

1.10 Provide a monument bond (i.e. cash deposit) in an amount calculated by the City’s approved cost estimate spreadsheet (available for download on the City’s website: www.ontarioca.gov) or as specified in writing by the applicant’s Registered Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor of Record and approved by the City Engineer, whichever is greater.

1.11 Provide a preliminary title report current to within 30 days.

1.12 File an application, together with an initial deposit (if required), to establish a Community Facilities District (CFD) pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982. The application and fee shall be submitted a minimum of four (4) months prior to final subdivision map approval, and the CFD shall be established prior to final subdivision map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The CFD shall be established upon the subject property to provide funding for various City services. An annual special tax shall be levied upon each parcel or lot in an amount to be determined. The special tax will be collected along with annual property taxes. The City shall be the sole lead agency in the formation of any CFD. Contact Investment and Revenue Resources at (909) 395-2341 to initiate the CFD application process.

1.13 Ontario Ranch Developments:
1) Provide evidence of final cancellation of Williamson Act contracts associated with this tract, prior to approval of any final subdivision map. Cancellation of contracts shall have been approved by the City Council.
2) Provide evidence of sufficient storm water capacity availability equivalents (Certificate of Storm Water Treatment Equivalents).
3) Provide evidence of sufficient water availability equivalents (Certificate of Net MDD Availability).

1.14 Other conditions: ____________________________________________________________________

2. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY PERMITS, APPLICANT SHALL:

A. GENERAL
(Permits includes Grading, Building, Demolition and Encroachment)

2.01 Record Parcel Map/Tract Map No. __________ pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act and in accordance with the City of Ontario Municipal Code.

2.02 Submit a PDF of the recorded map to the City Engineer’s office.

2.03 Note that the subject parcel is a recognized parcel in the City of Ontario per Parcel Map No. 10112.

2.04 Note that the subject parcel is an ‘unrecognized’ parcel in the City of Ontario and shall require a Certificate of Compliance to be processed unless a deed is provided confirming the existence of the parcel prior to the date of March 4, 1972.

2.05 Apply for a:

Certificate of Compliance with a Record of Survey;
Lot Line Adjustment for the property of Building 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 so that no lot lines will go through these buildings (Record a Conforming Deed with the County of San Bernardino within six months of the recordation of the Lot Line Adjustment to conform the new LLA legal description. Submit a copy of the recorded Conforming Deed to the Engineering Department.); Make a Dedication of Easement.

2.06 Provide (original document) Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R’s), as applicable to the project, and as approved by the City Attorney and the Engineering and Planning Departments, ready for recordation with the County of San Bernardino. The CC&R’s shall provide for, but not be limited to, common ingress and egress, joint maintenance of all common access improvements, common facilities, parking areas, utilities and drive approaches in 6218
Project File No. PDEV21-047
Project Engineer: Raymond Lee
DAB Date: 1/4/2023
Last Revised 1/3/2023 Page 4 of 20
addition to maintenance requirements established in the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), as applicable to the project.

2.07 For all development occurring south of the Pomona Freeway (60-Freeway) and within the specified boundary limits (per Boundary Map found at http://tceplumecleanup.com/), the property developer/owner is made aware of the South Archibald Trichloroethylene (TCE) Plume “Disclosure Letter”. Property owner may wish to provide this Letter as part of the Real Estate Transfer Disclosure requirements under California Civil Code Section 1102 et seq. This may include notifications in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) or other documents related to property transfer and disclosures. Additional information on the plume is available from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board at http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report?global_id=T10000004658.

2.08 Submit a soils/geology report.

2.09 Other Agency Permit/Approval: Submit a copy of the approved permit and/or other form of approval of the project from the following agency or agencies:

State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) San Bernardino County Road Department (SBCRD)
San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD)
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) for sewer/water service United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
California Department of Fish & Game
Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA)
Other: ______________________________________

2.10 Dedicate to the City of Ontario the right-of-way described below:
____________ feet on _______________________________________________________________ Property line corner ‘cut-back’ required at the intersection of __________________________________ and __________________________________________.

2.11 Dedicate to the City of Ontario the following easement(s):

A. A storm drain easement for the relocated 48” public storm drain in building 8. The size of the easement will be determined during plan check.

2.12 Vacate the following street(s) and/or easement(s):

A. All interfering on-site easements shall be quitclaimed, vacated, and/or submit noninterference letter from affected owner/utility company.

2.13 Ontario Ranch Developments:
1) Submit a copy of the permit from the San Bernardino County Health Department to the Engineering Department and the Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC) for the destruction/abandonment of the on-site water well. The well shall be destroyed/abandoned in accordance with the San Bernardino County Health Department guidelines. 2) Make a formal request to the City of Ontario Engineering Department for the proposed temporary use of an existing agricultural water well for purposes other than agriculture, such as grading, dust control, etc. Upon approval, the Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City of Ontario and pay any applicable fees as set forth by said agreement.
3) Design proposed retaining walls to retain up to a maximum of three (3) feet of earth. In no case shall a wall exceed an overall height of nine (9) feet (i.e. maximum 6-foot high wall on top of a maximum 3-foot high retaining wall.

2.14 Prepare a fully executed Improvement Agreement (on City approved format and forms) with 6219
Project File No. PDEV21-047
Project Engineer: Raymond Lee
DAB Date: 1/4/2023
Last Revised 1/3/2023 Page 5 of 20
accompanying security as required to the Engineering Department to guarantee construction of the public improvements required herein valued at 100% of the approved construction cost estimate or complete all public improvements. Security deposit shall be in accordance with the City of Ontario Municipal Code. Security deposit will be eligible for release, in accordance with City procedure, upon completion and acceptance of said public improvements.

2.15 The applicant/developer shall submit all necessary survey documents prepared by a Licensed Surveyor registered in the State of California detailing all existing survey monuments in and around the project site. These documents are to be reviewed and approved by the City Survey Office.

2.16 Pay all Development Impact Fees (DIF) to the Building Department. Storm Drain Development Impact Fee, approximately $4,841,614, shall be paid to the Building Department. Final fee shall be determined based on the approved site plan and the DIF rate at the time of payment.

2.17 Retaining walls can be built to retain up to a maximum of three (3) feet of earth. In no case shall a wall exceed an overall height of nine (9) feet (i.e. maximum 6-foot high wall on top of a maximum 3-foot high retaining wall.

2.18 Provide private cross lot drainage easement over parcels as needed by the approved Lot Line Adjustment (see 2.05)

2.19 Provide private reciprocal use agreements or easements to ensure, at a minimum, common ingress and egress and joint maintenance of all common access areas and drive aisles. 6220
Project File No. PDEV21-047
Project Engineer: Raymond Lee
DAB Date: 1/4/2023
Last Revised 1/3/2023 Page 6 of 20
B. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
(See attached Exhibit A for plan check submittal requirements.)

2.18 Design and construct full public improvements in accordance with the City of Ontario Municipal Code, current City standards and specifications, master plans and the adopted specific plan for the area, if any. These public improvements shall include, but not be limited to, the following (checked boxes):

Improvement
(North-South St) Haven Ave
1 Carnegie Ave1 Commerce
Parkway1
Doubleday
Ave
1 Curb and Gutter
New; ___ ft.
from C/L
Remove and
replace damaged
Remove
and replace
New; ___ ft.
from C/L
Replace and
replace damaged
Remove
and replace

New; ___ ft.
from C/L
Remove and
replace damaged
Remove
and replace

New; ___ ft.
from C/L
Replace and
replace damaged
Remove
and replace

AC Pavement
(see 2.19)
Replacement
Widen ____
additional feet
along frontage,
including pavm’t
transitions
Replacement
Widen ____
additional feet
along frontage,
including pavm’t
transitions
Replacement
Widen ____
additional feet
along frontage,
including pavm’t
transitions

Replacement
Widen ____
additional feet
along frontage,
including pavm’t
transitions

PCC Pavement
(see Sec. 2.F,

2.38.6)
New
Modify
existing
New
Modify
existing
New
Modify
existing
New
Modify
existing
Drive Approach
New
Remove
and replace
New
Remove
and replace
New
Remove
and replace
New
Remove
and replace
Sidewalk
New
Remove
and replace
New
Remove
and replace
New
Remove
and replace
damaged
New
Remove
and replace
ADA Access
Ramp
New
Remove
and replace
New
Remove
and replace
New
Remove
and replace
New
Remove
and replace
Parkway
Trees
Landscaping
(w/irrigation)2
Trees
Landscaping
(w/irrigation)2
Trees
Landscaping
(w/irrigation)2
Trees
Landscaping
(w/irrigation)2
Raised
Landscaped
Median
New
Remove
and replace
New
Remove
and replace

New
Remove
and replace
2 New
Remove
and replace

Fire Hydrant
New /
Upgrade
Relocation
New /
Upgrade
Relocation
New /
Upgrade
Relocation
New /
Upgrade
Relocation
6221
Project File No. PDEV21-047
Project Engineer: Raymond Lee
DAB Date: 1/4/2023
Last Revised 1/3/2023 Page 7 of 20
Sewer
(see Sec. 2.C)
Main
Lateral
Main
Lateral
Main
Lateral
Main
Lateral
Water
(see Sec. 2.D)
Main
Service
Main
Service
Main
Service
Main
Service
Recycled Water
(see Sec. 2.E)
Main
Service
Main
Service
Main
Service
Main
Service
Traffic Signal
System
(see Sec. 2.F,

2.38.5)
New
Modify
existing
New
Modify
existing
New
Modify
existing
New
Modify
existing
Traffic Signing
and Striping
(see Sec. 2.F,

2.38.10)
New
Modify
existing
New
Modify
existing
New
Modify
existing
New
Modify
existing
Street Light
(see Sec. 2.F,

2.38.8, 2.38.9)
New /
Upgrade
Relocation
New /
Upgrade
Relocation
New /
Upgrade
Relocation
New /
Upgrade
Relocation
Bus Stop Pad or
Turn-out
(see Sec. 2.F)
New
(See 2.38.6)
Modify
existing
New
Modify
existing
New
Modify
existing
New
Modify
existing
Storm Drain
(see Sec. 2G,

2.44)
Main
Lateral
Main
Lateral
Main
Lateral
Main
Lateral
Fiber Optics
(see Sec. 2K, 2.52
and Exhibit C)
Conduit /
Appurtenances
Conduit /
Appurtenances
Conduit /
Appurtenances
Conduit /
Appurtenances
Overhead Utilities
Underground
Relocate
Underground
Relocate
Underground
Relocate
Underground
Relocate
Removal of
Improvements
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
Other
Improvements
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
6222
Project File No. PDEV21-047
Project Engineer: Raymond Lee
DAB Date: 1/4/2023
Last Revised 1/3/2023 Page 8 of 20
Improvement
(North-South St) Dupont Ave
1 Curb and Gutter
New; ___ ft.
from C/L
Remove and
replace damaged
Remove
and replace
New; ___ ft.
from C/L
Replace
damaged
Remove
and replace

New; ___ ft.
from C/L
Replace
damaged
Remove
and replace

New; ___ ft.
from C/L
Replace
damaged
Remove
and replace

AC Pavement
(see 2.19)
Replacement
Widen ____
additional feet
along frontage,
including pavm’t
transitions
Replacement
Widen ____
additional feet
along frontage,
including pavm’t
transitions
Replacement
Widen ____
additional feet
along frontage,
including pavm’t
transitions

Replacement
Widen ____
additional feet
along frontage,
including pavm’t
transitions

PCC Pavement
(Truck Route
Only)
New
Modify
existing
New
Modify
existing
New
Modify
existing
New
Modify
existing
Drive Approach
New
Remove
and replace
New
Remove
and replace
New
Remove
and replace
New
Remove
and replace
Sidewalk
New
Remove
and replace
New
Remove
and replace
New
Remove
and replace
New
Remove
and replace
ADA Access
Ramp
New
Remove
and replace
New
Remove
and replace
New
Remove
and replace
New
Remove
and replace
Parkway
Trees
Landscaping
(w/irrigation)2
Trees
Landscaping
(w/irrigation)
Trees
Landscaping
(w/irrigation)
Trees
Landscaping
(w/irrigation)
Raised
Landscaped
Median
New
Remove
and replace
New
Remove
and replace

New
Remove
and replace

New
Remove
and replace

Fire Hydrant
New /
Upgrade
Relocation
New /
Upgrade
Relocation
New /
Upgrade
Relocation
New /
Upgrade
Relocation
Sewer
(see Sec. 2.C)
Main
Lateral
Main
Lateral
Main
Lateral
Main
Lateral
6223
Project File No. PDEV21-047
Project Engineer: Raymond Lee
DAB Date: 1/4/2023
Last Revised 1/3/2023 Page 9 of 20
Water
(see Sec. 2.D)
Main
Service
Main
Service
Main
Service
Main
Service
Recycled Water
(see Sec. 2.E)
Main
Service
Main
Service
Main
Service
Main
Service
Traffic Signal
System
(see Sec. 2.F,

2.38.5)
New
Modify
existing
New
Modify
existing
New
Modify
existing
New
Modify
existing
Traffic Signing
and Striping
(see Sec. 2.F,

2.38.10)
New
Modify
existing
New
Modify
existing
New
Modify
existing
New
Modify
existing
Street Light
(see Sec. 2.F,

2.38.8, 2.38.9)
New /
Upgrade
Relocation
New /
Upgrade
Relocation
New /
Upgrade
Relocation
New /
Upgrade
Relocation
Bus Stop Pad or
Turn-out
(see Sec. 2.F)
New
Modify
existing
New
Modify
existing
New
Modify
existing
New
Modify
existing
Storm Drain
(see Sec. 2G)
Main
Lateral
Main
Lateral
Main
Lateral
Main
Lateral
Fiber Optics
(see Sec. 2K, 2.52
and Exhibit C)
Conduit /
Appurtenances
Conduit /
Appurtenances
Conduit /
Appurtenances
Conduit /
Appurtenances
Overhead Utilities
Underground
Relocate
Underground
Relocate
Underground
Relocate
Underground
Relocate
Removal of
Improvements
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
Other
Improvements
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
6224
Project File No. PDEV21-047
Project Engineer: Raymond Lee
DAB Date: 1/4/2023
Last Revised 1/3/2023 Page 10 of 20
Improvement
(East-West St) Airport Dr1 Santa Ana St1 La Salle St1 Jurupa St1 Curb and Gutter
New; ___ ft.
from C/L
Remove and
replace damaged
Remove
and replace
New; ___ ft.
from C/L
Replace and
replace damaged
Remove
and replace

New; ___ ft.
from C/L
Remove and
replace damaged
Remove
and replace

New; ___ ft.
from C/L
Replace and
replace damaged
Remove
and replace

AC Pavement
(see 2.19)
Replacement
Widen ____
additional feet
along frontage,
including pavm’t
transitions
Replacement
Widen ____
additional feet
along frontage,
including pavm’t
transitions
Replacement
Widen ____
additional feet
along frontage,
including pavm’t
transitions

Replacement
Widen ____
additional feet
along frontage,
including pavm’t
transitions

PCC Pavement
(see Sec. 2.F,

2.38.6)
New
Modify
existing
New
Modify
existing
New
Modify
existing
New
Modify
existing
Drive Approach
New
Remove
and replace
New
Remove
and replace
New
Remove
and replace
New
Remove
and replace
Sidewalk
New
Remove
and replace
damaged
New
Remove
and replace
New
Remove
and replace
New
Remove
and replace
damaged
ADA Access
Ramp
New
Remove
and replace
New
Remove
and replace
New
Remove
and replace
New
Remove
and replace
Parkway
Trees
Landscaping
(w/irrigation)2
Trees
Landscaping
(w/irrigation)2
Trees
Landscaping
(w/irrigation)2
Trees
Landscaping
(w/irrigation)2
Raised
Landscaped
Median
New
Remove
and replace
New
Remove
and replace

New
Remove
and replace

New
Remove
and replace

Fire Hydrant
New /
Upgrade
Relocation
New /
Upgrade
Relocation
New /
Upgrade
Relocation
New /
Upgrade
Relocation
Sewer
(see Sec. 2.C)
Main
Lateral
Main
Lateral
Main
Lateral
Main
Lateral
Water
(see Sec. 2.D)
Main
Service
Main
Service
Main
Service
Main
Service
6225
Project File No. PDEV21-047
Project Engineer: Raymond Lee
DAB Date: 1/4/2023
Last Revised 1/3/2023 Page 11 of 20
Recycled Water
(see Sec. 2.E)
Main
Service
Main
Service
Main
Service
Main
Service
Traffic Signal
System
(see Sec. 2.F,

2.38.5)
New
Modify
existing
New
Modify
existing
New
Modify
existing
New
Modify
existing
Traffic Signing
and Striping
(see Sec. 2.F,

2.38.10)
New
Modify
existing
New
Modify
existing
New
Modify
existing
New
Modify
existing
Street Light
(see Sec. 2.F,

2.38.8, 2.38.9)
New /
Upgrade
Relocation
New /
Upgrade
Relocation
New /
Upgrade
Relocation
New /
Upgrade
Relocation
Bus Stop Pad or
Turn-out
(see Sec. 2.F)
New
Modify
existing
New
Modify
existing
New
Modify
existing
New
Modify
existing
Storm Drain
(see Sec. 2G,

2.44)
Main
Lateral
Main
Lateral
Main
Lateral
Main
Lateral
Fiber Optics
(see Sec. 2K, 2.52
and Exhibit C)
Conduit /
Appurtenances
Conduit /
Appurtenances
Conduit /
Appurtenances
Conduit /
Appurtenances
Overhead Utilities
Underground
Relocate
Underground
Relocate
Underground
Relocate
Underground
Relocate
Removal of
Improvements
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
Other
Improvements
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
Specific notes for improvements listed in item no. 2.18, above:

1. Existing public improvements in City right-of-way along the following streets that are currently damaged and must be replaced in accordance with the latest City standards.

These improvements include, but are not limited to, curb & gutter, sidewalk, ADA ramps, parkway landscape, street medians, and street pavement. The limits of Improvements, except for limits of AC Pavement, are as follows. See 2.19 for limits of AC pavement improvements.
• Haven Ave (east side only, between Airport Dr and Jurupa St) • Carnegie Ave (both sides, between Airport Dr and La Salle St/southerly property line of Building 6)
• Commerce Parkway
o West side only between Airport Dr/Carnegie and the northerly property line of Building 7)
o East side only between the southerly property line of Building 6 and Jurupa St)
6226
Project File No. PDEV21-047
Project Engineer: Raymond Lee
DAB Date: 1/4/2023
Last Revised 1/3/2023 Page 12 of 20
o Both sides between the northerly property line of Building 7 and the southerly property line of Building 6
• Doubleday Ave (west side only)
• Dupont Ave (west side only)
• Airport Dr (south side only)
• Santa Ana St (both sides)
• La Salle St (both sides)
o Both sides between Haven Ave and the easterly property line of Building 4.
o North side only between the easterly property line of Building 4 and Carnegie St
• Jurupa St (north side, Haven Ave to Dupont Ave, excluding the not-a-part frontage)

2. For new and replacement of landscape parkway, irrigation and raised landscape median, see conditions from Landscape Planning.

2.19 Construct a 2" asphalt concrete (AC) grind and overlay on the following street(s):
• Carnegie Avenue (curb to curb, Airport Drive to Jurupa Street) • Commerce Parkway (both sides, curb to curb, Airport Drive to Jurupa Street) • Dupont Avenue (west side, curb to centerline, Doubleday Avenue to Jurupa Street) • Airport Drive (south side, curb to centerline, Haven Avenue to Carnegie Avenue/Commerce Parkway)
• La Salle Street (curb to curb, Haven Avenue to Carnegie Avenue) • Jurupa Street (north side, curb to centerline, Haven Avenue to Dupont Avenue) All existing speed humps that were removed as a result of the 2” AC grind and overlay must be replaced with new speed humps. Please contact the Transportation Division for the speed hump design standards.

Doubleday Avenue, Haven Avenue and Santa Ana Street are currently under moratorium, which will be valid until 2025. Trench cuts on streets under moratorium are subject to the City’s moratorium street restoration requirements.

2.20 Reconstruction of the full pavement structural section, per City of Ontario Standard Drawing number 1011, may be required based on the existing pavement condition and final street design. Minimum limits of reconstruction shall be along property frontage, from street centerline to curb/gutter.

2.21 Make arrangements with the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) to provide:
water service sewer service to the site.

This property is within the area served by the CVWD and Applicant shall provide documentation to the City verifying that all required CVWD fees have been paid.

2.22 Overhead utilities shall be under-grounded, in accordance with Title 7 of the City’s Municipal Code (Ordinance No. 2804 and 2892). Developer may pay in-lieu fee, approximately _________, for undergrounding of utilities in accordance with Section 7-7.302.e of the City’s Municipal Code.

2.23 Other condition:

1. The following streets are currently under moratorium, which will be valid until 2025.

Trench cuts on streets under the moratorium are subject to the City’s moratorium street restoration requirements.
• Haven Avenue
• Doubleday Avenue
• Santa Ana Street
C. SEWER

2.24 The following sewer mains are available for connection by this project:
• 39” VCP IEUA Regional main in Haven Ave
• 10”/12” VCP in Carnegie Ave (Ref: Sewer Drawing Number: S13224, S13225, S13226, S13227, S13228)
6227
Project File No. PDEV21-047
Project Engineer: Raymond Lee
DAB Date: 1/4/2023
Last Revised 1/3/2023 Page 13 of 20
• 8”/10” VCP in Doubleday Ave (Ref: Sewer Drawing Number: S10824, S10825, S10826, S10827, S10828)
• 8”/10” VCP in Dupont Ave (Ref: Sewer Drawing Number: S13210, S13211, S13215) • 8”/10” VCP in Airport Dr (Ref: Sewer Drawing Number: S13222, S13223) • 8” VCP in La Salle St (Ref: Sewer Drawing Number: S13216, S13217) • 8”/15” VCP in Jurupa St (Ref: Sewer Drawing Number: S13229, S13230, S13231, S13232)

2.25 Design and construct a sewer main extension. A sewer main is not available for direct connection. The closest main is approximately _____ feet away.

