Ontario City Council
November 19, 2024

zoning, and Policy Plan (general plan) and specific plan land use designations are summarized in the "Surrounding Zoning & Land Uses" table located in the Technical Appendix of this report.

PROJECT ANALYSIS:
(1) Background — On April 5, 2022, the Applicant submitted the subject Development Plan (File No. PDEV22-017) to develop an industrial building totaling 270,337 square feet of gross floor area on 13.08 acres and having a floor area ratio ("FAR") of 0.47.

On March 18, 2024, the Development Advisory Board (DAB) voted to continue the Project to the next available DAB meeting to allow staff to work with the Applicant to revise draft conditions of approval. On April 15, 2024, the DAB voted to recommend to the Planning Commission approval of the proposed Project.

On May 28, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a hearing to consider the Project and continued the Project for further consideration.
(2) Site Design/Building Layout — The proposed development includes a warehouse distribution building, with a total floor area of 270,337 square feet. The building is centrally located on the Project site, setback approximately 180 to 200 feet from Airport Drive, 77 feet from the west property line, 72 feet from the east property line, and 40 feet from the north property line. The proposed warehouse building is rectangular in shape, positioned in an east-west orientation, with office space provided in the southwest and southeast corners of the building. The building is approximately 1,057 feet wide by 230 feet deep, with a total gross floor area of 270,337 square feet, including 255,337 square feet of warehouse, up to 15,000 square feet of office and 15,000 square feet of mezzanine area.

The parking lot areas are located at the east, west, and south sides of the building, and a gated/walled truck yard is located along the south side of the building.

A yard area designed for tractor-trailer parking, truck maneuvering, and loading activities is proposed along the south side of the building. This area will be screened from public view through a combination of building walls, landscaping, and a 14-foot-high concrete screen wall designed to match the building architecture. (3) Site Access/Circulation — The Project site will be accessible by trucks and passenger vehicles from two access points located at the southwestern and southeastern portions of the site along Airport Drive.

Internal circulation is provided with a minimum 24-foot-wide drive aisles throughout the site. The east and west sides of the Project site provide passenger vehicle parking with shared access separated by a gated truck yard along the south side of the building. (4) Parking — The Project has provided off-street parking pursuant to the warehouse distribution parking standards specified in the Development Code. The number of off332 Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV22-017
August 27, 2024

street parking spaces provided exceeds the minimum parking requirement for the Project. The off-street parking calculations for the Project are summarized in the table below:

Parking Summary
Type of Use Building
Area (in SF) Parking Ratio Spaces Required
Spaces
Provided
Office & Mezzanine
15,000 SF Office
(and 15,000 SF
Mezzanine)
1 passenger vehicle space per
250 SF 120
251 (Parking Lot)
48 (Truck Yard)
Warehouse 255,337 SF
1 passenger vehicle space per
1,000 SF (<20,000 SF)
1 passenger vehicle space per
2,000 SF (>20,000 SF)
131
TOTAL 270,337 251 251*
Truck Trailer Parking 54 Dock Doors 1 truck trailer space per 4 dock doors 14 48
* Project site can accommodate vehicle parking in truck yard area if/when needed by tenant operations.

The Project is required to provide 251 vehicle parking spaces and provides 167 vehicle parking spaces in the parking lots and has space for at least 84 spaces within the truck yard area depending on future tenant needs. Depending on the tenant business operations, the 167 spaces in the parking areas on the east and west sides of the building should be sufficient to accommodate the tenant's needs. As conditioned, the truck yard area shall be required to provide passenger vehicle parking spaces when tenant operations require more than 167 parking spaces, provided a minimum 14 trailer parking spaces are maintained.
(5) Architecture — The Project incorporates a contemporary industrial architectural style. The proposed buildings will be of concrete tilt-up construction with color blocking, formliner accent treatment, accent colors, and score patterns. The paint colors proposed for this building are white and varying shades of gray. Dark green will be utilized as an accent color and applied to the canopy above the office areas. Material such as smooth finish concrete, canopy, and green-hued vision glazing applied to the building elevations and portions of parapet walls.

The architectural design also incorporates wall offsets at the southwest and southeast corners of the building to create variations in the wall plane, visual depth, shadows, and dimensions. The proposed wall offsets on the building are typically three or four feet.

The Project illustrates the type of high-quality architecture promoted by the Development Code, which is exemplified through the use of:
333
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV22-017
August 27, 2024

 Articulation in the building footprint, integrating a combination of recessed and popped-out metal canopies, vertical and horizontal reveal patterns;  Articulation in the building parapet/roofline, accentuating the building's entries and breaking up large expanses of the building wall;
 A mix of exterior materials, finishes, and fixtures;
 Incorporation of base and top treatments defined by changes in color and recessed wall areas; and
 Ensuring consistency in massing, proportion, colors, and architectural detailing across all four building elevations.
(6) Landscaping — The Project's overall landscape coverage is 12.72 percent (72,527 square feet) and exceeds the minimum 10 percent requirement. The Project provides landscaping around the Project perimeter, adjacent to the building and throughout the passenger vehicle parking lots to soften the appearance of these areas and provide additional shade. The landscape plan includes 199 trees to be planted on-site including the neighborhood edges. The proposed tree species include Western Redbud, Desert Willow, Toyon, Skyrocket Juniper, Afghan Pine, Holly Oak, Chinese Pistache, California Sycamore, and Brisbane Box. Landscape plans will also incorporate low-water usage and drought-tolerant shrubs and ground covers throughout the site.

The Project includes right-of-way improvements (street, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and parkway) along Airport Drive. The proposed on-site and off-site landscape improvements will assist toward creating safe paths and areas for pedestrians to access the Project site. (7) Signage — All Project signage is required to comply with sign regulations provided in Ontario Development Code Division 8.1. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the installation of any new on-site signage, the Applicant is required to submit Sign Plans for Planning Department review and approval.
(8) Utilities (drainage, sewer) — Public utilities (water and sewer) are available to serve the Project. Furthermore, the Applicant has submitted a Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan ("PWQMP"), which establishes the Project's compliance with storm water discharge/water quality requirements. The PWQMP includes site design measures that capture runoff and pollutant transport by minimizing impervious surfaces and maximizes low impact development ("LID") best management practices ("BMPs"), such as retention and infiltration, biotreatment, and evapotranspiration. The PWQMP proposes the use of underground storm water retention chambers to receive, retain, and treat storm water runoff. Any overflow drainage will be conveyed to the public street by way of parkway drains and culverts.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: The subject application was advertised as a public hearing in at least one newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ontario (the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper). In addition, the Project site was posted with one or more large public notification signs and notices were mailed to all owners of real property located within a 334
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV22-017
August 27, 2024

minimum of 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property that is the subject of the hearing, as shown on the records of the County Assessor.

CORRESPONDENCE: As of the preparation of this Agenda Report, Planning Department staff has not received any written or verbal communications from the owners or occupants of properties surrounding the Project site or from the public in general, regarding the subject application; however, comments were received prior to the DAB hearing and those comments are provided as attachments to this report.

AGENCY/DEPARTMENT REVIEWS: Each City agency/department has been provided the opportunity to review and comment on the subject application and recommend conditions of approval to be imposed upon the application. At the time of the Resolution preparation, recommended conditions of approval were provided and are appended to the attached Resolution as "Attachment A."
AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN (ALUCP) COMPLIANCE: The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the ONT ALUCP, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. As the decision-making body for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ONT ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-2) and Safety Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the Planning Commission, therefore, finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ONT ALUCP.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE ONTARIO PLAN: The proposed Project is consistent with the principles, goals and policies contained within the Vision, Governance, Policy Plan (general plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan ("TOP"). More specifically, the goals and policies of TOP that are furthered by the proposed Project are as follows:
(1) City Council Goals.
 Invest in the Growth and Evolution of the City's Economy 335
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV22-017
August 27, 2024

 Maintain the Current High Level of Public Safety
 Operate in a Businesslike Manner
(2) Vision.

Distinctive Development:
(3) Governance.

Decision Making:
 Goal G1: Sustained decision-making that consistently moves Ontario towards its Vision by using The Ontario Plan as a framework for assessing choices.  G 1-2. Long-term Benefit. We require decisions to demonstrate and document how they add value to the community and support the Ontario Vision. (4) Policy Plan (General Plan)
Land Use Element:
 Goal LU-2 Compatibility: Compatibility between a wide range of uses and a resultant urban patterns and forms.
 LU-2.6 Infrastructure Compatibility. We require infrastructure to be aesthetically pleasing and in context with the community character.

Community Economics Element:
 Goal CE-2 Placemaking: A City of distinctive neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and centers where people choose to be.
 CE-2.1 Development Projects. We require new development and redevelopment to create unique, high-quality places that add value to the community.  CE-2.2 Development Review. We require those proposing new development and redevelopment to demonstrate how their projects will create appropriately unique, functional, and sustainable places that will compete well with their competition within the region.
 CE-2.4 Protection of Investment. We require that new development and redevelopment protect existing investment by providing architecture and urban design of equal or greater quality.
336
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV22-017
August 27, 2024

 CE-2.5 Private Maintenance. We require adequate maintenance, upkeep, and investment in private property because proper maintenance on private property protects property values.

Community Design Element:
 Goal CD-2 Design Quality: A high level of design quality resulting in neighborhoods, public spaces, parks, and streetscapes that are attractive, safe, functional, human-scale, and distinct.
 CD-2.1 Quality Building Design and Architecture. We encourage all development projects to convey visual interest and character through:
• Building volume, massing, and height to provide context-appropriate scale and proportion;
• A true architectural style which is carried out in plan, section, and elevation through all aspects of the building and site design and appropriate for its setting; and
• Exterior building materials that are articulated, high quality, durable, and appropriate for the architectural style.
 CD-2.7 Sustainability. We collaborate with the development community to design and build neighborhoods, streetscapes, sites, outdoor spaces, landscaping, and buildings to reduce energy demand through solar orientation, maximum use of natural daylight, passive solar and natural ventilation, building form, mechanical and structural systems, building materials, and construction techniques.  CD-2.8 Safe Design. We incorporate defensible space design into new and existing developments to ensure the maximum safe travel and visibility on pathways, corridors, and open space and at building entrances and parking areas by avoiding physically and visually isolated spaces, maintaining visibility and accessibility, and using lighting.
 CD-2.9 Landscape Design. We encourage durable, sustainable, and drought-tolerant landscaping materials and designs that enhance the aesthetics of structures, create and define public and private spaces, and provide shade and environmental benefits.
 CD-2.10 Parking Areas. We require all development, including single-family residential, to minimize the visual impact of surface, structured, and garage parking areas visible from the public realm in an aesthetically pleasing, safe and environmentally sensitive manner. Examples include:
• Surface parking: Shade trees, pervious surfaces, urban run-off capture and infiltration, and pedestrian paths to guide users through the parking field; 337
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV22-017
August 27, 2024

• Garage parking: providing access to single-family residential garages through alley access, recessing garages from the frontage to emphasize front doors or active living spaces.
 CD-2.11 Entry Statements. We encourage the inclusion of amenities, signage, and landscaping at the entry to neighborhoods, commercial centers, mixed use areas, industrial developments, and public places that reinforce them as uniquely identifiable places.
 CD-2.12 Site and Building Signage. We encourage the use of sign programs that utilize complementary materials, colors, and themes. Project signage should be designed to effectively communicate and direct users to various aspects of the development and complement the character of the structures.  CD-2.13 Entitlement Process. We work collaboratively with all stakeholders to ensure a high degree of certainty in the efficient review and timely processing of all development plans and permits.
 CD-3.2 Comfortable, Human-Scale Public Realm. We require that public spaces, including streets, parks, and plazas on both public and private property be designed to maximize safety, comfort and aesthetics and connect to the citywide pedestrian, vehicular, and bicycle networks.
 CD-3.3 Complete and Connected Network. We require that pedestrian, vehicular, and bicycle circulation on both public and private property be coordinated to provide connections internally and externally to adjacent neighborhoods and properties (existing and planned) through a system of local roads and trails that promote walking and biking to nearby destinations (including existing and planned parks, commercial areas, and transit stops) and are designed to maximize safety, comfort, and aesthetics.
 CD-3.4 Context-Aware and Appropriate Design. We require appropriate building and site design that complements existing development, respects the intent and identity of the Place Type, and provides appropriate transitions and connections between adjacent uses to ensure compatibility of scale, maintain an appropriate level of privacy for each use, and minimize potential conflicts.  CD-3.5 Active Frontages. We create lively pedestrian streetscapes by requiring primary building, business, and residential entrances, outdoor dining, and storefronts be located on ground floors adjacent to sidewalks or public spaces and designed to maximize safety, comfort, aesthetics, and the intended functionality (as defined by the Place Type).
 CD-3.6 Managed Infrastructure. We collaborate with developers and property owners to facilitate development that realizes the envisioned character and 338
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV22-017
August 27, 2024

functionality of the Place Type through the use of green and shared infrastructure within each Place Type.
 Goal CD-5 Protection of Investment: A sustained level of maintenance and improvement of properties, buildings, and infrastructure that protects the property values and encourages additional public and private investments.  CD-5.1 Maintenance of Buildings and Property. We require all public and privately-owned buildings and property (including trails and easements) to be properly and consistently maintained.
 CD-5.2 Maintenance of Infrastructure. We require the continual maintenance of infrastructure.

HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE: The Project is consistent with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan (general plan) component of The Ontario Plan, as the Project site is not one of the properties in the Housing Element Sites contained in Tables B-1 and B-2 (Housing Element Sites Inventory) of the Housing Element Technical Report.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA") and a Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") has been prepared for the Project and addresses any impacts on the environment should the Project be implemented. These areas included: Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire.

Through the EIR process these potential impacts were analyzed, revisions were incorporated into the plan and/or mitigation measures were identified that reduced the potential environmental impacts to a level that was less than significant. Of the areas analyzed by the EIR, all but five of the impact areas were determined to be less-thansignificant and therefore did not require the imposition of mitigation measures, or there were no impacts at all. Of those environmental impact areas, four are mitigated to a level of less than significant and include: Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Tribal Cultural Resources. Only one remaining environmental impact area for Transportation, even with the mitigation measures, could not be reduced to less than significant and the impacts would remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation:
• Transportation (Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)): After the application of feasible mitigation measures, effectiveness of the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies that have potential to reduce the Project VMT are dependent on as yet unknown Project building tenant(s); therefore, Project impacts related to 339
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV22-017
August 27, 2024

VMT would be significant and unavoidable on a direct and cumulativelyconsiderable basis.

The City of Ontario circulated the Draft EIR on August 22, 2023, through October 5, 2023, for public review. At the end of the public review period 2 comments were received.

Refer to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Section 2. Response to Comments.

Additionally, to ensure that the mitigation measures are implemented, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared for the Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15097, which specifies responsible agencies/departments, monitoring frequency, timing and method of verification and possible sanctions for non-compliance with mitigation measures.
340
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV22-017
August 27, 2024

TECHNICAL APPENDIX:

Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:

Existing Land Use Policy Plan
Land Use Designation
Zoning
Designation
Specific Plan
Land Use Designation
Site:

Industrial (Grain
processing and
storage)
Industrial (0.55 FAR) IH, Heavy Industrial N/A
North: Railroad ROW and
Warehouse
Rail & Shea Business
Center Beyond
RC Rail Corridor & IH,
Heavy Industrial
Industrial / Commercial
/ Office
South: Warehouse Industrial (0.55 FAR) IH, Heavy Industrial N/A East: Industrial (Industrial gas
supplier) Industrial (0.55 FAR) IH, Heavy Industrial N/A West: Warehouse Industrial (0.55 FAR) IH, Heavy Industrial N/A General Site & Building Statistics
Item Proposed Min./Max. Standard Meets
Y/N
Project Area: 13.08 Acres N/A Y
Lot/Parcel Size: 13.08 Acres 10,000 SF (Min.) Y
Building Area: 270,337 SF N/A Y
Floor Area Ratio: 0.47 FAR 0.55 FAR (Max.) Y
Building Height: 46 FT 55 FT (Max.) Y
341
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV22-017
August 27, 2024

Exhibit A: PROJECT LOCATION MAP
342
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV22-017
August 27, 2024

Exhibit B: SITE PLAN
343
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV22-017
August 27, 2024

Exhibit C: FLOOR PLAN
344
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV22-017
August 27, 2024

Exhibit D: EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
South Elevation
North Elevation
345
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV22-017
August 27, 2024

Exhibit D: ELEVATIONS (CONT.)
West Elevation
East Elevation
346
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV22-017
August 27, 2024

Exhibit E: CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
347
348
Draft Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2022090006

5355 East Airport Drive City of Ontario, California

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
Lead Agency Discretionary Permits
Development Plan PDEV22-017
August 2023
349
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Name and Number Page
S.0 Executive Summary ......................................................................................... S-1 S.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... S-1 S.2 Project Overview ...................................................................................................... S-2 S.2.1 Location and Setting ......................................................................................S-2 S.2.2 Project Summary ...........................................................................................S-2 S.2.3 Project Objectives .........................................................................................S-2 S.3 EIR Process ............................................................................................................... S-3 S.4 Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Resolved ...................................................... S-4 S.5 Alternatives to the Proposed Project ......................................................................... S-4 S.5.1 No Project/No Development Alternative .......................................................S-4 S.5.2 Reduced Building Area Alternative ...............................................................S-5 S.5.3 Reduced Intensity Alternative ........................................................................S-5 S.6 Summary of Impact, Mitigation Measures, and Conclusions ................................... S-5

1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Purposes of CEQA and this EIR ................................................................................1-1

1.2 Summary of the Project Evaluated in this EIR ..........................................................1-2

1.3 CEQA Compliance Process .......................................................................................1-2

1.4 Content and Organization of this EIR ........................................................................1-6

1.5 Incorporation by Reference ........................................................................................1-9

1.6 Responsible and Trustee Agencies ..........................................................................1-10

1.7 Areas of Controversy ...............................................................................................1-11

1.8 Issues to be Resolved by the Decision-Making Body ..............................................1-11

2.0 Environmental Setting ...................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Regional Setting and Location ...................................................................................2-1

2.2 Local Setting and Location ........................................................................................2-1

2.3 Surrounding Land Uses ..............................................................................................2-3

2.4 Planning Context ........................................................................................................2-5

2.4.1 City of Ontario General Plan (Policy Plan) ..................................................2-5

2.4.2 Zoning ............................................................................................................2-5

2.4.3 SCAG Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy ..........................................................................................................2-5

2.5 Existing Physical Site Conditions ..............................................................................2-6

2.5.1 Land Use ........................................................................................................2-6

2.5.2 Aesthetics and Topographic Features ...........................................................2-9

2.5.3 Air Quality and Climate ................................................................................2-9

2.5.4 Cultural Resources & Tribal Cultural Resources .........................................2-9

2.5.5 Geology .........................................................................................................2-9 350
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page ii

2.5.6 Hydrology ....................................................................................................2-10

2.5.7 Noise ............................................................................................................2-11

2.5.8 Transportation .............................................................................................2-11

2.5.9 Utilities and Service Systems .......................................................................2-12

2.5.10 Rare and Unique Resources ........................................................................2-12

3.0 Project Description .......................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Project Location and setting .......................................................................................3-1

3.2 Statement of Objectives .............................................................................................3-1

3.3 Project Components ...................................................................................................3-2

3.3.1 Development Plan (PDEV22-017) ................................................................3-2

3.4 Scope of Environmental Analysis ............................................................................3-12

3.4.1 Project Construction Characteristics ..........................................................3-12

3.4.2 Project Operational Characteristics ...........................................................3-13

3.5 Summary of Requested Actions ...............................................................................3-14

3.6 Related Environmental Review And Consultation ..................................................3-17

4.0 Environmental Analysis ..................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Summary of EIR Scope ..................................................................................4-1

4.1.2 Scope of Cumulative Effects Analysis ............................................................4-1

4.1.3 Analysis Format.............................................................................................4-4

4.1.4 Terminology Used in This EIR ......................................................................4-5

4.1 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................4.1-1

4.1.1 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................4.1-1

4.1.2 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................4.1-6

4.1.3 Methodology for Evaluating Aesthetics Impacts ........................................4.1-7

4.1.4 Basis for Determining Significance ............................................................4.1-7

4.1.5 Impact Analysis ..........................................................................................4.1-8

4.1.6 Cumulative Impact Analysis .....................................................................4.1-12

4.1.7 Significance of Impacts Before Mitigation ...............................................4.1-13

4.1.8 Mitigation .................................................................................................4.1-14

4.2 Air Quality ..............................................................................................................4.2-1

