Ontario City Council
November 19, 2024

truck engines. Older, more polluting trucks are required to be replaced first, while trucks that already have relatively clean engines are not required to be replaced until later. Pursuant to the Truck and Bus Regulation, all pre-1994 heavy trucks (trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 26,000 pounds) were removed from service on California roads by 2015. Between 2015 and 2020, pre-2000 heavy trucks were equipped with PM filters and upgraded or replaced with an engine that meets 2010 emissions standards. The upgrades/replacements occurred on a rolling basis based on model year. By 2023, all heavy trucks operating on California roads must have engines that meet 2010 emissions standards. Lighter trucks (those with a gross vehicle weight rating of 14,001 to 26,000 pounds) adhered to a similar schedule, and were all replaced by 2020. (CARB, n.d.)

5. Advanced Clean Truck Regulation
In June, 2020, CARB adopted a new Rule requiring truck manufacturers to transition from diesel trucks and vans to electric zero-emission trucks beginning in 2024. By 2045, every new truck sold in California will be required to be zero-emission. Manufacturers who certify Class 2b-8 chassis or complete vehicles with combustion engines would be required to sell zero-emission trucks as an increasing percentage of their annual California sales from 2024 to 2035. By 2035, zero-emission truck/chassis sales would need to be 55% of Class 2b – 3 truck sales, 75% of Class 4 – 8 straight truck sales, and 40% of truck tractor sales. CARB reports that as of 2020, most commercially-available models of zero-emission vans, trucks and buses operate less than 100 miles per day. Commercial availability of electric-powered long-haul trucks is very limited; however, as technology advances over the next 20 years, zero-emission trucks will become suitable for more applications, and several truck manufacturers have announced plans to introduce market ready zero-emission trucks in the future. (CARB, 2021)

6. California Air Resources Board Rules
The CARB enforces rules related to air pollutant emissions in the State of California. Rules with applicability to the Project include, but are not limited to, those listed below. o CARB Rule 2485 (13 CCR 2485): Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fuel Commercial Vehicle Idling, which limits nonessential idling to five minutes or less for commercial trucks.
o CARB Rule 2449 (13 CCR 2449): In-Use Off-Road Diesel Idling Restricts, which limits nonessential idling to five minutes or less for diesel-powered off-road equipment.

C. Local Plans, Policies, and Regulations

1. SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan
Under existing conditions, the NAAQS and CAAQS are exceeded in most parts of the SCAB. In response, and in conformance with California Health & Safety Code Section 40702 et seq. and the California CAA, the SCAQMD adopted an AQMP to plan for the improvement of regional air quality.

AQMPs are updated regularly in order to more effectively reduce emissions and accommodate growth. 472
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Each version of the plan is an update of the previous plan and has a 20-year horizon with a revised baseline. The SCAQMD’s most recent iteration of the AQMP was adopted in March 2017 (SCAQMD, 2017a). The 2022 AQMP is currently being developed by SCAQMD to address the EPA’s strengthened ozone standard. Development of the 2022 AQMP is in its early stages and no formal timeline for completion and adoption is currently known.

2. SCAQMD Rules
The SCAQMD enforces rules related to air pollutant emissions in the SCAB. Rules with applicability to the Project include, but are not limited to, those listed below. • SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance Odors): Prohibits the discharge of air contaminants that cause nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public • SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust): Requires the implementation of best available dust control measures (BACMs) during activities capable of generating fugitive dust. Rule 403 also requires activities defined as “large operations” to notify the SCAQMD by submitting specific forms; a large operation is defined as any active operation on property containing 50 or more acres of disturbed surface area; or any earth moving operation with a daily earth-moving or throughput volume of 3,850 cubic meters (5,000 cubic yards), three times during the most recent 365-day period.
• SCAQMD Rule 431.2 (Low Sulfur Fuel): Requires the use of diesel fuels that adhere to sulfur content limits.
• SCAQMD Rule 1108 (Cutback Asphalt): Prohibits the use of asphalt that exceeds a specified percentage of VOCs.
• SCAQMD Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings): Requires all buildings within the SCAQMD to adhere to the VOC limits for architectural coatings. • SCAQMD Rule 1186 (PM10 Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads, and Livestock Operations): Requires the use of street sweepers that meet minimum standards for cleaning capabilities.
• SCAQMD Rule 1301 (General): Provides pre-construction review requirements to ensure that new or relocated facilities do not interfere with progress in attainment of the NAAQS.

Rule 1301 also limits emission increase of ammonia and ozone depleting compounds from new, modified, or relocated facilities by requiring the use of Best Available Control Technology (BACT).
• SCAQMD Rule 1401 (New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants): Prohibits a person from discharging into the atmosphere from any single source of emission whatsoever any 473
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

air contaminant for a period or periods aggregating more than three minutes in any 1 hour that is as dark or darker in shade as that designated No. 1 on the Ringelmann Chart, as published by the United States Bureau of Mines.
• SCAQMD Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect Source Rule): Requires all operators of warehouses greater than or equal to 100,000 s.f. of indoor floor space to implement measures that reduce nitrogen oxides and particulate matter emissions and/or pay a fee to fund programs to improve regional air quality.

4.2.2 METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING PROJECT-RELATED AIR QUALITY IMPACTS The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2022.1, was used to calculate all Project-related air pollutant emissions (with the exception of localized emissions and diesel particulate matter emissions from Project operations, refer to Subsection 4.2.3B, below). The CalEEMod is a Statewide land use emission computer model developed for the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in collaboration with the California Air Districts, including the SCAQMD, that provides a uniform platform to quantify potential criteria pollutant emissions associated with construction and operation of land development projects.

A. Project Construction Emissions
The Project’s construction period will last approximately 12 months and will include 6 activity phases:
1) demolition/crushing; 2) site preparation; 3) grading; 4) building construction; 5) paving; and 6) architectural coating/landscaping. For purposes of the air quality analysis, the Project’s construction activities are assumed to occur between May 2023 and April 2024. This assumption represents a conservative analysis scenario because, should construction occur later than the dates assumed in the analysis, construction equipment emissions would be the same or more likely lower than presented because emission regulations are becoming more stringent over time and the retirement of older (higher-polluting) equipment and replacement with newer (less-polluting) pieces of equipment is constantly happening in response to State regulations or service needs. The air quality analysis model utilizes the durations of each construction activity phase and the construction equipment fleet previously presented in EIR Section 3.0, Project Description. The analysis assumptions for Project construction are based on information provided by the Project Applicant and the experience and technical expertise of the Project’s air quality technical expert (Urban Crossroads).

Refer to Section 4.4 of the Project’s AQIA for more detail on the methodology utilized to calculate the Project’s construction-related regional pollutant emissions.

B. Project Operational Emissions
The Project’s operational-related regional pollutant emissions analysis quantifies air pollutant emissions from area source emissions, energy source emissions, mobile source emissions, transportation refrigeration units (TRU) emissions, on-site cargo handling equipment emissions, and stationary source emissions. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 35) 474
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

1. Area Source Emissions
Area source emissions associated with the Project would occur as a result of architectural coatings, consumer products, and landscape maintenance equipment, as follows:

Architectural Coatings
Over a period of time the building that is part of this Project would require maintenance and would therefore produce emissions resulting from the evaporation of solvents contained in paints, varnishes, primers, and other surface coatings. The emissions associated with architectural coatings were calculated using CalEEMod. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 35) Consumer Products
Consumer products include, but are not limited to detergents, cleaning compounds, polishes, personal care products, and lawn and garden products. Many of these products contain organic compounds which when released in the atmosphere can react to form ozone and other photochemically reactive pollutants. The emissions associated with use of consumer products were calculated based on defaults provided within CalEEMod. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 35) Landscape Maintenance Equipment
Landscape maintenance equipment would generate emissions from fuel combustion and evaporation of unburned fuel. Equipment in this category would include lawnmowers, shedders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chain saws, and hedge trimmers used to maintain the landscaping of the Project. On October 9, 2021, the Governor signed AB 1346 to ban the sale of new gasoline-powered equipment under 25 gross horsepower (known as small off-road engines (SOREs)) by 2024. For purposes of analysis, the emissions associated with landscape maintenance equipment were calculated based on assumptions provided in CalEEMod. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 36)

2. Energy Source Emissions
Electricity and natural gas are used by almost every project. Criteria pollutant emissions are emitted through the generation of electricity and consumption of natural gas. However, because electrical generating facilities for the Project area are located either outside the region (state) or offset through the use of pollution credits) for generation within the SCAB, criteria pollutant emissions from offsite generation of electricity are generally excluded from the evaluation of significance and only natural gas use is considered. The emissions associated with natural gas use were calculated using CalEEMod. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 36)

3. Mobile Source Emissions
Project operational vehicular impacts derive primarily from vehicle trips generated by the Project, including employee trips to and from the Site and truck trips associated with the proposed uses. It should be noted that CalEEMod has different trip rates for different days of the week. In order to accurately determine mobile-source emission from vehicle activity generated by the proposed Project, the CalEEMod default trip rates were adjusted for weekday, Saturday, and Sunday utilizing the trip 475
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

rates based on trip-generation statistics published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021). (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 36) In order to determine emissions from passenger car vehicles, CalEEMod defaults for trip length and trip purpose were utilized. Default vehicle trip lengths for primary trips will be populated using data from the local metropolitan planning organizations/Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (MPO/RTPA). Trip type percentages and trip lengths provided by MPO/RTPAs truncate data at their demonstrative borders. This analysis assumes that passenger cars include Light-Duty-Auto vehicles (LDA), Light-Duty-Trucks (LDT11 & LDT22
), Medium-Duty-Vehicles (MDV), and Motorcycles
(MCY) vehicle types. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 37)
To determine emissions from trucks trip generation associated with the proposed Project, the analysis incorporated the SCAQMD recommended truck trip length of 15.3 miles for 2-axle (LHDT1, LHDT2),

14.2 miles for 3-axle (MHDT) trucks, and 40 miles for 4+-axle (HHDT) trucks and weighting the average trip lengths using traffic trip percentages. The trip length function for the general light industrial use has been revised to 30.58 miles and 28.62 miles for the high-cube cold storage and warehouse uses, respectively, an assumption of 100% primary trips for the proposed Project. Trucks are broken down by truck type. The truck fleet mix is estimated by rationing the trip rates for each truck type based on information provided by the SCAQMD recommended truck mix, by axle type.

Heavy trucks are broken down by truck type (or axle type) and are categorized as either Light-HeavyDuty Trucks (LHDT13 & LHDT24 )/2-axle, Medium-Heavy-Duty Trucks (MHDT)/3-axle, and HeavyHeavy-Duty Trucks (HHDT)/4+-axle. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 37) Vehicles traveling on paved roads would be a source of fugitive emissions due to the generation of road dust inclusive of break and tire wear particulates. The emissions estimate for travel on paved roads were calculated using CalEEMod. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 38)

4. TRU Source Emissions
In order to account for the possibility of refrigerated uses, trucks associated with the cold-storage land use are assumed to also have TRUs. Therefore, for modeling purposes, 11 trucks (22 truck trips per day) have the potential to include TRUs. TRUs are accounted for during on-site and off-site travel. The TRU calculations are based on EMissions FACtor Model version 2021 (EMFAC2021), developed by the CARB. EMFAC2021 does not provide emission rates per hour or mile as with the on-road emission model and only provides emission inventories. Emission results are produced in tons per day while all activity, fuel consumption and horsepower hours were reported at annual levels. The emission inventory is based on specific assumptions including the average horsepower rating of specific types of equipment and the hours of operation annually. These assumptions are not always consistent with 1 Vehicles under the LDT1 category have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than 6,000 lbs. and equivalent test weight (ETW) of less than or equal to 3,750 lbs.
2 Vehicles under the LDT2 category have a GVWR of less than 6,000 lbs. and ETW between 3,751 lbs. and 5,750 lbs. 3 Vehicles under the LHDT1 category have a GVWR of 8,501 to 10,000 lbs. 4 Vehicles under the LHDT2 category have a GVWR of 10,001 to 14,000 lbs. 476
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

assumptions used in the modeling of project level emissions. Therefore, the emissions inventory was converted into emission rates to accurately calculate emissions from TRU operation associated with project level details. This was accomplished by converting the annual horsepower hours to daily operational characteristics and converting the daily emission levels into hourly emission rates based on the total emission of each criteria pollutant by equipment type and the average daily hours of operation. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 38)

5. On-site Cargo Handling Equipment Source Emissions
It is common for warehouse buildings to require the operation of exterior cargo handling equipment in the building’s truck court areas. For this Project, on-site modeled operational equipment includes 1 175-horsepower (hp), natural gas-powered cargo handling equipment – port tractor operating 4 hours a day5
for 365 days of the year. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 38) C. Localized Pollutant Emissions
Localized emissions associated with Project-related construction and operational activities were calculated and evaluated in accordance with SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (“Methodology”). The SCAQMD has established that impacts to air quality are significant if there is a potential to contribute or cause localized exceedances of the NAAQS and CAAQS. Collectively, these are referred to as Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs).

For this Project, the appropriate SRA for the LST analysis is the SCAQMD I-10 Near Road (SRA 33).

LSTs apply to CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5. The SCAQMD produced look-up tables for projects less than or equal to 5 acres in size. In order to determine the appropriate methodology for determining localized impacts that could occur as a result of Project-related construction, the following process is undertaken:
• Identify the maximum daily on-site emissions that would occur during construction activity:
o The maximum daily on-site emissions could be based on information provided by the Project Applicant; or
o The SCAQMD’s Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds and CalEEMod User’s Guide Appendix A: Calculation Details for CalEEMod can be used to determine the maximum site acreage that is actively disturbed based on the construction equipment fleet and equipment hours as estimated in CalEEMod.
5 Based on Table II-3, Port and Rail Cargo Handling Equipment Demographics by Type, from CARB’s Technology Assessment: Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment document, a single piece of equipment could operate up to 2 hours per day (Total Average Annual Activity divided by Total Number Pieces of Equipment). As such, the analysis conservatively assumes that the tractor/loader/backhoe would operate up to 4 hours per day. 477
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

• If the total acreage disturbed is less than or equal to 5 acres per day, then the SCAQMD’s screening look-up tables are utilized to determine if a Project has the potential to result in a significant impact. The look-up tables establish a maximum daily emissions threshold in lbs/day that can be compared to CalEEMod outputs.
• If the total acreage disturbed is greater than 5 acres per day, then LST impacts may still be conservatively evaluated using the LST look-up tables for a 5-acre disturbance area. Use of the 5-acre disturbance area thresholds can be used to show that even if the daily emissions from all construction activity were emitted within a 5-acre area, and therefore concentrated over a smaller area which would result in greater site adjacent concentrations, the impacts would still be less than significant if the applicable 5-acre thresholds are utilized. • The LST Methodology presents mass emission rates for each SRA, project sizes of 1, 2, and 5 acres, and nearest receptor distances of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. For project sizes between the values given, or with receptors at distances between the given receptors, the methodology uses linear interpolation to determine the thresholds. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, pp. 40-41)
Based on SCAQMD’s LST Methodology, emissions for concern during construction activities are onsite NOX, CO, PM2.5, and PM10. The LST Methodology clearly states that “off-site mobile emissions from the Project should not be included in the emissions compared to LSTs. As such, for purposes of the construction LST analysis, only emissions included in the CalEEMod “on-site” emissions outputs were considered. Detailed information about application of this methodology can be found in Section

4.6 of the Project’s AQIA.

1. Project-Related Sensitive Receptors Relative to Construction and Operational Activities
Some people are especially sensitive to air pollution and are given special consideration when evaluating air quality impacts from projects. These groups of people include children, the elderly and individuals with pre-existing respiratory or cardiovascular illness. Structures that house these persons or places where they gather are defined as “sensitive receptors. These structures typically include uses such as residences, schools, and hospitals or other health care facilities where an individual can remain for 24 hours. Although hotel uses are generally not considered sensitive receptors since occupants are transient and temporary, for the purpose of a conservative analysis, hotels are considered sensitive receptors in the analyses for this Project. Sensitive receptors in the Project study area and the nearest worker receptor relative to construction and operational activities are described below and shown on Figure 4.2-1, Sensitive Receptor Locations. Localized air quality impacts were evaluated at receptor land uses nearest the Project Site. All distances are measured from the Project Site boundary to the outdoor living areas (e.g., backyards) or at the building façade, whichever is closer to the Project Site. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 42)
478
479
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

R1: Location R1 represents the Ayres Hotel Ontario Mills Mall at 4395 Ontario Mills Parkway, approximately 6,214 feet northwest of the Project Site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project Site, receptor R1 is placed at the building façade.

R2: Location R2 represents the Hampton Inn & Suites Ontario at 4500 Ontario Mills Parkway, approximately 5,072 feet northwest of the Project Site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project Site, receptor R2 is placed at the building façade.

R3: Location R3 represents the Country Inn & Suites by Radisson, Ontario at Ontario Mills at 4674 Ontario Mills Parkway, approximately 4,482 feet northwest of the Project Site.

Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project Site, receptor R3 is placed at the building façade.

R4: Location R4 represents the Hyatt Place Ontario/Rancho Cucamonga at 4760 Mills Circle, approximately 3,872 feet northwest of the Project Site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project Site, receptor R4 is placed at the building façade.

R5: Location R5 represents the nearest off-site worker location, which is at the Linde Industrial Gas Supplier facility at 5735 East Airport Drive, approximately 58 feet east of the Project Site. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 43)
D. Heath Risk Assessment Methodology
The Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was prepared based on SCAQMD guidelines to produce conservative estimates of human health risk posed by exposure to DPM. Emissions calculations for the construction HRA component are based on an assumed mix of construction equipment and hauling activity as presented in the Project’s AQIA. Vehicle DPM emissions were calculated using emission factors for particulate matter less than 10µm in diameter (PM10) generated with the 2021 version of the EMFAC model developed by the CARB. Emission factors calculated using EMFAC 2021 are expressed in units of grams per vehicle miles traveled (g/VMT) or grams per idle-hour (g/idle-hr), depending on the emission process. For the proposed Project, annual average PM10 emission factors were generated by running EMFAC 2021 in EMFAC Mode for vehicles in the San Bernardino County jurisdiction. The EMFAC Mode generates emission factors in terms of grams of pollutant emitted per vehicle activity and can calculate a matrix of emission factors at specific values of temperature, relative humidity, and vehicle speed. The model was run for speeds traveled in the vicinity of the Project. (Urban Crossroads, 2022b)
The potential health risks of Project-related DPM emissions were quantified in accordance with the guidelines in the SCAQMD’s Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis. For purposes of this analysis, 480
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

the Lakes AERMOD View (Version 10.2.1) was used to calculate annual average particulate concentrations associated with site operations. Refer to Section 2 of the Project’s HRA (Technical Appendix B2) for a detailed description of HRA methodologies and for the model inputs and equations used in the estimation of the Project-related DPM emissions.