2.26 Submit documentation that shows expected peak loading values for modeling the impact of the subject project to the existing sewer system. The project site is within a deficient public sewer system area.

Applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with the preparation of the model. Based on the results of the analysis, Applicant may be required to mitigate the project impact to the deficient public sewer system, including, but not limited to, upgrading of existing sewer main(s), construction of new sewer main(s) or diversion of sewer discharge to another sewer.

2.27 Other condition:
• See attached Exhibit B for additional sewer conditions from the Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC).

D. WATER

2.28 The following water mains are available for connection by this project:
• 12” water main in Haven Ave (Ref: Water Drawing Number: W11869, W11870, W11871, W11872, W11873)
• 16” Water main in Carnegie Ave (Ref: Water Drawing Number: W10275, W10276, W10277, W10278, W10279)
• 12” Water main in Commerce Parkway (Ref: Water Drawing Number: W10290, W10291, W10292, W10293, W10294)
• 12” Water main in Doubleday Ave (Ref: Water Drawing Number: W12151, W12152, W12153, W12145, W12155)
• 12” Water main in Dupont Ave (Ref: Water Drawing Number: W12146, W12147, W12148, W12149)
• 16” Water main in Airport Dr (Ref: Water Drawing Number: W10280, W10281) • 12” Water main in La Salle St (Ref: Water Drawing Number: W10288, W10289) • 12” Water main in Santa Ana St (Ref: Water Drawing Number: W10284, W10285) • 12”/16” Water main in Jurupa St (Ref: Water Drawing Number: W10271, W10273, W10274, W12156)

2.29 Design and construct a water main extension. A water main is not available for direct connection. The closest main is approximately _____ feet away.

2.30 Other condition:
• See attached Exhibit B for additional water conditions from OMUC.

E. RECYCLED WATER

2.31 The following recycled water mains are available for connection by this project:
• 42” IEUA Recycled Water main in Dupont Ave
• 8” Recycled Water main in Santa Ana St (Ref: Recycled Water Drawing Number:

P11062, P11063)
• 8” Recycled Water main in Jurupa St (Ref: Recycled Water Drawing Number:

P11065, P11066, P11067, P11068)

2.32 Design and construct an on-site recycled water system for this project. A recycled water main does exist in the vicinity of this project.
6228
Project File No. PDEV21-047
Project Engineer: Raymond Lee
DAB Date: 1/4/2023
Last Revised 1/3/2023 Page 14 of 20

2.33 Design and construct an on-site recycled water ready system for this project. A recycled water main does not currently exist in the vicinity of this project, but is planned for the near future. If Applicant would like to connect to this recycled water main when it becomes available, the cost for the connection shall be borne solely by the Applicant.

2.34 Submit two (2) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy, in PDF format, of the Engineering Report (ER), for the use of recycled water, to the OMUC for review and subsequent submittal to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) for final approval.

Note: The OMUC and the CDPH review and approval process will be approximately three (3) months.

Contact the Ontario Municipal Utilities Company at (909) 395-2647 regarding this requirement.

2.35 Other condition:
• See attached Exhibit B for additional recycled water conditions from OMUC.

F. TRAFFIC / TRANSPORTATION

2.36 Submit a focused traffic impact study, prepared and signed by a Traffic/Civil Engineer registered in the State of California. The study shall address, but not be limited to, the following issues as required by the City Engineer:

1. On-site and off-site circulation

2. Traffic level of service (LOS) at ‘build-out’ and future years

3. Impact at specific intersections as selected by the City Engineer

2.37 New traffic signal installations shall be added to Southern California Edison (SCE) customer account number # 2-20-044-3877.

2.38 Other conditions:

1. All gated access must be setback a minimum 40 feet from the curb line.

2. The Applicant/Developer shall install sidewalk along all project frontages, including associated ADA ramps and crosswalks.

3. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible to design and construct signing/striping improvements along the Airport Drive raised median as required to accommodate driveway access into the project.

4. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible to design and construct signing/striping improvements along the Airport Drive/Commerce Parkway project frontage between Jurupa Street and Haven Avenue to provide 6 lanes per the City’s General Plan Figure M-01 Functional Roadway Classification Plan.

5. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible to design and construct modifications to the existing traffic signal at the following intersections to provide video detection and CCTV cameras as listed below:
• Airport Drive/Commerce Parkway at Carnegie Avenue/Airport Drive – Install video detection and CCTV cameras
• Commerce Parkway at Santa Ana Street – Install video detection and CCTV cameras
• Commerce Parkway at Jurupa Street – Install video detection and CCTV cameras
• Haven Avenue at Jurupa Street – Install CCTV cameras
• Haven Avenue at Airport Drive – Install video detection and CCTV cameras • Jurupa Street at Dupont Avenue – Install CCTV cameras The traffic signal modification shall address relocation or upgrade of any affected equipment including poles, video detection, CCTV cameras, interconnect/fiber optic communication equipment, cable and conduit, emergency vehicle preemption systems, and bicycle detection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

6. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible to design and construct concrete 6229
Project File No. PDEV21-047
Project Engineer: Raymond Lee
DAB Date: 1/4/2023
Last Revised 1/3/2023 Page 15 of 20
pavement at the following intersections in accordance with City of Ontario Standard Drawing No. 1207:
• Haven Avenue at Airport Drive – northbound approach
• Haven Avenue at Jurupa Street – westbound approach
• Airport Drive/Commerce Parkway at Carnegie Avenue/Airport Drive – southbound and eastbound approaches
• Commerce Parkway at Santa Ana Street – northbound and southbound approaches
• Commerce Parkway at Jurupa Street – westbound approach

7. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible to design and construct a bus turnout on Haven Avenue at Jurupa Street (departure side) for northbound direction. The bus turnout shall be designed in accordance with Omnitrans requirements and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

8. Proposed driveways shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City of Ontario Standard Drawing No. 1204 for Commercial Driveway.

9. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible to replace any existing street light fixtures along its project frontage with the current City approved LED equivalent fixture per the Traffic and Transportation Design Guidelines. The Applicant/Developer shall also install smart nodes on all existing street light fixtures along project frontage.

10. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible to design and construct in-fill public street lights and a potential new service as needed along its project frontages. Street lighting shall be LED-type and in accordance with City’s Traffic and Transportation Design Guidelines. The Applicant/Developer shall also install smart nodes on all new street light fixtures along project frontage.

11. All property frontages shall be signed “No Parking Anytime” or “No Stopping Anytime” as applicable.

12. All landscaping, block walls, and other obstructions shall be compatible with the stopping sight distance requirements per City of Ontario Standard Drawing No. 1309.

13. The Applicant/Developer’s engineer-of-record shall meet with City Engineering staff prior to designing and submitting for plan check the traffic signal, starting signing/striping and street lighting design plans to define limits of improvements.

G. DRAINAGE / HYDROLOGY

2.39 The following storm drain mains are available to accept flows from this project:
• 24” RCP in Haven Ave (Ref: Storm Drain Drawing Number: D10242) • 24”/42”/60” RCP in Carnegie Ave (Ref: Storm Drain Drawing Number: D10226, D10232)
• 8’x10’/9’x10’ RCB Box in Commerce Pkwy (Ref: Storm Drain Drawing Number:

D10235, D10141, D10142, D10143)
• 24”/36”/42” RCP in Doubleday Ave (Ref: Storm Drain Drawing Number: D10907, D10908, D10909)
• 36”/42”/54” RCP in La Salle St (Ref: Storm Drain Drawing Number: D10228, D10229) • 30”/66” RCP in Santa Ana St (Ref: Storm Drain Drawing Number: D10902, D10231) • 42”/90” RCP in Jurupa St (Ref: Storm Drain Drawing Number: D10224, D10243) 6230
Project File No. PDEV21-047
Project Engineer: Raymond Lee
DAB Date: 1/4/2023
Last Revised 1/3/2023 Page 16 of 20

2.40 Submit a hydrology study and drainage analysis, prepared and signed by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California. The study shall be prepared in accordance with the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual and City of Ontario standards and guidelines. Additional drainage facilities, including, but not limited to, improvements beyond the project frontage, may be required to be designed and constructed, by Applicant, as a result of the findings of this study.

2.41 An adequate drainage facility to accept additional runoff from the site does not currently exist downstream of the project. Design and construct a storm water detention facility on the project site. 100-year post-development peak flow shall be attenuated such that it does not exceed 80% of predevelopment peak flows, in accordance with the approved hydrology study and improvement plans.

2.42 Submit a copy of a recorded private drainage easement or drainage acceptance agreement to the Engineering Department for the acceptance of any increase to volume and/or concentration of historical drainage flows onto adjacent property, prior to approval of the grading plan for the project.

2.43 Comply with the City of Ontario Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (Ordinance No. 2409). The project site or a portion of the project site is within the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) as indicated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and is subject to flooding during a 100-year frequency storm.

The site plan shall be subject to the provisions of the National Flood Insurance Program.

2.44 Other condition:

1. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible to design and construct the following storm drain improvements:
• Carnegie Avenue
• Replace a portion of existing the 24” storm drain main with a 36” storm drain
• Replace a portion of existing the 60” storm drain main with a 66” storm drain
• Remove and replace existing catch basins
• Commerce Parkway
• Replace a portion of existing the 24” storm drain lateral with a 36” storm drain lateral
• Doubleday Avenue
• Relocate a portion of existing 48” storm drain main that runs westward to connect to the existing 9’x10’ RCB on Commerce Parkway so that the existing 48” storm drain does not go through Building 8 • Santa Ana Street
• Replace a portion of existing the 24” storm drain lateral with a 36” storm drain lateral
• La Salle Street
• Construct a 18” storm drain lateral to connect to the existing storm drain main on La Salle Street
• Replace a portion of the existing 36” storm drain main with a 42” storm drain
• Replace a portion of existing the 24” storm drain lateral with a 36” storm drain lateral at the northwest corner of Carnegie Ave and La Salle Street
• Jurupa Street
• Replace an existing 24” storm drain lateral with a 30” storm drain lateral at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue/Jurupa Street

2. All unused public storm drains shall be removed.
6231
Project File No. PDEV21-047
Project Engineer: Raymond Lee
DAB Date: 1/4/2023
Last Revised 1/3/2023 Page 17 of 20
H. STORM WATER QUALITY / NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE AND ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES)

2.45 401 Water Quality Certification/404 Permit – Submit a copy of any applicable 401 Certification or 404 Permit for the subject project to the City project engineer. Development that will affect any body of surface water (i.e. lake, creek, open drainage channel, etc.) may require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (RWQCB) and a 404 Permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The groups of water bodies classified in these requirements are perennial (flow year round) and ephemeral (flow during rain conditions, only) and include, but are not limited to, direct connections into San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) channels.

If a 401 Certification and/or a 404 Permit are not required, a letter confirming this from Applicant’s engineer shall be submitted.

Contact information: USACE (Los Angeles District) (213) 452-3414; RWQCB (951) 782-4130.

2.46 Submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). This plan shall be approved by the Engineering Department prior to approval of any grading plan. The WQMP shall be submitted, utilizing the current San Bernardino County Stormwater Program template, available at:
http://www.sbcounty.gov/dpw/land/npdes.asp.

2.467 Other conditions: __________________________________________________________________ Design and construct a Connector Pipe Trash Screen or equivalent Trash Treatment Control Device,__ per catch basin located within or accepting flows tributary of a Priority Land Use (PLU) area that meets the Full Capture System definition and specifications, and is on the Certified List of the State Water Resources Control Board. The device shall be adequately sized per catch basin and include a deflector screen with vector control access for abatement application, vertical support bars, and removable component to facilitate maintenance and cleaning.

2.48 Other conditions:

1. Each proposed underground system shall have a separate overflow pipe.

2. Activities resulting in one acre or more land disturbance are required to obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit (CGP). The owner is the legally responsible person (LRP) of the site and shall have a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) developed and submitted through the SMARTS website at https://smarts.waterboards.ca.gov/smarts/faces/SwSmartsLogin.xhtml

3. All Priority Land Use (PLU): Land use consisting of high-density residential, defined as a land use with at least ten (10) dwelling units per acre, industrial, commercial, mixed urban, and public transportation station land uses within the project area shall comply with the statewide Trash Provisions adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and trash requirements in the most current San Bernardino County Area-Wide MS4 Permit. Certified Trash Treatment/Pretreatment Devices shall be included in the BMP Design.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/docs/trash_imple mentation/certified_fcsdevicelist_16Feb2021.pdf
J. SPECIAL DISTRICTS

2.49 File an application, together with an initial deposit (if required), to establish a Community Facilities District (CFD) pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982. The application and fee shall be submitted a minimum of four (4) months prior to final subdivision map approval, and the CFD shall be established prior to final subdivision map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The CFD shall be established upon the subject property to provide funding for various City services. An annual special tax shall be levied upon each parcel or lot in an amount to be determined. The special tax will be collected along with annual property taxes. The City shall be the sole lead agency in the formation of any CFD. Contact Investment and Revenue Resources at (909) 395-2341 to initiate the CFD application process.

2.50 Other conditions: ___________________________________________________________________ K. FIBER OPTIC

2.51 A ______ fiber optic line is available for connection by this project in ___________________. (Ref: Fiber Optic Drawing Number: __________)
6232
Project File No. PDEV21-047
Project Engineer: Raymond Lee
DAB Date: 1/4/2023
Last Revised 1/3/2023 Page 18 of 20

2.52 Design and construct fiber optic system to provide access to the City’s conduit and fiber optic system per the City’s Fiber Optic Master Plan. Building entrance conduits shall start from the closest OntarioNet hand hole constructed along the project frontage in the ROW and shall terminate in the main telecommunications room for each building. Conduit infrastructure shall interconnect with the primary and/or secondary backbone fiber optic conduit system at the nearest OntarioNet hand holes generally located on Jurupa Street, Airport Drive, Commerce Parkway, Santa Ana Street. See attached Exhibit C for Fiber Optic Exhibit and Conditions.

2.53 Refer to the City’s Fiber Optic Master Plan for design and layout guidelines. Contact the Broadband Operations Department at (909) 395-2000, regarding this requirement.

3. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, APPLICANT SHALL:

3.01 Set new monuments in place of any monuments that have been damaged or destroyed as a result of construction of the subject project. Monuments shall be set in accordance with City of Ontario standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

3.02 Complete all requirements for recycled water usage. See attached Exhibit B for additional recycled water requirements from OMUC.
1) Procure from the OMUC a copy of the letter of confirmation from the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) that the Engineering Report (ER) has been reviewed and the subject site is approved for the use of recycled water. 2) Obtain clearance from the OMUC confirming completion of recycled water improvements and passing of shutdown tests and cross connection inspection, upon availability/usage of recycled water.
3) Complete education training of on-site personnel in the use of recycled water, in accordance with the ER, upon availability/usage of recycled water.

3.03 The applicant/developer shall submit all final survey documents prepared by a Licensed Surveyor registered in the State of California detailing all survey monuments that have been preserved, revised, adjusted or set along with any maps, corner records or Records of Survey needed to comply with these Conditions of Approvals and the latest edition of the California Professional Land Survey Act. These documents are to be reviewed and approved by the City Survey Office.

3.04 Ontario Ranch Projects: For developments located at an intersection of any two collector or arterial streets, the applicant/developer shall set a monument if one does not already exist at that intersection.

Contact the City Survey office for information on reference benchmarks, acceptable methodology and required submittals.

3.05 Confirm payment of all Development Impact Fees (DIF) to the Building Department.

3.06 Submit electronic copies (PDF and Auto CAD format) of all approved improvement plans, studies and reports (i.e. hydrology, traffic, WQMP, etc.).

4. PRIOR TO FINAL ACCEPTANCE, APPLICANT SHALL:

4.01 Complete all Conditions of Approval listed under Sections 1-3 above.

4.02 Pay all outstanding fees pursuant to the City of Ontario Municipal Code, including but not limited to, plan check fees, inspection fees and Development Impact Fees.

4.03 The applicant/developer shall submit a written request for the City’s final acceptance of the project addressed to the City Project Engineer. The request shall include a completed Acceptance and Bond Release Checklist, state that all Conditions of Approval have been completed and shall be signed by the applicant/developer. Upon receipt of the request, review of the request shall be a minimum of 10 business days. Conditions of Approval that are deemed incomplete by the City will cause delays in the acceptance process.

4.04 Submit record drawings (PDF) for all public improvements identified within Section 2 of these Conditions of Approval.
6233
Project File No. PDEV21-047
Project Engineer: Raymond Lee
DAB Date: 1/4/2023
Last Revised 1/3/2023 Page 19 of 20

EXHIBIT A

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
First Plan Check Submittal Checklist
Project Number: PDEV 21-047 (California Commerce Center Specific Plan) The following items are required to be included with the first plan check submittal:

1. A copy of this check list

2. Payment of fee for Plan Checking

3. One (1) copy of Engineering Cost Estimate (on City form) with engineer’s wet signature and stamp.

4. One (1) copy of project Conditions of Approval

5. Include a PDF (electronic submittal) of each required improvement plan at every submittal.

6. Two (2) sets of Potable and Recycled Water demand calculations (include water demand calculations showing low, average and peak water demand in GPM for the proposed development and proposed water meter size).

7. Three (3) sets of Public Street improvement plan with street cross-sections

8. Four (4) sets of Public Water improvement plan (include water demand calculations showing low, average and peak water demand in GPM for the proposed development and proposed water meter size)

9. Four (4) sets of Recycled Water improvement plan (include recycled water demand calculations showing low, average and peak water demand in GPM for the proposed development and proposed water meter size and an exhibit showing the limits of areas being irrigated by each recycled water meter)

10. Four (4) sets of Public Sewer improvement plan

11. Five (5) sets of Public Storm Drain improvement plan

12. Three (3) sets of Public Street Light improvement plan

13. Three (3) sets of Signing and Striping improvement plan

14. Three (3) sets of Fiber Optic plan (include Auto CAD electronic submittal)

15. Three (3) sets of Dry Utility plans within public right-of-way (at a minimum the plans must show existing and ultimate right-of-way, curb and gutter, proposed utility location including centerline dimensions, wall to wall clearances between proposed utility and adjacent public line, street work repaired per Standard Drawing No. 1306. Include Auto CAD electronic submittal)

16. Three (3) sets of Traffic Signal improvement plan and One (1) copy of Traffic Signal Specifications with modified Special Provisions. Please contact the Traffic Division at (909) 395-2154 to obtain Traffic Signal Specifications.

17. Two (2) copies of Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), including one (1) copy of the approved Preliminary WQMP (PWQMP), grading plan and hydrology report.

18. One (1) copy of Hydrology/Drainage study

19. One (1) copy of Soils/Geology report

20. Payment for Final Map/Parcel Map processing fee
6234
Project File No. PDEV21-047
Project Engineer: Raymond Lee
DAB Date: 1/4/2023
Last Revised 1/3/2023 Page 20 of 20

21. Three (3) copies of Final Map/Parcel Map

22. One (1) copy of approved Tentative Map

23. One (1) copy of Preliminary Title Report (current within 30 days)

24. One (1) copy of Traverse Closure Calculations

25. One (1) set of supporting documents and maps (legible copies): referenced improvement plans (full size), referenced record final maps/parcel maps (full size, 18”x26”), Assessor’s Parcel map (full size, 11”x17”), recorded documents such as deeds, lot line adjustments, easements, etc.

26. Two (2) copies of Engineering Report and an electronic file (include PDF format electronic submittal) for recycled water use

27. Lot Line Adjustment, Certificate of Compliance with Record of Survey

28. Easement Dedication Form
6235
OMUC Utilities Engineering Condition of Approval for PDEV21-047

S:\Engineering\Land Development\Project Files\PSP\California Commerce Center PSP-2591\PDEV\2021\PDEV21-047 California Logistics Center\Comments from OMUC\PDEV21-047 - DPR3 - Utilities Eng COAs (#8819) submitted.docx

CITY OF ONTARIO

MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 08, 2022
TO: Edmelynne Hutter, Planning Department
Raymond Lee, Engineering Department
FROM: Peter Tran, Utilities Engineering
SUBJECT: DPR #3 – Conditions of Approval (COA) - Utilties Comments(#8819) PROJECT NO.: PDEV21-047

BRIEF DESCRIPTION
A Development Plan to construct nine (9) industrial buildings totaling 4,281,128 square feet on 196.89 acres of land generally located east of Haven Avenue, west of Doubleday Avenue and Dupont Avenue, 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:211-222-47, -048, 211- 222-52 thru -56, 211-232-04 thru 07, 211-232-011 thru -20, and 211-232-44 thru -046).

OMUC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DIVISION

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC) Utilities Engineering Division recommends this application for approval subject to the Conditions of Approval outlined below and compliance with the City’s Design Development Guidelines, Specifications Design Criteria, and City Standards. The Applicant shall be responsible for the compliance with and the completion of all the following applicable Conditions of Approval prior to the following milestones and subject to compliance with City’s Design Development Guidelines, Specifications Design Criteria, and City Standards:

1. Standard Conditions of Approval: Project shall comply with the requirements as set forth in the Amendment to the Standard Conditions of Approval for New Development Projects adopted by the City Council (Resolution No. 2017- 027) on April 18, 2017, or as amended or superseded by Council Resolution; as well as the project-specific conditions/requirements as outlined below.

Prior to Issuance of Any Permits (Grading, Building, Demolition and Encroachment), unless other timeline milestones are specified by individual conditions below, the Applicant Shall:

General Conditions (Section 2.A, Other conditions): The Applicant shall comply with the following:

2. Inherited Requirements and Conditions of Approval: This project is subject to all the Requirements and Conditions of Approval from 2591-SP California Commerce Center (CCC) Specific Plan and as amended, PSPA20-003. For any Conditions of Approval that conflict, these Conditions shall supersede those conflicting Conditions.

