Ontario City Council
September 19, 2023

WHEREAS, the Project has provided off -street parking pursuant to t he “Warehouse and Distribution” parking standards specified in the Development Code. The number of off-street parking spaces provided exceeds the minimum parking requirement for the Project; and

WHEREAS, the proposed building is of concrete tilt-up construction and integrates a contemporary architectural design theme, incorporating enhanced elements and treatments at office entries and along street facing elevations. Architectural elements for all buildings include smooth- painted concrete in white and grey tones, metal panels, horizontal and vertical reveals, storefronts with white and black anodized aluminum mullions and blue glazing, metal canopies, 2
nd story windows with canopies, and recessed
panel sections with contrasting colors. The mechanical equipm ent will be roof -mounted and obscured from public view by the parapet walls; and

WHEREAS, the Project provides landscaping along Belmont Street, Sultana Avenue, Phillips Street, the perimeter of the site, and throughout the off -street parking areas. The Development Code requires that the Project provide a minimum 15 percent landscape coverage, and 19 percent has been provided, exceeding the minimum requirements. Additionally, the Project includes street widening on Phillips Street, right - of-way improvement s (curb, gutter, sidewalk, and parkway) and street trees. The proposed on-site and off-site landscape improvements will assist in creating a walkable, safe area for pedestrians to access the Project site; and

WHEREAS, public utilities (water and sewer) ar e available to serve the Project.

Furthermore, the Applicant has submitted a Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan ("PWQMP"), which establishes the Project's compliance with storm water discharge/water quality requirements. The PWQMP includes site desi gn measures that capture runoff and pollutant transport by minimizing impervious surfaces and maximizes low impact development ("LID") best management practices ("BMPs"), such as retention and infiltration, biotreatment, and evapotranspiration. The PWQMP proposes the use of underground 72-inch perforated corrugated metal pipes (CMP) located within the western parking lot. Any overflow drainage will be conveyed to the public street by way of parkway drains and culverts; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Department held a community meeting on Thursday, March 10, 2022 between 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM at the Ontario Senior Center to discuss the proposed development. Planning staff, Engineering staff, translators and the applicant were in attendance during the community meeting. One resident attended the community meeting and had questions regarding the proposed project and site improvements and generally spoke in favor of the proposed project. Staff also received two e-mails from local property owners, one resident inquiring about the proposed project and the second resident’s e-mail did not support the proposed project; and

663
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV21-035
July 25, 2023

WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, commencing with Public Resources Code Section 21000 (hereinafter referred to as "CEQA"); and

WHEREAS, the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to a categorical exemption (listed in CEQA Guidelines Article 19, commencing with Section 15300) and the application of that categorical exemption is not barred by one of the exceptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2; 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 O ntario 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 Com patibility 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 June 19, 2023, the Development Advisory Board of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to issue Decision No. DAB23 -044 recommending that the Planning Commission approve the Application; and

WHEREAS, on July 25, 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. 664
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV21-035
July 25, 2023

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 decision- making authority for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission finds as follows:

(1) The administrative record has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and

(2) The Project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15332 ( Class 32, In- fill Development Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines, which consists of:

(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as wit h applicable zoning designation and regulations. The proposed Project is located within the Industrial land use designation of the Policy Plan (general plan) Land Use Map, and the IL (Light Industrial) zoning district.

The proposed Project is consistent with all applicable Policy Plan policies, as well as with the requirements of the IL (Light Industrial) zoning district.

(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. The Project is proposed within the established boundaries of the City of Ontario, on a Project site totaling 3.15- acres of land, which is surrounded by established development on all sides and consists of a mix of industrial and residential and uses.

(c) The Project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. The site is located in an urbanized area and is currently vacant and has regularly been cleared and grubbed, and as such not suitable habitat for any endangered, rare, or threatened species.

(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. The proposed industrial development is similar to, and of no greater impact than other allowed uses and development projects within the IL (Light Industrial) zoning district. The Project would not result in any significant impacts through implementation of required state, regional, and local development, and performance standards, and as demonstrated in the following studies (Attachment A – Environmental Studies):

665
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV21-035
July 25, 2023

(i) An Air Quality Analysis, Energy Analysis, Global Climate Change Analysis and Health Risk Assessment was completed by Ganddini (Dated: February 24, 2022) and concluded the following:

 Air Quality – The Air Quality Analysis concluded that the nearest sensitive receptors to the P roject site include existing single -family residential located approximately 50 feet to the south (across Phillips Street), 60 feet to the west (across Sultana Avenue), and 85 feet to the east (across the Union Pacific rail line and Monterey Street). Based on the air quality modeling analysis contained in this Air Analysis, short-term construction impacts will not result in significant impacts based on the SCAQMD regional and local thresholds of significance. The Air Analysis also found that, long- term operations impacts will not result in significant impacts based on the SCAQMD local and regional thresholds of significance. Also, the Project site is currently located within the Industrial land use district of the Policy Plan Land Use Map. The project proposes to develop the site with 59,984 square feet of industrial use. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the City’s land use designation. The proposed project is not anticipated to exceed the AQMP assumptions for the project site and is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the second criterion.

 Energy – The Energy Impact Analysis concluded that the Project is compliant with the California Building Standards Code Title 24 energy efficiency requirements (CalGreen). The project would provide for, and promote, energy efficiencies required under other applicable federal and State of California standards and regulations, and in so doing would meet or ex ceed all California Building Standards Code Title 24 standards. Moreover, energy consumed by the Project’s operation is calculated to be comparable to, or less than, energy consumed by other industrial uses of similar scale and intensity that are construct ed and operating in California. On this basis, the project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy.

Energy Impacts are considered to be less than significant.

 Global Climate Change – The Project-related GHG emissions would not exceed the City of Ontario Community Climate Action Plan/SCAQMD screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Furthermore, the P roject would not conflict with the goals of AB -32, SB-32, or the City of Ontario Community Climate Action Plan and CARB Scoping Plan; therefore, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases and impacts are considered to be less than significant.

