Ontario City Council
April 16, 2024

Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that there is a net increase in citywide Boundary VMT primarily due to the increase in population accommodated by TOP 2050. Mitigation Measure T-1 would reduce potential impacts for future development projects to the extent feasible. Future development projects consistent with TOP 2050 would need to consider transportation demand management (TDM) measures consistent with those identified in the Mobility Element. TDM techniques include incentives to use transit; incentives to form carpools rather than drive alone; and making home, work, and shopping closer together to shorten travel distances. Because the VMT impact is citywide, mitigation measures to reduce VMT would need to focus on changing or improving the citywide travel patterns, transportation network, or infrastructure. Given the uncertainty of the effectiveness of implementing these types of mitigation measures at a citywide level and of their effectiveness at reducing citywide VMT, VMT impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Discussion of Effects: The City Guidelines lists standardized screening methods for project level VMT analysis that can be used to identify when a proposed land use development project is anticipated to result in a less than significant impact, thereby eliminating the need to conduct a full VMT analysis. The City of Ontario VMT screening criteria, as described within the City Guidelines, are listed below:
• Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening
• Low VMT Area Screening
• Project Type Screening
A land use project need only meet one of the above screening criteria to result in a less than significant impact.

TPA Screening
Consistent with guidance identified in the City Guidelines, projects located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA) (i.e., within ½ mile of an existing “major transit stop” or an existing stop along a “high-quality transit corridor”1) may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. However, the presumption may not be appropriate if a project:
• Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75;
• Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required by the jurisdiction (if the jurisdiction requires the project to supply parking); • Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (as determined by the lead agency, with input from the Metropolitan Planning Organization); or • Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate or high-income residential units.

Based on the secondary criteria outlined in the City Guidelines, the Project does not meet the secondary criteria of having an FAR at or above 0.75, regardless of the Project being physically 1 Pub. Resources Code, § 21155 (“For purposes of this section, a high-quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.”).
451
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

located in a TPA.

Low VMT Area Screening
City Guidelines state that projects may be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact if located in an already low VMT generating traffic analysis zone (TAZ). City Guidelines recognize low VMT areas as those that generate a VMT per service population (i.e., population and employment) that is 15% below County of San Bernardino Baseline VMT per service population or 33.3 VMT per service population. The San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM) is used to measure VMT performance in individual TAZs within the region. The Project’s physical location was identified in the SBTAM model to determine the TAZ where the Project is located. The Project TAZ 53663401 is then calculated using Origin-Destination (OD) trip matrices to obtain total OD VMT. The resulting total OD VMT is divided by the Project TAZ’s service population.

The Project TAZ 53663401 has a VMT per service population of 54.8, which exceeds the threshold of 33.3 VMT per service population. As a result, the Project is not located within a low VMT generating zone. Therefore, the Project would not meet the Low VMT Area Screening threshold.

Project Type Screening
The City Guidelines identify that local serving retail less than 50,000 square feet or other local serving essential services (e.g., day care centers, public schools, medical/dental office buildings, etc.) are presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. The Project as intended does not contain any local serving uses. Additionally, the City Guidelines state that small projects generating fewer than 110 daily vehicle trips or less may be presumed to have a less than significant impact. The Project is anticipated to generate 204 fewer two-way trips per day as compared to the adopted TOP 2050 in actual vehicles.2 Therefore, the Project’s estimated trips will not exceed the City’s 110 net new daily vehicle trip threshold and the Project would meet the Project Type Screening threshold. (Urban Crossroads, 2023d) The Project VMT impact would be less than significant and would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e. g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that majority of the population growth associated with TOP 2050 would occur in Ontario Ranch and there are substantial improvements in transportation infrastructure planned to accommodate the increase in population in the City in the event of an emergency. Additionally, the City has adopted roadway classification standards in Policy M-1.1 that include roadway design standards as part of TOP 2050, precluding the construction of any unsafe features. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and implementation of TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The Project’s potential to increase hazards as a result of a geometric design feature has been assessed to provide adequate truck access/circulation. The Project’s circulation plan has been designed to be compatible with all foreseeable vehicles. Vehicular 2 For informational purposes, the Project would also generate 66 fewer two-way trips per day as compared to the existing use.
452
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

access will be provided via 2 driveways on South Grove Avenue. The southern driveway would be restricted to passenger vehicles only. The northern driveway is 40 feet wide and designed to accommodate the wide turning radius of the heavy trucks.

The Project area is generally characterized by industrial uses. Traffic generated by the Project would be typical of a warehouse and be compatible with the type of traffic generated by the existing and surrounding development. In addition, all proposed improvements within the public right-of-way would be installed in conformance with City design standards. The City of Ontario Engineering Department reviewed the Project’s application materials and determined that no hazardous transportation design features would be introduced by the Project. At the time of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plans; the City will further review project access points to ensure adequate sight distance. Accordingly, the Project would not create or substantially increase safety hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use and impacts would be a less than significant. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that a review of emergency access is included as part of the City’s Design Review process. According to the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, interstate highways would serve as major emergency response and evacuation routes. Additionally, the Ontario Fire Department reviews development applications to ensure that adequate emergency accessibility is provided based on local and state guidance.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and implementation of TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The Project will be designed to provide access for all emergency vehicles and meet all applicable City of Ontario Fire and Police Department access requirements to ensure that adequate access would be provided for emergency vehicles at Project build out.

During construction activities that include road and sidewalk improvements, the Project would provide adequate emergency access along abutting roadways during temporary construction activities. As concluded in the Certified SEIR, the Ontario Fire Department reviews development applications to ensure that adequate emergency accessibility is provided based on local and state guidance. As a result, the Project would not a less than significant impact to emergency access. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

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

Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that result of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was negative. In accordance with AB 52 and SB 18 requirements, the City sent invitation letters to the 453
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

Native American contacts provided by the NAHC. Grading and construction activities in undeveloped areas or redevelopment that requires deeper soil excavation than in the past have the potential to disturb tribal cultural resources. Mitigation Measures 5-3 and 5-4 and new Mitigation Measures TCR-1 and TCR-2 would reduce potential impacts associated with tribal cultural resources to a level that is less than significant. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to tribal cultural resources remain. a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? Discussion of Effects: As analyzed in Response 5.a, there are no resources on the Project site that are eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources as defined by Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k). Implementation of the Project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a listed historical resource. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Discussion of Effects: As discussed in Response 5.a, no resources were recorded in the Project site or within one mile of the Project site. However, since the Project would require excavation for construction into previously undisturbed soils, there is a potential to uncover undiscovered prehistoric artifacts or tribal cultural resources during excavation. Therefore, while unlikely, the presence of subsurface tribal cultural resources on the Project site remains possible, and these could be affected by ground-disturbing activities associated with grading and construction at the Project site. As a result, consistent with the findings of the Certified SEIR, implementation of Mitigation Measures 5-3, 5-4, TCR-1 and TCR-2 would preclude potential impacts to tribal cultural resources as defined in Public Resources Code 5024.1(c). Therefore, the Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The following mitigation measure from the Certified SEIR is applicable to the Project:

MM 5-3 Upon receipt of an application for a proposed project subject to CEQA and within the City’s jurisdiction, the City’s representative shall consult with the relevant tribe(s)’ representative(s) to determine if the proposed project is within a culturally sensitive area to the tribe. If sufficient evidence is provided to reasonably ascertain that the site is within a tribal culturally sensitive area, an archaeologist shall prepare then a cultural resources assessment. The findings of the cultural resources assessment shall be incorporated into the CEQA documentation. A copy of the report shall be forwarded to the tribe(s). If mitigation is recommended in the CEQA document, the procedure described in Mitigation Measure 5-4 shall be 454
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

followed.

MM 5-4 Prior to the issuance of grading permits for a proposed project for which the CEQA document defines cultural resource mitigation for potential tribal resources, the project applicant shall contact the designated tribe(s) to notify them of the grading, excavation, and monitoring program. The applicant shall coordinate with the City of Ontario and the tribal representative(s) to develop mitigation measures that address the designation, responsibilities, and participation of tribal monitors during grading, excavation, and ground-disturbing activities; scheduling; terms of compensation; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. The City of Ontario shall be the final arbiter of the conditions for projects within the City’s jurisdiction.

TCR-1 Tribal Cultural Resources Monitoring. The project archaeologist, in consultation with interested tribes, the developer, and the City of Ontario, shall develop an Archaeological Monitoring Plan (AMP) to address the details, timing, and responsibility of archaeological and cultural activities that will occur on the project site. Details in the AMP shall include:

1. Project-related ground disturbance (including, but not limited to, brush clearing, grading, trenching, etc.) and development scheduling;

2. The development of a rotating or simultaneous schedule in coordination with the developer and the project archeologist for designated Native American Tribal Monitors from the consulting tribes during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities on the site:
including the scheduling, safety requirements, duties, scope of work, and Native American Tribal Monitors’ authority to stop and redirect grading activities in coordination with all project archaeologists (if the tribes cannot come to an agreement on the rotating or simultaneous schedule of tribal monitoring, the Native American Heritage Commission shall designate the schedule for the onsite Native American Tribal Monitor for the proposed project);

3. The protocols and stipulations that the developer, City, Tribes, and project archaeologist will follow in the event of inadvertent cultural resources discoveries, including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation.

At least 30 days prior to application for a grading permit and before any brush clearance, grading, excavation, and/or ground disturbing activities on the site, the developer shall retain a tribal cultural monitor to monitor all ground-disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources.

Pursuant to the AMP, a tribal monitor from the consulting tribe shall be present during the initial grading activities. If tribal resources are found during grubbing activities, the tribal monitoring shall be present during site grading activities.
455
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

TCR-2 Treatment and Disposition of Cultural Resources. In the event that Native American cultural resources are inadvertently discovered during the course of any ground-disturbing activities, including but not limited to brush clearance, grading, trenching, etc., for the proposed project, the following procedures will be carried out for treatment and disposition of the discoveries:

1. Temporary Curation and Storage: During the course of construction, all discovered resources shall be temporarily curated in a secure location on-site or at the offices of the project archaeologist. The removal of any artifacts from the project site will need to be thoroughly inventoried with tribal monitor oversight of the process;

2. Treatment and Final Disposition: The landowner(s) shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods, and all archaeological artifacts and nonhuman remains as part of the required mitigation for impacts to cultural resources. The applicant shall relinquish the artifacts through one or more of the following methods and provide the City of Ontario with evidence of same:
a. Accommodate the process for on-site reburial of the discovered items with the consulting Native American tribes or bands. This shall include measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts. Reburial shall not occur until all cataloging, basic analysis, other analyses as recommended by the project archaeologist and approved by consulting tribes, and basic recordation have been completed; all documentation should be at a level of standard professional practice to allow the writing of a report of professional quality;
b. A curation agreement with an appropriate qualified repository in San Bernardino County that meets federal standards per 36 CFR Part 79, and therefore the resource would be professionally curated and made available to other archaeologists/researchers for further study. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to an appropriate curation facility in San Bernardino County, to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation;
c. For purposes of conflict resolution, if more than one Native American tribe or band is involved with the project and cannot come to an agreement as to the disposition of cultural materials, materials shall be curated at the San Bernardino County Museum by default;
d. At the completion of grading, excavation, and ground-disturbing activities on the site, a Phase IV Monitoring Report shall be submitted to the City documenting monitoring activities conducted by the project archaeologist and Native Tribal Monitors within 60 days of completion of grading. This report shall document the impacts to the known resources on the property; describe how each mitigation measure was fulfilled; document the type of cultural resources 456
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

recovered and the disposition of such resources; provide evidence of the required cultural sensitivity training for the construction staff held during the required pregrade meeting; and, in a confidential appendix, include the daily/weekly monitoring notes from the archaeologist. All reports produced will be submitted to the City, County Museum, and consulting tribes.

19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that TOP 2050 would result in an overall increase in the number of residential dwellings and nonresidential square footage.

The TOP 2050 has policies in place to require improvements to sewer infrastructure as part of new development and redevelopment projects and has processes in place to ensure that any sewer improvement projects are implemented prior to or during new development. With funding from sewer connection/usage fees and the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) budget, the City would continue to expand and improve the sewer infrastructure to accommodate new development and future growth. Therefore, there would be no significant impacts on wastewater infrastructure.

Due to the increase in demand for potable and recycled water, the City and the IEUA have made plans for infrastructure expansion and improvement. As part of the land development approval process, the City determines a project’s fair-share costs and connection fees. Through the use of connection fees and agreements, the City maintains and expands its water distribution system as necessary and is able to ensure that new developments pay their fair-share costs.

Therefore, impacts related to water infrastructure expansion and improvement caused by the implementation of TOP 2050 would be less than significant.

Potential future development and the change in land uses could result in an increase in impervious surfaces. Future developments would be required to comply with the City’s storm drain policies and the MS4 permit, which would require the preparation of hydrology reports and drainage plans for review and approval by the City to ensure that there are no adverse impacts to the City’s storm drain system. Also, the developers would need to prepare a WQMP that addresses stormwater runoff and requires the construction of stormwater treatment facilities for temporary on-site retention of stormwater runoff. These requirements would minimize the amount of stormwater runoff from potential future development. Compliance with the City’s policies and programs that ensure adequate infrastructure and the regulatory provisions in the MS4 permit that limit runoff from new development would ensure that implementation of TOP 2050 would not result in significant increases in runoff that would contribute to the construction or expansion of new storm drains beyond what is already planned. Therefore, impacts with respect to stormwater infrastructure would be less than significant.

Discussion of Effects:

Water and Wastewater
The Project would include the installation of water and wastewater lines within the Project site. Water would be accommodated via proposed water lines that would extend from the eastern portion of the building and proposed fire hydrants to an existing 6-inch water main on 457
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

South Grove Avenue. Sewer would be accommodated via proposed sewer lines that would extend from the northwestern and northeastern corners of the building to an existing 10-inch sewer main on South Grove Avenue.

Although the Project would result in new water and wastewater line connections, these connections would occur on-site and would be part of the Project’s construction phase, which is evaluated throughout this Addendum. The construction of the Project’s water and wastewater lines necessary to serve the Project would not result in any significant physical effects on the environment that are not already identified and disclosed as part of this Addendum. Impacts would be less than significant.

Stormwater Drainage
Stormwater will be directed to the on-site underground infiltration/detention system between the parking stalls along the western boundary and the paved loading dock section. The overflow from the underground system will discharge through a proposed parkway drain onto South Grove Avenue. A system of catch basins laid around the site will collect and pre-treat stormwater before it enters the underground system via a network of PVC pipes. The existing drainage pattern of the rear bio-swale will be kept by including a pipe that runs along the west boundary of the site from north to south in order to collect stormwater from the northern property and convey it to the southern property.

Refer to the analysis under Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality Threshold c.ii, above.

As discussed, stormwater runoff would be treated on site and would not require relocation or construction of new or expanded storm water drainage infrastructure which could cause significant environmental effects. Impacts would be less than significant.

Dry Utilities
Electricity will be provided by Southern California Edison. Connections to the existing utility networks are available in the Project area and any offsite improvements would occur within improved rights-of-way, which are inherent to the Project’s construction phase and have been evaluated throughout this Addendum. Because the Project site has been previously developed with industrial uses that requires electric power and telecommunication services, implementation of the Project is not anticipated to limit the ability of service providers to provide service to Project.

Therefore, the Project would not require or result in the construction or expansion of new facilities, and impacts would be less than significant.

Based on the preceding, the Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that total water demand associated with TOP 2050 would result in a increase of approximately 6 percent compared to the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The 2020 UWMP states that there are sufficient water supplies through 2045 to meet projected demands in normal years, single dry years, and multiple dry years through 2045. Although TOP 2050 at buildout is estimated to generate a 6 458
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

percent increase in water demand using conservative water demand factors, new State requirements and City policies and code requirements would result in enhanced water efficiency and conservation. Applying these measures would result in total water demand below the projections in the 2020 UWMP for year 2045. Therefore, there would be sufficient water supplies to meet the demand for TOP 2050 buildout. Impacts would be less than significant, and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: OMUC is responsible for supplying potable water to the Project site.

The UWMP includes an analysis of water supply reliability projected through 2045 under normal years, single dry year, and multiple dry years. OMUC’s total water demand for 2020 was approximately 32,109 AF (OMUC, 2021). As stated above, the City is anticipated to have adequate water supplies to meet all its demands from the implementation of TOP 2050 at buildout until the year 2045 under a normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry years. The Project Applicant would demolish the existing structures and redevelop the site with an approximately 61,867 s.f. s.f. building. The proposed building would be approximately 47,950 s.f. less than the maximum allowed under TOP 2050. Therefore, the Project will result in less development of the site than the Certified SEIR analyzed at buildout (i.e., 61,867 s.f. vs. 109,817 s.f.) and require less water demand. Because the Project Applicant would redevelop the site with a use permitted under the Business Park land use designation, the Project would be consistent with TOP 2050 and UWMP and, therefore, the water demand associated with the Project was considered in the demand anticipated by the Certified SEIR and impacts would be less than significant. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that IEUA has two facilities that serve the City of Ontario: RP-1 and RP-5. The current combined capacity of these two facilities is 60.3 mgd and would increase to 66.5 mgd once the expansion project that is currently under construction at RP-5 is completed. The additional flow rate from implementation of TOP 2050 would not exceed the capacity of the wastewater treatment providers. Therefore, there would be no significant impacts on wastewater collection and treatment. Impacts would be less than significant, and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The Project site is developed with two buildings (an office and a warehouse/maintenance building) and occupied by a telecommunication company with vehicle maintenance operations on-site (southern building) that requires wastewater treatment services. The Project Applicant would demolish the existing structures and redevelop the site with an approximately 61,867 s.f. building. The proposed building would be approximately 47,950 s.f. less than the maximum allowed under TOP 2050. Therefore, the Project will result in less development of the site than the Certified SEIR analyzed at buildout (i.e., 61,867 s.f. vs. 109,817 s.f.). The Project Applicant would redevelop the Project site with a use that is consistent with the site’s underlying land use designation; therefore, the wastewater generation associated with the Project was considered in the demand anticipated by the Certified SEIR and the City’s Sewer Master Plan and analyzed therein. As such, the IEUA’s existing wastewater treatment facilities are 459
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

anticipated to have adequate capacity to serve the Project’s project demand in addition to its existing commitments. Impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that the increase in population under the TOP 2050 would result in more solid waste generation and could impact the capacity of the receiving landfills. TOP 2050 would result in a net increase in solid waste generation at buildout of 45,204 tons/year. This net increase is about 2 percent of the Badlands Sanitary Landfill and the El Sobrante Landfill’s excess capacity. Therefore, there is sufficient landfill capacity to serve future development pursuant to the TOP 2050. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: Solid waste generated during the operation of the Project is anticipated to be collected by the City of Ontario and is anticipated to be hauled to Badlands Sanitary Landfill or El Sobrante Landfill. The Badlands Sanitary Landfill has a permitted disposal capacity of 5,000 tons per day with a remaining capacity of 7,800,000 cubic yards. The Badlands Sanitary Landfill is estimated to reach capacity, at the earliest time, in the year 2059. (CalRecycle, 2023a) The El Sobrante Landfill is permitted to receive 16,054 tons of solid waste per day with a remaining capacity of 143,977,170 ton. The El Sobrante Landfill is estimated to reach capacity, at the earliest time, in the year 2051 (CalRecycle, 2023b).

Based on the generation rate of 1.42 pounds per 100 s.f. per day, the proposed 61,867 s.f. building would result in approximately 879 pounds per day (0.44 tons per day). As previously stated, the Badlands Sanitary Landfill has a permitted disposal capacity of 5,000 tons per day and the El Sobrante Landfill has a permitted disposal capacity of 16,054 tons per day. The Project generated solid waste represents a nominal portion of the landfill’s capacity and would not contribute significantly to the daily landfill capacity, and the landfill facilities are sufficient.

Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that future development pursuant to TOP 2050 would comply with Section 4.408 of the 2019 CALGreen building code, which requires that at least 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. Development would also comply with AB 341, which mandates recycling for commercial and multifamily residential land uses. Additionally, future businesses that generate organic waste in amounts over a certain threshold would be mandated to recycle organic matter in accordance with AB 1826. 460
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

In addition, TOP 2050 policies ER-2.1, ER-2.2, and ER-2.3 describe waste diversion requirements, hazardous and electronic waste disposal, and purchasing of products made from recycled materials that would ensure that the City has a cost-effective integrated waste management system that meets or exceeds state and federal recycling and waste diversion mandates.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The following federal and state laws and regulations govern solid waste disposal:
• AB 939 (Chapter 1095, Statutes of 1989), the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 required each city, county, and regional agency to develop a source reduction and recycling element of an integrated waste management plan that contained specified components, including a source reduction component, a recycling component, and a composting component.

With certain exceptions, the source reduction and recycling components were required to divert 50 percent of all solid waste from landfill disposal or transformation by January 1, 2000, through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities.
• AB 32 (Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006), the California Global Warming Solutions Act, established mandatory recycling as one of the measures to reduce GHG emissions adopted in the Scoping Plan by the California Air Resources Board. • AB 341 (Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011) requires that all “commercial” generators of solid waste (businesses, institutions, and multifamily dwellings) establish recycling and/or composting programs. AB 341 goes beyond AB 939 and establishes the new recycling goal of 75 percent by 2020.

The Project would implement the requirements of the City’s Integrated Waste Department’s Refuse & Recycling Planning Manual on refuse and recycling storage and access for service, as well as addressing the City’s recycling goals. The requirements of Chapter 3, Integrated Waste Management, of the Municipal Code will also be implemented to ensure that the Project complies with all applicable state and federal laws. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

20. WILDFIRE.

If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread 461
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

of a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that substantial improvements in transportation infrastructure planned to accommodate the increase in population in the City in the event of an emergency. Additionally, a review of emergency access is included as part of the City’s Design Review process. According to the City’s LHMP, interstate highways would serve as major emergency response and evacuation routes. Additionally, the Ontario Fire Department reviews development applications to ensure that adequate emergency accessibility is provided based on local and state guidance. Therefore, impacts related to emergency access would be less than significant.

Moreover, the City is located outside of a State Responsibility Area (SRA) and California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has determined that the City contains no areas subject to very high wildfire risk. However, the City recognizes that even though fuel loading is light in Ontario and fire risk comes primarily from urban fires, not wildfires, there is some risk related to wildfires. With adherence to the building practices in the CAL FIRE’s 2019 Strategic Fire Plan for California, the California Fire Code, County of San Bernardino Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, and City’s LHMP, development and infrastructure associated with TOP 2050 would not exacerbate risk or result in post-wildfire hazards.

Discussion of Effects: As concluded in the Certified SEIR, the City is not located with a SRA.

According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s fire hazard map for the Local Responsibility Area (LRA), the Project site is not within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CAL FIRE, 2008). Therefore, no impact would occur. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat or a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that TOP 2050 would result in less-than-significant impacts to sensitive plant and animal species as well as habitats.

Additionally, the Certified SEIR concluded that, with mitigation, TOP 2050 would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to Tier III historical resources. 462
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

Discussion of Effects: The Project site is in a highly urbanized area of the City that is already Developed with industrial uses. As discussed in the Biological Resources Section of this Addendum, potentially significant biological impacts are not anticipated because the Project site is developed and there are no rare or endangered plants or animal species within the Project site.

Additionally, as indicated in the Cultural Resources section, the Project site is not included on the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, or a local register of historical resources, nor is it eligible for listing. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
f. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR addressed cumulative impacts for each of the environmental topics evaluated. The Certified SEIR concluded that TOP 2050 would result in significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts regarding air quality, cultural resources (Historic), noise, and transportation (VMT).

Discussion of Effects: As identified through the analysis presented in this Addendum, with the implementation of Project-specific mitigation measures identified herein, the Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary. Therefore, there is no potential for the Project to result in cumulatively considerable effects to the environment beyond those previously disclosed in the Certified SEIR (and already disclosed throughout this analysis), and instead, the Project’s impacts are generally less than the impacts assumed and analyzed in the Certified SEIR.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
g. Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that with the implementation of the recommended TOP Mitigation Measures, compliance with existing laws, plans and regulations, and the various TOP Implementation Actions outlined in the Project Description, TOP 2050 does not have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

Discussion of Effects: The Project’s potential to result in environmental effects that could adversely affect human beings, either directly or indirectly, has been discussed throughout this Addendum. The Project would result in less than significant impacts related to air quality and associated effects on human health from air pollutants, GHG emissions, and noise. Additionally, with mandatory regulatory compliance, potential hazardous materials impacts associated with long-term operation of the Project is not expected to pose a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor would the Project increase the potential for accident operations which could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Implementation of the Project would not result in 463
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, beyond those disclosed in the Certified SEIR, and instead, the Project’s impacts are generally less than the impacts assumed by the Certified SEIR.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

EARLIER ANALYZES
(Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration.

Section 15063(c)(3)(D)):
1) Earlier Analyzes Used. Identify earlier analyzes used and state where they are available for review.
a) The Ontario Plan Final Environmental Impact Report
b) The Ontario Plan/Policy Plan
c) City of Ontario Zoning
All documents listed above are on file with the City of Ontario Planning Department, 303 East “B” Street, Ontario, California 91764, (909) 395-2036.
2) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of, and adequately analyzed in, an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards.

REFERENCES
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), 2008. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. November 13, 2008. Retrieved from https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6783/fhszl_map62.pdf
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), 2023a. SWIS Facility Detail - Badlands Sanitary Landfill. Retrieved from
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2245?siteID=2367 CalRecycle, 2023b. SWIS Facility Detail - El Sobrante Landfill. Retrieved from https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2280?siteID=2402 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2022. California Road System - Functional Classification. Retrieved from
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=026e830c914c495 797c969a3e5668538
City of Ontario, 1993. Grove Avenue Specific Plan. September 7, 1993. Retrieved from https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/Maps/grove_introduction_.pdf City of Ontario, 2011. Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. April 19, 2011. 464
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

Retrieved from https://www.ontarioplan.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/pdfs/ALUCP_FULL.pdf City of Ontario, 2022a. City of Ontario Policy Plan. August 2022. Retrieved from https://www.ontarioca.gov/Ontarioplan/Policyplan
City of Ontario, 2022b. The Ontario Plan 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report.

August 2022. Retrieved from https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf California Department of Conservation (DOC), 2018. California Important Farmland Finder.

Retrieved from https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ Employment Development Department (EDD), 2022. Labor Force and Unemployment Rate for Cities and Census Designated Places. February, 2022. Retrieved from https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/labor-force-and-unemployment-forcities-and-census-areas.html Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2016. FEMA Flood Map Service Center:

Search by Address. Retrieved from
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search#searchresultsanchor
Huitt-Zollars, 2023a. Water Quality Management Plan. April 20, 2023. Technical Appendix G.1.

Huitt-Zollars, 2023b. Preliminary Hydrology Study. April 20, 2023. Technical Appendix G.2.

LSA, 2022. Biological Resources Assessment. November 2023. Technical Appendix B.

Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC), 2021. 2020 UWMP. June 2021. Retrieved from https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Municipal-UtilitiesCompany/Final%20Draft%20Ontario%202020%20Ontario%20UWMP.pdf PaleoWest, 2022a. Cultural Resource Constraints Analysis. December 1, 2022. Technical Appendix C.

PaleoWest, 2022b. Paleontological Resource Assessment. May 12, 2022. Technical Appendix E.

Roux Associates, Inc. (Roux), 2022. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. December 14, 2022.

Technical Appendix F.

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 2020. Demographics and Growth Forecast. Retrieved from https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579 Southern California Geotechnical, Inc. (SoCal Geo), 2022. Geotechnical Investigation. April 19, 2022. Technical Appendix D.

Urban Crossroads, 2023a. First Grove Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment. June 8, 2023.

Technical Appendix A.

Urban Crossroads, 2023b. First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis. June 5, 2023. Technical Appendix H.
465
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

Urban Crossroads, 2023c. First Grove Addendum Trip Generation Assessment. November 9, 2023.

Technical Appendix I.1.

Urban Crossroads, 2023d. 2042 S Grove Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Evaluation. May 18, 2023. Technical Appendix I.2.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2020. National Wetlands Inventory. October 1, 2020.

Retrieved from https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html 466
November 2023

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT

GROVE AVENUE PROJECT
(APN 1050‐491‐11)

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
467
November 2023

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT

GROVE AVENUE PROJECT
(APN 1050‐491‐11)

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:

First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc.

First Industrial, L.P.

First Industrial Acquisitions II, LLC
and their Affiliates and Assigns
C/O Peter Shimer,
Roux Associates, Inc.
5150 East Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 450
Long Beach, California 90804
Prepared by:

LSA Associates, Inc.
1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200
Riverside, California 92507
(951) 781‐9310
LSA Project No. ROU2201.2
468

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
NOVEMBER 2023
GROVE AVENUE P ROJECT (APN 0281‐ 101‐015)

ONTARIO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\ROU2201.02\Report\BRA_November2023.docx (11/09/23) i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On behalf of First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc., First Industrial, L.P., First, Industrial Acquisition II, LLC, and their Affiliates and Assigns, Roux Associates, Inc. retained LSA to conduct a Biological Resources Assessment for the Grove Avenue Project (project) on Assessor’s Parcel Number 1050‐491‐11 in Ontario, San Bernardino County, California. The City of Ontario is the lead agency for the project, and this study is part of the environmental review process to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. The assessment serves to update a previous biological resources assessment (LSA 2022) prepared for the project and includes an updated literature review, a field survey, and this report.

The project would have no effects to special‐status species, including threatened and endangered species and critical habitat. The project site does not contain potential jurisdictional waters, wildlife corridors or nursery sites, or natural communities of concern. The project will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances and is not within an adopted habitat conservation plan.

The project site does provide suitable habitat for nesting birds protected under the California Fish and Game Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. A pre‐construction survey would be required to avoid project effects to nesting birds.
469
ii

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
NOVEMBER 2023
GROVE AVENUE P ROJECT (APN 1050‐ 491‐11)

ONTARIO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\ROU2201.02\Report\BRA_November2023.docx (11/09/23)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................................. i TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................. ii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS............................................................................................ iii INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 METHODS................................................................................................................... 1 Literature Review .......................................................................................................................... 1 Reconnaissance Field Survey..............................................................................................................1 RESULTS ..................................................................................................................... 1 Existing Site Conditions................................................................................................................. 1 Topography and Soils .........................................................................................................................2 Vegetation/Land Cover.......................................................................................................................2 Wildlife ...............................................................................................................................................2 Special‐Status Species ........................................................................................................................2 Threatened and Endangered Species.................................................................................................4 Non‐Listed Special‐Status Species......................................................................................................5 Nesting Birds ................................................................................................................................. 5 Jurisdictional Waters..................................................................................................................... 5 Wildlife Movement, Corridors, and Nursery Sites ........................................................................ 6 Natural Communities of Concern.................................................................................................. 6 Local Policies and Ordinances....................................................................................................... 6 Adopted Habitat Conservation Plans............................................................................................ 6 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 7 TABLE
Table A: Special‐Status Species Occurrence Probability ........................................................................ 3

APPENDIX
A: FIGURES 1–3
470
iii

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
NOVEMBER 2023
GROVE AVENUE P ROJECT (APN 1050‐ 491‐11)

ONTARIO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\ROU2201.02\Report\BRA_November2023.docx (11/09/23)

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CWA Clean Water Act
IPaC (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
project Grove Avenue Project
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
471
1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
NOVEMBER 2023
GROVE AVENUE P ROJECT (APN 1050‐ 491‐11)

ONTARIO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\ROU2201.02\Report\BRA_November2023.docx (11/09/23)

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT

INTRODUCTION
On behalf of First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc., First Industrial, L.P., First, Industrial Acquisition II, LLC, and their Affiliates and Assigns, Roux Associates, Inc. retained LSA to conduct a Biological Resources Assessment for the Grove Avenue Project (project) (Assessor’s Parcel Number 1050‐491‐11). The

4.2‐acre project site is at 2042 S. Grove Avenue, Ontario, California, as depicted on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) San Bernardino South, California topographic quadrangle map in Section 32, Township 1 South, Range 7 West, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian (USGS 1981) (see Figure 1; all figures are provided in Appendix A).

This biological resources assessment serves to update the previous biological resources assessment (LSA 2022) prepared for the project. Specifically, an updated literature review was conducted to address any new biological resources information.

METHODS
Literature Review
LSA conducted a literature review to assist in determining the existence or potential occurrence of special‐status plant and animal species within a 1‐mile radius of the project site. Database records for the Ontario California, and Guasti California, USGS 7.5‐minute quadrangles were searched on November 9, 2023, using the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) application Rarefind 5 online edition (version 5.3.0). United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listed species and designated critical habitat information were searched using the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) system (accessed on November 9, 2023). Aerial photographs (Google Earth 2023) were also reviewed. Soil types were determined using the WebSoil Survey (Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] Web Soil Survey version 3.4.0).

Reconnaissance Field Survey
LSA Biologist Denise Woodard conducted a general reconnaissance‐level, pedestrian field survey on March 9, 2022, between the hours of 12:15 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. Weather conditions during the survey consisted of clear skies, with a temperature of 67degrees Fahrenheit, and mild winds. Ms.

Woodard took notes on general site conditions, vegetation, and suitability of habitat for various special‐status elements. Plant and animal species observed or otherwise detected are discussed below.

RESULTS
Existing Site Conditions
The project site is entirely developed with an existing industrial facility and is bounded on all sides by industrial and commercial development. The following discusses topography and soils, vegetation, and wildlife within the project site.
472
2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
NOVEMBER 2023
GROVE AVENUE P ROJECT (APN 1050‐ 491‐11)

ONTARIO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\ROU2201.02\Report\BRA_November2023.docx (11/09/23)
Topography and Soils
The topography of the project site is relatively flat, at an elevation of approximately 850 feet above mean sea level.

Soils on the project site are mapped as Tujunga loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes. Surface soils are almost entirely absent due to existing industrial development.

Vegetation/Land Cover
The project site is developed by an existing industrial facility, including associated parking lots, stockpile areas and ornamental landscaping. The landscaping consists of ornamental trees and shrubs that primarily border the easterly edge of the project site along Grove Avenue. Ruderal vegetation was also noted along the stockpile areas on the southwesterly portion of the project site.

Ruderal plant species identified include prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), golden crownbeard (Verbesina encelioides), common fiddleneck (Amsinckia intermedia/retrorsa), London rocket (Sisymbrium irio), nettleleaf goosefoot (Chenopodium murale), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), Spanish clover (Acmispon americanus), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca) and mouse barley (Hordeum murinum).

Figure 2 shows vegetation/land cover and photograph locations; and Figure 3 provides site photographs.

Wildlife
Wildlife species observed during the field survey include two bird species that included Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), and yellow‐rumped warbler (Setophaga coronata).

Special‐Status Species
This section discusses special‐status species observed or potentially occurring within the limits of the project site. Legal protection for special‐status species varies widely, from the comprehensive protection extended to listed threatened/endangered species, to no legal status at present. The CDFW, USFWS, local agencies, and special‐status groups publish watch lists of declining species.

Species on watch lists can be included as part of the special‐status species assessment. Species that are candidates for State and/or federal listing and species on watch lists are included in the special‐ status species list. Inclusion of species described in the special‐status species analysis is based on the following criteria:
 Direct observation of the species or its sign on the project site or immediate vicinity during previous biological studies;
 Sighting by other qualified observers;
 Records reported by the CNDDB, published by the CDFW;  Presence or location information for specific species provided by private groups; and/or 473
3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
NOVEMBER 2023
GROVE AVENUE P ROJECT (APN 1050‐ 491‐11)

ONTARIO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\ROU2201.02\Report\BRA_November2023.docx (11/09/23)
 Project site lies within known distribution of a given species and contains appropriate habitat.

Table A, below, summarizes special‐status species known to occur in the region, along with their status, habitat and distribution, activity/bloom period, and probability of occurrence at the project site.

Table A: Special‐Status Species Occurrence Probability
Species Status Habitat and Distribution Activity Period Occurrence
Probability
Invertebrates
Rhaphiomidas
terminatus
abdominalis
Delhi Sands
flower‐loving
fly
US: FE
CA: SA
Restricted to Delhi series sands in western
Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

Above‐ground
emergence
July through
September.

Not visible
during the rest
of the year.

Absent. No
Delhi soils
exist at the
project site;
the project
site is entirely
developed.

Reptiles
Anniella
stebbinsi
Southern
California
legless lizard
US: –
CA: SSC
Inhabits sandy or loose loamy soils with high
moisture content under sparse vegetation in
Southern California.

Nearly year
round, at least
in southern
areas
Absent. No
suitable
habitat; the
project site is
entirely
developed.

Arizona
elegans
occidentalis
California
glossy snake
US: –
CA: SSC
Scrub and grassland habitats, often with loose or
sandy soils. Patchily distributed from the eastern
portion of San Francisco Bay to the southern San
Joaquin Valley and in non‐desert areas of southern
California. Also occurs in Baja California, Mexico.

Most active
March through
June
(nocturnal)
Absent No
suitable
habitat; the
project site is
entirely
developed.

Birds
Athene
cunicularia
(burrow sites)
Burrowing owl
US: –
CA: SSC
(breeding)
Open country in much of North and South America.

