Agenda packet — Ontario City Council, April 16, 2024 (part 5 of 13)

15067-01 TG Memo
EXHIBIT 1: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN

TRIP GENERATION

EXISTING TRAFFIC
The site is currently developed with two buildings (office and warehouse) and occupied by a telecommunication company with vehicle maintenance operations on-site (southern building).

The northern building is approximately 15,000 square feet (sf) in size and the southern building is approximately 10,000 sf. Excavated material generated off-site is temporarily staged along the western and southern boundary of the site. Vehicular access to the Project site is provided via two driveways along S. Grove Avenue. In an effort to understand the existing traffic associated with the current use, traffic counts were collected at the driveways on April 25 through April 27, 2023 (Tuesday through Thursday). A summary of the count data collected is shown on Table A-1 of Attachment A. See Attachment A for driveway count data worksheets.

Table 1 summarizes the average existing trip generation based on the count data collected over three days. The existing site currently generates an average of 370 two-way trips per day, with 40 trips during the AM peak hour and 27 trips during the PM peak hour. Trip generation for the existing use has been reflected in both actual vehicles and passenger car equivalent (PCE) on Table 1. PCE factors were applied to the trip generation rates for heavy trucks (large 2-axles, 3- axles, 4+-axles). PCEs allow the typical “real-world” mix of vehicle types to be represented as a single, standardized unit, such as the passenger car, to be used for the purposes of capacity and level of service analyses. The PCE factors are consistent with the recommended PCE factors in the County Guidelines and with those used for other projects within the City. 672
Nicole Morse, T&B Planning, Inc.

November 9, 2023

Page 3 of 7 ends

15067-01 TG Memo
TABLE 1: EXISTING TRIP GENERATION
THE ONTARIO PLAN (TOP) 2050
The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (August 2022) designates the Project site with Business Park use. Per the adopted TOP 2050, the Project site could be developed with up to 109,817 square feet of industrial use (assuming a 4.2-acre site and a floorto-area-ratio of 0.60). The trip generation rates used for this analysis are based upon information collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) as provided in their Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021). For purposes of the trip generation assessment, the following ITE land use code and vehicle mix has been utilized for the currently adopted TOP 2050:
• ITE land use code 110 (General Light Industrial) has been used to derive site specific trip generation estimates for up to 109,817 square feet. A light industrial facility is a freestanding facility devoted to a single use that has an emphasis on activities other than manufacturing. Typically, there is minimum office space. The vehicle mix has been obtained from the ITE’s Trip Generation Manual. The truck percentages were further broken down by axle type per the following South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) recommended truck mix: 2-Axle = 16.7%; 3-Axle = 20.7%; 4+-Axle = 62.6%.

Land Use In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Actual Vehicles:

Existing Use
Passenger Cars: 11 8 19 2 16 18 261
2-axle Trucks: 2 17 19 7 2 9 107
3-axle Trucks: 1 1 2 0 0 0 2
4+-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Trucks: 3 18 21 7 2 9 109
Total Trips (Actual Vehicles)1 14 26 40 9 18 27 370
Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE):

Existing Use
Passenger Cars: 11 8 19 2 16 18 261
2-axle Trucks (PCE = 1.5): 3 26 29 11 3 14 162
3-axle Trucks (PCE = 2.0): 2 2 4 0 0 0 4
4+-axle Trucks (PCE = 3.0): 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Trucks (PCE): 5 28 33 11 3 14 166
Total Trips (PCE)1 16 36 52 13 19 32 427
1 Total Trips = Passenger Cars + Truck Trips.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
673
Nicole Morse, T&B Planning, Inc.

November 9, 2023

Page 4 of 7 ends

15067-01 TG Memo
TABLE 2: ITE TRIP GENERATION RATES
The trip generation summary illustrating daily, and peak hour trip generation estimates for the current TOP 2050 approved land use is shown on Table 3. As shown on Table 3, the site is anticipated to generate a total of 538 two-way trips per day with 80 AM peak hour trips and 70 PM peak hour trips based on the TOP 2050 adopted Business Park land use designation (in actual vehicles). In comparison, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate a total of 580 two-way PCE trips per day with 82 PCE AM peak hour trips and 72 PCE PM peak hour trips.

TABLE 3: TOP 2050 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
ITE LU AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use1 Units2 Code In Out Total In Out Total
Actual Vehicle Trip Generation Rates
General Light Industrial3 TSF 110 0.651 0.089 0.740 0.091 0.559 0.650 4.870 Passenger Cars (AM=98.6%, PM=98.5%, Daily=94.9%) 0.645 0.085 0.730 0.086 0.554 0.640 4.620 2-Axle Trucks (AM=0.23%, PM=0.25%, Daily=0.85%) 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.042 3-Axle Trucks (AM=0.29%, PM=0.31%, Daily=1.05%) 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.052 4+-Axle Trucks (AM=0.88%, PM=0.94%, Daily=3.20%) 0.004 0.002 0.006 0.003 0.003 0.006 0.157 1 Trip Generation & Vehicle Mix Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, Eleventh Edition (2021). 2 TSF = thousand square feet
3 Truck Mix: South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) recommended truck mix, by axle type.

Normalized % - Without Cold Storage: 16.7% 2-Axle trucks, 20.7% 3-Axle trucks, 62.6% 4-Axle trucks.

Daily Land Use Quantity Units1
In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Actual Vehicles:

General Light Industrial 109.817 TSF
Passenger Cars: 71 9 80 9 61 70 508
2-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
3-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
4+-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 18
Total Truck Trips (Actual Vehicles): 0 0 0 0 0 0 30
Total Trips (Actual Vehicles)2 71 9 80 9 61 70 538
Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE):

General Light Industrial 109.817 TSF
Passenger Cars: 71 9 80 9 61 70 508
2-axle Trucks (PCE = 1.5): 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
3-axle Trucks (PCE = 2.0): 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
4+-axle Trucks (PCE = 3.0): 1 1 2 1 1 2 52
Total Truck Trips (PCE): 1 1 2 1 1 2 72
Total Trips (PCE)2 72 10 82 10 62 72 580
1 TSF = thousand square feet
2 Total Trips = Passenger Cars + Truck Trips.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
674
Nicole Morse, T&B Planning, Inc.

November 9, 2023

Page 5 of 7 ends

15067-01 TG Memo

The trip generation summary illustrating daily, and peak hour trip generation estimates for the proposed Project in actual vehicles and PCE are shown on Table 4. As shown on Table 4, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate a total of 304 two-way trips per day with 45 AM peak hour trips and 39 PM peak hour trips (in actual vehicles). In comparison, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate a total of 326 two-way PCE trips per day with 46 PCE AM peak hour trips and 41 PCE PM peak hour trips.

TABLE 4: PROPOSED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Land Use Quantity Units1In Out Total In Out Total Daily Actual Vehicles:

General Light Industrial 61.867 TSF
Passenger Cars: 40 5 45 5 34 39 286
2-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
3-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
4+-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
Total Truck Trips (Actual Vehicles): 0 0 0 0 0 0 18
Total Trips (Actual Vehicles)2 40 5 45 5 34 39 304
Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE):

General Light Industrial 61.867 TSF
Passenger Cars: 40 5 45 5 34 40 286
2-axle Trucks (PCE = 1.5): 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
3-axle Trucks (PCE = 2.0): 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
4+-axle Trucks (PCE = 3.0): 1 0 1 1 1 1 30
Total Truck Trips (PCE): 1 0 1 1 1 1 40
Total Trips (PCE)2 41 5 46 6 35 41 326
1 TSF = thousand square feet
2 Total Trips = Passenger Cars + Truck Trips.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
675
Nicole Morse, T&B Planning, Inc.

November 9, 2023

Page 6 of 7 ends

15067-01 TG Memo

TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON
Table 5 shows the trip generation comparison between the existing and proposed use. The resulting net new trips are identified on Table 5. As shown, the Project is anticipated to generate 101 fewer two-way trips per day with 6 fewer AM peak hour trips and 10 net new PM peak hour trips in comparison to the existing uses (in PCE). Per the City’s Guidelines, the trip generation comparison is based on PCE as the existing and proposed uses are truck-intensive uses and any operations analysis performed (if necessary) would utilize PCE values.

TABLE 5: TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON – EXISTING VS. PROPOSED PROJECT Table 6 shows the trip generation comparison between the adopted TOP 2050 land use and proposed Project. The resulting net new trips are identified on Table 6. As shown, the Project is anticipated to generate 182 fewer two-way trips per day with 34 fewer AM peak hour trips and 29 fewer PM peak hour trips in comparison to the approved TOP 2050 land use (in PCE).

Land Use In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Proposed Project
Passenger Cars: 40 5 45 5 34 40 286
Total Truck Trips (PCE): 1 0 1 1 1 1 40
Total Trips 41 5 46 6 35 41 326
Existing
Passenger Cars: 11 8 19 2 16 18 261
Total Truck Trips (PCE): 5 28 33 11 3 14 166
Total Trips 16 36 52 13 19 32 427
Net Change
Passenger Cars: 29 -3 26 3 18 22 25
Total Truck Trips (PCE): -4 -28 -32 -10 -2 -13 -126
Total Trips 25 -31 -6 -7 16 10 -101
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
676
Nicole Morse, T&B Planning, Inc.

November 9, 2023

Page 7 of 7 ends

15067-01 TG Memo
TABLE 8: TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON – TOP 2050 VS. PROPOSED PROJECT

FINDINGS
The City of Ontario adheres to the County’s Transportation Impact Study Guidelines (dated July 9, 2019) which has been used to determine whether additional traffic analysis is necessary for the proposed Project. The San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) Guidelines indicate that projects that generate a net increase of 250 or more two-way peak hour vehicle trips (without pass-by reductions) would require the preparation and submittal of a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA).

The Project is anticipated to generate fewer than 50 net new peak hour trips during the morning and evening peak hours. The Project on its own, without taking any credit for existing uses, also generates fewer than 250 new peak hour trips (both in actual vehicles and PCE). Lastly, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate fewer trips than the adopted TOP 2050 land use (Business Park). As such, additional peak hour traffic operations analysis is not necessary based on the County’s Guidelines.

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

Land Use In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Proposed Project
Passenger Cars: 40 5 45 5 34 40 286
Total Truck Trips (PCE): 1 0 1 1 1 1 40
Total Trips 41 5 46 6 35 41 326
TOP 2050 (Business Park)
Passenger Cars: 71 9 80 9 61 70 508
Total Truck Trips (PCE): 1 1 2 1 1 2 72
Total Trips 71 9 80 9 61 70 508
Net Change
Passenger Cars: -31 -4 -35 -4 -27 -30 -222
Total Truck Trips (PCE): 1 0 1 1 1 1 40
Total Trips -30 -4 -34 -3 -26 -29 -182
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
677
15067-01 TG Memo

ATTACHMENT A

EXISTING DRIVEWAY COUNTS
678
15067-01 TG Memo
TABLE A-1: SUMMARY OF EXISTING COUNT DATA
Land Use In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Tuesday, April 25, 2023
Passenger Cars: 10 2 12 1 18 19 219
2-axle Trucks: 4 27 31 11 2 13 122
3-axle Trucks: 2 1 3 0 0 0 3
4+-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Truck Trips: 6 28 34 11 2 13 125
Total Trips1 16 30 46 12 20 32 344
Wednesday, April 26, 2023
Passenger Cars: 12 14 26 2 14 16 285
2-axle Trucks: 1 12 13 2 1 3 102
3-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
4+-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Truck Trips: 1 12 13 2 1 3 103
Total Trips1 13 26 39 4 15 19 388
Thursday, April 27, 2023
Passenger Cars: 12 9 21 2 16 18 280
2-axle Trucks: 1 13 14 7 2 9 96
3-axle Trucks: 0 1 1 0 0 0 3
4+-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Truck Trips: 1 14 15 7 2 9 99
Total Trips1 13 23 36 9 18 27 379
3-Day Average Trip Generation
Passenger Cars: 11 8 19 2 16 18 261
2-axle Trucks: 2 17 19 7 2 9 107
3-axle Trucks: 1 1 2 0 0 0 2
4+-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Truck Trips: 3 18 21 7 2 9 109
Total Trips1 14 26 40 9 18 27 370
* Note: data is an average of counts collected on April 25 through April 27, 2022. 1 Total Trips = Passenger Cars + Total Truck Trips.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
679
DATE: May 18, 2023
TO: Nicole Morse, T&B Planning, Inc.

FROM: Alex So, Urban Crossroads, Inc.

JOB NO: 15067-01 VMT
2042 S GROVE VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) SCREENING

EVALUATION
Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide the following Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Evaluation for the 2042 S Grove (Project), which is located north of E Philadelphia Street and west of S Grove Avenue in the City of Ontario.

PROJECT OVERVIEW
It is our understanding that the Project is to consist of a 61,867 square foot industrial warehouse building. A preliminary site plan for the proposed Project is found in Attachment A.

BACKGROUND
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires all lead agencies to adopt VMT as the measure for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects.

To comply with CEQA, in June of 2020 the City of Ontario developed and adopted their own VMT methodologies and thresholds (Resolution No. 2020-071), (City Guidelines) (1). This VMT screening evaluation has been developed based on the adopted City Guidelines.

VMT SCREENING
City Guidelines state that a project may be determined to have a less than significant VMT impact and screened out of requiring a project level VMT analysis if it meets at least one of the City’s VMT screening criteria. To aid in the screening process, and consistent with thresholds identified in the City Guidelines, the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) VMT Screening Tool 680
Johanna Crooker, T&B Planning, Inc.

May 18, 2023

Page 2 of 6 ends

15067-01 VMT
(Screening Tool) was used. The City’s adopted VMT screening criteria are listed below and were examined for the Project:
• Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening
• Low VMT Area
• Low Trip Generating Uses
• Project Type Screening
A land use project need only to meet one of the above screening criteria to be screened from further VMT analysis.

TPA SCREENING
City Guidelines states projects located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA) (i.e., within ½ mile of an existing “major transit stop”1 or an existing stop along a “high-quality transit corridor”2 ) 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 highincome residential units.

The Project is located within a TPA; however, it has an FAR of less than 0.75 and therefore does not meet the secondary screening criteria (See Attachment B).

TPA screening criteria is not met.

LOW VMT AREA SCREENING
City Guidelines states 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). The City Guidelines identifies low VMT generating traffic analysis zones as those that generate a VMT per service population at least 15% below County of San Bernardino Baseline VMT per service population.

The San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM) has been utilized to determine the existing VMT per service population generated by the TAZ in which the Project is located (TAZ 53663401). TAZ 53663401 was found to generate 54.8 VMT per service population as compared 1 Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.3 (“‘Major transit stop’ means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.”). 2 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.”). 681
Johanna Crooker, T&B Planning, Inc.

May 18, 2023

Page 3 of 6 ends

15067-01 VMT
to 15% below the County of San Bernardino Baseline or 33.3 VMT per service population.

Therefore, the Project is not located in a low VMT generating TAZ.

Low VMT Area Screening criteria is not met.

LOW TRIP GENERATING USES SCREENING
City Guidelines states that land use projects generating 110 or fewer daily vehicle trips are assumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT.

EXISTING TRAFFIC
The site is currently developed with two buildings (office and warehouse) and occupied by a telecommunication company with vehicle maintenance operations on-site (southern building).

The northern building is approximately 15,000 square feet (sf) in size and the southern building is approximately 10,000 sf. In an effort to understand the existing traffic associated with the current use, traffic counts were collected at the driveways on April 25 through April 27, 2023 (Tuesday through Thursday). Table 1 summarizes the average existing trip generation based on the count data collected over those three days. As shown in Table 1, the existing site currently generates an average of 370 two-way trips per day.

TABLE 1: EXISTING TRIP GENERATION
THE ONTARIO PLAN (TOP) 2050
The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (August 2022) designates the Project site with Business Park use. Per the adopted TOP 2050, the Project site could be developed with up to 109,817 square feet of industrial use (assuming a 4.2-acre site and a floorto-area-ratio of 0.60). Table 2 shows the trip generation rates used for this analysis and are based upon information collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) as provided in their Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021). For purposes of the trip generation assessment, the following ITE land use code and vehicle mix has been utilized for the currently adopted TOP 2050:
• ITE land use code 110 (General Light Industrial) has been used to derive site specific trip Land Use In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Actual Vehicles:

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
682
Johanna Crooker, T&B Planning, Inc.

May 18, 2023

Page 4 of 6 ends

15067-01 VMT
generation estimates for up to 109,817 square feet. A light industrial facility is a freestanding facility devoted to a single use that has an emphasis on activities other than manufacturing. Typically, there is minimum office space. The vehicle mix has been obtained from the ITE’s Trip Generation Manual. The truck percentages were further broken down by axle type per the following South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) recommended truck mix: 2-Axle = 16.7%; 3-Axle = 20.7%; 4+-Axle = 62.6%.

TABLE 2: ITE TRIP GENERATION RATES
Table 3 shows the trip generation summary based on the above ITE trip generation rates. As shown in Table 3, the site is anticipated to generate a total of 538 two-way trips per day.

Normalized % - Without Cold Storage: 16.7% 2-Axle trucks, 20.7% 3-Axle trucks, 62.6% 4-Axle trucks.

Daily
Land Use Quantity Units1 In Out Total In Out Total Daily Actual Vehicles:

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
683
Johanna Crooker, T&B Planning, Inc.

May 18, 2023

Page 5 of 6 ends

15067-01 VMT

PROPOSED PROJECT
The trip generation rates for the proposed Project are based upon information collected by the ITE as provided in their Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021) for the General Light Industrial (ITE 110) land use category (see Table 2). The Project has been evaluated assuming 61,867 square feet of general light industrial use and the trip generation summary for the proposed Project is shown on Table 4. As shown on Table 4, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate a total of 304 two-way trips per day.

TABLE 4: PROPOSED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY

TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON
Table 5 shows the trip generation comparison and the resulting net new trips between the existing and proposed use. As shown in Table 5, the Project is anticipated to generate 66 fewer two-way trips per day.

TABLE 5: TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON – EXISTING VS. PROPOSED PROJECT Land Use Quantity Units1 In Out Total In Out Total Daily Actual Vehicles:

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Proposed Project
Passenger Cars: 40 5 45 5 34 39 286
Total Truck Trips (Actual Vehicles): 0 0 0 0 0 0 18
Total Trips 40 5 45 5 34 39 304
Existing
Passenger Cars: 11 8 19 2 16 18 261
Total Truck Trips (Actual Vehicles): 3 18 21 7 2 9 109
Total Trips 14 26 40 9 18 27 370
Net Change
Passenger Cars: 29 -3 26 3 18 21 25
Total Truck Trips (Actual Vehicles): -3 -18 -21 -7 -2 -9 -91 Total Trips 26 -21 5 -4 16 12 -66
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
684
Johanna Crooker, T&B Planning, Inc.