3. Final Utilities Systems Map (USM): Submit a Final Utilities Systems Map (FUSM) as part of the precise grading plan submittal that meets all the City’s USM requirements. These requirements include to show and label all existing and proposed utilities (including all appurtenances such as backflow devices, DCDAs, etc.), sizes, points of connection, and any easements. The final utility design shall comply with all Division of Drinking Water (CCR §64572) Separation Requirements. See Utility Systems Map (USM) Requirements document for details. a. The proposed utilities, utility alignments, and Public Rights-of-Way/Public Utility Easements shown on the Conceptual Utilities Systems Map (CUSM) and other Entitlement documents are not considered final and 6236
OMUC Utilities Engineering Condition of Approval for PDEV21-047

S:\Engineering\Land Development\Project Files\PSP\California Commerce Center PSP-2591\PDEV\2021\PDEV21-047 California Logistics Center\Comments from OMUC\PDEV21-047 - DPR3 - Utilities Eng COAs (#8819) submitted.docx shall be revised during Final Design to meet all City Design Guidelines, Standards, City Requirements, and all of the Conditions of Approval contained in this document.

4. Design Utilities to comply Department of Drinking Water (DDW) Separation Requirements and California Code of Regulations (CCR) § 64572 Compliance: All DDW Separation Requirements under CCR § 64572 must be met. In order to assure compliance with CCR § 64572, on all design documents and plans: label the separation dimensions, measure from outside wall of the conveyances, between public potable water to any other public or private non-potable conveyance (sewer, storm drain, storm water, storm water infiltration, recycled water, recycled water irrigation, high pressure gas/petroleum, etc) whether publicly or privately maintained; provide one label per sheet per conveyance and additional labels where separation dimensions and alignments change; and, for any facilities not currently meeting the separation requirements, revise plans/documents so that the facilities meet the separations requirements.

5. Unused Service Abandonment: All adjacent water services (along with connected appurtenances) and sewer laterals and main stubs along the frontages of the project site not used to provide service to this Development Project shall be abandoned back to the main in accordance with City Standards and Practices.

6. Future Well Sites:
a. Use of Future Well Sites #43, #48, #51 and #54 shall be granted by current owner to the City through separately negotiated agreements/instruments.
b. No buildings, permanent structures, landscaping, trees, etc. shall be constructed or installed at any future well sites.
c. Well Site Setbacks: For Future Well Sites #43, #48, #51 and #54, the minimum setbacks from water reclamation, storm water quality improvements (infiltration, detention, retention, bioswale, etc) is 100 feet.

Sanitary Sewer Conditions (Section 2.C): The Applicant shall comply with the following:

7. Sanitary Sewer Mains Improvements:
a. N/A.

8. Sanitary Sewer Service:
a. Each building and its onsite private sewer system shall discharge wastewater to the Public Sanitary Sewer System through a Public Sewer Lateral per Standard #2003. Proposed sewer laterals must be a minimum 10’ from all domestic water services. The quantity of Public Sewer Laterals for each building shall be limited to the minimum necessary to meet all of the conditions of approval and as limited by the City. b. For each Public Sewer Lateral Service to an existing sewer main: the existing sewer main being connected to shall be CCTV Inspected between the upstream and downstream manholes of the connection once before and once after the Sewer Lateral connections is made and any damage to the sewer main resulting from the installation of the Sewer Lateral shall be repaired to meet City Standards and Requirements prior to placing the Sewer Lateral in service.
c. Public Sewer Laterals and Storm Water Quality Improvements: No storm water quality improvements (infiltration, detention, retention, bioswale, etc) shall be installed above or with 5 feet of any Public Sewer Lateral.

9. Private Onsite Sewer System and Plumbing: The Onsite Sewer System shall be privately maintained by the property owner and shall meet the following requirements:
a. For wastewater flows for non-residential uses:
i. The Onsite sewer system and building plumbing shall be designed in such a way that the sanitary domestic wastewater flows leave the building separately from non-sanitary wastewater flows (industrial, process, or kitchen, etc.) and the line for non-sanitary wastewater flows can be upgraded in the future to have pretreatment equipment and devices on it, as required by a Wastewater Discharge Permit.
ii. Each building and each connection from the Onsite Sewer System to the Public Sewer System shall have an onsite monitoring manhole prior to the point of connection with the Public Sewer System. b. Private Onsite Sewer and Storm Water Quality Improvements: No storm water quality improvements (infiltration, detention, retention, bioswale, etc) shall be installed above or with 5 feet of any Private Onsite Sewer pipes.
6237
OMUC Utilities Engineering Condition of Approval for PDEV21-047

S:\Engineering\Land Development\Project Files\PSP\California Commerce Center PSP-2591\PDEV\2021\PDEV21-047 California Logistics Center\Comments from OMUC\PDEV21-047 - DPR3 - Utilities Eng COAs (#8819) submitted.docx

10. Wastewater Discharge: For Non-Residential Uses: Once Occupant is known, each Occupant of the building, or units, as applicable, shall apply for a Wastewater Discharge Permit for their Establishment, and shall comply with all the requirements of their Wastewater Discharge Permit. Requirements of Wastewater Discharge Permit may include, but not limited to include installing a monitoring manhole, clarifier, interceptor, or other wastewater pretreatment equipment.

Potable Water Conditions (Section 2.D): The Applicant shall comply with the following:

11. Potable Water Main Improvements:
a. Potable Water Mains: N/A
b. Fire Hydrants:
i. Fire Hydrants along Potable Water Mains shall be spaced a maximum of 300 feet apart or per Fire Department Standards/Requirements, whichever is closer. ii. Any existing Fire Hydrants along the project frontages that do not meet current City Standards with a break away check valve shall be upgraded.

12. Potable Water Service:
a. Backflow Prevention:
i. A Backflow Prevention Device is required for each Meter connected to the Public Potable Water System that: serves any residential use that is more than one (1) single family residential unit; or, any non-residential use; or, only irrigation use.
b. Domestic Service: For domestic water uses:
i. Each Building shall have a its own domestic water service and meter connected to the Public Potable Water System.
c. Irrigation Service: For landscape irrigation uses that are not served by Recycled Water, the landscape irrigation uses shall have a separate irrigation water service and meter with backflow prevention device connected to the Public Potable Water System separate from the domestic water uses and the onsite plumbing systems and irrigation systems shall be also separate from each other. d. Fire Water Service: For onsite private Fire System uses:
i. Where the domestic water service and meters connected to the Public Potable Water System that serves any use that is more than one (1) single family detached residential unit or any non-residential use: if an onsite private fire system is required, then a separate Fire Service with Double Check Detector Assembly (DCDA) per City Standard #4208 connected to the Public Potable Water System is required to serve the onsite private fire system; and, the onsite fire system and onsite domestic water plumbing system shall be separate. DCDAs are a type of Backflow prevention device. ii. Each building 100,000 square feet or more in size must have two DCDAs and the onsite fire system must be looped between the fire services.
e. Relocated Services: For any existing service with appurtenances to be relocated, the service shall be abandoned back to the main connection and the service and appurtenances shall be installed new per related City Standards.

Recycled Water: (Add following to Section 2.E of Engineering Department COA)

13. Recycled Water Mains Improvements: Construct the following Master Plan Recycled Water Main Improvements:
a. Carnegie/Airport 8” Recycled Water main: From the intersection of Airport Drive and Dupont Avenue (Tie into existing IEUA Main) to the intersection of Jurupa Street and Carnegie Avenue (tie into existing City 8” Main). b. Airport 8” Recycled Water Main: From west of the intersection of Haven Avenue and Airport Drive to Carnegie Avenue and Commerce Way.
c. Santa Ana 8” Recycled Water Main: From the intersection of Carnegie Avenue and Santa Ana to the intersection of Santa Ana Street and Dupont Avenue (Tie into existing IEUA Main).

14. Recycled Water Use Conversion:
6238
OMUC Utilities Engineering Condition of Approval for PDEV21-047

S:\Engineering\Land Development\Project Files\PSP\California Commerce Center PSP-2591\PDEV\2021\PDEV21-047 California Logistics Center\Comments from OMUC\PDEV21-047 - DPR3 - Utilities Eng COAs (#8819) submitted.docx a. Convert the existing Commerce Parkway median from domestic water to recycled water use, from Airport Drive to Santa Ana.
b. Convert the existing Haven Avenue Parkway Median from domestic water to recycle water use, from Airport Drive to Jurupa Street

15. Recycled Water Service:
a. Recycled Water Services with Meters:
i. Private Property Owner Maintained Uses: Each parcel/lot shall have its own separate Recycled Water Service with Meter serving the parcel/lot for Private Property Owner Maintained Landscape Irrigation Uses If Recycled Water is going to be used for uses other than Landscape Irrigation, then a second separate Recycled Water Service with Meter is required to serve the non-Landscape Irrigation uses. ii. Public City/CFD Maintained Uses: Any Landscape Irrigation uses that are going to be maintained by the Public through the City/CFD shall have its own separate Recycled Water Service with Meter.

A. Each Future Well Site shall be provided a Recycled Water Service with Meter. b. Relocated Services: For any existing service with apparatuses to be relocated, the service shall be abandoned back to the main connection and the service and apparatuses shall be installed new per related City Standards

16. City Ordinance 2689: This development shall comply with City Ordinance 2689 and make use of recycled water for all approved uses, including but not limited to landscape irrigation. Appropriately sized public and private mains shall be installed throughout the Project to meet this requirement, as approved by the City.

17. RW Program Requirements: In order to receive RW service, the applicant shall comply with the following:
a. Prior to Precise Grading Plan Approval and Building Permits Issuance:
i. Provide two hard copies and the digital files (in PDF and AutoCAD format) for both on-site and off-site utility plans, including landscape and irrigation improvements. ii. Submit an Engineering Report (ER) to the City detailing recycled water usage for review and approval by the City and the State. The review process for the ER is typically 3 months. City will coordinate the State’s approval of the ER.
iii. For details, contact Cynthia Heredia-Torres at (909) 395-2647 or [email protected]. b. Prior to Occupancy Release/Finalizing:
i. Pass start-up and cross-connection test successfully. ii. Provide evidence demonstrating the training of on-site supervisor or designee as determined in the ER. 6239
Page | 1 Rev. 1/30/2020 4:51 PM

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CITY OF ONTARIO Sign Off

BROADBAND OPERATIONS
303 East "B" Street, Ontario, CA 91764 Broadband Operations 1/25/22 Reviewer's Name Phone
Cameron Chadwick 909-395-2090
File #PDEV21-047 Project Engineer:

Project Name and Location:

Sent to:
☐ Plan does adequately address the departmental concerns at this time. No Comments. ☒ Plan does adequately address the departmental concerns at this time. Report below. ☐
Plan does not adequately address the departmental concerns. The conditions contained below must be met prior to scheduling for Development Advisory Board.

Req'd
for
Project

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -
☒ ☐ 1. Project shall be designed and constructed to provide access to the City's conduit and fiber optic system per the City's Fiber Optic Master Plan. Building entrance conduits shall start from the closest OntarioNet hand hole in the Right-of-Way (ROW) and shall terminate in the main telecommunications room for each building. Conduit infrastructure shall interconnect with the primary and/or secondary backbone fiber optic conduit system at the nearest OntarioNet hand hole. ☒ ☐ 2. Contractor is responsible for locating and connecting conduit to existing OntarioNet hand holes on adjacent properties within a reasonable distance. There should be no "Gaps" in conduit between the contractor's development and the adjacent property. OntarioNet hand holes are typically located in the ROW at the extreme edge of a property.
☒ ☐ 3. Where a joint telcom or street light street crossing is required, include (2) 2" hdpe sdr-11 conduits or (1) 4" schedule 80 conduit sleeve. Terminate the street crossing conduit(s) in a new HH-3/22 ontarionet hand hole in the right of way
☒ ☐ 4. The City requires a public utility easement for fiber optics on all private aisles/alley ways. ☒ ☐ 5. Hand holes - Design and install OntarioNet fiber optic hand hole HH-2 (17x30x24), HH-2A (24x36x30), HH-3 (30x48x36) and/or HH-4 (36x60x36) as needed. Respectively Newbasis Part # PCA-173024- 90116, PCA-243630-90064, PCA-304836-90244 and PCA-366036-90146 per City Standard 1316.

Conduits sweeping into hand holes shall enter in flush with the cut-out mouse holes aligned parallel to the bottom of the box and come in perpendicular to the wall of the box. Conduits shall not enter at any angle other than parallel. Provide 5 foot minimum clearance from existing/proposed utilities. All hand holes will have ¼-inch galvanized wire between the hand holes and the gravel it is placed on. ☒ ☐ 6. ROW Conduit – Design and install fiber optic conduit at a minimum depth of 36-inch. Trenching shall be per City Standard 1306. Install (1) 2-inch HDPE SDR-11 (Smoothwall) roll pipe (Orange) duct and (1) 2- inch HDPE SDR-11 (Smoothwall) roll pipe (Orange with Black Stripe) duct. Conduit(s) between ROW hand holes and hand holes on private property shall be 2-inch HDPE SDR-11 (Smoothwall) roll pipe (Orange) duct.
☐ ☐ 7. Building Entrance (Single Family) – Design and install 0.75-inch HDPE SDR-11 (Smoothwall) roll pipe (Orange) duct from hand holes on property or hand holes in the ROW. Consult City's Fiber Team for design assistance.
☒ ☐ 8. Building Entrance (Multi-family and Commercial) - From the nearest handhole to the building entrance, design and install fiber optic conduit at a minimum depth of 36-inches. Trenching shall be per City Standard for Commercial Buildings. (1) 2-inch HDPE SDR-11 (Smoothwall) roll pipe (Orange) duct.

Install locate/tracer wires minimum 12AWG within conduit bank and fiber warning tape 18-inch above the uppermost duct
6240
Page | 2 Rev. 1/30/2020 4:51 PM
Req'd
for
Project

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -
☒ ☐ 9. Multi-family and commercial properties shall terminate conduit in an electrical room adjacent to the wall no less than five inches above the finished floor. A 20" width X length 36" space shall be reserved on the plywood wall for OntarioNet equipment. This space shall labeled "OntarioNet Only". Ontario Conduit shall be labeled "OntarioNet"
☒ ☐ 10. A minimum 1.5-inch joint use telecommunications conduit with pull-rope from the multi-family or commercial building communal telecomm/electrical room/closet to each multi-family or commercial building unit shall be installed. See Structured Wiring Checklist on City's website for additional details. ☒ ☐ 11. Warning Tape - Contractor shall supply and install an approved non-detectable warning tape 18-inch above the uppermost conduit when backfilling trenches, pits or excavations greater than 10' in length.

Warning Tape shall be non-detectable, Orange in color, 4-inch minimum width, 4 mil, 500% minimum elongation, with bold printed black letters "CAUTION - BURIED FIBER OPTIC CABLE BELOW" printed in bold black lettering no less than 2-inch high.
☒ ☐ 12. All hand holes, conduits, conduit banks, materials and installations are per the City's Fiber Optic Master Plan and City Fiber Optic Cable and Duct Standards. All hand holes, conduits and ducts shall be placed in the public right of way.
☒ ☐ 13. All unused conduits/ducts/microducts shall be protected with duct plugs that provide a positive seal.

Ducts that are occupied shall be protected with industry accepted duct seal compound. ☒ ☐ 14. Locate/Tracer Wire - Conduit bank requires (1) 12AWG high strength (minimum break load 452#) copper-clad steel with 30mil HDPE orange insulation for locate/tracer wire. Contact City's Fiber Team for tracer wire specifications and see note 8.
☐ ☐ 15. Developer to install 3 inch SCE conduit stub for future City fiber optic meter pedestal within an 8-foot wide, 5-foot deep reserved area for City fiber optic network cabinet. A 3-foot clearance must be maintained around the cabinet and the meter. HH4 shall be placed near the reserved area for cable entrance to network cabinet. The pedestal and network cabinet will be supplied and installed by the City.

The service submittal to SCE will be coordinated by the City. ☒ ☐ 16. Multi-family dwellings are considered commercial property. ☒ ☐ 17. Refer to the In-tract Fiber Network Design guideline on the City's website for additional in-tract conduit guidelines.
☒ ☐ 18. Please contact City's Fiber Team at [email protected] for conduit design assistance. ☒ ☐ 19. For additional information please refer to the City's Fiber Optic Master Plan. ☐ ☐ 20. Please see attached corrections.
☒ ☐ 21. Please provide plans in digital format (PDF) on future revisions. 6241
CONSTRUCTION NOTE 1
CONSTRUCT /INSTALL FIBER OPTIC CONDUIT AT A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 36”, TRENCHING SHALL BE PER CITYSTANDARD 1306. TWO (2)-2” HDPE SDR-11 (SMOOTHWALL) ROLL PIPE (1 ORANGE AND 1-ORANGE WITH BLACKSTRIPE) OR EQUIVALENT. ALL UNUSED CONDUITS/DUCTS/MICRODUCTS SHALL BE PROTECTED WITH DUCTSPLUGS THAT PROVIDE A POSITIVE SEAL. DUCTS THAT ARE OCCUPIED SHALL BE PROTECTED WITH INDUSTRYACCEPTED DUCT SEAL COMPOUND. CONDUIT BANK REQUIRES (1) 12AWG HIGH STRENGTH (MIN. BREAK LOAD452#) COPPER-CLAD STEEL W/30MIL HDPE ORANGE INSULATION FOR LOCATE/TRACER WIRE.CONSTRUCTION NOTE 2INSTALL FIBER OPTIC HANDHOLE HH-3/22 (PCA304836-90244) NEWBASIS; LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 432 STRANDS. PER CITY STANDARD 1316 CONDUITS SWEEPING INTO HANDHOLES SHALL ENTER IN FLUSH WITH THE CUT OUTMOUSE HOLES ALIGNED PARALLEL TO THE BOTTOM OF THE BOX AND COME IN PERPENDICULAR TO THE WALL OFTHE BOX. CONDUITS SHALL NOT ENTER AT ANY ANGLE OTHER THAN PARALLEL PROVIDE 5' MIN CLEARANCEFROM EXISTING/PROPOSED UTILITIES. ALL HANDHOLES WILL HAVE 1/4 INCH GALVANIZED WIRE BETWEEN THEHANDHOLES AND THE GRAVEL ITS PLACED ON..CONSTRUCTION NOTE 3FROM THE NEAREST HANDHOLE TO THE BUILDING ENTRANCE, DESIGN AND INSTALL FIBER OPTIC CONDUIT AT AMINIMUM DEPTH OF 36-INCHES. TRENCHING SHALL BE PER CITY STANDARD FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS. (1)2-INCH HDPE SDR-11 (SMOOTHWALL) ROLL PIPE (ORANGE) DUCT. INSTALL LOCATE/TRACER WIRES MINIMUM12AWG WITHIN CONDUIT BANK AND FIBER WARNING TAPE 18-INCH ABOVE THE UPPERMOST DUCT COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES SHALL TERMINATE CONDUIT IN AN ELECTRICAL ROOM ADJACENT TO THE WALL NOLESS THAN FIVE INCHES ABOVE THE FINISHED FLOOR. A 20" WIDTH X LENGTH 36" SPACE SHALL BE RESERVEDON THE PLYWOOD WALL FOR ONTARIONET EQUIPMENT. THIS SPACE SHALL LABELED "ONTARIONET ONLY". ONTARIO CONDUIT SHALL BE LABELED "ONTARIONET" LOCATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROOM IS CONCEPTUALADDITIONAL NOTE:BLUE DENOTES EXISTING ONTARIONET INFRASTRUCTURERED DENOTES NEW CONSTRUCTION 1 1
3 2
1 1
1 1
3 3
2 2
2 2
2 COURTESY EXHIBIT