 Health Risk Assessment – The proposed Project would
generate toxic air contaminant emissions from diesel truck emissions created by the on- going operations of the proposed project. According to the SCAQMD’s MATES -V study, the Project has an estimated multi -pathway cancer risk of 567 in one million and an inhalation cancer risk of 535 in one million. In comparison the average multi -pathway 666
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV21-035
July 25, 2023

cancer risk for the South Coast Air Basin portion of San Bernardino County is 471 in one million and the inhalation cancer risk is 439 in a million. This increased cancer risk at the site is largely due to the proximity to the Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) rail line, State Route 60 (SR -60), and Interstate 10 (I -10) Freeway. According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of individual cancer risk. “Individual Cancer Risk” is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of toxic air contaminants over a 30-year lifetime will contract cancer, based on the use of revised Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) risk- assessment methodology. The Project’s maximum incremental cancer risk (MICR) does not exceed 10 in a million at any sensitive receptor location, the on-going operation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact due to the cancer risk from diesel emissions created by the proposed project.

(ii) Noise Impact Analysis - A Noise Impact Analysis was completed by Ganddini (Dated: March 4, 2022) and concluded that noise i mpacts would be less than significant. Construction noise sources are regulated within Section 5.29-09 of the City of Ontario’s Municipal Code which allows construction activities to take place between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM weekdays and 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM weekends, excluding federal holidays. T he Project includes the construction of concrete 14- foot-high screen walls around the loading/unloading area of the proposed warehouse. The peak hour operational noise level s would range between 34 to 42 dBA to the nearest residential property lines from the project site. Therefore, project operational noise will not exceed either the exterior daytime residential standard of 65 dBA or the nighttime residential standard of 45 dBA as set forth in the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore, impacts associated with project operational noise would be less than significant. Also, the Project site is located within the 65-70 dBA CNEL Noise Impact Zone of Ontario International Airport (ONT), and a warehouse use is considered a compatible use within ONT’s 65-70 dBA CNEL Noise Impact Zone.

(iii) Trip Generation and VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) Assessment – A Trip Generation and VMT Assessment was completed by Ganddini (Dated: February 9, 2022) and concluded that P roject is forecast to generate approximately 103 daily trips, including 9 trips during the AM peak hour and 11 trips during the PM peak hour, which equates to approximately 159 daily Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) trips, including 9 PCE trips during the AM peak hour and 15 PCE trips during the PM peak hour. The proposed project does not warrant preparation of a transportation impact study with Level of Service analysis based on the County -established screening criteria as used by the City of Ontario. The proposed project meets the County -established criteria for project type screening results in a less than significant VMT impact.

(iv) Water Quality - A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan ("PWQMP"), was prepared which establishes the Project's compliance with storm water discharge/water quality requirements. The PWQMP includes site design measures that 667
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV21-035
July 25, 2023

capture runoff and pollutant transport by minimizing impervious surfaces and maximizes low impact development ("LID") best management practices ("BMPs"), such as retention and infiltration, biotreatment, and evapotranspiration.

(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. All necessary wet and dry utilities exist or will be constructed within the public street and will be readily available for connection; and

(3) The application of the categorical exemption is not barred by one of the exceptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2; and

(4) The determination of CEQA exemption reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission.

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

SECTION 3: Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ("ALUCP") Compliance.

The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

(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. A s the decision-making authority 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 668
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV21-035
July 25, 2023

that the Project is consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ONT ALUCP; and

SECTION 4: Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above- referenced hearing, and upon the specific findings set forth in Sections 1 through 3, above, the Planning Commission hereby concludes as follows:

(1) The proposed 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 IL (Light Industrial) 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 IL (Light Industrial) zoning district, including standards relative to the particular land use proposed (warehouse), 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 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; [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 Development Code.

(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 669
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV21-035
July 25, 2023

Development Code 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 (wareshouse). 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 Development Code.

SECTION 5: Planning Commission Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 through 4, 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 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.

SECTION 8: Certification to Adoption. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of the Resolution.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

670
671
672
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV21-035
July 25, 2023

ATTACHMENT A:

File No. PDEV21-035
Departmental Conditions of Approval

(Departmental conditions of approval to follow this page)

673

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

LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Date Prepared: 6/19/2023

File No: PDEV21-035

Related Files: N/A

Project Description: A Development Plan to construct a 59,984 square foot industrial building on

3.15 gross acres of land located at the southeast corner of Sultana Avenue and Belmont Street, within the IL (Light In dustrial) zoning district ; (APN(s): 1049-491-01, 1049-491-02 and 1049-491-03); submitted by Chartwell Real Estate Development.

Prepared By: Lorena Mejia, Senior Planner
Phone: 909.395.2276 (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.

(a) 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:

(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. 674
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PDEV21-035

(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 contin uously maintain landscaping and irrigation systems in compliance with the provisio ns of Ontario Developmen t Code Division 6.05 (Landscaping).

(b) Comply with the conditions of appr oval 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.

2.4 Walls and Fences. All Project walls and fenc es shall comply with the requirements of Ontario Development Code Division 6.02 (Walls, Fences and Obstructions).

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 Develo pment Code Division 6.03 (Off-Street Parking and Loading).

(b) 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.

(c) 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.

(d) The required number of off-street pa rking 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.

675
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PDEV21-035

(e) 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).

(f) Bicycle parking facilities, including bicycle racks, lockers, and other secure facilities, shall be provided in conjunction wi th development projects pursuant to current regulations contained in CALGreen (CAC Title 24, Part 11). Final design and placement of bicycle parking facilities shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval.

2.6 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 sha ll 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 feet: 10 feet
12 feet: 9 feet
10 feet: 8 feet
8 feet: 8 feet
6 feet: 6 feet

2.7 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 Commerci al/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.

676
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PDEV21-035

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

2.8 Mechanical and Rooftop Equipment.

(a) All exterior roof-mount ed 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 architectu rally 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.