May 18, 2023

Page 6 of 6 ends

15067-01 VMT
Table 6 shows the trip generation comparison and resulting net new trips between the adopted TOP 2050 land use and proposed Project. As shown in Table 6, the Project is anticipated to generate 204 fewer two-way trips per day.

TABLE 6: TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON – TOP 2050 VS. PROPOSED PROJECT As the Project is anticipated to generate 66 fewer two-way trips when compared to the existing use and 204 fewer two-way trips when compared to the TOP 2050. The Project is below the 110 daily vehicle trip threshold in both scenarios.

Low Trip Generating Uses Screening criteria is met.

CONCLUSION
In summary, the Project was evaluated consistent with The City of Ontario’s Resolution No. 2020- 071 SB 743 VMT Thresholds and was found to meet the Low Trip Generating Uses screening criteria. Therefore, the Project is presumed to have a less than significant impact and no further VMT analysis is required.

If you have any questions, please contact me directly at [email protected] Land Use In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Proposed Project
Passenger Cars: 40 5 45 5 34 39 286
Total Truck Trips (Actual Vehicles): 0 0 0 0 0 0 18
Total Trips 40 5 45 5 34 39 304
TOP 2050 (Business Park)
Passenger Cars: 71 9 80 9 61 70 508
Total Truck Trips (Actual Vehicles): 0 0 0 0 0 0 30
Total Trips 71 9 80 9 61 70 508
Net Change
Passenger Cars: -31 -4 -35 -4 -27 -31 -222
Total Truck Trips (Actual Vehicles): 0 0 0 0 0 0 18
Total Trips -31 -4 -35 -4 -27 -31 -204
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
685
15067-01 VMT

REFERENCES

1. City of Ontario. SB 743 VMT Thresholds. City of Ontario : s.n., June 2020. 686
15067-01 VMT

ATTACHMENT A

PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
687
15067
-01 VMT

688
15067-01 VMT

ATTACHMENT B

TPA/HQTA SCREENING TOOL RESULTS
689
15067
-01 VMT 690
Environmental Consulting
& Management
+1.800.322.ROUX
rouxinc.com

Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment
________________________________
2042 South Grove Avenue
Ontario, California
December 14, 2022
Prepared for:

First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc., First Industrial, L.P.

Prepared by:

Roux Associates, Inc.
5150 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 450
Long Beach, California, 90804
3661.0016L108/R
691
3661.0016L108/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | i Table of Contents
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................iv

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Purpose......................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Scope of Services ......................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Standard of Care........................................................................................................................... 2

1.4 Assumptions ................................................................................................................................. 2

1.5 User Reliance ............................................................................................................................... 4

2. Subject Property Description.................................................................................................................. 5

2.1 Subject Property Location and Description .................................................................................. 5

2.2 Vicinity General Characteristics.................................................................................................... 5

2.3 Past Use of the Subject Property.................................................................................................. 6

2.4 Physical Setting ............................................................................................................................ 6

3. Sources of Information ........................................................................................................................... 8

3.1 Historical Sources ......................................................................................................................... 8

3.2 Subject Property Reconnaissance................................................................................................ 8

3.3 Regulatory Agencies..................................................................................................................... 9

3.3.1 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB): GeoTracker Online Database............ 13

3.3.2 SWRBC: Storm Water Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS) Online Database........................................................................................................................... 13

3.3.3 Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)............................................................ 14

3.3.4 California EPA (CalEPA)................................................................................................... 14

3.3.5 SCAQMD Facility Information Detail (FIND) Online Database......................................... 14

3.3.6 San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD).......................................................... 14

3.3.7 City of Ontario City Clerk .................................................................................................. 15

3.4 Government Databases.............................................................................................................. 15

3.5 Interviews.................................................................................................................................... 16

3.6 User Provided Information .......................................................................................................... 17

3.6.1 Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitations ........................................................ 17

3.6.2 Specialized Knowledge..................................................................................................... 17

3.6.3 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues ................................................................. 17

3.6.4 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information .......................................... 17

3.6.5 Obvious Indicators of the Presence or Likely Presence of Contamination of the Subject Property............................................................................................................................. 17

4. Subject Property History ....................................................................................................................... 18

4.1 Subject Property History ............................................................................................................. 18

5. Current Subject Property Conditions .................................................................................................... 24

5.1 Subject Property Reconnaissance.............................................................................................. 24

5.2 Phase I ESA Observations ......................................................................................................... 25

5.2.1 Chemical Storage and Usage ........................................................................................... 26

5.2.2 Drainage Swales and Culvers........................................................................................... 26

5.2.3 Discolored or Spill Areas................................................................................................... 26

5.2.4 Drums (55-gallons or larger) and Storage Containers...................................................... 27 692
Table of Contents (Continued)
3661.0016L108/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | ii

5.2.5 Electrical Transformers ..................................................................................................... 27

5.2.6 Hydraulic Lifts.................................................................................................................... 27

5.2.7 Staged/Stockpiled Material ............................................................................................... 27

5.2.8 Process Area Sinks or Piping ........................................................................................... 27

5.2.9 Underground / Aboveground Storage Tanks and Associated Piping ............................... 28

5.3 Non-ASTM Services ................................................................................................................... 28

5.3.1 Mold Screening ................................................................................................................. 28

5.3.2 Wetlands Screening.......................................................................................................... 28

5.3.3 Asbestos Containing Material Survey ............................................................................... 28

5.3.4 Lead-Based Paint Survey ................................................................................................. 28

5.3.5 Species, Ecological, Cultural & Historic Resources.......................................................... 28

5.3.6 PFAS & Emerging Contaminants...................................................................................... 28

5.4 Vapor Intrusion............................................................................................................................ 29

6. Summary of Key Previous Investigations............................................................................................. 30

6.1 Phase II Subsurface Investigation Report (Roux, 2022) ............................................................ 30

6.2 Human Health Risk Assessment (Roux, 2022) .......................................................................... 31

7. Database Records Review ................................................................................................................... 32

7.1 Standard Environmental Record Sources .................................................................................. 32

7.1.1 Subject Property (Target Property)................................................................................... 32

7.1.2 Adjoining and Nearby Properties ...................................................................................... 33

7.1.3 Orphan Sites ..................................................................................................................... 34

8. Findings ................................................................................................................................................ 35

8.1 Data Gaps................................................................................................................................... 35

8.2 Recognized Environmental Conditions....................................................................................... 35

8.3 Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions ..................................................................... 35

8.4 Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions....................................................................... 35

9. References ........................................................................................................................................... 36

10. Signature of Environmental Professional ............................................................................................. 37 Tables

1. Standard Environmental Record Sources (EDR Report) Summary Figures

1. Subject Property Location Map

2. Subject Property Plan
Appendices
A. Glossary of Terms
B. Historical Topographic Maps
693
Table of Contents (Continued)
3661.0016L108/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | iii C. Historical Aerial Photographs
D. Certified Sanborn Report
E. EDR City Directory Image Report
F. EDR Radius Map Report with GeoCheck®
G. Photographic Log
H. Pertinent Historical Documentation
I. Previous Environmental Investigation Reports
694
3661.0016L108/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | iv Executive Summary
First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc., First Industrial, L.P., First Industrial Acquisitions II, LLC and their affiliates and assigns (FIRT, the User) retained Roux Associates, Inc. (Roux) to perform a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the property located at 2042 South Grove Avenue, Ontario, California, Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 105-049-111 (the Subject Property). Roux performed this Phase I ESA in general accordance with the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process (ASTM E1527-13) in an effort to identify, to the extent feasible, the presence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs) with respect to the Subject Property as defined in ASTM E1527-13. Exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 8.1 of this report. It is noted that this Phase I ESA was also performed in general accordance with the updated ASTM E1527-21 Standard. For purposes of this report, all future references to ASTM E1527-13 also meet the requirements of the updated ASTM E1527-21 Standard and vice versa.

The Subject Property consists of a 4.2-acre parcel located in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California (Figures 1 and 2). Based on a review of available resources, the Subject Property was undeveloped prior to 1933. By 1933, the Subject Property had been developed with a single residential structure. By 1946, the remainder of the Subject Property had been cultivated for agricultural purposes (orchard) along with the surrounding properties. The Subject Property remained agricultural until 1966.

According to the GTE General Telephone Company of California, the Subject Property was occupied by “MGROVE LUMBER/BUILDING” and “MSUPERIOR CONSTRUCTIN” and operated as a lumberyard (storage, no processing) in 1985. This was confirmed by Mr. Hector Alvarez, the current yard manager, during the site reconnaissance of the Subject Property. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) issued a permit to operate (ID 9007543) for a gasoline storage and dispensing facility for the former tenant, Grove Lumber & Building Supplies, on October 6, 1981. By 1985, the Subject Property was developed with two buildings, the present-day main building and another building to the south, and associated asphalt-parking areas. At this time, the exterior western lot was used as storage for lumber and construction material. By 1990, the exterior storage appears to extend to the immediately north property, which ceased by 1994. Based on records from San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD), two 1,000-gallon underground storage tanks (USTs) (gasoline and diesel) were removed in August 1990. Results of confirmation soil sampling following removal of the USTs revealed no detectable concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), and the SBCFD subsequently issued a No Further Action (NFA) letter in 1991. The City of Ontario issued a building permit for the installation of a 4,500 square foot storage area in May 1999. By 2002, the previous southern building had been demolished and replaced with the present-day secondary building, likely associated with the storage area building permit issued in 1999. It is noted the western and southern portion of the Subject Property also appeared unpaved by 2002, consistent with the present-day storage area for excavated material generated off-site. According to Ms. Kristin Jimenez, the general manager of the current tenant, HHS Construction has occupied the Subject Property since June 2009. By 2012, the exterior western lot was used to store vehicles and other material, consistent with present-day operations.

On March 2, 2022, and August 29, 2022, Roux visually assessed the Subject Property during the Subject Property reconnaissance for potential RECs, including, but not limited to, potential USTs, aboveground storage tanks (ASTs), polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-containing equipment, hazardous materials storage or handling areas, containerized or bulk wastes, and visual indications of impacted soil. 695
3661.0016L108/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | v Roux also performed a records review in an effort to identify RECs in connection with the Subject Property.

This records review addressed the Subject Property and surrounding properties. Roux reviewed commercially available records associated with the Subject Property and nearby properties to assess potential concerns associated with the migration of hazardous substances. The records review also included reasonably ascertainable historical data, which can be helpful in identifying the past uses of the Subject Property and surrounding areas, as it may relate to the environmental condition of the Subject Property.

Roux performed interviews and/or file reviews with various government agencies and other parties with possible knowledge of the Subject Property and surrounding properties in an effort to identify current and past uses of the Subject Property and surrounding areas, as they may relate to the environmental condition of the Subject Property.

ASTM E 1527-13 defines a Recognized Environmental Condition (REC) as:
“The presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. De minimis conditions are not recognized environmental conditions.” A Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition (cREC) as:
“A recognized environmental condition resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority (for example, as evidenced by the issuance of a no further action letter or equivalent, or meeting riskbased criteria established by regulatory authority), with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls (for example, property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls).” And a Historical Recognized Environmental Condition (hREC) as:
“A past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with the property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the property to any required controls (for example, property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls). Before calling the past release a historical recognized environmental condition, the environmental professional must determine whether the past release is a recognized environmental condition at the time the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is conducted (for example, if there has been a change in the regulatory criteria). If the EP considers the past release to be a recognized environmental condition at the time the Phase I ESA is conducted, the condition shall be included in the conclusions section of the report as a recognized environmental condition.”
The term recognized environmental condition is not intended to include de minimis conditions that generally do not present a threat to human health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies.

This Executive Summary provides a brief overview of the findings of this Phase I ESA. Although the Executive Summary is an integral part of a report, it does not substitute for reading the entire report or the 696
3661.0016L108/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | vi appended or referenced documents in order to fully understand the findings and potential environmental concerns associated with the Subject Property.

Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs)
Roux did not identify known or suspected RECs in connection with the current and historical operations at the Subject Property.

Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions (cRECs)
Roux did not identify known or suspected cRECs in connection with the current and historical operations at the Subject Property.

Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions (hRECs)
Roux did not identify known or suspected hRECs in connection with the current and historical operations at the Subject Property.
697
3661.0016L.108/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 1

1. Introduction
Roux Associates, Inc. (Roux) completed this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the commercial property located at 2042 South Grove Avenue, Ontario, California (the Subject Property). The Subject Property location is shown in Figure 1 and the Subject Property and vicinity is shown in Figure 2.

Roux performed this Phase I ESA in compliance with the scope and limitations of American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) E1527-13 and the terms and conditions of Roux’ proposal dated July 15, 2022. It is noted that this Phase I ESA was also performed in general accordance with the updated ASTM E1527-21 Standard. For purposes of this report, all future references to ASTM E1527-13 also meet the requirements of the updated ASTM E1527-21 Standard and vice versa. Roux conducted this Phase I ESA for the benefit of First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc., First Industrial, L.P., First Industrial Acquisitions II, LLC and their affiliates and assigns (FIRT, the User).

The following sections of this report present our Phase I ESA findings and conclusions. A glossary containing terms and definitions presented in ASTM E1527-13 is included in Appendix A – Glossary of Terms. Other appendices presented at the end of the report include historical topographic maps, historical aerial photographs, regulatory records review documentation, applicable historical records, and personnel qualifications.

1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this Phase I ESA is to identify and report, to the extent feasible, recognized environmental conditions (RECs) with respect to the Subject Property. Performing a Phase I ESA in general compliance with ASTM E 1527-13 may enable a User to satisfy one of the requirements to qualify for the innocent landowner, contiguous property owner, or bona fide prospective purchaser limitations on Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) liability. That is, the practice that constitutes one of the requirements for “all appropriate inquiry into the previous ownership and uses of the property consistent with good commercial or customary practice” as defined in 42 USC Section 9601(35) (B).

1.2 Scope of Services
The scope of services for this Phase I ESA included, but was not limited to, the activities listed below. • A review of reasonably ascertainable and practicably reviewable topographic maps, historical aerial photographs, and city directories, if available, to investigate past Subject Property conditions; • A review of specific government lists pursuant to ASTM Standard E 1527-13 regarding environmental activities for the Subject Property and local area properties; • A review of recorded land title records, building, assessors, and fire department records, for permits, citations, and reports connected to the Subject Property that were reasonably ascertainable, practicably reviewable, and publicly available within reasonable time and cost; • An inspection by an environmental professional to investigate the current use of the Subject Property and to identify environmental concerns including but not limited to, the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products, wastes, underground storage tanks (USTs), aboveground storage tanks (ASTs), or other environmental concerns;
698
3661.0016L.108/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 2 • Interviews with available representatives of the owner of the Subject Property, occupants, and local government officials by an environmental professional; and • Preparation of this Phase I ESA report.

Roux initiated this Phase I ESA pursuant to receipt of written authorization to proceed on July 15, 2022.

1.3 Standard of Care
Roux conducted this Phase I ESA using a defined scope of services considered appropriate and agreed upon by all parties on the date the service was authorized, unless the scope of services or the methods used were later modified, in writing, and accepted by all parties prior to performance. Roux conducted this Phase I ESA in accordance with generally accepted practices in a manner consistent with that level of care exercised by other members of our profession in the same locality and under similar conditions of time and accessibility of improvements and information. No other representations, expressed or implied, and no warranty or guarantee is included or intended to be part of this Phase I ESA.

Please note that the scope of services performed in execution of this assessment may not be appropriate to satisfy the needs of other parties. We, therefore, are not responsible for independent conclusions, opinions, or recommendations of others based on our assessment. Furthermore, this Phase I ESA relates to the environmental conditions of the Subject Property and does not address issues raised in transactions such as business risk, purchase of business entities, or interests therein, or of their assets, that may well involve environmental liabilities pertaining to properties previously owned or operated or other offsite liabilities.

Additionally, the findings of this Phase I ESA are based on Roux’ observations, inquiries, and historical research using reasonably ascertainable and practically reviewable information obtained within reasonable time and cost constraints. Roux does not represent that this Phase I ESA is an exhaustive investigation that reflects the findings of all of the information available for the Subject Property, nor is it representative of future Subject Property conditions. If additional information is generated from the Subject Property, it should be provided to Roux so that we may evaluate its impact on our conclusions. As such, activities or episodes that transpire subsequent to this Phase I ESA are not considered in this assessment. It is not intended that a Phase I ESA in accordance with ASTM E1527-13 be an exhaustive assessment of a property nor can it wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for recognized environmental conditions in connection with a property.

1.4 Assumptions
This Phase I ESA Report, including the exhibits attached hereto, describes the results of Roux’ investigation to identify the presence of recognized environmental conditions connected with the Subject Property in accordance with ASTM E1527-13, as allowed by and consistent with the regulatory requirements of the All Appropriate Inquiry Rule, 40 CFR Part 312, Amendment to Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquires Under CERCLA, Final Rule, published December 30, 2013 (AAI Rule). Specifically, the preamble to the amended AAI Rule states:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today is taking final action to amend the standards and practices for conducting all appropriate inquiries under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) to reference a standard practice recently made available by ASTM International, a widely recognized standards development organization. Specifically, this final 699
3661.0016L.108/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 3 rule amends the ‘‘All Appropriate Inquiries Rule’’ at 40 CFR Part 312 to reference ASTM International’s E1527–13 ‘‘Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process’’ and make clear that persons conducting all appropriate inquiries may use the procedures included in this standard to comply with the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule1.

One of the requirements that a person acquiring real property must meet in order to qualify for either the innocent landowner, contiguous owner, or bona fide prospective purchaser (collectively hereinafter “Prospective Purchaser”) defense to liability under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, and the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields’ Revitalization Act of 2002, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (collectively referred to hereafter as “CERCLA”) is that person must conduct all appropriate inquiries into the previous ownership and uses of the property in conformance with the AAI Rule (or the ASTM E1527-13) prior to acquisition of the property. The User has acknowledged that, under the AAI Rule, Roux’ performance of this Phase I ESA in accordance with ASTM E1527-13 will not alone result in the User satisfying all requirements of the AAI Rule and will not in itself provide a defense to CERCLA liability. The User has acknowledged that the AAI Rule also requires that the Prospective Purchaser undertake certain additional inquiries and post-acquisition activities to satisfy the CERCLA AAI requirements. Accordingly, Roux makes no guarantees or warranties, expressed or implied, regarding this Phase I ESA, including without limitation, that this Phase I ESA will qualify the User for a defense to CERCLA liability.