The modeling domain is limited to the Project’s primary truck route and includes off-site sources in the study area for more than ¾ mile. This modeling domain is more inclusive and conservative than using only a ¼ mile modeling domain which is the distance supported by several reputable studies which conclude that the greatest potential risks occur within a ¼ mile of the primary source of emissions (in the case of the Project, the primary source of emissions is the on-site idling and travel). (Urban Crossroads, 2022b)

4.2.3 BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
According to Section III of Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would result in a significant impact to air quality if the Project or any Project-related component would (OPR, 2019):
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard;
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The Project would result in a significant impact under Threshold “a” if the Project were determined to conflict with the SCAQMD 2016 AQMP. Pursuant to Chapter 12, Sections 12.2 and 12.3, of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, a project would conflict with the AQMP if either of the following conditions were to occur:
• The Project would increase the frequency or severity of existing NAAQS and/or CAAQS violations, cause or contribute to new air quality violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP; or • The Project would exceed the 2016 AQMP’s future year buildout assumptions. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 50)
For evaluation under Threshold “b,” implementation of the Project would result in a cumulativelyconsiderable impact if the Project’s construction and/or operational activities exceed one or more of 481
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

the SCAQMD’s “Regional Thresholds” for criteria pollutant emissions, as summarized in Table 4.2- 5, Maximum Daily Regional Emissions Thresholds.

Table 4.2-5 Maximum Daily Regional Emissions Thresholds Pollutant Regional Construction Threshold Regional Operational Thresholds NOX 100 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
VOC 75 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
PM10 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
PM2.5 55 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
SOX 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
CO 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day
Pb 3 lbs/day 3 lbs/day
lbs/day = Pounds Per Day
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 3-1)
For evaluation under Threshold “c,” the Project would result in a significant impact if any of the following were to occur:
• The Project’s localized criteria pollutant emissions would exceed one or more of the “Localized Thresholds” listed in Table 4.2-6, Maximum Daily Localized Construction Emissions Thresholds, or Table 4.2-7, Maximum Daily Localized Operational Emissions Thresholds.

Table 4.2-6 Maximum Daily Localized Construction Emissions Thresholds Construction Activity
Construction Localized Thresholds
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Demolition/Crushing 118 lbs/day 863 lbs/day 280 lbs/day 141 lbs/day Site Preparation 220 lbs/day 1,713 lbs/day 241 lbs/day 160 lbs/day Grading 237 lbs/day 1,873 lbs/day 268 lbs/day 163 lbs/day Localized Thresholds presented in this table are based on the SCAQMD Final LST Methodology, July 2008 Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 4-10)
482
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Table 4.2-7 Maximum Daily Localized Operational Emissions Thresholds Operational Localized Thresholds
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
270 lbs/day 2,193 lbs/day 78 lbs/day 41 lbs/day
Localized Thresholds presented in this table are based on the SCAQMD Final LST Methodology, July 2008 Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 4-12)
• The Project would cause or contribute to a CO “Hot Spot;” and/or • The Project’s toxic air contaminant emissions, like DPM, would expose sensitive receptor populations to an incremental cancer risk of greater than 10 in one million; and/or result in a non-carcinogenic health risk rating (“Acute Hazard Index”) greater than 1.0.

For evaluation under Threshold “d,” a significant impact would occur if the Project’s construction and/or operational activities result in air emissions leading to an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402.

4.2.4 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Threshold a: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
The SCAQMD 2016 AQMP, which is the applicable air quality plan for the Project area, addresses long-term air quality conditions for the SCAB. The criteria for determining consistency with the 2016 AQMP are analyzed below.
• Consistency Criterion No. 1: The proposed project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.

Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers to violations of the NAAQS and CAAQS. Violations of the NAAQS and/or CAAQS would occur if the emissions resulting from the Project were to exceed the SCAQMD’s localized emissions thresholds. As disclosed under the analysis for Thresholds “b” and “c” below, Project localized and regional construction and operational-source emissions would not exceed applicable SCAQMD regional significance thresholds and LST thresholds. As such, the Project is determined to be consistent with the first criterion.
• Consistency Criterion No. 2: The Project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the years of Project build-out phase.
483
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

The 2016 AQMP demonstrates that the applicable ambient air quality standards can be achieved within the timeframes required under federal law. Growth projections from local general plans adopted by cities in the Air District are provided to the SCAG, which develops regional growth forecasts, which are then used to develop future air quality forecasts for the AQMP. Development consistent with the growth projections in City of Ontario Policy Plan is considered to be consistent with the AQMP.

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

Irrespective of the site’s land use designation, development of the site to its maximum potential would likely occur, with disturbance of the entire site occurring during construction activities. As such, when considering that no emissions thresholds will be exceeded, a less than significant impact would result.

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

Furthermore, as discussed below, the Project would not result in or cause exceedances of regional or localized air quality significance thresholds. Emissions generated by the Project are accurately represented in the AQMP emissions modeling, air pollution control strategies, and associated assumptions for emissions affecting the SCAB.

On the basis of the preceding discussion, the Project would not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the years of Project build-out phase. The Project is therefore determined to be consistent with the second criterion.

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

Furthermore, the Project would not exceed any applicable regional or local thresholds. As such, the Project is considered to be consistent with the AQMP and impacts would be less than significant. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 51)
484
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Threshold b: Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
A. Construction Emissions Impact Analysis
The Project’s peak construction-related emissions are summarized in Table 4.2-8, Peak Construction Emissions Summary. Detailed air model outputs are presented in Appendix 4.1 of the Project’s AQIA.

As shown in Table 4.2-8, peak construction-related emissions of VOC, NOX, CO, SOX, and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds. Accordingly, the Project’s construction activities would not emit substantial concentrations for all pollutants and would not contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation on a cumulatively-considerable basis, and Project construction impacts would be less than significant.

Table 4.2-8 Peak Construction Emissions Summary
Year
Emissions (lbs/day)1
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
2023 1.77 39.60 71.80 0.13 9.9 4.32
2024 47.20 30.20 56.60 0.07 2.58 0.89
Winter
2023 1.48 21.70 39.80 0.06 1.98 0.65
2024 47.10 30.40 53.50 0.07 2.58 0.89
Maximum Daily Emissions 47.20 39.60 71.80 0.13 9.97 4.32 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
1 PM10 and PM2.5 emissions include fugitive dust from crushing activities.

CalEEMod construction-source (unmitigated) emissions are presented in Appendix 4.1 of the Project’s AQIA.

Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 4-5)
B. Operational Emissions Impact Analysis
Peak emissions from Project operations are presented in Table 4.2-9, Peak Operational Emissions Summary. Detailed air model outputs for the operational analysis are provided in Appendices 4.2 and

4.3 of the Project’s AQIA contained as Technical Appendix B1 of this EIR. As shown, Project operational emissions of VOCs, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10 and PM2.5 would not exceed SCAQMD regional criteria thresholds. Moreover, existing emissions from operation of the existing uses on the Project Site summarized in Table 4.2-4, Existing Project Site Operation-Source Emissions, were subtracted from the Project operational emissions to determine the new emissions from the proposed Project. As summarized in Table 4.2-9, Project operational emissions of VOCs, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10 and PM2.5 would not exceed SCAQMD regional criteria thresholds. Accordingly, the Project would not emit 485
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

substantial concentrations of these pollutants during long‐term operation and would not contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. The Project’s long‐term emissions of VOCs, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10 and PM2.5 would be less than significant.

Table 4.2-9 Peak Operational Emissions Summary
Source
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
Mobile Source 1.51 11.90 22.21 0.12 2.84 0.70
Area Source 8.45 0.10 11.80 0.00 0.02 0.02
Energy Source 0.16 2.87 2.41 0.02 0.22 0.22
TRU Source 0.79 0.87 0.10 0.00 0.04 0.03
On-Site Equipment Source 0.12 0.38 16.44 0.00 0.03 0.03 Project Maximum Daily Emissions 11.02 16.12 52.96 0.14 3.15 1.00 Subtraction of Emissions from Existing
Uses -2.35 -9.69 -17.96 -0.08 -2.07 -0.56
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 8.67 6.43 35.00 0.06 1.08 0.44 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Winter
Mobile Source 1.43 12.49 19.13 0.12 2.84 0.70
Area Source 6.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy Source 0.16 2.87 2.41 0.02 0.22 0.22
TRU Source 0.79 0.87 0.10 0.00 0.04 0.03
On-Site Equipment Source 0.12 0.38 16.44 0.00 0.03 0.03 Project Maximum Daily Emissions 9.01 16.61 38.08 0.14 3.13 0.98 Subtraction of Emissions from Existing
Uses -1.99 -10.11 -14.04 -0.08 -2.07 -0.56
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 7.02 6.50 24.04 0.06 1.06 0.42 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
CalEEMod operational-source emissions are presented in Appendices 4.2 and 4.3 of the Project’s AQIA.

Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 4-8)
486
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Threshold c: Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? During both construction and operation, the Project has the potential to expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The following provides an analysis based on the applicable LSTs established by the State of California and SCAQMD, an analysis of the Project’s potential to result in or contribute to CO “hot spots,” and an analysis of the Project’s potential to result in cancer risks and non-cancer health hazards.

A. Localized Criteria Pollutant Analysis

1. Construction Analysis
Table 4.2-10, Localized Construction-Source Emissions Summary, shows that localized emissions of NOX, CO, and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) during Project construction would not exceed applicable SCAQMD thresholds. Accordingly, Project construction would not expose any sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project Site to substantial criteria pollutant concentrations. Impacts would be less than significant.

Table 4.2-10 Localized Construction-Source Emissions Summary Construction
Activity Year Scenario
Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Demolition/
Crushing 2023
Summer 12.70 18.70 0.70 0.29
Winter n/a n/a n/a n/a
Maximum Daily Emissions 12.70 18.70 0.70 0.29
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 118 863 280 141
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Site
Preparation 2023
Summer 15.70 30.00 5.76 2.79
Winter n/a n/a n/a n/a
Maximum Daily Emissions 15.70 30.00 5.76 2.79
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 220 1,713 241 160
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Grading 2023
Summer 19.90 36.20 2.85 1.16
Winter n/a n/a n/a n/a
Maximum Daily Emissions 19.90 36.20 2.85 1.16
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 237 1,873 268 163
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
CalEEMod unmitigated localized construction-source emissions are presented in Appendix 4.1 of the Project’s AQIA.

Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 4-11)
487
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

2. Operational Analysis
As shown in Table 4.2-11, Localized Operational-Source Emissions Summary, Project operations would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD thresholds for localized NOX, CO, and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) emissions. Accordingly, the Project would not expose any sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project Site to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impacts would be less than significant.

Table 4.2-11 Localized Operational-Source Emissions Summary Scenario
Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Summer 6.23 34.57 0.37 0.32
Winter 6.22 23.08 0.35 0.30
Maximum Daily Emissions 6.23 34.57 0.37 0.32
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 270 2,193 78 41
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
CalEEMod localized operational-source emissions are presented in Appendix 4.3 of the Project’s AQIA.

Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, Table 4-13)
B. CO Hot Spot Impact Analysis
An adverse CO concentration, known as a “hot spot”, would occur if an exceedance of the State onehour standard of 20 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur. It has long been recognized that CO hotspots are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at congested intersections.

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

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

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

1.3 ppm, respectively (data from I-10 Near Road monitoring station for 2020). Therefore, even if the traffic volumes for the Project were double or even triple of the traffic volumes generated at the Long 488
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Beach Blvd. and Imperial Hwy. intersection, coupled with the on-going improvements in ambient air quality, the Project would not be capable of resulting in a CO “hot spot” at any study area intersections.

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

C. Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions Impact Analysis

1. Construction Analysis
Construction activity would occur over the entire Project Site. Therefore, the sensitive receptor land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project construction-source DPM emissions is Location R6 which is located approximately 8,840 feet northwest of the Project Site at an existing residence located at 11210 Fourth Street on the opposite side of I-10 and SR-60 from the Project Site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project Site, receptor R6 is placed at the building façade facing the Project Site. At the Maximally Exposed Individual Resident (MEIR), the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to Project construction-source DPM emissions is estimated at <0.01 in one million, which is far less than the SCAQMD’s significance threshold of 10 in one million.

At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable threshold of 1.0. There are no sensitive receptors located in immediate, close proximity to the Project Site. As such, the Project will not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent land uses as a result of Project construction activity. All other receptors during construction activity would experience less risk than what is identified for Location R6. (Urban Crossroads, 2022b, p. 22)

2. Operational Analysis
 Residential Exposure
The Project Site primarily surrounded by industrial uses. Therefore, the residential land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project operational-source DPM emissions is Location R6 which is located approximately 8,840 feet northwest of the Project Site at an existing residence located at 11210 Fourth Street on the opposite side of I-15 and I-10 from the Project Site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project Site, receptor R6 is placed at the building façade facing the Project Site. At the MEIR, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to Project operational-source DPM emissions is estimated at 0.01 in one million, which is far less than the SCAQMD’s significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. Because all other modeled residential receptors are exposed to lesser concentrations and are located at a greater distance from the Project Site than the MEIR analyzed herein, and TACs generally dissipates with distance from the source, all other residential receptors in the vicinity of the Project Site would be exposed to less emissions and therefore less risk than the MEIR identified herein. There are no 489
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

residential receptors located in immediate, close proximity to the Project Site. As such, the Project will not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to nearby residences. (Urban Crossroads, 2022b, p. 22)
 Worker Exposure
The worker receptor land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project operational-source DPM emissions is Location R5, which represents the adjacent potential worker receptor approximately 58 feet east of the Project Site. At the Maximally Exposed Individual Worker (MEIW), the maximum incremental cancer risk impact is 0.25 in one million which is far less than the SCAQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million. Maximum non-cancer risks at this same location were estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. Because all other modeled worker receptors are located at a greater distance than the MEIW analyzed herein, and DPM dissipates with distance from the source, all other worker receptors in the vicinity of the Project would be exposed to less emissions and therefore less risk than the MEIW identified herein. As such, the Project will not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent workers. (Urban Crossroads, 2022b, pp. 22-23)
 School Child Exposure
Proximity to sources of toxics is critical to determining the impact. In traffic-related studies, the additional non-cancer health risk attributable to proximity was seen within 1,000 feet and was strongest within 300 feet. California freeway studies show about a 70-percent drop-off in particulate pollution levels at 500 feet. Based on California Air Resources Board (CARB) and SCAQMD emissions and modeling analyses, an 80-percent drop-off in pollutant concentrations is expected at approximately 1,000 feet from a distribution center. The 1,000-foot evaluation distance is supported by research-based findings concerning TAC emission dispersion rates from roadways and large sources showing that emissions diminish substantially between 500 and 1,000 feet from emission sources. A one-quarter mile radius, or 1,320 feet, is commonly utilized for identifying sensitive receptors, such as schools, that may be impacted by a proposed project. This radius is more robust than, and therefore provides a more health protective scenario for evaluation than the 1,000-foot impact radius identified above.

There are no schools within one-quarter mile of the Project Site. The nearest school is Chaparral Elementary School, which is located approximately 11,200 feet southeast of the Project Site. Because there is no reasonable potential that TAC emissions would cause significant health impacts at distances of more than one-quarter mile from the air pollution source, the Project would result in less-thansignificant impacts to any schools in the vicinity of the Project. (Urban Crossroads, 2022b, p. 23) Threshold d: Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
During construction activities on the Project Site, odors could be produced by construction equipment exhaust or from the application of asphalt and/or architectural coatings; however, standard construction practices would minimize the odor emissions and their associated impacts. Furthermore, any odors 490
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

emitted during construction would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature, and would cease upon the completion of the respective phase of construction. In addition, construction activities on the Project Site would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits the discharge of odorous emissions that would create a public nuisance. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 53) Accordingly, the Project’s construction would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people and all impacts would be less than significant.

During long-term operation, the Project would operate as a warehouse distribution facility, which is not typically associated with the emission of objectionable odors. Temporary outdoor refuse storage could be a potential source of odor; however, Project-generated refuse is required to be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the City’s solid waste regulations, thereby precluding any significant odor impact. Furthermore, the occupant(s) of the proposed warehouse building would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits the discharge of odorous emissions that would create a public nuisance, during long-term operation. (Urban Crossroads, 2022a, p. 53) As such, long-term operation of the Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people and all impacts would be less than significant.

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

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

As discussed under the analysis for Threshold “c,” all Project-related construction- and operational localized air pollutant emissions – including DPM – would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD thresholds of significance. According to the SCAQMD’s Mates V study and data visualization tool, which includes an emissions inventory of toxic air contaminants based on 2016-2018 data, the cancer risk in the Project Site’s zip code (91761) is 600 per million, which indicates that the air toxics cancer risk in this zip code was higher than 93.0% of the SCAQMD population at the time the data was collected (SCAQMD, 2021). As regulatory requirements have become more stringent, however, air quality has improved and health risks have decreased, despite an increase in the number of warehouses across the Inland Empire and the SCAB (Ramboll, 2023). Because the Project’s contribution to health risk would fall far below the SCAQMD’s threshold of significance, and the SCAQMD is the regulatory authority responsible for air quality in the SCAB in which the Project site is located, the Project’s contribution is not considered cumulatively-considerable. 491
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.2 Air Quality
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

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

4.2.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS BEFORE MITIGATION
Threshold a: Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project would not emit air pollutants that would contribute to a delay in the attainment of federal and State ozone standards in the SCAB. As such, the Project would not conflict with and could obstruct implementation of the AQMP, and impacts would be less than significant.

Thresholds b: Less-than-Significant Impact. Project-related activities would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance during construction and operations. As such, Projectrelated 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.

Threshold c: Less-than-Significant Impact. 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 significance thresholds; and 3) would not cause or measurably contribute to the formation of a CO “hot spot.” Threshold d: Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project would not produce air emissions that would lead to unusual or substantial construction-related or operational-related odors. The Project is required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits the discharge of odorous emissions that would create a public nuisance.

4.2.7 MITIGATION
Project impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. 492
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Cultural Resources
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

4.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES
The analysis in this Subsection is based in part on a cultural resources record search prepared by Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. (hereinafter, “BFSA”) and titled “Cultural Resources Records Search Results for the 5355 Airport Drive Project, Ontario, California”, dated May 20, 2022 (BFSA, 2022).

This report is included as Technical Appendix C to this EIR. This and other reference sources are cited and listed in Section 7.0, References.

4.3.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
A cultural resources records search was obtained from the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton, which encompassed the Project Site and an area of one-half mile surrounding the Project Site. The records search identified 3 resources within one-half mile of the Project Site and no resources within the Project boundaries. The resources include a historic railroad track alignment, a historic foundation, and a historic transmission line alignment. No prehistoric resources were recorded on the Project Site or within one-half mile of the Project Site (BFSA, 2022). The Site is fully developed with a grain processing facility and a corn storage and distribution facility, so there is no reasonable possibility that prehistoric resources could be located on the surface of the Site. The existing uses have construction dates of 1975, so the buildings are newer than 50 years of age and not historic, with no reasonable possibility of historic resources to be present on the property.