BROADBAND OPERATIONS
01/25/2022 9:02:53 AM
6242
1 2
3 CONSTRUCTION NOTE 1CONSTRUCT /INSTALL FIBER OPTIC CONDUIT AT A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 36”, TRENCHING SHALL BE PER CITYSTANDARD 1306. TWO (2)-2” HDPE SDR-11 (SMOOTHWALL) ROLL PIPE (1 ORANGE AND 1-ORANGE WITH BLACKSTRIPE) OR EQUIVALENT. ALL UNUSED CONDUITS/DUCTS/MICRODUCTS SHALL BE PROTECTED WITH DUCTSPLUGS THAT PROVIDE A POSITIVE SEAL. DUCTS THAT ARE OCCUPIED SHALL BE PROTECTED WITH INDUSTRYACCEPTED DUCT SEAL COMPOUND. CONDUIT BANK REQUIRES (1) 12AWG HIGH STRENGTH (MIN. BREAK LOAD452#) COPPER-CLAD STEEL W/30MIL HDPE ORANGE INSULATION FOR LOCATE/TRACER WIRE.CONSTRUCTION NOTE 2INSTALL FIBER OPTIC HANDHOLE HH-3/22 (PCA304836-90244) NEWBASIS; LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 432 STRANDS. PER CITY STANDARD 1316 CONDUITS SWEEPING INTO HANDHOLES SHALL ENTER IN FLUSH WITH THE CUT OUTMOUSE HOLES ALIGNED PARALLEL TO THE BOTTOM OF THE BOX AND COME IN PERPENDICULAR TO THE WALL OFTHE BOX. CONDUITS SHALL NOT ENTER AT ANY ANGLE OTHER THAN PARALLEL PROVIDE 5' MIN CLEARANCEFROM EXISTING/PROPOSED UTILITIES. ALL HANDHOLES WILL HAVE 1/4 INCH GALVANIZED WIRE BETWEEN THEHANDHOLES AND THE GRAVEL ITS PLACED ON..CONSTRUCTION NOTE 3FROM THE NEAREST HANDHOLE TO THE BUILDING ENTRANCE, DESIGN AND INSTALL FIBER OPTIC CONDUIT AT AMINIMUM DEPTH OF 36-INCHES. TRENCHING SHALL BE PER CITY STANDARD FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS. (1)2-INCH HDPE SDR-11 (SMOOTHWALL) ROLL PIPE (ORANGE) DUCT. INSTALL LOCATE/TRACER WIRES MINIMUM12AWG WITHIN CONDUIT BANK AND FIBER WARNING TAPE 18-INCH ABOVE THE UPPERMOST DUCT COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES SHALL TERMINATE CONDUIT IN AN ELECTRICAL ROOM ADJACENT TO THE WALL NOLESS THAN FIVE INCHES ABOVE THE FINISHED FLOOR. A 20" WIDTH X LENGTH 36" SPACE SHALL BE RESERVEDON THE PLYWOOD WALL FOR ONTARIONET EQUIPMENT. THIS SPACE SHALL LABELED "ONTARIONET ONLY". ONTARIO CONDUIT SHALL BE LABELED "ONTARIONET" LOCATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROOM IS CONCEPTUALADDITIONAL NOTE:BLUE DENOTES EXISTING ONTARIONET INFRASTRUCTURERED DENOTES NEW CONSTRUCTION 6243
3 3
3 3
3 1
1 1
2 2
2 2
2 2 2
CONSTRUCTION NOTE 1CONSTRUCT /INSTALL FIBER OPTIC CONDUIT AT A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 36”, TRENCHING SHALL BE PER CITYSTANDARD 1306. TWO (2)-2” HDPE SDR-11 (SMOOTHWALL) ROLL PIPE (1 ORANGE AND 1-ORANGE WITH BLACKSTRIPE) OR EQUIVALENT. ALL UNUSED CONDUITS/DUCTS/MICRODUCTS SHALL BE PROTECTED WITH DUCTSPLUGS THAT PROVIDE A POSITIVE SEAL. DUCTS THAT ARE OCCUPIED SHALL BE PROTECTED WITH INDUSTRYACCEPTED DUCT SEAL COMPOUND. CONDUIT BANK REQUIRES (1) 12AWG HIGH STRENGTH (MIN. BREAK LOAD452#) COPPER-CLAD STEEL W/30MIL HDPE ORANGE INSULATION FOR LOCATE/TRACER WIRE.CONSTRUCTION NOTE 2INSTALL FIBER OPTIC HANDHOLE HH-3/22 (PCA304836-90244) NEWBASIS; LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 432 STRANDS. PER CITY STANDARD 1316 CONDUITS SWEEPING INTO HANDHOLES SHALL ENTER IN FLUSH WITH THE CUT OUTMOUSE HOLES ALIGNED PARALLEL TO THE BOTTOM OF THE BOX AND COME IN PERPENDICULAR TO THE WALL OFTHE BOX. CONDUITS SHALL NOT ENTER AT ANY ANGLE OTHER THAN PARALLEL PROVIDE 5' MIN CLEARANCEFROM EXISTING/PROPOSED UTILITIES. ALL HANDHOLES WILL HAVE 1/4 INCH GALVANIZED WIRE BETWEEN THEHANDHOLES AND THE GRAVEL ITS PLACED ON..CONSTRUCTION NOTE 3FROM THE NEAREST HANDHOLE TO THE BUILDING ENTRANCE, DESIGN AND INSTALL FIBER OPTIC CONDUIT AT AMINIMUM DEPTH OF 36-INCHES. TRENCHING SHALL BE PER CITY STANDARD FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS. (1)2-INCH HDPE SDR-11 (SMOOTHWALL) ROLL PIPE (ORANGE) DUCT. INSTALL LOCATE/TRACER WIRES MINIMUM12AWG WITHIN CONDUIT BANK AND FIBER WARNING TAPE 18-INCH ABOVE THE UPPERMOST DUCT COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES SHALL TERMINATE CONDUIT IN AN ELECTRICAL ROOM ADJACENT TO THE WALL NOLESS THAN FIVE INCHES ABOVE THE FINISHED FLOOR. A 20" WIDTH X LENGTH 36" SPACE SHALL BE RESERVEDON THE PLYWOOD WALL FOR ONTARIONET EQUIPMENT. THIS SPACE SHALL LABELED "ONTARIONET ONLY". ONTARIO CONDUIT SHALL BE LABELED "ONTARIONET" LOCATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROOM IS CONCEPTUALADDITIONAL NOTE:BLUE DENOTES EXISTING ONTARIONET INFRASTRUCTURERED DENOTES NEW CONSTRUCTION 6244

CITY OF ONTARIO

MEMORANDUM
TO: Edmelynne Hutter, Senior Planner
Planning Department
FROM: Paul Ehrman, Sr. Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal
Fire Department
DATE: January 11, 2022
SUBJECT: PDEV21-047 - A Development Plan to construct nine industrial buildings totaling 4,281,128 square feet on 196.89 acres of land generally located east of Haven Avenue, west of Doubleday Avenue and Dupont Avenue, 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).

The plan does adequately address Fire Department requirements at this time.

Standard Conditions of Approval apply, as stated below.

SITE AND BUILDING FEATURES:

A. 2019 CBC Type of Construction: Not Listed, assumed II-B B. Type of Roof Materials: Panelized
C. Ground Floor Area(s): Varies, 205,500 Sq. Ft. to 926,049 Sq. Ft.

D. Number of Stories: 1
E. Total Square Footage: Varies
F. 2019 CBC Occupancy Classification(s): S
6245
2 of 4
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:

1.0 GENERAL

1.1 The following are the Ontario Fire Department (“Fire Department”) requirements for this development project, based on the current edition of the California Fire Code (CFC), and the current versions of the Fire Prevention Standards (“Standards.”) It is recommended that the applicant or developer transmit a copy of these requirements to the on-site contractor(s) and that all questions or concerns be directed to the Bureau of Fire Prevention, at (909) 395-2029.

For copies of Ontario Fire Department Standards please access the City of Ontario web site at www.ontarioca.gov/Fire/Prevention.

1.2 These Fire Department conditions of approval are to be included on any and all construction drawings.

2.0 FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS

2.1 Fire Department vehicle access roadways shall be provided to within 150 ft. of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building, unless specifically approved. Roadways shall be paved with an all-weather surface and shall be a minimum of twenty-four (24) ft. wide.

See Standard #B-004.

2.2 In order to allow for adequate turning radius for emergency fire apparatus, all turns shall be designed to meet the minimum twenty five feet (25’) inside and forty-five feet (45’) outside turning radius per Standard #B-005.

2.3 Fire Department access roadways that exceed one hundred and fifty feet (150’) in length shall have an approved turn-around per Standard #B-002.

2.4 Access drive aisles which cross property lines shall be provided with CC&Rs, access easements, or reciprocating agreements, and shall be recorded on the titles of affected properties, and copies of same shall be provided at the time of building plan check.

2.5 "No Parking-Fire Lane" signs and /or red painted curbs with lettering are required to be installed in interior access roadways, in locations where vehicle parking would obstruct the minimum clear width requirement. Installation shall be per Standard #B-001.

2.6 Security gates or other barriers on fire access roadways shall be provided with a Knox brand key switch or padlock to allow Fire Department access. See Standards #B-003, B-004 and H001.

2.7 Any time PRIOR to on-site combustible construction and/or storage, a minimum twenty-four (24) ft. wide circulating all weather access roads shall be provided to within 150 ft. of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building, unless specifically approved by fire department and other emergency services.
6246
3 of 4

3.0 WATER SUPPLY

3.1 The required fire flow per Fire Department standards, based on the 2019 California Fire Code, Appendix B, is 4000 gallons per minute (g.p.m.) for 4 hours at a minimum of 20 pounds per square inch (p.s.i.) residual operating pressure.

3.2 Off-site (public) fire hydrants are required to be installed on all frontage streets, at a minimum spacing of three hundred foot (300’) apart, per Engineering Department specifications.

3.3 Buildings that exceed 100,000 square feet in floor area shall provide an onsite looped fire protection water line around the building(s.) The loops shall be required to have two or more points of connection from a public circulating water main.

3.4 The water supply, including water mains and fire hydrants, shall be tested and approved by the Engineering Department and Fire Department prior to combustible construction to assure availability and reliability for firefighting purposes.

4.0 FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS

4.2 Underground fire mains which cross property lines shall be provided with CC & R, easements, or reciprocating agreements, and shall be recorded on the titles of affected properties, and copies of same shall be provided at the time of fire department plan check. The shared use of private fire mains or fire pumps is allowable only between immediately adjacent properties and shall not cross any public street.

4.3 An automatic fire sprinkler system is required. The system design shall be in accordance with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 13. All new fire sprinkler systems, except those in single family dwellings, which contain twenty (20) sprinkler heads or more shall be monitored by an approved listed supervising station. An application along with detailed plans shall be submitted, and a construction permit shall be issued by the Fire Department, prior to any work being done.

4.5 Fire Department Connections (FDC) shall be located on the address side of the building within one hundred fifty feet (150’) of a public fire hydrant on the same side of the street. Provide identification for all fire sprinkler control valves and fire department connections per Standard #D-007. Raised curbs adjacent to Fire Department connection(s) shall be painted red, five feet either side, per City standards.

4.6 A fire alarm system is required. The system design shall be in accordance with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 72. An application along with detailed plans shall be submitted, and a construction permit shall be issued by the Fire Department, prior to any work being done.

4.7 Portable fire extinguishers are required to be installed prior to occupancy per Standard #C-001.

Please contact the Fire Prevention Bureau to determine the exact number, type and placement required.
6247
4 of 4

5.0 BUILDING CONSTRUCTION FEATURES

5.1 The developer/general contractor is to be responsible for reasonable periodic cleanup of the development during construction to avoid hazardous accumulations of combustible trash and debris both on and off the site.

5.2 Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Multitenant or building projects shall have addresses and/or suite numbers provided on the rear of the building. Address numbers shall contrast with their background. See Section 9-1 6.06 of the Ontario Municipal Code and Standards #H-003 and #H-002.

5.3 Single station smoke alarms and carbon monoxide alarms are required to be installed per the California Building Code and the California Fire Code.

5.4 Multiple unit building complexes shall have building directories provided at the main entrances. The directories shall be designed to the requirements of the Fire Department, see Section 9-1 6.06 of the Ontario Municipal Code and Standard #H-003. .

5.6 Knox ® brand key-box(es) shall be installed in location(s) acceptable to the Fire Department.

All Knox boxes shall be monitored for tamper by the building fire alarm system. See Standard #H-001 for specific requirements.

5.7 Placards shall be installed in acceptable locations on buildings that store, use or handle hazardous materials in excess of the quantities specified in the CFC. Placards shall meet the requirements of National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 704.

6.0 OTHER SPECIAL USES

6.1 The storage, use, dispensing, or handling of any hazardous materials shall be approved by the Fire Department, and adequate fire protection features shall be required. If hazardous materials are proposed, a Fire Department Hazardous Materials Information Packet, including Disclosure Form and Information Worksheet, shall be completed and submitted with Material Safety Data Sheets to the Fire Department along with building construction plans.

6.2 Any High Piled Storage, or storage of combustible materials greater than twelve (12’) feet in height for ordinary (Class I-IV) commodities or storage greater than six feet (6’) in height of high hazard (Group A plastics, rubber tires, flammable liquids, etc.) shall be approved by the Fire Department, and adequate fire protection features shall be required. If High Piled Storage is proposed, a Fire Department High Piled Storage Worksheet shall be completed and detailed racking plans or floor plans submitted prior to occupancy of the building.

6.3 Underground fuel tanks, their associated piping and dispensers shall be reviewed, approved, and permitted by Ontario Building Department, Ontario Fire Department, and San Bernardino County Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division. In fueling facilities, an exterior emergency pump shut-off switch shall be provided.
6248

C:\Users\20461\02 - Current Planning\Entitlement Projects\2021\PDEV\PDEV21-047_California Logistics Center\Review-CommentsConditions\Integrated Waste_COMMENTS\PDEV21-047 IW Comments 2.docx

CITY OF ONTARIO

MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 30, 2022
TO: Edmelynne Hutter, Planning Department
FROM: Blaine Ishii, Integrated Waste Department
SUBJECT: DPR #2 – Integrated Waste Comments
PROJECT NO.: PDEV21-047
ATTACHMENTS:

BRIEF DESCRIPTION – Haven Ave, West of Doubleday ave and Dupont Ave.

THIS SUBMITTAL IS COMPLETE.

CORRECTION ITEMS: In order to be considered for approval by the Integrated Waste Department the applicant shall address all the correction items below and resubmit the application for further review. Please note that all design shall meet the City’s Design Development Guidelines, Specifications Design Criteria, and City Standards.

Integrated Waste Comments:

No comments.

Integrated Waste Dept.
6249
6250

CITY OF ONTARIO

MEMORANDUM
TO: Edmelynne Hutter, Senior Planner
FROM: Officer Tony Galban, Police Department
DATE: January 3, 2022
SUBJECT: PDEV21-047 - A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT NINE (9) INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS TOTALING 4,281,128 SQUARE FEET,

LOCATED EAST OF HAVEN AVENUE, WEST OF DOUBLEDAY

AVENUE AND DUPONT AVENUE, NORTH OF JURUPA STREET AND
SOUTH OF AIRPORT DRIVE.

The “Standard Conditions of Approval” contained in Resolution No. 2017-027 apply. The applicant shall read and be thoroughly familiar with these conditions, including, but not limited to, the requirements below.
• Required lighting for all walkways, driveways, doorways, parking lots, hallways and other areas used by the public shall be provided. Lights shall operate via photosensor.

Photometrics shall be provided to the Police Department and include the types of fixtures proposed and demonstrate that such fixtures meet the vandal-resistant requirement.

Planned landscaping shall not obstruct lighting.
• Rooftop addresses shall be installed on the buildings as stated in the Standard Conditions.

The numbers shall be at a minimum 6 feet tall and 2 foot wide, in reflective white paint on a flat black background, and oriented with the bottom of the numbers towards the addressed street. Associated letters shall also be included.
• First floor common stairwells shall be constructed to either allow for visibility through the stairwell risers or to prohibit public access to the areas behind stairwells. • The Applicant shall comply with construction site security requirements as stated in the Standard Conditions.

The Applicant is invited to contact Officer Tony Galban at (909) 408-1006 with any questions or concerns regarding these conditions.
6251
-1-

CITY OF ONTARIO PLANNING COMMISSION/

HISTORIC PRESERVATION MEETING

MINUTES
January 24, 2023

CONTENTS PAGE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ................................................................................................ 2 ANNOUNCEMENTS............................................................................................................ 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS .......................................................................................................... 2

CONSENT CALENDAR
A-01. Minutes of December 19, 2022 ................................................................................. 2

PUBLIC HEARINGS
B. File Nos. PMTT22-008 (TPM 20531) & PDEV22-010 ........................................... 2 C. File Nos. PMTT22-013 (TPM 20505), PDEV22-021 & PCUP22-006 .................... 4 D. File No. PDEV21-047 ................................................................................................ 6 MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION ........................................................ 9 DIRECTOR’S REPORT ........................................................................................................ 9 ADJOURNMENT .......................................................................................................... 9 6252
-2-

CITY OF ONTARIO PLANNING COMMISSION/

HISTORIC PRESERVATION SPECIAL MEETING

MINUTES
January 24, 2023
REGULAR MEETING: City Hall, 303 East B Street
Called to order by Chairperson DeDiemar at 6:30 PM

COMMISSIONERS

Present: Chairperson DeDiemar, Dean, Lampkin and Ricci

Absent: Vice-Chairperson Gage, Anderson,
OTHERS PRESENT: Executive Director Community Development Murphy, Planning Director Zeledon, City Attorney Guiboa, Principal Planner Mercier, Principal Planner Ruddins, Senior Planner Batres, Senior Planner Hutter, Associate Planner Vaughn, Senior Associate Engineer Maciel-Carrera, and Planning Secretary Berendsen

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Dean.

ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mr. Zeledon discussed the correspondence received for each Item.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Randy Bekendam spoke on the Composting Conference in Ontario and Amy’s Farm and the relationship between Chino Institute of Women (CIW) and their donation of $10,000.00 to help save Amy’s Farm.

CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS
A-01. MINUTES APPROVAL
Planning/Historic Preservation Commission Minutes of December 19, 2022, approved as written.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
It was moved by Ricci, seconded by Dean, to approve the Consent Calendar. It was approved unanimously by those present (4-0).

PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AND
DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW FOR FILE NOS. PMTT22-008 (TPM 20531) & PDEV22-010: A hearing to consider a Tentative Parcel Map No. 20531 to merge 16.39 acres of land from 5-parcels into 1-parcel, in conjunction with a Development Plan to construct a 336,761- square-foot industrial building on 16.39 acres of land for property located at 316 S. Bon View 6253
-6-
vote: AYES, Dean, DeDiemar, Lampkin and Ricci; NOES, none; RECUSE, none; ABSENT, Anderson and Gage. The motion was carried 4 to 0.

It was moved by Ricci, seconded by Dean, to recommend approval of a resolution for the Conditional Use Permit, File No., PCUP22-006, to City Council, subject to conditions of approval. Roll call vote: AYES, Dean, DeDiemar, Lampkin and Ricci; NOES, none; RECUSE, none; ABSENT, Anderson and Gage. The motion was carried 4 to 0.

D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW FOR FILE NO. PDEV21-047: A public hearing to consider a Development Plan to construct nine industrial buildings totaling 4,263,454 square feet 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.

Mr. Ricci wanted to know about a deceleration lane on the truck access from Haven.

Ms. Hutter stated there are no plans for this, at this time and explained the circulation pattern.

Mr. Ricci clarified that the project is within certain airport safety zones with population requirements.

Ms. Hutter stated yes and explained the airport zones.

Mr. Ricci clarified that those zones have been taken into consideration for the project.

Ms. Hutter stated that is correct and explained the COAs and the airport stipulations.

Mr. Lampkin wanted to clarify that Fish and Wildlife recommended relocation or what was the other option.

Ms. Hutter stated the other option is eviction.

Mr. Lampkin wanted to know how the borrows are created.

Mr. Zeledon explained and referred to the applicants biologist.

PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Mr. Bruce McDonald the applicant, spoke in favor of the project and stated he was in support of all the Conditions of Approvals.

Mr. Lampkin wanted to clarify that the applicant had responded to all the letters received for the DAB meeting.
6254
-7-
Mr. McDonald stated that is correct.

Mr. Lampkin wanted to clarify that Fish and Wildlife don’t support staying in place or eviction, and wanted to know the applicants plan.

Mr. McDonald explained that they have chosen a translocation process, and explained this process.

Mr. Lampkin wanted to clarify that there are two types of burrowing owls.

Mr. McDonald stated there are two pairs not types.

Mr. Zeke Cooley with Helix Environmental Planning, spoke regarding the current conditions of the burrowing owls.

Mr. Lampkin wanted to clarify that the owls are using existing burrows.

Mr. Cooley stated the owls are using surrogate burrows, as the soil doesn’t support regular burrows.

Mr. Lampkin wanted to clarify that this is not an ideal location.

Mr. Cooley stated this is not ideal as the soil is compacted and the owls are using mostly squirrel burrows.

Mr. Travis McGill with ELMT consulting, the translocation specialist, was present.

Mr. Lampkin wanted to know about the translocation process.

Mr. McGill explained about the translocation process, to area with existing owls.

Mr. Lampkin wanted clarification on the difference between placing the owls alone or with other owls.

Mr. McGill explained the difference.

Mr. Lampkin wanted to know the migration pattern of owls Mr. McGill stated they have a strong home range, and why relocation is time specific.

Mr. Lampkin wanted to know if translocating the owls to an area that already has owls would dampen the home range sense.

Mr. McGill stated yes and no and explained.

Mr. Lampkin wanted to know the risks of displacement versus translocation.

Mr. McGill explained the options.

Mr. Ricci wanted to know the location they are looking at are there transplanted owls there already.

Mr. McGill explained.

Mr. Dean wanted to know why the population is only four birds and not more.

Mr. McGill explained the factors in the area that contribute to that. 6255
-8-
Ms. DeDiemar wanted to know if burrowing owls are an endangered species.

Mr. McGill stated no.

Ms. DeDiemar wanted to know the health of the population in SoCal.

Mr. McGill stated it is declining in area and overall in the USA.

Mr. Thomas Ruiz representing LIUNA (Labors International Union of North America) spoke in support of the project.

Ms. Suzanne Thompson representing PVAS, spoke in opposition of the project.

Ms. Susan Phillips with the Robert Redford Conservancy, spoke in opposition of the project.

Ms. Heather Riley applicants attorney, spoke in rebuttal to written claims regarding a current lawsuit and the City of Ontario.

Mr. Marcos Trinidad spoke in opposition of the project.

Mr. McDonald rebutted and stated that he would be willing to put in a deceleration lane on Haven Avenue, subject to airport approval.

Mr. Lampkin wanted to know if he would be willing to close off entrances on Haven Avenue.

Mr. McDonald stated not sure it would be efficient for circulation and those ingress/egress areas are right in right out only, and he would be willing to close off the southern auto drive.

Mr. Lampkin wanted to know more about the choice of lighting.

Mr. McDonald explained the unique panel lighting that is meant to create a place of sense.

Mr. Lampkin wanted to verify with the attorney that the speakers statement regarding the City of Ontario not being involved in the lawsuit.

Attorney Guiboa stated that is correct, that the city is not involved in that lawsuit.

No one wished to speak, Chairperson DeDiemar closed the public testimony.

Mr. Lampkin made comments regarding the burrowing owls.

Mr. Ricci spoke in favor of the project and relocating the owls.

Mr. Dean spoke in favor of relocating the owls.

Ms. DeDiemar spoke in favor of the project.

Mr. Zeledon explained the city’s progress on the Greater Prado Basin Habitat Conservation Program plan.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
It was moved by Lampkin, seconded by Ricci, to approve a resolution for the Addendum to a previously certified Environmental Impact Report. Roll call vote:

AYES, Dean, DeDiemar, Lampkin and Ricci; NOES, none; RECUSE, none; 6256
6257
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO,

CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL, AND UPHOLDING PLANNING
COMMISSION RESOLUTION NOS. PC23-007 AND PC23-008

APPROVING THE USE OF THE ADDENDUM TO THE ONTARIO PLAN
2050 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND APPROVING
FILE NO. PDEV21-047, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT NINE INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS TOTALING 4,263,454 SQUARE FEET AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS ON 216.39 GROSS ACRES (196.83

NET ACRES) OF LAND LOCATED EAST OF HAVEN AVENUE, WEST OF

DOUBLEDAY AND DUPONT AVENUES, NORTH OF JURUPA STREET

AND SOUTH OF AIRPORT DRIVE AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF—APN: 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.

WHEREAS, MCDONALD PROPERTY GROUP (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant") has filed an Application for the approval of a Development Plan, File No.

PDEV21-047, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and
WHEREAS, on January 4, 2023, the Development Advisory Board of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the SEIR Addendum and the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to issue Decision Nos. DAB23-001 and DAB23-002, respectively, recommending that the Planning Commission approve the Application; and
WHEREAS, on January 24, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the SEIR Addendum and the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to adopt Resolution Nos. PC23-007 and PC23-008, respectively, approving the Application; and
WHEREAS, on February 3, 2023, an appeal of the Planning Commission’s action on PDEV21-047 (hereinafter referred to as “Appeal”) was submitted by Suzanne Thompson on behalf of the Pomona Valley Audubon Society, Hallie Kutak on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity, Dan Silver on behalf of the Endangered Habitat League, and Travis Longcore on behalf of Los Angeles Audubon Society (hereinafter referred to as “Appellant”); and
6258
WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the City Council the responsibility and authority to review and act on the Appeal; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Development Code Section 2.04.010.B.2, an appeal of the Planning Commission’s action is limited to those matters raised during the public hearing and contained in the Appeal statement. In acting on the Appeal, the Approving Authority (in this case, the City Council) cannot consider any matter or issue that was not raised during the public hearing and contained in the Appeal statement. Staff has reviewed the Appeal request and has provided the following responses to the Appeal:
(a) Appellant Issue No. 1: Abuse of Discretion. Individuals from the public were allotted three minutes to speak, and the Project applicant requested additional time, and was allowed additional time and that other individuals from the public were also allotted three minutes to speak but were not offered more time.

Staff Response: Appellant alleges that applicant Bruce McDonald was given additional time to speak after his time expired, while other speakers were given only three minutes, and, as such, the Planning Commission did not provide the public with a fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard. Appellant’s allegations are legally incorrect and do not amount to an abuse of discretion. The Appellant states that the applicant “Bruce McDonald, was given a three-minute time frame for his remarks. He ran out of time, asked the chair for more time, and was granted additional time approximately double to what he had been allotted.” A review of a video of the January 24, 2023, Planning Commission meeting (available online at
https://ontarioca.granicus.com/player/clip/234?view_id=2&redirect=true&h=04ddab0dff6 664cef9136553d6628b09 [ontarioca.granicus.com]) confirms that, after receiving a presentation by staff on Public Hearing Item D, PDEV21-047, the Chair of the Planning Commission called on the Applicant, Mr. McDonald, to make the Applicant’s presentation (applicant presentations always proceed public comments in support or in opposition to the project under consideration at a public hearing held by the PC). He made his timed presentation and then asked the Chairperson for additional time to speak, however, the video confirms that he ultimately spoke only for five (5) minutes. Five (5) minutes is the amount of time the Planning Commission’s Rules and Procedures D.6(f) grants an applicant to speak at a public hearing and was granted additional time. Even if Appellant believes Mr. MacDonald should only have spoken for 3 minutes, a 5 minutes presentation is consistent with the Planning Commission’s Rules and Procedures, and, further, Per Chaffee v San Francisco Public Library Comm’n (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 109, 115, the Chair of the Planning Commission may exercise reasonable discretion in departing from the normal time limits allocated to speakers. In addition, separate from his presentation, Mr. McDonald answered multiple questions posed by multiple members of the Commission. Mr. McDonald, as the applicant, also presented a timed rebuttal presentation at the end of the public hearing and then, separate from his rebuttal, answered multiple questions posed by multiple members of the Commission. Per Ribakoff v. City of Long Beach (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 150, 172, the Planning Commission may impose time limits on each member of general public but is not required to impose time limits on comments by Commission members and invited speakers. As such, the 6259
Planning Commission was not required to limit the amount of time given to the Commission members in asking their questions of Mr. McDonald.

Appellant also alleges that the public expected to have five minutes each for comments “based on the meeting agenda and the Ontario Planning Commission Rules and Procedures” and that limiting the public’s comments to three minutes while allowing Mr.

McDonald additional time violated the Brown Act. Appellant is incorrect. The January 24, 2023, Agenda states, with regard to Public Hearings: “Members of the public will then be allowed five (5) minutes each to speak, unless there are a number of person’s wishing to speak and then the Chairperson will allow only three (3) minutes, to accommodate for more persons.” Per Chaffee v San Francisco Public Library Comm’n (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 109, 115, the Chair of the Planning Commission may exercise reasonable discretion in departing from the normal time limits allocated to public speakers. Here the Agenda contained multiple substantive items and the meeting was over four hours long, making the Chair’s decision to restrict speaking time, an action which the public was apprised by the Agenda could happen, entirely reasonable. (b) Appellant Issue No. 2: Decision Not Supported by the Record. The Appeal states that the decision was not supported by the record in that there were misstatements of fact regarding Burrowing Owls present on the Project site and provides the following counter arguments: [a] Burrowing Owls do not live in storm drains; [b] the Project site is appropriate habitat for the owls; [c] other conditions such as events, police motorcycle training, semi-truck driver training, car shows, photo shoots, and spraying along Carnegie Avenue are the cause of the owls’ decline; [d] owls are not a risk to airplane bird strikes, and that the Ontario International Airport should have a large raptor control program; [e] owls can be translocated as close as 10.5 miles away, which can help genetic diversity among owls in the area; and [f] pending litigation with OIAA needs to be settled before the City can approve the project.

Staff Response: The Appeal states that the decision was not supported by the record in that there were misstatements of fact regarding Burrowing Owls present on the Project site. The Appeal provides counter arguments including: a) Burrowing Owls do not live in storm drains; b) the Project site is appropriate habitat for the owls however; c) other conditions such as events, police motorcycle training, semi-truck driver training, car shows, photo shoots, and spraying along Carnegie Avenue are the cause of the owls’ decline; d) owls are not a risk to airplane bird strikes, and that the Ontario International Airport should have a large raptor control program; e) owls can be translocated at close as 10.5 miles away, which can help genetic diversity among owls in the area; and f) there is a pending lawsuit that could affect the Project could put the City of Ontario at legal risk if the Project is approved. The following discussion addresses each sub-item above.

Response [2a, 2b and 2e]: ELMT Consulting, the Applicant’s biologist consultant, prepared a response to the Appellant’s assertion that Burrowing Owls do not live in storm drains, that the Project site is appropriate habitat for Burrowing Owls, and that owls can be translocated closer to the Project site. The response from ELMT refutes the assertions and includes photographs showing evidence of owls in and around the storm drain inlet 6260
pipe including owl pellets, whitewash and use of a perch installed next to the inlet pipe.

In addition, ELMT states that the Project site, as a habitat, would not be able to support owls in perpetuity because the Project site is surrounded by development and is essentially an island of undeveloped land. Other translocation efforts in the region, where the designated habitat is surrounded by development, were ultimately unsuccessful because the owls did not have the ability to safely disperse away from and into these areas, and that the same situation will likely present itself in this Project site.

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

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

Response[2d]: The Appeal stated that Burrowing Owls are not a danger to aircraft. However, the Federal Aviation Administration National Wildlife Strike Database documents 17 strike incidents that involve Burrowing Owls. The Wildlife Strike Database includes information and incidents of bird strikes reported by pilots, and/or discovery of remains or partial remains during aircraft inspections and runway inspections. Burrowing Owl bird strikes do occur at Ontario International Airport and risks to aircraft and risks to the owls exist. The Federal Aviation Administration issued Advisory Circular No. 150- 5200-33C, which states in Section 2.8.4 that "Other Hazardous Wildlife Attractants. Other land uses (e.g., conservation easements, parks, wildlife management areas) or activities not addressed in this AC may have the potential to attract hazardous wildlife. Regardless of the source of the attraction, when hazardous wildlife is noted on a public-use airport, each certificate holder must take prompt remedial action(s) to protect aviation safety and all non-certified airports should take prompt remedial action(s) to protect aviation safety." On behalf of the Applicant, Mead & Hunt, Inc. prepared a response, dated February 21, 2023, addressing the Appellant’s claim that the wildlife hazard information included in the 6261
January 4, 2023, Planning Commission Agenda Report made misstatements about Burrowing Owls and the hazards they pose for aircraft. The Mead & Hunt response provides and reiterates that Federal Aviation Administration data shows that 410 incidents nationwide involve Burrow Owl strikes, with 17 occurring at Ontario International Airport.

The response goes on to explain that, as required, the Ontario International Airport Authority has prepared and maintains an FAA-approved Wildlife Hazard Management Plan to address raptors and other species identified as posing a hazard to aircraft. The Wildlife Hazard Management Plan includes responsibilities, policies and procedures to identify and abate wildlife hazards within the airfield and wildlife attractants in the surrounding area. In other words, the Ontario International Airport Authority, in compliance with the Federal Aviation Administration requirements, has a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan in place that includes raptor control.

Response[2f]: The City is not involved in any litigation over the property and/or the Project.

Rather, Inland Valley Advocates filed a legal challenge against OIAA and CanAm Ontario, LLC (an affiliate of McDonald). The City was not named in the lawsuit. (c) Appellant Issue No. 3: Decision Not Supported by the Record. There is inadequate accounting for greenhouse gas emissions and pollution and that The Ontario Plan 2050 Certified Environmental Impact Report does not adequately account for cumulative impacts of warehouse infrastructure, biodiversity loss, and loss of bioproductive land, and impacts the Project would have as a warehouse development.

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

To the extent that Appellants restate their objections to the TOP 2050 EIR, such objections are not appropriately before the City Council in this Appeal as the TOP 2050 EIR has been certified, the TOP 2050 approved, and those actions are now final and beyond challenge. Accordingly, the only question that may be considered by the City when evaluating the Project is whether one of the three exceptions triggering the need for a subsequent or supplemental EIR in CEQA Guidelines 15164 and 15162 exists.

Based on the conclusions of the previously certified TOP EIR, the analysis in the Project Addendum, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, including Sections 15164 and 15162, the Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary, nor is there a need for additional mitigation with implementation of the number of conditions of approval required by the City based on the results of the site-specific technical studies for burrowing owl and airport safety. 6262
The Appeal provides no substantial evidence that the Project’s impacts (whether projectlevel or cumulative) as to any environmental topic analyzed in the Addendum will result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR, nor any substantial evidence that any changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary, nor a need for additional mitigation.

The Project will be subject to all applicable mitigation measures in adopted by the City with regard to the TOP 2050 EIR, including a number of conditions of approval required by the City per the TOP 2050 EIR and based on the results of the site specific technical studies for burrowing owl and airport safety.

WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, commencing with Public Resources Code Section 21000 (hereinafter referred to as “CEQA”); and
WHEREAS, the City's "Local Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" provide for the use of a single environmental assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed; and
WHEREAS, The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364) was certified on August 16, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as "Certified SEIR"), in which development and use of the Project site was discussed; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director of the City of Ontario prepared and approved for attachment to the Certified SEIR, an Addendum to the Certified SEIR (hereinafter referred to as "SEIR Addendum") in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with State and local guidelines implementing said Act, all as amended to date (collectively referred to as "CEQA"); and WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of this project were thoroughly analyzed in the SEIR Addendum, which concluded that implementation of the Project could result in a number of significant effects on the environment that were previously analyzed in the Certified SEIR, and that the Certified SEIR identified mitigation measures that would reduce each of those significant effects to a less-than-significant level; and WHEREAS, the Project has been reviewed for consistency with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan, as State Housing Element law (as prescribed in Government Code Sections 65580 through 65589.8) requires that development projects must be consistent with the Housing Element, if upon consideration of all its aspects, it is found to further the purposes, principals, goals, and policies of the Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and is subject to, and must be consistent with, the policies 6263
and criteria set forth in the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (hereinafter referred to as "ALUCP"), which applies only to jurisdictions within San Bernardino County, and addresses the noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity; and
WHEREAS, City of Ontario Development Code Division 2.03 (Public Hearings) prescribes the manner in which public notification shall be provided and hearing procedures to be followed, and all such notifications and procedures have been completed; and
WHEREAS, on March 21, 2023, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Appeal, and concluded said hearing on that date; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

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

SECTION 1: Environmental Determination and Findings. As the decisionmaking body for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Addendum, the initial study, and the administrative record for the Project, including all written and oral evidence provided during the comment period.

Based upon the facts and information contained in the Addendum, the initial study, and the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
(1) The environmental impacts of the Project were reviewed in conjunction with an Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364), certified by the Ontario City Council on August 16, 2022, in conjunction with File No. PGPA20-002; and
(2) The SEIR Addendum and administrative record have been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
(3) The City's "Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" provide for the use of a single environmental assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed. This Application introduces no new significant environmental impacts; and (4) All previously adopted mitigation measures shall be a condition of project approval, as they are applicable to the Project, and are incorporated herein by this reference; and
6264
(5) The SEIR Addendum contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project, and reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and
(6) There is no substantial evidence in the administrative record supporting a fair argument that the project may result in significant environmental impacts.

SECTION 2: Subsequent or Supplemental Environmental Review Not Required. Based on the SEIR Addendum, all related information presented to the Planning Commission, and the specific findings set forth in Section 1, above, the Planning Commission finds that the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental Certified SEIR is not required for the Project, as the Project:
(1) Does not constitute substantial changes to the Certified SEIR that will require major revisions to the Certified SEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and
(2) Does not constitute substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Certified SEIR was prepared, that will require major revisions to the Certified SEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects; and (3) Does not contain new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Certified SEIR was certified/adopted, that shows any of the following:

1. The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the Certified SEIR; or

2. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the Certified SEIR; or

3. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the City declined to adopt such measures; or

4. Mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed in the Certified SEIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but which the City declined to adopt.

SECTION 3: Housing Element Compliance. Pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 3, Article 10.6, commencing with Section 65580, as the decision-making body for the Project, the City Council finds that based upon the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation, at the time of Project implementation, the project is consistent with the Housing Element of the Policy 6265
Plan (General Plan) component of The Ontario Plan, as the project site is not one of the properties in the Housing Element Sites Inventory contained in Tables B-1 and B-2 of the Housing Element Technical Report.

SECTION 4: 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.
(1) On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the Ontario International Airport Land use Compatibility Plan, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of 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 City Council 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 City Council, therefore, finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ONT ALUCP; and SECTION 5: Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced hearing, and upon the specific findings set forth in Sections 1 through 4, above, the City Council hereby concludes as follows:
(1) The proposed development at the proposed location, and the manner in which it will be operated and maintained, is consistent with the goals, policies, plans and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan. The proposed Project is located within the Industrial land use district of the Policy Plan Land Use Map, and the Light Industrial land use designation of the California Commerce Center Specific Plan zoning district. The development standards and conditions under which the proposed Project will be constructed and maintained, is consistent with the goals, policies, plans, and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan.
(2) The proposed use at the proposed location, and the manner in which it will be operated and maintained, is consistent with the objectives and requirements of the Development Code and any applicable specific plan or planned 6266
unit development. The proposed Project has been reviewed for consistency with the general development standards and guidelines of the California Commerce Center Specific Plan that are applicable to the proposed Project, including building intensity, building and parking setbacks, building height, amount of off-street parking and loading spaces, parking lot dimensions, design and landscaping, bicycle parking, on-site landscaping, and fences and walls, as-well-as those development standards and guidelines specifically related to the particular land use being proposed (warehouse and distribution). As a result of this review, the Planning Commission has determined that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the development standards and guidelines described in the California Commerce Center Specific Plan.
(3) The establishment, maintenance, and operation of the proposed use at the proposed location would not be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements within the vicinity, nor would it be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission has required certain safeguards, and impose certain conditions of approval, which have been established to ensure that: [i] the purposes of the Development Code are maintained; [ii] the Project will not endanger the public health, safety or general welfare; [iii] the Project will not result in any significant environmental impacts; and [iv] the Project will be in harmony with the surrounding area in which it is proposed to be located.

SECTION 6: City Council Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 through 5, above, the City Council hereby APPROVES to deny the Appeal and to uphold the Planning Commission Resolution Nos. PC23-007 and PC23- 008.

SECTION 6: Indemnification. The Applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Ontario or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Ontario or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul this approval. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding, and the City of Ontario shall cooperate fully in the defense.

SECTION 7: Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Ontario City Hall, 303 East "B" Street, Ontario, California 91764. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk of the City of Ontario. - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
6267
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this ____ day of _________ 20___. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
6268

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

CITY OF ONTARIO )
I, SHEILA MAUTZ, City Clerk of the City of Ontario, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that foregoing Resolution No. ____ was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Ontario at their regular meeting held __________, 20__, by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
_________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
The foregoing is the original of Resolution No. ____ duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held __________. _________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
6269
Department: Financial Services
Prepared By: Maria Garcia
Staff Member Presenting:

Armen Harkalyan, Executive Director of Finance
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 19
SUBJECT: FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 MID-YEAR BUDGET UPDATE REPORT

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
March 21, 2023
SECTION:

ADMINISTRATIVE

REPORTS/DISCUSSION/ACTION
RECOMMENDATION:

A. That the City Council approve the budget adjustments and recommendations as presented in the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Mid-Year Budget Update Report (Exhibit A); B. That the City Council adopt a Resolution revising the appropriation limit of the City of Ontario for Fiscal Year 2022-23; and
C. That the City Council introduce Ordinance Amending Section 2-1.203 of the Ontario Municipal Code relating to Salary Compensation for the Mayor and City Council.

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Operate in a Businesslike Manner
FISCAL IMPACT: The recommended actions will affect several fund budgets as outlined in the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Mid-Year Budget Update Report and supporting schedules.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS: The Mid-Year Budget Update Report for Fiscal Year 2022- 23 reflects the Financial Services Agency's continued efforts to provide timely, accurate, and understandable financial information to assist the City Council with decision making and achievement of core goals.

All Funds have been reviewed in preparing this report. The emphasis of this report is on the General Fund, which funds the majority of government services including public safety, recreation, library, museum, parks, building and planning.

The primary purposes of this report are to:

Revise the City' s budget to reflect the City Council's actions taken since the First Quarter Budget Update;
Recommend personnel and organizational changes to enhance program operations and efficiencies;
Recommend budget adjustments that are consistent with City Council goals and objectives; and
Comment on significant budget and economic trends which may impact current fiscal year's 6270
budget development.

Fiscal Year 2022-23 Mid-Year Budget Update Recommendations Mid-Year Budget Update recommendations are routine in nature and comprised predominately by City Council actions taken since the First Quarter Budget Update. Mid-Year Budget Update includes proposed new expenditure budget requests, as well as revised revenue estimates for FY 2022-23.

For the General Fund, the net result of these actions will bring the General Fund estimated available and unencumbered ending fund balance to $65.88 million or 19% of total appropriations. This amount achieves the goal set by City Council as a reserve for specific and defined emergency events (such as an earthquake or pandemic) and to address immediate needs in resources without impacting City services. This goal was temporarily decreased to 15% and then 16% during the COVID pandemic but has since been brought back up to the previous set goal of 18%, effective July 1, 2021, with the goal of increasing the reserves up to 25% in future fiscal years.

General Fund Highlights
$4.0 million for additional pay-as-you-go OPEB funding
$3.6 million recommended personnel changes
$1.8 million for Police Equipment (City Council approved 12/20/2022) $1.0 million funding to Information Technology Fund for Citywide camera replacements $640 thousand for the Auto Center Signage
$485 thousand for Palm Tree Trimming Maintenance and Services for Whispering Lakes Golf Course
Other Funds (non-General Fund) Highlights
$53.0 million for the Ontario Sports Complex Property Acquisition and Architect & Design $6.7 million contribution from OMC Regional Water Fund to Water Capital Fund for San Antonio Transmission Water Main Phase 2, First Quarter Adjustment $5.0 million additional appropriation for Broadband Expansion $4.7 million for Ontario Ranch Grand Park Construction
$2.6 million for additional pay-as-you-go OPEB funding
$1.8 million recommended personnel changes
Interim budget updates also present recommendations for personnel and organizational changes necessary to enhance program operations and efficiencies. Current recommendations for this MidYear report include reclassification changes, adds/deletes, and other modifications to the authorized full-time positions resulting in a net increase of 89 positions citywide (64.5 positions are funded from General Fund and 24.5 positions are funded from Other Funds). In addition, a recommended change effective FY 2022-23, established Economic Development as its own City Agency to provide further emphasis on current and future economic opportunities citywide. More detail is presented in the attached Exhibit A under Recommended Personnel Changes section, pages 9 through 12 of the FY 2022-23 Mid-Year Budget Update Report 6271
Other Budget-Related Actions
State law mandates that certain City appropriations be subject to an annual spending limit (GANN Limit). The City's appropriation limit was first established in 1978 and has been adjusted annually by certain growth factors, such as the consumer price index, California per capita income, and population change in the City or County. Based on these factors, the City's appropriation limit for Fiscal Year 2022-23 is revised to $362,513,388; it was originally established at $355,734,102 on May 26, 2022, and fall within the State guidelines.

