Agenda packet — Ontario City Council, November 19, 2024 (part 13 of 31)

3768900 3769000 3769100 3769200 3769300 3769400 3769500 3769600 3769700 3768900 3769000 3769100 3769200 3769300 3769400 3769500 3769600 3769700 450100 450200 450300 450400 450500 450600 450700 450800 450900 451000 451100 451200 451300 450100 450200 450300 450400 450500 450600 450700 450800 450900 451000 451100 451200 451300 34° 4' 3'' N
117° 32' 30'' W
34° 4' 3'' N
117° 31' 37'' W
34° 3' 34'' N
117° 32' 30'' W
34° 3' 34'' N
117° 31' 37'' W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 0 300 600 1200 1800
Feet
0 50 100 200 300
Meters
Map Scale: 1:6,230 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.

Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
2527

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.

Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:

Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.

Soil Survey Area: San Bernardino County Southwestern Part, California
Survey Area Data: Version 13, Sep 13, 2021
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Dec 5, 2020—Feb 6, 2021
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Hydrologic Soil Group—San Bernardino County Southwestern Part, California Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
3/1/2022

Page 2 of 4 ends

Hydrologic Soil Group
Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Db Delhi fine sand A 143.7 76.2%
TuB Tujunga loamy sand, 0
to 5 percent slopes
A 44.9 23.8%
Totals for Area of Interest 188.6 100.0%
Description
Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms.

The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows:

Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission.

Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture.

These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission.

Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission.

Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.

If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes.

Rating Options
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Hydrologic Soil Group—San Bernardino County Southwestern Part, California Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
3/1/2022

Page 3 of 4 ends

2529
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Higher
Hydrologic Soil Group—San Bernardino County Southwestern Part, California Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
3/1/2022

Page 4 of 4 ends

2530
PR EL I MI N A R Y WA T E R QU A L I T Y MA N A G E M EN T PL A N 2021-502 5355 AIRPORT DRIVE
WE S T L A N D GR O U P , I N C .

Appendix D

NOAA PRECIPITATION DATA
2531
3/1/22, 2:56 PM Precipitation Frequency Data Server
https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=34.0635&lon=-117.5335&data=depth&units=english&series=pds 1/4 NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 6, Version 2
Location name: Ontario, California, USA*
Latitude: 34.0635°, Longitude: -117.5335°
Elevation: 983.19 ft**
* source: ESRI Maps
** source: USGS

POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES
Sanja Perica, Sarah Dietz, Sarah Heim, Lillian Hiner, Kazungu Maitaria, Deborah Martin, Sandra Pavlovic, Ishani Roy, Carl Trypaluk, Dale Unruh, Fenglin Yan, Michael Yekta, Tan Zhao, Geoffrey Bonnin, Daniel Brewer, Li-Chuan Chen, Tye Parzybok, John Yarchoan NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland PF_tabular | PF_graphical | Maps_&_aerials
PF tabular
PDS-based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals (in inches) 1 Duration
Average recurrence interval (years)
1 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 500 1000
5-min 0.104
(0.087‑0.126)

0.137
(0.114‑0.166)

0.181
(0.150‑0.220)

0.216
(0.178‑0.265)

0.265
(0.210‑0.336)

0.302
(0.235‑0.392)

0.341
(0.258‑0.454)

0.381
(0.281‑0.522)

0.436
(0.307‑0.623)

0.479
(0.326‑0.710)
10-min 0.149
(0.124‑0.180)

0.196
(0.164‑0.238)

0.259
(0.215‑0.315)

0.310
(0.255‑0.380)

0.379
(0.302‑0.482)

0.433
(0.337‑0.562)

0.488
(0.370‑0.650)

0.546
(0.402‑0.748)

0.624
(0.441‑0.894)

0.686
(0.467‑1.02)
15-min 0.180
(0.150‑0.218)

0.237
(0.198‑0.288)

0.313
(0.260‑0.381)

0.375
(0.308‑0.460)

0.459
(0.365‑0.583)

0.524
(0.408‑0.680)

0.591
(0.448‑0.787)

0.660
(0.486‑0.905)

0.755
(0.533‑1.08)

0.830
(0.565‑1.23)
30-min 0.270
(0.225‑0.327)

0.356
(0.297‑0.432)

0.470
(0.390‑0.571)

0.562
(0.463‑0.690)

0.689
(0.548‑0.875)

0.786
(0.612‑1.02)

0.886
(0.672‑1.18)

0.991
(0.730‑1.36)

1.13 (0.800‑1.62)

1.25 (0.848‑1.85)
60-min 0.399
(0.332‑0.483)

0.526
(0.438‑0.638)

0.693
(0.576‑0.843)

0.830
(0.683‑1.02)

1.02 (0.808‑1.29)

1.16 (0.903‑1.51)

1.31 (0.993‑1.74)

1.46 (1.08‑2.00)

1.67 (1.18‑2.39)

1.84 (1.25‑2.73)
2-hr 0.598
(0.498‑0.724)

0.777
(0.647‑0.943)

1.01 (0.838‑1.23)

1.20 (0.986‑1.47)

1.45 (1.15‑1.84)

1.65 (1.28‑2.14)

1.84 (1.40‑2.45)

2.05 (1.51‑2.80)

2.32 (1.64‑3.32)

2.54 (1.73‑3.76)
3-hr 0.757
(0.631‑0.917)

0.979
(0.815‑1.19)

1.26 (1.05‑1.54)

1.49 (1.23‑1.83)

1.80 (1.43‑2.29)

2.04 (1.58‑2.64)

2.27 (1.72‑3.02)

2.51 (1.85‑3.45)

2.84 (2.00‑4.06)

3.09 (2.11‑4.58)
6-hr 1.08
(0.898‑1.31)

1.39 (1.16‑1.69)

1.79 (1.49‑2.18)

2.11 (1.73‑2.58)

2.52 (2.01‑3.21)

2.84 (2.21‑3.68)

3.15 (2.39‑4.20)

3.47 (2.55‑4.75)

3.89 (2.74‑5.56)

4.20 (2.86‑6.24)
12-hr 1.42
(1.18‑1.72)

1.85 (1.54‑2.24)

2.39 (1.98‑2.90)

2.81 (2.31‑3.45)

3.36 (2.67‑4.26)

3.76 (2.93‑4.88)

4.15 (3.15‑5.53)

4.55 (3.35‑6.23)

5.06 (3.57‑7.24)

5.43 (3.70‑8.06)
24-hr 1.89
(1.67‑2.18)

2.51 (2.22‑2.89)

3.27 (2.89‑3.79)

3.87 (3.39‑4.51)

4.64 (3.93‑5.59)

5.20 (4.31‑6.39)

5.74 (4.65‑7.24)

6.28 (4.95‑8.13)

6.97 (5.27‑9.40)

7.48 (5.47‑10.4)
2-day 2.31
(2.04‑2.66)

3.13 (2.77‑3.61)

4.17 (3.68‑4.83)

4.99 (4.37‑5.82)

6.07 (5.14‑7.32)

6.87 (5.70‑8.45)

7.66 (6.21‑9.66)

8.46 (6.66‑11.0)

9.50 (7.18‑12.8)

10.3 (7.52‑14.3)
3-day 2.52
(2.23‑2.91)

3.47 (3.07‑4.01)

4.70 (4.14‑5.44)

5.68 (4.97‑6.63)

6.99 (5.92‑8.43)

7.98 (6.62‑9.82)

8.98 (7.27‑11.3)

9.99 (7.87‑12.9)

11.3 (8.58‑15.3)

12.4 (9.05‑17.3)
4-day 2.76
(2.44‑3.18)

3.84 (3.39‑4.43)

5.23 (4.62‑6.06)

6.36 (5.57‑7.42)

7.89 (6.68‑9.51)

9.05 (7.51‑11.1)

10.2 (8.29‑12.9)

11.4 (9.01‑14.8)

13.1 (9.88‑17.6)

14.3 (10.5‑20.0)
7-day 3.24
(2.87‑3.74)

4.54 (4.02‑5.24)

6.26 (5.52‑7.24)

7.66 (6.70‑8.93)

9.57 (8.10‑11.5)

11.0 (9.16‑13.6)

12.6 (10.2‑15.8)

14.1 (11.1‑18.3)

16.2 (12.3‑21.9)

17.9 (13.1‑25.0)
10-day 3.50
(3.10‑4.03)

4.93 (4.36‑5.69)

6.83 (6.03‑7.91)

8.40 (7.35‑9.80)

10.6 (8.93‑12.7)

12.2 (10.1‑15.0)

13.9 (11.3‑17.6)

15.7 (12.4‑20.4)

18.2 (13.8‑24.5)

20.1 (14.7‑28.1)
20-day 4.07
(3.60‑4.69)

5.82 (5.15‑6.72)

8.18 (7.22‑9.47)

10.2 (8.89‑11.9)

12.9 (10.9‑15.6)

15.1 (12.5‑18.6)

17.4 (14.1‑21.9)

19.8 (15.6‑25.6)

23.2 (17.5‑31.2)

25.8 (18.9‑36.1)
30-day 4.80
(4.25‑5.54)

6.90 (6.10‑7.96)

9.75 (8.60‑11.3)

12.2 (10.6‑14.2)

15.6 (13.2‑18.8)

18.3 (15.2‑22.5)

21.2 (17.1‑26.7)

24.2 (19.1‑31.4)

28.5 (21.6‑38.5)

32.0 (23.4‑44.6)
45-day 5.71
(5.05‑6.58)

8.17 (7.22‑9.43)

11.6 (10.2‑13.4)

14.5 (12.6‑16.9)

18.6 (15.7‑22.4)

21.9 (18.2‑27.0)

25.5 (20.6‑32.1)

29.3 (23.1‑37.9)

34.7 (26.3‑46.8)

39.1 (28.6‑54.6)
60-day 6.64
(5.88‑7.65)

9.42 (8.33‑10.9)

13.3 (11.7‑15.4)

16.6 (14.5‑19.4)

21.4 (18.1‑25.8)

25.3 (21.0‑31.1)

29.5 (23.9‑37.1)

33.9 (26.7‑44.0)

40.4 (30.5‑54.5)

45.7 (33.4‑63.7)
1 Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS).

Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval. The probability that precipitation frequency estimates (for a given duration and average recurrence interval) will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower bound) is 5%. Estimates at upper bounds are not checked against probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimates and may be higher than currently valid PMP values.

Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information.

Back to Top
PF graphical
2532
3/1/22, 2:56 PM Precipitation Frequency Data Server
https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?lat=34.0635&lon=-117.5335&data=depth&units=english&series=pds 2/4 Back to Top
Maps & aerials
Small scale terrain
2533
PR EL I MI N A R Y WA T E R QU A L I T Y MA N A G E M EN T PL A N 2021-502 5355 AIRPORT DRIVE
WE S T L A N D GR O U P , I N C .

APPENDIX E

PRELIMINARY BMP DETAILS
2534
2535

CHAMBER SECTION DETAIL
2536
Date: 03-22-2022
Project Name: 5355 Airport Drive
City / County: Ontario
State: California
Designed By: JL
Company: WLG
=Adjustable Input Cells Telephone:

Out-to-out length (ft): 615.0 Backfill Porosity (%): 40% System Diameter (in): 96 Out-to-out width (ft): 30.0 Depth Above Pipe (in): 12.0 Pipe Spacing (in): 2 Number of Manifolds (ea): 1.0 Depth Below Pipe (in): 12.0 Incremental Analysis (in): 2 Number of Barrels (ea): 3.0 Width At Ends (ft): 2.0 System Invert (Elevation): 966 Width At Sides (ft): 2.0
Depth (ft) Elevation (ft)
Incremental
Storage (cf)
Cumulative
Storage (cf)
Incremental
Storage (cf)
Cumulative
Storage (cf)
Incremental
Storage (cf)
Cumulative
Storage (cf)
Percent Open
Storage (%)
Ave. Surface
Area (sf)
Cumulative
Storage (Ac-ft)
Outflow
(cfs)

0.00 966.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 8,418.4

0.17 966.16 0.0 0.0 1,403.1 1,403.1 1,403.1 1,403.1 0.0% 8,418.4

0.33 966.33 0.0 0.0 1,403.1 2,806.1 1,403.1 2,806.1 0.0% 8,418.4

0.50 966.50 0.0 0.0 1,403.1 4,209.2 1,403.1 4,209.2 0.0% 8,418.4

0.67 966.66 0.0 0.0 1,403.1 5,612.3 1,403.1 5,612.3 0.0% 8,418.4

0.83 966.83 0.0 0.0 1,403.1 7,015.3 1,403.1 7,015.3 0.0% 8,418.4

1.00 967.00 0.0 0.0 1,403.1 8,418.4 1,403.1 8,418.4 0.0% 8,418.4 0.19 0.00

1.17 967.16 472.0 472.0 1,214.3 9,632.7 1,686.3 10,104.7 4.7% 10,956.4

1.33 967.33 854.5 1,326.5 1,061.3 10,693.9 1,915.8 12,020.4 11.0% 11,969.2

1.50 967.50 1,094.7 2,421.2 965.2 11,659.1 2,059.9 14,080.3 17.2% 12,719.7

1.67 967.66 1,282.1 3,703.3 890.2 12,549.4 2,172.3 16,252.6 22.8% 13,329.7

1.83 967.83 1,437.8 5,141.1 827.9 13,377.3 2,265.8 18,518.4 27.8% 13,846.6

2.00 968.00 1,571.5 6,712.6 774.5 14,151.7 2,346.0 20,864.4 32.2% 14,295.1 0.48 0.00

2.17 968.16 1,688.4 8,401.0 727.7 14,879.5 2,416.1 23,280.5 36.1% 14,690.0

2.33 968.33 1,791.8 10,192.8 686.4 15,565.8 2,478.1 25,758.6 39.6% 15,040.7

2.50 968.50 1,883.9 12,076.6 649.5 16,215.3 2,533.4 28,292.0 42.7% 15,354.1

2.67 968.66 1,966.3 14,042.9 616.5 16,831.9 2,582.8 30,874.8 45.5% 15,634.9

2.83 968.83 2,040.2 16,083.2 587.0 17,418.9 2,627.2 33,502.0 48.0% 15,886.9

3.00 969.00 2,106.5 18,189.7 560.4 17,979.3 2,667.0 36,169.0 50.3% 16,112.9 0.83 0.00

3.17 969.16 2,166.0 20,355.7 536.7 18,516.0 2,702.6 38,871.7 52.4% 16,315.0

3.33 969.33 2,219.0 22,574.7 515.5 19,031.5 2,734.5 41,606.1 54.3% 16,495.2

3.50 969.50 2,266.2 24,840.9 496.6 19,528.1 2,762.8 44,368.9 56.0% 16,654.8

3.67 969.66 2,307.8 27,148.7 479.9 20,008.0 2,787.8 47,156.7 57.6% 16,795.1

3.83 969.83 2,344.2 29,492.9 465.4 20,473.4 2,809.6 49,966.3 59.0% 16,916.9

4.00 970.00 2,375.6 31,868.4 452.8 20,926.2 2,828.4 52,794.7 60.4% 17,021.1 1.21 0.00

4.17 970.16 2,402.1 34,270.6 442.2 21,368.4 2,844.3 55,639.0 61.6% 17,108.2

4.33 970.33 2,424.0 36,694.6 433.5 21,801.9 2,857.5 58,496.5 62.7% 17,178.9

4.50 970.50 2,441.4 39,136.0 426.5 22,228.4 2,867.9 61,364.4 63.8% 17,233.5

4.67 970.66 2,454.4 41,590.4 421.3 22,649.7 2,875.7 64,240.1 64.7% 17,272.3

4.83 970.83 2,463.0 44,053.4 417.9 23,067.6 2,880.9 67,121.0 65.6% 17,295.5

5.00 971.00 2,467.3 46,520.7 416.2 23,483.7 2,883.4 70,004.4 66.5% 17,303.2 1.61 4.00

5.17 971.16 2,467.3 48,988.0 416.2 23,899.9 2,883.4 72,887.9 67.2% 17,295.5

5.33 971.33 2,463.0 51,451.0 417.9 24,317.7 2,880.9 75,768.7 67.9% 17,272.3

5.50 971.50 2,454.4 53,905.4 421.3 24,739.0 2,875.7 78,644.4 68.5% 17,233.5

5.67 971.66 2,441.4 56,346.8 426.5 25,165.5 2,867.9 81,512.4 69.1% 17,178.9

5.83 971.83 2,424.0 58,770.8 433.5 25,599.0 2,857.5 84,369.8 69.7% 17,108.2

6.00 972.00 2,402.1 61,173.0 442.2 26,041.2 2,844.3 87,214.2 70.1% 17,021.1 2.00 4.00

6.17 972.16 2,375.6 63,548.5 452.8 26,494.1 2,828.4 90,042.6 70.6% 16,916.9

6.33 972.33 2,344.2 65,892.7 465.4 26,959.4 2,809.6 92,852.2 71.0% 16,795.1

6.50 972.50 2,307.8 68,200.5 479.9 27,439.4 2,787.8 95,639.9 71.3% 16,654.8

6.67 972.66 2,266.2 70,466.7 496.6 27,936.0 2,762.8 98,402.7 71.6% 16,495.2

6.83 972.83 2,219.0 72,685.8 515.5 28,451.4 2,734.5 101,137.2 71.9% 16,315.0

7.00 973.00 2,166.0 74,851.7 536.7 28,988.1 2,702.6 103,839.8 72.1% 16,112.9 2.38 4.00

7.17 973.16 2,106.5 76,958.3 560.4 29,548.6 2,667.0 106,506.8 72.3% 15,886.9

7.33 973.33 2,040.2 78,998.5 587.0 30,135.5 2,627.2 109,134.0 72.4% 15,634.9

7.50 973.50 1,966.3 80,964.8 616.5 30,752.1 2,582.8 111,716.9 72.5% 15,354.1

7.67 973.66 1,883.9 82,848.6 649.5 31,401.6 2,533.4 114,250.2 72.5% 15,040.7

7.83 973.83 1,791.8 84,640.4 686.4 32,088.0 2,478.1 116,728.4 72.5% 14,690.0

8.00 974.00 1,688.4 86,328.8 727.7 32,815.7 2,416.1 119,144.5 72.5% 14,295.1 2.74 4.00

8.17 974.16 1,571.5 87,900.3 774.5 33,590.2 2,346.0 121,490.4 72.4% 13,846.6

8.33 974.33 1,437.8 89,338.1 827.9 34,418.1 2,265.8 123,756.2 72.2% 13,329.7

8.50 974.50 1,282.1 90,620.2 890.2 35,308.3 2,172.3 125,928.5 72.0% 12,719.7

8.67 974.66 1,094.7 91,714.9 965.2 36,273.5 2,059.9 127,988.4 71.7% 11,969.2

8.83 974.83 854.5 92,569.4 1,061.3 37,334.8 1,915.8 129,904.2 71.3% 10,956.4

9.00 975.00 472.0 93,041.4 1,214.3 38,549.0 1,686.3 131,590.4 70.7% 8,418.4 3.02 4.00 System Pipe Stone Total System Miscellaneous
Storage Volume Estimation
Staging
Contech Engineered Solutions, LLC is pleased to offer the following estimate of storage volume for the above named project. The results are submitted as an estimate only, without liability on the part of Contech Engineered Solutions, LLC for accuracy or suitability to any particular applicaton and are subject to verification of the Engineer of Record. This tool is only applicable for rectangular shaped systems.

CMP: Underground Detention System
Storage Volume Estimation
Summary of Inputs
System Information Backfill Information Pipe & Analysis Information These results are submitted to you as a guideline only, without liability on the part of CONTECH Engineered Solutions, LLC for accuracy or suitability to any particular application, and are subject to your verification. 2537 2538
PR EL I MI N A R Y WA T E R QU A L I T Y MA N A G E M EN T PL A N 2021-502 5355 AIRPORT DRIVE
WE S T L A N D GR O U P , I N C .

APPENDIX F

INFILTRATION REPORT
2539
22885 Savi Ranch Parkway  Suite E  Yorba Linda  California  92887 voice: (714) 685-1115  fax: (714) 685-1118  www.socalgeo.com March 9, 2022
Prologis
17777 Center Court Drive North, Suite 100
Cerritos, California 90703
Attention: Mr. John Carter
Director, Project Management
Project No.: 22G128-2
Subject: Results of Infiltration Testing
Proposed Warehouse
5355 East Airport Drive
Ontario, California
Reference: Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Warehouse, 5355 East Airport Drive, Ontario, California, prepared by Southern California Geotechnical, Inc. (SCG) for Prologis, SCG Project No. 22G128-1, dated March 9, 2022.

Dear Mr. Carter:

In accordance with your request, we have conducted infiltration testing at the subject site. We are pleased to present this report summarizing the results of the infiltration testing and our design recommendations.

Scope of Services
The scope of services performed for this project was in general accordance with our Proposal No. 22P129, dated January 21, 2022. The scope of services included site reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, field testing, and engineering analysis to determine the infiltration rates of the onsite soils. The infiltration testing was performed in general accordance with the guidelines published in the Riverside County – Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook – Section

2.3 of Appendix A, prepared for the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health (RCDEH), dated December, 2013. The San Bernardino County standards defer to the guidelines published by the RCDEH.

Site and Project Description
The subject site is located on the north side of East Airport Drive, 1,310± feet east of the intersection of South Wineville Avenue and East Airport Drive in Ontario, California. The site is also referenced by the street address 5355 East Airport Drive. The site is bounded to the north by Union Pacific railroad tracks, to the east and west by an industrial development, and to the south by East Airport Drive. The general location of the site is illustrated on the Site Location Map, enclosed as Plate 1 of this report.

The site consists of an irregular-shaped property, 14.58± acres in size. The site is developed to manufacture and store animal feed grains. The development includes several buildings and shed structures ranging in size from 2,200± ft2to 20,175± ft2, and several silos and above-ground 2540
Proposed Warehouse – Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G128-2

Page 2 ends

storage tanks (ASTs) primarily located in the north-central region of the site. The existing structures are generally of concrete tilt-up and/or metal-framed construction, and are presumed to be supported on conventional shallow foundations with concrete slab-on-grade floors. The existing structures are generally surrounded by asphaltic concrete (AC) pavements, with isolated areas of Portland cement concrete (PCC), aggregate base pavements, and exposed soils in the south-central portion of the site. The existing pavements are in poor condition, with moderate to severe cracking throughout. Two medium-size trees are present in the south-central region of the site.

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

Proposed Development
A preliminary site plan, identified as Scheme 01 and prepared by RGA, for the proposed development was provided to our office by the client. Based on this plan, the subject site will be developed with a 259,189± ft² warehouse, located in the north-central region of the site. Dockhigh doors will be constructed along a portion of the south building wall. The proposed building is expected to be surrounded by AC pavements in the parking and drive areas, PCC pavements in the loading dock area, and concrete flatwork and landscaped planters throughout the site.

We understand that the proposed development will include on-site stormwater infiltration. Based on our experience with similar projects in the area, the infiltration systems are expected to be below-grade chambers. The bottoms of the infiltration systems are expected to be 10 to 12± feet below the existing site grades.

Concurrent Study
SCG concurrently conducted a geotechnical investigation at the subject site, referenced above.

As a part of this study, five (5) borings (identified as Boring Nos. B-1 through B-5) were advanced to depths of 20 to 30± feet below the existing site grades.

AC pavements were encountered at the ground surface of Boring Nos. B-1 through B-4. The pavement sections generally consist of 0 to 2½± inches of AC, underlain by 1 to 3½± inches of aggregate base. Artificial fill soils were encountered beneath the existing pavements at Boring Nos. B-1 through B-4 and at the ground surface at Boring No. B-5, extending to depths of 2½ to 6½± feet below the existing site grades. The fill soils generally consist of loose to medium dense sands and silty sands, with occasional dense silty sands. Native alluvium was encountered beneath the artificial fill soils at all of the boring locations, extending to at least the maximum depth explored of 30± feet. The near-surface alluvium generally consists of loose to medium dense sands and sandy silts, extending to depths of 6½ to 12± feet. At greater depths, the alluvium generally consists of medium dense to dense sands, silty sands and sandy silts. Boring No. B-3 encountered a stratum of dense silty sands at a depth of 14½ to 17± feet. Boring No. B5 encountered a stratum of loose well-graded sands at a depth of 12 to 17± feet. 2541
Proposed Warehouse – Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G128-2

Page 3 ends

Groundwater
Free water was not encountered during the drilling of any of the borings. Based on the lack of any water within the borings, and the moisture contents of the recovered soil samples, the static groundwater table is considered to have existed at a depth in excess of 30± feet at the time of the subsurface exploration.

As part of our research, we reviewed available groundwater data in order to determine groundwater levels for the site. Water level data was obtained from the California Department of Water Resources Water Data Library website, https://wdl.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/. The nearest monitoring well on record (identified as State Well Number: 01S06W29H001S) is located 3,400± feet southeast of the project site. Water level readings within this monitoring well indicate a high groundwater level of 277± feet below the ground surface in April 2019.

Subsurface Exploration
Scope of Exploration
The subsurface exploration conducted for the infiltration testing consisted of six (6) infiltration test borings, advanced to depths of 10 to 12± feet below the existing site grades. The infiltration borings were advanced using a truck-mounted drilling rig, equipped with 8-inch-diameter hollowstem augers and were logged during drilling by a member of our staff. The approximate locations of the infiltration test borings (identified as I-1 through I-6) are indicated on the Infiltration Test Location Plan, enclosed as Plate 2 of this report.

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

Geotechnical Conditions
AC pavements were encountered at the ground surface of Infiltration Test Nos. I-1 through I-5.

The pavement sections generally consist of 0 to 6± inches of AC, underlain by 0 to 9± inches of aggregate base. An 8±-inch-thick PCC section was encountered at the ground surface at Infiltration Test Nos. I-6. Steel reinforcement was not encountered at this location. Artificial fill soils were encountered beneath the existing pavements at all of the infiltration boring location, extending to depths of 3 to 4± feet below the existing site grades. The fill soils generally consist of medium dense to dense silty sands, with occasional loose sands. The fill soils possess a disturbed mottled appearance resulting in their classification as artificial fill. Native alluvial soils were encountered beneath the fill soils at all of the infiltration boring locations, extending to at least the maximum depth explored of 12± feet. The alluvium generally consists of loose sands, silty sands and silty sands to sandy silts, with occasional medium dense silty sands. The Boring Logs, which illustrate the conditions encountered at the boring locations, are included with this report.
2542
Proposed Warehouse – Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G128-2

Page 4 ends

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

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

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

Infiltration Testing
Following the pre-soaking process of the infiltration test borings, SCG performed the infiltration testing. Each test hole was filled with water to a depth of at least 5 times the hole’s radius above the gravel at the bottom of the test holes. In accordance with the Riverside County guidelines, since “sandy soils” (where 6 inches of water infiltrated into the surrounding soils in less than 25 minutes for two consecutive readings) were encountered at the bottom of the infiltration test borings, readings were taken at 10-minute intervals for a total of 1 hour. After each reading, water was added to the borings so that the depth of the water was at least 5 times the radius of the hole. The water level readings are presented on the spreadsheets enclosed with this report.

The infiltration rates for each of the timed intervals are also tabulated on the spreadsheets.

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

Infiltration
Test No.

Depth
(feet) Soil Description Infiltration Rate (inches/hour) I-1 10 Silty fine Sand, little medium Sand 3.9
I-2 12 Silty fine to medium Sand 3.0
I-3 12 Silty fine to medium Sand, trace coarse Sand 4.6 I-4 12 Silty fine Sand to fine Sandy Silt, trace medium Sand 3.1
I-5 10 Silty fine Sand, little medium Sand, trace fine
Gravel 3.5
I-6 10 Silty fine Sand to fine Sandy Silt, trace medium Sand, trace fine Gravel 3.0
2543
Proposed Warehouse – Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G128-2

Page 5 ends

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

Grain Size Analysis
The grain size distribution of selected soils collected from the base of each infiltration test boring have been determined using a range of wire mesh screens. These tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D-422 and/or ASTM D-1140. The weight of the portion of the sample retained on each screen is recorded and the percentage finer or coarser of the total weight is calculated. The results of these tests are presented on Plates C-1 through C-6 of this report.