4.2.1 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................4.2-1

4.2.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................4.2-15

4.2.2 Methodology for Calculating Project-Related Air Quality Impacts ........4.2-20

4.2.3 Basis for Determining Significance ..........................................................4.2-27

4.2.4 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................4.2-29

4.2.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis .....................................................................4.2-37

4.2.6 Significance of Impacts Before Mitigation ...............................................4.2-38

4.2.7 Mitigation .................................................................................................4.2-38

4.3 Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................4.3-1

4.3.1 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................4.3-1

4.3.2 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................4.3-1 351
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page iii

4.3.3 Basis for Determining Significance ............................................................4.3-7

4.3.4 Impact Analysis ..........................................................................................4.3-7

4.3.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis .......................................................................4.3-9

4.3.6 Significance of Impacts Before Mitigation ...............................................4.3-10

4.3.7 Mitigation .................................................................................................4.3-10

4.3.8 Significance of Impacts After Mitigation ..................................................4.3-14

4.4 Energy .....................................................................................................................4.4-1

4.4.1 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................4.4-1

4.4.2 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................4.4-2

4.4.3 Basis for Determining Significance ............................................................4.4-4

4.4.4 Impact Analysis ..........................................................................................4.4-5

4.4.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis .......................................................................4.4-8

4.4.6 Significance of Impacts Before Mitigation .................................................4.4-9

4.4.7 Mitigation ...................................................................................................4.4-9

4.5 Geology and Soils ...................................................................................................4.5-1

4.5.1 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................4.5-1

4.5.2 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................4.5-4

4.5.3 Basis for Determining Significance ............................................................4.5-7

4.5.4 Impact Analysis ..........................................................................................4.5-8

4.5.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis .....................................................................4.5-12

4.5.6 Significance of Impacts Before Mitigation ...............................................4.5-13

4.5.7 Mitigation .................................................................................................4.5-14

4.5.8 Significance of Impacts After Mitigation ..................................................4.5-15

4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .....................................................................................4.6-1

4.6.1 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................4.6-1

4.6.2 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................4.6-7

4.6.3 Basis for Determining Significance ..........................................................4.6-21

4.6.4 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................4.6-22

4.6.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis .....................................................................4.6-24

4.6.6 Significance of Impacts Before Mitigation ...............................................4.6-25

4.6.7 Mitigation .................................................................................................4.6-25

4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials...........................................................................4.7-1

4.7.1 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................4.7-1

4.7.2 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................4.7-6

4.7.3 Methodology for Evaluating Hazards & Hazardous Materials Impacts .....................................................................................................4.7-12

4.7.4 Basis for Determining Significance ..........................................................4.7-12

4.7.5 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................4.7-13

4.7.6 Cumulative Impact Analysis .....................................................................4.7-17

4.7.7 Significance of Impacts Before Mitigation ...............................................4.7-18

4.7.8 Mitigation .................................................................................................4.7-19

4.7.9 Significance of Impacts After Mitigation ..................................................4.7-21 352
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page iv

4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................................4.8-1

4.8.1 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................4.8-1

4.8.2 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................4.8-4

4.8.3 Basis for Determining Significance ............................................................4.8-8

4.8.4 Impact Analysis ..........................................................................................4.8-9

4.8.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis .....................................................................4.8-17

4.8.6 Significance of Impacts Before Mitigation ...............................................4.8-19

4.8.7 Mitigation .................................................................................................4.8-19

4.9 Noise .......................................................................................................................4.9-1

4.9.1 Noise Fundamentals ...................................................................................4.9-1

4.9.2 Existing Noise Conditions ..........................................................................4.9-3

4.9.3 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................4.9-6

4.9.4 Methodology for Calculating Project-Related Noise Impacts .................4.9-10

4.9.5 Basis for Determining Significance ..........................................................4.9-14

4.9.6 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................4.9-16

4.9.7 Cumulative Impact Analysis .....................................................................4.9-22

4.9.8 Significance of Impacts Before Mitigation ...............................................4.9-23

4.9.9 Mitigation .................................................................................................4.9-24

4.10 Transportation .......................................................................................................4.10-1

4.10.1 Existing Transportation Setting ................................................................4.10-1

4.10.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................4.10-3

4.10.3 Basis for Determining Significance ..........................................................4.10-4

4.10.4 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................4.10-5

4.10.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis ................................................................... 4.10-15

4.10.6 Significance of Impacts Before Mitigation ............................................. 4.10-15

4.10.7 Mitigation ............................................................................................... 4.10-16

4.10.8 Significance of Impacts After Mitigation ................................................ 4.10-16

4.11 Tribal Cultural Resources .....................................................................................4.11-1

4.11.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................4.11-1

4.11.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................4.11-1

4.11.3 Methodology For Evaluating Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts ...........4.11-3

4.11.4 Basis for Determining Significance ..........................................................4.11-3

4.11.5 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................4.11-3

4.11.6 Cumulative Impact Analysis .....................................................................4.11-5

4.11.7 Significance of Impacts Before Mitigation ...............................................4.11-5

4.11.8 Mitigation .................................................................................................4.11-5

4.11.9 Significance of Impacts After Mitigation ..................................................4.11-5

4.12 Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................................4.12-1

4.12.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................4.12-1

4.12.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................4.12-2

4.12.3 Basis for Determining Significance ..........................................................4.12-8

4.12.4 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................4.12-9 353
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page v

4.12.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis ................................................................... 4.12-12

4.12.6 Significance of Impacts Before Mitigation ............................................. 4.12-13

4.12.7 Mitigation ............................................................................................... 4.12-14

5.0 Other CEQA Considerations ............................................................................. 5-1

5.1 Significant Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided If The Proposed Project Is Implemented ....................................................................................................................................5-1

5.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would Be Caused By The Project Should It Be Implemented .............................................................................5-1

5.3 Growth Inducing Impacts ..........................................................................................5-2

5.4 Effects Found Not To Be Significant During The EIR Scoping Process ..................5-3

5.4.1 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .............................................................5-4

5.4.2 Biological Resources .....................................................................................5-5

5.4.3 Land Use and Planning .................................................................................5-7

5.4.4 Mineral Resources .........................................................................................5-7

5.4.5 Population and Housing ................................................................................5-8

5.4.6 Public Services ..............................................................................................5-9

5.4.7 Recreation....................................................................................................5-10

5.4.8 Wildfire ........................................................................................................5-11

6.0 Alternatives ..................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Summary of Significant and Unavoidable Impacts ...................................................6-2

6.2 Project Objectives ......................................................................................................6-2

6.3 Alternatives Under Consideration ..............................................................................6-3

6.3.1 No Project/No Development Alternative .......................................................6-3

6.3.2 Reduced Building Area Alternative ...............................................................6-3

6.3.3 Reduced Intensity Alternative ........................................................................6-4

6.4 Alternatives Considered But Rejected .......................................................................6-4

6.4.1 Alternative Sites .............................................................................................6-4

6.5 Alternative Analysis ...................................................................................................6-5

6.5.1 No Project/No Development Alternative .......................................................6-6

6.5.2 Reduced Building Area Alternative .............................................................6-10

6.5.1 Reduced Intensity Alternative ......................................................................6-14

6.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative .....................................................................6-18

7.0 References...................................................................................................... 7-1

7.1 Persons Contributing to EIR Preparation ...................................................................7-1

7.1.1 City of Ontario Planning Department ...........................................................7-1

7.1.2 T&B Planning, Inc.........................................................................................7-1

7.2 Documents Appended to this EIR ..............................................................................7-1

7.3 Documents Incorporated by Reference ......................................................................7-2

7.4 Documents and Websites Consulted ..........................................................................7-3

7.5 Persons Consulted/Written or Verbal Communication ............................................7-14 354
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page vi

7.5.1 Tribal Consultation .....................................................................................7-14

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Number and Name Page
Figure 2-1 Surrounding Land Uses ..............................................................................................2-4 Figure 2-2 Existing General Plan Land Use Designations ..........................................................2-7 Figure 2-3 Existing Zoning Designations ....................................................................................2-8 Figure 3-1 Regional Map .............................................................................................................3-3 Figure 3-2 Vicinity Map ..............................................................................................................3-4 Figure 3-3 USGS Topographic Map ............................................................................................3-5 Figure 3-4 Proposed Site Plan .....................................................................................................3-7 Figure 3-5 Proposed Architectural Elevations .............................................................................3-8 Figure 3-6 Proposed Landscape Plan ..........................................................................................3-9 Figure 3-7 Proposed Utility Plan ...............................................................................................3-11 Figure 3-8 Proposed Grading Plan - West .................................................................................3-15 Figure 3-9 Proposed Grading Plan – East ..................................................................................3-16 Figure 4.1-1 Site Photography View 1 ........................................................................................4.1-3 Figure 4.1-2 Site Photography View 2 ........................................................................................4.1-4 Figure 4.1-3 Site Photography View 3 ........................................................................................4.1-5 Figure 4.2-1 Sensitive Receptor Locations ................................................................................4.2-25 Figure 4.8-1 Santa Ana River Watershed Map ............................................................................4.8-2 Figure 4.8-2 Proposed Post-Development Hydrology Map ......................................................4.8-14 Figure 4.9-1 Noise Measurement Locations ................................................................................4.9-5 Figure 4.9-2 Noise Receiver Locations .....................................................................................4.9-12

LIST OF TABLES
Table Number and Name Page
Table S-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ........................................................ S-6 Table 1-1 Summary of NOP and Scoping Meeting Comments .................................................1-3 Table 1-2 Location of CEQA Required Topics ..........................................................................1-8 Table 3-1 Estimated Construction Schedule ............................................................................3-12 Table 3-2 Estimated Construction Equipment Fleet ................................................................3-12 Table 3-3 Matrix of Project Approvals/Permits .......................................................................3-17 Table 4.1-1 Zoning District Development Standards Consistency Analysis .............................4.1-9 Table 4.2-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards (1 of 2)..................................................................4.2-6 Table 4.2-2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the SCAB ............................................4.2-8 Table 4.2-3 Project Area Air Quality Monitoring Summary .....................................................4.2-9 355
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page vii
Table 4.2-4 Existing Project Site Operation-Source Emissions ...............................................4.2-15 Table 4.2-5 Maximum Daily Regional Emissions Thresholds ................................................4.2-28 Table 4.2-6 Maximum Daily Localized Construction Emissions Thresholds .........................4.2-28 Table 4.2-7 Maximum Daily Localized Operational Emissions Thresholds ...........................4.2-29 Table 4.2-8 Peak Construction Emissions Summary ...............................................................4.2-31 Table 4.2-9 Peak Operational Emissions Summary .................................................................4.2-32 Table 4.2-10 Localized Construction-Source Emissions Summary ...........................................4.2-33 Table 4.2-11 Localized Operational-Source Emissions Summary .............................................4.2-34 Table 4.6-1 GWP and Atmospheric Lifetime of Select GHGs ..................................................4.6-2 Table 4.6-2 Scoping Plan GHG Reduction Measures Towards 2020 Target ...........................4.6-15 Table 4.6-3 Project GHG Emissions ........................................................................................4.6-22 Table 4.8-1 Pre-Development Hydrology Summary Table .....................................................4.8-15 Table 4.8-2 Post-Development Hydrology Summary Table ....................................................4.8-15 Table 4.9-1 Ground-Borne Vibration and Ground-Borne Noise Impact Criteria for General Assessment ..............................................................................................................4.9-7 Table 4.9-2 Construction Reference Noise Levels ...................................................................4.9-10 Table 4.9-3 Operational Reference Noise Levels.....................................................................4.9-14 Table 4.9-4 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ..........................................4.9-14 Table 4.9-5 Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary ..................................................4.9-17 Table 4.9-6 Nighttime Concrete Pouring Noise Level Summary ............................................4.9-18 Table 4.9-7 Daytime Project Operational Noise Levels ...........................................................4.9-18 Table 4.9-8 Nighttime Project Operational Noise Levels ........................................................4.9-19 Table 4.9-9 Project Operational Noise Summary – Stationary Noise ......................................4.9-19 Table 4.9-10 Project Operational Noise Level Contributions – Daytime ..................................4.9-20 Table 4.9-11 Project Operational Noise Level Contributions – Nighttime ................................4.9-20 Table 4.9-12 Construction Equipment Vibration Levels ...........................................................4.9-21 Table 4.10-1 Existing Trip Generation Summary ......................................................................4.10-2 Table 4.10-2 Project Trip Generation .........................................................................................4.10-5 Table 4.10-3 Project Net New Daily Trips .................................................................................4.10-6 Table 4.10-4 SCAG’s Connect SoCal Goal Consistency Analysis ............................................4.10-7 Table 4.10-5 Mobility Element Policy Consistency Analysis....................................................4.10-9 Table 4.10-6 Total VMT .......................................................................................................... 4.10-13 Table 4.10-7 Project VMT per Service Population .................................................................. 4.10-14 Table 6-1 Trip Generation under the Reduced Building Intensity Alternative ........................6-17 Table 6-2 Alternatives to the Project – Comparison of Environmental Impacts......................6-19 356
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page viii

APPENDICES (BOUND SEPARATELY)
Appendix A Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Written Comments on the NOP Appendix B1 Air Quality Impact Analysis
Appendix B2 Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment
Appendix C Cultural Resources Records Search Results
Appendix D Energy Analysis
Appendix E1 Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix E2 Infiltration Report
Appendix F Greenhouse Gas Analysis
Appendix G Phase I/II Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix H1 Preliminary Hydrology Report
Appendix H2 Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix I Noise Impact Analysis
Appendix J Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
Appendix K Trip Generation Assessment
357
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page ix

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Acronym Definition
§ Section
> greater than
≥ greater than or equal to
a.m. Ante Meridiem (between the hours of midnight and noon) AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards
AB Assembly Bill
AB 52 Native Americans: California Environmental Quality Act AB 1493 Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards
AB 1327 California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Act
AB 939 California Solid Waste Integrated Management Act AB 1881 California Assembly Bill 1881, California Water Conservation Act of 2006 AC Acres
ACMs Asbestos Containing Materials
A.D. Anno Domini
ADP Area Drainage Plan
AERMOD Air Quality Dispersion Modeling
ADT Average Daily Traffic
AFY Acre Feet per Year
AIA Airport Influence Area
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
AMSL Above Mean Sea Level
A-P Act Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
APN Assessor Parcel Number
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials
ASTs Above ground storage tanks
Av. Avenue
BACM Best Available Control Measure
BAU Business as Usual
B.C. Before Christ
bgs Below ground surface
Blvd. Boulevard
BMPs Best Management Practices
358
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page x
BLM Bureau of Land Management
C2F6 Hexafluoroethane
C2H6 Ethane
CA California
CAA Federal Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy
CalEEMod™ California Emissions Estimator Model
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CALGreen Code California Green Building Standards Code
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP Climate Action Plan
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board
CASQUA California Stormwater Quality Association
CAW California American Water
CBC California Building Code
CBSC California Building Standards Code
CCR California Code of Regulations
CCAA California Clear Air Act
CDC California Department of Conservation
CDD Community Development Director
CDE California Department of Education
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEC California Energy Commission
CEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CESA California Endangered Species Act
CETAP Community & Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process CFC California Fire Code
CFCs Chlorofluorocarbons
C2F6 Hexaflouroethane
CF4 Tetraflouromethane
CF3CH2F HFC-134a
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CFS Cubic Feet per Second
CGS California Geologic Survey
CH Conservation Habitat
359
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page xi
C2H6 Ethane
CH4 Methane
CH3CHF2 HFC-152a
CHF3 HFC-23
CHHSL California Human Health Screening Level
CHP combined heat and power
CHRIS California Historic Resources Information System
CIWMB California Integrated Waste Management Board
CLCA California Land Conservation Act
CLUP Comprehensive Land Use Plan
CMP Congestion Management Program
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO Carbon Monoxide
COG Council of Governments
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
COHb carboxyhemoglobin
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CREED Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development CSU California State University
CSRG Conservation Summary Report Generator
CTC California Transportation Commission
CTP Clean Truck Program
CUP Conditional Use Permit
CWA Clean Water Act
CWC California Water Code
CY Cubic Yards
CZ Change of Zone
dB Decibel
dBA A-weighted Decibels
DEH Department of Environmental Health
DIF Development Impact Fee
DOSH Division of Occupational Safety and Health
DP Development Permit
DPM Diesel Particulate Matter
DRC Design Review Committee
DRRP Diesel Risk Reduction Plan
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
360
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page xii
DU Dwelling Unit
DU/AC Dwelling units per acre
DWR Department of Water Resources
E+A+P Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project Conditions E+A+P+C Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project Conditions plus Cumulative Conditions
E+P Existing plus Project Conditions
ECS Environmental Constraints Sheet
EDR EDR Sanborn
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EMFAC Emission Factor Model
EO Executive Order
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act EPS Emission Performance Standard
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
et seq. et sequentia, meaning "and the following”
EV Electric Vehicle
F Fahrenheit
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAR floor area ratio
FAR Federal Aviation Regulations
FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FESA Federal Endangered Species Act
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FHA Federal Housing Administration
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FIA Fiscal Impact Analysis
FICON Federal Interagency Committee on Noise
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FTA Federal Transit Association
FY Fiscal Year
FYI For Your Information
361
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page xiii
GCC Global Climate Change
Gg Gigagrams
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GIS Geographic Information System
GISD Geographic Information Services Database
GgCO2e Gigagrams of carbon dioxide equivalent
GLO General Land Office
GP General Plan
GPA General Plan Amendment
gpd Gallons per Day
gpm Gallons per minute
GPS Global Positioning System
GSA Groundwater Sustainability Agencies
GVWR Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
GWP Global Warming Potential
H2O Water Vapor
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HCS+ Highway Capacity Software Plus
HDV Heavy-duty vehicles
HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons
HI Hazard Index
HMBEP Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan
HMMD Hazardous Materials Management Division
HMMP Hazardous Materials Management Plan
HMTA Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
HMTAUSA Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act Hp horsepower
HPLV High Pressure Low Volume
HRI Historical Resource Inventory
HSC Health and Safety Code
HUC Hydrologic Unit Code
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
I Interstate
i.e. that is
IA Implementing Agreement
IBC International Building Code
ID Identification
362
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page xiv
IEPR Integrated Energy Policy Report
INCE Institute of Noise Control Engineering
IPA Inland Port Airport
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IRP Installation Restoration Program
IS Initial Study
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
ITS intelligent transportation systems
JD Jurisdictional Delineation
JPA Joint Powers Authority
JPR Joint Project Review
kg kilogram
kBTU kilo-British thermal units
kWh kilowatt-hour
LBP Lead based paint
lbs pounds
LCA Life-cycle analysis
LCFS low carbon fuel standard
LDA Light duty autos
LDV Light duty vehicles
LED light-emitting diode
Leq equivalent continuous sound level
LHD light-heavy duty trucks
LID low impact development
Lmax Maximum level measured over the time interval
Lmin Maximum level measures over the time interval
LOS Level of Service
LSTs Localized Significance Thresholds
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
M3 Cubic Meter
MACT Maximum achievable control technology
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MC Municipal Code
MDP Master Drainage Plan
MEISC maximally exposed individual school child
MEIR maximally exposed individual receptor
MEIW maximally exposed individual worker
363
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page xv
mg milligrams
MGD million gallons per day
MH medium-heavy duty truck
MICR Maximum Individual Cancer Risk
MM Mitigation Measure
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MMTs million metric tons
MMTCO2e million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mph Miles per hour
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MRZ-3 Mineral Resource Zone 3
MRF Material Recovery Facility
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
MT metric ton
MTCO2e Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
MWD Metropolitan Water District
N/A Not Applicable
n/o North of
N2 Nitrogen
n.d. no date
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NATA National Air Toxic Assessment
NB Northbound
ND Negative Declaration
NDC nationally determined contributions
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NHP National Register of Historic Places
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health No. Number
NO Nitric Oxide
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide
NOX Nitrogen Oxides
N2 Nitrogen
N2O Nitrous Oxide
364
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page xvi
NOP Notice of Preparation
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPC National Park Service
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPL National Priorities List
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
O2 Oxygen
O3 Ozone
OD Officially Designated
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OHWM Ordinary High-Water Mark
OPR Office of Planning and Research
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Assessment
Ord. Ordinance
Pb Lead
PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyls
PCEs Passenger Car Equivalents
PDF Project Design Feature
PF Public Facilities land use designation
PFCs Perfluorocarbons
PHF peak hour factor
P-I Public Institutional land use designation
p.m. Post Meridiem (between the hours of noon and midnight) PM Particulate Matter
PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter (2.5 microns or smaller)
PM10 Fine Particulate Matter (10 microns or smaller)
Porter-Cologne Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
pp. pages
ppt parts per trillion
PPV peak particle velocity
PRC Professional Regulation Commission
PRC Public Resources Code
PSE Public Safety Element
PV photovoltaic
365
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page xvii
RBBD Road and Bridge Benefit District
RCA Regional Conservation Authority
RCP Reinforced Concrete Pipe
RCP Regional Comprehensive Plan
RCNM Roadway Construction Noise Model
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Rd. Road
REC Recognized environmental Concerns
RECLAIM Regional Clean Air Incentives Market
REL Reference Exposure Level
REMEL Reference Mean Emission Level
RIX Rapid Infiltration Extraction
RME resource management element
RMP Resource Management Plan
RMS root mean square
ROGs Reactive Organic Gasses
ROW Right of Way
RPS Renewable Portfolio Standards
RPZ Runway Protection Zone
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RTPA Regional Transportation Planning Agency
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy RV Recreational Vehicle
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SF/s.f. square foot or square feet
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SB18 Bill of Rights for Children and Youth of California SB Southbound
SB Senate Bill
SB 375 California Senate Bill 375, Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAG Sothern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center
SCH California State Clearinghouse (Office of Planning and Research) SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SCWR Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian
SF6 Sulfur Hexafluoride
366
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page xviii
SLF Sacred Lands File
SGMA Sustainable groundwater management act
SHMA Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
SIP State Implementation Plan
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
SO4 Sulfates
SOX Sulfur Oxides
SOI Sphere of Influence
SR State Route
SRA Source Receptor Area
St. Street
STC Sound Transmission Class
SURRGO Soil Survey Geographic
SUSMP Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Regional Control Board
TAC Toxic Air Contaminants
TBD To be determined
TEA-21 Transportation Equality Act for 21st Century
TIA Traffic Impact Analysis
TNW Traditional Navigable Water
TPM Tentative Parcel Map
TRUs Transportation Refrigeration Units
TS Traffic Signal
TSCEA Toxic Substance Control Act
TSF Thousand Square Feet
TTM Tentative Tract Map
TUMF Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
µg microgram
UBC Uniform Building Code
UNFCCC United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change URBEMIS URBan EMISsions
U.S. United States
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USCB United States Census Bureau
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United Stated Geological Society
367
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page xix
USTs Underground storage tanks
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
V/C Volume to Capacity Ratio
VFP Vehicle Fueling Positions
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
VPH Vehicles per Hour
WDR Water discharge report
WoUS Waters of the United States
WoS Waters of the State
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
WRF Water Reclamation Facility
WRP Water Reclamation Plan
WRRA Water Reuse and Recycle Act
WSA Water Supply Assessment
YBP Years before Present
Yr year
ZC Zone change
368
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page S-1
S.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S.1 INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as codified in Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. requires that before a public agency makes a decision to approve a project that could have one or more adverse effects on the physical environment, the agency must inform itself about the project’s potential environmental impacts, give the public an opportunity to comment on the environmental issues, and take feasible measures to avoid or reduce potential harm to the physical environment.