Roux has performed this Phase I ESA in a professional manner using that degree of skill and care exercised for similar projects under similar conditions by reputable and competent environmental consultants.

Professional judgments expressed herein are based on the facts currently available to Roux.

The AAI Rule requires, and the conclusions and recommendations stated herein represent, the application of a variety of engineering and technical disciplines to material facts and conditions associated with the Subject Property. As such, these conclusions and recommendations are based on subjective interpretations and the exercise of discretion based on the facts available to Roux and conditions at the time of the performance of this Phase I ESA. Many of these facts and conditions are subject to change over time.

Accordingly, the conclusions and recommendations must be considered within this context.

The User has agreed that Roux shall not be responsible for conditions or consequences arising from relevant facts that were concealed, withheld, or not fully disclosed at the time this Phase I ESA was performed. To the extent practicable, Roux has identified data gaps, and has evaluated the potential significance of such data gaps. Recommendations to address those data gaps are presented herein and are based on the data available at the time of the performance of this Phase I ESA. Implementation of the recommendations may not fully address the data gaps, and the information obtained from execution of those recommendations may alter and/or modify the interpretation of the Subject Property conditions and conclusions, herein. This Phase I ESA does not include consideration of matters specifically excluded by ASTM E1527-13, including but not limited to, asbestos-containing building materials, radon, lead-based paint, lead in drinking water, wetlands, regulatory compliance, and mold unless specifically identified herein. 1 Federal Register: December 30, 2013 (Volume 78, Number 250) Page 79319 700
3661.0016L.108/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 4 It is noted that Roux may be relying, in part, on information presented by others, often in preliminary, draft, or verbal form. By referencing this information, Roux does not accept responsibility for the accuracy of the underlying data, sampling methods, laboratory analysis, or documentation.

This Phase I ESA Report should not be considered a legal interpretation of existing environmental laws and regulations. This Phase I ESA was conducted with a reasonable degree of inquiry to identify recognized environmental conditions, but uncertainty is not eliminated. No Phase I ESA can wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for recognized environmental conditions in connection with a property.

The Phase I ESA process is intended to reduce, but not eliminate, the uncertainty involved with identifying recognized environmental conditions.

This Phase I ESA Report is not an appraisal or value judgment of the Subject Property. The User has agreed that Roux shall not be liable for any use of this Phase I ESA Report as an appraisal or value judgment of the Subject Property.

This Phase I ESA Report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the User for specific application to the Subject Property covered by this Phase I ESA Report. The User has agreed that any third-party use of this Phase I ESA Report, upon disclosure by the User, is the sole responsibility and at the sole liability of the User.

1.5 User Reliance
No additional parties may use the information contained in this report without obtaining the written permission of Roux or the User. Roux’ duties and obligations extend to the User and to no other party. Roux’ duties and obligations to the User are not transferable to persons, corporations, or organizations without the express written consent of the User and Roux. The User may rely upon the information provided in this Phase I ESA report for a period of 180 days from the date of issue. After 180 days, this Phase I ESA should be updated in accordance with ASTM guidance. Roux will not be liable for any consequential damages arising from the use of this report for other than its intended purpose, for use of this report beyond 180 days of its issue date, or from unauthorized use by third parties.

This Phase I ESA report must be read and interpreted as a whole and can only be considered representative of the conditions of the Subject Property as of the date of our site reconnaissance described herein. Roux makes no representation whatsoever concerning the condition of the Subject Property beyond the date of our site reconnaissance described herein. Individual sections and appendices of this report are dependent on the balance of this report, and on the terms, conditions, and stipulations contained in the proposal and written amendments accepted by Roux.
701
3661.0016L.108/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 5

2. Subject Property Description

2.1 Subject Property Location and Description
Subject Property Information
Street Address(es) 2042 South Grove Avenue
City City of Ontario
County San Bernardino
State California
Location West of South Grove Avenue. Northwest of the nearest intersection, East Philadelphia Street and South Grove Avenue
Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 105-049-111
Subject Property Acreage (per
San Bernardino County Assessor
Website)

4.2 acres
Subject Property Occupant(s) HHS Communications
Onsite Operations
Office space and warehouse for a telecommunication company with vehicle maintenance operations on-site (southern building), excavated material generated off-site is temporarily staged along the western and southern boundary of the Subject Property.

Description of Onsite Structures Two single-story wood-frame stucco buildings, each with a mezzanine, and designated asphalt-paved parking areas.

Subject Property Paving Majority asphalt paving. Land along the western and southern boundary of the Subject Property is unpaved.

Subject Property Grading
Graded to drain at a gentle slope roughly oriented west to east. There is a drainage culvert along the northern portion (running west-east) that directs stormwater to the front of the property towards the northeast where the drainage culvert (now running north-south) directs stormwater towards the southwest corner.

Subject Property Vicinity Light industrial and commercial Refer to Section 5.0 for a detailed description of the current condition of the Subject Property and operations.

2.2 Vicinity General Characteristics
The facilities and improvements which are located immediately adjacent to the Subject Property are provided in the following table.

Direction from Subject
Property Improvements / Use (Addresses)
North
Commercial building (2000 South Grove Avenue) occupied by multiple tenants (Priority Workforce, Suite 110; Farmers Insurance, Suite 108a; KCAL Insurance Agency, Suite 107); Bearings & Drives, Inc (unknown unit). 702
3661.0016L.108/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 6 Direction from Subject
Property Improvements / Use (Addresses)
East
South Grove Avenue, followed by a commercial building (2131 South Grove Avenue) occupied by multiple tenants (Core Staffing Solutions, Suite C; Back to Health Veterinary Services, Suite F; ISEC Inc, Suite J).

West Cox Boat & RV Storage, 2019 South Cucamonga Avenue South
Multi-tenant commercial building, 2124 South Grove Avenue; occupied by Macc Auto Air Compressor, Q-Tek Precision and Services, Tech Industrial Machining Corp, and US Wholesale

2.3 Past Use of the Subject Property
Roux performed a review of historical sources including topographic maps (Appendix B), aerial photographs (Appendix C), fire insurance Sanborn maps (Appendix D), and city directories (Appendix E), obtained from Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). Roux also reviewed building permits obtained from the City of San Bernardino that provided pertinent information on past Subject Property use (Appendix H).

Based on a review of available resources, the Subject Property was undeveloped prior to 1933. By 1933, the Subject Property had been developed with a single residential structure. By 1946, the remainder of the Subject Property had been cultivated for agricultural purposes (orchard) along with the surrounding properties. The Subject Property remained agricultural until 1966. According to the GTE General Telephone Company of California, the Subject Property was occupied by “MGROVE LUMBER/BUILDING” and “MSUPERIOR CONSTRUCTIN” and operated as a lumberyard (storage, no processing) in 1985. This was confirmed by Mr. Hector Alvarez, the current yard manager, during the Subject Property reconnaissance of the Subject Property. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) issued a permit to operate (ID 9007543) for a gasoline storage and dispensing facility for the former tenant, Grove Lumber & Building Supplies, on October 6, 1981. By 1985, the Subject Property was developed with two buildings, the present-day main building and another building to the south, and associated asphalt-parking areas. At this time, the exterior western lot was used as storage for lumber and construction material. By 1990, the exterior storage appears to extend to the immediately north property, which ceased by 1994. Based on records from San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD), two 1,000-gallon underground storage tanks (USTs) (gasoline and diesel) were removed in August 1990. Results of confirmation soil sampling following removal of the USTs revealed no detectable concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), and the SBCFD subsequently issued a No Further Action (NFA) letter in 1991. The City of Ontario issued a building permit for the installation of a 4,500 square foot storage area in May 1999. By 2002, the previous southern building had been demolished and replaced with the present-day secondary building, likely associated with the storage area building permit issued in 1999. It is noted the western and southern portion of the Subject Property also appeared unpaved by 2002, consistent with the present-day storage area for excavated material generated off-site. According to Ms. Kristin Jimenez, the general manager of the current tenant, HHS Construction has occupied the Subject Property since June 2009. By 2012, the exterior western lot was used to store vehicles and other material, consistent with present-day operations.

2.4 Physical Setting
Roux obtained and reviewed published, reasonably ascertainable information concerning the physical setting of the Subject Property. The following is a summary of the information reviewed from those physical setting sources.
703
3661.0016L.108/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 7 Physical Setting Summary
United States Geological Survey
(USGS) Topographic Map Ontario and Guasti, California Quadrangle Approximate Subject Property
Elevation / Source
850 to 860 feet above mean sea level (msl) / Ontario and Guasti, California (2018)

7.5-minute quadrangle topographic map published by the USGS Nearest Surface Water Features
/ Approximate Distance Three water retention basins / 0.6 miles east of the Subject Property Regional Geology / Source
Quaternary deposits: alluvium, lake, playa and terrace, consolidated and semiconsolidated / California Department of Conservation, 2010 Geologic Map of California
Subject Property Topography /
Source
Generally flat with a gradual slope to the east / Subject Property observation and USGS topographic map
Hydrogeological Region / Source
Located along the southwestern portion of the Bunker Hill Basin, which consists of alluvial deposits of silt, gravel, and boulders interspersed with lenticular deposits of sit and sand.

Depth to Groundwater / Source
Groundwater data for the Subject Property was not identified. However, two nearby facilities reported depth to groundwater.

Greater than 100 feet bgs / LUST case closure for a facility approximately 0.45 miles northeast of the Subject Property (San Bernardino County Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Division, 1997)
Approximately 270 to 295 feet bgs / LUST case closure for a facility approximately

1.87 miles east-southeast of the Subject Property (San Bernardino County Fire Department, 2000)
Groundwater Gradient Direction /
Source West-southwest
Onsite Soil
Soils encountered at the Subject Property were generally comprised of sand and sandy silt, fine to medium in size, with trace silt and occasional gravel. The Subject Property soils were dry to moist and ranged in color from light olive brown, light yellow brown to dark yellow brown. In general, Roux observed no visual (i.e., staining, oily material) or olfactory indications of contamination (Roux, FIRT Ontario Phase II Report, 2022)
704
3661.0016L.108/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 8

3. Sources of Information
Sources of information utilized in preparing this Phase I ESA report included historical topographic maps; historical aerial photographs; a walkover survey of the Subject Property and adjoining properties; in-person discussions with User and tenant personnel; a review of records available at selected local and state regulatory agencies; a review of databases maintained by local, state, and federal government agencies; and other records available from commercial and online sources.

3.1 Historical Sources
To help understand the history of the Subject Property and past land uses, historical sources were obtained from Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR), of Shelton, Connecticut. The sources and locations within the Appendices are provided in the table below.

EDR Historical Sources
Historical Range Source Appendix
1897-2019 U.S. Geological Survey Topographic Maps B
1938-2016 EDR Aerial Photographs “Decade Package” C
No Available Coverage EDR “Certified Sanborn® Map Report” D 1960-2017 EDR “City Directory Image Report” E

3.2 Subject Property Reconnaissance
On March 2, 2022, and August 29, 2022, Roux personnel conducted a reconnaissance of the Subject Property, including the interiors of all of the buildings. The second reconnaissance was completed to investigate potential changes that might have occurred with Subject Property conditions since the initial inspection in order to finalize/update the Phase I ESA report with information collected within the past 180- days. During the Subject Property reconnaissance, Roux representatives Mr. Peter Shimer, Mrs. Rocio Quinones, Ms. Angela Truong, and Ms. Ashley Whitaker were able to access all areas of the Subject Property at the time of the reconnaissance. The observations made during the Subject Property reconnaissance are discussed in Section 5.0 and throughout the report. A photographic log of the Subject Property reconnaissance is included as Appendix G.
705
3661.0016L.108/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 9

3.3 Regulatory Agencies
Roux contacted governmental agencies for reasonably ascertainable information concerning environmental conditions at the Subject Property. Roux contacted or reviewed information from the agencies provided in the following table. Refer to Appendix H – Pertinent Historical Documentation for copies of the records reviewed. A summary of the information gathered from the regulatory agencies is provided in the table and details regarding the records were incorporated into applicable sections as noted.

Agency
Date
Requested
/ Accessed
Response
Date Description of Records Section Discussed
Federal
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) –
FOIAonline
2/25/2022
and
8/17/2022
3/4/2022 and
9/6/2022
USEPA responded that no records were associated with the Subject Property and referred to the EPA MyProperty
database, discussed below.

N/A
U.S EPA MyProperty Database
2/25/2022
and
8/29/2022
N/A No records were associated with the Subject Property. N/A U.S. EPA Envirofacts
2/25/2022
and
8/29/2022
N/A
One listing, HHS Construction, associated with the Subject Property was identified. Information obtained from
Envirofacts is duplicative of subsequent information
discussed below in Sections 3 and 7.

N/A
National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS)
Online Database
2/25/2022
and
8/26/2022
N/A
There is no pipeline mapped within 1,000 feet of the Subject Property. An active non-HVL product pipeline (ID 18092) runs east to west along East Holt Avenue, which is
approximately 1.85 miles north of the Subject Property.

N/A
EPA Enforcement and Compliance History
Online (ECHO) Database
2/25/2022
and
8/29/2022
N/A
One listing, HHS Construction, associated with the Subject Property was identified. Information obtained from the
ECHO database is duplicative of subsequent information
discussed below in Sections 3 and 7.

N/A
706
3661.0016L.108/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 10 Agency
Date
Requested
/ Accessed
Response
Date Description of Records Section Discussed
State
State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB): GeoTracker Online Database
2/25/2022
and
8/26/2022
N/A
There were no release cases associated with the Subject Property.

One release case was associated within 1,000 feet of the Subject Property. This nearby facility, ARCO #5252
(T0607100430), is listed as a completed LUST case closed as of January 13, 1998.

One open – verification monitoring case, General Electric Co – Jet Engine Test Cell Facility, is approximately 1.82 miles northeast of the Subject Property.

3.3.1 SWRCB: Storm Water Multiple Application and
Report Tracking System (SMARTS) Online
Database
2/25/2022
and
8/29/2022
N/A
Two operators, HHS Construction and Grove Lumber &
Hardware, associated with the Subject Property were
identified. Records included an inspection report and a terminated waste discharge permit.

3.3.2 Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
2/25/2022
and
8/17/2022
3/1/2022
and
8/19/2022
No records were associated with the Subject Property. N/A DTSC Chatsworth Office
2/25/2022
and
8/17/2022
3/1/2022
and
8/19/2022
One record of an inspection for treated wood waste in 2017 is associated with the Subject Property. 3.3.3
DTSC: EnviroStor Online Database
2/25/2022
and
8/26/2022
N/A
No records were associated with the Subject Property.

No listings were identified within 1,000 feet of the Subject Property.

N/A
DTSC: Hazardous Waste Tracking System
(HWTS) Online Database
2/25/2022
and
8/29/2022
N/A
Three (3) documents tracked the types and quantities of hazardous waste transported off the Subject Property for disposal in 2016, 2017, and 2019. The small quantity wastes were limited to flammable liquids (gasoline/diesel), asphalt emulsion, and latex paint. No chlorinated solvents were noted in any of the records.

N/A
California Air Resources Board (CARB)
2/25/2022
and
8/17/2022
3/1/2022
and
8/18/2022
No records were associated with the Subject Property. N/A 707
3661.0016L.108/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 11 Agency
Date
Requested
/ Accessed
Response
Date Description of Records Section Discussed
California Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment (OEHHA)
2/25/2022
and
8/17/2022
3/8/2022
and
9/1/2022
No records were associated with the Subject Property. N/A California EPA (CalEPA)
2/25/2022
and
8/29/2022
N/A One listing, HHS Construction Inc., associated with the Subject Property was identified. 3.3.4
CalEPA CalRecycle
2/25/2022
and
8/17/2022
3/4/2022
and
8/30/2022
No records were associated with the Subject Property. N/A CalEPA CalRecycle Solid Waste Information
System (SWIS) Online Database
2/25/2022
and
8/26/2022
N/A
No records were associated with the Subject Property.

The nearest SWIS facility is the Caltrans Ontario
Maintenance Station, which is an active solid waste
operation facility with no reported areas of concern or violations.

N/A
State of California Department of Conservation:

Geological Energy Management (CalGEM)
Online Database
2/25/2022
and
8/26/2022
N/A
There are no wells mapped on the Subject Property and
none within a one mile radius. The Subject Property is not located within a methane zone.

N/A
State of California Department of Conservation:

Department of Mines Online Database
2/25/2022
and
8/26/2022
N/A There are no mines located at or within 1,000 feet of the Subject Property. N/A
County / Regional
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control
Board (SARWQCB)
2/25/2022
and
8/17/2022
3/4/2022
and
8/29/2022
The SA RWQCB notified Roux that records associated with the Subject Property can be accessed via the SWRCB:

SMARTS online database. See the section above.

N/A
South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD)
2/25/2022
and
8/17/2022
3/4/2022
and
8/19/2022
Records identified for the Subject Property included two inactive permits for Grove Lumber & Bldg Supplies. 3.3.5 SCAQMD Facility Information Detail (FIND)
Online Database
2/25/2022
and
9/1/2022
N/A
Records identified for the Subject Property included two inactive permits for Grove Lumber & Bldg Supplies. See
above.

3.3.5 708
3661.0016L.108/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 12 Agency
Date
Requested
/ Accessed
Response
Date Description of Records Section Discussed
San Bernardino County Building and Safety N/A N/A
Previous correspondence indicated the San Bernardino
County Building and Safety office notified Roux that the Subject Property is outside of their service area and deferred Roux to the City of Ontario.

N/A
San Bernardino County Environmental Health
Services (EHS)
2/25/2022
and
8/17/2022
3/4/2022
and
8/25/2022
No records were associated with the Subject Property. N/A San Bernardino County Fire Department
(SBCFD)
2/28/2022
and
8/17/2022
3/9/2022
and
8/22/2022
Records identified for the Subject Property included
regulatory files for HHS Construction, Inc. and for Wells Fargo Bank/Grove Lumber, including a permit to remove
USTs in August 1990, sampling data, and an associated No Further Action (NFA) letter in October 1991.

3.3.6 San Bernardino County Clerk
2/28/2022
and
8/17/2022
3/1/2022
and
8/18/2022
The San Bernardino County Clerk notified Roux that their office does not maintain records for the Subject Property. N/A City / Local
City of Ontario Clerk
3/1/2022
and
8/17/2022
3/11/2022
and
8/29/2022
Records identified for the Subject Property included a
stormwater inspection, a temporary certificate of occupancy and building permits from May 1999 through November
2010.