Usually occupies ground squirrel burrows in open,
dry grasslands, agricultural and range lands,
railroad rights‐of‐way, and margins of highways,
golf courses, and airports. Often utilizes man‐made
structures, such as earthen berms, cement culverts,
cement, asphalt, rock, or wood debris piles. They
avoid thick, tall vegetation, brush, and trees, but
may occur in areas where brush or tree cover is less
than 30 percent.

Year‐round Absent. No
suitable
habitat; the
project site is
entirely
developed.

Laterallus
jamaicensis
coturniculus
California
black rail
US: –
CA:

ST/CFP
Requires shallow water in salt marshes, freshwater
marshes, wet meadows, or flooded grassy
vegetation. Prefers areas of moist soil vegetated by
fine‐stemmed emergent plants, rushes, grasses, or
sedges, with scattered small pools. Known from
coastal California, northwestern Baja California, the
lower Imperial Valley, and the lower Colorado River
of Arizona and California. Now extirpated from
virtually all of coastal Southern California.

Year‐round Absent. No
shallow water
habitats exist
at the project
site; the
project site is
entirely
developed.
474
4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
NOVEMBER 2023
GROVE AVENUE P ROJECT (APN 1050‐ 491‐11)

ONTARIO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\ROU2201.02\Report\BRA_November2023.docx (11/09/23)
Table A: Special‐Status Species Occurrence Probability
Species Status Habitat and Distribution Activity Period Occurrence
Probability
Mammals
Antrozous
pallidus
Pallid bat
US: –
CA: SSC
Most common in open, dry habitats with rocky
areas for roosting. Day roosts in caves, crevices,
rocky outcrops, tree hollows or crevices, mines and
occasionally buildings, culverts, and bridges. Night
roosts may be more open sites, such as porches
and open buildings. Grasslands, shrublands,
woodlands, and forest in western North America.

Year‐round;
nocturnal
Absent. No
suitable
day/night
roosting
habitats.

US: Federal Classifications
FE Listed as Endangered.

CA: State Classifications
ST State‐listed as Threatened.

SSC Species of Special Concern. Refers to animals with vulnerable or seriously declining populations.

SA Special Animal. Refers to any other animal monitored by the Natural Diversity Database, regardless of its legal or rarity status.

CFP California Fully Protected. Refers to animals protected from take under Fish and Game Code sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515.

Threatened and Endangered Species
Under provisions of Section 7(a)(2) of the federal Endangered Species Act, a federal agency that permits, licenses, funds, or otherwise authorizes a project activity must consult with the USFWS to ensure that its actions would not jeopardize the continued existence of any listed threatened or endangered species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. The USFWS designates as threatened or endangered species that are at risk of extinction and may also adopt recovery plans that identify specific areas that are essential to the conservation of a listed species. Critical habitat areas that may require special management considerations or protections can also be designated.

The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) is administered by the CDFW and prohibits the “take” of plant and animal species identified as either threatened or endangered in the State of California by the Fish and Game Commission (Fish and Game Code Sections 2050 to 2097). “Take” is defined as to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill. Sections 2091 and 2081 of the CESA allow the CDFW to authorize exceptions to the prohibition of “take” of State‐listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species for purposes such as public and private development. The CDFW requires formal consultation to ensure that a proposed project’s actions would not jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or destroy or adversely affect listed species’ habitats.

As identified in Table A, two listed species, Delhi Sands flower‐loving fly and California black rail have the potential to occur on the project site; however, the project site lacks suitable habitat for these two species because the project site is entirely developed. Therefore, the project would have no effects to threatened and endangered species.

No USFWS designated critical habitat is present on the project site. Therefore, the project would have no effects to designated critical habitat.
475
5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
NOVEMBER 2023
GROVE AVENUE P ROJECT (APN 1050‐ 491‐11)

ONTARIO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\ROU2201.02\Report\BRA_November2023.docx (11/09/23)
Non‐Listed Special‐Status Species
All five of the non‐listed special‐status species identified in Table A are considered absent due to a lack of suitable habitat caused by on‐site development. These species have a limited population distribution in Southern California and development is further reducing their ranges and numbers.

These species have no official State or federal protection status but require consideration under CEQA. The project would have no effects to non‐listed special‐status species.

Nesting Birds
The project site contains suitable habitat (ornamental trees and shrubs) for nesting bird species.

Nesting birds are protected by California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800, and by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 United States Code 703–711). These laws regulate the take, possession, or destruction of the nest or eggs of any migratory bird or bird of prey.

To avoid potential effects to nesting birds, implementation of the following measure is recommended:
 Prior to construction activities, including vegetation removal, a pre‐construction nesting bird survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 3 days prior to any construction activities and vegetation removal. Should nesting birds be found, an exclusionary buffer will be established by the qualified biologist. The buffer will be clearly marked in the field by construction personnel under guidance of the qualified biologist. No construction activities will be allowed within this zone until the qualified biologist determines that the young have fledged or the nest is no longer active.

Jurisdictional Waters
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. These waters include wetlands and non‐wetland bodies of water that meet specific criteria, including a direct or indirect connection to interstate commerce. The USACE regulatory jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) is founded on a connection, or nexus, between the water body in question and interstate commerce.

This connection may be direct (through a tributary system linking a stream channel with traditional navigable waters used in interstate or foreign commerce), or it may be indirect (through a nexus identified in the USACE regulations). To be considered a jurisdictional wetland under Section 404, an area must possess three wetland characteristics, each with its unique set of mandatory wetland criteria: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology.

The CDFW, under Sections 1600 through 1616 of the California Fish and Game Code, regulates alterations to lakes, rivers, and streams (defined by the presence of a channel bed and banks, and at least an intermittent flow of water) where fish or wildlife resources may be adversely affected.

The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is responsible for the administration of Section 401 of the CWA. Typically, the areas subject to jurisdiction of the RWQCB coincide with those of the USACE (i.e., waters of the United States, including any wetlands). The RWQCB may also assert 476
6 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
NOVEMBER 2023
GROVE AVENUE P ROJECT (APN 1050‐ 491‐11)

ONTARIO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\ROU2201.02\Report\BRA_November2023.docx (11/09/23)
authority over “waters of the State” under waste discharge requirements pursuant to the Porter‐ Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

No potential jurisdictional waters were found on the project site. Therefore, the project would have no effects to potential jurisdictional waters.

Wildlife Movement, Corridors, and Nursery Sites
The project site and adjacent areas are entirely developed with industrial and commercial  uses. As a result, the project site does not support regional wildlife movement or serve as a nursery site.

Therefore, the project would have no impacts to regional wildlife movement or nursery sites.

Natural Communities of Concern
No natural communities of concern are present. Therefore, the project would have no impacts to natural communities of concern.

Local Policies and Ordinances
The project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances applicable to biological resources.

Adopted Habitat Conservation Plans
The project site is not within an area associated with an adopted habitat conservation plan. 477
7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
NOVEMBER 2023
GROVE AVENUE P ROJECT (APN 1050‐ 491‐11)

ONTARIO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\ROU2201.02\Report\BRA_November2023.docx (11/09/23)

REFERENCES
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2022. California Natural Diversity Database.

RareFind 5 (Version 5.3.0). Website: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/ (accessed November 9, 2023).

Google Earth. 2023. Aerial photographs of the project site and surrounding areas (accessed November 9, 2022).

LSA. November 2022. Biological Resources Assessment for the Grove Avenue Project (APN 1050‐ 491‐11), Ontario California.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). n.d. Web Soil Survey (Version 3.4.0). United States Department of Agriculture. Website: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/ (accessed November 9, 2023).

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). Website: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac (accessed on November 9, 2023).

United State Geological Survey (USGS). 1981. Ontario, California and Guasti, California topographic quadrangle maps.
478

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
NOVEMBER 2023
GROVE AVENUE P ROJECT (APN 1050‐ 491‐11)

ONTARIO, C ALIFORNIA
P:\ROU2201.02\Report\BRA_November2023.docx (11/09/23)

APPENDIX A
FIGURES 1–3
Figure 1: Regional and Project Location
Figure 2: Vegetation, Land Use, and Photograph Locations Figure 3: Site Photographs
479
Service Layer Credits: Copyright:(c) 2014 Esri
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic
SOURCE: USGS 7.5' Quad - Ontario (1981): Guasti (1981), CA I:\ROU2201.02\GIS\MXD\ProjLoc_USGS.mxd (4/25/2022)
FIGURE 1
Grove Avenue Project
Regional and Project Location
LEGEND
Project Location
0 1000 2000
FEET
San
Bernardino
County Los Angeles
County
Riverside
County
Orange
County
Ã142
Ã241
Ã55
Ã71
Ã57
Ã60
Ã91
Project
Location
§¨¦210
§¨¦15
§¨¦215
§¨¦10
Project Vicinity
480
Service Layer Credits:
!
!

!
!
!
!
Grove Ave
2 1
3 4
5 6
LEGEND
Project Location
! Photograph Locations
Vegetation and Land Use
Developed
Ornamental
Ruderal
SOURCE: Google (2021)
I:\ROU2201.02\GIS\MXD\Bio\Veg_LU_PhotoLocs.mxd (4/25/2022) FIGURE 2
Grove Avenue Project
Vegetation, Land Use and Photograph Locations
0 50 100
FEET
481
I:\ROU2201.02\G\Site_Photos_Grove.cdr ( /2 /2022) 42
FIGURE 3
Site Photographs
Grove Avenue Project

1. Veiw of developed site conditions and ornamental trees and shrubs.

2. View of general site conditions.

3. View of general site conditions. 4. View of general site conditions.

482
I:\ROU2201.02\G\Site_Photos_Grove.cdr ( /2 /2022) 42
FIGURE 3
Site Photographs
Grove Avenue Project

5. View of stockpile area and adjacent ruderal vegetation.

6. View of stockpile area and adjacent ruderal vegetation.

483

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
517 S. Ivy Avenue
Monrovia, CA 91016
T: 626.408.8006
[email protected]
December 1, 2022
First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc., First Industrial, L.P., First Industrial Acquisitions II, LLC, and their Affiliates and Assigns c/o Peter Shimer, P.E.

Project Engineer
Roux Associates, Inc.
5150 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 450
Long Beach, California 90804
Transmitted via email to [email protected]
RE: Cultural Resource Constraints Analysis in Support of the 2042 South Grove Avenue Project in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California Dear Ms. Truong:

On behalf of First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc., First Industrial, L.P., First Industrial Acquisitions II, LLC and their affiliates and assigns, and at the request of Roux Associates, Inc. (Roux), PaleoWest, LLC (PaleoWest) conducted a cultural resource constraints analysis for the proposed 2042 South Grove Avenue Project (Project). The Project includes Assessor’s Parcel Number 1050-491-11 which is a fully developed parcel consisting of approximately 4.2 acres at 2042 Grove South Avenue, city of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California (Exhibit A, Figure 1). The cultural resource constraints analysis consisted of a records search of the California Historical Resource Information System (CHRIS), a historical map and aerial photograph review, a site visit, and a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). This memorandum summarizes the results of the cultural resource constraints analysis efforts for the Project and has been prepared to support the environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

CHRIS Records Search
The CHRIS records search was conducted on April 6, 2022, by Michelle Galaz Cornforth, Assistant Coordinator at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) housed at California State University, Fullerton. The records search included the Project area, as well as a one-mile (1-mile) buffer area (Exhibit A, Figure 2). The purpose of the records search was to identify any known cultural resources in the immediate vicinity of the Project area. The search also included a review of the Office of Historic Preservation Archaeological Determination of Eligibility (ADOE) and the Office of Historic Preservation Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD).

The records search indicated that 13 previous cultural resource studies have been conducted within one mile of the Project area (Table 1). None of these studies include or intersect the Project area. As such, the Project property does not appear to have been previously inventoried for cultural resources. The records search also indicated that no cultural resources have been documented within the Project area or within a one-mile buffer. Additionally, the Project property is not listed on the ADOE of the BERD.
484
Table 1
Previous Cultural Resource Studies within One Mile of the Project Area Report No. Year Author(s) Title
SB-00284 1975 Crowell, James P. Archaeological - Historical Resources, Southwest Corner of Walnut Street and Grove Avenue, Ontario
SB-00285 1975 Crowell, James P. Archaeological - Historical Resources Southwest Corner of Walnut Street and Cucamonga Avenue, Ontario
SB-00324 1976 Harris, Ruth D.

Archaeological - Historical Resources Assessment of Area Bounded by Philadelphia Street on the North, Baker Avenue on the East, Riverside Drive on the South, And Sultana
Avenue on the West
SB-00385 1976 Hearn, Joseph E. Archaeological - Historical Resources Assessment: Sec. 4, T2S R7W, Ontario
SB-03566 1999 Love, Bruce
Identification And Evaluation of Historic Property:

Communications Facility 535.1, City of Ontario, San
Bernardino County, California
SB-03584 1998 Brechbiel, Brant
Cultural Resource Records Search & Literature Review for A PBMS Telecommunications Facility: Cm 161-212, Ontario,
California
SB-03901 2003 Harper, Caprice Cultural Resource Assessment: Cingular Wireless Facility #Sb 245-01, Ontario, San Bernardino County, California
SB-04136 2002 Dahdul, Miriam
Identification & Evaluation of Historic Property: Philadelphia St Recycled Water Pipeline, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California
SB-05710 2006 EarthTouch, Inc. Collocation (“Co”) Submission Packet, FCC Form 621, Project Name: Orange Verizon, Project Number: LA-0721A
SB-05712 2006 Budinger, Fred E.

Proposed Wireless Antennas and Associated Equipment;
Chino Collocation Site, 2132 S. Grove Avenue, Ontario,
California, 91761
SB-06680 2004 Wayland, Brian
An Archaeological Survey Report for the Sawpit Emergency Fire Salvage Timber Operations Notice #3 Cedarpines Park San Bernardino County, California
SB-06932 2011 Bonner, Wayne H. and
Sarah A. Williams
Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for T-Mobile USA Candidate Ie24206-B (St. Elizabeth Ann), 2713 South Grove Avenue, Ontario, San Bernardino County,
California
SB-08257 2016 Tang, Bai
Due-Diligence Historical/Archaeological Resources Study Inland Empire Utilities Agency Recharge Basin Maintenance Plan Chino Basin Area, San Bernardino and Riverside
Counties, California CRM Tech Contract No. 2989
Historic Map and Aerial Imagery Review
A review of historical topographic maps and aerial photographs indicates that until at least 1973, the Project area was utilized for agricultural purposes and the development of the property was limited to a single structure within the southeastern portion of the Project area (NETROnline 2022). In a 1980 aerial image and as illustrated on the Ontario, CA (1981) 7.5- minute quadrangle, this structure is no longer extant (NETROnline 2022). Additionally, the property no longer appears to be used for agriculture and two other structures, that occupy the 485
areas where there are currently extant structures on the property, are visible in the 1980 aerial image. Additional records indicate that these two structures were built in 1979 (Spokeo.com 2022). The property owner indicated that one of these two structures, the southern building, was demolished and replaced with the current structure in 2002. As the two currently extant structures were constructed in 1979 and 2002, respectively, they do not meet the 45-year-old threshold suggested by the Office of Historic Preservation (1995) for surveying properties for significance.1
Site Visit
A site visit was conducted on March 2, 2022, by Gena Granger, Associate Archaeologist, to document, photograph, and assess the current condition of the proposed property as well as the current condition of any extant building(s) on the property. Most of the property is hardscaped with the exception of the western and southwestern edge of the Project where offsite soils have been temporarily staged. Two buildings occupy approximately one third of the parcel. The remainder of the property consists of a laydown storage area and paved parking lot for the tenant. No native soils were identified on the property.

During the site visit, Ms. Granger photographed the extant structures and noted the conditions on site. The two structures within the Project area are currently being used as office space, supply storage, and vehicle maintenance space.

Sacred Lands File Search
PaleoWest contacted the NAHC for a review of the SLF on February 25, 2022. The objective of the SLF search was to determine if the NAHC had any knowledge of Native American cultural resources (e.g., traditional use or gathering area, place of religious or sacred activity, etc.) within the immediate vicinity of the Project area. The NAHC responded on April 14, 2022, stating that the SLF was completed with negative results; however, the NAHC recommended that 11 Native American individuals representing 8 tribal groups be contacted to elicit information regarding cultural resource issues related to the proposed Project (see Exhibit B for a copy of the response letter received from the NAHC).

Summary
No previously documented cultural resources have been identified within the Project area.

Additionally, the two structures identified within the property are not historic in age. Based on these findings, no cultural resources are anticipated to be impacted by the Project. However, PaleoWest recommends conducting outreach to local tribes to determine if sensitive Native American resources are located in the Project area.
1 The OHP guidelines recognize a 45-year-old criteria threshold for documenting and evaluating cultural resources (OHP 1995:2). This guideline assumes a 5-year lag between resource identification and the date that planning decisions are made. The age threshold is an operational guideline and not specific to CEQA statutory or regulatory codes.
486
It has been a pleasure working with you on this Project. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Project Manager at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Gena Granger, M.A., RPA Roberta Thomas, M.A., RPA
Associate Archaeologist Senior Archaeologist/Project Manager

PALEOWEST PALEOWEST

References
NETROnline (2022). Historic Aerials 1938, 1959, 1966, 1980, 2018. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.

Office of Historic Preservation (1995). Instruction for Recording Historical Resources. Available at https://scic.sdsu.edu/_resources/docs/manual95.pdf.

Spokeo.com (2022). 2042 S. Grove Avenue, Ontario, CA. Available at https://www.spokeo.com/CA/Ontario/2042-S-Grove-Ave. Accessed March 4, 2002. 487

Exhibit A. Figures

488
489
490

Exhibit B. Sacred Lands File Search Results
and Native American Contact List
491
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

April 14, 2022
Roberta Thomas
PaleoWest Archaeology
Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: 2042 S Grove Ave Cultural Constraints (22-0123) Project, San Bernardino County Dear Ms. Thomas:

A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were negative. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites.

Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify me. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].

Sincerely,
Andrew Green
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment

CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño

VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk

SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok

COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache

COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan

COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki

COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño

COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.

Hitchcock
Miwok/Nisenan

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov
492
Gabrieleno Band of Mission
Indians - Kizh Nation
Andrew Salas, Chairperson
P.O. Box 393
Covina, CA, 91723
Phone: (626) 926 - 4131
[email protected]
Gabrieleno
Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel
Band of Mission Indians
Anthony Morales, Chairperson
P.O. Box 693
San Gabriel, CA, 91778
Phone: (626) 483 - 3564
Fax: (626) 286-1262
[email protected]
Gabrieleno
Gabrielino /Tongva Nation
Sandonne Goad, Chairperson
106 1/2 Judge John Aiso St.,
#231
Los Angeles, CA, 90012
Phone: (951) 807 - 0479
[email protected]
Gabrielino
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of
California Tribal Council
Robert Dorame, Chairperson
P.O. Box 490
Bellflower, CA, 90707
Phone: (562) 761 - 6417
Fax: (562) 761-6417
[email protected]
Gabrielino
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of
California Tribal Council
Christina Conley, Tribal
Consultant and Administrator
P.O. Box 941078
Simi Valley, CA, 93094
Phone: (626) 407 - 8761
[email protected]
u
Gabrielino
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
Charles Alvarez,
23454 Vanowen Street
West Hills, CA, 91307
Phone: (310) 403 - 6048
[email protected]
Gabrielino
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
Manfred Scott, Acting Chairman
Kw'ts'an Cultural Committee
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
Phone: (928) 750 - 2516
[email protected]
Quechan
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
Jill McCormick, Historic
Preservation Officer
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
Phone: (760) 572 - 2423
historicpreservation@quechantrib
e.com
Quechan
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair
P.O. Box 391820
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 659 - 2700
Fax: (951) 659-2228
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Isaiah Vivanco, Chairperson
P. O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 654 - 5544
Fax: (951) 654-4198
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural
Resource Department
P.O. BOX 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 663 - 5279
Fax: (951) 654-4198
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
1 of 1
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed 2042 S Grove Ave Cultural Constraints (22-0123) Project, San Bernardino County.

PROJ-2022-
001946
04/14/2022 02:35 PM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
San Bernardino County
4/14/2022
493

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

PROPOSED WAREHOUSE
2042 South Grove Avenue
Ontario, California
For
First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc.
494
22885 Savi Ranch Parkway  Suite E  Yorba Linda  California  92887 voice: (714) 685-1115  fax: (714) 685-1118  www.socalgeo.com April 19, 2022
First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc.
898 N. Pacific Coast Highway. STE 175
El Segundo, CA 90245
Attention: Mr. Michael Goodwin
Director of Development
Project No.: 22G105-1
Subject: Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Warehouse
2042 South Grove Avenue
Ontario, California
Mr. Goodwin:

In accordance with your request, we have conducted a geotechnical investigation at the subject site. We are pleased to present this report summarizing the conclusions and recommendations developed from our investigation.

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

Respectfully Submitted,
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.

Jose A. Zuniga
Staff Engineer
Robert G. Trazo, GE 2655
Principal Engineer
Distribution: (1) Addressee
495
Proposed Warehouse – Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G105-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES 3

3.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4

3.1 Site Conditions 4

3.2 Proposed Development 4

4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 6

4.1 Scope of Exploration/Sampling Methods 6

4.2 Geotechnical Conditions 6

5.0 LABORATORY TESTING 8

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 10

6.1 Seismic Design Considerations 10

6.2 Geotechnical Design Considerations 12

6.3 Site Grading Recommendations 14

6.4 Construction Considerations 18

6.5 Foundation Design and Construction 18

6.6 Floor Slab Design and Construction 20

6.7 Retaining Wall Design and Construction 21

6.8 Pavement Design Parameters 23

7.0 GENERAL COMMENTS 26

APPENDICES
A Plate 1: Site Location Map
Plate 2: Boring Location Plan
B Boring Logs
C Laboratory Test Results
D Grading Guide Specifications
E Seismic Design Parameters
496
Proposed Warehouse – Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G105-1

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Presented below is a brief summary of the conclusions and recommendations of this investigation.

Since this summary is not all inclusive, it should be read in complete context with the entire report.

Geotechnical Design Considerations
• Artificial fill soils were encountered at all of the boring locations, extending from the ground surface or beneath the pavements to depths of 3 to 8½± feet. These soils possess variable strengths and densities and are considered to represent undocumented fill soils based on their disturbed appearance. These soils, in their present condition, are not considered suitable for support of the foundations and floor slab of the new structure. • Native alluvium was encountered beneath the fill soils at all of the boring locations. The nearsurface native alluvial soils generally consist of sands, silty sands, and occasional sandy silts which possess medium dense to dense relative densities. The results of laboratory testing indicate that the near surface alluvial soils possess favorable consolidation characteristics. • Remedial grading is considered warranted within the proposed building area, in order to remove the existing fill soils, any soils disturbed during demolition and stripping operations, and a portion of the near-surface, native alluvium.
• The on-site soils removed during remedial grading may be re-used as compacted structural fill.

Site Preparation Recommendations
• Demolition of the existing structures and pavements will be required in order to facilitate construction of the new building. Demolition should also include all utilities and any other subsurface improvements that will not remain in place for use with the new development.

Debris resultant from demolition should be disposed of offsite. Alternatively, concrete and asphalt debris may be pulverized to a maximum 2-inch particle size, well mixed with the onsite soils, and incorporated into new structural fills. • Initial site preparation should include removal of all vegetation, including tree root masses and any organic topsoil.
• Remedial grading is recommended within the proposed building pad area to remove the undocumented fill soils, which extend to depths of 3 to 8½± feet at the boring locations, in their entirety. The building pad area should also be overexcavated to a depth of at least 5 feet below existing grade and to a depth of at least 3 feet below proposed pad grade, whichever is greater. Overexcavation within the foundation areas is recommended to extend to a depth of at least 3 feet below proposed foundation bearing grade. • The proposed building is located close to the southern property line. Specialized grading techniques, such as A-B-C slot cuts, and/or possibly shoring, may be required in order to complete the recommended remedial grading near the southern property line • After overexcavation has been completed, the subgrade soils should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer to identify any additional soils that should be overexcavated. The resulting subgrade should then be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, thoroughly moisture conditioned at least 0 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content and recompacted. The previously excavated soils may then be replaced as compacted structural fill. 497
Proposed Warehouse – Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G105-1

• The new pavement and flatwork subgrade soils are recommended to be scarified to a depth of 12± inches, moisture conditioned and recompacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D1557 maximum dry density.

Building Foundation Recommendations
• Conventional shallow foundations, supported in newly placed compacted fill. • Maximum, net allowable soil bearing pressure: 2,500 lbs/ft2. • 1,500 lbs/ft2for new foundations within 5 feet of the property lines. • Reinforcement consisting of at least two (2) No. 5 rebars (1 top and 1 bottom) in strip footings.

Additional reinforcement may be necessary for structural considerations.

Building Floor Slab Design Recommendations
• Conventional Slab-on-Grade: minimum 6 inches thick.
• Modulus of Subgrade Reaction: k = 150 psi/in.
• Reinforcement is not expected to be necessary for geotechnical considerations. The actual thickness and reinforcement of the floor slab should be determined by the structural engineer.

Pavement Design Recommendations
ASPHALT PAVEMENTS (R=50)
Materials
Thickness (inches)
Auto Parking and
Auto Drive Lanes
(TI = 4.0 to 5.0)
Truck Traffic
TI = 6.0 TI = 7.0 TI = 8.0 TI = 9.0
Asphalt Concrete 3 3½ 4 5 5½
Aggregate Base 3 4 5 5 7
Compacted Subgrade 12 12 12 12 12
PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENTS (R=50)
Materials
Thickness (inches)
Autos and Light
Truck Traffic
(TI = 6.0)
Truck Traffic
TI = 7.0 TI = 8.0 TI = 9.0
PCC 5 5½ 6½ 8
Compacted Subgrade
(95% minimum compaction) 12 12 12 12
498
Proposed Warehouse – Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G105-1

2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of services performed for this project was in accordance with our Proposal No. 22P106, dated January 10, 2022. The scope of services included a visual site reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, field and laboratory testing, and geotechnical engineering analysis to provide criteria for preparing the design of the building foundations, building floor slab, and parking lot pavements along with site preparation recommendations and construction considerations for the proposed development. The evaluation of the environmental aspects of this site was beyond the scope of services for this geotechnical investigation.
499
Proposed Warehouse – Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G105-1

3.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.1 Site Conditions
The subject site is located on the west side of South Grove Street, 610± feet north of the intersection of South Grove Street and East Philadelphia Street in Ontario, California. The site is also referenced by the street address 2042 South Grove Avenue. The site is bounded to the north by three commercial/industrial buildings, to the west by an industrial building, and to the south by a commercial/industrial development. The general location of the site is illustrated on the Site Location Map, included as Plate 1 of this report.

The site consists of a rectangular-shaped parcel, 4.12± acres in size. Based on our review of aerial photographs obtained from Google Earth, the site is developed with two buildings located in the eastern portion of the site. The northern building is approximately 15,000± ft² in size and the southern building is approximately 10,000± ft² in size. The buildings are surrounded by asphaltic concrete pavements in the parking/drive lane and product storage areas.

As a part of our research, we have performed a cursory review of readily available aerial photographs of the subject site from online sources. Based on our review, we understand that the site was utilized as agricultural land between the years of 1938 and 1966. The photographs from 1980 and 1987 indicate that portions of the site were developed with one (1) building located in the central area of the site. The photos between the years of 1994 and 2022 show the layout of the present development. Based on a photo from 2002 it appears that an existing localized depression, 26,000± ft2in area, is likely due to previous minor grading activity performed during the construction of the existing building. The elevation of the bottom of excavation is similar to the elevation of the building pad elevation of the parcel directly west of the subject site.

Detailed topographic information was not available at the time of this report. Based on elevations obtained from Google Earth and visual observations made at the time of the subsurface investigation, the central and eastern area of the site is relatively level with minor 1 to 2± foot elevation differences throughout. The west end of the parcel is undeveloped and includes the aforementioned depression which appears to be 6 to 9± feet below the existing building and parking lot areas of the parcel. A slope with an inclination of approximately 2H:1V descends to the aforementioned of 26,000± ft2 depression that appears to be used as a material storage area.

3.2 Proposed Development
SCG was provided with site plan (Scheme 4) prepared by HPA Architecture. Based on the site plan, the site will be developed with one (1) warehouse. The warehouse will be located in the south-central area of the site and will be 60,000± ft² in size. Dock-high doors will be constructed along a portion of the west building wall. The building is assumed to be surrounded by asphaltic concrete pavements in the parking and drive areas, Portland cement concrete pavements in the truck court areas, and limited areas of concrete flatwork and landscape planters. 500
Proposed Warehouse – Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G105-1

Detailed structural information has not been provided. It is assumed the building will be of tilt-up concrete construction, typically supported on conventional shallow foundations with a concrete slab-on-grade floor. Based on the assumed construction, maximum column and wall loads are expected to be on the order of 100 kips and 4 to 7 kips per linear foot, respectively.

No significant amounts of below grade construction, such as crawl spaces or new basements, are expected to be included in the proposed development. Based on the assumed topography, cuts and fills of up to 1 to 9± feet are expected to be necessary to achieve the proposed site grades. 501
Proposed Warehouse – Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G105-1

4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION

4.1 Scope of Exploration/Sampling Methods
The subsurface exploration for this project consisted of five (5) borings at the site. Four (4) of the borings will be drilled within the proposed building area to depths of 20 to 25± feet. The one (1) remaining boring will be drilled to a depth of 20± feet within the proposed parking/drive lanes and/or proposed infiltration area. All of the borings were logged during drilling by a member of our staff.

The borings were advanced with hollow-stem augers, by a conventional truck-mounted drilling rig. Representative bulk and relatively undisturbed soil samples were taken during drilling.

Relatively undisturbed soil samples were taken with a split barrel “California Sampler” containing a series of one inch long, 2.416± inch diameter brass rings. This sampling method is described in ASTM Test Method D-3550. In-situ samples were also taken using a 1.4± inch inside diameter split spoon sampler, in general accordance with ASTM D-1586. Both of these samplers are driven into the ground with successive blows of a 140-pound weight falling 30 inches. The blow counts obtained during driving are recorded for further analysis. Bulk samples were collected in plastic bags to retain their original moisture content. The relatively undisturbed ring samples were placed in molded plastic sleeves that were then sealed and transported to our laboratory.

The approximate locations of the borings are indicated on the Boring Location Plan, included as Plate 2 in Appendix A of this report. The Boring Logs, which illustrate the conditions encountered at the boring locations, as well as the results of some of the laboratory testing, are included in Appendix B

4.2 Geotechnical Conditions
Pavements
Asphaltic concrete pavements were encountered at the ground surface at all borings except Boring No. B-2, the pavement section consists of 3 to 4± inches of asphaltic concrete (AC) with no discernible aggregate base (AB).

Artificial Fill
Artificial Fill was encountered at the ground surface or beneath pavements, extending to depths of 3 to 8½± feet below ground surface. The fill soils generally consist of medium dense silty fine sands to fine sandy silts.
502
Proposed Warehouse – Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G105-1

Alluvium
Native alluvium was encountered beneath the alluvium at all boring locations, extending to at least the maximum depth explored of 25± feet below ground surface. The alluvial soils generally consist of medium dense silty fine sands and fine sandy silts and medium dense to dense fine to coarse sands.

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

Recent water level data was obtained from the California State Water Resources Control Board, GeoTracker, website, https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. One monitoring well on record is located 393± feet southwest of the site. Water level readings within this monitoring well indicate a high groundwater level of 234± feet below the ground surface in July 2021. 503
Proposed Warehouse – Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G105-1

5.0 LABORATORY TESTING
The soil samples recovered from the subsurface exploration were returned to our laboratory for further testing to determine selected physical and engineering properties of the soils. The tests are briefly discussed below. It should be noted that the test results are specific to the actual samples tested, and variations could be expected at other locations and depths.

Classification
All recovered soil samples were classified using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), in accordance with ASTM D-2488. Field identifications were then supplemented with additional visual classifications and/or by laboratory testing. The USCS classifications are shown on the Boring Logs and are periodically referenced throughout this report.

Dry Density and Moisture Content
The density has been determined for selected relatively undisturbed ring samples. These densities were determined in general accordance with the method presented in ASTM D-2937. The results are recorded as dry unit weight in pounds per cubic foot. The moisture contents are determined in accordance with ASTM D-2216, and are expressed as a percentage of the dry weight. These test results are presented on the Boring Logs.

Consolidation
Selected soil samples have been tested to determine their consolidation potential, in accordance with ASTM D-2435. The testing apparatus is designed to accept either natural or remolded samples in a one-inch-high ring, approximately 2.416 inches in diameter. Each sample is then loaded incrementally in a geometric progression and the resulting deflection is recorded at selected time intervals. Porous stones are in contact with the top and bottom of the sample to permit the addition or release of pore water. The samples are typically inundated with water at an intermediate load to determine their potential for collapse or heave. The results of the consolidation testing are plotted on Plates C-1 through C-4 in Appendix C of this report.

Direct Shear
Direct shear testing was performed on one selected soil sample to determine its shear strength parameters. The test was performed in accordance with ASTM D-3080. The testing apparatus is designed to accept either natural or remolded samples in a one-inch-high ring, approximately

2.416 inches in diameter. For tests on remolded soils, three samples of the same soil are prepared by remolding them to 90± percent compaction and near optimum moisture. Each of the three samples are then loaded with different normal loads and the resulting shear strength is determined for that particular normal load. The shearing of the samples is performed at a rate slow enough to permit the dissipation of excess pore water pressure. Porous stones are in contact with the top and bottom of the sample to permit the addition or release of pore water. The results of the remolded shear test are presented on Plate C-5.
504
Proposed Warehouse – Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G105-1

Soluble Sulfates
A representative sample of the near-surface soils was submitted to a subcontracted analytical laboratory for determination of soluble sulfate content. Soluble sulfates are naturally present in soils, and if the concentration is high enough, can result in degradation of concrete which comes into contact with these soils. The results of the soluble sulfate testing are presented below, and are discussed further in a subsequent section of this report.

Sample Identification Soluble Sulfates (%) Sulfate Classification B-1 @ 0 to 5 feet 0.003 Not Applicable (S0)
Corrosivity Testing
A representative bulk sample of the near-surface soils was submitted to a subcontracted corrosion engineering laboratory to determine if the near-surface soils possess corrosive characteristics with respect to common construction materials. The corrosivity testing included a determination of the electrical resistivity, pH, chloride, and nitrate concentrations of the soils, as well as other tests.

The results of some of these tests are presented below.

Sample Identification Saturated Resistivity
(ohm-cm) pH Chlorides(mg/kg)
Nitrates
(mg/kg)
B-1 @ 0 to 5 feet 19,430 7.9 14.2 0.4
505
Proposed Warehouse – Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G105-1

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of our review, field exploration, laboratory testing and geotechnical analysis, the proposed development is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The recommendations contained in this report should be taken into the design, construction, and grading considerations.

The recommendations are contingent upon all grading and foundation construction activities being monitored by the geotechnical engineer of record. The recommendations are provided with the assumption that an adequate program of client consultation, construction monitoring, and testing will be performed during the final design and construction phases to verify compliance with these recommendations. Maintaining Southern California Geotechnical, Inc., (SCG) as the geotechnical consultant from the beginning to the end of the project will provide continuity of services. The geotechnical engineering firm providing testing and observation services shall assume the responsibility of Geotechnical Engineer of Record.

The Grading Guide Specifications, included as Appendix D, should be considered part of this report, and should be incorporated into the project specifications. The contractor and/or owner of the development should bring to the attention of the geotechnical engineer any conditions that differ from those stated in this report, or which may be detrimental for the development.

6.1 Seismic Design Considerations
The subject site is located in an area which is subject to strong ground motions due to earthquakes. The performance of a site specific seismic hazards analysis was beyond the scope of this investigation. However, numerous faults capable of producing significant ground motions are located near the subject site. Due to economic considerations, it is not generally considered reasonable to design a structure that is not susceptible to earthquake damage. Therefore, significant damage to structures may be unavoidable during large earthquakes. The proposed structure should, however, be designed to resist structural collapse and thereby provide reasonable protection from serious injury, catastrophic property damage and loss of life.

Faulting and Seismicity
Research of available maps indicates that the subject site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Furthermore, SCG did not identify any evidence of faulting during the geotechnical investigation. Therefore, the possibility of significant fault rupture on the site is considered to be low.

The potential for other geologic hazards such as seismically induced settlement, lateral spreading, tsunamis, inundation, seiches, flooding, and subsidence affecting the site is considered low.

Seismic Design Parameters
The 2019 California Building Code (CBC) provides procedures for earthquake resistant structural design that include considerations for on-site soil conditions, occupancy, and the configuration of 506
Proposed Warehouse – Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G105-1

the structure including the structural system and height. The seismic design parameters presented below are based on the soil profile and the proximity of known faults with respect to the subject site.

Based on standards in place at the time of this report, the proposed development is expected to be designed in accordance with the requirements of the 2019 edition of the California Building Code (CBC), which was adopted on January 1, 2020.

The 2019 CBC Seismic Design Parameters have been generated using the SEAOC/OSHPD Seismic Design Maps Tool, a web-based software application available at the website www.seismicmaps.org. This software application calculates seismic design parameters in accordance with several building code reference documents, including ASCE 7-16, upon which the 2019 CBC is based. The application utilizes a database of risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER) site accelerations at 0.01-degree intervals for each of the code documents.