4.3.2 REGULATORY SETTING
A. Federal Plans, Policies, and Regulations

1. National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) was passed primarily to acknowledge the importance of protecting United States heritage. Section 106 of NHPA granted legal status to historic preservation in federal planning, decision-making, and project execution. Section 106 requires all federal agencies to take into account the effects of their actions on historic properties, and provide ACHP with a reasonable opportunity to comment on those actions and the manner in which federal agencies are taking historic properties into account in their decisions. (NPS, 2021a) A number of additional executive and legislative actions have been directed toward improving the ways in which all federal agencies manage historic properties and consider historic and cultural values in their planning and assistance. Executive Order 11593 (1971) and, later, Section 110 of NHPA (1980, amended 1992), provided the broadest of these mandates, giving federal agencies clear direction to identify and consider historic properties in federal and federally assisted actions. The National Historic Preservation Amendments of 1992 further clarified Section 110 and directed federal agencies to establish preservation programs commensurate with their missions and the effects of their authorized programs on historic properties. (NPS, 2021a)
493
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Cultural Resources
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

2. National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
The National Register of Historic Places is the official list of the Nation's historic places worthy of preservation. Authorized by the NHPA of 1966, the NPS's National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect America's historic and archaeological resources. (NPS, 2020a) To be considered eligible, a property must meet the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. This involves examining the property’s age, integrity, and significance, as follows:
• Age and Integrity. Is the property old enough to be considered historic (generally at least 50 years old) and does it still look much the way it did in the past? • Significance. Is the property associated with events, activities, or developments that were important in the past? With the lives of people who were important in the past? With significant architectural history, landscape history, or engineering achievements? Does it have the potential to yield information through archaeological investigation about our past? (NPS, 2020a)
Nominations can be submitted to a SHPO from property owners, historical societies, preservation organizations, governmental agencies, and other individuals or groups. The SHPO notifies affected property owners and local governments and solicits public comment. If the owner (or a majority of owners for a district nomination) objects, the property cannot be listed but may be forwarded to the NPS for a Determination of Eligibility (DOE). Listing in the NRHP provides formal recognition of a property’s historical, architectural, or archaeological significance based on national standards used by every state. (NPS, 2020a)
Under Federal Law, the listing of a property in the National Register places no restrictions on what a non-federal owner may do with their property up to and including destruction, unless the property is involved in a project that receives Federal assistance, usually funding or licensing/permitting. National Register listing does not lead to public acquisition or require public access. (NPS, 2020a)

3. American Indian Religious Freedom Act
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) requires each executive branch agency with statutory or administrative responsibility for the management of Federal lands, to the extent practicable, permitted by law, and not clearly inconsistent with essential agency functions, to accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners and avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites. Where appropriate, agencies are also required to maintain the confidentiality of sacred sites. Each executive branch agency with statutory or administrative responsibility for the management of Federal lands are required to implement procedures to ensure reasonable notice is provided of proposed actions or land management 494
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Cultural Resources
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

policies that may restrict future access to or ceremonial use of, or adversely affect the physical integrity of, sacred sites. (NOAA, n.d.)

4. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA; Public Law 101-601; 25 U.S.C. 3001-3013) describes the rights of Native American lineal descendants, Indian tribes, and Native Hawaiian organizations with respect to the treatment, repatriation, and disposition of Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony, referred to collectively in the statute as cultural items, with which they can show a relationship of lineal descent or cultural affiliation. (NPS, 2021c)
One major purpose of this statute is to require that federal agencies and museums receiving Federal funds inventory holdings of Native American human remains and funerary objects and provide written summaries of other cultural items. The agencies and museums must consult with Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations to attempt to reach agreements on the repatriation or other disposition of these remains and objects. Once lineal descent or cultural affiliation has been established, and in some cases the right of possession also has been demonstrated, lineal descendants, affiliated Indian Tribes, or affiliated Native Hawaiian organizations normally make the final determination about the disposition of cultural items. Disposition may take many forms from reburial to long term curation, according to the wishes of the lineal descendent(s) or culturally affiliated Tribe(s). (NPS, 2021c) The second major purpose of the statute is to provide greater protection for Native American burial sites and more careful control over the removal of Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and items of cultural patrimony on Federal and tribal lands. NAGPRA requires that Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations be consulted whenever archaeological investigations encounter, or are expected to encounter, Native American cultural items or when such items are unexpectedly discovered on Federal or tribal lands. Excavation or removal of any such items also must be done under procedures required by the Archaeological Resources Protection Act. This NAGPRA requirement is likely to encourage the in-situ preservation of archaeological sites, or at least the portions of them that contain burials or other kinds of cultural items. (NPS, 2021c) Other provisions of NAGPRA: (1) stipulate that illegal trafficking in human remains and cultural items may result in criminal penalties; (2) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to administer a grants program to assist museums and Indian Tribes in complying with certain requirements of the statute; (3) requires the Secretary of the Interior to establish a Review Committee to provide advice and assistance in carrying out key provisions of the statute; authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to penalize museums that fail to comply with the statute; and, (4) directs the Secretary to develop regulations in consultation with this Review Committee. (NPS, 2021c) 495
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Cultural Resources
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

B. State Plans, Policies, and Regulations

1. California Administrative Code, Title 14, Section 4308 Section 4308, Archaeological Features, of Title 14 of the California Administrative Code provides that: “No person shall remove, injure, disfigure, deface, or destroy any object of archaeological, or historical interest or value.” (NPS, n.d.)

2. California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 1427 California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 1427 provides that: “No person shall collect or remove any object or thing of archaeological or historical interest or value, nor shall any person injure, disfigure, deface or destroy the physical site, location or context in which the object or thing of archaeological or historical interest or value is found.” (NAHC, n.d.)

3. California Register of Historic Resources
The State Historical Resources Commission has designed this program for use by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify, evaluate, register, and protect California's historical resources. The Register is the authoritative guide to the state's significant historical and archaeological resources. The California Register program encourages public recognition and protection of resources of architectural, historical, archaeological, and cultural significance; identifies historical resources for state and local planning purposes; determines eligibility for state historic preservation grant funding; and affords certain protections under CEQA. (OHP, n.d.) In order for a resource to be included on the Register of Historic Resources, the resources must meet one of the following criteria:
• Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States (Criterion 1). • Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history (Criterion 2).
• Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values (Criterion 3). • Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation (Criterion 4). (OHP, n.d.) For resources included on the Register of Historic Resources, environmental review may be required under CEQA if property is threatened by a project. Additionally, local building inspectors must grant code alternatives provided under State Historical Building Code. Further, the local assessor may enter into contract with property owner for property tax reduction pursuant to the Mills Act. A property owner also may place his or her own plaque or marker at the site of the resource. (OHP, n.d.) 496
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Cultural Resources
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Consent of owner is not required, but a resource cannot be listed over an owner’s objections. The State Historical Resources Commission (SHRC) may formally determine a property eligible for the California Register if the resource owner objects. (OHP, n.d.)

4. Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52)
California Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) (2014) Chapter 532 amended Section 5097.94 of, and added Sections 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21802.3, 21083.09, 21084.2 and 21084.3 to the California Public Resources Code, relating to Native Americans. AB 52 was approved on September 25, 2014. By including tribal cultural resources early in the CEQA process, the legislature intended to ensure that local and Tribal governments, public agencies, and project proponents would have information available, early in the project planning process, to identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources. By taking this proactive approach, the legislature also intended to reduce the potential for delay and conflicts in the environmental review process. (OPR, 2017b) The Public Resources Code now establishes that “[a] project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21084.2.) To help determine whether a project may have such an effect, the Public Resources Code requires a lead agency to consult with any California Native American tribe that requests consultation and is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project. (OPR, 2017b) If a lead agency determines that a project may cause a substantial adverse change to tribal cultural resources, the lead agency must consider measures to mitigate that impact. Public Resources Code § 20184.3 (b)(2) provides examples of mitigation measures that lead agencies may consider to avoid or minimize impacts to tribal cultural resources. These rules apply to projects that have a notice of preparation for an environmental impact report or negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration filed on or after July 1, 2015. (OPR, 2017b) § 21074 of the Public Resources Code defines “tribal cultural resources.” In brief, in order to be considered a “tribal cultural resource,” a resource must be either:
(1) listed, or determined to be eligible for listing, on the national, state, or local register of historic resources, or
(2) a resource that the lead agency chooses, in its discretion, to treat as a tribal cultural resource. (OPR, 2017b)
In the latter instance, the lead agency must determine that the resource meets the criteria for listing in the state register of historic resources. In applying those criteria, a lead agency must consider the value of the resource to the tribe. (OPR, 2017b)
497
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Cultural Resources
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

5. State Health and Safety Code
California Health and Safety Code (HSC) § 7050.5(b) requires that excavation and disturbance activities must cease “In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery…” until the coroner can determine regarding the circumstances, manner, and cause of any death. The coroner is then required to make recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains. Further, this section of the code makes it a misdemeanor to intentionally disturb, mutilate or remove interred human remains. § 7051 specifies that the removal of human remains from “internment or a place of storage while awaiting internment” with the intent to sell them or to dissect them with “malice or wantonness” is a public offense punishable by imprisonment in a state prison. Lastly, HSC §§ 8010-8011 establish the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act consistent with the federal law addressing the same. The Act stresses that “all California Indian human remains and cultural items are to be treated with dignity and respect.” It encourages voluntary disclosure and return of remains and cultural items by publicly funded agencies and museums in California. It also outlines the need for aiding California Indian tribes, including non-federally recognized tribes, in filing repatriation claims. (CA Legislative Info, n.d.)

6. California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5
The California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, § 15064.5 (the State CEQA Guidelines) establishes the procedure for determining the significance of impacts to archaeological and historical resources, as well as classifying the type of resource. Cultural resources are aspects of the environment that require identification and assessment for potential significance. The evaluation of cultural resources under CEQA is based upon the definitions of resources provided in CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5, as follows: (CRNA, 2019)
• A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code § 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.).
• A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.
• Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource 498
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Cultural Resources
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code § 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852) including the following:
o Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
o Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; o Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
o Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. • The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.

4.3.3 BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
Section V of Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines addresses typical adverse effects to cultural resources, and includes the following threshold questions to evaluate the Project’s impacts on cultural resources (OPR, 2019):
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource in pursuant to § 15064.5;
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5;
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

4.3.4 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Threshold a: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource in pursuant to § 15064.5?
Under existing conditions, the Project Site is currently developed with a grain processing company and a corn storage and distribution facility. The eastern portion of the Project Site contains grain storage silos, grain mill area, and five buildings that are used for maintenance and repair, grain storage, and service shop. The western portion of the Project Site contains enclosed silo grain storage, with an office trailer. A vehicle wash-down area is also present on the northeastern portion of the Site, and three known septic systems are located beneath the Site. Implementation of the Project would require the demolition of all structures that are located on the Project Site under existing conditions. 499
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Cultural Resources
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

BFSA conducted a cultural resources record search of the Project Site and concluded that no recorded historical resources pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 are located within the Project boundaries or a one-half mile radius of the Project Site. The structures on the Project Site have a construction date of 1975 and after; and, the buildings and features within the Project Site were assessed and found not to be historically or architecturally significant under CEQA. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not result in a substantial adverse change to any historical resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. No impact to a historical resource would occur.

Threshold b: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
BFSA conducted a cultural resources record search of the Project Site and one-half mile radius around the Project Site. The results of this records search indicate that no pre/protohistoric cultural resources are located on or within a one-half mile of the Project Site. Additionally, no pre/protohistoric resources were observed on the Project Site. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a known prehistoric archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.

Given the lack of any previously identified pre/protohistoric sites within or near the property and the magnitude of ground disturbances on the Project Site over the previous 47 years including the presence of subsurface septic systems, there is little potential for any pre/protohistoric resources to be present or disturbed by the proposed development. Notwithstanding, excavations on portions of the Project Site would occur within previously undisturbed soils that have the potential to contain pre/protohistoric archaeological resources. If any pre/protohistoric cultural resources are unearthed during Project construction that meet the definition of a significant archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and are disturbed/damaged by Project construction activities, impacts to those pre/protohistoric cultural resources would be significant. Based on the tribal consultation process conducted under AB 52, mitigation is presented in Subsection 4.3.7 consisting of monitoring and treatment procedures for any discovered resources that would lessen potential impacts to below a level of significance. Refer to Section 4.11, Tribal Cultural Resources, for details on the tribal consultation process.

Threshold c: Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
The Project Site does not contain a cemetery and no known formal cemeteries are located within the immediate Site vicinity. Nevertheless, the remote potential exists that human remains may be unearthed during grading and excavation activities associated with Project construction.

If human remains are unearthed during Project construction, the construction contractor would be required by law to comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 “Disturbance of Human Remains.” According to Section 7050.5(b) and (c), if human remains are discovered, the 500
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Cultural Resources
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

County Coroner must be contacted and if the Coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American, or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, the Coroner is required to contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by telephone within 24 hours.

Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, whenever the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a county coroner, the NAHC is required to immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The descendants may, with the permission of the owner of the land, or his or her authorized representative, inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American human remains and may recommend to the owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treatment or disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the human remains and any associated grave goods. The descendants shall complete their inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the Project Site. According to Public Resources Code Section 5097.94(k), the NAHC is authorized to mediate disputes arising between landowners and known descendants relating to the treatment and disposition of Native American human burials, skeletal remains, and items associated with Native American burials. With mandatory compliance to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, any potential impacts to human remains, including human remains of Native American ancestry, that may result from development of the Project would be less than significant.

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

The potential for Project construction to result in cumulatively-considerable impacts to prehistoric archaeological resources were also analyzed in conjunction with other projects located in the traditional use areas of Native American tribes that are affiliated to the Project Site. Development activities on the Project Site would not impact any known prehistoric archaeological resources and the likelihood of uncovering previously unknown prehistoric archaeological resources during Project construction are low due to the magnitude of surface and subsurface disturbance that has occurred on the Site todate. Nonetheless, the remote potential exists for subsurface prehistoric archaeological resource that meet the CCR Section 15064.5 definition of a significant archaeological resource to be discovered beneath the surface of the Project Site during Project-related construction activities and on and beneath other development project sites in the region during construction activities. Accordingly, the Project has the potential to contribute to a significant cumulatively-considerable impact to prehistoric archaeological resources, if such resources are unearthed during Project construction, for which mitigation is required. As discussed below, with implementation of mitigation, cumulativelyconsiderable impacts would be less than significant.

Mandatory compliance with the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 as well as Public Resources Code Section 5097 et seq., would assure that all future development projects within the region treat human remains that may be uncovered during development activities in 501
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Cultural Resources
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

accordance with prescribed, respectful and appropriate practices, thereby avoiding significant cumulative impacts.

4.3.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS BEFORE MITIGATION
Threshold a: No Impact. No historic resources, as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, are present on the Project Site nor is there a reasonable possibility that they could be discovered beneath the surface of the Site given the construction dates of existing surface improvements; therefore, no historic resources could be altered or destroyed by construction or operation of the Project.

Threshold b: Significant Direct and Cumulatively-Considerable Impact. 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 previous ground disturbance on the Project Site.

Nonetheless, the remote potential exists for Project-related construction activities to uncover resources and result in a direct and cumulatively-considerable impact to significant subsurface prehistoric archaeological resources should such resources be discovered during Project-related construction activities. Moreover, during the course of the tribal consultation process, tribal monitoring was requested by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation during the Project’s grounddisturbing construction activities.

Threshold c: Less-than-Significant Impact. 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.

4.3.7 MITIGATION
The following mitigation measures address the potential for Project construction activities to impact significant archaeological resources that may be discovered during ground-disturbing construction activities. The following measures shall be required as notes on all grading plans and construction documents that involve subsurface ground disturbance.

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 “grounddisturbing activity” for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both onsite and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). “Ground-disturbing activity” shall include, but is 502
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Cultural Resources
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching1 b. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the earlier of the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a grounddisturbing activity. c. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground-disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the project applicant/lead agency upon written request to the Tribe. d. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point of contact for the project applicant/lead agency that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Kizh to the project applicant/lead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs. e. Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Kizh monitor and/or Kizh archaeologist. The Kizh will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.

MM 4.3-2 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects:
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. 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. 503
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Cultural Resources
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

b. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods discovered or recognized on the project site, then all construction activities shall immediately cease. Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 dictates that any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner and all ground disturbing activities shall immediately halt and shall remain halted until the coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe they are Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 shall be followed.
c. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).
d. Construction activities may resume in other parts of the project site at a minimum of 200 feet away from discovered human remains and/or burial goods, if the Kizh determines in its sole discretion that resuming construction activities at that distance is acceptable and provides the project manager express consent of that determination (along with any other mitigation measures the Kizh monitor and/or archaeologist deems necessary). (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f))
e. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin (non-TCR) shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, it shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.
f. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.

MM 4.3-3 Procedures for Burials and Funerary Remains:
a. As the Most Likely Descendant (“MLD”), the Koo-nas-gna Burial Policy shall be implemented. To the Tribe, the term “human remains” encompasses more 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.
504
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Cultural Resources
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

c. The prepared soil and cremation soils are to be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later; other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be considered as associated funerary objects. Cremations will either be removed in bulk or by means as necessary to ensure complete recovery of all sacred materials.
d. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully documented and recovered on the same day, the remains will be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24- hour guard should be posted outside of working hours. The Tribe will make every effort to recommend diverting the project and keeping the remains in situ and protected. If the project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials will be removed.
e. In the event preservation in place is not possible despite good faith efforts by the project applicant/developer and/or landowner, before ground-disturbing activities may resume on the project site, the landowner shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint of the project for the respectful reburial of the human remains and/or ceremonial objects. f. Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects will be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony will be removed to a secure container on site if possible. These items should be retained and reburied within six months of recovery. The site of reburial/repatriation shall be on the project site but at a location agreed upon between the Tribe and the landowner at a site to be protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered.
g. The Tribe will work closely with the project’s qualified archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be prepared and shall include (at a minimum) detailed descriptive notes and sketches. All data recovery data recovery-related forms of documentation shall be approved in advance by the Tribe. If any data recovery is performed, once complete, a final report shall be submitted to the Tribe and the NAHC. The Tribe does NOT authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive and/or destructive diagnostics on human remains.
505
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.3 Cultural Resources
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

4.3.8 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATION
Threshold b: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Implementation of MM 4.3-1 through MM

4.3-3 would ensure the proper identification and subsequent treatment of any significant archaeological resources that may be encountered during ground-disturbing activities associated with Project construction. With implementation of the required mitigation, the Project’s potential impacts to important archaeological resources would be reduced to less-than-significant. Cumulativelyconsiderable impacts would likewise be reduced to less-than-significant. 506
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Energy
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

4.4 ENERGY
The analysis in this subsection is primarily based on information contained in a technical report prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. titled, “IE Distribution Center #14 Energy Analysis”, dated August 30, 2022 (Urban Crossroads, 2022c). The technical report is included as Technical Appendix D to this EIR. Refer to Section 7.0, References for a complete list of reference sources used in this subsection.

4.4.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Electricity Consumption
The Project Site is located within the service area of Southern California Edison (SCE). SCE provides electricity to more than 15 million people in 15 counties and in 180 incorporated cities, within a service area encompassing approximately 50,000 square miles. SCE generates electricity from varied energy resources including: fossil fuels, hydroelectric generators, nuclear power plants, geothermal power plants, solar power generation, and wind farms. SCE also purchases from independent power producers and utilities, including out-of-state suppliers. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 15) Under existing conditions, the Project Site is occupied and operating as a grain processing company and a corn storage and distribution facility. The estimated electricity consumption of the existing development on the Project Site is approximately 1,027,373 kilo-watt hour (kWh) per year (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 27).