3.3.7 709
3661.0016L.108/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 13

3.3.1 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB): GeoTracker Online Database One off-site listing, ARCO #5252, located at 2156 South Grove Avenue, approximately 680 feet south of the Subject Property, is a completed – case closed as of January 13, 1998. According to the GeoTracker case (T0607100430), soil at this facility was impacted with gasoline. No additional information was provided.

Given the case closure, reported impacts to soil only, and the distance/down to cross-gradient location of the facility to the Subject Property, the ARCO #5252 facility does not represent a REC to the Subject Property.

Another off-site listing, General Electric Co – Jet Engine Test Cell Facility, located at 2264 East Avion Street, approximately 1.82 miles northeast of the Subject Property, is an open – verification monitoring case as of February 5, 2010. According to the GeoTracker case (SL208133868), the facility has operated as an aircraft engine facility since 1965. Subsurface investigations have identified VOCs, specifically trichloroethene (TCE) as the primary chemical of concern (COC). Remedial efforts include a soil vapor extraction (SVE) system with a total of 23 SVE wells, from 1996 through 2005 and groundwater monitoring since 1991. Based on the Fourth Quarter 2021 Groundwater Monitoring Report, dated January 24, 2022, the nearest groundwater monitoring well (OW-11) is located approximately 300 feet southeast of the eastern boundary of the Subject Property. The OW-11 groundwater monitoring well was installed in the intermediate zone with a screen depth of 323.50 to 333.40 feet bgs and has a TCE concentration of 2.2 micrograms per liter (µg/L; Wood, 2022), below the maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 5 µg/L. It is noted that no evidence has been identified indicating that current or historical operations at the Subject Property have contributed to the regional groundwater contamination plume.

In April 2022, Roux implemented a Phase II subsurface investigation at the Subject Property to assess the presence of VOCs in groundwater in close proximity to the Subject Property and possible lateral and vertical migration posing a potential vapor intrusion concern. Refer to Section 6.0. Given the results of the Phase II, the regional groundwater plume is not a REC and considered to be a de minimis condition for purposes of this Phase I ESA.

3.3.2 SWRBC: Storm Water Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS) Online Database
According to a terminated waste discharge permit (WDID 8 36I020048) with a status date of February 09, 2009, Grove Lumber & Hardware associated with the Subject Property address operated as a special product sawmills. The United States Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OHSA) SIC Manual described “special product sawmills” as Mills primarily engaged in manufacturing excelsior, wood shingles, and cooperage stock; and in sawing special products, not elsewhere classified.” The exact type of lumber-related operations conducted at the Subject Property are unknown.

On December 7, 2021, the SA RWQCB conducted an inspection of the HHS Construction telecommunication operations (current Subject Property tenant). According to the inspection report, material from off-site trenching and excavation activities to install fiber optic cables, including dirt, asphalt, and concrete, are brought back to the Subject Property and staged at the back portion of the Subject Property. The report indicates these materials are disposed off-site approximately three to four times annually. Once the asphalt or concrete cap is removed from the street during off-site construction work, water jets are reportedly used for further trenching and excavation to ensure no water or natural gas pipes are impacted. The water used for this purpose originates from a fire hydrant located at the Subject Property and is transported to the construction sites by water truck. Vacuum trucks are used to contain the water from the excavations, which is then reportedly transferred to a small, temporary pond on the western portion of the Subject Property to 710
3661.0016L.108/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 14 infiltrate and evaporate. The temporary pond was constructed by building dirt berms to contain the water and prevent run-off. According to the inspection report, no sheen or other suspect conditions were observed.

The inspector also noted that surface water was not observed to run off-site, and an industrial general permit is not required for the Subject Property. In April 2022, Roux implemented a Phase II subsurface investigation at the Subject Property to assess the unknown conditions of off-site material and excavation water stored at the Subject Property. Refer to Section 6.0. Given the results of the Phase II, the staged material and excavation water originating off-site are not a REC and considered to be a de minimis condition for purposes of this Phase I ESA.

3.3.3 Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
On September 13, 2017, the DTSC conducted an inspection in regard to treated wood waste (TWW) stored on the Subject Property. According to the inspection report, the TWW consisted only of utility telephone poles removed from service, which were subsequently disposed in an approved landfill. No violations of hazardous waste laws, regulations, and requirements were discovered at the time of the inspection.

3.3.4 California EPA (CalEPA)
The current tenant, HHS Construction Inc., is identified as a power and communication line and related structures construction operation and has been listed as a hazardous waste generator (ID 10476988) and chemical storage facility (ID 10476988) since January 7, 2014. From January 2017 through March 2020, a total of 14 violations were issued. The violations were generally related to the failure to label hazardous waste containers, outdated hazardous material inventory lists, or administrative in nature. All violations have since achieved compliance, and no violations indicative of a release were reported. Chemical storage was reportedly limited to small quantities of waste solids, used oil filters (drained), propane, isobutylenated phenol phosphate, motor oil, ethylene glycol, diesel fuel, and degreaser (non-chlorinated). No use of chlorinated solvents was referenced.

3.3.5 SCAQMD Facility Information Detail (FIND) Online Database The former tenant, Grove Lumber & Bldg Supplies (ID 33836), maintained two permits that are now inactive:
(1) a service station storage and dispensing gasoline and (2) amine (or diethanolamine) regeneration. The permit to operate for a two-nozzle gasoline storage and dispensing facility (ID 9007543) was issued on October 6, 1981 and expired October 1, 1982. No additional permit information was provided for the second permit. No notices of violations were reported. According to records provided for the SBCFD, the Subject Property housed two 1,000-gallon gasoline and diesel USTs, which were removed on August 1,1990. Refer to Section 3.3.6.

3.3.6 San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD)
The current tenant, HHS Construction, Inc., is an active permit facility (FA0015264, CERS ID 10476988) with two permits: (1) hazardous materials, 4-10 chemicals handler and (2) small quantity generator. Expired permits from 2014 through 2016 were identified. The SBCFD conducted multiple California Unified Program Agency (CUPA) Compliance Inspections from December 2013 through March 2020. Reported violations were generally administrative in nature or included incomplete hazardous waste labels, improper storage of hazardous waste containers (left open when unused), and unreported hazardous material stored at the Subject Property. All violations have since achieved compliance, and no violations indicative of a release were reported. SBCFD inventory of hazardous substances and petroleum products used/stored at the Subject Property between 2013 and 2020 generally consisted of new/used oils, waste antifreeze, waste oily 711
3661.0016L.108/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 15 solids, diesel exhaust fluid, drained used oil filters, acetone, diesel fuel, degreaser (non-chlorinated), and compressed gases (acetylene, oxygen, argon, nitrogen, propane).

The former tenant, Wells Fargo Bank/Grove Lumber, is an inactive permit and/or non-permit facility (no facility or establishment number was provided). According to the SBCFD documents, a permit application was submitted for one 1,000-gallon gasoline UST and one 1,000-gallon diesel UST at the Subject Property. The USTs were single walled and constructed with steel/iron. A permit application to remove the two USTs was submitted on July 30, 1990. Following UST removal on August 1, 1990, one soil confirmation sample was collected approximately 2 feet beneath each UST (approximately 11 feet bgs). No odors or deteriorating tank conditions were reported in the field inspection form. The sample collected beneath the gasoline UST was analyzed for gasoline by United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Method 8015 and 8020, and the sample collected beneath the diesel UST was analyzed for diesel by USEPA Method 8015.

Soil confirmation results reported concentrations below laboratory reporting limits (<0.3 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) for gasoline, <10 mg/kg for diesel). The SBCFD issued a no further action (NFA) letter on October 25, 1991. In April 2022, Roux implemented a Phase II subsurface investigation at the Subject Property to assess the former gasoline and diesel USTs. Refer to Section 6.0. Given that the basis on which the USTs received closure (non-detect sample results and NFA letter), coupled with the results of the Phase II, the former USTs are not a REC in the context of this Phase I ESA.

3.3.7 City of Ontario City Clerk
The City of Ontario conducted a routine commercial facility stormwater inspection at the Subject Property in association with HHS Construction in May 2021 with no actions required.

A temporary certificate of occupancy was issued by the City of Ontario for the former tenant, Grove Lumber Company, dated June 1988. In addition, multiple building permits were identified, as summarized below:

Year Description
2042 South Grove Avenue, Ontario, CA 91761
May 1999 Permit for the addition of a 4,500 square foot storage area March 2000 Permit for the installation of signage
March 2002 Permit for grading/stockpile of up to 18,000 cubic yards of material July 2009 Permit for roofing
August 2009 Permit for stucco walls of building

3.4 Government Databases
To document potential sources of contamination at or near the Subject Property, a government records search was conducted by EDR. The search included local, state, and federal records for the Subject Property and for other properties within ASTM-standard distances of the Subject Property. The records search is summarized in Section 7.0 and a copy of “The EDR Radius Map™ Report with GeoCheck®,” dated August 25, 2022, is included in its entirety as Appendix F.
712
3661.0016L.108/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 16

3.5 Interviews
On August 29, 2022, Roux interviewed the Subject Property yard supervisor, Mr. Hector Alvarez, in-person regarding the history of the Subject Property. Mr. Alvarez has been associated with the Subject Property since 2019. Mr. Alvarez confirmed that only dirt, gravel, and asphalt are brought onto the Subject Property for temporary storage; however, Mr. Alvarez indicated that the soil brought onto the Subject Property is not tested in any way prior to being brought on-site. Additionally, Mr. Alvarez notified Roux that automobiles were occasionally washed on the Subject Property.
713
3661.0016L.108/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 17

3.6 User Provided Information
ASTM E1527-13 provides that the User perform certain tasks. The purpose of this section is to present select User-provided information that can assist in identifying possible recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Subject Property. According to ASTM E1527-13, these tasks do not require the technical expertise of an environmental professional and the environmental professional generally does not perform these tasks. Roux administered a questionnaire to the User at the beginning of this Phase I ESA to assist them with these tasks. The following sections outline the parts of the questionnaire that the User completed.

3.6.1 Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitations The User indicated that they have no knowledge regarding environmental liens or activity and use limitations (engineering/institutional controls) with respect to the Subject Property.

3.6.2 Specialized Knowledge
The User did not report any specialized knowledge related to the Subject Property outside of information ascertained by the previous work completed by Roux as documented throughout this report.

3.6.3 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues
The User indicated that they have no knowledge regarding valuation reduction for environmental issues.

3.6.4 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information The User did not have any knowledge regarding commonly known or reasonable ascertainable information about the Subject Property not otherwise addressed.

3.6.5 Obvious Indicators of the Presence or Likely Presence of Contamination of the Subject Property
The User did not have any knowledge regarding obvious indicators of the presence or likely presence of contamination of the Subject Property not otherwise addressed. 714
3661.0016L.108/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 18

4. Subject Property History
This section documents the history of the Subject Property and describes current conditions and existing or former environmental features.

4.1 Subject Property History
The history of the Subject Property and, to a lesser extent, the surrounding area, including previous land use, has been compiled based on information from the exhaustive list of sources provided in Section 3.

Summary of Historical Sources
Decade Year Source Subject Property Description Vicinity Description Predevelopment History
Pre-1900 1897
Historical Topographic
Map: Cucamonga
(15-minute)
The Subject Property location is undeveloped.

The vicinity is undeveloped with the
exception of a northwest-southwest trending
road immediately to the northeast. The R.R.

Chino Branch railroad, trending north-south
appears to be approximately 0.8 miles west
of the Subject Property. A second railroad
line, identified as Narrow Gauge R.R.,
appears to be approximately 1.5 miles west
of the Subject Property.
1900s
1900
Historical Topographic
Map: Cucamonga
(15-minute)
No significant changes from prior history. No significant changes from prior history. 1903
Historical Topographic
Map: Cucamonga
(15-minute)
No significant changes from prior history. No significant changes from prior history. 1910s No available records.
1920s No available records.
715
3661.0016L.108/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 19 Summary of Historical Sources
Decade Year Source Subject Property Description Vicinity Description Agricultural Development History
1930s
1933
Historical Topographic
Map: Ontario
(7.5-minute)
The Subject Property is developed with one residential
structure in the southeastern corner.

The eastern half of the topographic map is
not mapped. The western vicinity is
developed with the present-day surface
street network, including South Grove
Avenue immediately east of the Subject
Property. The R.R. Chino Branch railroad is
no longer depicted and the Narrow Gauge
R.R. is no longer labeled. An area located
approximately 1.25 miles northwest of the
Subject Property is labeled “Gas Tanks.”
Further northwest is a U P railroad, trending
northwest-southwest.
1938 EDR Aerial Photograph The Subject Property is developed with one residential structure in the southeastern corner.

Surrounding properties in the Subject
Property vicinity are agricultural or
undeveloped.
1940s
1941/1942
Historical Topographical
Map: Ontario and
Vicinity, Guasti Vicinity
(7.5-minute)
No significant changes from prior history.

The eastern half of the topographical map is
now mapped. Parallel to the U.P. railroad
appears to be the 60 Freeway. The former
“Gas Tanks” area is no longer labeled
approximately 1.25 miles to the northwest.
1944
Historical Topographical
Map: Cucamonga
(15-minute)
No significant changes from prior history.

The Narrow Gauge R.R. is no longer
depicted. Indicated by the orchard
vegetation symbols, surrounding properties
in the Subject Property vicinity are
agricultural. Indicated by the red shading,
the area approximately 1.5 miles northeast
of the Subject Property is densely built-up.
1946 EDR Aerial Photograph
Consistent with previous topographical maps, the
Subject Property is developed with one residential
structure in the southeastern corner. The remainder of
the Subject Property is used for agriculture based on
the orchard features.

No significant changes from prior history.
1948 EDR Aerial Photograph No significant changes from prior history. No significant changes from prior history. 716
3661.0016L.108/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 20 Summary of Historical Sources
Decade Year Source Subject Property Description Vicinity Description 1950s
1953 EDR Aerial Photograph No significant changes from prior history. No significant changes from prior history. 1953/1954
Historical Topographic
Map: Ontario, Guasti
(7.5-minute)
Indicated by the orchard vegetation symbols, the
Subject Property is agricultural. The residential
structure in the southeastern corner is no longer
depicted.

An area located approximately 1 mile
northwest of the Subject Property is labeled
“Sewage Disposal.” Another area located
approximately 1.25 miles southeast of the
Subject Property is labeled “Ontario-Upland
Sewage Disposal.” The present-day Ontario
International Airport is depicted immediately
north of the U.P. railroad and the 60 Freeway
located more than 1.25 miles away from the
Subject Property. Well symbols are also
depicted in the vicinity of the Subject
Property with the nearest being 0.5 miles to
the northeast.
1954 EDR Aerial Photograph No significant changes from prior history. No significant changes from prior history. 1960s 1966 EDR Aerial Photograph
The residential structure in the southeastern corner
remains visible, contrary to the previous topographic
map. The orchard features are no longer visible,
indicating the ceased agricultural operations.

No significant changes from prior history.
1966/1967
Historical Topographic
Map: Ontario, Guasti
(7.5-minute)
The previous orchard vegetation symbols are no
longer depicted.

The areas with orchard vegetation symbols
have decreased significantly. Percolation
basins are depicted approximately 0.5 miles
east of the Subject Property. The presentday Whispering Lakes Golf Course is depicted approximately 1.6 miles southeast
of the Subject Property, including several
ponds.
1970s 1973
Historical Topographic
Map: Ontario, Guasti
(7.5-minute)
No significant changes from prior history.

An aqueduct is depicted approximately 1.2
miles southwest of the Subject Property.

The former 60 Freeway to the north is no
longer labeled, and the present-day 60
Freeway located approximately 0.4 miles
south of the Subject Property is depicted.
717
3661.0016L.108/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 21 Summary of Historical Sources
Decade Year Source Subject Property Description Vicinity Description 1975 EDR Aerial Photograph No significant changes from prior history.

Consistent with previous topographic map,
the present-day 60 Freeway appears to be
developed to the south.
1976
Historical Topographic
Map: Ontario
(15-mintue)
No significant changes from prior history.

Indicated by the red shading, the areas to
the west and southeast of the Subject
Property are densely built-up.

Commercial/Industrial Development History
1980s
1980 EDR City Directory
According to GTE General Telephone Company of
California, the Subject Property was occupied by
“MGROVE LUMBER/BUILDING” and “MSUPERIOR
CONSTRUCTIN”
N/A
1981
Historical Topographic
Map: Ontario, Guasti
(7.5-minute)
No significant changes from prior history. No significant changes from prior history.

SCAQMD
A permit to operate (ID 9007543) for a “gasoline
storage and dispensing facility, 02 nozzles” was issued for Grove Lumber & Building Supplies on October 6,
1981.

N/A
1985
EDR City Directory
According to GTE, the Subject Property was occupied
by “GROVE LUMBER/BUILDING,” “L & J CONSTR
INC,” and “SUPERIOR CONSTRUCTIN.”
N/A
EDR Aerial Photograph
The previous residential structure in the southeastern
corner is no longer present. The Subject Property is
developed with the present-day main building and
associated asphalt-parking paved areas. Another
building is visible south of the main building. The
exterior western lot is used as storage, likely
associated with the former lumberyard operations.

The property immediately south is
developed with the present-day commercial
buildings. Residential neighborhoods are
visible further to the south.
1989/1990/1994 EDR Aerial Photograph No significant changes from prior history.

No significant changes from prior history;
however, the exterior storage on the Subject
Property appears to extend to the
immediately north property, which ceased by
1994..
718
3661.0016L.108/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 22 Summary of Historical Sources
Decade Year Source Subject Property Description Vicinity Description 1999 City of Ontario Building
Permit
The City of Ontario issued a permit for a 4,500 square
foot storage area. N/A
2000s
2002 EDR Aerial Photograph
The present-day main building remains visible at the
Subject Property. The previous southern building
appears to have been demolished and replaced with
the present-day secondary building, likely associated
with the 1999 City of Ontario Building Permit for the
4,500 square foot storage area. The exterior western
lot is used for storing material, likely associated with the former lumberyard operations. The western and
southern portion of the Subject Property appears to be
unpaved, similar to the present-day staging area.

The property to the immediate east is
developed with the present-day commercial
buildings. Further commercial development
is depicted to the north.
2006 EDR Aerial Photograph No significant changes from prior history.