This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (California State Clearinghouse (SCH) No. 202209006) was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Article 9, Sections 15120-15132 to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with planning, constructing, and operating the proposed 5355 East Airport Drive Project (hereinafter, the “Project” or “proposed Project”). This EIR does not recommend approval or denial of the Project; rather, this EIR is a source of factual information regarding potential impacts to the physical environment that may result from the Project’s implementation. The Draft EIR will be available for public review for a minimum period of 45 days.

After consideration of public comment, the City of Ontario will consider certifying the Final EIR and adopting required findings.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15063 grants Lead Agencies the ability to bypass preparation of an Initial Study and proceed with preparation of an EIR in instances where an EIR is clearly required for a project. In this instance, the City of Ontario in its capacity as Lead Agency for the proposed Project has determined that the Project clearly has the potential to result in significant environmental effects and that an EIR shall be prepared that addresses the following environmental considerations:

4.1 Aesthetics 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

4.2 Air Quality 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality

4.3 Cultural Resources 4.9 Noise

4.4 Energy 4.10 Transportation

4.5 Geology and Soils 4.11 Tribal Cultural Resources

4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 4.12 Utilities and Service Systems Refer to EIR Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis, for a full account and analysis of the subject matters listed above. Subject areas for which the impacts would be clearly less than significant and that do not warrant detailed analysis in this EIR are addressed in EIR Section 5.0, Other CEQA Considerations.

For each of the aforementioned subject areas, this EIR describes: 1) the physical conditions that existed at the approximate time this EIR’s NOP was published (September 1, 2022); 2) discloses the type and magnitude of potential environmental impacts resulting from Project planning, construction, and operation; and 3) if warranted, recommends feasible mitigation measures that would reduce or avoid significant adverse environmental impacts that may result from the Project. A summary of the Project’s 369
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page S-2
significant environmental impacts and the mitigation measures imposed by the City of Ontario to lessen or avoid these impacts is included in this Executive Summary as Table S-1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The City of Ontario applies mitigation measures that it determines 1) are feasible and practical for project applicants to implement, 2) are feasible and practical for the City to monitor and enforce, 3) are legal for the City to impose, 4) have an essential nexus to the Project’s impacts, and 5) would result in a benefit to the physical environment. CEQA does not require the Lead Agency to impose mitigation measures that are duplicative of mandatory regulatory requirements.

S.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW
S.2.1 LOCATION AND SETTING
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) and is bordered by East Airport Drive to the south, industrial uses to the east and west, and railroad tracks to the north. Refer to EIR Section 2.0, Environmental Setting, for a detailed description of the Project’s location and setting.

S.2.2 PROJECT SUMMARY
For purposes of this EIR, the term “Project” refers to the discretionary action required to implement the proposed Project and all the activities associated with its implementation (including planning, construction, and ongoing operation). The Project would require demolition of the existing buildings and structures, on-site landscaping, and on-site parking. The Project would entail redevelopment of the property and the construction and operation of a building with 270,337 square feet (s.f.) of interior floor area. The Project’s design also includes the installation of associated site improvements, including drive aisles, landscaping, utility infrastructure, underground storm drain detention facilities, exterior lighting, walls/fencing, and signage as well as site-adjacent improvements to East Airport Drive. The Project requires the City’s approval of a Development Plan (PDEV22-017). Refer to EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, for a detailed description of the Project.

S.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.

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.

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. 370
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page S-3
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.

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

S.3 EIR PROCESS
The City published a NOP and filed a copy with the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) State Clearinghouse (SCH) to inform the general public, trustee and responsible agencies and other interested parties that an EIR would be prepared for the Project. The NOP was distributed for a 30-day public review period, which began on September 1, 2022. The City of Ontario received written comments on the scope of the EIR during those 30 days, which are considered by the City during the preparation of this EIR. The City also held an EIR scoping meeting open to the interested public agencies and members of the general public on September 13, 2022.

The EIR will be circulated for review and comment by the public and other interested parties, agencies, and organizations for a 45-day review period. During the 45-day public review period, public notices announcing availability of the Draft EIR will be mailed to the interested parties, an advertisement will be published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin (a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ontario), and copies of the Draft EIR and its Technical Appendices will be available for review at the locations indicated in the public notices.

After the close of the 45-day Draft EIR public comment period, the City will prepare and publish responses to written comments received on the environmental effects of the Project. Thereafter, the Final EIR will be considered for certification by the Ontario Planning Commission. Certification of the Final EIR would be accompanied by the adoption of written findings and a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for any significant unavoidable environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR. In addition, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, because the Project will include mitigation measures, the City, as Lead Agency, must adopt a Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP), which describes the process to ensure implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. The MMRP will ensure CEQA compliance during Project construction and operation.
371
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page S-4
S.4 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b)(2) requires the Lead Agency (City of Ontario) to identify any known issues of controversy in the Executive Summary. The City has not identified any environmental issues of controversy associated with the Project. Notwithstanding, the Lead Agency has identified several issues of local concern including, but not limited to, potential impacts to air pollutant and toxic air contaminant emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation – and these issues are all addressed in this EIR.

Considering the foregoing, this EIR addresses all environmental issues that are known by the City and that were identified in the comment letters that the City received in response to the NOP and during the EIR scoping meeting (refer to Technical Appendix A). See Table 1-1, Summary of NOP and Scoping Meeting Comments, in Section 1.0 of this EIR for a summary of all comments received during all comments received by the City during the environmental scoping for the Project.

S.5 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, an EIR must describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project or to the location of the Project. Each alternative must be able to feasibly attain most of the Project’s objectives and avoid or substantially lessen the Project’s significant effects on the environment. A detailed description of each alternative evaluated in this EIR, as well as an analysis of the potential environmental impacts associated with each alternative, is provided in EIR Section 6.0, Alternatives. Also described in Section 6.0 is a list of alternatives that were considered but rejected from further analysis. The alternatives considered by this EIR include those listed below.

S.5.1 NO PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE
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 process grain and corn into the future. 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; however, this Alternative would fail to meet all of the Project’s objectives. 372
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page S-5
S.5.2 REDUCED BUILDING AREA ALTERNATIVE
The Reduced Building Area Alternative considers a proposal where the Project site would be redeveloped with two separate 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.

The Reduced Building Area Alternative would avoid – the Project’s significant and unavoidable VMT impacts. 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.

S.5.3 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. This represents a reduced in development of 206,837 s.f. compare to the Project (approximately 76.5 percent). Under this alternative, no high-cube cold storage uses would be assumed. Access to the site would be similar to the Project with a proportional reduction in the number of parking spaces. Although the proposed building would be reduced, the development impact area would generally remain the same as the Project due to required landscaping, parking, and associated improvements. 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 of existing trips generation in order to reduced vehicle and truck trips and significant impacts associated with VMT.

The Reduced Intensity Alternative would avoid – 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. All other impacts from the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be similar to the Project.

S.6 SUMMARY OF IMPACT, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND CONCLUSIONS Table S-1 provides a summary of the Project’s environmental impacts, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(a). Also presented are the mitigation measures recommended by the Lead Agency to further avoid adverse environmental impacts or to reduce their level of significance. After the application of all feasible mitigation measures, the Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable environmental effects.
373
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page S-6
Table S-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

4.1 Aesthetics
Threshold a: The Project would not
substantially affect a scenic vista. The
Project Site does not contain any designated
scenic vistas or scenic corridors. The
Project would not substantially affect views
of the San Gabriel Mountains from nearby
public viewing areas.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact.

Threshold b: The Project Site does not have
any special or unique scenic resources.

Additionally, the Project site is not within
the corridor of an officially designated State
scenic highway. Implementation of the
Project would not damage scenic resources
within a State scenic highway.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact.

Threshold c: The Project Site is within an
urbanized area. The Project is designed in
accordance with the applicable design
regulations, governing scenic quality,
within the City’s Zoning and Development
Code. The Project would not conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact.

Threshold d: The Project would be required
to adhere to the lighting requirements set
forth in the City’s Development Code. The
City would confirm compliance with
applicable lighting requirements during
future review of building permit
application/plans. Mandatory compliance
with the City’s Development Code would
ensure that the Project would not introduce
permanent design features that would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in
the area. Additionally, the Project’s
building materials would consist of low
reflective materials that minimize glare.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact.
374
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page S-7
Table S-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

4.2 Air Quality
Threshold a: The Project would be
consistent with South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) 2016 Air
Quality Management Plan (AQMP)
Consistency Criterion No. 1 because Project
localized and regional construction and
operational-source emissions would not
exceed applicable SCAQMD regional
significance thresholds and localized
significance thresholds (LST).

The Project would be consistent with 2016
AQMP Consistency Criterion No. 2.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact.

Threshold b: Project-related activities
would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD
regional thresholds of significance during
construction and operations. As such,
Project-related emissions would not violate
SCAQMD air quality standards or
contribute to the non-attainment of ozone
standards in the SCAB, and impacts would
be less than significant.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact.

Threshold c: Implementation of the Project
would not: 1) exceed applicable SCAQMD
localized criteria pollution emissions
thresholds during construction and
operation; 2) would not expose sensitive
receptors to toxic air contaminants (i.e.,
DPM) that exceed the applicable SCAQMD
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risk
thresholds; and 3) would not cause or
contribute to the formation of a CO “hot
spot.”
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact.

Threshold d: The Project would not produce
air emissions that would lead to unusual or
substantial construction-related or
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact.
375
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page S-8
Table S-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
operational-related odors. The Project
would be required to comply with
SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits the
discharge of odorous emissions that would
create a public nuisance.

4.3 Cultural Resources
Threshold a: The Project Site does not have
any historic resources as defined by CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5. No historic
resources are present that could be altered or
destroyed by construction or operation of
the Project.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact.

Threshold b: No known prehistoric
resources are present on the Project Site and
the likelihood of uncovering buried
prehistoric resources on the Project Site is
low due to the magnitude of historic ground
disturbance on the Project Site.

Nonetheless, the potential exists for Projectrelated construction activities to result in a direct and cumulatively-considerable
impact to significant subsurface prehistoric
archaeological resources should such
resources to be discovered during Projectrelated construction activities.

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 monitor shall be retained prior to the
commencement of any “ground-disturbing
activity” for the subject project at all project
locations (i.e., both on-site 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
Project Applicant,
Project Archaeologist
City of Ontario
Community
Development
Department (Planning)
Prior to the issuance of a
grading permit.

Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation.
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. 376
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page S-9
Table S-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
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, culturalrelated 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 grounddisturbing 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
377
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page S-10
Table S-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
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:
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.

Project Archaeologist/
Native American
Monitor
City of Ontario
Community
Development
Department (Planning)
During grading and
excavation operations.
378
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page S-11
Table S-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
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.
379
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page S-12
Table S-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
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 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
Project Archaeologist City of Ontario
Community
Development
Department (Planning)
During grading and
excavation operations.
380
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page S-13
Table S-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
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 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 recoveryrelated forms of documentation shall be approved in advance by the Tribe. If any data recovery is
performed, once complete, a final report shall be
381
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page S-14
Table S-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
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.

Threshold c: In the unlikely event that
human remains are discovered during
Project grading or other ground disturbing
activities, the Project would be required to
comply with the applicable provisions of
California Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 and California Public
Resources Code Section 5097 et seq.

Mandatory compliance with State law
would ensure that any discovered human
remains are appropriately treated and would
preclude the potential for significant
impacts.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact.

4.4 Energy
Threshold a: The amount of energy and fuel
consumed by construction and operation of
the Project would not be inefficient,
wasteful, or unnecessary. Furthermore, the
Project would not cause or result in the need
for additional energy facilities or energy
delivery systems.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact.

Threshold b: The Project would not cause or
result in the need for additional energy
production or transmission facilities. The
Project would not conflict with or obstruct
the achievement of energy conservation
goals within the State of California
identified in State and local plans for
renewable energy and energy efficiency.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact.

4.5 Geology and Soils
Threshold a: Implementation of the Project
would not expose people or structures to
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact.
382
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page S-15
Table S-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
substantial direct or indirect adverse effects
related to liquefaction or fault rupture. The
Project Site is subject to seismic ground
shaking associated with earthquakes;
however, mandatory compliance with local
and State regulatory requirements and
building codes would ensure that the Project
precludes potential hazards related to
seismic ground shaking.

Threshold b: Implementation of the Project
would not result in substantial soil erosion
or loss of topsoil. The Project Applicant
would be required to obtain a NPDES
permit for construction activities and adhere
to a SWPPP, and prepare an erosion control
plan to minimize water and wind erosion.

Following completion of development, the
Project’s owner or operator would be
required by law to implement a SWQMP
during operation, which would preclude
substantial erosion impacts in the long-term.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact.

Threshold c: There is no potential for the
Project’s construction or operation to cause,
or be impacted by, on- or off-site landslides
or lateral spreading. Potential hazards
associated with unstable soils would be
precluded through mandatory adherence to
the recommendations contained in the Sitespecific geotechnical report during Project construction.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact.

Threshold d: The Project Site contains soils
with low susceptibility to expansion;
therefore, the Project would not create
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or
property associated with the presence of
expansive soils.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact.
383
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page S-16
Table S-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
Threshold e: No septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems are proposed
to be installed on the Project Site.

Accordingly, no impact would occur
associated with soil compatibility for
wastewater disposal systems.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact.

Threshold f: The Project would not impact
any known paleontological resource or
unique geological feature. However, the
Project Site is underlain by older alluvium
soils with a high sensitivity for
paleontological resources. Accordingly,
construction activities on the Project Site
have the potential to unearth and adversely
impact paleontological resource that may be
buried beneath the ground surface.

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 fulltime 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 resource.

MM 4.5-3 Recovered specimens shall be properly
prepared to a point of identification and permanent
preservation, including screen washing sediments to
Project Applicant
Project Contractor,
Project Paleontologist
Project Paleontologist
City of Ontario
Community
Development
Department (Planning)
City of Ontario
Community
Development
Department (Planning)
City of Ontario
Community
Prior to the issuance of a
grading permit.

During grading and
excavation operations.

During grading and
excavation operations.

Less-than-Significant with
Mitigation.
384
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page S-17
Table S-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
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.

Project Paleontologist
Development
Department (Planning)
City of Ontario
Community
Development
Department (Planning)
Prior to issuance of first
occupancy permit.

4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Threshold a: The Project would not exceed
the significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e
per year. As such, the Project would
generate a less-than-significant volume of
GHG emissions and would not have a
significant impact on the environment.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact.

Threshold b: The Project would be
consistent with or otherwise would not
conflict with, applicable regulations,
policies, plans, and policy goals that would
further reduce GHG emissions.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact.

4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Threshold a & b: During Project
construction and operation, mandatory
compliance to federal, State, and local
regulations would ensure that the proposed
Project would not create a significant hazard
to the environment due to routine transport,
use, disposal, or upset of hazardous
materials. However, based on the results of
the Phase I/II ESA, PCE impacts potentially
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 Project Applicant City of Ontario
Community
Development
Department (Planning
& Building)
Prior to the issuance of a
grading permit
Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation.
385
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page S-18
Table S-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
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.
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. 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
386
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page S-19
Table S-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
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.
387
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page S-20
Table S-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
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
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.
388
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page S-21
Table S-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
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.

Threshold c: The Project site is not located
within one-quarter mile of any existing or
proposed school. Accordingly, the Project
would not emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Impacts to schools located more
than one-quarter mile of the Project site
would be less than significant.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact.

Threshold d: 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
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact.
389
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page S-22
Table S-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
to represent a significant environmental
concern and impacts would be less than
significant.

Threshold e: The Project is consistent with
the restrictions and requirements of the
ONT ALUCP. As such, the Project would
not result in an airport safety hazard for
people residing or working in the Project
area.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact.

Threshold f: The Project Site does not
contain any emergency facilities nor does it
serve as an emergency evacuation route.

During construction and long-term
operation, adequate emergency vehicle
access is required to be provided.

Accordingly, implementation of the Project
would not impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact.

Threshold g: The Project Site is not located
in close proximity to wildlands or areas with
high fire hazards. Thus, the Project would
not expose people or structures to a
significant wildfire risk.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact.

4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Threshold a: The Project would not violate
any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground
water quality. Adherence to a SWPPP and
WQMP is required as part of the Project’s
implementation to address constructionand operational-related water quality.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact.

Threshold b: The Project would not
physically impact any of the major
groundwater recharge facilities in the Chino
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact.
390
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page S-23
Table S-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
Groundwater Basin. 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.

Threshold c: The Project would be required
to comply with applicable water quality
regulatory requirements to minimize
erosion and siltation. Additionally, the
Project would not result in flooding on- or
off-site or impede/redirect flood flows.

Lastly, the Project would not create or
contribute runoff that would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact.

Threshold d: The Project Site would not be
subject to inundation from tsunamis or
seiches. The Project Site is adjacent to an
area with potential inundation from debris
basins. 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.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact.

Threshold e: The Project would not conflict
with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact.

4.9 Noise
Threshold a: The Project would generate
short-term construction and long-term
operational noise but would not generate
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact.
391
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page S-24
Table S-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
noise levels that exceed the threshold
standards.