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

2.10 Signs.

(a) All Project signage shall comply wi th the requirements of Ontario Development Code Division 8.1 (Sign Regulations).

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

2.12 Environmental Requirements.

(a) If human remains are found during project
grading/excavation/construction ac tivities, the area shall not be disturbed until any required investigation is completed by the County Corone r and Native American consultation has been completed (if deemed applicable).

(b) 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 si gnificant, the resource sh all be recovered by a qualified archeologist or paleontologist consistent with current standards and guidelines, or other appropriate measures implemented.

2.13 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.

677
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PDEV21-035

2.14 Additional Fees.

(a) Within 5 days following final application approval, the Notice of Exemption (“NOE”) 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 Su pervisors", which shall be forwarded to the San Bernardino County Clerk of the Board of Superv isors, along with all applicable environmental forms/notices, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

The filing of a NOE is voluntary; however, failure to provide said fee within the time specified will result in the extension of the statute of limitatio ns 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.

2.15 Additional Requirements.

(a) The City’s 2022 CCAP includes perf ormance standards that will reduce GHG emissions from new development. CEQA requires the assessment of environmental impacts for proposed projects including the impacts of GHG emissions. The levels of GHG emissions reductions in the Screening Tables are consistent with the City’s adopted targets in the 2022 CCAP.

New Development can use the Screening Tables to ensure that the specific reduction strategies in the 2022 CCAP are implemented as part of th e CEQA process. The applicant shall utilize the Screening Tables and garner a minimum of 100 points to be consistent with the reduction quantities outlined in the 2022 CCAP. The applic ant shall identify on th e construction drawings the items identified in the Screening Tables.

(b) The outdoor employee break area shall include seating, table and a shade tree.

678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697

CITY OF ONTARIO

MEMORANDUM

TO: Lorena Mejia, Senior Planner
Planning Department

FROM: Mike Gerken, Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal
Fire Department

DATE: October 25, 2021

SUBJECT: PDEV21-035 - A Development Plan to construct one industrial building totaling 60,455 square feet on 2.55 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Sultana Avenue and Belm ont Street, within the IL (Light Industrial) zoning district (APNs: 1049-491-01, 1049-491-02, and 1049- 491-03).

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: IIIB

B. Type of Roof Materials: Panelized

C. Ground Floor Area(s): 58,455 Sq. Ft.

D. Number of Stories: 1 Story w/ Mezzanine

E. Total Square Footage: 60,455 Sq. Ft.

F. 2019 CBC Occupancy Classification(s): S-1

698

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 Standa rds (“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 condi tions of approval are to be included on any and all construction drawings.

2.0 FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS

2.1 Fire Department vehicl e access roadways shall be provided to within 150 ft. of all portions of the exterior walls of the firs t 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 on e 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 sh all 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 instal- led 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 acce ss roadways shall be provided with a Knox brand key switch or padlock to allow Fire Department access. See Standards #B-003, B-004 and H- 001.

2.7 Any time PRIOR to on-site combustible constr uction and/or storage, a minimum twenty-four (24) ft. wide circulating all weather access road s 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.

699

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 2750 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.

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

4.0 FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS

4.1 On-site private fire hydrants are required pe r Standard #D-005, and id entified in accordance with Standard #D-002. Installa tion and locations(s) are subject to the approval of the Fire Department. An application with detailed plans shall be submit ted, and a construction permit shall be issued by the Fire Department, prior to any work being done.

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 allowabl e only between immediately adjacent properties and shall not cross any public street.

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

4.5 Fire Department Conne ctions (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 require d. 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 ar e 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.

700

4 of 4

4.9 Hose valves with one and one half inch (1 ½”) c onnections will be required on the roof, in locations acceptable to the Fire Department. These hose valves shall be take their water supply from the automatic fire sprinkler systems, and shall be included in the design submitted for these systems. Identification shall be provided for all hose valves per Standard #D-004.

5.0 BUILDING CONSTRUCTION FEATURES

5.1 The developer/general contract or is to be responsible for re asonable periodic cleanup of the development during construction to avoid haza rdous accumulations of combustible trash and debris both on and off the site.

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 buildi ngs that store, use or handle hazardous materials in excess of the quantities sp ecified 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 Depart ment Hazardous Materials In formation 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 stor age of combustible materials greater than twelve (12’) feet in height for ordinary (Class I-IV) commodities or st orage 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.

701

CITY OF ONTARIO

MEMORANDUM

TO: Lorena Mejia, Senior Planner

FROM: Officer Tony Galban, Police Department

DATE: October 28, 2021

SUBJECT: PDEV21-035- A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT ONE INDUSTRIAL BUILDING TOTALING 60,455 SQUARE FEET, LOCATED

AT THE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SULTANA AVENUE AND
BELMONT STREET.

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.
• 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.

702

CITY OF ONTARIO

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

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Sign Off
05/22/2023
Jamie Richardson, Sr. Landscape Planner Date
Reviewer’s Name:

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

PDEV21-035
Case Planner:

Lorena Mejia
Project Name and Location:

Industrial Building
Southeast Corner of Sultana Avenue and Belmont Street
Applicant/Representative:

Herdman Architecture and Design (714) 389-2800 [email protected] 16201 Scientific Way
Irvine, CA 92618

Preliminary Plans (dated 05/06/2023) 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 AS INCOMPLETE.

Landscape construction plans with plan check number may be emailed to:
[email protected]
DIGITAL SUBMITTALS MUST BE 10MB OR LESS.

Civil/ Site Plans

1. Monetary value of the trees proposed to be removed as identified in the “Guide for Plant Appraisal,” approved certified arborist plant appraiser has been calculated at $10,090. Please submit a check in that amount made payable to the City of Ontario Historic Preservation Fund; note PDEV21-035.