The property to the immediate north is
developed with the present-day commercial
buildings.
2008 EDR City Directory
According to Haines Company, Inc., the Subject
Property was occupied by “GROVE LUMBER &
HARDWARE.” This is the last record of the former
lumberyard operations.

N/A
2009 EDR Aerial Photograph No significant changes from prior history. Further commercial development is visible to the south.
2010s
2012
EDR Aerial Photograph
The Subject Property appears to no longer store
lumber material in the exterior western lot. It appears vehicles and miscellaneous material is stored.

No significant changes from prior history.

Historical Topographic
Map: Ontario
(7.5-minute)
No significant changes from prior history. A fire station is depicted approximately 0.5 miles northeast of the Subject Property.
2015
Historical Topographic
Map: Ontario
(7.5-minute)
No significant changes from prior history. No significant changes from prior history. 2016 EDR Aerial Photograph No significant changes from prior history. No significant changes from prior history. 719
3661.0016L.108/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 23 Summary of Historical Sources
Decade Year Source Subject Property Description Vicinity Description 2017 EDR City Directory
According to Cole Hidden Information Services, the
Subject Property was occupied by “HHS
COMMUNICATIONS.”
N/A
2018
Historical Topographic
Map: Ontario
(7.5-minute)
No significant changes from prior history. No significant changes from prior history.

Historical Agricultural Use
According to historical sources, the Subject Property was used for agricultural purposes (orchard) as early as 1946 through 1966. In April 2022, Roux implemented a Phase II subsurface investigation at the Subject Property to assess the former agricultural use. No organochlorine pesticides were detected above laboratory reporting limits, and no metals were detected above regional background concentrations and/or regulatory screening criteria. Refer to Section 6.0. The historical agricultural use of the Subject Property is therefore not considered a REC in the context of this Phase I ESA.
720
3661.0016L.108/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 24

5. Current Subject Property Conditions
Roux representatives conducted a reconnaissance of the Subject Property and surrounding areas on March 2, 2022, and August 29, 2022. The second reconnaissance was completed to investigate potential changes that might have occurred with Subject Property conditions since the initial inspection in order to finalize/update the Phase I ESA report with information collected within the past 180-days. During the Subject Property visits, Roux representatives Mr. Peter Shimer, Mrs. Rocio Quinones, Ms. Angela Truong, and Ms.

Ashley Whitaker met with Mr. Hector Alvarez, the current yard supervisor of the Subject Property. Roux also visually and/or physically observed adjoining properties from reasonably accessible locations on the Subject Property and public thoroughfares. During the Subject Property reconnaissance on March 2, 2022, the weather was mostly sunny, and the temperature was approximately 72° Fahrenheit. During the Subject Property reconnaissance on August 29, 2022, the weather was sunny, and the temperature was approximately 84° Fahrenheit. The following sections summarize observations during the inspections. Roux documented the Subject Property Reconnaissance with photographs which are provided in Appendix G.

5.1 Subject Property Reconnaissance
The Subject Property is occupied by HHS Construction, a telecommunications company that installs telecommunication utilities above- and below-ground, which require excavation and trenching for installation of fiber optic cables. According to Mr. Hector Alvarez, the Subject Property formerly operated as a lumberyard. The Subject Property is accessible from the east along South Grove Avenue. The majority of the Subject Property is occupied by two buildings, each constructed with a mezzanine, (a main building used as an office space with warehouse storage and a secondary building used for vehicle maintenance with additional warehouse storage) and asphalt- and concrete-pavement in all areas with the exception of an unpaved area along the western and southern boundary. The two buildings are wood-frame construction with stucco walls.

Material for construction, including asphalt and gravel, and material generated off-site from excavation and trenching activities are temporarily staged at the unpaved area along the western and southern boundary.

The eastern portion of the main building is an office space with a mezzanine that contains a reception area, cubicles, offices, a kitchen/break room, a printing area, a file room, and a conference room. The western portion of the main building is used for storage of supplies and material associated with the telecommunication operations (cables, wires, innerduct, lubricant for pulling wires) as well as household cleaning supplies (hand soap, surface cleaners, disinfectants) for the office space.

The secondary building houses an aboveground hydraulic lift and three ASTs used to store used oil/mixed oil, diesel, and motor oil for vehicle maintenance. According to a May 1999 building permit from the City of Ontario, a permit was issued for the construction of a 4,500 square foot storage area, which is likely associated with this secondary building as it first appeared in the 2002 EDR Aerial Photograph. The historical operations of this secondary building from its initial construction after 1999 to the known present-day operations of HHS Construction are unknown, including when the aboveground hydraulic lift and ASTs were installed. However, given the type/nature of the permit, it is presumed the building has predominantly been used for minor storage. The exterior western lot stages large quantities of telecommunication supplies and material, as well as wooden utility poles, vehicles, and PVC pipes.

The office spaces of the main building are carpeted with tile flooring in the reception area; concrete pavement within the remaining areas of both buildings appeared to be in good condition with limited cracking. Isolated 721
3661.0016L.108/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 25 areas of de minimis staining were observed in the secondary vehicle maintenance building and the exterior western lot. The concrete/asphalt was observed in good condition with no cracking or drains in the isolated areas where the de minimis staining was noted.

5.2 Phase I ESA Observations
During the Subject Property reconnaissance, Roux personnel attempt to identify any environmental features that may be relevant in the context of the Phase I ESA. The features identified are summarized in the table below. Any such features are discussed in the following subsections.

Feature
Observed on
the Subject
Property
Observed on
an Adjacent
Property
Areas of stressed vegetation
Areas which receive flood or storm water from
potentially contaminated areas
Air Compressor Vent Discharges
Chemical Storage and/or Use X
Drainage Swales and Culverts X
Discharge Areas
Discolored or Spill Areas X
Drums (55 Gallons or Larger) X
Electrical Transformers X
Former Agricultural Applied Pesticide Area
Hydraulic Lifts X
Incinerators
Landfills or Landfarms
Loading and Unloading Areas
Non-Contact Cooling Water Discharge
Oil-Water Separator(s)
Open Areas Away from Production Areas
Process Area Sinks and Piping X
Rail Cars/Railroad Spurs
Septic Systems Leach Fields or Seepage Pits
Silos
Sprayfields
722
3661.0016L.108/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 26 Feature
Observed on
the Subject
Property
Observed on
an Adjacent
Property
Staged/Stockpiled Material X
Storm Sewer and Spill Containment Collection
System
Storm Water Detention Pond
Surface Impoundments and Lagoons
Underground / Aboveground Storage Tanks and
Associated Piping
X
Waste Piles
Wells

5.2.1 Chemical Storage and Usage
During the site reconnaissance of the Subject Property, Roux observed a chemical storage area within the main building’s warehouse. Chemicals stored in this area included household cleaning supplies, such as hand soap, surface cleaners, and disinfectants. As part of the tenant’s telecommunication and vehicle maintenance operations, other chemicals stored on the Subject Property (mainly within the secondary vehicle maintenance building) included lubricants used for pulling wires, striping paint and 5-gallon paint containers, enamel, sealants, asphalt emulsion, propane tanks, products associated with vehicle maintenance (i.e., petroleum-based degreasers, antifreeze, used and empty gasoline containers), and waste and clean oil (see Photo G-6). No use, storage, or disposal of chlorinated solvents was identified at the Subject Property. In general, Roux observed that the facility maintained proper housekeeping protocols (i.e., spill kits, use of oil pans, and orderly storage) of chemical containers; however, Roux did observe the lack of secondary containment and proper labels for all chemicals and also observed isolated areas of de minimis surface staining throughout the Subject Property. Refer to Section 5.2.3.

5.2.2 Drainage Swales and Culvers
Roux observed the beginning of a drainage culvert in the northeast portion of the Subject Property, running east for approximately 150 feet, then south for approximately 240 feet, until it connected to the drainage swale that ran along the southern boundary, and discharged to a drainage swale in the southeast corner on South Grove Avenue. The drainage swale appeared to be covered with debris (soil and loose leaves). No surface staining was observed at the drainage swale.

5.2.3 Discolored or Spill Areas
Isolated areas of de minimis staining were observed beneath several vehicles throughout the exterior western lot (see Photo G-18). Additional areas of isolated de minimis staining were observed in the vicinity of and within the secondary vehicle maintenance building. Notably, three areas of staining were observed near (1) the aboveground hydraulic lift, (2) the hazardous material storage area within the secondary building where oil may have been spilled, and (3) the area immediately outside the secondary building. No cracks or drains were observed in these areas. Given the known vehicle maintenance operations at the Subject Property and the ASTs used to store used oil/mixed oil, diesel, and motor oil in the secondary building, coupled with the 723
3661.0016L.108/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 27 results of the Phase II subsurface investigation implemented at the Subject Property by Roux in April 2022 (refer to Section 6.0), the areas of staining are not a REC and considered to be a de minimis condition for the purposes of this Phase I ESA.

5.2.4 Drums (55-gallons or larger) and Storage Containers During the site reconnaissance of the Subject Property, Roux observed approximately ten 55-gallons drums within and in the vicinity of the secondary vehicle maintenance building. Most of these drums have been used but are currently empty. Other drums were used to store waste oil, used oil filters, and oily rags. Some drums were dual-contained, while others were placed directly on the concrete slab (see Photos G-12 and G13).

5.2.5 Electrical Transformers
Roux observed one pad-mounted electrical transformer situated in the soil of a planter in the southeastern portion of the Subject Property (see Photo G-1). No staining was observed at the base of the electrical transformer. Absent additional documentation, it remains possible that the electrical transformer may have contained PCBs. No evidence was found during the Subject Property reconnaissance or records review indicating a release associated with the on-site transformer.

5.2.6 Hydraulic Lifts
During the site reconnaissance of the Subject Property, Roux observed one aboveground hydraulic lift located in the secondary vehicle maintenance building (see Photo G-7). The lift appeared to be in good condition. Areas of de minimis staining were observed in the vicinity of the hydraulic lift; however, it is likely the staining was due to vehicle maintenance operations, not due to a release from the aboveground hydraulic lift. No cracks or drains were observed in the vicinity. Refer to Section 5.2.3.

5.2.7 Staged/Stockpiled Material
During the site reconnaissance of the Subject Property, Roux observed a staging area in the exterior western lot. According to Mr. Hector Alvarez, the yard supervisor, materials including dirt, asphalt, and concrete are generated from trenching and excavation activities during the installation of fiber optic cables off-site (see Photos G-15 and G-16). The excavated material is brought back to the Subject Property and temporarily stored until sufficient volume of material is met for off-site disposal. In April 2022, Roux implemented a Phase II subsurface investigation at the Subject Property to assess the unknown conditions of off-site material stored at the Subject Property. Refer to Section 6.0. Given the results of the Phase II, the staged material originating off-site is not a REC and considered to be a de minimis condition in the context of this Phase I ESA.

5.2.8 Process Area Sinks or Piping
During the site reconnaissance of the Subject Property, Roux observed a parts washing unit, approximately 25-gallon capacity, located in the secondary building (Photo G-9). This parts washing is constructed of heavy duty HDPE material and is used to clean parts of oil and grease. The type of cleaning agents utilized by this unit is unknown, but Roux observed no evidence of chlorinated solvent use. Areas of de minimis staining were observed in the vicinity of the parts washing unit, but did not appear to be specifically associated with the feature. No cracks or drains were observed in the vicinity. 724
3661.0016L.108/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 28

5.2.9 Underground / Aboveground Storage Tanks and Associated Piping During the site reconnaissance of the Subject Property, Roux observed three ASTs in the secondary building:
(1) 240-gallon used oil/waste oil, (2) 240-gallon diesel fuel, and (3) 120-gallon motor oil (see Photos G-8 and G-13). The 240-gallon used oil/waste oil AST was equipped with secondary containment with an emergency vent. The 240-gallon diesel fuel and 120-gallon motor oil ASTs were situated on the concrete pavement without secondary containment. Areas of de minimis staining were observed in the vicinity of the 240-gallon used oil/waste oil and 240-gallon diesel fuel ASTs; however, no significant signs of a release were observed, and no cracks or drains were observed in the vicinity. Refer to section 5.2.3.

5.3 Non-ASTM Services

5.3.1 Mold Screening
Molds, including toxic molds, are funguses that can grow on such diverse materials as wood, carpet, insulation, cloth, and all types of food. Mold thrives in damp, moist, or wet surroundings, frequently in areas where humans exist. Molds typically reproduce through their spores, which are released into the air and land on moist organic materials. They are often identifiable based on their appearance, the discoloration they cause, and odors.

While Roux is not qualified to identify mold, the conditions of the structures observed did not appear to promote the presence of mold.

5.3.2 Wetlands Screening
A wetlands screening is included in the report prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) issued under separate cover.

5.3.3 Asbestos Containing Material Survey
An asbestos-containing materials (ACM) survey was conducted by Titan Environmental. Results of this survey are included in the report prepared by Titan and issued under separate cover.

5.3.4 Lead-Based Paint Survey
A lead-based paint (LBP) survey was conducted by Titan Environmental. Results of this survey are included in the report prepared by Titan and issued under separate cover.

5.3.5 Species, Ecological, Cultural & Historic Resources Specifies, ecological, cultural and historical resources surveys were conducted by LSA and PaleoWest and are issued under separate cover.

5.3.6 PFAS & Emerging Contaminants
Based on a review of available information, historical operations, and chemical usage at the Subject Property, no release, likely release, or material threat of release of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) has been identified. Based on a review of information collected throughout the preparation of this Phase I ESA, no potential PFAS containing materials have been used at the Subject Property. A review of surrounding property listings did not identify any documented or likely impacts that are likely to affect subsurface conditions at the Subject Property.
725
3661.0016L.108/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 29

5.4 Vapor Intrusion
Roux performed a Phase II subsurface investigation and human health risk assessment at the Subject Property. Refer to Section 6.0. Based on the results of the investigations, there are no vapor intrusion concerns at the Subject Property above carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic thresholds. 726
3661.0016L.108/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 30

6. Summary of Key Previous Investigations
The following sections provide a summary of previous environmental investigations at the Subject Property.

Previous environmental investigation reports are included in Appendix I.

6.1 Phase II Subsurface Investigation Report (Roux, 2022) Based on the preliminary findings of the subject Phase I ESA, Roux performed a concurrent Phase II subsurface investigation at the Subject Property. The findings of Roux’ Phase II Subsurface Investigation are summarized in a Phase II Subsurface Investigation Report, dated December 12, 2022 (see Appendix I for a full copy of the report). The Phase II was conducted to assess the following:
• Staged Material Originating Off-Site.
• Historical Agricultural Use.
• Former Gasoline and Diesel USTs.
• Potential for Vapor Intrusion.

In addition to the above, Roux conducted the Phase II subsurface investigation to establish baseline conditions at the Subject Property. The investigation consisted of: (1) advancement of 10 soil borings via hand auger and direct push drill rig to depths of 5 to 25 feet below ground surface (bgs), and (2) installation and sampling of dual-nested soil vapor probes at seven locations at depths between 5 and 20 feet bgs.

A total of 31 soil samples (including 3 duplicate samples) were collected and analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), Title 22 metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), VOCs, and asbestos. A total of 15 soil vapor samples (including 1 duplicate sample) were collected and analyzed for VOCs.

Based on results of the Phase II, Roux concluded the following:
• VOCs, metals, PCBs, OCPs, and asbestos were not considered to be COPCs in soil. • Limited detections of TPH in the diesel and motor oil ranges were found in shallow soil throughout the staging area on the western portion. Roux notes that TPH is not regulated by the SA RWQCB, and there are no screening levels or regulatory cleanup objectives for TPH with jurisdiction over the Subject Property. These soils could be removed as non-hazardous waste or evaluated for Subject Property wide blending during grading, depending on geotechnical analysis. Roux understands that the shallow soil in the staging area will be excavated and disposed of off-site in accordance with applicable regulations during future Subject Property redevelopment activities. • Several VOCs were detected in soil vapor above laboratory reporting limits (RLs) but below applicable screening levels (SLs), with the exception of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) in two samples.

The two detections at 86 μg/m3 and 210 μg/m3, using a very conservative 0.03 attenuation factor, exceeded the commercial/industrial DTSC Air SL of 67 μg/m3 but did not exceed the USEPA Regional Screening Level (RSL) of 1,567 μg/m3. It is noted that no potential source of PCE or other chlorinated solvents was identified in association with current or historical Subject Property operations.
727
3661.0016L.108/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 31 Roux recommended performing a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) to quantify the current and future risk from vapor intrusion of volatile compounds.

6.2 Human Health Risk Assessment (Roux, 2022)
The objective of the HHRA was to provide a conservative evaluation of the potential risk to indoor commercial/industrial workers from exposure to chemicals detected in the soil vapor at the Subject Property in April 2022. Roux’ HHRA consisted of four components: (1) evaluation of exposure pathways, (2) evaluation of exposure to COPCs and exposure point concerns, (3) evaluation of chemical toxicity, and (4) risk characterization. These components focused on assessing the following: (1) staged material originating off-site, (2) historical agricultural use, (3) former gasoline and diesel USTs, and (4) potential for vapor intrusion.

The HHRA calculated the estimated risks associated with the presence of COPCs where exposure pathways are considered potentially complete. Roux concluded soil vapor intrusion into indoor air was considered a potentially complete future exposure pathway. Groundwater/Surface water was not considered a completed future exposure pathway. A soil pathway was not considered for a quantitative evaluation as part of the limited HHRA. Cancer risk and non-Cancer Hazards were also evaluated. Based on the results of the HHRA, Roux concluded that the cumulative carcinogenic risk and non-carcinogenic hazard to human receptors for commercial/industrial indoor air scenarios at the Subject Property are within acceptable ranges. As such, vapor intrusion mitigation is not warranted.

Given the results and conclusions of the Phase II and HHRA performed by Roux, none of the findings targeted for investigation are considered RECs in the context of this Phase I ESA. The HHRA is also included in Appendix I.
728
3661.0016L.108/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 32

7. Database Records Review

7.1 Standard Environmental Record Sources
According to ASTM Standard E1527-13, the purpose of reviewing regulatory records is to obtain and review records that will help identify recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Subject Property.

In addition, some records to be reviewed pertain not only to the Subject Property, but also to properties within an additional “approximate minimum search distance” in order to help assess the likelihood of problems from migrating hazardous substances or petroleum products. The basis of the “approximate minimum search distance” is the Subject Property boundary.