Threshold b: The Project’s construction and
operational activities would not result in a
perceptible groundborne vibration or noise.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact.

Threshold c: The proposed Project would be
compatible with noise levels from the
Ontario International Airport (ONT) and
operation of the Project would not expose
future employees on the Project Site to
excessive noise levels.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact.

4.10 Transportation
Threshold a: The Project would not conflict
with an applicable program, plan, ordinance
or policy addressing the circulation system.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact.

Threshold b: The Project’s vehicle traffic
would exceed the City’s VMT per service
population impact threshold for both the
baseline and cumulative conditions.

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).

Building Operator City of Ontario
Community
Development
Department (Planning)
Prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy
Significant and Unavoidable
Impact.

Threshold c: The Project would not
introduce any significant transportation
safety hazards due to a design feature or
incompatible use.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact.
392
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page S-25
Table S-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
Threshold d: Adequate emergency access
would be provided to the Project Site during
construction and long-term operation. The
Project would not result in inadequate
emergency access to the Site or surrounding
properties.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact.

4.11 Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold a: The Project Site does not
contain any recorded, significant tribal
cultural resource sites; therefore, the Project
would not cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource that is listed or eligible for listing
in the California Register of Historical
Resources or a local register of historical
resources. Nonetheless, Project construction
activities have the potential to unearth and
adversely impact tribal cultural resources
that may be buried at the Project Site.

MM 4.3-1 through 4.3-3 shall apply. Refer to Cultural
Resources Threshold b.

Refer to Cultural
Resources Threshold b.

Refer to Cultural Resources
Threshold b.

Less-than-Significant
Impact with Mitigation.

4.12 Utilities and Service Systems
Threshold a: The physical environmental
effects associated with installing the
Project’s proposed connections to existing
utility infrastructure, as well as installation
of on-site and off-site storm water
management, water, and wastewater
infrastructure have been evaluated
throughout this EIR and no adverse impacts
specific to the provision utilities services
have been identified. Mitigation measures
are identified, where necessary, for
construction-related effects that would
reduce construction-phase impacts to the
maximum feasible extent. Impacts would be
less than significant.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact.
393
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report S.0 Executive Summary
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006
Page S-26
Table S-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION
Threshold b: Based on the information
provided in the OMUC’s UWMP, OMUC
has sufficient water supplies available to
serve the Project in normal, dry, and
multiple dry years and impacts would be
less than significant
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact.

Threshold c: The Project’s proposed
wastewater generation would not exceed the
capacity of the RP-1. The Project’s
wastewater generation would represent a
nominal increase in wastewater treatment
demand and impacts would be less than
significant.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact.

Threshold d: The Project’s proposed solid
waste disposal needs would be adequately
accommodated by existing landfills serving
the City. Therefore, the Project would have
less than significant impacts related to solid
waste.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A Less-than-Significant Impact.

Threshold e: The Project would comply
with all applicable federal, State, and local
statues and regulations pertaining to
management and reduction of solid waste.

No impacts associated with regulatory
compliance would occur.

No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact.
394
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Introduction
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all public agencies within the State of California having land use approval over project activities that have the potential to adversely affect the quality of the environment, regulate such activities so that impacts to the environment can be prevented to the extent feasible. Such activities are reviewed and monitored through the CEQA compliance process, as provided in the CEQA Statute (Public Resources Code Sections 21000- 21177, as amended) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387, as amended).

Under CEQA, if there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the physical environment, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(a)(1)). This document serves as an EIR for the proposed 5355 East Airport Drive Project. For purposes of this EIR, the term “Project” refers to all actions associated with implementation of the 5355 East Airport Drive project including its planning, construction, and ongoing operations. The term “Project Applicant” used herein refers to Prologis, Inc., which is the entity that submitted applications to the City of Ontario to entitle the Project. The term “Project Site” refers to the property upon which the Project is proposed. The public agency with the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project or the first public agency to make a discretionary decision to proceed with a proposed project should ordinarily act as the Lead Agency pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15050-15051. The term “Lead Agency” used herein refers to the City of Ontario. Throughout this document, the terms “Draft EIR” and “Final EIR” may be used interchangeably since both are part of the ultimate EIR record; however, “Draft EIR” may be used specifically when referring to information provided in the volume made available for the CEQArequired 45-day public review period.

1.1 PURPOSES OF CEQA AND THIS EIR
As stated by CEQA Guidelines Section 15002(a), the basic purposes of CEQA are to:
• Inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities;
• Identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced; • Prevent significant avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible; and
• Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved. 395
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Introduction
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

The purposes of this EIR are to inform public agency decision-makers and the general public about the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the Project that would feasibly attain most of the basic Project objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen its significant environmental effects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15121(a)). This EIR is an informational document that represents the independent judgment of the City of Ontario. Staff in the City’s Planning Department reviewed and, as necessary, directed revisions to all submitted drafts, technical studies, and reports supporting this EIR for consistency with City policies and requirements, to ensure that this EIR reflects the City of Ontario’s independent judgment.

1.2 SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT EVALUATED IN THIS EIR
As more fully described in EIR Subsection 3.0, Project Description, the Project Applicant submitted applications to the City of Ontario for a Development Plan (PDEV22-017) to allow for the construction and operation of one warehouse distribution facility on an approximately 13.08-acre Project property (“Project Site”). The Project Site is located at 5355 East Airport Drive (APN: 0238-052-29 and 0238- 052-20) in the City of Ontario. Under existing conditions, the Project Site is developed with a grain processing operation and a corn storage and distribution facility. The Project would require demolition of the existing buildings and structures, on-site landscaping, and on-site parking. The Project would entail redevelopment of the property and the construction and operation of a building with 270,337 square feet (s.f.) of interior floor area. The Project’s design also includes the installation of associated site improvements, including drive aisles, landscaping, utility infrastructure, underground storm drain detention facilities, exterior lighting, walls/fencing, and signage as well as site-adjacent improvements to East Airport Drive.

One discretionary approval for the Project is under consideration by the City of Ontario. Refer to EIR Subsection 3.0, Project Description, for a more comprehensive description of the Project’s Development Plan application.
o Development Plan (PDEV22-017) proposes a redevelopment plan for the Project Site that provides for the construction and operation of one warehouse building with approximately 270,337 s.f. of building floor area. The Site Plan application depicts a layout of the building and associated physical design features, architectural design, and a landscaping plan.

1.3 CEQA COMPLIANCE PROCESS
As the first step in the CEQA-compliance process, on September 1, 2022, the City of Ontario filed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) with the California Office of Planning and Research (State Clearinghouse) and the San Bernardino County Clerk to indicate that an EIR would be prepared to evaluate the Project’s potential to impact the environment. The NOP also was distributed to potential responsible and trustee agencies and other interested parties for a 30-day public review period that commenced on September 1, 2022. The purpose of distributing the NOP was to solicit responses in 396
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Introduction
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

order to assist the City in identifying the full scope and range of potential environmental concerns associated with the Project so that these issues could be fully examined in this EIR.

In addition, the City of Ontario held a publicly-noticed EIR Scoping Meeting on September 13, 2022 using an internet-based virtual platform (Zoom). At the Scoping Meeting, the City provided information about the proposed Project, the intended scope of the EIR, and provided opportunity for public agencies and members of the general public to comment on the scope of environmental issues to be addressed in this EIR.

The NOP, public review distribution list, and written comments received by the City during the NOP public review period are provided in Technical Appendix A to this EIR. Substantive issues raised in response to the NOP are summarized below in Table 1-1, Summary of NOP and Scoping Meeting Comments. The purpose of Table 1-1 is to present a summary of the environmental topics that were identified by public agencies, interested parties, and members of the general public to be of primary interest. Table 1-1 does not list every comment received by the City during the NOP review period.

Regardless of whether or not an environmental or CEQA-related comment is listed in Table 1-1, all relevant comments received in response to the NOP and the EIR Scoping Meeting are addressed in this EIR.

Table 1-1 Summary of NOP and Scoping Meeting Comments

COMMENTER DATE COMMENT

LOCATION IN EIR

WHERE COMMENT IS

ADDRESSED
State and Local Agencies
Native
American
Heritage
Commission
(NAHC)
September
8, 2022
- Request to provide consultation with California
Native American Tribes that are traditionally and
culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the
proposed Project, in compliance with AB 52 and SB

18. Section 4.11, Tribal
Cultural Resources
South Coast Air
Quality
Management
District
(SCAQMD)
September
30, 2022
- Recommendation to use the CalEEMod land use
emissions software when preparing the Project’s air
quality analysis.
- Request to quantify criteria pollutant emissions and
compare the results to applicable SCAQMD
regional and localized significance thresholds
(LSTs).
- Request to identify any potential adverse air quality impacts that could occur from all phases of the
Project (including construction and operation) and
all air pollutant sources related to the Project.
- Request that the EIR disclose the potential for the
Project to result in adverse health effects related to
diesel emissions, performing a mobile source health
risk assessment.

Section 4.2, Air
Quality
397
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Introduction
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Table 1-1 Summary of NOP and Scoping Meeting Comments

COMMENTER DATE COMMENT

LOCATION IN EIR

WHERE COMMENT IS

ADDRESSED
- Recommendation to identify SCAQMD as a
Responsible Agency, in the event a permit is
required from SCAQMD.
- Request that the Project incorporate
design/mitigation measures to reduce any
significant air pollutant emissions.
- Recommendation for the lead agency to review
Rule 2305 to determine the potential WAIRE Points
Compliance Obligation for future operators and
explore whether additional project requirements
and CEQA mitigation measures can be identified
and implemented at the Project that may help future
warehouse operators meet their compliance
obligation.

State and Local Organizations
Californians
Allied for a
Responsible
Economy
(CARE CA)
September
13 and 29,
2022
- Request to address potential construction-related
environmental issues including air pollution, noise,
GHG emissions, and onsite soil contamination.
- Request to provide reasonable range of alternatives.
- Request to provide details of all proposed future
uses.
- Request to study full mitigation of all air quality and GHG impacts that will be caused by the Project.
- Request to provide a mobile source Health Risk
Assessment and provide impacts from particulate
matter from the diesel trucks.
- Request to provide effective and enforceable
mitigation measures.

Section 4.2, Air
Quality, Section 4.5
Geology and Soils,
Section 4.6,
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, and
Section 4.9, Noise
In consideration of the comments received by the City in response to the NOP, this EIR provides a detailed analysis of the Project’s potential to cause adverse effects under the following topic areas:
o Aesthetics
o Air Quality
o Cultural Resources
o Energy
o Geology & Soils
o Greenhouse Gas Emissions
o Hazards & Hazardous Materials
o Hydrology & Water Quality
o Noise
o Transportation
o Tribal Cultural Resources
o Utilities & Service System
The analysis related to the above topics is provided in EIR Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis. 398
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Introduction
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

The City concluded that the Project would clearly result in no or less-than-significant impacts to several environmental topic areas, including: Agriculture and Forestry Resources; Biological Resources, Land Use and Planning; Mineral Resources; Population and Housing; Public Services; Recreation; and Wildfire. Potential effects to these topic areas are summarized in EIR Section 5.0, Other CEQA Considerations.

As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15161, a Project EIR should “…focus primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development project” and “…examine all phases of the project including planning, construction, and operation.” Acting as Lead Agency, the City of Ontario will consider the following items regarding the proposed Project and this EIR: a) evaluation of this EIR to determine if the physical environmental impacts of the Project are adequately disclosed; b) assessment of the adequacy and feasibility of identified mitigation measures; c) consideration of alternatives to the Project that could reduce or eliminate significant environmental effects of the Project; and, if necessary, d) consideration of Project benefits that override the Project’s unavoidable and unmitigable significant effects on the environment.

The City of Ontario will release the Draft EIR for a minimum 45-day public review period and make the Draft EIR and its supporting technical appendices available for review in electronic form on the City’s website and in paper copy at Ontario City Hall, 303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764, during the City’s regular business hours. The Draft EIR and its supporting technical appendices were made available for review on the City website at:
www.ontarioca.gov/Planning/Reports/EnvironmentalImpact.

During the 45-day review period, comments on the content of the Draft EIR can be submitted to:

Thomas Grahn
City of Ontario Planning Department
303 East B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
Phone: (909) 395-2413
Email: [email protected]
Public comments should be focused “on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated” (CEQA Guidelines Section 152049(a)).

Following the Draft EIR’s 45-day public review period, the City will then respond in writing to all submitted comments pertaining to an environmental effect and publish a Final EIR. Before taking action to approve the Project, the City of Ontario (serving as the Lead Agency) has the obligation to:
(a) ensure this EIR has been completed in accordance with CEQA; (b) review and consider the information contained in this EIR as part of its decision making process; (c) make a statement that this 399
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Introduction
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

EIR reflects the City of Ontario’s independent judgment; (d) ensure that all significant effects on the environment are avoided or substantially lessened where feasible; and, if necessary (e) make written findings for each unavoidable significant environmental effect stating the reasons why mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in this EIR are infeasible and citing the specific benefits of the proposed Project that outweigh its unavoidable adverse effects (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15090- 15093).

A Project-related decision-making hearing will be subject to a noticed public hearing held before the Planning Commission, which will include consideration of the information contained in the Final EIR and the associated administrative record. During the decision-making processes, the Project and its design features, objectives, merits, environmental consequences, and socioeconomic factors, among other information contained in the Project’s administrative record, will be considered by the City of Ontario. If the Final EIR is certified and Development Plan PDEV22-017 is approved, the City of Ontario and other public agencies with permitting authority over all, or portions of, the Project would be able to rely on the Final EIR as part of their permitting and approval processes to evaluate the environmental effects of the Project as they pertain to the approval or denial of applicable permits. City staff would also rely on the certified Final EIR to subsequently conduct administrative level reviews for implementing permits and approvals.

1.4 CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION OF THIS EIR
This EIR contains all the information required to be included in an EIR as specified by CEQA (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et. seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 5). In summary, the content and format of this EIR are as follows:
o Section S.0, Executive Summary provides an overview of the EIR and CEQA process and provides a brief Project Description, which includes summaries of the Project’s objectives, the location and regional setting of the Project Site, and potential alternatives to the Project as required by CEQA. The Executive Summary also provides a summary of the Project’s impacts, mitigation measures, and conclusions, in a table that forms the basis of the Project’s Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP).
o Section 1.0, Introduction provides introductory information about the CEQA process and the responsibilities of the City in its role as Lead Agency, a brief Project Description, the purpose of the EIR, and an overview of the EIR’s format. o Section 2.0, Environmental Setting describes the environmental setting, including descriptions of the Project Site’s physical conditions and surrounding context used as the baseline for analysis in the EIR.
o Section 3.0, Project Description, serves as the EIR’s Project Description for purposes of CEQA and contains a level of specificity commensurate with the level of detail proposed by the Project, including the summary requirements pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15123. This Section provides a detailed description of the Project, including its location, 400
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Introduction
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

purpose, main objectives, design features, construction characteristics, and operational characteristics expected over the Project’s lifetime. In addition, the discretionary actions required of the City of Ontario and other government agencies to authorize implementation of the Project are discussed.
o Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis, provides an analysis of potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that may occur with implementation of the Project. A determination concerning the significance of each impact is addressed and mitigation measures are presented when warranted. The environmental changes identified in Section 4.0 and throughout this EIR are referred to as “effects” or “impacts” interchangeably. CEQA Guidelines Section 15358 describe the terms “effects” and “impacts” as being synonymous.

In each Subsection of Section 4.0, the existing conditions pertaining to the subject area being analyzed are discussed accompanied by a specific analysis of physical impacts that may be caused by implementing the Project. Impacts are evaluated on a direct, indirect, and cumulative basis. Direct impacts are those that would occur directly as a result of the Project.

Indirect impacts represent secondary effects that would result from Project implementation.

Cumulative effects are defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 as “…two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.”
The analyses in Section 4.0 are based in part upon technical reports that are included in this EIR. Information also is drawn from other sources of analytical materials that directly or indirectly relate to the Project and are cited in Section 7.0, References.

Where the analysis demonstrates that a physical adverse environmental effect may or would occur without undue speculation, feasible mitigation measures are recommended to reduce or avoid the significant effect. Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable, have an essential nexus to a legitimate governmental interest, and be “roughly proportional” to the impacts of the Project. The discussion then indicates whether the identified mitigation measures would reduce impacts to below a level of significance. In most cases, implementation of the mitigation measures would reduce the adverse environmental impacts to below a level of significance. If mitigation measures are not available or feasible to reduce an identified impact to below a level of significance, the environmental effect is identified as a significant and unavoidable adverse impact, for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations would need to be adopted by the City of Ontario pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093.
o Section 5.0, Other CEQA Considerations, includes specific topics that are required by CEQA. These include a summary of the Project’s significant and unavoidable environmental effects, a discussion of the significant and irreversible environmental changes that would occur should the Project be implemented, as well as potential growth401 5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Introduction
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

inducing impacts of the Project. Section 5.0 also includes a discussion of the potential environmental effects that were found not to be significant during preparation of this EIR. o Section 6.0, Project Alternatives describes and evaluates alternatives to the Project that could reduce or avoid the Project’s adverse environmental effects. CEQA does not require an EIR to consider every conceivable alternative to the Project but rather to consider a reasonable range of alternatives, including a “No Project” alternative, that will foster informed decision making and public participation.
o Section 7.0, References, cites all reference sources used in preparing this EIR and lists the agencies and persons that were consulted in preparing this EIR. Section 7.0 also lists the persons who authored or participated in preparing this EIR.

CEQA requires that an EIR contain, at a minimum, certain specified content. Table 1-2, Location of CEQA Required Topics, provides a quick reference guide for locating the CEQA-required sections within this document.

Table 1-2 Location of CEQA Required Topics

CEQA REQUIRED TOPIC CEQA GUIDELINES

REFERENCE LOCATION IN THIS EIR
Table of Contents § 15122 Table of Contents
Summary § 15123 Section S.0
Project Description § 15124 Section 3.0
Environmental Setting § 15125 Section 2.0
Consideration and Discussion of
Environmental Impacts § 15126 Section 4.0
Significant Environmental Effects Which
Cannot be Avoided if the Project is
Implemented
§ 15126.2(c) Section 4.0 & Subsection 5.1
Significant Irreversible Environmental
Changes Which Would be Caused by the
Project Should it be Implemented
§ 15126.2(d) Subsection 5.2
Growth-Inducing Impact of the Project § 15126.2(e) Subsection 5.3 Consideration and Discussion of Mitigation
Measures Proposed to Minimize Significant
Effects
§ 15126.4 Section 4.0 & Table S-1
Consideration and Discussion of Alternatives
to the Project § 15126.6 Section 6.0
Effects Not Found to be Significant § 15128 Subsection 5.4 Organizations and Persons Consulted § 15129 Section 7.0 & Technical Appendices
Discussion of Cumulative Impacts § 15130 Section 4.0
Energy Conservation § 15126.2(b) &
Appendix F Subsection 4.4
402
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Introduction
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

1.5 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
CEQA Guidelines Section 15147 states that the “information contained in an EIR shall include summarized…information sufficient to permit full assessment of significant environmental impacts by reviewing agencies and members of the public,” and that the “placement of highly technical and specialized analysis and data in the body of an EIR shall be avoided through the inclusion of supporting information and analyses as appendices to the main body of the EIR.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 allows for the incorporation “by reference all or portions of another document… [and is] most appropriate for including long, descriptive, or technical materials that provide general background but do not contribute directly to the analysis of a problem at hand.” The purpose of incorporation by reference is to assist the Lead Agency in limiting the length of an EIR. Where this EIR incorporates a document by reference, the document is identified in the body of the EIR, citing the appropriate section(s) of the incorporated document and describing the relationship between the incorporated part of the referenced document and this EIR. Refer to EIR Section 7.0, References, for a list of documents incorporated into this EIR by reference.