2. Parkway tree locations shall be shown on plans where utilities are proposed. Parkway trees are 30’ apart. Show and note a 10’ total space, 5’ clearance each side of the tree from any utility or hardscape, including water, sewer, drain lines, driveways, and 10’ clear from street lights.

Relocate utilities to minimum clearances to allow parkway trees.

3. 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.

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

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

6. 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.

7. Show corner ramp and sidewalk per city standard drawing 1213 with max 10’ or 13’ of ramp and sidewalk behind corners. Show 5’ sidewalk and 7’ parkway within the right of way or as required by Engineering dept.

8. 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.
703

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

10. 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.

11. Show parking lot island tree planters 1 for every ten parking spaces and at each row end.

There shall be one tree for every four spaces.

12. Show outdoor employee break area with table or bench and shade trees on the south and west sides.

13. Add Note to Grading 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 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

14. Show backflow devices with 36” high strappy leaf shrub screening and trash enclosures and transformers, a 4’-5’ high evergreen hedge screening. Do not encircle utility, show as masses and duplicate masses in other locations at regular intervals.

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

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

17. Show outdoor employee break area with table or bench and shade trees on the south and west sides.

18. Replace Tulbaghia with Dianella.

19. Detail irrigation dripline outside of mulched root zone.

20. Verify the easement along the eastern property line; civil plans identify a water easement and the landscape plans not “SCE.” Provide additional trees maintaining required 7’ utility setback.

21. Provide additional background trees along Belmont Street; show trees at 2/3 matrure diameter.

22. Overhead spray systems shall be designed for plant material less than the height of the spray head.

23. Show minimum on-site tree sizes per the Landscape Development standards; see the Landscape Planning website. 5% 48” box, 10% 36 box, 30% 24” box, 55% 15 gallon.

24. Show 25% of trees as California native (Platanus racemosa, Quercus agrifolia, Quercus wislizenii, Quercus douglasii, Cercis occidentalis, etc.) in appropriate locations.

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

26. 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]
704

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:

Form Updated: March 3, 2016Page 1
Zone 6
Allowable Height:

PDEV21-035
SEC Sultana Ave and Belmont Street
1049-491-01, 02, 03
Vacant
Development Plan to construct one industrial building totaling 60,455 SF

2.55 n/a
ONT
The proposed project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport (ONT) and was evaluated and found to be consistent with the policies and criteria of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for ONT.
✔
✔
✔
Lorena Mejia
909-395-2276
Lorena Mejia
12/23/2021
2021-059
n/a
45 FT
✔
100 FT
✔
705
-1-

CITY OF ONTARIO PLANNING COMMISSION/

HISTORIC PRESERVATION MEETING

MINUTES

July 25, 2023

CONTENTS PAGE

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ................................................................................................ 2

ANNOUNCEMENTS............................................................................................................ 2

PUBLIC COMMENTS .......................................................................................................... 2

CONSENT CALENDAR

A-01. Minutes of June 27, 2023 .......................................................................................... 2

A-02. File No. PDEV21-034 ............................................................................................... 3

A-03. File No. PDEV22-053 ............................................................................................... 3

A-04. File No. PDEV22-055 ............................................................................................... 4

PUBLIC HEARINGS

B. File Nos. PCUP22-023 and PDEV22-052 ................................................................ 4

C. File No. PDEV21-035 ............................................................................................... 5

MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION ........................................................ 7

DIRECTOR’S REPORT ........................................................................................................ 7

ADJOURNMENT .......................................................................................................... 7

706

-2-

CITY OF ONTARIO PLANNING COMMISSION/

HISTORIC PRESERVATION MEETING

MINUTES

July 25, 2023

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

COMMISSIONERS

Present: Chairperson DeDiemar, Vice-Chairperson Gage, Dean, Del Turco, Lampkin, and Ricci

Absent: Anderson

OTHERS PRESENT: Executive Director Community Development Murphy, Com munity Development Assistant D irector Zeledon, City Attorney Guiboa , Senior Planner Mejia, Senior Planner Batres , Senior Planner Grahn, Assistant Planner Morales, Transportation Manager Ba utista, and Planning Secretary Berendsen

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG

The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Gage.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Mr. Zeledon stated there were no changes to the agenda and two correspondence received for Item C.

Mr. Lampkin made a statement regarding the opening of the new Target on Fourth Street and the need for more handicap parking spaces.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

No person from the public wished to speak at this time.

CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS

Mr. Gage recused himself from Item A-01 and pulled Item A-03 from the Consent Calendar.

A-01. MINUTES APPROVAL

Planning/Historic Preservation Commission Minutes of June 27, 2023, approved as written.

A-02. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW FOR FILE NO. PDEV21-034: A hearing to consider a Development Plan to construct a 33,363 square foot industrial building on 1.4 acres of land located at 621 South Mountain Avenue, withi n the IL (Light Industrial) zoning district. The Project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332 (Class 32, In- fill Development Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines. Th e propose d project is located within the 707

-6-

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION

It was moved by Ricci, seconded by Gage, to adopt resolution s to approve the Conditional Use Permit , File No. PCUP22-023 and the Development Plan, File No., PDEV22-052, subject to conditions of approval. Roll call vote: AYE S, Dean, DeDiemar, Del Turco, Gage, Lampkin, and Ricci; NOES, none; RECUSE, none; ABSENT, Anderson. The motion was carried 6 to 0.

C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW FOR FILE NO. PDEV21 -035: A public hearing to consider a Development Plan to construct a 59,984 square foot industrial building on 3.15 gross acres of land located at the southeast corner of Sultana Avenue and Belmont Street, within the IL (Light Industrial) zoning district. The Project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332 (Class 32, In-fill Development Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines. 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 (ALUCP). (APN(s): 1049-491-01, 1049-491-02 and 1049- 491-03) submitted by Chartwell Real Estate Development. The Developme nt Advisory Board recommended approval of this item on June 19, 2023, with an 8-0 vote.