Roux retained EDR of Shelton, Connecticut to provide an ASTM Radius Map Report (EDR Report) for this Subject Property. This report is a computerized search of select state and federal environmental databases that identify various properties with a record of environmental activity. Roux reviewed the report and summarized the relevant findings in the following sections. A copy of the compiled EDR Report has been included as Appendix F. The EDR Report includes a detailed description of each of the databases searched, providing a summary of the type of information provided by each. A summary of Roux’ review of the EDR Report listings is provided in Table 1.

The following section describes the findings of the database search. Roux used professional judgement in determining which EDR-listed sites to include in the narrative of this report. Facilities adjoining the Subject Property were generally included due to their proximity to the Subject Property and the potential for surface water discharges (e.g., storm water runoff, surface water effluent discharges) to enter the Subject Property or through the migration of groundwater. Sites with listings indicative of a release (e.g., SHWS, LUST, RELEASE) are likewise discussed below. Adjacent and nonadjacent facilities with database listings not necessarily indicative of a release (hazardous waste generator, FINDS, ECHO, NPDES, HAZNET, AST, UST, etc.) will not be discussed unless considered potentially relevant in context of the Phase I ESA. Any facility or database listing not discussed in the narrative of this report was determined not to be a REC to the Subject Property based on several factors including the nature of the reported information, distance of the off-site listed property from the Subject Property, orientation of the listed property relative to the Subject Property, direction of groundwater flow, and/or regulatory case status information.

7.1.1 Subject Property (Target Property)
Address Owner/Operator Database
2042 South Grove Avenue
Grove Lumber & Hardware CIWQS
HHS Construction

HAULERS, RCRA NONGEN / NLR, FINDS,

ECHO, HWTS, CERS HAZ WASTE, HAZNET,
SAN BERN. CO. PERMIT, CERS
1x Grove Lumber HWTS
Grove Lumber HWTS, NPDES
HHS Communications CHIMRS
The EDR database report identified several listings for the Subject Property at 2042 South Grove Avenue associated with the Subject Property. The facility was also identified in the database report by the names:

Grove Lumber & Hardware, HHS Construction, HHS Communication, 1x Grove Lumber, and Grove Lumber.

For the purpose of this report, the listings are summarized here. 729
3661.0016L.108/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 33 • The Grove Lumber & Hardware facility is listed on the CIWQS database. This database indicates the facility has a terminated stormwater industrial permit, effective from February 2, 2006 through February 9, 2009. This listing did not contain additional information relevant to the environmental history of the facility. On this basis, the Grove Lumber & Hardware facility is not considered a REC to the Subject Property.
• The HHS Construction facility is listed on the HAULERS, RCRA NONGEN / NLR, FINDS, ECHO, HWTS, CERS HAZ WASTE, HAZNET, SAN BERN. CO. PERMIT, and CERS databases. According to the HAZNET database, approximately 0.2 tons or less of hazardous waste was generated annually from 2016 to 2019 (refer to Section 3.3 for additional information). The San Bern. Co. Permit database identified one active permit (PT0026596) as a small quantity generator and one active permit (PT0026595) for hazardous materials, both with an expiration date of February 28, 2022. No violations were reported on the RCRA NonGen / NLR and ECHO databases. The CERS database identified several violations; however, none were indicative of a release or poor housekeeping (refer to Section 3.3 for additional information). All violations have since achieved compliance. The remaining databases did not contain additional information relevant to the environmental history of the facility. On this basis, the HHS Construction facility is not considered a REC to the Subject Property.
• The 1x Grove Lumber facility is listed on the HWTS database. This listing was active from July 30, 1990 through October 25, 2000. This listing did not contain additional information relevant to the environmental history of the facility. On this basis, the 1x Grove Lumber facility is not considered a REC to the Subject Property.
• The Grove Lumber facility is listed on the HWTS and NPDES databases. According to the HWTS database, this listing was active from November 14, 1989 through June 30, 1998. The NPDES database indicates a No Action Required status as of December 8, 2021. The databases did not contain additional information relevant to the environmental history of the facility. On this basis, the Grove Lumber facility is not considered a REC to the Subject Property. • The HHS Communications facility is listed on the California Hazardous Materials Incident Report System (CHIMRS) database. This database contains information on reported hazardous materials incidents such as accidental releases or spills. According to the available incident information (OES Incident Number 21-6884), the responsible party (RP) stated that approximately 500 gallons of an unknown chemical mixture was dumped in the backyard of the Subject Property. The incident occurred on November 20, 2011 and was reported to SBCFD. Records pertaining to this incident were provided to Roux by SBCFD. SBCFD does not appear to have required any further action regarding the release. Furthermore, the associated OES Incident Number (21-6884) indicates this database listing is related to the SA RWQCB inspection that was conducted at the Subject Property in December 2021 regarding the off-site excavation water that was transferred to the Subject Property in a small, temporary pond within the staging area on the western portion (refer to Section

3.3.2 for additional information). In April 2022, Roux implemented a Phase II subsurface investigation at the Subject Property to assess the off-site material and excavation water stored at the Subject Property (refer to Section 6.0). Based on Roux’ Subject Property investigation targeting the rear storage yard and SBCFD oversight of the incident, this listing is not a REC and considered a de minimis condition in the context of this Phase I ESA.

7.1.2 Adjoining and Nearby Properties
Discussions of adjoining and nearby properties of potential environmental concern as noted in Table 1 are provided below.
• Tech Industrial Machining Corp (2124 South Grove Avenue Unit J). The Tech Industrial Machining Corp facility, located adjacent to the south of the Subject Property, is listed on the CHMIRS, NPDES, SAN BERN. CO. Permit, CIWQS, and CERS databases. The database listings 730
3661.0016L.108/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 34 identify one release incident (OES Incident Number 8-3840) reported in August 1998 to the Ontario Fire Department. According to the available incident information, the owner dumped approximately 55-gallons of cutting oil in a field at the facility. However, the release was reportedly contained.

Based on the containment and relatively minor nature of the incident, Ontario Fire Department oversight, and down to cross-gradient location of the facility from the Subject Property, the Tech Industrial Machining Corp facility is not considered a REC to the Subject Property. • Abushman Petro LLC/ARCO #5252 (2156 South Grove Avenue). The Abushman Petro LLC/ARCO #5252 facility, located approximately 511 feet south of the Subject Property, is listed on the LUST, EDR HIST AUTO, SWEEPS UST, CA FID UST, UST, and Cortese databases. The HIST AUTO listing identifies the facility as a gasoline service station from 2008 through 2014. The associated GeoTracker case (T0607100430) under the facility name, ARCO #5252, describes a completed – case closed as of January 13, 1998 and indicates gasoline impacts to soil only. No additional information was provided. Given the case closure, reported impacts to soil only, and the distance of the facility from the Subject Property, the Abushman Petro LLC facility is not considered a REC to the Subject Property.
• Keystone Products (1333 South Bon View Avenue). The Keystone Products facility, located approximately 4,925 feet northwest of the Subject Property, is listed on the ENVIROSTOR, VCP, HIST UST, DEED, EMI, SAN BERN. CO. PERMIT, and CERS databases. The associated EnviroStor case (36340065) under the facility name, Oakwood Interiors Site, identified the facility as a certified O&M – land use restriction only case as of December 15, 2008. The facility historically operated as a wooden furniture manufacturer and plating and finishing automotive manufacturer with one 1,000-gallon gasoline UST and one 12,000-gallon diesel UST. Investigations identified metalimpacted soil, specifically nickel and chromium. Approximately 500 tons of impacted soil was excavated, and residual contaminated soil was treated with liquid reagent. The facility was purchased by the City of Ontario and operates as a warehouse with a customer service and administration building. A Land Use Covenant (LUC) was recorded on December 9, 2008 and inspections have been conducted annually since then. Given that the impacts were limited to soil, the impacted soil excavation and remediation, the LUC in place, and the distance of the facility from the Subject Property, the Keystone Products facility is not considered a REC to the Subject Property. • Ontario A.N.G. Training Site (1280 Tower Drive). The Ontario A.N.G. Training Site, located approximately 1.96 miles northeast of the Subject Property, is listed on the ENIVIROSTOR database.

The associated EnviroStor case (80000415) under the facility name, Ontario A.N.G. Training Site, identified the facility as an inactive – needs evaluation case as of July 1, 2005. The facility historically operated as an airport and for Air National Guard training and is currently occupied by the Air Force operating as a supply and administrative facility. No additional information was provided. Absent any additional information and evidence indicative of a release, coupled with the distance of the facility from the Subject Property, the Ontario A.N.G. Training Site facility is not considered a REC to the Subject Property.

7.1.3 Orphan Sites
The EDR Report includes a section addressing “Orphan Sites.” Orphan sites are sites, which, due to incomplete geographic location data, incomplete address information or incorrect address information, cannot be plotted correctly. The database report identified one unmapped facility. • SoCal Gas/Ontario MGP (Corner of Campus, Martland, Monterey, and Mission). The SoCal Gas/Ontario MGP facility, located approximately 1.35 miles northwest of the Subject Property, is listed on the EDR MGP database. This listing identifies the facility as a manufactured gas plant. No additional information was provided. Absent any additional information and evidence indicative of a release, coupled with the distance of the facility from the Subject Property, the SoCal Gas/Ontario MGP facility is not considered a REC to the Subject Property. 731
3661.0016L.108/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 35

8. Findings
Roux has performed this Phase I ESA in general compliance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Standard Practice E1527-13. Roux separated the findings of this assessment into the following four categories:
recognized environmental conditions, controlled recognized environmental conditions, and historical recognized environmental conditions.

8.1 Data Gaps
During conduct of this ESA, the following data gaps, as defined in ASTM Standard E1527-13 were identified:
• Previous Subject Property owners/operators were not available for an interview. However, this data gap is not considered significant due to sufficient information regarding Subject Property history available from other interviews, EDR historical documents, and FOIA requests. • Due to the volume of stored products and equipment within the building areas and storage yard, direct visual observation of many of the floor and wall areas of the building and ground surface areas was not possible. However, based on the overall comprehensive nature of the Subject Property reconnaissance and collective data gathered throughout the completion of Roux’ investigations, this limitation is not considered a REC.

8.2 Recognized Environmental Conditions
Roux did not identify known or suspected RECs in connection with the current and historical operations at the Subject Property or adjacent properties.

8.3 Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions
Roux did not identify known or suspected cRECs in connection with the current and historical operations at the Subject Property or adjacent properties.

8.4 Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions
Roux did not identify known or suspected hRECs in connection with the current and historical operations at the Subject Property or adjacent properties.
732
3661.0016L.108/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 36

9. References
American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments:

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process (ASTM E 1527-13 and ASTM E 1527-21) American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments:

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process (ASTM E 1527-21) California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, 2010 Geologic Map of California EDR, The EDR Radius Map™ Report with GeoCheck®, August 25, 2022 EDR, The EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package, February 24, 2022 EDR, EDR Historical Topo Map Report, February 24, 2022
EDR, Certified Sanborn Map Report, February 24, 2022
EDR, The EDR-City Directory Abstract, February 25, 2022 Roux, FIRT Grove Ontario Phase II Report Final December 12, 2022 Roux, FIRT Grove Ontario HHRA_v0.5 December 12, 2022
San Bernardino County Fire Department, Hazardous Material Division, Case Closure Summary, Chino Basin Water District RP-1, May 22, 2000.

San Bernardino County Fire Department, Hazardous Material Division, Case Closure Summary, Ontario Fire Station #3, June 19, 1997.

San Bernardino County Fire Department, Hazardous Material Division, Underground Storage Tank Removal Procedures, March 2012.

Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc (Wood), Fourth Quarter 2021 Groundwater Monitoring Report, January 2022.
733
3661.0016L.108/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 37

10. Signature of Environmental Professional
Roux performed this assessment in accordance with the generally accepted practices for environmental assessments at the time of implementation. Roux made a reasonable effort to ensure that the information presented in this report is materially complete and accurate.

Roux completed a Phase I ESA in general compliance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E1527-13 of the commercial property located at 2042 South Grove Avenue, Ontario, San Bernardino County, California. It is noted that this Phase I ESA was also performed in general accordance with the updated ASTM E1527-21 Standard.
“We declare that, to the best of our professional knowledge and belief, we meet the definition of Environmental professional as defined in §312.10 of 40 CFR 312” and, “We have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the Subject property. We have developed and performed all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312.” Roux performed this Phase I ESA by, or under direct supervision of, the undersigned environmental professionals.

Respectfully Submitted,
ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC.

Peter Shimer, P.G.

Senior Geologist
Anthony C. Ward, P.G.

Vice President / Principal Geologist
734
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update
2042 South Grove Avenue, Ontario, California
3661.0016L108/CVRS ROUX
TABLES

1. Standard Environmental Record Sources (EDR Report) Summary 735
Table 1: Standard Environmental Record Sources (EDR Report) Summary 2042 South Grove Avenue, Ontario, California 91761
Site Name Address Database Listings Distance
(Miles) Direction Discussed in Report Text
HHS CONSTRUCTION 2042 S GROVE AVE RCRA NONGEN /
NLR TP TP Yes
HHS CONSTRUCTION 2042 S GROVE AVE HAULERS TP TP Yes
GROVE LUMBER & HARDWARE 2042 S GROVE AVE CIWQS TP TP Yes 1X GROVE LUMBER 2042 SO GROVE AVE HWTS TP TP Yes
GROVE LUMBER 2042 S GROVE AV HWTS,NPDES TP TP Yes
HHS CONSTRUCTION 2042 S GROVE AVE FINDS,ECHO TP TP Yes
HHS CONSTRUCTION INC. 2042 S GROVE AVE

HWTS,CERS HAZ

WASTE,HAZNET,SA
N BERN. CO.

PERMIT,CERS
TP TP Yes
HHS CONSTRUCTION 2042 S GROVE AVENUE ECHO TP
HHS COMMUNICATIONS 2042 S. GROVE AVE CHMIRS TP
TECH INDUSTRIAL MACHINING CORP 2124 S GROVE AVE UNIT J

CHMIRS,NPDES,SA
N BERN. CO.

PERMIT,CIWQS,CE
RS

0.017
YODER DEVELOPMENT 2124 S. GROVE AVENUE,
UNIT F

RCRA NONGEN /
NLR 0.017 SE No
ISEC, INC. 2131 SOUTH GROVE

AVENUE, SUITE J

RCRA NONGEN /
NLR 0.029 ESE No
ISEC INC 2131 S. GROVE AVE, SUITE
J

RCRA NONGEN /
NLR 0.029 ESE No
MASTER SPRAYERS 2128 GROVE AVE O SAN BERN. CO.

PERMIT 0.033 SE No
MASTER SPRAYERS 2128 GROVE UNIT O
HWTS,RCRASQG,FINDS,ECHO,H
AZNET

0.033 SE No
SOUTH DISTRIBUTING CO 2128 S GROVE #H RCRASQG,FINDS,ECHO 0.033 SE No MASTERBURR 2132 S GROVE AVE J SAN BERN. CO.

PERMIT 0.048 SE No
DIRECT IMAGE REPROGRAPHICS 2132 SOUTH GROVE

AVENUE SUITE A
NPDES,SAN BERN.

CO. PERMIT,CERS 0.048 SE No
US HEALTHWORKS MEDICAL GRP 2171 S GROVE AVE STE A RCRA NONGEN / NLR 0.077 SE No
HILTI CENTER 1950 S GROVE AVE RCRA NONGEN /
NLR 0.095 N No
ARCO 05252 2156 S GROVE AVE UST 0.097 SSE No
ARCO #5252 2156 GROVE

LUST,SWEEPS

UST,CA FID

UST,CORTESE,HIST

CORTESE

0.097 SSE No
PRESTIGE STATIONS INC 769 2156 SOUTH GROVE
AVENUE

CERS HAZ

WASTE,HIST

UST,CERS
TANKS,SAN BERN.

CO. PERMIT,CERS

0.097 SSE No
SWAIN OIL TRANSPORT DBA: VISTA
ENERGY TRANSPORT 2156 S GROVE AVE RCRA NONGEN / NLR 0.097 SSE No TRISHA PETRO INC 2156 S GROVE AVE RCRA NONGEN /
NLR 0.097 SSE No
ABUSHAM PETRO LLC 2156 S GROVE AVE EDR HIST AUTO 0.097 SSE Yes ARCO PETROLEUM PROD #5252 2156 S GROVE AVE UST 0.097 SSE No ARCO FACILITY NO 05252 2156 S GROVE AVE RCRASQG,FINDS,ECHO 0.097 SSE Yes

GRAND VIEW GLASS AND METAL
INC. 2134 GREEN PRIVADO SAN BERN. CO. PERMIT 0.1 ESE No HEAVY MOTIONS INC 2134 S GREEN PRIVADO RCRA NONGEN /
NLR 0.1 ESE No
KIMBERLY CORY 2091 S. CUCOMONGA AVE RCRA NONGEN /
NLR 0.112 W No
ONTARIO 1165 E PHILADELPHIA ST HIST UST 0.12 SSW No
CALTRANS-ONTARIO 1165 E PHILADELPHIA ST AST 0.12 SSW No 1 of 4 3661.0016L000 736
Table 1: Standard Environmental Record Sources (EDR Report) Summary 2042 South Grove Avenue, Ontario, California 91761
Site Name Address Database Listings Distance
(Miles) Direction Discussed in Report Text
CALTRANS-ONTARIO 1165 E PHILADELPHIA ST

CERS HAZ

WASTE,CERS
TANKS,SAN BERN.

CO. PERMIT,CERS

0.12 SSW No

CALTRANS ONTARIO AREA MAINT
STATION 1165 E PHILADELPHIA ST RCRA-SQG,FINDS 0.12 SSW No CALTRANS ONTARIO 1165 PHILADELPHIA AVE. AST 0.12 SSW No CALTRANS D8 MAINTENANCE
ONTARIO MS 1165 E PHILADELPHIA ST HWTS,SWF/LF,HAZNET,CERS 0.12 SSW No ONTARIO 1165 E PHILADELPHIA ST SWEEPS UST,CA
FID UST 0.12 SSW No
ONTARIO MAINT YARD 1165 E PHILADELPHIA HIST UST 0.12 SSW No PBB, INC 1311 E PHILADELPHIA SAN BERN. CO.

PERMIT 0.122 SE No
C & T JAPANESE ENGINE INC 1127 E PHILADELPHIA ST RCRA NONGEN / NLR 0.122 SW No
C & T JAPANESE ENGINE INC 1127 E PHILADELPHIA ST

CERS HAZ
WASTE,SAN BERN.