This EIR also relies on a number of Project-specific technical studies that are bound separately as Technical Appendices. The individual technical studies, reports, and supporting documentation that comprise the Technical Appendices are as follows:

A: Notice of Preparation (NOP) and NOP Comment Letters
B1: Air Quality Impact Analysis
B2: Health Risk Assessment
C: Cultural Records Search
D: Energy Analysis
E1: Geotechnical Investigation
E2: Infiltration Report
F: Greenhouse Gas Analysis
G: Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessment
H1: Preliminary Hydrology Report
H2: Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
I: Noise Impact Analysis
J: Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
K: Trip Generation Assessment
As discussed above, the Technical Appendices are available for review at the City of Ontario Planning Department, 303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764, during the City’s regular business hours and can be accessed on the City’s website during the Draft EIR’s public review period at the following address:
https://www.ontarioca.gov/Planning/Reports/EnvironmentalImpact Other reference sources that are incorporated into this EIR by reference are listed in Section 7.0, References, of this EIR. In most cases, documents or websites not included in the EIR’s Technical 403
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Introduction
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Appendices are cited by a link to the online location where the document/website can be viewed for convenience. References relied upon by this EIR and cited in Section 7.0 can be requested in electronic form by contacting the City Planning Department or can be viewed in electronic format at the City of Ontario Planning Department, 303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764, during the City’s regular business hours.

1.6 RESPONSIBLE AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES
The California Public Resources Code (Section 21104) requires that all EIRs be reviewed by responsible and trustee agencies (see also CEQA Guidelines Sections 15082 and 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 Project would require approval from the following Trustee and Responsible Agencies:
o Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is identified as a Trustee Agency for the Project that 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.
o South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is identified as a Responsible Agency pertaining to the issuance of construction-related permits. o Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC) is a Responsible Agency pertaining to the approval of the Project’s proposed water connections.
o Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) is a Responsible Agency pertaining to the approval of the Project’s proposed sewer connections.
o The San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) is a Responsible Agency pertaining to the approval of the Project’s proposed drainage improvements. o Southern California Edison (SCE) is identified as a Responsible Agency pertaining to the installation of new SCE facilities/connections to service the Project. o Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas) is identified as a Trustee Agency pertaining to the installation of new Southern California Gas Company facilities/connections to service the Project.

There are no other known Trustee Agencies or Responsible Agencies identified for the Project.

Regardless, this EIR can be used by any Trustee Agency or Responsible Agency, whether identified in this EIR or not, as part of their decision-making processes in relation to the proposed Project. 404
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Introduction
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

1.7 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
Substantive issues raised in response to this EIR’s NOP were previously summarized in Table 1-1.

Based on comments received in response to the NOP, concerns were raised regarding potential impacts to the environment pertaining to the topics of: air quality geology and soils, greenhouse gases, and noise. No other areas of concern or controversy were identified pertaining to the proposed Project, beyond comments regarding the Project’s potential environmental effects summarized in Table 1-1.

1.8 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED BY THE DECISION-MAKING BODY
The primary issue to be resolved by the decision-making body for the proposed Project involves the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts in the environmental topic areas of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The City of Ontario Planning Commission will evaluate whether the mitigation measures (Transportation Demand Management Program) presented in this document to reduce the Project’s unavoidable VMT impact adequately reduce the Project’s impact to the maximum feasible extent. The Planning Commission also will make a determination as to whether the Project’s benefits outweigh the adverse environmental effect in support of adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093.
405
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Environmental Setting
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

2.1 REGIONAL SETTING AND LOCATION
The approximately 13.08-acre Project Site is located within the City of Ontario, which is located in the southwestern portion of San Bernardino County, California. Ontario is located east of the cities of Montclair and Chino and unincorporated area of San Bernardino County, west of the City of Fontana and unincorporated land in San Bernardino County, north of the Cities of Chino, Eastvale, and Jurupa Valley, and south of the cities of Upland and Rancho Cucamonga. The Project Site is located approximately 0.57-mile east of Interstate 15 (I-15) and approximately 0.28-mile south of Interstate 10 (I-10). The Site’s location in a regional context is shown on Figure 3-1, Regional Map, in Section 3.0, Project Description.

The Project Site is located in an urbanized area of southern California commonly referred to as the “Inland Empire.” The Inland Empire is an approximate 28,000 square-mile region comprising San Bernardino County, Riverside County, and eastern Los Angeles County.

2.2 LOCAL SETTING AND LOCATION
At the local scale, 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, railroad tracks to the north. Refer to Figure 3-2, Vicinity Map and Figure 3-3, USGS Topographic Map in Section 3.0, Project Description.

The area immediately surrounding the Project Site contains a variety of industrial uses. The census tract containing the Project Site (Census Tract 6071012700) is ranked by the State as being in the 65th percentile for pollution burden which, based on the Census Tract’s demographic characteristics, results in the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) ranking the area in the 88th percentile of communities that are disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution (OEHHA, 2022).

OEHHA’s California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool: CalEnviroScreen 4.0, is a screening methodology that the State uses to identify California communities that are disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. The CalEnviroScreen 4.0 indicators for the Project Site’s Census Tract are shown below.
406
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Environmental Setting
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Table 2-1 CalEnviroScreen Indicators for Census Tract 6071012700 Indicator % Burden Indicator % Burden
Exposures Environmental Effects
Ozone: 91 Cleanup Sites 0
PM 2.5: 96 Groundwater Threats 31
Diesel PM: 97 Hazardous Waste 79
Pesticides: 0 Impaired Waters 0
Toxic Releases: 79 Solid Waste 70
Traffic: 89 Sensitive Populations
Drinking Water: 93 Asthma 47
Lead from Housing: 9 Low Birth Weight 57
Cardiovascular Disease 67
Socioeconomic Factors
Education 40
Linguistic Isolation 18
Poverty 24
Unemployment 54
Housing Burden 32
Source: (OEHHA, 2022)
Exposure indicators are based on measurements of different types of pollution that people may encounter. Environmental effects indicators are based on the locations of toxic chemicals in or near communities. Sensitive population indicators measure the number of people in a community who may be more severely affected by pollution because of their age or health. Socioeconomic factor indicators are conditions that may increase people’s stress or make healthy living difficult and cause them to be more sensitive to pollution’s effects. As indicated in Table 2-1, for the Project Site’s Census Tract, the highest environmental exposures (over 75%) are from ozone (O3), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), diesel particulate matter (DPM), toxic releases, drinking water, and hazardous waste. There are no population and socioeconomic factors over 75%. This data is consistent with the industrial nature of the Project Site and its surrounding area and low number of residents (population) living near the Project Site in the census tract.

Even though the Project site is not located within a census tract that receives the highest 25% of overall scores in CalEnviroScreen 4.0, the Project site is considered a SB 535 Disadvantaged Community identified by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) due to the census tract being identified as a Disadvantaged Community in 2017. Census tracts identified in the 2017 Disadvantaged Community designation as disadvantaged, regardless of their scores in CalEnviroScreen 4.0, are considered a disadvantage community. The State provides California Climate Investment funding, appropriated by the State Legislature, from the proceeds of the State’s Cap-and-Trade Program for investment in disadvantaged communities. The funding is used for programs that reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, with at least 25% of the funding going to projects that provide a benefit to 407
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Environmental Setting
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

disadvantaged communities, and at least 10% of the funding going to projects located within those communities. (OEHHA, 2022)

2.3 SURROUNDING LAND USES
Existing land uses in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site are illustrated on Figure 2-1, Surrounding Land Uses, and are described below.

North: A railroad right-of-way adjoins the Project Site to the north. Emser Tile Distribution Center (5300 Shea Center Drive) is located to the north of the railroad tracks.

South: East Airport Drive adjoins the Project Site to the south. Two warehouses are located south of East Airport Drive with street addresses of 5600 East Airport Drive and 5200 East Airport Drive. Current tenants at these warehouses include Costco and XPO Logistics.

West: A Verizon facility (5351 East Airport Drive) adjoins the Project Site to the west.

East: A industrial gas supplier, Praxair, Inc. with the street address of 5735 East Airport Drive adjoins the Project Site to the east.
408
409
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Environmental Setting
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

2.4 PLANNING CONTEXT

2.4.1 CITY OF ONTARIO GENERAL PLAN (POLICY PLAN)
The City of Ontario’s prevailing planning document is its General Plan (Policy Plan), dated August 2022. As depicted on Figure 2-2, Existing General Plan Land Use Designations, the City’s General Plan designates the Project Site for “Industrial (IND)” land uses. The “IND” lane use designation is intended 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 with a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.55 (Ontario, 2022a, p. 11).

2.4.2 ZONING
As shown on Figure 2-3, Existing Zoning Designations, the Project Site is designated as “Heavy Industrial (IH)”. According to the Ontario Development Code, Chapter 5.0 Zoning and Land Use, the IH zoning district is established to accommodate heavier manufacturing, assembly, storage, warehousing, and other similar industrial activities, as well as adult uses, all of which may be developed at a maximum intensity of 0.55 FAR. This zoning district is intended to be located away from residentially zoned properties, public parks and schools, and mixed-use properties having a residential component. The IH zoning district is consistent with, and implements, the Industrial land use designation of the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan (Ontario, 2022c).

2.4.3 SCAG REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN / SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) under California State law, established as an association of local governments and agencies that voluntarily convene as a forum to address regional issues. Under federal law, SCAG is designated as a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and under State law as a Regional Transportation Planning Agency and a Council of Governments. The SCAG region encompasses six counties (Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura) and 191 cities in an area covering more than 38,000 square miles.

SCAG’s 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) develops long-range regional transportation plans including a sustainable communities strategy and growth forecast components, regional transportation improvement programs, regional housing needs allocations and other plans for the region. The RTP/SCS provides objectives for meeting air pollution emissions reduction targets set forth by the California Air Resources Board (CARB); these objectives were provided in direct response to Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) which was enacted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and light trucks through integrated transportation, land use, housing, and environmental planning. The Subregional Sustainable Communities Strategies identifies the Project Site as being located in an area with a “Standard Suburban” land use pattern, which is defined as auto-oriented development with a minimal mix of land uses (SCAG, 2020a, Sustainable Communities Strategy Technical Report, p. 45).
410
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Environmental Setting
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

The Goods Movement Technical Report of the RTP/SCS recognizes that the SCAG region is the premier trade gateway for the United States. It goes on to say that the SCAG region has witnessed continued growth for warehousing, distribution, cold storage and truck terminal facilities, with a majority of the growth for national and regional distribution facilities occurring in the Inland Empire.

Through Connect SoCal, SCAG is working on various regional strategies to maintain the SCAG region as an important trade gateway while addressing regional transportation efficiency and environmental sustainability (SCAG, 2020a, Goods Movement Technical Report, pp. 1 through 17).

2.5 EXISTING PHYSICAL SITE CONDITIONS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a)(1), recommends that the physical environmental condition that existed at the time an EIR’s NOP is released for public review normally be used as the comparative baseline for the EIR analysis. The NOP for this EIR was released for public review on September 1, 2022, and the following pages include a description of the Project Site’s physical environmental condition (“existing conditions”) as of that approximate date. More information regarding the Project Site’s environmental setting is provided in the specific subsections of EIR Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis.

2.5.1 LAND USE
Under existing conditions, the Project Site is 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 grain storage, with an office trailer. A vehicle wash-down area is also present on the northeastern portion of the Site. Several subsurface septic systems are located beneath the Site to serve the existing uses.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(d), the environmental setting should identify any inconsistencies between a proposed project and applicable general, specific, or regional plans. The Project Applicant proposes to develop the approximately 13.08-acre property as a one-building warehouse facility. The principal discretionary action required of the City of Ontario to implement the Project is a Development Plan, which is described in detail in Section 3.0, Project Description. Other permits and approvals are listed in Table 3-3, Matrix of Approvals/Permits. The Project is consistent with the existing General Plan land use and Zoning designations of “IND” and “IH”, respectively. 411
412
413
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Environmental Setting
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

2.5.2 AESTHETICS AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES
The Project Site slopes gently to the south-southeast at a gradient of less than 1 percent and is perceived to be generally flat. Figure 3-3, USGS Topographic Map, in EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, depicts the Project Site’s existing topographic conditions. The Project Site is completely developed and minimal vegetation is located around the southern perimeter of the Project Site. There are no rock outcroppings or other unique topographic or aesthetic features present on the property.

2.5.3 AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE
The Project Site is located in the 6,745-square mile South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, and all of Orange County. The SCAB is bound by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, the San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east, and San Diego County to the South. The SCAB is within the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the agency charged with bringing air quality in the SCAB into conformity with federal and State air quality standards. Although the climate of the SCAB is characterized as semi-arid, the air near the land surface is quite moist on most days because of the presence of a marine layer. More than 90% of the SCAB’s rainfall occurs from November through April. Temperatures during the year range from an average minimum of 36°F in January to over 100°F maximum in the summer. During the late autumn to early spring rainy season, the SCAB is subjected to wind flows associated with the traveling storms moving through the region from the northwest. This period also brings five to ten periods of strong, dry offshore winds, locally termed “Santa Ana(s)” each year. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a) At the regional level, air quality in the SCAB has improved over the past several decades; however, the SCAB is currently not in attainment of State and/or federal standards established for Ozone (O3 one-hour (State standard only) and eight-hour), and particulate matter (PM10 (State standard only) and PM2.5). No areas of the SCAB exceeded federal or State standards for nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), or carbon monoxide (CO). (Urban Crossroads, 2022a) Refer to EIR Subsection 4.2, Air Quality, and 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, for a more detailed discussion of the existing air quality and climate setting in the Project area.

2.5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES & TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Three cultural resources have been recorded within one-half mile of the Project Site; none of which are within the Project boundaries. The resources include a historic railroad track alignment, a historic foundation, and a historic transmission line alignment. (BFSA, 2022)

2.5.5 GEOLOGY
Regionally, the Project Site is in the Upper Santa Ana River Valley, consisting of coalescing alluvial fans formed by steams flowing out of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north. The Project Site lies within the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province, characterized by northwest-trending mountains 414
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Environmental Setting
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

and valleys and extending south into Mexico. The Project Site is in one of the more seismically active portions of southern California. (Ontario, 2022a)
The Project Site is located in an area that is subject to strong ground motions due to earthquakes.

Numerous faults capable of producing significant ground motions are located near the Project Site. (SoCal Geotechnical, 2022a, p. 10) An active fault is defined by the California Geotechnical Survey as a fault that has experienced surface displacement within the Holocene Epoch (roughly the last 11,000 years). The nearest active fault to the Project Site is the Cucamonga Fault, located approximately 7.0 miles to the north of the Project Site (CGS, 2015). 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)
Artificial fill soils were encountered beneath the existing pavements at all of the infiltration boring locations, extending to depths of 3 to 4± feet below the existing site grades. The fill soils generally consist of medium dense to dense silty sands, with occasional loose sands. The fill soils possess a disturbed mottled appearance resulting in their classification as artificial fill. Native alluvial soils were encountered beneath the fill soils at all of the infiltration boring locations, extending to at least the maximum depth explored of 12± feet. The alluvium generally consists of loose sands, silty sands and silty sands to sandy silts, with occasional medium dense silty sands. (SoCal Geotechnical, 2022b, p. 3) Refer to EIR Subsection 4.5, Geology and Soils, for a more detailed discussion of the Project Site’s existing geological setting.

2.5.6 HYDROLOGY
The Project Site is located in the Santa Ana River watershed, which drains an approximately 2,650- square-mile area. The Santa Ana River starts in Santa Ana Canyon in the southern San Bernardino Mountains and runs southwesterly across San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange Counties, where it discharges into the Pacific Ocean at the City of Huntington Beach.

The natural drainage pattern for the existing condition of the Project Site is north to south. There are no existing public storm drain systems at the frontage of the Project Site. Stormwater sheet flows south and discharge onto the existing curb and gutter on Airport Drive. Runoff flows east along Airport Drive and discharges into an existing catch basin located approximately 1,500 east of the Project Site. The existing catch basin is connected to the Lower Etiwanda Creek Channel, which conveys stormwater to the Wineville Basin. (Westland Group, 2022, p. 1)
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06071C8633J (effective 09/02/2016), the Project Site is located within FEMA Flood Zone X, which is correlated with areas of minimal flood hazard, determined to be less than the 0.2 percent annual chance flood. (FEMA, 2016)
415
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Environmental Setting
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Refer to EIR Subsection 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, for a more detailed discussion of the Project Site’s existing hydrology and water quality setting.

2.5.7 NOISE
Urban Crossroads recorded 24-hour noise readings at four locations in the Project study area on March 8, 2022, to determine the baseline for the existing noise environment. Measured daytime noise levels in the area ranged from 58.4 equivalent level decibels (dBA Leq) to 69.8 dBA Leq and nighttime noise levels from 59.0 dBA Leq to 68.2 dBA Leq. In general, the existing background ambient noise levels in the Project area are dominated by traffic noise associated with automobiles and truck traffic on the local arterial roadway network and the railroad directly north of the Project Site.

Refer to EIR Subsection 4.9, Noise, for a more detailed discussion of the Project Site’s existing noise setting.

2.5.8 TRANSPORTATION
The Project Site is located north of East Airport Drive, which is classified as a Minor Arterial under the Policy Plan (Ontario, 2022a). Existing traffic on East Airport Drive consists of both passenger vehicles and trucks passing through the area and accessing nearby land uses. The primary regional vehicular travel route serving the Project area is I-10 and I-15, which are located approximately 0.2- mile north and 0.4-mile west of the Project Site, respectively. The Project Site is located approximately

0.4-mile (driving distance) west of the N. Etiwanda Avenue on/off-ramp to I-10 and 3-mile (driving distance) northeast of the Jurupa Avenue on/off-ramp to I-10.

Public transit service in the region is provided by Omnitrans, a public transit agency that serves various jurisdictions within San Bernardino County. There are no public transit routes that run adjacent to the Project Site under existing conditions. The nearest transit routes to the Project Site are Route 61 which has a stop located along Fourth Street, approximately 0.9 mile north of the Project Site and Route 82 which has a stop located at South Etiwanda and Jurupa Avenue, approximately 1.2 miles southeast of the Project Site.

There are no existing bicycle facilities within the vicinity of the Project Site. The closest bike route to the Project Site is a Class III bike route located along Ontario Mills Parkway, approximately 0.4 mile north of the Project Site. There are no sidewalks on either side of East Airport Drive, with the exception of a small portion along the adjacent development frontage directly to the west at 5351 East Airport Drive.

Refer to EIR Subsection 4.10, Transportation, for a more detailed discussion of the Project Site’s existing transportation setting.
416
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Environmental Setting
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

2.5.9 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Water service to the Project Site is provided by the Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC) and the City of Ontario provides wastewater conveyance service to the Project Site. Under existing conditions, there is an existing 12-inch water main on East Airport Drive and a 24-inch recycled water main on East Airport Drive that ends approximately west of South Wineville Avenue.

Sanitary sewage generated at the Project Site currently discharges to subsurface septic systems located beneath the site. Two known septic systems are located on the eastern parcel and one known system is located on the western parcel.

The City of Ontario collected solid waste for residences and businesses within the City, including the Project Site. Solid waste generated during the operation of the Project is anticipated to be hauled to either Badlands Sanitary Landfill or El Sobrante Landfill.

Electricity and gas services will be provided by Southern California Edison (SCE) and Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas), respectively. Existing overhead power lines occur along East Airport Drive that are aligned in an east-west direction along the southern boundary of the Project Site.

There is also an existing 10-inch gas line in East Airport Drive.

Refer to EIR Subsection 4.12, Utilities and Service Systems, for a more detailed discussion of the Project Site’s existing utilities systems.

2.5.10 RARE AND UNIQUE RESOURCES
As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(c), the environmental setting should place special emphasis on resources that are rare or unique to that region and would be affected by the Project. Based on the existing conditions of the Project Site and surrounding area described above and discussed in more detail in Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis, the Project Site does not contain any resources that are rare or unique to the region.
417
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This section provides all of the information required of an EIR Project Description pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124, including a description of the Project’s precise location and boundaries; a statement of the Project’s objectives; a description of the Project’s technical, economic, and environmental characteristics; and a description of the intended uses of this EIR (including a list of the government agencies that are expected to use this EIR in their decision-making processes); a list of the permits and approvals that are required to implement the Project; and a list of related environmental review and consultation requirements.

3.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
As shown in Figure 3-1, Regional Map, the 13.08-acre Project Site is located in southwestern San Bernardino County, within the City of Ontario. The City of Ontario is located approximately 40 miles from downtown Los Angeles, 20 miles from downtown San Bernardino, and 30 miles from Orange County.

At the local scale, 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. Refer to Figure 3-2, Vicinity Map, and Figure 3-3, USGC Topographic Map. Also refer to EIR Subsection 2.3, Surrounding Land Uses, for a description of existing land uses that abut the Project Site.