Design Recommendations
Six (6) infiltration tests were performed at the subject site. As noted above, the infiltration rates at these locations vary from 3.0 to 4.6 inches per hour. The major factor affecting the difference in infiltration rates at the infiltration test locations is the presence of silt in the soils at the tested depths. Based on the infiltration test results, we recommend an infiltration rate of 3.0 inches per hour be used in the design of the infiltration systems, if the bottom of the infiltration systems extend between 10 to 12± feet below the existing site grades.

The design of the storm water infiltration systems should be performed by the project civil engineer, in accordance with the City of Ontario and/or County of San Bernardino guidelines. It is recommended that the system be constructed so as to facilitate removal of silt and clay, or other deleterious materials from any water that may enter the systems. The presence of such materials would decrease the effective infiltration rates. It is recommended that the project civil engineer apply an appropriate factor of safety. The infiltration rates recommended above is based on the assumption that only clean water will be introduced to the subsurface profile. Any fines, debris, or organic materials could significantly impact the infiltration rate. It should be noted that the recommended infiltration rates are based on infiltration testing at six (6) discrete locations and that the overall infiltration rates of the proposed infiltration systems could vary considerably.

Infiltration Rate Considerations
The infiltration rates presented herein was determined in accordance with the San Bernardino County guidelines and are considered valid only for the time and place of the actual test. Varying subsurface conditions will exist in other areas of the site, which could alter the recommended infiltration rates presented above. The infiltration rates will decline over time between maintenance cycles as silt or clay particles accumulate on the BMP surface. The infiltration rate is highly dependent upon a number of factors, including density, silt and clay content, grainsize distribution throughout the range of particle sizes, and particle shape. Small changes in these factors can cause large changes in the infiltration rates. 2544
Proposed Warehouse – Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G128-2

Page 6 ends

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

Construction Considerations
The infiltration rates presented in this report are specific to the tested locations and tested depths.

Infiltration rates can be significantly reduced if the soils are exposed to excessive disturbance or compaction during construction. Compaction of the soils at the bottom of the infiltration system can significantly reduce the infiltration ability of the basins. Therefore, the subgrade soils within proposed infiltration system areas should not be over-excavated, undercut or compacted in any significant manner. It is recommended that a note to this effect be added to the project plans and/or specifications.

We recommend that a representative from the geotechnical engineer be on-site during the construction of the proposed infiltration systems to identify the soil classification at the base of each system. It should be confirmed that the soils at the base of the proposed infiltration systems correspond with those presented in this report to ensure that the performance of the systems will be consistent with the rates reported herein.

We recommend that scrapers and other rubber-tired heavy equipment not be operated on the basin bottom, or at levels lower than 2 feet above the bottom of the system, particularly within basins. As such, the bottom 24 inches of the infiltration systems should be excavated with nonrubber-tired equipment, such as excavators.

Basin Maintenance
The proposed project may include infiltration basins. Water flowing into these basins will carry some level of sediment. Wind-blown sediments and erosion of the basin side walls will also contribute to sediment deposition at the bottom of the basin. This layer has the potential to significantly reduce the infiltration rate of the basin subgrade soils. Therefore, a formal basin maintenance program should be established to ensure that these silt and clay deposits are removed from the basin on a regular basis. Appropriate vegetation on the basin sidewalls and bottom may reduce erosion and sediment deposition.

Basin maintenance should also include measures to prevent animal burrows, and to repair any burrows or damage caused by such. Animal burrows in the basin sidewalls can significantly increase the risk of erosion and piping failures.
2545
Proposed Warehouse – Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G128-2

Page 7 ends

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

The infiltration system designer should also give special consideration to the effect that the proposed infiltration systems may have on nearby subterranean structures, open excavations, or descending slopes. In particular, infiltration systems should not be located near the crest of descending slopes, particularly where the slopes are comprised of granular soils. Such systems will require specialized design and analysis to evaluate the potential for slope instability, piping failures and other phenomena that typically apply to earthen dam design. This type of analysis is beyond the scope of this infiltration test report, but these factors should be considered by the infiltration system designer when locating the infiltration systems.

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

However, this report is not intended to be utilized as a specification in and of itself, without appropriate interpretation by the project architect, structural engineer, and/or civil engineer. The design of the proposed storm water infiltration system is the responsibility of the civil engineer.

The role of the geotechnical engineer is limited to determination of infiltration rate only. By using the design infiltration rate contained herein, the civil engineer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the geotechnical engineer for all aspects of the design and performance of the proposed storm water infiltration system. The reproduction and distribution of this report must be authorized by the client and Southern California Geotechnical, Inc. Furthermore, any reliance on this report by an unauthorized third party is at such party’s sole risk, and we accept no responsibility for damage or loss which may occur.

The analysis of this site was based on a subsurface profile interpolated from limited discrete soil samples. While the materials encountered in the project area are considered to be representative of the total area, some variations should be expected between boring locations and testing depths. If the conditions encountered during construction vary significantly from those detailed herein, we should be contacted immediately to determine if the conditions alter the recommendations contained herein.
2546
Proposed Warehouse – Ontario, CA
Project No. 22G128-2

Page 8 ends

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

It is recommended that the owner, client, architect, structural engineer, and civil engineer carefully review these assumptions to ensure that they are consistent with the characteristics of the proposed development. If discrepancies exist, they should be brought to our attention to verify that they do not affect the conclusions and recommendations contained herein. We also recommend that the project plans and specifications be submitted to our office for review to verify that our recommendations have been correctly interpreted. The analysis, conclusions, and recommendations contained within this report have been promulgated in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical engineering practice. No other warranty is implied or expressed.

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

Respectfully Submitted,
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC.

Joseph Lozano Leon Robert G. Trazo, GE 2655
Staff Engineer Principal Engineer

Distribution: (1) Addressee
Enclosures: Plate 1 - Site Location Map
Plate 2 - Infiltration Test Location Plan
Boring Log Legend and Logs (8 pages)
Infiltration Test Results Spreadsheets (6 pages)
Grain Size Distribution Graphs (6 pages)
2547
SITE

PROPOSED WAREHOUSE
SCALE: 1" = 2000' DRAWN: JLL CHKD: RGT SCG PROJECT
22G128-2 PLATE 1

SITE LOCATION MAP

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
SOURCE: USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF THE GUASTI QUADRANGLE, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, 2021. 2548
B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 I-3 I-4 I-5 I-6 I-1 I-2 PROPOSED BUILDING 259,189 SF EAST AIRPORT DRIVE N.A.P. N.A.P. N.A.P.

N.A.P.

N.A.P. SCALE: 1" = 80' DRAWN: JLL CHKD: RGT PLATE 2 SCG PROJECT 22G128-2 PROPOSED WAREHOUSE INFILTRATION TEST LOCATION PLAN SoCalGeo NORTH ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA NOTE: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN PREPARED BY RGA. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OBTAINED FROM GOOGLE EARTH. APPROXIMATE INFILTRATION TEST LOCATION GEOTECHNICAL LEGEND APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION FROM CONCURRENT STUDY (SCG PROJECT NO. 22G128-1) PROPERTY LINE 2549

BORING LOG LEGEND

SAMPLE TYPE GRAPHICAL

SYMBOL SAMPLE DESCRIPTION

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

GRAB 1 SOIL SAMPLE TAKEN WITH NO SPECIALIZED

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

DRIVEN WITH SPT HAMMER. (RELATIVELY

UNDISTURBED)
NSR
NO RECOVERY: THE SAMPLING ATTEMPT DID NOT

RESULT IN RECOVERY OF ANY SIGNIFICANT SOIL OR
ROCK MATERIAL.

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

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

SAMPLE: Sample Type as depicted above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UNCONFINED SHEAR: The shear strength of a cohesive soil sample, as measured in the unconfined state. 2550
SM
SP
COARSE

GRAINED
SOILS
SW

TYPICAL

DESCRIPTIONS

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -

SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO
FINES

SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -

SILT MIXTURES

GRAPH LETTER

POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS,

GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE

OR NO FINES
GC
GM
GP
GW

POORLY-GRADED SANDS,

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

OF MATERIAL IS

LARGER THAN
NO. 200 SIEVE
SIZE
MORE THAN 50%

OF MATERIAL IS

SMALLER THAN
NO. 200 SIEVE
SIZE
MORE THAN 50%

OF COARSE

FRACTION
PASSING ON NO.
4 SIEVE
MORE THAN 50%

OF COARSE

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

CLAY MIXTURES
FINE

GRAINED
SOILS

SYMBOLS MAJOR DIVISIONS

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
PT
OH
CH
MH
OL
CL
ML

CLEAN SANDS
SC

SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT

MIXTURES

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY

MIXTURES

INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE

SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR

CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY

SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO

MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY

CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS,

LEAN CLAYS

ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC

SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY

INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR

DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR

SILTY SOILS

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH

PLASTICITY

ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO

HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS

PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH

HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS
SILTS
AND
CLAYS

GRAVELS WITH
FINES
SAND
AND
SANDY

SOILS (LITTLE OR NO FINES)

SANDS WITH
FINES

LIQUID LIMIT
LESS THAN 50

LIQUID LIMIT
GREATER THAN 50

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

GRAVELLY
SOILS
(APPRECIABLE

AMOUNT OF FINES)
(APPRECIABLE

AMOUNT OF FINES)
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY

SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES
CLEAN

GRAVELS
2551
10 4
5 8± inches Aggregate Base
FILL: Gray Brown Sility fine to coarse Sand, little fine Gravel, medium dense-moist
ALLUVIUM: Light Brown to Brown Silty fine Sand, loose-damp @ 8½ feet, little medium Sand
Boring Terminated at 10'
26 7
9 31

FIELD RESULTS
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: ---
READING TAKEN: At Completion

GRAPHIC LOG
BORING NO.

I-1
POCKET PEN.(TSF)
DRILLING DATE: 2/10/22
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Joseph Lozano Leon
DEPTH (FEET)DRY DENSITY(PCF)MOISTURECONTENT (%)ORGANICCONTENT (%) JOB NO.: 22G128-2
PROJECT: Proposed Warehouse
LOCATION: Ontario, California
PLATE B-1
5 10

LABORATORY RESULTS

COMMENTS

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

DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE
SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL

LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMIT
TBL 22G128-2.GPJ SOCALGEO.GDT 3/9/22
2552
2 6
7 8
5½± inches Aggregate Base
FILL: Brown Silty fine Sand, little medium Sand, trace coarse Sand, trace fine Gravel, dense-dry to damp
ALLUVIUM: Gray Brown Silty fine Sand, little medium Sand, trace coarse Sand, loose-damp
Brown Silty fine Sand, trace medium Sand, loose-damp to moist Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, medium dense-moist
Boring Terminated at 12'
30 4
6 23 33

FIELD RESULTS
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: ---
READING TAKEN: At Completion

GRAPHIC LOG
BORING NO.

I-2
POCKET PEN.(TSF)
DRILLING DATE: 2/10/22
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Joseph Lozano Leon
DEPTH (FEET)DRY DENSITY(PCF)MOISTURECONTENT (%)ORGANICCONTENT (%) JOB NO.: 22G128-2
PROJECT: Proposed Warehouse
LOCATION: Ontario, California
PLATE B-2
5 10

LABORATORY RESULTS

COMMENTS

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

DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE
SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL

LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMIT
TBL 22G128-2.GPJ SOCALGEO.GDT 3/9/22
2553
7 5
5 7
6± inches Asphaltic Concrete
FILL: Brown fine to medium Sand, little Silt, loose-damp to moist ALLUVIUM: Brown fine to medium Sand, little Silt, loose-damp Brown to Dark Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, trace coarse Sand, loose-damp to moist
Boring Terminated at 12'
8 4
7 6 20

FIELD RESULTS
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: ---
READING TAKEN: At Completion

GRAPHIC LOG
BORING NO.

I-3
POCKET PEN.(TSF)
DRILLING DATE: 2/10/22
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Joseph Lozano Leon
DEPTH (FEET)DRY DENSITY(PCF)MOISTURECONTENT (%)ORGANICCONTENT (%) JOB NO.: 22G128-2
PROJECT: Proposed Warehouse
LOCATION: Ontario, California
PLATE B-3
5 10

LABORATORY RESULTS

COMMENTS

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

DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE
SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL

LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMIT
TBL 22G128-2.GPJ SOCALGEO.GDT 3/9/22
2554
5 7
7 13
3± inches Asphaltic Concrete, 9± inches of Aggregate Base FILL: Gray Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, trace coarse Sand, medium dense-damp
ALLUVIUM: Gray Brown Silty fine Sand, little medium Sand, loose, damp to moist
Gray Brown Silty fine Sand to fine Sandy Silt, trace medium Sand, loose-very moist
Boring Terminated at 12'
19 4
9 6 52

FIELD RESULTS
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: ---
READING TAKEN: At Completion

GRAPHIC LOG
BORING NO.

I-4
POCKET PEN.(TSF)
DRILLING DATE: 2/10/22
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Joseph Lozano Leon
DEPTH (FEET)DRY DENSITY(PCF)MOISTURECONTENT (%)ORGANICCONTENT (%) JOB NO.: 22G128-2
PROJECT: Proposed Warehouse
LOCATION: Ontario, California
PLATE B-4
5 10

LABORATORY RESULTS

COMMENTS

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

DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE
SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL

LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMIT
TBL 22G128-2.GPJ SOCALGEO.GDT 3/9/22
2555
8 6
14 9
2½± inches Asphaltic Concrete, 3½± inches of Aggregate Base FILL: Brown Silty fine Sand, trace to little medium Sand, trace coarse Sand, medium dense-moist
ALLUVIUM: Brown Silty fine Sand, trace to little medium Sand, loose-damp
Gray Brown to Dark Gray Brown Silty fine Sand to fine Sandy Silt, loose-very moist
Gray Brown Silty fine Sand, little medium Sand, trace fine Gravel, loose-moist
Boring Terminated at 10'
12 4
9 24

FIELD RESULTS
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: ---
READING TAKEN: At Completion

GRAPHIC LOG
BORING NO.

I-5
POCKET PEN.(TSF)
DRILLING DATE: 2/10/22
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Joseph Lozano Leon
DEPTH (FEET)DRY DENSITY(PCF)MOISTURECONTENT (%)ORGANICCONTENT (%) JOB NO.: 22G128-2
PROJECT: Proposed Warehouse
LOCATION: Ontario, California
PLATE B-5
5 10

LABORATORY RESULTS

COMMENTS

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

DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE
SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL

LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMIT
TBL 22G128-2.GPJ SOCALGEO.GDT 3/9/22
2556
9 9
14 8± inches Portland Cement Concrete
FILL: Gray Brown Silty fine Sand, little medium Sand, trace coarse Sand, dense-moist
ALLUVIUM: Gray Brown Silty fine Sand, trace medium Sand, loose-moist
Gray Brown Silty fine Sand to fine Sandy Silt, trace medium Sand, trace fine Gravel, loose-very moist
Boring Terminated at 10'
43 8
6 43

FIELD RESULTS
WATER DEPTH: Dry
CAVE DEPTH: ---
READING TAKEN: At Completion

GRAPHIC LOG
BORING NO.

I-6
POCKET PEN.(TSF)
DRILLING DATE: 2/10/22
DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
LOGGED BY: Joseph Lozano Leon
DEPTH (FEET)DRY DENSITY(PCF)MOISTURECONTENT (%)ORGANICCONTENT (%) JOB NO.: 22G128-2
PROJECT: Proposed Warehouse
LOCATION: Ontario, California
PLATE B-6
5 10

LABORATORY RESULTS

COMMENTS

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

DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE
SURFACE ELEVATION: --- MSL

LIQUIDLIMITPLASTICLIMIT
TBL 22G128-2.GPJ SOCALGEO.GDT 3/9/22
2557

INFILTRATION CALCULATIONS
Project Name
Project Location
Project Number
Engineer
Test Hole Radius 4 (in)
Test Depth 10.20 (ft)
Infiltration Test Hole I-1
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(in)
Did 6 inches of water
seep away in less than
25 minutes?
Sandy Soils or NonSandy Soils?
Initial 8:28 AM 8.10
Final 8:53 AM 10.10
Initial 8:55 AM 8.10
Final 9:20 AM 10.10
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(ft)
Average Head Height
(ft)
Infiltration Rate Q
(in/hr)
Initial 9:21 AM 8.20
Final 9:31 AM 9.00
Initial 9:31 AM 8.20
Final 9:41 AM 8.90
Initial 9:41 AM 8.20
Final 9:51 AM 8.80
Initial 9:51 AM 8.30
Final 10:01 AM 8.90
Initial 10:01 AM 8.20
Final 10:11 AM 8.80
Initial 10:11 AM 8.20
Final 10:21 AM 8.80
Initial 10:21 AM 8.20
Final 10:31 AM 8.80
Per County Standards, Infiltration Rate calculated as follows: Where:

Q = Infiltration Rate (in inches per hour)
∆H = Change in Height (Water Level) over the time interval r = Test Hole (Borehole) Radius
∆t = Time Interval
Havg = Average Head Height over the time interval
7 10.00 0.60 1.70 3.86
6 10.00 0.60 1.70 3.86
Test Data
4 10.00 0.60 1.60 4.08
5 10.00 0.60 1.70 3.86
2 10.00 0.70 1.65 4.62
3 10.00 0.60 1.70 3.86
1 25.00 24.00 YES
2 Soil Criteria Test

25.00 24.00 YES SANDY SOILS
1 10.00 0.80 1.60 5.43
Proposed Warehouse
Ontario, California
22G128-2
Caleb Brackett

SANDY SOILS
)2Ht(r
H(60r) Q
 avg


)2Ht(r
H(60r) Q
 avg


2558

INFILTRATION CALCULATIONS
Project Name
Project Location
Project Number
Engineer
Test Hole Radius 4 (in)
Test Depth 12.00 (ft)
Infiltration Test Hole I-2
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(in)
Did 6 inches of water
seep away in less than
25 minutes?
Sandy Soils or NonSandy Soils?
Initial 7:07 AM 9.00
Final 7:32 AM 11.00
Initial 7:33 AM 9.00
Final 7:58 AM 10.90
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(ft)
Average Head Height
(ft)
Infiltration Rate Q
(in/hr)
Initial 7:58 AM 9.00
Final 8:08 AM 9.80
Initial 8:09 AM 9.00
Final 8:19 AM 9.80
Initial 8:20 AM 9.00
Final 8:30 AM 9.70
Initial 8:30 AM 9.00
Final 8:40 AM 9.80
Initial 8:40 AM 9.00
Final 8:50 AM 9.70
Initial 8:50 AM 9.00
Final 9:00 AM 9.70
Per County Standards, Infiltration Rate calculated as follows: Where:

INFILTRATION CALCULATIONS
Project Name
Project Location
Project Number
Engineer
Test Hole Radius 4 (in)
Test Depth 12.40 (ft)
Infiltration Test Hole I-3
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(in)
Did 6 inches of water
seep away in less than
25 minutes?
Sandy Soils or NonSandy Soils?
Initial 10:15 AM 10.40
Final 10:40 AM 12.40
Initial 10:42 AM 10.40
Final 11:07 AM 12.40
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(ft)
Average Head Height
(ft)
Infiltration Rate Q
(in/hr)
Initial 11:08 AM 10.40
Final 11:18 AM 11.20
Initial 11:20 AM 10.40
Final 11:30 AM 11.30
Initial 11:31 AM 10.40
Final 11:41 AM 11.20
Initial 11:42 AM 10.40
Final 11:52 AM 11.20
Initial 11:55 AM 10.40
Final 12:05 PM 11.10
Initial 12:06 PM 10.40
Final 12:16 PM 11.10
Initial 12:18 PM 10.40
Final 12:28 PM 11.10
Initial 12:29 PM 10.40
Final 12:39 PM 11.10
Per County Standards, Infiltration Rate calculated as follows: Where:

INFILTRATION CALCULATIONS
Project Name
Project Location
Project Number
Engineer
Test Hole Radius 4 (in)
Test Depth 11.70 (ft)
Infiltration Test Hole I-4
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(in)
Did 6 inches of water
seep away in less than
25 minutes?
Sandy Soils or NonSandy Soils?
Initial 7:56 AM 10.00
Final 8:21 AM 11.70
Initial 8:22 AM 10.00
Final 8:47 AM 11.70
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(ft)
Average Head Height
(ft)
Infiltration Rate Q
(in/hr)
Initial 8:48 AM 10.30
Final 8:58 AM 10.80
Initial 8:59 AM 10.30
Final 9:09 AM 10.70
Initial 9:10 AM 10.30
Final 9:20 AM 10.60
Initial 9:20 AM 10.30
Final 9:30 AM 10.50
Initial 9:31 AM 10.10
Final 9:41 AM 10.60
Initial 9:42 AM 10.10
Final 9:52 AM 10.50
Initial 9:24 AM 10.10
Final 9:34 AM 10.50
Per County Standards, Infiltration Rate calculated as follows: Where:

INFILTRATION CALCULATIONS
Project Name
Project Location
Project Number
Engineer
Test Hole Radius 4 (in)
Test Depth 10.20 (ft)
Infiltration Test Hole I-5
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(in)
Did 6 inches of water
seep away in less than
25 minutes?
Sandy Soils or NonSandy Soils?
Initial 7:42 AM 8.10
Final 8:07 AM 9.80
Initial 8:08 AM 8.10
Final 8:33 AM 9.90
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(ft)
Average Head Height
(ft)
Infiltration Rate Q
(in/hr)
Initial 8:35 AM 8.30
Final 8:45 AM 9.10
Initial 8:46 AM 8.80
Final 8:56 AM 9.40
Initial 8:57 AM 8.80
Final 9:07 AM 9.30
Initial 9:08 AM 8.80
Final 9:18 AM 9.30
Initial 9:19 AM 8.80
Final 9:29 AM 9.20
Initial 9:30 AM 8.80
Final 9:40 AM 9.20
Initial 9:42 AM 8.80
Final 9:52 AM 9.20
Initial 9:53 AM 8.80
Final 10:03 AM 9.20
Per County Standards, Infiltration Rate calculated as follows: Where:

INFILTRATION CALCULATIONS
Project Name
Project Location
Project Number
Engineer
Test Hole Radius 4 (in)
Test Depth 10.20 (ft)
Infiltration Test Hole I-6
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(in)
Did 6 inches of water
seep away in less than
25 minutes?
Sandy Soils or NonSandy Soils?
Initial 7:49 AM 8.10
Final 8:14 AM 9.70
Initial 8:15 AM 8.10
Final 8:40 AM 9.80
Interval
Number Time Time Interval
(min)
Water Depth
(ft)
Change in
Water Level
(ft)
Average Head Height
(ft)
Infiltration Rate Q
(in/hr)
Initial 10:17 AM 8.10
Final 10:27 AM 8.70
Initial 10:28 AM 8.10
Final 10:38 AM 8.80
Initial 10:39 AM 8.10
Final 10:49 AM 8.60
Initial 10:50 AM 8.10
Final 11:00 AM 8.70
Initial 11:05 AM 8.10
Final 11:15 AM 8.60
Initial 11:16 AM 8.10
Final 11:26 AM 8.60
Initial 11:27 AM 8.10
Final 11:37 AM 8.60
Per County Standards, Infiltration Rate calculated as follows: Where:

Q = Infiltration Rate (in inches per hour)
∆H = Change in Height (Water Level) over the time interval r = Test Hole (Borehole) Radius
∆t = Time Interval
Havg = Average Head Height over the time interval
Proposed Warehouse
Ontario, California
22G128-2
Sam Bergeland
Soil Criteria Test
1 25.00 19.20 YES SANDY SOILS
2 25.00 20.40 YES SANDY SOILS
Test Data
1 10.00 0.60 1.80 3.66
2 10.00 0.70 1.75 4.38
3 10.00 0.50 1.85 2.98
4 10.00 0.60 1.80 3.66
5 10.00 0.50 1.85 2.98
6 10.00 0.50 1.85 2.98
7 10.00 0.50 1.85 2.98
)2Ht(r
H(60r) Q
 avg


)2Ht(r
H(60r) Q
 avg


2563
Sample Description I-1 @ 8½'
Soil Classification Light Brown to Brown Silty fine Sand, little medium Sand Proposed Warehouse
Ontario, California
Project No. 22G128-2
PLATE C- 1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing by Weight
Grain Size in Millimeters
Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
US Standard Sieve Sizes
Coarse Gravel Fine Gravel Crs. Sand Med. Sand Fine Sand Fines (Silt and Clay) 2 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 1/4 #4 #8 #10 #16 #20 #30 #40 #50 #100 #200 2564
Sample Description I-2 @ 10½'
Soil Classification Brown Silty fine to medium Sand
Proposed Warehouse
Ontario, California
Project No. 22G128-2
PLATE C- 2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing by Weight
Grain Size in Millimeters
Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
US Standard Sieve Sizes
Coarse Gravel Fine Gravel Crs. Sand Med. Sand Fine Sand Fines (Silt and Clay) 2 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 1/4 #4 #8 #10 #16 #20 #30 #40 #50 #100 #200 2565
Sample Description I-3 @ 10½'
Soil Classification Brown to Dark Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, trace coarse Sand Proposed Warehouse
Ontario, California
Project No. 22G128-2
PLATE C- 3
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing by Weight
Grain Size in Millimeters
Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
US Standard Sieve Sizes
Coarse Gravel Fine Gravel Crs. Sand Med. Sand Fine Sand Fines (Silt and Clay) 2 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 1/4 #4 #8 #10 #16 #20 #30 #40 #50 #100 #200 2566
Sample Description I-4 @ 10½'
Soil Classification Gray Brown Silty fine Sand to fine Sandy Silt, trace medium Sand Proposed Warehouse
Ontario, California
Project No. 22G128-2
PLATE C- 4
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing by Weight
Grain Size in Millimeters
Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
US Standard Sieve Sizes
Coarse Gravel Fine Gravel Crs. Sand Med. Sand Fine Sand Fines (Silt and Clay) 2 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 1/4 #4 #8 #10 #16 #20 #30 #40 #50 #100 #200 2567
Sample Description I-5 @ 9½'
Soil Classification Gray Brown Silty fine Sand, little medium Sand, trace fine Gravel Proposed Warehouse
Ontario, California
Project No. 22G128-2
PLATE C- 5
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing by Weight
Grain Size in Millimeters
Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
US Standard Sieve Sizes
Coarse Gravel Fine Gravel Crs. Sand Med. Sand Fine Sand Fines (Silt and Clay) 2 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 1/4 #4 #8 #10 #16 #20 #30 #40 #50 #100 #200 2568
Sample Description I-6 @ 8½'
Soil Classification Gray Brown Silty fine Sand to fine Sandy Silt, trace medium Sand, trace fine Gravel Proposed Warehouse
Ontario, California
Project No. 22G128-2
PLATE C- 6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Percent Passing by Weight
Grain Size in Millimeters
Grain Size Distribution
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
US Standard Sieve Sizes
Coarse Gravel Fine Gravel Crs. Sand Med. Sand Fine Sand Fines (Silt and Clay) 2 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 1/4 #4 #8 #10 #16 #20 #30 #40 #50 #100 #200 2569
PR EL I MI N A R Y WA T E R QU A L I T Y MA N A G E M EN T PL A N 2021-502 5355 AIRPORT DRIVE
WE S T L A N D GR O U P , I N C .