The tables below were created using data obtained from the application. The output generated from this program is included as Plate E-1 in Appendix E of this report.

The 2019 CBC requires that a site-specific ground motion study be performed in accordance with Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16 for Site Class D sites with a mapped S1 value greater than 0.2.

However, Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16 also indicates an exception to the requirement for a sitespecific ground motion hazard analysis for certain structures on Site Class D sites. The commentary for Section 11 of ASCE 7-16 (Page 534 of Section C11 of ASCE 7-16) indicates that “In general, this exception effectively limits the requirements for site-specific hazard analysis to very tall and or flexible structures at Site Class D sites.” Based on our understanding of the proposed development, the seismic design parameters presented below were calculated assuming that the exception in Section 11.4.8 applies to the proposed structure at this site. However, the structural engineer should verify that this exception is applicable to the proposed structure. Based on the exception, the spectral response accelerations presented below were calculated using the site coefficients (Fa and Fv) from Tables 1613.2.3(1) and 1613.2.3(2) presented in Section 16.4.4 of the 2019 CBC. 2019 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Parameter Value
Mapped Spectral Acceleration at 0.2 sec Period SS 1.573 Mapped Spectral Acceleration at 1.0 sec Period S1 0.578 Site Class --- D
Site Modified Spectral Acceleration at 0.2 sec Period SMS 1.573 Site Modified Spectral Acceleration at 1.0 sec Period SM1 0.995 Design Spectral Acceleration at 0.2 sec Period SDS 1.049 Design Spectral Acceleration at 1.0 sec Period SD1 0.664 It should be noted that the site coefficient Fv and the parameters SM1 and SD1 were not included in the SEAOC/OSHPD Seismic Design Maps Tool output for the 2019 CBC. We calculated these parameters-based on Table 1613.2.3(2) in Section 16.4.4 of the 2019 CBC using the value of S1 507
Proposed Warehouse – Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G105-1

obtained from the Seismic Design Maps Tool, assuming that a site-specific ground motion hazards analysis is not required for the proposed building at this site.

Liquefaction
Liquefaction is the loss of strength in generally cohesionless, saturated soils when the pore-water pressure induced in the soil by a seismic event becomes equal to or exceeds the overburden pressure. The primary factors which influence the potential for liquefaction include groundwater table elevation, soil type and grain size characteristics, relative density of the soil, initial confining pressure, and intensity and duration of ground shaking. The depth within which the occurrence of liquefaction may impact surface improvements is generally identified as the upper 50 feet below the existing ground surface. Liquefaction potential is greater in saturated, loose, poorly graded fine sands with a mean (d50) grain size in the range of 0.075 to 0.2 mm (Seed and Idriss, 1971). Clayey (cohesive) soils or soils which possess clay particles (d<0.005mm) in excess of 20 percent (Seed and Idriss, 1982) are generally not considered to be susceptible to liquefaction, nor are those soils which are above the historic static groundwater table.

The California Geological Survey (CGS) has not yet conducted detailed seismic hazards mapping in the area of the subject site. The general liquefaction susceptibility of the site was determined by research of the San Bernardino County Land Use Plan, General Plan, Geologic Hazard Overlays.

The hazard overlay map for the Redlands quadrangle indicates that the subject site is not located within an area of liquefaction susceptibility. Based on the mapping performed by the county of San Bernardino and the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations, liquefaction is not considered to be a design concern for this project.

6.2 Geotechnical Design Considerations
General
Artificial fill soils were encountered at all of the boring locations, extending from the ground surface or beneath pavements to depths of 3 to 8½± feet. These soils possess variable densities and were classified as artificial fill, based on their disturbed appearance. No documentation regarding the placement and compaction of these soils has been provided to our office, and none is expected to exist. The fill soils are therefore considered to be undocumented fill.

As mentioned previously the proposed building will be located in the southern portion of the site close to the south property line. Specialized grading techniques and/or the use of shoring will likely be necessary to perform the recommended remedial grading close to the property line. A reduced allowable bearing pressure should be used for the design of foundations where the full lateral extent of the recommended remedial grading cannot be completed Native alluvial soils were encountered beneath the fill at all of the boring locations. The nearsurface native alluvium generally possesses medium dense relative densities. Based on the results of laboratory testing, the native alluvial soils generally possess favorable consolidation and collapse characteristics.
508
Proposed Warehouse – Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G105-1

Remedial grading is considered warranted within the proposed building area, in order to remove all of the undocumented fill soils in their entirety, any soils disturbed during site stripping and demolition activities, and a portion of the near-surface native alluvial soils. The excavated soils may be compacted and placed throughout the proposed development area as compacted structural fill soils.

Settlement
The recommended remedial grading will remove the existing undocumented fill soils and a portion of the upper native alluvial soils and replace these materials as compacted structural fill. The native soils that will remain in place below the recommended depth of overexcavation generally possess favorable consolidation characteristics and will not be subject to large stress increases from the foundations of the new structure. Therefore, following completion of the recommended grading, post-construction settlements are expected to be within tolerable limits.

Expansion
The near-surface soils consist of silty sands, sandy silts, and fine to coarse sands with no appreciable clay content. These materials have been visually classified as non-expansive.

Therefore, no design considerations related to expansive soils are considered warranted for this site.

Soluble Sulfates
The results of the soluble sulfate testing indicate that the selected sample of the on-site soils contain sulfate concentrations that correspond to Class S0 with respect to the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Publication 318-05 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary, Section 4.3. Therefore, specialized concrete mix designs are not considered to be necessary, with regard to sulfate protection purposes. It is, however, recommended that additional soluble sulfate testing be conducted at the completion of rough grading to verify the soluble sulfate concentrations of the soils which are present at pad grade within the building area.

Corrosion Potential
The results of laboratory testing indicate that the tested sample of the on-site soils possess a saturated resistivity value of 19,430 ohm-cm, and a pH value of 7.9. These test results have been evaluated in accordance with guidelines published by the Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association (DIPRA). The DIPRA guidelines consist of a point system by which characteristics of the soils are used to quantify the corrosivity characteristics of the site. Resistivity, pH, redox potential, relative soil moisture content and sulfides are the factors that enter into the evaluation procedure. Based on these factors, and utilizing the DIPRA procedure, the on-site soils are not considered to be corrosive to ductile iron pipe. Therefore, polyethylene protection is not expected to be required for cast iron or ductile iron pipes.

Relatively low concentrations (14.2 mg/kg) of chlorides were detected in the samples submitted for corrosivity testing. In general, soils possessing chloride concentrations in excess of 500 parts per million (ppm) are considered to be corrosive with respect to steel reinforcement within reinforced concrete. Based on the lack of any significant chlorides in the tested sample, the site is considered to have a C1 chloride exposure in accordance with the American Concrete Institute 509
Proposed Warehouse – Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G105-1

(ACI) Publication 318 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary.

Therefore, a specialized concrete mix design for reinforced concrete for protection against chloride exposure is not considered warranted.

Nitrates present in soil can be corrosive to copper tubing at concentrations greater than 50 mg/kg.

The tested sample possesses a nitrate concentration of 0.4 mg/kg. Based on this test result, the on-site soils are not considered to be corrosive to copper pipe.

It should be noted that SCG does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering. Therefore, the client may wish to contact a corrosion engineer to provide a more thorough evaluation.

Shrinkage/Subsidence
Removal and recompaction of the artificial fill and near-surface native soils is estimated to result in an average shrinkage of 4 to 14 percent. Shrinkage estimates for the individual samples range between 1 and 12 percent based on the results of density testing and the assumption that the on-site soils will be compacted to about 92 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density.

It should be noted that the shrinkage estimate is based on the results of dry density testing performed on small-diameter samples of the existing soils taken at the boring locations. If a more accurate and precise shrinkage estimate is desired, SCG can perform a shrinkage study involving several excavated test-pits where in-place densities are determined using in-situ testing methods instead of laboratory density testing on small-diameter samples. Please contact SCG for details and a cost estimate regarding a shrinkage study, if desired.

Minor ground subsidence is expected to occur in the soils below the zone of removal, due to settlement and machinery working. The subsidence is estimated to be 0.1 feet.

These estimates are based on previous experience and the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations. The actual amount of subsidence is expected to be variable and will be dependent on the type of machinery used, repetitions of use, and dynamic effects, all of which are difficult to assess precisely.

Grading and Foundation Plan Review
No grading or foundation plans were available at the time of this report. It is therefore recommended that we be provided with copies of the preliminary plans, when they become available, for review with regard to the conclusions, recommendations, and assumptions contained within this report.

6.3 Site Grading Recommendations
The grading recommendations presented below are based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations and our understanding of the proposed development. We recommend that all grading activities be completed in accordance with the Grading Guide Specifications included as Appendix D of this report, unless superseded by site-specific recommendations presented below.
510
Proposed Warehouse – Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G105-1

Site Stripping and Demolition
Demolition of the existing structures and any associated improvements will be necessary to facilitate the construction of the proposed development. Pavements, utilities, and any other subsurface improvements that will not be reused with the proposed development should be demolished and removed in their entirety. Any septic systems encountered during demolition and/or rough grading (if present) should be removed in their entirety. Any associated leach fields or other existing underground improvements should also be removed. Debris resultant from demolition should be disposed of off-site in accordance with applicable regulations. Alternatively, concrete and asphalt debris may be pulverized to a maximum 2-inch particle size, well-mixed with the on-site soils, and incorporated into new structural fills or it may be crushed and made into crushed miscellaneous base (CMB), if desired.

Initial site preparation should include stripping of any surficial vegetation from the landscaped areas of the site. This should include any weeds, grasses, and shrubs. Any trees that will not remain with the proposed development should also be removed during site stripping, and their root systems should be removed in their entirety. The resulting excavations should be backfilled with compacted fill soils. The actual extent of site stripping should be determined in the field by the geotechnical engineer, based on the organic content and stability of the materials encountered.

Treatment of Existing Soils: Building Pad
Remedial grading will be necessary within the proposed building pad area to remove the existing undocumented fill soils, any soils disturbed during demolition, and a portion of the near-surface native alluvium. The fill soils extend to depths of 3 to 8½± feet at the boring locations.

In addition, the overexcavation is also recommended to extend to a depth of at least 5 feet below existing grade and 3 feet below proposed building pad subgrade elevation, whichever is greater.

Within the influence zones of the new foundations, the overexcavation should extend to a depth of at least 3 feet below proposed foundation bearing grade.

The overexcavation areas should extend at least 5 feet beyond the building perimeters, and to an extent equal to the depth of fill below the new foundations. If the proposed structure incorporates any exterior columns (such as for a canopy or overhang) the area of overexcavation should also encompass these areas.

The site plan shows the proposed building will be constructed close to the south property line.

The contractor should take all necessary provisions to protect the adjacent structures and improvements located to the south of the site during rough grading. Specialized grading techniques, such as A-B-C slot cuts, and possibly shoring, may be required to complete the recommended remedial grading.

Following completion of the overexcavation, the subgrade soils within the building area should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer to verify their suitability to serve as the structural fill subgrade, as well as to support the foundation loads of the new structure. This evaluation should include proofrolling and probing to identify any soft, loose, or otherwise unstable soils that must be removed. Some localized areas of deeper excavation may be required if loose, porous, or low density native soils are encountered at the base of the overexcavation. 511
Proposed Warehouse – Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G105-1

After a suitable overexcavation subgrade has been achieved, the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches and moisture conditioned to achieve a moisture content of 0 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content. The subgrade soils should then be recompacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. The building pad area may then be raised to grade with previously excavated soils or imported structural fill.

Treatment of Existing Soils: Retaining Walls and Site Walls The existing soils within the areas of any proposed retaining walls and site walls should be overexcavated to a depth of 2 feet below foundation bearing grade and replaced as compacted structural fill as discussed above for the proposed building pad. Any undocumented fill soils or disturbed native alluvium within any of these foundation areas should be removed in their entirety. Any erection pads used to construct the walls are considered to be part of the foundation system with respect to these remedial grading recommendations. The overexcavation subgrade soils should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer prior to scarifying, moisture conditioning, and recompacting the upper 12 inches of exposed subgrade soils, as discussed for the building area. The previously excavated soils may then be replaced as compacted structural fill.

If the recommended remedial grading cannot be completed for screen walls located along property lines, such walls should be designed for a reduced allowable bearing pressure. The allowable bearing pressure will be determined based on the actual extent of remedial grading that can be accomplished.

Treatment of Existing Soils: Flatwork, Parking and Drive Areas Based on economic considerations, removal and replacement of the variable strength existing fill and alluvial soils is not considered warranted within the proposed flatwork, parking, and drive areas. Subgrade preparation in the new flatwork, parking, and drive areas should initially consist of removal of all soils disturbed during stripping and demolition operations.

The geotechnical engineer should then evaluate the subgrade to identify any areas of additional unsuitable soils. Any such materials should be removed to a level of firm and unyielding soil. The exposed subgrade soils should then be scarified to a depth of 12± inches, moisture conditioned to at least 0 to 4 percent above the optimum moisture content, and recompacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. Based on the presence of variable strength surficial soils throughout the site, it is expected that some isolated areas of additional overexcavation may be required to remove zones of lower strength, unsuitable soils.

The grading recommendations presented above for the proposed flatwork, parking, and drive areas assume that the owner and/or developer can tolerate minor amounts of settlement within the proposed parking and flatwork areas. The grading recommendations presented above do not completely mitigate the full extent of undocumented fill soils variable density alluvium in the parking areas. As such, settlement and associated pavement distress could occur. Typically, repair of such distressed areas involves significantly lower costs than completely mitigating these soils at the time of construction. If the owner cannot tolerate the risk of such settlements, the flatwork, parking and drive areas should be overexcavated to a depth of 2 feet below proposed pavement subgrade elevation, with the resulting soils replaced as compacted structural fill. 512
Proposed Warehouse – Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G105-1

Fill Placement
• Fill soils should be placed in thin (6 inches), near-horizontal lifts, moisture conditioned to 0 to 4 percent above the optimum moisture content, and compacted. • On-site soils may be used for fill provided they are cleaned of any debris to the satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer.
• All grading and fill placement activities should be completed in accordance with the requirements of the 2019 CBC and the grading code of the city of Ontario. • All fill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density.
• Compaction tests should be performed periodically by the geotechnical engineer as random verification of compaction and moisture content. These tests are intended to aid the contractor. Since the tests are taken at discrete locations and depths, they may not be indicative of the entire fill and therefore should not relieve the contractor of his responsibility to meet the job specifications.

Imported Structural Fill
All imported structural fill should consist of very low expansive (EI < 20), well graded soils possessing at least 10 percent fines (that portion of the sample passing the No. 200 sieve).

Additional specifications for structural fill are presented in the Grading Guide Specifications, included as Appendix D.

Utility Trench Backfill
In general, all utility trench backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D1557 maximum dry density. As an alternative, a clean sand (minimum Sand Equivalent of 30) may be placed within trenches and compacted in place (jetting or flooding is not recommended).

It is recommended that materials in excess of 3 inches in size not be used for utility trench backfill.

Compacted trench backfill should conform to the requirements of the local grading code, and more restrictive requirements may be indicated by the city of Redlands. All utility trench backfills should be witnessed by the geotechnical engineer. The trench backfill soils should be compaction tested where possible; probed and visually evaluated elsewhere.

Utility trenches which parallel a footing, and extending below a 1h:1v plane projected from the outside edge of the footing should be backfilled with structural fill soils, compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 standard. Pea gravel backfill should not be used for these trenches.

Any soils used to backfill voids around subsurface utility structures, such as manholes or vaults, should be placed as compacted structural fill. If it is not practical to place compacted fill in these areas, then such void spaces may be backfilled with lean concrete slurry. Uncompacted pea gravel or sand is not recommended for backfilling these voids since these materials have a potential to settle and thereby cause distress of pavements placed around these subterranean structures. 513
Proposed Warehouse – Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G105-1

6.4 Construction Considerations
Excavation Considerations
The near-surface soils are predominately granular in composition. These materials will likely be subject to caving within shallow excavations. Where caving occurs within shallow excavations, flattened excavation slopes may be sufficient to provide excavation stability. On a preliminary basis, the inclination of temporary slopes should not exceed 2h:1v. Maintaining adequate moisture content within the near-surface soils will improve excavation stability. All excavation activities on this site should be conducted in accordance with Cal-OSHA regulations.

Based on the site plan, we expect that the recommended remedial grading for the proposed building will require excavation adjacent to the south property line. The contractor should take all necessary provisions to protect the existing improvements located on the adjacent properties. During remedial grading, slot cutting procedures and/or shoring may be required in order to achieve the recommended overexcavation in the southern portion of the building pad area. Typically, A-B-C slot cuts on 6 to 8-foot centers are suitable to maintain excavation stability. The geotechnical engineer should observe the conditions and determine the appropriate slot cutting procedures at the time of site grading.

Moisture Sensitive Subgrade Soils
Some of the near surface soils possess appreciable silt content and may become unstable if exposed to significant moisture infiltration or disturbance by construction traffic. In addition, based on their granular content, some of the on-site soils will also be susceptible to erosion. The site should, therefore, be graded to prevent ponding of surface water and to prevent water from running into excavations.

Groundwater
The static groundwater table at this site is considered to be present at a depth greater than 25 feet. Therefore, groundwater is not expected to impact the grading or foundation construction activities.

6.5 Foundation Design and Construction
Based on the preceding grading recommendations, it is assumed that the new building pad will be underlain by structural fill soils used to replace existing undocumented fill soils. These new structural fill soils are expected to extend to a depth of at least 3 feet below proposed foundation bearing grade. Based on this subsurface profile, the proposed structure may be supported on conventional shallow foundations.

Foundation Design Parameters
New square and rectangular footings may be designed as follows:
• Maximum, net allowable soil bearing pressure: 2,500 lbs/ft2. 514
Proposed Warehouse – Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G105-1

• Maximum, net allowable soil bearing pressure: 1,500 lbs/ft2for new foundations within 5 feet of property lines or where the full lateral extent of recommended overexcavation is not possible
• Minimum wall/column footing width: 14 inches/24 inches. • Minimum longitudinal steel reinforcement within strip footings: Two (2) No. 5 rebars (1 top and 1 bottom).
• Minimum foundation embedment: 12 inches into suitable structural fill soils, and at least 18 inches below adjacent exterior grade. Interior column footings may be placed immediately beneath the floor slab.
• It is recommended that the perimeter building foundations be continuous across all exterior doorways. Any flatwork adjacent to the exterior doors should be doweled into the perimeter foundations in a manner determined by the structural engineer.

The allowable bearing pressure presented above may be increased by one-third when considering short duration wind or seismic loads. The minimum steel reinforcement recommended above is based on geotechnical considerations; additional reinforcement may be necessary for structural considerations. The actual design of the foundations should be determined by the structural engineer.

Foundation Construction
The foundation subgrade soils should be evaluated at the time of overexcavation, as discussed in Section 6.3 of this report. It is further recommended that the foundation subgrade soils be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer immediately prior to steel or concrete placement. Soils suitable for direct foundation support should consist of newly placed structural fill, compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. Any unsuitable materials should be removed to a depth of suitable bearing compacted structural fill, with the resulting excavations backfilled with compacted fill soils. As an alternative, lean concrete slurry (500 to 1,500 psi) may be used to backfill such isolated overexcavations.

The foundation subgrade soils should also be properly moisture conditioned to 0 to 4 percent above the Modified Proctor optimum, to a depth of at least 12 inches below bearing grade. Since it is typically not feasible to increase the moisture content of the floor slab and foundation subgrade soils once rough grading has been completed, care should be taken to maintain the moisture content of the building pad subgrade soils throughout the construction process.

Estimated Foundation Settlements
Post-construction total and differential settlements of shallow foundations designed and constructed in accordance with the previously presented recommendations are estimated to be less than 1.0 and 0.5 inches, respectively. Differential movements are expected to occur over a 30-foot span, thereby resulting in an angular distortion of less than 0.002 inches per inch. 515
Proposed Warehouse – Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G105-1

Lateral Load Resistance
Lateral load resistance will be developed by a combination of friction acting at the base of foundations and slabs and the passive earth pressure developed by footings below grade. The following friction and passive pressure may be used to resist lateral forces:
• Passive Earth Pressure: 300 lbs/ft3
• Friction Coefficient: 0.30
These are allowable values, and include a factor of safety. When combining friction and passive resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. These values assume that footings will be poured directly against compacted structural fill. The maximum allowable passive pressure is 2,500 lbs/ft2.

6.6 Floor Slab Design and Construction
Subgrades which will support new floor slab should be prepared in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Site Grading Recommendations section of this report.

Based on the anticipated grading which will occur at this site, the floor of the new structure may be constructed as a conventional slab-on-grade supported on newly placed structural fill soils.

These fill soils are expected to extend to a depth of at least 3 feet below finished pad grade.

Based on geotechnical considerations, the floor slab may be designed as follows:
• Minimum slab thickness: 6 inches.
• Minimum slab reinforcement: Reinforcement is not expected to be required for geotechnical conditions. The actual floor slab reinforcement should be determined by the structural engineer, based upon the imposed loading.
• Modulus of subgrade reaction, k =150 psi/in
• Slab underlayment: If moisture sensitive floor coverings will be used the minimum slab underlayment should consist of a moisture vapor barrier constructed below the entire area of the proposed slab. The moisture vapor barrier should meet or exceed the Class A rating as defined by ASTM E 1745-97 and have a permeance rating less than 0.01 perms as described in ASTM E 96-95 and ASTM E 154-88. A polyolefin material such as Stego® Wrap Vapor Barrier or equivalent will meet these specifications. The moisture vapor barrier should be properly constructed in accordance with all applicable manufacturer specifications. Given that a rock free subgrade is anticipated and that a capillary break is not required, sand below the barrier is not required. The need for sand and/or the amount of sand above the moisture vapor barrier should be specified by the structural engineer or concrete contractor. The selection of sand above the barrier is not a geotechnical engineering issue and hence outside our purview. Where moisture sensitive floor coverings are not anticipated, the vapor barrier may be eliminated. • Moisture condition the floor slab subgrade soils to 0 to 4 percent above the Modified Proctor optimum moisture content, to a depth of 12 inches. The moisture content of the 516
Proposed Warehouse – Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G105-1

floor slab subgrade soils should be verified by the geotechnical engineer within 24 hours prior to concrete placement.
• Proper concrete curing techniques should be utilized to reduce the potential for slab curling or the formation of excessive shrinkage cracks.

The actual design of the floor slab should be completed by the structural engineer to verify adequate thickness and reinforcement.

6.7 Retaining Wall Design and Construction
Small retaining walls are expected to be necessary in the truck dock areas and may also be required to facilitate the new site grades. The parameters recommended for use in the design of these walls are presented below.

Retaining Wall Design Parameters
Based on the soil conditions encountered at the boring locations, the following parameters may be used in the design of new retaining walls for this site. We have provided parameters assuming the use of on-site soils for retaining wall backfill. The near-surface soils at this site generally consist of sands, silty sands, and sandy silts. Based on their classification, these materials are expected to possess a friction angle of at least 30 degrees when compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density.

If desired, SCG could provide design parameters for an alternative select backfill material behind the retaining walls. The use of select backfill material could result in lower lateral earth pressures.

In order to use the design parameters for the imported select fill, this material must be placed within the entire active failure wedge. This wedge is defined as extending from the heel of the retaining wall upwards at an angle of approximately 60° from horizontal. If select backfill material behind the retaining wall is desired, SCG should be contacted for supplementary recommendations.

RETAINING WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS
Design Parameter
Soil Type
On-site Sands, Silty Sands, and
Sandy Silts
Internal Friction Angle () 30
Unit Weight 130 lbs/ft3
Equivalent
Fluid Pressure:

Active Condition
(level backfill) 44 lbs/ft3
Active Condition
(2h:1v backfill) 70 lbs/ft3
At-Rest Condition
(level backfill) 65 lbs/ft3
517
Proposed Warehouse – Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G105-1

The walls should be designed using a soil-footing coefficient of friction of 0.30 and an equivalent passive pressure of 300 lbs/ft3. The structural engineer should incorporate appropriate factors of safety in the design of the retaining walls.

The active earth pressure may be used for the design of retaining walls that do not directly support structures or support soils that in turn support structures and which will be allowed to deflect. The at-rest earth pressure should be used for walls that will not be allowed to deflect such as those which will support foundation bearing soils, or which will support foundation loads directly.

Where the soils on the toe side of the retaining wall are not covered by a "hard" surface such as a structure or pavement, the upper 1 foot of soil should be neglected when calculating passive resistance due to the potential for the material to become disturbed or degraded during the life of the structure.

Retaining Wall Foundation Design
The retaining wall foundations should be underlain by at least 2 feet of newly placed structural fill. Foundations to support new retaining walls should be designed in accordance with the general Foundation Design Parameters presented in a previous section of this report.

Seismic Lateral Earth Pressures
In accordance with the 2019 CBC, any retaining walls more than 6 feet in height must be designed for seismic lateral earth pressures. If walls 6 feet or more are required for this site, the geotechnical engineer should be contacted for supplementary seismic lateral earth pressure recommendations.

Backfill Material
On-site soils may be used to backfill the retaining walls. However, all backfill material placed within 3 feet of the back-wall face should have a particle size no greater than 3 inches. The retaining wall backfill materials should be well graded.

It is recommended that a minimum 1 foot thick layer of free-draining granular material (less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve) be placed against the face of the retaining walls. This material should extend from the top of the retaining wall footing to within 1 foot of the ground surface on the back side of the retaining wall. This material should be approved by the geotechnical engineer. In lieu of the 1 foot thick layer of free-draining material, a properly installed prefabricated drainage composite such as the MiraDRAIN 6000XL (or approved equivalent), which is specifically designed for use behind retaining walls, may be used. If the layer of free-draining material is not covered by an impermeable surface, such as a structure or pavement, a 12-inch thick layer of a low permeability soil should be placed over the backfill to reduce surface water migration to the underlying soils. The layer of free draining granular material should be separated from the backfill soils by a suitable geotextile, approved by the geotechnical engineer
All retaining wall backfill should be placed and compacted under engineering-controlled conditions in the necessary layer thicknesses to ensure an in-place density between 90 and 93 percent of 518
Proposed Warehouse – Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G105-1

the maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor test (ASTM D1557-91). Care should be taken to avoid over-compaction of the soils behind the retaining walls, and the use of heavy compaction equipment should be avoided.

Subsurface Drainage
As previously indicated, the retaining wall design parameters are based upon drained backfill conditions. Consequently, some form of permanent drainage system will be necessary in conjunction with the appropriate backfill material. Subsurface drainage may consist of either:
• A weep hole drainage system typically consisting of a series of 2-inch diameter holes in the wall situated slightly above the ground surface elevation on the exposed side of the wall and at an approximate 10-foot on-center spacing. Alternatively, 4-inch diameter holes at an approximate 20-foot on-center spacing can be used for this type of drainage system.

In addition, the weep holes should include a 2 cubic foot pocket of open graded gravel, surrounded by an approved geotextile fabric, at each weep hole location. • A 4-inch diameter perforated pipe surrounded by 2 cubic feet of gravel per linear foot of drain placed behind the wall, above the retaining wall footing. The gravel layer should be wrapped in a suitable geotextile fabric to reduce the potential for migration of fines. The footing drain should be extended to daylight or tied into a storm drainage system. The actual design of this type of system should be determined by the civil engineer to verify that the drainage system possesses the adequate capacity and slope for its intended use.

6.8 Pavement Design Parameters
Site preparation in the pavement area should be completed as previously recommended in the Site Grading Recommendations section of this report. The subsequent pavement recommendations assume proper drainage and construction monitoring, and are based on either PCA or CALTRANS design parameters for a twenty (20) year design period. However, these designs also assume a routine pavement maintenance program to obtain the anticipated 20-year pavement service life.

Pavement Subgrades
It is anticipated that the new pavements will be primarily supported on a layer of compacted structural fill, consisting of scarified, thoroughly moisture conditioned and recompacted existing soils. The near-surface soils generally consist of silty sands, sands, and sandy silts. Based on their classification, these materials are expected to possess good to excellent pavement support characteristics, with R-values in the range of 50 to 60. Since R-value testing was not included in the scope of services for this project, the subsequent pavement design is based upon an assumed R-value of 50. Any fill material imported to the site should have support characteristics equal to or greater than that of the on-site soils and be placed and compacted under engineeringcontrolled conditions. It is recommended that R-value testing be performed after completion of rough grading. Depending upon the results of the R-value testing, it may be feasible to use thinner pavement sections in some areas of the site.
519
Proposed Warehouse – Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G105-1

Asphaltic Concrete
Presented below are the recommended thicknesses for new flexible pavement structures consisting of asphaltic concrete over a granular base. An alternate pavement section has been provided for use in parking stall areas due to the anticipated lower traffic intensity in these areas.

However, truck traffic must be excluded from areas where the thinner pavement section is used; otherwise premature pavement distress may occur. The pavement designs are based on the traffic indices (TI’s) indicated. The client and/or civil engineer should verify that these TI’s are representative of the anticipated traffic volumes.

Traffic Index No. of Heavy Trucks per Day

4.0 0

5.0 1

6.0 3

7.0 11

8.0 35

9.0 93
For the purpose of the traffic volumes indicated above, a truck is defined as a 5-axle tractor trailer unit with one 8-kip axle and two 32-kip tandem axles. All of the traffic indices allow for 1,000 automobiles per day.

ASPHALT PAVEMENTS (R=50)
Materials
Thickness (inches)
Auto Parking and
Auto Drive Lanes
(TI = 4.0 to 5.0)
Truck Traffic
TI = 6.0 TI = 7.0 TI = 8.0 TI = 9.0
Asphalt Concrete 3 3½ 4 5 5½
Aggregate Base 3 4 5 5 7
Compacted Subgrade 12 12 12 12 12
The aggregate base course should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. The asphaltic concrete should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the Marshall maximum density, as determined by ASTM D-2726. The aggregate base course may consist of crushed aggregate base (CAB) or crushed miscellaneous base (CMB), which is a recycled gravel, asphalt and concrete material. The gradation, R-Value, Sand Equivalent, and Percentage Wear of the CAB or CMB should comply with appropriate specifications contained in the current edition of the “Greenbook” Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction.

Portland Cement Concrete
The preparation of the subgrade soils within Portland cement concrete pavement areas should be performed as previously described in Section 6.3 “Treatment of Existing Soils: Flatwork, Parking, and Drive Areas”. The minimum recommended thicknesses for the Portland Cement Concrete pavement sections are as follows:
520
Proposed Warehouse – Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G105-1

PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENTS (R=50)
Materials
Thickness (inches)
Autos and Light
Truck Traffic
(TI = 6.0)
Truck Traffic
TI = 7.0 TI = 8.0 TI = 9.0
PCC 5 5½ 6½ 8
Compacted Subgrade
(95% minimum compaction) 12 12 12 12
The concrete should have a 28-day compressive strength of at least 3,000 psi. Reinforcing within all pavements should be designed by the structural engineer. The maximum joint spacing within all of the PCC pavements is recommended to be equal to or less than 30 times the pavement thickness. The actual joint spacing and reinforcing of the Portland cement concrete pavements should be determined by the structural engineer.
521
Proposed Warehouse – Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G105-1

7.0 GENERAL COMMENTS
This report has been prepared as an instrument of service for use by the client, in order to aid in the evaluation of this property and to assist the architects and engineers in the design and preparation of the project plans and specifications. This report may be provided to the contractor(s) and other design consultants to disclose information relative to the project.

However, this report is not intended to be utilized as a specification in and of itself, without appropriate interpretation by the project architect, civil engineer, and/or structural engineer. The reproduction and distribution of this report must be authorized by the client and Southern California Geotechnical, Inc. Furthermore, any reliance on this report by an unauthorized third party is at such party’s sole risk, and we accept no responsibility for damage or loss which may occur. The client(s)’ reliance upon this report is subject to the Engineering Services Agreement, incorporated into our proposal for this project.

The analysis of this site was based on a subsurface profile interpolated from limited discrete soil samples. While the materials encountered in the project area are considered to be representative of the total area, some variations should be expected between boring locations and sample depths. If the conditions encountered during construction vary significantly from those detailed herein, we should be contacted immediately to determine if the conditions alter the recommendations contained herein.

This report has been based on assumed or provided characteristics of the proposed development.

It is recommended that the owner, client, architect, structural engineer, and civil engineer carefully review these assumptions to ensure that they are consistent with the characteristics of the proposed development. If discrepancies exist, they should be brought to our attention to verify that they do not affect the conclusions and recommendations contained herein. We also recommend that the project plans and specifications be submitted to our office for review to verify that our recommendations have been correctly interpreted.

The analysis, conclusions, and recommendations contained within this report have been promulgated in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical engineering practice. No other warranty is implied or expressed.
522
523
SITE

PROPOSED WAREHOUSE
SCALE: 1" = 2000' DRAWN: JAZ CHKD: RGT SCG PROJECT
22G105-1 PLATE 1

SITE LOCATION MAP

ONTARTIO, CALIFORNIA
SOURCE: USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS OF THE ONTARIO AND GUASTI QUADRANGLES, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, 2018.
524
EXISTING BUILDING B-1 EXISTING BUILDING B-3 B-2 B-4 B-5 SCALE: 1" = 50' DRAWN: JAZ CHKD: RGT PLATE 2 SCG PROJECT 22G105-1 ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA PROPOSED WAREHOUSE BORING LOCATION PLAN 0146*
SoCalGeoAPPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION GEOTECHNICAL LEGEND NOTE: SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY HPA ARCHITECTURE. 525
526

BORING LOG LEGEND

SAMPLE TYPE GRAPHICAL

SYMBOL SAMPLE DESCRIPTION

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

GRAB 1 SOIL SAMPLE TAKEN WITH NO SPECIALIZED

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

DRIVEN WITH SPT HAMMER. (RELATIVELY

UNDISTURBED)
NSR
NO RECOVERY: THE SAMPLING ATTEMPT DID NOT

RESULT IN RECOVERY OF ANY SIGNIFICANT SOIL OR
ROCK MATERIAL.

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

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

SAMPLE: Sample Type as depicted above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UNCONFINED SHEAR: The shear strength of a cohesive soil sample, as measured in the unconfined state. 527
SM
SP
COARSE

GRAINED
SOILS
SW

TYPICAL

DESCRIPTIONS

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -

SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO
FINES

SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -

SILT MIXTURES

GRAPH LETTER

POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS,

GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE

OR NO FINES
GC
GM
GP
GW

POORLY-GRADED SANDS,

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

OF MATERIAL IS

LARGER THAN
NO. 200 SIEVE
SIZE
MORE THAN 50%

OF MATERIAL IS

SMALLER THAN
NO. 200 SIEVE
SIZE
MORE THAN 50%

OF COARSE

FRACTION
PASSING ON NO.
4 SIEVE
MORE THAN 50%

OF COARSE

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

CLAY MIXTURES
FINE

GRAINED
SOILS

SYMBOLS MAJOR DIVISIONS

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
PT
OH
CH
MH
OL
CL
ML

CLEAN SANDS
SC

SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT

MIXTURES

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY

MIXTURES

INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE

SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR

CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY

SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO

MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY

CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS,

LEAN CLAYS

ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC

SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY

INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR

DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR

SILTY SOILS

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH

PLASTICITY

ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO

HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS

PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH

HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS
SILTS
AND
CLAYS

GRAVELS WITH
FINES
SAND
AND
SANDY

SOILS (LITTLE OR NO FINES)

SANDS WITH
FINES

LIQUID LIMIT
LESS THAN 50

LIQUID LIMIT
GREATER THAN 50

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

GRAVELLY
SOILS
(APPRECIABLE

AMOUNT OF FINES)
(APPRECIABLE

AMOUNT OF FINES)
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY

SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES
CLEAN

GRAVELS
528
124
114
115
112
104
100
98 9
10 14
7 3
17 3
4± inches Asphaltic Concrete; No Discernible Aggregate Base FILL: Brown fine Sandy Silt, trace medium to coarse Sand, medium dense-damp to moist
@ 3 feet, trace Iron oxide staining
FILL: Gray Brown fine Sandy Silt, trace Clay, trace medium to coarse Sand, mottled, medium dense-moist to very moist
FILL: Dark Gray Silty fine Sand, trace medium to coarse Sand, trace fine to coarse Gravel, trace Iron oxide staining, very dense-damp to moist
ALLUVIUM: Brown Silty fine Sand, medium dense-damp
Light Gray fine Sandy Silt, medium dense-very moist
Brown fine to medium Sand, medium dense-damp
Boring Terminated at 20'
44 17
26 75
23 20
20 FIELD RESULTS
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: 15 feet
READING TAKEN: At Completion

GRAPHIC LOG
BORING NO.