B. Natural Gas Consumption
The Project Site is located within the service area of the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) which is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). SoCalGas provides service to approximately 5.9 million customers. Natural gas from out-of-state production basins is delivered into California via the interstate natural gas pipeline system. The gas transported to California via the interstate pipelines, as well as some of the California-produced gas, is delivered into SoCalGas intrastate natural gas transmission pipelines systems (commonly referred to as California’s “backbone” pipeline system). Natural gas on the utilities’ backbone pipeline system is then delivered to the local transmission and distribution pipeline systems, or to natural gas storage fields. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 17)
The existing development on the Project Site is estimated to consume approximately 794,266 kilo British Thermal unit (kBTU) of natural gas per year (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 27).

C. Transportation Energy/Fuel Consumption
Gasoline and other vehicle fuels are commercially-provided commodities. In 2021, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) identified 36.2 million registered vehicles in California, and those vehicles consume an estimated 17.2 billion gallons of fuel each year. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 19-20) 507
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Energy
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

The existing development on the Project Site is estimated to consume approximately 134,254 gallons of vehicle fuels per year (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 27).

4.4.2 REGULATORY SETTING
A. Federal Plans, Policies, and Regulations

1. Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) promoted the development of inter‐modal transportation systems to maximize mobility as well as address national and local interests in air quality and energy. ISTEA contained factors that Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) were to address in developing transportation plans and programs, including some energy‐related factors. To meet the new ISTEA requirements, MPOs adopted explicit policies defining the social, economic, energy, and environmental values guiding transportation decisions. The applicable MPO for the City of Ontario is the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) is the applicable planning document for the area. (FHWA, n.d.)

2. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) TEA‐21 was signed into law in 1998 and builds upon the initiatives established in the ISTEA legislation, discussed above. TEA‐21 authorizes highway, highway safety, transit, and other efficient surface transportation programs. TEA‐21 continues the program structure established for highways and transit under ISTEA, such as flexibility in the use of funds, emphasis on measures to improve the environment, and focus on a strong planning process as the foundation of good transportation decisions. TEA‐21 also provides for investment in research and its application to maximize the performance of the transportation system through, for example, deployment of Intelligent Transportation Systems, to help improve operations and management of transportation systems and vehicle safety. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 22)
B. State Plans, Policies, and Regulations

1. Integrated Energy Policy Report
Senate Bill 1389 (Bowen, Chapter 568, Statutes of 2002) requires the California Energy Commission (CEC) to prepare a biennial integrated energy policy report that assesses major energy trends and issues facing California’s electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel sectors and provides policy recommendations to conserve resources; protect the environment; ensure reliable, secure, and diverse energy supplies; enhance the State’s economy; and protect public health and safety (Public Resources Code § 25301a). The CEC prepares these assessments and associated policy recommendations every two years, with updates on alternate years, as part of the Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR). (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 22)
The 2021 IEPR was adopted February 2022, and continues to work towards improving electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel energy use in California. The 2021 IEPR provides the results of the 508
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Energy
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

CEC’s assessments of a variety of energy issues facing California. Many of these issues will require action if the state is to meet its climate, energy, air quality, and other environmental goals while maintaining reliability and controlling costs. Additionally, the 2021 IEPR provides the results of the CEC’s assessments of a variety of energy issues facing California. Many of these issues will require action if the state is to meet its climate, energy, air quality, and other environmental goals while maintaining reliability and controlling costs. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 22-23)

2. State of California Energy Plan
The CEC is responsible for preparing the State Energy Plan, which identifies emerging trends related to energy supply, demand, conservation, public health and safety, and the maintenance of a healthy economy. The Plan calls for the state to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies several strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators and encouragement of urban designs that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 23)

3. California Code Title 24, Part 6, Energy Efficiency Standards California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 Part 6: The California Energy Code was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption.

The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficient technologies and methods. CCR, Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) is a comprehensive and uniform regulatory code for all residential, commercial, and school buildings that went in effect on August 1, 2009, and is administered by the California Building Standards Commission.

CALGreen is updated on a regular basis, with the most recent approved update consisting of the 2022 California Green Building Code Standards that will be effective on January 1, 2023. The Project would be required to comply with the applicable standards in place at the time plan check submittals are made. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 23)

4. Pavley Regulations and Fuel Efficiency Standards (AB 1493) California AB 1493, enacted on July 22, 2002, required CARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. Under this legislation, CARB adopted regulations to reduce GHG emissions from non-commercial passenger vehicles (cars and lightduty trucks). Although aimed at reducing GHG emissions, specifically, a co-benefit of the Pavley standards is an improvement in fuel efficiency and consequently a reduction in fuel consumption. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 23)
509
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Energy
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

5. California Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS)
First established in 2002 under Senate Bill (SB) 1078, California’s Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) requires retail sellers of electric services to increase procurement from eligible renewable resources to 33% of total retail sales by 2020 (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 24).

6. Senate Bill 350 (SB 350) – Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 In October 2015, the legislature approved, and the Governor signed, SB 350, which reaffirms California’s commitment to reducing its GHG emissions and addressing climate change. Key provisions include an increase in the renewables portfolio standard (RPS), higher energy efficiency requirements for buildings, initial strategies towards a regional electricity grid, and improved infrastructure for electric vehicle charging stations. Specifically, SB 350 requires the following to reduce statewide GHG emissions:
• Increase the amount of electricity procured from renewable energy sources from 33 percent to 50 percent by 2030, with interim targets of 40 percent by 2024, and 25 percent by 2027. • Double the energy efficiency in existing buildings by 2030. This target will be achieved through the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC), the CEC, and local publicly owned utilities.
• Reorganize the Independent System Operator (ISO) to develop more regional electrify transmission markets and to improve accessibility in these markets, which will facilitate the growth of renewable energy markets in the western United States. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 24)

4.4.3 BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
According to Section I of Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would result in a significant impact associated with energy consumption if the Project or any Project-related component would (OPR, 2019):
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation; b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? 510
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Energy
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

4.4.4 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Threshold a: Would the Project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
A. Energy Use During Project Construction
The Project’s construction process would consume electrical energy and diesel fuel. Project-related construction would represent a “single-event” energy demand and would not require on-going or permanent commitment of diesel fuel resources. Project construction activities are estimated to consume approximately 113,853 kWh of electricity, 67,491 gallons of diesel fuel from operation of construction equipment, 15,066 gallons of fuel from construction worker trips, and 11,965 gallons of fuel related to construction vendor trips (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 30-38). Detailed calculations for all components of the Project’s construction energy use are provided in subsection 5.3 of the Project’s energy analysis (refer to Technical Appendix D).

Construction equipment use of fuel would not be atypical for the type of construction proposed because there are no aspects of the Project’s proposed construction process that are unusual or energy-intensive, and Project construction equipment would conform to the applicable CARB emissions standards, acting to promote equipment fuel efficiencies. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 41) CCR Title 13, Title 13, Motor Vehicles, Section 2449(d)(3) Idling, limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than 5 minutes, thereby precluding unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling of construction equipment. Best Available Control Measures (BACMs) inform construction equipment operators of this requirement. Enforcement of idling limitations is realized through periodic site inspections conducted by City building officials, and/or in response to citizen complaints. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 41)
As supported by the preceding discussion, the Project’s construction energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.

B. Energy Use During Project Operations
Energy consumption in support of or related to Project operations would include transportation fuel demands (fuel consumed by passenger car and truck vehicles accessing the Project Site), fuel demands from operational equipment, and facilities energy demands (energy consumed by building operations, site maintenance activities, and on-site cargo handling equipment).

The Project energy demand is calculated to be 179,406 gallons of fuel, 5,337,545 kBTU of natural gas per year, and 1,774,048 kWh of electricity per year The energy consumption of existing uses on the Project Site (refer to Subsection 4.4.1) were subtracted from the Project’s gross energy totals to determine the new, net energy demands from the proposed Project. The net Project energy demand is calculated to be 45,152 gallons of fuel, 4,543,279 kBTU of natural gas per year, and 746,675 kWh of electricity per year. Project on-site cargo handling equipment would consume an estimated 4,642 511
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Energy
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

gallons of natural gas per year (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 38-40). Refer to subsection 5.4 of the Project’s energy analysis (see Technical Appendix D) for detailed calculations of all components of the Project’s operational energy use.

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

Threshold b: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
The following analyzes the Project’s consistency with the applicable federal, State, and local regulations for renewable energy of energy efficiency.

A. Consistency with Federal Energy Regulations

1. Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) Transportation and access to the Project Site is provided by the local and regional roadway systems.

The Project would not interfere with, nor otherwise obstruct intermodal transportation plans or projects that may be realized pursuant to the ISTEA because SCAG is not planning for intermodal facilities on or through the Project Site. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 45)

2. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) The Project Site is located along major transportation corridors with proximate access to the Interstate freeway system. The Site selected for the Project facilitates access, acts to reduce vehicle miles 512
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Energy
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

traveled, takes advantage of existing infrastructure systems, and promotes land use compatibilities through collocation of similar uses. The Project supports the strong planning processes emphasized under TEA‐21. The Project is therefore consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct implementation of TEA‐21. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 45) B. Consistency with State Energy Regulations

1. Integrated Energy Policy Report
SCE would provide electricity service to the Project. SCE’s Clean Power and Electrification Pathway (CPEP) white paper builds on existing state programs and policies. As such, the Project is consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct implementation the goals presented in the 2021 IEPR.

Additionally, the Project is required to comply with the applicable Title 24 standards which would ensure that the Project energy demands would not be inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.

As such, development of the proposed Project would support the goals presented in the 2020 IEPR. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 45)

2. State of California Energy Plan
The Project Site is located along major transportation corridors with proximate access to the Interstate freeway system. The Site selected for the Project facilitates access and takes advantage of existing infrastructure systems. The Project therefore supports urban design and planning processes identified under the State of California Energy Plan, is consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere with or obstruct, implementation of the State of California Energy Plan. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 46)

3. California Code Title 24, Part 6, Energy Efficiency Standards The 2022 version of Title 24 was adopted by the CEC and will become effective on January 1, 2023.

As the Project building construction is anticipated after that date, it is presumed that the Project would be required to comply with the Title 24 standards in place at that time. Therefore, the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact on energy resources. The proposed Project would be subject to Title 24 standards as a requirement of the California Building Standards Code. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 46)

4. California Code Title 24, Part 11, CALGreen
As previously stated, CCR, Title 24, Part 11: CALGreen is a comprehensive and uniform regulatory code for all residential, commercial, and school buildings that went in effect on January 1, 2009, and is administered by the California Building Standards Commission. CALGreen is updated on a regular basis, with the most recent approved update consisting of the 2022 California Green Building Code Standards that were published on July 1, 2022 and will become effective on January 1, 2023. The Project would be required to comply with the applicable standards in place at the time plan check submittals are made. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 46)
513
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Energy
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

5. Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards (AB 1493)
AB 1493 is not applicable to the Project as it is a statewide measure establishing vehicle emissions standards. No feature of the Project would interfere with implementation of the requirements under AB 1493. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 46)

6. Renewable Portfolio Standards (SB 1078)
California’s RPS is not applicable to the Project as it is a statewide measure that establishes a renewable energy mix. No feature of the Project would interfere with implementation of the requirements under RPS. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 46)

7. Senate Bill 350 (SB 350) – Clean Energy and Pollution Act The proposed Project would use energy from SCE, which has committed to diversify their portfolio of energy sources by increasing energy from wind and solar sources. No feature of the Project would interfere with implementation of SB 350. Additionally, the Project would be designed and constructed to implement the energy efficiency measures for new industrial developments and would include several measures designed to reduce energy consumption.

As shown above, the Project would not conflict with any of the state or local plans. As such, a less than significant impact is expected. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 46) C. Consistency with Local Energy Regulations

1. City of Ontario Community Climate Action Plan
The Project would comply with applicable City of Ontario Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP) checklist measures. Compliance with the CCAP checklist measures would further reduce reliance on fossil fuels and expand the use of renewable energy. (Urban Crossroads, 2022c, p. 47) D. Conclusion
As supported by the preceding analysis, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and a less-than-significant impact related to energy consumption would occur.

4.4.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
The Project and other new development projects within the cumulative study area would be required to comply with all of the same applicable federal, State, and local regulatory measures aimed at reducing fossil fuel consumption and the conservation of energy. Accordingly, the Project would not cause or contribute to a significant cumulatively considerable impact related to conflicts with a State or local plan for renewable energy efficiency.
514
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.4 Energy
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

4.4.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS BEFORE MITIGATION
Threshold a: Less-than-Significant Impact. 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.

Threshold b: Less-than-Significant Impact. 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.

4.4.7 MITIGATION
Impacts would be less than significant; therefore, mitigation is not required. 515
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Geology and Soils
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

4.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The analysis in this subsection is based primarily on information contained in the technical report prepared by Southern California Geotechnical titled “Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Warehouse 5355 East Airport Drive Ontario, California”, dated March 9, 2022. The technical report is included as Technical Appendix E1 to this EIR (SoCal Geotechnical, 2022a). In addition, an infiltration report prepared by Southern California Geotechnical, dated March 9, 2022, was used in this analysis and is included as Technical Appendix E2 (Southern California Geotechnical, 2022b). Additional sources of information used to support the analysis in this subsection include the Final Supplemental EIR prepared for The Ontario Plan (Ontario, 2022b) and the Ontario Development Code (Ontario, 2021a). All of the references used in this subsection are listed in EIR Section 7.0, References.

4.5.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Soils
Artificial fill soils were encountered beneath the existing pavements at all of the Project Site’s 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. (Southern California Geotechnical, 2022b, p. 3)
B. Groundwater
Free water was not encountered during the drilling of any of the borings. Based on the lack of any water within the borings, and the moisture contents of the recovered soil samples, the static groundwater table is considered to have existed as a depth in excess of 30± feet at the time of the subsurface exploration. (SoCal Geotechnical, 2022a, p. 7) According to the water level data obtained from the California Department of Water Resources Water Data Library website, the nearest monitoring well on record (identified as State Well Number:
01S06W29H001S) is located 3,400± feet southeast of the Project Site. Water level readings within this monitoring well indicate a high groundwater level of 277± feet below the ground surface in April 2019. (SoCal Geotechnical, 2022a, p. 7)
C. Seismic Hazards
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. 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 516
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Geology and Soils
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

the Project Site is the Cucamonga Fault, located approximately 7 miles to the north of the Project Site (CGS, 2015).

Secondary hazards associated with earthquakes include surface rupture, ground failure, unstable soils and slopes. Each of these hazards is briefly described below.

1. Fault Rupture
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)

2. Liquefaction
Liquefaction is the loss of strength in generally cohesionless, saturated soils when the pore-water pressure induced in the soil by a seismic event becomes equal to or exceeds the overburden pressure.

The primary factors which influence the potential for liquefaction include groundwater table elevation, soil type and grain size characteristics, relative density of the soil, initial confining pressure, and intensity and duration of ground shaking. The depth within which the occurrence of liquefaction may impact surface improvements is generally identified as the upper 50 feet below the ground surface.

Liquefaction potential is greater in saturated, loose, poorly graded fine sands with a mean (d50) grain size in the range of 0.075 to 0.2 mm. Clayey (cohesive) soils or soils which possess clay particles (d<0.005mm) in excess of 20 percent are generally not considered to be susceptible to liquefaction, nor are those soils which are above the historic static groundwater table. (SoCal Geotechnical, 2022a, p. 12)
The general liquefaction susceptibility of the Project Site was determined by research of the San Bernardino County Land Use Plan, General Plan, Geologic Hazard Overlays. Map FH28C for the Guasti 7.5-Minute Quadrangle indicates that the Project Site is not located within an area of liquefaction susceptibility. (SoCal Geotechnical, 2022a, p. 12)

3. Unstable Soils and Slopes
The Project Site slopes gently to the south-southeast at a gradient of less than 1 percent. There is no evidence of historical landslides or rockfalls on the Project Site (CGS, 2021). As such, the Project Site is not susceptible to seismically-induced landslides and rockfalls.

D. Slope and Instability Hazards

1. Soil Erosion
Erosion is the movement of rock and soil due to water, wind, and gravity. Soil erosion may be a slow process that continues relatively unnoticed, or it may occur quickly, causing loss of topsoil. The rate and magnitude of soil erosion by water is controlled by rainfall intensity and runoff, soil texture and cohesion, slope gradient and length, and vegetation cover. The young alluvial sediment and wind517 5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Geology and Soils
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

blown sand underlying the Project Site are generally granular, poorly consolidated, and very susceptible to erosion. Grading increases the potential for erosion by removing protective vegetation, changing natural drainage patterns, and constructing slopes. (Ontario, 2022b, p. 5.7-16)

2. Settlement Potential
Settlement refers to unequal compression of a soil foundation, shrinkage, or undue loads being applied to a building after its initial construction that affects the soil foundation. According to Southern California Geotechnical, the potential for seismically induced settlement is considered low (SoCal Geotechnical, 2022a, p. 10).

3. Shrinkage/Subsidence Potential
Subsidence is a gradual settling or sudden sinking of the ground surface (i.e, loss of elevation). The principal causes of subsidence are aquifer-system compaction, drainage of organic soils, underground mining, and natural compaction. Shrinkage is the reduction in volume in soil as the water content of the soil drops (i.e., loss of volume). According to Southern California Geotechnical, the potential for subsidence to affect the Project Site is considered low (SoCal Geotechnical, 2022a, p. 10).

4. Soil Expansion Potential
Expansive soils are soils that exhibit cyclic shrink and swell patterns in response to variations in moisture. Sites with expansive soils (expansion index>20) require special attention during project design and maintenance. According to Southern California Geotechnical, the near-surface soils on the Project Site consist of sands and silty sands with no appreciable clay content. These materials have been visually classified as non-expansive. Therefore, no design considerations related to expansive soils are considered warranted for the Project Site. (SoCal Geotechnical, 2022a, p. 13)

5. Landslide Potential
The Project Site slopes gently to the south-southeast at a gradient of less than 1 percent. There is no evidence of historical landslides or rockfalls on the Project Site (CGS, 2021). As such, the Project Site is not susceptible to seismically-induced landslides and rockfalls.

E. Paleontological Setting

1. Regional Setting
The City of Ontario is underlain by sediments less than 11,000 years old (Holocene) and deposited either by water or wind. In general, the alluvial fan sediments are coarse grained in the northern part of the City and consist of various mixtures of sand, gravel, and cobbles. Moving south away from the mountains, the sediments gradually become finer grained, consisting primarily of silt, silty clay, and silty sand. Generally, soils with faster infiltration rates, higher levels of organic matter, and improved soil structure, such as sand, sandy loam, and loam-textured soils have a greater resistance to erosion than silt, very fine sand, and certain-clay textured soils. (Ontario, 2022b, p. 5.7-5) 518
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Geology and Soils
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

The possibility of finding additional paleontological resources within City boundaries is moderate to high. Geologic maps indicate that the City is situated on surface exposures of recent alluvium. These sediments have low potential to yield fossil resources or to contain significant nonrenewable paleontological resources. However, these recent sediments overlie older Pleistocene sediments with high potential to contain paleontological resources. Older Pleistocene alluvial sediments have yielded significant fossils of extinct plants and animals elsewhere in the Inland Empire. These older sediments, often found at depths of 10 feet or more below the ground surface, have yielded the fossil remains of plants and extinct terrestrial Pleistocene vertebrates. Significant vertebrate fossils from this age include Ice Age mammals such as camels, mammoths, mastodons, and ground sloths (Ontario, 2022b, p. 5.7- 17)

2. Project Site Conditions
The Project Site is underlain by Young Eolian Deposits (Qye) and Very Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qf). Qye are wind-deposited Holocene sediments consisting of silt and fine- to medium-grained sand which are generally about 10 feet thick and are underlain by alluvial fan deposits. Qf are Late Holocene and consist predominantly of sand, gravel, cobbles, and boulders that form the active and recently active portions of the fan. These deposits are generally unconsolidated to slightly consolidated, and where they have not been graded, they have a network of braided channels on the surface (Ontario, 2022b, p. 5.7-5 through 5.7-7).