Under existing conditions, the Project Site is 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 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. Vehicular access to the Project Site is from three driveways along East Airport Drive. There are currently no sidewalks present along the Project Site’s southern boundary on East Airport Drive.

3.2 STATEMENT OF 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.

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. 418
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

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.

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

3.3 PROJECT COMPONENTS
The Project involves a discretionary application for a Development Plan (PDEV22-017). The principal discretionary action required of the City of Ontario to implement the Project are described in detail on the following pages. Additional discretionary and administrative actions that would be necessary to implement the proposed Project are listed in Table 3-3, Matrix of Project Approvals/Permits, at the end of this Section.

3.3.1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDEV22-017)
The proposed Development Plan specifies a development plan for the Project Site that provides for the construction and operation of a warehouse building with approximately 270,337 square feet (s.f.) of building floor area, including 255,337 s.f. of warehouse space and 15,000 s.f. of mezzanine. Although the future tenant(s) of the proposed building is unknown at this time, for purposes of analysis within this EIR it is assumed that the building would include approximately 27,034 s.f. of high-cube cold storage uses (10% of the building space), with remaining portions of the building consisting of warehouse uses. The detailed components of the proposed Site Plan are described below. The Project design, which ultimately would include building components and systems to be shown on construction drawings (such as light fixtures, water fixtures, and heating, ventilation, and air condition equipment), would be conditioned by the City of Ontario to achieve Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards.
419
420
421
422
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

B. Site Plan
The proposed Site Plan for the Project is illustrated on Figure 3-4, Proposed Site Plan. The proposed building is designed as a rectangular-shaped building with its elongated sides oriented parallel to the Project Site’s northern and southern boundaries. The proposed building would have 54 loading docks and 48 truck trailer parking spaces within the truck court/loading area on the south side of the building.

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 8-foot-tall black tube steel gate used at the access points. Passenger vehicle parking areas would be provided on the west, south, and east sides of the building with a total of 251 on-site passenger vehicle spaces. Of the 251 spaces, 126 would be designated as standard automobile parking stalls, 7 would be designated as accessible parking stalls, 25 would be designated as electric vehicle parking stalls, and 93 would be designated as future stalls within the truck court. Additionally, bike racks would be provided near the building entrances and adjacent to the electrical room. Vehicular access would be provided via 2 driveways on East Airport Drive. Both driveways would be covered with enhanced decorative paving and would provide inbound/outbound access for passenger vehicles and trucks. A new sidewalk would be constructed along East Airport Drive to provide pedestrian access from the public street to the primary building entrances.

C. Architecture Plan
The proposed architecture plan provides a building with a maximum height of 49 feet above finished floor elevation to the top of the parapets; however, the proposed building would have a varied roofline and portions of the building would be slightly less than 49 feet tall. The proposed building would be constructed with concrete tilt-up panels, with special architectural features and colors at the potential office locations at the southwest and southeast corners of the building, which also would feature green reflective glazing. The proposed building’s exterior color palette would be comprised of various shades of white, grays, dark grays, and dark green. Architectural elevations for the proposed project are illustrated on Figure 3-5, Proposed Architectural Elevations.

D. Landscaping/Exterior Features
Ornamental landscaping and lighting would be installed per compliance with the City's Municipal Code. As depicted in Figure 3-6, Proposed Landscape Plan, a variety of trees, shrubs, accent plants, and ground cover are proposed along the perimeter of the Project Site and parking area. Landscaping would feature drought-tolerant plant materials including approximately 199 trees, installed at the following sizes at the time of planting: 109 15 gallon, 10 48” box, 20 36” box, and 60 24” box trees.

Exterior lighting would be installed on-site, as necessary, for safety, security, and wayfinding.

Decorative architectural lighting as well as landscape lighting would also be installed to accent building entries as focal points throughout the Site.
423
424
425
426
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

E. Infrastructure Improvements

1. Water Service
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. 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.

2. Sanitary Sewer Service
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.

3. Drainage
Stormwater would sheet flow from north to south and would be captured by proposed on-site catch basins. The proposed on-site storm drain system is designed to convey the flow into a proposed underground infiltration chamber. In a large storm event, stormwater would exit the underground chamber system via pipes and would be pumped out through a proposed parkway drain on East Airport Drive. Runoff is designed to 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.

4. Dry Utilities
Electricity and gas services would be provided by the Southern California Edison (SCE) and Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas), respectively. All new dry utility infrastructure would be installed underground and within the Project Site with the exception of any electrical lines carrying voltages that SCE does not allow to be undergrounded.
427
428
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

3.4 SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

3.4.1 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION CHARACTERISTICS
The Applicant anticipates that the Project’s construction process would span approximately 12 months.

The estimated Project construction schedule, organized by construction stage, is summarized in Table 3-1, Estimated Construction Schedule. For purposes of analysis in this EIR, construction is assumed to commence in July 2023 and conclude in June 2024. The construction schedule utilized in the analysis represents a “worst-case” analysis scenario should construction occur any time after the respective dates since air pollutant emission factors for construction decrease as time passes and the analysis year increases due to emission regulations becoming more stringent. The duration of construction activity and associated equipment represents a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required per the CEQA Guidelines.

Table 3-1 Estimated Construction Schedule
Construction Phase Duration
Demolition 60 days
Site Preparation & Grading 30 days
Building Construction 160 days
Paving 45 days
Architectural Coating & Landscaping 30 days
Total 12 months
The composition of the construction equipment fleet that the Project Applicant intends to use to construct the Project, which also is used for purposes of analysis is in this EIR, is summarized in Table 3-2, Estimated Construction Equipment Fleet.

Table 3-2 Estimated Construction Equipment Fleet
Construction Activity Equipment Amount Hours Per Day
Demolition/Crushing
Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8
Excavators 3 8
Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8
Crushing/Proc. Equipment 1 8
Grading
Graders 1 8
Excavators 2 8
Scrapers 2 8
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8
Crawler Tractors 2 8
429
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Construction Activity Equipment Amount Hours Per Day
Building Construction
Forklifts 5 8
Generator Sets 2 8
Cranes 2 8
Welders 2 8
Crawler Tractors 5 8
Paving
Pavers 2 8
Paving Equipment 2 8
Rollers 2 8
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 8
Site Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8
Crawler Tractors 4 8
The Project would require demolition of the existing buildings and asphalt paving on the site. Based on the Project’s preliminary grading plan depicted in Figure 3-8, Proposed Grading Plan - West, and Figure 3-9, Proposed Grading Plan – East, the Project’s grading operation would result in 9,000 more cubic yards of cut than fill, but final earthwork quantities are subject to final civil engineering design and after final engineering, the earthwork is expected to balance with no import or export of earth material required.

3.4.2 PROJECT OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
The Project is proposed as a speculative development and the user(s) of the building is not known at this time. For the purposes of this EIR, the Project is assumed to be operational 24 hours per day, seven days per week, with exterior loading and parking areas illuminated at night.

A. Proposed Site Activities
The proposed building on the Project Site would operate as an industrial warehouse. Because the user(s) is speculative and some building users require small amounts of warehouse space to be temperature controlled, for purposes of analysis within this EIR it is assumed that the building would include approximately 27,034 s.f. of high-cube cold storage uses (10% of the building space), with remaining portions of the building consisting of warehouse uses. A limitation of 10% of the building for potential cold storage is based on the Project Applicant’s understanding of the cold storage space market demand in the Inland Empire for buildings in the Project’s size range, which tend to have small cold storage needs for perishable products such as nutritional supplements, flowers and plants, medicines, candles, cosmetics, organic textiles, and specialized products, should the building user need to store these types of products. Hazardous materials storage is not expected to occur within the building or on the Project Site; however, small quantities of hazardous chemicals and/or materials – 430
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

including but not limited to aerosols, cleaners, fertilizers, lubricants, paints or stains, fuels, ammonia, propane, oils, and solvents – could be utilized during routine Project operations and maintenance.

Exterior activities on the Project Site are reasonably assumed to include vehicle movement, parking, and the loading and unloading of tractor trailers at designated loading bays on the southern side of the building. As a practical matter, dock doors on warehouse buildings are not occupied by a truck at all times of the day. There are typically more dock door positions on industrial buildings than are needed for receiving and shipping volumes. The dock doors that are in use at any given time are usually selected based on interior building operation efficiencies. In other words, trucks ideally dock in the position closest to where the goods to be carried by the truck are inside the building. As a result, a number of dock door positions are frequently inactive throughout the day.

B. Traffic
During operation of the Project, employees, visitors, and vehicles hauling goods would travel to and from the Project Site on a daily basis. Project operations are calculated to generate 475 vehicle trips per day, including 308 passenger vehicle trips and 168 truck trips (in terms of actual vehicles). In order to account for the possibility of 10% of the building space being used for refrigerated uses, trucks associated with the cold-storage use are assumed to have transport refrigeration units (TRUs).

Therefore, for modeling purposes 11 trucks (22 truck trips per day) are assumed to be equipped with TRUs. Pursuant to State law, on-road diesel-fueled trucks are required to comply with various air quality and greenhouse gas emission standards, including but not limited to the type of fuel used, engine model year stipulations, aerodynamic features, and idling time restrictions. Compliance with State law is mandatory and inspections of on-road diesel trucks subject to applicable State laws are conducted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

3.5 SUMMARY OF REQUESTED ACTIONS
The City of Ontario has primary approval responsibility for the proposed Project. As such, the City of Ontario serves as the Lead Agency for this EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15050 and 15051. The role of the Lead Agency was previously detailed in EIR Section 1.0, Introduction. As part of the approval process for the proposed Project, the City’s Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider the Project’s Development Plan (PDEV22-017). The Planning Commission will consider certification of this EIR, and also will approve, approve with changes, or disapprove proposed PDEV22-017.
431
432
433
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

3.6 RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND CONSULTATION
Should the City of Ontario certify the Final EIR and approve the Project, additional discretionary and/or ministerial actions would be necessary to implement the proposed Project. Table 3-3, Project Related Approvals/Permits, list the agencies that are expected to use this EIR and provides a summary of the subsequent actions associated with the Project. This EIR covers all federal, State, and local government and quasi-governmental approvals which may be needed to construct and implement the Project, whether or not they are explicitly listed in Table 3-3 or elsewhere in this EIR (CEQA Guidelines § 15124(d)).

Table 3-3 Matrix of Project Approvals/Permits
Public Agency Approvals and Decisions
Proposed Project – City of Ontario Discretionary Approvals City of Ontario
Planning Commission
• Approve, conditionally approve, or deny Development
Plan (PDEV22-017).
• Certify or decline to certify this EIR along with
appropriate CEQA Findings.

Subsequent City of Ontario Ministerial Approvals
City of Ontario
Subsequent Implementing Approvals
• Approve precise site plan(s) and landscaping/irrigation plan (s), as may be appropriate.
• Issue Grading Permits.
• Issue Building Permits.
• Approve Road Improvement Plans.
• Issue Encroachment Permits.
• Approve Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) and Water Quality Management Plan
(WQMP).

Other Agencies – Subsequent Approvals and Permits
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB)
• Issuance of a Construction Activity General
Construction Permit.
• Compliance with National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permit.

San Bernardino County Flood Control District
(SBCFCD)
• Approval of the Project’s proposed drainage
improvements.

Ontario Fire Department (OFD) • Approval of fire hydrant locations and fire protection features for the proposed building.

South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD)
• Issuance of construction-related permits.

Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC) • Approval 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.
434
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 3.0 Project Description
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Public Agency Approvals and Decisions
Southern California Gas Company • Approvals required for the installation of new Southern California Gas Company facilities/connections to
service the Project.
435
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

4.1.1 SUMMARY OF EIR SCOPE
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126-15126.4, this EIR Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis, includes analyses of potential direct, indirect, and cumulatively-considerable impacts that could result from planning, construction, and/or operating the proposed Project.

The City of Ontario distributed a NOP for this EIR to public agencies and interested individuals and posted the NOP on its website to solicit input on the scope of environmental study for the Project. The City of Ontario also held a Scoping Meeting to solicit input from interested parties on the scope of study for the EIR. Taking all known information and public comments into consideration, 12 primary environmental subject areas are evaluated in detail in this Section 4.0, as listed below. Each subsection evaluates several specific topics related to the primary environmental subject. The title of each subsection is not limiting; therefore, refer to each subsection for a full account of the subject matters addressed therein.

4.1 Aesthetics 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

4.2 Air Quality 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality

4.3 Cultural Resources 4.9 Noise

4.4 Energy 4.10 Transportation

4.5 Geology and Soils 4.11 Tribal Cultural Resources

4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 4.12 Utilities and Service Systems After conducting preliminary research and in consideration of all comments received by the City on the scope of this EIR and documented in the City’s administrative record, the City determined that given the developed condition of the Project Site, the Project Site’s location surrounded by industrial uses and a railroad track, the Project's consistency with the property’s “Industrial (IND)” General Plan and “Heavy Industrial (IH)” zoning designations, and the construction and operational characteristics of the proposed Project, the Project would not have any reasonable potential to result in significant impacts under eight (8) primary environmental subject areas: Agriculture and Forestry Resources; Biological Resources; Land Use and Planning; Mineral Resources; Population and Housing; Public Services; Recreation; and Wildfire. These eight subjects are addressed in Section 5.0, Other CEQA Considerations.

4.1.2 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS
CEQA requires that an EIR contain an assessment of the cumulative impacts that may be associated with a proposed project. As noted in CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a), “an EIR shall discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable.” “A cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects creating related impacts” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a)(1)). As defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15355:
436
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

‘Cumulative Impacts’ refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.
(a) The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects.
(b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b) describes two acceptable methods for identifying a study area for purposes of conducting a cumulative impact analysis. These two approaches include: 1) a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency [‘the list of projects approach’], or 2) a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact [‘the summary of projections approach’].

The summary of projections approach is used in this EIR, except for the evaluation of cumulative transportation effects (for purposes of demonstrating General Plan policy compliance) and vehicularrelated air quality, greenhouse gas, and noise impacts, for which the analysis combines the summary of projections approach with the manual addition of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects (“combined approach”). The City determined the combined approach to be appropriate because longrange planning documents contain a sufficient amount of information to enable an analysis of cumulative effect for all subject areas, with the exception of transportation (and vehicular-related air quality, greenhouse gas, and noise effects), which requires a greater level of detailed study. With the combined approach, the cumulative impact analyses for the air quality, greenhouse gas, noise, and transportation issue areas overstate the Project’s potential cumulatively considerable impacts relative to analyses that rely solely on the list of projects approach or solely on the summary of projections approach; therefore, the combined approach provides a conservative, “worst-case” analysis for the Project’s cumulative air quality, greenhouse gas, noise, and transportation impacts.

For the cumulative impact analyses that rely on the summary projections approach (i.e., all issue areas with the exception of transportation and vehicular-related air quality, greenhouse gas, and noise – as described above), the cumulative study area primarily includes the City of Ontario, City of Fontana, City of Upland, City of Chino, City of Rancho Cucamonga, City of Jurupa Valley, and small portions of unincorporated San Bernardino County. These jurisdictions encompass the southwestern area of San Bernardino County and nearby portion of Riverside County and have similar environmental characteristics as the Project area. The selected study area encompasses the central San Bernardino 437
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Valley, which is largely bounded by prominent topographic landforms, such as the San Gabriel Mountains and San Bernardino Mountains to the north, the San Jacinto Mountains to the east, the Temescal Mountains and Santa Ana Mountains to the south, and the Pomona Valley to the west. This study area exhibits similar characteristics in terms of climate, geology, and hydrology and, therefore, is likely to also have similar biological, archaeological, and tribal cultural resource characteristics as well. This study area also encompasses the service areas of the Project Site’s primary public service and utility providers. Areas outside of this study area either exhibit topographic, climatological, or other environmental circumstances that differ from those of the Project area, or are simply too far from the proposed Project Site to produce environmental effects that could be cumulatively-considerable when considered together with the Project’s impacts. Exceptions include the cumulative air quality analysis, which considers the entire South Coast Air Basin (SCAB); the greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change analysis, which affects all areas on the planet; and the analysis of potential cumulative hydrology and water quality effects, which considers other development projects located within the Santa Ana River Basin watershed.

Environmental impacts associated with buildout of the Project’s cumulative study area were evaluated in CEQA compliance documents prepared for the respective General Plans of each of the above-named jurisdictions. The location where each of these CEQA compliance documents is available for review is provided below. All of the CEQA compliance documents listed below are herein incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150.
• The Ontario Plan SEIR (SCH No. 2021070364), available for review at the City of Ontario Planning Department, 303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764; • City of Fontana General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2016021099), available for review at the City of Fontana Planning Division, 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, California 92335; • City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update EIR (SCH No. 2021050261), available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730;
• San Bernardino Countywide Plan EIR (SCH No. 2017101033), available for review at the County of San Bernardino Land Use Services Department – Planning Division 385 North Arrowhead Avenue, 1st Floor, San Bernardino, California 92415; • City of Upland General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2012041006), available for review at the City of Upland Planning Division, 460 N. Euclid Avenue, Upland, CA 91786; • City of Chino General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2008091064), available for review at the City of Chino Planning Division, 13220 Central Avenue, Chino, CA 91710; 438
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

• City of Jurupa Valley General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2016021025), available for review at the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department, 8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, California 92509.

4.1.3 ANALYSIS FORMAT
Subsections 4.1 through 4.12 of this EIR evaluate the 12 environmental subjects warranting detailed analysis as determined by the City of Ontario in consideration of preliminary research findings, public comments, and technical study. The format of discussion is standardized as much as possible in each section for ease of review. The environmental setting is discussed first, followed by a discussion of the potential environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the Project (which is based on specified thresholds of significance used as criteria to determine whether potential environmental effects are significant).

The thresholds of significance used in this EIR are based on the thresholds of significance identified in Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines, as most recently updated in December 2018. The thresholds are intended to assist the reader of this EIR in understanding how and why this EIR reaches a conclusion that an impact would or would not occur, and whether the impact would be significant or less than significant.

Serving as the CEQA Lead Agency for this EIR, the City of Ontario is responsible for determining whether an adverse environmental effect identified in this EIR should be classified as significant or less than significant. The standards of significance used in this EIR are based on the independent judgment of the City of Ontario, taking into consideration the City of Ontario Policy Plan; the City of Ontario Municipal Code and adopted City policies; the judgment of the technical experts that prepared this EIR’s technical appendices; performance standards adopted, implemented, and monitored by regulatory agencies; and significance standards recommended by regulatory agencies.

As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(a), Project-related effects on the environment are characterized in this EIR as direct, indirect, cumulatively-considerable, short-term, long-term, on-site, and/or off-site impacts. A summarized “impact statement” is provided in each Subsection following the analysis. Each Subsection also includes a discussion or listing of the applicable regulatory criteria (laws, policies, regulations) that the Project and its implementing actions are required to comply with (if any). If impacts are identified as significant after mandatory compliance with regulatory criteria, feasible mitigation measures are presented that would either avoid the impact or reduce the magnitude of the impact. For any impact identified as significant and unavoidable, the City of Ontario would be required to adopt a statement of overriding considerations pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 in order to approve the Project despite its significant impact(s) to the environment. The statement of overriding considerations would list the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project, supported by substantial evidence in the Project’s administrative record, that outweigh the unavoidable impacts.
439
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

4.1.4 TERMINOLOGY USED IN THIS EIR
The level of significance is identified for each impact in this EIR. Although the criteria for determining significance are different for each topic area, the environmental analysis applies a uniform classification of the impacts based on definitions consistent with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines:
• No Impact. An adverse change in the physical environment would not occur. • Less-than Significant Impact. An adverse change in the physical environment would occur but the change would not be substantial or potentially substantial and would not exceed the threshold(s) of significance presented in this EIR.
• Significant Impact. A substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the physical environment would occur and would exceed the threshold(s) of significance presented in this EIR, requiring the consideration of mitigation measures.

Each Subsection also includes a discussion or listing of the applicable regulatory criteria (laws, policies, regulations, etc.) that the Project is required to comply with (if any). If impacts are identified as significant after mandatory compliance with regulatory criteria, feasible mitigation measures are presented that would either avoid the impact or reduce the magnitude of the impact. The following terms are used to describe the level of significance following the application of recommended mitigation measures:
• Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. A substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the physical environment would occur that would exceed the threshold(s) of significance presented in this EIR; however, the impact can be avoided or reduced to a less than significant level through the application of feasible and enforceable mitigation measure(s). • Significant and Unavoidable Impact. A substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the physical environment would occur that would exceed the threshold(s) of significance presented in this EIR. Feasible and enforceable mitigation measure(s) that have a proportional nexus to the Project’s impact are either not available or would not be fully effective in avoiding or reducing the impact to below a level of significance.