B-1
POCKET PEN.(TSF)
DRILLING DATE: 3/18/22
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Joey Hernandez
DEPTH (FEET)DRY DENSITY(PCF)MOISTURECONTENT (%)ORGANICCONTENT (%) JOB NO.: 22G105-1
PROJECT: Proposed Warehouse
LOCATION: Ontario, California
PLATE B-1
5 10
15 20

LABORATORY RESULTS

COMMENTS

TEST BORING LOG BLOW COUNT
PASSING#200 SIEVE (%)

DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE
SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL

LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMIT
TBL 22G105-1.GPJ SOCALGEO.GDT 4/19/22
529
9 8
7 13
3 2
13 FILL: Dark Brown Silty fine Sand, trace coarse Sand, medium dense-moist
ALLUVIUM: Brown Silty fine Sand, very loose to medium
dense-moist to very moist
Gray Brown fine to coarse Sand, trace fine to coarse Gravel, dense to very dense-dry to damp
Brown fine Sandy Silt, medium dense-moist to very moist Boring Terminated at 25'
29 20
5 3
33 50/5"
11 FIELD RESULTS
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: 23 feet
READING TAKEN: At Completion

GRAPHIC LOG
BORING NO.

B-2
POCKET PEN.(TSF)
DRILLING DATE: 3/18/22
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Joey Hernandez
DEPTH (FEET)DRY DENSITY(PCF)MOISTURECONTENT (%)ORGANICCONTENT (%) JOB NO.: 22G105-1
PROJECT: Proposed Warehouse
LOCATION: Ontario, California
PLATE B-2
5 10
15 20
25 LABORATORY RESULTS

COMMENTS

TEST BORING LOG BLOW COUNT
PASSING#200 SIEVE (%)

DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE
SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL

LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMIT
TBL 22G105-1.GPJ SOCALGEO.GDT 4/19/22
530
6 2
2 2
9 2
10 4± inches Asphaltic Concrete; No Discernible Aggregate Base FILL: Dark Brown Silty fine Sand, trace fine Gravel, loose-damp ALLUVIUM: Brown fine to medium Sand, trace coarse Gravel, medium dense-dry to damp
Light Gray Brown fine to coarse Sand, trace coarse Gravel, loose to medium dense-dry to damp
Light Brown fine Sandy Silt, trace Iron oxide staining, loose-damp to moist
Light Brown fine to coarse Sand, trace fine to coarse Gravel, very dense-dry to damp
Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, trace coarse Sand, trace fine Gravel, medium dense-moist
Boring Terminated at 25'
8 16
14 8
9 50/5"
16 FIELD RESULTS
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: 22 feet
READING TAKEN: At Completion

GRAPHIC LOG
BORING NO.

B-3
POCKET PEN.(TSF)
DRILLING DATE: 3/18/22
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Joey Hernandez
DEPTH (FEET)DRY DENSITY(PCF)MOISTURECONTENT (%)ORGANICCONTENT (%) JOB NO.: 22G105-1
PROJECT: Proposed Warehouse
LOCATION: Ontario, California
PLATE B-3
5 10
15 20
25 LABORATORY RESULTS

COMMENTS

TEST BORING LOG BLOW COUNT
PASSING#200 SIEVE (%)

DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE
SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL

LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMIT
TBL 22G105-1.GPJ SOCALGEO.GDT 4/19/22
531
109
107
107
119
92 3
2 3
1 1
2 1
3± inches Asphaltic Concrete; No Discernible Aggregate Base FILL: Brown Silty fine Sand, trace medium to coarse Sand, medium dense-damp
FILL: Brown fine Sand, medium dense-dry
FILL: Brown Silty fine Sand, trace coarse Sand, medium
dense-damp
ALLUVIUM: Light Gray Brown fine to coarse Sand, trace fine to coarse Gravel, medium dense-dry
Light Gray fine Sand, trace medium to coarse Sand, trace coarse Gravel, loose to medium dense-dry
Light Gray fine to coarse Sand, trace fine to coarse Gravel, dense-dry
Boring Terminated at 20'
Distubed Sample
Distubed Sample
39 18
16 35
35 14
64 FIELD RESULTS
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: 10 feet
READING TAKEN: At Completion

GRAPHIC LOG
BORING NO.

B-4
POCKET PEN.(TSF)
DRILLING DATE: 3/18/22
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Joey Hernandez
DEPTH (FEET)DRY DENSITY(PCF)MOISTURECONTENT (%)ORGANICCONTENT (%) JOB NO.: 22G105-1
PROJECT: Proposed Warehouse
LOCATION: Ontario, California
PLATE B-4
5 10
15 20

LABORATORY RESULTS

COMMENTS

TEST BORING LOG BLOW COUNT
PASSING#200 SIEVE (%)

DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE
SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL

LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMIT
TBL 22G105-1.GPJ SOCALGEO.GDT 4/19/22
532
14 15
13 5
5 2
3± inches Asphaltic Concrete; No Discernible Aggregate Base FILL: Brown Silty fine Sand, trace medium to coarse Sand, medium dense-very moist
FILL: Brown fine Sandy Silt, trace Clay, medium dense to dense-very moist
ALLUVIUM: Brown Silty fine Sand, trace coarse Gravel, loose to medium dense-damp
Light Gray Brown fine to coarse Sand, little fine to coarse Gravel, dense-dry
Boring Terminated at 20'
15 14
30 16
9 38

FIELD RESULTS
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: 16 feet
READING TAKEN: At Completion

GRAPHIC LOG
BORING NO.

B-5
POCKET PEN.(TSF)
DRILLING DATE: 3/18/22
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Joey Hernandez
DEPTH (FEET)DRY DENSITY(PCF)MOISTURECONTENT (%)ORGANICCONTENT (%) JOB NO.: 22G105-1
PROJECT: Proposed Warehouse
LOCATION: Ontario, California
PLATE B-5
5 10
15 20

LABORATORY RESULTS

COMMENTS

TEST BORING LOG BLOW COUNT
PASSING#200 SIEVE (%)

DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE
SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL

LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMIT
TBL 22G105-1.GPJ SOCALGEO.GDT 4/19/22
533
534
Classification: Brown fine Sand
Boring Number: B-4 Initial Moisture Content (%) 3
Sample Number: --- Final Moisture Content (%) 17
Depth (ft) 3 to 4 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 106.6
Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 111.1 Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse (%) 0.71
Proposed Warehouse
Ontario, California
Project No. 22G105-1
PLATE C- 1
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 0.1 1 10 100 Consolidation Strain (%)
Load (ksf)
Consolidation/Collapse Test Results
Water Added
at 1600 psf
535
Classification: Brown Silty Sand, trace coarse Sand
Boring Number: B-4 Initial Moisture Content (%) 3
Sample Number: --- Final Moisture Content (%) 16
Depth (ft) 5 to 6 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 107.2
Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 116.4 Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse (%) 1.89
Proposed Warehouse
Ontario, California
Project No. 22G105-1
PLATE C- 2
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 0.1 1 10 100 Consolidation Strain (%)
Load (ksf)
Consolidation/Collapse Test Results
Water Added
at 1600 psf
536
Classification: Light Gray Brown fine to coarse Sand, trace fine to coarse Gravel Boring Number: B-4 Initial Moisture Content (%) 1
Sample Number: --- Final Moisture Content (%) 11
Depth (ft) 7 to 8 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 119.4
Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 125.7 Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse (%) 0.99
Proposed Warehouse
Ontario, California
Project No. 22G105-1
PLATE C- 3
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 0.1 1 10 100 Consolidation Strain (%)
Load (ksf)
Consolidation/Collapse Test Results
Water Added
at 1600 psf
537
Sample Description: B-4 @ 3'
Initial Moisture Content 3.0
Final Moisture Content 18.0 Peak Ultimate
Initial Dry Density 107.0 f (°) 33.0 30.0
Final Dry Density --- c (psf) 250 200
Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4
Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0
Proposed Warehouse
Ontario, California
Project No. 22G105-1
PLATE C- 4
Classification: Brown fine Sand
Sample Data Test Results
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Direct Shear Test Results
(Undisturbed)
Peak
Ultimate
538
539
Grading Guide Specifications Page 1

GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS
These grading guide specifications are intended to provide typical procedures for grading operations.

They are intended to supplement the recommendations contained in the geotechnical investigation report for this project. Should the recommendations in the geotechnical investigation report conflict with the grading guide specifications, the more site specific recommendations in the geotechnical investigation report will govern.

General
• The Earthwork Contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with the plans and geotechnical reports, and in accordance with city, county, and applicable building codes.
• The Geotechnical Engineer is the representative of the Owner/Builder for the purpose of implementing the report recommendations and guidelines. These duties are not intended to relieve the Earthwork Contractor of any responsibility to perform in a workman-like manner, nor is the Geotechnical Engineer to direct the grading equipment or personnel employed by the Contractor.
• The Earthwork Contractor is required to notify the Geotechnical Engineer of the anticipated work and schedule so that testing and inspections can be provided. If necessary, work may be stopped and redone if personnel have not been scheduled in advance. • The Earthwork Contractor is required to have suitable and sufficient equipment on the jobsite to process, moisture condition, mix and compact the amount of fill being placed to the approved compaction. In addition, suitable support equipment should be available to conform with recommendations and guidelines in this report. • Canyon cleanouts, overexcavation areas, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, subdrains and benches should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to placement of any fill. It is the Earthwork Contractor's responsibility to notify the Geotechnical Engineer of areas that are ready for inspection.
• Excavation, filling, and subgrade preparation should be performed in a manner and sequence that will provide drainage at all times and proper control of erosion. Precipitation, springs, and seepage water encountered shall be pumped or drained to provide a suitable working surface. The Geotechnical Engineer must be informed of springs or water seepage encountered during grading or foundation construction for possible revision to the recommended construction procedures and/or installation of subdrains.

Site Preparation
• The Earthwork Contractor is responsible for all clearing, grubbing, stripping and site preparation for the project in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineer.
• If any materials or areas are encountered by the Earthwork Contractor which are suspected of having toxic or environmentally sensitive contamination, the Geotechnical Engineer and Owner/Builder should be notified immediately.
540
Grading Guide Specifications Page 2
• Major vegetation should be stripped and disposed of off-site. This includes trees, brush, heavy grasses and any materials considered unsuitable by the Geotechnical Engineer. • Underground structures such as basements, cesspools or septic disposal systems, mining shafts, tunnels, wells and pipelines should be removed under the inspection of the Geotechnical Engineer and recommendations provided by the Geotechnical Engineer and/or city, county or state agencies. If such structures are known or found, the Geotechnical Engineer should be notified as soon as possible so that recommendations can be formulated.
• Any topsoil, slopewash, colluvium, alluvium and rock materials which are considered unsuitable by the Geotechnical Engineer should be removed prior to fill placement. • Remaining voids created during site clearing caused by removal of trees, foundations basements, irrigation facilities, etc., should be excavated and filled with compacted fill. • Subsequent to clearing and removals, areas to receive fill should be scarified to a depth of 10 to 12 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted
• The moisture condition of the processed ground should be at or slightly above the optimum moisture content as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. Depending upon field conditions, this may require air drying or watering together with mixing and/or discing.

Compacted Fills
• Soil materials imported to or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill, provided each material has been determined to be suitable in the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer. Unless otherwise approved by the Geotechnical Engineer, all fill materials shall be free of deleterious, organic, or frozen matter, shall contain no chemicals that may result in the material being classified as “contaminated,” and shall be very low to non-expansive with a maximum expansion index (EI) of 50. The top 12 inches of the compacted fill should have a maximum particle size of 3 inches, and all underlying compacted fill material a maximum 6-inch particle size, except as noted below.
• All soils should be evaluated and tested by the Geotechnical Engineer. Materials with high expansion potential, low strength, poor gradation or containing organic materials may require removal from the site or selective placement and/or mixing to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Engineer.
• Rock fragments or rocks less than 6 inches in their largest dimensions, or as otherwise determined by the Geotechnical Engineer, may be used in compacted fill, provided the distribution and placement is satisfactory in the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer. • Rock fragments or rocks greater than 12 inches should be taken off-site or placed in accordance with recommendations and in areas designated as suitable by the Geotechnical Engineer. These materials should be placed in accordance with Plate D-8 of these Grading Guide Specifications and in accordance with the following recommendations:
• Rocks 12 inches or more in diameter should be placed in rows at least 15 feet apart, 15 feet from the edge of the fill, and 10 feet or more below subgrade. Spaces should be left between each rock fragment to provide for placement and compaction of soil around the fragments.
• Fill materials consisting of soil meeting the minimum moisture content requirements and free of oversize material should be placed between and over the rows of rock or 541
Grading Guide Specifications Page 3
concrete. Ample water and compactive effort should be applied to the fill materials as they are placed in order that all of the voids between each of the fragments are filled and compacted to the specified density.
• Subsequent rows of rocks should be placed such that they are not directly above a row placed in the previous lift of fill. A minimum 5-foot offset between rows is recommended.
• To facilitate future trenching, oversized material should not be placed within the range of foundation excavations, future utilities or other underground construction unless specifically approved by the soil engineer and the developer/owner representative. • Fill materials approved by the Geotechnical Engineer should be placed in areas previously prepared to receive fill and in evenly placed, near horizontal layers at about 6 to 8 inches in loose thickness, or as otherwise determined by the Geotechnical Engineer for the project. • Each layer should be moisture conditioned to optimum moisture content, or slightly above, as directed by the Geotechnical Engineer. After proper mixing and/or drying, to evenly distribute the moisture, the layers should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density in compliance with ASTM D-1557-78 unless otherwise indicated. • Density and moisture content testing should be performed by the Geotechnical Engineer at random intervals and locations as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. These tests are intended as an aid to the Earthwork Contractor, so he can evaluate his workmanship, equipment effectiveness and site conditions. The Earthwork Contractor is responsible for compaction as required by the Geotechnical Report(s) and governmental agencies. • Fill areas unused for a period of time may require moisture conditioning, processing and recompaction prior to the start of additional filling. The Earthwork Contractor should notify the Geotechnical Engineer of his intent so that an evaluation can be made. • Fill placed on ground sloping at a 5-to-1 inclination (horizontal-to-vertical) or steeper should be benched into bedrock or other suitable materials, as directed by the Geotechnical Engineer. Typical details of benching are illustrated on Plates D-2, D-4, and D-5. • Cut/fill transition lots should have the cut portion overexcavated to a depth of at least 3 feet and rebuilt with fill (see Plate D-1), as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. • All cut lots should be inspected by the Geotechnical Engineer for fracturing and other bedrock conditions. If necessary, the pads should be overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet and rebuilt with a uniform, more cohesive soil type to impede moisture penetration. • Cut portions of pad areas above buttresses or stabilizations should be overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet and rebuilt with uniform, more cohesive compacted fill to impede moisture penetration.
• Non-structural fill adjacent to structural fill should typically be placed in unison to provide lateral support. Backfill along walls must be placed and compacted with care to ensure that excessive unbalanced lateral pressures do not develop. The type of fill material placed adjacent to below grade walls must be properly tested and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer with consideration of the lateral earth pressure used in the design. 542
Grading Guide Specifications Page 4
Foundations
• The foundation influence zone is defined as extending one foot horizontally from the outside edge of a footing, and proceeding downward at a ½ horizontal to 1 vertical (0.5:1) inclination.
• Where overexcavation beneath a footing subgrade is necessary, it should be conducted so as to encompass the entire foundation influence zone, as described above. • Compacted fill adjacent to exterior footings should extend at least 12 inches above foundation bearing grade. Compacted fill within the interior of structures should extend to the floor subgrade elevation.

Fill Slopes
• The placement and compaction of fill described above applies to all fill slopes. Slope compaction should be accomplished by overfilling the slope, adequately compacting the fill in even layers, including the overfilled zone and cutting the slope back to expose the compacted core
• Slope compaction may also be achieved by backrolling the slope adequately every 2 to 4 vertical feet during the filling process as well as requiring the earth moving and compaction equipment to work close to the top of the slope. Upon completion of slope construction, the slope face should be compacted with a sheepsfoot connected to a sideboom and then grid rolled. This method of slope compaction should only be used if approved by the Geotechnical Engineer.
• Sandy soils lacking in adequate cohesion may be unstable for a finished slope condition and therefore should not be placed within 15 horizontal feet of the slope face. • All fill slopes should be keyed into bedrock or other suitable material. Fill keys should be at least 15 feet wide and inclined at 2 percent into the slope. For slopes higher than 30 feet, the fill key width should be equal to one-half the height of the slope (see Plate D-5). • All fill keys should be cleared of loose slough material prior to geotechnical inspection and should be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer and governmental agencies prior to filling. • The cut portion of fill over cut slopes should be made first and inspected by the Geotechnical Engineer for possible stabilization requirements. The fill portion should be adequately keyed through all surficial soils and into bedrock or suitable material. Soils should be removed from the transition zone between the cut and fill portions (see Plate D2).

Cut Slopes
• All cut slopes should be inspected by the Geotechnical Engineer to determine the need for stabilization. The Earthwork Contractor should notify the Geotechnical Engineer when slope cutting is in progress at intervals of 10 vertical feet. Failure to notify may result in a delay in recommendations.
• Cut slopes exposing loose, cohesionless sands should be reported to the Geotechnical Engineer for possible stabilization recommendations.
• All stabilization excavations should be cleared of loose slough material prior to geotechnical inspection. Stakes should be provided by the Civil Engineer to verify the location and dimensions of the key. A typical stabilization fill detail is shown on Plate D-5. 543
Grading Guide Specifications Page 5
• Stabilization key excavations should be provided with subdrains. Typical subdrain details are shown on Plates D-6.

Subdrains
• Subdrains may be required in canyons and swales where fill placement is proposed. Typical subdrain details for canyons are shown on Plate D-3. Subdrains should be installed after approval of removals and before filling, as determined by the Soils Engineer. • Plastic pipe may be used for subdrains provided it is Schedule 40 or SDR 35 or equivalent.

Pipe should be protected against breakage, typically by placement in a square-cut (backhoe) trench or as recommended by the manufacturer. • Filter material for subdrains should conform to CALTRANS Specification 68-1.025 or as approved by the Geotechnical Engineer for the specific site conditions. Clean ¾-inch crushed rock may be used provided it is wrapped in an acceptable filter cloth and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. Pipe diameters should be 6 inches for runs up to 500 feet and 8 inches for the downstream continuations of longer runs. Four-inch diameter pipe may be used in buttress and stabilization fills.
544
545

GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS
NOT TO SCALE DRAWN: JAS CHKD: GKM
PLATE D-2

FILL ABOVE CUT SLOPE DETAIL
9' MIN.
4' TYP.

MINIMUM 1' TILT BACK
OR 2% SLOPE
(WHICHEVER IS GREATER)

REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL

BENCHING DIMENSIONS IN ACCORDANCE

WITH PLAN OR AS RECOMMENDED

BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER

CUT SLOPE TO BE CONSTRUCTED

PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF FILL

BEDROCK OR APPROVED

COMPETENT MATERIAL

CUT SLOPE

NATURAL GRADE

CUT/FILL CONTACT TO BE
SHOWN ON "AS-BUILT"

COMPETENT MATERIAL

CUT/FILL CONTACT SHOWN

ON GRADING PLAN

NEW COMPACTED FILL
10' TYP.

KEYWAY IN COMPETENT MATERIAL
MINIMUM WIDTH OF 15 FEET OR AS

RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEER. KEYWAY MAY NOT BE
REQUIRED IF FILL SLOPE IS LESS THAN 5

FEET IN HEIGHT AS RECOMMENDED BY
THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER.
546
547

GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS
NOT TO SCALE DRAWN: JAS CHKD: GKM
PLATE D-4

FILL ABOVE NATURAL SLOPE DETAIL
10' TYP.
4' TYP.
(WHICHEVER IS GREATER)
OR 2% SLOPE
MINIMUM 1' TILT BACK

REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL

NEW COMPACTED FILL

COMPETENT MATERIAL
KEYWAY IN COMPETENT MATERIAL.

RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNIAL
ENGINEER. KEYWAY MAY NOT BE REQUIRED
IF FILL SLOPE IS LESS THAN 5' IN HEIGHT

AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEER.
2' MINIMUM

KEY DEPTH

OVERFILL REQUIREMENTS

PER GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS

TOE OF SLOPE SHOWN

ON GRADING PLAN

BACKCUT - VARIES

PLACE COMPACTED BACKFILL

TO ORIGINAL GRADE

PROJECT SLOPE GRADIENT
(1:1 MAX.)
NOTE:

BENCHING SHALL BE REQUIRED

WHEN NATURAL SLOPES ARE
EQUAL TO OR STEEPER THAN 5:1

OR WHEN RECOMMENDED BY
THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER.

FINISHED SLOPE FACE
MINIMUM WIDTH OF 15 FEET OR AS

BENCHING DIMENSIONS IN ACCORDANCE

WITH PLAN OR AS RECOMMENDED

BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
548

GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS
NOT TO SCALE DRAWN: JAS CHKD: GKM
PLATE D-5

STABILIZATION FILL DETAIL

FACE OF FINISHED SLOPE

COMPACTED FILL
MINIMUM 1' TILT BACK
OR 2% SLOPE
(WHICHEVER IS GREATER)
10' TYP.
2' MINIMUM

KEY DEPTH
3' TYPICAL

BLANKET FILL IF RECOMMENDED

BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER

COMPETENT MATERIAL ACCEPTABLE

TO THE SOIL ENGINEER

KEYWAY WIDTH, AS SPECIFIED

BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER

TOP WIDTH OF FILL

AS SPECIFIED BY THE

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER

BENCHING DIMENSIONS IN ACCORDANCE

WITH PLAN OR AS RECOMMENDED

BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
4' TYP.
549
550
551
552
553
DRAWN: JAZ CHKD: RGT SCG PROJECT
22G105-1 PLATE E-1
SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS - 2019 CBC
SOURCE: SEAOC/OSHPD Seismic Design Maps Tool
<https://seismicmaps.org/>

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA

PROPOSED WAREHOUSE
554

REDLANDS OFFICE
301 9th Street, Suite 114
Redlands, California 92374
T: 909.283.7533
F: 602.254.6280
[email protected]
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the 2042 South Grove Avenue Project, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California | 1
May 12, 2022
First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc., First Industrial, L.P., First Industrial Acquisitions II, LLC, and their Affiliates and Assigns c/o Angela Truong, P.E.

Project Engineer
Roux Associates, Inc.
5150 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 450
Long Beach, California 90804
Transmitted via email to [email protected]
RE: Paleontological Resource Assessment for the 2042 South Grove Avenue Project, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California
Dear Ms. Truong,
On behalf of First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc., First Industrial, L.P., First Industrial Acquisitions II, LLC and their affiliates and assigns, and at the request of Roux, Inc. (Roux), PaleoWest, LLC (PaleoWest) conducted a paleontological resource assessment for the 2042 South Grove Avenue Project (Project), in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California. The goal of the assessment is to identify the geologic units that may be impacted by development of the Project, determine the paleontological sensitivity of geologic units within the Project area, assess potential for impacts to paleontological resources from development of the Project, and recommend mitigation measures to avoid or mitigate impacts to scientifically significant paleontological resources, as necessary.

This paleontological resource assessment included a fossil locality records search conducted by the Western Science Center (WSC), in the City of Hemet, California. The WSC records search was supplemented by a review of existing geologic maps, online fossil locality databases, and primary literature regarding fossiliferous geologic units within the proposed Project vicinity and region. This technical memorandum, which was written in accordance with the guidelines set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) (2010), has been prepared to support the environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The proposed Project involves the redevelopment of a lot at 2042 South Grove Avenue (Figure 1). This Project is within Assessor’s Parcel Number 105049111, which is fully developed and is approximately 4.2 acres in an unsectioned portion of Township 1 South, Range 7 West on the Santa Ana Del Chino Land Grant, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian (SBBM), as depicted in the Ontario, California U.S. Geological 7.5' Quadrangle (1982) (Figure 2). 555
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the 2042 South Grove Avenue Project, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California | 2
Figure 1. Project vicinity map.
556
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the 2042 South Grove Avenue Project, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California | 3
Figure 2. Project location map.
557
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the 2042 South Grove Avenue Project, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California | 4

REGULATORY CONTEXT
Paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) are considered nonrenewable scientific resources because once destroyed, they cannot be replaced. As such, paleontological resources are afforded protection under various federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Laws pertinent to this Project are discussed below.

STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA requires that public agencies and private interests identify the potential environmental consequences of their Projects on any object or site of significance to the scientific annals of California (Division I, California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 5020.1 [j]). Appendix G in Section 15023 provides an Environmental Checklist of questions (Section 15023, Appendix G, Section VII, Part F) that includes the following: “Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?” CEQA does not define “a unique paleontological resource or site.” However, the SVP has provided guidance specifically designed to support state and federal environmental review in absence of agency guidelines. The SVP broadly defines significant paleontological resources as follows (SVP, 2010, page 11):
“Fossils and fossiliferous deposits consisting of identifiable vertebrate fossils, large or small, uncommon invertebrate, plant, and trace fossils, and other data that provide taphonomic, taxonomic, phylogenetic, paleoecologic, stratigraphic, and/or biochronologic information. Paleontological resources are considered to be older than recorded human history and/or older than middle Holocene (i.e., older than about 5,000 radiocarbon years).”
Significant paleontological resources are determined to be fossils or assemblages of fossils that are unique, unusual, rare, diagnostically important, or are common but have the potential to provide valuable scientific information for evaluating evolutionary patterns and processes, or could improve our understanding of paleochronology, paleoecology, paleophylogeography, or depositional histories. New or unique specimens can provide new insights into evolutionary history; however, additional specimens of even well represented lineages can be equally important for studying evolutionary pattern and process, evolutionary rates, and paleophylogeography. Even unidentifiable material can provide useful data for dating geologic units if radiometric dating is possible. As such, common fossils (especially vertebrates) may be scientifically important, and therefore considered significant.

California Public Resources Code
Section 5097.5 of the Public Resources Code (PRC) states:
“No person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the 558
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the 2042 South Grove Avenue Project, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California | 5
public agency having jurisdiction over such lands. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor. As used in this PRC section, ‘public lands’ means lands owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the state or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof.”
Consequently, public agencies are required to comply with PRC 5097.5 for their own activities, including construction and maintenance, as well as for permit actions (e.g., encroachment permits) undertaken by others.

LOCAL
The County of San Bernardino has goals and policies related to paleontological resource issues in their General Plan (County of San Bernardino, 2020). The following presents the countywide goal for paleontological resources and their associated policies and programs. ▪ GOAL CR-2: Historic resources (buildings, structures, or archaeological resources) and paleontological resources that are protected and preserved for their cultural importance to local communities as well as their research and educational potential. ▪ CR-2.1: National and state historic resources. We encourage the preservation of archaeological sites and structures of state or national significance in accordance with the Secretary of Interior’s standards.
▪ CR-2.2: Local historic resources. We encourage property owners to maintain the historic integrity of resources on their property by (listed in order of preference):
preservation, adaptive reuse, or memorialization.
▪ CR-2.3: Paleontological and archaeological resources. We strive to protect paleontological and archaeological resources from loss or destruction by requiring that new development include appropriate mitigation to preserve the quality and integrity of these resources. We require new development to avoid paleontological and archeological resources whenever possible. If avoidance is not possible, we require the salvage and preservation of paleontological and archeological resources. ▪ CR-2.4: Partnerships. We encourage partnerships to champion and financially support the preservation and restoration of historic sites, structures, and districts. ▪ CR-2.5: Public awareness and education. We increase public awareness and conduct education efforts about the unique historic, natural, tribal, and cultural resources in San Bernardino County through the County Museum and in collaboration with other entities and organizations.

The City of Ontario has no goals or policies specifically related to paleontological resources in their Policy Plan (City of Ontario, 1992), which serves as the City’s General Plan mandated by state law.

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE POTENTIAL
Absent specific agency guidelines, most professional paleontologists in California adhere to the guidelines set forth by SVP (2010) to determine the course of paleontological mitigation for a given project. These guidelines establish protocols for the assessment of the paleontological resource potential of underlying geologic units and outline measures to mitigate adverse 559
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the 2042 South Grove Avenue Project, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California | 6
impacts that could result from project development. Using baseline information gathered during a paleontological resource assessment, the paleontological resource potential of the geologic unit(s) (or members thereof) underlying a project area can be assigned to one of four categories defined by SVP (2010). Although these standards were written specifically to protect vertebrate paleontological resources, all fields of paleontology have adopted the following guidelines:

HIGH POTENTIAL (SENSITIVITY)
According to the SVP (2010), “[r]ock units from which vertebrate or significant invertebrate, plant, or trace fossils have been recovered are considered to have high potential for containing additional significant paleontological resources. Rock units classified as having high potential for producing paleontological resources include, but are not limited to, sedimentary formations and some volcaniclastic formations (e.g., ashes or tephras), and some low-grade metamorphic rocks which contain significant paleontological resources anywhere within their geographic extent, and sedimentary rock units temporally or lithologically suitable for the preservation of fossils (e.g., middle Holocene or older, fine-grained fluvial sandstones, argillaceous and carbonate-rich paleosols, cross-bedded point bar sandstones, fine-grained marine sandstones, etc.). Paleontological potential consists of both (a) the potential for yielding abundant or significant vertebrate fossils or for yielding a few significant fossils, large or small, vertebrate, invertebrate, plant, or trace fossils and (b) the importance of recovered evidence for new and significant taxonomic, phylogenetic, paleoecologic, taphonomic, biochronologic, or stratigraphic data. Rock units which contain potentially datable organic remains older than late Holocene, including deposits associated with animal nests or middens, and rock units which may contain new vertebrate deposits, traces, or trackways are also classified as having high potential.”

UNDETERMINED POTENTIAL (SENSITIVITY)
According to the SVP (2010), “[r]ock units for which little information is available concerning their paleontological content, geologic age, and depositional environment are considered to have undetermined potential. Further study is necessary to determine if these rock units have high or low potential to contain significant paleontological resources. A field survey by a qualified professional paleontologist… to specifically determine the paleontological resource potential of these rock units is required before a paleontological resource impact mitigation program can be developed. In cases where no subsurface data are available, paleontological potential can sometimes be determined by strategically located excavations into subsurface stratigraphy.”

LOW POTENTIAL (SENSITIVITY)
According to the SVP (2010), “[r]eports in the paleontological literature or field surveys by a qualified professional paleontologist may allow determination that some rock units have low potential for yielding significant fossils. Such rock units will be poorly represented by fossil specimens in institutional collections, or based on general scientific consensus only preserve fossils in rare circumstances and the presence of fossils is the exception not the rule, e.g., basalt flows or Recent colluvium. Rock units with low potential typically will not require impact mitigation measures to protect fossils.” However, as ground disturbances occur, it is possible that significant and unanticipated paleontological resources might be encountered either at the surface or at depth. Therefore, a change of classification from low to high potential may be warranted and monitoring and mitigation may be needed.
560
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the 2042 South Grove Avenue Project, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California | 7

NO POTENTIAL
According to the SVP (2010), “[s]ome rock units have no potential to contain significant paleontological resources, for instance high-grade metamorphic rocks (such as gneisses and schists) and plutonic igneous rocks (such as granites and diorites). Rock units with no potential require no protection nor impact mitigation measures relative to paleontological resources.”

METHODS
To determine whether construction or implementation of a project has the potential to impact significant paleontological resources at the surface or within the subsurface, a paleontological resources assessment, which includes a review of published geologic maps, scientific literature, and museum records, is necessary. Therefore, this paleontological resource assessment consists of a review of geologic maps and scientific literature, which was supplemented by a search of pertinent local and regional museum repositories for fossil records within the Project area and its vicinity. A formal museum records search was conducted at the WSC, as the San Bernardino County Museum (SBCM) is currently not accepting paleontological records search requests. Additionally, fossil locality records and published literature from the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) online fossil locality database, the San Diego Natural History Museum (SDNHM) online fossil locality database, the online Paleobiology Database (PBDB), the online Neotoma Paleoecology Database (Neotoma) were reviewed, as well as other published and unpublished geological and paleontological literature of the area. The UCMP, SDNHM, PBDB, and Neotoma online databases do not provide specific fossil locality information, but they can be queried by county/region, geologic formation, and/or geologic age.

RESOURCE CONTEXT

GEOLOGIC SETTING
The Project area is in the northern portion of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province (referred to herein as the “Peninsular Ranges”). Northwest-trending fault-bound blocks of mountain ranges and valleys oriented subparallel to the San Andreas Fault distinguish the Peninsular Ranges from its neighboring provinces. The Peninsular Ranges are bounded on the east by the Colorado Desert geomorphic province, on the north by the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province, whose southern boundary is subparallel to the San Bernardino–Riverside County line, on the west by the submarine continental shelf, and on the south by the California state line (Norris and Webb, 1990). Most of the geologic history of the Peninsular Ranges is characterized by the formation of pluton complexes during the pre-Mesozoic and Mesozoic, tectonism resulting in subparallel fault-bound blocks during the late Mesozoic and Cenozoic, and the erosion of uplifted blocks and the subsequent deposition of thick sediments within the resulting basins throughout the Cenozoic.

Locally, the Project area is within the Upper Santa Ana Valley near the western boundary of the Perris Block (Dutcher and Garrett, 1963), one of several fault-bound blocks within the Peninsular Ranges (Morton and Miller, 2006). The Perris Block is bounded by the Cucamonga Fault Zone on the north, the Claremont and Casa Loma faults on the northeast, and the Elsinore 561
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the 2042 South Grove Avenue Project, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California | 8
Fault Zone on the southwest, all of which are associated with tectonic movement along the San Andreas Fault (Morton and Miller, 2006). Within the Upper Santa Ana Valley across the northern Perris Block, Pleistocene (approximately 2.4 million years ago [Ma] to 11,700 years ago) and Holocene (approximately 11,7000 years ago to present) alluvial fans emanate from the San Gabriel Mountains on the north and the San Bernardino Mountains on the northeast, resulting in thick accumulations of alluvial deposits (Dutcher and Garrett, 1963; Morton and Miller, 2006; Norris and Webb, 1990). A complex series of alluvial fans, ranging from large to small, emanate from Waterman and City Creeks and the Santa Ana River and Mill Creek (Morton and Miller, 2006).

SITE SPECIFIC GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY
Based on geologic mapping at a scale of 1:100,000 by Morton and Miller (2006), the surface of the Project area is mapped as middle Holocene young alluvial-fan deposits, Unit 3 (Qyf3) (Figure 3). Although not mapped at the surface within the Project area, late Holocene young alluvial-fan deposits, Unit 5 (Qyf5) and early Holocene and late Pleistocene young alluvial-fan deposits, Unit 1 (Qyf1) are mapped by Morton and Miller (2006) at the surface within 0.5 mile (mi) and may be present but unmapped at the surface or present within the subsurface of the Project area (Figure 3). Additionally, based on previous site development, unmapped artificial fill may also be present at the surface of the Project area. Therefore, these geologic units are included in this analysis and are described below in geochronological order (youngest to oldest) below.

Unmapped Artificial Fill: Unmapped artificial fill consists of sand, gravel, and bedrock from pits, quarries, and excavations related to construction, engineering, mining, or quarrying activities (Morton and Miller, 2006). Based on a review of aerial imagery of the Project area, the site has been previously improved, indicating that artificial fill is likely present in the uppermost sediments within the Project area. At the time of this paleontological assessment, no geotechnical study is available to characterize the artificial fill or its maximum depth. Although artificial fill has the potential to contain intact fossil material, any such fossil would be removed from its original geographic and stratigraphic context (i.e., provenance); therefore, any fossils from artificial fill are typically regarded as nonsignificant.

Young Alluvial-Fan Deposits, Unit 5 (Qyf5): Sediments of the late Holocene (approximately 4,200 years ago to present) young alluvial-fan deposits, Unit 5 (Qyf5) are not mapped within the bounds of the Project area; however, they are mapped at the surface approximately 0.5 mi to the east of the Project area (Morton and Miller, 2006). Therefore, they may be (1) present but unmapped at the surface, (2) present at unknown (but likely shallow) depth below artificial fill, or (3) absent entirely due to natural geologic processes or due to earthwork activities removing such deposits during previous site improvements. Nonetheless, young alluvial-fan deposits, Unit 5 consist of unconsolidated to slightly consolidated coarse-grained sand with boulders, having slightly dissected to undissected surfaces (Morton and Miller, 2006). These alluvial-fan deposits are notably finer-grained in more distal regions (i.e., southern extents) (Morton and Miller, 2006). Along the southside of the San Gabriel Mountains, these alluvial-fan sediments are the result of drainages emanating from Lytle Creek depositing eroded clasts of older rocks originating upstream from the surrounding ranges (Morton and Miller, 2006). At least seven young alluvial-fan subunits have been identified throughout the valley, ranging from late Holocene to late Pleistocene, with Unit 5 relatively dated to late Holocene and differentiated from other units by its relative position in terrace river sequences, adjacent alluvial fan superposition, and degree of dissection (Morton and Miller, 2006). The overall thickness of 562
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the 2042 South Grove Avenue Project, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California | 9
Figure 3. Geologic map.
563
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the 2042 South Grove Avenue Project, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California | 10 Unit 5 is unspecified. Although late Holocene sediments may contain or preserve organic material, they are regarded as too young to contain scientifically significant paleontological resources (SVP, 2010) but may be underlain at shallow depth by older geologic units of appropriate age to yield fossils.