CO. PERMIT,CERS

0.122 SW No
C&D ZODIAC - ONTARIO 1945 S GROVE AVE
RCRALQG,FINDS,EMI,NPD
ES,SAN BERN. CO.

PERMIT,WDS,CIWQ

0.123 NNE No
PSIP EBS FRANCIS, LLC 1945 S GROVE AVE RCRA NONGEN /
NLR 0.123
SUPERIOR POOL PRODUCTS, LLC 2127 S GREEN PRIVADO SAN BERN. CO.

PERMIT,CERS 0.124 ESE No
POWER GRADE INC 2009 S CUCAMONGA AVE RCRA NONGEN /
NLR 0.124 WNW No
CALIFORNIA QUALITY PLASTICS 2104 S CUCAMONGA AVE
NPDES,SAN BERN.

CO.

PERMIT,CIWQS,CE
RS

0.138 WSW No
HANCRETE PROD INC 2010 S CUCAMONGA AVE

CERS HAZ

WASTE,NPDES,SAN
BERN. CO.

PERMIT,WDS,CIWQ
S,CERS

0.14 WNW No
ART'S FORKLIFT REPAIR INC 1948 S GROVE AVE

CERS HAZ

WASTE,HAZNET,SA
N BERN. CO.

PERMIT,CERS

0.141 NNE No
ART'S FORKLIFT REPAIR INC 1948 S GROVE AVE RCRA NONGEN / NLR 0.141 NNE No
JD FINISHING 1351 E CHIEF PRIVADO
SAN BERN. CO.

PERMIT,WDS,CIWQ
S,CERS

0.141 ENE No
KUDER ENGINEERING INC 2155 S CUCAMONGA RCRA NONGEN /
NLR 0.144 SW No
KUDER ENGINEERING INC 2155 S CUCAMONGA AVE

CERS HAZ

WASTE,NPDES,SAN
BERN. CO.

PERMIT,CIWQS,CE
RS

0.144 SW No
FREEDOM FINISHING 1942 S GROVE AVE

CHMIRS,EMI,SAN
BERN. CO.

PERMIT,CERS

0.152 NNW No
ABBA ROLLER 1351 E PHILADELPHIA ST

CERS HAZ

WASTE,NPDES,SAN
BERN. CO.

PERMIT,CIWQS,CE
RS

0.155 ESE No
ABBA ROLLER LLC 1351 E PHILADELPHIA ST RCRA NONGEN /
NLR 0.155 ESE No
2 of 4 3661.0016L000 737
Table 1: Standard Environmental Record Sources (EDR Report) Summary 2042 South Grove Avenue, Ontario, California 91761
Site Name Address Database Listings Distance
(Miles) Direction Discussed in Report Text
EL POLLO LOCO #6030 1180 E PHILADELPHIA ST SAN BERN. CO.

PERMIT 0.157 S No
CHIPOTLE 2346 2200 S GROVE AVE RCRA NONGEN /
NLR 0.159 SSE No
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL #2346 2200 S. GROVE AVE #104 RCRA NONGEN / NLR 0.159 SSE No
OFFICE DEPOT 2356 2205 S GROVE RCRA NONGEN /
NLR 0.163 SSE No
OFFICE DEPOT #2356 2205 S GROVE AVE

CERS HAZ
WASTE,SAN BERN.

CO. PERMIT,CERS

0.163 SSE No

NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION CENTERS
LLC 1991 S CUCAMONGA AVE RCRA NONGEN / NLR 0.168 NW No
NFI NATIONAL DIST. CENTER 1991 S CUCAMONGA AVE SAN BERN. CO.

PERMIT,CERS 0.168 NW No
FIBER DESIGN INTL 1938 S GROVE AV EMI,SAN BERN. CO.

PERMIT 0.177 N No
AIRGAS USA, LLC 1936 S GROVE AVE SAN BERN. CO.

PERMIT,CERS 0.178 NNE No
AIR CONTROL SYSTEMS INC 1940 S GROVE AVE

HWTS,CERS HAZ

WASTE,HAZNET,SA
N BERN. CO.

PERMIT,CERS

0.183 N No
AIR CONTROL SYSTEMS INC 1940 S GROVE AVE RCRA NONGEN /
NLR 0.183 N No
AM-TEK ENGINEERING INC 1180 E FRANCIS ST STE C RCRA NONGEN / NLR 0.204 N No
AM-TEK ENGINEERING INC 1180 E FRANCIS AVE BLDG
#C
SAN BERN. CO.

PERMIT 0.204 N No
FORMULA PLASTICS, INC 1180 E FRANCIS ST BLDG
H
SAN BERN. CO.

PERMIT 0.204 N No
AM-TEK ENGINEERING, INC 1180 E FRANCIS ST. RCRA NONGEN / NLR 0.204 N No
AM-TEK ENGINEERING, INC 1180 E FRANCIS ST RCRA NONGEN / NLR 0.204 N No
FIBERTECH POLYMERS, LLC 2150 B PARCO AVE SAN BERN. CO.

PERMIT 0.21 ESE No

MAACO AUTO PAINTING & BODY
WORKS 1842 S GROVE AVE RCRASQG,FINDS,ECHO 0.223 NNE No AMERICAN PAINT & BODY 1842 S GROVE AVE SAN BERN. CO.

PERMIT 0.223 NNE No
FRONTIER CALIFORNIA, INC.-
ONTARIO XD 1911 S CUCAMONGA AVE SAN BERN. CO. PERMIT 0.227 NW No NFI 154 1990 S CUCAMONGA AVE RCRA-SQG 0.233
HOME DEPOT NO 6704 1990 S CUCAMONGA AVE HWTS,HAZNET,SAN BERN. CO. PERMIT 0.233 NW No
ONTARIO SERVICE CENTER 1351 FRANCIS ST

LUST,SWEEPS

UST,HIST UST,CA
FID

UST,CHMIRS,HIST

CORTESE,NPDES,C

0.391 NE No
ONTARIO SERVICE CENTER 1351 E FRANCIS ST HIST UST,CORTESE 0.391 NE No CALIFORNIA AIR NATIONAL GUARD TAXIWAY 62 &

CUCAMONGA

LUST,CORTESE,HIS
T CORTESE,CERS 0.411 SSW No
HHW SATELLITE ONTARIO 1408 E FRANCIS ST
LUST,CPSSLIC,CORTESE,SAN
BERN. CO.

PERMIT,CERS

0.419
ONTARIO CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT 1408 EAST FRANCIS CPS-SLIC,CERS 0.419 NE No ONTARIO FIRE STATION #3 1408 FRANCIS ST

LUST,SWEEPS

UST,CA FID

UST,HIST

0.419 NE No
LIGHTING RESOURCES INC 805 FRANCIS ST RCRA-SQG,HWP 0.564 NW No 3 of 4 3661.0016L000 738
Table 1: Standard Environmental Record Sources (EDR Report) Summary 2042 South Grove Avenue, Ontario, California 91761
Site Name Address Database Listings Distance
(Miles) Direction Discussed in Report Text
DANCO 1750 MONTICELLO CT

ENVIROSTOR,EMI,S
AN BERN. CO.

PERMIT,CERS

0.845 ESE No
KEYSTONE PRODUCTS 1333 S BON VIEW AVE

ENVIROSTOR,VCP,
HIST

UST,DEED,EMI,SAN
BERN. CO.

PERMIT,CERS

0.933
ONTARIO A.N.G. TRAINING SITE ENVIROSTOR 0.946 NNE Yes
Orange: Facility has an associated release case impacting soil only and/or VOCs are not a potential contaminant of concern Notes
Blue: Facility does not have associated database listings indicative of a release or contamination Green: Facility is hydraulically downgradient or crossgradient and/or is a closed release case 4 of 4 3661.0016L000 739
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update
2042 South Grove Avenue, Ontario, California
3661.0016L108/CVRS ROUX

FIGURES

1. Subject Property Location Map

2. Subject Property Plan
740
1,000
0 1,000'
\\SRVLACAFP1\LA SHARED\CLIENTS\3661.0016L FIRT GROVE ONTARIO\09GIS\SITE LOCATION EXAMPLE.MXD QUADRANGLE LOCATION "

SUBJECT PROPERTY

LOCATION MAP
2042 SOUTH GROVE AVENUE, ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
1 FIRST INDUSTRIAL REALTY TRUST, INC
Prepared for:

Title:

File: Site Location Example.mxd
Date: 03/10/22 FIGURE
Scale: AS SHOWN
Project: 3661.0016L000
Prepared by: O.B.

Project Mgr: T.W.

Compiled by: O.B.
741
SOUTH GROVE AVENUE APPROXIMATE GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION MAIN BUILDING SECONDARY BUILDING STAGING AREA FORMER GASOLINE AND DIESEL USTs Aerial Image © Microsoft Corporation 2020 50' 0 50' LEGEND APPROXIMATE SUBJECT PROPERTY BOUNDARY APPROXIMATE GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION Prepared for: Title: Compiled by: Prepared by:

Project Mgr: File: Date: Project: Scale: FIGURE ROUX 2 SUBJECT PROPERTY PLAN 2042 SOUTH GROVE AVENUE ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA FIRST INDUSTRIAL REALTY TRUST, INC R.Q. A.T. P.S. 19 AUG 2022 AS SHOWN 3661.0016L000 001_3661.0016L_SITE PLAN.DWG \\SRVLACAFP1\LA SHARED\CLIENTS\3661.0016L FIRT GROVE ONTARIO\10CAD\001_3661.0016L_SITE PLAN.DWG NOTES LOCATIONS OF FORMER GASOLINE AND DIESEL USTs ARE APPROXIMATE AND BASED ON THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT RECORDS. 742
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update
2042 South Grove Avenue, Ontario, California
3661.0016L108/CVRS ROUX

APPENDICES
A. Glossary of Terms
B. Historical Topographic Maps
C. Historical Aerial Photographs
D. Certified Sanborn Report
E. EDR City Directory Image Report
F. EDR Radius Map Report with Geocheck®
G. Photographic Log
H. Pertinent Historical Documentation
I. Previous Environmental Investigation Reports
743
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update
2042 South Grove Avenue, Ontario, California
3661.0016L108/CVRS ROUX

APPENDIX A
Glossary of Terms
744
2867.0002L.101/R. apps.docx Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 1

GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS
This appendix provides definitions, description of terms, and a list of acronyms for many of the words used in ASTM E 1527-13. These terms are an integral part of ASTM E 1527-13 and are critical to understanding ASTM E 1527-13 and its use.

DEFINITIONS:

Abandoned Property – property that can be presumed to be deserted, or an intent to relinquish possession or control can be inferred from the general disrepair or lack of activity thereon such that a reasonable person could believe that there was an intent on the part of the current owner to surrender rights to the property.

Activity and Use Limitations – Legal or physical restrictions or limitations on the use of, or access to, a site or facility: (1) to reduce or eliminate potential exposure to hazardous substances or petroleum products in the soil, soil vapor, groundwater, and/or surface water on the property, or (2) to prevent activities that could interfere with the effectiveness of a response action, in order to ensure maintenance of a condition of no significant risk to public health or the environment. These legal or physical restrictions, which may include institutional and/or engineering controls, are intended to prevent adverse impacts to individuals or populations that may be exposed to hazardous substances and petroleum products in the soil, soil vapor, groundwater, and/or surface water on the property.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) – The list of sites compiled by EPA that EPA has investigated, or is currently investigating, for potential hazardous substance contamination for possible inclusion on the National Priorities List.

Construction debris – Concrete, brick, asphalt, and other such building materials discarded in the construction of a building or other improvement to property.

Contaminated public wells – Public wells used for drinking water that have been designated by a government entity as contaminated by toxic substances (for example, chlorinated solvents), or as having water unsafe to drink without treatment.

Contiguous Property Owner Liability Protection – a person may qualify for the contiguous property owner liability protection if, among other requirements, such person owns real property that is contiguous to, and that is or may be contaminated by hazardous substances from other real property that is not owned by that person. Furthermore, such person conducted all appropriate inquiries at the time of acquisition of the property and did not know or have reason to know that the property was or could be contaminated by a release or threatened release from the contiguous property. The all appropriate inquiries must not result in knowledge of contamination. If it does, then such person did “know” or “had reason to know” of contamination and would not be eligible for the contiguous property owner liability protection.

CORRACTS list – a list maintained by EPA of hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities and other RCRA-regulated facilities (due to past interim status or storage of hazardous waste beyond 90 days) 745
2867.0002L.101/R. apps.docx Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 2 that have been notified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to undertake corrective action under RCRA. The CORRACTS list is a subset of the EPA database that manages RCRA data.

Demolition debris – Concrete, brick, asphalt, and other such building materials discarded in the demolition of a building or other improvement to property.

Drum – A container (typically, but not necessarily, holding 55 gal (208 L) of liquid) that may be used to store hazardous substances or petroleum products.

Dry wells – Underground areas where soil have been removed and replaced with pea gravel, coarse sand, or large rocks. Dry wells are used for drainage, to control storm runoff, for the collection of spilled liquids (intentional and non-intentional), and wastewater disposal (often illegal).

Dwelling – Structure of portion thereof used for residential habitation.

Engineering controls – Physical modifications to a site or facility (for example, capping, slurry walls, or point of use water treatment) to reduce or eliminate the potential for exposure to contaminants in the soil or groundwater on the property.

Environmental lien – A charge, security, or encumbrance upon title to a property to secure the payment of a cost, damage, debt, obligation, or duty arising out of response actions, cleanup, or other remediation of hazardous substances or petroleum products upon a property, including (but not limited to) liens imposed pursuant to CERCLA 42 USC § 9607(1) and similar state or local laws.

ERNS list – EPA’s emergency response notification system list of reported CERCLA hazardous substance releases or spills in quantities greater than the reportable quantity, as maintained at the National Response Center. Notification requirements for such releases or spills are codified in 40 CFR parts 302 and 355.

Federal Register (FR) – Publication of the Untied States government published daily (except for federal holidays and weekends) containing all proposed and final regulations and some other activities of the federal government. When regulations become final, they are included in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), as well as published in the Federal Register.

Fire insurance maps – Maps produced for private fire insurance map companies that indicate uses of properties at specified dates and that encompass the property. These maps are often available in local libraries, historical societies, private resellers, or from the map companies who produced them. See Question 23 of the transaction screen process in Practice E 1528 and 7.3.4.2 of this practice.

Hazardous substance – A substance defined as hazardous pursuant to CERCLA 42 USC § 9601(14), as interpreted by EPA regulations and the courts: “(A) any substance designated pursuant to section 1321(b)(2)(A) of Title 33, (B) any element, compound, mixture, solution, or substance designated pursuant to section 9602 of this title, (C) any hazardous waste having the characteristics identified under or listed pursuant to section 3001 of the Soil Waste Disposal Act (42 USC § 6921) (but not including any waste the regulation of which under the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 USC § 6901 et seq.) has been suspended by Act of Congress), (D) any toxic pollutant listed under section 1317(a) of Title 33, (E) any hazardous air pollutant listed under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (42 USC § 7412), and (F) any imminently hazardous chemical substance or mixture with respect to which the Administrator (of EPA) has taken action pursuant to section 2606 of Title 15. The term does not include petroleum, including crude oil or any fraction thereof, which is not otherwise specifically listed or designated as a hazardous substance under subparagraphs (A) 746
2867.0002L.101/R. apps.docx Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 3 through (F) of this paragraph; the term does not include natural gas, natural gas liquids, liquefied natural gas, or synthetic gas usable for fuel (or mixtures of natural gas and such synthetic gas).” Hazardous waste – Any hazardous waste having the characteristics identified under or listed pursuant to section 3001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Cat (42 USC § 6921) (but not including any waste the regulation of which under the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 USC § 6901 et seq.) has been suspended by Act of Congress). The Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1980 amended RCRA. RCRA defines hazardous waste, in 42 USC § 6903, as: “a solid waste, or combination of solid wastes, which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics may – (A) cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or (B) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed.”
Institutional control – A legal or administrative restriction (e.g., deed restriction, restrictive zoning) on the use of, or access to, a site or facility to reduce or eliminate potential exposure to contaminants in the soil or groundwater on the property.

Landfill – A place, location, tract of land, area, or premises used for the disposal of solid wastes as defined by state solid waste regulations. The term is synonymous with the term solid waste disposal site and is also known as a garbage dump, trash dump, or similar term.

Local street directories – Directories published by private (or sometimes government) sources that show ownership, occupancy, and/or use of sites by reference to street addresses. Often, local street directories are available at libraries of local governments, colleges or universities, or historical societies.

Material safety data sheet (MSDS) – Written or printed material concerning a hazardous substance which is prepared by chemical manufacturers, importers, and employers for hazardous chemicals pursuant to OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard, 29, CFR 1910.1200.

National Contingency Plan (NCP) – The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, found at 40 CFR § 300, that is the EPA’s blueprint on how hazardous substances are to be cleaned up pursuant to CERCLA.

National Priorities List (NPL) – List compiled by the EPA, pursuant to CERCLA 42 USC § 9605(a)(8)(B), of properties with the highest priority for cleanup pursuant to EPA’s Hazard Ranking System. See 40 CFR Part 300.

Occupants – Those tenants, subtenants, or other persons or entities using the property or a portion of the property.

Owner – Generally the fee owner of record for the property.

Petroleum exclusion – The exclusion from CERCLA liability provided in 42 USC § 9601(14), as interpreted by the courts and EPA: “The term (hazardous substance) does not include petroleum, including crude oil or any fraction thereof which is not otherwise specifically listed or designated as a hazardous substance under subparagraphs (A) through (F) of this paragraph, and the term does not include natural gas, natural gas liquids, liquefied natural gas, or synthetic gas usable for fuel (or mixtures of natural gas and such synthetic gas).”
747
2867.0002L.101/R. apps.docx Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 4 Petroleum products – Those substances included within the meaning of the petroleum exclusion to CERCLA, 42 USC § 9601(14), as interpreted by the courts and EPA, that is: petroleum, including crude oil or any fraction thereof which is not otherwise specifically listed or designated as a hazardous substance under Subparagraphs (A) through (F) of 42 USC § 9601(14), natural gas, natural gas liquids, liquefied natural gas, and synthetic gas usable for fuel (or mixtures of natural gas and such synthetic gas). (The word fraction refers to certain distillates of crude oil, including gasoline, kerosene, diesel oil, jet fuels, and fuel oil, pursuant to Standard Definitions of Petroleum Statistics1.)
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment – The process described in this practice.