4.5.2 REGULATORY SETTING
The following is a brief description of the federal, State, and local environmental laws and related regulations governing issues related to geology, soils, and paleontological resources.

A. Federal Plans, Policies, and Regulations

1. Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters. The basis of the CWA was enacted in 1948 and was called the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, but the Act was substantially reorganized and expanded in 1972. "Clean Water Act" became the Act's common name with amendments in 1972. Under the CWA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has implemented pollution control programs such as setting wastewater standards for industry, and also has set water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters. The CWA made it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit was obtained. EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls discharges. Point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or man-made ditches. Individual homes that are connected to a municipal system, use a septic system, or do not have a surface discharge do not need an NPDES permit; however, industrial, municipal, and other facilities must obtain permits if their discharges go directly to surface waters. (EPA, 2020e)
519
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Geology and Soils
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

2. Paleontological Resources Preservation Act
The Paleontological Resources Preservation Act (PRPA) was signed into law on March 30, 2009 (Public Law 111-11, Title VI, Subtitle D; 16 U.S.C. §§ 470aaa - 470aaa-11). PRPA directs the Department of Agriculture (U.S. Forest Service) and the Department of the Interior (National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, and Fish and Wildlife Service) to implement comprehensive paleontological resource management programs. Section 6310 of PRPA specifically states, "As soon as practical after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue such regulations as are appropriate to carry out this subtitle, providing opportunities for public notice and comment." (NPS, n.d.)
B. State Plans, Policies, and Regulations

1. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (A-P Act) The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (A-P Act) was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. The A-P Act’s main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The A-P Act only addresses the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards. (CA Legislative Info, n.d.)
The A-P Act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones (known as Earthquake Fault Zones) around the surface traces of active faults and to issue appropriate maps. "Earthquake Fault Zones" were called "Special Studies Zones" prior to January 1, 1994. The maps are distributed to all affected cities, counties, and state agencies for their use in planning and controlling new or renewed construction. Local agencies must regulate most development projects within the zones. Projects include all land divisions and most structures for human occupancy. Single family wood-frame and steel-frame dwellings up to two stories not part of a development of four units or more are exempt.

However, local agencies can be more restrictive than state law requires. (CA Legislative Info, n.d.) Before a project can be permitted, cities and counties must require a geologic investigation to demonstrate that proposed buildings will not be constructed across active faults. An evaluation and written report of a specific site must be prepared by a licensed geologist. If an active fault is found, a structure for human occupancy cannot be placed over the trace of the fault and must be set back from the fault (generally 50 feet). (CA Legislative Info, n.d.)

2. Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (SHMA) of 1990 (Public Resources Code, Chapter 7.8, § 2690- 2699.6) directs the Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey to identify and map areas prone to liquefaction, earthquake-induced landslides, and amplified ground shaking. The purpose of the SHMA is to minimize loss of life and property through the identification, evaluation, and mitigation of seismic hazards. (CDC, n.d.)
520
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Geology and Soils
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Staff geologists in the Seismic Hazards Program gather existing geological, geophysical, and geotechnical data from numerous sources to produce the Seismic Hazard Zone Maps. They integrate and interpret these data regionally in order to evaluate the severity of the seismic hazards and designate as Zones of Required Investigation (ZORI) those areas prone to liquefaction and earthquake–induced landslides. Cities and counties are then required to use the Seismic Hazard Zone Maps in their land use planning and building permit processes. (CDC, n.d.)
The SHMA requires site-specific geotechnical investigations be conducted within the ZORI to identify and evaluate seismic hazards and formulate mitigation measures prior to permitting most developments designed for human occupancy. (CDC, n.d.)

3. Natural Hazards Disclosure Act
The Natural Hazards Disclosure Act, effective June 1, 1998 (as amended June 9, 1998), requires that sellers of real property and their agents provide prospective buyers with a "Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement" when the property being sold lies within one or more state-mapped hazard areas, including a Seismic Hazard Zone. (CA Legislative Info, n.d.)
The law requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones (Zones of Required Investigation) and to issue appropriate maps (Seismic Hazard Zone maps). These maps are distributed to all affected cities, counties, and state agencies for their use in planning and controlling construction and development. Single-family wood-frame dwellings up to two stories not part of a development of four or more units are exempt from the state requirements. However, local agencies can be more restrictive than state law requires. (CA Legislative Info, n.d.)
Before a development permit can be issued or a subdivision approved, cities and counties must require a site-specific investigation to determine whether a significant hazard exists at the Site and, if so, recommend measures to reduce the risk to an acceptable level. The investigation must be performed by state-licensed engineering geologist and/or civil engineer. (CA Legislative Info, n.d.)

4. Essentials Services Building Seismic Safety Act
In 1986, the California Legislature determined that buildings providing essential services should be capable of providing those services to the public after a disaster. Their intent in this regard was defined in legislation known as the Essential Services Buildings Seismic Safety Act of 1986 and includes requirements that such buildings shall be “…designed and constructed to minimize fire hazards and to resist…the forces generated by earthquakes, gravity, and winds.” This enabling legislation can be found in the California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 2, § 16000 through 16022. In addition, the California Building Code defines how the intent of the act is to be implemented in Title 24, Part 1 of the California Building Standards Administrative Code, Chapter 4, Articles 1 through 3. (CAB, n.d.)

5. California Building Standards Code (Title 24)
California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 is reserved for state regulations that govern the design and construction of buildings, associated facilities, and equipment. These regulations are also known 521
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Geology and Soils
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

as building standards (reference California Health and Safety Code § 18909). Health and Safety Code § 18902 gives CCR Title 24 the name California Building Standards Code (CBSC). (CBSC, 2019, p. 1)
The CBSC in CCR Title 24 is published by the California Building Standards Commission and it applies to all building occupancies (see Health and Safety Code §§ 18908 and 18938) throughout the State of California. Cities and counties are required by state law to enforce CCR Title 24 (reference Health and Safety Code §§ 17958, 17960, 18938(b), and 18948). Cities and counties may adopt ordinances making more restrictive requirements than provided by CCR Title 24, because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. Such adoptions and a finding of need statement must be filed with the California Building Standards Commission (Reference Health and Safety Code §§ 17958.7 and 18941.5). (CBSC, 2019, p. 1)

6. California Public Resources Code
Paleontological sites are protected under a wide variety of State policies and regulations in the California Public Resources Code (PRC). In addition, paleontological resources are recognized as nonrenewable resources and receive protection under the PRC and CEQA. PRC Division 5, Chapter

1.7, § 5097.5, and Division Chapter 3, § 30244. This statute prohibits the removal, without permission, of any paleontological site or feature from lands under the jurisdiction of the State or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof. As a result, local agencies are required to comply with PRC 5097.5 for their own activities, including construction and maintenance, as well as for permit actions (e.g., encroachment permits) undertaken by others. PRC § 5097.5 establishes the removal of paleontological resources as a misdemeanor and requires reasonable mitigation of adverse impacts to paleontological resources from developments on public lands (state, county, city, and district). (CA Legislative Info, 2011)

4.5.3 BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
Section VI of Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines addresses typical adverse effects due to geological conditions, and includes the following threshold questions to evaluate the Project’s impacts resulting from geologic or soil conditions (OPR, 2019):
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42;
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking;
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; 522
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Geology and Soils
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

iv. Landslides;
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse;
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property; e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water; f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

4.5.4 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Threshold a: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42; strong seismic ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; landslides?
A. Rupture of Known Earthquake Fault
There are no known active or potentially active faults on or trending toward the Project Site. Research of available maps indicates that the Project Site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. No evidence of faulting was identified during the geotechnical investigation. (SoCal Geotechnical, 2022a, p. 10) Because there are no known faults located on or trending towards the Project Site, there is no potential for the Project to directly or indirectly expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects related to ground rupture. Impacts would be less than significant.

B. Strong Seismic Ground Shaking
The Project Site is located in a seismically active area of southern California and is expected to experience moderate to severe ground shaking during the lifetime of the Project. The risk is not substantially different than the risk to other properties throughout the southern California area. As a mandatory condition of Project approval, the Project Applicant would be required to construct the proposed building in accordance with the CBSC and the Ontario Development Code. The CBSC and Ontario Development Code, which have been specifically tailored for California earthquake conditions, provide building standards that must be met to safeguard life or limb, health, property, and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and 523
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Geology and Soils
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

occupancy, location, and maintenance of all buildings and structures. In addition, the CBSC (Chapter 18) require development project sites to be evaluated in preliminary soil reports to identify site-specific geologic and seismic conditions and provide site-specific recommendations to preclude adverse effects involving unstable soils and strong seismic ground-shaking, including, but not limited to, recommendations related to ground stabilization, selection of appropriate foundation type and depths, and selection of appropriate structural systems. The Project Applicant retained a professional geotechnical firm, Southern California Geotechnical, to prepare a geotechnical investigation for the Project Site, which is included as Technical Appendix E1 to this EIR. The geotechnical investigation included recommendations for design, construction, and grading considerations based on the sitespecific geological conditions and the Project’s specific design. The recommendations included seismic design considerations, geotechnical design considerations, site grading, construction, foundation design and construction, floor slab design and construction, retaining wall design and construction, and pavement design parameters. This geotechnical investigation complies with the requirements of Chapter 18 of the CBSC. With mandatory compliance with these standards and sitespecific design and construction measures, implementation of the Project would not directly or indirectly expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects, including loss, injury or death, involving seismic ground shaking. Impacts would be less than significant.

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

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

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

Impacts would be less than significant.
524
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Geology and Soils
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

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

Pursuant to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board, the Project Applicant would be required to obtain coverage under the State’s General Construction Storm Water Permit for construction activities (NPDES permit). The NPDES permit is required for all development projects that include construction activities, such as clearing, grading, and/or excavation, that disturb at least 1 acre of total land area. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program. Compliance with the NPDES permit and the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program involves the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction-related activities. The SWPPP will specify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that the Project Applicant will be required to implement during construction activities to ensure that waterborne pollution – including erosion/sedimentation – is prevented, minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately treated prior to surface runoff being discharged from the subject property. Examples of BMPs that may be utilized during construction include, but are not limited to, sandbag barriers, geotextiles, storm drain inlet protection, sediment traps, rip rap soil stabilizers, and hydro-seeding. Mandatory compliance with the SWPPP would ensure that the Project’s implementation does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction activities. Therefore, water quality impacts associated with construction activities would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required.

B. Post-Development Erosion Impacts
Upon Project build-out, the Project Site would be covered by buildings, landscaping, and impervious surfaces. Stormwater runoff from the Project Site would be captured, treated to reduce waterborne pollutants (including sediment), and conveyed off-site via an on-site storm drain system.

The Project would be required to implement erosion control measures pursuant to Ontario Municipal Code Title 6, Chapter 12. During operation of the Project, the Project Applicant would be required to prepare and implement a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to demonstrate compliance with the City’s NPDES municipal stormwater permit, and to minimize the release of potential waterborne pollutants, including pollutants of concern for downstream receiving waters. The WQMP is a sitespecific post-construction water quality management program designed to address the potential release of pollutants of concern for downstream receiving waters and other water pollutants through the use of BMPs. Implementation of the WQMP ensures on-going, long-term protection of the watershed basin.

The Preliminary WQMP for the Project was prepared by Westland and is included as Technical 525
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Geology and Soils
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Appendix H2 to this EIR. Because the Project Applicant would be required to utilize erosion and sediment control measures to preclude substantial, long-term soil erosion and loss of topsoil, Project operation would result in less-than-significant impacts related to soil erosion and sedimentation.

Threshold c: Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? The Project Site is relatively flat, as is the immediately surrounding area. The Project Site slopes gently to the south-southeast at a gradient of less than 1 percent. There is no evidence of historical landslides or rockfalls on the Project Site (CGS, 2021). As noted in the response to Threshold “a”, the Project includes retaining walls and manufactured slopes that would be engineered for structural soundness and constructed in accordance with the site-specific recommendations contained within the geotechnical investigation for the Project. Accordingly, the Project would result in less than significant impacts associated with landslide hazards.

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

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

Threshold d: Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
The near-surface soils consist of sands and silty sands with no appreciable clay content. These materials have been visually classified as non-expansive. Therefore, no design considerations related to expansive soils are considered warranted for this Site. (SoCal Geotechnical, 2022a, p. 13) Accordingly, the Project Site does not contain expansive soils and as such, would not create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property associated with the presence of expansive soils. No impacts would occur.
526
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Geology and Soils
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Threshold e: Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
The Project would connect to an existing sewer line installed beneath Airport Drive. The existing onsite septic systems would be removed and there would be no continued use of Project-site related septic systems upon implementation of the proposed Project. The Project would not utilize septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems. No impact related to the use of alternative waste water systems would thus occur.

Threshold f: Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
The Project Site is underlain by Young Eolian Deposits (Qye) and Very Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qf). Qye are wind-deposited Holocene sediments consisting of silt and fine- to medium-grained sand which are generally about 10 feet thick and are underlain by alluvial fan deposits. Qf are Late Holocene and consist predominantly of sand, gravel, cobbles, and boulders that form the active and recently active portions of the fan. These deposits are generally unconsolidated to slightly consolidated, and where they have not been graded, they have a network of braided channels on the surface (Ontario, 2022b, p. 5.7-5 through 5.7-7).

The possibility of finding additional paleontological resources within City boundaries is moderate to high. However, geologic maps indicate that the Project Site is situated on surface exposures of recent alluvium. These sediments have low potential to yield fossil resources or to contain significant nonrenewable paleontological resources. However, these recent sediments overlie older Pleistocene sediments with high potential to contain paleontological resources. (Ontario, 2022b, p. 5.7-17) In the event that the Project’s construction activities encroach into previously undisturbed older alluvium deposits, the Project could result in impacts to important paleontological resources if such resources are unearthed and not properly treated. Therefore, the Project’s potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource buried beneath the ground surface is determined to be a potentially significant impact and mitigation is required.

4.5.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
With the exception of erosion hazards, potential hazardous effects related to geologic and soil conditions addressed under Thresholds “a,” “c,” “d,” and “e” are unique to the Project Site, and inherently restricted to the specific property proposed for development. That is, issues including fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and expansive soils would involve effects to (and not from) a proposed development project, are specific to conditions on the subject property, and are not influenced or exacerbated by the geologic and/or soil hazards that may occur on other, off-site properties. Further, as noted in the foregoing analysis, all potential Project-related direct and indirect impacts related to potential hazardous effects related to geologic and soil conditions would be precluded through mandatory conformance with the CBSC, Ontario Development Code, other standard regulatory requirements, and the site-specific geotechnical recommendations contained within the 527
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Geology and Soils
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Project’s geotechnical investigation, which will be incorporated into the Project’s design via conditions of approval. Because of the site-specific nature of these potential hazards and the measures to address them, there would be no direct or indirect connection to similar potential issues or cumulative effects to or from other properties.

As discussed under Threshold “b”, regulatory requirements mandate that the Project incorporate design measures during construction and long-term operation to ensure that significant erosion impacts do not occur. Other development projects in the vicinity of the Project Site would be required to comply with the same regulatory requirements as the Project to preclude substantial adverse water and wind erosion impacts. Because the Project and other projects within the cumulative study area would be subject to similar mandatory regulatory requirements to control erosion hazards during construction and longterm operation, cumulative impacts associated with wind and water erosion hazards would be less than significant.

The Project’s potential to result in cumulative impacts to paleontological resources (Threshold “f”) is similar to that of other projects located in the region that are underlain by older alluvial soils. Because the older alluvial soils present on the Project Site contain high paleontological sensitivity and because this geologic layer is present throughout the City of Ontario and southern California, the potential to impact paleontological resources is a cumulatively-considerable impact for which mitigation is required.

4.5.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS BEFORE MITIGATION
Threshold a: Less-than-Significant Impact. Implementation of the Project would not expose people or structures to 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 minimizes potential hazards related to seismic ground shaking to less-than-significant levels.

Threshold b: Less-than-Significant Impact. 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 PWQMP during operation, which would preclude substantial erosion impacts in the long-term.

Threshold c: Less-than-Significant Impact. 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 site-specific geotechnical report during Project construction.

Threshold d: No Impact. The Project Site contains soils that are classified as non-expansive. Therefore, the Project Site does not contain expansive soils and as such, would not create substantial direct or 528
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Geology and Soils
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

indirect risks to life or property associated with the presence of expansive soils. No impact would occur.

Threshold e: No Impact. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed to be used as part of the Project. Accordingly, no impact would occur with soil compatibility for waste water disposal systems.

Threshold f: Significant Direct and Cumulatively Considerable Impact. 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.

4.5.7 MITIGATION
MM 4.5-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Ontario that a qualified paleontologist (“paleontologist”) has been retained by the Project Applicant or contractor to conduct monitoring of excavation activities in olde alluvium soils and has the authority to halt and redirect earthmoving activities in the event that suspected paleontological resources are unearthed.

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

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

MM 4.5-4 A final monitoring and mitigation report of findings and significance shall be prepared, including lists of all fossils recovered, if any, and necessary maps and graphics to 529
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.5 Geology and Soils
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

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.

4.5.8 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATION
Threshold f: Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. MMs 4.5-1 through 4.5-4 would ensure the proper identification and subsequent treatment of any paleontological resources that may be encountered during ground-disturbing activities associated with implementation of the proposed Project. Therefore, with implementation of MMs 4.5-1 through 4.5-4, the Project’s potential impact to paleontological resources would be reduced to less-than-significant. 530
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

4.6 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The analysis provided in this subsection evaluates the Project’s potential to generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that could contribute substantially to Global Climate Change (GCC) and its associated environmental effects. This analysis is based on a report prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. titled, “5355 East Airport Drive Greenhouse Gas Analysis,” dated August 30, 2022 (Urban Crossroads, 2022d). The GHG analysis report (GHGA) is included as Technical Appendix F to this EIR. All references used in this subsection are listed in EIR Section 7.0, References.