Young Alluvial-Fan Deposits, Unit 3 (Qyf3): Sediments of middle Holocene (approximately 8,200–4,200 years ago) young alluvial-fan deposits, Unit 3 (Qyf3) are mapped at the surface of the Project area by Morton and Miller (2006). These deposits consist of medium brown, slightly to moderately consolidated silt and sand, which are coarse-grained and contain sparse, matrixsupported granule- and pebble-dominated lenses, and have slightly to moderately dissected surfaces exhibiting rolling hills and incised channels (Morton and Miller, 2006). Within the Project area, these deposits may be overlain by unmapped artificial fill and/or relatively younger alluvium (e.g., young alluvial-fan deposits, Unit 5). Unlike the relatively younger deposits, Unit 3 is middle Holocene and is differentiated by the degree of dissection of the surface, degree of wash channel incision, superposition of nearby and overlapping alluvial fans, and amplitude of the gently rolling topography (Morton and Miller, 2006). The overall thickness of Unit 3 is unspecified, but in areas where it is mapped at the surface, moderately to deeply incised wash channels reveal as much as 13 feet (ft) of exposed sediments (Morton and Miller, 2006).

According to guidelines established by the SVP (2010), middle to early Holocene (i.e., older than 5,000 years old) or older sedimentary deposits may yield significant paleontological resources.

The uppermost deposits of the middle Holocene young alluvial-fan deposits, Unit 3 are likely too young to contain fossils but may transition at depth to deposits that may contain significant fossils. The depth to this transition within the Project area is unknown but likely shallow (e.g., 5 ft below ground surface) based on the close proximity of early Holocene- to late Pleistoceneage deposits approximately 0.25 mi to the east of the Project area. The types of paleontological resources that may be yielded from middle to early Holocene and late Pleistocene age are discussed in the next section.

Young Alluvial-Fan Deposits, Unit 1 (Qyf1): Sediments of the early Holocene (approximately 11,700–8,200 years ago) and late Pleistocene (129,000–11,700 years ago) young alluvial-fan deposits, Unit 1 (Qyf1), are not mapped within the bounds of the Project area; however, they are mapped at the surface approximately 0.25 mi to the east of the Project area (Morton and Miller, 2006). Therefore, they may be (1) present but unmapped at the surface, (2) present at unknown (but likely shallow) depth below artificial fill or the relatively younger alluvial-fan deposits (e.g., Unit 3 and Unit 5 described above), or (3) absent entirely due to natural geologic processes or due to earthwork activities removing such deposits during previous site improvements. Nonetheless, young alluvial-fan deposits, Unit 5 consist of slightly to moderately consolidated silt to coarse-grained sand with boulders, having slightly dissected surfaces (Morton and Miller, 2006). These alluvial-fan deposits are notably finer-grained in more distal regions (southern extents) (Morton and Miller, 2006). Along the southside of the San Gabriel Mountains, Unit 1 consists mostly of sand- to pebble-sized clasts, exhibiting indistinct stratification in most of its extent. Much like the relatively younger alluvial-fan deposits present within the valley, Unit 1 clasts originate upstream from the surrounding ranges of the San Gabriel Mountains (Morton and Miller, 2006). Although unspecified by Morton and Miller (2006), Unit 1 is likely differentiated from the relatively younger alluvial-fan deposits by its relatively high degree of consolidation and dissection, as well as its superposition with the younger alluvial fans.
564
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the 2042 South Grove Avenue Project, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California | 11 Early Holocene and late Pleistocene deposits have yielded numerous significant paleontological resources within the vicinity of the Project area within the Upper Santa Ana Valley within the southwest corner of San Bernardino County. Fossil localities from similarly aged deposits have yielded mammoth, ground sloth, rodent, mustelid, canid, feline, horse, bison, camel, antelope, deer, bird, newt, frog, and bony fish (Jefferson, 1991a, 1991b; Reynolds and Reynolds, 1991).

The UCMP (2022) contains numerous records of late Pleistocene-age vertebrate, invertebrate, and plant fossil localities throughout San Bernardino County; however, none of the localities are from the vicinity of the Project area based on their brief location descriptions included with each record. The SDNHM (2022) and Neotoma (2022) databases contain no fossil locality records from similarly aged deposits from the same region. Along the eastern border of the Upper Santa Ana Valley, the PBDB (2022) reports one reference, Dooley et al. (2019), which cites at least one locality that yielded mastodon from late Pleistocene-age deposits.

RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS
The WSC does not contain records of fossil localities from within the Project area, nor within 1 mi of the Project area (Radford, 2022). Searches of online databases and other literature did not produce any additional fossil localities within 1 mi of the Project area; however, several early Holocene- to late Pleistocene-age fossil localities have been recorded from the general vicinity of the Project area.

FINDINGS
This memorandum uses the SVP (2010) system to classify the paleontological sensitivity of the geologic units present at the surface or at depth within the Project area to determine the potential for impacts to paleontological resources and to assess the level of effort required to reduce potential impacts to less-than significant levels, pursuant to CEQA.

According to the SVP (2010), late Holocene sediments are too young to contain scientifically significant paleontological resources. Therefore, unmapped artificial fill that may be present at the surface of the Project area, as well as late Holocene young alluvial-fan deposits, Unit 5 (Qyf5) that may be present immediately below the artificial fill, have a low paleontological sensitivity. Middle Holocene young alluvial-fan deposits, Unit 3 (Qyf3) that are mapped at the surface of the Project area by Morton and Miller (2006), may be too young in the uppermost sediments of this geologic unit to contain important fossils and may be overlain by the younger geologic units described above. However, they may transition at shallow depth to sediments of appropriate age that can preserve scientifically important fossils. The depth to this transition is unknown but may be as shallow as 5 ft below ground surface based on the proximity of early Holocene and late Pleistocene sediments near the Project area to the east. Therefore, middle Holocene young alluvial-fan deposits, Unit 3 have a low to high paleontological sensitivity, increasing with depth. Early Holocene and late Pleistocene young alluvial-fan deposits, Unit 1 (Qyf1) are mapped at the surface outside of the Project area but may be present at shallow depth, underlying the relatively younger alluvial-fan deposits or artificial fill. Unit 1 deposits are of an appropriate age to yield scientifically significant paleontological resources and comparable units throughout the region have yielded important fossils. Therefore, early Holocene and late Pleistocene young alluvial-fan deposits, Unit 1 have a high paleontological sensitivity. 565
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the 2042 South Grove Avenue Project, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California | 12 Since this Project likely entails excavation for a new development, new ground disturbances are anticipated. In general, the potential for a given project to result in negative impacts to paleontological resources is directly proportional to the amount of ground disturbance associated with the project; thus, the higher the amount of ground disturbances within geological units with a known paleontological sensitivity, the greater the potential for negative impacts to paleontological resources. At the time of this assessment, the extent of grounddisturbing activities within the Project area are unspecified; nonetheless, excavations or ground disturbances that would impact previously undisturbed sediments great than or equal to 5 ft below ground surface have the potential to impact significant paleontological resources.

Destruction of scientifically important fossils during Project-related earthwork activities would be considered a significant impact under CEQA. Paleontological mitigation would be required to reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant levels, pursuant to CEQA.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Ground disturbances less than 5 ft below ground surface are unlikely to result in impacts to significant paleontological resources; however, ground disturbances greater than or equal to 5 ft below ground surface may impact geologic units of high paleontological sensitivity, and therefore, may result in impacts to significant paleontological resources. PaleoWest recommends retaining a Qualified Paleontologist to implement paleontological monitoring during ground disturbances that impact previously undisturbed sediments greater than or equal to 5 ft below ground surface. Paleontological monitoring is not recommended for earthwork activities impacting artificial fill, previously disturbed sediments, sediments less than 5 ft below ground surface, or sediments determined by the Qualified Paleontologist to not be of an appropriate age to yield paleontological resources based on field observations. In consultation with the City of Ontario and the Project Proponent, the Qualified Paleontologist can reduce or cease paleontological monitoring efforts based on field observations and/or the nature of earthwork activities after the initial monitoring of the site. If significant paleontological resources are discovered during implementation of the monitoring program, they should be salvaged and curated at an appropriate repository (e.g., the SBCM or WSC). A final monitoring report should be prepared by the Qualified Paleontologist at the conclusion of the Project and should be filed with the City of Ontario. If paleontological resources are curated, the final monitoring report and all related fossil data should be filed at the curating repository.

Thank you for contacting PaleoWest for this Project. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

Mathew Carson, M.S. | Senior Paleontologist/Project Manager

PALEOWEST
Attachments:

Attachment A: Confidential Western Science Center Museum Records Search Results 566
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the 2042 South Grove Avenue Project, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California | 13

REFERENCES
City of Ontario. 1992. Policy Plan. Accessed March 18, 2022. Available online at https://www.ontarioplan.org/policy-plan/
County of San Bernardino. 2020. Cultural Resources Element of the General Plan. Accessed March 18, 2022. Available online at https://countywideplan.com/policy-plan/beta/ch/.

Dooley, A.C., E. Scott, J. Green, K.B. Springer, B.S. Booley, and G.J. Smith. 2019. Mammut pacificus sp. nov., a newly recognized species of mastodon from the Pleistocene of western North America. PeerJ, 7:e6614.

Dutcher, L.C., and A.A. Garrett. 1963. Geologic and Hydrologic Features of the San Bernardino Area, California, With Special Reference to Underflow Across the San Jacinto Fault.

USGS Water Supply Paper 1419, 120 p.

Jefferson, G.T. 1991a. A catalogue of Late Quaternary Vertebrates from California: Part One, nonmarine lower vertebrate and avian taxa. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Technical Reports No. 5.

Jefferson, G.T. 1991b. A catalogue of Late Quaternary Vertebrates from California: Part Two, Mammals. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Technical Reports No. 7.

Morton, D.M., and F.K. Miller. 2006. Geologic map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30’ x 60’ quadrangles, California. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 2006-1217, scale 1:100,000.

Neotoma Paleoecology Database (Neotoma). 2022. Accessed on March 25, 2022. Available online at https://www.neotomadb.org/
Norris, R.M., and R.W. Webb. 1990. Geology of California. Second Edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Paleobiology Database (PBDB). 2022. Accessed March 25, 2022. Available online at https://paleobiodb.org/#/
Radford, D. 2022. Museum records search results letter for the 2042 S. Grove Avenue Project, City of Ontario. Received March 8, 2022.

Reynolds, R.E., and R.L. Reynolds. 1991. The Pleistocene beneath our feet: near-surface Pleistocene fossils from inland southern California. In Inland Southern California: the Last 70 Million Years, compiled by M.O. Woodburne, R.E. Reynolds, and D.P. Whistler.

San Bernardino County Museum Association Quarterly 38(3 & 4): 41-43.

San Diego Natural History Museum (SDNHM). 2022. Online collections database search.

Accessed March 25, 2022. Available online at: https://www.sdnhm.org/science/ paleontology/resources/collection-database/
567
Paleontological Resource Assessment for the 2042 South Grove Avenue Project, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California | 14 Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee. Pages 1–11. Bethesda, MD.

University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP). 2022. Online localities database search. Accessed March 25, 2022. Available online at: https://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/ loc.html
568
Appendix A | 1
ATTACHMENT A:

Confidential
Western Science Center Museum
Records Search Results
569
2345 Searl Parkway ♦ Hemet, CA 92543 ♦ phone 951.791.0033 ♦ fax 951.791.0032 ♦ WesternScienceCenter.org March 8, 2022
PaleoWest
Mathew Carson
517 S. Ivy Avenue
Monrovia, CA 91016
Dear Mr. Carson,
This letter presents the results of a record search conducted for the 2042 S. Grove Avenue Project in the city of Ontario, Riverside County, California. The project site is located south of Francis Street, east of Cucamonga Avenue, north of Philadelphia Street, and west of South Grove Street on Assessor’s Parcel Number 105049111 in an unsectioned portion of Township 1 South, and Range 7 West on the Ontario, California USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle.

The geologic units underlying this project are mapped entirely as alluvial valley deposits dating from the middle Holocene roughly 6,500-5,000 years ago (Morton & Miller, 2006). Holocene alluvial units are considered to be of high preservation value, but material found is unlikely to be fossil material due to the relatively modern associated dates of the deposits. However, if development requires any substantial depth of disturbance, the likelihood of reaching Pleistocene alluvial sediments would increase. The Western Science Center does not have localities within the project area or within a 1 mile radius.

While the presence of any fossil material is unlikely, if excavation activity disturbs deeper sediment dating to the earliest parts of the Holocene or late Pleistocene, the material would be scientifically significant. Excavation activity associated with the development of the project area is unlikely to be paleontologically sensitive, but caution during development should be observed.

If you have any questions, or would like further information, please feel free to contact me at [email protected]
Sincerely,
Darla Radford
Collections Manager
570
First Grove

NOISE AND VIBRATION ANALYSIS

CITY OF ONTARIO
PREPARED BY:

Bill Lawson, PE, INCE
[email protected]
(949) 584-3148
JUNE 5, 2023
15067-02 NA
571
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
ii 572
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................................................... III APPENDICES........................................................................................................................................IV LIST OF EXHIBITS.................................................................................................................................IV LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................V LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS .............................................................................................................VI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 1 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Site Location.................................................................................................................................. 3

1.2 Project Description........................................................................................................................ 3 2 FUNDAMENTALS ......................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Range of Noise .............................................................................................................................. 7

2.2 Noise Descriptors.......................................................................................................................... 8

2.3 Sound Propagation........................................................................................................................ 8

2.4 Noise Control ................................................................................................................................ 9

2.5 Noise Barrier Attenuation............................................................................................................. 9

2.6 Land Use Compatibility With Noise ............................................................................................ 10

2.7 Community Response to Noise................................................................................................... 10

2.8 Vibration ..................................................................................................................................... 11 3 REGULATORY SETTING .............................................................................................................. 13

3.1 State of California Noise Requirements...................................................................................... 13

3.2 City of Ontario General Plan Noise Element............................................................................... 13

3.3 Operational Noise Standards...................................................................................................... 15

3.4 Construction Noise Standards..................................................................................................... 15

3.5 Vibration Standards .................................................................................................................... 16

3.6 Airport Land Use Compatibility................................................................................................... 16 4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA ............................................................................................................ 19

4.1 Noise Level Increases (Threshold A) ........................................................................................... 19

4.2 Vibration (Threshold B)............................................................................................................... 20

4.3 CEQA Guidelines Not Further Analyzed (Threshold C) ............................................................... 20

4.4 Significance Criteria Summary .................................................................................................... 21 5 EXISTING NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS ................................................................................... 23

5.1 Measurement Procedure and Criteria ........................................................................................ 23

5.2 Noise Measurement Locations ................................................................................................... 23

5.3 Noise Measurement Results....................................................................................................... 24 6 RECEIVER LOCATIONS................................................................................................................ 27 7 OPERATIONAL NOISE ANALYSIS ................................................................................................ 29

7.1 Operational Noise Sources.......................................................................................................... 29

7.2 Reference Noise Levels............................................................................................................... 29

7.3 CadnaA Noise Prediction Model ................................................................................................. 32

7.4 Project Operational Noise Levels................................................................................................ 33

7.5 Project Operational Noise Level Compliance.............................................................................. 34

7.6 Project Operational Noise Level Increases ................................................................................. 35 573
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
iv

7.7 Off-Site Traffic Noise Analysis..................................................................................................... 36 8 CONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................ 37

8.1 Construction Noise Levels........................................................................................................... 37

8.2 Construction Reference Noise Levels ......................................................................................... 37

8.3 Construction Noise Analysis........................................................................................................ 39

8.4 Construction Noise Level Compliance ........................................................................................ 40

8.5 Nighttime Concrete Pour Noise Analysis.................................................................................... 41

8.6 Construction Vibration Analysis.................................................................................................. 43 9 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................. 45 10 CERTIFICATIONS........................................................................................................................ 47

APPENDICES
APPENDIX 3.1: CITY OF ONTARIO MUNICIPAL CODE
APPENDIX 5.1: STUDY AREA PHOTOS
APPENDIX 5.2: NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 7.1: CADNAA OPERATIONAL NOISE MODEL INPUTS
APPENDIX 8.1: CADNAA CONSTRUCTION NOISE MODEL INPUTS
APPENDIX 8.2: CADNAA CONCRETE POUR NOISE MODEL INPUTS

LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP .............................................................................................................. 4 EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN........................................................................................................................ 5 EXHIBIT 2-A: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS .................................................................................................... 7 EXHIBIT 2-B: NOISE LEVEL INCREASE PERCEPTION ............................................................................. 10 EXHIBIT 2-C: TYPICAL LEVELS OF GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION .......................................................... 12 EXHIBIT 3-A: NOISE LEVEL EXPOSURE AND LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

EXHIBIT 3-B: ONT FUTURE AIRPORT NOISE CONTOURS ..................................................................... 17 EXHIBIT 5-A: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS............................................................................... 25 EXHIBIT 6-A: RECEIVER LOCATIONS ................................................................................................... 28 EXHIBIT 7-A: OPERATIONAL NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS.................................................................... 30 EXHIBIT 8-A: CONSTRUCTION NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS ................................................................. 38 EXHIBIT 8-B: NIGHTTIME CONCRETE POUR NOISE SOURCE AND RECEIVER LOCATIONS ..................... 42 574
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
v

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE ES-1: SUMMARY OF CEQA SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS.................................................................. 1 TABLE 3-1: OPERATIONAL NOISE STANDARDS ................................................................................... 15 TABLE 4-1: SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY .................................................................................. 21 TABLE 5-1: 24-HOUR AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS .......................................................... 24 TABLE 7-1: REFERENCE NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS ...................................................................... 31 TABLE 7-2: DAYTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS .............................................................. 33 TABLE 7-3: NIGHTTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS ........................................................... 34 TABLE 7-4: OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 34 TABLE 7-5: DAYTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES.............................................. 35 TABLE 7-6: NIGHTTIME OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES ........................................................ 36 TABLE 8-1: CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS ...................................................................... 39 TABLE 8-2: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY..................................................... 40 TABLE 8-3: CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE..................................................................... 40 TABLE 8-4: NIGHTTIME CONCRETE POUR NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE................................................. 43 TABLE 8-5: VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ........................................ 44 TABLE 8-6: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION LEVELS................................................................... 44 575
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
(1) Reference
ADT Average Daily Traffic
ANSI American National Standards Institute
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
dBA A-weighted decibels
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
Hz Hertz
INCE Institute of Noise Control Engineering
Leq Equivalent continuous (average) sound level
Lmax Maximum level measured over the time interval
Lmin Minimum level measured over the time interval
OPR Office of Planning and Research
PPV Peak particle velocity
Project First Grove
REMEL Reference Energy Mean Emission Level
RMS Root-mean-square
VdB Vibration Decibels
576
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Urban Crossroads, Inc. has prepared this noise study to determine the potential noise impacts and the necessary noise mitigation measures, if any, for the proposed First Grove development (“Project”). The proposed Project is to consist of a 61,867 square foot warehouse. This study has been prepared to satisfy applicable City of Ontario standards and thresholds of significance based on guidance provided by Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (1).

The results of this First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis are summarized below based on the significance criteria in Section 4 of this report. Table ES-1 shows the findings of significance for each potential noise and/or vibration impact under CEQA before and after any required mitigation measures.

TABLE ES-1: SUMMARY OF CEQA SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS
Analysis Report
Section
Significance Findings
Unmitigated Mitigated
Operational Noise 7 Less Than Significant -
Construction Noise
8 Less Than Significant -
Construction Vibration Less Than Significant -
577
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
2 This page intentionally left blank
578
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
3 1 INTRODUCTION
This noise analysis has been completed to determine the noise impacts associated with the development of the proposed First Grove (“Project”). This noise study briefly describes the proposed Project, provides information regarding noise fundamentals, sets out the local regulatory setting, presents the study methods and procedures for noise analysis, and evaluates the future exterior noise environment. In addition, this study includes an analysis of the potential Project-related long-term stationary-source operational noise and short-term construction noise and vibration impacts.

1.1 SITE LOCATION
The proposed Project is located at 2042 S. Grove Avenue in the City of Ontario as shown on Exhibit 1-A. The Project site land use is currently designated as Business Park under The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050. The currently adopted General Plan Business Park land use allows for the development of up to 109,817 square feet of business park use, calculated using a floor-to-area ratio (FAR) of 0.60. The Business Park land use designation is defined as “employee-intensive office uses including corporate offices, technology centers, research and development, “clean” industry, light manufacturing, and supporting retail within a business park setting.” The Project is located approximately 1.3 miles southwest of the Ontario International Airport (ONT).

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Project is to consist of a 61,867 square foot warehouse.as shown on Exhibit 1-B.

The on-site Project-related noise sources are expected to include: loading dock activity, roof-top air conditioning units, trash enclosure activity, parking lot vehicle movements, and truck movements. This noise analysis is intended to describe noise level impacts associated with the expected typical operational activities at the Project site. 579
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
4 EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP
580
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
5 EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN
581
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
6 This page intentionally left blank
582
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
7 2 FUNDAMENTALS
Noise is simply defined as "unwanted sound." Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, when it causes actual physical harm or when it has adverse effects on health.

Noise is measured on a logarithmic scale of sound pressure level known as a decibel (dB). Aweighted decibels (dBA) approximate the subjective response of the human ear to broad frequency noise source by discriminating against very low and very high frequencies of the audible spectrum. They are adjusted to reflect only those frequencies which are audible to the human ear. Exhibit 2-A presents a summary of the typical noise levels and their subjective loudness and effects that are described in more detail below.

EXHIBIT 2-A: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS
Source: Environmental Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control, Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety (EPA/ONAC 550/9-74-004) March 1974.

2.1 RANGE OF NOISE
Since the range of intensities that the human ear can detect is so large, the scale frequently used to measure intensity is a scale based on multiples of 10, the logarithmic scale. The scale for measuring intensity is the decibel scale. Each interval of 10 decibels indicates a sound energy ten times greater than before, which is perceived by the human ear as being roughly twice as loud. (2) The most common sounds vary between 40 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Normal conversation at three feet is roughly at 60 dBA, while loud jet engine noises equate to 110 dBA 583
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
8 at approximately 1,000 feet, which can cause serious discomfort. (3) Another important aspect of noise is the duration of the sound and the way it is described and distributed in time.

2.2 NOISE DESCRIPTORS
Environmental noise descriptors are generally based on averages, rather than instantaneous, noise levels. The most used metric is the equivalent level (Leq). Equivalent sound levels are not measured directly but are calculated from sound pressure levels typically measured in Aweighted decibels (dBA). The equivalent sound level (Leq) represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period and is commonly used to describe the “average” noise levels within the environment.

Peak hour or average noise levels, while useful, do not completely describe a given noise environment. Noise levels lower than peak hour may be disturbing if they occur during times when quiet is most desirable, namely evening and nighttime (sleeping) hours. To account for this, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), representing a composite 24-hour noise level is utilized. The CNEL is the weighted average of the intensity of a sound, with corrections for time of day, and averaged over 24 hours. The time-of-day corrections require the addition of 5 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and the addition of 10 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels at night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. These additions are made to account for the noise sensitive time periods during the evening and night hours when noise can become more intrusive. CNEL does not represent the actual sound level heard at any time, but rather represents the total sound exposure. The City of Ontario relies on the 24- hour CNEL level to assess land use compatibility with transportation related noise sources.

2.3 SOUND PROPAGATION
When sound propagates over a distance, it changes in level and frequency content. The way noise reduces with distance depends on the following factors.

2.3.1 GEOMETRIC SPREADING
Sound from a localized source (i.e., a stationary point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. The sound level attenuates (or decreases) at a rate of 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a point source. Highways consist of several localized noise sources on a defined path and hence can be treated as a line source, which approximates the effect of several point sources. Noise from a line source propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern, often referred to as cylindrical spreading. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of 3 dB for each doubling of distance from a line source. (2)

2.3.2 GROUND ABSORPTION
The propagation path of noise from a highway to a receiver is usually very close to the ground.

Noise attenuation from ground absorption and reflective wave canceling adds to the attenuation associated with geometric spreading. Traditionally, the excess attenuation has also been expressed in terms of attenuation per doubling of distance. This approximation is usually 584
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
9 sufficiently accurate for distances of less than 200 ft. For acoustically hard sites (i.e., sites with a reflective surface between the source and the receiver, such as a parking lot or body of water), no excess ground attenuation is assumed. For acoustically absorptive or soft sites (i.e., those sites with an absorptive ground surface between the source and the receiver such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees), an excess ground attenuation value of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally assumed. When added to the cylindrical spreading, the excess ground attenuation results in an overall drop-off rate of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance from a line source. (4)

2.3.3 ATMOSPHERIC EFFECTS
Receivers located downwind from a source can be exposed to increased noise levels relative to calm conditions, whereas locations upwind can have lowered noise levels. Sound levels can be increased at large distances (e.g., more than 500 feet) due to atmospheric temperature inversion (i.e., increasing temperature with elevation). Other factors such as air temperature, humidity, and turbulence can also have significant effects. (2)

2.3.4 SHIELDING
A large object or barrier in the path between a noise source and a receiver can substantially attenuate noise levels at the receiver. The amount of attenuation provided by shielding depends on the size of the object and the frequency content of the noise source. Shielding by trees and other such vegetation typically only has an “out of sight, out of mind” effect. That is, the perception of noise impact tends to decrease when vegetation blocks the line-of-sight to nearby residents. However, for vegetation to provide a substantial, or even noticeable, noise reduction, the vegetation area must be at least 15 feet in height, 100 feet wide and dense enough to completely obstruct the line-of-sight between the source and the receiver. This size of vegetation may provide up to 5 dBA of noise reduction. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) does not consider the planting of vegetation to be a noise abatement measure. (5)

2.4 NOISE CONTROL
Noise control is the process of obtaining an acceptable noise environment for an observation point or receiver by controlling the noise source, transmission path, receiver, or all three. This concept is known as the source-path-receiver concept. In general, noise control measures can be applied to these three elements.

2.5 NOISE BARRIER ATTENUATION
Effective noise barriers can reduce noise levels by 10 to 15 dBA, cutting the loudness of traffic noise in half. A noise barrier is most effective when placed close to the noise source or receiver.

Noise barriers, however, do have limitations. For a noise barrier to work, it must block the lineof-sight path of sound from the noise source. 585
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
10 2.6 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY WITH NOISE
Some land uses are more tolerant of noise than others. For example, schools, hospitals, churches, and residences are more sensitive to noise intrusion than are commercial or industrial developments and related activities. As ambient noise levels affect the perceived amenity or livability of a development, so too can the mismanagement of noise impacts impair the economic health and growth potential of a community by reducing the area’s desirability as a place to live, shop and work. For this reason, land use compatibility with the noise environment is an important consideration in the planning and design process. The FHWA encourages State and Local government to regulate land development in such a way that noise-sensitive land uses are either prohibited from being located adjacent to a highway, or that the developments are planned, designed, and constructed in such a way that noise impacts are minimized. (6)

2.7 COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO NOISE
Approximately sixteen percent of the population has a very low tolerance for noise and will object to any noise not of their making. Consequently, even in the quietest environment, some complaints may occur. Twenty to thirty percent of the population will not complain even in very severe noise environments. (7 pp. 8-6) Thus, a variety of reactions can be expected from people exposed to any given noise environment.

Surveys have shown that community response to noise varies from no reaction to vigorous action for newly introduced noises averaging from 10 dB below existing to 25 dB above existing. (8) According to research originally published in the Noise Effects Handbook (7), the percentage of high annoyance ranges from approximately 0 percent at 45 dB or less, 10 percent are highly annoyed around 60 dB, and increases rapidly to approximately 70 percent being highly annoyed at approximately 85 dB or greater. Despite this variability in behavior on an individual level, the population can be expected to exhibit the following responses to changes in noise levels as shown on Exhibit 2-B. A change of 3 dBA is considered barely perceptible, and changes of 5 dBA are considered readily perceptible. (4)
EXHIBIT 2-B: NOISE LEVEL INCREASE PERCEPTION
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Just Perceptible
Barely Perceptible
Readily Perceptible
Twice as Loud
Noise Level Increase (dBA)
586
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
11 2.8 VIBRATION
Per the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (8) , vibration is the periodic oscillation of a medium or object. The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of room surfaces is called structure-borne noise. Sources of ground-borne vibrations include natural phenomena (e.g., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides) or human-made causes (e.g., explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment). Vibration sources may be continuous, such as factory machinery, or transient, such as explosions. As is the case with airborne sound, ground-borne vibrations may be described by amplitude and frequency.

There are several different methods that are used to quantify vibration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. The PPV is most frequently used to describe vibration impacts to buildings but is not always suitable for evaluating human response (annoyance) because it takes some time for the human body to respond to vibration signals. Instead, the human body responds to average vibration amplitude often described as the root mean square (RMS). The RMS amplitude is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal and is most frequently used to describe the effect of vibration on the human body. Decibel notation (VdB) is commonly used to measure RMS. Decibel notation (VdB) serves to reduce the range of numbers used to describe human response to vibration.

Typically, ground-borne vibration generated by man-made activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. Sensitive receivers for vibration include structures (especially older masonry structures), people (especially residents, the elderly, and sick), and vibration-sensitive equipment and/or activities.

The background vibration-velocity level in residential areas is generally 50 VdB. Ground-borne vibration is normally perceptible to humans at approximately 65 VdB. For most people, a vibration-velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible ground-borne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the ground-borne vibration is rarely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB, which is the typical background vibration-velocity level, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings. Exhibit 2-C illustrates common vibration sources and the human and structural response to ground-borne vibration. 587
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
12 EXHIBIT 2-C: TYPICAL LEVELS OF GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. 588
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
13 3 REGULATORY SETTING
The federal government, the State of California, various county governments, and most municipalities in the state have established standards and ordinances to control noise. In most areas, automobile and truck traffic is the major source of environmental noise. Traffic activity generally produces an average sound level that remains constant with time. Air and rail traffic, and commercial and industrial activities are also major sources of noise in some areas. Federal, state, and local agencies regulate different aspects of environmental noise. Federal and state agencies generally set noise standards for mobile sources such as aircraft and motor vehicles, while regulation of stationary sources is left to local agencies.

3.1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA NOISE REQUIREMENTS
The State of California regulates freeway noise, sets standards for sound transmission, provides occupational noise control criteria, identifies noise standards, and provides guidance for local land use compatibility. State law requires that each county and city adopt a General Plan that includes a Noise Element which is to be prepared per guidelines adopted by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). (9) The purpose of the Noise Element is to limit the exposure of the community to excessive noise levels. In addition, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all known environmental effects of a project be analyzed, including environmental noise impacts.

3.2 CITY OFONTARIO GENERAL PLAN NOISE ELEMENT
The City of Ontario General Plan (Policy Plan) identifies several policies to minimize the impacts of excessive noise levels throughout the community. Policy Plan Section S4, Noise Hazards, establishes a goal of maintaining an environment where noise does not adversely affect the public’s health, safety, and welfare. (10) To satisfy this goal, the Policy Plan identifies seven policies related to: noise mitigation; coordination with transportation authorities; noise mitigation; truck traffic; roadway design; airport noise compatibility and rail noise mitigation.

The noise criteria identified on Table 5-13-3 of The Ontario Plan 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) (11) provide guidelines to evaluate land use compatibility within various noise environments. Table 5-13-3 is reproduced here as Exhibit 3-A Ontario Noise Level Exposure and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines.
589
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
14 EXHIBIT 3-A: ONTARIO NOISE LEVEL EXPOSURE AND LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES Source: The Ontario Plan 2050 Draft SEIR (Table 5.13-3). 590
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
15 3.3 OPERATIONAL NOISE STANDARDS
To analyze noise impacts originating from a designated fixed location or private property such as the First Grove, stationary-source (operational) noise levels are evaluated against standards established under a City’s Municipal Code. The City of Ontario requires that noise from new stationary sources in the City comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance, which limits the acceptable noise at the property line of the impacted property, to reduce nuisances to sensitive land uses.

Compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance would result in noise levels that are acceptable to the City and would result in less than significant noise impacts from stationary sources (11).

Section 5-29.04(a) identifies the allowable daytime and nighttime ambient exterior noise standards for each land use type. For Manufacturing and Industrial land uses (Noise Zone V), such as the Project, ambient exterior noise levels may not exceed 70 dBA Leq. For residential land uses (Noise Zone I), ambient exterior noise levels may not exceed 65 dBA Leq during the daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and may not exceed 45 dBA Leq during the nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) (12). The lower noise level standard shall apply on the boundary between two (2) different noise zones. If the ambient noise level exceeds the resulting standard, the ambient noise level shall be the standard. The maximum acceptable Project-related operational noise levels received at off-site land uses in the City of Ontario are identified on Table 3-1.

TABLE 3-1: OPERATIONAL NOISE STANDARDS
Noise Zone Land Use
Exterior Noise Levels (dBA Leq)2
Daytime
(7am-10pm)
Nighttime
(10pm-7am)
I Single-Family Residential 65 45
II Multi-Family Residential 65 50
III Commercial 65 60
IV Residential Mixed-Use 70 70
V Manufacturing and Industrial 70 70
1 Source: Section 5-29.04 of the City of Ontario Municipal Code (Appendix 3.1). 2 Leq represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given period.

3.4 CONSTRUCTION NOISE STANDARDS
The City of Ontario has set restrictions to control noise impacts associated with construction.

Section 5-29.09 of the Municipal Code states: No person, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition or any other related building activity, shall operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner that produces loud noise that disturbs a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, or a Police or Code Enforcement Officer, on any weekday except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. or on Saturday or Sunday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. (12) While the City establishes limits to the hours during which construction activity may take place, it does not identify specific noise level limits for construction noise levels at potentially affected receiver locationsfor CEQA analysis purposes.

Therefore, a numerical construction threshold based on Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 591
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
16 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual is used for analysis of daytime construction impacts, as discussed below.

According to the FTA, local noise ordinances are typically not very useful in evaluating construction noise. They usually relate to nuisance and hours of allowed activity, and sometimes specify limits in terms of maximum levels, but are generally not practical for assessing the impact of a construction project. Project construction noise criteria should account for the existing noise environment, the absolute noise levels during construction activities, the duration of the construction, and the adjacent land use. Due to the lack of standardized construction noise thresholds, the FTA provides guidelines that can be considered reasonable criteria for construction noise assessment. The FTA considers a daytime exterior construction noise level of 80 dBA Leq as a reasonable threshold for noise sensitive residential land use (8 p. 179).

3.5 VIBRATION STANDARDS
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground-borne vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. Construction vibration is generally associated with pile driving and rock blasting. Other construction equipment such as air compressors, light trucks, hydraulic loaders, etc., generates little or no ground vibration. (8) To analyze vibration impacts originating from the operation and construction of First Grove, vibration-generating activities are appropriately evaluated against standards established under a City’s Municipal Code, if such standards exist. However, the City of Ontario does not identify specific vibration level limits. Therefore, for analysis purposes, the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, (13 p. 38) Table 19, vibration damage are used in this noise study to assess potential temporary construction-related impacts at adjacent building locations. The nearest noise sensitive buildings adjacent to the Project site can best be described as “older residential structures” with a maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.3 PPV (in/sec).

3.6 AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY
The Project site is located approximately 1.3 miles southeast of the Ontario International Airport (ONT). This places the Project site within the ONT Airport Influence Area according to Policy Map 2-1 of the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ONT ALUCP). The ONT ALUCP was amended July 2018 to promote compatibility between airport and the land uses that surround it (14). Since the Project site is located within the ONT Airport Influence Area, the Project is subject to the Noise Criteria established on Table 2-3 in the ONT ALUCP. As shown on Exhibit 3-B, the Project site is located within the ONT Airport Influence Area but outside the 65 dBA CNEL airport noise impact zone consistent with Policy Map 2-3. According to Table 2-3 of the ONT ALUCP, industrial land uses located outside the 65 dBA CNEL noise level contours of ONT, such as the Project, are considered normally compatible land use. For normally compatible land use, either the activities associated with the land use are inherently noisy or standard construction methods will sufficiently attenuate exterior noise to an acceptable indoor community noise equivalent level (CNEL).
592
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
17 EXHIBIT 3-B: ONT FUTURE AIRPORT NOISE CONTOURS
593
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
18 This page intentionally left blank
594
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
19 4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The following significance criteria are based on currently adopted guidance provided by Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. (1) For the purposes of this report, impacts would be potentially significant if the Project results in or causes:

A. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
B. Generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels? C. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

4.1 NOISE LEVEL INCREASES (THRESHOLD A)
Noise level increases resulting from the Project are evaluated based on the Appendix G CEQA Guidelines. Under CEQA, consideration must be given to the magnitude of the increase, the existing baseline ambient noise levels, and the location of receivers to determine if a noise increase represents a significant adverse environmental impact. This approach recognizes that there is no single noise increase that renders the noise impact significant. (15) This is primarily because of the wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance and differing individual experiences with noise. Thus, an important way of determining a person’s subjective reaction to a new noise is the comparison of it to the existing environment to which one has adapted—the so-called ambient environment. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will typically be judged.

The Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) (16) developed guidance to be used for the assessment of project-generated increases in noise levels that consider the ambient noise level.

The FICON recommendations are based on studies that relate aircraft noise levels to the percentage of persons highly annoyed by aircraft noise. Although the FICON recommendations were specifically developed to assess aircraft noise impacts, these recommendations are often used in environmental noise impact assessments involving the use of cumulative noise exposure metrics, such as the average-daily noise level (CNEL) and equivalent continuous noise level (Leq).

As previously stated, the approach used in this noise study recognizes that there is no single noise increase that renders the noise impact significant, based on a 2008 California Court of Appeal ruling on Gray v. County of Madera. (15) For example, if the ambient noise environment is quiet (<60 dBA) and the new noise source greatly increases the noise levels, an impact may occur if the noise criteria may be exceeded. Therefore, for this analysis, a readily perceptible 5 dBA or greater project-related noise level increase is considered a significant impact when the without project noise levels are below 60 dBA. Per the FICON, in areas where the without project noise levels range from 60 to 65 dBA, a 3 dBA barely perceptible noise level increase appears to be appropriate for most people. When the without project noise levels already exceed 65 dBA, any increase in community noise louder than 1.5 dBA or greater is considered a significant impact if 595
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
20 the noise criteria for a given land use is exceeded, since it likely contributes to an existing noise exposure exceedance. The FICON guidance provides an established source of criteria to assess the impacts of substantial temporary or permanent increase in baseline ambient noise levels.

Based on the FICON criteria, the amount to which a given noise level increase is considered acceptable is reduced when the without Project (baseline) noise levels are already shown to exceed certain land-use specific exterior noise level criteria. The specific levels are based on typical responses to noise level increases of 5 dBA or readily perceptible, 3 dBA or barely perceptible, and 1.5 dBA depending on the underlying without Project noise levels for noisesensitive uses. These levels of increases and their perceived acceptance are consistent with guidance provided by both the Federal Highway Administration (4 p. 9) and Caltrans (17 p. 2_48).

4.2 VIBRATION (THRESHOLD B)
As described in Section 3.5, the vibration impacts originating from the construction of the First Grove, vibration-generating activities are appropriately evaluated using the Caltrans vibration damage thresholds to assess potential temporary construction-related impacts at adjacent building locations. The nearest noise sensitive buildings adjacent to the Project site can best be described as “older residential structures” with a maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.3 PPV (in/sec).

4.3 CEQAGUIDELINES NOT FURTHER ANALYZED (THRESHOLD C)
CEQA Noise Threshold C applies when there are nearby public and private airports and/or air strips and focuses on land use compatibility of the Project to nearby airports and airstrips. The closest airport which would require additional noise analysis under CEQA guideline C is the Ontario International Airport. As previously indicated in Section 3.6, the Project site is located within the ONT Airport Influence Area but is located outside the 65 dBA CNEL airport noise impact zone. Therefore, airport noise impacts are considered less than significant, and no further noise analysis is provided under Guideline C.
596
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
21 4.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY
Noise impacts shall be considered significant if any of the following occur as a direct result of the proposed Project. Table 4-1 shows the significance criteria summary matrix that includes the allowable criteria used to identify potentially significant incremental noise level increases.

TABLE 4-1: SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY
Analysis Receiving
Land Use Condition(s)
Significance Criteria
Daytime Nighttime
Operational
NoiseSensitive
Exterior Noise Level Standards1 65 dBA Leq 45 dBA Leq
If ambient is < 60 dBA Leq2 ≥ 5 dBA Leq Project increase If ambient is 60 - 65 dBA Leq2 ≥ 3 dBA Leq Project increase If ambient is > 65 dBA Leq2 ≥ 1.5 dBA Leq Project increase Construction
Permitted hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays3 Noise Level Threshold4 80 dBA Leq
Vibration Level Threshold5 0.3 PPV (in/sec)
1 City of Ontario Municipal Code, 5-29.04(a) exterior noise standards for residential land uses (Noise Zone I). 2 FICON, 1992.
3 City of Ontario Municipal Code Section 5-29.09(a).
4 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. 5 Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Manual, April 2020 Table 19. "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 597
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
22 This page intentionally left blank
598
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
23 5 EXISTING NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
To assess the existing noise level environment, 24-hour noise level measurements were taken at five locations in the Project study area. The receiver locations were selected to describe and document the existing noise environment within the Project study area. Exhibit 5-A provides the boundaries of the Project study area and the noise level measurement locations. To fully describe the existing noise conditions, noise level measurements were collected by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on Thursday, May 4th, 2023. Appendix 5.1 includes study area photos.

5.1 MEASUREMENT PROCEDURE AND CRITERIA
To describe the existing noise environment, the hourly noise levels were measured during typical weekday conditions over a 24-hour period. By collecting individual hourly noise level measurements, it is possible to describe the equivalent daytime and nighttime hourly noise levels. The long-term noise readings were recorded using Piccolo Type 2 integrating sound level meter and dataloggers. The Piccolo sound level meters were calibrated using a Larson-Davis calibrator, Model CAL 150. All noise meters were programmed in "slow" mode to record noise levels in "A" weighted form. The sound level meters and microphones were equipped with a windscreen during all measurements. All noise level measurement equipment satisfies the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard specifications for sound level meters ANSI S1.4-2014/IEC 61672-1:2013. (18)

5.2 NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
The long-term noise level measurements were positioned as close to the nearest sensitive receiver locations as possible to assess the existing ambient hourly noise levels surrounding the Project site. Both Caltrans and the FTA recognize that it is not reasonable to collect noise level measurements that can fully represent every part of a private yard, patio, deck, or balcony normally used for human activity when estimating impacts for new development projects. This is demonstrated in the Caltrans general site location guidelines which indicate that, sites must be free of noise contamination by sources other than sources of interest. Avoid sites located near sources such as barking dogs, lawnmowers, pool pumps, and air conditioners unless it is the express intent of the analyst to measure these sources. (2) Further, FTA guidance states, that it is not necessary nor recommended that existing noise exposure be determined by measuring at every noise-sensitive location in the project area. Rather, the recommended approach is to characterize the noise environment for clusters of sites based on measurements or estimates at representative locations in the community. (8)
Based on recommendations of Caltrans and the FTA, it is not necessary to collect measurements at each individual building or residence, because each receiver measurement represents a group of buildings that share acoustical equivalence. (8) In other words, the area represented by the receiver shares similar shielding, terrain, and geometric relationship to the reference noise source. Receivers represent a location of noise sensitive areas and are used to estimate the future noise level impacts. Collecting reference ambient noise level measurements at the nearby sensitive receiver locations allows for a comparison of the before and after Project noise levels 599
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
24 and is necessary to assess potential noise impacts due to the Project’s contribution to the ambient noise levels.

5.3 NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS
The noise measurements presented below focus on the average or equivalent sound levels (Leq).

The equivalent sound level (Leq) represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period. Table 5-1 identifies the hourly daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) noise levels at each noise level measurement location.

TABLE 5-1: 24-HOUR AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
Location1 Description
Energy Average
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
2 Daytime Nighttime
L1 Located southwest of the site near the residence at 2120 S.

Cucamonga Ave. 63.7 59.2
L2 Located south of the site near the residence at 1147 E Philadelphia St. 61.8 60.0
L3 Located southeast of the site near the residence at 1456 E Philadelphia St. 72.1 67.2
L4 Located south of the site near the residence at 1110 E Philadelphia St. 67.2 64.8
L5 Located west of the site near the residence at 2048 S. Bon View Ave. 67.0 65.4
1 See Exhibit 5-A for the noise level measurement locations. 2 Energy (logarithmic) average levels. The long-term 24-hour measurement worksheets are included in Appendix 5.2. "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

Table 5-1 provides the (energy average) noise levels used to describe the daytime and nighttime ambient conditions. These daytime and nighttime energy average noise levels represent the average of all hourly noise levels observed during these time periods expressed as a single number. Appendix 5.2 provides summary worksheets of the noise levels for each hour as well as the minimum, maximum, L1, L2, L5, L8, L25, L50, L90, L95, and L99 percentile noise levels observed during the daytime and nighttime periods.
600
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
25 EXHIBIT 5-A: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
601
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
26 This page intentionally left blank
602
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
27 6 RECEIVER LOCATIONS
To assess the potential for long-term operational and short-term construction noise impacts, the following sensitive receiver locations, as shown on Exhibit 6-A, were identified as representative locations for analysis. Sensitive receivers are generally defined as locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could otherwise adversely affect the use of the land.

Noise-sensitive land uses are generally considered to include schools, hospitals, single-family dwellings, mobile home parks, churches, libraries, and recreation areas. Moderately noisesensitive land uses typically include multi-family dwellings, hotels, motels, dormitories, outpatient clinics, cemeteries, golf courses, country clubs, athletic/tennis clubs, and equestrian clubs. Land uses that are considered relatively insensitive to noise include business, commercial, and professional developments. Land uses that are typically not affected by noise include:
industrial, manufacturing, utilities, agriculture, undeveloped land, parking lots, warehousing, liquid and solid waste facilities, salvage yards, and transit terminals.

To describe the potential off-site Project noise levels, five receiver locations in the vicinity of the Project site were identified. The selection of receiver locations is based on FHWA guidelines and is consistent with additional guidance provided by Caltrans and the FTA, as previously described in Section 5.2. Other sensitive land uses in the Project study area that are located at greater distances than those identified in this noise study will experience lower noise levels than those presented in this report due to the additional attenuation from distance and the shielding of intervening structures. Distance is measured in a straight line from the project boundary to each receiver location.

R1: Location R1 represents the existing noise sensitive residence at 2125 S Cucamonga Avenue, approximately 596 feet southwest of the Project site. R1 is placed in the private outdoor living areas (backyard) facing the Project site. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L1, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

R2: Location R2 represents the Home of Christian-Bethel Church at 1147 E Philadelphia Street, approximately 439 feet south of the Project site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receiver R2 is placed at the building façade. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L2, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

R3: Location R3 represents the existing noise sensitive residence at 1456 E Philadelphia Street, approximately 824 feet southeast of the Project site. R3 is placed in the private outdoor living areas (backyard) facing the Project site. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L3, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

R4: Location R4 represents The Grove Apartments at 1110 E Philadelphia Street, approximately 756 feet south of the Project site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receiver R4 is placed at the building façade. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L4, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

R5: Location R5 represents the Bon View Elementary school at 2121 S Bon View Avenue, approximately 1,521 feet west of the Project site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receiver R5 is placed at the nearest building 603
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
28 façade. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L4, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

EXHIBIT 6-A: RECEIVER LOCATIONS
604
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
29 7 OPERATIONAL NOISE ANALYSIS
This section analyzes the potential stationary-source operational noise impacts at the nearby receiver locations, identified in Section 6, resulting from the operation of the proposed First Grove Project. Exhibit 7-A identifies the noise source locations used to assess the operational noise levels.

7.1 OPERATIONAL NOISE SOURCES
This operational noise analysis is intended to describe noise level impacts associated with the expected typical of daytime and nighttime activities at the Project site. To present the potential worst-case noise conditions, this analysis assumes the Project would be operational 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Consistent with similar warehouse and industrial uses, the Project business operations would primarily be conducted within the enclosed buildings, except for traffic movement, parking, as well as loading and unloading of trucks at designated loading bays.

The on-site Project-related noise sources are expected to include: loading dock activity, roof-top air conditioning units, trash enclosure activity, parking lot vehicle movements, and truck movements.

7.2 REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS
To estimate the Project operational noise impacts, reference noise level measurements were collected from similar types of activities to represent the noise levels expected with the development of the proposed Project. This section provides a detailed description of the reference noise level measurements shown on Table 7-1 used to estimate the Project operational noise impacts. It is important to note that the following projected noise levels assume the worstcase noise environment with the loading dock activity, roof-top air conditioning units, trash enclosure activity, parking lot vehicle movements, and truck movements all operating at the same time. These sources of noise activity will likely vary throughout the day.

7.2.1 MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES
The reference noise level measurements presented in this section were collected using a Larson Davis LxT Type 1 precisions sound level meter (serial number 01146). The LxT sound level meter was calibrated using a Larson-Davis calibrator, Model CAL 200, was programmed in "slow" mode to record noise levels in "A" weighted form and was located at approximately five feet above the ground elevation for each measurement. The sound level meters and microphones were equipped with a windscreen during all measurements. All noise level measurement equipment satisfies the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard specifications for sound level meters ANSI S1.4-2014/IEC 61672-1:2013. (18)
605
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
30 EXHIBIT 7-A: OPERATIONAL NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS
606
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
31 TABLE 7-1: REFERENCE NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
Noise Source1
Noise
Source
Height
(Feet)
Min./
Hour2
Reference
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
@ 50 Feet
Sound
Power
Level
(dBA) Day Night 3
Loading Dock Activity 8' 60 60 65.7 111.5
Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 5' 39 28 57.2 88.9
Trash Enclosure Activity 5' 60 30 57.3 89.0
Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 5' 60 60 52.6 81.1
Truck Movements 8' 60 60 59.8 93.2
1 As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc.
2 Anticipated duration (minutes within the hour) of noise activity during typical hourly conditions expected at the Project site. "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. 3 Sound power level represents the total amount of acoustical energy (noise level) produced by a sound source independent of distance or surroundings. Sound power levels calculated using the CadnaA noise model at the reference distance to the noise source.

7.2.2 LOADING DOCK ACTIVITY
The reference loading dock activities are intended to describe the typical outdoor operational noise activities associated with the Project. This includes truck idling, reefer activity (refrigerator truck/cold storage), deliveries, backup alarms, trailer docking including a combination of tractor trailer semi-trucks, two-axle delivery trucks, and background operation activities. Since the noise levels generated by cold storage loading dock activity can be slightly higher due to the use of refrigerated trucks or reefers.

The reference noise level measurement was taken in the center of the loading dock activity area and represents multiple concurrent noise sources resulting in a combined noise level of 65.7 dBA Leq at a uniform distance of 50 feet. Specifically, the reference noise level measurement represents one truck located approximately 30 feet from the noise level meter with another truck passing by to park roughly 20 feet away, both with their engines idling. Throughout the reference noise level measurement, a separate docked and running reefer truck was located approximately 50 feet east of the measurement location. Additional background noise sources included truck pass-by noise, truck drivers talking to each other next to docked trucks, and air brake release noise when trucks parked.

7.2.3 ROOF-TOP AIR CONDITIONING UNITS
The noise level measurements describe a single mechanical roof-top air conditioning unit. The reference noise level represents a Lennox SCA120 series 10-ton model packaged air conditioning unit. At the uniform reference distance of 50 feet, the reference noise levels are 57.2 dBA Leq.

Based on the typical operating conditions observed over a four-day measurement period, the roof-top air conditioning units are estimated to operate for and average 39 minutes per hour during the daytime hours, and 28 minutes per hour during the nighttime hours. These operating conditions reflect peak summer cooling requirements with measured temperatures approaching 607
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
32 96 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) with average daytime temperatures of 82°F. For this noise analysis, the air conditioning units are expected to be located on the roof of the Project buildings.

7.2.4 TRASH ENCLOSURE ACTIVITY
To describe the noise levels associated with a trash enclosure activity, Urban Crossroads collected a reference noise level measurement at an existing trash enclosure containing two dumpster bins. The trash enclosure noise levels describe metal gates opening and closing, metal scraping against concrete floor sounds, dumpster movement on metal wheels, and trash dropping into the metal dumpster. The reference noise levels describe trash enclosure noise activities when trash is dropped into an empty metal dumpster, as would occur at the Project Site. The measured reference noise level at the uniform 50-foot reference distance is 57.3 dBA Leq for the trash enclosure activity. The reference noise level describes the expected noise source activities associated with the trash enclosures for the Project’s proposed building. Typical trash enclosure activities are estimated to occur for 10 minutes per hour.

7.2.5 PARKING LOT VEHICLE MOVEMENTS
To describe the on-site parking lot activity, a long-term 29-hour reference noise level measurement was collected in the center of activity within the staff parking lot of an Amazon warehouse distribution center. At 50 feet from the center of activity, the parking lot produced a reference noise level of 52.6 dBA Leq. Parking activities are expected to take place during the full hour (60 minutes) throughout the daytime and evening hours. The parking lot noise levels are mainly due cars pulling in and out of parking spaces in combination with car doors opening and closing.

7.2.6 TRUCK MOVEMENTS
The truck movements reference noise level measurement was collected over a period of 1 hour and 28 minutes and represents multiple heavy trucks entering and exiting the outdoor loading dock area producing a reference noise level of 59.8 dBA Leq at 50 feet. The noise sourcesincluded at this measurement location account for trucks entering and existing the Project driveways and maneuvering in and out of the outdoor loading dock activity area.

7.3 CADNAANOISE PREDICTION MODEL
To fully describe the exterior operational noise levels from the Project, Urban Crossroads, Inc. developed a noise prediction model using the CadnaA (Computer Aided Noise Abatement) computer program. CadnaA can analyze multiple types of noise sources using the spatially accurate Project site plan, georeferenced Nearmap aerial imagery, topography, buildings, and barriers in its calculations to predict outdoor noise levels.

Using the ISO 9613-2 protocol, CadnaA will calculate the distance from each noise source to the noise receiver locations, using the ground absorption, distance, and barrier/building attenuation inputs to provide a summary of noise level at each receiver and the partial noise level contributions by noise source. Consistent with the ISO 9613-2 protocol, the CadnaA noise prediction model relies on the reference sound power level (Lw) to describe individual noise 608
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
33 sources. While sound pressure levels (e.g., Leq) quantify in decibels the intensity of given sound sources at a reference distance, sound power levels (Lw) are connected to the sound source and are independent of distance. Sound pressure levels vary substantially with distance from the source and diminish because of intervening obstacles and barriers, air absorption, wind, and other factors. Sound power is the acoustical energy emitted by the sound source and is an absolute value that is not affected by the environment.

The operational noise level calculations provided in this noise study account for the distance attenuation provided due to geometric spreading, when sound from a localized stationary source (i.e., a point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. A default ground attenuation factor of 0.5 was used in the CadnaA noise analysis to account for mixed ground representing a combination of hard and soft surfaces. Appendix 7.1 includes the detailed noise model inputs used to estimate the Project operational noise levels presented in this section.

7.4 PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS
Using the reference noise levels to represent the proposed Project operations that include loading dock activity, roof-top air conditioning units, trash enclosure activity, parking lot vehicle movements, and truck movements, Urban Crossroads, Inc. calculated the operational source noise levels that are expected to be generated at the Project site and the Project-related noise level increases that would be experienced at each of the sensitive receiver locations. Table 7-2 shows the Project operational noise levels during the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.

The daytime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 48.5 to 58.0 dBA Leq.

TABLE 7-2: DAYTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS
Noise Source1
Operational Noise Levels by Receiver Location (dBA Leq) R1 R2 R3 R4 R5
Loading Dock Activity 55.6 57.9 48.4 53.9 48.4
Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 23.7 26.6 25.3 23.1 18.6 Trash Enclosure Activity 35.4 37.9 29.3 33.3 27.3
Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 29.0 32.2 31.2 29.1 21.8
Truck Movements 30.7 32.3 26.2 28.7 25.1
Total (All Noise Sources) 55.7 58.0 48.6 54.0 48.5
1 See Exhibit 7-A for the noise source locations. CadnaA noise model calculations are included in Appendix 7.1.

Table 7-3 shows the Project operational noise levels during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The nighttime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 48.4 to 57.9 dBA Leq. The differences between the daytime and nighttime noise levels are largely related to the estimated duration of noise activity as outlined in Table 7-1 and Appendix 7.1.
609
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
34 TABLE 7-3: NIGHTTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS Noise Source1
Operational Noise Levels by Receiver Location (dBA Leq) R1 R2 R3 R4 R5
Loading Dock Activity 55.6 57.9 48.4 53.9 48.4
Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 21.3 24.2 22.9 20.7 16.1 Trash Enclosure Activity 31.4 33.9 25.4 29.4 23.3
Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 29.0 32.2 31.2 29.1 21.8
Truck Movements 30.7 32.3 26.2 28.7 25.1
Total (All Noise Sources) 55.6 57.9 48.5 53.9 48.4
1 See Exhibit 7-A for the noise source locations. CadnaA noise model calculations are included in Appendix 7.1.

7.5 PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
To demonstrate compliance with local noise regulations, the Project-only operational noise levels are evaluated against exterior noise level thresholds based on the City of Ontario exterior noise level standards at nearby noise-sensitive receiver locations. Table 7-4 shows the operational noise levels associated with First Grove Project will satisfy the City of Ontario exterior noise level standards adjusted to reflect the ambient noise level conditions.

TABLE 7-4: OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
Receiver
Location1
Project Operational
Noise Levels (dBA Leq)2
Noise Level Standards
(dBA Leq)3
Noise Level Standards
Exceeded?4
Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime
R1 55.7 55.6 63.7 59.2 No No
R2 58.0 57.9 61.8 60.0 No No
R3 48.6 48.5 72.1 67.2 No No
R4 54.0 53.9 67.2 64.8 No No
R5 48.5 48.4 67.0 65.4 No No
1 See Exhibit 6-A for the receiver locations.
2 Proposed Project operational noise levels as shown on Tables 7-2 and 7-3. 3 Exterior noise level standards, adjusted to reflect the ambient noise levels (see Table 5-1) per the City of Ontario Noise Ordinance Section 5-29.04(a)(1)
4 Do the estimated Project operational noise source activities exceed the noise level standards? "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. 610
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
35 7.6 PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
To describe the Project operational noise level increases, the Project operational noise levels are combined with the existing ambient noise levels measurements for the nearby receiver locations potentially impacted by Project operational noise sources. Since the units used to measure noise, decibels (dB), are logarithmic units, the Project-operational and existing ambient noise levels cannot be combined using standard arithmetic equations. (2) Instead, they must be logarithmically added using the following base equation:

SPLTotal = 10log10[10SPL1/10 + 10SPL2/10 + … 10SPLn/10] Where “SPL1,” “SPL2,” etc. are equal to the sound pressure levels being combined, or in this case, the Project-operational and existing ambient noise levels. The difference between the combined Project and ambient noise levels describes the Project noise level increases to the existing ambient noise environment. As indicated on Table 7-5, the Project will generate a daytime operational noise level increases ranging from 0.0 to 1.5 dBA Leq at the nearest receiver locations.

Table 7-6 shows that the Project will generate a nighttime operational noise level increases ranging from 0.1 to 2.1 dBA Leq at the nearest receiver locations. Project-related operational noise level increases will satisfy the operational noise level increase significance criteria presented on Table 4-1. Therefore, the incremental Project operational noise level increase is considered less than significant at all receiver locations.

TABLE 7-5: DAYTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Receiver
Location1
Total
Project
Operational
Noise
Level2
Measurement
Location3
Reference
Ambient
Noise
Levels4
Combined
Project
and
Ambient5
Project
Increase6
Increase
Criteria7
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
R1 55.7 L1 63.7 64.3 0.6 3.0 No
R2 58.0 L2 61.8 63.3 1.5 3.0 No
R3 48.6 L3 72.1 72.1 0.0 1.5 No
R4 54.0 L4 67.2 67.4 0.2 1.5 No
R5 48.5 L5 67.0 67.1 0.1 1.5 No
1 See Exhibit 6-A for the receiver locations.
2 Total Project daytime operational noise levels as shown on Table 7-2. 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Exhibit 5-A. 4 Observed daytime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 5-1. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. 7 Significance increase criteria as shown on Table 4-1. 611
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
36 TABLE 7-6: NIGHTTIME OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Receiver
Location1
Total
Project
Operational
Noise
Level2
Measurement
Location3
Reference
Ambient
Noise
Levels4
Combined
Project
and
Ambient5
Project
Increase6
Increase
Criteria7
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
R1 55.6 L1 59.2 60.8 1.6 5.0 No
R2 57.9 L2 60.0 62.1 2.1 5.0 No
R3 48.5 L3 67.2 67.3 0.1 1.5 No
R4 53.9 L4 64.8 65.1 0.3 3.0 No
R5 48.4 L5 65.4 65.5 0.1 1.5 No
1 See Exhibit 6-A for the receiver locations.
2 Total Project nighttime operational noise levels as shown on Table 7-4. 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Exhibit 5-A. 4 Observed nighttime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 5-1. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. 7 Significance increase criteria as shown on Table 4-1.

7.7 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS
Traffic generated by the operation of the proposed Project will influence the traffic noise levels in surrounding off-site areas and at the Project site. The off-site Project-related traffic represents an incremental increase to the existing roadway volumes, which is not expected to generate a barely perceptible noise level increase of 3 dBA CNEL at nearby sensitive land uses adjacent to study area roadways, since a doubling of the existing traffic volumes would be required to generate a 3 dBA CNEL increase. Due to the low traffic volumes generated by the Project, the off-site traffic noise levels generated by the Project are considered less than significant and no further analysis is required.
612
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
37 8 CONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS
This section analyzes potential impacts resulting from the short-term construction activities associated with the development of the Project. Exhibit 8-A shows the construction activity boundaries in relation to the nearest sensitive receiver locations previously described in Section

6. According to Section 5-29.09 of the Municipal Code states: No person, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition or any other related building activity, shall operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner that produces loud noise that disturbs a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, or a Police or Code Enforcement Officer, on any weekday except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. or on Saturday or Sunday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. (12) In addition, since neither the City of Ontario General Plan or County Code establish numeric maximum acceptable construction source noise levels at potentially affected receivers for CEQA analysis purposes. Therefore, a numerical construction threshold based on Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual is used for analysis of daytime construction impacts. The FTA considers a daytime exterior construction noise level of 80 dBA Leq as a reasonable threshold for noise sensitive residential land use. (8 p. 179).

8.1 CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS
The FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual recognizes that construction projects are accomplished in several different stages and outlines the procedures for assessing noise impacts during construction. Each stage has a specific equipment mix, depending on the work to be completed during that stage. As a result of the equipment mix, each stage has its own noise characteristics; some stages have higher continuous noise levels than others, and some have higher impact noise levels than others. The Project construction activities are expected to occur in the following stages:
• Demolition
• Site Preparation
• Grading
• Building Construction
• Paving
• Architectural Coating

8.2 CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS
To describe construction noise activities, this construction noise analysis was prepared using reference construction equipment noise levels from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), which includes a national database of construction equipment reference noise emission levels. (21) The RCNM equipment database, provides a comprehensive list of the noise generating characteristics for specific types of construction equipment. In addition, the database provides an acoustical usage factor to estimate the fraction of time each piece of construction equipment is operating at full power (i.e., its loudest condition) during a construction operation. 613
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
38 EXHIBIT 8-A: CONSTRUCTION NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS
614
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
39 8.3 CONSTRUCTION NOISE ANALYSIS
Using the reference construction equipment noise levels and the CadnaA noise prediction model, calculations of the Project construction noise level impacts at the nearby sensitive receiver locations were completed. Consistent with FTA guidance for general construction noise assessment, Table 8-1 presents the combined noise levels for the loudest construction equipment, assuming they operate at the same time. As shown on Table 8-2, the construction noise levels are expected to range from 48.8 to 63.9 dBA Leq at the nearby receiver locations.

Appendix 8.1 includes the detailed CadnaA construction noise model inputs.

TABLE 8-1: CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS
Construction
Stage
Reference
Construction Activity
Reference Noise
Level @ 50 Feet
(dBA Leq)
1 Combined
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
2 Combined Sound
Power Level
(PWL)3
Demolition
Demolition Equipment 82
Backhoes 74 83 115
Hauling Trucks 72
Site
Preparation
Crawler Tractors 78
Hauling Trucks 72 80 112
Rubber Tired Dozers 75
Grading
Graders 81
Excavators 77 83 115
Compactors 76
Building
Construction
Cranes 73
Tractors 80 81 113
Welders 70
Paving
Pavers 74
Paving Equipment 82 83 115
Rollers 73
Architectural
Coating
Cranes 73
Air Compressors 74 77 109
Generator Sets 70
1 FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM).
2 Represents the combined noise level for all equipment assuming they operate at the same time consistent with FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidance.
3 Sound power level represents the total amount of acoustical energy (noise level) produced by a sound source independent of distance or surroundings. Sound power levels calibrated using the CadnaA noise model at the reference distance to the noise source. 615
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
40 TABLE 8-2: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Demolition Site
Preparation Grading BuildingConstruction Paving ArchitecturalCoating Highest
Levels2
R1 61.2 58.2 61.2 59.2 61.2 55.2 61.2
R2 63.9 60.9 63.9 61.9 63.9 57.9 63.9
R3 59.4 56.4 59.4 57.4 59.4 53.4 59.4
R4 60.2 57.2 60.2 58.2 60.2 54.2 60.2
R5 54.8 51.8 54.8 52.8 54.8 48.8 54.8
1 Construction noise source and receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 8-A. 2 Construction noise level calculations based on distance from the construction activity, which is measured from the Project site boundary to the nearest receiver locations. CadnaA construction noise model inputs are included in Appendix 8.1.

8.4 CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
To evaluate whether the Project will generate potentially significant short-term noise levels at nearest receiver locations, a construction-related daytime noise level threshold of 80 dBA Leq is used as a reasonable threshold to assess the daytime construction noise level impacts. The construction noise analysis shows that the nearest receiver locations will satisfy the reasonable daytime 80 dBA Leq significance threshold during Project construction activities as shown on Table 8-3. Therefore, the noise impacts due to Project construction noise are considered less than significant at all receiver locations.

TABLE 8-3: CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Highest Construction
Noise Levels2
Threshold3
Threshold
Exceeded?4
R1 61.2 80 No
R2 63.9 80 No
R3 59.4 80 No
R4 60.2 80 No
R5 54.8 80 No
1 Construction noise source and receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 8-A. 2 Highest construction noise level calculations based on distance from the construction noise source activity to the nearest receiver locations as shown on Table 8-2.
3 Construction noise level thresholds as shown on Table 4-1. 4 Do the estimated Project construction noise levels exceed the construction noise level threshold? 616
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
41 8.5 NIGHTTIME CONCRETE POUR NOISE ANALYSIS
It is our understanding that nighttime concrete pouring activities will occur as a part of Project building construction activities. Nighttime concrete pouring activities are often used to support reduced concrete mixer truck transit times and lower air temperatures than during the daytime hours and are generally limited to the actual building pad area as shown on Exhibit 8-B. Since the nighttime concrete pours will take place outside the permitted City of Ontario Municipal Code, Section 5-29.09 hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. or on Saturday or Sunday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. The Project Applicant will be required to obtain authorization for nighttime work from the City of Ontario. Any nighttime construction noise activities shall satisfy the noise limits outlined in Table 4-1.

8.5.1 NIGHTTIME CONCRETE POUR REFERENCE NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS To estimate the noise levels due to nighttime concrete pour activities, sample reference noise level measurements were taken during a nighttime concrete pour at a construction site. Urban Crossroads, Inc. collected short-term nighttime concrete pour reference noise level measurements during the noise-sensitive nighttime hours between 1:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. at 27334 San Bernardino Avenue in the City of Redlands. The reference noise levels describe the expected concrete pour noise sources that may include concrete mixer truck movements and pouring activities, concrete paving equipment, rear mounted concrete mixer truck backup alarms, engine idling, air brakes, generators, and workers communicating/whistling.

To describe the nighttime concrete pour noise levels associated with the construction of the First Grove, this analysis relies on reference sound pressure level of 67.7 dBA Leq at 50 feet representing a sound power level of 100.3 dBA Lw. While the Project noise levels will depend on the actual duration of activities and specific equipment fleet in use at the time of construction, the reference sound power level of 100.3 dBA Lw is used to describe the expected Project nighttime concrete pour noise activities.
617
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
42 EXHIBIT 8-B: NIGHTTIME CONCRETE POUR NOISE SOURCE AND RECEIVER LOCATIONS 618
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
43 8.5.2 NIGHTTIME CONCRETE POUR NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE As shown on Table 8-4, the noise levels associated with the nighttime concrete pour activities are estimated to range from 33.2 to 42.5 dBA Leq and will satisfy the City of Ontario nighttime stationary-source exterior hourly average Leq residential noise level threshold adjusted to reflect the ambient noise conditions at all the receiver locations. Based on the results of this analysis, all nearest noise receiver locations will experience less than significant impacts due to the Project related nighttime concrete pour activities. Appendix 8.2 includes the CadnaA nighttime concrete pour noise model inputs.

TABLE 8-4: NIGHTTIME CONCRETE POUR NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE Receiver
Location1 Use
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Paving
Construction2
Nighttime
Threshold3
Threshold
Exceeded?4
R1 Residence 39.4 45 No
R2 Residence 42.5 45 No
R3 Residence 37.8 45 No
R4 Residence 38.7 45 No
R5 School 33.2 45 No
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 8-B.
2 Paving construction noise level calculations based on distance from the construction noise source activity to nearby receiver locations.
3 Exterior nighttime noise level standards as shown on Table 5-1. 4 Do the estimated Project construction noise levels exceed the nighttime construction noise level threshold?

8.6 CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION ANALYSIS
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods employed. Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. Ground vibration levels associated with various types of construction equipment are summarized on Table 8-5. Based on the representative vibration levels presented for various construction equipment types, it is possible to estimate the potential for human response (annoyance) and building damage using the following vibration assessment methods defined by the FTA. To describe the vibration impacts the FTA provides the following equation: PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5
619
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
44 TABLE 8-5: VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Equipment PPV (in/sec)
at 25 feet
Small bulldozer 0.003
Jackhammer 0.035
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Large bulldozer 0.089
Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual Table 8-6 presents the expected Project related vibration levels at the nearby receiver locations.

At distances ranging from 439 to 1,521 feet from Project construction activities, construction vibration velocity levels are estimated to range from 0.000 to 0.001 in/sec PPV. Based on maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.3 PPV (in/sec), the typical Project construction vibration levels will fall below the building damage thresholds at all the noise sensitive receiver locations. Therefore, the Project-related vibration impacts are considered less than significant during typical construction activities at the Project site.

Moreover, the vibration levels reported at the sensitive receiver locations are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period but will occur rather only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating adjacent to the Project site perimeter.

TABLE 8-6: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION LEVELS
Receiver1
Distance
to
Const.

Activity
(Feet)2
Typical Construction Vibration Levels
PPV (in/sec)3 Thresholds
PPV
(in/sec)4
Thresholds
Exceeded?5
Small
bulldozer Jackhammer Loaded Trucks
Large
bulldozer
Highest
Vibration
Level
R1 596' 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.3 No
R2 439' 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.3 No
R3 824' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.3 No
R4 756' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.3 No
R5 1,521' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.3 No
1 Construction noise source and receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 8-A. 2 Distance from receiver location to Project construction boundary (Project site boundary). 3 Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment (Table 8-4). 4 Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, April 2020, Table 19, p. 38. 5 Does the peak vibration exceed the acceptable vibration thresholds? "PPV" = Peak Particle Velocity
620
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
45 9 REFERENCES

1. State of California. California Environmental Quality Act, Environmental Checklist Form Appendix G. 2021.

2. California Department of Transportation Environmental Program. Technical Noise Supplement - A Technical Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Sacramento, CA : s.n., September 2013.

3. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. March 1974. EPA/ONAC 550/9/74-004.

4. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environment and Planning, Noise and Air Quality Branch. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance. December 2011.

5. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Highway Noise Barrier Design Handbook. 2001.

6. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Highway Traffic Noise in the United States, Problem and Response. April 2000. p. 3.

7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control. Noise Effects Handbook-A Desk Reference to Health and Welfare Effects of Noise. October 1979 (revised July 1981).

EPA 550/9/82/106.

8. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September 2018.

9. Office of Planning and Research. State of California General Plan Guidlines. October 2019.

10. City of Ontario. Policy Plan Safety Element, S4, Noise Hazards. August 2022.

11. The City of Ontario. The Ontario Plan 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR).

August 2022.

12. City of Ontario. The Ontario Plan Draft EIR. April 2009.

13. —. Municipal Code, Chapter 29, Section 5- Noise.

14. California Department of Transportation. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. April 2020.

15. City of Ontario. Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. July 2018.

16. California Court of Appeal. Gray v. County of Madera, F053661. 167 Cal.App.4th 1099; - Cal.Rptr.3d, October 2008.

17. Federal Interagency Committee on Noise. Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues. August 1992.

18. California Department of Transportation. Technical Noise Supplement. November 2009.

19. American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Specification for Sound Level Meters ANSI S1.4- 2014/IEC 61672-1:2013.

20. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environment and Planning. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model. January, 2006. 621
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
46 622
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
47 10 CERTIFICATIONS
The contents of this noise study report represent an accurate depiction of the noise environment and impacts associated with the proposed First Grove Project. The information contained in this noise study report is based on the best available data at the time of preparation. If you have any questions, please contact me directly at (949) 584-3148.