APPENDIX G

PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
2570
5355 East Airport Drive

NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS

CITY OF ONTARIO
PREPARED BY:

Bill Lawson, PE, INCE
[email protected]
(949) 584-3148
AUGUST 26, 2022
14539-02 Noise Study
2571
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
ii 2572
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
iii

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7.6 Project Operational Noise Level Increases ................................................................................. 35 2573
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
iv

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP.............................................................................................................4 EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN......................................................................................................................5 EXHIBIT 2-A: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS...................................................................................................7 EXHIBIT 2-B: NOISE LEVEL INCREASE PERCEPTION ............................................................................10 EXHIBIT 2-C: TYPICAL LEVELS OF GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION..........................................................12 EXHIBIT 3-A: NOISE LEVEL EXPOSURE AND LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES ...........................14 EXHIBIT 3-B: ONT FUTURE AIRPORT NOISE CONTOURS.....................................................................17 EXHIBIT 5-A: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS..............................................................................25 EXHIBIT 6-A: RECEIVER LOCATIONS..................................................................................................28 EXHIBIT 7-A: OPERATIONAL NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS ...................................................................30 EXHIBIT 8-A: CONSTRUCTION NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS ................................................................38 EXHIBIT 8-B: NIGHTTIME CONCRETE POUR NOISE SOURCE AND RECEIVER LOCATIONS......................42 2574
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
v

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE ES-1: SUMMARY OF CEQA SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS .................................................................1 TABLE 3-1: OPERATIONAL NOISE STANDARDS..................................................................................15 TABLE 4-1: SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY.................................................................................21 TABLE 5-1: 24-HOUR AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS .........................................................24 TABLE 7-1: REFERENCE NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS......................................................................31 TABLE 7-2: DAYTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS..............................................................33 TABLE 7-3: NIGHTTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS ..........................................................34 TABLE 7-4: OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE.......................................................................34 TABLE 7-5: DAYTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES .............................................35 TABLE 7-6: NIGHTTIME OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES ........................................................36 TABLE 8-1: CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS .....................................................................39 TABLE 8-2: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY ....................................................40 TABLE 8-3: CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE ....................................................................40 TABLE 8-4: NIGHTTIME CONCRETE POUR NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE ................................................43 TABLE 8-5: VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT........................................44 TABLE 8-6: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION LEVELS..................................................................44 2575
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
(1) Reference
ADT Average Daily Traffic
ANSI American National Standards Institute
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
dBA A-weighted decibels
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
Hz Hertz
INCE Institute of Noise Control Engineering
Leq Equivalent continuous (average) sound level
Lmax Maximum level measured over the time interval
Lmin Minimum level measured over the time interval
OPR Office of Planning and Research
PPV Peak particle velocity
Project 5355 East Airport Drive
REMEL Reference Energy Mean Emission Level
RMS Root-mean-square
VdB Vibration Decibels
2576
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Urban Crossroads, Inc. has prepared this noise study to determine the potential noise impacts and the necessary noise mitigation measures, if any, for the proposed 5355 East Airport Drive development (“Project”). The proposed Project is to consist of a 270,337 square foot warehouse.

This study has been prepared to satisfy applicable City of Ontario standards and thresholds of significance based on guidance provided by Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (1).

The results of this 5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis are summarized below based on the significance criteria in Section 4 of this report. Table ES-1 shows the findings of significance for each potential noise and/or vibration impact under CEQA before and after any required mitigation measures.

TABLE ES-1: SUMMARY OF CEQA SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS
Analysis Report
Section
Significance Findings
Unmitigated Mitigated
Operational Noise 7 Less Than Significant -
Construction Noise
8 Less Than Significant -
Construction Vibration Less Than Significant -
2577
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
2 This page intentionally left blank
2578
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
3 1 INTRODUCTION
This noise analysis has been completed to determine the noise impacts associated with the development of the proposed 5355 East Airport Drive (“Project”). This noise study briefly describes the proposed Project, provides information regarding noise fundamentals, sets out the local regulatory setting, presents the study methods and procedures for noise analysis, and evaluates the future exterior noise environment. In addition, this study includes an analysis of the potential Project-related long-term stationary-source operational noise and short-term construction noise and vibration impacts.

1.1 SITE LOCATION
The proposed Project is located at 5355 East Airport Drive in the City of Ontario as shown on Exhibit 1-A. The Project is located approximately 2.7 miles east of the Ontario International Airport (ONT).

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Project is to consist of a 270,337 square foot warehouse.as shown on Exhibit 1-B.

The on-site Project-related noise sources are expected to include: loading dock activity, roof-top air conditioning units, trash enclosure activity, parking lot vehicle movements, and truck movements. This noise analysis is intended to describe noise level impacts associated with the expected typical operational activities at the Project site. 2579
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
4 EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP
2580
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
5 EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN
2581
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
6 This page intentionally left blank
2582
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
7 2 FUNDAMENTALS
Noise is simply defined as "unwanted sound." Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, when it causes actual physical harm or when it has adverse effects on health.

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

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

2.1 RANGE OF NOISE
Since the range of intensities that the human ear can detect is so large, the scale frequently used to measure intensity is a scale based on multiples of 10, the logarithmic scale. The scale for measuring intensity is the decibel scale. Each interval of 10 decibels indicates a sound energy ten times greater than before, which is perceived by the human ear as being roughly twice as loud. (2) The most common sounds vary between 40 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Normal conversation at three feet is roughly at 60 dBA, while loud jet engine noises equate to 110 dBA 2583
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
8 at approximately 1,000 feet, which can cause serious discomfort. (3) Another important aspect of noise is the duration of the sound and the way it is described and distributed in time.

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

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

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

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

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

Noise attenuation from ground absorption and reflective wave canceling adds to the attenuation associated with geometric spreading. Traditionally, the excess attenuation has also been expressed in terms of attenuation per doubling of distance. This approximation is usually 2584
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
9 sufficiently accurate for distances of less than 200 ft. For acoustically hard sites (i.e., sites with a reflective surface between the source and the receiver, such as a parking lot or body of water), no excess ground attenuation is assumed. For acoustically absorptive or soft sites (i.e., those sites with an absorptive ground surface between the source and the receiver such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees), an excess ground attenuation value of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally assumed. When added to the cylindrical spreading, the excess ground attenuation results in an overall drop-off rate of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance from a line source. (4)

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

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

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

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

Noise barriers, however, do have limitations. For a noise barrier to work, it must block the lineof-sight path of sound from the noise source. 2585
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
10 2.6 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY WITH NOISE
Some land uses are more tolerant of noise than others. For example, schools, hospitals, churches, and residences are more sensitive to noise intrusion than are commercial or industrial developments and related activities. As ambient noise levels affect the perceived amenity or livability of a development, so too can the mismanagement of noise impacts impair the economic health and growth potential of a community by reducing the area’s desirability as a place to live, shop and work. For this reason, land use compatibility with the noise environment is an important consideration in the planning and design process. The FHWA encourages State and Local government to regulate land development in such a way that noise-sensitive land uses are either prohibited from being located adjacent to a highway, or that the developments are planned, designed, and constructed in such a way that noise impacts are minimized. (6)

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

Surveys have shown that community response to noise varies from no reaction to vigorous action for newly introduced noises averaging from 10 dB below existing to 25 dB above existing. (8) According to research originally published in the Noise Effects Handbook (7), the percentage of high annoyance ranges from approximately 0 percent at 45 dB or less, 10 percent are highly annoyed around 60 dB, and increases rapidly to approximately 70 percent being highly annoyed at approximately 85 dB or greater. Despite this variability in behavior on an individual level, the population can be expected to exhibit the following responses to changes in noise levels as shown on Exhibit 2-B. A change of 3 dBA is considered barely perceptible, and changes of 5 dBA are considered readily perceptible. (4)
EXHIBIT 2-B: NOISE LEVEL INCREASE PERCEPTION
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Just Perceptible
Barely Perceptible
Readily Perceptible
Twice as Loud
Noise Level Increase (dBA)
2586
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
11 2.8 VIBRATION
Per the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (8) , vibration is the periodic oscillation of a medium or object. The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of room surfaces is called structure-borne noise. Sources of ground-borne vibrations include natural phenomena (e.g., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides) or human-made causes (e.g., explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment). Vibration sources may be continuous, such as factory machinery, or transient, such as explosions. As is the case with airborne sound, ground-borne vibrations may be described by amplitude and frequency.

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

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

The background vibration-velocity level in residential areas is generally 50 VdB. Ground-borne vibration is normally perceptible to humans at approximately 65 VdB. For most people, a vibration-velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible ground-borne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the ground-borne vibration is rarely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB, which is the typical background vibration-velocity level, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings. Exhibit 2-C illustrates common vibration sources and the human and structural response to ground-borne vibration. 2587
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
12 EXHIBIT 2-C: TYPICAL LEVELS OF GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. 2588
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
13 3 REGULATORY SETTING
The federal government, the State of California, various county governments, and most municipalities in the state have established standards and ordinances to control noise. In most areas, automobile and truck traffic is the major source of environmental noise. Traffic activity generally produces an average sound level that remains constant with time. Air and rail traffic, and commercial and industrial activities are also major sources of noise in some areas. Federal, state, and local agencies regulate different aspects of environmental noise. Federal and state agencies generally set noise standards for mobile sources such as aircraft and motor vehicles, while regulation of stationary sources is left to local agencies.

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

3.2 CITY OF ONTARIO GENERAL PLAN NOISE ELEMENT
The City of Ontario General Plan (Policy Plan) identifies several policies to minimize the impacts of excessive noise levels throughout the community. Policy Plan Section S4, Noise Hazards, establishes a goal of maintaining an environment where noise does not adversely affect the public’s health, safety, and welfare. (10) To satisfy this goal, the Policy Plan identifies six policies related to: noise mitigation; coordination with transportation authorities; airport noise mitigation; truck traffic; roadway design; and airport noise compatibility. Noise criteria identified at Policy Plan Table LU-7 provide guidelines to evaluate land use compatibility within various noise environments. Table LU-7 is reproduced here as Exhibit 3-A Noise Level Exposure and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines. The Project industrial land uses are considered clearly acceptable within exterior noise level environments approaching 70 dBA CNEL and normally acceptable within noise level environments up to 75 dBA CNEL. For noise level environments greater than 80 dBA CNEL, the Project land uses would be considered clearly unacceptable, and no new construction should be permitted.
2589
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
14 EXHIBIT 3-A: NOISE LEVEL EXPOSURE AND LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES Source: The Ontario Plan Safety Section on Noise Hazards (Table LU-7). 2590
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
15 3.3 OPERATIONAL NOISE STANDARDS
To analyze noise impacts originating from a designated fixed location or private property such as the 5355 East Airport Drive, stationary-source (operational) noise levels are evaluated against standards established under a City’s Municipal Code. The City of Ontario requires that noise from new stationary sources in the City comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance, which limits the acceptable noise at the property line of the impacted property, to reduce nuisances to sensitive land uses. Compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance would result in noise levels that are acceptable to the City and would result in less than significant noise impacts from stationary sources (11).

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

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

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

Section 5-29.09 of the Municipal Code states: No person, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition or any other related building activity, shall operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner that produces loud noise that disturbs a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, or a Police or Code Enforcement Officer, on any weekday except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. or on Saturday or Sunday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. (12) While the City establishes limits to the hours during which construction activity may take place, it does not identify specific noise level limits for construction noise levels at potentially affected receiver locationsfor CEQA analysis purposes. 2591
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
16 Therefore, a numerical construction threshold based on Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual is used for analysis of daytime construction impacts, as discussed below.

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

3.5 VIBRATION STANDARDS
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground-borne vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. Construction vibration is generally associated with pile driving and rock blasting. Other construction equipment such as air compressors, light trucks, hydraulic loaders, etc., generates little or no ground vibration. (8) To analyze vibration impacts originating from the operation and construction of 5355 East Airport Drive, vibration-generating activities are appropriately evaluated against standards established under a City’s Municipal Code, if such standards exist.

However, the City of Ontario does not identify specific vibration level limits. Therefore, for analysis purposes, the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, (13 p. 38) Table 19, vibration damage are used in this noise study to assess potential temporary construction-related impacts at adjacent building locations. The nearest noise sensitive buildings adjacent to the Project site can best be described as “older residential structures” with a maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.3 PPV (in/sec).

3.6 AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY
The Project site is located approximately 2.7 miles east of the Ontario International Airport (ONT).

This places the Project site within the ONT Airport Influence Area according to Policy Map 2-1 of the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ONT ALUCP). The ONT ALUCP was amended July 2018 to promote compatibility between airport and the land uses that surround it (14). Since the Project site is located within the ONT Airport Influence Area, the Project is subject to the Noise Criteria established on Table 2-3 in the ONT ALUCP. As shown on Exhibit 3-B, the Project site is located within the ONT Airport Influence Area but outside the 65 dBA CNEL airport noise impact zone consistent with Policy Map 2-3. According to Table 2-3 of the ONT ALUCP, industrial land uses located outside the 65 dBA CNEL noise level contours of ONT, such as the Project, are considered normally compatible land use. For normally compatible land use, either the activities associated with the land use are inherently noisy or standard construction methods will sufficiently attenuate exterior noise to an acceptable indoor community noise equivalent level (CNEL).
2592
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
17 EXHIBIT 3-B: ONT FUTURE AIRPORT NOISE CONTOURS
2593
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
18 This page intentionally left blank
2594
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
19 4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The following significance criteria are based on currently adopted guidance provided by Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. (1) For the purposes of this report, impacts would be potentially significant if the Project results in or causes:

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

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

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

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

As previously stated, the approach used in this noise study recognizes that there is no single noise increase that renders the noise impact significant, based on a 2008 California Court of Appeal ruling on Gray v. County of Madera. (15) For example, if the ambient noise environment is quiet (<60 dBA) and the new noise source greatly increases the noise levels, an impact may occur if the noise criteria may be exceeded. Therefore, for this analysis, a readily perceptible 5 dBA or greater project-related noise level increase is considered a significant impact when the without project noise levels are below 60 dBA. Per the FICON, in areas where the without project noise levels range from 60 to 65 dBA, a 3 dBA barely perceptible noise level increase appears to be appropriate for most people. When the without project noise levels already exceed 65 dBA, any increase in community noise louder than 1.5 dBA or greater is considered a significant impact if 2595
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
20 the noise criteria for a given land use is exceeded, since it likely contributes to an existing noise exposure exceedance. The FICON guidance provides an established source of criteria to assess the impacts of substantial temporary or permanent increase in baseline ambient noise levels.

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

4.2 VIBRATION (THRESHOLD B)
As described in Section 3.5, the vibration impacts originating from the construction of the 5355 East Airport Drive, vibration-generating activities are appropriately evaluated using the Caltrans vibration damage thresholds to assess potential temporary construction-related impacts at adjacent building locations. The nearest noise sensitive buildings adjacent to the Project site can best be described as “older residential structures” with a maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.3 PPV (in/sec).

4.3 CEQAGUIDELINES NOT FURTHER ANALYZED (THRESHOLD C)
CEQA Noise Threshold C applies when there are nearby public and private airports and/or air strips and focuses on land use compatibility of the Project to nearby airports and airstrips. The closest airport which would require additional noise analysis under CEQA guideline C is the Ontario International Airport. As previously indicated in Section 3.6, the Project site is located within the ONT Airport Influence Area but is located outside the 65 dBA CNEL airport noise impact zone. Therefore, airport noise impacts are considered less than significant, and no further noise analysis is provided under Guideline C.
2596
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
21 4.4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY
Noise impacts shall be considered significant if any of the following occur as a direct result of the proposed Project. Table 4-1 shows the significance criteria summary matrix that includes the allowable criteria used to identify potentially significant incremental noise level increases.

TABLE 4-1: SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY
Analysis Receiving
Land Use Condition(s)
Significance Criteria
Daytime Nighttime
Operational
NoiseSensitive
Exterior Noise Level Standards1 65 dBA Leq 45 dBA Leq
If ambient is < 60 dBA Leq2 ≥ 5 dBA Leq Project increase If ambient is 60 - 65 dBA Leq2 ≥ 3 dBA Leq Project increase If ambient is > 65 dBA Leq2 ≥ 1.5 dBA Leq Project increase Construction
Permitted hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays3 Noise Level Threshold4 80 dBA Leq
Vibration Level Threshold5 0.3 PPV (in/sec)
1 City of Ontario Municipal Code, 5-29.04(a) exterior noise standards for residential land uses (Noise Zone I). 2 FICON, 1992.
3 City of Ontario Municipal Code Section 5-29.09(a).
4 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. 5 Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Manual, April 2020 Table 19. "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 2597
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
22 This page intentionally left blank
2598
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
23 5 EXISTING NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
To assess the existing noise level environment, 24-hour noise level measurements were taken at four locations in the Project study area. The receiver locations were selected to describe and document the existing noise environment within the Project study area. Exhibit 5-A provides the boundaries of the Project study area and the noise level measurement locations. To fully describe the existing noise conditions, noise level measurements were collected by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on Tuesday, March 8th, 2022. Appendix 5.1 includes study area photos.

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

5.2 NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
The long-term noise level measurements were positioned as close to the nearest sensitive receiver locations as possible to assess the existing ambient hourly noise levels surrounding the Project site. Both Caltrans and the FTA recognize that it is not reasonable to collect noise level measurements that can fully represent every part of a private yard, patio, deck, or balcony normally used for human activity when estimating impacts for new development projects. This is demonstrated in the Caltrans general site location guidelines which indicate that, sites must be free of noise contamination by sources other than sources of interest. Avoid sites located near sources such as barking dogs, lawnmowers, pool pumps, and air conditioners unless it is the express intent of the analyst to measure these sources. (2) Further, FTA guidance states, that it is not necessary nor recommended that existing noise exposure be determined by measuring at every noise-sensitive location in the project area. Rather, the recommended approach is to characterize the noise environment for clusters of sites based on measurements or estimates at representative locations in the community. (8)
Based on recommendations of Caltrans and the FTA, it is not necessary to collect measurements at each individual building or residence, because each receiver measurement represents a group of buildings that share acoustical equivalence. (8) In other words, the area represented by the receiver shares similar shielding, terrain, and geometric relationship to the reference noise source. Receivers represent a location of noise sensitive areas and are used to estimate the future noise level impacts. Collecting reference ambient noise level measurements at the nearby sensitive receiver locations allows for a comparison of the before and after Project noise levels 2599
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
24 and is necessary to assess potential noise impacts due to the Project’s contribution to the ambient noise levels.

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

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

TABLE 5-1: 24-HOUR AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
Location1 Description
Energy Average
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
2 Daytime Nighttime
L1 Located northwest of the Project site near Ayres Hotel Ontario Mills Mall at 4395 Ontario Mills Parkway. 58.4 59.0
L2 Located northwest of the Project site near Hampton Inn & Suites Ontario at 4500 Ontario Mills Parkway. 61.7 61.3
L3 Located northwest of the Project site near Country Inn & Suites by Radisson, Ontario at Ontario Mills at 4674 Ontario Mills Parkway. 67.1 62.2 L4 Located northwest of the Project site near Hyatt Place Ontario/Rancho Cucamonga at 4760 Mills Circle. 69.8 68.2 1 See Exhibit 5-A for the noise level measurement locations. 2 Energy (logarithmic) average levels. The long-term 24-hour measurement worksheets are included in Appendix 5.2. "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

Table 5-1 provides the (energy average) noise levels used to describe the daytime and nighttime ambient conditions. These daytime and nighttime energy average noise levels represent the average of all hourly noise levels observed during these time periods expressed as a single number. Appendix 5.2 provides summary worksheets of the noise levels for each hour as well as the minimum, maximum, L1, L2, L5, L8, L25, L50, L90, L95, and L99 percentile noise levels observed during the daytime and nighttime periods.
2600
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
25 EXHIBIT 5-A: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
2601
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
26 This page intentionally left blank
2602
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
27 6 RECEIVER LOCATIONS
To assess the potential for long-term operational and short-term construction noise impacts, the following sensitive receiver locations, as shown on Exhibit 6-A, were identified as representative locations for analysis. Sensitive receivers are generally defined as locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could otherwise adversely affect the use of the land.

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

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

R1: Location R1 represents the existing noise sensitive Ayres Hotel Ontario Mills Mall at 4395 Ontario Mills Parkway, approximately 6,214 feet northwest of the Project site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receiver R1 is placed at the building façade. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L1, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

R2: Location R2 represents the existing noise sensitive Hampton Inn & Suites Ontario at 4500 Ontario Mills Parkway, approximately 5,072 feet northwest of the Project site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receiver R2 is placed at the building façade. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L2, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

R3: Location R3 represents the existing noise Country Inn & Suites by Radisson, Ontario at Ontario Mills at 4674 Ontario Mills Parkway, approximately 4,482 feet northwest of the Project site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receiver R3 is placed at the building façade. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L3, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

R4: Location R4 represents the existing noise Hyatt Place Ontario/Rancho Cucamonga at 4760 Mills Circle, approximately 3,872 feet northwest of the Project site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project site, receiver R4 is placed at the building façade. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L4, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
2603
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
28 EXHIBIT 6-A: RECEIVER LOCATIONS
2604
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
29 7 OPERATIONAL NOISE ANALYSIS
This section analyzes the potential stationary-source operational noise impacts at the nearby receiver locations, identified in Section 6, resulting from the operation of the proposed 5355 East Airport Drive Project. Exhibit 7-A identifies the noise source locations used to assess the operational noise levels.

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

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

7.2.1 MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES
The reference noise level measurements presented in this section were collected using a Larson Davis LxT Type 1 precisions sound level meter (serial number 01146). The LxT sound level meter was calibrated using a Larson-Davis calibrator, Model CAL 200, was programmed in "slow" mode to record noise levels in "A" weighted form and was located at approximately five feet above the ground elevation for each measurement. The sound level meters and microphones were equipped with a windscreen during all measurements. All noise level measurement equipment satisfies the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard specifications for sound level meters ANSI S1.4-2014/IEC 61672-1:2013. (18)
2605
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
30 EXHIBIT 7-A: OPERATIONAL NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS
2606
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
31 TABLE 7-1: REFERENCE NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
Noise Source1
Noise
Source
Height
(Feet)
Min./
Hour2
Reference
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
@ 50 Feet
Sound
Power
Level
(dBA) Day Night 3
Loading Dock Activity 8' 60 60 65.7 111.5
Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 5' 39 28 57.2 88.9
Trash Enclosure Activity 5' 10 10 57.3 89.0
Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 5' 60 60 56.1 87.8
Truck Movements 8' 60 60 59.8 93.2
1 As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc.
2 Anticipated duration (minutes within the hour) of noise activity during typical hourly conditions expected at the Project site. "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. 3 Sound power level represents the total amount of acoustical energy (noise level) produced by a sound source independent of distance or surroundings. Sound power levels calculated using the CadnaA noise model at the reference distance to the noise source.

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

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

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

Based on the typical operating conditions observed over a four-day measurement period, the roof-top air conditioning units are estimated to operate for and average 39 minutes per hour during the daytime hours, and 28 minutes per hour during the nighttime hours. These operating conditions reflect peak summer cooling requirements with measured temperatures approaching 2607
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
32 96 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) with average daytime temperatures of 82°F. For this noise analysis, the air conditioning units are expected to be located on the roof of the Project buildings.

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

7.2.5 PARKING LOT VEHICLE MOVEMENTS
To describe the on-site parking lot activity, a long-term 29-hour reference noise level measurement was collected in the center of activity within the staff parking lot of a warehouse distribution center. At 50 feet from the center of activity, the parking lot produced a reference noise level of 56.1 dBA Leq. Parking activities are expected to take place during the full hour (60 minutes) throughout the daytime and evening hours. The parking lot noise levels are mainly due cars pulling in and out of parking spaces in combination with car doors opening and closing.

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

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

Using the ISO 9613-2 protocol, CadnaA will calculate the distance from each noise source to the noise receiver locations, using the ground absorption, distance, and barrier/building attenuation inputs to provide a summary of noise level at each receiver and the partial noise level contributions by noise source. Consistent with the ISO 9613-2 protocol, the CadnaA noise prediction model relies on the reference sound power level (Lw) to describe individual noise sources. While sound pressure levels (e.g., Leq) quantify in decibels the intensity of given sound 2608
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
33 sources at a reference distance, sound power levels (Lw) are connected to the sound source and are independent of distance. Sound pressure levels vary substantially with distance from the source and diminish because of intervening obstacles and barriers, air absorption, wind, and other factors. Sound power is the acoustical energy emitted by the sound source and is an absolute value that is not affected by the environment.

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

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

The daytime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 22.2 to 27.4 dBA Leq.

TABLE 7-2: DAYTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS
Noise Source1
Operational Noise Levels by Receiver Location (dBA Leq) R1 R2 R3 R4
Loading Dock Activity 21.0 25.2 26.4 25.8
Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 7.6 10.8 12.1 13.5
Trash Enclosure Activity 0.0 2.6 4.0 0.0
Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 11.5 15.6 16.9 18.5
Truck Movements 12.6 15.4 16.8 16.8
Total (All Noise Sources) 22.2 26.2 27.4 27.2
1 See Exhibit 7-A for the noise source locations. CadnaA noise model calculations are included in Appendix 7.1.

Table 7-3 shows the Project operational noise levels during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The nighttime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 22.1 to 27.4 dBA Leq. The differences between the daytime and nighttime noise levels are largely related to the estimated duration of noise activity as outlined in Table 7-1 and Appendix 7.1.
2609
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
34 TABLE 7-3: NIGHTTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS Noise Source1
Operational Noise Levels by Receiver Location (dBA Leq) R1 R2 R3 R4
Loading Dock Activity 21.0 25.2 26.4 25.8
Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 5.2 8.4 9.7 11.0
Trash Enclosure Activity 0.0 1.7 3.0 0.0
Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 11.5 15.6 16.9 18.5
Truck Movements 12.6 15.4 16.8 16.8
Total (All Noise Sources) 22.1 26.1 27.4 27.1
1 See Exhibit 7-A for the noise source locations. CadnaA noise model calculations are included in Appendix 7.1.

7.5 PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
To demonstrate compliance with local noise regulations, the Project-only operational noise levels are evaluated against exterior noise level thresholds based on the City of Ontario exterior noise level standards at nearby noise-sensitive receiver locations. Table 7-4 shows the operational noise levels associated with 5355 East Airport Drive Project will satisfy the City of Ontario exterior noise level standards.

TABLE 7-4: OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
Receiver
Location1
Project Operational
Noise Levels (dBA Leq)2
Noise Level Standards
(dBA Leq)3
Noise Level Standards
Exceeded?4
Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime
R1 22.2 22.1 65.0 45.0 No No
R2 26.2 26.1 65.0 45.0 No No
R3 27.4 27.4 65.0 45.0 No No
R4 27.2 27.1 65.0 45.0 No No
1 See Exhibit 6-A for the receiver locations.
2 Proposed Project operational noise levels as shown on Tables 7-2 and 7-3. 3 Exterior noise level standards, for residential land use, as shown on Table 4-1. 4 Do the estimated Project operational noise source activities exceed the noise level standards? "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. 2610
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
35 7.6 PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
To describe the Project operational noise level increases, the Project operational noise levels are combined with the existing ambient noise levels measurements for the nearby receiver locations potentially impacted by Project operational noise sources. Since the units used to measure noise, decibels (dB), are logarithmic units, the Project-operational and existing ambient noise levels cannot be combined using standard arithmetic equations. (2) Instead, they must be logarithmically added using the following base equation:

SPLTotal = 10log10[10SPL1/10 + 10SPL2/10 + … 10SPLn/10] Where “SPL1,” “SPL2,” etc. are equal to the sound pressure levels being combined, or in this case, the Project-operational and existing ambient noise levels. The difference between the combined Project and ambient noise levels describes the Project noise level increases to the existing ambient noise environment. As indicated on Tables 7-5 and 7-6, the Project will not generate an unmitigated nighttime operational noise level increase at the nearest receiver locations. Projectrelated operational noise level increases will satisfy the operational noise level increase significance criteria presented on Table 4-1. Therefore, the incremental Project operational noise level increase is considered less than significant at all receiver locations.