4.6.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Introduction to Global Climate Change
GCC is defined as the change in average meteorological conditions on the earth with respect to temperature, precipitation, and storms. Many scientists believe that the climate shift taking place since the Industrial Revolution is occurring at a quicker rate and magnitude than in the past. Scientific theory suggests that GCC is the result of increased concentrations of GHGs in the earth’s atmosphere, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gases. Scientists believe that this increased rate of climate change is the result of GHGs resulting from human activity and industrialization over the past 200 years. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 16) An individual project like the Project evaluated in this EIR cannot generate enough GHG emissions to affect a discernible change in global climate. However, the Project may participate in the potential for GCC by its incremental contribution of GHGs combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of GHGs, which when taken together constitute potential influences on GCC. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 16)
B. Greenhouse Gases
CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions are the focus of evaluation in this subsection because these gases are the primary contributors to GCC from development projects. Although there are other substances such as fluorinated gases that also contribute to GCC, these fluorinated gases were not evaluated as their sources are not well-defined and do not contain accepted emissions factors or methodology to accurately calculate these gases. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 16) A global warming potential (GWP) value indicates the amount of warming a gas causes over a given period of time and represents the potential of a gas to trap heat in the atmosphere. Individual GHGs have varying GWP values, as assigned by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The atmospheric lifetime and GWP of selected GHGs are summarized in Table 4.6-1, GWP and Atmospheric Lifetime of Select GHGs. GWP values range from 1 for CO2 up to 23,900 for Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6). (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 23)
Provided below is a description of the various gases that contribute to GCC. For more information about these gases and their associated human health effects, reefer to Section 2.3 of Technical Appendix F and the references sources cited therein.
531
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Table 4.6-1 GWP and Atmospheric Lifetime of Select GHGs Gas Atmospheric Lifetime
(years)
GWP (100-year time horizon)
2nd Assessment Report 5th Assessment Report
CO2 See* 1 1
CH4 12 .4 21 28
N2O 121 310 265
HFC-23 222 11,700 12,400
HFC-134a 13.4 1,300 1,300
HFC-152a 1.5 140 138
SF6 3,200 23,900 23,500
*As per Appendix 8.A. of IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report, no single lifetime can be given.

Adapted from Table 2.14 of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, 2007 (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 23)
• Water Vapor (H2O) is the most abundant, important, and variable GHG in the atmosphere. Changes in its concentration are primarily considered to be a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization. As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the relative humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to ‘hold’ more water when it is warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere. As a GHG, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal indirect energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a “positive feedback loop.” The extent to which this positive feedback loop would continue is unknown as there are also dynamics that hold the positive feedback loop in check. As an example, when water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it would eventually condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the earth’s surface and heat it up). There are no known direct health effects related to water vapor; however, certain pollutants can dissolve in water vapor and the water vapor can then act as a pollutant-carrying agent. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 17) • Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is an odorless and colorless GHG that is emitted from natural and man-made sources. Natural sources include: the decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic outgassing. Since the industrial revolution began in the mid-1700s, the sort of human activity that increases GHG emissions has increased dramatically in scale and distribution.

As an example, prior to the industrial revolution, CO2 concentrations were fairly stable at 280 parts per million (ppm). Today, they are around 370 ppm, an increase of more than 30%. Exposure to CO2 in high concentrations can cause adverse human health effects, but 532
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

outdoor (atmospheric levels) are not high enough to be detrimental to human health. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 18)
• Methane (CH4) is an extremely effective absorber of radiation, although its atmospheric concentration is less than CO2 and its lifetime in the atmosphere is brief (10-12 years), compared to other GHGs. Over the last 50 years, human activities such as growing rice, raising cattle, using natural gas, and mining coal have added to the atmospheric concentration of CH4. Other man-made sources include fossil-fuel combustion and biomass burning. Exposure to elevated levels of CH4 can cause asphyxiation, loss of consciousness, headache and dizziness, nausea and vomiting, weakness, loss of coordination, and an increased breathing rate. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 19) • Nitrous Oxide (N2O) concentrations began to rise at the beginning of the industrial revolution. N2O is produced by microbial processes in soil and water, including those reactions which occur in fertilizer containing nitrogen. N2O can cause dizziness, euphoria, and sometimes slight hallucinations. In small doses, it is considered harmless; however, in some cases, heavy and extended use can cause Olney’s Lesions (brain damage). (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 19)
• Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in CH4 or ethane (C2H6) with chlorine and/or fluorine atoms. CFCs are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble and chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at the earth’s surface). CFCs have no natural source but were first synthesized in 1928. They were used for refrigerants, aerosol propellants and cleaning solvents. Due to the discovery that they are able to destroy stratospheric ozone, a global effort to halt their production was undertaken and was extremely successful, so much so that levels of the major CFCs are now remaining steady or declining. However, their long atmospheric lifetimes mean that some of the CFCs would remain in the atmosphere for over 100 years. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 20)
• Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are synthetic, man-made chemicals that are used as a substitute for CFCs. Out of all the GHGs, they are one of three groups with the highest global warming potential. HFCs are manmade for applications such as automobile air conditioners and refrigerants. No health effects are known to result from exposure to HFCs. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 21)
• Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are primarily produced for aluminum production and semiconductor manufacture. PFCs have stable molecular structures and do not break down through chemical processes in the lower atmosphere. High-energy ultraviolet rays, which occur about 60 kilometers above earth’s surface, are able to destroy the compounds.

Because of this, PFCs have exceptionally long lifetimes, between 10,000 and 50,000 years. 533
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

No health effects are known to result from exposure to PFCs. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 21)
• Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) an inorganic, odorless, colorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas.

It also has the highest GWP of any gas evaluated (23,900). SF6 is used for insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas for leak detection. In high concentrations in confined areas, the gas presents the hazard of suffocation because it displaces the oxygen needed for breathing. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 21)
• Nitrogen Trifluoride (NF3) is a colorless gas with a distinctly moldy odor. NF3 is used in industrial processes and is produced in the manufacturing of semiconductors, Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) panels, types of solar panels, and chemical lasers. Long-term or repeated exposure may affect the liver and kidneys and may cause fluorosis. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 22)
C. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory

1. Global and National
Worldwide anthropogenic GHG emissions are tracked by the IPCC for industrialized nations (referred to as Annex I) and developing nations (referred to as Non-Annex I). Human GHG emissions data for Annex I nations are available through 2018. Based on the latest available data, the sum of these emissions totaled approximately 28,768,440 gigagram (Gg) CO2e (equivalent). The United States is the world’s second-largest emitter of GHGs, producing 6,676,650 Gg of CO2e in 2018. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 23-24)

2. State of California
California has significantly slowed the rate of growth of GHG emissions due to the implementation of energy efficiency programs as well as adoption of strict emission controls but is still a substantial contributor to the U.S. emissions inventory total. The California Air Resource Board (CARB) compiles GHG inventories for the State of California. Based upon the 2021 GHG inventory data (i.e., the latest year for which data are available) for the 2000-2019 GHG emissions period, California emitted an average 418.2 million metric tons of CO2e per year (MMTCO2e/yr) or 418,200 Gg CO2e (6.26% of the total United States GHG emissions). (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 24)

3. Project Site
The Project Site is currently occupied and operating as a grain processing company and a corn storage and distribution facility. Sources of existing GHG emissions on the Project Site include mobile source, area source, energy source, water usage, waste, and refrigerants. The estimated GHG emissions from existing uses on the Project Site is 1,645.77 metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MTCO2e) (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 49).
534
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

D. Potential Effects of Climate Change in California

1. Public Health
Higher temperatures may increase the frequency, duration, and intensity of conditions conducive to air pollution formation. For example, days with weather conducive to ozone formation could increase from 25 to 35% under the lower warming range to 75 to 85% under the medium warming range. In addition, if global background ozone levels increase as predicted in some scenarios, it may become impossible to meet local air quality standards. Air quality could be further compromised by increases in wildfires, which emit fine particulate matter that can travel long distances, depending on wind conditions. Based on Our Changing Climate Assessing the Risks to California by the California Climate Change Center, large wildfires could become up to 55% more frequent if GHG emissions are not significantly reduced. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 24) In addition, under the higher warming range scenario, there could be up to 100 more days per year with temperatures above 90 degrees F in Los Angeles and 95 degrees F in Sacramento by 2100. This is a substantial increase over historical patterns and approximately twice the increase projected if temperatures remain within or below the lower warming range. Rising temperatures could increase the risk of death from dehydration, heat stroke/exhaustion, heart attack, stroke, and respiratory distress caused by extreme heat. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 24-25)

2. Water Resources
A vast network of man-made reservoirs and aqueducts captures and transports water throughout the state from northern California rivers and the Colorado River. The current distribution system relies on Sierra Nevada snowpack to supply water during the dry spring and summer months. Rising temperatures, potentially compounded by decreases in precipitation, could severely reduce spring snowpack, increasing the risk of summer water shortages. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 25) If temperatures continue to increase, more precipitation could fall as rain instead of snow, and the snow that does fall could melt earlier, reducing the Sierra Nevada spring snowpack by as much as 70 to 90%.

Under the lower warming range scenario, snowpack losses could be only half as large as those possible if temperatures were to rise to the higher warming range. How much snowpack could be lost depends in part on future precipitation patterns, the projections for which remain uncertain. However, even under the wetter climate projections, the loss of snowpack could pose challenges to water managers and hamper hydropower generation. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 25) The State’s water supplies are also at risk from rising sea levels. An influx of saltwater could degrade California’s estuaries, wetlands, and groundwater aquifers. Saltwater intrusion caused by rising sea levels is a major threat to the quality and reliability of water within the southern edge of the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta – a major fresh water supply. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 25) 535
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

3. Agriculture
Increased temperatures could cause widespread changes to the agriculture industry reducing the quantity and quality of agricultural products statewide. First, California farmers could possibly lose as much as 25% of the water supply needed. Although higher CO2 levels can stimulate plant production and increase plant water-use efficiency, California’s farmers could face greater water demand for crops and a less reliable water supply as temperatures rise. Crop growth and development could change, as could the intensity and frequency of pest and disease outbreaks. Rising temperatures could aggravate ozone pollution, which makes plants more susceptible to disease and pests and interferes with plant growth. Plant growth tends to be slow at low temperatures, increasing with rising temperatures up to a threshold. However, faster growth can result in less-than-optimal development for many crops, so rising temperatures could worsen the quantity and quality of yield for a number of California’s agricultural products. Products likely to be most affected include wine grapes, fruits, and nuts. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 25)
In addition, continued GCC could shift the ranges of existing invasive plants and weeds and alter competition patterns with native plants. Range expansion could occur in many species while range contractions may be less likely in rapidly evolving species with significant populations already established. Should range contractions occur, new or different weed species could fill the emerging gaps. Continued GCC could alter the abundance and types of many pests, lengthen pests’ breeding season, and increase pathogen growth rates. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 26)

4. Forest and Landscape Effects
GCC has the potential to intensify the current threat to forests and landscapes by increasing the risk of wildfire and altering the distribution and character of natural vegetation. If temperatures rise into the medium warming range, the risk of large wildfires in California could increase by as much as 55%, which is almost twice the increase expected if temperatures stay in the lower warming range. Since wildfire risk is determined by a combination of factors, including precipitation, winds, temperature, and landscape and vegetation conditions, future risks would not be uniform throughout the state. In contrast, wildfires in northern California could increase by up to 90% due to decreased precipitation.

Moreover, continued GCC has the potential to alter natural ecosystems and biological diversity within the state. For example, alpine and subalpine ecosystems could decline by as much as 60 to 80% by the end of the century as a result of increasing temperatures. The productivity of the state’s forests has the potential to decrease as a result of GCC. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 26)

5. Rising Sea Levels
Rising sea levels, more intense coastal storms, and warmer water temperatures could increasingly threaten the state’s coastal regions. Under the higher warming range scenario, sea level is anticipated to rise 22 to 35 inches by 2100. Elevations of this magnitude would inundate low-lying coastal areas with saltwater, accelerate coastal erosion, threaten vital levees and inland water systems, and disrupt wetlands and natural habitats. Under the lower warming range scenario, sea level could rise 12-14 inches. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 26)
536
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

4.6.2 REGULATORY SETTING
The following is a brief description of the federal, state, and local environmental laws and related regulations related to GHG emissions.

A. International Plans, Policies, and Regulations

1. Kyoto Protocol
The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which commits its Parties by setting internationally binding emission reduction targets. Recognizing that developed countries are principally responsible for the current high levels of GHG emissions in the atmosphere as a result of more than 150 years of industrial activity, the Protocol places a heavier burden on developed nations under the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities." (UNFCCC, n.d.)
The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on December 11, 1997 and entered into force on February 16, 2005. The detailed rules for the implementation of the Protocol were adopted at Conference of the Parties (COP) 7 in Marrakesh, Morocco, in 2001, and are referred to as the "Marrakesh Accords." Its first commitment period started in 2008 and ended in 2012. (UNFCCC, n.d.) On December 8, 2012, in Doha, Qatar, the "Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol" was adopted.

The amendment includes:
• New commitments for Annex I Parties to the Kyoto Protocol who agreed to take on commitments in a second commitment period from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2020; • A revised list of greenhouse gases (GHG) to be reported on by Parties in the second commitment period; and
• Amendments to several articles of the Kyoto Protocol which specifically referenced issues pertaining to the first commitment period and which needed to be updated for the second commitment period. (UNFCCC, n.d.)
On December 21, 2012, the amendment was circulated by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting in his capacity as Depositary, to all Parties to the Kyoto Protocol in accordance with Articles 20 and 21 of the Protocol. (UNFCCC, n.d.)
During the first commitment period, 37 industrialized countries and the European Community committed to reduce GHG emissions to an average of five percent against 1990 levels. During the second commitment period, Parties committed to reduce GHG emissions by at least 18 percent below 1990 levels in the eight-year period from 2013 to 2020; however, the composition of Parties in the second commitment period is different from the first. (UNFCCC, n.d.)

2. The Paris Agreement
The Paris Agreement builds upon the Convention and – for the first time – brings all nations into a common cause to undertake ambitious efforts to combat climate change and adapt to its effects, with 537
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

enhanced support to assist developing countries to do so. As such, it charts a new course in the global climate effort. (UNFCCC, n.d.)
The Paris Agreement’s central aim is to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Additionally, the agreement aims to strengthen the ability of countries to deal with the impacts of climate change. To reach these ambitious goals, appropriate financial flows, a new technology framework and an enhanced capacity building framework will be put in place, thus supporting action by developing countries and the most vulnerable countries, in line with their own national objectives.

The Agreement also provides for enhanced transparency of action and support through a more robust transparency framework. (UNFCCC, n.d.)
The Paris Agreement requires all Parties to put forward their best efforts through “nationally determined contributions” (NDCs) and to strengthen these efforts in the years ahead. This includes requirements that all Parties report regularly on their emissions and on their implementation efforts. (UNFCCC, n.d.)
In 2018, Parties will take stock of the collective efforts in relation to progress towards the goal set in the Paris Agreement and to inform the preparation of NDCs. There will also be a global stock-taking every five years to assess the collective progress towards achieving the purpose of the Agreement and to inform further individual actions by Parties. (UNFCCC, n.d.) The Paris Agreement entered into force on November 4, 2016, thirty days after the date on which at least 55 Parties to the Convention accounting in total for at least an estimated 55% of the total global greenhouse gas emissions have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession with the Depositary. (UNFCCC, n.d.)
On June 1, 2017, President Trump announced he would begin the process of withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement. In accordance with articles within the Paris Agreement, the earliest effective date for the United States’ withdrawal from the Agreement was November 4, 2020, at which time the withdraw became official. On January 20, 2021, President Biden signed the executive order for the United States to rejoin the Paris Agreement, which became official on February 19, 2021.

B. Federal Plans, Policies, and Regulations

1. Clean Air Act
Coinciding with the 2009 meeting of international leaders in Copenhagen, on December 7, 2009, the EPA issued an Endangerment Finding under § 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), opening the door to federal regulation of GHGs. The Endangerment Finding notes that GHGs threaten public health and welfare and are subject to regulation under the CAA. To date, the EPA has not promulgated regulations on GHG emissions, but it has begun to develop them. (EPA, 2020a; DOJ, 2015) 538
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Previously the EPA had not regulated GHGs under the CAA because it asserted that the Act did not authorize it to issue mandatory regulations to address Global Climate Change (GCC) and that such regulation would be unwise without an unequivocally established causal link between GHGs and the increase in global surface air temperatures. In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. (127 S. Ct. 1438 [2007]); however, the U.S. Supreme Court held that GHGs are pollutants under the CAA and directed the EPA to decide whether the gases endangered public health or welfare. The EPA had also not moved aggressively to regulate GHGs because it expected Congress to make progress on GHG legislation, primarily from the standpoint of a cap-and-trade system. However, proposals circulated in both the House of Representative and Senate have been controversial and it may be some time before the U.S. Congress adopts major climate change legislation. The EPA’s Endangerment Finding paves the way for federal regulation of GHGs with or without Congress. (EPA, 2020a; DOJ, 2015)
C. State Plans, Policies, and Regulations

1. Title 24 Building Energy Standards
The California Energy Commission (CEC) first adopted Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6) in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce energy consumption in the state. Although not originally intended to reduce GHG emissions, increased energy efficiency, and reduced consumption of electricity, natural gas, and other fuels would result in fewer GHG emissions from residential and nonresidential buildings subject to the standard. The standards are updated periodically to allow for the consideration and inclusion of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The latest revisions (2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards) became effective on January 1, 2020. The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are 7% more efficient than the previous (2016) Building Energy Efficiency Standards for residential construction and 30% more efficient than the previous Standards for nonresidential construction. (The 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards already were 28% more efficient for residential construction and 5% more efficient for nonresidential construction than the 2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards they replaced.) (CEC, 2018) Part 11 of Title 24 is referred to as the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code).

The purpose of the CALGreen Code is to “improve public health, safety and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices in the following categories: 1) Planning and design; 2) Energy efficiency; 3) Water efficiency and conservation; 4) Material conservation and resource efficiency; and 5) Environmental air quality.” The CALGreen Code is not intended to substitute or be identified as meeting the certification requirements of any green building program that is not established and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC). Unless otherwise noted in the regulation, all newly constructed buildings in California are subject of the requirements of the CALGreen Code. (CEC, 2018) As previously stated, the Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen Code are updated on a regular basis, with the most recent approved updates consisting of the 2022 Energy Efficiency 539
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Standards and 2022 CALGreen Code, which will become effective on January 1, 2023. Non-residential mandatory measures included in the 2022 CALGreen Code include:
• Short-term bicycle parking. If the new project or an additional alteration is anticipated to generate visitor traffic, provide permanently anchored bicycle racks within 200 feet of the visitors’ entrance, readily visible to passers-by, for 5% of new visitor motorized vehicle parking spaces being added, with a minimum of one two-bike capacity rack (5.106.4.1.1). • Long-term bicycle parking. For new buildings with tenant spaces that have 10 or more tenantoccupants, provide secure bicycle parking for 5% of the tenant-occupant vehicular parking spaces with a minimum of one bicycle parking facility (5.106.4.1.2). • Designated parking for clean air vehicles. In new projects or additions to alterations that add 10 or more vehicular parking spaces, provide designated parking for any combination of lowemitting, fuel-efficient and carpool/van pool vehicles as shown in Table 5.106.5.2 (5.106.5.2). • EV charging stations. New construction shall facilitate the future installation of EV supply equipment. The compliance requires empty raceways for future conduit and documentation that the electrical system has adequate capacity for the future load. The number of spaces to be provided for is contained in Table 5.106. 5.3.3 (5.106.5.3). Additionally, Table 5.106.5.4.1 specifies requirements for the installation of raceway conduit and panel power requirements for medium- and heavy-duty electric vehicle supply equipment for warehouses, grocery stores, and retail stores.
• Outdoor light pollution reduction. Outdoor lighting systems shall be designed to meet the backlight, uplight and glare ratings per Table 5.106.8 (5.106.8). • Construction waste management. Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65% of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with Section 5.408.1.1.