Bill Lawson, P.E., INCE
Principal
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.
1133 Camelback #8329
Newport Beach, CA 92658
(949) 581-3148
[email protected]

EDUCATION
Master of Science in Civil and Environmental Engineering California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo • December, 1993 Bachelor of Science in City and Regional Planning
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo • June, 1992

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS
PE – Registered Professional Traffic Engineer – TR 2537 • January, 2009 AICP – American Institute of Certified Planners – 013011 • June, 1997–January 1, 2012 PTP – Professional Transportation Planner • May, 2007 – May, 2013 INCE – Institute of Noise Control Engineering • March, 2004

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
ASA – Acoustical Society of America
ITE – Institute of Transportation Engineers

PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS
Certified Acoustical Consultant – County of San Diego • March, 2018 Certified Acoustical Consultant – County of Orange • February, 2011 FHWA-NHI-142051 Highway Traffic Noise Certificate of Training • February, 2013 623
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
48 This page intentionally left blank
624
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
APPENDIX 3.1:

CITY OF ONTARIO MUNICIPAL CODE
49 625
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
This page intentionally left blank
50 626
3/23/22, 4:00 AM https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ 1/13 CHAPTER 29: NOISE
5-29.01 Declaration of findings and policy
5-29.02 Definitions
5-29.03 Designated noise zones
5-29.04 Exterior noise standards
5-29.05 Interior noise standards
5-29.06 Exemptions
5-29.07 Loud and disturbing noise
5-29.08 Real property maintenance noise regulations
5-29.09 Construction activity noise regulations
5-29.10 Other public agency exceptions
5-29.11 Schools, day care centers, churches, libraries, museums, health care institutions; Special provisions
5-29.12 Sound amplifying equipment
5-29.13 Amplified sound
5-29.14 Motor vehicles
5-29.15 Noise level measurement
5-29.16 Prima facie violation
5-29.17 Penalty
5-29.18 Enforcement and administration
5-29.19 City Manager waiver
5-29.20 Noise abatement program
Sec. 5-29.01. Declaration of findings and policy.

It is hereby found and declared that:
(a) The making and creation of excessive, unnecessary or unusually loud noises within the limits of the City is a condition that has existed for some time, however, the extent and volume of such noises is increasing;
(b) The making, creation or maintenance of such excessive, unnecessary, unnatural or unusually loud noises that are prolonged, unusual and unnatural in their time, place and use affect and are a detriment to public health, comfort, convenience, safety, welfare and prosperity of the residents of the City; and
(c) The necessity in the public interest for the provisions and prohibitions hereinafter contained and enacted, is declared as a matter of legislative determination and public policy, and it is further declared 51 627
3/23/22, 4:00 AM https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ 2/13 that the provisions and prohibitions hereinafter contained and enacted are in pursuance of and for the purpose of securing and promoting the public health, comfort, convenience, safety, welfare and prosperity and the peace and quiet of the residents of the City. (§ 2, Ord. 2888, eff. March 6, 2008)
Sec. 5-29.02. Definitions.

As used in this chapter, specific words and phrases are defined as follows:
(a) "Ambient noise level" shall mean the all-encompassing noise level associated with a given environment and is a composite of sounds from all sources, excluding the alleged offensive noise or excessive sound, at the location and approximate time at which a comparison with the alleged offensive noise is to be made.
(b) "Applicable (noise) zone" shall mean the noise zone category based on the actual use of the property, provided that the actual use is a legal use in the City. (c) "A-weighted sound level" shall mean the sound pressure level in decibels (dBAs) as measured with a sound level meter using the A-weighted filter network (scale) at slow response and at a pressure of twenty (20) micropascals. The A-weighted filter de-emphasizes the very low and a very high frequency component of sound in a manner similar to the response of the human ear, and is a numerical method of rating human judgment of loudness.
(d) "Decibel (dBA)" shall mean a unit for measuring the amplitude of a sound, equal to twenty (20) times the logarithm to the base ten (10) of the ratio of pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure of twenty (20) micropascals.
(e) "Equivalent sound or noise level (Leq)" shall mean the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 60804 Standard for measurement, or the most recent revision thereof, for the sound level corresponding to a steady state noise level over a given sample period with the same amount of acoustic energy as the actual time varying noise level or the energy average noise level during the sample period. The measurement period for the purposes of this chapter is fifteen (15) minutes.
(f) "Impulsive noise" shall mean a noise of short duration usually less than one (1) second and of high intensity, with an abrupt onset and rapid decay. Such objectionable noises may also be repetitive.
(g) "Intrusive noise" shall mean that noise that intrudes over and above the ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, time of occurrence and tonal information content, as well as the prevailing ambient noise level. (h) "Maintenance" shall mean the upkeep, repair or preservation of existing property or structures. (i) "Noise" shall mean any unwanted sound or sound that is undesirable because it interferes with speech and hearing, or is intense enough to damage hearing or is otherwise annoying. (j) "Noise level (sound level)" shall mean the weighted sound pressure level obtained by use of a sound level meter having a standard frequency filter for attenuating part of the sound spectrum. For purposes of this chapter, all noise levels (sound levels) shall be A-weighted sound pressure level. (k) "Noise (sound) level meter" shall mean an instrument, including a microphone, an amplifier, an output meter and frequency weighting networks for the measurement and determination of noise and sound levels. For the purposes of this chapter, the sound level meter must meet the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 60651 and 60804 Standards, or the most recent revisions thereof, for Type 1 sound level meters or an instrument and the associated recording and analyzing equipment that will provide equivalent data.
52 628
3/23/22, 4:00 AM https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ 3/13 (§ 2, Ord. 2888, eff. March 6, 2008)
Sec. 5-29.03. Designated noise zones.

The properties hereinafter described shall be assigned to the following noise zones:

Noise Zone I: All single-family residential properties; Noise Zone II: All multi-family residential properties and mobile home parks;
Noise Zone III: All commercial property;
Noise Zone IV: The residential portion of mixed use properties; Noise Zone V: All manufacturing or industrial properties and all other uses.

The actual use of the property, and not necessarily its zoning designation, shall be the determining factor in establishing whether a property is in Noise Zone I, II, III, IV or V, provided that the actual use is a legal use within the applicable zone.
(§ 2, Ord. 2888, eff. March 6, 2008)
Sec. 5-29.04. Exterior noise standards.
(a) The following exterior noise standards, unless otherwise specifically indicated, shall apply to all properties within a designated noise zone.

Allowable Exterior Noise Level (1) Allowed Equivalent Noise Level, Leq. (2)
Noise
Zone Type of Land Use 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.

I Single-Family Residential 65 dBA 45 dBA
II Multi-Family Residential, Mobile
Home Parks 65 dBA 50 dBA
III Commercial Property 65 dBA 60 dBA
IV Residential Portion of Mixed Use 70 dBA 70 dBA
V
Manufacturing and Industrial, Other
Uses 70 dBA 70 dBA
(1) If the ambient noise level exceeds the resulting standard, the ambient noise level shall be the standard.
(2) Measurements for compliance are made on the affected property pursuant to § 5-29.15. (b) It is unlawful for any person at any location within the incorporated area of the City to create noise, or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, which noise causes the noise level, when measured at any location on any other property, to exceed either of the following:
53 629
3/23/22, 4:00 AM https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ 4/13 (1) The noise standard for the applicable zone for any fifteen-minute (15) period; and (2) A maximum instantaneous (single instance) noise level equal to the value of the noise standard plus twenty (20) dBA for any period of time (measured using A-weighted slow response). (c) In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the noise standard, the maximum allowable noise level under such category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. (d) The Noise Zone IV standard shall apply to that portion of residential property falling within one hundred (100) feet of a commercial property or use, if the noise originates from that commercial property or use.
(e) If the measurement location is on a boundary between two (2) different noise zones, the lower noise level standard applicable to the noise zone shall apply. (§ 2, Ord. 2888, eff. March 6, 2008)
Sec. 5-29.05. Interior noise standards.
(a) The following interior noise standards, unless otherwise specifically indicated, shall apply to all properties within a designated noise zone.

Allowable Interior Noise Level (1) Allowed Equivalent Noise Level, Leq. (2) Noise Zone Type of Land Use 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.

I Single-Family Residential 45 dBA 40 dBA
II Multi-Family Residential, Mobile
Home Parks 45 dBA 40 dBA
IV Residential Portion of Mixed Use 45 dBA 40 dBA
(1) If the ambient noise level exceeds the resulting standard, the ambient noise level shall be the standard.
(2) Measurements for compliance are made on the affected property pursuant to § 5-29.15. (b) It is unlawful for any person at any location within the incorporated area of the City to create noise, or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, which noise causes the noise level, when measured at any location on any other property, to exceed either of the following:
(1) The noise standard for the applicable zone for any fifteen-minute (15) period; (2) A maximum instantaneous (single instance) noise level equal to the value of the noise standard plus twenty (20) dBA for any period of time (measured using A-weighted slow response). (c) In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the noise standard, the maximum allowable noise level under such category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. (d) The Noise Zone IV standard shall apply to that portion of residential property falling within one hundred (100) feet of a commercial property or use, if the noise originates from that commercial property or use.
(e) If the measurement location is on a boundary between two (2) different noise zones, the lower noise level standard applicable to the noise zone shall apply. 54 630
3/23/22, 4:00 AM https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ 5/13 (§ 2, Ord. 2888, eff. March 6, 2008)
Sec. 5-29.06. Exemptions.

The following activities shall be exempted from the provisions of this chapter:
(a) Any activity conducted on public property, or on private property with the consent of the owner, by any public entity or its officers, employees, representatives, agents, subcontractors, permittees, licensees or lessees that the public entity has authorized are exempt from the provisions of this chapter. This includes, without limitation, sporting and recreational activities that are sponsored, cosponsored, permitted or allowed by the City or any school district within the City's jurisdictional boundaries. This also includes, without limitation, occasional outdoor gatherings, public dances, shows or sporting and entertainment events, provided such events are conducted pursuant to an approval, authorization, contract, lease, permit or sublease by the appropriate public entity, specifically the planning commission or City Council;
(b) Occasional outdoor gatherings, public dances, show, sporting and entertainment events, provided said events are conducted pursuant to a permit or license issued by the appropriate jurisdiction relative to the staging of said events;
(c) Any mechanical device, apparatus or equipment used, related to or connected with emergency machinery, vehicle, work or warning alarm or bell, provided the sounding of any bell or alarm on any building or motor vehicle shall terminate its operation within forty-five (45) minutes in any hour of its being activated;
(d) Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition or grading of any real property. Such activities shall instead be subject to the provisions of § 5-29.09; (e) Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition or grading of public rights-of-way or during authorized seismic surveys;
(f) All mechanical devices, apparatus or equipment associated with agriculture operations provided that:
(1) Operations do not take place between 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.; (2) Such operations and equipment are utilized for the protection or salvage of agricultural crops during periods of potential or actual frost damage or other adverse weather conditions; or (3) Such operations and equipment are associated with agricultural pest control through pesticide application, provided the application is made in accordance with permits issued by or regulations enforced by the California Department of Agriculture;
(g) Noise sources associated with the maintenance of real property. Such activities shall instead be subject to the provisions of § 5-29.08;
(h) Any activity to the extent regulation thereof has been preempted by state or federal law; (i) Any noise sources associated with people and/or music associated with a party at a residential property. Such noise shall be subject to the provisions of OMC § 5-29.07; (j) Any noise source emanating from an ice cream truck within the City. Such noise shall be subject to the provisions of OMC § 4-18.04;
(k) Any noise sources associated with barking dogs or other intermittent noises made by animals on any properly within the City. Such noise shall be subject to the provisions of OMC Chapter 1, Title 6;
55 631
3/23/22, 4:00 AM https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ 6/13 (l) Noise sources related to uses approved by a permit or development agreement adopted prior to the date of adoption of this chapter and that contains acoustic or noise standard conditions of approval. This exemption shall only be applicable during the effective period of the City-approved permit or development agreement.
(§ 2, Ord. 2888, eff. March 6, 2008)
Sec. 5-29.07. Loud and disturbing noise.
(a) It is unlawful for any person or property owner within the City to make, cause or allow to be made any loud, excessive, impulsive or intrusive noise, disturbance or commotion that disturbs the peace or quiet of any area or that causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitivities in the area, after a Police or Code Enforcement Officer has first requested that the person or property owner cease and desist from making such noise. The types of loud, disturbing, excessive, impulsive or intrusive noise may include, but shall not be limited to, yelling, shouting, hooting, whistling, singing, playing a musical instrument, or emitting or transmitting any loud music or noise from any mechanical or electrical sound making or sound-amplifying device. (b) The factors, standards, and conditions that may be considered in determining whether a violation of the provisions of this section has been committed, included, but not limited to, the following:
(1) The level of the noise;
(2) The level and intensity of the background (ambient) noise, if any; (3) The proximity of the noise to residential or commercial sleeping areas; (4) The nature and zoning of the area within which the noise emanates; (5) The density of inhabitation of the area within which the noise emanates; (6) The time of day and night the noise occurs;
(7) The duration of the noise;
(8) Whether the noise is constant, recurrent or intermittent; (9) Whether the noise is produced by a commercial or noncommercial activity; and (10) Whether the use is lawful under the provisions of Title 5 of this Code and whether the noise is one that could reasonably be expected from the activity or allowed use. (§ 2, Ord. 2888, eff. March 6, 2008)
Sec. 5-29.08. Real property maintenance noise regulations. (a) No person, while engaged in maintenance of real property, shall operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner that produces loud noise that disturbs a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, or a Police or Code Enforcement Officer, except between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
(b) Trimming or pruning that requires the use of chainsaws or mulching machines shall only be allowed between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on a weekday and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday or Sunday.
(c) The use of electrical or gasoline powered blowers, such as commonly used by gardeners or other persons for cleaning lawns, yards, driveways, gutters and other property shall only be allowed between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on a weekday and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday or Sunday.
56 632
3/23/22, 4:00 AM https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ 7/13 (d) No landowner, gardener, property maintenance service, contractor, subcontractor or employer shall permit or allow any person or persons working under his or her direction or control to operate any tool, equipment or machine in violation of the provisions of this section. (e) Exceptions. The provisions of this section shall not apply to the following:
(1) Emergency property maintenance required by the building official; (2) The maintenance, repair or improvement of any public work or facility by public employees, by any person or persons acting pursuant to a public works contract, or by any person or persons performing such work or pursuant to the direction of, or on behalf of, any public agency; provided, however, this exception shall not apply to the City, or its employees, contractors or agents, unless:
(i) The City Manager or department head determines that the maintenance, repair or improvement is immediately necessary to maintain public service, (ii) The maintenance, repair or improvement is of a nature that cannot feasibly be conducted during normal business hours, or
(iii) The City Council has approved project specifications, contract provisions, or an environmental document that specifically authorizes maintenance during hours of the day that would otherwise be prohibited pursuant to this section; and
(3) Any maintenance that complies with the noise limits specified in § 5-29.04. (§ 2, Ord. 2888, eff. March 6, 2008)
Sec. 5-29.09. Construction activity noise regulations.
(a) No person, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition or any other related building activity, shall operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner that produces loud noise that disturbs a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, or a Police or Code Enforcement Officer, on any weekday except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. or on Saturday or Sunday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. (b) No landowner, construction company owner, contractor, subcontractor, or employer shall permit or allow any person or persons working under their direction and control to operate any tool, equipment or machine in violation of the provisions of this section. (c) Exceptions.
(1) The provisions of this section shall not apply to emergency construction work performed by a private party when authorized by the City Manager or his or her designee; (2) The maintenance, repair or improvement of any public work or facility by public employees, by any person or persons acting pursuant to a public works contract, or by any person or persons performing such work or pursuant to the direction of, or on behalf of, any public agency; provided, however, this exception shall not apply to the City, or its employees, contractors or agents, unless:
(i) The City Manager or a department head determines that the maintenance, repair or improvement is immediately necessary to maintain public services, (ii) The maintenance, repair or improvement is of a nature that cannot feasibly be conducted during normal business hours, or
(iii) The City Council has approved project specifications, contract provisions, or an environmental document that specifically authorizes construction during hours of the day that would otherwise be prohibited pursuant to this section; and
(3) Any construction that complies with the noise limits specified in §§ 5-29.04 or 5-29.05. 57 633
3/23/22, 4:00 AM https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ 8/13 (§ 2, Ord. 2888, eff. March 6, 2008)
Sec. 5-29.10. Other public agency exceptions.

The provisions of this chapter shall not be construed to prohibit any work at different hours by or under the direction of any other public agency or public or private utility companies in cases of necessity or emergency.
(§ 2, Ord. 2888, eff. March 6, 2008)
Sec. 5-29.11. Schools, day care centers, churches, libraries, museums, health care institutions; Special provisions.

It is unlawful for any person to create any noise that causes the outdoor noise level at any school, day care center, hospital or similar health care institution, church, library or museum while the same is in use, to exceed the noise standards specified in § 5-29.04 prescribed for the assigned Noise Zone I. (§ 2, Ord. 2888, eff. March 6, 2008)
Sec. 5-29.12. Sound amplifying equipment.

Loudspeakers, sound amplifiers, public address systems or similar devices used to amplify sounds shall be subject to the provisions of § 5-29.13. Such sound amplifying equipment shall not be construed to include electronic devices, including but not limited to, radios, tape players, tape recorders, compact disc players, MP3 players, electric keyboards, music synthesizers, record players or televisions, which are designed and operated for personal use, or used entirely within a building and are not designed or used to convey the human voice, music or any other sound to an audience outside such building, or which are used in vehicles and heard only by occupants of the vehicle in which installed.
(§ 2, Ord. 2888, eff. March 6, 2008)
Sec. 5-29.13. Amplified sound.
(a) The City Council enacts the following legislation for the sole purpose of securing and promoting the public health, comfort, safety and welfare for its citizenry. While recognizing that the use of sound amplifying equipment may be entitled to certain protection by the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and assembly, the City Council finds that in order to protect the public safety and the correlative rights of the citizens of this community to privacy and freedom from public nuisance of loud and unnecessary noise, reasonable regulation of the time, place and manner of the use of amplifying equipment is necessary. In no event shall approval or authorization required herein be withheld by reason of the constitutionally protected content of any material proposed to be broadcast through amplifying equipment.
(b) It is unlawful for any person, other than personnel of law enforcement or governmental agencies, to install, use or operate a loudspeaker or sound amplifying device in a fixed or movable position or mounted upon any vehicle within the City for the purpose of giving instructions, directions, talks, addresses or lectures to any persons or assemblages of persons in or upon any street, alley, sidewalk, park, place or public property without a permit to do so from the Police Chief or his or her designee. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the provisions of this section shall also apply to the use of sound amplifying equipment upon public or private property when used in connection with outdoor or indoor public or private events, whether or not admission is charged or food or beverages are sold, when such activity is to be attended by more than one hundred (100) persons and the noise emanating from the event will be audible at the property plane, or in the case of a street dance or concert on the nearest residential property. Those activities listed in § 5-29.06(a) are exempt from the requirements of this section.
58 634
3/23/22, 4:00 AM https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ 9/13 (c) The Police Chief or his or her designee is authorized to approve and issue permits under this section.
(d) An application for a permit required by this section shall be filed with the Police Chief at least sixteen (16) days and no more than one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the date on which the sound amplifying equipment is intended to be used. Applications for events covered by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution are exempt from the time requirements of this section if it is shown that circumstances require a shorter filing period and the event will not constitute an unsafe condition. The application shall contain the following information:
(1) The name, address and telephone number of both the owner and the user of the sound amplifying equipment;
(2) The license number, if a sound truck is to be used; (3) A general description of the sound amplifying equipment which is to be used; (4) Whether sound amplifying equipment will be used for commercial or noncommercial purpose; (5) The dates and times upon and within which, and the streets or property over or upon which, the equipment is proposed to be operated;
(6) The name or names of one (1) or more persons who will be present during the conduct of any activities for which registration is sought and who will have authority to reduce the volume of any sound amplifying equipment during the course of the activities if required pursuant to this chapter and, otherwise, to insure compliance with the provisions of this chapter; (7) A statement by the applicant that he or she is willing and able to comply with the provisions of this chapter and the conditions of the permit; and
(8) A sketch of the area or facilities within which the activities are to be conducted, with approximate dimensions and illustration of the location and orientation of all sound-amplifying equipment.
(e) The Police Chief shall deny the permit application or revoke any permit if the chief finds any of the following:
(1) The application contains materially false or intentionally misleading information; (2) The use of sound amplifying equipment at an event or activity proposed will be located in or upon a premises, building or structure that is hazardous to the health or safety of the employees or patrons of the premises, business, activity, or event, or the general public, under the standards established by the Uniform Building or Fire Codes, or other applicable codes, as set forth in OMC Titles 4 and 8;
(3) The use of sound amplifying equipment at an event or activity proposed in or upon a premises, building or structure that lacks adequate on-site parking for participants attending the proposed event or activity under the applicable standards set forth in OMC Title 9; (4) The conditions of any motor vehicle movement are such that, in his or her opinion, the use of the equipment would constitute an unreasonable interference with traffic safety; (5) The conditions of pedestrian movement are such that the use of the equipment would constitute a detriment to traffic safety;
(6) The application submitted by the applicant reveals that the applicant would violate the provisions of this section or any other provision of federal, state and/or local law; (7) The applicant is unwilling or unable to comply with the provisions of this chapter or any conditions imposed upon any permit issued;
59 635
3/23/22, 4:00 AM https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ 10/13 (8) There had already been a permitted event at the intended location, or within a two hundred (200) yard radius of the intended location and the prior permitted event was located on residentially zoned property or on a street, alley, public parking lot or neighborhood park within three (3) months prior to the intended event. Community parks are exempt from this subsection (8); or (9) The applicant or location has had previous violations within the past calendar year, and in the judgment of the Police Chief, issuance would be contrary to the intent of this section. (f) In determining whether the use of the equipment would constitute an unreasonable interference with or detriment to traffic safety, the Police Chief shall consider, but shall not necessarily be limited to:
(1) The volumes, patterns and speed of vehicular and pedestrian traffic in the proposed area of use;
(2) The relationship of the proposed use of equipment and potential impacts upon traffic patterns; (3) Availability of sufficient room for the operation of the equipment without significantly interfering with the traffic patterns;
(4) Proximity to schools, playgrounds and similar facilities where use of such equipment might attract children into traffic patterns; or
(5) Proximity to busy intersections or other potentially hazardous conditions where use of such equipment might constitute a hazard by reason of its tendency to distract drivers of vehicles or pedestrians.
(g) Issuance or denial.
(1) If the application is approved, the Police Chief shall return an approved copy of the application to the applicant and shall issue a permit. The permit shall constitute permission for the use of the sound amplifying equipment as requested.
(2) Any application filed shall be either approved or disapproved within five (5) days of the filing thereof.
(3) If the application is disapproved, the Police Chief shall return a disapproved copy forthwith to the applicant with a written statement on the reason for disapproval. (i) Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Police Chief or his or her designee may file an appeal to the City Manager. A complete and proper appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within ten (10) calendar days of the action that is the subject of the appeal. If the applicant fails to file an appeal within the ten (10) day filing period provided herein, denial shall take effect immediately upon expiration of such filing period. All appeals shall be in writing and shall contain the following information: (a) name(s) of the person filing the appeal, (b) a brief statement in ordinary and concise language of the relief sought, and (c) the signatures of all parties named as appellants and their mailing addresses. After receiving the appeal, the City Clerk shall immediately forward the matter to the City Manager for handling.
(ii) The City Manager shall, upon receipt of the appeal, set the matter for hearing before the City Manager or a hearing officer. Any hearing officer shall be a licensed attorney or recognized mediator designated by the City Manager. The hearing shall be set for not more than ten (10) calendar days after the receipt of the appeal unless a longer time is requested or consented to by the appellant. Notice of such hearing shall be given in writing and mailed at least five (5) calendar days prior to the date of the hearing, by U.S. mail, with a proof of service attached, addressed to the address listed on the permit application, or the written appeal if different from the permit application.

The notice shall state the grounds of the complaint or reason for the denial and shall state the time and place where such hearing will be held.
60 636
3/23/22, 4:00 AM https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ 11/13 (iii) The City Manager or hearing officer shall, within ten (10) calendar days following the conclusion of the hearing, make a written finding and decision, which shall be delivered to the City and the appellant by first class mail. Notwithstanding any provision in this Code, the decision of the City Manager or hearing officer shall be the final administrative decision of the City. Any party dissatisfied with the decision of the City Manager or hearing officer may seek review of such decision under the provisions of Code Civil Procedure, §§ 1094.5 and 1094.8, as amended from time to time. (h) In addition to any other provisions of this Code, the use of sound-amplifying equipment and sound trucks in the City shall be subject to the following regulations:
(1) The only sounds permitted are music and human speech; (2) Sound shall not be emitted within one hundred (100) yards of hospitals, churches, schools and City Hall;
(3) The volume of sound shall be controlled so that it will not be audible for a distance in excess of one hundred (100) feet from the sound amplifying equipment or sound truck, and so that the volume is not unreasonably loud, raucous, jarring, disturbing or a nuisance to persons within the range of allowed audibility; or
(4) The sound amplifying equipment or sound truck shall not be used between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.
(§ 2, Ord. 2888, eff. March 6, 2008)
Sec. 5-29.14. Motor vehicles.

The use of any motor vehicle in such a condition as to create excessive, impulsive or intrusive noises is prohibited. The discharge into the open air of the exhaust of any internal combustion engine, stationary or mounted on wheels, motorboat or motor vehicle, including motor cycle, whether or not discharged through a muffler or other similar device, which discharge creates excessive, unusual, impulsive or intrusive noise is prohibited. Motor vehicles shall comply with the noise regulations of the California Vehicle Code.
(§ 2, Ord. 2888, eff. March 6, 2008)
Sec. 5-29.15. Noise level measurement.
(a) The location selected for measuring exterior noise levels in a residential area shall be at any part of a private yard, patio, deck or balcony normally used for human activity and identified by the owner or, if occupied by someone other than the owner, the occupant of the affected property as suspected of exceeding the noise level standard. This location may be the closest point in the private yard or patio, or on the deck or balcony, to the noise source, but should not be located in nonhuman activity areas such as trash container storage areas, planter beds, above or contacting a property line fence, or other areas not normally used as part of the yard, patio, deck or balcony. The location selected for measuring exterior noise levels in a nonresidential area shall be at the closest point to the noise source. The measurement microphone height shall be five (5) feet above finish elevation or, in the case of a deck or balcony, the measurement microphone height shall be five (5) feet above the finished floor level.
(b) The location selected for measuring interior noise levels shall be made within the affected residential unit. The measurements shall be made at a point at least four (4) feet from the wall, ceiling or floor, or within the frame of a window opening, nearest the noise source. The measurements shall be made with windows in an open position.
(c) Any decibel measurement made pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall be measured in decibels (dBAs) as measured with a sound level meter using the A-weighted sound pressure level. 61 637
3/23/22, 4:00 AM https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ 12/13 (§ 2, Ord. 2888, eff. March 6, 2008)
Sec. 5-29.16. Prima facie violation.

Any noise exceeding the noise level standard as specified in §§ 5-29.04 and 5-29.05, shall be deemed to be prima facie evidence of a violation of the provisions of this chapter. (§ 2, Ord. 2888, eff. March 6, 2008)
Sec. 5-29.17. Penalty.
(a) Any person who negligently or knowingly violates any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of an infraction and upon conviction shall be punishable by a fine specified in OMC § 1-2.01. Each day a violation occurs shall constitute a separate offense and shall be punishable as such. (b) Any person who negligently or knowingly violates any provision of this chapter may also be subject to fine(s) specified in the administrative citation schedule of fines set forth in OMC § 1-5.04.

The manner of issuing administrative citations shall comply with all the procedures specified in OMC Chapter 5, Title 1.
(c) As an additional remedy, the operation or maintenance of any device, instrument, vehicle or machinery in violation of any provisions of this chapter, which operation or maintenance causes or creates sound levels exceeding the allowable standards as specified in this chapter, shall be deemed and is declared to be a public nuisance and may be subject to abatement by a restraining order or injunction issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. (d) Any violation of this chapter is declared to be a public nuisance and may be abated in accordance with law. The expense of enforcing this chapter is declared to be public nuisance and may be by resolution of the City Council declared to be a lien and special assessment against the property on which such nuisance is maintained, and any such charge shall also be a personal obligation of the property owner.
(§ 2, Ord. 2888, eff. March 6, 2008)
Sec. 5-29.18. Enforcement and administration.
(a) It shall be the responsibility of Police or Code Enforcement Officers to enforce the provisions of this chapter and to perform all other functions required by this chapter. Such duties shall include, but not be limited to investigating potential violations, issuing warning notices and citations, and providing evidence to the City prosecutor for legal action.
(b) For violations of § 5-29.07, Police or Code Enforcement Officers shall obtain a declaration under penalty of perjury from two (2) declarants living in separate households within a sixty (60) day period stating in detail all of the following:
(1) That the declarant is a resident of a residential neighborhood located within two hundred (200) yards of the noise source; and
(2) Within the past month declarant has heard noise for substantially long periods to the extreme annoyance of the declarant.
(3) Declarations from two (2) declarants are required to prove a violation of § 5-29.07, but are not required to prove that a person has violated any other provision of this chapter. (§ 2, Ord. 2888, eff. March 6, 2008)
Sec. 5-29.19. City Manager waiver.
62 638
3/23/22, 4:00 AM https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ 13/13 The City Manager is authorized to grant a temporary waiver to the provisions of this chapter for a period of time necessary to correct the violations of this chapter, if such temporary waiver would be in the public interest and there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the activity, or the method of conducting the activity, for which the temporary waiver is sought. This time period may include a commitment to a program that includes placing necessary orders and entering into necessary contracts within thirty (30) days for repair or installation. (§ 2, Ord. 2888, eff. March 6, 2008)
Sec. 5-29.20. Noise abatement program.
(a) In circumstances where adopted community-wide noise standards and policies prove impractical in controlling noise generated from a specific source, the City Council may establish a noise abatement program that recognizes the characteristics of the noise source and affected property and that incorporates specialized mitigation measures.
(b) Noise abatement programs shall set forth in detail the approved terms, conditions and requirements for achieving maximum compliance with noise standards and policies. Said terms, conditions and requirements may include, but shall not be limited to, limitations, restrictions, or prohibitions on operating hours, location of operations, and the types of equipment. (§ 2, Ord. 2888, eff. March 6, 2008)
63 639
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
This page intentionally left blank
64 640
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
APPENDIX 5.1:

STUDY AREA PHOTOS
65 641
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
This page intentionally left blank
66 642
JN:15067
15067 L1 A 1.North
34, 2' 7.500000"117, 37' 58.670000"
15067 L1 A 2.South
34, 2' 7.240000"117, 37' 58.590000"
15067 L1 A 3.East
34, 2' 7.220000"117, 37' 58.540000"
15067 L1 A 4.West
34, 2' 7.140000"117, 37' 58.540000"
67 643
JN:15067
15067 L2 F 1.North
34, 2' 4.690000"117, 37' 51.780000"
15067 L2 F 2.South
34, 2' 4.750000"117, 37' 51.640000"
15067 L2 F 3.East
34, 2' 4.710000"117, 37' 51.670000"
15067 L2 F 4.West
34, 2' 4.750000"117, 37' 51.750000"
68 644
JN:15067
15067 L3 O 1.North
34, 2' 1.980000"117, 37' 39.370000"
15067 L3 O 2.South
34, 2' 2.020000"117, 37' 39.310000"
15067 L3 O 3.East
34, 2' 2.020000"117, 37' 39.310000"
15067 L3 O 4.West
34, 2' 2.000000"117, 37' 39.340000"
69 645
JN:15067
15067 L4 H 1.North
34, 2' 1.580000"117, 37' 52.470000"
15067 L4 H 2.South
34, 2' 1.170000"117, 37' 52.270000"
15067 L4 H 3.East
34, 2' 1.180000"117, 37' 52.330000"
15067 L4 H 4.West
34, 2' 1.140000"117, 37' 52.330000"
70 646
JN:15067
15067 L5 P 1.North
34, 2' 11.340000"117, 38' 13.810000"
15067 L5 P 2.South
34, 2' 11.300000"117, 38' 13.810000"
15067 L5 P 3.East
34, 2' 11.270000"117, 38' 13.670000"
15067 L5 P 4.West
34, 2' 11.300000"117, 38' 13.750000"
71 647
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
This page intentionally left blank
72 648
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
APPENDIX 5.2:

NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT WORKSHEETS
73 649
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
This page intentionally left blank
74 650
Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 15067
Project: 2042 S. Grove St. Source: Analyst: Z. Ibrahim
Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 55.5 64.4 45.8 64.0 63.6 62.4 61.3 55.1 51.0 46.7 46.3 45.9 55.5 10.0 65.5 1 56.1 63.8 42.4 63.6 63.1 62.2 61.5 57.5 52.4 43.8 43.2 42.5 56.1 10.0 66.1 2 57.6 64.7 42.7 64.5 64.2 63.4 62.7 59.1 54.7 44.8 43.6 42.9 57.6 10.0 67.6 3 52.7 59.4 49.2 59.1 58.7 57.5 56.3 52.4 51.3 49.9 49.7 49.3 52.7 10.0 62.7 4 56.5 67.4 48.9 67.0 66.3 64.3 62.3 52.7 50.2 49.2 49.1 48.9 56.5 10.0 66.5 5 61.3 71.3 51.4 71.0 70.5 68.6 66.8 60.3 55.7 52.3 51.9 51.6 61.3 10.0 71.3 6 65.1 74.9 54.9 74.5 73.9 72.0 70.3 65.1 59.9 55.7 55.4 55.0 65.1 10.0 75.1 7 65.6 73.8 56.1 73.5 73.2 71.7 70.4 66.4 62.3 57.5 56.9 56.3 65.6 0.0 65.6 8 69.1 81.4 53.4 80.4 79.1 77.3 75.2 65.9 60.5 55.0 54.3 53.6 69.1 0.0 69.1 9 63.9 75.3 48.8 74.4 73.4 71.3 69.4 63.0 57.6 52.1 50.6 49.2 63.9 0.0 63.9 10 63.6 74.1 49.9 73.4 72.8 70.8 69.3 62.9 56.7 51.4 50.8 50.1 63.6 0.0 63.6 11 65.4 74.1 55.0 73.7 73.4 72.2 70.9 65.7 60.9 56.0 55.5 55.1 65.4 0.0 65.4 12 64.5 73.8 50.6 73.5 73.2 71.7 70.2 64.8 58.5 52.1 51.4 50.8 64.5 0.0 64.5 13 62.0 71.4 50.1 71.1 70.7 69.7 68.0 61.5 56.3 51.2 50.7 50.3 62.0 0.0 62.0 14 64.6 77.0 50.5 75.8 74.5 71.7 69.4 63.2 57.6 51.8 51.0 50.6 64.6 0.0 64.6 15 62.1 71.5 51.0 71.2 70.8 69.5 67.8 61.9 56.5 52.4 52.0 51.1 62.1 0.0 62.1 16 60.8 70.4 51.6 70.1 69.8 68.3 66.4 59.8 54.5 52.1 51.9 51.7 60.8 0.0 60.8 17 61.1 70.9 53.5 70.6 70.2 68.1 65.9 60.3 56.5 54.0 53.8 53.6 61.1 0.0 61.1 18 59.7 68.6 54.3 68.3 68.0 66.6 64.6 58.2 55.9 54.8 54.6 54.4 59.7 0.0 59.7 19 62.1 71.5 54.2 71.1 70.7 68.7 66.8 62.3 57.3 54.7 54.5 54.3 62.1 5.0 67.1 20 58.4 67.2 52.8 66.8 66.4 65.0 63.7 57.5 54.5 53.3 53.1 52.9 58.4 5.0 63.4 21 58.2 66.7 52.8 66.4 66.2 64.7 62.9 57.1 54.9 53.4 53.2 52.9 58.2 5.0 63.2 22 57.4 64.3 51.4 64.0 63.7 62.9 62.2 57.8 55.1 52.2 51.8 51.5 57.4 10.0 67.4 23 56.4 64.7 49.7 64.4 64.1 62.8 60.8 56.9 52.9 50.2 50.0 49.8 56.4 10.0 66.4 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 58.2 66.7 48.8 66.4 66.2 64.7 62.9 57.1 54.5 51.2 50.6 49.2 Max 69.1 81.4 56.1 80.4 79.1 77.3 75.2 66.4 62.3 57.5 56.9 56.3

63.7 72.0 71.5 69.8 68.1 62.0 57.4 53.4 53.0 52.4
Min 52.7 59.4 42.4 59.1 58.7 57.5 56.3 52.4 50.2 43.8 43.2 42.5 Max 65.1 74.9 54.9 74.5 73.9 72.0 70.3 65.1 59.9 55.7 55.4 55.0

59.2 65.8 65.4 64.0 62.7 57.4 53.7 49.4 49.0 48.6
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
Night
Thursday, May 4, 2023 L1 - Located Southwest of the site near the residence at 2120 S. Cucamonga Ave.