Senior Pl anner Mejia , presented the staff report. Sh e stated that staff is recommending the Planning Commission to approve File No. PDEV21 -035, pursuant to the facts a nd reasons contained in the staff report and attached resolution, and subject to the conditions of approval.

Mr. Lampkin wanted to clarify that the zoning has been industrial since 1940.

Mr. Zeledon stated yes.

Mr. Lampkin wanted to know what happened to a llow that area to have the residential overlay for the area.

Mr. Zeledon responded.

Mr. Lampkin wanted to know if the non-conforming uses in the area was caused by the war , happening during that time.

Mr. Zeledon responded.

Mr. Lampkin wanted to clarify why other uses like residential or a park couldn ’t be put there, because of airport restrictions.

Mr. Zeledon responded.

Mr. Lampkin clarified the improvements the project would bring.

Mr. Zeledon stated yes.

Mr. Lampkin wanted to verify the number of trees.

Mr. Zeledon responded.

Mr. Lampkin wanted to clarify that setbacks will be around the whole building and verify the proposed landscape percentage.

708

-7-
Ms. Mejia responded.

Mr. Lampkin wanted to verify that the proposed landscape is over the landscape requirement.

Ms. Mejia stated yes.

Mr. Zeledon explained further.

Mr. Del Turco wanted to know if light industrial has set operating hours.

Ms. Mejia stated no.

Mr. Del Turco restrictions on 24 hours.

Ms. Mejia responded.

Mr. Zeledon stated the business could be 24 hours , but they could be rest ricted depending on the use, when the business license comes in. He explained what uses would be allowed in light industrial.

Mr. Del Turco wanted to know about evening lighting effecting the neighborhood.

Ms. Mejia responded and stated that no light spillage would impact the neighborhood , and would be contained on site.

Mr. Dean wanted to address the letter received in opposition that stated it was a plant that would effect the water, and have toxic fumes.

Zeledon responded.

Mr. Lampkin wanted to know about any feature installed to prevent trucks from going left on B elmont and outside the truck route.

Mejia responded.

PUBLIC TESTIMONY

Christine Adler spoke in favor of the project and stated there w as no tenant at this time and that they would be willing to install porkchops from Belmont to detour truck turning left.

Ms. DeDiemar asked if she agreed with the Conditions of Approval.

Ms. Adler stated yes.

Chan Nguyen spoke in opposition of the project.

Nayeli Hoagland spoke in opposition of the project.

Art Delgado spoke regarding improvements on Monterey and traffic concerns.

Chris Robles spoke in opposition to the project, and stated CEQA is required for the project.

Ms. DeDiemar asked Mr. Zeledon to explain why CEQA doesn’t apply.

Mr. Zeledon responded.
709

-8-
Mr. Gage wanted to know how they made the determination of trips.

Mr. Zeledon responded.

Ms. Adler rebutted to the public comment concerns.

Mr. Lampkin wanted to clarify that the property on the east of the project site is railroad property.

Ms. Adler stated that is correct.

Mr. Zeledon clarified further.

Mr. Lampkin stated that the area isn’t part of the project and that could be addressed in the future.

As there was no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson DeDiemar closed the public testimony

Mr. Delgado stated he wished to make a comment.

Chairperson DeDiemar opened the public testimony

Mr. Delgado commented regarding that area being unsafe for pedestrian travel.

As there was no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson DeDiemar closed the public testimony

Mr. Gage wanted to know about sidewalks on streets that go North and South in the area.

Mr. Zeledon clarified.

Mr. Lampkin thanked the residents for coming forward.

Mr. Gage thanked the residents for coming forward, spoke in favor of the project.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION

It was moved by Gage, seconded by Lampkin, to adopt a resolution to approve a Development Plan, File No. PDEV21 -035, subject to conditions of approval . Roll call vote: AYES, Dean, DeDiemar, Del Turco, Ga ge, Lampkin, and Ricci; NOES, none; RECUSE, none; ABSENT, Anderson. The motion was carried 6 to 0.

MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION

Old Business Reports From Subcommittees

Historic Preservation (Standing): Did not meet this month.

New Business

NOMINATIONS FOR SPECIAL RECOGNITION

None at this time.

DIRECTOR’S REPORT

710
RESOLUTION NO. ________

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

CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE FILE NO. PDEV21-035, A
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A 59,984 SQUARE FOOT
INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ON 3.15 GROSS ACRES OF LAND LOCATED

AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SULTANA AVENUE AND BELMONT

STREET, WITHIN THE IL (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) ZONING DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APNS: 1049-491-01, 1049-491-02 AND 1049-491-03.

WHEREAS, CHARTWELL REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT ("Applicant") has filed an Application for the approval of a Development Plan, File No. PDEV21-035, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Application applies to 3.15 gross acres of land generally located at the southeast corner of Sultana Avenue and Belmont Street, within the IL (Light Industrial) zoning district and is presently vacant; and WHEREAS, the property to the north of the Project site is within the IL zoning district and is developed with a steel supplier yard. The property to the east is within the IL zoning district and is developed with a railroad. The property to the south is within the MDR-11 (Medium Density Residential) zoning district and is developed with Single Family Residential. The property to the west is within the LDR-5 (Low Density Residential) zoning district and is developed with Single Family Residential; and WHEREAS, on October 12, 2021, the applicant submitted a Development Plan, File No. PDEV21-035, to construct a 59,984 square foot industrial building on the Project site; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Department held a community meeting on Thursday, March 10, 2022 between 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM at the Ontario Senior Center to discuss the proposed development. Planning staff, Engineering staff, translators and the applicant were in attendance during the community meeting. One resident attended the community meeting and had questions regarding the proposed project and site improvements and generally spoke in favor of the proposed project. Staff also received two e-mails from local property owners, one resident inquiring about the proposed project and the second resident’s e-mail did not support the proposed project. Staff also scheduled follow up meetings with residents who could not attend the community meeting, but residents did not attend the follow up meetings; and
WHEREAS, on June 19, 2023, the Development Advisory Board (“DAB”) of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider Development Plan, File No. PDEV21-035.

Concluding the hearing, the DAB voted to issue Decision No. DAB23-044, recommending the Planning Commission approve the Application; and
711
WHEREAS, on July 25, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a public hearing to consider the project and the Development Advisory Board’s recommendation. Following a presentation of staff’s findings and after receipt of all public testimony, the Planning Commission addressed the applications, and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to issue Resolution No. PC23-064 to approve the Application by a vote of 6-0; and
WHEREAS, on August 4, 2023, CELINA LOPEZ (hereinafter referred to as "Appellant") on behalf of residents within the immediate vicinity of the Project, submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve File No. PDEV21-035. The basis of the Applicants appeal lies in their belief that the project was not properly noticed, and adequate environmental studies were not completed for the proposed Project.

Additionally, the Appellant believes that the property should be re-zoned to a residential land use; and
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. The Appellant's appeal includes irrelevant and relevant statements, with no evidence to support their grounds for appeal. City Staff has reviewed the Appeal request and has provided the following responses to the Appeal:
a) Appellant Issue No. 1: Notices. The Appellant claims that public notices were vague and held a year prior to the July 25, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting.

Although, one Community Meeting was held for the Project there should have been additional meetings and outreach.

Staff Response: The noticing of the Project was done in compliance with the noticing requirements of State law and the Ontario Development Code. Division 2:03 – Public Hearing, Section 2.03.010; Public Hearing Notification which requires that all owners of real property located within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property that is the subject of the hearing, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll, or records of the county assessor or tax collector if those records contain more recent information than the information contained on the assessment roll, shall be noticed. Public hearing notices were sent out on July 14, 2023, to all property owners and residents (tenants). To ensure community input from the surrounding residents notices were mailed to owners and residents beyond 500 feet of the Project site, in both English and Spanish.

Appellants’ claim that notices for the community meeting were vague and more than a year in advance of the Public Hearing are without legal merit. Additionally, the timing and content of the community meeting notices were not raised at the Public Hearing and therefore cannot be considered on appeal. 712
b) Appellant Issue No. 2: Safety. The Appellant claims that residents have concerns regarding the Project’s impact to traffic.

Staff Response: The Project site is currently unimproved and the street frontage along Phillips Street lacks a sidewalk, parkway, and curb and gutter. The construction of the Project will result in the improvements for pedestrian and vehicle safety and access within the surrounding community. For all new developments, the City requires street frontage improvements (sidewalk, landscape parkway, curb/gutter, streetlights, and street widening) to be constructed where they are lacking. The Project is required to widen Phillips Street and construct and improve the sidewalk and landscape parkways along Sultana Avenue, Phillips Street, and Belmont Street. In addition, the Project will only be accessed from Belmont Street. No access will be taken from either Sultana Avenue or Phillips Street. The Project has been conditioned and designed to require all large trucks entering and exiting the site to use Monterey Avenue by way of Belmont Street. The truck routing has been designed to avoid through truck traffic within the residential neighborhoods, Sultana Avenue north to Mission Avenue and Belmont Street east to Campus Avenue. Trucks will not be allowed to use Sultana Avenue or Phillips Street. Further, the subject site is presently vacant, and any new development will generate new vehicle trips over what is existing. The Engineering Department’s Traffic Division has reviewed the Project for access and circulation and does not anticipate traffic to increase beyond the traffic that currently exists on Sultana Avenue, Belmont Street, Phillips Street, and the surrounding areas.

Furthermore, a Trip Generation and VMT Assessment was completed by Gandini (Dated: February 9, 2022) and concluded that Project is forecast to generate approximately 159 daily Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) trips, including 9 PCE trips during the AM peak hour and 15 PCE trips during the PM peak hour. The proposed project does not warrant preparation of a transportation impact study with Level of Service analysis based on the County-established screening criteria as used by the City of Ontario. The proposed project meets the County-established criteria for project type screening results in a less than significant VMT impact. In comparison, a typical single-family home averages 9.4 vehicle trips per day, if the Project site was developed with single family homes the site would accommodate up to 15 units and generate 141 trips per day and up to 282 trips per day if each property developed an Accessory Dwelling Unit.
c) Appellant Issue No. 3: Health. The Appellant claims the Project contradicts and affects the current grants the City of Ontario has received from Kaiser Permanente (Ontario HEAL Zone), Strategic Growth Council (Ontario Together Transformative Climate Communities Project) and Caltrans (Ontario Active Transportation Master Plan).

Staff Response: The proposed project is within active grant and planning efforts including the Kaiser Permanente HEAL Grant, Transformative Climate Communities (TCC) Grant, and Ontario Active Transportation Master Plan with each effort in support of improving overall Quality of Life. The Kaiser Permanente HEAL Grant funding is focused specifically on achieving long-term sustainable reductions in obesity and related chronic illnesses, including diabetes and heart disease. The Transformative Climate Communities (TCC) Grant is funded through 713
the state Cap-and-Trade program for community supported projects including sustainable housing, transportation, and infrastructure that are targeted to reduce greenhouse gases, improve health, and support economic and health benefits in California’s most disadvantaged communities. The Ontario Active Transportation Master Plan has been developed to identify and prioritize the walking, biking, access to transit, and safe routes to school needs in Ontario. Community members provide input that will help to guide the development of the plan. The intent is to engage community members in the plan-making process, collect and analyze data, evaluate, and forecast demand, and develop Safe Routes to School (SRTS), pedestrian, and bicycle improvement recommendations. City staff has worked with the community to secure program funding in support of park improvements, community gardens, education and physical activity classes, civic engagement training, walk audits, partnerships with the Police Department’s Neighborhood Watch program, and SRTS Active Transportation grants. It should be noted that these programs have no standing as to local land use regulations; however, the Project does affect the spirit of the Grants’ intent to encourage the community to participate in shared decisions that impact the neighborhood’s quality of life. In addition, the Project will be required to widen Philips Street and construct and improve the sidewalk and landscape parkways along Sultana Avenue, Phillips Street and Belmont Street, which will improve connectivity and walkability of the neighborhood.