In addition to what has been presented, Staff recommends the Mayor and City Council introduce an Ordinance to modify the monthly salary compensation rates for the Mayor and the City Council. The last time this Ordinance was modified was in 2017 for the Mayor and November 2018 for the City Council. If adopted, the Ordinance will establish the Mayor's salary at $4,059.84 per month, and the City Council's salary will be $2,405.13 per month. Compensation for the Mayor will be effective April 22, 2023. Per Ontario Municipal Code Section 2-1.205, the modification in salary compensation for the City Council cannot be effective until after the certification of the next election in November of 2024, when the next City Council is seated.

Economic Outlook
Gross Domestic Product (GDP): the broadest measure of economic output, decreased at an annual rate of 2.7% in the fourth quarter of 2022, after increasing 3.2% in the third quarter.

The decrease in the fourth quarter primarily reflect decrease in inventory investment and consumer spending, as well as a decrease in housing investment.

Unemployment Rate: the national unemployment rate for December 2022 was at 3.5% as compared to 3.9% in December 2021 and 6.7% in December of 2020. California’s unemployment rate for December 2022 was at 4.1% as compared to 5.8% in December 2021 and 9.2% in December 2020. Locally, unemployment rate in December 2022 was at 3.6% as compared to 4.3% in December 2021 and 9.1% in December 2020. Although employment gains are slowing, it still continues to be positive as the economy recovers from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Consumer Confidence Index (CCI): for December 2022, the CCI was at 108.3. This records an increase from the previous number of 101.4 for November 2022 and 102.2 for October 2022.

The CCI has improved due to consumers’ more favorable view regarding the economy and jobs. Inflation expectations retreated in December to their lowest level since September 2021, with recent declines in gas prices a major impetus. Vacation intentions improved but plans to purchase homes and big-ticket appliances cooled further. This shift in consumers’ preference from big-ticket items to services will continue in 2023, as will headwinds from inflation and interest rate hikes.

Purchasing Manager’s Index (PMI): for December 2022, PMI was at 48.4% as compared to

58.3% in December 2021 and 56.7% in December of 2020. The current declining PMI rate is a reflection of heightened concerns regarding rising inflation, higher commodity prices, and continued supply chain issues.

Housing market: in California, 429,860 existing home sales have been recorded year-to-date. 6272
This represents a decrease of 15.7% year-to-year and a 5.4% decrease year-to-date. In the Inland Empire, the median sold price of existing single-family homes decreased by 2.1% from September 2022 to December 2022 and recorded an 8.9% decrease year-to-year from December 2021 to December 2022. Supply constraints and increases in interest rates will continue to bring California home sales down in 2023.

Conclusion
As the City recovers from the last three years of economic disruption from the COVID pandemic, other challenges still exist: the continued war in Ukraine; rising consumer goods prices, fuel costs, and interest rates; and the impending recession due to accelerated inflation levels not seen since the early 1980's. Even with the anticipated additional resources, the City will need to continue to practice fiscal discipline and establish proactive measures to safely navigate the current and upcoming fiscal challenges, as well as deliver an unparalleled level of service and commitment to our community.

The Adopted Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2022-23, as modified through this Mid-Year Budget Update, reflects the City Council' s continued commitment to support high quality public safety and municipal services, provides for the maintenance and expansion needs of the City' s infrastructure and facilities, profiles an aggressive economic development strategy, and assures the investment and reinvestment of City resources into the community - all in the name of affording Ontario residents and businesses an exceptional quality of life. With the City Council' s leadership and their prudent fiscal policies, the City' s long-term financial health will further solidify its standing as the economic leader in the Inland Empire, and a formidable player in California and the nation. 6273
orrt nng

EXHIBIT A
6274
Page
General Fund Revenues by Category 3General Fund Expenditures by Category 4General Fund Expenditures by Agency 5General Fund Budget Summary 6Citywide Expenditures by Category 7Citywide Expenditures by Fund Type 8Authorized Full-Time Positions 9Recommended Personnel Changes 10Budget Adjustment Highlights 13Detail of Recommended Budget Adjustments 18 City of Ontario
Fiscal Year 2022-23
Mid-Year Budget Update Report
Table of Contents

EXHIBIT
A
6275
FY 2022-23
Adopted Budget
First Quarter
Budget Update
Mid-Year
Budget Update
FY 2022-23
Current Budget
Actuals as of
12/31/2022 % Received
Sales Tax $ 109,900,000 $ 20,000,000 $ 14,200,000 $ 144,100,000 $ 43,105,173 29.9% Property Tax 82,967,000 - 4,572,000 87,539,000 34,817,749 39.8% Transient Occupancy Tax 16,500,000 - - 16,500,000 5,677,903 34.4% Business License Tax 8,763,000 - - 8,763,000 3,544,372 40.4% Franchise Tax 3,000,000 - - 3,000,000 345,456 11.5%
Parking Tax 3,000,000 - - 3,000,000 1,366,547 45.6%
Other Taxes 1,700,000 - - 1,700,000 682,140 40.1%
Licenses and Permits 6,192,000 2,678,000 - 8,870,000 4,377,648 49.4% Intergovernmental 9,171,077 - 884,255 10,055,332 5,294,655 52.7% Intergovernmental - ARPA 9,449,310 - - 9,449,310 2,563,099 27.1% Charges for Services 23,793,354 680,900 620,000 25,094,254 16,386,472 65.3% Charges for Services - OIAA 20,902,300 - - 20,902,300 8,709,292 41.7% Use of Money & Property 1,341,992 - - 1,341,992 5,820,596 433.7% Fines and Forfeitures 753,000 18,000 - 771,000 400,025 51.9% Miscellaneous 1,720,000 3,890,031 2,008,375 7,618,406 5,222,783 68.6% Total General Fund Revenues $ 299,153,033 $ 27,266,931 $ 22,284,630 $ 348,704,594 $ 138,313,910 39.7% Transfers-In - - - - - 0.0%
TOTAL RESOURCES $ 299,153,033 $ 27,266,931 $ 22,284,630 $ 348,704,594 $ 138,313,910 39.7% 1 Adopted Revenue Items were re-classed to be consistent with the new Workday Chart of Accounts2 Other Taxes includes Property Transfer Tax ($1.5M) and Motor Vehicle In Lieu ($200K)3 Intergovernmental includes Cost Allocation Plan Revenue, Disability, Worker's Compensation, & Unemployment Internal Service Allocation Revenue 4 American Rescue Plan Act5 Charges for Services includes Special Districts Service Charges ($10.6M)6 Ontario International Airport Authority7 Includes Toyota Arena revenue from FY 2021-22 per agreement City of Ontario
General Fund Revenue by Category
Fiscal Year 2022-23
Mid-Year Budget Update
1 7
3 2
4 5
6 EXHIBIT A3
6276
FY 2022-23
Adopted Budget
CIP/Grants/POs
Carryforward
First Quarter
Budget Update
Mid-Year
Budget Update
FY 2022-23
Current Budget
Actuals as of
12/31/20221 % Expended
Personnel Costs 196,234,997 $ - $ 1,901,682 $ 3,671,458 $ 201,808,137 $ 106,237,515 $ 52.6%Operating Expenditures 27,179,820 1,490,547 1,378,010 2,938,613 32,986,990 15,740,692 47.7%Contractual Services 16,976,742 6,475,733 1,958,000 175,000 25,585,475 18,706,546 73.1%Internal Service Allocations 42,715,839 - 43,953 109,832 42,869,624 21,909,525 51.1%Reimbursement Agreements 8,965,212 740,535 - 640,000 10,345,747 2,662,927 25.7% Debt Service - - - - - - 0.0%Capital Expenditures 367,000 477,231 583,600 90,000 1,517,831 945,466 62.3%Transfers-Out 9,438,410 - 26,000,000 5,683,669 41,122,079 30,719,205 74.7% Total General Fund Appropriations $ 301,878,020 $ 9,184,046 $ 31,865,245 $ 13,308,572 $ 356,235,883 $ 196,921,876 55.3% FTE General Fund - 854.88 12.60 64.50 931.98FTE Other Funds - 419.12 1.40 24.50 445.02Total FTE All Funds - 1,274.00 14.00 89.00 1,377.00 1 Includes expenses and encumbrances/PO's.2 Personnel costs includes $200K for Community Development, $580K ($460K in part-time) for CLC, $150K for Econ Dev, $1.9M for Fire, and $700K for Police in personnel requests. 4 Transfers include $2.1M in Sales Tax Contribution to CIP, $3M for Helicopter, and $3.9M Retiree Medical contribution.5 Transfers include $12M for Measure Q Capital, $14M for Economic Development, $4.5M for Retiree Medical pay-as-you-go costs, $1M for IT for Equipment, and $160K for new vehicles to Fleet.3 Operating expenditures includes $1.7M for Axon Contract for Police equipment, $485K for Palm Tree Trimming Maint. and Services for Whispering Lakes Golf Course, $170K for purchase of personal protective equipment for Fire, and $150K in materials and supplies for Special Events in Recreation.

City of Ontario
General Fund Expenditures by Category
Fiscal Year 2022-23
Mid-Year Budget Update
2 3
4 5
EXHIBIT A4
6277
FY 2022-23
Adopted Budget
CIP/Grants/POs
Carryforward
First Quarter Budget
Update
Mid-Year
Budget Update
FY 2022-23
Current Budget
Actuals as of
12/31/20221 % Expended
Community Development 28,162,047 $ 5,333,461 $ 446,044 $ 211,050 $ 34,152,602 $ 20,090,058 58.8%Community Life & Culture 20,157,624 953,608 364,173 885,499 22,360,904 10,472,427 46.8%Economic Development 14,239,987 909,860 818,377 994,372 16,962,596 7,145,451 42.1%Financial Services 17,815,770 3,126 59,108 109,592 17,987,596 7,161,324 39.8%Human Resources/Risk Management 4,883,899 544,896 29,753 14,923 5,473,471 3,179,015 58.1%Management Services 9,451,579 638,082 669,579 - 10,759,240 5,144,976 47.8%Ontario Fire Department 75,869,598 377,783 955,261 2,119,151 79,321,793 43,595,254 55.0%Ontario Police Department 113,392,979 363,194 1,796,492 2,676,407 118,229,072 61,581,453 52.1%Public Works 8,466,127 60,036 726,458 613,909 9,866,530 7,832,713 79.4%Transfers-Out 9,438,410 - 26,000,000 5,683,669 41,122,079 30,719,205 74.7% Total Appropriations & Transfers-Out 301,878,020 $ 9,184,046 $ 31,865,245 $ 13,308,572 $ 356,235,883 $ 196,921,876 $ 55.3% FTE General Fund - 854.88 12.60 64.50 931.98FTE Other Funds - 419.12 1.40 24.50 445.02Total FTE All Funds - 1,274.00 14.00 89.00 1,377.00 -
1 Includes expenses and encumbrances/PO's.2 Community Development includes $211K in personnel requests.3 Community Life & Culture includes $462K for part-time requests and $247K in personnel request.4 Economic Development became their own Agency in FY 2022-23. Includes $149K in personnel requests, and $175K in CDTFA Preparatory Costs for Transaction and Use Tax (Measure Q).5 Financial Services includes $110K for personnel requests.6 Human Resources/Risk Management includes $15K in personnel requests.8 Ontario Police Department includes $728K for personnel requests, and $1.7M Axon Contract for Police Equipment. 9 Public Works includes $59K in personnel changes and $485K in Palm Tree Trimming Maint. and Services for Whispering Lakes Golf Course.11 Transfers include $12M for Measure Q Capital, $14M for Economic Development, $4.5M for Retiree Medical pay-as-you-go costs, and $1M IT Equipment Services Transfer.

City of Ontario
General Fund Expenditures by Agency
Fiscal Year 2022-23
Mid-Year Budget Update
10 Transfers include $2.1M contribution from Sales Tax Revenue to CIP's, $370K Parkway Maintenance contribution, $3M for the Public Safety Helicopter, $12K for Streetlight Maintenance contribution, and $3.9M for Retiree Medical. 7 Ontario Fire Department includes $919K for personnel requests, and $1M in Overtime. 2 3
4 56
7 8
9 10 11
EXHIBIT A5
6278
Fiscal Year 2022-23 Current Budget:

Estimated Beginning Fund Balance $ 73,920,837Fiscal Year 2022-23 Adopted Budget:

Resources & Transfers-In 299,153,033
Appropriations & Transfers-Out (301,878,020)
First Quarter Budget Recommendations
Resources & Transfers-In 27,266,931
Appropriations & Transfers-Out (17,865,245)Fiscal Year 2021-22 Carryforward Encumbrances (9,184,046)Recommended Funding for Economic Development Activities (14,000,000)Recommended Allocation to Economic Uncertainty Reserve (500,000) Mid-Year Budget Recommendations
Resources & Transfers-In 22,284,630
Appropriations & Transfers-Out (13,308,572)
Estimated Ending Fund Balance $ 65,889,548Estimated General Fund Reserve % 19.3% (B) For FY 2022-23, recommending a reserve level of 18% with the goal of increasing the reserves up to 25% in future fiscal years.1 (A) Total GF Reserves is adjusted for a one time transfer exclusion of $14M for Economic Development Activities, and $500k allocation to Economic Uncertainty Reserve.

City of Ontario
General Fund Budget Summary
Fiscal Year 2022-23
Mid-Year Budget Update
1 EXHIBIT A6
6279
FY 2022-23
Adopted Budget
CIP/Grants/POs
Carryforward
First Quarter
Budget Update
Mid-Year
Budget Update
FY 2022-23
Current Budget
Actuals as of
12/31/20221 % Expended
Personnel Costs $ - 262,771,754 $ 3,434,805 $ 5,430,432 $ 271,636,991 $ 138,469,189 $ 51.0% Operating Expenditures 52,371,933 173,666,937 3,592,406 6,457,803 236,089,079 112,035,865 47.5%Contractual Services 232,299,420 69,513,931 18,895,816 16,544,199 337,253,366 97,743,367 29.0%Internal Service Allocations 19,542 69,935,874 47,374 142,760 70,145,550 35,286,291 50.3%Reimbursement Agreements 16,841,809 8,965,212 - 640,000 26,447,021 4,102,665 15.5%Debt Service - 35,769,756 9,000,000 6,689,930 51,459,686 11,622,823 22.6%Capital Expenditures 14,948,333 9,645,000 7,190,941 54,734,706 86,518,980 33,337,285 38.5%Transfers-Out - 31,346,668 26,000,000 21,887,811 79,234,479 41,673,333 52.6% Total Citywide Appropriations 661,615,132 $ 316,481,037 $ 68,161,342 $ 112,527,641 $ 1,158,785,152 $ 474,270,818 $ 40.9% FTE General Fund - 854.88 12.60 64.50 931.98FTE Other Funds 419.12 - 1.40 24.50 445.02 Total FTE All Funds 1,274.00 - 14.00 89.00 1,377.00
1 Includes expenses and encumbrances/PO's.8 Transfers include $14M for Economic Development from Pension Benefit, $6.7M for Retiree Medical pay-as-you-go costs, $1M for IT fund for equipment. 4 Contractual Services includes $5M for Broadband Phase 1 Expansion, $4.7M Ontario Ranch Grand Park Construction, $1M Ontario Sports Complex Architect & Design, $800K for Sultana Ave Storm Drain, $600K for Gemmels Rehab of 2nd floor, $600K for John Galvin Park Restroom, $630K for AMI Antenna Tower, $500K for Facility Security Improvement, $600K for Destruction of Wells, and $500K for Railway-Highway Crossings Program Section 130 7 Capital Expenditures includes $52M Ontario Sports Complex Property Acquisition, and $1.2M for new vehicle requests.6 Debt Service includes $6.8M Contribution from OMC Regional Water to Water Capital, $230K Contribution from OMC Local Adjacent Sewer to Sewer Capital, and ($250K) for Grand Park Debt Service Adjustment.

City of Ontario
Citywide Expenditures by Category
Fiscal Year 2022-23
Mid-Year Budget Update
3 Operating expenditures includes $1.7M for Axon Contract for Police equipment, $485K for Palm Tree Trimming Maint. and Services for Whispering Lakes Golf Course, $170K for purchase of personal protective equipment for Fire, $150K in materials and supplies for Special Events in Recreation, $750K PD Technology overhaul for field officers, $700K Landfill disposal for Integrated Waste, $670K for Relocation Exp of Papa Johns Settlement Agreement, $200K for Gemmels Relocation, $277K for COPS Grant (Revenue Offset), $250K for SB1383 Grant, $260K Misc. svcs/chemicals/rental exp for Building. 2 Includes $1M Emergency Services Overtime, $670K for the Americorps State Continuation Grant, and Personnel Requests of $3.3M; Comm Dev $270K, CLC $240K, Econ Dev $150K, FS $150K, OFD $870K, HR&RM $70K, IT $240K, OMUC $290K, OPD $740K, and PW $270K; Part time personnel $462K for CLC. 5 Internal Service Allocations includes $143K in recommended personnel changes. 2345
67 8
EXHIBIT A7
6280
FY 2022-23
Adopted Budget
CIP/Grants/POs
Carryforward
First Quarter
Budget Update
Mid-Year
Budget Update
FY 2022-23
Current Budget
Actuals as of
12/31/20221 % Expended
General Fund $ 301,878,020 $ 9,184,046 $ 31,865,245 $ 13,308,572 $ 356,235,883 $ 196,921,876 55.3% Special Revenue Fund 43,081,236 74,698,692 3,168,018 15,865,408 136,813,354 43,521,660 31.8% Capital Projects Fund 19,876,031 125,131,010 5,573,837 60,864,119 211,444,997 37,083,810 17.5%Enterprise Funds 183,841,718 64,136,107 10,105,670 5,357,384 263,440,879 124,661,377 47.3% Internal Service Funds 110,978,709 31,274,094 8,489,635 17,091,374 167,833,812 71,566,770 42.6% Total City Funds $ 659,655,714 $ 304,423,949 $ 59,202,405 $ 112,486,857 $ 1,135,768,925 $ 473,755,493 41.7% Ontario Housing Authority 1,959,418 12,057,088 8,958,937 40,784 23,016,227 515,325 2.2% Total All Funds $ 661,615,132 $ 316,481,037 $ 68,161,342 $ 112,527,641 $ 1,158,785,152 $ 474,270,818 40.9% FTE General Fund - 854.88 12.60 64.50 931.98
FTE Other Funds 419.12 - 1.40 24.50 445.02Total FTE All Funds 1,274.00 - 14.00 89.00 1,377.00 1 Includes expenses and encumbrances/PO's.2 General Fund includes $4.5M transfer out for Retiree Medical pay-as-you-go costs, $2.4M for personnel requests, $1.7M for Axon Agreement, $1M transfer out for IT equipment, $1M for Emergency Services Overtime, $485K for tree trimming maintenance services, $462K for part-time positions, and $175K for CDTFA preparatory costs for implementation of Measure Q. 3 Special Revenue Fund includes $5M for Broadband Phase 1 Expansion, $4.7M for Ontario Ranch Grand Park Construction; $837K for Sultana Ave. Storm Drain; $822K for AmeriCorps State Continuation Grant; $759K for technology overhaul for field officers; $670K for Papa John's All-Inclusive Settlement Agreement; $600K for John Galvin Park Restroom; and $498K for specialized hostage negotiation vehicle, admin vehicle, and unmarked emergency vehicle. 4 Capital Projects includes $53M for Ontario Sports Complex Acquisition and Design, $6.8M for OMC Regional Water Contribution for San Antonio Transmission Water Main Phase 2, and $800K for Gemmels Relocation and Rehabilitation.
5 Enterprise includes $1.3M for Retiree Medical pay-as-you-go costs, $708K for landfill disposal rate increases, $659K for AMI Antenna Tower, $596K for destruction of wells, $500K for facility security improvements, and $337K for personnel requests.
6 Internal Service includes $14.0M transfer from Pension Benefit Fund to Economic Development Fund, $1.2M for new vehicle requests, $651K for Retiree Medical pay-as-you-go costs, and $584K for personnel requests.

City of Ontario
Citywide Expenditures by Fund Type
Fiscal Year 2022-23
Mid-Year Budget Update
23 456
EXHIBIT A8
6281
Recommended Recommended
Agency
FY 2022-23 Adopted
Budget
First Quarter Budget
Update
Mid-Year Budget
Update
Total Authorized
Full-Time Positions
Community Development 112.00 - 7.00 119.00
Community Life & Culture 58.00 5.00 6.00 69.00
Economic Development 6.60 - 3.00 9.60Financial Services 42.00 - 4.00 46.00 Human Resources 23.00 - 2.00 25.00
Information Technology 33.00 - 6.00 39.00
Management Services 37.40 1.00 - 38.40
Ontario Fire Department1 228.00 1.00 29.00 258.00
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company 124.00 - 8.00 132.00 Ontario Police Department2 379.00 6.00 16.00 401.00
Public Works 231.00 1.00 8.00 240.00
Total Authorized Full-Time Positions3 14.00 89.00 1,377.00 1,274.00 General Fund 12.60 854.88 64.50 931.98
Other Funds 1.40 419.12 24.50 445.02Total FTE All Funds 14.00 1,274.00 89.00 1,377.00 1 OFD positions includes the following sworn positions 1.00 185.00 24.00 210.002 OPD positions includes the following sworn positions 5.00 282.00 8.00 295.003 FY 2021-22 Adopted Full-Time Positions: 1,219 City of Ontario
Authorized Full-Time Positions
Fiscal Year 2022-23
Mid-Year Budget Update
EXHIBIT A9
6282
Agency Department General Fund Other Fund Total Position Action Community Development
Development Administration - (1.00) Senior DIF Analyst (1.00) Deletion 8,381$ - 10,187 $ Development Administration - 1.00 1.00 DIF Analyst Addition 7,564$ - 9,190 $ Building - (1.00) (1.00) Combination Building Inspector Deletion 6,216$ - 7,554 $ Community Improvement - 1.00 1.00 Senior Combo Building Inspector Addition 6,939$ - 8,434 $ Community Improvement - 1.00 1.00 Senior Community Improvement Officer Addition 5,779$ - 7,020 $ Community Improvement - 1.00 1.00 Community Improvement Supervisor Addition 6,939$ - 8,434 $ Community Improvement - (1.00) (1.00) Office Specialist Deletion 3,782$ - 4,597 $ Community Improvement - 1.00 1.00 Administrative Specialist Addition 4,950$ - 6,018 $ Housing 1.00 - 1.00 Administrative Specialist Addition 4,950$ - 6,018 $ Housing 1.00 - 1.00 Administrative Technician Addition 4,262$ - 5,181 $ Housing - 0.75 0.75 Management Analyst Addition 6,041$ - 7,344 $ Housing - 0.25 0.25 Management Analyst Addition 6,041$ - 7,344 $ Housing - 0.50 0.50 Senior Management Analyst Addition 7,490$ - 9,100 $ Housing - 0.50 0.50 Senior Management Analyst Addition 7,490$ - 9,100 $ Planning - 1.00 1.00 Office Specialist Addition 3,782$ - 4,597 $

2.00 5.00 7.00
Community Life & Culture
Library 1.00 - Administrative Assistant 1.00 Addition 4,573$ - 5,557 $ Recreation & Community Services 1.00 - 1.00 Recreation/Community Services Manager Addition 7,758$ - 9,428 $ Recreation & Community Services 1.00 - 1.00 Senior Recreation/Community Services Supervisor Addition 6,216$ - 7,552 $ Recreation & Community Services 1.00 - 1.00 Senior Recreation/Community Services Supervisor Addition 6,216$ - 7,552 $ Recreation & Community Services 1.00 - 1.00 Senior Recreation/Community Services Supervisor Addition 6,216$ - 7,552 $ Recreation & Community Services 1.00 - 1.00 Senior Recreation/Community Services Supervisor Addition 6,216$ - 7,552 $ - 6.00 6.00
Economic Development
Economic Development (1.00) (1.00) - Principal Project Manager Deletion 10,388$ - 12,622 $ Economic Development 1.00 1.00 - Project Manager Addition 8,242$ - 10,013 $ Economic Development 2.00 2.00 - Economic Development Coordinator Addition 7,490$ - 9,100 $ Economic Development 1.00 1.00 - Real Estate Administrative Director Addition 11,242$ - 13,662 $ - 3.00 3.00
Financial Services
Accounts Receivable 1.00 - 1.00 Accounting Technician Addition 4,808$ - 5,843 $ ERP Financial Support - 1.00 Management Analyst 1.00 Addition 6,041$ - 7,344 $ Business License - 1.00 1.00 Business License Supervisor Addition 8,381$ - 10,187 $ Payroll 1.00 - Payroll Technician 1.00 Addition 5,309$ - 6,453 $ Accounting - (1.00) (1.00) Senior Accountant Deletion 6,659$ - 8,093 $ Accounting - 1.00 1.00 Accounting Technician Addition 4,808$ - 5,843 $

1.00 3.00 4.00
Human Resources/Risk Management
Human Resources Administration 0.50 - 0.50 Office Specialist Addition 3,782$ - 4,597 $ Workers Compensation - 0.25 Office Specialist 0.25 Addition 3,782$ - 4,597 $ General Liability/Safety - 0.25 0.25 Office Specialist Addition 3,782$ - 4,597 $ General Liability/Safety - 1.00 1.00 Management Analyst Addition 6,041$ - 7,344 $

1.50 0.50 2.00
Information Technology
Administration - 1.00 1.00 Assistant Information Technology Director Addition 12,315$ - 15,690 $ Administration - 1.00 Management Analyst 1.00 Addition 6,041$ - 7,344 $ IT Systems - 1.00 1.00 Senior Systems Analyst Addition 8,277$ - 10,060 $ IT Systems - 1.00 1.00 Senior Systems Analyst - PD Addition 8,277$ - 10,060 $ IT Systems - 1.00 1.00 Systems Analyst Addition 6,164$ - 7,490 $ IT Systems - 1.00 1.00 Systems Specialist Addition 5,585$ - 6,789 $ Highlighted rows are true adds 6.00 - 6.00
Recommended Personnel Changes
City of Ontario
Salary Range
Proposed Change
Mid-Year Budget Update
Fiscal Year 2022-23

EXHIBIT A
10 6283
Agency Department General Fund Other Fund Total Position Action Recommended Personnel Changes
City of Ontario
Salary Range
Proposed Change
Mid-Year Budget Update
Fiscal Year 2022-23
Ontario Fire Department
Fire Station No. 11 6.00 - 6.00 Fire Captain Addition 10,427$ - 12,677 $ Fire Station No. 11 6.00 - Fire Engineer 6.00 Addition 8,823$ - 10,721 $ Fire Station No. 11 12.00 - Firefighter 12.00 Addition 7,406$ - 9,001 $ Fire Prevention Bureau - 1.00 1.00 Fire Investigation Supervisor Addition 9,870$ - 11,995 $ Fire Prevention Bureau - 1.00 1.00 Fire Dispatcher Addition 4,526$ - 5,555 $ Fire Prevention Bureau - 1.00 1.00 Senior Fire Safety Specialist Addition 6,542$ - 7,951 $ E.M.S. Technical Services 1.00 - Office Specialist 1.00 Addition 3,782$ - 4,597 $ Personnel Training & Development - 1.00 1.00 Management Analyst Addition 6,041$ - 7,344 $ Emergency Services (1.00) - Chief Deputy Fire Chief (1.00) Deletion 16,338$ - 19,859 $ Emergency Services 1.00 - Chief Deputy 1.00 Addition 16,754$ - 25,704 $ - 29.00 29.00
Ontario Municipal Utilities
Utilities Customer Services - 1.35 1.35 Customer Services Representative Addition 3,782$ - 4,597 $ Utilities Customer Services - 0.69 0.69 Customer Services Representative Addition 3,782$ - 4,597 $ Utilities Customer Services - 0.96 0.96 Customer Services Representative Addition 3,782$ - 4,597 $ Water - 1.00 1.00 Environmental Technician Addition 4,626$ - 5,619 $ Water - 1.40 1.40 Senior Associate Engineer Addition 9,287$ - 11,286 $ Sewer - 0.60 0.60 Senior Associate Engineer Addition 9,287$ - 11,286 $ Utilities Customer Services - 0.45 0.45 Utilities Customer Services Specialist Addition 4,531$ - 5,507 $ Utilities Customer Services - 0.23 0.23 Utilities Customer Services Specialist Addition 4,531$ - 5,507 $ Utilities Customer Services - 0.32 0.32 Utilities Customer Services Specialist Addition 4,531$ - 5,507 $ Water - 1.00 1.00 Water Production Supervisor Addition 6,231$ - 7,571 $ Sewer - (1.00) (1.00) Environmental Technician Deletion 4,626$ - 5,619 $ Sewer - 1.00 1.00 Senior Environmental Technician Addition 5,087$ - 6,179 $

8.00 - 8.00
Ontario Police Department
Admin 1.00 - Administrative Technician 1.00 Addition 4,262$ - 5,181 $ Admin 2.00 - Management Analyst 2.00 Addition 6,041$ - 7,344 $ Airport - 1.00 1.00 Community Service Officer Addition 4,117$ - 5,002 $ Community Engagement 2.00 - Police Officer (Bike) (COPS Grant) 2.00 Addition 6,933$ - 8,429 $ Forensics 1.00 - Forensic Specialist 1.00 Addition 5,294$ - 6,498 $ Investigations 1.00 - Police Detective 1.00 Addition 8,466$ - 10,287 $ Patrol 1.00 - Community Service Officer 1.00 Addition 4,117$ - 5,002 $ Patrol 2.00 - Police Officer (Ontario Ranch) 2.00 Addition 6,933$ - 8,429 $ Patrol 1.00 - Police Sergeant 1.00 Addition 10,429$ - 12,676 $ Records 1.00 - Police Records Supervisor 1.00 Addition 5,531$ - 6,722 $ Traffic 1.00 - Community Service Officer 1.00 Addition 4,117$ - 5,002 $ Traffic 1.00 - Police Corporal 1.00 Addition 7,661$ - 9,313 $ Traffic 1.00 - Police Detective 1.00 Addition 8,466$ - 10,287 $ Personnel Recruit & Training (1.00) - Administrative Assistant (1.00) Deletion 4,573$ - 5,557 $ Personnel Recruit & Training (1.00) - Office Specialist (1.00) Deletion 3,782$ - 4,597 $ Personnel Recruit & Training 2.00 - Police Personnel and Training Coordinator 2.00 Addition 5,309$ - 6,453 $ Highlighted rows are true adds - 16.00 16.00

EXHIBIT A
11 6284
Agency Department General Fund Other Fund Total Position Action Recommended Personnel Changes
City of Ontario
Salary Range
Proposed Change
Mid-Year Budget Update
Fiscal Year 2022-23
Public Works
Vehicle/Equip Maintenance & Repair 2.00 - 2.00 Senior Equipment Mechanic Addition 5,068$ - 6,160 $ Vehicle/Equip Maintenance & Repair 1.00 - 1.00 Equipment Mechanic Addition 4,588$ - 5,580 $ Public Facilities Building Maintenance 1.00 - 1.00 Project Manager Addition 8,242$ - 10,013 $ Integrated Waste Administration 1.00 - 1.00 Administrative Technician Addition 4,262$ - 5,181 $ Sidewalk - 2.00 2.00 Senior Street Maintenance Worker Addition 3,916$ - 4,756 $ Parks Maintenance 1.00 - 1.00 Senior Park Maintenance Technician Addition 4,680$ - 5,801 $ Commercial Bin Collection (1.00) - (1.00) Integrated Waste Supervisor Deletion 5,921$ - 7,197 $ Commercial Bin Collection 1.00 - 1.00 Integrated Waste Lead Collector Addition 4,777$ - 5,801 $ Automated Residential Collect (1.00) - (1.00) Integrated Waste Lead Collector Deletion 4,777$ - 5,801 $ Automated Residential Collect 0.50 - 0.50 Integrated Waste Supervisor Addition 5,921$ - 7,197 $ Roll-Off Bin Collection 0.50 - 0.50 Integrated Waste Supervisor Addition 5,921$ - 7,197 $ Vehicle/Equip Maintenance & Repair (0.50) - (0.50) Inventory Assistant Deletion 3,174$ - 3,855 $ Water Line Maintenance (0.25) - (0.25) Inventory Assistant Deletion 3,174$ - 3,855 $ Sewer Maintenance (0.25) - (0.25) Inventory Assistant Deletion 3,174$ - 3,855 $ Vehicle/Equip Maintenance & Repair 0.50 - 0.50 Parts Specialist Addition 4,235$ - 5,148 $ Water Line Maintenance 0.25 - 0.25 Parts Specialist Addition 4,235$ - 5,148 $ Sewer Maintenance 0.25 - 0.25 Parts Specialist Addition 4,235$ - 5,148 $ Vehicle/Equip Maintenance & Repair (0.50) - (0.50) Inventory Assistant Deletion 3,174$ - 3,855 $ Water Line Maintenance (0.25) - (0.25) Inventory Assistant Deletion 3,174$ - 3,855 $ Sewer Maintenance (0.25) - (0.25) Inventory Assistant Deletion 3,174$ - 3,855 $ Vehicle/Equip Maintenance & Repair 0.50 - 0.50 Parts Specialist Addition 4,235$ - 5,148 $ Water Line Maintenance 0.25 - 0.25 Parts Specialist Addition 4,235$ - 5,148 $ Sewer Maintenance 0.25 - 0.25 Parts Specialist Addition 4,235$ - 5,148 $ Vehicle/Equip Maintenance & Repair (0.50) - (0.50) Inventory Assistant Deletion 3,174$ - 3,855 $ Water Line Maintenance (0.25) - (0.25) Inventory Assistant Deletion 3,174$ - 3,855 $ Sewer Maintenance (0.25) - (0.25) Inventory Assistant Deletion 3,174$ - 3,855 $ Vehicle/Equip Maintenance & Repair 0.50 - 0.50 Parts Specialist Addition 4,235$ - 5,148 $ Water Line Maintenance 0.25 - 0.25 Parts Specialist Addition 4,235$ - 5,148 $ Sewer Maintenance 0.25 - 0.25 Parts Specialist Addition 4,235$ - 5,148 $ Highlighted rows are true adds 6.00 2.00 8.00
Total Additions/(Deletions) 24.50 64.50 89.00
Mid-Year Net FTE
Net Change By Fund Annual Cost Adjustments Change1000 General Fund $ 7,313,787 $ 64.50 2,437,929 2020 HOME Grants 65,035 195,105 2.005010 Water Operating 91,457 274,371 2.80 5011 Water Capital 78,921 236,763 1.40
5110 Sewer Operating 66,656 199,968 1.92
5111 Sewer Capital 33,823 101,469 0.60
5210 Integrated Waste 66,579 199,737 2.286010 Equipment Services 107,953 323,859 3.00 6020 Information Technology 335,087 1,005,261 7.00
6030 Facility Maintenance 85,324 255,972 2.00
6110 Workers Compensation 7,461 22,383 0.256111 General Liability 48,631 145,893 1.25 Grand Total $ 3,424,856 10,274,568 $ 89.00

EXHIBIT A
12 6285
Agency Description
Appropriation
Adjustment General Fund Other Funds
Community Development
Recommended Personnel Changes 276,085 211,050.00 65,035 Railway-Highway Crossings Program Section 130 - Ca 08/04/2022 Grant (CC Approved 8/20/19) 500,000 - 500,000 Additional funding for Architect & Engineering Services for Edison Ave/ Ontario Ranch Road Widening Project ST2308 91,347 - 91,347 Additional funding for Alley Rehabilitation Program ST2301 139,926 - 139,926 Additional funding for SM2302 Sultana Avenue Storm Drain 837,605 - 837,605Contribution from DIF - OMC Regional Water to Water Capital for WA1401 San Antonio Transmission Water Main Phase 2 6,784,119 - 6,784,119 Contribution from DIF - OMC Local Adjacent Sewer to Sewer Capital for SE2302 Piemonte Overlay Sewer Improvements 230,000 - 230,000 Grand Park Debt Service Adjustment (324,189) - (324,189) Funding for Retiree Medical pay-as-you-go costs. 40,784 - 40,784 8,575,677 211,050 8,364,627
Community Life & Culture
Recommended Personnel Changes 247,138 247,138 -
Correction of GR2312 OmniTrans Measure I Grant from General Fund to General Fund Grants - (118,904) 118,904 Inflatable Outdoor Movie Screen 20,000 20,000 -Materials, Supplies, and Other Expenses for Special Events 157,000 157,000 -Recommended Part-Time Positions 462,265 462,265 -Ontario Living Magazine Printing 40,000 40,000 -Laptop Kiosks for Public Use 37,000 37,000 -Manual Carryforward from FY 2021-22 for Anthony Munoz Donation for Purchase of Equipment and Supplies 25,000 25,000 -Ontario on the Go Vehicle Wrap and Design 16,000 16,000 -California Library Literary Services Grant FY23 - 31,725 31,725 City of Ontario
Budget Adjustment Highlights
Fiscal Year 2022-23
Mid-Year Budget Update

EXHIBIT A
13 6286
Agency Description
Appropriation
Adjustment General Fund Other Funds
City of Ontario
Budget Adjustment Highlights
Fiscal Year 2022-23
Mid-Year Budget Update
Community Life & Culture Cont.

Prop 68 Per Capita Grant Program 18-36-066 (CC Approved 12/06/22) 177,952 - 177,952 Prop 68 Per Capita Grant Program 18-36-067 (CC Approved 12/06/22) 108,954 - 108,954 AmeriCorps State Continuation Grant (2022-2023)(CC Approved 8/16/22) 822,376 - 822,376 2,145,410 885,499 1,259,911
Economic Development
Recommended Personnel Changes 149,372 149,372 -
IEUA - Sewer Connection Reimbursement 30,000 30,000 -
CDTFA Preparatory Costs for Transactions and Use Tax (Measure Q) 175,000 175,000 -Ontario Sports Complex Property Acquisition (Measure Q) - 52,000,000 52,000,000 Relocation Expense of Papa John's All-Inclusive Settlement Agreement (CC Approved 7/5/2022) 669,500 - 669,500 Gemmels Relocation Services and Rehab of 2nd Floor (CC Approved 12/21/2021) 800,000 - 800,000 Reimbursement Agreement with Ontario Auto Center Dealer's Association 640,000 640,000 54,463,872 994,372 53,469,500
Financial Services
Recommended Personnel Changes 109,592 149,016 39,424
149,016 109,592 39,424
Human Resources/Risk Management
Recommended Personnel Changes 14,923 71,015 56,092
3rd Party Liability Claims Management (CC approved 12/6/2022) - 40,000 40,000 111,015 96 14,923 ,092
Information Technology
Recommended Personnel Changes - 244,785 244,785Replacement of Servers for Implementation of Real Time Information Center 169,959 - 169,959 414,744 - 414,744

EXHIBIT A
14 6287
Agency Description
Appropriation
Adjustment General Fund Other Funds
City of Ontario
Budget Adjustment Highlights
Fiscal Year 2022-23
Mid-Year Budget Update
Management Services
Broadband Bucket Truck - 165,000 165,000
Broadband Phase 1 Expansion (CC Approved 1/17/2023) - 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,165,000 - 5,165,000
OMUC
Recommended Personnel Changes - 306,706 306,706Utilities Customer Service Center Procedure Flow Software - 25,000 25,000Additional funding for Utilities Engineering Laurel Ave (CC Approved 11/15/2022) 157,500 - 157,500 Additional funding for Piemonte Overlay SE2302 (CC Approved 7/19/2022) 230,000 - 230,000 Additional funding for Destruction of Wells 11,15, 17, and 26 WA1104 (CC Approved 1/17/2023) 595,733 - 595,733 Additional funding for AMI Antenna Tower WA1601 (CC Approved 2/21/2023) 658,923 - 658,923 Additional funding for Facility Security Improvement WA0205 - 500,000 500,000 2,473,862 - 2,473,862
Ontario Fire Department
Recommended Personnel Changes 919,151 919,151 -
Purchase of Foam to Replenish Reserves 15,000 15,000 -Physical Fitness Programming 15,000 15,000 -Purchase of Personal Protective Equipment 170,000 170,000 -Emergency Services Overtime 1,000,000 1,000,000 -Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) FY22 (CC Approved 8/16/2022) 134,625 - 134,625 Opioid Public Outreach Efforts (Offset by Opioid Settlement Funds) - 80,000 80,000Homeland Security FY21 - FD 10/01/2021 Grant - 29,214 29,214Riverside Urban Access Areas Security Initiative(UASI) FY21 - FD Grant 275,000 - 275,000

EXHIBIT A
15 6288
Agency Description
Appropriation
Adjustment General Fund Other Funds
City of Ontario
Budget Adjustment Highlights
Fiscal Year 2022-23
Mid-Year Budget Update
Ontario Fire Department Cont.

Equipment Required to Outfit Temporary Station #11. - 50,000 50,000 2,687,990 2,119,151 568,839
Ontario Police Department
Recommended Personnel Changes 727,794 778,672 50,878
New Bike Helmets Electric Bike and Ontario Mills Equipment Rack 34,500 34,500 - SWAT Equipment 50,530 50,530 -
Unit Mounts for Patrol Laptops 66,684 66,684 -
Axon Contract for Police Equipment (CC Approved 12/20/2022) 1,736,699 1,736,699 -Canine Training and Ballistic Shields for New Canine and Canine Officer 35,200 35,200 -Night Vision Goggles 25,000 25,000 - Citizens' Option for Public Safety (COPS/ELEAS Grant) (CC Approved 12/06/22) 277,260 - 277,260 Specialized Hostage Negotiation Vehicle, Administrative Vehicle, and Unmarked Emergency Vehicle 498,627 - 498,627 Technology Overhaul for Field Officers - 759,377 759,377Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program Grant - 10,677 10,677Homeland Security FY21 - PD 07/01/2022 Grant - 36,426 36,426 4,309,652 2,676,407 1,633,245
Public Works
Recommended Personnel Changes 58,909 282,916 224,007
Palm Tree Trimming Maintenance and Services for Whispering Lakes Golf Course 485,000 485,000Tree Chipper 70,000 70,000Reconciliation of GR1933 Self Generation Incentive Program (133,620) (133,620)SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant FY 21-22 (CC Approved 2/15/2022) 257,526 257,526Temporary Services for Integrated Waste Commercial Bin Collection 480,000 480,000

EXHIBIT A
16 6289
Agency Description
Appropriation
Adjustment General Fund Other Funds
City of Ontario
Budget Adjustment Highlights
Fiscal Year 2022-23
Mid-Year Budget Update
Public Works Cont.

Landfill Disposal in Residential, Commercial, and Roll-Off due to Rate Increases 708,000 708,000 New Vehicles Requests Citywide (5 for Police Department, 3 for Public Works, 2 for Community Life & Culture, 2 for Community Development, 1 for Fire Department, and 1 for OMUC) 1,220,000 1,220,000
Fire Stations Turf Removal 164,056 164,056
Miscellaneous Services, Chemicals, and Rental/Lease Expense 261,000 261,000John Galvin Park New Restroom Budget Adjustment 600,000 600,000Beverage Container Recycling Grant FY21-22 45,174 45,174 Ontario Ranch Grand Park Construction Contract 4,703,540 4,703,540Ontario Sports Complex Architect & Design (Measure Q) 1,000,000 1,000,000 10,143,592 613,909 9,529,683
Total Expenditures 90,639,830 7,624,903 83,014,927
Transfers-Out 21,887,811 5,683,669 16,204,142
Grand Total $ 112,527,641 $ 13,308,572 $ 99,219,069

EXHIBIT A
17 6290
Appropriation Revenue Operating Operating Fund Balance
Description Adjustments Adjustments Transfers-In Transfers-Out Impact GENERAL FUNDFund 1000 - General Fund
Correction of GR2312 OmniTrans Measure I Grant from General Fund to General Fund Grants (118,904) - - - 118,904Recommended Personnel Changes 2,437,929 - - - (2,437,929)Mid-Year Revenue Update Community Benefit Fee - 100,000 - - 100,000Mid-Year Revenue Update Dispatch Services Corona FD - (230,000) - - (230,000)Mid-Year Revenue Update Sales & Use Tax - 18,200,000 - - 18,200,000Mid-Year Revenue Update Property Tax - Current Secured - 1,864,000 - - 1,864,000Mid-Year Revenue Update Property Tax - Current Unsecured - 93,000 - - 93,000Mid-Year Revenue Update Property Tax - Aircraft - 159,000 - - 159,000Mid-Year Revenue Update Property Tax - Homeowner Relief - (12,000) - - (12,000)Mid-Year Revenue Update Property Tax - Prior Year(s) - 600,000 - - 600,000Mid-Year Revenue Update Property Tax - Utility/Unitary - 175,000 - - 175,000Mid-Year Revenue Update Property Tax - Penalty - (250,000) - - (250,000)Mid-Year Revenue Update Property Tax - Vehicle License Fee (VLF) Swap - 1,943,000 - - 1,943,000Mid-Year Revenue Update Toyota Arena - 2,000,000 - - 2,000,000 Mid-Year Revenue Update Library Donation - 8,375 - - 8,375 Cost Allocation Plan Adjustment FY 2022-23 884,255 884,255Mid-Year Revenue Update Transactions & Use Tax - (4,000,000) - - (4,000,000)Mid-Year Revenue Update TSA Reimbursement for Canine Police - 750,000 - - 750,000Funding for Retiree Medical pay-as-you-go costs. - - - 4,523,669 (4,523,669)Purchase of Foam to Replenish Reserves 15,000 - - - (15,000)Physical Fitness Programming 15,000 - - - (15,000)IEUA - Sewer Connection Reimbursement 30,000 - - - (30,000)Palm Tree Trimming Maintenance and Services for Whispering Lakes Golf Course 485,000 - - - (485,000)Tree Chipper 70,000 - - - (70,000)Purchase of Personal Protective Equipment 170,000 - - - (170,000)New Bike Helmets Electric Bike and Ontario Mills Equipment Rack 34,500 - - - (34,500)Inflatable Outdoor Movie Screen 20,000 - - - (20,000)Materials, Supplies, and Other Expenses for Records Special Events 157,000 - - - (157,000)Recommended Part-Time Positions for Community Life & Culture (13 positions) 462,265 - - - (410,265) SWAT Equipment 50,530 - - - (50,530)
Ontario Living Magazine Printing 40,000 - - - (40,000)Unit Mounts for Patrol Laptops 66,684 - - - (66,684)Axon Contract for Police Equipment (CC Approved 12/20/2022) 1,736,699 - - - (1,736,699)Canine Training and Ballistic Shields for New Canine and Canine Officer 35,200 - - - (35,200)Laptop Kiosks for Public Use 37,000 - - - (37,000)Manual Carryforward from FY 2021-22 for Anthony Munoz Donation 25,000 - - - (25,000)CDTFA Preparatory Costs for Transactions and Use Tax (Measure Q) 175,000 - - - (175,000) Ontario on the Go Vehicle Wrap and Design 16,000 - - - (16,000)New Vehicle Request (2 Vans for Ontario on the Go, Measure Q) - - - 160,000 (160,000)Night Vision Goggles 25,000 - - - (25,000)IT Fund Transfer for Equipment from General Fund - - - 1,000,000 (1,000,000)Emergency Services Overtime 1,000,000 - - - (1,000,000) Reimbursement Agreement with Ontario Auto Center Dealer's Association 640,000 - - - (640,000) GENERAL FUND TOTAL 7,624,903 22,284,630 - 5,683,669 8,976,058 City of Ontario
Detail of Recommended Budget Adjustments by Fund
Fiscal Year 2022-23
Mid-Year Budget Update

EXHIBIT A
18 6291
Appropriation Revenue Operating Operating Fund Balance
Description Adjustments Adjustments Transfers-In Transfers-Out Impact City of Ontario
Detail of Recommended Budget Adjustments by Fund
Fiscal Year 2022-23
Mid-Year Budget Update
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDSFund 2010 - Community Development Block Grant John Galvin Park New Restroom Budget Adjustment 600,000 600,000 - - - 600,000 600,000 - - -
Fund 2020 - HOME Grants
Recommended Personnel Changes - 65,035 - - (65,035)
- 65,035 - - (65,035)
Fund 2400 - General Fund Grants
Correction of GR2312 OmniTrans Measure I Grant from General Fund to General Fund Grants - 118,904 - - (118,904) Reconciliation of GR1933 Self Generation Incentive Program (133,620) (133,620) - - -Citizens' Option for Public Safety (COPS/ELEAS Grant) (CC Approved 12/06/22) 277,260 277,260 - - - Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) FY22 (CC Approved 8/16/2022) 134,625 134,625 - - - California Library Literary Services Grant FY23 31,725 31,725 - - - Prop 68 Per Capita Grant Program 18-36-066 (CC Approved 12/06/22) 177,952 177,952 - - - Prop 68 Per Capita Grant Program 18-36-067 (CC Approved 12/06/22) 108,954 108,954 - - - AmeriCorps State Continuation Grant (2022-2023)(CC Approved 8/16/22) 432,000 822,376 - - (390,376) Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program Grant 10,677 10,677 - - - Railway-Highway Crossings Program Section 130 - Ca 08/04/2022 Grant (CC Approved 8/20/19) 500,000 500,000 - - - Homeland Security FY21 - FD 10/01/2021 Grant 29,214 29,214 - - -Homeland Security FY21 - PD 07/01/2022 Grant 36,426 - 36,426 - -Riverside Urban Access Areas Security Initiative(UASI) FY21 - FD Grant 275,000 275,000 - - - 1 2,389,493 - ,880,213 - (509,280)
Fund 2510 - DOJ Asset Seizure
Specialized Hostage Negotiation Vehicle, Administratie Vehicle, and Unmarked Emergency Vehicle 498,627 - - - (498,627)Technology Overhaul for Field Officers 759,377 - - - (759,377) 1,258,004 - - - (1,258,004)
Fund 2521 - Broadband / Fiber
Funding for Retiree Medical pay-as-you-go costs. - - - 43,215 (43,215) Broadband Bucket Truck - 165,000 - - (165,000)
Broadband Phase 1 Expansion (CC Approved 1/17/2023) 5,000,000 - - - (5,000,000) 5,165,000 - 43 - ,215 (5,208,215)
Fund 2522 - Opioid Settlement
Mid-Year Revenue Update Miscellaneous Receipts for Opioid Settlement Funds 80 - - ,000 - 80,000 Opioid Public Outreach Efforts (Offset by Opioid Settlement Funds) - 80,000 - - (80,000) 80 80,000 - ,000 - -
Fund 2530 - Gas Tax
Funding for Retiree Medical pay-as-you-go costs. - - - 89,672 (89,672) - - - 89,672 (89,672)
Fund 2531 - Road Maint & Rehab Acct (SB1)
Additional funding for Architect & Engineering Services for Edison Ave/ Ontario Ranch Road Widening Project ST2308 91,347 - - - (91,347)Additional funding for Alley Rehabilitation Program ST2301 139,926 - - - (139,926)Additional funding for SM2302 Sultana Avenue Storm Drain - 837,605 - - (837,605) 1,068,878 - - - (1,068,878)

EXHIBIT A
19 6292
Appropriation Revenue Operating Operating Fund Balance
Description Adjustments Adjustments Transfers-In Transfers-Out Impact City of Ontario
Detail of Recommended Budget Adjustments by Fund
Fiscal Year 2022-23
Mid-Year Budget Update
Fund 2550 - Air Quality Management District
Funding for Retiree Medical pay-as-you-go costs. - - - 216 (216) - - - 216 (216)
Fund 2570 - Economic Development Activities Fund
Economic Development Transfer from Pension Benefit to Economic Development Fund - - 14,000,000 - 14,000,000Relocation Expense of Papa John's All-Inclusive Settlement Agreement (CC Approved 7/5/2022) 669,500 - - - (669,500) - 669,500 14,000,000 - 13,330,500
Fund 2600 - Special Assessment Administration
Funding for Retiree Medical pay-as-you-go costs. - - - 21,608 (21,608) - - - 21,608 (21,608)
Fund 2610 - Parkway Maintenance
Funding for Retiree Medical pay-as-you-go costs. - - - 2,431 (2,431) - - - 2,431 (2,431)
Fund 2630 - Street Light Maintenance
Funding for Retiree Medical pay-as-you-go costs. - - - 1,404 (1,404) - - - 1,404 (1,404)
Fund 2640 - Storm Drain Maintenance
Funding for Retiree Medical pay-as-you-go costs. - - - 31,601 (31,601) - - - 31,601 (31,601)
Fund 2650 - Park Impact/Quimby
Ontario Ranch Grand Park Construction Contract 4,703,540 - - - (4,703,540) Grand Park Debt Service Adjustment (324,189) - - - 324,189 - 4,379,351 - - (4,379,351)
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS TOTAL 2 15,675,261 ,560,213 190 14,000,000 694 ,147 ,805 CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDSFund 4010 - Capital Projects
Ontario Sports Complex Property Acquisition and Architect & Design (Measure Q) 53,000,000 - - - (53,000,000) Gemmels Relocation Services and Rehab of 2nd Floor (CC Approved 12/21/2021) - 800,000 - - (800,000) 53,800,000 - - - (800,000)
Fund 4311 - OMC - Local Adjacent Water
Contribution from OMC Local Adjacent Sewer to Sewer Capital for SE2302 Piemonte Overlay Sewer Improvements 230,000 - - - (230,000) - 230,000 - - (230,000)
Fund 4318 - OMC - Regional Water
Contribution from OMC Regional Water to Water Capital for WA1401 San Antonio Transmission Water Main Phase 2- First Qtr. Adjustment 6,784,119 - - - (6,784,119) 6,784,119 - - - (6,784,119)
Fund 4410 - NMC - Fire Impact
Equipment required to outfit temporary Station #11. - 50,000 - - (50,000) - 50,000 - - (50,000)
CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS TOTAL - 60,864,119 - - (7,864,119)

EXHIBIT A
20 6293
Appropriation Revenue Operating Operating Fund Balance
Description Adjustments Adjustments Transfers-In Transfers-Out Impact City of Ontario
Detail of Recommended Budget Adjustments by Fund
Fiscal Year 2022-23
Mid-Year Budget Update
ENTERPRISE FUNDSFund 5010 - Water Operating
Recommended Personnel Changes 91,457 - - - (91,457)
Funding for Retiree Medical pay-as-you-go costs. - - - 413,624 (413,624)Utilities Customer Service Center Procedure Flow Software - 11,250 - (11,250) 102,707 - - 413,624 (516,331)
Fund 5011 - Water Capital
Recommended Personnel Changes - 78,921 - - (78,921)
Funding for Retiree Medical pay-as-you-go costs. - - - 69,955 (69,955) Additional funding for Destruction of Wells 11,15, 17, and 26 WA1104 (CC Approved 1/17/2023) - 595,733 - - (595,733)Additional funding for AMI Antenna Tower WA1601 (CC Approved 2/21/2023) - 658,923 - - (658,923)Additional funding for Facility Security Improvement WA0205 - 500,000 - - (500,000) Contribution from OMC Regional Water to Water Capital for WA1401 San Antonio Transmission Water Main Phase 2 - First Qtr. Adjustment - 6,784,119 - - 6,784,119 6,784,119 1,833,577 - 69,955 4,880,587
Fund 5110 - Sewer Operating
Recommended Personnel Changes 66,656 - - - (66,656)
Funding for Retiree Medical pay-as-you-go costs. - - - 159,248 (159,248)Utilities Customer Service Center Procedure Flow Software 5,750 - - - (5,750) 72,406 - - 159,248 (231,654)
Fund 5111 - Sewer Capital
Recommended Personnel Changes 33,823 - - - (33,823)
Funding for Retiree Medical pay-as-you-go costs. - - - 42,135 (42,135) Additional funding for Utilities Engineering Laurel Ave (CC Approved 11/15/2022) 157,500 - - - (157,500) Additional funding for Piemonte Overlay SE2302 (CC Approved 7/19/2022) 230,000 - - - (230,000) Contribution from OMC Local Adjacent Sewer to Sewer Capital for SE2302 Piemonte Overlay Sewer Improvements - 230,000 - - 230,000 421,323 230,000 - 42,135 (233,458)
Fund 5210 - Integrated Waste
SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant FY 21-22 (CC Approved 2/15/2022) 257,526 257,526 - - -Recommended Personnel Changes 66,579 - - - (66,579) Funding for Retiree Medical pay-as-you-go costs. - - - 677,130 (677,130) Temporary Labor Through Pathway Group - 480,000 - - (480,000)Landfill Disposal in Residential, Commercial, and Roll-Off due to Rate Increases - 708,000 - - (708,000)Utilities Customer Service Center Procedure Flow Software - 8,000 - - (8,000)Beverage Container Recycling Grant FY21-22 45,174 45,174 - - - 302,700 1,565,279 - 677,130 (1,939,709)
ENTERPRISE FUNDS TOTAL 3,995,292 7,316,819 - 1,362,092 1,959,435 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDSFund 6010 - Equipment Services
Recommended Personnel Changes - 107,953 - - (107,953)
New Vehicle Request (2 Vans for Ontario on the Go, Measure Q) - - 160 - ,000 160,000 Funding for Retiree Medical pay-as-you-go costs. - - - 149,093 (149,093) New Vehicles Requests Citywide (5 for Police Department, 3 for Public Works, 2 for Community Life & Culture, 2 for Community Development, 1 for Fire Department, and 1 for OMUC) - 1,220,000 - - (1,220,000)
- 1,327,953 160 149 ,000 ,093 (1,317,046)

EXHIBIT A
21 6294
Appropriation Revenue Operating Operating Fund Balance
Description Adjustments Adjustments Transfers-In Transfers-Out Impact City of Ontario
Detail of Recommended Budget Adjustments by Fund
Fiscal Year 2022-23
Mid-Year Budget Update
Fund 6020 - Information Technology
Recommended Personnel Changes 335,087 - - - (335,087)
Funding for Retiree Medical pay-as-you-go costs. - - - 203,382 (203,382) Replacement of Servers for Implementation of Real Time Information Center - 169,959 - - (169,959)IT Fund Transfer for Equipment from General Fund - - 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 - 505,046 1,000,000 203,382 291,572
Fund 6030 - Facilities & Parks Maintenance
Recommended Personnel Changes 85,324 - - - (85,324)
Funding for Retiree Medical pay-as-you-go costs. - - - 265,504 (265,504)Fire Stations Turf Removal 164,056 - - - (164,056) Miscellaneous Services, Chemicals, and Rental/Lease Expense 261,000 - - - (261,000) 510,380 - - 265,504 (775,884)
Fund 6110 - Workers Compensation
Recommended Personnel Changes 7,461 - - - (7,461)Funding for Retiree Medical pay-as-you-go costs. - - - 13,721 (13,721) 7,461 - - 13,721 (21,182)
Fund 6111 - General Liability
Recommended Personnel Changes 48,631 - - - (48,631)
Funding for Retiree Medical pay-as-you-go costs. - - - 20,203 (20,203) 3rd Party Liability Claims Management (CC approved 12/6/2022) 40,000 - - - (40,000) 88,631 - - 20,203 (108,834)
Fund 6210 - Pension Benefit Fund
Economic Development Transfer from Pension Benefit to Economic Development Fund - - - 14,000,000 (14,000,000) - - - 14,000,000 (14,000,000)
Fund 6220 - Other Post Employment Benefits
Reversal of CERBT Reimbursement (pay-as-you-go costs). - (6,544,357) - - (6,544,357) Funding for Retiree Medical pay-as-you-go costs. - 6,727,811 - 6,727,811Funding for Retiree Medical pay-as-you-go costs. 40 - ,784 - - 40,784 (6,503,573) - 6,727,811 - 224,238
-
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS TOTAL 2,439,471 (6,503,573) 7,887,811 14,651,903 (15,707,136) TOTAL CITY FUNDS BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS 25,658,089 90,599,046 21,887,811 21,887,811 (11,940,957) -
Fund 2310 - Ontario Housing Authority -
Funding for Retiree Medical pay-as-you-go costs. 40,784 - - - (40,784) 40,784 - - - (40,784)
-
AGENCY FUNDS TOTAL 40,784 - - - (40,784)
-
TOTAL ALL FUNDS BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS 25,658,089 90,639,830 21,887,811 21,887,811 (11,981,741)

EXHIBIT A
22 6295
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO,

CALIFORNIA, REVISING THE APPROPRIATION LIMIT OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-23.

WHEREAS, Section 1.5 of Article XIIIB of the Constitution of the State of California imposes upon units of State and Local Government the obligation to limit each fiscal year’s appropriations of the proceeds of taxes to the amount of such appropriations in Fiscal Year 1986-87 as adjusted for changes in cost of living and population; and WHEREAS, Section 7910 of the Government Code of the State of California directs the governing body of each local jurisdiction to establish its appropriation limit by resolution each year; and
WHEREAS, said section of the Government Code allows the governing body to choose between various factors to be used in the calculation of said appropriation limit; and
WHEREAS, the Executive Director of Finance of the City of Ontario has determined the City’s appropriations limit for Fiscal Year 2022-23 in accordance with the said provisions of the Constitution and laws of the State of California and the documentation used in said determination has been available to the public since May 26, 2022, in the office of the Executive Director of Finance.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Ontario, as follows: (1) calculation of said limit for the City shall be determined by using the California Per Capita Income and the population growth of the County of San Bernardino, both as determined by the California Department of Finance; and (2) based upon the factors, the appropriations limit of the City of Ontario for the Fiscal Year 2022-23 is hereby found and determined to be $362,513,388 and was $355,734,102 since May 26,2022.

The City Clerk of the City of Ontario shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 21st day of March 2023. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
6296
ATTEST:
________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
_______________________________

BEST, BEST & KREIGER, LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
6297

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

CITY OF ONTARIO )
I, SHEILA MAUTZ, City Clerk of the City of Ontario, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that foregoing Resolution No. 2023- was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Ontario at their regular meeting held March 21, 2023 by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
The foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2023- duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held March 21, 2023. _____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
6298
ORDINANCE NO. _________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 2-1.203 OF THE ONTARIO

MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SALARY COMPENSATION FOR THE
MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL.

WHEREAS, Government Code Section 36516.1 authorizes the City Council to modify the additional salary compensation for the Mayor position; and WHEREAS, the ongoing growth of Ontario Ranch, local reinvestment through capital improvement projects, indicate responsibilities and time commitments will increase; and
WHEREAS, together both the City Council and Mayor have set in motion comprehensive policies to position the City of Ontario as the premier community of the Inland Empire.

WHEREAS, the City Council's last adjustments to the salary compensation for City Council Members of the City of Ontario was effective in November 2018; and WHEREAS, the City Council's last adjustments to the salary compensation for Mayor of the City of Ontario was effective in February 2017; and WHEREAS, under Government Code Section 36516 the City Council may adjust compensation up to 5% each calendar year and a "calendar year" is defined as "each 12-month period since the operative date of the last adjustment of the salary in effect when the ordinance or amendment is enacted"; and
WHEREAS, the new salary for City Council would be effective on November 5, 2024, and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to modify the salary compensation for all City Council Members.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, AND ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Ontario as follows:

SECTION 1. Findings. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. Section 2-1.203 of Chapter 1 to Title 2 of the Ontario Municipal Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
6299
Sec. 2-1.203. Payment.
(a) Each member of the Council shall receive as salary the sum of Two-Thousand-Four-Hundred-Five and 08/100ths Dollars ($2,405.13) per month. (b) The Mayor shall receive as additional salary the sum of Four-Thousand-Fifty-Nine and 81/100ths Dollars ($4,059.84) per month. (c) Said salaries shall be payable from and after the operative date of this section at the same time and in the same manner as salaries are paid to other officers and employees of the City.

SECTION 3. Modifications to additional salary for the Mayor may become effective thirty days after adoption. Consistent with Ontario Municipal Code Section

2.1-203(c), and in keeping with regular pay periods upon which other officers and employees of the City are paid, this adjustment to the additional salary for the Mayor shall become effective on April 23, 2023.

SECTION 4. Pursuant to Section 36516.5 of the California Government Code, the adjustments to City Council Member salary set forth herein shall become effective upon the completion and installation of the new members of the City Council subsequent to November 5, 2024, pursuant to California Elections Code Section 10262.

SECTION 5. CEQA. The City Council hereby finds that adoption of this Ordinance is not a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act because the Ordinance does not involve any commitment to a specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment, as contemplated by Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15378(b)(4).

SECTION 6. Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings and this Ordinance are based are located at the City Clerk's office located at 303 East "B" Street, Ontario, CA 91764. The custodian of these records is the City Clerk.

SECTION 7. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any entity, person or circumstance is held for any reason to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The People of the City of Ontario hereby declare that they would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following its adoption.

SECTION 9. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption and shall cause a summary thereof to be published at least once, in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ontario, California within fifteen 6300
(15) days of the adoption. The City Clerk shall post a certified copy of this ordinance, including the vote for and against the same, in the Office of the City Clerk, in accordance with Government Code Section 36933.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this _____ day of __________ 2023. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
6301

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

CITY OF ONTARIO )
I, SHEILA MAUTZ, City Clerk of the City of Ontario, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that foregoing Ordinance No. _______ was duly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Ontario held _____________ and adopted at the regular meeting held ___________, 2023 by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
_________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
I hereby certify that the foregoing is the original of Ordinance No. _______ duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held ____________ and that Summaries of the Ordinance were published on ___________ and _____________, in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper.
__________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
6302