For any impact identified as significant and unavoidable, the City of Ontario would be required to adopt a statement of overriding considerations pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 in order to approve the Project despite its significant impact(s) to the environment. The statement of overriding considerations would list the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project, supported by substantial evidence in the Project’s administrative record, that outweigh the unavoidable impact(s).
440
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Aesthetics
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

4.1 AESTHETICS
This Subsection describes the aesthetic qualities and visual resources present on the Project Site and in the Site’s vicinity, and evaluates the potential effects that the Project may have on these resources.

Descriptions of existing visual characteristics, both on-site and in the vicinity of the Project Site, and the analysis of potential impacts to aesthetic resources are based on field observations and Site photographs collected by T&B Planning, Inc. on July 28, 2022; analysis of aerial photography (Google Earth, 2022); and the Project’s proposed Site, architecture, and landscaping plans (as described in Section 3.0, Project Description, of this EIR). This Subsection also is based on information contained in the Aesthetics section of the certified Final Program SEIR prepared for The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 (SCH No. 2021070364), and the City of Ontario Municipal Code (Ontario, 2021a). All references used in this Subsection are listed in EIR Section 7.0, References.

4.1.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Project Site and Surrounding Areas
The Project Site is located in the northeast portion of the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California. The Project Site is bordered by East Airport Drive to the south, industrial uses to the east and west, and the railroad to the north. Under existing conditions, the area surrounding the Project Site is fully developed with industrial land uses, primarily warehousing and manufacturing facilities, as described below and under EIR Subsection 2.3, Surrounding Land Uses.

North: A railroad right-of-way adjoins the Project Site to the north. Emser Tile Distribution Center (5300 Shea Center Drive) is located to the north of the railroad tracks.

South: East Airport Drive adjoins the Project Site to the south. Two warehouses are located south of East Airport Drive at the street addresses of 5600 East Airport Drive and 5200 East Airport Drive. Current tenants at the warehouses include Costco and XPO Logistics.

West: A Verizon facility (5351 East Airport Drive) adjoins the Project Site to the west.

East: A industrial gas supplier, Praxair, Inc (5735 East Airport Drive) adjoins the Project Site to the east.

Topographically, the Project Site is perceived as flat but, actually, slopes gently to the south-southeast at a gradient of less than one percent (SCG, 2022a). The Site is developed under existing conditions.

There are no rock outcroppings or unique topographic features on the Project Site. Minimal vegetation, primarily turf and shrubs with a few trees, is located along the southern perimeter of the Project Site.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15125 and as explained in Section 2.0 of this EIR, the physical environmental condition for purposes of establishing the setting of this EIR is the environment as it existed at the time the EIR’s NOP was released for public review. The NOP for this EIR was released on September 1, 2022. As of that approximate date, the Project Site is occupied by Verhoeven, a grain processing facility (sub-tenant), and The Scoular Company, a corn storage and distribution facility. 441
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Aesthetics
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

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 silo grain storage, with an office trailer. A vehicle wash-down area is also present on the northeastern portion of the Site, and three to four septic systems are located onsite.

Figure 4.1-1 through Figure 4.1-3 illustrate a photographic inventory of the Project Site and are relied upon herein to describe the Project Site’s aesthetic condition and character. These photographs provide a representative visual depiction of the Site’s visual characteristics as seen from surrounding public viewing areas, which consist of public roads adjacent to the Project Site. The Site photographs presented on the following pages were stitched together from multiple individual photographs in order to provide wider panoramic views of the Project Site and its surroundings. The photographs were all taken during the same session and reflect a field of view approximately 5 feet above the ground.

B. Scenic Vistas and Scenic Resources
The Project Site is located within a relatively flat valley floor surrounded by rugged hills and mountains. As shown on Figure 4.1-1 through Figure 4.1-3, the Project Site does not contain any scenic resources, such as buildings or landscaping of aesthetic value, or any landforms of visual interest.

Major scenic resources in Ontario that contribute to scenic vistas include the San Gabriel Mountains to the north of the City. The San Gabriel Mountains are located approximately 8.7 miles north of the Project Site and are visible under clear weather conditions. The lower elevations of the San Gabriel Mountains are obscured from public viewing areas abutting the Project Site by the existing buildings and grain storage silos and storage onsite. Views of the upper elevations of the San Gabriel Mountains are partially obscured by onsite buildings; views of the San Gabriel Mountains, also, can sometimes be obscured from the Project Site and its surroundings during hazy conditions that are common to the Inland Empire Area.

C. Light and Glare
Artificial light is associated with the evening and nighttime hours, and sources may include streetlights, illuminated signage, and vehicle headlights. Glare is primarily a daytime occurrence caused by the reflection of sunlight or artificial light from highly polished surfaces, such as window glass or reflective materials, and, to a lesser degree, from broad expanses of light-colored surfaces. Glare can also be produced during evening and nighttime hours by artificial light directed toward a light-sensitive land use.

The Project Site contains sources of artificial, exterior lighting under existing conditions since it is currently operating as a grain processing facility and corn storage and distribution facility. Artificial lighting sources include building-mounted fixtures within the Project Site, street lights along East Airport Drive, and from developed properties to the east, west and south. 442
443
444
445
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Aesthetics
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

4.1.2 REGULATORY SETTING
A. State Plans, Policies, and Regulations

1. California Scenic Highways
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) manages the State Scenic Highway Program, established in 1963 through Senate Bill 1467, Streets and Highways Code, Sections 260 through 263 to protect and enhance the natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors, through special conservation treatment. A highway may be designated as scenic depending upon how much of the natural landscape can be seen by travelers, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which development intrudes upon the traveler’s enjoyment of the view. Scenic corridors consist of land that is visible from, adjacent to, and outside the highway right-of-way, and is comprised primarily of scenic and natural features. Topography, vegetation, viewing distance, and/or jurisdictional lines determine the corridor boundaries. Existing law provides Caltrans with full possession and control of all State highways, while this legislation places the Scenic Highway Program under the stewardship of Caltrans. The legislation further declares the intent of the State to assign responsibility for the regulation of land use and development along scenic highways to the appropriate State and local governmental agencies. Scenic highways are classified as either Officially Designated or Eligible for designation and Caltrans maintains the lists of these highways. (Caltrans, 2021) There are no officially-designated scenic road or highway corridors within the City of Ontario (Caltrans, 2021).

B. Local Plans, Policies, and Regulations

1. The Policy Plan
The Policy Plan, part of The Ontario Plan, serves as the City’s General Plan. The Policy Plan Community Design Element has several principles, goals, and policies that are applicable to the Project to distinguish Ontario as a unique, highly aesthetic built environment that fosters enjoyment, financial benefit, and well-being for the entire community. On August 16, 2022, the City approved TOP 2050, which include updates to the Policy Plan.

2. City of Ontario Municipal Code
The City of Ontario Municipal Code contains regulations regarding historical preservation and general design guidelines that address the aesthetic aspects of residential, commercial, and industrial development:
• Title 9. Development Code, Chapter 1: Development Code, contains regulations for landscaping, lighting, signage, and setbacks in the various land use districts. All on-site lighting fixtures, including parking lot lighting, security lighting and decorative lighting, be indirect or diffused, or shielded or directed away from residential areas. 446
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Aesthetics
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

4.1.3 METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATING AESTHETICS IMPACTS
The analysis of aesthetics impacts will focus on changes to scenic vistas, viewsheds, and scenic resources, visual character, and the introduction of new sources of light and glare.

The analysis of potential impacts to scenic vistas, viewsheds, and scenic resources will identify whether the Project would block or otherwise substantially and adversely affect a unique view of a scenic vista(s) or scenic resource as seen from a public viewing location(s), such as a public road, park, trail, and/or other publicly-owned property at which the general public is legally authorized to use or congregate. Effects to scenic vistas from private properties will not be considered because the City’s Policy Plan calls for the protection of public views and the City does not have any ordinances or policies in place that protect views from privately-owned property.

The U. S. Census Bureau defines an “urbanized area” as a densely settled core of census tracts and/or census blocks that have 50,000 or more residents and meet minimum population density requirements while also being adjacent to territory containing non-residential urban land uses. According to the 2010 Census Urbanized Area Reference Map, the Project is located within an urbanized area (US Census, 2012); therefore, the analysis of potential impacts to visual character will consider whether the Project design conflicts with applicable zoning and other applicable regulations governing scenic quality.

Lastly, the analysis of light and glare will consider if the Project would directly expose the Project area with bright lights or create unwanted light in the night sky including light trespass, sky glow, or overlighting, the Project would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

4.1.4 BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
According to Section I of Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would result in a significant impact to aesthetics if the Project or any Project-related component would (OPR, 2019):
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway;
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality; d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
447
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Aesthetics
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

4.1.5 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Threshold a: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 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 (Ontario, 2022a).

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.

Threshold b: Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 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 (Caltrans, 2021). 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.
448
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Aesthetics
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Threshold c: In non-urbanized areas, would the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
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 (US Census, 2012). 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 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 (Ontario, 2021b). Table 4.1-1, Zoning District Development Standards Consistency Analysis, addresses the Project’s consistency with applicable development 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.

Table 4.1-1 Zoning District Development Standards Consistency Analysis Applicable Development Standard Project Consistency
Industrial Zoning District Development Standards
A. Site Development Standards

1. Minimum Lot Area:10,000 s.f. Consistent. As shown in Figure 3-4, Proposed Site Plan, the Project Site area is 569,954 s.f., which is
substantially larger than the required minimum lot area of 10,000 s.f. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the minimum lot requirement.

2. Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR): 0.55 Consistent. As shown in Figure 3-4, Proposed Site Plan, the Project Site has a FAR of 0.47, which would
not exceed the maximum FAR of 0.55. Therefore, the
Project would be consistent with the maximum FAR
requirement.

3. Minimum Lot Dimensions: 100 FT – Lot Width; 100
FT – Lot Depth
Consistent. As shown in Figure 3-4, Proposed Site
Plan, the Project’s lot width is approximately 1,200 feet and the depth is approximately 484 feet, which exceed
the minimum 100-foot lot width and depth requirement.
449
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Aesthetics
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Applicable Development Standard Project Consistency
Therefore, the Project is consistent with the minimum
lot dimensions requirement.

4. Minimum Landscape Coverage

a. Interior Lots: 10%
b. Corner Lots: 15%
c. Off-Street Parking Areas: 7%
Consistent. As shown in Figure 3-4, Proposed Site
Plan, the Project Site is an interior lot and the Project’s landscape coverage would meet the City’s minimum
10% landscape coverage requirement. Therefore, the
Project is consistent with the minimum landscape
coverage.

5. Minimum Parking Space and Drive Aisle Separations
a. Parking Space or Drive Aisle to Street Property Line:
10 FT
b. Parking Space or Drive Aisle to Interior Property
Line: 5 FT
c. Parking Space to Buildings, Walls, and Fences:
10 FT – Areas adjacent to public entries and office
areas;
5 FT – Areas adjacent to other building areas
d. Drive Aisles to Buildings, Walls, and Fences: 10 FT
Consistent. As shown in Figure 3-4, Proposed Site
Plan, there is a 20-foot landscape buffer between the
Project Site parking space and drive aisle area and the street and interior property line. Additionally, the
development standards state that “within yard areas
fully screened by a decorative wall, there shall be no
minimum drive aisle or parking space setback required”.

There is a 9-foot landscape buffer on the western side
between the parking space and the proposed building, 6
foot landscape buffer on the eastern side, and 16 foot
separation on the southern side adjacent to the
secondary office area.

Drive aisles surrounding the eastern, western, and
southern side of the building are separated by parking
spaces and landscaping, exceeding the minimum 10-
foot requirement. Additionally, along the northern side of the building, there is a 10-foot landscape buffer
between the building and the drive aisle.

Therefore, the Project is consistent with the minimum
parking space and drive aisle separations.

6. Minimum Screened Loading and Storage Yard
Separations
a. Enclosed Loading and Storage Yard to Street Property Line: 20 FT – Freeways; 20 FT - Arterial Streets; 10 FT - Collector/Local Streets
b. Screened Loading and Storage Yard to Interior
Property Line: 0 FT
c. Screened Loading and Storage Yard to Buildings,
Walls, and Fences: 0 FT
Consistent. As discussed above, the Project is located
along an arterial street. As shown in Figure 3-4,
Proposed Site Plan, the proposed truck yard would be
32 feet from East Airport Drive. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the minimum screened loading and
storage yard separations.

7. Walls, Fences and Obstructions
Refer to Section 6.02.025 (Design Standards for
Nonresidential Zoning Districts).

Consistent. As shown in Figure 3-4, Proposed Site
Plan, a 14-foot-tall concrete tilt screen wall would
border the Project Site’s southern boundary along the
trailer parking spaces, which would meet the minimum
height requirement of 8 feet. Site plans will be subject to review by the Planning Department prior to issuance
of building permits. The Project would comply with
450
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Aesthetics
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Applicable Development Standard Project Consistency
Section 6.02.025: Design Standards for Nonresidential
Zoning Districts for Walls, Fences, and Obstructions.

8. Off Street Parking
Refer to Division 6.03 (Off-Street Parking and
Loading).

Consistent. The Project would provide a total of 251
parking spaces, which is within the minimum
requirement of 251 parking spaces. The Project would
comply with Section 6.03 Off-Street Parking and
Loading.

9. Property Appearance and Maintenance
Refer to Division 6.10 (Property Appearance and
Maintenance).

Consistent. The Project Site would be redeveloped with
a new warehouse distribution facility, which has been
designed to be visually compatible with the adjacent
building field colors. The Project would comply with
Section 6.10 Property Appearance and Maintenance.

10. Historic Preservation
Certain portions of commercial zoning districts are
identified as historic or potentially historic, and are listed on the City’s Historic Resources Eligibility List.

Development regulations set forth in Division 7.01
(Historic Preservation), and application processing and permitting regulations set forth in Division 4.02
(Discretionary Permits and Actions) and of this
Development Code, shall apply in these instances.

Not Applicable. The Project is not located in a
commercial zoning district that is identified as historic or potentially historic.

11. Signs
Refer to Division 8.1 (Sign Regulations).

Consistent. Site plans, including signage plans, will be subject to review by the Planning Department prior to
issuance of building permits to ensure compliance with
Division 8.1 Sign Regulations.

12. Security Standards
Refer to Ontario Municipal Code Title 4, Chapter 11
(Security Standards for Buildings).

Consistent. The Project would be required to comply
with construction Site security requirements as stated in the Standard Conditions. Site plans will be subject to
review by the Planning Department and Police
Department prior to issuance of building permits
(pursuant to the City’s Building Security Ordinance).

The Project would be required to comply with the
Ontario Municipal Code.

13. Noise: Buildings shall be designed and constructed
to mitigate noise levels from exterior sources. Refer to OMC, Tile 5 (Public Welfare, Morals, and Conduct),
Chapter 29 (Noise).

Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.9, Noise, the
Project would not result in significant noise impacts and the Project has been constructed to mitigate noise levels.

B. Building Development Standards

1. Maximum Area Per Building: N/A -

2. Minimum Street Setback
a. From Freeway Property Line: 20FT
b. From Arterial Street Property Line: 10 FT - Holt
Boulevard; 20 FT - All Other Arterial Streets
c. From Collector and Local Street Property Line: 10 FT Consistent. As discussed above, the Project is located
along an arterial street. As shown in Figure 3-4,
Proposed Site Plan, the proposed truck yard would be
32 feet from East Airport Drive and the proposed
building would be further north. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the minimum street setback.

3. Minimum Interior Property Line Setback: 0 FT -
451
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Aesthetics
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Applicable Development Standard Project Consistency

4. Maximum Height: 55 FT Consistent. The proposed building would be 49 feet in height and would not exceed the Zoning District
Development Standards’ height limit of 55 feet.

Accordingly, the Project’s proposed building height
would comply with the City’s permitted height in the IH zone.

5. Minimum Setback from Major Pipelines (to habitable
structures): 50FT
Not Applicable. The Project Site is not located along
the major pipelines within the City.

Threshold d: Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
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.

4.1.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
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” 452
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Aesthetics
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

(CEQA Guidelines Section 15355). 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 abut 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.

4.1.7 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS BEFORE MITIGATION
Threshold a: Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project would not substantially affect a scenic vista.

The Project Site does not contain any designated scenic vistas or scenic corridors. The Project would not substantially affect views of the San Gabriel Mountains from nearby public viewing areas. 453
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.1 Aesthetics
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Threshold b: No Impact. The Project Site is not located within the viewshed of a scenic highway and does not contain scenic resources.

Threshold c: No Impact. The Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality during Project construction or operation. The Project is consistent with the existing and surrounding industrial land uses.

Threshold d: Less-than-Significant Impact. Compliance with the City’s Development Code requirements for artificial lighting would ensure less-than-significant impacts associated with light and glare affecting day or nighttime views in the area from on-site lighting elements.

4.1.8 MITIGATION
Project impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. 454
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

4.2 AIR QUALITY
This Subsection is primarily based on two technical studies that were prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. to evaluate the potential for Project-related construction and operational activities to result in adverse effects on local and regional air quality. The first report, an air quality impact analysis (AQIA), is titled “5355 East Airport Drive Air Quality Impact Analysis,” dated August 30, 2022, and is included as Technical Appendix B1 to this EIR (Urban Crossroads, 2022a). The second report, a mobile source health risk assessment (HRA), is titled “5355 East Airport Drive Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment,” dated August 30, 2022, and is included as Technical Appendix B2 to this EIR (Urban Crossroads, 2022b). All references used in this Subsection are listed in EIR Section 7.0, References.

4.2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Atmospheric Setting
The Project Site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB, or “Basin”), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAB encompasses approximately 6,745 square miles and includes portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, and all of Orange County. The SCAB is bound by the Pacific Ocean to the west; the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and the San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east, respectively; and the San Diego County line to the south. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 9) B. Regional Climate
The regional climate – temperature, wind, humidity, precipitation, and the amount of sunshine – has a substantial influence on air quality. The SCAB’s distinctive climate is determined by its terrain and geographical location, which comprises a coastal plain connected to broad valleys and low hills bounded by the Pacific Ocean in the southwest quadrant with high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter. The SCAB is semi-arid, with average annual temperatures varying from the low-tomiddle 60s, measured in degrees Fahrenheit (F); however, the air near the land surface is quite moist on most days because of the presence of a marine layer. This shallow layer of sea air is an important modifier of the SCAB’s climate. Humidity restricts visibility in the SCAB and the relative high humidity heightens the conversion of sulfur dioxide (SO2) to sulfates (SO4). The marine layer provides an environment for that conversion process, especially during the spring and summer months. Inland areas of the SCAB, including where the Project Site is located, show more variability in annual minimum/maximum temperatures and lower average humidity than coastal areas within the SCAB due to decreased marine influence. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 9) More than 90 percent of the SCAB’s rainfall occurs between November and April. The annual average rainfall within the SCAB varies between approximately 9 inches in Riverside to 14 inches in downtown Los Angeles. Monthly and yearly rainfall totals are extremely variable. Summer rainfall usually consists of widely scattered thunderstorms near the coast and slightly heavier shower activity in the eastern portion of the SCAB. Due to its generally clear weather, about three-quarters of available sunshine is received in the SCAB; the remaining one-quarter is absorbed by clouds. The abundant 455
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

amount of sunshine (and its associated ultraviolet radiation) is a key factor to the photochemical reactions of air pollutants in the SCAB. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, pp. 9-10) Dominant airflow direction and speed are the driving mechanisms for transport and dispersion of air pollution. During the late autumn to early spring rainy season, the SCAB is subjected to wind flows associated with storms moving through the region from the northwest. This period also brings 5 to 10 periods of strong, dry offshore winds, locally termed “Santa Anas” each year. During the dry season, which coincides with the months of maximum photochemical smog concentrations, the wind flow is bimodal, typified by a daytime onshore sea breeze and a nighttime offshore drainage wind. Summer wind flows are created by the pressure differences between the relatively cold ocean and the unevenly heated and cooled land surfaces that modify the general northwesterly wind circulation over southern California. During the nighttime, heavy, cool air descends mountain slopes and flows through the mountain passes and canyons as it follows the lowering terrain toward the ocean. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 10)
In the SCAB, there are two distinct temperature inversion structures that control the vertical mixing of air pollution. During the summer, warm high-pressure descending (subsiding) air is undercut by a shallow layer of cool marine air. The boundary between these two layers of air is a persistent marine subsidence/inversion. This boundary prevents vertical mixing which effectively acts as an impervious lid to pollutants over the entire SCAB. The mixing height for the inversion structure is normally situated 1,000 to 1,500 feet above mean sea level. A second inversion-type forms in conjunction with the drainage of cool air off the surrounding mountains at night followed by the seaward drift of this pool of cool air. The top of this layer forms a sharp boundary with the warmer air aloft and creates nocturnal radiation inversions. These inversions occur primarily in the winter, when nights are longer and onshore flow is weakest. They are typically only a few hundred feet above mean sea level. These inversions effectively trap pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide, as the pool of cool air drifts seaward. Winter is therefore a period of high levels of primary pollutants along the coastline. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 10)
C. Criteria Pollutants and Associated Human Health Effects The federal government and State of California have established maximum permissible concentrations for common air pollutants that may pose a risk to human health or would otherwise degrade air quality and adversely affect the environment. These regulated air pollutants are referred to as “criteria pollutants.” An overview of the common criteria air pollutants in the SCAB, their sources, and associated effects to human health are summarized below (refer also to Section 2.4 of the Project’s AQIA in Technical Appendix B1 to this EIR for a detailed discussion of criteria pollutants). • Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas produced by the incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels, such as gasoline or wood. CO concentrations tend to be the highest in the winter during the morning, when there is little to no wind and surface-based inversions trap the pollutant at ground levels. CO is emitted directly from internal combustion engines; therefore, motor vehicles operating at slow speeds are the 456
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

primary source of CO and the highest ambient CO concentrations in the SCAB are generally found near congested transportation corridors and intersections.