Additionally, the availability and use of grant funds was not raised at the Public Hearing and therefore cannot be considered on appeal.
d) Appellant Issue No. 4: Air Quality. The Appellant claims that residents are concerned with air quality and pollution generated from the trucks and vehicles.

The project was exempt from CEQA and other environmental reports and proper environmental assessments were not completed.

Staff Response: The Project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332 (Class 32, In-fill Development Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines. The proposed Project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. The proposed development occurs within city limits and the area being developed is

3.15 acres less than the five-acre threshold and is substantially surrounded by urban land uses. The Project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. Approval of the Project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. Also, the site is adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

An Air Quality Analysis, Energy Analysis, Global Climate Change Analysis and Health Risk Assessment was completed by Gandini (Dated: February 24, 2022).

The Air Quality Analysis concluded that the nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site include existing single-family residential located approximately 50 feet to the south (across Phillips Street), 60 feet to the west (across Sultana Avenue), and 85 feet to the east (across the Union Pacific rail line and Monterey Street).

Based on the air quality modeling analysis contained in this Air Analysis, short- term construction impacts will not result in significant impacts based on the SCAQMD regional and local thresholds of significance. The Air Analysis also found 714
that, long-term operations impacts will not result in significant impacts based on the SCAQMD local and regional thresholds of significance. Also, the Project site is currently located within the Industrial land use district of the Policy Plan Land Use Map. The project proposes to develop the site with 59,984 square feet of industrial use. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the City’s land use designation. The proposed project is not anticipated to exceed the AQMP assumptions for the project site and is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the second criterion.
e) Appellant Issue No. 5: Noise. The Appellant claims that residents are concerned with noise levels generated by trucks and future tenants.

Staff Response: A Noise Impact Analysis was completed by Gandini (Dated:

March 4, 2022) and concluded that noise impacts would be less than significant.

Construction noise sources are regulated within Section 5.29-09 of the City of Ontario’s Municipal Code which allows construction activities to take place between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM weekdays and 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM weekends, excluding federal holidays. The Project includes the construction of 14- foot-high concrete screen walls around the loading/unloading area of the proposed warehouse. The peak hour operational noise levels would range between 34 to 42 dBA to the nearest residential property lines from the project site. Therefore, project operational noise will not exceed either the exterior daytime residential standard of 65 dBA or the nighttime residential standard of 45 dBA as set forth in the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore, impacts associated with project operational noise would be less than significant. Also, the Project site is located within the 65- 70 dBA CNEL Noise Impact Zone of Ontario International Airport (ONT), and a warehouse use is considered a compatible use within ONT’s 65-70 dBA CNEL Noise Impact Zone.
f) Appellant Issue No. 6: Zoning. The Appellant claims that residents would like City Council to consider re-zoning the property to low-density residential that would eliminate any industrial or warehouses uses in close proximity to residential and other sensitive land uses.

Staff Response: City records show that the project site has been zoned industrial since 1947. The Policy Plan (General Plan) land use designations surrounding the site are Industrial to the north, Low Density Residential/Industrial Overlay to the east, Low Density Residential to the south, and Low Medium Density Residential to the west. The project site zoned IL (Light Industrial). The IL zoning district was established to accommodate lighter manufacturing and assembly activities, storage and warehousing activities, and other similar uses developed at a maximum intensity of 0.55 FAR. This zoning district is typically located within 500 feet of residentially zoned properties, public parks and schools, and mixed-use properties having a residential component. The IL district is intended to serve as a buffer between residentially zoned areas and heavier industrial zoning districts.

Allowed uses are expected to have little or no impacts on nearby residential uses with regard to noise, odor, or hazards. The IL zoning district is consistent with, and implements, the Industrial land use designations of the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan.
715
The land uses within the vicinity of Project site consist of a combination of industrial, residential, and nonconforming residential land uses. The residential properties located within the vicinity of the Project site are presently impacted by aircraft noise from Ontario International Airport. The Project site is located within the 65-70 dB CNEL noise impact zone of Ontario International Airport and establishing new residential land uses is not a compatible or allowable land use.

The properties to the east of the Project site are located within the Policy Plan’s Industrial Overlay Zone, which is an area that is affected by noise and safety impacts from Ontario International Airport. The Industrial Overlay allows residential uses to transition to an industrial land use if an entire block can be assembled in order to remove sensitive land uses within areas of the City most severely impacted by Ontario International Airport. Over the past 30 years, the City has worked with other governmental agencies and has applied for grants to purchase residential properties, relocate households, transition land uses to be compatible with the Airport, and insulate homes to reduce interior noise levels within high noise impact zones.

WHEREAS, on September 19, 2023, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the project, and concluded said hearing on that date; and WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA"); and WHEREAS, the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to a categorical exemption (listed in CEQA Guidelines Article 19, commencing with Section 15300) and the application of that categorical exemption is not barred by one of the exceptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2; and
WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the City Council 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 (“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
716
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, 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 decision- making body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council finds as follows:
(1) The administrative record has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and (2) The Project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15332 (Class 32, In-fill Development Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines, which consists of:
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. The proposed Project is located within the Industrial land use designation of the Policy Plan (general plan) Land Use Map, and the IL (Light Industrial) zoning district.