Night
Day
Leq (dBA) 24-Hour
Day CNEL
Night
Energy Average
Energy Average Average:

Average:

Daytime
(7am-10pm)
Nighttime
(10pm-7am)

66.9 63.7 59.2

55.5 56.1

57.6 52.7

56.5 61.3

65.1 65.6

69.1 63.9

63.6 65.4

64.5 62.0

64.6 62.1

60.8 61.1

59.7 62.1

58.4 58.2

57.4 56.4

35.0 40.0

45.0 50.0

55.0 60.0

65.0 70.0

75.0 80.0

85.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Leq (dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_14600-15000\_15000\15067\04_Noise\Fieldwork\Measurements\15067_L1_A 75 651
Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 15067
Project: 2042 S. Grove St. Source: Analyst: Z. Ibrahim
Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 54.8 63.1 48.0 62.7 62.3 61.4 60.4 55.3 50.1 48.7 48.5 48.1 54.8 10.0 64.8 1 57.3 65.8 43.6 65.5 65.4 63.9 63.4 56.6 48.6 44.3 44.0 43.7 57.3 10.0 67.3 2 59.7 67.0 44.9 66.7 66.1 65.0 64.2 61.7 57.3 46.9 46.1 45.0 59.7 10.0 69.7 3 52.5 58.6 49.6 58.3 57.9 56.1 55.6 52.4 51.5 50.3 50.0 49.7 52.5 10.0 62.5 4 58.1 61.6 55.8 61.2 61.0 60.5 60.0 58.7 57.6 56.5 56.3 56.0 58.1 10.0 68.1 5 62.3 66.1 59.9 65.7 65.4 64.8 64.4 62.9 61.7 60.6 60.4 60.1 62.3 10.0 72.3 6 65.6 72.6 62.5 71.9 71.4 70.0 69.1 65.6 63.9 63.1 62.9 62.7 65.6 10.0 75.6 7 64.4 72.0 57.7 71.6 71.0 70.0 69.3 65.2 61.1 58.4 58.2 57.9 64.4 0.0 64.4 8 60.7 68.7 54.4 68.0 67.3 65.9 64.9 61.2 58.0 55.2 54.9 54.6 60.7 0.0 60.7 9 63.1 76.3 49.9 74.0 72.5 70.0 68.2 61.9 56.8 51.4 50.7 50.1 63.1 0.0 63.1 10 63.0 70.1 58.2 69.6 68.8 67.4 66.5 63.7 61.5 59.2 59.1 58.4 63.0 0.0 63.0 11 61.8 70.4 53.6 70.0 69.4 68.1 66.9 61.6 57.9 54.5 54.2 53.7 61.8 0.0 61.8 12 63.5 71.5 55.7 71.0 70.5 69.1 68.4 64.3 60.3 56.8 56.4 55.9 63.5 0.0 63.5 13 63.9 73.0 54.9 72.4 71.4 69.5 68.7 64.5 60.2 56.1 55.6 55.1 63.9 0.0 63.9 14 59.2 66.1 53.7 65.8 65.4 64.7 63.9 59.6 56.7 54.3 54.1 53.8 59.2 0.0 59.2 15 62.6 75.4 53.6 74.0 73.0 68.6 65.7 60.8 58.3 54.3 54.0 53.7 62.6 0.0 62.6 16 56.5 63.6 54.0 63.2 62.4 60.0 58.5 56.4 55.6 54.5 54.3 54.1 56.5 0.0 56.5 17 61.5 71.1 56.2 70.5 69.9 67.8 66.0 60.2 58.3 56.6 56.4 56.2 61.5 0.0 61.5 18 58.4 62.0 56.0 61.8 61.7 61.2 60.9 58.8 57.5 56.5 56.3 56.1 58.4 0.0 58.4 19 62.5 69.3 56.1 69.0 68.7 68.0 67.5 63.8 58.9 56.6 56.4 56.1 62.5 5.0 67.5 20 58.8 64.5 54.9 64.2 64.0 63.2 62.5 59.5 56.7 55.4 55.2 55.0 58.8 5.0 63.8 21 57.0 60.4 54.5 60.2 60.0 59.4 59.1 57.7 56.5 55.1 54.9 54.5 57.0 5.0 62.0 22 58.4 64.4 53.3 64.0 63.5 63.0 62.6 59.6 56.1 54.0 53.7 53.4 58.4 10.0 68.4 23 56.6 63.1 51.6 62.6 62.2 61.5 60.8 56.7 54.8 52.5 52.1 51.7 56.6 10.0 66.6 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 56.5 60.4 49.9 60.2 60.0 59.4 58.5 56.4 55.6 51.4 50.7 50.1 Max 64.4 76.3 58.2 74.0 73.0 70.0 69.3 65.2 61.5 59.2 59.1 58.4

61.8 68.3 67.7 66.2 65.1 61.3 58.3 55.7 55.4 55.0
Min 52.5 58.6 43.6 58.3 57.9 56.1 55.6 52.4 48.6 44.3 44.0 43.7 Max 65.6 72.6 62.5 71.9 71.4 70.0 69.1 65.6 63.9 63.1 62.9 62.7

60.0 64.3 63.9 62.9 62.3 58.8 55.7 53.0 52.7 52.3
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
Night
Thursday, May 4, 2023 L2 - Located south of the site near the residence at 1147 E Philadelphia St.

Night
Day
Leq (dBA) 24-Hour
Day CNEL
Night
Energy Average
Energy Average Average:

Average:

Daytime
(7am-10pm)
Nighttime
(10pm-7am)

67.0 61.8 60.0

54.8 57.3

59.7 52.5

58.1 62.3

65.6 64.4

60.7 63.1

63.0 61.8

63.5 63.9

59.2 62.6

56.5 61.5

58.4 62.5

58.8 57.0

58.4 56.6

35.0 40.0

45.0 50.0

55.0 60.0

65.0 70.0

75.0 80.0

85.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Leq (dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_14600-15000\_15000\15067\04_Noise\Fieldwork\Measurements\15067_L2_F 76 652
Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 15067
Project: 2042 S. Grove St. Source: Analyst: Z. Ibrahim
Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 60.3 69.5 52.3 69.2 68.8 66.7 64.8 60.2 56.3 53.1 52.7 52.4 60.3 10.0 70.3 1 62.8 73.4 49.3 73.0 72.4 70.1 67.9 61.9 56.4 50.5 49.8 49.4 62.8 10.0 72.8 2 61.9 70.9 50.8 70.5 69.9 68.3 66.8 62.5 58.1 52.4 51.7 51.0 61.9 10.0 71.9 3 67.5 79.9 55.0 79.4 79.1 75.5 71.8 63.1 59.4 56.1 55.5 55.1 67.5 10.0 77.5 4 68.6 77.4 57.9 77.1 76.6 74.8 73.3 69.3 64.4 59.3 58.7 58.0 68.6 10.0 78.6 5 70.9 78.6 61.3 78.3 78.0 76.6 75.6 71.8 68.0 62.6 61.9 61.4 70.9 10.0 80.9 6 70.4 78.2 61.7 78.0 77.6 75.9 74.7 71.3 67.7 63.2 62.4 61.8 70.4 10.0 80.4 7 72.3 80.0 63.8 79.7 79.1 77.7 76.5 73.3 70.0 65.4 64.5 63.9 72.3 0.0 72.3 8 73.7 82.2 64.4 81.8 81.2 79.3 77.8 74.4 71.0 66.1 65.2 64.5 73.7 0.0 73.7 9 74.3 85.5 62.3 84.9 84.0 81.2 78.9 73.6 69.3 64.3 63.3 62.4 74.3 0.0 74.3 10 71.7 79.9 63.6 79.5 78.9 77.1 76.0 72.3 69.3 65.1 64.4 63.7 71.7 0.0 71.7 11 72.1 82.5 62.6 81.8 80.9 77.9 76.1 72.2 68.8 64.4 63.6 62.8 72.1 0.0 72.1 12 74.5 81.6 65.5 81.3 80.9 79.6 78.6 75.6 72.7 67.7 66.5 65.6 74.5 0.0 74.5 13 72.1 81.4 62.4 80.9 80.1 77.9 76.6 72.4 69.1 64.2 63.4 62.5 72.1 0.0 72.1 14 73.9 86.8 62.3 86.0 84.6 80.4 77.4 71.9 68.4 63.9 63.1 62.5 73.9 0.0 73.9 15 71.4 81.9 62.5 80.9 79.1 76.5 75.0 71.7 68.8 64.2 63.4 62.6 71.4 0.0 71.4 16 70.6 78.6 62.2 78.2 77.7 75.8 74.4 71.4 68.5 64.2 63.2 62.4 70.6 0.0 70.6 17 72.0 82.0 62.5 81.6 81.1 79.1 76.4 71.4 68.4 63.8 63.2 62.6 72.0 0.0 72.0 18 70.8 81.7 61.9 81.1 80.1 77.0 75.4 70.2 66.8 63.1 62.5 62.0 70.8 0.0 70.8 19 69.2 78.4 61.7 78.1 77.6 75.4 73.6 69.0 66.0 62.6 62.2 61.8 69.2 5.0 74.2 20 67.0 75.7 60.4 75.1 74.5 72.4 71.0 67.4 64.3 61.2 60.8 60.5 67.0 5.0 72.0 21 70.0 82.3 60.0 81.6 80.6 77.7 74.7 66.9 63.7 60.8 60.5 60.1 70.0 5.0 75.0 22 66.3 76.7 58.5 76.5 75.7 73.1 70.4 65.4 62.4 59.2 58.9 58.6 66.3 10.0 76.3 23 63.2 71.3 56.8 71.1 70.6 69.0 67.5 63.3 60.6 57.6 57.2 56.9 63.2 10.0 73.2 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 67.0 75.7 60.0 75.1 74.5 72.4 71.0 66.9 63.7 60.8 60.5 60.1 Max 74.5 86.8 65.5 86.0 84.6 81.2 78.9 75.6 72.7 67.7 66.5 65.6

72.1 80.8 80.0 77.7 75.9 71.6 68.3 64.1 63.3 62.7
Min 60.3 69.5 49.3 69.2 68.8 66.7 64.8 60.2 56.3 50.5 49.8 49.4 Max 70.9 79.9 61.7 79.4 79.1 76.6 75.6 71.8 68.0 63.2 62.4 61.8

67.2 74.8 74.3 72.2 70.3 65.4 61.5 57.1 56.5 56.1
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
Night
Thursday, May 4, 2023 L3 - Located southeast of the site near the residence at 1456 E Philadelphia St.

Night
Day
Leq (dBA) 24-Hour
Day CNEL
Night
Energy Average
Energy Average Average:

Average:

Daytime
(7am-10pm)
Nighttime
(10pm-7am)

75.0 72.1 67.2

60.3 62.8

61.9 67.5

68.6 70.9

70.4 72.3

73.7 74.3

71.7 72.1

74.5 72.1

73.9 71.4

70.6 72.0

70.8 69.2

67.0 70.0

66.3 63.2

35.0 40.0

45.0 50.0

55.0 60.0

65.0 70.0

75.0 80.0

85.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Leq (dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_14600-15000\_15000\15067\04_Noise\Fieldwork\Measurements\15067_L3_O 77 653
Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 15067
Project: 2042 S. Grove St. Source: Analyst: Z. Ibrahim
Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 60.8 67.1 58.7 66.8 66.4 64.7 63.5 60.9 59.3 58.9 58.8 58.7 60.8 10.0 70.8 1 61.1 66.3 59.5 66.1 65.8 64.5 63.6 61.4 59.9 59.6 59.5 59.5 61.1 10.0 71.1 2 61.4 67.6 58.9 67.3 66.8 65.1 64.1 61.4 60.2 59.1 59.0 58.9 61.4 10.0 71.4 3 61.5 69.9 59.2 69.7 69.0 66.1 64.2 60.4 59.8 59.4 59.3 59.2 61.5 10.0 71.5 4 64.7 73.5 59.9 73.2 72.7 70.5 69.1 64.6 61.4 60.1 60.0 59.9 64.7 10.0 74.7 5 67.4 75.2 60.3 74.9 74.4 73.2 72.3 68.2 63.9 60.7 60.5 60.3 67.4 10.0 77.4 6 70.2 80.2 59.7 79.8 78.9 76.7 74.7 70.5 66.5 60.7 60.3 59.8 70.2 10.0 80.2 7 70.1 78.0 58.4 77.6 77.1 75.3 74.2 71.1 68.1 61.5 60.1 58.6 70.1 0.0 70.1 8 68.5 75.3 55.6 75.1 74.7 73.5 72.8 70.1 66.4 58.4 56.9 55.8 68.5 0.0 68.5 9 66.3 75.3 53.2 74.8 74.1 72.0 70.7 67.2 63.4 55.3 54.2 53.4 66.3 0.0 66.3 10 68.0 77.6 55.9 77.0 76.3 73.9 72.2 68.7 64.9 58.1 57.0 56.0 68.0 0.0 68.0 11 67.0 76.7 55.9 76.1 75.2 73.1 71.5 67.1 64.1 57.6 56.7 56.1 67.0 0.0 67.0 12 69.7 77.8 58.9 77.5 77.0 75.1 73.7 70.6 67.6 61.3 60.1 59.1 69.7 0.0 69.7 13 66.6 76.8 56.9 76.0 75.1 72.4 70.5 66.7 63.7 58.5 57.7 57.1 66.6 0.0 66.6 14 66.6 75.3 57.6 74.9 74.4 72.3 70.6 67.2 64.1 59.3 58.6 57.8 66.6 0.0 66.6 15 67.4 77.4 58.1 77.1 76.6 73.4 71.1 67.2 64.5 59.9 59.0 58.2 67.4 0.0 67.4 16 66.3 74.7 58.0 74.3 73.5 71.3 69.9 67.2 64.5 59.5 58.7 58.1 66.3 0.0 66.3 17 66.4 73.8 59.4 73.5 73.0 71.4 70.4 67.2 64.7 60.6 60.1 59.6 66.4 0.0 66.4 18 67.0 75.8 60.2 75.6 75.1 72.9 71.1 67.2 64.3 61.1 60.6 60.3 67.0 0.0 67.0 19 65.8 73.2 60.3 72.7 72.2 70.6 69.7 66.7 63.8 61.0 60.7 60.4 65.8 5.0 70.8 20 64.7 72.1 59.4 71.7 71.3 69.9 68.7 65.2 62.7 60.1 59.8 59.5 64.7 5.0 69.7 21 63.5 72.4 57.8 71.7 71.0 68.7 67.3 64.0 60.6 58.3 58.0 57.8 63.5 5.0 68.5 22 61.6 68.8 56.9 68.6 68.3 66.9 65.9 61.9 59.0 57.2 57.1 56.9 61.6 10.0 71.6 23 60.6 68.4 56.2 68.0 67.6 65.9 64.8 60.8 57.9 56.5 56.4 56.2 60.6 10.0 70.6 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 63.5 72.1 53.2 71.7 71.0 68.7 67.3 64.0 60.6 55.3 54.2 53.4 Max 70.1 78.0 60.3 77.6 77.1 75.3 74.2 71.1 68.1 61.5 60.7 60.4

67.2 75.0 74.4 72.4 71.0 67.6 64.5 59.4 58.5 57.8
Min 60.6 66.3 56.2 66.1 65.8 64.5 63.5 60.4 57.9 56.5 56.4 56.2 Max 70.2 80.2 60.3 79.8 78.9 76.7 74.7 70.5 66.5 60.7 60.5 60.3

64.8 70.5 70.0 68.2 66.9 63.3 60.9 59.1 59.0 58.8
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
Night
Thursday, May 4, 2023 L4 - Located south of the site near the residence at 1110 E Philadelphia St.

Night
Day
Leq (dBA) 24-Hour
Day CNEL
Night
Energy Average
Energy Average Average:

Average:

Daytime
(7am-10pm)
Nighttime
(10pm-7am)

71.9 67.2 64.8

60.8 61.1

61.4 61.5

64.7 67.4

70.2 70.1

68.5 66.3

68.0 67.0

69.7 66.6

66.6 67.4

66.3 66.4

67.0 65.8

64.7 63.5

61.6 60.6

35.0 40.0

45.0 50.0

55.0 60.0

65.0 70.0

75.0 80.0

85.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Leq (dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_14600-15000\_15000\15067\04_Noise\Fieldwork\Measurements\15067_L4_H 78 654
Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 15067
Project: 2042 S. Grove St. Source: Analyst: Z. Ibrahim
Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 58.0 67.4 51.7 67.0 66.5 64.8 62.9 57.5 53.5 52.2 52.0 51.8 58.0 10.0 68.0 1 60.5 70.1 48.5 69.8 69.5 68.2 67.2 59.3 51.2 49.0 48.8 48.6 60.5 10.0 70.5 2 61.7 71.0 48.4 70.7 70.2 68.8 67.4 62.1 56.0 49.7 49.0 48.5 61.7 10.0 71.7 3 58.4 68.7 53.4 68.4 67.8 65.2 62.4 56.2 55.2 54.0 53.8 53.5 58.4 10.0 68.4 4 63.4 73.6 58.8 73.1 72.3 69.6 67.3 61.8 60.3 59.3 59.2 58.9 63.4 10.0 73.4 5 68.7 77.6 62.6 77.3 76.6 74.8 73.5 68.7 64.9 63.0 62.8 62.7 68.7 10.0 78.7 6 71.9 80.2 66.7 79.9 79.3 77.6 76.3 71.8 68.8 67.1 66.9 66.8 71.9 10.0 81.9 7 71.0 78.8 61.4 78.5 77.8 76.3 75.3 71.9 68.8 63.7 62.5 61.6 71.0 0.0 71.0 8 69.2 77.4 56.3 77.0 76.4 75.0 74.1 70.4 65.9 58.6 57.5 56.4 69.2 0.0 69.2 9 66.3 75.7 51.6 75.5 75.1 73.3 71.8 66.7 60.7 52.9 52.3 51.7 66.3 0.0 66.3 10 67.3 77.4 54.1 77.1 76.6 74.1 72.4 67.5 61.1 55.1 54.6 54.2 67.3 0.0 67.3 11 66.9 75.8 55.1 75.5 75.0 73.6 72.3 67.2 62.0 56.1 55.6 55.2 66.9 0.0 66.9 12 69.8 78.4 57.0 78.0 77.4 75.8 74.8 70.8 66.0 58.6 57.7 57.1 69.8 0.0 69.8 13 66.4 76.9 52.2 76.4 75.8 73.4 71.5 65.8 60.8 54.1 53.2 52.3 66.4 0.0 66.4 14 66.0 74.7 54.8 74.4 74.0 72.0 70.5 66.7 63.0 56.4 55.5 54.9 66.0 0.0 66.0 15 65.9 74.1 54.3 73.7 73.2 71.6 70.5 67.1 62.9 55.8 55.1 54.5 65.9 0.0 65.9 16 66.2 74.3 56.1 74.0 73.5 71.8 70.6 67.3 63.0 57.5 56.7 56.2 66.2 0.0 66.2 17 65.6 73.9 57.7 73.6 73.0 71.5 70.3 66.3 62.5 58.4 58.1 57.8 65.6 0.0 65.6 18 65.2 73.5 58.6 73.3 72.8 70.7 69.5 65.7 62.4 59.3 59.0 58.6 65.2 0.0 65.2 19 65.8 74.0 58.3 73.7 73.4 72.3 71.1 65.8 61.6 58.9 58.7 58.4 65.8 5.0 70.8 20 61.9 70.2 56.7 69.8 69.1 67.3 66.1 61.9 59.3 57.4 57.1 56.8 61.9 5.0 66.9 21 60.9 69.2 56.1 68.8 68.1 66.4 65.2 60.9 58.3 56.6 56.4 56.1 60.9 5.0 65.9 22 61.1 68.8 54.5 68.5 68.0 66.7 65.9 62.5 57.4 55.1 54.9 54.6 61.1 10.0 71.1 23 59.9 68.9 52.9 68.4 67.7 65.8 64.6 60.1 56.0 53.5 53.2 53.0 59.9 10.0 69.9 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 60.9 69.2 51.6 68.8 68.1 66.4 65.2 60.9 58.3 52.9 52.3 51.7 Max 71.0 78.8 61.4 78.5 77.8 76.3 75.3 71.9 68.8 63.7 62.5 61.6

67.0 74.6 74.1 72.4 71.1 66.8 62.6 57.3 56.7 56.1
Min 58.0 67.4 48.4 67.0 66.5 64.8 62.4 56.2 51.2 49.0 48.8 48.5 Max 71.9 80.2 66.7 79.9 79.3 77.6 76.3 71.8 68.8 67.1 66.9 66.8

65.4 71.4 70.9 69.0 67.5 62.2 58.1 55.9 55.6 55.4
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
Night
Thursday, May 4, 2023 L5 - Located west of the site near the residence at 2048 S. Bon View Ave.

Night
Day
Leq (dBA) 24-Hour
Day CNEL
Night
Energy Average
Energy Average Average:

Average:

Daytime
(7am-10pm)
Nighttime
(10pm-7am)

72.2 67.0 65.4

58.0 60.5

61.7 58.4

63.4 68.7

71.9 71.0

69.2 66.3

67.3 66.9

69.8 66.4

66.0 65.9

66.2 65.6

65.2 65.8

61.9 60.9

61.1 59.9

35.0 40.0

45.0 50.0

55.0 60.0

65.0 70.0

75.0 80.0

85.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Leq (dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_14600-15000\_15000\15067\04_Noise\Fieldwork\Measurements\15067_L5_P 79 655
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
This page intentionally left blank
80 656
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
APPENDIX 7.1:

CADNAAOPERATIONAL NOISE MODEL INPUTS
81 657
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
This page intentionally left blank
82 658
15067 - First Grove
CadnaA Noise Prediction Model: 15067-02.cna
Date: 05.06.23
Analyst: B. Lawson
Calculation Configuration
Configuration
Parameter Value
General
Max. Error (dB) 0.00
Max. Search Radius (#(Unit,LEN)) 2000.01
Min. Dist Src to Rcvr 0.00
Partition
Raster Factor 0.50
Max. Length of Section (#(Unit,LEN)) 999.99
Min. Length of Section (#(Unit,LEN)) 1.01
Min. Length of Section (%) 0.00
Proj. Line Sources On
Proj. Area Sources On
Ref. Time
Daytime Penalty (dB) 0.00
Recr. Time Penalty (dB) 5.00
Night-time Penalty (dB) 10.00
DTM
Standard Height (m) 0.00
Model of Terrain Triangulation
Reflection
max. Order of Reflection 2
Search Radius Src 100.00
Search Radius Rcvr 100.00
Max. Distance Source - Rcvr 1000.00 1000.00
Min. Distance Rvcr - Reflector 1.00 1.00
Min. Distance Source - Reflector 0.10
Industrial (ISO 9613)
Lateral Diffraction some Obj
Obst. within Area Src do not shield On
Screening Incl. Ground Att. over Barrier
Dz with limit (20/25)
Barrier Coefficients C1,2,3 3.0 20.0 0.0
Temperature (#(Unit,TEMP)) 10
rel. Humidity (%) 70
Ground Absorption G 0.50
Wind Speed for Dir. (#(Unit,SPEED)) 3.0
Roads (TNM)
Railways (FTA/FRA)
Aircraft (???)
Strictly acc. to AzB
Receiver Noise Levels
Name M. ID Level Lr Limit. Value Land Use Height Coordinates Day Night CNEL Day Night CNEL Type Auto Noise Type X Y Z (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) RECEIVERS R1 55.7 55.7 62.4 65.0 45.0 0.0 5.00 a 6142817.87 2323053.99 5.00 RECEIVERS R2 58.0 58.0 64.6 65.0 45.0 0.0 5.00 a 6143366.92 2322847.01 5.00 RECEIVERS R3 48.6 48.6 55.2 65.0 45.0 0.0 5.00 a 6144355.17 2322555.63 5.00 RECEIVERS R4 54.0 54.0 60.6 65.0 45.0 0.0 5.00 a 6143172.49 2322555.78 5.00 RECEIVERS R5 48.5 48.5 55.2 65.0 45.0 0.0 5.00 a 6141847.43 2323200.83 5.00 Point Source(s)
Name M. ID Result. PWL Lw / Li Operating Time Height Coordinates Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night X Y Z (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (min) (min) (min) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) POINTSOURCE AC01 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 5.00 g 6143750.54 2323513.44 35.00 POINTSOURCE AC02 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 5.00 g 6143791.74 2323513.44 35.00 POINTSOURCE CAR01 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6143871.01 2323361.61 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR02 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6143869.67 2323392.96 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR03 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6143871.91 2323439.99 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR04 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6143874.15 2323474.47 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR05 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6143896.99 2323495.07 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR06 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6143938.64 2323478.50 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR07 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6143896.99 2323457.45 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR08 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6143936.85 2323443.57 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR09 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6143896.99 2323411.77 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR10 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6143936.85 2323398.34 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR11 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6143895.20 2323379.08 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR12 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6143937.30 2323357.13 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR13 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6143934.61 2323301.60 5.00 Urban Crossroads, Inc.
83 659
Name M. ID Result. PWL Lw / Li Operating Time Height Coordinates Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night X Y Z (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (min) (min) (min) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) POINTSOURCE CAR14 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6143899.23 2323301.15 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR15 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6143850.86 2323302.50 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR16 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6143831.60 2323341.91 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR17 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6143831.15 2323376.84 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR18 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6143832.50 2323421.18 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR19 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6143832.50 2323450.29 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR20 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6143832.95 2323481.19 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR21 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6143549.00 2323537.17 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR22 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6143385.98 2323415.36 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR23 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6143386.43 2323453.87 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR24 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6143386.43 2323493.28 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR25 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6143387.33 2323532.25 5.00 POINTSOURCE CAR26 81.1 81.1 81.1 Lw 81.1 5.00 a 6143387.33 2323567.18 5.00 POINTSOURCE TRASH01 89.0 89.0 89.0 Lw 89 900.00 0.00 270.00 5.00 a 6143383.30 2323320.86 5.00 POINTSOURCE TRASH02 89.0 89.0 89.0 Lw 89 900.00 0.00 270.00 5.00 a 6143382.85 2323313.69 5.00 POINTSOURCE TRASH03 89.0 89.0 89.0 Lw 89 900.00 0.00 270.00 5.00 a 6143382.85 2323306.08 5.00 Line Source(s)
Name M. ID Result. PWL Result. PWL' Lw / Li Operating Time Moving Pt. Src Height Day Evening Night Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night Number Speed (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (min) (min) (min) Day Evening Night (mph) (ft) LINESOURCE TRUCK01 93.2 93.2 93.2 69.6 69.6 69.6 Lw 93.2 8 a Name ID Height Coordinates
Begin End x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
LINESOURCE TRUCK01 8.00 a 6143967.47 2323537.17 8.00 0.00 6143903.71 2323537.17 8.00 0.00
6143877.28 2323544.79 8.00 0.00
6143855.34 2323555.98 8.00 0.00
6143832.05 2323562.25 8.00 0.00
6143695.01 2323563.15 8.00 0.00
6143555.27 2323564.94 8.00 0.00
6143512.28 2323564.94 8.00 0.00
6143494.37 2323561.81 8.00 0.00
6143477.80 2323549.27 8.00 0.00
6143466.15 2323533.59 8.00 0.00
6143464.81 2323513.88 8.00 0.00
6143463.46 2323304.29 8.00 0.00
Area Source(s)
Name M. ID Result. PWL Result. PWL'' Lw / Li Operating Time Height Day Evening Night Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night (ft) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (min) (min) (min) AREASOURCE DOCK01 111.5 111.5 111.5 80.6 80.6 80.6 Lw 111.5 8 a AREASOURCE DOCK02 111.5 111.5 111.5 86.8 86.8 86.8 Lw 111.5 8 a Name ID Height Coordinates
Begin End x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
AREASOURCE DOCK01 8.00 a 6143565.44 2323518.35 8.00 0.00 6143563.83 2323301.15 8.00 0.00
6143502.88 2323302.94 8.00 0.00
6143504.67 2323518.36 8.00 0.00
AREASOURCE DOCK02 8.00 a 6143373.44 2323392.07 8.00 0.00 6143424.50 2323391.17 8.00 0.00
6143424.50 2323329.82 8.00 0.00
6143371.65 2323330.26 8.00 0.00
Building(s)
Name Sel. M. ID RB Residents Absorption Height Coordinates Begin x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
BUILDING BUILDING00001 x 0 30.00 a 6143565.58 2323537.17 30.00 0.00 6143783.23 2323534.93 30.00 0.00
6143782.34 2323531.35 30.00 0.00
6143802.49 2323532.25 30.00 0.00
6143802.04 2323507.61 30.00 0.00
6143808.31 2323508.06 30.00 0.00
6143808.31 2323501.34 30.00 0.00
6143812.79 2323501.79 30.00 0.00
6143811.90 2323318.17 30.00 0.00
6143807.87 2323319.07 30.00 0.00
6143807.42 2323311.45 30.00 0.00
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
84 660
Name Sel. M. ID RB Residents Absorption Height Coordinates Begin x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
6143801.60 2323312.80 30.00 0.00
6143801.60 2323293.54 30.00 0.00
6143563.79 2323295.64 30.00 0.00
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
85 661
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
This page intentionally left blank
86 662
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
APPENDIX 8.1:

CADNAA CONSTRUCTION NOISE MODEL INPUTS
87 663
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
This page intentionally left blank
88 664
15067 - First Grove
CadnaA Noise Prediction Model: 15067-02_Construction.cna Date: 05.06.23
Analyst: B. Lawson
Calculation Configuration
Configuration
Parameter Value
General
Max. Error (dB) 0.00
Max. Search Radius (#(Unit,LEN)) 2000.01
Min. Dist Src to Rcvr 0.00
Partition
Raster Factor 0.50
Max. Length of Section (#(Unit,LEN)) 999.99
Min. Length of Section (#(Unit,LEN)) 1.01
Min. Length of Section (%) 0.00
Proj. Line Sources On
Proj. Area Sources On
Ref. Time
Daytime Penalty (dB) 0.00
Recr. Time Penalty (dB) 5.00
Night-time Penalty (dB) 10.00
DTM
Standard Height (m) 0.00
Model of Terrain Triangulation
Reflection
max. Order of Reflection 2
Search Radius Src 100.00
Search Radius Rcvr 100.00
Max. Distance Source - Rcvr 1000.00 1000.00
Min. Distance Rvcr - Reflector 1.00 1.00
Min. Distance Source - Reflector 0.10
Industrial (ISO 9613)
Lateral Diffraction some Obj
Obst. within Area Src do not shield On
Screening Incl. Ground Att. over Barrier
Dz with limit (20/25)
Barrier Coefficients C1,2,3 3.0 20.0 0.0
Temperature (#(Unit,TEMP)) 10
rel. Humidity (%) 70
Ground Absorption G 0.50
Wind Speed for Dir. (#(Unit,SPEED)) 3.0
Roads (TNM)
Railways (FTA/FRA)
Aircraft (???)
Strictly acc. to AzB
Receiver Noise Levels
Name M. ID Level Lr Limit. Value Land Use Height Coordinates Day Night CNEL Day Night CNEL Type Auto Noise Type X Y Z (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) RECEIVERS R1 61.2 -45.8 58.2 65.0 45.0 0.0 5.00 a 6142817.87 2323053.99 5.00 RECEIVERS R2 63.9 -43.1 60.8 65.0 45.0 0.0 5.00 a 6143366.92 2322847.01 5.00 RECEIVERS R3 59.4 -47.6 56.4 65.0 45.0 0.0 5.00 a 6144355.17 2322555.63 5.00 RECEIVERS R4 60.2 -46.8 57.2 65.0 45.0 0.0 5.00 a 6143172.49 2322555.78 5.00 RECEIVERS R5 54.8 -52.2 51.8 65.0 45.0 0.0 5.00 a 6141847.43 2323200.83 5.00 Point Source(s)
Name M. ID Result. PWL Lw / Li Operating Time Height Coordinates Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night X Y Z (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (min) (min) (min) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Line Source(s)
Name M. ID Result. PWL Result. PWL' Lw / Li Operating Time Moving Pt. Src Height Day Evening Night Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night Number Speed (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (min) (min) (min) Day Evening Night (mph) (ft) Name ID Height Coordinates
Begin End x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
Area Source(s)
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
89 665
Name M. ID Result. PWL Result. PWL'' Lw / Li Operating Time Height Day Evening Night Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night (ft) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (min) (min) (min) SITEBOUNDARY CONSTRUCTION 122.0 15.0 15.0 79.7 -27.3 -27.3 PWL-Pt 115 8 a Name ID Height Coordinates
Begin End x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
SITEBOUNDARY CONSTRUCTION 8.00 a 6143367.38 2323591.30 8.00 0.00 6143967.76 2323587.42 8.00 0.00
6143966.00 2323282.40 8.00 0.00
6143366.27 2323286.18 8.00 0.00
Building(s)
Name Sel. M. ID RB Residents Absorption Height Coordinates Begin x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
90 666
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
APPENDIX 8.2:

CADNAA CONCRETE POUR NOISE MODEL INPUTS
91 667
First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis
15067-02 NA
This page intentionally left blank
92 668
15067 - First Grove
CadnaA Noise Prediction Model: 15067-02_Concrete.cna
Date: 05.06.23
Analyst: B. Lawson
Calculation Configuration
Configuration
Parameter Value
General
Max. Error (dB) 0.00
Max. Search Radius (#(Unit,LEN)) 2000.01
Min. Dist Src to Rcvr 0.00
Partition
Raster Factor 0.50
Max. Length of Section (#(Unit,LEN)) 999.99
Min. Length of Section (#(Unit,LEN)) 1.01
Min. Length of Section (%) 0.00
Proj. Line Sources On
Proj. Area Sources On
Ref. Time
Daytime Penalty (dB) 0.00
Recr. Time Penalty (dB) 5.00
Night-time Penalty (dB) 10.00
DTM
Standard Height (m) 0.00
Model of Terrain Triangulation
Reflection
max. Order of Reflection 2
Search Radius Src 100.00
Search Radius Rcvr 100.00
Max. Distance Source - Rcvr 1000.00 1000.00
Min. Distance Rvcr - Reflector 1.00 1.00
Min. Distance Source - Reflector 0.10
Industrial (ISO 9613)
Lateral Diffraction some Obj
Obst. within Area Src do not shield On
Screening Incl. Ground Att. over Barrier
Dz with limit (20/25)
Barrier Coefficients C1,2,3 3.0 20.0 0.0
Temperature (#(Unit,TEMP)) 10
rel. Humidity (%) 70
Ground Absorption G 0.50
Wind Speed for Dir. (#(Unit,SPEED)) 3.0
Roads (TNM)
Railways (FTA/FRA)
Aircraft (???)
Strictly acc. to AzB
Receiver Noise Levels
Name M. ID Level Lr Limit. Value Land Use Height Coordinates Day Night CNEL Day Night CNEL Type Auto Noise Type X Y Z (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) RECEIVERS R1 39.4 39.4 46.1 65.0 45.0 0.0 5.00 a 6142817.87 2323053.99 5.00 RECEIVERS R2 42.5 42.5 49.2 65.0 45.0 0.0 5.00 a 6143366.92 2322847.01 5.00 RECEIVERS R3 37.8 37.8 44.4 65.0 45.0 0.0 5.00 a 6144355.17 2322555.63 5.00 RECEIVERS R4 38.7 38.7 45.4 65.0 45.0 0.0 5.00 a 6143172.49 2322555.78 5.00 RECEIVERS R5 33.2 33.2 39.8 65.0 45.0 0.0 5.00 a 6141847.43 2323200.83 5.00 Area Source(s)
Name M. ID Result. PWL Result. PWL'' Lw / Li Operating Time Height Day Evening Night Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night (ft) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (min) (min) (min) CONCRETE CONCRETE 100.3 100.3 100.3 62.0 62.0 62.0 Lw 100.3 8 a Name ID Height Coordinates
Begin End x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
CONCRETE CONCRETE 8.00 a 6143504.22 2323518.81 8.00 0.00 6143565.45 2323519.71 8.00 0.00
6143565.58 2323537.17 8.00 0.00
6143783.23 2323534.93 8.00 0.00
6143782.34 2323531.35 8.00 0.00
6143802.49 2323532.25 8.00 0.00
6143802.04 2323507.61 8.00 0.00
6143808.31 2323508.06 8.00 0.00
6143808.31 2323501.34 8.00 0.00
6143812.79 2323501.79 8.00 0.00
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
93 669
Name ID Height Coordinates
Begin End x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
6143811.90 2323318.17 8.00 0.00
6143807.87 2323319.07 8.00 0.00
6143807.42 2323311.45 8.00 0.00
6143801.60 2323312.80 8.00 0.00
6143801.60 2323293.54 8.00 0.00
6143502.43 2323294.44 8.00 0.00
Building(s)
Name Sel. M. ID RB Residents Absorption Height Coordinates Begin x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
94 670
DATE: November 9, 2023
TO: Nicole Morse, T&B Planning, Inc.

FROM: Charlene So, Urban Crossroads, Inc.

JOB NO: 15067-01 TG Memo

FIRST GROVE ADDENDUM TRIP GENERATION ASSESSMENT
Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to submit this Trip Generation Assessment for the proposed First Grove development (Project), which is located at 2042 S. Grove Avenue in the City of Ontario. The purpose of the following trip generation is to determine whether additional analysis is necessary based on the City’s Guidelines (County’s Transportation Impact Study Guidelines, dated July 9, 2019).

PROPOSED PROJECT
It is our understanding that the Project is to consist of a 61,867 square foot industrial warehouse building (see Exhibit 1). Access is proposed to S. Grove Avenue via two driveways (the northerly one will serve trucks with both driveways serving passenger cars).

The Project site land use is currently designated as Business Park under The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050. The currently adopted General Plan Business Park land use allows for the development of up to 109,817 square feet of business park use, calculated using a floor-to-area ratio (FAR) of 0.60. The Business Park land use designation is defined as “employee-intensive office uses including corporate offices, technology centers, research and development, “clean” industry, light manufacturing, and supporting retail within a business park setting.” 671
Nicole Morse, T&B Planning, Inc.

November 9, 2023