5.405.1.2, or 5.408.1.3; or meet a local construction and demolition waste management ordinance, whichever is more stringent (5.408.1).
• Excavated soil and land clearing debris. 100% of trees, stumps, rocks and associated vegetation and soils resulting primarily from land clearing shall be reuse or recycled. For a phased project, such material may be stockpiled on site until the storage site is developed (5.408.3). • Recycling by Occupants. Provide readily accessible areas that serve the entire building and are identified for the depositing, storage, and collection of non-hazardous materials for recycling, including (at a minimum) paper, corrugated cardboard, glass, plastics, organic waste, and metals or meet a lawfully enacted local recycling ordinance, if more restrictive (5.410.1). 540
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

• Water conserving plumbing fixtures and fittings. Plumbing fixtures (water closets and urinals) and fittings (faucets and showerheads) shall comply with the following:
o Water Closets. The effective flush volume of all water closets shall not exceed 1.28 gallons per flush (5.303.3.1)
o Urinals. The effective flush volume of wall-mounted urinals shall not exceed 0.125 gallons per flush (5.303.3.2.1). The effective flush volume of floor- mounted or other urinals shall not exceed 0.5 gallons per flush (5.303.3.2.2).
o Showerheads. Single showerheads shall have a minimum flow rate of not more than 1.8 gallons per minute and 80 psi (5.303.3.3.1). When a shower is served by more than one showerhead, the combine flow rate of all showerheads and/or other shower outlets controlled by a single valve shall not exceed 1.8 gallons per minute at 80 psi (5.303.3.3.2). o Faucets and fountains. Nonresidential lavatory faucets shall have a maximum flow rate of not more than 0.5 gallons per minute at 60 psi (5.303.3.4.1). Kitchen faucets shall have a maximum flow rate of not more than 1.8 gallons per minute of 60 psi (5.303.3.4.2). Wash fountains shall have a maximum flow rate of not more than 1.8 gallons per minute (5.303.3.4.3). Metering faucets shall not deliver more than 0.20 gallons per cycle (5.303.3.4.4). Metering faucets for wash fountains shall have a maximum flow rate not more than 0.20 gallons per cycle (5.303.3.4.5).
• Outdoor potable water uses in landscaped areas. Nonresidential developments shall comply with a local water efficient landscape ordinance or the current California Department of Water Resources’ Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), whichever is more stringent (5.304.1).
• Water meters. Separate submeters or metering devices shall be installed for new buildings or additions in excess of 50,000 sf or for excess consumption where any tenant within a new building or within an addition that is project to consume more than 1,000 gallons per day (GPD) (5.303.1.1 and 5.303.1.2).
• Outdoor water uses in rehabilitated landscape projects equal or greater than 2,500 sf.

Rehabilitated landscape projects with an aggregate landscape area equal to or greater than 2,500 sf requiring a building or landscape permit (5.304.3). • Commissioning. For new buildings 10,000 sf and over, building commissioning shall be included in the design and construction processes of the building project to verify that the building systems and components meet the owner’s or owner representative’s project requirements (5.410.2).
541
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

2. California Assembly Bill No. 1493 (AB 1493)
AB 1493 required the CARB to adopt the nation’s first GHG emission standards for automobiles. On September 24, 2009, CARB adopted amendments to the “Pavley” regulations that reduce GHG emissions in new passenger vehicles from model year 2009 through 2016. These amendments were part of California’s commitment toward a nation-wide program to reduce new passenger vehicle GHGs from 2012 through 2016. CARB’s September amendments cement California’s enforcement of the Pavley rule starting in 2009 while providing vehicle manufacturers with new compliance flexibility.

The amendments also prepare California to harmonize its rules with the federal rules for passenger vehicles. (CARB, n.d.)
The U.S. EPA granted California the authority to implement GHG emission reduction standards for new passenger cars, pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles on June 30, 2009. The first California request to implement GHG standards for passenger vehicles, known as a waiver request, was made in December 2005, and was denied by the EPA in March 2008. That decision was based on a finding that California’s request to reduce GHG emissions from passenger vehicles did not meet the CAA requirement of showing that the waiver was needed to meet “compelling and extraordinary conditions.” (CARB, n.d.)
CARB’s Board originally approved regulations to reduce GHGs from passenger vehicles in September 2004, with the regulations to take effect in 2009. These regulations were authorized by the 2002 legislation Assembly Bill 1493 (Pavley). (CARB, n.d.)
The regulations had been threatened by automaker lawsuits and were stalled by the EPA’s delay in reviewing and then initially denying California’s waiver request. The parties involved entered a May 19, 2009 agreement to resolve these issues. With the granting of the waiver on June 30, 2009, it is expected that the Pavley regulations reduced GHG emissions from California passenger vehicles by about 22% in 2012 and about 30% in 2016, all while improving fuel efficiency and reducing motorists’ costs. (CARB, n.d.)
The CARB has adopted a new approach to passenger vehicles – cars and light trucks – by combining the control of smog-causing pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions into a single coordinated package of standards. The new approach also includes efforts to support and accelerate the numbers of plug-in hybrids and zero-emission vehicles in California. (CARB, n.d.)

3. Executive Order S-3-05
Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 documents GHG emission reduction goals, creates the Climate Action Team and directs the Secretary of the California EPA to coordinate efforts with meeting the GHG reduction targets with the heads of other state agencies. The EO requires the Secretary to report back to the Governor and Legislature biannually to report: progress toward meeting the GHG goals; GHG impacts to California; and applicable Mitigation and Adaptation Plans. EO S-3-05 goals for GHG emissions reductions include: reducing GHG emissions to 2000 levels by the year 2010; reducing GHG 542
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020; and reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. (CA State Library, 2005)

4. California Assembly Bill 32 – Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 In September 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires California to reduce its GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, which represents a reduction of approximately 15 percent below emissions expected under a “business as usual” scenario. Pursuant to AB 32, the CARB must adopt regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission reductions. The full implementation of AB 32 will help mitigate risks associated with climate change, while improving energy efficiency, expanding the use of renewable energy resources, cleaner transportation, and reducing waste. (CARB, 2018)
AB 32 specifically required that CARB do the following: (CARB, 2018) • Prepare and approve a Scoping Plan for achieving the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in GHG emissions from sources or categories of sources of GHGs by 2020, and update the Scoping Plan every five years.
• Maintain and continue reductions in emissions of GHG beyond 2020. • Identify the statewide level of GHG emissions in 1990 to serve as the emissions limit to be achieved by 2020.
• Identify and adopt regulations for discrete early actions that could be enforceable on or before January 1, 2010.
• Adopt a regulation that establishes a system of market-based declining annual aggregate emission limits for sources or categories of sources that emit GHG emissions. • Convene an Environmental Justice Advisory Committee to advise the Board in developing and updating the Scoping Plan and any other pertinent matter in implementing AB 32. • Appoint an Economic and Technology Advancement Advisory Committee to provide recommendations for technologies, research, and GHG emission reduction measures.

5. CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan
In November 2007, CARB completed its estimated calculations of Statewide 1990 GHG levels. Net emission 1990 levels were estimated at 427 million metric tons (MMTs) (emission sources by sector were: transportation – 35%; electricity generation – 26%; industrial – 24%; residential – 7%; agriculture – 5%; and commercial – 3%). Accordingly, 427 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) equivalent was established as the emissions limit for 2020. For comparison, CARB’s estimate for baseline GHG emissions was 473 MMTCO2e for 2000 and without emissions reduction measures 2010 emissions were projected to be 532 MMTCO2e. “Business as usual” conditions (without the reductions to be implemented by CARB regulations) for 2020 were projected to be 596 MMTCO2e. (CARB, 2007)
AB 32 required CARB to develop a Scoping Plan which lays out California’s strategy for meeting the goals. The Scoping Plan must be updated every 5 years. In December 2008, CARB approved the initial 543
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Scoping Plan, which included a suite of measures to sharply cut GHG emissions. Table 4.6-2, Scoping Plan GHG Reduction Measures Towards 2020 Target, shows the proposed reductions from regulations and programs outlined in the Scoping Plan. While local government operations were not accounted for in achieving the Year 2020 emissions reduction, local land use changes are estimated to result in a reduction of 5 MMTCO2e, which is approximately 3% of the 2020 GHG emissions reduction goal. In recognition of the critical role local governments will play in successful implementation of AB 32, CARB is recommending GHG reduction goals of 15% of 2006 levels by 2020 to ensure that municipal and community-wide emissions match the State’s reduction target. According to the Measure Documentation Supplement to the Scoping Plan, local government actions and targets are anticipated to reduce vehicle miles by approximately 2% through land use planning, resulting in a potential GHG reduction of 2 MMTCO2e (or approximately 1.2% of the GHG reduction target). (CARB, 2018) Overall, CARB determined that achieving the 1990 emission level in 2020 would require a reduction in GHG emissions of approximately 28.5% in the absence of new laws and regulations (referred to as "Business-As-Usual" [BAU]). The Scoping Plan evaluates opportunities for sector-specific reductions, integrates all CARB and Climate Action Team (CAT) early actions and additional GHG reduction measures, identifies additional measures to be pursued as regulations, and outlines the role of the capand-trade program. 544
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Table 4.6-2 Scoping Plan GHG Reduction Measures Towards 2020 Target When the 2020 emissions level projection also was updated to account for implemented regulatory measures, including Pavley (vehicle model-years 2009 - 2016) and the renewable portfolio standard (12% - 20%), the 2020 projection in the BAU condition was reduced further to 507 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e). As a result, based on the updated economic and regulatory data, CARB determined that achieving the 1990 emissions level in 2020 would now only require a reduction 545
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

of GHG emissions of 80 MTCO2e, or approximately 16 percent (down from 28.5%), from the BAU condition.

In May 2014, CARB approved the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan (Update), which builds upon the initial Scoping Plan with new strategies and recommendations. The Update highlights California’s progress toward meeting the near-term 2020 GHG emission reduction goals, highlights the latest climate change science and provides direction on how to achieve long-term emission reduction goal described in Executive Order S-3-05. The Update recalculates 1990 GHG emissions using new global warming potentials identified in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007. Using those Global Warming Potentials (GWPs), the 427 MTCO2e 1990 emissions level and 2020 GHG emissions limit identified in the 2008 Scoping Plan would be slightly higher, at 431 MTCO2e. Based on the revised 2020 emissions level projection identified in the 2011 Final Supplement and the updated 1990 emissions levels identified in the discussion draft of the First Update, achieving the 1990 emissions level in 2020 would require a reduction of 78 MTCO2e (down from 509 MTCO2e), or approximately 15.3% (down from 28.5%), from the BAU condition. (CARB, 2018; CARB, 2017) In January 2017, CARB released the draft Second Update to the Scoping Plan, which identifies the State’s post-2020 reduction strategy. The Second Update would reflect the 2030 target of a 40% reduction below 1990 levels, set by Senate Bill (SB) 32. Key GHG emissions reductions programs that the draft Second Update proposes to build upon include the Cap-and-Trade Regulation, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and much cleaner cars, trucks and freight movement, utilizing cleaner, renewable energy, and strategies to reduce methane emissions from agricultural and other wastes. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update was finalized in November 2017 and approved by the CARB on December 14, 2017. (CARB, 2017)

6. CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan
On December 15, 2022, CARB adopted the 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. The 2022 Scoping Plan builds on the 2017 Scoping Plan as well as the requirements set forth by AB 1279, which directs the State to become carbon neutral no later than 2045. To achieve this statutory objective, the 2022 Scoping Plan lays out how California can reduce GHG emissions by 85% below 1990 levels and achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. The Scoping Plan scenario to do this is to “deploy a broad portfolio of existing and emerging fossil fuel alternatives and clean technologies, and align with statutes, Executive Orders, Board direction, and direction from the governor.” The 2022 Scoping Plan sets one of the most aggressive approaches to reach carbon neutrality in the world. Unlike the 2017 Scoping Plan, CARB no longer includes a numeric per capita threshold and instead advocates for compliance with a local GHG reduction strategy (CAP) consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. (CARB, 2022a)
The key elements of the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan focus on transportation - the regulations that will impact this sector are adopted and enforced by CARB on vehicle manufacturers and outside the jurisdiction and control of local governments. As stated in the Plan’s executive summary: “The major element of this unprecedented transformation is the aggressive reduction of fossil fuels wherever they 546
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

are currently used in California, building on and accelerating carbon reduction programs that have been in place for a decade and a half. That means rapidly moving to zero-emission transportation; electrifying the cars, buses, trains, and trucks that now constitute California’s single largest source of planet-warming pollution.” “[A]pproval of this plan catalyzes a number of efforts, including the development of new regulations as well as amendments to strengthen regulations and programs already in place, not just at CARB but across state agencies.” (CARB, 2022a)

Included in the 2022 Scoping Plan is a set of Local Actions (Appendix D to the 2022 Scoping Plan) aimed at providing local jurisdictions with tools to reduce GHGs and assist the State in meeting the ambitious targets set forth in the 2022 Scoping Plan. Appendix D to the 2022 Scoping Plan includes a section on evaluating plan-level and project-level alignment with the State’s Climate Goals in CEQA GHG analyses. In this section, CARB identifies several recommendations and strategies that should be considered for new development in order to determine consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan.

Notably, this section is focused on Residential and Mixed-Use Projects, in fact CARB states in Appendix D (page 4): “…focuses primarily on climate action plans (CAPs) and local authority over new residential development. It does not address other land use types (e.g., industrial) or air permitting.” (CARB, 2022b)

7. California Senate Bill No. 1368 (SB 1368)
In 2006, the State Legislature adopted Senate Bill (SB) 1368 (Perata, Chapter 598, Statutes of 2006), which directs the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to adopt a GHG emission performance standard (EPS) for the future power purchases of California utilities. SB 1368 seeks to limit carbon emissions associated with electrical energy consumed in California by forbidding procurement arrangements for energy longer than five years from resources that exceed specified emissions criteria. Accordingly, SB 1368 effectively prevents California’s utilities from investing in, otherwise financially supporting, or purchasing power from new coal plants located in or out of the State. SB 1368 will lead to dramatically lower GHG emissions associated with California energy demand. (CEC, n.d.)

8. Executive Order S-01-07
Executive Order (EO) S-01-07 is effectively known as the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). The Executive Order seeks to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s passenger vehicle fuels by at least 10% by 2020. The LCFS requires fuel providers in California to ensure that the mix of fuel they sell into the California market meet, on average, a declining standard for GHG emissions measured in CO2e grams per unit of fuel energy sold. (CA State Library, 2007)

9. Senate Bill 1078
Senate Bill (SB) 1078 establishes the California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program, which required electric utilities and other entities under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission to meet 20% of their renewable power by December 31, 2017 for the purposes of increasing the diversity, reliability, public health, and environmental benefits of the energy mix. (CA Legislative Info, n.d.)
547
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

10. Senate Bill 107
SB 107 directed California Public Utilities Commission's Renewable Energy Resources Program to increase the amount of renewable electricity (Renewable Portfolio Standard) generated per year, from 17% to an amount that equals at least 20% of the total electricity sold to retail customers in California per year by December 31, 2010. (CA Legislative Info, n.d.)

11. Executive Order S-14-08
On November 17, 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-14-08, revising California's existing Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) upward to require all retail sellers of electricity to serve 33% of their load from renewable energy sources by 2020. In order to meet this new goal, a substantial increase in the development of wind, solar, geothermal, and other "RPS eligible" energy projects will be needed. Executive Order S-14-08 seeks to accelerate such development by streamlining the siting, permitting, and procurement processes for renewable energy generation facilities. To this end, S-14-08 issues two directives: 1) the existing Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative will identify renewable energy zones that can be developed as such with little environmental impact, and 2) the California Energy Commission (CEC) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) will collaborate to expedite the review, permitting, and licensing process for proposed RPS-eligible renewable energy projects. (CA State Library, 2008)

12. Senate Bill 97
By enacting SB 97 in 2007, California’s lawmakers expressly recognized the need to analyze GHGs as a part of the CEQA process. SB 97 required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop, and the Natural Resources Agency to adopt, amendments to the CEQA Guidelines addressing the analysis and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Those CEQA Guidelines amendments clarified several points, including the following: (CA Legislative Info, n.d.) • Lead agencies must analyze the GHG emissions of proposed projects, and must reach a conclusion regarding the significance of those emissions. (See CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4.) • When a project’s GHG emissions may be significant, lead agencies must consider a range of potential mitigation measures to reduce those emissions. (See CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(c).) • Lead agencies must analyze potentially significant impacts associated with placing projects in hazardous locations, including locations potentially affected by climate change. (See CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(a).)
• Lead agencies may significantly streamline the analysis of GHGs on a project level by using a programmatic GHG emissions reduction plan meeting certain criteria. (See CEQA Guidelines § 15183.5(b).)
• CEQA mandates analysis of a proposed project’s potential energy use (including transportation-related energy), sources of energy supply, and ways to reduce energy demand, including through the use of efficient transportation alternatives. (See CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F.)
As part of the administrative rulemaking process, the Natural Resources Agency developed a Final Statement of Reasons explaining the legal and factual bases, intent, and purpose of the CEQA 548
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Guidelines amendments. The amendments to the CEQA Guidelines implementing SB 97 became effective on March 18, 2010. (CA Legislative Info, n.d.) Of note, the new guidelines state that a lead agency shall have discretion to determine whether to use a quantitative model or methodology, or in the alternative, rely on a qualitative analysis or performance-based standards. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4(a), “A lead agency shall have discretion to determine, in the context of a particular project, whether to: 1) Use a model or methodology to quantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project, and which model or methodology to use; or 2) Rely on a qualitative analysis or performance-based standards.” (CA Legislative Info, n.d.)
CEQA emphasizes that the effects of greenhouse gas emissions are cumulative, and should be analyzed in the context of CEQA's requirements for cumulative impacts analysis. (See CEQA Guidelines § 15130(f)).
§ 15064.4(b) of the guidelines provides direction for lead agencies for assessing the significance of impacts of greenhouse gas emissions:

1. The extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting;

2. Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project; or

3. The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Such regulations or requirements must be adopted by the relevant public agency through a public review process and must include specific requirements that reduce or mitigate the project’s incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emissions. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the project.

The CEQA Guideline amendments do not identify a threshold of significance for GHG emissions, nor do they prescribe assessment methodologies or specific mitigation measures. Instead, they call for a “good-faith effort, based on available information, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project.” The amendments encourage lead agencies to consider many factors in performing a CEQA analysis and preserve lead agencies’ discretion to make their own determinations based upon substantial evidence. The amendments also encourage public agencies to make use of programmatic mitigation plans and programs from which to tier when they perform individual project analyses.

13. Senate Bill 375
The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (Sustainable Communities Act, SB 375, Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008) supports the State's climate action goals to reduce greenhouse gas 549
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

(GHG) emissions through coordinated transportation and land use planning with the goal of more sustainable communities. (CARB, n.d.)
Under the Sustainable Communities Act, CARB sets regional targets for GHG emissions reductions from passenger vehicle use. In 2010, CARB established these targets for 2020 and 2035 for each region covered by one of the State's metropolitan planning organizations (MPO). CARB will periodically review and update the targets, as needed. (CARB, n.d.)
Each of California’s MPOs must prepare a "sustainable communities strategy" (SCS) as an integral part of its regional transportation plan (RTP). The SCS contains land use, housing, and transportation strategies that, if implemented, would allow the region to meet its GHG emission reduction targets.