Health Effects
Inhaled CO does not directly affect the lungs but affects tissues by interfering with oxygen transport and competing with oxygen to combine with hemoglobin present in the blood to form carboxyhemoglobin (COHb). Therefore, health conditions with an increased demand for oxygen supply can be adversely affected by exposure to CO. The most common symptoms associated with CO exposure include headache, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, fatigue, and muscle weakness. Individuals most at risk to the effects of CO include fetuses, patients with diseases involving heart and blood vessels, and those with chronic oxygen deficiency.
• Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) is a colorless gas or liquid. SO2 enters the atmosphere as a pollutant mainly as a result of burning high sulfur-content fuel oils and coal and from chemical processes occurring at chemical plants and refineries. When SO2 oxidizes in the atmosphere, it forms sulfates (SO4). Collectively, these pollutants are referred to as sulfur oxides (SOX).

Health Effects
SO2 is a respiratory irritant to people afflicted with asthma. After a few minutes’ exposure to low levels of SO2, asthma sufferers can experience breathing difficulties, including airway constriction and reduction in breathing capacity. Although healthy individuals do not exhibit similar acute breathing difficulties in response to SO2 exposure at low levels, animal studies suggest that very high levels of exposure can cause lung edema (fluid accumulation), lung tissue damage, and sloughing off of cells lining the respiratory tract. • Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) consist of nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and nitrous oxide (N2O) and are formed when nitrogen (N2) combines with oxygen (O2). Their lifespan in the atmosphere ranges from 1 to 7 days for nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide, to 170 years for nitrous oxide. Nitrogen oxides are typically created during combustion processes, and are major contributors to smog formation and acid deposition.

Health Effects
NO2 is a criteria air pollutant and may result in numerous adverse health effects; it absorbs blue light, resulting in a brownish-red cast to the atmosphere, and reduced visibility. Of the nitrogen oxide compounds, NO2 is the most abundant in the atmosphere. As ambient concentrations of NO2 are related to traffic density, commuters in heavy traffic may be exposed to higher concentrations of NO2 than those indicated by regional monitoring stations. Population-based studies suggest that an increase in acute respiratory illness, including infections and respiratory symptoms in children (not infants), is associated with long-term exposure to NO2. Short-term exposure to NO2 can result in resistance to air flow 457
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

and airway contraction in healthy subjects. Exposure to NO2 can result decreases in lung functions in individuals with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (e.g., chronic bronchitis, emphysema), as these individuals are more susceptible to the effects of NOX than healthy individuals.
• Ozone (O3) is a highly reactive and unstable gas that is formed when volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX), both byproducts of internal combustion engine exhaust, undergo slow photochemical reactions in the presence of sunlight. Ozone concentrations are generally highest during the summer months when direct sunlight, warm temperatures, and light wind conditions are favorable to the formation of this pollutant.

Health Effects
Short-term exposure (lasting for a few hours) to ozone at levels typically observed in southern California can result in breathing pattern changes, reduction of breathing capacity, increased susceptibility to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, and some immunological changes. Individuals exercising outdoors, children, and people with preexisting lung disease, such as asthma and chronic pulmonary lung disease, are considered to be the most susceptible sub-groups for ozone effects. Children who participate in multiple outdoor sports and live in communities with high ozone levels have been found to have an increased risk for asthma.
• Particulate Matter less than 10 microns (PM10) and less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) are air pollutants consisting of tiny solid or liquid particles of soot, dust, smoke, fumes, and aerosols that are 10 microns or smaller or 2.5 microns or smaller, respectively. These particles are formed in the atmosphere from primary gaseous emissions that include sulfates formed from SO2 release from power plants and industrial facilities and nitrates that are formed from NOX release from power plants, automobiles, and other types of combustion sources. The chemical composition of fine particles is highly dependent on location, time of year, and weather conditions.

Health Effects
The small size of PM10 and PM2.5 allows them to enter the lungs where they may be deposited, resulting in adverse health effects. Elevated ambient concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) have been linked to an increase in respiratory infections, number, and severity of asthma attacks, and increased hospital admissions.

Some studies have reported an association between long-term exposure to air pollution dominated by fine particles and increased mortality, reduction in life-span, and an increased mortality from lung cancer. Daily fluctuations in PM2.5 concentration levels have also been related to hospital admissions for acute respiratory conditions in children, to a decrease in respiratory lung volumes in normal children, and to increased medication use in children and adults with asthma. Recent studies show lung function growth in children is reduced with long-term exposure to particulate matter. The elderly, people with pre458 5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

existing respiratory or cardiovascular disease, and children, appear to be the most susceptible to the effects of high levels of PM10 and PM2.5. • Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and Reactive Organic Gasses (ROGs) are a family of hydrocarbon compounds (any compound containing various combinations of hydrogen and carbon atoms) that exist in the ambient air. Both VOCs and ROGs are precursors to ozone and contribute to the formation of smog through atmospheric photochemical reactions. Individual VOCs and ROGs have different levels of reactivity; that is, they do not react at the same speed or do not form ozone to the same extent when exposed to photochemical processes.

Health Effects
VOCs often have an odor, including such common VOCs as gasoline, alcohol, and the solvents used in paints. Odors generated by VOCs can irritate the eye, nose, and throat, which can reduce respiratory volume. In addition, studies have shown that the VOCs that cause odors can stimulate sensory nerves to cause neurochemical changes that might influence health, for instance, by compromising the immune system. • Lead (Pb) is a heavy metal that is highly persistent in the environment. Historically, the primary source of lead in the air was emissions from vehicles burning leaded gasoline.

Currently, emissions of lead are largely limited to stationary sources such as lead smelters.

Health Effects
Exposure to low levels of lead can adversely affect the development and function of the central nervous system, leading to learning disorders, distractibility, inability to follow simple commands, and lower intelligence quotient. In adults, increased lead levels are associated with increased blood pressure. Lead poisoning can cause anemia, lethargy, seizures, and death. Fetuses, infants, and children are more sensitive than others to the adverse effects of lead exposure. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, pp. 11-17) As discussed in EIR Subsection 2.2, OEHHA’s California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool: CalEnviroScreen 4.0, is a screening methodology that the State of California uses to identify California communities that are disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution.

The CalEnviroScreen 4.0 indicators for the Project Site’s Census Tract are in Table 2-1 and report that for the Project Site’s Census Tract (Census Tract 6071012700) the highest environmental exposures from air pollution (over 75%) are from O3, PM2.5, and diesel particulate matter (DPM).

D. Existing Air Quality
Air quality is evaluated in the context of ambient air quality standards published by the federal and State governments. These standards are the levels of air quality that are considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. The National Ambient Air Quality 459
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) currently in effect are detailed in Table 4.2-1, Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Table 4.2-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards (1 of 2)
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 2-2)
460
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Table 4.2-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards (2 of 2)
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 2-2)
461
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

1. Regional Air Quality
 Criteria Pollutants
The SCAQMD monitors levels of various criteria pollutants at 37 permanent monitoring stations and 5 single-pollutant source Pb air monitoring sites throughout the Air Basin. The attainment status for criteria pollutants within the SCAB is summarized in Table 4.2-2, Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the SCAB.

Table 4.2-2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the SCAB Criteria Pollutant State Designation Federal Designation O3 – 1-hour standard Nonattainment --
O3 – 8-hour standard Nonattainment Nonattainment
PM10 Nonattainment Attainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
CO Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
NO2 Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
SO2 Unclassifiable/Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment Pb1 Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
Note: See Appendix 2.1 for a detailed map of State/National Area Designations within the SCAB “-“ = The national 1-hour O3 standard was revoked effective June 15, 2005. 1 The Federal nonattainment designation for lead is only applicable towards the Los Angeles County portion of the SCAB.

Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 2-3)

2. Local Air Quality
 Criteria Pollutants
The SCAQMD has designated general forecast areas and air monitoring areas (referred to as Source Receptor Areas (SRA) throughout the district in order to provide Southern California residents information about air quality conditions. The Project Site is located within SRA 33.

Within SRA 33, the Interstate 10 (I-10) Near Road and California State Route (CA-60) Near Road monitoring stations are located approximately 0.6 miles northeast and 5.3 miles southwest of the Project Site, respectively. These stations report air quality statistics for CO, NO2, and PM2.5; these monitoring station do not provide data for O3 or PM10. As such, the next nearest monitoring station is utilized for reporting purposes herein. Data for O3 or PM10 was obtained from the Central San Bernardino Valley 1 monitoring station, located in SRA 34, approximately 3.5 miles northeast of the Project Site. Data from Central San Bernardino Valley 1 monitoring station were utilized in lieu of the I-10 Near Road and CA-60 Near Road monitoring stations only in instances where data was not available from those stations within SRA 33. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 21) 462
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Ambient air pollutant concentrations in the Project area are summarized in Table 4.2-3, Project Area Air Quality Monitoring Summary. Data was collected for the three most recent years for which data was available (2018-2020).

Table 4.2-3 Project Area Air Quality Monitoring Summary Pollutant Standard
Year
2018 2019 2020
O3
Maximum Federal 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.141 0.124 0.151 Maximum Federal 8-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.111 0.109 0.111 Number of Days Exceeding State 1-Hour Standard > 0.09 ppm 38 41 56 Number of Days Exceeding State/Federal 8-Hour Standard > 0.070 ppm 69 67 89 CO
Maximum Federal 1-Hour Concentration > 35 ppm 1.6 1.5 1.5 Maximum Federal 8-Hour Concentration > 20 ppm 1.3 1.1 1.2 NO2
Maximum Federal 1-Hour Concentration > 0.100 ppm 0.088 0.086 0.094 Annual Federal Standard Design Value 0.027 0.028 0.029
PM10
Maximum Federal 24-Hour Concentration (µg/m3) > 150 µg/m3 64 88 61 Annual Federal Arithmetic Mean (µg/m3) 34.1 34.8 35.8
Number of Days Exceeding Federal 24-Hour Standard > 150 µg/m3 0 0 0 Number of Days Exceeding State 24-Hour Standard > 50 µg/m3 9 12 6 PM2.5
Maximum Federal 24-Hour Concentration (µg/m3) > 35 µg/m3 47.90 41.30 53.10 Annual Federal Arithmetic Mean (µg/m3) > 12 µg/m3 14.31 12.70 14.36 Number of Days Exceeding Federal 24-Hour Standard > 35 µg/m3 5 5 4 ppm = Parts Per Million
µg/m3 = Microgram per Cubic Meter
Source: Data for O3, CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 was obtained from SCAQMD Air Quality Data Tables.

Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 2-4)
E. Regional Air Quality Improvement
The Project site is within the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. SCAQMD develops comprehensive plans and regulatory programs for the region to attain federal standards by dates specified in federal law. The agency is also responsible for meeting State standards by the earliest date achievable, using reasonably available control measures. SCAQMD rule development through the 1970s and 1980s resulted in dramatic improvement in SCAB air quality. Nearly all control programs developed through the early 1990s relied on (i) the development and application of cleaner technology; (ii) add-on emission 463
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

controls, and (iii) uniform California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review throughout the SCAB. Industrial emission sources have been significantly reduced by this approach and vehicular emissions have been reduced by technologies implemented at the State level by CARB.

Emissions of O3, NOX, PM, VOC, and CO have been decreasing in the SCAB since 1975 and are projected to continue to decrease beyond 2020 as shown in the images below produced by CARB and the SCAQMD.

SCAB O3 Trend
464
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

SCAB Average 24-Hour Concentration PM10 Trend (Based on Federal Standard) SCAB Annual Average Concentration PM10 Trend (Based on State Standard) 465
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

SCAB 24-Hour Average Concentration PM2.5 Trend (Based on Federal Standard) SCAB 24-Hour Average Concentration PM2.5 Trend (Based on State Standard) 466
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

SCAB 8-Hour Average Concentration CO Trend
SCAB 1-Hour Average NO2 Concentration Trend (Based on Federal Standard) 467
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

SCAB 1-Hour Average NO2 Concentration Trend (Based on State Standard) DPM and Diesel Vehicle Miles Trend
468
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

3. Project Site Air Quality
The Project Site is currently occupied and operating as a grain processing company and a corn storage and distribution facility. The estimated operation-source air pollutant emissions from existing uses on the Project Site are summarized on Table 4.2-4, Existing Project Site Operation-Source Emissions.

Detailed operation model outputs are presented in Appendix 3.3 of the Project’s AQIA contained as Technical Appendix B1 to this EIR. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 28) Table 4.2-4 Existing Project Site Operation-Source Emissions Source
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
Mobile Source 1.03 9.24 15.78 0.08 2.04 0.53
Area Source 1.30 0.02 1.82 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy Source 0.02 0.43 0.36 0.00 0.03 0.03
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 2.35 9.69 17.96 0.08 2.07 0.56 Winter
Mobile Source 0.97 9.68 13.68 0.08 2.04 0.53
Area Source 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy Source 0.02 0.43 0.36 0.00 0.03 0.03
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 1.99 10.11 14.04 0.08 2.07 0.56 Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 3-1)

4.2.2 REGULATORY SETTING
The following is a brief description of the federal, State, and local environmental laws and related regulations governing air quality emissions.

A. Federal Plans, Policies, and Regulations

1. Federal Clean Air Act
The Clean Air Act (CAA; 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.) is the comprehensive federal law that regulates air emissions from stationary and mobile sources. Among other things, this law authorizes Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect public health and public welfare and to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants, which include O3, CO, NOx, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and Pb. (EPA, 2020a)
One of the goals of the CAA was to set and achieve NAAQS in every state by 1975 in order to address the public health and welfare risks posed by certain widespread air pollutants. The setting of these pollutant standards was coupled with directing the states to develop state implementation plans (SIPs), 469
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

applicable to appropriate industrial sources in the state, in order to achieve these standards. The CAA was amended in 1977 and 1990 primarily to set new goals (dates) for achieving attainment of NAAQS since many areas of the country had failed to meet the deadlines. (EPA, 2020a) The sections of the federal CAA most directly applicable to the development of the Project Site include Title I (Non-Attainment Provisions) and Title II (Mobile Source Provisions). Title I provisions address the urban air pollution problems of O3 (smog), CO, and PM10. Specifically, it clarifies how areas are designated and re-designated "attainment." It also allows EPA to define the boundaries of "nonattainment" areas: geographical areas whose air quality does not meet Federal air quality standards designed to protect public health. (EPA, 2020b) Mobile source emissions are regulated in accordance with the CAA Title II provisions. These standards are intended to reduce tailpipe emissions of hydrocarbons, CO, and NOX on a phased-in basis that began in model year 1994. Automobile manufacturers also are required to reduce vehicle emissions resulting from the evaporation of gasoline during refueling. These provisions further require the use of cleaner burning gasoline and other cleaner burning fuels such as methanol and natural gas. (EPA, 2020c) Section 112 of the Clean Air Act addresses emissions of hazardous air pollutants. Prior to 1990, CAA established a risk-based program under which only a few standards were developed. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments revised Section 112 to first require issuance of technology-based standards for major sources and certain area sources. "Major sources" are defined as a stationary source or group of stationary sources that emit or have the potential to emit 10 tons per year or more of a hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year or more of a combination of hazardous air pollutants. An "area source" is any stationary source that is not a major source. (EPA, 2020a) For major sources, Section 112 requires that EPA establish emission standards that require the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of hazardous air pollutants. These emission standards are commonly referred to as "maximum achievable control technology" or "MACT" standards. Eight years after the technology-based MACT standards are issued for a source category, EPA is required to review those standards to determine whether any residual risk exists for that source category and, if necessary, revise the standards to address such risk. (EPA, 2020a)

2. SmartWay Program
The US EPA’s SmartWay Program is a voluntary public-private program developed in 2004, which 1) provides a comprehensive and well-recognized system for tracking, documenting and sharing information about fuel use and freight emissions across supply chains; 2) helps companies identify and select more efficient freight carriers, transport modes, equipment, and operational strategies to improve supply chain sustainability and lower costs from goods movement; 3) supports global energy security and offsets environmental risk for companies and countries; and 4) reduces freight transportationrelated emissions by accelerating the use of advanced fuel-saving technologies (EPA, 2021a). This program is supported by major transportation industry associations, environmental groups, State and local governments, international agencies, and the corporate community. 470
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

B. State Plans, Policies, and Regulations

1. California Clean Air Act (CCAA)
The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) establishes numerous requirements for district plans to attain state ambient air quality standards for criteria air contaminants. The CCAA mandates achievement of the maximum degree of emissions reductions possible from vehicular and other mobile sources in order to attain the State’s ambient air quality standards, the CAAQS, by the earliest practical date. The CARB established the CAAQS for all pollutants for which the federal government has NAAQS and, in addition, established standards for sulfates, visibility, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. Generally, the CAAQS are more stringent than the NAAQS. For districts with serious air pollution, its attainment plan should include the following: no net increase in emissions from new and modified stationary sources; and best available retrofit technology for existing sources. (SCAQMD, n.d.)

2. Air Toxic Hot Spots Act
The Air Toxic “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act of 1987, commonly known as AB 2588, (Health & Safety Code Section 44300, et seq.) requires facilities emitting specified quantities of pollutants to conduct risk assessments describing the health impacts to neighboring communities created by their emissions of numerous specified hazardous compounds. If the district determines the health impact to be significant, neighbors must be notified. In addition, state law requires the facility to develop and implement a plan to reduce the health impacts to below significance, generally within 5 years. Additional control requirements for hazardous emissions from specific industries are established by the state and enforced by districts. (SCAQMD, n.d.)

3. Air Quality Management Planning
The CARB and local air districts throughout the State are responsible for developing clean air plans to demonstrate how and when California will attain air quality standards established under both the CAA and CCAA. For the areas within California that have not attained air quality standards, CARB works with local air districts to develop and implement State and local attainment plans. In general, attainment plans contain a discussion of ambient air quality data and trends; a baseline emissions inventory; future year projections of emissions, which account for growth projections and already adopted control measures; a comprehensive control strategy of additional measures needed to reach attainment; an attainment demonstration, which generally involves complex modeling; and contingency measures.

Plans may also include interim milestones for progress toward attainment. Air quality planning activities undertaken by CARB also include the development of policies, guidance, and regulations related to State and federal ambient air quality standards; coordination with local agencies on transportation plans and strategies; and providing assistance to local districts and transportation agencies. (CARB, 2012)

4. Truck & Bus Regulation
Under the Truck and Bus Regulation, adopted by CARB in 2008, all diesel truck fleets operating in California are required to adhere to an aggressive schedule for upgrading and replacing heavy-duty 471
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006