TABLE 7-5: DAYTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Receiver
Location1
Total
Project
Operational
Noise
Level2
Measurement
Location3
Reference
Ambient
Noise
Levels4
Combined
Project
and
Ambient5
Project
Increase6
Increase
Criteria7
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
R1 22.2 L1 58.4 58.4 0.0 5.0 No
R2 26.2 L2 61.7 61.7 0.0 5.0 No
R3 27.4 L3 67.1 67.1 0.0 1.5 No
R4 27.2 L4 69.8 69.8 0.0 1.5 No
1 See Exhibit 6-A for the receiver locations.
2 Total Project daytime operational noise levels as shown on Table 7-2. 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Exhibit 5-A. 4 Observed daytime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 5-1. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. 7 Significance increase criteria as shown on Table 4-1. 2611
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
36 TABLE 7-6: NIGHTTIME OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Receiver
Location1
Total
Project
Operational
Noise
Level2
Measurement
Location3
Reference
Ambient
Noise
Levels4
Combined
Project
and
Ambient5
Project
Increase6
Increase
Criteria7
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
R1 22.1 L1 59.0 59.0 0.0 5.0 No
R2 26.1 L2 61.3 61.3 0.0 5.0 No
R3 27.4 L3 62.2 62.2 0.0 5.0 No
R4 27.1 L4 68.2 68.2 0.0 1.5 No
1 See Exhibit 6-A for the receiver locations.
2 Total Project nighttime operational noise levels as shown on Table 7-4. 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Exhibit 5-A. 4 Observed nighttime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 5-1. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. 7 Significance increase criteria as shown on Table 4-1.

7.7 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS
Traffic generated by the operation of the proposed Project will influence the traffic noise levels in surrounding off-site areas and at the Project site. The off-site Project-related traffic represents an incremental increase to the existing roadway volumes, which is not expected to generate a barely perceptible noise level increase of 3 dBA CNEL at nearby sensitive land uses adjacent to study area roadways, since a doubling of the existing traffic volumes would be required to generate a 3 dBA CNEL increase. Due to the low traffic volumes generated by the Project, the off-site traffic noise levels generated by the Project are considered less than significant and no further analysis is required.
2612
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
37 8 CONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS
This section analyzes potential impacts resulting from the short-term construction activities associated with the development of the Project. Exhibit 8-A shows the construction activity boundaries in relation to the nearest sensitive receiver locations previously described in Section

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

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

8.2 CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS
To describe construction noise activities, this construction noise analysis was prepared using reference construction equipment noise levels from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), which includes a national database of construction equipment reference noise emission levels. (21) The RCNM equipment database, provides a comprehensive list of the noise generating characteristics for specific types of construction equipment. In addition, the database provides an acoustical usage factor to estimate the fraction of time each piece of construction equipment is operating at full power (i.e., its loudest condition) during a construction operation. 2613
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
38 EXHIBIT 8-A: CONSTRUCTION NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS
2614
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
39 8.3 CONSTRUCTION NOISE ANALYSIS
Using the reference construction equipment noise levels and the CadnaA noise prediction model, calculations of the Project construction noise level impacts at the nearby sensitive receiver locations were completed. Consistent with FTA guidance for general construction noise assessment, Table 8-1 presents the combined noise levels for the loudest construction equipment, assuming they operate at the same time. As shown on Table 8-2, the construction noise levels are expected to range from 27.6 to 38.6 dBA Leq at the nearby receiver locations.

Appendix 8.1 includes the detailed CadnaA construction noise model inputs.

TABLE 8-1: CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS
Construction
Stage
Reference
Construction Activity
Reference Noise
Level @ 50 Feet
(dBA Leq)
1 Combined
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
2 Combined Sound
Power Level
(PWL)3
Demolition
Demolition Equipment 82
Backhoes 74 83 115
Hauling Trucks 72
Site
Preparation
Crawler Tractors 78
Hauling Trucks 72 80 112
Rubber Tired Dozers 75
Grading
Graders 81
Excavators 77 83 115
Compactors 76
Building
Construction
Cranes 73
Tractors 80 81 113
Welders 70
Paving
Pavers 74
Paving Equipment 82 83 115
Rollers 73
Architectural
Coating
Cranes 73
Air Compressors 74 77 109
Generator Sets 70
1 FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM).
2 Represents the combined noise level for all equipment assuming they operate at the same time consistent with FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidance.
3 Sound power level represents the total amount of acoustical energy (noise level) produced by a sound source independent of distance or surroundings. Sound power levels calibrated using the CadnaA noise model at the reference distance to the noise source. 2615
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
40 TABLE 8-2: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Demolition Site
Preparation Grading BuildingConstruction Paving ArchitecturalCoating Highest
Levels2
R1 33.6 30.6 33.6 31.6 33.6 27.6 33.6
R2 35.9 32.9 35.9 33.9 35.9 29.9 35.9
R3 37.1 34.1 37.1 35.1 37.1 31.1 37.1
R4 38.6 35.6 38.6 36.6 38.6 32.6 38.6
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 8-A.
2 Construction noise level calculations based on distance from the construction activity, which is measured from the Project site boundary to the nearest receiver locations. CadnaA construction noise model inputs are included in Appendix 8.1.

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

TABLE 8-3: CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE
Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Highest Construction
Noise Levels2
Threshold3
Threshold
Exceeded?4
R1 33.6 80 No
R2 35.9 80 No
R3 37.1 80 No
R4 38.6 80 No
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 8-A.
2 Highest construction noise level calculations based on distance from the construction noise source activity to the nearest receiver locations as shown on Table 8-2.
3 Construction noise level thresholds as shown on Table 4-1. 4 Do the estimated Project construction noise levels exceed the construction noise level threshold? 2616
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
41 8.5 NIGHTTIME CONCRETE POUR NOISE ANALYSIS
It is our understanding that nighttime concrete pouring activities will occur as a part of Project building construction activities. Nighttime concrete pouring activities are often used to support reduced concrete mixer truck transit times and lower air temperatures than during the daytime hours and are generally limited to the actual building pad area as shown on Exhibit 8-B. Since the nighttime concrete pours will take place outside the permitted City of Ontario Municipal Code, Section 5-29.09 hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. or on Saturday or Sunday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. The Project Applicant will be required to obtain authorization for nighttime work from the City of Ontario. Any nighttime construction noise activities shall satisfy the noise limits outlined in Table 4-1.

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

To describe the nighttime concrete pour noise levels associated with the construction of the 5355 East Airport Drive, this analysis relies on reference sound power level of 100.3 dBA Lw. While the Project noise levels will depend on the actual duration of activities and specific equipment fleet in use at the time of construction, the reference sound power level of 100.3 dBA Lw is used to describe the expected Project nighttime concrete pour noise activities. 2617
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
42 EXHIBIT 8-B: NIGHTTIME CONCRETE POUR NOISE SOURCE AND RECEIVER LOCATIONS 2618
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
43 8.5.2 NIGHTTIME CONCRETE POUR NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE As shown on Table 8-4, the noise levels associated with the nighttime concrete pour activities are estimated to range from 18.6 to 24.1 dBA Leq and will satisfy the City of Ontario nighttime stationary-source exterior hourly average Leq residential noise level threshold adjusted to reflect the ambient noise conditions at all the receiver locations. Based on the results of this analysis, all nearest noise receiver locations will experience less than significant impacts due to the Project related nighttime concrete pour activities. Appendix 8.2 includes the CadnaA nighttime concrete pour noise model inputs.

TABLE 8-4: NIGHTTIME CONCRETE POUR NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE Receiver
Location1 Use
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Paving
Construction2
Nighttime
Threshold3
Threshold
Exceeded?4
R1 Residence 18.6 45 No
R2 Residence 21.2 45 No
R3 Residence 22.5 45 No
R4 Residence 24.1 45 No
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 8-B.
2 Paving construction noise level calculations based on distance from the construction noise source activity to nearby receiver locations.
3 Exterior nighttime noise level standards as shown on Table 5-1. 4 Do the estimated Project construction noise levels exceed the nighttime construction noise level threshold?

8.6 CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION ANALYSIS
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods employed. Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. Ground vibration levels associated with various types of construction equipment are summarized on Table 8-5. Based on the representative vibration levels presented for various construction equipment types, it is possible to estimate the potential for human response (annoyance) and building damage using the following vibration assessment methods defined by the FTA. To describe the vibration impacts the FTA provides the following equation: PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5
2619
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
44 TABLE 8-5: VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Equipment PPV (in/sec)
at 25 feet
Small bulldozer 0.003
Jackhammer 0.035
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Large bulldozer 0.089
Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual Table 8-6 presents the expected Project related vibration levels at the nearby receiver locations.

At distances ranging from 3,872 to 6,214 feet from Project construction activities, construction vibration velocity levels are estimated to be 0.000 in/sec PPV. Based on maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.3 PPV (in/sec), the typical Project construction vibration levels will fall below the building damage thresholds at all the noise sensitive receiver locations.

Therefore, the Project-related vibration impacts are considered less than significant during typical construction activities at the Project site.

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

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

Activity
(Feet)2
Typical Construction Vibration Levels
PPV (in/sec)3 Thresholds
PPV
(in/sec)4
Thresholds
Exceeded?5
Small
bulldozer Jackhammer Loaded Trucks
Large
bulldozer
Highest
Vibration
Level
R1 6,214' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.3 No
R2 5,072' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.3 No
R3 4,482' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.3 No
R4 3,872' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.3 No
1 Receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 8-A.
2 Distance from receiver location to Project construction boundary (Project site boundary). 3 Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment (Table 8-4). 4 Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, April 2020, Table 19, p. 38. 5 Does the peak vibration exceed the acceptable vibration thresholds? "PPV" = Peak Particle Velocity
2620
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
45 9 REFERENCES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EPA 550/9/82/106.

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

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

10. City of Ontario. The Ontario Plan Safety Section, S4, Noise Hazards. March 2014.

11. —. The Ontario Plan Draft EIR. April 2009.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environment and Planning. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model. January, 2006.

This page intentionally left blank
2621
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
46 This page intentionally left blank
2622
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
47 10 CERTIFICATIONS
The contents of this noise study report represent an accurate depiction of the noise environment and impacts associated with the proposed 5355 East Airport Drive Project. The information contained in this noise study report is based on the best available data at the time of preparation.

If you have any questions, please contact me directly at (949) 584-3148.

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

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

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

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

PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS
Certified Acoustical Consultant – County of San Diego • March, 2018 Certified Acoustical Consultant – County of Orange • February, 2011 FHWA-NHI-142051 Highway Traffic Noise Certificate of Training • February, 2013 2623
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
48 This page intentionally left blank
2624
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
APPENDIX 3.1:

CITY OF ONTARIO MUNICIPAL CODE
49 2625
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
This page intentionally left blank
50 2626
3/23/22, 4:00 AM https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ 1/13 CHAPTER 29: NOISE
5-29.01 Declaration of findings and policy
5-29.02 Definitions
5-29.03 Designated noise zones
5-29.04 Exterior noise standards
5-29.05 Interior noise standards
5-29.06 Exemptions
5-29.07 Loud and disturbing noise
5-29.08 Real property maintenance noise regulations
5-29.09 Construction activity noise regulations
5-29.10 Other public agency exceptions
5-29.11 Schools, day care centers, churches, libraries, museums, health care institutions; Special provisions
5-29.12 Sound amplifying equipment
5-29.13 Amplified sound
5-29.14 Motor vehicles
5-29.15 Noise level measurement
5-29.16 Prima facie violation
5-29.17 Penalty
5-29.18 Enforcement and administration
5-29.19 City Manager waiver
5-29.20 Noise abatement program
Sec. 5-29.01. Declaration of findings and policy.

It is hereby found and declared that:
(a) The making and creation of excessive, unnecessary or unusually loud noises within the limits of the City is a condition that has existed for some time, however, the extent and volume of such noises is increasing;
(b) The making, creation or maintenance of such excessive, unnecessary, unnatural or unusually loud noises that are prolonged, unusual and unnatural in their time, place and use affect and are a detriment to public health, comfort, convenience, safety, welfare and prosperity of the residents of the City; and
(c) The necessity in the public interest for the provisions and prohibitions hereinafter contained and enacted, is declared as a matter of legislative determination and public policy, and it is further declared 51 2627
3/23/22, 4:00 AM https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ 2/13 that the provisions and prohibitions hereinafter contained and enacted are in pursuance of and for the purpose of securing and promoting the public health, comfort, convenience, safety, welfare and prosperity and the peace and quiet of the residents of the City. (§ 2, Ord. 2888, eff. March 6, 2008)
Sec. 5-29.02. Definitions.

As used in this chapter, specific words and phrases are defined as follows:
(a) "Ambient noise level" shall mean the all-encompassing noise level associated with a given environment and is a composite of sounds from all sources, excluding the alleged offensive noise or excessive sound, at the location and approximate time at which a comparison with the alleged offensive noise is to be made.
(b) "Applicable (noise) zone" shall mean the noise zone category based on the actual use of the property, provided that the actual use is a legal use in the City. (c) "A-weighted sound level" shall mean the sound pressure level in decibels (dBAs) as measured with a sound level meter using the A-weighted filter network (scale) at slow response and at a pressure of twenty (20) micropascals. The A-weighted filter de-emphasizes the very low and a very high frequency component of sound in a manner similar to the response of the human ear, and is a numerical method of rating human judgment of loudness.
(d) "Decibel (dBA)" shall mean a unit for measuring the amplitude of a sound, equal to twenty (20) times the logarithm to the base ten (10) of the ratio of pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure of twenty (20) micropascals.
(e) "Equivalent sound or noise level (Leq)" shall mean the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 60804 Standard for measurement, or the most recent revision thereof, for the sound level corresponding to a steady state noise level over a given sample period with the same amount of acoustic energy as the actual time varying noise level or the energy average noise level during the sample period. The measurement period for the purposes of this chapter is fifteen (15) minutes.
(f) "Impulsive noise" shall mean a noise of short duration usually less than one (1) second and of high intensity, with an abrupt onset and rapid decay. Such objectionable noises may also be repetitive.
(g) "Intrusive noise" shall mean that noise that intrudes over and above the ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, time of occurrence and tonal information content, as well as the prevailing ambient noise level. (h) "Maintenance" shall mean the upkeep, repair or preservation of existing property or structures. (i) "Noise" shall mean any unwanted sound or sound that is undesirable because it interferes with speech and hearing, or is intense enough to damage hearing or is otherwise annoying. (j) "Noise level (sound level)" shall mean the weighted sound pressure level obtained by use of a sound level meter having a standard frequency filter for attenuating part of the sound spectrum. For purposes of this chapter, all noise levels (sound levels) shall be A-weighted sound pressure level. (k) "Noise (sound) level meter" shall mean an instrument, including a microphone, an amplifier, an output meter and frequency weighting networks for the measurement and determination of noise and sound levels. For the purposes of this chapter, the sound level meter must meet the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 60651 and 60804 Standards, or the most recent revisions thereof, for Type 1 sound level meters or an instrument and the associated recording and analyzing equipment that will provide equivalent data.
52 2628
3/23/22, 4:00 AM https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ 3/13 (§ 2, Ord. 2888, eff. March 6, 2008)
Sec. 5-29.03. Designated noise zones.

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

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

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

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

I Single-Family Residential 65 dBA 45 dBA
II Multi-Family Residential, Mobile
Home Parks 65 dBA 50 dBA
III Commercial Property 65 dBA 60 dBA
IV Residential Portion of Mixed Use 70 dBA 70 dBA
V
Manufacturing and Industrial, Other
Uses 70 dBA 70 dBA
(1) If the ambient noise level exceeds the resulting standard, the ambient noise level shall be the standard.
(2) Measurements for compliance are made on the affected property pursuant to § 5-29.15. (b) It is unlawful for any person at any location within the incorporated area of the City to create noise, or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, which noise causes the noise level, when measured at any location on any other property, to exceed either of the following:
53 2629
3/23/22, 4:00 AM https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ 4/13 (1) The noise standard for the applicable zone for any fifteen-minute (15) period; and (2) A maximum instantaneous (single instance) noise level equal to the value of the noise standard plus twenty (20) dBA for any period of time (measured using A-weighted slow response). (c) In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the noise standard, the maximum allowable noise level under such category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. (d) The Noise Zone IV standard shall apply to that portion of residential property falling within one hundred (100) feet of a commercial property or use, if the noise originates from that commercial property or use.
(e) If the measurement location is on a boundary between two (2) different noise zones, the lower noise level standard applicable to the noise zone shall apply. (§ 2, Ord. 2888, eff. March 6, 2008)
Sec. 5-29.05. Interior noise standards.
(a) The following interior noise standards, unless otherwise specifically indicated, shall apply to all properties within a designated noise zone.

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

I Single-Family Residential 45 dBA 40 dBA
II Multi-Family Residential, Mobile
Home Parks 45 dBA 40 dBA
IV Residential Portion of Mixed Use 45 dBA 40 dBA
(1) If the ambient noise level exceeds the resulting standard, the ambient noise level shall be the standard.
(2) Measurements for compliance are made on the affected property pursuant to § 5-29.15. (b) It is unlawful for any person at any location within the incorporated area of the City to create noise, or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, which noise causes the noise level, when measured at any location on any other property, to exceed either of the following:
(1) The noise standard for the applicable zone for any fifteen-minute (15) period; (2) A maximum instantaneous (single instance) noise level equal to the value of the noise standard plus twenty (20) dBA for any period of time (measured using A-weighted slow response). (c) In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the noise standard, the maximum allowable noise level under such category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. (d) The Noise Zone IV standard shall apply to that portion of residential property falling within one hundred (100) feet of a commercial property or use, if the noise originates from that commercial property or use.
(e) If the measurement location is on a boundary between two (2) different noise zones, the lower noise level standard applicable to the noise zone shall apply. 54 2630
3/23/22, 4:00 AM https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ 5/13 (§ 2, Ord. 2888, eff. March 6, 2008)
Sec. 5-29.06. Exemptions.

The following activities shall be exempted from the provisions of this chapter:
(a) Any activity conducted on public property, or on private property with the consent of the owner, by any public entity or its officers, employees, representatives, agents, subcontractors, permittees, licensees or lessees that the public entity has authorized are exempt from the provisions of this chapter. This includes, without limitation, sporting and recreational activities that are sponsored, cosponsored, permitted or allowed by the City or any school district within the City's jurisdictional boundaries. This also includes, without limitation, occasional outdoor gatherings, public dances, shows or sporting and entertainment events, provided such events are conducted pursuant to an approval, authorization, contract, lease, permit or sublease by the appropriate public entity, specifically the planning commission or City Council;
(b) Occasional outdoor gatherings, public dances, show, sporting and entertainment events, provided said events are conducted pursuant to a permit or license issued by the appropriate jurisdiction relative to the staging of said events;
(c) Any mechanical device, apparatus or equipment used, related to or connected with emergency machinery, vehicle, work or warning alarm or bell, provided the sounding of any bell or alarm on any building or motor vehicle shall terminate its operation within forty-five (45) minutes in any hour of its being activated;
(d) Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition or grading of any real property. Such activities shall instead be subject to the provisions of § 5-29.09; (e) Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition or grading of public rights-of-way or during authorized seismic surveys;
(f) All mechanical devices, apparatus or equipment associated with agriculture operations provided that:
(1) Operations do not take place between 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.; (2) Such operations and equipment are utilized for the protection or salvage of agricultural crops during periods of potential or actual frost damage or other adverse weather conditions; or (3) Such operations and equipment are associated with agricultural pest control through pesticide application, provided the application is made in accordance with permits issued by or regulations enforced by the California Department of Agriculture;
(g) Noise sources associated with the maintenance of real property. Such activities shall instead be subject to the provisions of § 5-29.08;
(h) Any activity to the extent regulation thereof has been preempted by state or federal law; (i) Any noise sources associated with people and/or music associated with a party at a residential property. Such noise shall be subject to the provisions of OMC § 5-29.07; (j) Any noise source emanating from an ice cream truck within the City. Such noise shall be subject to the provisions of OMC § 4-18.04;
(k) Any noise sources associated with barking dogs or other intermittent noises made by animals on any properly within the City. Such noise shall be subject to the provisions of OMC Chapter 1, Title 6;
55 2631
3/23/22, 4:00 AM https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ 6/13 (l) Noise sources related to uses approved by a permit or development agreement adopted prior to the date of adoption of this chapter and that contains acoustic or noise standard conditions of approval. This exemption shall only be applicable during the effective period of the City-approved permit or development agreement.
(§ 2, Ord. 2888, eff. March 6, 2008)
Sec. 5-29.07. Loud and disturbing noise.
(a) It is unlawful for any person or property owner within the City to make, cause or allow to be made any loud, excessive, impulsive or intrusive noise, disturbance or commotion that disturbs the peace or quiet of any area or that causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitivities in the area, after a Police or Code Enforcement Officer has first requested that the person or property owner cease and desist from making such noise. The types of loud, disturbing, excessive, impulsive or intrusive noise may include, but shall not be limited to, yelling, shouting, hooting, whistling, singing, playing a musical instrument, or emitting or transmitting any loud music or noise from any mechanical or electrical sound making or sound-amplifying device. (b) The factors, standards, and conditions that may be considered in determining whether a violation of the provisions of this section has been committed, included, but not limited to, the following:
(1) The level of the noise;
(2) The level and intensity of the background (ambient) noise, if any; (3) The proximity of the noise to residential or commercial sleeping areas; (4) The nature and zoning of the area within which the noise emanates; (5) The density of inhabitation of the area within which the noise emanates; (6) The time of day and night the noise occurs;
(7) The duration of the noise;
(8) Whether the noise is constant, recurrent or intermittent; (9) Whether the noise is produced by a commercial or noncommercial activity; and (10) Whether the use is lawful under the provisions of Title 5 of this Code and whether the noise is one that could reasonably be expected from the activity or allowed use. (§ 2, Ord. 2888, eff. March 6, 2008)
Sec. 5-29.08. Real property maintenance noise regulations. (a) No person, while engaged in maintenance of real property, shall operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner that produces loud noise that disturbs a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, or a Police or Code Enforcement Officer, except between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
(b) Trimming or pruning that requires the use of chainsaws or mulching machines shall only be allowed between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on a weekday and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday or Sunday.
(c) The use of electrical or gasoline powered blowers, such as commonly used by gardeners or other persons for cleaning lawns, yards, driveways, gutters and other property shall only be allowed between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on a weekday and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday or Sunday.
56 2632
3/23/22, 4:00 AM https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ 7/13 (d) No landowner, gardener, property maintenance service, contractor, subcontractor or employer shall permit or allow any person or persons working under his or her direction or control to operate any tool, equipment or machine in violation of the provisions of this section. (e) Exceptions. The provisions of this section shall not apply to the following:
(1) Emergency property maintenance required by the building official; (2) The maintenance, repair or improvement of any public work or facility by public employees, by any person or persons acting pursuant to a public works contract, or by any person or persons performing such work or pursuant to the direction of, or on behalf of, any public agency; provided, however, this exception shall not apply to the City, or its employees, contractors or agents, unless:
(i) The City Manager or department head determines that the maintenance, repair or improvement is immediately necessary to maintain public service, (ii) The maintenance, repair or improvement is of a nature that cannot feasibly be conducted during normal business hours, or
(iii) The City Council has approved project specifications, contract provisions, or an environmental document that specifically authorizes maintenance during hours of the day that would otherwise be prohibited pursuant to this section; and
(3) Any maintenance that complies with the noise limits specified in § 5-29.04. (§ 2, Ord. 2888, eff. March 6, 2008)
Sec. 5-29.09. Construction activity noise regulations.
(a) No person, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition or any other related building activity, shall operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner that produces loud noise that disturbs a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, or a Police or Code Enforcement Officer, on any weekday except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. or on Saturday or Sunday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. (b) No landowner, construction company owner, contractor, subcontractor, or employer shall permit or allow any person or persons working under their direction and control to operate any tool, equipment or machine in violation of the provisions of this section. (c) Exceptions.
(1) The provisions of this section shall not apply to emergency construction work performed by a private party when authorized by the City Manager or his or her designee; (2) The maintenance, repair or improvement of any public work or facility by public employees, by any person or persons acting pursuant to a public works contract, or by any person or persons performing such work or pursuant to the direction of, or on behalf of, any public agency; provided, however, this exception shall not apply to the City, or its employees, contractors or agents, unless:
(i) The City Manager or a department head determines that the maintenance, repair or improvement is immediately necessary to maintain public services, (ii) The maintenance, repair or improvement is of a nature that cannot feasibly be conducted during normal business hours, or
(iii) The City Council has approved project specifications, contract provisions, or an environmental document that specifically authorizes construction during hours of the day that would otherwise be prohibited pursuant to this section; and
(3) Any construction that complies with the noise limits specified in §§ 5-29.04 or 5-29.05. 57 2633
3/23/22, 4:00 AM https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ 8/13 (§ 2, Ord. 2888, eff. March 6, 2008)
Sec. 5-29.10. Other public agency exceptions.

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

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

Loudspeakers, sound amplifiers, public address systems or similar devices used to amplify sounds shall be subject to the provisions of § 5-29.13. Such sound amplifying equipment shall not be construed to include electronic devices, including but not limited to, radios, tape players, tape recorders, compact disc players, MP3 players, electric keyboards, music synthesizers, record players or televisions, which are designed and operated for personal use, or used entirely within a building and are not designed or used to convey the human voice, music or any other sound to an audience outside such building, or which are used in vehicles and heard only by occupants of the vehicle in which installed.
(§ 2, Ord. 2888, eff. March 6, 2008)
Sec. 5-29.13. Amplified sound.
(a) The City Council enacts the following legislation for the sole purpose of securing and promoting the public health, comfort, safety and welfare for its citizenry. While recognizing that the use of sound amplifying equipment may be entitled to certain protection by the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and assembly, the City Council finds that in order to protect the public safety and the correlative rights of the citizens of this community to privacy and freedom from public nuisance of loud and unnecessary noise, reasonable regulation of the time, place and manner of the use of amplifying equipment is necessary. In no event shall approval or authorization required herein be withheld by reason of the constitutionally protected content of any material proposed to be broadcast through amplifying equipment.
(b) It is unlawful for any person, other than personnel of law enforcement or governmental agencies, to install, use or operate a loudspeaker or sound amplifying device in a fixed or movable position or mounted upon any vehicle within the City for the purpose of giving instructions, directions, talks, addresses or lectures to any persons or assemblages of persons in or upon any street, alley, sidewalk, park, place or public property without a permit to do so from the Police Chief or his or her designee. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the provisions of this section shall also apply to the use of sound amplifying equipment upon public or private property when used in connection with outdoor or indoor public or private events, whether or not admission is charged or food or beverages are sold, when such activity is to be attended by more than one hundred (100) persons and the noise emanating from the event will be audible at the property plane, or in the case of a street dance or concert on the nearest residential property. Those activities listed in § 5-29.06(a) are exempt from the requirements of this section.
58 2634
3/23/22, 4:00 AM https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ 9/13 (c) The Police Chief or his or her designee is authorized to approve and issue permits under this section.
(d) An application for a permit required by this section shall be filed with the Police Chief at least sixteen (16) days and no more than one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the date on which the sound amplifying equipment is intended to be used. Applications for events covered by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution are exempt from the time requirements of this section if it is shown that circumstances require a shorter filing period and the event will not constitute an unsafe condition. The application shall contain the following information:
(1) The name, address and telephone number of both the owner and the user of the sound amplifying equipment;
(2) The license number, if a sound truck is to be used; (3) A general description of the sound amplifying equipment which is to be used; (4) Whether sound amplifying equipment will be used for commercial or noncommercial purpose; (5) The dates and times upon and within which, and the streets or property over or upon which, the equipment is proposed to be operated;
(6) The name or names of one (1) or more persons who will be present during the conduct of any activities for which registration is sought and who will have authority to reduce the volume of any sound amplifying equipment during the course of the activities if required pursuant to this chapter and, otherwise, to insure compliance with the provisions of this chapter; (7) A statement by the applicant that he or she is willing and able to comply with the provisions of this chapter and the conditions of the permit; and
(8) A sketch of the area or facilities within which the activities are to be conducted, with approximate dimensions and illustration of the location and orientation of all sound-amplifying equipment.
(e) The Police Chief shall deny the permit application or revoke any permit if the chief finds any of the following:
(1) The application contains materially false or intentionally misleading information; (2) The use of sound amplifying equipment at an event or activity proposed will be located in or upon a premises, building or structure that is hazardous to the health or safety of the employees or patrons of the premises, business, activity, or event, or the general public, under the standards established by the Uniform Building or Fire Codes, or other applicable codes, as set forth in OMC Titles 4 and 8;
(3) The use of sound amplifying equipment at an event or activity proposed in or upon a premises, building or structure that lacks adequate on-site parking for participants attending the proposed event or activity under the applicable standards set forth in OMC Title 9; (4) The conditions of any motor vehicle movement are such that, in his or her opinion, the use of the equipment would constitute an unreasonable interference with traffic safety; (5) The conditions of pedestrian movement are such that the use of the equipment would constitute a detriment to traffic safety;
(6) The application submitted by the applicant reveals that the applicant would violate the provisions of this section or any other provision of federal, state and/or local law; (7) The applicant is unwilling or unable to comply with the provisions of this chapter or any conditions imposed upon any permit issued;
59 2635
3/23/22, 4:00 AM https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ 10/13 (8) There had already been a permitted event at the intended location, or within a two hundred (200) yard radius of the intended location and the prior permitted event was located on residentially zoned property or on a street, alley, public parking lot or neighborhood park within three (3) months prior to the intended event. Community parks are exempt from this subsection (8); or (9) The applicant or location has had previous violations within the past calendar year, and in the judgment of the Police Chief, issuance would be contrary to the intent of this section. (f) In determining whether the use of the equipment would constitute an unreasonable interference with or detriment to traffic safety, the Police Chief shall consider, but shall not necessarily be limited to:
(1) The volumes, patterns and speed of vehicular and pedestrian traffic in the proposed area of use;
(2) The relationship of the proposed use of equipment and potential impacts upon traffic patterns; (3) Availability of sufficient room for the operation of the equipment without significantly interfering with the traffic patterns;
(4) Proximity to schools, playgrounds and similar facilities where use of such equipment might attract children into traffic patterns; or
(5) Proximity to busy intersections or other potentially hazardous conditions where use of such equipment might constitute a hazard by reason of its tendency to distract drivers of vehicles or pedestrians.
(g) Issuance or denial.
(1) If the application is approved, the Police Chief shall return an approved copy of the application to the applicant and shall issue a permit. The permit shall constitute permission for the use of the sound amplifying equipment as requested.
(2) Any application filed shall be either approved or disapproved within five (5) days of the filing thereof.
(3) If the application is disapproved, the Police Chief shall return a disapproved copy forthwith to the applicant with a written statement on the reason for disapproval. (i) Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Police Chief or his or her designee may file an appeal to the City Manager. A complete and proper appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within ten (10) calendar days of the action that is the subject of the appeal. If the applicant fails to file an appeal within the ten (10) day filing period provided herein, denial shall take effect immediately upon expiration of such filing period. All appeals shall be in writing and shall contain the following information: (a) name(s) of the person filing the appeal, (b) a brief statement in ordinary and concise language of the relief sought, and (c) the signatures of all parties named as appellants and their mailing addresses. After receiving the appeal, the City Clerk shall immediately forward the matter to the City Manager for handling.
(ii) The City Manager shall, upon receipt of the appeal, set the matter for hearing before the City Manager or a hearing officer. Any hearing officer shall be a licensed attorney or recognized mediator designated by the City Manager. The hearing shall be set for not more than ten (10) calendar days after the receipt of the appeal unless a longer time is requested or consented to by the appellant. Notice of such hearing shall be given in writing and mailed at least five (5) calendar days prior to the date of the hearing, by U.S. mail, with a proof of service attached, addressed to the address listed on the permit application, or the written appeal if different from the permit application.

The notice shall state the grounds of the complaint or reason for the denial and shall state the time and place where such hearing will be held.
60 2636
3/23/22, 4:00 AM https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ 11/13 (iii) The City Manager or hearing officer shall, within ten (10) calendar days following the conclusion of the hearing, make a written finding and decision, which shall be delivered to the City and the appellant by first class mail. Notwithstanding any provision in this Code, the decision of the City Manager or hearing officer shall be the final administrative decision of the City. Any party dissatisfied with the decision of the City Manager or hearing officer may seek review of such decision under the provisions of Code Civil Procedure, §§ 1094.5 and 1094.8, as amended from time to time. (h) In addition to any other provisions of this Code, the use of sound-amplifying equipment and sound trucks in the City shall be subject to the following regulations:
(1) The only sounds permitted are music and human speech; (2) Sound shall not be emitted within one hundred (100) yards of hospitals, churches, schools and City Hall;
(3) The volume of sound shall be controlled so that it will not be audible for a distance in excess of one hundred (100) feet from the sound amplifying equipment or sound truck, and so that the volume is not unreasonably loud, raucous, jarring, disturbing or a nuisance to persons within the range of allowed audibility; or
(4) The sound amplifying equipment or sound truck shall not be used between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.
(§ 2, Ord. 2888, eff. March 6, 2008)
Sec. 5-29.14. Motor vehicles.

The use of any motor vehicle in such a condition as to create excessive, impulsive or intrusive noises is prohibited. The discharge into the open air of the exhaust of any internal combustion engine, stationary or mounted on wheels, motorboat or motor vehicle, including motor cycle, whether or not discharged through a muffler or other similar device, which discharge creates excessive, unusual, impulsive or intrusive noise is prohibited. Motor vehicles shall comply with the noise regulations of the California Vehicle Code.
(§ 2, Ord. 2888, eff. March 6, 2008)
Sec. 5-29.15. Noise level measurement.
(a) The location selected for measuring exterior noise levels in a residential area shall be at any part of a private yard, patio, deck or balcony normally used for human activity and identified by the owner or, if occupied by someone other than the owner, the occupant of the affected property as suspected of exceeding the noise level standard. This location may be the closest point in the private yard or patio, or on the deck or balcony, to the noise source, but should not be located in nonhuman activity areas such as trash container storage areas, planter beds, above or contacting a property line fence, or other areas not normally used as part of the yard, patio, deck or balcony. The location selected for measuring exterior noise levels in a nonresidential area shall be at the closest point to the noise source. The measurement microphone height shall be five (5) feet above finish elevation or, in the case of a deck or balcony, the measurement microphone height shall be five (5) feet above the finished floor level.
(b) The location selected for measuring interior noise levels shall be made within the affected residential unit. The measurements shall be made at a point at least four (4) feet from the wall, ceiling or floor, or within the frame of a window opening, nearest the noise source. The measurements shall be made with windows in an open position.
(c) Any decibel measurement made pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall be measured in decibels (dBAs) as measured with a sound level meter using the A-weighted sound pressure level. 61 2637
3/23/22, 4:00 AM https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ 12/13 (§ 2, Ord. 2888, eff. March 6, 2008)
Sec. 5-29.16. Prima facie violation.

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

The manner of issuing administrative citations shall comply with all the procedures specified in OMC Chapter 5, Title 1.
(c) As an additional remedy, the operation or maintenance of any device, instrument, vehicle or machinery in violation of any provisions of this chapter, which operation or maintenance causes or creates sound levels exceeding the allowable standards as specified in this chapter, shall be deemed and is declared to be a public nuisance and may be subject to abatement by a restraining order or injunction issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. (d) Any violation of this chapter is declared to be a public nuisance and may be abated in accordance with law. The expense of enforcing this chapter is declared to be public nuisance and may be by resolution of the City Council declared to be a lien and special assessment against the property on which such nuisance is maintained, and any such charge shall also be a personal obligation of the property owner.
(§ 2, Ord. 2888, eff. March 6, 2008)
Sec. 5-29.18. Enforcement and administration.
(a) It shall be the responsibility of Police or Code Enforcement Officers to enforce the provisions of this chapter and to perform all other functions required by this chapter. Such duties shall include, but not be limited to investigating potential violations, issuing warning notices and citations, and providing evidence to the City prosecutor for legal action.
(b) For violations of § 5-29.07, Police or Code Enforcement Officers shall obtain a declaration under penalty of perjury from two (2) declarants living in separate households within a sixty (60) day period stating in detail all of the following:
(1) That the declarant is a resident of a residential neighborhood located within two hundred (200) yards of the noise source; and
(2) Within the past month declarant has heard noise for substantially long periods to the extreme annoyance of the declarant.
(3) Declarations from two (2) declarants are required to prove a violation of § 5-29.07, but are not required to prove that a person has violated any other provision of this chapter. (§ 2, Ord. 2888, eff. March 6, 2008)
Sec. 5-29.19. City Manager waiver.
62 2638
3/23/22, 4:00 AM https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ https://export.amlegal.com/api/export-requests/138fab52-0757-487f-abff-20888eea457a/download/ 13/13 The City Manager is authorized to grant a temporary waiver to the provisions of this chapter for a period of time necessary to correct the violations of this chapter, if such temporary waiver would be in the public interest and there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the activity, or the method of conducting the activity, for which the temporary waiver is sought. This time period may include a commitment to a program that includes placing necessary orders and entering into necessary contracts within thirty (30) days for repair or installation. (§ 2, Ord. 2888, eff. March 6, 2008)
Sec. 5-29.20. Noise abatement program.
(a) In circumstances where adopted community-wide noise standards and policies prove impractical in controlling noise generated from a specific source, the City Council may establish a noise abatement program that recognizes the characteristics of the noise source and affected property and that incorporates specialized mitigation measures.
(b) Noise abatement programs shall set forth in detail the approved terms, conditions and requirements for achieving maximum compliance with noise standards and policies. Said terms, conditions and requirements may include, but shall not be limited to, limitations, restrictions, or prohibitions on operating hours, location of operations, and the types of equipment. (§ 2, Ord. 2888, eff. March 6, 2008)
63 2639
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
This page intentionally left blank
64 2640
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
APPENDIX 5.1:

STUDY AREA PHOTOS
65 2641
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
This page intentionally left blank
66 2642
JN: 14539 Study Area Photos
L1_E
34, 4' 13.650000"117, 33' 19.070000"
L1_N
34, 4' 13.610000"117, 33' 19.180000"
L1_S
34, 4' 13.560000"117, 33' 19.150000"
L1_W
34, 4' 13.660000"117, 33' 19.070000"
L2_E
34, 4' 12.440000"117, 33' 3.660000"
L2_N
34, 4' 12.590000"117, 33' 3.750000"
67 2643
JN: 14539 Study Area Photos
L2_S
34, 4' 12.470000"117, 33' 3.640000"
L2_W
34, 4' 12.470000"117, 33' 3.720000"
L3_E
34, 4' 9.290000"117, 32' 58.420000"
L3_N
34, 4' 9.400000"117, 32' 58.420000"
L3_S
34, 4' 9.250000"117, 32' 58.390000"
L3_W
34, 4' 9.280000"117, 32' 58.470000"
68 2644
JN: 14539 Study Area Photos
L4_E
34, 4' 12.660000"117, 32' 48.530000"
L4_N
34, 4' 12.620000"117, 32' 48.610000"
L4_S
34, 4' 12.670000"117, 32' 48.560000"
L4_W
34, 4' 12.640000"117, 32' 48.500000"
69 2645
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
This page intentionally left blank
70 2646
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
APPENDIX 5.2:

NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT WORKSHEETS
71 2647
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
This page intentionally left blank
72 2648
Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 14539
Project: IE Distribution Center Source: Analyst: A. Khan Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 58.7 61.8 57.1 61.6 61.3 60.7 60.3 59.1 58.4 57.5 57.3 57.2 58.7 10.0 68.7 1 57.5 61.4 55.6 61.2 60.9 60.3 59.7 57.8 56.9 56.0 55.9 55.7 57.5 10.0 67.5 2 59.4 63.3 57.5 63.1 62.9 62.3 61.4 59.6 58.9 57.9 57.7 57.6 59.4 10.0 69.4 3 59.1 62.5 57.4 62.2 61.9 61.3 60.8 59.5 58.7 57.9 57.7 57.5 59.1 10.0 69.1 4 59.3 63.0 57.4 62.7 62.4 61.8 61.2 59.6 58.8 57.8 57.7 57.5 59.3 10.0 69.3 5 59.7 65.4 57.6 65.0 64.6 63.3 62.2 59.7 58.8 57.9 57.8 57.6 59.7 10.0 69.7 6 60.5 66.9 57.5 66.5 66.1 64.4 63.3 60.8 59.2 57.9 57.7 57.5 60.5 10.0 70.5 7 60.2 66.2 56.2 65.7 65.2 63.9 63.1 60.8 59.3 56.8 56.5 56.3 60.2 0.0 60.2 8 57.6 64.1 53.5 63.7 63.1 61.5 60.5 58.2 56.4 54.3 53.9 53.6 57.6 0.0 57.6 9 56.8 63.8 51.7 63.4 62.8 61.4 60.5 57.4 55.2 52.6 52.2 51.8 56.8 0.0 56.8 10 56.8 63.2 52.2 62.8 62.2 61.0 60.0 57.4 55.5 53.0 52.6 52.3 56.8 0.0 56.8 11 59.0 67.1 54.2 66.7 66.3 64.2 62.5 58.8 57.2 55.0 54.6 54.3 59.0 0.0 59.0 12 57.9 65.6 53.0 65.2 64.8 62.4 60.8 58.2 56.6 54.1 53.5 53.1 57.9 0.0 57.9 13 57.5 65.6 51.9 65.2 64.3 62.4 61.0 57.6 55.8 53.0 52.5 52.1 57.5 0.0 57.5 14 57.5 64.4 52.7 64.0 63.5 61.9 60.8 57.8 56.1 53.7 53.3 52.8 57.5 0.0 57.5 15 58.0 65.3 52.5 64.8 64.2 62.8 61.5 58.4 56.5 53.9 53.4 52.7 58.0 0.0 58.0 16 58.4 67.8 52.6 67.3 66.4 63.9 61.8 57.9 56.1 53.5 53.0 52.7 58.4 0.0 58.4 17 58.8 67.6 54.0 66.9 65.8 63.0 61.6 59.0 57.3 54.9 54.5 54.1 58.8 0.0 58.8 18 59.3 66.5 54.8 66.1 65.5 64.0 62.7 59.6 57.8 55.6 55.3 54.9 59.3 0.0 59.3 19 59.5 69.8 53.7 69.3 68.3 65.7 63.3 58.4 56.5 54.4 54.1 53.8 59.5 5.0 64.5 20 58.2 68.0 52.7 67.4 66.4 63.3 61.7 57.8 55.8 53.6 53.2 52.8 58.2 5.0 63.2 21 58.7 68.6 51.3 68.3 67.9 66.1 63.4 57.0 54.7 52.2 51.7 51.4 58.7 5.0 63.7 22 56.9 64.2 52.7 63.9 63.4 61.9 60.9 57.0 54.9 53.1 52.9 52.7 56.9 10.0 66.9 23 58.5 63.3 56.1 62.9 62.7 61.9 61.3 58.8 57.7 56.6 56.4 56.2 58.5 10.0 68.5 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 56.8 63.2 51.3 62.8 62.2 61.0 60.0 57.0 54.7 52.2 51.7 51.4 Max 60.2 69.8 56.2 69.3 68.3 66.1 63.4 60.8 59.3 56.8 56.5 56.3

58.4 65.8 65.1 63.2 61.7 58.3 56.4 54.0 53.6 53.3
Min 56.9 61.4 52.7 61.2 60.9 60.3 59.7 57.0 54.9 53.1 52.9 52.7 Max 60.5 66.9 57.6 66.5 66.1 64.4 63.3 60.8 59.2 57.9 57.8 57.6

59.0 63.2 62.9 62.0 61.2 59.1 58.0 57.0 56.8 56.6
Day
Night
Energy Average
Energy Average Average:

Average:
24-Hour Daytime
(7am-10pm)
Nighttime
(10pm-7am)

58.6 58.4 59.0
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
L eq (dBA)
Night
Tuesday, March 8, 2022 L1 - Located northwest of the Project site near Ayres Hotel Ontario Mills Mall at 4395 Ontario Mills Parkway.

Night
Day

58.7 57.5

59.4 59.1

59.3 59.7

60.5 60.2

57.6 56.8

56.8 59.0

57.9 57.5

57.5 58.0

58.4 58.8

59.3 59.5

58.2 58.7

56.9 58.5

35.0 40.0

45.0 50.0

55.0 60.0

65.0 70.0

75.0 80.0

85.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Leq (dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_14100-14500\_14500\14539\04_Noise\Fieldwork\Measurement\14539_L1_V 73 2649
Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 14539
Project: IE Distribution Center Source: Analyst: A. Khan Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 58.9 65.8 55.4 65.6 65.1 63.4 62.2 58.8 57.4 56.0 55.8 55.5 58.9 10.0 68.9 1 58.6 67.0 54.5 66.7 66.1 63.8 61.7 58.2 56.5 55.1 54.8 54.6 58.6 10.0 68.6 2 62.4 73.3 56.8 73.0 71.9 68.3 65.6 61.2 59.1 57.4 57.2 56.9 62.4 10.0 72.4 3 59.9 68.0 56.6 67.7 67.0 64.6 62.9 59.6 58.2 57.1 56.9 56.7 59.9 10.0 69.9 4 62.0 73.1 57.2 72.7 71.5 67.3 64.7 60.6 58.8 57.6 57.4 57.2 62.0 10.0 72.0 5 62.5 70.9 58.9 70.6 69.8 67.2 65.5 62.4 60.6 59.3 59.1 59.0 62.5 10.0 72.5 6 63.6 72.3 57.9 71.9 71.3 69.3 67.8 63.7 60.7 58.4 58.2 57.9 63.6 10.0 73.6 7 63.6 72.5 56.1 72.1 71.4 69.2 68.1 64.1 60.6 56.8 56.5 56.2 63.6 0.0 63.6 8 62.8 71.7 54.4 71.3 70.7 68.7 67.2 63.3 59.4 55.4 54.9 54.5 62.8 0.0 62.8 9 62.7 72.6 53.1 72.2 71.5 69.0 67.2 62.7 58.6 54.2 53.6 53.2 62.7 0.0 62.7 10 61.9 71.7 53.6 71.2 70.4 67.9 65.9 62.1 58.8 54.5 54.1 53.7 61.9 0.0 61.9 11 62.1 70.9 55.1 70.4 69.6 67.6 66.4 62.4 59.3 56.1 55.7 55.3 62.1 0.0 62.1 12 60.9 70.9 52.6 69.9 69.2 67.0 65.0 60.9 58.0 53.9 53.2 52.7 60.9 0.0 60.9 13 61.1 71.3 52.1 70.8 70.0 67.2 65.1 60.8 57.4 53.3 52.7 52.3 61.1 0.0 61.1 14 60.2 69.0 51.2 68.7 68.1 66.0 64.6 60.6 57.2 52.6 51.8 51.4 60.2 0.0 60.2 15 60.8 69.9 52.1 69.5 68.8 66.7 65.2 61.2 57.7 53.4 52.7 52.2 60.8 0.0 60.8 16 61.3 70.5 52.6 70.1 69.4 67.1 65.6 61.7 58.3 53.8 53.2 52.7 61.3 0.0 61.3 17 61.5 70.1 54.4 69.7 69.1 66.9 65.3 61.9 59.1 55.6 55.0 54.5 61.5 0.0 61.5 18 62.4 71.8 55.6 71.4 70.9 68.5 66.5 62.0 59.4 56.4 56.0 55.7 62.4 0.0 62.4 19 61.8 72.5 53.9 72.1 71.3 68.0 65.8 60.7 57.8 54.7 54.3 54.0 61.8 5.0 66.8 20 60.5 69.2 53.4 68.8 68.3 66.3 64.8 60.7 57.3 54.2 53.8 53.5 60.5 5.0 65.5 21 60.3 70.4 52.4 69.9 69.1 66.5 64.9 60.0 56.3 53.2 52.9 52.5 60.3 5.0 65.3 22 60.0 69.8 53.5 69.5 69.1 66.5 64.2 59.0 56.3 54.1 53.8 53.6 60.0 10.0 70.0 23 60.9 71.0 56.0 70.3 69.4 66.4 64.4 60.0 58.0 56.6 56.3 56.1 60.9 10.0 70.9 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 60.2 69.0 51.2 68.7 68.1 66.0 64.6 60.0 56.3 52.6 51.8 51.4 Max 63.6 72.6 56.1 72.2 71.5 69.2 68.1 64.1 60.6 56.8 56.5 56.2

61.7 70.5 69.8 67.5 65.8 61.7 58.3 54.5 54.0 53.6
Min 58.6 65.8 53.5 65.6 65.1 63.4 61.7 58.2 56.3 54.1 53.8 53.6 Max 63.6 73.3 58.9 73.0 71.9 69.3 67.8 63.7 60.7 59.3 59.1 59.0

61.3 69.8 69.0 66.3 64.3 60.4 58.4 56.8 56.6 56.4
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
L eq (dBA)
Night
Tuesday, March 8, 2022 L2 - Located northwest of the Project site near Hampton Inn & Suites Ontario at 4500 Ontario Mills Parkway.

Night
Day
Day
Night
Energy Average
Energy Average Average:

Average:
24-Hour Daytime
(7am-10pm)
Nighttime
(10pm-7am)

61.5 61.7 61.3

58.9 58.6

62.4 59.9

62.0 62.5

63.6 63.6

62.8 62.7

61.9 62.1

60.9 61.1

60.2 60.8

61.3 61.5

62.4 61.8

60.5 60.3

60.0 60.9

35.0 40.0

45.0 50.0

55.0 60.0

65.0 70.0

75.0 80.0

85.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Leq (dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_14100-14500\_14500\14539\04_Noise\Fieldwork\Measurement\14539_L2_G 74 2650
Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 14539
Project: IE Distribution Center Source: Analyst: A. Khan Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 60.3 63.8 58.3 63.4 63.0 62.3 61.9 60.8 60.0 58.8 58.6 58.4 60.3 10.0 70.3 1 59.7 63.0 57.6 62.7 62.5 61.8 61.4 60.2 59.3 58.2 57.9 57.7 59.7 10.0 69.7 2 61.6 64.9 59.4 64.6 64.4 63.8 63.4 62.2 61.1 59.9 59.7 59.5 61.6 10.0 71.6 3 61.1 64.6 59.1 64.3 64.0 63.3 62.7 61.5 60.7 59.6 59.4 59.2 61.1 10.0 71.1 4 61.8 65.6 59.7 65.3 65.0 64.3 63.6 62.1 61.4 60.3 60.1 59.8 61.8 10.0 71.8 5 63.0 65.7 61.4 65.5 65.2 64.7 64.3 63.4 62.7 61.9 61.7 61.4 63.0 10.0 73.0 6 66.4 75.9 61.8 75.5 75.0 72.7 70.8 64.9 63.2 62.2 62.1 61.8 66.4 10.0 76.4 7 66.7 70.4 63.6 70.1 69.8 69.2 68.7 67.2 66.4 64.6 64.2 63.7 66.7 0.0 66.7 8 60.1 68.3 55.8 68.0 67.5 66.0 64.1 59.4 57.9 56.5 56.3 56.0 60.1 0.0 60.1 9 57.6 62.4 54.6 62.1 61.7 60.8 60.1 58.2 56.9 55.2 54.9 54.7 57.6 0.0 57.6 10 58.0 62.2 55.4 61.9 61.6 60.8 60.3 58.7 57.4 56.0 55.8 55.5 58.0 0.0 58.0 11 61.6 65.8 58.9 65.3 64.8 63.9 63.4 62.2 61.2 59.8 59.5 59.1 61.6 0.0 61.6 12 60.9 66.1 57.9 65.7 65.3 64.2 63.8 61.3 60.0 58.6 58.4 58.1 60.9 0.0 60.9 13 71.0 83.9 77.2 83.8 83.6 82.9 82.4 80.4 78.9 77.5 77.4 77.2 71.0 0.0 71.0 14 75.4 81.3 70.4 81.1 80.8 79.7 79.0 76.5 74.5 71.7 71.2 70.5 75.4 0.0 75.4 15 71.5 78.8 67.5 78.6 78.3 77.4 76.8 73.9 71.8 69.3 68.9 68.1 71.5 0.0 71.5 16 62.5 67.0 57.5 66.8 66.5 65.9 65.2 63.6 62.1 58.6 58.1 57.6 62.5 0.0 62.5 17 59.0 64.7 56.2 64.2 63.8 62.4 61.5 59.3 58.2 56.8 56.6 56.3 59.0 0.0 59.0 18 61.3 67.5 58.1 67.1 66.6 64.8 63.8 61.6 60.3 58.7 58.5 58.2 61.3 0.0 61.3 19 59.7 64.4 57.0 64.0 63.5 62.5 61.9 60.3 59.2 57.6 57.3 57.1 59.7 5.0 64.7 20 59.2 63.6 56.5 63.2 62.9 61.8 61.2 59.7 58.6 57.2 56.9 56.6 59.2 5.0 64.2 21 60.1 66.3 57.1 65.8 65.3 63.7 62.5 60.3 59.2 57.7 57.4 57.2 60.1 5.0 65.1 22 59.7 64.2 57.1 63.9 63.6 62.8 61.9 60.2 59.1 57.7 57.4 57.2 59.7 10.0 69.7 23 61.3 64.8 59.2 64.6 64.4 63.7 63.2 61.7 60.9 59.7 59.5 59.2 61.3 10.0 71.3 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 57.6 62.2 54.6 61.9 61.6 60.8 60.1 58.2 56.9 55.2 54.9 54.7 Max 75.4 83.9 77.2 83.8 83.6 82.9 82.4 80.4 78.9 77.5 77.4 77.2

67.1 68.5 68.1 67.1 66.3 64.2 62.8 61.1 60.7 60.4
Min 59.7 63.0 57.1 62.7 62.5 61.8 61.4 60.2 59.1 57.7 57.4 57.2 Max 66.4 75.9 61.8 75.5 75.0 72.7 70.8 64.9 63.2 62.2 62.1 61.8

62.2 65.5 65.2 64.4 63.7 61.9 60.9 59.8 59.6 59.4
Day
Night
Energy Average
Energy Average Average:

Average:
24-Hour Daytime
(7am-10pm)
Nighttime
(10pm-7am)

65.9 67.1 62.2
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
L eq (dBA)
Night
Tuesday, March 8, 2022 L3 - Located northwest of the Project site near Country Inn & Suites by Radisson, Ontario at Ontario Mills at 4674 Ontario Mills Parkway.

Night
Day

60.3 59.7

61.6 61.1

61.8 63.0

66.4 66.7

60.1 57.6

58.0 61.6

60.9 71.0

75.4 71.5

62.5 59.0

61.3 59.7

59.2 60.1

59.7 61.3

35.0 40.0

45.0 50.0

55.0 60.0

65.0 70.0

75.0 80.0

85.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hourly Leq (dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_14100-14500\_14500\14539\04_Noise\Fieldwork\Measurement\14539_L3_H 75 2651
Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 14539
Project: IE Distribution Center Source: Analyst: A. Khan Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 66.3 74.6 62.4 74.0 73.1 71.0 69.5 66.1 64.5 62.9 62.7 62.5 66.3 10.0 76.3 1 66.1 73.9 62.4 73.3 72.6 70.5 69.3 66.2 64.6 63.0 62.8 62.5 66.1 10.0 76.1 2 67.7 76.8 63.3 76.2 75.3 72.6 70.8 67.4 65.7 63.8 63.6 63.4 67.7 10.0 77.7 3 66.8 76.5 62.7 75.8 74.8 71.5 69.5 66.3 64.9 63.3 63.0 62.8 66.8 10.0 76.8 4 67.7 75.6 64.2 75.0 74.1 72.1 70.6 67.7 66.3 64.7 64.5 64.3 67.7 10.0 77.7 5 69.4 78.3 65.6 77.7 76.6 73.9 72.4 69.1 67.5 66.2 66.0 65.7 69.4 10.0 79.4 6 71.3 81.9 65.8 81.5 80.5 77.0 74.7 70.2 68.0 66.4 66.2 65.9 71.3 10.0 81.3 7 70.6 80.7 64.3 80.0 79.0 76.3 74.5 70.5 67.4 64.9 64.6 64.4 70.6 0.0 70.6 8 70.8 81.1 65.4 80.6 79.6 76.1 73.9 70.3 68.0 66.0 65.7 65.5 70.8 0.0 70.8 9 71.2 80.7 66.6 80.2 79.3 76.8 75.0 70.6 68.6 67.2 67.0 66.7 71.2 0.0 71.2 10 70.3 80.5 65.8 79.8 78.5 75.3 73.4 69.7 67.8 66.3 66.0 65.8 70.3 0.0 70.3 11 70.3 78.5 66.1 78.0 77.3 75.3 73.8 70.3 68.3 66.7 66.5 66.2 70.3 0.0 70.3 12 69.5 77.1 65.8 76.6 75.9 73.9 72.6 69.7 67.8 66.3 66.1 65.8 69.5 0.0 69.5 13 68.9 78.4 64.5 77.7 76.6 73.9 72.4 68.6 66.6 65.0 64.8 64.6 68.9 0.0 68.9 14 69.2 78.5 65.0 78.0 77.0 74.2 72.2 69.0 67.0 65.5 65.3 65.1 69.2 0.0 69.2 15 68.3 76.8 62.5 76.3 75.4 73.6 72.3 68.8 65.8 63.2 62.9 62.6 68.3 0.0 68.3 16 69.6 78.8 63.8 78.4 77.5 75.2 73.5 69.7 66.9 64.5 64.2 63.9 69.6 0.0 69.6 17 69.2 77.9 63.4 77.4 76.5 74.4 73.0 69.6 66.9 64.1 63.8 63.5 69.2 0.0 69.2 18 70.6 80.3 65.7 79.7 78.8 76.0 74.2 70.1 67.8 66.3 66.1 65.8 70.6 0.0 70.6 19 69.9 78.5 65.7 78.0 77.4 75.5 73.7 69.4 67.6 66.2 66.0 65.8 69.9 5.0 74.9 20 68.7 75.2 65.8 74.8 74.2 72.2 71.3 68.9 67.6 66.4 66.2 65.9 68.7 5.0 73.7 21 68.5 75.8 64.9 75.4 74.7 73.1 72.0 68.4 66.9 65.4 65.2 65.0 68.5 5.0 73.5 22 68.4 77.0 63.9 76.6 75.9 74.1 72.3 67.8 66.1 64.4 64.2 64.0 68.4 10.0 78.4 23 67.8 76.1 64.0 75.6 74.7 72.4 70.8 67.7 66.1 64.5 64.3 64.1 67.8 10.0 77.8 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 68.3 75.2 62.5 74.8 74.2 72.2 71.3 68.4 65.8 63.2 62.9 62.6 Max 71.2 81.1 66.6 80.6 79.6 76.8 75.0 70.6 68.6 67.2 67.0 66.7

69.8 78.1 77.2 74.8 73.2 69.6 67.4 65.6 65.4 65.1
Min 66.1 73.9 62.4 73.3 72.6 70.5 69.3 66.1 64.5 62.9 62.7 62.5 Max 71.3 81.9 65.8 81.5 80.5 77.0 74.7 70.2 68.0 66.4 66.2 65.9

68.2 76.2 75.3 72.8 71.1 67.6 66.0 64.4 64.1 63.9
Day
Night
Energy Average
Energy Average Average:

Average:
24-Hour Daytime
(7am-10pm)
Nighttime
(10pm-7am)

69.3 69.8 68.2
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
L eq (dBA)
Night
Tuesday, March 8, 2022 L4 - Located northwest of the Project site near Hyatt Place Ontario/Rancho Cucamonga at 4760 Mills Circle.

Night
Day

66.3 66.1

67.7 66.8

67.7 69.4

71.3 70.6

70.8 71.2

70.3 70.3

69.5 68.9

69.2 68.3

69.6 69.2

70.6 69.9

68.7 68.5

68.4 67.8

35.0 40.0

45.0 50.0

55.0 60.0

65.0 70.0

75.0 80.0

CADNAAOPERATIONAL NOISE MODEL INPUTS
77 2653
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
This page intentionally left blank
78 2654
14539 - IE Distribution Center #14
CadnaA Noise Prediction Model: 14539-02.cna
Date: 25.07.22
Analyst: S. Shami
Calculation Configuration
Configuration
Parameter Value
General
Max. Error (dB) 0.00
Max. Search Radius (#(Unit,LEN)) 2000.01
Min. Dist Src to Rcvr 0.00
Partition
Raster Factor 0.50
Max. Length of Section (#(Unit,LEN)) 999.99
Min. Length of Section (#(Unit,LEN)) 1.01
Min. Length of Section (%) 0.00
Proj. Line Sources On
Proj. Area Sources On
Ref. Time
Reference Time Day (min) 960.00
Reference Time Night (min) 480.00
Daytime Penalty (dB) 0.00
Recr. Time Penalty (dB) 5.00
Night-time Penalty (dB) 10.00
DTM
Standard Height (m) 0.00
Model of Terrain Triangulation
Reflection
max. Order of Reflection 2
Search Radius Src 100.00
Search Radius Rcvr 100.00
Max. Distance Source - Rcvr 1000.00 1000.00
Min. Distance Rvcr - Reflector 1.00 1.00
Min. Distance Source - Reflector 0.10
Industrial (ISO 9613)
Lateral Diffraction some Obj
Obst. within Area Src do not shield On
Screening Incl. Ground Att. over Barrier
Dz with limit (20/25)
Barrier Coefficients C1,2,3 3.0 20.0 0.0
Temperature (#(Unit,TEMP)) 10
rel. Humidity (%) 70
Ground Absorption G 0.50
Wind Speed for Dir. (#(Unit,SPEED)) 3.0
Roads (TNM)
Railways (FTA/FRA)
Aircraft (???)
Strictly acc. to AzB
Receiver Noise Levels
Name M. ID Level Lr Limit. Value Land Use Height Coordinates Day Night CNEL Day Night CNEL Type Auto Noise Type X Y Z (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) RECEIVERS R1 22.1 22.1 28.7 65.0 45.0 0.0 5.00 a 6166354.34 2335548.36 5.00 RECEIVERS R2 26.2 26.1 32.8 65.0 45.0 0.0 5.00 a 6167586.75 2335500.55 5.00 RECEIVERS R3 27.4 27.3 34.0 65.0 45.0 0.0 5.00 a 6168040.49 2335084.87 5.00 RECEIVERS R4 27.2 27.1 33.8 65.0 45.0 0.0 5.00 a 6168984.89 2335492.36 5.00 Point Source(s)
Name M. ID Result. PWL Lw / Li Operating Time Height Coordinates Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night X Y Z (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (min) (min) (min) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) POINTSOURCE TRASH01 89.0 89.0 89.0 Lw 89.0 150.00 0.00 90.00 5.00 a 6173094.91 2332777.46 5.00 POINTSOURCE TRASH02 89.0 89.0 89.0 Lw 89.0 150.00 0.00 90.00 5.00 a 6172317.38 2332781.06 5.00 POINTSOURCE AC01 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 5.00 g 6172196.56 2332896.19 50.00 POINTSOURCE AC02 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 5.00 g 6173241.85 2332919.06 50.00 POINTSOURCE PARK01 87.8 87.8 87.8 Lw 87.8 5.00 a 6172137.90 2332843.70 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARK02 87.8 87.8 87.8 Lw 87.8 5.00 a 6172137.12 2332947.90 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARK03 87.8 87.8 87.8 Lw 87.8 5.00 a 6172133.27 2333035.12 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARK04 87.8 87.8 87.8 Lw 87.8 5.00 a 6172127.86 2333143.17 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARK05 87.8 87.8 87.8 Lw 87.8 5.00 a 6173305.95 2332942.58 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARK06 87.8 87.8 87.8 Lw 87.8 5.00 a 6173305.95 2333040.09 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARK07 87.8 87.8 87.8 Lw 87.8 5.00 a 6173303.27 2333139.40 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARK08 87.8 87.8 87.8 Lw 87.8 5.00 a 6173299.69 2333226.18 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARK09 87.8 87.8 87.8 Lw 87.8 5.00 a 6173256.74 2333243.18 5.00 POINTSOURCE PARK10 87.8 87.8 87.8 Lw 87.8 5.00 a 6173166.38 2333243.18 5.00 Urban Crossroads, Inc.
79 2655
Line Source(s)
Name M. ID Result. PWL Result. PWL' Lw / Li Operating Time Moving Pt. Src Height Day Evening Night Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night Number Speed (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (min) (min) (min) Day Evening Night (mph) (ft) LINESOURCE TRUCK01 93.2 93.2 93.2 73.8 73.8 73.8 Lw 93.2 8 a LINESOURCE TRUCK02 93.2 93.2 93.2 74.8 74.8 74.8 Lw 93.2 8 a Name Height Coordinates
Begin End x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
LINESOURCE 8.00 a 6173104.76 2332844.63 8.00 0.00
6173286.17 2332846.24 8.00 0.00
6173287.75 2332742.15 8.00 0.00
LINESOURCE 8.00 a 6172308.47 2332817.94 8.00 0.00
6172152.71 2332813.00 8.00 0.00
6172154.29 2332742.76 8.00 0.00
Area Source(s)
Name M. ID Result. PWL Result. PWL'' Lw / Li Operating Time Height Day Evening Night Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night (ft) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (min) (min) (min) AREASOURCE DOCK01 111.5 111.5 111.5 70.1 70.1 70.1 Lw 111.5 8 a Name Height Coordinates
Begin End x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
AREASOURCE 8.00 a 6172330.01 2332949.14 8.00 0.00
6173102.54 2332961.81 8.00 0.00
6173104.12 2332898.48 8.00 0.00
6173105.70 2332765.51 8.00 0.00
6172307.84 2332768.67 8.00 0.00
6172309.27 2332880.67 8.00 0.00
6172328.42 2332881.07 8.00 0.00
Building(s)
Name M. ID RB Residents Absorption Height Coordinates
Begin x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
BUILDING BUILDING00001 x 0 45.00 a 6172170.12 2333172.35 45.00 0.00 6173265.59 2333197.68 45.00 0.00
6173268.76 2332898.48 45.00 0.00
6173104.12 2332898.48 45.00 0.00
6173102.54 2332961.81 45.00 0.00
6172330.01 2332949.14 45.00 0.00
6172328.42 2332881.07 45.00 0.00
6172178.03 2332877.90 45.00 0.00
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
80 2656
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
APPENDIX 8.1:

CADNAA CONSTRUCTION NOISE MODEL INPUTS
81 2657
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
This page intentionally left blank
82 2658
14539 - IE Distribution Center #14
CadnaA Noise Prediction Model: 14539-02 - Construction.cna Date: 25.07.22
Analyst: S. Shami
Calculation Configuration
Configuration
Parameter Value
General
Max. Error (dB) 0.00
Max. Search Radius (#(Unit,LEN)) 2000.01
Min. Dist Src to Rcvr 0.00
Partition
Raster Factor 0.50
Max. Length of Section (#(Unit,LEN)) 999.99
Min. Length of Section (#(Unit,LEN)) 1.01
Min. Length of Section (%) 0.00
Proj. Line Sources On
Proj. Area Sources On
Ref. Time
Reference Time Day (min) 960.00
Reference Time Night (min) 480.00
Daytime Penalty (dB) 0.00
Recr. Time Penalty (dB) 5.00
Night-time Penalty (dB) 10.00
DTM
Standard Height (m) 0.00
Model of Terrain Triangulation
Reflection
max. Order of Reflection 2
Search Radius Src 100.00
Search Radius Rcvr 100.00
Max. Distance Source - Rcvr 1000.00 1000.00
Min. Distance Rvcr - Reflector 1.00 1.00
Min. Distance Source - Reflector 0.10
Industrial (ISO 9613)
Lateral Diffraction some Obj
Obst. within Area Src do not shield On
Screening Incl. Ground Att. over Barrier
Dz with limit (20/25)
Barrier Coefficients C1,2,3 3.0 20.0 0.0
Temperature (#(Unit,TEMP)) 10
rel. Humidity (%) 70
Ground Absorption G 0.50
Wind Speed for Dir. (#(Unit,SPEED)) 3.0
Roads (TNM)
Railways (FTA/FRA)
Aircraft (???)
Strictly acc. to AzB
Receiver Noise Levels
Name M. ID Level Lr Limit. Value Land Use Height Coordinates Day Night CNEL Day Night CNEL Type Auto Noise Type X Y Z (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) RECEIVERS R1 33.6 33.6 40.3 65.0 45.0 0.0 5.00 a 6166354.34 2335548.36 5.00 RECEIVERS R2 35.9 35.9 42.5 65.0 45.0 0.0 5.00 a 6167586.75 2335500.55 5.00 RECEIVERS R3 37.1 37.1 43.8 65.0 45.0 0.0 5.00 a 6168040.49 2335084.87 5.00 RECEIVERS R4 38.6 38.6 45.3 65.0 45.0 0.0 5.00 a 6168984.89 2335492.36 5.00 Area Source(s)
Name M. ID Result. PWL Result. PWL'' Lw / Li Operating Time Height Day Evening Night Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night (ft) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (min) (min) (min) SITEBOUNDARY CONSTRUCTION 115.0 115.0 115.0 67.6 67.6 67.6 Lw 115 8 a Name Height Coordinates
Begin End x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
SITEBOUNDARY 8.00 a 6172109.54 2333205.54 8.00 0.00
6173121.48 2333222.49 8.00 0.00
6173122.48 2333272.51 8.00 0.00
6173325.40 2333275.95 8.00 0.00
6173334.39 2332742.12 8.00 0.00
6172116.20 2332742.78 8.00 0.00
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
83 2659
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
This page intentionally left blank
84 2660
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
APPENDIX 8.2:

CADNAA CONCRETE POUR NOISE MODEL INPUTS
85 2661
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
This page intentionally left blank
86 2662
14539 - IE Distribution Center #14
CadnaA Noise Prediction Model: 14539-02 - ConcretePour.cna Date: 25.07.22
Analyst: S. Shami
Calculation Configuration
Configuration
Parameter Value
General
Max. Error (dB) 0.00
Max. Search Radius (#(Unit,LEN)) 2000.01
Min. Dist Src to Rcvr 0.00
Partition
Raster Factor 0.50
Max. Length of Section (#(Unit,LEN)) 999.99
Min. Length of Section (#(Unit,LEN)) 1.01
Min. Length of Section (%) 0.00
Proj. Line Sources On
Proj. Area Sources On
Ref. Time
Reference Time Day (min) 960.00
Reference Time Night (min) 480.00
Daytime Penalty (dB) 0.00
Recr. Time Penalty (dB) 5.00
Night-time Penalty (dB) 10.00
DTM
Standard Height (m) 0.00
Model of Terrain Triangulation
Reflection
max. Order of Reflection 2
Search Radius Src 100.00
Search Radius Rcvr 100.00
Max. Distance Source - Rcvr 1000.00 1000.00
Min. Distance Rvcr - Reflector 1.00 1.00
Min. Distance Source - Reflector 0.10
Industrial (ISO 9613)
Lateral Diffraction some Obj
Obst. within Area Src do not shield On
Screening Incl. Ground Att. over Barrier
Dz with limit (20/25)
Barrier Coefficients C1,2,3 3.0 20.0 0.0
Temperature (#(Unit,TEMP)) 10
rel. Humidity (%) 70
Ground Absorption G 0.50
Wind Speed for Dir. (#(Unit,SPEED)) 3.0
Roads (TNM)
Railways (FTA/FRA)
Aircraft (???)
Strictly acc. to AzB
Receiver Noise Levels
Name M. ID Level Lr Limit. Value Land Use Height Coordinates Day Night CNEL Day Night CNEL Type Auto Noise Type X Y Z (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) RECEIVERS R1 18.6 18.6 25.2 65.0 45.0 0.0 5.00 a 6166354.34 2335548.36 5.00 RECEIVERS R2 21.2 21.2 27.9 65.0 45.0 0.0 5.00 a 6167586.75 2335500.55 5.00 RECEIVERS R3 22.5 22.5 29.2 65.0 45.0 0.0 5.00 a 6168040.49 2335084.87 5.00 RECEIVERS R4 24.1 24.1 30.7 65.0 45.0 0.0 5.00 a 6168984.89 2335492.36 5.00 Area Source(s)
Name M. ID Result. PWL Result. PWL'' Lw / Li Operating Time Height Day Evening Night Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night (ft) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (min) (min) (min) BUILDING CONCRETEPOUR 100.3 100.3 100.3 56.3 56.3 56.3 Lw 100.3 8 a Name Height Coordinates
Begin End x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
BUILDING 8.00 a 6172170.12 2333172.35 8.00 0.00
6173265.59 2333197.68 8.00 0.00
6173268.76 2332898.48 8.00 0.00
6173104.12 2332898.48 8.00 0.00
6173102.54 2332961.81 8.00 0.00
6172330.01 2332949.14 8.00 0.00
6172328.42 2332881.07 8.00 0.00
6172178.03 2332877.90 8.00 0.00
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
87 2663
5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis
14539-03 Noise Study
This page intentionally left blank
88 2664
14539-08 VMT
January 3, 2023
Ms. Tracy Zinn
T&B Planning, Inc.
3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92602
IE DISTRIBUTION CENTER #14 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) ANALYSIS Ms. Tracy Zinn,
Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide the following Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis for the IE Distribution Center #14 development (Project), which is located which is located at 5355 E. Airport Drive in the City of Ontario.

PROJECT OVERVIEW
It is our understanding that the Project consists of a single 270,377 square foot warehouse building. The proposed Project has been evaluated assuming a mix of warehousing (243,303 square feet or 90% of the total square footage) and high-cube cold storage use (27,034 square feet or 10% of the total square footage). The Project site is currently occupied and operating as a grain processing company and corn storage and distribution facility within warehousing space totaling 41,780 square feet. There are two driveways on Airport Drive. A preliminary site plan for the proposed Project is shown in Exhibit 1.

EXHIBIT 1: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
2665
Ms. Tracy Zinn
T&B Planning, Inc.

January 3, 2023

Page 2 of 11 ends

14539-08 VMT

BACKGROUND
Changes to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines were adopted in December 2018, which require all lead agencies to adopt VMT as a replacement for automobile delay-based level of service (LOS) as the measure for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects.

This statewide mandate went into effect July 1, 2020. To aid in this transition, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December of 2018) (Technical Advisory) (1). Based on the Technical Advisory, the City of Ontario has developed and adopted their own VMT methodologies and thresholds, which were adopted by City Council in June 2020 (City Guidelines) (2). This VMT analysis has been developed based on the adopted City Guidelines.

VMT SCREENING
City Guidelines identify Projects that meet certain VMT screening criteria may be presumed to result in a less than significant transportation impact. It is our understanding the City of Ontario utilizes the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) VMT Screening Tool (Screening Tool). The Screening Tool allows users to select an assessor’s parcel number (APN) to determine if a project’s location meets one or more of the screening thresholds for land use projects identified in the City Guidelines. The City Guidelines lists the following VMT screening criteria:
• Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening
• Low VMT Area Screening
• Project Type Screening
A land use project need only meet one of the above screening criteria to result in a less than significant impact.

STEP 1: TPA SCREENING
Consistent with guidance identified in the City Guidelines, projects located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA) (i.e., within ½ mile of an existing “major transit stop”1 or an existing stop along a “highquality 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;
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.”). 2666
Ms. Tracy Zinn
T&B Planning, Inc.

January 3, 2023

Page 3 of 11 ends

14539-08 VMT
• Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required by the jurisdiction (if the jurisdiction requires the project to supply parking); • Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (as determined by the lead agency, with input from the Metropolitan Planning Organization); or • Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate or high-income residential units.

The Screening Tool was utilized to locate the Project site and its proximity to a TPA. Results, as shown in Attachment A, the Project Site is not located within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop or along a high-quality transit corridor.

TPA screening criteria is not met.

STEP 2: LOW VMT AREA SCREENING
The City Guidelines state that projects may be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact if located in an already low VMT generating traffic analysis zones (TAZs) that generates a VMT per service population that does not exceed the Citywide average under General Plan Buildout condition VMT per service population. The Screening Tool uses the sub-regional San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM) to measure VMT performance within individual TAZ’s within the region. The Project’s physical location based on parcel number is selected in the Screening Tool to determine the TAZ in which the Project will reside. The Project’s TAZs VMT per service population was compared to Citywide average buildout VMT per service population. The parcel containing the proposed Project was selected and the Screening Tool was run for origin-destination (OD) VMT per service population. The Project is not located within a low VMT generating zone (See Attachment A).

Low VMT Area screening criteria is not met.

STEP 3: PROJECT TYPE SCREENING
The City Guidelines identify that local serving retail less than 50,000 square feet or other local serving essential services (e.g., day care centers, public schools, medical/dental office buildings, etc.) are presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. The Project, as intended, does not contain any local serving uses.

Additionally, the City Guidelines state that small projects generating net new trips fewer than 110 daily vehicle trips may be presumed to have a less than significant impact, subject to discretionary approval by the City.

January 3, 2023

Page 4 of 11 ends

14539-08 VMT
collected over two days. As shown in Table 1, the existing site currently generates an average of 316 vehicle trips per day.

TABLE 1: EXISTING TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY

PROPOSED PROJECT
It is our understanding that the Project consists of a single 270,377 square foot warehouse building. In order to develop the traffic characteristics of the proposed Project, trip-generation statistics published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021) was used for the proposed uses. Table 3 summarizes the trip generation rates. For purposes of this assessment, the following land uses and vehicle mixes have been utilized:
• ITE land use code 150 (Warehousing) has been used to derive site specific trip generation estimates for up to 243,303 square feet (90% of the total square footage). A warehouse is primarily devoted to the storage of materials but may also include office and maintenance areas. 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 SCAQMD recommended truck mix: 2-Axle = 16.7%; 3-Axle = 20.7%; 4+-Axle = 62.6%. • ITE land use code 157 (High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse) has been used to derive site specific trip generation estimates for up to 27,034 square feet (10% of the total square footage). High-cube cold storage warehouses include warehouses characterized by the storage and/or consolidation of manufactured goods (and to a lesser extent, raw materials) prior to their distribution to retail locations or other warehouses. High-cube cold storage warehouses are facilities typified by temperature-controlled environments for frozen food or other perishable products. The High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse 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 SCAQMD recommended truck mix: 2-Axle =

34.7%; 3-Axle = 11.0%; 4+-Axle = 54.3%.

Land Use In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Average Existing Trip Generation
Passenger Cars: 11 7 18 0 1 1 209
2-axle Trucks: 2 2 4 0 0 0 17
3-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
4+-axle Trucks: 3 4 8 1 0 1 84
Total Truck Trips: 6 6 12 1 0 1 107
Total Trips1 17 13 30 1 1 2 316
1 Total Trips = Passenger Cars + Truck Trips.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
2668
Ms. Tracy Zinn
T&B Planning, Inc.

January 3, 2023

Page 5 of 11 ends

14539-08 VMT
TABLE 3: TRIP GENERATION RATES
The trip generation summary illustrating daily trip generation estimates for the proposed Project are summarized on Table 4. The proposed Project is anticipated to generate 476 daily vehicle trips.

TABLE 4: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
ITE LU AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Units2 Code In Out Total In Out Total
Actual Vehicle Trip Generation Rates
Warehousing1,3 TSF 150 0.131 0.039 0.170 0.050 0.130 0.180 1.710 Passenger Cars 0.120 0.030 0.150 0.034 0.116 0.150 1.110 2-Axle Trucks 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.005 0.100 3-Axle Trucks 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.006 0.124 4+-Axle Trucks 0.007 0.006 0.013 0.010 0.009 0.019 0.376 High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse1,3 TSF 157 0.085 0.025 0.110 0.034 0.086 0.120 2.120 Passenger Cars 0.076 0.004 0.080 0.019 0.071 0.090 1.370 2-Axle Trucks 0.003 0.007 0.010 0.005 0.005 0.010 0.260 3-Axle Trucks 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.083 4+-Axle Trucks 0.005 0.011 0.016 0.008 0.008 0.016 0.407 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.

Normalized % - With Cold Storage: 34.7% 2-Axle trucks, 11.0% 3-Axle trucks, 54.3% 4-Axle trucks.

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

Warehousing 243.339 TSF
Passenger Cars: 29 7 36 8 28 36 270
2-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 1 0 1 24
3-axle Trucks: 0 1 1 1 1 2 30
4+-axle Trucks: 2 1 3 2 2 4 92
Total Truck Trips (Actual Vehicles): 2 2 4 4 3 7 146
Warehousing Trips (Actual Vehicles)2 31 9 40 12 31 43 416 High-Cube Cold Storage 27.038 TSF
Passenger Cars: 2 0 2 1 2 3 38
2-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
3-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
4+-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
Total Truck Trips (Actual Vehicles): 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
Cold Storage Trips (Actual Vehicles)2 2 0 2 1 2 3 60
Passenger Cars 31 7 38 9 30 39 308
Trucks 2 2 4 4 3 7 168
Total Project Trips (Actual Vehicles)2 33 9 42 13 33 46 476 1 TS F = thousand square feet
2 Total Trips = Passenger Cars + Truck Trips.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
2669
Ms. Tracy Zinn
T&B Planning, Inc.

January 3, 2023

Page 6 of 11 ends

14539-08 VMT

TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON
Table 5 shows the trip generation comparison between the existing use and proposed Project and identifies the resulting net new trips. As shown, the Project is anticipated to generate 160 net new average daily trips.

TABLE 5: TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON
The Project is anticipated to generate 160 net new daily vehicle trips. Therefore, the Project generates daily vehicle trips exceeding the 110 daily vehicle trip threshold.

Project Type screening criteria is not met.

As the Project was not found to meet any of the aforementioned VMT screening criteria, a project level VMT analysis is prepared to assess the Project’s potential impact to VMT.

VMT ANALYSIS

VMT MODELING
The City Guidelines identify the San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM) as the appropriate tool for conducting VMT analysis for land use projects in the City of Ontario, as it considers interaction between different land uses based on socio-economic data, such as population, households, and employment. Consistent with The City of Ontario Plan (TOP) The City has recently adopted an updated version of SBTAM also referred to as The Ontario Plan (TOP) model. This model contains updated roadway network and socio-economic data within the city Land Use In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Actual Vehicles:

Existing Use
Passenger Cars: 11 7 18 0 1 1 209
Trucks: 6 6 12 1 0 1 107
Existing Trips (Actual Vehicles)2 17 13 30 1 1 2 316
Proposed Project
Passenger Cars: 31 7 38 9 30 39 308
Trucks: 2 2 4 4 3 7 168
Total Project Trips (Actual Vehicles)2 33 9 42 13 33 46 476 Passenger Cars: 20 0 20 9 29 38 99
Trucks: -4 -4 -8 3 3 6 61
Net New Project Trips (Actual Vehicles)2 16 -4 12 12 32 44 160 1 TSF = thousand square feet
2 Total Trips = Passenger Cars + Truck Trips.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
2670
Ms. Tracy Zinn
T&B Planning, Inc.

January 3, 2023

Page 7 of 11 ends

14539-08 VMT
and includes a base year of 2019 and a General Plan Buildout of 2050. Outside of the City of Ontario, the model assumes datasets consistent with the 2016 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). Urban Crossroads has obtained the newly adopted TOP model from the City of Ontario.

VMT METRIC AND SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD
City Guidelines identify the efficiency based metric VMT per service population (i.e., population and employees) as the measure of potential impact within the City of Ontario. VMT per service population is an efficiency metric that allows a project’s VMT to be compared to the remainder of the City. Projects found to increase the average VMT per service population within the City may be deemed to have a significant impact. More specifically, City Guidelines identify the following impact threshold for project level VMT analyses:
• A significant impact would occur if the project VMT per Service Population exceeds the Citywide average for Service Population under General Plan Buildout Conditions.

The City of Ontario’s average VMT per service population under General Plan Buildout Conditions was calculated using the TOP 2050 model. Table 6 identifies a summary for the City of Ontario’s Citywide average VMT per service population.

TABLE 6: CITYWIDE VMT PER SERVICE POPULATION
Ontario Buildout
Service Population 706,494
VMT 19,508,184
VMT per Service Population 27.61
As shown in Table 6, the City of Ontario’s VMT per service population for General Plan Buildout (2050) conditions has been calculated as 27.61 VMT per service population.

PROJECT LAND USE CONVERSION
In order to evaluate Project VMT, standard land use information must first be converted into a SBTAM compatible dataset. The SBTAM model utilizes socio-economic data (SED) (e.g., population, households, employment, etc.) instead of land use information for the purposes of vehicle trip estimation. Project land use information such as building square footage must first be converted to SED for input into SBTAM. Adjustments in SED have been made to the appropriate TAZ 53699101 within the SBTAM model to reflect the Project’s proposed land uses (i.e., warehouse). Table 7 summarizes the employment estimates for the Project. It should be noted that the employment estimates are consistent with the employment density factors identified in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Employment Density Study (October 2001) (3).
2671
Ms. Tracy Zinn
T&B Planning, Inc.

January 3, 2023

Page 8 of 11 ends

14539-08 VMT
TABLE 7: EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATES
Land Use Quantity (SF) Employment Density
Factor3
Estimated
Employees
Warehouse 270,337 1 employee per 1,195 SF 226

PROJECT TOTAL VMT CALCULATION
Consistent with City Guidelines and standard VMT calculation methods, total VMT is calculated from SBTAM’s OD trip matrices and then divided by a project’s service population to derive the VMT efficiency metric VMT per service population.

Table 8 presents project-generated total VMT calculated as the total of passenger car, light-duty, medium-duty, and heavy-duty truck trips. Total trips by vehicle type are then multiplied by the average trip length for each vehicle type. The average trip length for heavy, medium, and light duty trucks used for this analysis was obtained from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) documents for the implementation of the Facility-Based Mobile Source Measures (FBMSMs) adopted in the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). SCAQMD’s “Preliminary Warehouse Emission Calculations” cites 39.9-mile trip length for heavy-duty trucks and 14.2-mile trip length for medium and light duty trucks based on SCAG 2016 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).

TABLE 8: TOTAL VMT
Base Year (2019) Buildout Year (2050) Baseline (2022)
Automobile VMT 4,337 3,939 4,299
Truck VMT 3,278 4,085 3,357
Total VMT 7,616 8,025 7,655
Table 9 presents the calculation of VMT per service population, which is simply the product of total VMT for the Project divided by the Project’s service population or in this case the number of Project employees.

TABLE 9: PROJECT VMT PER SERVICE POPULATION
Base Year (2019) Buildout Year (2050) Baseline (2022)
Service Population4 226 226 226
VMT 7,616 8,025 7,655
VMT per service population 33.67 35.47 33.84
Table 10 identifies the comparison between Project’s baseline and cumulative VMT per service population to the City’s impact threshold. The City of Ontario has identified a VMT per service population significance threshold of 27.61, which is the City of Ontario’s General Plan Buildout with the TOP model. As shown below, the Project would exceed the City’s VMT per service 3 SCAG Employment Density Study; Table II-B 4 Since the Project does not have a residential component, the service population consists entirely of employment. 2672
Ms. Tracy Zinn
T&B Planning, Inc.

January 3, 2023

Page 9 of 11 ends

14539-08 VMT
population impact threshold for both the baseline conditions by 22.56%-28.47%, respectively.

The Project VMT impact is therefore considered potentially significant.

TABLE 10: PROJECT COMPARISON TO CITY OF ONTARIO VMT THRESHOLD Baseline Buildout Year
Impact Threshold 27.61 27.61
Project 33.84 35.47
Percent Change +22.56% +28.47%
Potentially Significant? Yes Yes
PROJECT’S CUMULATIVE EFFECT ON VMT
The City Guidelines, consistent with the Technical Advisory, states that cumulative impacts on VMT “… metrics such as VMT per capita or VMT per employee, i.e., metrics framed in terms of efficiency (as recommended below for use on residential and office projects), cannot be summed because they employ a denominator. A project that falls below an efficiency-based threshold that is aligned with long-term goals and relevant plans has no cumulative impact distinct from the project impact. Accordingly, a finding of a less-than-significant project impact would imply a less than significant cumulative impact, and vice versa. This is similar to the analysis typically conducted for greenhouse gas emissions, air quality impacts, and impact that utilize plan compliance as a threshold of significance.”5 As the Project is consistent with the RTP/SCS and is found to have a potentially significant impact at the project level. The Project is also considered to have a potentially significant cumulative impact as well.

VMT REDUCTION STRATEGIES
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies in the form of commute trip reduction program measures have been reviewed for the purpose of reducing Project related VMT impacts (i.e., commute trips) determined to be potentially significant. The level of effectiveness of each trip reduction measure has been determined based on the Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (CAPCOA, 2021) (2021 Handbook). As the future building tenants are not known for the Project, the effectiveness of each commute trip reduction measures may be limited. In addition to specific tenancy considerations, locational context is also a major factor relevant to the potential application and effectiveness of TDM measures. The three locational contexts identified by the 2021 Handbook are suburban, urban, and rural.6 The locational context of the Project is characteristically suburban.

Under the most favorable circumstances and ideal conditions a project can realize a maximum reduction of 45% in commute VMT through implementation of the trip reduction program measures listed below.
7 However, ideal conditions are rarely realized as variables such as a 5 OPR’s Technical Advisory; Page 6
6 2021 Handbook; Page 43 7 2021 Handbook; Page 61
2673
Ms. Tracy Zinn
T&B Planning, Inc.

January 3, 2023

Page 10 of 11 ends

14539-08 VMT
projects locational context limitation (i.e., non-urban areas). Additionally, to achieve ideal conditions a project must achieve one hundred percent employee participation and maximum employee eligibility, which are not generally expected. The proposed Project would require a minimum reduction of 25.58% to achieve a less than significant impact. The 2021 Handbook lists the following trip reduction measures. These measures can be implemented individually or grouped together to create either a voluntary or mandatory commute trip reduction (CTR) program.
• T-7 – Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing
• T-8 – Provide Ridesharing Program
• T-10 – Provide End-of-Trip Facilities
Other regional transportation measures that may reduce VMT include but are not limited to improving/increasing access to transit, increasing access to common goods and service, or orientating land uses towards alternative transportation. These regional transportation measures may be infeasible at the project level but will generally be implemented as the surrounding communities develop. There is no means, however, to quantify any VMT reductions that could result from implementation. Additionally, the effectiveness of the CTR program measures listed above have potential to reduce the Project VMT are dependent on as yet unknown building tenant(s); and as noted above, VMT reductions from various CTR measures cannot be guaranteed.

CONCLUSION
Based on the results of this analysis the following findings are made:
• The Project’s was evaluated against screening criteria as outlined in the City Guidelines.

The Project was not found to meet any available screening criteria, and a model based VMT analysis was performed.
• The Project’s VMT analysis found the Project to exceed the City’s VMT per employee threshold by 22.56% in baseline conditions and 28.47% in buildout conditions. The Project is determined to have a potentially significant transportation impact. • Since the future tenants are unknown at this time, implementation of the feasible TDM measures discussed above cannot be guaranteed to reduce the Project generated VMT per employee; the Project’s VMT impact is considered significant and unavoidable. 2674
Ms. Tracy Zinn
T&B Planning, Inc.

January 3, 2023

Page 11 of 11 ends

14539-08 VMT
If you have any questions, please contact me directly at [email protected].

Respectfully submitted,
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.

Alexander So
Senior Associate
2675
14539-08 VMT

REFERENCES

1. Office of Planning and Research. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. State of California : s.n., December 2018.

2. City of Ontario. SB 743 VMT Thresholds. City of Ontario : s.n., June 2020.

3. Southern California Association of Governments. Employment Density Study. October 2001. 2676

ATTACHMENT A

SBCTA SCREENING TOOL
2677
14539
-08 VMT 2678
DATE: January 3, 2023
TO: Jaime Maciel-Carrera, City of Ontario
FROM: Charlene So, Urban Crossroads
JOB NO: 14539-03 TG Memo
IE DISTRIBUTION CENTER #14 TRIP GENERATION ASSESSMENT
Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to submit the following responses to the Trip Generation Assessment for the proposed IE Distribution Center #14 development (Project), which is located at 5355 E. Airport Drive in the City of Ontario. This letter describes the proposed Project trip generation and determines whether any traffic operations analysis is required based on the County’s Transportation Impact Study Guidelines (July 9, 2019, referred to as City Guidelines) as the City does not have their own level of service (LOS) guidelines.

PROPOSED PROJECT
It is our understanding that the Project consists of a single 270,377 square foot warehouse building. The proposed Project has been evaluated assuming a mix of warehousing (243,303 square feet or 90% of the total square footage) and highcube cold storage use (27,034 square feet or 10% of the total square footage). The Project site is currently occupied and operating as a grain processing company and corn storage and distribution facility within warehousing space totaling 41,780 square feet. There are two driveways on Airport Drive. A preliminary site plan for the proposed Project is shown in Exhibit 1.
2679
Jaime Maciel-Carrera, City of Ontario
January 3, 2023

Page 2 of 7 ends

14539-03 TG Memo
EXHIBIT 1: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN

TRIP GENERATION

EXISTING TRAFFIC
The Project site is currently occupied and operating as a grain processing company and corn storage and distribution facility within warehousing space totaling 41,780 square feet. In an effort to understand the existing traffic associated with the current use, traffic counts were collected at the driveways on Tuesday, March 1, 20220 through Thursday, March 3, 2022. Attachment A includes the driveway count data. Table 1 summarizes the trip generation by day and the average existing trip generation based on the count data collected over two days. The existing site currently generates an average of 316 two-way trips per day, with 30 trips during the AM peak hour and 2 trips during the PM peak hour (in actual vehicles). 2680
Jaime Maciel-Carrera, City of Ontario
January 3, 2023

Page 3 of 7 ends

14539-03 TG Memo
TABLE 1: EXISTING TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY

PROPOSED PROJECT
It is our understanding that the Project consists of a single 270,377 square foot warehouse building. In order to develop the traffic characteristics of the proposed Project, trip-generation statistics published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021) was used for the proposed uses. Table 2 summarizes the trip generation rates. For purposes of this assessment, the following land uses and vehicle mixes have been utilized:
• ITE land use code 150 (Warehousing) has been used to derive site specific trip generation estimates for up to 243,303 square feet (90% of the total square footage). A warehouse is primarily devoted to the storage of materials but may also include office and maintenance areas. 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 SCAQMD recommended truck mix: 2-Axle = 16.7%; 3-Axle = 20.7%; 4+-Axle = 62.6%. • ITE land use code 157 (High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse) has been used to derive site specific trip generation estimates for up to 27,034 square feet (10% of the total square footage). High-cube cold storage warehouses include warehouses characterized by the storage and/or consolidation of manufactured goods (and to a lesser extent, raw materials) prior to their distribution to retail locations or other warehouses. High-cube cold storage warehouses are facilities typified by temperature-controlled environments for frozen food or other perishable products. The High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse 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 SCAQMD recommended truck mix: 2-Axle = 34.7%; 3- Axle = 11.0%; 4+-Axle = 54.3%.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
2681
Jaime Maciel-Carrera, City of Ontario
January 3, 2023

Page 4 of 7 ends

14539-03 TG Memo
TABLE 2: TRIP GENERATION RATES
Passenger car equivalent (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’s Guidelines (City’s Guidelines do not specify the factors).

The trip generation summary illustrating daily and peak hour trip generation estimates for the proposed Project are summarized on Table 3 for actual vehicles and on Table 4 for PCE. Any intersection operations analysis for a project would need to utilize the PCE trip generation consistent with the City’s Guidelines. The proposed Project is anticipated to generate 476 vehicle trip-ends per day with 42 AM peak hour trips and 46 PM peak hour trips (actual vehicles). In comparison the Project is anticipated to generate 732 PCE vehicle trip-ends per day with 49 PCE AM peak hour trips and 57 PCE PM peak hour trips.

ITE LU AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Units2 Code In Out Total In Out Total
Actual Vehicle Trip Generation Rates
Warehousing1,3 TSF 150 0.131 0.039 0.170 0.050 0.130 0.180 1.710 Passenger Cars 0.120 0.030 0.150 0.034 0.116 0.150 1.110 2-Axle Trucks 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.005 0.100 3-Axle Trucks 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.006 0.124 4+-Axle Trucks 0.007 0.006 0.013 0.010 0.009 0.019 0.376 High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse1,3 TSF 157 0.085 0.025 0.110 0.034 0.086 0.120 2.120 Passenger Cars 0.076 0.004 0.080 0.019 0.071 0.090 1.370 2-Axle Trucks 0.003 0.007 0.010 0.005 0.005 0.010 0.260 3-Axle Trucks 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.083 4+-Axle Trucks 0.005 0.011 0.016 0.008 0.008 0.016 0.407 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.

Normalized % - With Cold Storage: 34.7% 2-Axle trucks, 11.0% 3-Axle trucks, 54.3% 4-Axle trucks.

Daily
2682
Jaime Maciel-Carrera, City of Ontario
January 3, 2023

Page 5 of 7 ends

14539-03 TG Memo
TABLE 3: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY (ACTUAL VEHICLES) Land Use Quantity Units1 In Out Total In Out Total Daily Actual Vehicles:

Warehousing 243.339 TSF
Passenger Cars: 29 7 36 8 28 36 270
2-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 1 0 1 24
3-axle Trucks: 0 1 1 1 1 2 30
4+-axle Trucks: 2 1 3 2 2 4 92
Total Truck Trips (Actual Vehicles): 2 2 4 4 3 7 146
Warehousing Trips (Actual Vehicles)2 31 9 40 12 31 43 416 High-Cube Cold Storage 27.038 TSF
Passenger Cars: 2 0 2 1 2 3 38
2-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
3-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
4+-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
Total Truck Trips (Actual Vehicles): 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
Cold Storage Trips (Actual Vehicles)2 2 0 2 1 2 3 60
Passenger Cars 31 7 38 9 30 39 308
Trucks 2 2 4 4 3 7 168
Total Project Trips (Actual Vehicles)2 33 9 42 13 33 46 476 1 TSF = thousand square feet
2 Total Trips = Passenger Cars + Truck Trips.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
2683
Jaime Maciel-Carrera, City of Ontario
January 3, 2023

Page 6 of 7 ends

14539-03 TG Memo
TABLE 4: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY (PCE)

Land Use Quantity Units1 In Out Total In Out Total Daily Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE):

Warehousing 243.339 TSF
Passenger Cars: 29 7 36 8 28 36 270
2-axle Trucks (PCE = 1.5): 0 0 0 2 0 2 36
3-axle Trucks (PCE = 2.0): 0 2 2 2 2 4 60
4+-axle Trucks (PCE = 3.0): 6 3 9 6 6 12 276
Total Truck Trips (PCE): 6 5 11 10 8 18 372
Warehousing Trips (PCE)2 35 12 47 18 36 54 642
High-Cube Cold Storage 27.038 TSF
Passenger Cars: 2 0 2 1 2 3 38
2-axle Trucks (PCE = 1.5): 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
3-axle Trucks (PCE = 2.0): 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
4+-axle Trucks (PCE = 3.0): 0 0 0 0 0 0 36
Total Truck Trips (PCE): 0 0 0 0 0 0 52
Cold Storage Trips (PCE)2 2 0 2 1 2 3 90
Passenger Cars 31 7 38 9 30 39 308
Trucks 6 5 11 10 8 18 424
Total Project Trips (PCE)2 37 12 49 19 38 57 732
1 TSF = thousand square feet
2 Total Trips = Passenger Cars + Truck Trips.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
2684
Jaime Maciel-Carrera, City of Ontario
January 3, 2023

Page 7 of 7 ends

14539-03 TG Memo
TABLE 5: TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON

FINDINGS
The City’s Guidelines identify a project could potentially require further analysis if it meets the following criteria:
• If a project generates more than 100 peak hour trips in either peak hour. This presumption is based on the assumption that projects that generate less than 100 peak hour trips typically do not affect LOS significantly once distributed to the local roadway network. • The minimum area to be studied should include any intersection at which the proposed project would add 50 or more peak hour trips.

Even without taking any credit for the existing use (which currently generates nominal traffic), the proposed Project is anticipated to generate fewer than 100 peak hour trips. Furthermore, taking into consideration the distribution of traffic to the west and east on E. Airport Drive, the Project is anticipated to contribute fewer than 50 peak hour trips to any off-site intersection. As such, no traffic operations analysis has been recommended based on the findings of this trip generation assessment.

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

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

Existing Use
Passenger Cars: 11 7 18 0 1 1 209
Trucks: 14 16 30 3 0 3 289
Existing Trips (PCE)2 25 23 48 3 1 4 498
Proposed Project
Passenger Cars: 31 7 38 9 30 39 308
Trucks: 6 5 11 10 8 18 424
Total Project Trips (PCE)2 37 12 49 19 38 57 732
Passenger Cars: 20 0 20 9 29 38 99
Trucks: -8 -11 -19 7 8 15 135
Net New Project Trips (PCE)2 12 -11 1 16 37 53 234
1 TSF = thousand square feet
2 Total Trips = Passenger Cars + Truck Trips.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
2685

14539-03 TG Memo
ATTACHMENT A: DRIVEWAY COUNTS
2686
Table A‐1
Land Use In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Day 1: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 7‐8 AM; 4‐5 PM
Passenger Cars: 10 6 16 0 3 3 260
2‐axle Trucks: 4 2 6 0 0 0 28
3‐axle Trucks: 0000006
4+‐axle Trucks: 3 5 8 1 0 1 79
Total Truck Trips: 7 7 14 1 0 1 113
Total Trips1
17 13 30 1 3 4 373
Day 2: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 7:30‐8:30 AM; 5‐6 PM
Passenger Cars: 9 6 15 0 0 0 154
2‐axle Trucks: 2130007
3‐axle Trucks: 0000007
4+‐axle Trucks: 5 3 8 1 0 1 91
Total Truck Trips: 7 4 11 1 0 1 105
Total Trips1
16 10 26 1 0 1 259
Day 3: Thursday, March 3, 2022 8‐9 AM; 5‐6 PM
Passenger Cars: 15 8 23 0 0 0 214
2‐axle Trucks: 1 2 3 0 0 0 16
3‐axle Trucks: 1010005
4+‐axle Trucks: 2 5 7 1 0 1 81
Total Truck Trips: 4 7 11 1 0 1 102
Total Trips1
19 15 34 1 0 1 316 1 Total Trips = Passenger Cars + Truck Trips.

Summary of Weekday Peak Hour Driveway Counts
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
2687
City:

Location:

Date:

Count Type:

Pass
Veh
Large
2 Axle 3 Axle 4+ Axle Total
Pass
Veh
Large
2 Axle 3 Axle 4+ Axle Total
0:00 0 0 0 0 0 0:00 0 0 0 0 0
0:15 0 0 0 0 0 0:15 0 0 0 0 0
0:30 0 0 0 0 0 0:30 0 0 0 0 0
0:45 0 0 0 0 0 0:45 0 0 0 0 0
1:00 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 0 0 0 0 0
1:15 0 0 0 0 0 1:15 0 0 0 0 0
1:30 2 0 0 0 2 1:30 0 0 0 0 0
1:45 0 0 0 0 0 1:45 0 0 0 2 2
2:00 1 0 0 0 1 2:00 0 0 0 0 0
2:15 0 0 0 0 0 2:15 0 0 0 1 1
2:30 0 0 0 0 0 2:30 0 0 0 0 0
2:45 2 0 0 0 2 2:45 0 0 0 1 1
3:00 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 0 0 0 0 0
3:15 0 0 0 0 0 3:15 0 0 0 0 0
3:30 1 0 0 1 2 3:30 0 0 0 0 0
3:45 1 0 0 1 2 3:45 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 0 0 0 1 1 4:15 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 0 0 0 1 1
4:45 1 0 0 2 3 4:45 0 0 0 1 1
5:00 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 0 0 0 2 2
5:15 0 0 0 1 1 5:15 0 0 0 1 1
5:30 2 0 0 1 3 5:30 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 1 0 0 1 2 5:45 0 0 0 1 1
6:00 0 0 0 1 1 6:00 0 0 0 1 1
6:15 1 0 0 1 2 6:15 0 0 0 2 2
6:30 1 0 0 1 2 6:30 1 0 0 1 2
6:45 1 1 0 1 3 6:45 0 0 0 2 2
7:00 5 1 0 0 6 7:00 0 0 0 1 1
7:15 2 0 0 2 4 7:15 2 1 0 1 4
7:30 1 1 0 0 2 7:30 2 0 0 3 5
7:45 2 2 0 1 5 7:45 2 1 0 0 3
8:00 3 0 0 1 4 8:00 0 0 0 1 1
8:15 1 0 0 1 2 8:15 2 1 0 1 4
8:30 0 0 0 0 0 8:30 4 1 0 0 5
8:45 4 1 0 1 6 8:45 1 0 0 0 1
9:00 3 0 0 0 3 9:00 2 1 0 1 4
9:15 3 0 0 2 5 9:15 4 0 0 0 4
9:30 3 0 0 4 7 9:30 4 0 0 1 5
9:45 2 0 0 0 2 9:45 1 0 0 1 2
10:00 2 1 0 1 4 10:00 4 1 0 3 8
10:15 4 1 0 1 6 10:15 3 0 0 1 4
10:30 7 1 1 1 10 10:30 3 0 0 0 3
10:45 4 0 0 0 4 10:45 3 1 0 0 4
11:00 5 0 0 1 6 11:00 7 2 0 1 10
11:15 3 0 0 0 3 11:15 4 0 0 1 5
11:30 3 0 0 1 4 11:30 2 0 0 0 2
11:45 4 0 0 1 5 11:45 5 0 0 1 6
Exiting
Ontario
5255 E Airport ‐ TOTAL
3/1/2022
Classified Driveway Counts
Entering
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268‐6268 2688
City:

Location:

Date:

Count Type:

Pass
Veh
Large
2 Axle 3 Axle 4+ Axle Total
Pass
Veh
Large
2 Axle 3 Axle 4+ Axle Total
Exiting
Ontario
5255 E Airport ‐ TOTAL
3/1/2022
Classified Driveway Counts
Entering
12:00 8 1 0 1 10 12:00 3 0 0 1 4
12:15 5 0 0 0 5 12:15 4 0 0 1 5
12:30 4 1 0 0 5 12:30 5 0 0 0 5
12:45 1 0 0 3 4 12:45 3 1 0 1 5
13:00 5 1 0 0 6 13:00 6 1 0 0 7
13:15 3 1 1 0 5 13:15 6 1 0 0 7
13:30 5 0 0 1 6 13:30 8 0 0 1 9
13:45 5 0 1 1 7 13:45 4 0 0 0 4
14:00 3 0 0 0 3 14:00 7 1 0 2 10
14:15 3 1 0 0 4 14:15 1 0 0 0 1
14:30 5 0 0 0 5 14:30 6 1 1 0 8
14:45 3 0 0 0 3 14:45 7 0 0 1 8
15:00 2 0 0 1 3 15:00 1 0 0 0 1
15:15 3 0 0 0 3 15:15 2 0 0 0 2
15:30 0 0 0 0 0 15:30 5 0 0 0 5
15:45 0 0 0 0 0 15:45 2 0 0 0 2
16:00 0 0 0 0 0 16:00 2 0 0 0 2
16:15 0 0 0 0 0 16:15 0 0 0 0 0
16:30 0 0 0 0 0 16:30 1 0 0 0 1
16:45 0 0 0 1 1 16:45 0 0 0 0 0
17:00 0 0 0 0 0 17:00 0 0 0 0 0
17:15 0 0 0 0 0 17:15 0 0 0 0 0
17:30 0 0 0 0 0 17:30 0 0 0 0 0
17:45 0 0 0 0 0 17:45 0 0 0 0 0
18:00 0 0 0 0 0 18:00 0 0 0 0 0
18:15 0 0 1 0 1 18:15 0 0 1 0 1
18:30 0 0 0 0 0 18:30 0 0 0 0 0
18:45 0 0 0 0 0 18:45 0 0 0 0 0
19:00 0 0 0 0 0 19:00 0 0 0 0 0
19:15 0 0 0 0 0 19:15 0 0 0 0 0
19:30 0 0 0 0 0 19:30 0 0 0 0 0
19:45 0 0 0 0 0 19:45 0 0 0 0 0
20:00 0 0 0 0 0 20:00 0 0 0 0 0
20:15 0 0 0 0 0 20:15 0 0 0 0 0
20:30 0 0 0 1 1 20:30 0 0 0 0 0
20:45 0 0 0 0 0 20:45 0 0 0 0 0
21:00 0 0 0 0 0 21:00 0 0 0 0 0
21:15 0 0 0 0 0 21:15 1 0 0 0 1
21:30 0 0 0 0 0 21:30 0 0 0 0 0
21:45 0 0 0 0 0 21:45 0 0 0 0 0
22:00 0 0 0 0 0 22:00 0 0 0 0 0
22:15 0 0 0 0 0 22:15 0 0 0 0 0
22:30 0 0 0 0 0 22:30 0 0 0 0 0
22:45 0 0 0 0 0 22:45 0 0 0 0 0
23:00 0 0 0 0 0 23:00 0 0 0 0 0
23:15 0 0 0 0 0 23:15 0 0 0 0 0
23:30 0 0 0 0 0 23:30 0 0 0 0 0
23:45 0 0 0 0 0 23:45 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 130 14 4 39 187 130 14 2 40 186
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268‐6268 2689
City:

Location:

Date:

Count Type:

Pass
Veh
Large
2 Axle 3 Axle 4+ Axle Total
Pass
Veh
Large
2 Axle 3 Axle 4+ Axle Total
0:00 0 0 0 0 0 0:00 0 0 0 0 0
0:15 0 0 0 0 0 0:15 0 0 0 0 0
0:30 0 0 0 0 0 0:30 0 0 0 0 0
0:45 0 0 0 0 0 0:45 0 0 0 0 0
1:00 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 0 0 0 0 0
1:15 1 0 0 0 1 1:15 0 0 0 0 0
1:30 0 0 0 0 0 1:30 0 0 0 1 1
1:45 0 0 0 0 0 1:45 0 0 0 0 0
2:00 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 0 0 0 0 0
2:15 1 0 0 0 1 2:15 0 0 0 0 0
2:30 1 0 0 0 1 2:30 0 0 0 0 0
2:45 1 0 0 1 2 2:45 0 0 0 1 1
3:00 1 0 0 0 1 3:00 0 0 0 1 1
3:15 0 0 0 0 0 3:15 0 0 0 0 0
3:30 0 0 0 0 0 3:30 0 0 0 1 1
3:45 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 0 0 0 1 1
4:15 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 0 0 0 3 3 4:30 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 0 0 0 2 2 4:45 0 0 0 1 1
5:00 0 0 0 1 1 5:00 0 0 0 1 1
5:15 1 0 0 1 2 5:15 0 0 0 3 3
5:30 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 0 0 0 1 1
5:45 0 0 0 1 1 5:45 0 0 0 2 2
6:00 2 0 0 0 2 6:00 0 0 0 0 0
6:15 1 0 0 0 1 6:15 0 0 0 0 0
6:30 0 0 0 0 0 6:30 0 0 0 0 0
6:45 2 0 0 1 3 6:45 1 0 0 1 2
7:00 5 0 0 1 6 7:00 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 1 0 0 1 2 7:15 0 0 0 2 2
7:30 2 1 0 1 4 7:30 2 0 0 1 3
7:45 3 0 0 1 4 7:45 1 1 0 1 3
8:00 1 1 0 1 3 8:00 2 0 0 1 3
8:15 3 0 0 2 5 8:15 1 0 0 0 1
8:30 1 0 0 1 2 8:30 2 0 0 1 3
8:45 2 0 0 1 3 8:45 2 0 0 1 3
9:00 0 0 0 1 1 9:00 1 1 0 0 2
9:15 2 0 2 3 7 9:15 1 0 0 2 3
9:30 5 0 0 0 5 9:30 2 0 0 1 3
9:45 1 0 0 0 1 9:45 1 0 0 2 3
10:00 2 0 0 1 3 10:00 4 1 0 2 7
10:15 2 0 0 0 2 10:15 0 0 0 1 1
10:30 3 0 0 1 4 10:30 2 0 0 0 2
10:45 2 0 0 0 2 10:45 3 0 0 1 4
11:00 4 0 0 2 6 11:00 2 0 0 1 3
11:15 3 1 0 3 7 11:15 1 0 0 2 3
11:30 3 0 0 1 4 11:30 8 1 0 1 10
11:45 3 0 0 1 4 11:45 2 0 0 0 2
Exiting
Ontario
5255 E Airport ‐ TOTAL
3/2/2022
Classified Driveway Counts
Entering
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268‐6268 2690
City:

Location:

Date:

Count Type:

Pass
Veh
Large
2 Axle 3 Axle 4+ Axle Total
Pass
Veh
Large
2 Axle 3 Axle 4+ Axle Total
Exiting
Ontario
5255 E Airport ‐ TOTAL
3/2/2022
Classified Driveway Counts
Entering
12:00 2 0 0 1 3 12:00 1 0 0 2 3
12:15 2 0 0 1 3 12:15 5 0 0 2 7
12:30 1 0 0 1 2 12:30 0 0 0 2 2
12:45 1 0 0 1 2 12:45 2 0 0 0 2
13:00 2 0 0 1 3 13:00 4 0 0 1 5
13:15 0 0 0 1 1 13:15 2 0 0 0 2
13:30 2 0 0 0 2 13:30 3 0 0 0 3
13:45 2 0 0 1 3 13:45 3 0 0 0 3
14:00 1 0 0 0 1 14:00 1 0 0 0 1
14:15 0 0 0 0 0 14:15 3 0 0 0 3
14:30 1 0 1 1 3 14:30 1 0 0 0 1
14:45 1 0 0 2 3 14:45 0 0 0 0 0
15:00 1 0 0 1 2 15:00 1 0 0 0 1
15:15 0 0 1 0 1 15:15 4 0 1 0 5
15:30 1 0 0 0 1 15:30 4 0 0 1 5
15:45 0 0 1 0 1 15:45 4 0 0 2 6
16:00 0 0 0 0 0 16:00 0 0 0 1 1
16:15 0 0 0 0 0 16:15 0 0 0 0 0
16:30 0 0 0 0 0 16:30 0 0 0 0 0
16:45 0 0 0 0 0 16:45 0 0 0 0 0
17:00 0 0 0 0 0 17:00 0 0 0 0 0
17:15 0 0 0 1 1 17:15 0 0 0 0 0
17:30 0 0 0 0 0 17:30 0 0 0 0 0
17:45 0 0 0 0 0 17:45 0 0 0 0 0
18:00 0 0 0 0 0 18:00 0 0 0 0 0
18:15 0 0 0 0 0 18:15 0 0 0 1 1
18:30 0 0 0 0 0 18:30 0 0 0 0 0
18:45 0 0 0 0 0 18:45 0 0 0 0 0
19:00 0 0 0 0 0 19:00 0 0 0 0 0
19:15 0 0 0 0 0 19:15 2 0 0 0 2
19:30 0 0 0 0 0 19:30 0 0 0 0 0
19:45 0 0 0 0 0 19:45 0 0 0 0 0
20:00 0 0 0 0 0 20:00 0 0 0 0 0
20:15 0 0 0 0 0 20:15 0 0 0 0 0
20:30 0 0 0 0 0 20:30 0 0 0 0 0
20:45 0 0 0 0 0 20:45 0 0 0 0 0
21:00 0 0 0 0 0 21:00 0 0 0 0 0
21:15 0 0 0 0 0 21:15 0 0 0 0 0
21:30 0 0 0 0 0 21:30 0 0 0 0 0
21:45 0 0 0 0 0 21:45 0 0 0 0 0
22:00 0 0 0 1 1 22:00 0 0 0 0 0
22:15 0 0 0 0 0 22:15 0 0 1 0 1
22:30 0 0 0 0 0 22:30 0 0 0 0 0
22:45 0 0 0 0 0 22:45 0 0 0 0 0
23:00 0 0 0 0 0 23:00 0 0 0 0 0
23:15 0 0 0 0 0 23:15 0 0 0 0 0
23:30 0 0 0 0 0 23:30 0 0 0 0 0
23:45 0 0 0 0 0 23:45 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 76 3 5 45 129 78 4 2 46 130
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268‐6268 2691
City:

Location:

Date:

Count Type:

Pass
Veh
Large
2 Axle 3 Axle 4+ Axle Total
Pass
Veh
Large
2 Axle 3 Axle 4+ Axle Total
0:00 0 0 0 0 0 0:00 0 0 0 0 0
0:15 0 0 0 0 0 0:15 0 0 0 0 0
0:30 0 0 0 0 0 0:30 0 0 0 0 0
0:45 0 0 0 0 0 0:45 0 0 0 0 0
1:00 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 0 0 0 0 0
1:15 0 0 0 0 0 1:15 0 0 0 0 0
1:30 0 0 0 0 0 1:30 0 0 0 0 0
1:45 1 0 0 0 1 1:45 0 0 0 0 0
2:00 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 0 0 0 1 1
2:15 1 0 0 0 1 2:15 0 0 0 0 0
2:30 3 0 0 0 3 2:30 0 0 0 1 1
2:45 0 0 0 0 0 2:45 0 0 0 2 2
3:00 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 0 0 0 0 0
3:15 0 0 0 0 0 3:15 0 0 0 0 0
3:30 1 0 0 1 2 3:30 0 0 0 0 0
3:45 2 0 0 0 2 3:45 0 0 0 1 1
4:00 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 1 0 0 3 4 4:30 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 0 0 0 5 5 5:00 0 0 0 3 3
5:15 0 0 0 1 1 5:15 0 0 0 2 2
5:30 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 0 0 0 3 3
5:45 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 0 0 0 1 1
6:00 2 0 0 1 3 6:00 0 0 0 0 0
6:15 0 0 0 1 1 6:15 0 0 0 0 0
6:30 0 0 0 1 1 6:30 0 0 0 0 0
6:45 2 0 0 0 2 6:45 0 0 0 1 1
7:00 2 0 0 1 3 7:00 1 0 0 2 3
7:15 0 1 0 0 1 7:15 2 0 0 0 2
7:30 3 1 0 1 5 7:30 0 0 1 1 2
7:45 1 0 0 3 4 7:45 1 0 0 0 1
8:00 5 0 1 1 7 8:00 0 0 0 1 1
8:15 1 0 0 1 2 8:15 1 1 0 3 5
8:30 8 1 0 0 9 8:30 4 0 0 0 4
8:45 1 0 0 0 1 8:45 3 1 0 1 5
9:00 8 0 0 1 9 9:00 5 1 0 1 7
9:15 1 0 1 3 5 9:15 2 0 0 1 3
9:30 3 0 0 0 3 9:30 2 1 0 2 5
9:45 4 0 0 0 4 9:45 1 0 0 2 3
10:00 2 1 0 1 4 10:00 7 0 0 1 8
10:15 0 0 0 0 0 10:15 1 0 0 0 1
10:30 4 0 0 1 5 10:30 6 0 0 0 6
10:45 2 0 0 1 3 10:45 3 0 0 2 5
11:00 1 1 0 2 4 11:00 2 0 0 0 2
11:15 3 0 0 0 3 11:15 3 2 0 0 5
11:30 5 0 0 1 6 11:30 3 1 0 2 6
11:45 3 0 0 0 3 11:45 3 0 0 1 4
Exiting
Ontario
5255 E Airport ‐ TOTAL
3/3/2022
Classified Driveway Counts
Entering
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268‐6268 2692
City:

Location:

Date:

Count Type:

Pass
Veh
Large
2 Axle 3 Axle 4+ Axle Total
Pass
Veh
Large
2 Axle 3 Axle 4+ Axle Total
Exiting
Ontario
5255 E Airport ‐ TOTAL
3/3/2022
Classified Driveway Counts
Entering
12:00 4 0 0 1 5 12:00 6 0 0 0 6
12:15 6 0 0 1 7 12:15 5 0 0 1 6
12:30 3 0 0 1 4 12:30 4 0 0 0 4
12:45 4 0 1 0 5 12:45 4 0 0 1 5
13:00 1 0 0 2 3 13:00 3 0 0 1 4
13:15 3 1 0 1 5 13:15 2 1 0 0 3
13:30 5 0 0 0 5 13:30 4 0 0 1 5
13:45 1 0 0 0 1 13:45 3 0 0 1 4
14:00 3 0 0 0 3 14:00 6 0 0 0 6
14:15 1 1 0 1 3 14:15 3 0 0 0 3
14:30 2 0 0 0 2 14:30 5 1 0 0 6
14:45 1 0 0 1 2 14:45 1 0 0 0 1
15:00 1 0 0 0 1 15:00 2 0 0 0 2
15:15 0 0 0 0 0 15:15 0 0 0 1 1
15:30 1 0 0 0 1 15:30 3 0 0 0 3
15:45 0 0 0 0 0 15:45 4 0 0 0 4
16:00 0 0 0 0 0 16:00 0 0 0 0 0
16:15 0 0 0 0 0 16:15 0 0 0 0 0
16:30 0 0 0 0 0 16:30 0 0 0 0 0
16:45 0 0 0 0 0 16:45 0 0 0 0 0
17:00 0 0 0 0 0 17:00 0 0 0 0 0
17:15 0 0 0 0 0 17:15 0 0 0 0 0
17:30 0 0 0 1 1 17:30 0 0 0 0 0
17:45 0 0 0 0 0 17:45 0 0 0 0 0
18:00 0 0 0 0 0 18:00 1 0 0 0 1
18:15 0 0 0 0 0 18:15 0 0 0 0 0
18:30 0 0 0 0 0 18:30 0 0 0 0 0
18:45 0 0 0 0 0 18:45 0 0 0 0 0
19:00 0 0 0 0 0 19:00 0 0 0 0 0
19:15 0 0 0 0 0 19:15 0 0 0 0 0
19:30 0 0 0 0 0 19:30 2 0 0 0 2
19:45 0 0 0 0 0 19:45 0 0 0 0 0
20:00 0 0 0 0 0 20:00 0 0 0 0 0
20:15 0 0 0 0 0 20:15 0 0 0 0 0
20:30 0 0 0 0 0 20:30 0 0 0 0 0
20:45 0 0 0 0 0 20:45 0 0 0 0 0
21:00 0 0 0 0 0 21:00 0 0 0 0 0
21:15 0 0 0 0 0 21:15 0 0 0 0 0
21:30 0 0 0 0 0 21:30 0 0 0 0 0
21:45 0 0 0 0 0 21:45 0 0 0 0 0
22:00 0 0 0 0 0 22:00 0 0 0 0 0
22:15 0 0 0 0 0 22:15 0 0 0 0 0
22:30 0 0 0 0 0 22:30 0 0 0 0 0
22:45 0 0 0 0 0 22:45 0 0 0 0 0
23:00 0 0 0 1 1 23:00 0 0 0 0 0
23:15 0 0 0 0 0 23:15 0 0 1 0 1
23:30 0 0 0 0 0 23:30 0 0 0 0 0
23:45 0 0 0 0 0 23:45 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 106 7 3 40 156 108 9 2 41 160
Counts Unlimited, Inc.

PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
(951) 268‐6268 2693
From: Henry K. Noh
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 8:46 AM
To: Thomas Grahn
Cc: Gwen Berendsen; Lorena Mejia
Subject: FW: DAB Agenda Item D for March 18, 2024
FYI, he sent this to Lorena but this is your item.

Henry K. Noh
Planning Director
303 E. B Street, Ontario, CA 91764
P: 909-395-2996
[email protected]
www.ontarioca.gov

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2024 8:02 PM
To: Lorena Mejia <[email protected]>; Planning Director <[email protected]> Cc: Henry K. Noh <[email protected]>; Chris Robles <[email protected]> Subject: DAB Agenda Item D for March 18, 2024
Ms. Mejia,
• Please include this email as part of the public record.

I would like to express several concerns I have about the referenced project as presented in the Board packet published on the City website. I hope you can clear these up for me.

1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
It has been clearly demonstrated that our air pollution may be among the worst in the nation. As such it is in the best interest of the citizens of Ontario to reduce local pollution sources wherever possible. The recent warehouse approvals regularly refer to the city policy (CCAP) of limiting new projects to 3000 metric tons of CO2 equivalents per year. The proposal seems to claim that this project will only create 2590.77 metric tons. (pages 333, 334) In reality it is creating 4236.54 metric tons and wants to take credit for 1645.77 no longer emitted by the current occupants. This is their basis for saying no mitigation is needed. Why would they be entitled to claim this credit. They are generating 4236.54 units which exceeds the 3000 max proscribed by the city guidelines. Am I mistaken?
2694

2. SCAQMD guidelines
On page 560 the consultant says the 2022 AQMP plan is not ready and does not need to be considered. I attach the cover sheet of said plan actually adopted in December of 2022.

3. Health & Equity (pages 770, 771)
It seems self-evident in reading these pages that we live in deplorable circumstances. It is incumbent on City leaders to give more consideration to the health of our citizens than to 100,000 sq ft warehouses. To wit:
a. Ozone in the 91st percentile in the State
b. Air Quality in the 95th percentile
c. Traffic in the 89th percentile

4. Mitigation Measures
It seems the least the City could do would be to mandate even the bare minimum of mitigation measures for all these projects as mentioned several times in the documents. (For example, Letter to Thomas Grahn from SQAQMD, page 495, "In the event that the Proposed Project results in significant adverse air quality impacts, CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures that go beyond what is required by law be utilized to minimize these impacts." These could include:
a. Roof top solar
b. Reflective roofing
c. Electric charging stations
d. No or limited on site truck idling
e. Night time deliveries
f. Require deliveries via ZE of NZE vehicles
g. Energy Star appliances
Looking forward to hearing from you.

Raymond Smith
3937 San Lorenzo River Road
Ontario 91761
2695
JN 597-017

MEMORANDUM
TO: Thomas Grahn, Senior Planner
City of Ontario
303 East B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
FROM: Tracy Zinn, Principal
Tracy Chu, Assistant Project Manager
DATE: March 25, 2024
RE: 5355 East Airport Drive (PDEV22-017) – Response to Additional Comment Letter and Verbal Comments Expressed at DAB Meeting
T&B Planning, Inc. is the environmental consulting firm that prepared the Environmental Impact Report (EIR; SCH No. 2022090006) for the 5355 East Airport Drive Project (hereafter “Project”). The Project Applicant, Prologis, Inc., proposes to demolish the existing buildings and structures on the Project site and redevelop the property with a 270,337 square foot (s.f.) warehouse building. The Project’s design also includes the installation of associated site improvements, including drive aisles, landscaping, utility infrastructure, underground storm drain detention facilities, exterior lighting, walls/fencing, and signage as well as site-adjacent improvements to East Airport Drive.

The Draft EIR for the Project was published on August 22, 2023, for a 45 day review period, with the local review period and State review period ending on October 5, 2023.

On March 17, 2024, a letter was sent to the City from Raymond Smith (hereinafter “Comment Letter”) on the Project. Subsequently, on March 18, 2024, during the Development Advisory Board (DAB) meeting, verbal comments on the Project’s potential environmental effects were made by an organization and individuals including Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (CARECA).

T&B Planning prepared this memorandum in response to the comments received alleging deficiencies in the Draft EIR’s environmental impact analysis. This memorandum addresses items in the Comment Letter and the verbal comments received during the DAB meeting that are applicable to CEQA compliance. The responses contained herein demonstrate that the Draft EIR’s analyses and conclusions are correct and satisfy CEQA compliance requirements. For the reasons outlined in this memorandum, the comments do not present substantial new information, do not necessitate revisions to the Draft EIR or Final EIR, and do not trigger the need for recirculation of the Draft EIR or Final EIR, or the conduct of additional environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5.
2696
5355 East Airport Drive (PDEV22-017) – Response to March 17, 2024 Comment Letter March 25, 2024

Page 2 ends

Commenter Letter: Raymond Smith dated March 17, 2024.
1-1
1-2
The commenter raises concern about the Project’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts and questions why the Draft EIR took credit for existing emissions to determine the level of significance. As discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, construction and operation of the Project would generate a total of approximately 4,236.54 MTCO2e/yr. GHG emissions from existing land uses on the Project Site were appropriately subtracted from the Project’s gross emissions to determine the net (or new) emissions attributed to the Project. Construction and operation of the Project less emissions from the existing onsite uses would result a net total of new GHG emissions of approximately 2,590.77 MTCO2e/yr, which would fall below the significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr; therefore, Projectrelated GHG emissions are considered less than significant (refer to Draft EIR p. 4.6-22). The CEQA Statute and Guidelines explicitly describe how the baseline of existing environmental conditions is to be defined, against which an EIR measures the impacts of a proposed project. The baseline consists of the conditions at the time the environmental impact review process begins (refer to 14 Cal Code Regs §15126.2).

Because existing uses were located on the Project Site when environmental review began, the GHG emissions produced from those uses are accounted for in the baseline. Because those uses would be demolished/cease operation as a result of the Project, and be replaced with a new use, the analysis appropriately considers elimination of the GHG emissions associated with the existing use and the addition of GHG emissions associated with the new use. Therefore, the net emissions generated from the Project demonstrates the overall increase of GHG emissions on the environment. No additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR or Final EIR are necessary and no further response is required.

The commenter points out that the Air Quality technical report (Technical Appendix B1 of the Draft EIR) does not reference the 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which the SCAQMD adopted in December 2022, and instead relies upon the prior, 2016 AQMP. The comment is correct, but does not render the Draft EIR deficient. The Project’s Air Quality Impact Analysis was published on August 30, 2022, prior to the adoption of the 2022 AQMP. Nevertheless, the Project would not be in conflict with either the 2016 AQMP or the 2022 AQMP. The criteria for determining consistency with the 2022 AQMP is the same criteria for determining consistency with the 2016 AQMP, and are analyzed below, demonstrating that the Project is in compliance.
• Consistency Criterion 1: The proposed Project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.

Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers to violations of the CAAQS and NAAQS. CAAQS and NAAQS violations would occur if localized or regional significance thresholds were exceeded. As discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.2, Air Quality, the Project’s localized and regional construction-source emissions would not exceed applicable regional significance threshold and local significance thresholds (LSTs) during both Project construction and operation (refer to Draft EIR pp. 4.2-31 to 4.2-36). As such, a less than significant impact would occur. Accordingly, the Project is determined to be consistent with the first criterion.
2697
5355 East Airport Drive (PDEV22-017) – Response to March 17, 2024 Comment Letter March 25, 2024

Page 3 ends

• Consistency Criterion 2: The Project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the years of Project buildout phase.

The 2022 AQMP demonstrates that the applicable ambient air quality standards can be achieved within the timeframes required under federal law. Growth projections from local general plans adopted by cities in the SCAQMD are provided to SCAG, which develops regional growth forecasts, which are then used to develop future air quality forecasts for the AQMP. Development consistent with the growth projections in City of Ontario Policy Plan is considered to be consistent with the AQMP. The City of Ontario Policy Plan designates the Project Site for Industrial uses. The Project’s proposed warehouse building is consistent with the Site’s land use designations and no General Plan Amendment is required. As such, the Project’s proposed land use and development is consistent with the Policy Plan’s land use designation. Accordingly, the Project is determined to be consistent with the second criterion.

Based on the preceding, the Project would be consistent with the 2022 AQMP and impacts would be less than significant. Information about the Project’s consistency with the 2022 AQMP does not present substantial new information resulting in the need for recirculation or additional environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5. No substantive additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are necessary and no further response is required.
1-3 The commenter cites the CalEnviroScreen scores for the Project site’s census tract as shown in the appendices of the Project’s Air Quality technical report and raises concern over health impacts to residents. As shown on Draft EIR Figure 4.2-1, Sensitive Receptor Locations, there are no residential uses in immediate proximity to the Project Site. The nearest sensitive receptors are hotels, located on the opposite side of I-10 and I-15, and more than 3,800 feet from the Project Site. The Project Site is surrounded by industrial uses. As concluded in Draft EIR Section 4.2, Air Quality, (1) the Project’s localized construction and operational emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD’slocalized significance thresholds; (2) based on the Project-specific mobile source health risk assessment (HRA) (Technical Appendix B2 of the Draft EIR), the Project would not result in significant health impacts due to diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions; and (3) the Project would not cause or contribute to any Carbon Monoxide (CO) “hot spots (refer to pp. 4.2-33 to 4.2-36 of the Draft EIR). Therefore, localized air quality impacts would be less than significant. No additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are necessary and no further response is required.
1-4 The commenter recommends mitigation measures for GHG emissions and cites the SCAQMD’s letter submitted on the EIR’s Notice of Preparation (NOP). The commenter’s suggested mitigation measures include adding roof top solar, reflective roofing, energy star appliances, and electric charging stations, limiting on site truck idling and nighttime deliveries, and requiring zero emission or net zero emission delivery vehicles. The commenter is referred to the Project’s Final EIR, which evaluated the feasibility of additional GHG mitigation measures, including 38 measures recommended in the California Department of Justice Warehouse Project Best Practices manual (refer to Final EIR, response to comments B-41 to B78). Specifically, the commenter is referred to response to comments B-59, B-56, and B-53 for responses to comments suggesting roof top solar, truck idling restrictions, and zero emission vehicles, respectively.

Additionally, of the Project’s 251 onsite passenger vehicle spaces, 25 spaces would be designated as 2698
5355 East Airport Drive (PDEV22-017) – Response to March 17, 2024 Comment Letter March 25, 2024

Page 4 ends

electric vehicle parking stalls (Refer to Draft EIR p. 3-6). The Project proposes a conventional warehouse use reflecting contemporary energy efficient/energy conserving designs and operational programs and would be required to comply with the applicable provisions of the California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen), California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 Part 6: The California Energy Code standards, that are in place at the time construction permit plan check submittals are made. As concluded in Draft EIR Section 4.2, Air Quality, Project operation-source emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance for any criteria pollutants even when not taking into account the elimination of air pollutant emissions from existing uses on the site that would be demolished/cease operation as part of the Project (refer to Draft EIR pp. 4.2-31 to 4.2-32). Because impacts would be less than significant and a number of Project design features and regulatory requirements are already in place to reduce air pollutant emissions, additional mitigation is not warranted.

Comments Received During the DAB Meeting
The following responses are organized to correspond with the environmental topic issues that were mentioned during the Design Advisory Board (DAB) meeting held on March 18, 2024.

Transportation
Concerns about the Project’s traffic volumes were raised. Specifically, one commenter stated that [level of service (LOS)] traffic impacts within a 5-mile radius of the Project Site should be analyzed to address impacts on nearby streets and a Traffic Impact Analysis report should be conducted.

First, it should be noted that the basis for evaluation of transportation impacts under CEQA is vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and not LOS. Nonetheless, as stated in the Project’s Trip Generation Assessment (Technical Appendix K to the Draft EIR), the City’s Guidelines identify that a project could potentially require further traffic analysis if the project generates more than 100 peak hour trips in either peak hour. This is based on the assumption that projects that generate fewerthan 100 peak hour trips typically do not affect LOS significantly once distributed to the local roadway network. Also, the City’s Guidelines state that the minimum area to be studied should include any intersection at which the proposed project would add 50 or more peak hour trips.

The Project is calculated to generate 476 vehicle trip-ends per day with 42 AM peak hour trips and 46 PM peak hour trips (actual vehicles) as shown in Draft EIR Technical Appendix K. Even without taking credit for elimination of traffic from the existing uses on the Site that would be demolished/cease operation as a result of the Project, fewer than 100 peak hour trips would be generated. Furthermore, taking into consideration the distribution of traffic to the west and east on East Airport Drive, the Project is would clearly contribute fewer than 50 peak hour trips to any off-site intersection. As such, a LOS-based traffic study is not required based on the findings of the Trip Generation Assessment. Moreover, and as stated above, automobile delay, as measured by LOS and other similar metrics, no longer constitutes a significant environmental effect under CEQA. Lead agencies in California are required to use VMT to evaluate project-related transportation impacts. This statewide mandate went into effect July 1, 2020. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, effective January 1, 2019, “describes specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts” and provides that, except for roadway capacity projects, “a project’s effect on automobile delay (or LOS)” shall not constitute a significant environmental impact” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(a)). Moreover, vehicle congestion is not a CEQA issue as it pertains to LOS. 2699
5355 East Airport Drive (PDEV22-017) – Response to March 17, 2024 Comment Letter March 25, 2024

Page 5 ends

Additionally, a commenter questioned why the Project’s truck traffic (which was incorrectly stated as comprising 300 daily trips), would not result in significant air quality impacts. As shown in Draft EIR Table 4.10-3, Project Net New Daily Trips, the Project would generate 168 total daily truck trip, but a net increase of only 61 daily truck trips when taking credit for the elimination of truck trips from the existing onsite uses that would be demolished/cease operation as a result of the Project. Refer below to the discussion related to air quality impacts, which the Draft EIR accurately concludes would be less than significant. The Draft EIR adequately addresses both transportation and air quality impacts and no additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR are necessary.

Air Quality
Comments were made related to the Project’s air quality impacts and it was suggested that air filters be provided to nearby school and residents. As discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.2, Air Quality, the Project Site is primarily surrounded by industrial uses. The residential land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project’s operational-source air pollutant emissions is located approximately 8,840 feet northwest of the Project Site (represented by an existing residence at 11210 Fourth Street) on the opposite side of I-15 and I-10 from the Project Site. At this Maximally Exposed Individual Resident (MEIR), the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to Project operational-source DPM emissions is calculated at 0.01 in one million, which is far less than the SCAQMD’s significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks were calculated to be <0.01, which also fall far below the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. All other residential receptors are located at a greater distance from the Project Site than the MEIR and therefore would be exposed to less emissions and therefore less risk than the MEIR. There are no residential receptors located in immediate, close proximity to the Project Site. As concluded by the Draft EIR, the Project will not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to nearby residences. Moreover, there are no schools within one-quarter mile of the Project Site. The nearest school is Chaparral Elementary School, which is located approximately 11,200 feet southeast of the Project Site (over 2 miles away). Because there is no reasonable potential that the Project’s air pollutant emissions would cause significant health impacts at distances to existing sensitive receptors, the Project would result in less-thansignificant impacts (refer to Draft EIR pp. 4.2-35 to 4.2-36). Thus, the City determines that additional mitigation in the form of supplying air filters to residents and schools, or in any other form, is not warranted.

Electric Trucks
A comment was made suggesting that the truck fleet serving the Project Site be electric powered. Refer to Final EIR response to comment B-53, which explains the infeasibility of requiring zero emissions trucks. The City has determined that the suggestion is not feasible.

Cumulative Effects
A representative from CARECA incorrectly stated that the Draft EIR did not analyzed cumulative impacts in the surrounding areas as required by State law and only provided Project-level analysis. Refer to Final EIR response to comments A-12 to A-16, which is the comment letter submitted by Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo on behalf of CARECA related to the Draft EIR’s cumulative impacts discussion. The response was complete and no further response is required.

GHG Emission Impacts
A representative from CARECA claimed that the Draft EIR was inadequate due to conflicts with the State Attorney General’s approach for analyzing air quality and GHG impacts. Refer to Final EIR response to comments A-14 to A2700 5355 East Airport Drive (PDEV22-017) – Response to March 17, 2024 Comment Letter March 25, 2024

Page 6 ends

Ontario City CouncilNovember 19, 2024

Ontario City Council
November 19, 2024