The proposed Project is consistent with all applicable Policy Plan policies, as well as with the requirements of the IL (Light Industrial) zoning district. (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. The Project is proposed within the established boundaries of the City of Ontario, on a Project site totaling

3.15-acres of land, which is surrounded by established development on all sides and consists of a mix of industrial and residential and uses. (c) The Project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. The site is located in an urbanized area and is currently vacant and has regularly been cleared and grubbed, and as such not suitable habitat for any endangered, rare, or threatened species.
(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.The proposed industrial development is similar to, and of no greater impact than other allowed uses and development projects within the IL (Light Industrial) zoning district. The Project would not result in any significant impacts through implementation of required state, regional, and local development, and performance standards, and as demonstrated in the following studies (Attachment A – Environmental Studies):
717
(i) An Air Quality Analysis, Energy Analysis, Global Climate Change Analysis and Health Risk Assessment was completed by Ganddini (Dated:

February 24, 2022) and concluded the following:
 Air Quality – The Air Quality Analysis concluded that the nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site include existing single-family residential located approximately 50 feet to the south (across Phillips Street), 60 feet to the west (across Sultana Avenue), and 85 feet to the east (across the Union Pacific rail line and Monterey Street). Based on the air quality modeling analysis contained in this Air Analysis, short- term construction impacts will not result in significant impacts based on the SCAQMD regional and local thresholds of significance. The Air Analysis also found that, long-term operations impacts will not result in significant impacts based on the SCAQMD local and regional thresholds of significance. Also, the Project site is currently located within the Industrial land use district of the Policy Plan Land Use Map. The project proposes to develop the site with 59,984 square feet of industrial use. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the City’s land use designation. The proposed project is not anticipated to exceed the AQMP assumptions for the project site and is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the second criterion.
 Energy – The Energy Impact Analysis concluded that the Project is compliant with the California Building Standards Code Title 24 energy efficiency requirements (CalGreen). The project would provide for, and promote, energy efficiencies required under other applicable federal and State of California standards and regulations, and in so doing would meet or exceed all California Building Standards Code Title 24 standards. Moreover, energy consumed by the Project’s operation is calculated to be comparable to, or less than, energy consumed by other industrial uses of similar scale and intensity that are constructed and operating in California. On this basis, the project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy.

Energy Impacts are considered to be less than significant.  Global Climate Change – The Project-related GHG emissions would not exceed the City of Ontario Community Climate Action Plan/SCAQMD screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Furthermore, the Project would not conflict with the goals of AB-32, SB-32, or the City of Ontario Community Climate Action Plan and CARB Scoping Plan; therefore, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases and impacts are considered to be less than significant.  Health Risk Assessment – The proposed Project would generate toxic air contaminant emissions from diesel truck emissions created by the on-going operations of the proposed project. According to the SCAQMD’s MATES-V study, the Project has an estimated multi-pathway cancer risk of 567 in one million and an inhalation cancer risk of 535 in one million. In comparison the average multi-pathway cancer risk for the South Coast Air Basin portion of San Bernardino County is 471 in one million and the inhalation cancer risk is 439 in a million. This increased cancer risk at the site is largely due to the proximity to the Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) rail line, State Route 60 (SR-60), and Interstate 10 (I-10) Freeway. According to SCAQMD methodology, health 718
effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of individual cancer risk. “Individual Cancer Risk” is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of toxic air contaminants over a 30-year lifetime will contract cancer, based on the use of revised Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) risk-assessment methodology. The Project’s maximum incremental cancer risk (MICR) does not exceed 10 in a million at any sensitive receptor location, the on-going operation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact due to the cancer risk from diesel emissions created by the proposed project.
(ii) Noise Impact Analysis - A Noise Impact Analysis was completed by Gandini (Dated: March 4, 2022) and concluded that noise impacts would be less than significant. Construction noise sources are regulated within Section 5.29-09 of the City of Ontario’s Municipal Code which allows construction activities to take place between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM weekdays and 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM weekends, excluding federal holidays. The Project includes the construction of concrete 14-foot-high screen walls around the loading/unloading area of the proposed warehouse.

The peak hour operational noise levels would range between 34 to 42 dBA to the nearest residential property lines from the project site. Therefore, project operational noise will not exceed either the exterior daytime residential standard of 65 dBA or the nighttime residential standard of 45 dBA as set forth in the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore, impacts associated with project operational noise would be less than significant. Also, the Project site is located within the 65-70 dBA CNEL Noise Impact Zone of Ontario International Airport (ONT), and a warehouse use is considered a compatible use within ONT’s 65-70 dBA CNEL Noise Impact Zone.
(iii) Trip Generation and VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled)
Assessment – A Trip Generation and VMT Assessment was completed by Gandini (Dated: February 9, 2022) and concluded that Project is forecast to generate approximately 159 daily Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) trips, including 9 PCE trips during the AM peak hour and 15 PCE trips during the PM peak hour. The proposed project does not warrant preparation of a transportation impact study with Level of Service analysis based on the County-established screening criteria as used by the City of Ontario. The proposed project meets the County-established criteria for project type screening results in a less than significant VMT impact. (iv) Water Quality - A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan ("PWQMP"), was prepared which establishes the Project's compliance with storm water discharge/water quality requirements. The PWQMP includes site design measures that capture runoff and pollutant transport by minimizing impervious surfaces and maximizes low impact development ("LID") best management practices ("BMPs"), such as retention and infiltration, biotreatment, and evapotranspiration. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. All necessary wet and dry utilities exist or will be constructed within the public street and will be readily available for connection; and (3) The application of the categorical exemption is not barred by one of the exceptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2; and 719
(4) The determination of CEQA exemption reflects the independent judgment of the City Council.

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

SECTION 3. Ontario International 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 authority 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 is consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ONT ALUCP.

SECTION 4. 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 Section 1 through 3, above, the City Council 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 IL (Light Industrial) 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; and
720
(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 IL (Light Industrial) zoning district, including standards relative to the particular land use proposed (warehouse), 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; and
(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 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; [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 Development Code; and
(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 Development Code 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). 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 Development Code.

SECTION 5. City Council Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 through 4, above, the City Council hereby UPHOLDS the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the herein described project, File No. PDEV21-035.

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.
721
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.

SECTION 8. Certification to Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of the Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 19th day of September 2023. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
722

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 September 19, 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 September 19, 2023. _________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
723