Pits, ponds, or lagoons – Man-made or natural depressions in the ground surface that are likely to hold liquids or sludge containing hazardous substances or petroleum products. The likelihood of such liquids or sludge being present is determined by evidence of factors associated with the pit, pond, or lagoon, including, but not limited to, discolored water, distressed vegetation, or the presence of an obvious wastewater discharge.

Property – The real property that is the subject of the environmental site assessment described in this practice. Real property includes buildings and other fixtures and improvement located on the property and affixed to the land.

Property tax files – The files kept for property tax purposes by the local jurisdiction where the property is located and includes records of past ownership, appraisals, maps, sketches, photos, or other information that is reasonable ascertainable and pertaining to the property.

RCRA generators – Those persons or entities that generate hazardous waste, as defined and regulated by RCRA.

RCRA generators list – List kept by the EPA of those persons or entities that generate hazardous wastes as defined and regulated by RCRA.

RCRA TSD facilities – Those facilities at which treatment, storage, and/or disposal of hazardous wastes takes place, as defined and regulated by RCRA.

RCRA TSD facilities list – List kept by the EPA of those facilities at which treatment, storage, and/or disposal of hazardous wastes takes place, as defined and regulated by RCRA.

Recorded land title records – Records of fee ownership, leases, land contracts, easements, liens, and other encumbrances on or of the property recorded in the place where land title records are, by law or custom, recorded for the local jurisdiction in which the property is located. (Often such records are kept by a municipal or county recorder or clerk.) Such records may be obtained from title companies or directly from the local government agency. Information about the title to the property that is recorded in a U.S. district court or any place other than where land title records are, by law or custom, recorded for the local jurisdiction in which the property is located, are not considered part of recorded land title records.

Records of emergency release notifications (SARA § 304) – Section 304 of EPCRA or Title III of SARA requires operators of facilities to notify their local emergency planning committee (as defined in EPCRA) and the state emergency response commission (as defined in EPCRA) of any release beyond the facility’s boundary of any reportable quantity of any extremely hazardous substance. Often the local fire department is the local emergency planning committee. Records of such notifications are “Records of Emergency Release Notifications” (SARA§ 304).
748
2867.0002L.101/R. apps.docx Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 5 Report – The written record of a transaction screen process as required by Practice E 1528 or the written report prepared by the environmental professional and constituting part of a “Phase I Environmental Site Assessment,” as required by this practice.

Solid waste disposal site – A place, location, tract of land, area, or premises used for the disposal of solid wastes as defined by state solid waste regulations. The term is synonymous with the term landfill and is also known as a garbage dump, trash dump, or similar term.

Solvent – A chemical compound that is capable of dissolving another substance and may itself be a hazardous substance, used in a number of manufacturing/industrial processes including, but not limited to, the manufacture of paints and coatings for industrial and household purposes, equipment clean-up, and surface degreasing in metal fabricating industries.

State registered USTs – State lists of underground storage tanks required to be registered under Subtitle I, Section 9002 of RCRA.

Sump – A pit, cistern, cesspool, or similar receptacle where liquids drain, collect, or are stored.

TSD facility – Treatment, storage, or disposal facility (see RCRA TSD facilities).

Underground storage tank (UST) - Any tank, including underground piping connected to the tank, that is or has been used to contain hazardous substances or petroleum products and the volume of which is 10% or more beneath the surface of the ground.

USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map – The map (if any) available from or produced by the United States Geological Survey, entitled “USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map,” and showing the property.

Wastewater – Water that (1) is or has been used in an industrial or manufacturing process, (2) conveys or has conveyed sewage, or (3) is directly related to manufacturing, processing, or raw materials storage areas at an industrial plant. Wastewater does not include water originating on or passing through or adjacent to a site, such as storm water flows, that has not been used in industrial or manufacturing processes, has not been combined with sewage, or is not directly related to manufacturing, processing, or raw materials storage areas at an industrial plant.

Zoning/land use records – Those records of the local government in which the property is located, indicating the uses permitted by the local government in particular zones within its jurisdiction. The records may consist of maps and/or written records. They are often located in the planning department of a municipality or county.

DEFINITIONS SPECIFIC TO ASTM E 1527-13:

Actual knowledge – The knowledge actually possessed by an individual who is a real person, rather than an entity. Actual knowledge is to be distinguished from constructive knowledge that is knowledge imputed to an individual or entity.

Adjoining properties – Any real property or properties the border of which is contiguous or partially contiguous with that of the property, or that would be contiguous or partially contiguous with that of the property but for a street, road, or other public thoroughfare separating them. 749
2867.0002L.101/R. apps.docx Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 6 Aerial photographs – Photographs taken from an airplane or helicopter (from a low enough altitude to allow identification of development and activities) of areas encompassing the property. Aerial photographs are often available from government agencies or private collections unique to a local area.

Appropriate inquiry – That inquiry constituting “all appropriate inquiry into the previous ownership and uses of the property consistent with good commercial or customary practice” as defined in CERCLA, 42 USC § 9601(35)(B), that will give a party to a commercial real estate transaction the innocent landowner defense to the CERCLA liability (42 USC § 9601(A) and (B) and § 9607(b)(3)), assuming compliance with other elements of the defense. See Appendix X1.

Approximate minimum search distance – The area for which records must be obtained and reviewed pursuant to Section 7 subject to the limitations provided in that section. This may include areas outside the property and shall be measured from the nearest property boundary. This term is used in lieu of radius to include irregularly-shaped properties.

Building department records – Those records of the local government in which the property is located indicating permission of the local government to construct, alter, or demolish improvements on the property.

Often, building department records are located in the building department of a municipality or county.

Business environmental risk – A risk which can have a material environmental or environmentally-driven financial impact on the business associated with the current or planned use of a parcel of commercial real estate, not necessarily limited to those environmental issues required to be investigated in this practice.

Consideration of business environmental risk issues may necessitate that an environmental professional address one or more non-scope considerations, some of which are identified in Section 12.

Commercial real estate – Any real property except a dwelling or property with no more than four dwelling units exclusively for residential use (except that a dwelling or property with no more than four dwelling units exclusively for residential use is included in this term when it has a commercial function, as in the building of such dwellings for profit). This term includes, but is not limited to, undeveloped real property and real property used for industrial, retail, office, agricultural, other commercial, medical, or educational purposes; property used for residential purposes that has more than four residential dwelling units; and any property with no more than four dwelling units for residential use when it has a commercial function, as in the building of such dwellings for profit.

Commercial real estate transaction – A transfer of title to or possession of real property or receipt of a security interest in real property, except that it does not include transfer of title to or possession of real property or the receipt of a security interest in real property with respect to an individual dwelling or building containing fewer than five dwelling units, nor does it include the purchase of a lot or lots to construct a dwelling for occupancy by a purchaser, but a commercial real estate transaction does include real property purchased or leased by persons or entities in the business of building or developing dwelling units.

Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition – a recognized environmental condition resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority (for example, as evidenced by the issuance of a no further action letter or equivalent, or meeting risk-based criteria established by regulatory authority), with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls (for example, property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls). 750
2867.0002L.101/R. apps.docx Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 7 Due diligence – The process of inquiring into the environmental characteristics of a parcel of commercial real estate or other conditions, usually in connection with a commercial real estate transaction. The degree and kind of due diligence vary for different properties and differing purposes.

Environmental audit – The investigative process to determine if the operations of an existing facility are in compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations. This term should not be used to describe Practice E 1528 or this practice, although an environmental audit may include an environmental site assessment or, if prior audits are available, may be part of an environmental site assessment.

Environmental professional – A person processing sufficient training and experience necessary to conduct a site reconnaissance, interviews, and other activities in accordance with this practice, and from the information generated by such activities, having the ability to develop opinions and conclusions regarding recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property in question. An individual’s status as an environmental professional may be limited to the type of assessment to be performed or to specific segments of the assessment for which the professional is responsible. The person may be an independent contractor or an employee of the user.

Environmental site assessment (ESA) – The process by which a person or entity seeks to determine if a particular parcel of real property (including improvements) is subject to recognized environmental conditions.

At the option of the user, an environmental site assessment may include more inquiry than that constituting appropriate inquiry or, if the user is not concerned about qualifying for the innocent landowner defense, less inquiry than that constituting appropriate inquiry. An environmental site assessment is both different from and less rigorous than an environmental audit.

Fill dirt – Dirt, soil, sand, or other earth, obtained off-site, that is used to fill holes or depressions, create mounds, or otherwise artificially change the grade or elevation of real property. It does not include material that is used in limited quantities for normal landscaping activities.

Hazardous waste/contaminated sites – Sites on which a release has occurred, or is suspected to have occurred, of any hazardous substance, hazardous waste, or petroleum products, and that release or suspected release has been reported to a government entity.

Historical Recognized Environmental Condition – a past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with the property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the property to any required controls (for example, property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls). Before calling the past release a historical recognized environmental condition, the environmental professional must determine whether the past release is a recognized environmental condition at the time the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is conducted (for example, if there has been a change in the regulatory criteria). If the EP considers the past release to be a recognized environmental condition at the time the Phase I ESA is conducted, the condition shall be included in the conclusions section of the report as a recognized environmental condition.

Innocent landowner defense – That defense to CERCLA liability provided in 42 USC § 9601(35) and § 9607(b)(3). One of the requirements to qualify for this defense is that the party make “all appropriate inquiry into the previous ownership and uses of the property consistent with good commercial or customary practice.” There are additional requirements to qualify for this defense. 751
2867.0002L.101/R. apps.docx Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 8 Interviews – Those portions of this practice that are contained in Section 9 and 10 thereof and address questions to be asked of owners and occupants of the property and questions to be asked of local government officials.

Key site manager – The person identified by the owner of a property as having good knowledge of the uses and physical characteristics of the property.

Local government agencies – Those agencies of municipal or county government having jurisdiction over the property. Municipal and county government agencies include, but are not limited to, cities, parishes, townships, and similar entities.

LUST sites – State lists of leaking underground storage tank sites. Section 9003 (h) of Subtitle I of RCRA gives EPA and states, under cooperative agreements with EPA, authority to clean up releases from UST systems or require owners and operators to do so.

Major occupants – Those tenants, subtenants, or other persons or entities each of which uses at least 40% of the leasable area of the property or any anchor tenant when the property is a shopping center.

Material threat – A physically observable or obvious threat which is reasonable likely to lead to a release that, in the opinion of the environmental professional, is threatening and might result in impact to human health and the environment. An example might include an aboveground storage tank that contains a hazardous substance and which shows evidence of damage. The damage would represent a material threat if it is deemed serious enough that it may cause or contribute to tank integrity failure with a release of contents to the environment.

Obvious – That which is plain or evident; a condition or fact that could not be ignored or overlooked by a reasonable observer while visually or physically observing the property.

Other historical sources – Any source or sources other than those designated in 7.3.4.1-7.3.4.8 that are credible to a reasonable person and that identify past uses of the property. The term includes, but is not limited to, miscellaneous maps, newspaper archives, and records in the files and/or personal knowledge of the property owner and/or occupants.

Physical setting sources – sources that provide information about the geologic, hydrogeologic, hydrologic, or topographic characteristics of a property.

Practically reviewable – Information that is practically reviewable means that the information is provided by the source in a manner and in a form that, upon examination, yields information relevant to the property without the need for extraordinary analysis of irrelevant data. The form of the information shall be such that the user can review the records for a limited geographic area. Records that cannot be feasibly retrieved by reference to the location of the property or a geographic area in which the property is located are not generally practically reviewable. Most databases of public records are practically reviewable if they can be obtained from the source agency by the county, city, zip code, or other geographic area of the facilities listed in the record system. Records that are sorted, filed, organized, or maintained by the source agency only chronologically are not generally practically reviewable. Listings in publicly available records which do not have adequate address information to be located geographically are not generally considered practically reviewable. For large databases with numerous facility records (such as RCRA hazardous waste generators and registered underground storage tanks), the records are not practically reviewable unless they can be obtained from the source agency in the smaller geographic area of zip codes. Even when information is provided by zip code for some large databases, it is common for an unmanageable number of sites to be 752
2867.0002L.101/R. apps.docx Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 9 identified within a given zip code. In these cases, it is not necessary to review the impact of all of the sites that are likely to be listed in any given zip code because that information would not be practically reviewable.

In other words, then so much data is generated that it cannot be feasibly reviewed for its impact on the property, it is not practically reviewable.

Preparer – The person preparing the transaction screen questionnaire pursuant to Practice E 1528, who may be either the user or the person to whom the user has delegated the preparation of the transaction screen questionnaire.

Publicly available – Information that is publicly available means that the source of the information allows access to the information by anyone upon request.

Reasonably ascertainable – For purposes of both this practice and Practice E 1528, information that is (1) publicly available, (2) obtainable from its source within reasonable time and cost constraints, and (3) practically reviewable.

Recognized Environmental Conditions – the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. De minimis conditions are not recognized environmental conditions.

Records review – That part that is contained in Section 7 of this practice addresses which records shall or may be reviewed.

Site reconnaissance – That part that is contained in Section 8 of this practice and addresses what should be done in connection with the site visit. The site reconnaissance includes, but is not limited to, the site visit done in connection with such a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment.

Site visit – The visit to the property during which observations are made constituting the site reconnaissance section of this practice and the site visit requirement of Practice E 1528.

Standard environmental record sources – Those records specified in 7.2.1.1.

Standard historical sources – Those sources of information about the history of uses of the property specified in 7.3.4.

Standard physical setting source – A current USGS 7.5-minute topographic map (if any) showing the area on which the property is located.

Standard practice(s) – The activities set forth in either and both this practice and Practice E 1528.

Standard sources – Sources of environmental, physical setting, or historical records specified in Section 7 of this practice.

Transaction screen process – The process described in Practice E 1528.

Transaction screen questionnaire – The questionnaire provided in Section 6 of Practice E 1528.

User – The party seeking to use Practice E 1528 to perform an environmental site assessment of the property. A user may include, without limitation, a purchaser of property, a potential tenant of property, an owner of property, a lender, or a property manager.
753
2867.0002L.101/R. apps.docx Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 10 Visually and/or physically observed – During a site visit pursuant to Practice E 1528, or pursuant to this practice, this term means observations made by vision while walking through a property and the structures located on it and observations made by the sense of smell, particularly observations of noxious or foul odors.

The term “walking through” is not meant to imply that disabled persons who cannot physically walk may not conduct a site visit; they may do so by the means at their disposal for moving through the property and the structures located on it.

ACRONYMS:

CERCLA – Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (as amended, 42 USC § 9601 et seq.)
CERCLIS – Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (maintained by EPA)
CFR – Code of Federal Regulations
CORRACTS – Facilities subject to corrective action under RCRA EPA – United States Environmental Protection Agency
EPCRA – Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (also known as SARA Title III), 42 USC § 11001 et seq.)
ERNS – Emergency response notification system
ESA – Environmental site assessment (different than an environmental audit) FOIA – U.S. Freedom of Information Act (5 USC 552 et seq.) FR – Federal Register
LUST – Leaking underground storage tank
MSDS – Material safety data sheet
NCP – National Contingency Plan
754
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update
2042 South Grove Avenue, Ontario, California
3661.0016L108/CVRS ROUX

APPENDIX B
Historical Topographic Maps
755
EDR Historical Topo Map Report
Inquiry Number:
6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
Toll Free: 800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com
with QuadMatch™
FIRT Grove Ontario 2042 South Grove Avenue Ontario, CA 91761 February 24, 20226873683.4 756
EDR Historical Topo Map Report
EDR Inquiry #
Search Results:

P.O.#
Project:

Maps Provided:

Latitude:

Longitude:

UTM Zone:

UTM X Meters:

UTM Y Meters:

Elevation:

Contact:

Site Name: Client Name:
2018
2015
2012
1981
1976
1973
1966, 1967
1954
1953, 1954
1944
1941, 1942
1933
1903
1900
1897
02/24/22 FIRT Grove Ontario Roux Associates 2042 South Grove Avenue 402 Heron Drive Ontario, CA 91761 Logan Township, NJ 08085-0000 6873683.4 Audrey Clark EDR Topographic Map Library has been searched by EDR and maps covering the target property location as provided by Roux Associates were identified for the years listed below. EDR’s Historical Topo Map Report is designed to assist professionals in evaluating potential liability on a target property resulting from past activities. EDRs Historical Topo Map Report includes a search of a collection of public and private color historical topographic maps, dating back to the late 1800s.

NA 34.036184 34° 2' 10" North FIRT Grove Ontario -117.629684 -117° 37' 47" West Zone 11 North 441874.27 3766346.78 855.00' above sea level This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY

DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE,

WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property.

Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.

Copyright 2022 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission. 6873683 4 2 757
page
Topo Sheet Key
This EDR Topo Map Report is based upon the following USGS topographic map sheets. -
2018 Source Sheets
2018
Ontario

7.5-minute, 24000
2018
Guasti

7.5-minute, 24000
2015 Source Sheets
2015
Ontario

7.5-minute, 24000
2015
Guasti

7.5-minute, 24000
2012 Source Sheets
2012
Ontario

7.5-minute, 24000
2012
Guasti

7.5-minute, 24000
1981 Source Sheets
1981
Guasti

7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1978
1981
Ontario

7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1978
6873683 4 3
758
page
Topo Sheet Key
This EDR Topo Map Report is based upon the following USGS topographic map sheets. -
1976 Source Sheets
1976

ONTARIO
15-minute, 50000
1973 Source Sheets
1973
Guasti

7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1973
1973
Ontario

7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1973
1966, 1967 Source Sheets
1966
Guasti

7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1966
1967
Ontario

7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1966
1954 Source Sheets
1954
Ontario
15-minute, 62500
Aerial Photo Revised 1952
6873683 4 4
759
page
Topo Sheet Key
This EDR Topo Map Report is based upon the following USGS topographic map sheets. -
1953, 1954 Source Sheets
1953
Guasti

7.5-minute, 24000
Aerial Photo Revised 1952
1944 Source Sheets
1944

CUCAMONGA
15-minute, 50000
1941, 1942 Source Sheets
1941

GUASTI VICINITY

7.5-minute, 31680
1942
Ontario and Vicinity

7.5-minute, 31680
1933 Source Sheets
1933
Ontario

7.5-minute, 31680
6873683 4 5
760
page
Topo Sheet Key
This EDR Topo Map Report is based upon the following USGS topographic map sheets. -
1903 Source Sheets
1903
Cucamonga
15-minute, 62500
1900 Source Sheets
1900
Cucamonga
15-minute, 62500
1897 Source Sheets
1897
Cucamonga
15-minute, 62500
6873683 4 6
761
Historical Topo Map
page
SITE NAME:

ADDRESS:

CLIENT: