Agenda packet — Ontario City Council, November 19, 2024 (part 20 of 31)

3513
Table 4
Cumulative Summary of Metals in Soil
5355 East Airport Road
Ontario, California
Farallon PN: 1071-080-002
Barium Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper Lead Nickel Vanadium Zinc Other
Metals
Farallon SVP-6-4' 4.0 3/4/2022 61.2 0.9 8.2 5.2 5.9 1.1 5.2 24.6 26.5 ND Farallon SVP-6-8' 8.0 3/4/2022 59.6 0.9 8.5 5.2 6.0 1.2 5.2 23.1 27.0 ND 15,000 7.1 NE 23 3,100 80 820 390 23,000 Various
220,000 79 NE 350 47,000 500 11,000 5,800 350,000 Various NOTES:
< denotes analyte not detected at or exceeding the reporting limit listed. Farallon = Farallon Consulting, LLC 1 Depth in feet below ground surface. ND = not detected at or above the laboratory reporting limit RSL = Regional Screening Level 2
California Administrative Manual (CAM) Priority Pollutant List (PPL) 17 metals analyzed by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 6010B by 3050B; mercury analyzed by EPA Method 7471A. Only detected analytes shown; see laboratory report for full list of analytes.
3 June 2020 (Revised May 2022) Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Regional Screening Levels (RSLs). If DTSC RSLs do not exist, November 2022 EPA RSLs were used and noted in blue text.

Sampled By
Analytical Results (milligrams per kilogram)2
Residential Soil RSL3
Industrial Soil RSL3
Sample
Location
Sample
Identification
Sample
Depth
(feet) 1 Sample Date
SVP-6
\\EDGEFS02\Projects\1071 Prologis\1071080 2021 SoCal Due Diligence II\002 5355 E Airport Dr\Deliverables\2023 Soil Gas Report\Tables\1071-080_5355-EAirportDr_Tables_2023-02-03 1 of 1
3514
Table 5
Cumulative Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds in Soil Gas 5355 East Airport Road
Ontario, California
Farallon PN: 1071-080-004
PCE TCE Cyclohexane
Trichlorofluoromethane
(Freon 11)
Dichloro
difluoromethane
(Freon 12) Ethylbenzene Toluene
Total
Xylenes
1,2,4-
Trimethylbenzene
Carbon
Disulfide TPH-g Methane
Other
VOCs Tracer
SS-1 Farallon SS-1 0.5 3/11/2022 220 < 20 --- < 40 < 40 < 20 < 20 < 60 < 20 --- < 5,000 --- < 5,000 ND SS-2 Farallon SS-2 0.5 3/11/2022 194 < 20 --- < 40 < 40 < 20 < 20 < 60 < 20 --- < 5,000 --- < 5,000 ND B3 Partner B3-SG 5.0 7/21/2016 < 350 C < 270 C < 170 C < 290 C < 250 C < 220 C < 190 C 460 C < 250 C < 160 C --- --- ND C ND B4 Partner B4-SG 5.0 7/21/2016 < 350 C < 270 C < 170 C < 290 C < 250 C 280 C < 190 C 1,500 C < 250 C < 160 C --- --- ND C ND B5 Partner B5-SG 5.0 7/21/2016 100 < 5.5 < 3.5 < 5.7 < 5.0 < 4.4 < 3.8 12 < 5.0 < 3.2 --- --- ND ND B6 Partner B6-SG 5.0 7/21/2016 68 26 < 3.5 < 5.7 < 5.0 < 4.4 4.0 23.6 < 5.0 < 3.2 --- --- ND ND B7 Partner B7-SG 5.0 7/21/2016 < 6.9 < 5.5 < 3.5 < 5.7 < 5.0 11 4.9 92 < 5.0 < 3.2 --- --- ND ND B8 Partner B8-SG 5.0 7/21/2016 44 13 < 3.5 < 5.7 < 5.0 21 13 178 < 5.0 < 3.2 --- --- ND ND SV-13 Partner SV-13-5' 5.0 7/29/2016 < 100 < 100 < 1,000 < 1,000 < 1,000 < 400 < 1,000 < 2,000 --- --- --- --- ND ND SV-14 Partner SV-14-4' 4.0 7/29/2016 230 < 100 < 1,000 < 1,000 < 1,000 < 400 < 1,000 < 2,000 --- --- --- --- ND ND SV-15 Partner SV-15-5' 5.0 7/29/2016 120 < 100 < 1,000 < 1,000 < 1,000 < 400 < 1,000 < 2,000 --- --- --- --- ND ND SV-16 Partner SV-16-4' 4.0 7/29/2016 180 < 100 < 1,000 < 1,000 < 1,000 < 400 < 1,000 < 2,000 --- --- --- --- ND ND SV-17 Partner SV-17-5' 5.0 7/29/2016 < 100 < 100 < 1,000 < 1,000 < 1,000 < 400 < 1,000 < 2,000 --- --- --- --- ND ND SV-18 Partner SV-18-5' 5.0 7/29/2016 < 100 < 100 < 1,000 < 1,000 < 1,000 < 400 < 1,000 < 2,000 --- --- --- --- ND ND SV-19 Partner SV-19-5' 5.0 7/29/2016 < 100 < 100 < 1,000 < 1,000 < 1,000 < 400 < 1,000 < 2,000 --- --- --- --- ND ND SV-20 Partner SV-20-5' 5.0 7/29/2016 < 100 < 100 < 1,000 < 1,000 < 1,000 < 400 < 1,000 < 2,000 --- --- --- --- ND ND SV-21 Partner SV-21-5' 5.0 7/29/2016 < 100 < 100 < 1,000 < 1,000 < 1,000 < 400 < 1,000 < 2,000 --- --- --- --- ND ND SV-22 Partner SV-22-5' 5.0 7/29/2016 < 100 < 100 < 1,000 < 1,000 < 1,000 < 400 < 1,000 < 2,000 --- --- --- --- ND ND SV-23 Partner SV-23-5' 5.0 7/29/2016 < 100 < 100 < 1,000 < 1,000 < 1,000 < 400 < 1,000 < 2,000 --- --- --- --- ND ND SV-24 Partner SV-24-5' 5.0 7/29/2016 < 100 < 100 < 1,000 < 1,000 < 1,000 < 400 < 1,000 < 2,000 --- --- --- --- ND ND SV-25 Partner SV-25-5' 5.0 7/29/2016 < 100 < 100 < 1,000 < 1,000 < 1,000 < 400 < 1,000 < 2,000 --- --- --- --- ND ND Partner SV-26-5' 5.0 7/29/2016 < 100 < 100 < 1,000 < 1,000 < 1,000 < 400 < 1,000 < 2,000 --- --- --- --- ND ND Partner SV-26-5' Dup 5.0 7/29/2016 < 100 < 100 < 1,000 < 1,000 < 1,000 < 400 < 1,000 < 2,000 --- --- --- --- ND ND Farallon SVP-1-4' 4.0 3/11/2022 31 < 20 --- < 40 < 40 < 20 21 < 60 < 20 --- < 5,000 --- ND ND Farallon SVP-1-10' 10.0 3/11/2022 157 < 20 --- < 40 < 40 < 20 21 < 60 < 20 --- < 5,000 --- ND ND SVP-2 Farallon SVP-2-4' 4.0 3/11/2022 27 < 20 --- < 40 < 40 < 20 34 < 60 < 20 --- < 5,000 --- ND ND Farallon SVP-3-4' 4.0 3/11/2022 < 20 < 20 --- < 40 < 40 < 20 78 < 60 < 20 --- < 5,000 --- ND ND Farallon SVP-3-4'REP 4.0 3/11/2022 < 20 < 20 --- < 40 < 40 < 20 45 < 60 < 20 --- < 5,000 --- ND ND Farallon SVP-4-4' 4.0 3/11/2022 62 < 20 --- < 40 < 40 < 20 80 < 60 < 20 --- < 5,000 --- ND ND Farallon SVP-4-4'REP 4.0 3/11/2022 57 < 20 --- < 40 < 40 < 20 46 < 60 < 20 --- < 5,000 --- ND ND 67 100 870,000 180,000 15,000 160 43,000 15,000 8,700 100,000 83,000 5%4 Varies Varies Sample
Depth
(feet)1
Sample
Date
Subslab Soil Gas Samples
Soil Gas Samples
Sampled
By
SV-26
Sample
Location
Sample
Identification
Analytical Results (micrograms per cubic meter)2
SVP-4
SVP-3
SVP-1
Calculated Industrial SGSL with 0.03 Attenuation Factor3 \\EDGEFS02\Projects\1071 Prologis\1071080 2021 SoCal Due Diligence II\002 5355 E Airport Dr\Deliverables\2023 Soil Gas Report\Tables\1071-080_5355-EAirportDr_Tables_2023-02-03 1 of 3
3515
Table 5
Cumulative Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds in Soil Gas 5355 East Airport Road
Ontario, California
Farallon PN: 1071-080-004
PCE TCE Cyclohexane
Trichlorofluoromethane
(Freon 11)
Dichloro
difluoromethane
(Freon 12) Ethylbenzene Toluene
Total
Xylenes
1,2,4-
Trimethylbenzene
Carbon
Disulfide TPH-g Methane
Other
VOCs Tracer
Sample
Depth
(feet)1
Sample
Date
Sampled
By
Sample
Location
Sample
Identification
Analytical Results (micrograms per cubic meter)2
Farallon SVP-5-4' 4.0 3/11/2022 70 < 20 --- < 40 < 40 < 20 83 < 60 < 20 --- < 5,000 --- ND ND Farallon SVP-5-10' 10.0 3/11/2022 234 < 20 --- < 40 < 40 < 20 < 20 < 60 < 20 --- < 5,000 --- ND ND Farallon SVP-6-4' 4.0 3/11/2022 97 < 20 --- < 40 < 40 < 20 106 < 60 < 20 --- < 5,000 --- ND ND Farallon SVP-6-8' 8.0 3/11/2022 34 < 20 --- < 40 < 40 < 20 65 < 60 < 20 --- < 5,000 --- ND ND SVP-7 Farallon SVP-7-4' 4.0 3/11/2022 247 < 20 --- < 40 < 40 < 20 91 < 60 < 20 --- < 5,000 --- ND ND SVP-8 Farallon SVP-8-4' 4.0 3/11/2022 232 < 20 --- < 40 < 40 < 20 89 < 60 < 20 --- < 5,000 --- ND ND SVP-9 Farallon SVP-9-4' 4.0 3/11/2022 24 < 20 --- < 40 < 40 < 20 87 < 60 < 20 --- < 5,000 --- ND ND Farallon SVP-10-4' 4.0 3/11/2022 31 < 20 --- < 40 < 40 < 20 60 < 60 < 20 --- < 5,000 --- ND ND Farallon SVP-10-8' 8.0 3/11/2022 63 < 20 --- < 40 60 < 20 47 < 60 < 20 --- < 5,000 --- ND ND Farallon SVP-11-4 4.0 9/20/2022 < 25 < 25 --- < 25 < 25 < 25 < 25 < 50 < 25 < 250 --- --- ND ND Farallon SVP-11-10 10.0 9/20/2022 < 25 < 25 --- < 25 < 25 < 25 < 25 < 50 < 25 < 250 --- --- ND ND Farallon SVP-12-4 4.0 9/20/2022 < 25 < 25 --- < 25 < 25 < 25 < 25 < 50 < 25 < 250 --- --- ND ND Farallon SVP-12-10 10.0 9/20/2022 < 25 < 25 --- < 25 < 25 < 25 < 25 < 75 < 25 < 250 --- --- ND ND Farallon SVP-13-4 4.0 9/20/2022 < 25 < 25 --- < 25 < 25 < 25 < 25 < 75 < 25 < 250 --- --- ND ND Farallon SVP-13-10 10.0 9/20/2022 < 25 < 25 --- < 25 < 25 < 25 < 25 < 75 < 25 < 250 --- --- ND ND Farallon SVP-14-4 4.0 9/20/2022 < 25 < 25 --- < 25 < 25 < 25 < 25 < 75 < 25 < 250 --- --- ND ND Farallon SVP-14-10 10.0 9/20/2022 < 25 < 25 --- < 25 < 25 < 25 < 25 < 75 < 25 < 250 --- --- ND ND Farallon SVP-15-4 4.0 9/20/2022 < 25 < 25 --- < 25 < 25 < 25 < 25 < 75 < 25 < 250 --- --- ND ND Farallon SVP-15-10 10.0 9/20/2022 < 25 < 25 --- < 25 < 25 < 25 < 25 < 75 < 25 < 250 --- --- ND ND Farallon SVP-16-4 4.0 9/20/2022 < 25 < 25 --- < 25 < 25 50 < 25 90 < 25 < 250 --- --- ND ND Farallon SVP-16-10 10.0 9/20/2022 < 25 < 25 --- < 25 < 25 30 < 25 90 < 25 < 250 --- --- ND ND Farallon SVP-17-4 4.0 9/20/2022 < 25 < 25 --- < 25 < 25 < 25 < 25 < 75 < 25 < 250 --- --- ND ND Farallon SVP-17-10 10.0 9/20/2022 < 25 < 25 --- < 25 < 25 < 25 < 25 < 75 < 25 < 250 --- --- ND ND Farallon SVP-18-4 4.0 9/20/2022 < 25 < 25 --- < 25 < 25 < 25 < 25 < 75 < 25 < 250 --- --- ND ND Farallon SVP-18-10 10.0 9/20/2022 < 25 < 25 --- < 25 < 25 < 25 < 25 < 75 < 25 < 250 --- --- ND ND Farallon SVP-18-10-DUP 10.0 9/20/2022 < 25 < 25 --- < 25 < 25 < 25 < 25 < 75 < 25 < 250 --- --- ND ND Farallon SVP-19-4 4.0 9/20/2022 < 25 < 25 --- < 25 < 25 < 25 < 25 < 75 < 25 < 250 --- --- ND ND Farallon SVP-19-10 10.0 9/20/2022 < 25 < 25 --- < 25 < 25 < 25 < 25 < 75 < 25 < 250 --- --- ND ND 67 100 870,000 180,000 15,000 160 43,000 15,000 8,700 100,000 83,000 5%4 Varies Varies SVP-17
SVP-19
SVP-18
SVP-6
SVP-5
SVP-10
SVP-12
Calculated Industrial SGSL with 0.03 Attenuation Factor3 SVP-11
SVP-13
SVP-14
SVP-15
SVP-16
\\EDGEFS02\Projects\1071 Prologis\1071080 2021 SoCal Due Diligence II\002 5355 E Airport Dr\Deliverables\2023 Soil Gas Report\Tables\1071-080_5355-EAirportDr_Tables_2023-02-03 2 of 3
3516
Table 5
Cumulative Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds in Soil Gas 5355 East Airport Road
Ontario, California
Farallon PN: 1071-080-004
PCE TCE Cyclohexane
Trichlorofluoromethane
(Freon 11)
Dichloro
difluoromethane
(Freon 12) Ethylbenzene Toluene
Total
Xylenes
1,2,4-
Trimethylbenzene
Carbon
Disulfide TPH-g Methane
Other
VOCs Tracer
Sample
Depth
(feet)1
Sample
Date
Sampled
By
Sample
Location
Sample
Identification
Analytical Results (micrograms per cubic meter)2
SVP-20 Farallon SVP-20 4.0 12/16/2022 < 1.0 < 1.0 1.8 3.2 2.3 1.0 2.9 4.7 < 1.0 < 1.0 --- 0% ND ND SVP-21 Farallon SVP-21 4.0 12/16/2022 3.5 < 1.0 < 1.0 2.6 2.6 < 1.0 1.6 4.4 < 1.0 < 1.0 --- 0% ND ND SVP-22 Farallon SVP-22 4.0 12/16/2022 2.6 < 1.0 19.0 1.3 2.5 2.6 4.9 11.5 < 1.0 < 1.0 --- 0% ND ND SVP-23 Farallon SVP-23 4.0 12/16/2022 < 1.0 < 1.0 1.3 1.3 2.1 < 1.0 1.6 4.1 4.6 < 1.0 --- 0% ND ND SVP-24 Farallon SVP-24 4.0 12/16/2022 5.7 < 1.0 < 1.0 1.1 2.8 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 2.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 --- 0% ND ND SVP-25 Farallon SVP-25 4.0 12/16/2022 13.0 < 1.0 1.0 1.1 4.7 < 1.0 < 1.0 1.4 < 1.0 < 1.0 --- 0% ND ND SVP-26 Farallon SVP-26 4.0 12/16/2022 60.2 < 1.0 2.8 1.1 8.9 1.8 4.4 9.8 < 1.0 1.5 --- 0% ND ND 67 100 870,000 180,000 15,000 160 43,000 15,000 8,700 100,000 83,000 5%4 Varies Varies NOTES:

C = sample was analyzed via TO-14 due to high concentration of analytes Farallon = Farallon Consulting, LLC
< denotes analyte not detected at or exceeding the reporting limit listed. ND = not detected at or above the laboratory reporting limit --- denotes sample not analyzed or not applicable. Partner = Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. 1 Depth in feet below ground surface. PCE = tetrachloroethene SGSL = soil gas screening level
TCE = trichloroethene
TPH-g = total petroleum hydrocarbons, gasoline range
4 Methane was compared against a Lower Exlosive Limit of 5% as measured by a hand-held GemTech 5000 Flame Ionizaton Detector 2 Only detected VOCs shown in table; see lab reports for full list of analytes. Analyzed by EPA Methods 8260B/8260B-Modified (7/29/2016 (Modified), 3/11/2022, and 9/20/2022) or TO-15 (7/21/2016 and 12/16/2022), unless otherwise noted.
3 Except as noted (see Footnote 4), Calculated soil gas screening levels (SGSLs) were derived by dividing the May 2022 Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) screening levels (shown in black) or November 2022 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regional Screening Levels (shown in blue) for VOCs, and 2019 SFBWQCB Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for TPH-g (shown in green) for indoor air by the noted attenuation factor.

Results in bold denote concentrations detected at or above the laboratory reporting limit. Results in bold and highlighted yellow denote concentrations exceeding applicable SGSLs for the current property use (industrial/commercial).

Calculated Industrial SGSL with 0.03 Attenuation Factor3 \\EDGEFS02\Projects\1071 Prologis\1071080 2021 SoCal Due Diligence II\002 5355 E Airport Dr\Deliverables\2023 Soil Gas Report\Tables\1071-080_5355-EAirportDr_Tables_2023-02-03 3 of 3
3517
P:\1071 Prologis\1071080 2021 SoCal Due Diligence II\002 5355 E Airport Dr\Deliverables\2023 MMP\2022.02.23_5355E.AirportDr_Ontario_Media Management Plan_Farallon.docx

APPENDIX B

DTSC INFORMATION ADVISORY,

CLEAN IMPORTED FILL MATERIAL

MEDIA MANAGEMENT PLAN
5355 East Airplane Drive
Ontario, California
Farallon PN: 1071-080 (Task 2)
3518
Executive Summary
This fact sheet has been prepared to ensure that inappropriate fill material is not introduced onto sensitive land use properties under the oversight of the DTSC or applicable regulatory authorities. Sensitive land use properties include those that contain facilities such as hospitals, homes, day care centers, and schools. This document only focuses on human health concerns and ecological issues are not addressed.

It identifies those types of land use activities that may be appropriate when determining whether a site may be used as a fill material source area. It also provides guidelines for the appropriate types of analyses that should be performed relative to the former land use, and for the number of samples that should be collected and analyzed based on the estimated volume of fill material that will need to be used.

The information provided in this fact sheet is not regulatory in nature, rather is to be used as a guide, and in most situations the final decision as to the acceptability of fill material for a sensitive land use property is made on a case-by-case basis by the appropriate regulatory agency.

Introduction
The use of imported fill material has recently come under scrutiny because of the instances where contaminated soil has been brought onto an otherwise clean site. However, there are currently no established standards in the statutes or regulations that address environmental requirements for imported fill material.

Therefore, the California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has prepared this fact sheet to identify procedures that can be used to minimize the possibility of introducing contaminated soil onto a site that requires imported fill material. Such sites include those that are undergoing site remediation, corrective action, and closure activities overseen by DTSC or the appropriate regulatory agency. These procedures may also apply to construction projects that will result in sensitive land uses. The intent of this fact sheet is to protect people who live on or otherwise use a sensitive land use property. By using this fact sheet as a guide, the reader will minimize the chance of introducing fill material that may result in potential risk to human health or the environment at some future time.

California
Environmental
Protection Agency
It is DTSC’s
mission to restore,
protect and
enhance the
environment, to
ensure public
health,
environmental
quality and
economic vitality,
by regulating
hazardous waste,
conducting and
overseeing
cleanups, and
developing and
promoting
pollution
prevention.

State of California

DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL
Information Advisory
Clean Imported Fill Material
The energy challenge facing California is real. Every Californian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption. For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs, see our website at www.dtsc.ca.gov.

D PE MTRA
NE
T
OF

TOXIC SUBSTANCES

CONTROL
October 2001
3519
2 Overview
Both natural and manmade fill materials are used
for a variety of purposes. Fill material properties are commonly controlled to meet the necessary site specific engineering specifications. Because most sites requiring fill material are located in or near urban
areas, the fill materials are often obtained from construction projects that generate an excess of soil, and from demolition debris (asphalt, broken concrete,
etc.). However, materials from those types of sites
may or may not be appropriate, depending on the
proposed use of the fill, and the quality of the assessment and/or mitigation measures, if necessary.

Therefore, unless material from construction
projects can be demonstrated to be free of contamiPotential Contaminants Based on the Fill Source Area Fill Source:

Land near to an existing freeway
Land near a mining area or rock quarry
Agricultural land
Residential/acceptable commercial land
Target Compounds
Lead (EPA methods 6010B or 7471A), PAHs
(EPA method 8310)
Heavy Metals (EPA methods 6010B and
7471A), asbestos (polarized light
microscopy), pH
Pesticides (Organochlorine Pesticides: EPA
method 8081A or 8080A; Organophosphorus Pesticides: EPA method 8141A; Chlorinated Herbicides: EPA method 8151A), heavy metals (EPA methods 6010B and
7471A)
VOCs (EPA method 8021 or 8260B, as
appropriate and combined with collection
by EPA Method 5035), semi-VOCs (EPA
method 8270C), TPH (modified EPA method
8015), PCBs (EPA method 8082 or 8080A),
heavy metals including lead (EPA methods
6010B and 7471A), asbestos (OSHA Method
ID-191)
nation and/or appropriate for the proposed use, the
use of that material as fill should be avoided.

Selecting Fill Material
In general, the fill source area should be located in
nonindustrial areas, and not from sites undergoing
an environmental cleanup. Nonindustrial sites include those that were previously undeveloped, or used solely for residential or agricultural purposes.

If the source is from an agricultural area, care should be taken to insure that the fill does not include
former agricultural waste process byproducts such
as manure or other decomposed organic material.

Undesirable sources of fill material include industrial and/or commercial sites where hazardous ma- *The recommended analyses should be performed in accordance with USEPA SW-846 methods (1996).

Other possible analyses include Hexavalent Chromium: EPA method 7199 3520
3 Area of Individual Borrow Area
2 acres or less
2 to 4 acres
4 to 10 acres
Greater than 10 acres
Volume of Borrow Area Stockpile
Up to 1,000 cubic yards
1,000 to 5,000 cubic yards
Greater than 5,000 cubic yards
Sampling Requirements
Minimum of 4 samples
Minimum of 1 sample every 1/2 acre
Minimum of 8 samples
Minimum of 8 locations with 4 subsamples
per location
Samples per Volume
1 sample per 250 cubic yards
4 samples for first 1000 cubic yards +1
sample per each additional 500 cubic yards
12 samples for first 5,000 cubic yards + 1
sample per each additional 1,000 cubic
yards
Recommended Fill Material Sampling Schedule
terials were used, handled or stored as part of the
business operations, or unpaved parking areas where
petroleum hydrocarbons could have been spilled or
leaked into the soil. Undesirable commercial sites
include former gasoline service stations, retail strip
malls that contained dry cleaners or photographic
processing facilities, paint stores, auto repair and/or painting facilities. Undesirable industrial facilities
include metal processing shops, manufacturing facilities, aerospace facilities, oil refineries, waste treatment plants, etc. Alternatives to using fill from construction sites include the use of fill material obtained from a commercial supplier of fill material or from soil pits in rural or suburban areas. However, care should be taken to ensure that those materials are also uncontaminated.

Documentation and Analysis
In order to minimize the potential of introducing
contaminated fill material onto a site, it is necessary to verify through documentation that the fill source
is appropriate and/or to have the fill material analyzed for potential contaminants based on the location and history of the source area. Fill documentation should include detailed information on the previous use of the land from where the fill is taken, whether an environmental site assessment was performed and its findings, and the results of any testing performed. It is recommended that any such documentation should be signed by an appropriately licensed (CA-registered) individual. If such documentation is not available or is inadequate,
samples of the fill material should be chemically analyzed. Analysis of the fill material should be based on the source of the fill and knowledge of the prior
land use.

Detectable amounts of compounds of concern
within the fill material should be evaluated for risk
in accordance with the DTSC Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) Guidance Manual. If 3521
4 metal analyses are performed, only those metals
(CAM 17 / Title 22) to which risk levels have been
assigned need to be evaluated. At present, the
DTSC is working to establish California Screening Levels (CSL) to determine whether some compounds of concern pose a risk. Until such time as these CSL values are established, DTSC recommends that the DTSC PEA Guidance Manual or an equivalent process be referenced. This guidance may include the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (RWQCB) guidelines for reuse
of non-hazardous petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated soil as applied to Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) only. The RWQCB guidelines should not be used for volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) or semi-volatile organic compounds
(SVOCS). In addition, a standard laboratory data
package, including a summary of the QA/QC
(Quality Assurance/Quality Control) sample results should also accompany all analytical reports.

When possible, representative samples should be collected at the borrow area while the potential fill material is still in place, and analyzed prior to removal from the borrow area. In addition to performing
the appropriate analyses of the fill material, an appropriate number of samples should also be determined based on the approximate volume or area of soil to be used as fill material. The table above can
be used as a guide to determine the number of
samples needed to adequately characterize the fill
material when sampled at the borrow site.

Alternative Sampling
A Phase I or PEA may be conducted prior to sampling to determine whether the borrow area may have been impacted by previous activities on the
property. After the property has been evaluated, any
sampling that may be required can be determined
during a meeting with DTSC or appropriate regulatory agency. However, if it is not possible to analyze the fill material at the borrow area or determine that it is appropriate for use via a Phase I or PEA, it is recommended that one (1) sample per
truckload be collected and analyzed for all compounds of concern to ensure that the imported soil is uncontaminated and acceptable. (See chart on
Potential Contaminants Based on the Fill Source
Area for appropriate analyses). This sampling frequency may be modified upon consultation with the DTSC or appropriate regulatory agency if all of
the fill material is derived from a common borrow
area. However, fill material that is not characterized
at the borrow area will need to be stockpiled either
on or off-site until the analyses have been completed.

In addition, should contaminants exceeding acceptance criteria be identified in the stockpiled fill material, that material will be deemed unacceptable
and new fill material will need to be obtained,
sampled and analyzed. Therefore, the DTSC recommends that all sampling and analyses should be completed prior to delivery to the site to ensure the
soil is free of contamination, and to eliminate unnecessary transportation charges for unacceptable fill material.

Composite sampling for fill material characterization may or may not be appropriate, depending on quality and homogeneity of source/borrow area, and
compounds of concern. Compositing samples for
volatile and semivolatile constituents is not acceptable. Composite sampling for heavy metals, pesticides, herbicides or PAH’s from unanalyzed stockpiled soil is also unacceptable, unless it is stockpiled at the borrow area and originates from the same
source area. In addition, if samples are composited,
they should be from the same soil layer, and not
from different soil layers.

When very large volumes of fill material are anticipated, or when larger areas are being considered as borrow areas, the DTSC recommends that a Phase
I or PEA be conducted on the area to ensure that
the borrow area has not been impacted by previous
activities on the property. After the property has
been evaluated, any sampling that may be required
can be determined during a meeting with the
DTSC.

For further information, call Shahir Haddad, P.E. at
(714) 484-5368.
3522
P:\1071 Prologis\1071080 2021 SoCal Due Diligence II\002 5355 E Airport Dr\Deliverables\2023 MMP\2022.02.23_5355E.AirportDr_Ontario_Media Management Plan_Farallon.docx

APPENDIX C

SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
SOUTH COAST AQMD RULE BOOK, RULE 403, FUGITIVE DUST

MEDIA MANAGEMENT PLAN
5355 East Airplane Drive
Ontario, California
Farallon PN: 1071-080 (Task 2)
3523
403 - 1
(Adopted May 7, 1976) (Amended November 6, 1992)
(Amended July 9, 1993) (Amended February 14, 1997)
(Amended December 11, 1998)(Amended April 2, 2004)
(Amended June 3, 2005)
RULE 403. FUGITIVE DUST
(a) Purpose
The purpose of this Rule is to reduce the amount of particulate matter entrained in the ambient air as a result of anthropogenic (man-made) fugitive dust sources by requiring actions to prevent, reduce or mitigate fugitive dust emissions. (b) Applicability
The provisions of this Rule shall apply to any activity or man-made condition capable of generating fugitive dust.
(c) Definitions
(1) ACTIVE OPERATIONS means any source capable of generating fugitive dust, including, but not limited to, earth-moving activities, construction/demolition activities, disturbed surface area, or heavy- and light-duty vehicular movement.
(2) AGGREGATE-RELATED PLANTS are defined as facilities that produce and / or mix sand and gravel and crushed stone.
(3) AGRICULTURAL HANDBOOK means the region-specific guidance document that has been approved by the Governing Board or hereafter approved by the Executive Officer and the U.S. EPA. For the South Coast Air Basin, the Board-approved region-specific guidance document is the Rule 403 Agricultural Handbook dated December 1998. For the Coachella Valley, the Board-approved region-specific guidance document is the Rule 403 Coachella Valley Agricultural Handbook dated April 2, 2004.
(4) ANEMOMETERS are devices used to measure wind speed and direction in accordance with the performance standards, and maintenance and calibration criteria as contained in the most recent Rule 403 Implementation Handbook.
(5) BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL MEASURES means fugitive dust control actions that are set forth in Table 1 of this Rule. 3524
Rule 403 (cont.) (Amended June 3, 2005)
403 - 2
(6) BULK MATERIAL is sand, gravel, soil, aggregate material less than two inches in length or diameter, and other organic or inorganic particulate matter.
(7) CEMENT MANUFACTURING FACILITY is any facility that has a cement kiln at the facility.
(8) CHEMICAL STABILIZERS are any non-toxic chemical dust suppressant which must not be used if prohibited for use by the Regional Water Quality Control Boards, the California Air Resources Board, the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), or any applicable law, rule or regulation. The chemical stabilizers shall meet any specifications, criteria, or tests required by any federal, state, or local water agency.

Unless otherwise indicated, the use of a non-toxic chemical stabilizer shall be of sufficient concentration and application frequency to maintain a stabilized surface.
(9) COMMERCIAL POULTRY RANCH means any building, structure, enclosure, or premises where more than 100 fowl are kept or maintained for the primary purpose of producing eggs or meat for sale or other distribution.
(10) CONFINED ANIMAL FACILITY means a source or group of sources of air pollution at an agricultural source for the raising of 3,360 or more fowl or 50 or more animals, including but not limited to, any structure, building, installation, farm, corral, coop, feed storage area, milking parlor, or system for the collection, storage, or distribution of solid and liquid manure; if domesticated animals, including horses, sheep, goats, swine, beef cattle, rabbits, chickens, turkeys, or ducks are corralled, penned, or otherwise caused to remain in restricted areas for commercial agricultural purposes and feeding is by means other than grazing.
(11) CONSTRUCTION/DEMOLITION ACTIVITIES means any on-site mechanical activities conducted in preparation of, or related to, the building, alteration, rehabilitation, demolition or improvement of property, including, but not limited to the following activities: grading, excavation, loading, crushing, cutting, planing, shaping or ground breaking. (12) CONTRACTOR means any person who has a contractual arrangement to conduct an active operation for another person.
(13) DAIRY FARM is an operation on a property, or set of properties that are contiguous or separated only by a public right-of-way, that raises cows or 3525
Rule 403 (cont.) (Amended June 3, 2005)
403 - 3
produces milk from cows for the purpose of making a profit or for a livelihood. Heifer and calf farms are dairy farms.
(14) DISTURBED SURFACE AREA means a portion of the earth's surface which has been physically moved, uncovered, destabilized, or otherwise modified from its undisturbed natural soil condition, thereby increasing the potential for emission of fugitive dust. This definition excludes those areas which have:
(A) been restored to a natural state, such that the vegetative ground cover and soil characteristics are similar to adjacent or nearby natural conditions;
(B) been paved or otherwise covered by a permanent structure; or (C) sustained a vegetative ground cover of at least 70 percent of the native cover for a particular area for at least 30 days. (15) DUST SUPPRESSANTS are water, hygroscopic materials, or non-toxic chemical stabilizers used as a treatment material to reduce fugitive dust emissions.
(16) EARTH-MOVING ACTIVITIES means the use of any equipment for any activity where soil is being moved or uncovered, and shall include, but not be limited to the following: grading, earth cutting and filling operations, loading or unloading of dirt or bulk materials, adding to or removing from open storage piles of bulk materials, landfill operations, weed abatement through disking, and soil mulching.
(17) DUST CONTROL SUPERVISOR means a person with the authority to expeditiously employ sufficient dust mitigation measures to ensure compliance with all Rule 403 requirements at an active operation. (18) FUGITIVE DUST means any solid particulate matter that becomes airborne, other than that emitted from an exhaust stack, directly or indirectly as a result of the activities of any person. (19) HIGH WIND CONDITIONS means that instantaneous wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour.
(20) INACTIVE DISTURBED SURFACE AREA means any disturbed surface area upon which active operations have not occurred or are not expected to occur for a period of 20 consecutive days.
(21) LARGE OPERATIONS means any active operations on property which contains 50 or more acres of disturbed surface area; or any earth-moving operation with a daily earth-moving or throughput volume of 3,850 cubic 3526
Rule 403 (cont.) (Amended June 3, 2005)
403 - 4
meters (5,000 cubic yards) or more three times during the most recent 365-day period.
(22) OPEN STORAGE PILE is any accumulation of bulk material, which is not fully enclosed, covered or chemically stabilized, and which attains a height of three feet or more and a total surface area of 150 or more square feet.
(23) PARTICULATE MATTER means any material, except uncombined water, which exists in a finely divided form as a liquid or solid at standard conditions.
(24) PAVED ROAD means a public or private improved street, highway, alley, public way, or easement that is covered by typical roadway materials, but excluding access roadways that connect a facility with a public paved roadway and are not open to through traffic. Public paved roads are those open to public access and that are owned by any federal, state, county, municipal or any other governmental or quasi-governmental agencies.

Private paved roads are any paved roads not defined as public. (25) PM10 means particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter smaller than or equal to 10 microns as measured by the applicable State and Federal reference test methods.
(26) PROPERTY LINE means the boundaries of an area in which either a person causing the emission or a person allowing the emission has the legal use or possession of the property. Where such property is divided into one or more sub-tenancies, the property line(s) shall refer to the boundaries dividing the areas of all sub-tenancies.
(27) RULE 403 IMPLEMENTATION HANDBOOK means a guidance
document that has been approved by the Governing Board on April 2, 2004 or hereafter approved by the Executive Officer and the U.S. EPA. (28) SERVICE ROADS are paved or unpaved roads that are used by one or more public agencies for inspection or maintenance of infrastructure and which are not typically used for construction-related activity. (29) SIMULTANEOUS SAMPLING means the operation of two PM10 samplers in such a manner that one sampler is started within five minutes of the other, and each sampler is operated for a consecutive period which must be not less than 290 minutes and not more than 310 minutes. (30) SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN means the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties and all of Orange 3527
Rule 403 (cont.) (Amended June 3, 2005)
403 - 5
County as defined in California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Section 60104. The area is bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the north and east by the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains, and on the south by the San Diego county line. (31) STABILIZED SURFACE means any previously disturbed surface area or open storage pile which, through the application of dust suppressants, shows visual or other evidence of surface crusting and is resistant to winddriven fugitive dust and is demonstrated to be stabilized. Stabilization can be demonstrated by one or more of the applicable test methods contained in the Rule 403 Implementation Handbook.
(32) TRACK-OUT means any bulk material that adheres to and agglomerates on the exterior surface of motor vehicles, haul trucks, and equipment (including tires) that have been released onto a paved road and can be removed by a vacuum sweeper or a broom sweeper under normal operating conditions.
(33) TYPICAL ROADWAY MATERIALS means concrete, asphaltic concrete, recycled asphalt, asphalt, or any other material of equivalent performance as determined by the Executive Officer, and the U.S. EPA. (34) UNPAVED ROADS means any unsealed or unpaved roads, equipment paths, or travel ways that are not covered by typical roadway materials.

Public unpaved roads are any unpaved roadway owned by federal, state, county, municipal or other governmental or quasi-governmental agencies.

Private unpaved roads are all other unpaved roadways not defined as public.
(35) VISIBLE ROADWAY DUST means any sand, soil, dirt, or other solid particulate matter which is visible upon paved road surfaces and which can be removed by a vacuum sweeper or a broom sweeper under normal operating conditions.
(36) WIND-DRIVEN FUGITIVE DUST means visible emissions from any disturbed surface area which is generated by wind action alone. (37) WIND GUST is the maximum instantaneous wind speed as measured by an anemometer.
(d) Requirements
(1) No person shall cause or allow the emissions of fugitive dust from any active operation, open storage pile, or disturbed surface area such that:
3528
Rule 403 (cont.) (Amended June 3, 2005)
403 - 6
(A) the dust remains visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source; or
(B) the dust emission exceeds 20 percent opacity (as determined by the appropriate test method included in the Rule 403 Implementation Handbook), if the dust emission is the result of movement of a motorized vehicle.
(2) No person shall conduct active operations without utilizing the applicable best available control measures included in Table 1 of this Rule to minimize fugitive dust emissions from each fugitive dust source type within the active operation.
(3) No person shall cause or allow PM10 levels to exceed 50 micrograms per cubic meter when determined, by simultaneous sampling, as the difference between upwind and downwind samples collected on high-volume particulate matter samplers or other U.S. EPA-approved equivalent method for PM10 monitoring. If sampling is conducted, samplers shall be:
(A) Operated, maintained, and calibrated in accordance with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 50, Appendix J, or appropriate U.S. EPA-published documents for U.S. EPA-approved equivalent method(s) for PM10.
(B) Reasonably placed upwind and downwind of key activity areas and as close to the property line as feasible, such that other sources of fugitive dust between the sampler and the property line are minimized.
(4) No person shall allow track-out to extend 25 feet or more in cumulative length from the point of origin from an active operation. Notwithstanding the preceding, all track-out from an active operation shall be removed at the conclusion of each workday or evening shift.
(5) No person shall conduct an active operation with a disturbed surface area of five or more acres, or with a daily import or export of 100 cubic yards or more of bulk material without utilizing at least one of the measures listed in subparagraphs (d)(5)(A) through (d)(5)(E) at each vehicle egress from the site to a paved public road.
(A) Install a pad consisting of washed gravel (minimum-size: one inch) maintained in a clean condition to a depth of at least six inches and extending at least 30 feet wide and at least 50 feet long. 3529
Rule 403 (cont.) (Amended June 3, 2005)
403 - 7
(B) Pave the surface extending at least 100 feet and at least 20 feet wide.
(C) Utilize a wheel shaker/wheel spreading device consisting of raised dividers (rails, pipe, or grates) at least 24 feet long and 10 feet wide to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the site.
(D) Install and utilize a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the site. (E) Any other control measures approved by the Executive Officer and the U.S. EPA as equivalent to the actions specified in
subparagraphs (d)(5)(A) through (d)(5)(D).
(6) Beginning January 1, 2006, any person who operates or authorizes the operation of a confined animal facility subject to this Rule shall implement the applicable conservation management practices specified in Table 4 of this Rule.
(e) Additional Requirements for Large Operations
(1) Any person who conducts or authorizes the conducting of a large operation subject to this Rule shall implement the applicable actions specified in Table 2 of this Rule at all times and shall implement the applicable actions specified in Table 3 of this Rule when the applicable performance standards can not be met through use of Table 2 actions; and shall:
(A) submit a fully executed Large Operation Notification (Form 403 N) to the Executive Officer within 7 days of qualifying as a large operation;
(B) include, as part of the notification, the name(s), address(es), and phone number(s) of the person(s) responsible for the submittal, and a description of the operation(s), including a map depicting the location of the site;
(C) maintain daily records to document the specific dust control actions taken, maintain such records for a period of not less than three years; and make such records available to the Executive Officer upon request;
3530
Rule 403 (cont.) (Amended June 3, 2005)
403 - 8
(D) install and maintain project signage with project contact signage that meets the minimum standards of the Rule 403 Implementation Handbook, prior to initiating any earthmoving activities; (E) identify a dust control supervisor that:
(i) is employed by or contracted with the property owner or developer;
(ii) is on the site or available on-site within 30 minutes during working hours;
(iii) has the authority to expeditiously employ sufficient dust mitigation measures to ensure compliance with all Rule
requirements;
(iv) has completed the AQMD Fugitive Dust Control Class and has been issued a valid Certificate of Completion for the class; and
(F) notify the Executive Officer in writing within 30 days after the site no longer qualifies as a large operation as defined by paragraph (c)(18).
(2) Any Large Operation Notification submitted to the Executive Officer or AQMD-approved dust control plan shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of written acceptance by the Executive Officer. Any Large Operation Notification accepted pursuant to paragraph (e)(1), excluding those submitted by aggregate-related plants and cement manufacturing facilities must be resubmitted annually by the person who conducts or authorizes the conducting of a large operation, at least 30 days prior to the expiration date, or the submittal shall no longer be valid as of the expiration date. If all fugitive dust sources and corresponding control measures or special circumstances remain identical to those identified in the previously accepted submittal or in an AQMD-approved dust control plan, the resubmittal may be a simple statement of no-change (Form 403NC).
(f) Compliance Schedule
The newly amended provisions of this Rule shall become effective upon adoption.

Pursuant to subdivision (e), any existing site that qualifies as a large operation will have 60 days from the date of Rule adoption to comply with the notification and recordkeeping requirements for large operations. Any Large Operation 3531
Rule 403 (cont.) (Amended June 3, 2005)
403 - 9
Notification or AQMD-approved dust control plan which has been accepted prior to the date of adoption of these amendments shall remain in effect and the Large Operation Notification or AQMD-approved dust control plan annual resubmittal date shall be one year from adoption of this Rule amendment. (g) Exemptions
(1) The provisions of this Rule shall not apply to:
(A) Dairy farms.
(B) Confined animal facilities provided that the combined disturbed surface area within one continuous property line is one acre or less. (C) Agricultural vegetative crop operations provided that the combined disturbed surface area within one continuous property line and not separated by a paved public road is 10 acres or less.
(D) Agricultural vegetative crop operations within the South Coast Air Basin, whose combined disturbed surface area includes more than 10 acres provided that the person responsible for such operations:
(i) voluntarily implements the conservation management
practices contained in the Rule 403 Agricultural Handbook; (ii) completes and maintains the self-monitoring form
documenting sufficient conservation management
practices, as described in the Rule 403 Agricultural
Handbook; and
(iii) makes the completed self-monitoring form available to the Executive Officer upon request.
(E) Agricultural vegetative crop operations outside the South Coast Air Basin whose combined disturbed surface area includes more than 10 acres provided that the person responsible for such operations:
(i) voluntarily implements the conservation management
practices contained in the Rule 403 Coachella Valley
Agricultural Handbook; and
(ii) completes and maintains the self-monitoring form
documenting sufficient conservation management
practices, as described in the Rule 403 Coachella Valley Agricultural Handbook; and
(iii) makes the completed self-monitoring form available to the Executive Officer upon request.
3532
Rule 403 (cont.) (Amended June 3, 2005)
403 - 10
(F) Active operations conducted during emergency life-threatening situations, or in conjunction with any officially declared disaster or state of emergency.
(G) Active operations conducted by essential service utilities to provide electricity, natural gas, telephone, water and sewer during periods of service outages and emergency disruptions.
(H) Any contractor subsequent to the time the contract ends, provided that such contractor implemented the required control measures during the contractual period.
(I) Any grading contractor, for a phase of active operations, subsequent to the contractual completion of that phase of earthmoving activities, provided that the required control measures have been implemented during the entire phase of earth-moving activities, through and including five days after the final grading inspection.
(J) Weed abatement operations ordered by a county agricultural commissioner or any state, county, or municipal fire department, provided that:
(i) mowing, cutting or other similar process is used which maintains weed stubble at least three inches above the soil; and
(ii) any discing or similar operation which cuts into and disturbs the soil, where watering is used prior to initiation of these activities, and a determination is made by the agency issuing the weed abatement order that, due to fire hazard conditions, rocks, or other physical obstructions, it is not practical to meet the conditions specified in clause (g)(1)(H)(i). The provisions this clause shall not exempt the owner of any property from stabilizing, in accordance with paragraph (d)(2), disturbed surface areas which have been created as a result of the weed abatement actions. (K) sandblasting operations.
(2) The provisions of paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(3) shall not apply:
(A) When wind gusts exceed 25 miles per hour, provided that:
3533
Rule 403 (cont.) (Amended June 3, 2005)
403 - 11
(i) The required Table 3 contingency measures in this Rule are implemented for each applicable fugitive dust source type, and;
(ii) records are maintained in accordance with subparagraph (e)(1)(C).
(B) To unpaved roads, provided such roads:
(i) are used solely for the maintenance of wind-generating equipment; or
(ii) are unpaved public alleys as defined in Rule 1186; or (iii) are service roads that meet all of the following criteria:
(a) are less than 50 feet in width at all points along the road;
(b) are within 25 feet of the property line; and
(c) have a traffic volume less than 20 vehicle-trips per day.
(C) To any active operation, open storage pile, or disturbed surface area for which necessary fugitive dust preventive or mitigative actions are in conflict with the federal Endangered Species Act, as determined in writing by the State or federal agency responsible for making such determinations.
(3) The provisions of (d)(2) shall not apply to any aggregate-related plant or cement manufacturing facility that implements the applicable actions specified in Table 2 of this Rule at all times and shall implement the applicable actions specified in Table 3 of this Rule when the applicable performance standards of paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(3) can not be met through use of Table 2 actions.
(4) The provisions of paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2), and (d)(3) shall not apply to:
(A) Blasting operations which have been permitted by the California Division of Industrial Safety; and
(B) Motion picture, television, and video production activities when dust emissions are required for visual effects. In order to obtain this exemption, the Executive Officer must receive notification in writing at least 72 hours in advance of any such activity and no nuisance results from such activity.
(5) The provisions of paragraph (d)(3) shall not apply if the dust control actions, as specified in Table 2, are implemented on a routine basis for 3534
Rule 403 (cont.) (Amended June 3, 2005)
403 - 12
each applicable fugitive dust source type. To qualify for this exemption, a person must maintain records in accordance with subparagraph (e)(1)(C). (6) The provisions of paragraph (d)(4) shall not apply to earth coverings of public paved roadways where such coverings are approved by a local government agency for the protection of the roadway, and where such coverings are used as roadway crossings for haul vehicles provided that such roadway is closed to through traffic and visible roadway dust is removed within one day following the cessation of activities. (7) The provisions of subdivision (e) shall not apply to:
(A) officially-designated public parks and recreational areas, including national parks, national monuments, national forests, state parks, state recreational areas, and county regional parks.
(B) any large operation which is required to submit a dust control plan to any city or county government which has adopted a Districtapproved dust control ordinance. (C) any large operation subject to Rule 1158, which has an approved dust control plan pursuant to Rule 1158, provided that all sources of fugitive dust are included in the Rule 1158 plan.
(8) The provisions of subparagraph (e)(1)(A) through (e)(1)(C) shall not apply to any large operation with an AQMD-approved fugitive dust control plan provided that there is no change to the sources and controls as identified in the AQMD-approved fugitive dust control plan.
(h) Fees
Any person conducting active operations for which the Executive Officer conducts upwind/downwind monitoring for PM10 pursuant to paragraph (d)(3) shall be assessed applicable Ambient Air Analysis Fees pursuant to Rule 304.1. Applicable fees shall be waived for any facility which is exempted from paragraph (d)(3) or meets the requirements of paragraph (d)(3).
3535
Rule 403 (cont.) (Amended June 3, 2005)
TABLE 1

BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL MEASURES
(Applicable to All Construction Activity Sources)
403 - 13
Source Category Control Measure Guidance Backfilling 01-1 01-2 01-3
Stabilize backfill material when not actively handling; and Stabilize backfill material during handling; and Stabilize soil at completion of activity. 9 Mix backfill soil with water prior to moving 9 Dedicate water truck or high capacity hose to backfilling equipment
9 Empty loader bucket slowly so that no dust
plumes are generated
9 Minimize drop height from loader bucket
Clearing and grubbing
02-1 02-2 02-3
Maintain stability of soil through pre-watering of site prior to clearing and grubbing; and Stabilize soil during clearing and grubbing activities; and Stabilize soil immediately after clearing and grubbing activities. 9 Maintain live perennial vegetation where
possible
9 Apply water in sufficient quantity to prevent
generation of dust plumes
Clearing forms 03-1
03-2 03-3
Use water spray to clear forms; or Use sweeping and water spray to clear forms; or Use vacuum system to clear forms. 9 Use of high pressure air to clear forms may cause
exceedance of Rule requirements
Crushing 04-1
04-2
Stabilize surface soils prior to operation of support equipment; and Stabilize material after crushing. 9 Follow permit conditions for crushing equipment
9 Pre-water material prior to loading into crusher 9 Monitor crusher emissions opacity 9 Apply water to crushed material to prevent dust plumes
3536
Rule 403 (cont.) (Amended June 3, 2005)
TABLE 1

BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL MEASURES
(Applicable to All Construction Activity Sources)
403 - 14
Source Category Control Measure Guidance Cut and fill 05-1 05-2
Pre-water soils prior to cut and fill activities; and Stabilize soil during and after cut and fill activities. 9 For large sites, pre-water with sprinklers or
water trucks and allow time for penetration
9 Use water trucks/pulls to water soils to depth
of cut prior to subsequent cuts
Demolition – mechanical/manual
06-1
06-2 06-3 06-4
Stabilize wind erodible surfaces to reduce dust; and Stabilize surface soil where support equipment and vehicles will operate; and Stabilize loose soil and demolition debris; and Comply with AQMD Rule 1403. 9 Apply water in sufficient quantities to
prevent the generation of visible dust plumes
Disturbed soil 07-1
07-2
Stabilize disturbed soil throughout the construction site; and Stabilize disturbed soil between structures 9 Limit vehicular traffic and disturbances on
soils where possible
9 If interior block walls are planned, install as
early as possible
9 Apply water or a stabilizing agent in
sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes Earth-moving activities
08-1 08-2 08-3
Pre-apply water to depth of proposed cuts; and Re-apply water as necessary to maintain soils in a damp condition and to ensure that visible emissions do not exceed 100 feet in any direction; and Stabilize soils once earth-moving activities are complete. 9 Grade each project phase separately, timed
to coincide with construction phase
9 Upwind fencing can prevent material
movement on site
9 Apply water or a stabilizing agent in
sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes 3537
Rule 403 (cont.) (Amended June 3, 2005)
TABLE 1

BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL MEASURES
(Applicable to All Construction Activity Sources)
403 - 15
Source Category Control Measure Guidance Importing/exporting of bulk materials 09-1
09-2 09-3 09-4 09-5
Stabilize material while loading to reduce fugitive dust emissions; and Maintain at least six inches of freeboard on haul vehicles; and Stabilize material while transporting to reduce fugitive dust emissions; and Stabilize material while unloading to reduce fugitive dust emissions; and Comply with Vehicle Code Section 23114. 9 Use tarps or other suitable enclosures on
haul trucks
9 Check belly-dump truck seals regularly and
remove any trapped rocks to prevent spillage
9 Comply with track-out
prevention/mitigation requirements
9 Provide water while loading and unloading
to reduce visible dust plumes
Landscaping 10-1 Stabilize soils, materials, slopes 9 Apply water to materials to stabilize 9 Maintain materials in a crusted condition
9 Maintain effective cover over materials
9 Stabilize sloping surfaces using soil binders
until vegetation or ground cover can effectively stabilize the slopes 9 Hydroseed prior to rain season
Road shoulder maintenance
11-1
11-2
Apply water to unpaved shoulders prior to clearing;
and Apply chemical dust suppressants and/or washed gravel to maintain a stabilized surface after completing road shoulder maintenance. 9 Installation of curbing and/or paving of road
shoulders can reduce recurring maintenance costs
9 Use of chemical dust suppressants can
inhibit vegetation growth and reduce future road shoulder maintenance costs 3538
Rule 403 (cont.) (Amended June 3, 2005)
TABLE 1

BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL MEASURES
(Applicable to All Construction Activity Sources)
403 - 16
Source Category Control Measure Guidance Screening 12-1 12-2 12-3
Pre-water material prior to screening; and Limit fugitive dust emissions to opacity and plume length standards; and Stabilize material immediately after screening. 9 Dedicate water truck or high capacity hose
to screening operation
9 Drop material through the screen slowly and
minimize drop height
9 Install wind barrier with a porosity of no
more than 50% upwind of screen to the height of the drop point Staging areas 13-1
13-2
Stabilize staging areas during use; and Stabilize staging area soils at project completion. 9 Limit size of staging area
9 Limit vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour 9 Limit number and size of staging area entrances/exists
Stockpiles/ Bulk Material Handling
14-1
14-2
Stabilize stockpiled materials. Stockpiles within 100 yards of off-site occupied buildings must not be greater than eight feet in height; or must have a road bladed to the top to allow water truck access or must have an operational water irrigation system that is capable of complete stockpile coverage. 9 Add or remove material from the downwind
portion of the storage pile
9 Maintain storage piles to avoid steep sides
or faces
3539
Rule 403 (cont.) (Amended June 3, 2005)
TABLE 1

BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL MEASURES
(Applicable to All Construction Activity Sources)
403 - 17
Source Category Control Measure Guidance Traffic areas for construction activities 15-1
15-2 15-3
Stabilize all off-road traffic and parking areas; and Stabilize all haul routes; and Direct construction traffic over established haul routes. 9 Apply gravel/paving to all haul routes as
soon as possible to all future roadway areas
9 Barriers can be used to ensure vehicles are
only used on established parking areas/haul routes
Trenching 16-1
16-2
Stabilize surface soils where trencher or excavator and support equipment will operate; and Stabilize soils at the completion of trenching activities. 9 Pre-watering of soils prior to trenching is an
effective preventive measure. For deep trenching activities, pre-trench to 18 inches soak soils via the pre-trench and resuming trenching 9 Washing mud and soils from equipment at
the conclusion of trenching activities can prevent crusting and drying of soil on equipment Truck loading 17-1
17-2
Pre-water material prior to loading; and Ensure that freeboard exceeds six inches (CVC 23114) 9 Empty loader bucket such that no visible
dust plumes are created
9 Ensure that the loader bucket is close to the
truck to minimize drop height while loading
Turf Overseeding 18-1
18-2
Apply sufficient water immediately prior to conducting turf vacuuming activities to meet opacity and plume length standards; and Cover haul vehicles prior to exiting the site. 9 Haul waste material immediately off-site
3540
Rule 403 (cont.) (Amended June 3, 2005)
TABLE 1

BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL MEASURES
(Applicable to All Construction Activity Sources)
403 - 18
Source Category Control Measure Guidance Unpaved roads/parking lots 19-1 19-2
Stabilize soils to meet the applicable performance standards; and Limit vehicular travel to established unpaved roads (haul routes) and unpaved parking lots. 9 Restricting vehicular access to established
unpaved travel paths and parking lots can reduce stabilization requirements Vacant land 20-1 In instances where vacant lots are 0.10 acre or larger and have a cumulative area of 500 square feet or more that are driven over and/or used by motor vehicles and/or off-road vehicles, prevent motor vehicle and/or off-road vehicle trespassing, parking and/or access by installing barriers, curbs, fences, gates, posts, signs, shrubs, trees or other effective control measures. 3541
Rule 403 (cont.) (Amended June 3, 2005)
403 - 19
Table 2

DUST CONTROL MEASURES FOR LARGE OPERATIONS

FUGITIVE DUST

SOURCE CATEGORY

CONTROL ACTIONS
Earth-moving (except
construction cutting and
filling areas, and mining
operations)
(1a) Maintain soil moisture content at a minimum of
12 percent, as determined by ASTM method D2216, or other equivalent method approved by the Executive Officer, the California Air
Resources Board, and the U.S. EPA. Two soil
moisture evaluations must be conducted during
the first three hours of active operations during a
calendar day, and two such evaluations each
subsequent four-hour period of active operations;
OR
(1a-1) For any earth-moving which is more than 100
feet from all property lines, conduct watering as
necessary to prevent visible dust emissions from
exceeding 100 feet in length in any direction.

Earth-moving:

Construction fill areas:
(1b) Maintain soil moisture content at a minimum of
12 percent, as determined by ASTM method D2216, or other equivalent method approved by the Executive Officer, the California Air
Resources Board, and the U.S. EPA. For areas
which have an optimum moisture content for
compaction of less than 12 percent, as
determined by ASTM Method 1557 or other
equivalent method approved by the Executive
Officer and the California Air Resources Board
and the U.S. EPA, complete the compaction
process as expeditiously as possible after
achieving at least 70 percent of the optimum soil
moisture content. Two soil moisture evaluations
must be conducted during the first three hours of
active operations during a calendar day, and two
such evaluations during each subsequent fourhour period of active operations. 3542
Rule 403 (cont.) (Amended June 3, 2005)
403-20
Table 2 (Continued)

FUGITIVE DUST

SOURCE CATEGORY

CONTROL ACTIONS
Earth-moving:

Construction cut areas
and mining operations:
(1c) Conduct watering as necessary to prevent visible
emissions from extending more than 100 feet
beyond the active cut or mining area unless the area
is inaccessible to watering vehicles due to slope
conditions or other safety factors.

Disturbed surface areas
(except completed
grading areas)
(2a/b) Apply dust suppression in sufficient quantity and frequency to maintain a stabilized surface. Any
areas which cannot be stabilized, as evidenced by
wind driven fugitive dust must have an application
of water at least twice per day to at least 80 percent
of the unstabilized area.

Disturbed surface
areas: Completed
grading areas
(2c) Apply chemical stabilizers within five working days of grading completion; OR
(2d) Take actions (3a) or (3c) specified for inactive
disturbed surface areas.

Inactive disturbed
surface areas
(3a) Apply water to at least 80 percent of all inactive disturbed surface areas on a daily basis when there is
evidence of wind driven fugitive dust, excluding any
areas which are inaccessible to watering vehicles due
to excessive slope or other safety conditions; OR
(3b) Apply dust suppressants in sufficient quantity and frequency to maintain a stabilized surface; OR
(3c) Establish a vegetative ground cover within 21 days after active operations have ceased. Ground cover
must be of sufficient density to expose less than 30
percent of unstabilized ground within 90 days of
planting, and at all times thereafter; OR
(3d) Utilize any combination of control actions (3a), (3b), and (3c) such that, in total, these actions apply to all inactive disturbed surface areas.
3543
Rule 403 (cont.) (Amended June 3, 2005)
403-21
Table 2 (Continued)

FUGITIVE DUST

SOURCE CATEGORY

CONTROL ACTIONS
Unpaved Roads (4a) Water all roads used for any vehicular traffic at least once per every two hours of active
operations [3 times per normal 8 hour work day];
OR
(4b) Water all roads used for any vehicular traffic
once daily and restrict vehicle speeds to 15 miles
per hour; OR
(4c) Apply a chemical stabilizer to all unpaved road
surfaces in sufficient quantity and frequency to
maintain a stabilized surface.

Open storage piles (5a) Apply chemical stabilizers; OR
(5b) Apply water to at least 80 percent of the surface
area of all open storage piles on a daily basis
when there is evidence of wind driven fugitive
dust; OR
(5c) Install temporary coverings; OR
(5d) Install a three-sided enclosure with walls with no more than 50 percent porosity which extend, at a
minimum, to the top of the pile. This option may
only be used at aggregate-related plants or at
cement manufacturing facilities.

All Categories (6a) Any other control measures approved by the Executive Officer and the U.S. EPA as
equivalent to the methods specified in Table 2
may be used.
3544
Rule 403 (cont.) (Amended June 3, 2005)
403-22
TABLE 3

CONTINGENCY CONTROL MEASURES FOR LARGE OPERATIONS

FUGITIVE DUST
SOURCE

CATEGORY

CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Manure
Handling
(1a)
(1b)
Cover manure prior to removing material off-site; AND
Spread the manure before 11:00 AM and when wind conditions are less than 25 miles per hour; AND
(Only
applicable to
Commercial
Poultry
Ranches)
(1c)
(1d)
Utilize coning and drying manure management by removing manure at laying hen houses at least twice per year and maintain a base of no less than 6 inches of dry manure after clean out; or in lieu of complying with conservation management practice (1c), comply with conservation management practice (1d).

Utilize frequent manure removal by removing the manure from laying hen houses at least every seven days and immediately thin bed dry the material.

Feedstock
Handling
(2a) Utilize a sock or boot on the feed truck auger when filling feed storage bins.

Disturbed
Surfaces
(3a)
(3b)
(3c)
Maintain at least 70 percent vegetative cover on vacant portions of the facility; OR
Utilize conservation tillage practices to manage the amount, orientation and distribution of crop and other plant residues on the soil surface year-round, while growing crops (if applicable) in narrow slots or tilled strips; OR
Apply dust suppressants in sufficient concentrations and frequencies to maintain a stabilized surface.

Unpaved
Roads
(4a)
(4b)
(4c)
Restrict access to private unpaved roads either through signage or physical access restrictions and control vehicular speeds to no more than 15 miles per hour through worker notifications, signage, or any other necessary means; OR
Cover frequently traveled unpaved roads with low silt content material (i.e., asphalt, concrete, recycled road base, or gravel to a minimum depth of four inches); OR
Treat unpaved roads with water, mulch, chemical dust
suppressants or other cover to maintain a stabilized surface.

Equipment
Parking Areas
(5a)
(5b)
Apply dust suppressants in sufficient quantity and frequency to maintain a stabilized surface; OR
Apply material with low silt content (i.e., asphalt, concrete, recycled road base, or gravel to a depth of four inches). 3546
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV22-017 - FEIR
August 27, 2024

Page 7 ends

ATTACHMENT B:

CEQA FINDINGS OF FACTS
AND

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
3547
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the:
5355 East Airport Drive Project
State Clearinghouse No. 2022090006
Lead Agency
City of Ontario
303 East “B” Street
Ontario, CA 91764
CEQA Consultant
T&B Planning, Inc.
3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92602
Project Applicant
Prologis. Inc.
17777 Center Court Drive N, Suite 100
Cerritos, CA 90703
February 2024
3548
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 1 Table of Contents
Section Page

1.0 Introduction and Purpose ................................................................................................................3

1.1 Findings Required Under CEQA...........................................................................................3

1.2 Project Summary....................................................................................................................3

1.3 Environmental Review and Public Participation...................................................................6

2.0 Environmental Impacts and Findings .............................................................................................8

3.0 Environmental Impacts not Requiring Mitigation ..........................................................................9

3.1 Aesthetics...............................................................................................................................9

3.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources ...................................................................................12

3.3 Air Quality ...........................................................................................................................14

3.4 Biological Resources ...........................................................................................................19

3.5 Cultural Resources...............................................................................................................22

3.6 Energy..................................................................................................................................24

3.7 Geology and Soils................................................................................................................26

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions..................................................................................................30

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .......................................................................................33

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality..............................................................................................35

3.11 Land Use and Planning........................................................................................................42

3.12 Mineral Resources ...............................................................................................................43

3.13 Noise ....................................................................................................................................44

3.14 Population and Housing.......................................................................................................47

3.15 Public Services.....................................................................................................................48

3.16 Recreation ............................................................................................................................49

3.17 Transportation......................................................................................................................50

3.18 Utilities and Service Systems ..............................................................................................52

3.19 Wildfire................................................................................................................................56

4.0 Environmental Impacts Mitigated to a Level of Less-than-Significant........................................60

4.1 Cultural Resources...............................................................................................................60

4.2 Geology and Soils................................................................................................................64

4.3 Hazards and Hazardous materials........................................................................................66

4.4 Tribal Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................71 3549
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 2

5.0 Environmental Impacts That Remain Significant and Unavoidable After Mitigation .................73

5.1 Transportation......................................................................................................................73

6.0 Cumulative Impacts ......................................................................................................................77

6.1 Aesthetics.............................................................................................................................77

6.2 Air Quality ...........................................................................................................................78

6.3 Cultural Resources...............................................................................................................78

6.4 Energy..................................................................................................................................79

6.5 Geology and Soils................................................................................................................79

6.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions..................................................................................................80

6.7 Hazardous and Hazardous Materials ...................................................................................80

6.8 Hydrology and Water Quality..............................................................................................81

6.9 Noise ....................................................................................................................................82

6.10 Transportation......................................................................................................................83

6.11 Tribal Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................84

6.12 Utilities and Service Systems ..............................................................................................84

7.0 Other CEQA Considerations ........................................................................................................86

7.1 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes.................................................................86

7.2 Growth Inducing Impacts ....................................................................................................87

7.3 Impacts Considered Less than Significant...........................................................................88

8.0 Alternatives...................................................................................................................................89

9.0 Statement of Overriding Considerations.......................................................................................93

10.0 Additional Facts on Record ..........................................................................................................95

10.1 Custodian of Record ............................................................................................................95 3550
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 3

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
The Planning Commission of the City of Ontario (the “Planning Commission”) in approving the 5355 East Airport Drive Project (the “Project”) makes the Findings described below. The Findings are based upon the entire record before the Planning Commission, as described in Subsection 1.3 below, including the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) prepared for the Project with the City of Ontario (the “City”) acting as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

Hereafter, the Notice of Preparation, Notice of Availability, Draft EIR (“DEIR”), Technical Studies, and Final EIR (containing responses to public comments on the DEIR and textual revisions to the Final EIR), will be referred to collectively herein as the “EIR” unless otherwise specified.

1.1 FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
Public Resources Code Section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” The statute also provides that the procedures required by CEQA are “intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or lessen such significant effects.” Finally, Section 21002 indicates that “in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.”
The mandate described in Public Resources Code Section 21002 is implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required.

For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. The second finding is that such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. The third finding is that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. (CEQA Guidelines, §15091.) Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors."

1.2 PROJECT SUMMARY

1.2.1 SITE LOCATION
The 13.08-acre Project Site is located in southwestern San Bernardino County, within the City of Ontario. The Project Site is located at 5355 East Airport Drive (APN: 0238-052-29 and 0238- 052-20).

The Project Site is bordered by East Airport Drive to the south, industrial uses to the east and west, and railroad tracks to the north.
3551
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 4

1.2.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Project Applicant seeks to demolish all existing on-site structures and redevelop the site as a warehouse distribution facility with approximately 270,337 square feet (s.f.) of building area and 54 south-facing loading dock doors. Of the total building square footage, the Project design allocates 255,337 s.f. for ground floor space and 15,000 s.f. for mezzanine space. Development of the Project site would require demolition of the existing buildings and structures, on-site landscaping, and on-site parking. The proposed building would be a one-story, 49-foot-tall speculative warehouse/ distribution facility with ancillary office space. The Project design includes surface parking with 251 parking spaces including 126 standard automobile parking stalls, 7 accessible parking stalls, 25 electric vehicle parking stalls, 93 additional standard stalls within the truck court, and 48 truck trailer parking spaces.

The truck court/loading area would be enclosed and screened from public viewing areas by landscaping and minimum 14-foot-tall concrete tilt screening walls, with an 8-foot-tall black tube steel gate used at the access points. Vehicular access would be provided via 2 driveways connecting with East Airport Drive. A new sidewalk would be constructed along East Airport Drive to provide pedestrian access from the public street to the primary building entrances. Bike racks also would be provided near the building entrance and electrical room. Ornamental landscaping, lighting, walls, and utility infrastructure improvements/connections would be installed in compliance with the City's Municipal Code. Although the future building user is not presently known, the proposed building is assumed to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

1.2.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The fundamental purpose and goal of the 5355 East Airport Drive Project is to accomplish the orderly redevelopment of the Project Site with a modern warehouse distribution facility. The Project would achieve this goal through the following objectives.

B. To attract employment-generating businesses to the City of Ontario to reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment.

C. To develop industrial buildings with loading bays in close proximity to designated truck routes and the State highway system to avoid or shorten heavy truck-trip lengths on City and regional roads.

D. To attract businesses that can expedite the delivery of goods to consumers and businesses in the City of Ontario and beyond.

E. To develop a project that has architectural design and operational characteristics that complement other existing and planned buildings in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site and minimize conflicts with other nearby land uses.
3552
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 5 F. To develop a property that has access to available infrastructure, including roads and utilities.

1.2.4 CITY OF ONTARIO ACTIONS COVERED BY THE EIR
The following discretionary and administrative actions are required of the City to implement the Project. The EIR prepared for the Project covers all discretionary and administrative approvals which may be needed to construct or implement the Project, whether or not they are explicitly listed below.  Development Plan (PDEV22-017)

1.2.5 APPROVALS FROM OTHER AGENCIES
The California Public Resource Code (§ 21104) requires that all EIRs be reviewed by responsible and trustee agencies (see also CEQA Guidelines Section 15082 and Section 15086(a)). As defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15381, “the term ‘Responsible Agency’ includes all public agencies other than the Lead Agency that have discretionary approval power over the project.” A “Trustee Agency” is defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15386 as “a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project which are held in trust for the people of the State of California.” The anticipated agencies expected to use the EIR are described below. However, the EIR can be used by any Trustee Agency or Responsible Agency, whether explicitly noted in the table below or not, as part of their decision-making processes in relation to the proposed Project. 3553
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 6 Agency Action
Responsible and Trustee Agencies
Santa Ana Regional Water
Quality Control Board
(“RWQCB”)
Santa Ana RWQCB is responsible for the protection of California’s water resources and water quality. The Santa Ana RWQCB is responsible for issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) Permit to ensure that during and after Project construction, on-site water flows do not result in siltation, other erosional actions, or degradation of surface or subsurface water quality.

San Bernardino County Flood
Control District (“SBCFCD”)
Responsible for the proposed drainage infrastructure that would be utilized by the Project.

Ontario Fire Department
(“OFD”)
Approvals required for the installation of new fire hydrant locations and fire protection features for the proposed building.

South Coast Air Quality
Management District (“South
Coast AQMD”)
Responsible for the issuance of permits that allow for the construction and operation of the Project to ensure that during and post-Project construction and during Project operation, Project emissions do not result in significant impacts to air quality
Ontario Municipal Utilities
Company (“OMUC”)
Approvals for the installation of proposed water improvements and connections.

Inland Empire Utilities Agency
(“IEUA”)
Approval of proposed sewer improvements and connections.

Southern California Edison
(“SCE”)
Approvals required for the installation of new SCE facilities/connections to service the Project
Southern California Gas
Company (“SoCal Gas”)
Approvals required for the installation of new SoCal Gas facilities/connections to service the Project

1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The City conducted an extensive environmental review of the Project to ensure that the City’s decision makers and the public are fully informed about the potential significant environmental effects of the Project; to identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced; and to prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in the Project using mitigation measures which have been found to be feasible. To do this, the City, acting as Lead Agency under CEQA, undertook the following:
 Circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to the California Office of Planning and Research (the “State Clearinghouse”), Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, other interested parties, and all property owners and occupants within a 600-foot radius of the Project site on September 1, 2022 for a 30-day review period beginning on September 1;  Held a publicly noticed virtual EIR Scoping Meeting on September 13, 2022 to solicit comments from the public on the environmental issue areas that should be analyzed in the EIR;  Sent a Notice of Completion (NOC) and copies of the Draft EIR to the California Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, on August 22, 2023, for a 45-day public review period from August 22, 2023 to October 5, 2023;
3554
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 7  Mailed a Notice of Availability (NOA) to all Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, the Riverside County Clerk, other interested parties, and organizations, individuals who had previously requested the Notice, and all property owners and occupants within a 600-foot radius of the Project site to inform recipients that the Draft EIR was available for a 45-day review period beginning on August 22, 2023, and ending on October 5, 2023;  Made an electronic copy of the Draft EIR available on the City’s website;  Prepared responses to comments on the Draft EIR received during the 45-day comment period on the Draft EIR, which have been included in the Final EIR;  Mailed notice of the Planning Commission hearing to all property owners and occupants within a 600-foot radius of the Project site.
 Sent individual responses to all public agencies, organizations, and individuals who submitted comments the Draft EIR on April 10, 2023; and
 Held a Planning Commission hearing on April 23, 2023.

All the documents identified above and all the documents which are required to be part of the record pursuant to Public Resources Code §21167.6(e) are on file with the City of Ontario Planning Department located at 303 East B Street in Ontario, CA 91764. Questions should be directed to Thomas Grahn, Senior Planner.
3555
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 8

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS
The EIR was prepared by T&B Planning, Inc., an independent, professional consulting firm. The professional qualifications and reputation of the EIR Consultant, the supervision and direction of the EIR Consultant by City staff, the thorough and independent review of the DEIR and Final EIR, including comments and responses by City staff, and the review and careful consideration of the Final EIR by the Planning Commission, including comments and responses, all conclusively show that the Final EIR is the product of and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City as the Lead Agency.

Based on the NOP, Technical Appendix A to the Draft EIR, and the responses to the NOP, the EIR analyzed 12 potential areas where significant environmental impacts could result from the development of the Project. The 12 potential areas where significant environmental impacts could result from the development of the Project include: aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems. 3556
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 9

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION
The Planning Commission hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the 5355 East Airport Drive Project are less-than-significant and therefore do not require the imposition of mitigation measures, or there are no impacts at all.

3.1 AESTHETICS

3.1.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not have a substantial effect on a scenic vista.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.1.5 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
A significant impact would occur if a project were to introduce incompatible scenic elements within a field of view containing a scenic vista or substantially block views of a scenic vista. Viewsheds refer to the visual qualities of the geographical area that is defined by the horizon, topography, and other natural features that give an area its visual boundary and context, or by artificial developments that have become prominent visual components of an area. The City of Ontario’s General Plan (Policy Plan) does not identify scenic vistas within the City; however, The Policy Plan (Policy CD1-5) requires all major require north-south streets be designed and redeveloped to feature views of the San Gabriel Mountain. The Project Site is located at East Airport Drive, a minor east-west minor arterial street, as identified in the Functional Roadway Classification Plan (Figure M-2) of the Mobility Element within the Policy Plan. Additionally, the Project Site is bordered by industrial uses to the east and west. The San Gabriel Mountains are partially visible from the East Airport Drive segment that abuts the Project Site (while looking north); however, views of the Mountains are largely obstructed by existing onsite structures and improvements. The proposed warehouse building would not obscure views of the San Gabriel Mountains substantially more than views of the Mountains are already obscured under existing conditions, and views of the San Bernardino Mountains would continue to be available above the proposed building. Therefore, the visibility – or lack thereof – of the San Gabriel Mountains from public viewing areas along the Project Site frontage would not change substantially with implementation of the Project. Accordingly, given that the Project Site is not a scenic vista, is not located near a designated scenic resource, and unique, prominent, and scenic views would not be obscured by the Project, implementation of the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista and less-than-significant impacts would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.1-8)

3.1.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. 3557
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 10  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.1.5 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project would result in no impacts with respect to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The City of Ontario is served by three freeways: I-10, I-15, and SR-60. I-10 and SR-60 traverse the northern and central portion of the City, respectively, in an east–west direction. I-15 traverses the northeastern portion of the City in a north–south direction. These segments of I-10, I-15, and SR-60 have not been officially designated as scenic highways by the California Department of Transportation.

The nearest eligible State scenic highway is SR-142, approximately 12.7 miles to the southwest of the Project Site. In addition, there are no historic buildings or any scenic resources identified on or in the vicinity of the Project Site. Therefore, the Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, tress, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. No impacts are anticipated. (DEIR, pp. 4.1-8)

3.1.3 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not, in an urbanized area, conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in detail in Section 4.1.5 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15387, urban areas mean a central city or group of contiguous cities with a population of 50,000 or more, together with adjacent densely populated areas having a population density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile. According to the 2010 Census Urbanized Area Reference Map, the Project is located within an urbanized area. As such, the potential impacts of the Project under this threshold are assessed based on whether the Project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.

The Project Site is zoned Heavy Industrial (IH) and the Project is required to comply with the development standards established in Section 6.01.025, Industrial Zoning Districts, of the City’s Development Code. The intent and purpose of Section 6.01.025 are to ensure that development within the industrial zoning districts of the City will contribute toward an urban environment of stable, desirable character, which is harmonious with existing and future development, and is consistent with the goals and policies of the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan (TOP). Furthermore, these regulations are to ensure that the appearance of industrial buildings and uses are compatible with the visual character of the area in which they are located. Table 4.1-1, Zoning District Development Standards Consistency Analysis, addresses the Project’s consistency with applicable development 3558
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 11 standards outlined in the City’s Development Code. As shown below, the Project would not conflict with the applicable development standards in the City’s Development Code established for the IH zone.

Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. (DEIR, pp. 4.1-9 – 4.1-12)

3.1.4 THRESHOLD D
Impact Statement: The Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in detail in Section 4.1.5 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in impacts related to Threshold d; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The analysis of light and glare describes the existing light and glare environments in the Project area, identifies the light- and glare-sensitive land uses in the area, describes the light and glare sources under the Project, and qualitatively evaluates whether the Project would result in a substantial increase in nighttime lighting and daytime glare as seen from the area’s sensitive uses. The analysis of lighting impacts focuses on whether the Project would cause or substantially increase adverse night time lighting effects on light sensitive uses. Included in this analysis is consideration of the affected street frontages, the direction in which Project lighting would be directed, the potential for sunlight to reflect off the exterior surfaces of the proposed buildings, and the extent to which glare would interfere with the operation of motor vehicles or other activities.

Under existing conditions, the Project Site is surrounded by industrial uses and railroad tracks and street lights are located along East Airport Drive. New lighting would be introduced to the Site with the development of the Project. Pursuant to the requirements of the City’s Development Code, on-site lighting is required to be shielded, diffused or indirect, to avoid glare to pedestrians or motorists. In addition, lighting fixtures are required to be selected and located to confine the area of illumination to within the Project Site and minimize light spillage. Furthermore, Site lighting plans are subject to review by the City’s Planning Department and Police Department prior to issuance of building permits (pursuant to the City’s Building Security Ordinance).

With respect to glare, a majority of Project building materials would consist of tilt-up concrete panels which are low reflective. Although the building would incorporate some glass elements, the glass would result in minimal glare effects because proposed window glazing would be low reflective, would be set back from East Airport Drive at a distance and would be buffered from East Airport Drive by landscaping. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in a significant source of light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views and impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.1-12.)
3559
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 12

3.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

3.2.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 5.4.1 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantive Evidence
The Project Site is presently industrial and does not contain any agricultural uses. Further, the Site is identified as Urban and Built-up Land on the map prepared by the California Resources Agency, pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (DOC, 2018). The Project does not have the potential to convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use. As a result, no adverse environmental impacts are anticipated. (DEIR, p. 5-5-4)

3.2.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 5.4.1 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantive Evidence
The Project Site is not zoned for agricultural use. The Project Site is zoned Heavy Industrial. The Project’s implementation would not require a zone change and would not result in a loss of land zoned for agriculture. The Project is consistent with the development standards and allowed land uses of the proposed zone. Furthermore, there is no Williamson Act contract in effect on the subject Site.

Therefore, no impacts to agricultural uses are anticipated, nor will there be any conflict with existing or Williamson Act contracts. (DEIR, p. 5-5-4)

3.2.3 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public 3560
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 13 Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g).
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in detail in Section 5.4.1 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantive Evidence
The Project is zoned Heavy Industrial and does not contain forest land. The Project is consistent with the development standards and allowed land uses of the Heavy Industrial zone. The City’s Zoning Map does not designate any parcels of land in the Project area for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. (DEIR, p. 5-5-4)

3.2.4 THRESHOLD D
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in detail in Section 5.4.1 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to Threshold d; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantive Evidence
There is currently no land in the City of Ontario that qualifies as forest land as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g). Neither the Policy Plan nor the City’s Zoning Code provide designations for forest land. Consequently, the Project would not result in the loss or conversion of forest land. (DEIR, p. 5-5-5)

3.2.5 THRESHOLD E
Impact Statement: The Project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold e are discussed in detail in Section 5.4.1 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to Threshold e; therefore, no mitigation is required. 3561
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 14  Substantive Evidence
The Project Site is currently zoned Heavy Industrial and is not designated as Farmland. The Project Site is currently developed with industrial uses and there are no agricultural uses occurring onsite. As a result, to the extent that the Project would result in changes to the existing environment those changes would not result in the loss of Farmland to non-agricultural use.

Additionally, there is currently no land in the City of Ontario that qualifies as forest land as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g). Neither the Policy Plan nor the City’s Development Code provide designations for forest land. Consequently, to the extent that the Project would result in changes to the existing environment, those changes would not impact forest land. (DEIR, p. 5-5)

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would conflict with and/or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.2.4 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers to violations of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). CAAQS and NAAQS violations would occur if LSTs or regional significance thresholds were exceeded. As disclosed under the analysis for Thresholds “b” and “c” below, Project localized and regional construction and operational-source emissions would not exceed applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regional significance thresholds and Localized significance thresholds (LST) thresholds. As such, the Project is determined to be consistent with the first criterion.

With regard to Consistency Criterion No. 2, the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (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 Air District are provided to the Southern California Association of Governments (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.

Peak day emissions generated by construction activities are largely independent of land use assignments, but rather are a function of development scope and maximum area of disturbance.

Irrespective of the site’s land use designation, development of the site to its maximum potential would 3562
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 15 likely occur, with disturbance of the entire site occurring during construction activities. As such, when considering that no emissions thresholds will be exceeded, a less than significant impact would result.

The Project is designated for Industrial uses within the Policy Plan. The Industrial designation allows for a variety of light industrial uses, including warehousing/distribution, assembly, light manufacturing, research and development, storage, repair facilities, and supporting retail and professional office uses. This designation also accommodates activities that could potentially generate impacts, such as noise, dust, and other nuisances. The Project is proposed to consist of a single 270,337 s.f. warehouse building. As previously stated, this analysis assumes up to 27,034 s.f. of high-cube cold storage use (10% of the total building s.f.) and 243,303 s.f. of warehouse use (90% of total building) which is consistent with the proposed Industrial designation and therefore, the Project does not propose or require amendment of the Site’s underlying land use designation.

Furthermore, as discussed below, the Project would not result in or cause exceedances of regional or localized air quality significance thresholds. Emissions generated by the Project are accurately represented in the AQMP emissions modeling, air pollution control strategies, and associated assumptions for emissions affecting the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). On the basis of the preceding discussion, the Project would not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the years of Project build-out phase. The Project is therefore determined to be consistent with the second criterion.

The Project would not result in or cause NAAQS or CAAQS violations and the Project is consistent with the land use and growth intensities reflected in the adopted City of Ontario Policy Plan.

Furthermore, the Project would not exceed any applicable regional or local thresholds. As such, the Project is considered to be consistent with the AQMP and impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.2-29 – 4.2-30)

3.3.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.2.4 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
Construction Emissions Impact Analysis: The Project’s peak construction-related emissions are summarized in Table 4.2-8, Peak Construction Emissions Summary, of the DEIR. Detailed air model outputs are presented in Appendix 4.1 of the Project’s Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA). As shown in Table 4.2-8, peak construction-related emissions of VOC, NOX, CO, SOX, and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) would not exceed the applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regional thresholds. Accordingly, the Project’s construction activities would not emit 3563
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 16 substantial concentrations for all pollutants and would not contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation on a cumulatively-considerable basis, and Project construction impacts would be less than significant.

Operational Emissions Impact Analysis: Peak emissions from Project operations are presented in Table

4.2-9, Peak Operational Emissions Summary, of the DEIR. Detailed air model outputs for the operational analysis are provided in Appendices 4.2 and 4.3 of the Project’s AQIA contained as Technical Appendix B1 of the DEIR. As shown, Project operational emissions of VOCs, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10 and PM2.5 would not exceed SCAQMD regional criteria thresholds. Moreover, existing emissions from operation of the existing uses on the Project Site summarized in Table 4.2-4, Existing Project Site Operation-Source Emissions, were subtracted from the Project operational emissions to determine the new emissions from the proposed Project. As summarized in Table 4.2-9, Project operational emissions of VOCs, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10 and PM2.5 would not exceed SCAQMD regional criteria thresholds. Accordingly, the Project would not emit substantial concentrations of these pollutants during long‐term operation and would not contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. The Project’s long‐term emissions of VOCs, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10 and PM2.5 would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.2-31 – 4.2-32)

3.3.3 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in detail in Section 4.2.4 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
During both construction and operation, the Project has the potential to expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The following provides an analysis based on the applicable LSTs established by the State of California and SCAQMD, an analysis of the Project’s potential to result in or contribute to CO “hot spots,” and an analysis of the Project’s potential to result in cancer risks and non-cancer health hazards.

1. Localized Criteria Pollutant Analysis
Construction Analysis: Table 4.2-10, Localized Construction-Source Emissions Summary, of the DEIR shows that localized emissions of NOX, CO, and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) during Project construction would not exceed applicable SCAQMD thresholds. Accordingly, Project construction would not expose any sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project Site to substantial criteria pollutant concentrations. Impacts would be less than significant. 3564
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 17 Operational Analysis: As shown in Table 4.2-11, Localized Operational-Source Emissions Summary, Project operations would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD thresholds for localized NOX, CO, and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) emissions. Accordingly, the Project would not expose any sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project Site to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impacts would be less than significant.

2. CO Hot Spot Impact Analysis
An adverse CO concentration, known as a “hot spot”, would occur if an exceedance of the State onehour standard of 20 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur. It has long been recognized that CO hotspots are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at congested intersections.

In response, vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the last twenty years.

Currently, the allowable CO emissions standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams/mile for passenger cars (there are requirements for certain vehicles that are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of increasingly sophisticated and efficient emissions control technologies, CO concentration in the SCAB is now designated as attainment.

A CO “hot spot” analysis was not performed for the Project because CO attainment in the SCAB was thoroughly analyzed as part of SCAQMD’s 2003 AQMP and the 1992 Federal Attainment for Carbon Monoxide Plan (1992 CO Plan). For context, the CO “hot spot” analysis performed for the 2003 AQMP recorded a CO concentration of 8.4 parts per million (8-hour) at the Long Beach Boulevard/Imperial Highway intersection in Los Angeles County; however, only a small portion of the recorded CO concentrations (0.7 parts per million) were attributable to traffic congestion at the intersection. The vast majority of the recorded CO concentrations at the Long Beach Boulevard/Imperial Highway intersection (7.7 parts per million) were attributable to ambient air concentrations. In comparison, the ambient 1-hr and 8-hr CO concentration within the Project study area is estimated to be 1.6 ppm and

1.3 ppm, respectively (data from I-10 Near Road monitoring station for 2020). Therefore, even if the traffic volumes for the Project were double or even triple of the traffic volumes generated at the Long Beach Blvd. and Imperial Hwy. intersection, coupled with the on-going improvements in ambient air quality, the Project would not be capable of resulting in a CO “hot spot” at any study area intersections.

Furthermore, data from several air studies indicate that under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a given project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by between 24,000 and 44,000 vehicles per hour in order to generate a significant CO impact; the Project would generate nowhere near this volume of traffic. Based on the relatively low traffic congestion levels, low existing ambient CO concentrations, and the lack of any unusual meteorological and/or topographical conditions in the Project Site vicinity, the Project is not expected to cause or contribute to a CO “hot spot”. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, pp. 47-49) Impacts would be less than significant.

3. Toxic Air Contaminant Impact Analysis
Construction Analysis: Construction activity would occur over the entire Project Site. Therefore, the sensitive receptor land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project construction-source DPM emissions is Location R6 which is located approximately 8,840 feet northwest of the Project Site at an existing residence located at 11210 Fourth Street on the opposite side of I-10 and SR-60 from the 3565
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 18 Project Site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project Site, receptor R6 is placed at the building façade facing the Project Site. At the Maximally Exposed Individual Resident (MEIR), the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to Project construction-source DPM emissions is estimated 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 estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable threshold of 1.0. There are no sensitive receptors located in immediate, close proximity to the Project Site. As such, the Project will not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent land uses as a result of Project construction activity. All other receptors during construction activity would experience less risk than what is identified for Location R6.

Operational Analysis: The Project Site primarily surrounded by industrial uses. Therefore, the residential land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project operational-source DPM emissions is Location R6 which is located approximately 8,840 feet northwest of the Project Site at an existing residence located at 11210 Fourth Street on the opposite side of I-15 and I-10 from the Project Site.

Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project Site, receptor R6 is placed at the building façade facing the Project Site. At the MEIR, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to Project operational-source DPM emissions is estimated 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, noncancer risks were estimated to be residential receptors located in immediate, close proximity to the Project Site. As such, the Project will not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to nearby residences.

The worker receptor land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project operational-source DPM emissions is Location R5, which represents the adjacent potential worker receptor approximately 58 feet east of the Project Site. At the Maximally Exposed Individual Worker (MEIW), the maximum incremental cancer risk impact is 0.25 in one million which is far less than the SCAQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million. Maximum non-cancer risks at this same location were estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. Because all other modeled worker receptors are located at a greater distance than the MEIW analyzed herein, and DPM dissipates with distance from the source, all other worker receptors in the vicinity of the Project would be exposed to less emissions and therefore less risk than the MEIW identified herein. As such, the Project will not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent workers.

Proximity to sources of toxics is critical to determining the impact. In traffic-related studies, the additional non-cancer health risk attributable to proximity was seen within 1,000 feet and was strongest within 300 feet. California freeway studies show about a 70-percent drop-off in particulate pollution levels at 500 feet. Based on California Air Resources Board (CARB) and SCAQMD emissions and modeling analyses, an 80-percent drop-off in pollutant concentrations is expected at approximately 1,000 feet from a distribution center. The 1,000-foot evaluation distance is supported by research-based findings concerning TAC emission dispersion rates from roadways and large sources showing that emissions diminish substantially between 500 and 1,000 feet from emission sources. A one-quarter mile radius, or 1,320 feet, is commonly utilized for identifying sensitive receptors, such as schools, that may be impacted by a proposed project. This radius is more robust than, and therefore provides a more health protective scenario for evaluation than the 1,000-foot impact radius identified above. 3566
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 19 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. Because there is no reasonable potential that TAC emissions would cause significant health impacts at distances of more than one-quarter mile from the air pollution source, the Project would result in less-thansignificant impacts to any schools in the vicinity of the Project. (DEIR, pp. 4.2-33 – 4.2-36)

3.3.4 THRESHOLD D
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in detail in Section 4.2.4 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold d; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
During construction activities on the Project Site, odors could be produced by construction equipment exhaust or from the application of asphalt and/or architectural coatings; however, standard construction practices would minimize the odor emissions and their associated impacts. Furthermore, any odors emitted during construction would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature, and would cease upon the completion of the respective phase of construction. In addition, construction activities on the Project Site would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits the discharge of odorous emissions that would create a public nuisance. Accordingly, the Project’s construction would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people and all impacts would be less than significant.

During long-term operation, the Project would operate as a warehouse distribution facility, which is not typically associated with the emission of objectionable odors. Temporary outdoor refuse storage could be a potential source of odor; however, Project-generated refuse is required to be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the City’s solid waste regulations, thereby precluding any significant odor impact. Furthermore, the occupant(s) of the proposed warehouse building would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits the discharge of odorous emissions that would create a public nuisance, during long-term operation.

As such, long-term operation of the Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people and all impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.2-36 – 4.2-37)

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.4.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in 3567
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 20 local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed Section 5.4.2 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Thresholds a; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The Project Site is currently developed with a grain processing company and a corn storage and distribution facility. The Project Site is in an urbanized and industrialized area in the City of Ontario and vegetation onsite is limited to ornamental species. The Project Site is located within an area that has not been identified as containing species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). As a part of the Project, existing vegetation within the developed portion of the Project Site would be removed and replaced with a variety of trees and ornamental vegetation. The relocation and/or replacement of on-site vegetation and trees would not have a substantial adverse effect on candidate, sensitive or special status species, as defined by the CDFW or the USFWS. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. (DEIR, p. 5-5-5)

3.4.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed Section 5.4.2 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The Project Site is currently developed with industrial uses and is in a highly urbanized and industrialized area in the City. The Project Site does not contain any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified by the CDFW or the USFWS (USFWS, 2020). Therefore, no adverse environmental impacts are anticipated. (DEIR, p. 5-5-6)

3.4.3 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands [as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act] (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. 3568
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 21  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed Section 5.4.2 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
There are no wetlands habitat present on site (USFWS, 2020). Therefore, Project implementation would have no impact on these resources. (DEIR, p. 5-5-6)

3.4.4 THRESHOLD D
Impact Statement: The Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed Section 5.4.2 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold d; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
No surface water bodies, streams or waterways occur on the Project Site. The Project Site does not provide nursery sites for wildlife, nor is it conducive to function as a corridor for migratory wildlife.

There are a limited number of ornamental trees on site that would be removed and replaced with new trees and landscaping. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) implements the United States’ commitment to four treaties with Canada, Japan, Mexico, and Russia for the protection of shared migratory bird resources. Nesting migratory birds are protected under the MBTA (United States Code, Title 16, Sections 703–712) and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 et seq. Compliance with federal MBTA and California Fish and Game Code would eliminate any potential impacts. The Project would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory species or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Therefore, no adverse environmental impacts are anticipated. (DEIR, p. 5-5-6)

3.4.5 THRESHOLD E
Impact Statement: The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold e are discussed Section 5.4.2 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold e; therefore, no mitigation is required. 3569
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 22  Substantial Evidence
The City of Ontario does not have any ordinances protecting biological resources. Further, the Site does not contain any mature trees necessitating the need for preservation. As a result, no adverse environmental impacts are anticipated. (DEIR, p. 5-5-6)

3.4.6 THRESHOLD F
Impact Statement: The Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Thresholds f are discussed Section 5.4.2 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold f; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The Project Site is not part of an adopted HCP, NCCP or other approved habitat conservation plan (CDFW, 2019). As a result, no adverse environmental impacts are anticipated. (DEIR, p. 5-5-7)

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

3.5.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.3.4 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
Under existing conditions, the Project Site is currently developed with a grain processing company and a corn storage and distribution facility. The eastern portion of the Project Site contains grain storage silos, grain mill area, and five buildings that are used for maintenance and repair, grain storage, and service shop. The western portion of the Project Site contains enclosed silo grain storage, with an office trailer. A vehicle wash-down area is also present on the northeastern portion of the Site, and three known septic systems are located beneath the Site. Implementation of the Project would require the demolition of all structures that are located on the Project Site under existing conditions.

Brian F. Smith & Associates, Inc. (BFSA) conducted a cultural resources record search of the Project Site and concluded that no recorded historical resources pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 3570
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 23 are located within the Project boundaries or a one-half mile radius of the Project Site. The structures on the Project Site have a construction date of 1975 and after; and, the buildings and features within the Project Site were assessed and found not to be historically or architecturally significant under CEQA. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not result in a substantial adverse change to any historical resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. No impact to a historical resource would occur. (DEIR, pp. 4.3-7 – 4.3-8)

3.5.2 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in detail in Section 4.3.4 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The Project Site does not contain a cemetery and no known formal cemeteries are located within the immediate Site vicinity. Nevertheless, the remote potential exists that human remains may be unearthed during grading and excavation activities associated with Project construction.

If human remains are unearthed during Project construction, the construction contractor would be required by law to comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 “Disturbance of Human Remains.” According to Section 7050.5(b) and (c), if human remains are discovered, the County Coroner must be contacted and if the Coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American, or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, the Coroner is required to contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by telephone within 24 hours.

Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, whenever the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a county coroner, the NAHC is required to immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The descendants may, with the permission of the owner of the land, or his or her authorized representative, inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American human remains and may recommend to the owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treatment or disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the human remains and any associated grave goods. The descendants shall complete their inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the Project Site. According to Public Resources Code Section 5097.94(k), the NAHC is authorized to mediate disputes arising between landowners and known descendants relating to the treatment and disposition of Native American human burials, skeletal remains, and items associated with Native American burials. With mandatory compliance to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, any potential impacts to human remains, including human remains of Native American ancestry, that may result from development of the Project would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.3-8 – 4.3-9) 3571
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 24

3.6 ENERGY

3.6.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.4.4 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence

1. Construction
The Project’s construction process would consume electrical energy and diesel fuel. Project-related construction would represent a “single-event” energy demand and would not require on-going or permanent commitment of diesel fuel resources. Project construction activities are estimated to consume approximately 113,853 kWh of electricity, 67,491 gallons of diesel fuel from operation of construction equipment, 15,066 gallons of fuel from construction worker trips, and 11,965 gallons of fuel related to construction vendor trips (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 30-38). Detailed calculations for all components of the Project’s construction energy use are provided in subsection 5.3 of the Project’s energy analysis (refer to Technical Appendix D of Draft EIR). Construction equipment use of fuel would not be atypical for the type of construction proposed because there are no aspects of the Project’s proposed construction process that are unusual or energy-intensive, and Project construction equipment would conform to the applicable CARB emissions standards, acting to promote equipment fuel efficiencies. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 41) CCR Title 13, Title 13, Motor Vehicles, Section 2449(d)(3) Idling, limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than 5 minutes, thereby precluding unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling of construction equipment. Best Available Control Measures (BACMs) inform construction equipment operators of this requirement. Enforcement of idling limitations is realized through periodic site inspections conducted by City building officials, and/or in response to citizen complaints. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 41) As supported by the preceding discussion, the Project’s construction energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.

2. Operation
Energy consumption in support of or related to Project operations would include transportation fuel demands (fuel consumed by passenger car and truck vehicles accessing the Project Site), fuel demands from operational equipment, and facilities energy demands (energy consumed by building operations, site maintenance activities, and on-site cargo handling equipment). The Project energy demand is calculated to be 179,406 gallons of fuel, 5,337,545 kBTU of natural gas per year, and 1,774,048 kWh of electricity per year The energy consumption of existing uses on the Project Site (refer to Subsection

4.4.1) were subtracted from the Project’s gross energy totals to determine the new, net energy demands 3572
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 25 from the proposed Project. The net Project energy demand is calculated to be 45,152 gallons of fuel, 4,543,279 kBTU of natural gas per year, and 746,675 kWh of electricity per year. Project on-site cargo handling equipment would consume an estimated 4,642 gallons of natural gas per year (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, pp. 38-40). Refer to subsection 5.4 of the Project’s energy analysis (see Technical Appendix D of the Draft EIR) for detailed calculations of all components of the Project’s operational energy use.

Enhanced fuel economies realized pursuant to federal and state regulatory actions, and related transition of vehicles to alternative energy sources (e.g., electricity, natural gas, biofuels, hydrogen cells) would likely decrease future gasoline fuel demands per VMT. Location of the Project proximate to regional and local roadway systems tends to reduce VMT within the region, acting to reduce regional vehicle energy demands. The Project would implement sidewalks, facilitating and encouraging pedestrian access. Facilitating pedestrian and bicycle access would reduce VMT and associated energy consumption. In compliance with the California Green Building Standards Code and City requirements, the Project would promote the use of bicycles as an alternative mean of transportation by providing short-term and/or long-term bicycle parking accommodations. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 42)
Project on-site equipment would conform to the applicable CARB emissions standards, acting to promote equipment fuel efficiencies. The Project proposes a conventional warehouse use reflecting contemporary energy efficient/energy conserving designs and operational programs. The Project does not propose uses that are inherently energy intensive and the energy demands in total would be comparable to other industrial uses of similar scale and configuration. Lastly, the Project will comply with the applicable California Green Building Standard Code Title 24 standards. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 43) As supported by the preceding discussion, the Project’s operational energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. (DEIR, pp. 4.4-5 – 4.4-6)

3.6.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.4.4 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The Project was analyzed for consistency with the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Integrated Energy Policy Report, the State of California Energy Plan, California Code Title 24, Part 6, Energy Efficiency Standards, California Code Title 24, Part 11, CALGreen, Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards, Renewable Portfolio Standard, Senate Bill 350, and the City of Ontario Community Climate Action Plan. The Project would not 3573
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 26 conflict with any of the preceding state and local plans. As such impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.4-6 – 4.4-8)

3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

3.7.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: strong seismic ground shaking; seismicrelated ground failure, including liquefaction; or landslides.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed Section 4.5.4 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence

1. Rupture of a Known Earthquake Fault
There are no known active or potentially active faults on or trending toward the Project Site. Research of available maps indicates that the Project Site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. No evidence of faulting was identified during the geotechnical investigation. (SoCal Geotechnical, 2022a, p. 10) Because there are no known faults located on or trending towards the Project Site, there is no potential for the Project to directly or indirectly expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects related to ground rupture. Impacts would be less than significant.

2. Strong Seismic Ground Shaking
The Project Site is located in a seismically active area of southern California and is expected to experience moderate to severe ground shaking during the lifetime of the Project. The risk is not substantially different than the risk to other properties throughout the southern California area. As a mandatory condition of Project approval, the Project Applicant would be required to construct the proposed building in accordance with the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) and the Ontario Development Code. The CBSC and Ontario Development Code, which have been specifically tailored for California earthquake conditions, provide building standards that must be met to safeguard life or limb, health, property, and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location, and maintenance of all buildings and structures. In addition, the CBSC (Chapter 18) require development project sites to be evaluated in preliminary soil reports to identify site-specific geologic and seismic conditions and provide site-specific recommendations to preclude adverse effects involving unstable soils and strong seismic groundshaking, including, but not limited to, recommendations related to ground stabilization, selection of appropriate foundation type and depths, and selection of appropriate structural systems. The Project Applicant retained a professional geotechnical firm, Southern California Geotechnical, to prepare a geotechnical investigation for the Project Site, which is included as Technical Appendix E1 to the DEIR. The geotechnical investigation included recommendations for design, construction, and grading 3574
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 27 considerations based on the site-specific geological conditions and the Project’s specific design. The recommendations included seismic design considerations, geotechnical design considerations, site grading, construction, foundation design and construction, floor slab design and construction, retaining wall design and construction, and pavement design parameters. This geotechnical investigation complies with the requirements of Chapter 18 of the CBSC. With mandatory compliance with these standards and site-specific design and construction measures, implementation of the Project would not directly or indirectly expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects, including loss, injury or death, involving seismic ground shaking. Impacts would be less than significant.

3. Seismic-Related Ground Failure
The Project would be required to be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable seismic safety guidelines, including the standard requirements of the CBSC, as noted above. Furthermore, the Project would be required (via conditions of approval) to comply with the grading and construction recommendations contained within the geotechnical investigation for the Project Site to further reduce the risk of seismic-related ground failure due to liquefaction. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not directly or indirectly expose people or structures to substantial hazards associated with seismic-related ground failure and/or liquefaction hazards. Impacts would be less than significant.

4. Landslides
The Project Site is relatively flat, as is the immediately surrounding area. The Project Site slopes gently to the south-southeast at a gradient of less than 1 percent. There is no evidence of historical landslides or rockfalls on the Project Site (CGS, 2021). The Project includes retaining walls, which would be constructed in accordance with the site-specific recommendations contained within the geotechnical report to ensure their structural soundness. The City would condition the Project to comply with the site-specific design and engineering recommendations contained within the geotechnical investigation to ensure these measures are implemented. Mandatory compliance with the recommendations contained within the Project Site’s geotechnical report would ensure that the Project is engineered and constructed to maximize stability and preclude safety hazards to on-site and abutting off-site areas.

Accordingly, the Project would not be exposed to substantial landslide risks, and implementation of the Project would not pose a substantial direct or indirect landslide risk to surrounding properties.

Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.5-8 – 4.5-9)

3.7.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed Section 4.5.4 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required. 3575
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 28  Substantial Evidence

1. Construction
Development of the Project would result in the demolition of all structures on-site, and grading and construction activities would occur that would expose and disturb soils that are currently covered by impervious surfaces. Disturbed soils would be subject to potential erosion during rainfall events or high winds due to the removal of stabilizing vegetation and building materials (e.g., existing concrete foundations) and exposure of these erodible materials to wind and water.

Pursuant to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board, the Project Applicant would be required to obtain coverage under the State’s General Construction Storm Water Permit for construction activities (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [NPDES] permit). The NPDES permit is required for all development projects that include construction activities, such as clearing, grading, and/or excavation, that disturb at least 1 acre of total land area. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (RWQCB’s) Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program. Compliance with the NPDES permit and the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program involves the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction-related activities. The SWPPP will specify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that the Project Applicant will be required to implement during construction activities to ensure that waterborne pollution – including erosion/sedimentation – is prevented, minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately treated prior to surface runoff being discharged from the subject property. Examples of Best Management Practices (BMPs) that may be utilized during construction include, but are not limited to, sandbag barriers, geotextiles, storm drain inlet protection, sediment traps, rip rap soil stabilizers, and hydroseeding. Mandatory compliance with the SWPPP would ensure that the Project’s implementation does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction activities.

Therefore, water quality impacts associated with construction activities would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required..

2. Operation
Upon Project build-out, the Project Site would be covered by buildings, landscaping, and impervious surfaces. Stormwater runoff from the Project Site would be captured, treated to reduce waterborne pollutants (including sediment), and conveyed off-site via an on-site storm drain system. The Project would be required to implement erosion control measures pursuant to Ontario Municipal Code Title 6, Chapter 12. During operation of the Project, the Project Applicant would be required to prepare and implement a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to demonstrate compliance with the City’s NPDES municipal stormwater permit, and to minimize the release of potential waterborne pollutants, including pollutants of concern for downstream receiving waters. The WQMP is a site specific postconstruction water quality management program designed to address the potential release of pollutants of concern for downstream receiving waters and other water pollutants through the use of BMPs.

Implementation of the WQMP ensures on-going, long-term protection of the watershed basin. The Preliminary WQMP for the Project was prepared by Westland and is included as Technical Appendix H2 to the DEIR. Because the Project Applicant would be required to utilize erosion and sediment control measures to preclude substantial, long-term soil erosion and loss of topsoil, Project operation 3576
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 29 would result in less-than-significant impacts related to soil erosion and sedimentation. (DEIR, pp. 4.5- 10 – 4.5-11)

3.7.3 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable because of the Project, and potentially result in on-site or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed Section 4.5.4 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The Project Site is relatively flat, as is the immediately surrounding area. The Project Site slopes gently to the south-southeast at a gradient of less than 1 percent. There is no evidence of historical landslides or rockfalls on the Project Site (CGS, 2021). As noted in the response to Threshold “a”, the Project includes retaining walls and manufactured slopes that would be engineered for structural soundness and constructed in accordance with the site-specific recommendations contained within the geotechnical investigation for the Project. Accordingly, the Project would result in less than significant impacts associated with landslide hazards.

Southern California Geotechnical indicated that there is a low potential for subsidence to affect the Project Site. Removal and recompaction of the near-surface existing soils is estimated to result in an average shrinkage of 5 to 15 percent. Minor ground subsidence is expected to occur in the soils below the zone of removal, due to settlement and machinery working. The subsidence is estimated to be 0.15 feet. The City will condition the Project to comply with the Site-specific ground preparation and construction recommendations contained in the Project’s geotechnical report. Based on the foregoing, potential impacts related to soil shrinkage/subsidence and collapse would be less than significant.

Southern California Geotechnical indicated that there is a low potential for lateral spreading to affect the Project Site. Lateral spreading is primarily associated with liquefaction hazards. As noted above under the discussion of Threshold “a,” the Project Site is not susceptible to liquefaction. Accordingly, impacts associated with lateral spreading would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.5-11)

3.7.4 THRESHOLD D
Impact Statement: The Project would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property. 3577
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 30  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed Section 4.5.4 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold d; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The near-surface soils consist of sands and silty sands with no appreciable clay content. These materials have been visually classified as non-expansive. Therefore, no design considerations related to expansive soils are considered warranted for this Site. (SoCal Geotechnical, 2022a, p. 13) Accordingly, the Project Site does not contain expansive soils and as such, would not create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property associated with the presence of expansive soils. No impacts would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.5-11)

3.7.5 THRESHOLD E
Impact Statement: The Project would not propose the use of septic tanks.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold e are discussed Section 4.5.4 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold e; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The Project would connect to an existing sewer line installed beneath Airport Drive. The existing onsite septic systems would be removed and there would be no continued use of Project-site related septic systems upon implementation of the proposed Project. The Project would not utilize septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems. No impact related to the use of alternative waste water systems would thus occur. (DEIR, p. 4.5-12)

3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

3.8.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.6.4 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required. 3578
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 31  Substantial Evidence
As previously stated, Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) prepared for The Ontario Plan 2050 identifies that the measures included in the 2022 update to the Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP) are not substantially different than that of the 2014 CCAP and therefore there is no change in the environmental impacts associated with the CCAP. As such, and consistent with the 2014 CCAP, this analysis relies on the annual screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr to define small projects that are considered less than significant and do not require further GHG emissions calculations or analysis.

Projects that do not exceed an annual 3,000 MTCO2e/yr are therefore considered less than significant and would not require further analysis or mitigation. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 51) The annual GHG emissions associated with the operation of the proposed Project are summarized in Table 4.6-3, Project GHG Emissions, of the DEIR. As shown, 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 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, Project-related GHG emissions are considered less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.6-22 – 4.5-23)

3.8.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.6.4 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The Project’s consistency with the City’s CCAP, Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and Senate Bill (SB) 32 are discussed below. It should be noted that the Project’s consistency with the SB 32 (2017 Scoping Plan) also satisfies consistency with AB 32 since the 2017 Scoping Plan is based on the overall targets established by AB 32. Consistency with the 2008 Scoping Plan is not necessary, since the target year for the 2008 Scoping Plan was 2020, and the Project’s buildout year is 2024. As such the 2008 Scoping Plan does not apply and consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan is relevant. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 59)
Since the Project does not exceed the established annual screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr, the Project is considered less than significant, does not require further GHG emissions calculations or analysis, and is presumed to be consistent with the City’s CCAP. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 59) 3579
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 32 In April 2015, Governor Brown signed EO B-30-15, which advocated for a statewide GHG-reduction target of 40 percent below year 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. In September 2016, Governor Brown signed the SB 32. SB 32 formally established a statewide goal to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below year 1990 levels by 2030. To date, no statues or regulations have been adopted to translate the year 2050 GHG reduction goal into comparable, scientifically-based statewide emission reduction targets.

CARB prepared the 2017 Scoping Plan Update to identify the measures that would achieve the emissions reduction goals of SB 32 (and, thus, also would achieve the emissions reductions goals of AB 32). Research conducted by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory confirmed that California, under its existing GHG reduction policy framework (i.e., Scoping Plan Update), is on track to meet the year 2030 reduction targets established by the SB 32 (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 37). As explained in point-by-point detail in Table 4-7 of the Project’s GHG Analysis (Refer to Technical Appendix F of the DEIR), the Project would not conflict with applicable measures of the 2017 Scoping Plan Update and, therefore, would not interfere with the State’s ability to achieve the year GHG-reduction targets established by AB 32 and SB32. Further, recent studies show that the State’s existing and proposed regulatory framework will allow the State to reduce its GHG emissions level to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 59-64)
In relation to CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan, the Project would not impede the State’s progress towards carbon neutrality by 2045 under the 2022 Scoping Plan. The Project would be required to comply with applicable current and future regulatory requirements promulgated through the 2022 Scoping Plan.

Some of the current transportation sector policies that the Project would comply with (through vehicle manufacturer compliance) include: Advanced Clean Cars II, Advanced Clean Trucks, Advanced Clean Fleets, Zero Emission Forklifts, the Off-Road Zero-Emission Targeted Manufacturer rule, Clean Off Road Fleet Recognition Program, In-use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation, Off-Road Zero Emission Targeted Manufacturer rule, Clean Off-Road Fleet Recognition Program, Amendments to the In-use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation, carbon pricing through the Cap-and-Trade Program, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Further, the Project would be required to comply with applicable elements outlined in the City’s CAP. As such, the Project would not be inconsistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan.

As described on the preceding pages, implementation of the Project would not conflict with the State’s ability to achieve the State-wide GHG reduction mandates and would be consistent with applicable policies and plans related to GHG emissions reductions. Implementation of the Project would not actively interfere with any future federally-, State-, or locally-mandated retrofit obligations (such as requirements to use new technologies such as diesel particulate filters, emissions upgrades to a higher tier equipment, etc.) enacted or promulgated to legally require development projects to assist in meeting State-adopted GHG emissions reduction targets, including those established under Executive Order (EO) S-3- 05, EO B-30-15, or SB 32. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs and would result in a less-than significant impact. (DEIR, pp. 4.6-23 – 4.5-24) 3580
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 33

3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

3.9.1 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in detail in Section 4.7.5 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The Project Site is not within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The nearest school to the Project Site is the Chaparral Elementary School, which is located approximately 2.23 miles southeast of the Project Site. Accordingly, the Project has no potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, and/or wastes within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. No impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.7-16)

3.9.2 THRESHOLD D
Impact Statement: The Project site would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in detail in Section 4.7.5 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in impacts related to Threshold d; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
Government Code Section 65962.5 requires State Department of Health Services (DTSC), State Water Resources Control Board, and the State Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery to maintain a list of hazardous materials sites that fall within specific, defined categories. As discussed in Subsection 4.7.1A.2, current and previous uses of the Project Site are included in several listings. No violations indicating a spill or a release were identified in the listings. Therefore, theses listings are not considered to represent a significant environmental concern. Additionally, Farallon searched the GeoTracker database and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control online EnviroStor database (EnviroStor database) for records related to the Site, but found no listings.

Two facilities (Costco Distribution Center to the south and Praxair, Inc. to the east) in the Project’s vicinity were also recorded in several listings. However, based on the status, depth to groundwater, and location of the property at a cross-gradient direction from the Project Site, no evidence was found 3581
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 34 to indicate that these properties represent a recognized environmental condition in connection with the Project Site. (Farallon, 2022, pp. 6-2 to 6-3) Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.7-16)

3.9.3 THRESHOLD E
Impact Statement: The Project site is not within two miles of an airport and the Project site is not identified as within an airport influence area.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold e are discussed in detail in Section 4.7.5 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in impacts related to Threshold e; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The Project Site is located approximately 2.7 miles east of the Ontario International Airport (ONT).

According to the Ontario International Airport (ONT) Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), the Project Site is located within the ONT Airport Influence Area (Ontario, 2011). Moreover, the Project Site is located outside the 65 community noise equivalent level (CNEL) noise impact zone and is subject to the Noise Criteria established on Table 2-3 in the ONT ALUCP. 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 CNEL. Therefore, the Project would not result in excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area.

Furthermore, the Project Site is not located in an ONT safety hazard zone (Ontario, 2011). Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not result in a safety hazard for people living or working on the Project area and impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.7-16 – 4.7-17)

3.9.4 THRESHOLD F
Impact Statement: The Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold f are discussed in detail in Section 4.7.5 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in impacts related to Threshold f; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The City's Safety Element includes policies and procedures to be administered in the event of a disaster.

The Ontario Plan seeks interdepartmental and interjurisdictional coordination and collaboration to be 3582
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 35 prepared for, respond to and recover from everyday and disaster emergencies. The City manages disaster preparedness through the Technical Services Bureau of the Ontario Fire Department. This bureau is responsible for the preparation of the community for disasters and the organization of recovery efforts. The City updated a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan prepared by the Office of Emergency Services of the Ontario Fire Department in 2018. Because the Project Site has been historically used for industrial uses, it is not identified in any of these plans as being an evacuation area.

Furthermore, construction of the Project would be generally confined to the Project Site and would not physically impair access to the Site or the Project area. During both construction and long-term operation, the Project would be required to maintain adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles as required by the City and the Ontario Fire Department. In addition, the Project will comply with the requirements of the Ontario Fire Department and all City requirements for fire and other emergency access. Because the Project is required to comply with all applicable City codes, impacts would be less than significant level. (DEIR, p. 4.7-17)

3.9.5 THRESHOLD G
Impact Statement: The Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold g are discussed in detail in Section 4.7.5 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in impacts related to Threshold g; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The Project Site is not located adjacent to wildlands nor is the Project Site located within or adjacent to a very high fire hazard severity zone (CAL FIRE, 2008). Accordingly, the Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. No impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.7-17)

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

3.10.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.8.4 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required. 3583
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 36  Substantial Evidence
The Project Applicant would be required to comply with Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, which authorizes the NPDES permit program that covers point sources of pollution discharging to a water body. The NPDES program would require the Project Applicant and/or construction contractor to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and obtain authorization to discharge stormwater under a NPDES construction stormwater permit because the Project would result in construction on a site that is larger than 1 acre. The Project Applicant also would be required to comply with the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Section 13000 et seq., of the California Water Code), which requires that comprehensive water quality control plans be developed for all waters within the State of California. The Project Site is located within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB.

1. Construction-Related Water Quality Impacts
Construction of the Project would include demolition, site preparation and grading, building construction, paving, utility installation, and architectural coating and landscaping, which have the potential to generate silt, debris, organic waste, chemicals, paints, and other solvents; should these materials come into contact with water that reaches the groundwater table or flows off-site, the potential exists for the Project’s construction activities to adversely affect water quality. As such, short term water quality impacts have the potential to occur during Project construction in the absence of any protective or avoidance measures.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Santa Ana RWQCB and Ontario Municipal Code Title 6, Chapter 6, Article IV and V, the Project Applicant would be required to obtain coverage under the State’s General Construction Storm Water Permit for construction activities (NPDES permit). The NPDES permit is required for all development projects that include construction activities, such as clearing, grading, and/or excavation, that disturb at least one (1) acre of total land area. In addition, the Project Applicant would be required to comply with the Sana Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program. Compliance with the NPDES permit and the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program involves the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP for construction related activities. The SWPPP will specify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that the Project’s construction contractors would be required to implement during construction activities to ensure that potential pollutants of concern are prevented, minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately treated prior to being discharged from the subject property. Examples of BMPs that may be utilized during construction include, but are not limited to, sandbag barriers, geotextiles, storm drain inlet protection, sediment traps, rip rap soil stabilizers, and hydroseeding. Pursuant to Ontario Municipal Code Title 6, Chapter 12, the Project Applicant also would be required to implement erosion control measures to prevent soil erosion by wind. Mandatory compliance with the SWPPP and erosion control measures would ensure that the Project construction does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Therefore, water quality impacts associated with construction activities would be less than significant.
3584
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 37

2. Post-Development Water Quality Impact
The Project Applicant would be required to prepare and implement a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to demonstrate compliance with the City’s NPDES municipal stormwater permit, and to minimize the release of potential waterborne pollutants, including pollutants of concern for downstream receiving waters. The WQMP is a site-specific post-construction water quality management program designed to address the potential release of pollutants of concern for downstream receiving waters and other water pollutants through the use of BMPs. Implementation of the WQMP ensures on-going, long-term protection of the watershed basin. The preliminary WQMP for the Project was prepared by Westland and is included as Technical Appendix H2 to the DEIR. As identified in the WQMP, the Project is designed to include underground stormwater retention chambers, source control BMPs, and treatment control BMPs to minimize, prevent, and/or otherwise appropriately treat stormwater runoff flows for pollutants of concern before they are discharged into the municipal storm drain system (Westland, 2022b, pp. 4 to 6). Compliance with the preliminary WQMP would be required as a condition or Project approval pursuant to Ontario Municipal Code Title 6, Chapter 6, Article V, and long-term maintenance of on-site BMPs would be required to ensure their long-term effectiveness. Therefore, water quality impacts associated with long-term operational activities would be less than significant.

Additionally, pursuant to Ontario Municipal Code Title 6, Chapter 6, Article IV, all businesses that own or operate facilities described in 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(i)-(xi) are required to obtain coverage under the State's General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Associated with Industrial Activities, at least 14 days prior to the startup of business activities. All listed businesses are required to submit a completed Notice of Intent (NOI) form, site map and application fee to the SWRCB. The SWRCB also requires the listed businesses to prepare a SWPPP, retain a copy of the SWPPP on site and comply with all the requirements of the general permit. The Project would be required to prepare a SWPPP for operational activities and implement a long-term water quality sampling and monitoring program or receive an exemption. Because the permit is dependent upon a detailed accounting of all operational activities and procedures, and the Project’s building users and their operational characteristics are not known at this time, details of the operational SWPPP (including BMPs) or potential exemption to the SWPPP operational activities requirement cannot be determined with certainty at this time. However, based on the performance requirements of the NPDES Industrial General Permit, the Project’s mandatory compliance with all applicable water quality regulations would further reduce potential water quality impacts during long-term operation. Additionally, the Project would comply with the State Trash Amendments and the MS4 Permit by installing the appropriate Full Capture System or equivalent.

Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality during long term operation. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.8-10 – 4.8-11) 3585
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 38

3.10.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project would impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.8.4 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
Water service to the Project Site would be provided by the Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC). As depicted in Figure 3-7, Proposed Utility Plan, water would be accommodated via proposed water lines that would extend from the southeastern and southwestern corners of the building to an existing 12-inch water main at East Airport Drive. The Project Applicant does not propose the use of any wells or other groundwater extraction activities. Therefore, the Project would not directly draw water from the groundwater table. Implementation of the Project has no potential to substantially deplete or decrease groundwater supplies and the Project’s impact to groundwater supplies would be less than significant. Development of the Project would slightly increase impervious surface coverage on the Project Site, which would, in turn, slightly reduce the amount of water percolating down into the underground aquifer that underlies the Project Site and a majority of the City and surrounding areas (i.e., Chino Groundwater Basin). Percolation is just one of several sources of groundwater recharge for the Subbasin. A majority of the groundwater recharge in the Chino Groundwater Basin occurs within percolation basins (“recharge basins”) that are located in the northern and western portions of the Basin (CBWM, 2021, Exhibit 3-5). The Project Site is located in the central portion of the Chino Groundwater Basin and would not physically impact any of the major groundwater recharge facilities in the Basin. Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial, adverse effects to local groundwater levels. Additionally, the Project includes design features that would maximize the percolation of onsite stormwater runoff into the groundwater basin, such as underground infiltration chambers and permeable landscape areas. Accordingly, buildout of the Project with these design features would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge or impede sustainable groundwater management of the Chino Groundwater Basin. Based on the foregoing information, the Project would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. For the reasons stated above, the Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project would impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.8-11 – 4.8-12)

3.10.3 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding 3586
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 39 on- or offsite; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or impede or redirect flood flows.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in detail in Section 4.8.4 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The proposed Project entails redevelopment of the Project Site with one warehouse building supported by drive aisles and parking areas for passenger vehicles and trailers. Docking areas are located south facing façade of the proposed building. Landscape areas are proposed around the perimeter of the Site.

The proposed development would consist of approximately 89% of impervious areas.

The proposed development would maintain the same drainage pattern as the existing condition.

Stormwater is designed to sheet flow from north to south and be captured by proposed onsite catch basins. The proposed on-site storm drain system is designed to convey the flow into a proposed underground infiltration chamber. This system is designed to meet project’s water quality requirements and provide sufficient storage to meet the 100-year storm hydrology requirement. In a large storm event, stormwater would exit the underground chamber system via pipes and be pumped out through a proposed parkway drain on Airport Drive. Runoff would sheet flow east along Airport Drive and discharge into the existing catch basin to maintain the same point of discharge as the existing condition. (Westland, 2022a, p. 2) See Figure 4.8-1, Proposed Post-Development Hydrology Map, for the post development drainage map.

The following analysis evaluates the potential for Project-related development activities to adversely affect water quality or cause or exacerbate local flooding.

A. Erosion and Siltation
The Project would not alter the existing drainage pattern. Pursuant to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board, the Project Applicant would be required to obtain coverage under the State’s General Construction Storm Water Permit for construction activities (NPDES permit). The NPDES permit is required for all development projects, including the Project, that include construction activities, such as clearing, grading, and/or excavation, that disturb at least 1 acre of total land area. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program. Compliance with the NPDES permit and the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program involves the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP for construction-related activities. The SWPPP will specify the BMPs that would be required to be implemented during construction activities to ensure that waterborne pollution – including erosion/siltation – is prevented, minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately treated prior to surface runoff being discharged from the subject property. Examples of BMPs that may be utilized during construction include, but are not limited to, sandbag barriers, geotextiles, storm drain inlet protection, 3587
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 40 sediment traps, rip rap soil stabilizers, and hydro-seeding. Lastly, the Project would be required to implement erosion control measures pursuant to Ontario Municipal Code Title 6, Chapter 12, and to ensure compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403. Mandatory compliance with the SWPPP and the Cityrequired erosion control measures would ensure that the Project’s implementation does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction activities. Based on the foregoing information, erosion and sedimentation impacts associated with Project construction activities would be less than significant.

During operation of the Project, the Project Applicant would be required to prepare and implement a WQMP to demonstrate compliance with the City’s NPDES municipal stormwater permit, and to minimize the release of potential waterborne pollutants, including pollutants of concern for downstream receiving waters. The WQMP is a site-specific post-construction water quality management program designed to address the potential release of pollutants of concern for downstream receiving waters and other water pollutants through the use of BMPs. Implementation of the WQMP ensures on-going, long-term protection of the watershed basin. The PWQMP for the Project was prepared by Westland and is included as Technical Appendix H2 to the DEIR. Because the Project Applicant would be required to utilize erosion and sediment control measures to preclude substantial, long-term soil erosion and loss of topsoil, Project operation would result in less-than-significant impacts related to soil erosion and sedimentation.

B. Stormwater Runoff Discharge
Based on the 100-year rational method analysis presented in Table 4.8-1, Pre-Development Hydrology Summary Table, and Table 4.8-2, Post-Development Hydrology Summary Table, the post-development flow rate within the disturbed area decreased compared to the pre-development flow rate. Furthermore, the post- development runoff volume decreased compared to the pre-development runoff volume. The decrease in flow rate and runoff volume was a result from a decrease in impervious areas.

The proposed Project would not create or contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of the existing downstream storm drain system. At buildout, the Project would discharge approximately 35.24 cubic feet per second (cfs) to the existing storm drain system, which is an approximately 7 percent decrease relative to existing conditions. Furthermore, the underground infiltration system is designed to accommodate the 100-year storm event and would not exceed the flow rates and runoff volumes generated by the existing condition. Once construction is complete, there would not be any substantial increase in flood boundaries, levels, or frequencies in any areas outside the development. (Westland, 2022a, p. 4)
Based on the foregoing information, the Project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site. Impacts would be less than significant.

C. Stormwater Drainage System Capacity & Polluted Runoff As described above, buildout of the Project would reduce the cfs of runoff discharged into the existing municipal storm drain system during peak storm events relative to existing conditions. Accordingly, 3588
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 41 the Project would not create or contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of any existing storm water drainage system, and impacts would be less than significant.

As discussed in the response to Threshold “a” and this Threshold (refer to sub-item “A”), the Project’s construction contractors would be required to comply with a SWPPP and the Project’s owner or operator would be required to comply with the WQMP to ensure that Project-related construction activities and operational activities do not result in substantial amounts of polluted runoff.

Additionally, the Project would comply with the State Trash Amendments and the MS4 Permit by installing the appropriate Full Capture System or equivalent. The Project would not result in substantial additional sources of polluted runoff and impacts would be less than significant.

D. Flood Flows
The Project Site is not located within a special flood hazard area (FEMA, 2016). Accordingly, the Project Site is not expected to be inundated by flood flows during the lifetime of the Project and the Project would not impede flood flows. No impact would occur. (DEIR, pp. 4.8-12 – 4.8-16)

3.10.4 THRESHOLD D
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in detail in Section 4.8.4 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in impacts related to Threshold d; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The Project Site is located approximately 38 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean; consequently, there is no potential for the Project Site to be impacted by a tsunamis as tsunamis typically only reach up to a few miles inland. The Project Site also is not subject to flooding hazards associated with a seiche because the nearest body of water is the San Antonio Dam, approximately 10 miles to the north of the Project Site, which is too far away from the subject property to impact the property with a seiche (Google Earth, 2021). According to The Ontario Plan 2050 EIR, the Project Site is not located within the potential inundation from San Antonio Dam; however, the Project Site is adjacent to an area with potential inundation from debris basins (Ontario, 2022a, Figure 5.10-3). The probability of dam failure is very low, and Ontario has never been impacted by a major dam failure. In addition, dam owners are required to maintain emergency action plans that include procedures for damage assessment and emergency warnings. (Ontario, 2022a, p. 5.10-26) Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.8-16)

3.10.5 THRESHOLD E
Impact Statement: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. 3589
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 42  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold e are discussed in detail in Section 4.8.6 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold e; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
As discussed under Threshold “a” above, the Project Site is located within the Santa Ana River Basin and Project-related construction and operational activities would be required to comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan by preparing and adhering to a SWPPP and WQMP. As also discussed in Threshold “a” above, implementation of the Project would not conflict with or obstruct the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan and impacts would be less than significant.

The Project Site is located within the Chino Groundwater Basin, which is an adjudicated groundwater basin. Adjudicated basins, like the Chino Groundwater Basin, are exempt from the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) because such basins already operate under a court-ordered management plan to ensure the long-term sustainability of the basin. No component of the Project would obstruct with or prevent implementation of the management plan for the Chino Groundwater Basin. As such, the Project’s construction and operation would not conflict with any sustainable groundwater management plan. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.8-17)

3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING

3.11.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not physically divide an established community.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 5.4.3 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The Project Site is located in an area that is currently developed with urban land uses. Existing industrial development borders the Site to the south, west, and east; the BNSF railroad track borders the Site to the north. The Project Applicant would redevelop the Site with another industrial use with associated parking and landscaping improvements. The Project will be of similar design and size to surrounding development. The Project would not have the potential to physically divide an established community. No adverse impacts are anticipated.. (DEIR, p. 5-5-7) 3590
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 43

3.11.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 5.4.3 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The Project Site is designated for Industrial by the City’s Policy Plan and the Heavy Industrial zoning district. The Project Applicant would redevelop the Project Site in accordance with the underlying land use designation and applicable zoning ordinance development standards. No change to the existing land use designation or zoning is required or proposed by the Project. The Project is consistent with the Policy Plan and does not interfere with any policies for environmental protection. As such, no impacts are anticipated. (DEIR, p. 5-5-7)

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES

3.12.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region and residents of the state.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed Section 5.4.4 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The Project Site is located within a mostly developed area surrounded by urban land uses. As shown in Figure 5.12-1 of The Ontario Plan 2050 Final Supplemental EIR, the Project Site is designated as Mineral Resource Zone MRZ-3 (Ontario, 2022b). Areas designated by the State of California Geologist as MRZ-3 include land that the significance of mineral deposits cannot be determined from the available data. According to the Policy Plan, there are no permitted mining operations in the City.

Significant mineral resources within Ontario are limited to construction aggregate. These areas have been developed with urban uses and are not suitable for mineral resource extraction (Ontario, 2022a).

There are no known mineral resources in the area. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. (DEIR, p. 5- 5-7)
3591
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 44

3.12.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on any land use plan.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed Section 5.4.4 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
As discussed in threshold a above, there are no known mineral resources in the area. The Project would not result in the loss of availability of locally-important mineral resources. No impacts are anticipated. (DEIR, p. 5-5-8)

3.13 NOISE

3.13.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project will not generate substantial increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.9.6 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The analysis presented on the following pages summarizes the Project’s potential construction noise levels and operational noise levels, including operational noise that would be generated on-site as well as off-site noise that would be generated by Project-related traffic. The detailed noise calculations for the analysis presented here are provided in Appendices 7.1 and 8.1 of the Project’s noise impact analysis (see Technical Appendix I).

A. Construction Noise Impact Analysis
Construction activities on the Project Site would proceed in 6 stages: 1) demolition; 2) site preparation; 3) grading; 4) building construction; 5) paving, and 6) application of architectural coatings. These activities would create temporary periods of noise when heavy construction equipment (i.e. trucks, concrete mixer, portable generators, power tools) is in operation and would cause a short-term increase in ambient noise levels. The Project construction noise levels at nearby receiver locations are summarized in Table 4.9-5, Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary. 3592
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 45 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 in Table 4.9-5. Additionally, Project-related construction activities are expected to occur on weekdays (and, potentially, on Saturdays) during the hours when the City’s Municipal Code does not restrict construction noise (i.e., between the hours 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on any weekday or between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m on Saturday or Sunday). Accordingly, construction noise impacts would be less than significant.

If the Project’s construction requires concrete pouring during nighttime hours, the resulting noise levels are summarized in Table 4.9-6, Nighttime Concrete Pouring Noise Level Summary. At all receiver locations, the Project’s nighttime concrete pouring noise levels would not exceed the standards established by the City and impacts would be less than significant B. Operational Noise Impact Analysis – Stationary Noise Stationary (on-site) noise sources associated with long-term Project operation are expected to include idling trucks, delivery truck and automobile parking, delivery truck backup alarms, roof-top air conditioning units, loading and unloading of dry goods, and parking lot vehicle movements. The Project also is expected to generate noise during the loading and unloading of delivery trailers on-site.

The daytime and nighttime Project stationary noise levels at nearby sensitive receptor locations are summarized Table 4.9-7, Daytime Project Operational Noise Levels, and Table 4.9-8, Nighttime Project Operational Noise Levels. Table 4.9-7, Daytime Project Operational Noise Levels, 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 4.9-8, Nighttime Project Operational Noise Levels, 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 daytime and nighttime Project stationary noise levels at nearby receiver locations are summarized in Table 4.9-9, Project Operational Noise Summary – Stationary Noise. As shown, Project stationary noise would not expose nearby receivers to unacceptable daytime or nighttime noise levels during Project operations following Project buildout. Accordingly, Project operation would not result in the exposure of receivers near the Project Site to stationary noise levels that exceed the exterior noise level standards established in the City.

Impacts would be less than significant.

Noise levels that would be experienced at receiver locations when unmitigated Project-source noise is added to the ambient daytime, evening, and nighttime conditions are presented on Table 4.9-10, Project Operational Noise Level Contributions – Daytime and Table 4.9-11, Project Operational Noise Level Contributions – Nighttime. As shown, the Project-related operational noise level increases will satisfy the operational noise level increase criteria at the nearest sensitive receiver locations. On this basis, although the Project would increase noise level in the Project vicinity, Project operational stationary source noise would not result in a substantial temporary/periodic, or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. Noise impacts associated with long-term on-site operations would be less than significant. 3593
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 46 C. Off-Site Transportation Noise Impact 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. (DEIR, pp. 4.9-16 – 4.9-21)

3.13.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project will not generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.9.6 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
Construction Analysis: Construction activities on the Project Site would utilize equipment that has the potential to generate vibration. Vibration levels at sensitive receptors near the Project Site during Project construction are summarized on Table 4.9-12, Construction Equipment Vibration Levels. As shown, none of the receiver locations in the vicinity of the Project Site would be exposed to vibration levels that exceed the applicable significance threshold. Accordingly, Project construction would not generate excessive or substantial temporary groundborne vibration or noise levels and a less-thansignificant impact would occur.

Operational Analysis: Under long-term conditions, the Project would not include or require equipment or activities that would result in perceptible groundborne vibration beyond the Project Site. Trucks would travel to and from the Project Site along local roadways; however, vibration levels for heavy trucks operating at the posted speed limits on paved surfaces are not perceptible beyond the roadway.

The Project would not result in the exposure of persons to excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels during long-term operation. (DEIR, pp. 4.10-21 – 4.10-22)

3.13.3 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project is not located within vicinity of a private airstrip or airport land use plan, or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. 3594
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 47  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in detail in Section 4.10.6 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The Project Site is located approximately 2.7 miles east of ONT. The Project Site is located within the ONT Airport Influence Area but is located outside the 65 dBA CNEL airport noise impact zone.

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 CNEL.

Accordingly, the Project would be a compatible use within the ONT Noise Impact Zone and operation of the Project would not expose people working on the Project Site to excessive noise levels. The Project’s impact would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.9-22)

3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING

3.14.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed Section 5.4.5 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The Project would result in the development of approximately 270,337 s.f. warehouse facility, replacing an existing grain processing and corn storage and distribution facility. According to Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) Employment Density Study, the Project would generate approximately 226 employees (Urban Crossroads, 2022f). According to the California Employment Development Department (EDD), as of June 2022, the City of Ontario has a labor force of 92,300 persons and of that labor force, 3,200 are unemployed (unemployment rate of 3.5 percent) (EDD, 2022). According to SCAG’s 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, the City of Ontario is anticipated to employ approximately 169,300 persons by 2045 (SCAG, 2020b). As discussed above, TOP 2050 projected a total of 296,002 jobs in 2050.

Therefore, the Project is consistent with the SCAG’s 2045 and the TOP 2050 employment projections for the City. Project-generated jobs are well within the employment projections for the City of Ontario.

Operation of the Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the Project area, either directly or indirectly and would not exceed regional or local growth projections. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. (DEIR, p. 5-5-8)
3595
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 48

3.14.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed Section 5.4.5 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The Project Site does not contain any housing and there are no people living at the Project Site that would be displaced by the Project. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. (DEIR, p. 5-5-8)

3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES

3.15.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of public services.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed Section 5.4.6 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
A. Fire Protection
Fire protection services are provided by the Ontario Fire Department (OFD). OFD serves these residents from 10 strategically located fire stations, including the Ontario International Airport fire station, with a daily staffing level of 59 sworn firefighters. These fire stations house nine 4-person paramedic engine companies, three 4-person truck companies, an 8-person Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) station, 1 fire investigation supervisor, and 2 battalion chiefs (Ontario, 2022c). The closest fire station to the Project Site is Station 7, located at 4901 Vanderbilt Street, approximately 1.3 miles to the southwest of the Project Site. The proposed building would be in accordance with the applicable provisions of the adopted California Fire Code (CFC) and the City’s Municipal Code Section 4-4.01, ordinances, and standard conditions regarding fire prevention and suppression measures related to water improvement plans, fire hydrants, fire access, and water availability. The Project Site is in a developed area currently served by OFD. The Project will not require the construction of any new fire protection facilities or alteration of any existing fire protection facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new fire protection 3596
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 49 facilities. Development impact fees (DIF) would also be collected in order to build and supply necessary infrastructure for fire protection services, as necessary. No impacts are anticipated.

B. Police Protection
Police protection services are provided by the Ontario Police Department (OPD). OPD’s headquarters is located at 2500 S. Archibald Avenue, approximately 4.16 miles to the southwest of the Project Site.

The Project Site is in a developed area, currently served by OPD. The Project will not require the construction of any new police protection facilities or alteration of any existing police protection facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new police protection facilities. DIF would also be collected in order to build and supply necessary infrastructure for police protection services, as necessary. No impacts are anticipated.

C. Schools
The Project is located within the attendance boundaries of the Cucamonga Elementary School District and Chaffey Joint Union High School District. The Project Applicant proposes to demolish the existing grain processing and corn storage and distribution facility and redevelop the Site with a single industrial building. Implementation of the Project does not have the potential to result in substantial direct growth in the population, nor an increase in student population. The Project would be required to pay school fees as prescribed by state law prior to the issuance of building permits. No impacts are anticipated.

D. Parks
The City of Ontario Recreation & Community Services Department operates and manages parks and park programs for the City. The Project would not introduce new residents to the City necessitating the need for additional parks. The Project will not require the construction of any new parks or alteration of any existing parks or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new park facilities. No impacts are anticipated.

E. Other Public Facilities
The Project would not introduce new residents to the City necessitating the need for additional public facilities. The Project will not require the construction of any new public facilities or alteration of any existing public facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new public facilities. No impacts are anticipated. (DEIR, pp. 5-5-9 – 5-5-10)

3.16 RECREATION

3.16.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.
3597
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 50  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed Section 5.4.7 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The Project is not proposing any significant new housing or large employment generator that would cause an increase in the use of neighborhood parks or other recreational facilities. No impacts are anticipated. (DEIR, p. 5-5-10)

3.16.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed Section 5.4.7 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The Project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Implementation of the Project would not result in any adverse physical effects on the environment due to the construction of recreational facilities. No impacts are anticipated. (DEIR, p. 5-5-10)

3.17 TRANSPORTATION

3.17.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.10.4 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
This response provides an analysis of a project’s potential to conflict with plans, programs, ordinances, or policies that address the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. A project that generally conforms with, and does not obstruct, applicable development plans, programs, ordinances, and policies is considered to be consistent. The transportation plans, policies, 3598
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 51 programs, ordinances, and standards that are relevant to the Project are identified in the analysis below.

For context, the Project is expected to generate approximately 160 more vehicle trips than are being generated by the uses at the Project Site under existing conditions. (Urban Crossroads, 2023a.) 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) for the proposed Project’s land uses was utilized. As shown in Table 4.10-2, Project Trip Generation, 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. Taking into consideration that the existing structures proposed for demolition generate 316 daily trips (see Table 4.10-1), the net number of new trips that would be generated by the Project is 160 trips with 12 AM peak hour trips and 44 PM peak hour trips above the trips generated by existing uses. The comparison is shown below in Table 4.10-3, Project Net New Daily Trips.

Connect SoCal: The fundamental goals of SCAG’s Connect SoCal are to make the SCAG region a better place to live, work, and play for all residents regardless of race, ethnicity, or income class. As shown in Table 4.10- 4, SCAG’s Connect SoCal Goal Consistency Analysis, the Project would not conflict with any applicable goals and policies of SCAG’s regional planning program. As such, Project impacts would be less than significant.

City of Ontario Policy Plan: As demonstrated in Table 4.10-5, Mobility Element Policy Consistency Analysis, the Project would not conflict with the City’s Mobility Element, and impacts associated with conflict of an applicable program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp.

4.10-5 – 4.10.11)

3.17.2 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in detail in Section 4.10.4 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The Project’s potential to increase hazards as a result of a geometric design feature has been assessed to provide adequate truck access/circulation. The Project’s circulation plan is designed to be compatible with all foreseeable vehicles. Vehicular access would be provided via two driveways that would connect with East Airport Drive. Both driveways would include enhanced decorative paving and would provide inbound/outbound access for passenger vehicles and trucks. The driveways are designed as 40 feet wide to accommodate the wide turning radius of the heavy trucks. The types of traffic generated during operation of the Project (i.e., passenger cars and trucks) would be compatible with the type of traffic generated by surrounding development. All proposed improvements within the 3599
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 52 public right-of-way would be installed in conformance with City design standards. If any component of Project construction would occur in the public right-of-way and require the partial or full closure of a sidewalk and/or travel lane, all work would be required to adhere to the applicable construction control practices that are specified in the State of California Department of Transportation Construction Manual and the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, to minimize potential safety hazards. The City of Ontario Engineering Department reviewed the Project’s application materials and determined that no hazardous transportation design features would be introduced within the City public right-of-way through implementation of the Project. At the time of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plans, the City will review project access points to ensure adequate sight distance. Based on the foregoing information, the Project’s construction and operation would not create or substantially increase safety hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use and impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.10-14)

3.17.3 THRESHOLD D
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in inadequate emergency access.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in detail in Section 4.11.6 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold d; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The Project is designed to provide access for all emergency vehicles and meet all applicable City of Ontario Fire and Police Department access requirements to ensure that adequate access would be provided for emergency vehicles at Project build out. During construction activities that include road and sidewalk improvements, the Project would provide adequate emergency access along abutting roadways during temporary construction activities within the public right-of-way. Any Project construction activities that would occur within the East Airport Drive public right-of-way and requires a partial or full closure of a sidewalk or vehicle travel lane would require a traffic control plan that complies with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and that must be approved by the City of Ontario to ensure that emergency response is not adversely affected. As a result, the Project would not a less than significant impact to emergency access. (DEIR, pp. 4.10-14 – 4.10-15)

3.18 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

3.18.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
3600
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 53  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.12.4 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
A. Water and Wastewater
The Project would include the installation of water lines within the Project Site. Water would be accommodated via proposed water lines that would extend from the southeastern and southwestern corners of the building to an existing 12-inch water main at East Airport Drive. Additionally, recycled water to the Project Site would be provided via a proposed 8-inch recycled water main along East Airport Drive. The proposed 8-inch recycled water main would extend from the west of South Wineville Avenue to the eastern boundary of the Project Site and connect to the existing 24-inch recycled water main. Sanitary sewer service to the Project Site would be provided by OMUC’s sanitary sewer wastewater collection system and conveyed to the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) for wastewater treatment. Sewer would be accommodated via proposed 6-inch sewer line that would extend from the southwestern corners of the building to a proposed 8-inch OMUC sewer main on East Airport Drive. There is an existing 8-inch OMUC sewer main on East Airport Drive that ends approximately at the western boundary of the Project Site where the proposed 8-inch sewer main would connect to. Although the Project would result in new water and wastewater line connections, these connections would be part of the Project’s construction phase, which is evaluated throughout the DEIR.

The construction of the Project’s water and wastewater lines necessary to serve the Project would not result in any significant physical effects on the environment that are not already identified and disclosed as part of the DEIR. Impacts would be less than significant.

B. Stormwater Drainage
Stormwater will sheet flow from north to south and will be captured by proposed on-site catch basins.

The proposed on-site storm drain system will convey the flow into a proposed underground infiltration chamber. In a large storm event, stormwater will exit the underground chamber system via pipes and will be pumped out through a proposed parkway drain on Airport Drive. Runoff will sheet flow east along Airport Drive and discharge into the existing catch basin, located approximately 1,500 feet east of the Project Site, to maintain the same point of discharge as the existing condition.

Refer to the analysis under Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, Threshold c.ii. As discussed, stormwater runoff would be treated on-site and would not require relocation or construction of new or expanded storm water drainage infrastructure which could cause significant environmental effects.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

C. Dry Utilities
Electricity will be provided by SCE. All new dry utility infrastructure would be installed underground and within the Project Site. Connections to the existing utility networks are available in the Project area and any offsite improvements would occur within improved rights-of-way, which are inherent to 3601
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 54 the Project’s construction phase and have been evaluated throughout the DEIR. Because the Project Site has been previously developed with industrial uses that requires electric power and telecommunication services, implementation of the Project is not anticipated to limit the ability of service providers to provide service to Project. Therefore, the Project would not require or result in the construction or expansion of new facilities, and impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp.

4.12-9 – 4.12-10)

3.18.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.12.4 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
OMUC is responsible for supplying potable water to the Project Site. The OMUC’s 2020 UWMP includes an analysis of water supply reliability projected through 2045 under normal years, single dry year, and multiple dry years. OMUC’s total water demand for 2020 was approximately 32,109 AF (OMUC, 2021). OMUC’s forecasts for projected water demand based on the population projections of the Southern California Associations of Governments (SCAG), which rely on the adopted land use designations contained within the general plans that cover the geographic area within OMUC’s service.

Because the Project Applicant would redevelop the Site with a use permitted under the Heavy Industrial land use designation, the Project would be consistent with the City’s Policy Plan and, therefore, the water demand associated with the Project was considered in the demand anticipated by the 2020 UWMP and analyzed therein. As stated above, the City is anticipated to have adequate water supplies to meet all its demands until the year 2045 under a normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry years.

Therefore, the City has sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements/resources and no new or expanded entitlements are needed. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.12-10)

3.18.3 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in detail in Section 4.12.4 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required. 3602
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 55  Substantial Evidence
IEUA is responsible for supplying wastewater treatment services to the Project Site. There are four recycling plants (RPs) within the IEUA’s service area. Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 1 (RP-1) is located in the City of Ontario and has been in operation since 1948. According to IEUA’s 2020 UWMP, the current wastewater treatment capacity of RP-1 is 44 MGD, although it currently treats approximately 21 MGD. (IEUA, 2021) The Project Site is currently developed and served by septic tank systems. The Project Applicant would demolish the existing structures and redevelop the Site with an approximately 270,337 s.f. building. The Project is calculated to generate 28,776 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater (2,200 gpd/acre × 13.08 acres = 28,776 gpd). The wastewater generated by the Project would only represent approximately 0.13 percent of the excess treatment capacity of RP-1 ([28,776 gpd ÷ 23 million gpd] × 100 = 0.13 %); therefore, it is anticipated that RP-1 have sufficient treatment capacity to provide service to the Project. The associated increase in wastewater generation would have a negligible effect on the wastewater treatment provider. As such, the IEUA’s existing wastewater treatment facilities are anticipated to have adequate capacity to serve the Project’s project demand in addition to its existing commitments. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p.

4.12-11)

3.18.4 THRESHOLD D
Impact Statement: The Project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in detail in Section 4.12.4 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold d; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
Solid waste generated during the operation of the Project is anticipated to be collected by the City of Ontario and is anticipated to be hauled to either Badlands Sanitary Landfill or El Sobrante Landfill. As previously discussed, the Badlands Sanitary Landfill has a permitted disposal capacity of 4,800 tons per day with a remaining capacity of 15,748,799 cubic yards. The Badlands Sanitary Landfill is estimated to reach capacity, at the earliest time, in the year 2022 (CalRecycle, 2022a). The El Sobrante Landfill is permitted to received 16,054 tons of solid waste per day with a remaining capacity of 143,977,170 ton. The El Sobrante Landfill is estimated to reach capacity, at the earliest time, in the year 2051. (CalRecycle, 2022b; CalRecycle, 2022c) Based on the generation rate of 1.42 pounds per 100 s.f. per day, the proposed 270,337 s.f. building would result in approximately 3,838 pounds per day (1.91 tons per day). As previously stated, the Badlands Sanitary Landfill has a permitted disposal capacity of 4,800 tons per day and the El Sobrante Landfill has a permitted disposal capacity of 16,054 tons per day. The Project generated solid waste represents a nominal portion of the landfill’s capacity and would not contribute significantly to the daily landfill capacity, and the landfill facilities are sufficient. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.12-11) 3603
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 56

3.18.5 THRESHOLD E
Impact Statement: The Project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold e are discussed in detail in Section 4.12.4 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold e; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The following federal and state laws and regulations govern solid waste disposal:
 AB 939 (Chapter 1095, Statutes of 1989), the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 required each city, county, and regional agency to develop a source reduction and recycling element of an integrated waste management plan that contained specified components, including a source reduction component, a recycling component, and a composting component. With certain exceptions, the source reduction and recycling components were required to divert 50 percent of all solid waste from landfill disposal or transformation by January 1, 2000, through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities.
 AB 32 (Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006), the California Global Warming Solutions Act, established mandatory recycling as one of the measures to reduce GHG emissions adopted in the Scoping Plan by the California Air Resources Board.  AB 341 (Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011) requires that all “commercial” generators of solid waste (businesses, institutions, and multifamily dwellings) establish recycling and/or composting programs. AB 341 goes beyond AB 939 and establishes the new recycling goal of 75 percent by 2020.

The Project would implement the requirements of the City’s Integrated Waste Department's Refuse & Recycling Planning Manual on refuse and recycling storage and access for service, as well as addressing the City's recycling goals. The requirements of Chapter 3, Integrated Waste Management, of the Municipal Code will also be implemented to ensure that the Project complies with all applicable state and federal laws. Therefore, no impacts would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.12-12)

3.19 WILDFIRE

3.19.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
3604
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 57  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a is discussed Section 5.4.8 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The State Responsibility Area (SRA) is the land where the State of California is financially responsible for the preservation and suppression of wildfires. The SRA does not include lands within City boundaries or in federal ownership; therefore, the Project Site does not have the potential to be in an SRA. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s fire hazard map for the Local Responsibility Area (LRA), the Project Site is not within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CAL FIRE, 2008). The City updated the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan prepared by the Office of Emergency Management in 2018. The purpose of the Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) is to demonstrate the plan for reducing and/or eliminating risk in the City. The HMP process encourages communities to develop goals and projects that will reduce risk and build a more disaster resilient community by analyzing potential hazards. Construction of the Project would be generally confined to the Project Site and would not physically impair access to the Site or Project area. During both construction and longterm operation, the Project would be required to maintain adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles as required by the City and OFD. Because the Project is required to comply with all applicable City codes and is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), any emergency evacuation or emergency response plan impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Therefore, impacts are less than significant. (DEIR, p. 5-5-11)

3.19.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, the Project would not exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b is discussed Section 5.4.8 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
As demonstrated above, the Project Site is not in or near an SRA or LRA or lands classified as VHFHSZ. Implementation of the Project would not add wildland vegetation to the Project Site or change site topography (such as adding large slopes) so as to exacerbate wildfire spread. Adjacent areas to the Project Site are also urbanized; therefore, there are no wildlands adjacent to the Site that may expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire due to slope and prevailing winds. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. (DEIR, p. 5-5-11) 3605
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 58

3.19.3 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c is discussed Section 5.4.8 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The Project would not require the installation of infrastructure that would exacerbate fire risk. The Project would connect to the existing Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC) 12-inch water main on East Airport Drive. Sanitary sewer service to the Project Site would be provided by Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). Sewer would be accommodated via proposed 6-inch sewer line that would extend from the southwestern corners of the building to a proposed 8-inch sewer main on East Airport Drive. The proposed 8-inch sewer main would connect to an existing 8-inch sewer main on East Airport Drive that ends approximately at the western boundary of the Project Site. Although the Project would require the installation of utility infrastructure connection, the construction of these improvements is inherent to the Project’s construction phase and impacts associated with the Project construction phase are evaluated throughout the DEIR. In addition to the Project’s utility infrastructure, the Project would result in the installation of on-site fire hydrants, that are designed in accordance with the OFD standards. The internal waterlines are anticipated to supply sufficient fire flows and pressure to meet the demands required for on-site fire hydrants. Therefore, the proposed connections to existing infrastructure would not be anticipated to exacerbate fire risk on or off-site or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 5-5-12)

3.19.4 THRESHOLD D
Impact Statement: The Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d is discussed Section 5.4.8 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold d; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
As discussed above, the Project Site is not located within a landslide zone (DOC, 2021) or in a FEMA flood zone (FEMA, 2016). Regardless of the landslide susceptibility, the Project would be required by the California Building Code (CBC) and City’s Building Code to comply with the recommendations 3606
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 59 identified in the Project’s Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, which would ensure that the Project is engineered and constructed to maximize stability and preclude safety hazards to on-site areas. The implementation of the Project would not increase the risk of landslides after a wildfire compared to existing conditions. Impacts would be less than significant. Moreover, the Project would result in minor changes to the existing drainage patterns of the Project Site. However, such changes would not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding or result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The Project would replace the existing developed Site with a single industrial building and would not add wildland vegetation that would not readily transmit wildfire.

Therefore, the Project would reduce the risk of wildfire spread. In the event that wildfire occurs in the Project vicinity, the Project would not result in an increased risk of downslope or downstream flooding because it is within an area of minimal flooding and Project runoff would be adequately conveyed by the existing storm drain infrastructure. Therefore, the implementation of the Project would not increase the risk of downslope or downstream flooding. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 5-5- 12)
3607
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 60

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS-THANSIGNIFICANT

4.1 CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.1.1 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.3.4 of the DEIR. A potential exists for ground disturbing activities to unearth previously unknown archaeological resources and result in a potentially significant impact. The Project is required to comply with Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-1 through MM 4.3-3, which would reduce impacts to less than significant. The Planning Commission has determined that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
 Substantial Evidence
BFSA conducted a cultural resources record search of the Project Site and one-half mile radius around the Project Site. The results of this records search indicate that no pre/protohistoric cultural resources are located on or within a one-half mile of the Project Site. Additionally, no pre/protohistoric resources were observed on the Project Site. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a known prehistoric archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Given the lack of any previously identified pre/protohistoric sites within or near the property and the magnitude of ground disturbances on the Project Site over the previous 47 years including the presence of subsurface septic systems, there is little potential for any pre/protohistoric resources to be present or disturbed by the proposed development. Notwithstanding, excavations on portions of the Project Site would occur within previously undisturbed soils that have the potential to contain pre/protohistoric archaeological resources. If any pre/protohistoric cultural resources are unearthed during Project construction that meet the definition of a significant archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and are disturbed/damaged by Project construction activities, impacts to those pre/protohistoric cultural resources would be significant. Based on the tribal consultation process conducted under AB 52, mitigation is presented in Subsection 4.3.7 consisting of monitoring and treatment procedures for any discovered resources that would lessen potential impacts to below a level of significance. Refer to Section 4.11, Tribal Cultural Resources, for details on the tribal consultation process. (DEIR, p. 4.3-8) MM 4.3-1 Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of Ground-Disturbing Activities:
a. The project applicant/lead agency shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The 3608
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 61 monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any “ground disturbing activity” for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both onsite and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). “Ground-disturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching1
b. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the earlier of the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground disturbing activity.
c. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground-disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the project applicant/lead agency upon written request to the Tribe. d. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point of contact for the project applicant/lead agency that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Kizh to the project applicant/lead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs. e. Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Kizh monitor and/or Kizh archaeologist. The Kizh will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.

MM 4.3-2 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects:
1 Tribal monitoring shall cease once all ground disturbance activities have been completed with respect to the property or portion thereof. Example: Once excavation, grading, trenching, etc. have occurred tribal monitoring shall cease. 3609
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 62 a. Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute. b. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods discovered or recognized on the project site, then all construction activities shall immediately cease. Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 dictates that any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner and all ground disturbing activities shall immediately halt and shall remain halted until the coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe they are Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 shall be followed.
c. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).
d. Construction activities may resume in other parts of the project site at a minimum of 200 feet away from discovered human remains and/or burial goods, if the Kizh determines in its sole discretion that resuming construction activities at that distance is acceptable and provides the project manager express consent of that determination (along with any other mitigation measures the Kizh monitor and/or archaeologist deems necessary). (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f))
e. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin (non-TCR) shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, it shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.
f. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.

MM 4.3-3 Procedures for Burials and Funerary Remains:
a. As the Most Likely Descendant (“MLD”), the Koo-nas-gna Burial Policy shall be implemented. To the Tribe, the term “human remains” encompasses more 3610
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 63 than human bones. In ancient as well as historic times, Tribal Traditions included, but were not limited to, the preparation of the soil for burial, the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains.
b. If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials, the discovery location shall be treated as a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created.
c. The prepared soil and cremation soils are to be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later; other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be considered as associated funerary objects. Cremations will either be removed in bulk or by means as necessary to ensure complete recovery of all sacred materials.
d. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully documented and recovered on the same day, the remains will be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24- hour guard should be posted outside of working hours. The Tribe will make every effort to recommend diverting the project and keeping the remains in situ and protected. If the project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials will be removed.
e. In the event preservation in place is not possible despite good faith efforts by the project applicant/developer and/or landowner, before ground-disturbing activities may resume on the project site, the landowner shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint of the project for the respectful reburial of the human remains and/or ceremonial objects. f. Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects will be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony will be removed to a secure container on site if possible. These items should be retained and reburied within six months of recovery. The site of reburial/repatriation shall be on the project site but at a location agreed upon between the Tribe and the landowner at a site to be protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered.
g. The Tribe will work closely with the project’s qualified archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data 3611
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 64 recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be prepared and shall include (at a minimum) detailed descriptive notes and sketches. All data recovery data recovery-related forms of documentation shall be approved in advance by the Tribe. If any data recovery is performed, once complete, a final report shall be submitted to the Tribe and the NAHC. The Tribe does NOT authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive and/or destructive diagnostics on human remains.

Implementation of MM 4.3-1 through MM 4.3-3 would ensure the proper identification and subsequent treatment of any significant archaeological resources that may be encountered during grounddisturbing activities associated with Project construction. With implementation of the required mitigation, the Project’s potential impacts to important archaeological resources would be reduced to less-than-significant. Cumulatively considerable impacts would likewise be reduced to less-thansignificant.

4.2 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

4.2.1 THRESHOLD F
Impact Statement: The Project has the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold f are discussed in detail in Section 4.5.4. of the DEIR The Project site contains sediment with a high paleontological sensitivity. Ground disturbing activities have the potential to unearth previously unknown paleontological and/or unique geologic features. The Project is required to comply with Mitigation Measures MMs 4.5-1 through 4.5-4, which would reduce impacts to less than significant. The Planning Commission has determined that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the DEIR.  Substantial Evidence
The Project Site is underlain by Young Eolian Deposits (Qye) and Very Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qf). Qye are wind-deposited Holocene sediments consisting of silt and fine- to medium-grained sand which are generally about 10 feet thick and are underlain by alluvial fan deposits. Qf are Late Holocene and consist predominantly of sand, gravel, cobbles, and boulders that form the active and recently active portions of the fan. These deposits are generally unconsolidated to slightly consolidated, and where they have not been graded, they have a network of braided channels on the surface (Ontario, 2022b, p. 5.7-5 through 5.7-7). The possibility of finding additional paleontological resources within City boundaries is moderate to high. However, geologic maps indicate that the Project Site is situated on surface exposures of recent alluvium. These sediments have low potential to yield fossil resources or to contain significant nonrenewable paleontological resources. However, these recent sediments overlie older Pleistocene sediments with high potential to contain paleontological resources. (Ontario, 2022b, p. 5.7-17) In the event that the Project’s construction activities encroach into previously 3612
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 65 undisturbed older alluvium deposits, the Project could result in impacts to important paleontological resources if such resources are unearthed and not properly treated. Therefore, the Project’s potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource buried beneath the ground surface is determined to be a potentially significant impact and mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.5-12) MM 4.5-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Ontario that a qualified paleontologist (“paleontologist”) has been retained by the Project Applicant or contractor to conduct monitoring of excavation activities in olde alluvium soils and has the authority to halt and redirect earthmoving activities in the event that suspected paleontological resources are unearthed.

MM 4.5-2 The paleontologist shall conduct full-time monitoring during grading and excavation operations in undisturbed Holocene and late Pleistocene old alluvial fan deposits starting at a depth of five (5) feet below the existing ground surface. The paleontologist shall be equipped to salvage fossils if they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The paleontologist shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow for the removal of abundant and large specimens in a timely manner. Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units are not present in the subsurface, or if present, are determined upon exposure and examination by the paleontologist to have a low potential to contain or yield fossil resources.

MM 4.5-3 Recovered specimens shall be properly prepared to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including screen washing sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates, if necessary. Identification and curation of specimens into the collections of the Division of Geological Sciences, San Bernardino County Museum, shall be required for discoveries of significance as determined by the paleontological monitor.

MM 4.5-4 A final monitoring and mitigation report of findings and significance shall be prepared, including lists of all fossils recovered, if any, and necessary maps and graphics to accurately record the original location of the specimens. The report shall be submitted to the City of Ontario prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit.

MMs 4.5-1 through 4.5-4 would ensure the proper identification and subsequent treatment of any paleontological resources that may be encountered during ground-disturbing activities associated with implementation of the proposed Project. Therefore, with implementation of MMs 4.5-1 through 4.5-4, the Project’s potential impact to paleontological resources would be reduced to less-than-significant. 3613
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 66

4.3 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.3.1 THRESHOLDS A AND B
Impact Statement: The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, disposal of hazardous materials or reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Thresholds a and b are discussed in detail in Section 4.7.5 of the DEIR. This Planning Commission finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Thresholds a and b; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
Implementation of the Project would require demolition and removal of all existing structures and improvements on the Project Site, as well as the removal of all materials stored on the Site, and would result in the construction and long-term operation of one warehouse distribution building on the Site.

In the event any hazards or hazardous materials were to be present on the Project Site or any hazardous materials were to be used or stored on the Project Site during construction or long-term operation, the Project would have the potential to expose workers on-site, the public, and/or the environment to a substantial hazard. The analysis below evaluates the potential for the Project to result in a substantial hazard to people or the environment during any stage of the Project.

A. Impact Analysis for Existing Site Conditions

1. Soil Vapor
In March 2022, Farallon conducted soil and soil vapor sampling at the Site to assess former UST areas and septic systems, and the new building footprint for the potential for vapor intrusion issues. Results showed that no total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were detected exceeding laboratory detection limits in the soil samples collected from the Project Site. Low concentrations of naturally occurring metals including barium, cadmium, cobalt, chromium, copper, nickel, lead, vanadium, and zinc were detected in two soil samples submitted for analysis; and these concentrations were considerably less than screening levels. (Farallon, 2022, pp. 10-3) Based on the sampling results, tetrachloroethylene (PCE) has been documented in soil vapor in the vicinity of Building B at concentrations exceeding screening levels, and PCE is also present in central and eastern portions of the Site in shallow zones at concentrations less than calculated screening levels. (Farallon, 2022, pp. 10-4) Therefore, PCE impacts potentially associated with the use and storage of hazardous materials at Building B could contribute to vapor intrusion conditions on the Project Site and impacts would be potentially significant.

2. Building Materials
The use of ACMs (a known carcinogen) and lead paint (a known toxin) was common in building construction prior to 1978. Because the Project Site contains structures known to be constructed before 3614
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 67 1978, there is potential for ACMs and surfaces covered with lead paint to be present on the Project Site.

Asbestos is a carcinogen and is categorized as a hazardous air pollutant by the federal EPA. Federal asbestos requirements are found in National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) within the CFR Title 40, Part 61, Subpart M, and are enforced in the Project area by the SCAQMD via Rule 1403. Rule 1403 establishes survey requirements, notification, and work practice requirements to prevent asbestos emissions from emanating during building renovation and demolition activities. Because ACMs are present in the existing construction debris and/or structures located on the property, then Rule 1403 requires notification of the SCAQMD prior to commencing any demolition or renovation activities. Rule 1403 also sets forth specific procedures for the removal of asbestos, and requires that an on-site representative trained in the requirements of Rule 1403 be present during the stripping, removing, handling, or disturbing of ACM. Mandatory compliance with the provisions of Rule 1403 would ensure that construction-related grading, clearing and demolition activities do not expose construction workers or nearby sensitive receptors to significant health risks associated with ACMs. Because the Project’s demolition and construction contractors would be required to comply with AQMD Rule 1403 during demolition activities, impacts due to asbestos would be less than significant.

During demolition of the existing buildings on-site, there also is a potential to expose construction workers to health hazards associated with lead-based paint (LBP). The Project’s demolition and construction contractors would be required to comply with CCR Title 17, Division 1, Chapter 8, which includes requirements such as employer provided training, air monitoring, protective clothing, respirators, and hand washing facilities. Mandatory compliance with the requirements of CCR Title 17, Division 1, Chapter 8 would ensure that construction workers and the public are not exposed to significant LBP health hazards during demolition and/or during transport of demolition waste to an appropriate disposal facility, and would ensure that impacts related to LBP remain less than significant.

B. Impact Analysis for Temporary Construction-Related Activities Heavy equipment (e.g., dozers, excavators, tractors) would be operated on the Project Site during construction. This heavy equipment likely would be fueled and maintained by petroleum‐based substances such as diesel fuel, gasoline, oil, and hydraulic fluid, which are considered hazardous if improperly stored or handled. In addition, materials such as paints, adhesives, solvents, and other substances typically used in building construction would be located on the Project Site during construction. Improper use, storage, or transportation of hazardous materials can result in accidental releases or spills, potentially posing health risks to workers, the public, and the environment. This is a standard risk on all construction sites, and there would be no greater risk for improper handling, transportation, or spills associated with the Project than would occur on any other similar construction site. Construction contractors would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations regarding the transport, use, and storage of hazardous construction‐related materials, including but not limited requirements imposed by the EPA, DTSC, and the Santa Ana RWQCB. With mandatory compliance with applicable hazardous materials regulations, the Project would not create significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during the construction phase, nor would the Project increase the 3615
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 68 potential for accident conditions which could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. A less-than-significant impact would occur.

C. Impact Analysis for Long-Term Operations
The future building occupant(s) for the Project Site are not yet identified. However, the Project is designed to house warehouse distribution occupants and it is possible that hazardous materials could be used during the course of a future building user’s daily operations. State and federal CommunityRight-to-Know laws allow the public access to information about the amounts and types of chemicals in use at local businesses. Laws also are in place that requires businesses to plan and prepare for possible chemical emergencies. Any business that occupies the warehouse building on the Project Site and that handles hazardous materials (as defined in Section 25500 of California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95) will require a permit from the San Bernardino County Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division in order to register the business as a hazardous materials handler. Such businesses also are required to comply with California’s Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law, which requires immediate reporting to the County of San Bernardino Fire Department and the State Office of Emergency Services regarding any release or threatened release of a hazardous material, regardless of the amount handled by the business, and to prepare a Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan (HMBEP). An HMBEP is a written set of procedures and information created to help minimize the effects and extent of a release or threatened release of a hazardous material. With mandatory regulatory compliance, the Project would not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, storage, emission, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor would the Project increase the potential for accident conditions which could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Based on the foregoing information, potential hazardous materials impacts associated with long-term operation of the Project are regarded as less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.7-13 – 4.7-16) MM 4.7-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall prepare a Soil Management Plan (SMP). The SMP shall include explicit instructions for the appropriate handling, storage, and disposal of any known or potentially impacted soil during soil moving activities. The general contractor will be required to follow the requirements of the SMP and stop work to make notification to the environmental team if any potential impacts are observed at any time the environmental team is not already on-site. The SMP also requires air monitoring activities to monitor the air downwind of the Project Site and appropriate Health and Safety Plans that will be employed by site workers. The SMP shall identify specific requirements intended to protect human health when soil in certain areas of known or suspected impacts are disturbed for any reason, including, without limitation, as a result of demolition, utility installation/repair, soil excavation, drilling, grading/filling activities, stockpile generation, soil management, loading, and transportation. Requirements of the SMP include:
a. Health and Safety Plan (HASP): A HASP will be prepared and in effect for all activities associated with the SMP and other activities at the Project Site. 3616
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 69 Contractors working onsite are expected to be operating under their own health and safety plans.
b. Environmental Monitoring: In accordance with SCAQMD Rules, air monitoring will be necessary in areas where potential PCE contaminated soil are to be disturbed. Air monitoring for dust may also be required in other areas.

An air monitoring/health and safety professional will be present during relevant activities and responsibilities will include recording monitoring data on field sheets, which will be kept as part of Project documentation. c. Soil Monitoring:

Soils impacted by PCE that are encountered during site redevelopment will be characterized and documented. The monitoring and sampling activities to be performed include:
• Visual observation performed to detect areas of soil that may be impacted by PCE or other non-VOC hazardous materials, if encountered.
• Screening for PCEs using field instruments to document new or previously undetected sources of PCEs.
• Soil sampling and chemical testing performed to evaluate concentrations of PCE.
d. Proper Soil Handling: If impacted soil is encountered, the area will be delineated as necessary with cones, caution tape, stakes, chalk, or flagging, and the area will not be disturbed further until an environmental professional is onsite for observation and determination of whether testing and/or excavation work is required. Stockpile staging areas will be delineated prior to the start of excavation. All excavations will conform to applicable regulations, including Cal/OSHA Construction Safety Orders. The specific equipment, means, and methods to be utilized for soil removal, handling, and disposition will be selected based on the nature of the work to be conducted and its location on the site. If excavation is conducted during the rainy season (October through April), provisions will need to be made to prevent offsite migration of sediment in runoff.
e. Fugitive Dust and Vapor Control: Appropriate procedures will be implemented to control the generation of airborne dust by soil removal activities, including, but not limited to, the use of water as a dust suppressant or stopping activities that have the potential to generate fugitive dust in the event wind conditions change creating an uncontrollable condition.
f. Excavation and Stockpiling: Impacted soil that is excavated and not immediately removed from the site will be stockpiled onsite and covered with plastic sheeting to control dust and minimize exposure to precipitation and wind. If a stockpile remains onsite during the rainy season, a perimeter 3617
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 70 sediment barrier, constructed of material, such as straw bales or fiber roll, will also be installed. The stockpiles will be inspected biweekly at a minimum.

During stockpile removal, only the working face of the stockpile will be uncovered. If the stockpiled impacted soil is to be transported offsite for disposal or recycling, the soil will be profiled for waste characteristics. Soil samples will be analyzed for parameters required by the disposal/recycling facility.
g. Responding to Unknown Conditions: If previously unknown impacted soil is suspected (based on visual staining, odors, photo ionization detector readings, or other observations), the area will be delineated and construction activity will cease in this area, and sampling of the unknown material will occur using USEPA methodology. Analysis will be conducted for TPH, metals, and/or VOCs, as appropriate. Analytical results will be compared to applicable regulatory screening levels. Based on this comparison, a determination will be made regarding soil disposition (reuse on-site, off-site transport, and disposal/recycling, etc.). Additionally, if any UST or other subsurface features are encountered, a similar approach will be taken, and appropriate permitting, as necessary, will be obtained for the removal of the feature(s). Any permitted removals will be conducted with appropriate regulatory oversight, documentation, and reporting.
h. Imported fill: As appropriate, offsite soils brought to the site for use as backfill (import fill), if necessary, will be tested in general conformance with the DTSC Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material document. i. Post-construction Requirements: If contaminated soil is left in place, the location of this soil will be surveyed or recorded by use of geographic positioning system equipment. Following the completion of construction, excavation, and disposition activities, a summary report will be prepared. The report will include a summary of activities, locations of soil sources and final disposition of contaminated soil, and estimated quantities of materials.

Additionally, removal of any USTs or other subsurface features, if encountered, will be conducted under appropriate permits (if any) and documented in applicable reports for submittal to the Ontario Fire Department, or other regulatory agency, as appropriate.

Mitigation measure MM 4.7-1 would result in the preparation of a SMP for the Project. The SMP identifies requirements intended to protect human health when soil in certain areas of known or suspected areas are disturbed for any reason, including, without limitation, as a result of demolition, utility installation/repair, soil excavation, drilling, grading/filling activities, stockpile generation, soil management, loading, and transportation. Requirements of the SMP include protocols for the HASP, environmental monitoring, proper soil handling (if impacted soil is encountered), fugitive dust and vapor control, excavation and stockpiling, soil monitoring, soil monitoring, responding to unknown 3618
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 71 conditions, imported fill, and postconstruction requirements. With the implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.7-1, the risk of exposure of hazardous materials to the workers and the public through the routine transport, use, or disposal of contaminated or potentially contaminated soils or accident conditions would be less than significant.

4.4 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources code Section 5024.1(k), or
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of the Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.  Finding
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.11.5 of the DEIR. Due to the Project Site’s location in an area where Native American tribes are known to have a cultural affiliation, there is the possibility that pre/protohistoric archaeological resources, including tribal cultural resources, could be encountered during ground-disturbing construction activities. The Project is required to comply with Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-1 through 4.3-3, which would reduce impacts to less than significant. The Planning Commission has determined that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.  Substantial Evidence
No prehistoric resource sites, features, places, or landscapes were identified on the Project Site that are either listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Places. No resources were identified on the Project Site that meet any of the four criteria listed above to be eligible for the California Register and no pre/protohistoric resource sites or isolates are known to exist on the Project Site. (BFSA, 2022) Furthermore, no substantial evidence was presented to or found by the City that led to the identification of any resources on the Project Site that in the City’s discretion had the potential to be considered a tribal cultural resource.
3619
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 72 As part of the AB 52 consultation process required by State law, the City sent notification of the Project to Native American tribes with possible traditional or cultural affiliation to the Project area. The City consulted with each tribe that requested consultation. During the course of the tribal consultation process, tribal monitoring was requested during the Project’s ground-disturbing construction activities.

Due to the Project Site’s location in an area where Native American tribes are known to have a cultural affiliation, there is the possibility that pre/protohistoric archaeological resources, including tribal cultural resources, could be encountered during ground-disturbing construction activities. In the event that a tribal cultural resource, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074, were to be found on the Project Site during construction – and not properly identified and treated – a significant impact would occur. Mitigation is required.

As discussed under EIR Subsection 4.3, the Project Site does not contain a known cemetery site and human remains have not been previously discovered on the Site. Mandatory compliance with State law (California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98) would ensure that, in the unlikely event that human remains are discovered during Project construction, the remains would be identified in accordance with proper protocols and the remains would be treated or disposed with appropriate dignity. Accordingly, the Project would not result in a substantial adverse effect to tribal cultural resources associated with human remains. (DEIR, pp. 4.11-4 – 4.11-5) Refer to Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-1 and MM 4.3-3, above.

Implementation of MMs 4.3-1 through 4.3-3 would ensure the proper identification and subsequent treatment of any significant tribal cultural resources that may be encountered during ground-disturbing activities associated with Project development. With implementation of the required mitigation, the Project’s potential impact to significant tribal cultural resources would be reduced to less-thansignificant. 3620
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 73

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT REMAIN SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE

AFTER MITIGATION
The Ontario Planning Commission finds the project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts in the following impact categories after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures:

Transportation. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15092(b)(2), the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario cannot approve the project unless it first finds (1) under Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3), that specific economic, legal, social technological, or other considerations, including provisions of employment opportunities to highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR; and (2) under CEQA Guidelines section 15092(b), that the remaining significant effects are acceptable due to overriding concerns described in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 and, therefore, a statement of overriding considerations has been prepared.

5.1 TRANSPORTATION

5.1.1 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.11.6 of the DEIR. The Project is required to implement Mitigation Measure 4.10-1, which would reduce VMT impacts to the extent feasible.
 Substantial Evidence
Changes to State CEQA Guidelines were adopted in December 2018, which requires all lead agencies to adopt vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as a replacement for automobile delay-based level of service (LOS) as the new measurement for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects. This statewide mandate took effect on 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. 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 identify projects that meet certain VMT screening criteria may be presumed to result in a less than significant transportation impact. The City of Ontario utilizes the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) VMT 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
3621
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 74  Project Type Screening
A land use project need only meet one of the above screening criteria to result in a less than significant impact.

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

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

Therefore, the Project would not meet the TPA Screening threshold.

B. Low VMT Area Screening
As noted in the Technical Advisory, “Residential and office projects that locate in areas with low VMT and that incorporate similar features (density, mix of uses, and transit accessibility) will tend to exhibit similarly low VMT.” 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 (SP) that does not exceed the Citywide average under General Plan Buildout condition VMT per service population. The Screening Tool uses the subregional 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 Project was selected and the Screening Tool was run for origin destination (OD) VMT per service population, and results showed the Project is not located within a low VMT generating zone. Therefore, the Project would not meet the Low VMT Area Screening threshold.

C. 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 3622
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 75 as intended does not contain any local serving uses. Additionally, the City Guidelines state that small projects generating fewer than 110 daily vehicle trips or less may be presumed to have a less than significant impact, subject to discretionary approval by the City. As shown in Table 4.10-1, the Project currently generates an average of 316 vehicle trips per day. Trips generated by the Project’s proposed land uses have been estimated based on trip generation rates collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, 2021. The Project is anticipated to generate 476 daily vehicle trip-ends per day. Therefore, the Project is anticipated to generate 160 net new average daily trips, exceeding the 110 daily vehicle trip threshold, and the Project would not meet the Project Type Screening threshold.

D. VMT Analysis
As the Project was not found to meet any of the aforementioned VMT screening criteria, a project level VMT analysis (Technical Appendix J to the DEIR) was prepared to assess the Project’s potential impact to VMT. 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 4.10-6, Total VMT, presents Project generated total VMT calculated as the total of passenger car, light-duty, medium-duty, and heavy-duty truck trips.

The City Guidelines have identified following recommended threshold: 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 Project’s baseline and buildout VMT per service population is calculated by dividing by the total VMT the service population or in this case the number of employees generated1 . As shown in Table 4.10-7, Project VMT per Service Population, the City of Ontario has identified a VMT per SP 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 SP impact threshold for both the baseline and TOP buildout conditions (Urban Crossroads, 2023a). Therefore, impacts would be significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.10-11 – 4.10-14) MM 4.10-1 Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the building operator shall prepare and submit for approval to the City of Ontario Community Development Department a Transportation Demand Management Program (TDMP). The TDMP shall specify measures that the building operator will commit to implementing in an effort to reduce vehicle miles traveled for its on-site employees. The TDMP shall include provisions, incentives, and programs for employee ridesharing programs, carpools, vanpools, transit use, bike travel, avoidance of peak periods of traffic congestion, and on-site parking preferences for zero-emission vehicles, among other items that have reasonable potential of reducing employee reliance on single-occupant gas-powered vehicles during peak time travel periods (rush hours).

Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP) strategies in the form of commute trip reduction program measures were reviewed for the purpose of reducing Project related VMT impacts (i.e., commute trips). The feasibility and level of effectiveness of each trip reduction measure was determined based on the location of the Project Site and the Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas 3623
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 76 Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (2021 Handbook). As the future building tenant(s) is not currently known for the Project, the effectiveness of commute trip reduction measures such as carpooling and vanpooling cannot be determined with certainty. In addition to specific tenancy considerations, locational context is also a major factor relevant to the potential application and effectiveness of TDMP measures. Given the Project Site’s location in an industrial area with no nearby transit routes, an incomplete sidewalk and bikeway system, and a lack of nearby residential areas that made walking or biking to work easy, the Project Site location is not favorable to reduce VMT per service population to below a level of significance.

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. However, ideal conditions are rarely realized as variables such as a project’s 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 VMT per service population reduction of 25.58% to achieve a less than significant impact, which cannot be assured for the proposed Project. The 2021 Handbook lists the following possible trip reduction measures.  T-5 – Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing (up to 4.0% reduction)  T-8 – Provide Ridesharing Program (up to 8% reduction)  T-9 – Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program (up to 5.5% reduction)  T-10 – Provide End-of-Trip Facilities (up to 4.4% reduction)  T-11 – Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool (up to 20.4% reduction)  T-12 – Price Workplace Parking (up to 20.0% reduction)  T-13 – Implement Employee Parking Cash-Out (up to 12.0% reduction) Mitigation measure MM 4.10-1 will reduce the Project’s VMT per service population by some percentage based on the level of participation achieved, but based on the above-described factors, it is not feasible to reduce VMT to below a level of significance. However, as the Project area and surrounding communities develop as envisioned under the City of Ontario General Plan (TOP), new residential, retail, and industrial development would be implemented. These actions could collectively alter transportation patterns, improve the region’s jobs/housing ratio, reduce VMT, and support implementation of new or alternative TDM measures. With the implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.10-1, VMT is expected to be reduced, but the Project’s impacts related to VMT would still be significant and unavoidable.
3624
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 77

6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The CEQA Guidelines define a “cumulative impact” as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15355). Regarding the Project’s potential to result in cumulative impacts, the City hereby finds as follows:

6.1 AESTHETICS
The Project’s effects to scenic views of the San Gabriel Mountains, if any, would be localized to the immediate Project Site area and would not extend beyond the public viewing areas that immediately about the Project Site (East Airport Drive). The views that would be affected only occur abutting the Project Site and the Project does not contain any off-site components that could adversely affect scenic views that occur elsewhere in the City. Furthermore, the Project’s impacts to local scenic views are inherently site specific and not influenced or exacerbated by effects to scenic views that may occur at other, off-site properties. Because of the site-specific nature of these impacts, there would be no direct or indirect connection to similar potential issues or cumulative effects to or from other properties pursuant to Threshold “a.”
As noted under the analysis of Threshold “b,” the Project Site is not located within close proximity to any designated State scenic routes and does not contain any scenic resources. Therefore, the Project has no potential contribute to a cumulatively significant impact to scenic resources within a designated scenic route corridor.

Under existing conditions, the area surrounding the Project Site is entirely developed with industrial land uses. No new or pending development projects are known to occur in the area surrounding the Project Site. Accordingly, the Project would not contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts to local visual quality. Notwithstanding, as with the Project, any re-development in the surrounding area would be subject to applicable development regulations and design standards, including, but not limited to the Ontario Development Code. Mandatory compliance to applicable development regulations and design standards would ensure that developments would incorporate high quality building materials, site design, and landscaping to preclude potential conflicts with applicable zoning and other regulations governing visual quality.

With respect to potential cumulative light and glare impacts, the Project would be required to comply with City’s Development Code, which sets standards for exterior lighting/fixtures. The restriction on unshielded light fixtures and “spill over” lighting enforced by these lighting regulations has the effect of minimizing light and glare that would affect daytime views and/or create sky glow. Additionally, development projects with artificial light sources in surrounding jurisdictions would be required to comply with the light reduction requirements applicable in their respective jurisdiction. Although cumulative development in the Project’s surrounding area is expected to introduce new sources of lighting and potentially reflective materials, the required compliance with the applicable legal standard and code requirements would ensure that future cumulative development does not introduce substantial sources of lighting or glare. As such, the Project would not contribute to cumulatively-considerable, adverse impacts to the existing daytime or nighttime views of the Project Site or its surroundings. (DEIR, pp. 4.1-12 – 4.1-13)
3625
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 78

6.2 AIR QUALITY
Based on SCAQMD guidance, any exceedance of a regional or localized threshold for criteria pollutants also is considered to be a cumulatively-considerable effect, while air pollutant emissions that fall below applicable regional and/or localized thresholds are not considered cumulatively considerable. As discussed in the analysis under Threshold “b,” the criteria pollutant emissions from Project construction and operation would be far less than the SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance. Therefore, the Project’s emissions would not be considered cumulatively considerable.

Furthermore, the Project would not conflict with the 2016 AQMP and is not considered cumulatively considerable.

As discussed under the analysis for Threshold “c,” all Project-related construction- and operational localized air pollutant emissions – including DPM – would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD thresholds of significance. According to the SCAQMD’s Mates V study and data visualization tool, which includes an emissions inventory of toxic air contaminants based on 2016-2018 data, the cancer risk in the Project Site’s zip code (91761) is 600 per million, which indicates that the air toxics cancer risk in this zip code was higher than 93.0% of the SCAQMD population at the time the data was collected (SCAQMD, 2021). As regulatory requirements have become more stringent, however, air quality has improved and health risks have decreased, despite an increase in the number of warehouses across the Inland Empire and the SCAB (Ramboll, 2023). Because the Project’s contribution to health risk would fall far below the SCAQMD’s threshold of significance, and the SCAQMD is the regulatory authority responsible for air quality in the SCAB in which the Project site is located, the Project’s contribution is not considered cumulatively-considerable.

As indicated in the analysis of Threshold “d,” above, there are no Project components that would expose a substantial number of sensitive receptors to objectionable odors. There are no known sources of offensive odors in the Project area. Because the Project’s construction and operation would not create substantial and objectionable odors and because there are no sources of objectionable odors in the areas immediately surrounding the Project Site, there is no potential for odors from the Project Site to commingle with odors from nearby development projects and expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial, offensive odors. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would result in a less-than significant cumulative impact related to odors. (DEIR, pp. 4.2-36 – 4.2-37)

6.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Record searches indicate the absence of significant historical sites and resources on the Project Site; therefore, implementation of the Project has no potential to contribute towards a significant cumulative impact to historical sites and/or resources.

The potential for Project construction to result in cumulatively-considerable impacts to prehistoric archaeological resources were also analyzed in conjunction with other projects located in the traditional use areas of Native American tribes that are affiliated to the Project Site. Development activities on the Project Site would not impact any known prehistoric archaeological resources and the likelihood of uncovering previously unknown prehistoric archaeological resources during Project construction are low due to the magnitude of surface and subsurface disturbance that has occurred on the Site todate. Nonetheless, the remote potential exists for subsurface prehistoric archaeological resource that meet the CCR Section 15064.5 definition of a significant archaeological resource to be discovered 3626
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 79 beneath the surface of the Project Site during Project-related construction activities and on and beneath other development project sites in the region during construction activities. Accordingly, the Project has the potential to contribute to a significant cumulatively-considerable impact to prehistoric archaeological resources, if such resources are unearthed during Project construction, for which mitigation is required. As discussed below, with implementation of mitigation, cumulatively considerable impacts would be less than significant.

Mandatory compliance with the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 as well as Public Resources Code Section 5097 et seq., would assure that all future development projects within the region treat human remains that may be uncovered during development activities in accordance with prescribed, respectful and appropriate practices, thereby avoiding significant cumulative impacts. (DEIR, pp. 4.3-9 – 4.3-10)

6.4 ENERGY
The Project and other new development projects within the cumulative study area would be required to comply with all of the same applicable federal, State, and local regulatory measures aimed at reducing fossil fuel consumption and the conservation of energy. Accordingly, the Project would not cause or contribute to a significant cumulatively considerable impact related to conflicts with a State\ or local plan for renewable energy efficiency. (DEIR, p. 4.4-8)

6.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
With the exception of erosion hazards, potential hazardous effects related to geologic and soil conditions addressed under Thresholds “a,” “c,” “d,” and “e” are unique to the Project Site, and inherently restricted to the specific property proposed for development. That is, issues including fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and expansive soils would involve effects to (and not from) a proposed development project, are specific to conditions on the subject property, and are not influenced or exacerbated by the geologic and/or soil hazards that may occur on other, off-site properties. Further, as noted in the foregoing analysis, all potential Project-related direct and indirect impacts related to potential hazardous effects related to geologic and soil conditions would be precluded through mandatory conformance with the CBSC, Ontario Development Code, other standard regulatory requirements, and the site-specific geotechnical recommendations contained within the Project’s geotechnical investigation, which will be incorporated into the Project’s design via conditions of approval. Because of the site-specific nature of these potential hazards and the measures to address them, there would be no direct or indirect connection to similar potential issues or cumulative effects to or from other properties. As discussed under Threshold “b”, regulatory requirements mandate that the Project incorporate design measures during construction and long-term operation to ensure that significant erosion impacts do not occur. Other development projects in the vicinity of the Project Site would be required to comply with the same regulatory requirements as the Project to preclude substantial adverse water and wind erosion impacts. Because the Project and other projects within the cumulative study area would be subject to similar mandatory regulatory requirements to control erosion hazards during construction and longterm operation, cumulative impacts associated with wind and water erosion hazards would be less than significant. The Project’s potential to result in cumulative impacts to paleontological resources (Threshold “f”) is similar to that of other projects located in the region that are underlain by older alluvial soils. Because the older alluvial soils present on the Project 3627
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 80 Site contain high paleontological sensitivity and because this geologic layer is present throughout the City of Ontario and southern California, the potential to impact paleontological resources is a cumulatively. (DEIR, pp. 4.5-12 – 4.5-13)

6.6 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GCC occurs as the result of global emissions of GHGs. An individual development project does not have the potential to result in direct and significant GCC-related effects in the absence of cumulative sources of GHGs. The CEQA Guidelines emphasize that the effects of GHG emissions are cumulative and should be analyzed in the context of CEQA’s requirements for cumulative impacts analysis (See CEQA Guidelines Section 15130[f]). Accordingly, the analysis provided in subsection 4.6.4 reflects a cumulative impact analysis of the effects related to the Project’s GHG emissions, which concludes that the Project would not exceed the applicable threshold of significance and that the Project would not conflict with an applicable GHG-reduction plans, policies, or regulations. (DEIR, pp. 4.6-24)

6.7 HAZARDOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
As discussed above under the responses to Thresholds “a” and “b,” the Project’s construction and operation would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations to ensure proper use, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. Although the end user(s) of the Project Site are not presently known, if businesses that use or store hazardous materials occupy the Project, the business owners and operators would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations to ensure proper use, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. Such uses also would be subject to additional review and permitting requirements by the San Bernardino County Fire Department. Similarly, any other developments in the area proposing the construction of uses with the potential for use, storage, or transport of hazardous materials also would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations, and such uses would be subject to additional review and permits from their local oversight agency. Although there is on-site contamination present, compliance with mitigation measure MM 4.7-1 would ensure isolation of any impacts to the Project Site and would not have the ability to impact the surrounding area. Therefore, the potential for release of toxic substances or hazardous materials into the environment, either through accidents or due to routine transport, use, or disposal of such materials, would be reduced to a less-than-significant cumulative level. Accordingly, the Project’s potential to contribute to a cumulatively significant hazardous materials impact would be less than significant.

The Project Site is not located within one-quarter mile of a school; therefore, the Project has no potential effect on students in relation to the use, handling, and transport of hazardous materials and would have no impact.

As indicated under Threshold “d,” facilities in the site vicinity are not considered to be an REC to the Site. Because the Project Site is not classified as a hazardous materials site, there is no potential for the Project to contribute to, or exacerbate, adverse environmental effects resulting from other hazardous materials sites in the Project vicinity.

As discussed above under the response to Threshold “e,” the Project is not a noise-sensitive land use and would not be adversely affected by noise from operations at the ONT. In addition, the Project would not introduce any land use to the Project Site that would conflict with the ONT ALUCP.

Therefore, the Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or 3628
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 81 working in the Project area and would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact associated with airport hazards. The Project Site does not contain any emergency facilities nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation route; thus, there is no potential for the Project to contribute to any cumulative impacts associated with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

As discussed above under Threshold “g,” the Project Site is not located within or in close proximity to areas identified as being subject to wildland fire hazards and would have no potential to contribute to adverse, cumulative wildland fire hazards. (DEIR, pp. 4.7-17 – 4.7-18)

6.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The cumulative impact analysis considers construction and operation of the Project in conjunction with other development projects in the vicinity of the Project Site and projects located in the Santa Ana River Basin and Chino Groundwater Basin.

A. Water Quality
Project construction and the construction of other projects in the cumulative study area would have the potential to contribute waterborne pollution, including erosion and siltation, to the Santa Ana River Watershed. Pursuant to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board and the Santa Ana RWQCB, all construction projects that disturb 1 or more acres of land area are required to obtain coverage for construction activities under the State’s General Construction NPDES Permit. In order to obtain coverage, an effective Site-specific SWPPP is required to be developed and implemented. The SWPPP must identify potential on-site pollutants and identify an effective combination of erosion control and sediment control measures to reduce or eliminate discharge of pollutants to surface waters.

In addition, the Project Applicant and all cumulative developments in the Santa Ana River Basin would be required to comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program, which establishes water quality standards for ground and surface waters of the region.

Compliance with these mandatory regulatory requirements, would ensure that development projects within the Santa Ana River watershed, including the proposed Project, would not contribute substantially to water quality impairments during construction. Operational activities on the Project Site would be required to comply with the Project’s WQMP to minimize the amount of waterborne pollution, including erosion and sediment, discharged from the Site. Other development projects within the watershed would similarly be required by law to prepare and implement Site-specific WQMPs to ensure that runoff does not substantially contribute to water quality violations. Accordingly, operation of the Project would not contribute to cumulatively considerable water quality effects.

B. Groundwater Supplies and Management
The Project incorporates design features that would allow surface runoff to infiltrate into the groundwater basin. Other development projects would similarly be required by applicable lead agencies to incorporate design features that facilitate percolation (e.g., through minimum landscaped/permeable area requirements, water quality/detention basins, infiltration basins). Also, as previously noted, implementation of the Project would not result in substantial adverse effects to local groundwater supplies or groundwater recharge. Thus, no component of the Project would obstruct with or prevent implementation of the management plan for the Chino Groundwater Basin, and other development projects within the Chino Groundwater Basin would be prohibited from any activity that would endanger the health and sustainability of the groundwater basin. Based on the lack of impacts 3629
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 82 to groundwater, the provision of design measures that would facilitate percolation, and compliance with applicable Chino Groundwater Basin management plans, cumulative development would not result in a considerable, adverse effect to local groundwater supplies.

C. Flooding
Construction of the Project and other development projects within the Santa Ana River watershed would be required to comply with federal, State, and local regulations and applicable regional and local master drainage plans in order to mitigate flood hazards both on- and off-site. Compliance with federal, State, and local regulations and applicable drainage plans would require development sites to be protected from flooding during peak storm events (i.e., 100-year storm) and also would not allow development projects to expose downstream properties to increased flooding risks during peak storm events. In addition, future development proposals within the Santa Ana River Basin would be required to prepare hydrologic and hydraulic calculations, subject to review and approval by the responsible City Engineer, to demonstrate that substantial on- and/or off-site flood hazards would not occur. As discussed under the response to Threshold “c,” the Project is designed to ensure that runoff from the Project Site during peak storm events is reduced relative to existing conditions. Because the Project and all other developments throughout the Santa Ana River Basin, would need to comply with federal, State, and local regulations to ensure that stormwater discharges do not substantially exceed existing volumes or exceed the volume of available conveyance infrastructure, a substantial cumulative impact related to flood hazards would not occur.

Additionally, the Project Site is not located within a special flood hazard area or in an area subject to inundation. Accordingly, development on the Project Site would have no potential to impede or redirect flood flows and a cumulatively-considerable impact would not occur. (DEIR, pp. 4.8-17 – 4.8-18)

6.9 NOISE
A. Construction Noise
Construction activities associated with the proposed Project, especially activities involving heavy equipment, would create intermittent periods of noise when construction equipment is in operation and cause a short-term increase in ambient noise levels. As shown in Table 4.9-5, the peak noise level anticipated during construction activities are estimated to reach a maximum noise level of 38.6 dBA Leq at receiver R4 (represents the existing noise Hyatt Place Ontario/Rancho Cucamonga at 4760 Mills Circle, approximately 3,872 feet northwest of the Project Site) which does not exceed the construction noise threshold of 80 dBA Leq. Therefore, Project construction-related activities would result in less than significant noise impacts. Because the Project’s construction noise levels would be less than significant, construction noise would be temporary in nature, and the Project and other cumulative projects would not combine with Projectrelated construction; cumulative construction impacts would be less than significant.

B. Stationary Noise
The analysis presented for Threshold “a” addresses the Project’s contribution of noise to existing cumulative noise sources (i.e., ambient noise) in the Project area. As previously shown in this Subsection, the Project’s noise contribution would not be perceptible to noise-sensitive receptors in the
3630
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 83 Project area during daytime or nighttime hours. The Project’s permanent stationary noise impacts would not be cumulatively-considerable.

C. Traffic Noise
The analysis presented under Threshold “a” evaluates the Project’s traffic noise contribution along study area roadways. As summarized in that analysis, 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, therefore, would not be cumulatively-considerable under near- or long-term conditions.

D. Groundborne Vibration and Noise
During construction, the Project’s peak vibration impacts would occur during the grading phase when large pieces of equipment, like bulldozers, are operating on-site. (During the non-grading phases of Project construction, when smaller pieces of equipment are used on-site, the Project’s vibration would be minimal.) Vibration effects diminish rapidly from the source; therefore, the only reasonable sources of cumulative vibration in the vicinity of the Project Site could occur on properties abutting these sites.

As described above, there are no known active or pending construction projects abutting the Project Site that would overlap with the Project’s proposed construction schedule. Accordingly, there is no potential for the Project to contribute to the exposure of persons to substantial temporary groundborne vibration or noise. Under long-term conditions, the Project would not include or require equipment or activities that would result in perceptible groundborne vibration beyond the Project Site. Trucks would travel to and from the Project Site along local roadways; however, vibration levels for heavy trucks operating at the posted speed limits on paved surfaces are not perceptible beyond the roadway. The Project would not cumulatively-contribute to the exposure of persons to excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels during long-term operation.

E. Airport Noise
The Project would not involve the construction, operation, or use of any public airports or public use airports. There are no conditions associated with implementation of the Project that would contribute airport noise or exposure of additional people to unacceptable levels of airport noise. Accordingly, the Project would have no potential to cumulatively-contribute to impacts associated with noise from a public airport, public use airport, or private airstrip. Additionally, the Project Site and the immediately surrounding area are not subject to substantial airport- or air traffic-related noise. Accordingly, there is no potential for cumulative development to expose persons residing or working in the Project area to excessive airport-related noise levels. (DEIR, pp. 4.9-22 – 4.9-23)

6.10 TRANSPORTATION
As described under the response to Threshold “a,” the Project would not conflict with an applicable program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities and, thus, would not cumulatively contribute to a conflict or obstruction with an applicable transportation-related program. The City Guidelines, consistent with OPR’s 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 3631
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 84 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 impacts that utilize plan compliance as a threshold of significance.” Since the Project was found to have a significant and unavoidable impact at the project level, it is considered to be cumulatively-considerable and therefore to have a significant cumulative impact as well. The Project would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact under the topics discussed under Thresholds “c” and “d” because the Project would not cause or exacerbate existing transportation design safety concerns or adversely affect emergency access and there are no cumulative development projects adjacent to the Project Site that could contribute additive effects that could degrade motor vehicle or pedestrian safety or emergency vehicle access in proximity to the Project Site. (DEIR, p. 4.10-15)

6.11 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
The potential for Project construction to result in cumulatively-considerable impacts to tribal, religious, and cultural resources were analyzed in conjunction with other projects located in southwestern San Bernardino County and northwestern Riverside County that occur in the same tribal influence areas as the Project Site. The other development projects within these areas would have a similar potential to uncover tribal cultural resources during construction activities. Therefore, the potential for Project construction to impact tribal cultural resources is a cumulatively-considerable impact for which mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.11-5)

6.12 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the Project Site in conjunction with other development projects and planned development within the service area for the respective utility provides or the service area for specific facilities (e.g., wastewater treatment facilities). As with the Project, each individual related development project would require the construction of necessary infrastructure (water and wastewater lines, storm drain facilities, dry utilities, and others) to serve the project. Each individual development project is subject to review for utility capacity to avoid unanticipated interruption of service or inadequate supplies. Coordination with the utility providers would allow for the provision of utility services to the Project and other developments. The Project and other planned projects are subject to connection and service fees to offset increased demand and assist in facility expansion and service (at the time of need). Therefore, the Project impacts would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact associated with construction of utility infrastructure or provision of utility services. OMUC has sufficient potable water supplies to meet existing and future demands through the year 2040 under normal, single-dry, and multiple dry years. As such, the Project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact on water supply. According to IEUA’s 2020 UWMP, the current wastewater treatment capacity of RP-1 is 44 MGD, although it currently treats approximately 21 MGD. As such, there is adequate existing and proposed capacity to provide wastewater treatment for the Project and cumulative development. Therefore, the Project would not result in a significant cumulative impact on wastewater treatment facilities. The City, including the Project Site and cumulative development, are within the service area of the Badlands Sanitary Landfill or El Sobrante Landfill and a majority of the City’s solid waste is disposed of at the Badlands Sanitary Landfill or El Sobrante Landfill. The remaining portions of the City’s solid waste are disposed of at landfills with adequate capacity throughout the County and surrounding counties within the State. The 3632
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 85 solid waste generated by construction and operation of the Project would represent nominal portions of daily disposal capacities at existing landfill facilities. The existing landfill facilities have sufficient daily capacity to handle solid waste during the Project’s construction and operation and would not directly result in the need for expanded solid waste disposal facilities. Further, the Project would adhere to applicable local and State regulations during both construction and long-term operation to reduce solid waste generation. Other cumulative development would be required to comply with such regulations. Therefore, the Project would not have a significant cumulative impact related to solid waste disposal and compliance with regulations addressing the reduction of solid waste generation and disposal. (DEIR, pp. 4.12-12 – 4.12-13)
3633
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 86

7.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS

7.1 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
The State CEQA Guidelines require EIRs to address any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be involved with the proposed action should it be implemented (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2[c]). An environmental change would fall into this category if: a) the project would involve a large commitment of non-renewable resources; b) the primary and secondary impacts of the project would generally commit future generations to similar uses; c) the project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents; or d) the proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project results in the wasteful use of energy).  Finding
The Project’s potential to result in significant irreversible impacts is discussed in detail in Section5.2 of the DEIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project the Project would not result in significant irreversible environmental changes.
 Substantial Evidence
Determining whether the Project may result in significant irreversible environmental changes requires a determination of whether key non-renewable resources would be degraded or destroyed in such a way that there would be little possibility of restoring them. Natural resources, in the form of construction materials and energy resources, would be used in the construction of the proposed Project.

The consumption of these natural resources would represent an irreversible change to the environment; however, development of the Project Site would have no measurable adverse effect on the availability of such resources, including resources that may be non-renewable (e.g., construction aggregates, fossil fuels). Additionally, the Project is required by law to comply with the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), which will minimize the Project’s demand for energy, including energy produced from non-renewable sources. A more detailed discussion of Project energy consumption is provided in EIR Subsection 4.4, Energy.

Implementation of the Project would commit the Project Site to one light industrial building. The potential warehouse land uses for the Project are compatible with the existing industrial land uses that are located east, west, and south of the Project Site and also compatible with the use of East Airport Drive (which abuts the Project Site on the south) as a City-designated truck route. Accordingly, the Project and its environmental effects would not compel or commit surrounding properties to land uses other than those that are existing today or those that are planned by the City of Ontario General Plan.

For this reason, the Project would not result in a significant, irreversible change to nearby, offsite properties.

EIR Subsection 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, provides an analysis of the potential for hazardous materials to be transported to/from the Project Site and/or used on the Project Site during construction and operation. As concluded in Subsection 4.7, mandatory compliance with federal, State, and local regulations related to hazardous materials handling, storage, and use by all Project construction contractors (near term) and occupants (long-term) would ensure that any hazardous 3634
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 87 materials used on-site would be safely and appropriately handled to preclude any irreversible damage to the environment that could result if hazardous materials were released from the Site.

As discussed in detail under EIR Subsection 4.5, Energy, use of the Project for warehouse would not result in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Accordingly, the Project would not result in a significant, irreversible change to the environment related to energy use.

Based on the above, Project construction and operation would require the commitment of limited, slowly renewable and non-renewable resources. This commitment of resources would not be substantial and would be consistent with regional and local growth forecasts and development goals for the area. The loss of such resources would not be highly accelerated when compared to existing conditions, and such resources would not be used in an inefficient or wasteful manner. Project construction and operation would adhere to the sustainability requirements of Title 24, Green Building Code, and CALGreen. Therefore, the Project would not result in the commitment of large quantities of natural resources that would result in significant irreversible environmental changes. (DEIR, pp.

5.5-1 – 5.5-2)

7.2 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
CEQA requires a discussion of the ways in which the Project could be growth-inducing. The State CEQA Guidelines identify a project as growth-inducing if it would foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2[d]).
 Finding
The Project’s potential to result in growth-inducing impacts is discussed in detail in Section 5.3 of the DEIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not directly or indirectly induce growth in the surrounding area which could result in a significant adverse effect to the environment.  Substantial Evidence
CEQA requires a discussion of the ways in which the proposed Project could be growth inducing. The CEQA Guidelines identify a project as growth inducing if it would foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d)). New employees and new residential populations represent direct forms of growth. These direct forms of growth have a secondary effect of expanding the size of local markets and inducing additional economic activity in the area..

A project could indirectly induce growth at the local level by increasing the demand for additional goods and services associated with an increase in population or employment and thus reducing or removing the barriers to growth. This typically occurs in suburban or rural environs where population growth results in increased demand for service and commodity markets responding to the new population of residents or employees.
3635
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 88 According to regional population projections included in SCAG’s Connect SoCal, the City of Ontario’s population is projected to grow by 96,900 residents between 2016 and 2045 (approximately 1.94% annual growth). Over this same time period, employment in the City is expected to add 55,400 new jobs (approximately 1.6% annual job growth) (SCAG, 2020b) Additionally, The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP 2050) projected a total of 129,562 dwelling units, 261,91,779 sq ft of non-residential uses, 410,492 residents and 296,002 jobs in 2050. (Ontario, 2022b) Economic growth would likely take place as a result of the Project’s operation. The Project’s employees (short-term construction and long term operational) would purchase goods and services in the region, but any secondary increase in employment associated with meeting these goods and services demands is expected to be accommodated by existing goods and service providers and, based on the amount of existing and planned future commercial and retail services available in areas near the Project Site, would be highly unlikely to result in any unanticipated, adverse physical impacts to the environment. In addition, the Project would generate approximately 75 employees per shift, a majority of which would likely be filled by residents of the housing units either already built or planned for development within the City of Ontario and nearby incorporated and unincorporated areas. Accordingly, because it is anticipated that most of the Project’s future employees would already be living in the City of Ontario or the larger Inland Empire area, the Project’s introduction of employment opportunities on the Project Site would not induce substantial growth in the area.

Under CEQA, growth inducement is not considered necessarily detrimental, beneficial, or of little significance to the environment. Typically, growth-inducing potential of a project would be considered significant if it fosters growth or a concentration of population in excess of what is assumed in applicable master plans, land use plans, or in projections made by regional planning agencies such as SCAG. Significant growth impacts also could occur if a project provides infrastructure or service capacity to accommodate growth beyond the levels currently permitted by local or regional plans and policies. In general, growth induced by a project is considered a significant impact if it directly or indirectly affects the ability of agencies to provide needed public services, or if it can be demonstrated that the potential growth significantly affects the environment in some other way.

The Project is consistent with the industrial land use designations applied to the Project Site by the Policy Plan. The area surrounding the Project Site consists of industrial warehouses to the south, east, and west and Southern Pacific railroad to the north with industrial uses beyond. Development of the Project Site is not expected to place short-term development pressure on abutting properties because these areas are already built-out. Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not result in substantial, adverse growth-inducing impacts. (DEIR, pp. 5.5-2 – 5.5-3)

7.3 IMPACTS CONSIDERED LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Section 15128 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that “an EIR shall contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant and were therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR.” The Project’s Notice of Preparation for the DEIR, both of which are included in Technical Appendix A to the DEIR, determined that implementation of the Project would clearly have no potential to result in significant impacts under eight (8) environmental issue areas: agriculture and forestry resources, biological resources, land use 3636
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 89 and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and wildfire.

These impacts are addressed in Section 3.0 of these Findings. (DEIR, pp. 5.5-3 – 5.5-4)

8.0 ALTERNATIVES

8.4.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED
An EIR is required to identify any alternatives that were considered by the Lead Agency but were rejected as infeasible. Among the factors described by CEQA Guidelines §15126.6 in determining whether to exclude alternatives from detailed consideration in the EIR are: a) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, b) infeasibility, or c) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.

With respect to the feasibility of potential alternatives to the proposed Project, CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(f)(1) notes:
“Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries…and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site…” In determining an appropriate range of alternatives to be evaluated in this EIR, a number of possible alternatives were initially considered and, for a variety of reasons, rejected. Alternatives were rejected because either: 1) they could not accomplish the basic objectives of the Project, 2) they would not have resulted in a reduction of significant adverse environmental impacts, or 3) they were considered infeasible to construct or operate.

1. Alternative Sites
CEQA requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives to the Project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the Project. The key question and first step in the analysis is determining whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by developing the project at another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(f)(2)).

As discussed above, the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable VMT impact.

Development of the Project in an alternative location in the general vicinity of the Project site would not reduce the VMT impact, as trip lengths would not substantially reduce such that the VMT impact could be relieved. Also, placing the Project in a different location would result in similar less-thansignificant environmental impacts as would occur with implementation of the Project at its proposed location because the Project’s environmental effects are primarily related to vehicles traveling to/from the Project site (air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions) and not related to the presence of sensitive resources on the Project site or its location near sensitive receptors. Vehicle-related impacts are a direct reflection of the Project’s expected operational characteristics, regardless of the property where the Project is located. In fact, if an alternative site were selected for the Project that was located farther from major arterial roads that are designated truck routes, like East Airport Drive for example, or 3637
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 90 regional freeways like I-15 and I-10, than the Project Site, the severity of the Project’s VMT impacts would increase as miles traveled for vehicles going to/from the Project would increase.

Similarly, there are no existing, developed sites for sale that are a similar size as the Project site within close proximity to the key freeway infrastructure and that could reasonably be controlled by the Project Applicant for the purpose of developing the Project. Furthermore, the Project Applicant does not hold ownership control over any other adequately sized parcels of land in or near the Project site that could be used as an alternative location for the proposed Project. CEQA does not require sites that are not owned by the landowner or that could not be reasonably acquired by the landowner to be considered as an alternative to the Project.

Therefore, because an alternative location is not available that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the Project, and because the Project Applicant does not have ownership control over, and cannot reasonably obtain ownership control over, any other parcels of land of adequate size in the jurisdiction of the City that could accommodate the Project, an alternative location alternative is not required to be analyzed. Accordingly, this alternative is not further considered in the DEIR.. (DEIR, pp. 6-4 – 6-5)

8.4.2 NO PROJECT/ NO DEVELOPMENT
The No Project/No Development Alternative considers no development on the Project site beyond what occurs on the site under existing conditions (as described in EIR Section 3.0). As such, the Alternative is considered to be the scenario where the existing grain processing company and corn storage and distribution facility are retained and the facility continues to its current operation into the future. It is acknowledged, however, that continuing the existing uses is a presumption for purposes of analysis herein and in reality the operator of those facilities may not continue operations and the site could become unoccupied and unused under the scenario of the No Project Alternative. Under this alternative, no improvements would be made to the Project site and none of the Project’s internal parking, utility, and other infrastructure improvements would occur. This alternative was selected by the City to compare the environmental effects of the proposed Project with an alternative that would leave the Project site undeveloped in its general existing conditions.

Implementation of the No Project/No Development Alternative would result in no physical environmental impacts to the Project Site beyond those that have historically occurred on the Project Site. All potentially significant effects of the Project would be avoided by the selection of this Alternative. Because the No Project/No Development Alternative would not redevelop the Project Site and would not expand economic development or facilitate job creation, the No Project Alternative would fail to meet all of the Project’s objectives. (DEIR, pp. 6-6 – 6-9) Thus, the Planning Commission finds that each of the reasons set forth above is an independent ground for rejecting the No Project/No Development Alternative, and by itself, independent of any other reason, justifies rejection of the No Project/No Development Alternative, and hereby rejects the No Project/No Development Alternative.
3638
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 91

8.4.3 REDUCED BUILDING AREA ALTERNATIVE
The Reduced Building Area Alternative considers a proposal where the Project site would be redeveloped with two uses: a light industrial building and a trailer parking lot. Under this Alternative, a 135,169 s.f. light industrial building (including related site improvements such as truck loading/unloading areas and parking, passenger vehicle parking, landscaping, signage, and public utility connections) would be developed on the eastern portion of the Project site and a trailer parking lot would be developed on the western portion of the Project site. This alternative was selected to evaluate a scenario that would reduce the total building area on the Project site relative to the Project but still allow productive industrial use of the entire Project site.

Based on the reduced building size, daily net new vehicle trip-ends per day would be proportionally decrease by approximately 50 percent and net new average daily trips under this alternative would be less than 110 daily vehicle trips. The Reduced Building Area Alternative would meet the Project Type Screening threshold and VMT impacts would be less than significant and would eliminate the Project’s significant and unavoidable VMT impact. Additionally, the Reduced Building Area Alternative would reduce the Project’s less-than-significant impacts to air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, and utilities and service systems. All other impacts from the Reduced Building Alternative would be similar to the Project. However, the Reduced Building Area Alternative would meet Project Objectives “A” and “B” less effectively than the Project due to the reduction in building area on-site. The Reduced Building Area Alternative would meet all of the Project’s other objectives. (DEIR, pp. 6-10 – 6-14) Thus, the Planning Commission finds that each of the reasons set forth above is an independent ground for rejecting the Reduced Intensity Alternative, and by itself, independent of any other reason, justifies rejection of the Reduced Building Area Alternative, and hereby rejects the Reduced Building Area Alternative.

8.4.4 REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
The Reduced Intensity Alternative considers a proposal where the Project site would be redeveloped with an industrial building with a total square footage of 63,500 s.f. and the balance of the site would be cleared of existing uses but would not be developed. This represents a reduction in development of 206,837 s.f. compared to the Project (an approximate 76.5 percent reduction). Under this alternative, no high-cube cold storage uses would occur. Access to the site would be similar to the Project with a proportional reduction in the number of passenger vehicle and truck parking spaces. This alternative was selected to evaluate a scenario that would reduce the total building size on the Project site, eliminate the high-cube cold storage use, and would not take into account elimination of existing trips generated by the existing uses in order to achieve a less-than-significant VMT impact. With a building size of 63,500 s.f. and taking no credit for the elimination of existing vehicle trips serving the existing uses on the site, a 63,500 s.f building would generate fewer than 110 daily trips and meet the City’s small project screening criteria for a less-than-significant VMT impact.

Based on the reduced building size, the Reduced Intensity Alternative is calculated to generate 108 daily vehicle trip-ends per day; therefore, net new average daily trips under this alternative would be less than 110 daily vehicle trips. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would meet the Project Type 3639
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 92 Screening threshold and VMT impacts would be less than significant. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would eliminate the Project’s significant and unavoidable VMT impacts. The Reduced Intensity Area Alternative would reduce the Project’s less-than-significant impacts to air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and utilities and service systems and reduce the potential for impacts to cultural, paleontological, and tribal cultural resources. All other impacts from the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be similar to the Project. However, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would meet Project Objectives “A” and “B” less effectively than the Project due to the reduction in building area on-site and employees compared to the Project. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would meet all of the Project’s other objectives. (DEIR, pp. 6-14 – 6-18) Thus, the Planning Commission finds that each of the reasons set forth above is an independent ground for rejecting the Reduced Intensity Alternative, and by itself, independent of any other reason, justifies rejection of the Reduced Intensity Alternative, and hereby rejects the Reduced Intensity Alternative.

8.4.5 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
The No Project/No Development Alternative has the least impact to the environment because it would not involve any construction activities or warehouse operations. There would be no impacts associated with a cumulatively considerable VMT impact. This impact is considered significant and unavoidable for the Project. While this alternative would avoid the significant effect of the Project, it would not receive any benefits from the drainage improvements or water quality features that would be constructed by the Project. Additionally, none of the Project objectives would be met. If a “no project” alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative then the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)). The Reduced Building Area Alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative because the Reduced Building Area Alternative would result in the greatest reduction of environmental impacts among the remaining alternatives as summarized in Table 6-1. The reduction in impacts is due to the fact that the use would have reduced vehicular trips, which would result in a reduction in VMT impacts; however, the Reduced Building Area Alternative would only partially meet two of the Project’s objectives. (DEIR, pp. 6-18 – 6-19) 3640
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 93

9.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
This Section specifically addresses §15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, which requires the City, acting as the Lead Agency, to balance the benefits of the Project against its significant and unavoidable adverse environmental impacts and determine whether the benefits which will accrue from the development of the Project outweigh its significant and unavoidable impacts. If the City finds that the major benefits of the Project outweigh its significant and unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, the City may approve the Project. Each of the separate benefits listed below are hereby determined to be, in itself, and independent of the Project’s other benefits, the basis for overriding all significant and unavoidable environmental impacts identified in the EIR.

As set forth in Section 3.0, above, the EIR identified all of the Project’s adverse environmental impacts and mitigation measures that can reduce the Project’s impacts to less-than-significant level where feasible, or to the lowest feasible levels. Mitigation imposed by the City must have a proportional nexus to the Project’s impacts. As further set forth in Section 5.0, the DEIR presents evidence that implementing the Project would cause or contribute to impacts that would remain significant and unavoidable even after the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures. Finally, as set forth in Section

7.0, there are no feasible alternatives to the Project that would mitigate the Project’s significant and avoidable impacts to less-than-significant level or avoid those environmental impacts while still attaining most of the Project’s basic objectives. Based on the facts presented throughout this document, the City makes the following finding:
 Finding
As the CEQA Lead Agency for the proposed Project, the City has reviewed the Project description and the alternatives to the Project, as presented in the EIR, and the City fully understands the Project and its alternatives. Further, the City finds that all potential adverse environmental impacts and all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the impacts from the Project have been identified in the DEIR, FEIR, and public testimony. Having considered the potential for the Project to cause or contribute to significant and unavoidable adverse impacts to Transportation, the City’s Planning Commission hereby determines that all feasible mitigation measures with proportional nexus to the Project’s impacts have been adopted to reduce or avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the EIR, and that no additional feasible mitigation or alternatives are available to further reduce or avoid significant impacts. Further, the City’s Planning Commission finds that economic, social, and other considerations of the Project outweigh the Project’s unavoidable impacts to Transportation and that approval of the Project is appropriate. In making this finding, the Planning Commission finds that each of the Project benefits separately and individually outweighs all of the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. The Project would meet the following objectives:

A. To expand economic development and facilitate job creation in the City of Ontario by redeveloping the property with a new, in-demand industrial use adjacent to an alreadyestablished industrial area. 3641
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 94 B. To attract employment-generating businesses to the City of Ontario to reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment.

D. To attract businesses that can expedite the delivery of goods to consumers and businesses in the City of Ontario and beyond.

F. To develop a property that has access to available infrastructure, including roads and utilities.

Furthermore, substantial evidence in the record demonstrates that approval and implementation of the Project will provide the benefits listed below:
a) As set forth in detail in the Findings, all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to reduce Project environmental effects to less than significant levels. b) The Project would develop the property with an employment-generating use; c) The Project would attract new employment-generating business to Ontario, thereby reducing the needs for the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment; d) The Project would increase the amount of available warehouse space in the City of Ontario; e) The new jobs provided by the Project will create direct and indirect economic benefits, such as increased tax income to the City and increased spending on goods and services; f) Approval of the Project will result in the Project’s monetary contributions to established fee programs including, but not limited to, the City’s Development Impact Fee (DIF) which will be directed to needed local road improvements;
In conclusion, the Planning Commission finds that the foregoing benefits provided through approval of the Project outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impacts. The Planning Commission further finds that each of the individual benefits discussed above outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the Final EIR and, therefore, finds those impacts to be acceptable. The Planning Commission further finds that each of the benefits listed above, standing alone, is sufficient justification for the Planning Commission to override these unavoidable environmental impacts.
3642
“EXHIBIT X”
5355 East Airport Drive SCH No. 2022090006
Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 95

10.0 ADDITIONAL FACTS ON RECORD

10.1 CUSTODIAN OF RECORD
The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Ontario Planning Department, 303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764. The custodian for these records is Thomas Grahn, Senior Planner. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code § 21081.6.
3643
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV22-017 - FEIR
August 27, 2024

Page 8 ends

Ontario City CouncilNovember 19, 2024

Ontario City Council
November 19, 2024