Once adopted by the MPO, the RTP/SCS guides the transportation policies and investments for the region. CARB must review the adopted SCS to confirm and accept the MPO's determination that the SCS, if implemented, would meet the regional GHG targets. If the combination of measures in the SCS would not meet the regional targets, the MPO must prepare a separate “alternative planning strategy" (APS) to meet the targets. The APS is not a part of the RTP. (CARB, n.d.) The Sustainable Communities Act also establishes incentives to encourage local governments and developers to implement the SCS or the APS. Developers can get relief from certain environmental review requirements under CEQA if their new residential and mixed-use projects are consistent with a region’s SCS (or APS) that meets the targets (see Cal. Public Resources Code §§ 21155, 21155.1, 21155.2, 21159.28.). (CARB, n.d.)

14. Executive Order B-30-15
On April 29, 2015, Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-30-15, which sets a goal to reduce GHG emissions in California to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The 2030 target serves as a benchmark goal on the way to achieving the GHG reductions goal set by former Governor Schwarzenegger via Executive Order S-3-05 (i.e., 80% below 1990 greenhouse gas emissions levels by 2050). (CA State Library, 2015)

15. Senate Bill 32
On September 8, 2016, Governor Brown signed the Senate Bill (SB) 32 and its companion bill, Assembly Bill (AB) 197. SB 32 requires the state to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, a reduction target that was first introduced in Executive Order B-30-15. The new legislation builds upon the AB 32 goal of 1990 levels by 2020 and provides an intermediate goal to achieving S-3-05, which sets a statewide greenhouse gas reduction target of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. (CA Legislative Info, n.d.)
550
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

D. Local Plans, Policies, and Regulations

1. City of Ontario Community Climate Action Plan
The Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP) contains further guidance on the City of Ontario’s GHG Inventory reduction goals, policies, guidelines, and implementation programs. The purpose of the CCAP is to provide guidance on how to analyze GHG emissions and determine significance during the CEQA review of proposed development projects within the City of Ontario. The CCAP builds upon the Reduction Plan to address City-specific information and City-specific GHG reduction measures. To address the state’s requirement to reduce GHG emissions, the CCAP was prepared with the goal of reducing GHG emissions within the City by 15% below 2008 levels by the year 2020. The City’s target is consistent with the AB 32 target and ensures that the City of Ontario achieves GHG reductions locally that complement and are consistent with state efforts to reduce GHG emissions.

As part of the CCAP, the City of Ontario published a guidance document titled “Greenhouse Gas Emissions, CEQA Thresholds and Screening Tables” (December 2014). As part of this guidance, the CCAP determined that if GHG emissions of a given project exceeds 3,000 MTCO2e/yr, then project emissions would need to be reduced by 25% when compared to year 2008 emissions levels.

Alternatively, the project would need to achieve a minimum of 100 points pursuant to measures identified in the Screening Tables.

The 2022 update to the Ontario Plan includes an update to the City’s CCAP which was originally adopted on December 16, 2014. As stated in The Ontario Plan 2050 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), the measures included in the 2022 update to the CCAP are not substantially different than that of the 2014 CCAP and therefore there is no change in the environmental impacts associated with the CCAP. As such, it is appropriate for the proposed Project to rely on the CEQA Thresholds and Screening Tables that were adopted under the 2014 CCAP, since the 2022 update to the CCAP does not contain measures that would be substantially different than the 2014 CCAP.

4.6.3 BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
In order to assess the significance of a proposed Project’s environmental impacts it is necessary to identify quantitative or qualitative thresholds which, if exceeded, would constitute a finding of significance. While estimated Project-related GHG emissions can be quantified, the direct impacts of such emissions on GCC and global warming cannot be determined on the basis of available science.

There is no evidence at this time that would indicate that the emissions from a project the size of the proposed Project would directly or indirectly affect the global climate given the small size of the Project compared to the cumulative size and scale of all sources of GHG across the globe.

AB 32 states, in part, that “[g]lobal warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California.” Because global warming is the result of GHG emissions, and GHGs are emitted by innumerable sources worldwide, the proposed Project would have no potential to result in a direct impact to global warming; rather, Project-related contributions to GCC, if any, only have potential significance on a cumulative basis. Therefore, the 551
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

analysis below focuses on the Project’s potential to contribute to GCC in a cumulatively considerable way.

Section VII of Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines indicate that a project would result in a significant impact on climate change if a project were to (OPR, 2019):
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment;
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

4.6.4 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Threshold a: Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
As previously stated, SEIR prepared for The Ontario Plan 2050 identifies that the measures included in the 2022 update to the CCAP are not substantially different than that of the 2014 CCAP and therefore there is no change in the environmental impacts associated with the CCAP. As such, and consistent with the 2014 CCAP, this analysis relies on the annual screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr to define small projects that are considered less than significant and do not require further GHG emissions calculations or analysis. Projects that do not exceed an annual 3,000 MTCO2e/yr are therefore considered less than significant and would not require further analysis or mitigation. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 51)
The annual GHG emissions associated with the operation of the proposed Project are summarized in Table 4.6-3, Project GHG Emissions. As shown, construction and operation of the Project would generate a total of approximately 4,236.54 MTCO2e/yr. GHG emissions from existing land uses on the Project Site were subtracted from the Project’s gross emissions to determine the net (or new) emissions attributed to the Project. Construction and operation of the Project less emissions from the existing onsite uses would result a net total of new GHG emissions of approximately 2,590.77 MTCO2e/yr, which would fall below the significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr; therefore, Project-related GHG emissions are considered less than significant. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 59) Table 4.6-3 Project GHG Emissions
Emission Source
Emissions (MT/yr)
CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerants Total CO2e
Annual construction-related emissions
amortized over 30 years 30.43 6.67E-04 3.33E-04 0.01 30.77 Mobile Source 1,536.00 0.11 0.18 2.15 1,596.00
Area Source 5.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.64
552
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Emission Source
Emissions (MT/yr)
CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerants Total CO2e
Energy Source 847.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 850.00
Water Usage 88.10 2.04 0.05 0.00 154.00
Waste 22.70 2.27 0.00 0.00 79.30
Refrigerants 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,078.00 1,078.00
TRU Source 156.68
On-Site Equipment 286.15
Total CO2e (All Sources) 4,236.54
Subtraction of Emissions from Existing
Land Uses -1,645.77
Total Net CO2e (All Sources) 2,590.77
(Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 58)
Threshold b: Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? The Project’s consistency with the City’s CCAP, AB 32 and SB 32 are discussed below. It should be noted that the Project’s consistency with the SB 32 (2017 Scoping Plan) also satisfies consistency with AB 32 since the 2017 Scoping Plan is based on the overall targets established by AB 32. Consistency with the 2008 Scoping Plan is not necessary, since the target year for the 2008 Scoping Plan was 2020, and the Project’s buildout year is 2024. As such the 2008 Scoping Plan does not apply and consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan is relevant. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 59) Since the Project does not exceed the established annual screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr, the Project is considered less than significant, does not require further GHG emissions calculations or analysis, and is presumed to be consistent with the City’s CCAP. (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 59) In April 2015, Governor Brown signed EO B-30-15, which advocated for a statewide GHG-reduction target of 40 percent below year 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. In September 2016, Governor Brown signed the SB 32. SB 32 formally established a statewide goal to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below year 1990 levels by 2030. To date, no statues or regulations have been adopted to translate the year 2050 GHG reduction goal into comparable, scientifically-based statewide emission reduction targets.

CARB prepared the 2017 Scoping Plan Update to identify the measures that would achieve the emissions reduction goals of SB 32 (and, thus, also would achieve the emissions reductions goals of AB 32). Research conducted by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory confirmed that California, under its existing GHG reduction policy framework (i.e., Scoping Plan Update), is on track to meet the year 2030 reduction targets established by the SB 32 (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 37). As explained 553
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

in point-by-point detail in Table 4-7 of the Project’s GHGA (Refer to Technical Appendix F), the Project would not conflict with applicable measures of the 2017 Scoping Plan Update and, therefore, would not interfere with the State’s ability to achieve the year GHG-reduction targets established by AB 32 and SB32. Further, recent studies show that the State’s existing and proposed regulatory framework will allow the State to reduce its GHG emissions level to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 (Urban Crossroads, 2022d, p. 59-64)
In relation to CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan, the Project would not impede the State’s progress towards carbon neutrality by 2045 under the 2022 Scoping Plan. The Project would be required to comply with applicable current and future regulatory requirements promulgated through the 2022 Scoping Plan.

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

As described on the preceding pages, implementation of the Project would not conflict with the State’s ability to achieve the State-wide GHG reduction mandates and would be consistent with applicable policies and plans related to GHG emissions reductions. Implementation of the Project would not actively interfere with any future federally-, State-, or locally-mandated retrofit obligations (such as requirements to use new technologies such as diesel particulate filters, emissions upgrades to a higher tier equipment, etc.) enacted or promulgated to legally require development projects to assist in meeting State-adopted GHG emissions reduction targets, including those established under EO S-3- 05, EO B-30-15, or SB32. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs and would result in a less-thansignificant impact.

4.6.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
GCC occurs as the result of global emissions of GHGs. An individual development project does not have the potential to result in direct and significant GCC-related effects in the absence of cumulative sources of GHGs. The CEQA Guidelines emphasize that the effects of GHG emissions are cumulative and should be analyzed in the context of CEQA’s requirements for cumulative impacts analysis (See CEQA Guidelines Section 15130[f]). Accordingly, the analysis provided in subsection 4.6.4 reflects a cumulative impact analysis of the effects related to the Project’s GHG emissions, which concludes that the Project would not exceed the applicable threshold of significance and that the Project would not conflict with an applicable GHG-reduction plans, policies, or regulations. 554
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

4.6.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS BEFORE MITIGATION
Threshold a: Less-than-Significant Impact. 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.

Threshold b: Less-than-Significant Impact. 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.

4.6.7 MITIGATION
Impacts related to the Project’s GHG emissions would be less than significant; therefore, mitigation measures are not required.
555
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
This information and analysis presented in this Subsection is based in part on the technical study titled Phase I/Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report (Phase I/II ESA), dated March 31, 2022, that was prepared by Farallon Consulting, L.L.C. (referenced herein as “Farallon”) to determine the presence or absence of hazardous materials on the Project Site under existing conditions. The report is provided as Technical Appendix G to this EIR. This Subsection also relies on information from the City’s Policy Plan (Ontario, 2022a); The Ontario Plan 2050 SEIR (Ontario, 2022b); Cal Fire – Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map (CAL FIRE, 2008); and Google Earth (Google Earth, 2022). All references used in this Subsection are listed in EIR Section 7.0, References.

In this EIR, the term “toxic substance” is defined as a substance that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment. Toxic substances include chemical, biological, flammable, explosive, and radioactive substances.

In this EIR, the term “hazardous material” is defined as a substance that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may: 1) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, disposed of, or otherwise mismanaged; or 2) cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in irreversible or incapacitating illness.

Hazardous waste is defined in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Section 66261.3. The defining characteristics of hazardous waste are: ignitability (oxidizers, compressed gases, and extremely flammable liquids and solids), corrosivity (strong acids and bases), reactivity (explosives or generates toxic fumes when exposed to air or water), and toxicity (materials listed by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as capable of inducing systemic damage to humans or animals). Certain wastes are called “Listed Wastes” and are found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Sections 66261.30 through 66261.35. Wastes appear on the lists because of their known hazardous nature or because the processes that generate them are known to produce hazardous wastes (which are often complex mixtures).

4.7.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Under existing conditions, the Project Site is developed with a grain processing company (Verhoeven) and a corn storage and distribution facility (The Scoular Company). 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. An office and warehouse building, referred to as “Building A,” is located on the southern portion of the Site. The warehouse portion on the northeastern side of Building A contains a service shop for repairing machinery related to the grain mill. Wastes stored in this area include motor oil, hydraulic oil, and gear oil, primarily related to tractor and forklift operation.

A maintenance and repair shop, referred to as “Building B,” is present on the eastern portion of the Site, and is used for light tractor and forklift service. New and waste vehicle fluids are stored in a hazardous substance storage area on the southwestern interior border of Building B. Additional 556
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

structures on the eastern parcel consist of a warehouse referred to as “Building C” on the north-central portion, used for assorted storage; and two grain storage structures on the southeastern and southwestern portions of the parcel, referred to as “Buildings D and E.” 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: two on the eastern parcel, and one on the western parcel (Farallon, 2022, pp. 2-1). An additional septic system may be located beneath the eastern parcel, which is suspected to be present but not confirmed and cannot be confirmed until subsurface ground disturbance commences as part of the Project’s demolition and grading operation.

A. Historical Review, Regulatory Records Review, and Field Reconnaissance

1. Review of Historical Records
Farallon reviewed various sources of information to determine past uses of the Project Site, including historical aerial photographs, historical topographic maps, Environmental Data Resources (EDR) collection of regulatory database records, city directories, historical site occupants, and historical site ownership records. Refer to the Project’s Phase I/II ESA (refer to Technical Appendix G) for a detailed accounting of Farallon’s research procedure.

Topographic maps between 1897 and 1903 did not include much detail regarding the Project Site. The Project Site was used as agricultural or grazing land from at least the late 1930s to the early 1970s. By 1973, the eastern parcel was developed with small grain storage silos and other features associated with milling operations in the grain mill area. In the 1975 aerial photograph, grain appeared to be stockpiled in the southwestern portion of the Project Site in Buildings A through C. By 1985, the grain storage structures, Buildings D and E, were developed. By 2002, the Project Site appeared in its existing configuration. The 2002 aerial photograph shows grain processing operations had expanded to the western parcel, which included the development of three large grain storage silos. The Project Site has been occupied by Verhoeven from 1973 to the present; Chino Grain and Milling, Inc. in 1985; Coast Grain Company between 1990 and 2003; Scoular between 2004 and the present; and JD Heistell and Company in 2009 (Farallon, 2022, pp. 5-1).

2. Regulatory Records Review
Farallon researched federal, State, and local environmental records databases to identify properties with reported environmental issues. A summary of the research results is provided below; the detailed listings of the specific hazardous materials databases the Project Site appears on is provided in Section

6.0 of the Project’s Phase I /II ESA.
• JD Heiskell Holdings LLC, former occupant of the Site, was identified on HAZNET, Hazardous Waste Tracking System (HWTS), California Facility Inventory Database (CA FID) Underground Storage Tank (UST), Emissions Inventory Data (EMI), California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS), California Environmental Reporting System 557
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

(CERS), and Waste Data System (WDS) databases. The listings relate to hazardous material management, air quality permits, records of USTs, and industrial stormwater permits associated with livestock feed manufacturing operations. Hazardous wastes listed as being disposed of between 2003 and 2010 consisted of waste oil and mixed oil, aqueous solution with total organic residues less than 10 percent, other organic solvents, and asbestos-containing waste. No violations were identified in the listings. The listings for the USTs did not provide new information regarding contents, locations, and removal dates of the first-generation USTs.
• George Verhoeven Grain Inc., located on the Site, was identified on Facility Index System (FINDS), Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) non generators (NonGen/NLR), EMI, and CIWQS databases.

George Verhoeven Grain Inc. was also identified in the CERS, aboveground storage tank (AST), CERS HAZ WASTE, CERS TANKS, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), and San Bernadino County Permit databases (listed in the EDR Report under “Coast Grain Inc.).” The listings relate to hazardous material management, air quality permits, ASTs, and industrial stormwater permits associated with grain processing operations. The CERS TANKS listings indicated records of aboveground petroleum storage. No other information regarding ASTs was provided in the EDR database listings.

The CERS listing indicated some administrative violations during inspections; however, there were no violations indicating a spill or a release occurred at the Site. • The Scoular Company, located on the Site, was identified as “John Powell,” a manager of Scoular, based on information obtained online, in the HAZNET and HWTS databases. The listings related to hazardous material management between 2006 and 2010. Hazardous wastes in the listing included other organic solids, waste oil and mixed oil, unspecified aqueous solution, and unspecified organic liquid mixture. No violations were identified in the listings.
• Coast Grain Inc./Coast Grain Company, former occupant of the Site, was identified on UST, CERS HAZ WASTE, Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System (SWEEPS) UST, WDS, EMI, HAZNET, and HWTS databases. The listings related to records of USTs, industrial stormwater permits, air quality permits, and hazardous waste management associated with grain processing operations. The SWEEPS UST listing indicated the Site had five registered USTs. No specific information regarding the ASTs or USTs, including tank capacity, contents, or status, was provided in the listings. Hazardous wastes in the listing between 2002 and 2003 included tank bottom waste with halogenated organics.
• G&R Transportation, a freight shipping and trucking company, according to online resources, was listed as being associated with the Site address and identified in the HAULERS database. No pertinent information or violations were identified in the listing.

No current or historical information regarding tenants at the Site has indicated G&R 558
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Transportation occupied the Site, and this listing may be incorrectly associated with the Site.

Farallon also searched the GeoTracker database and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control online EnviroStor database (EnviroStor database) for records related to the Site, but found no listings (Farallon, 2022, pp. 6-1 to 6-2).

3. Field Reconnaissance
Farallon conducted an inspection of the Project Site and surrounding area on January 13, 2022 to observe the Site for physical evidence of recognized environmental conditions. Hazardous substances stored within the Building A warehouse on the eastern parcel included small quantities of oils and automotive fluids. The materials were observed to be stored on pallets, with no staining or other evidence of a significant release. Hazardous substances stored within Building B on the eastern parcel included two 55-gallon used oil drums; two 25-gallon grease carts; and a parts washer attached to a 55-gallon drum of Shellsol D43, a petroleum hydrocarbon-based mineral spirit. The materials were observed to be stored on pallets, with no staining or other evidence of a significant release. Hazardous substances within a fire cabinet in the western parcel office trailer included two 5-gallon gasoline canisters. Additional materials stored outside of the fire cabinet included ten 5-gallon pails containing truck lubricants, gear oil, and hydraulic oil; one 25-gallon grease cart; and one 5-gallon pail containing grease. The materials were observed to be stored on pallets, with no staining or other evidence of a significant release. (Farallon, 2022, pp. 8-2)
The eastern parcel is equipped with a vehicle wash-down area with a sump north of Building B, which is asphalt-paved and bermed, and was previously used for truck washing. Property personnel report that truck exteriors were washed in this area on an infrequent basis, and no undercarriage/chassis or engine washing was conducted on the Site. The wash area is equipped with a lined sump connected to an approximately 10,000-gallon AST via underground piping. The AST was empty at the time of the Site visit. Personnel report that the water tank has not been used in at least 11 years. Given the nature of use and that wash water was routed to an AST with no discharge, the vehicle wash-down area is considered a de minimis condition for the Site. (Farallon, 2022, pp. 8-5)  Staining and/or Corrosion
Farallon observed incidental petroleum staining on several areas of the Site, generally near petroleum product storage areas. No drains, sumps, clarifiers, or other potential subsurface conduits were observed in these areas. The staining is considered de minimis and does not constitute a recognized environmental condition. (Farallon, 2022, pp. 8-4)
559
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

 Storage Tank, Vent Pipe, and/or Fuel Port
Four ASTs were present on-site at the time of the field investigation:
• Two 250-gallon, reportedly double-walled diesel ASTs within secondary containment located on the northeastern exterior border of Building A and used for fueling tractors and forklift equipment. One of the ASTs is used by Verhoeven, and the other by Scoular. • One 220-gallon, reportedly double-walled hydraulic oil AST located on the northeastern exterior border of Building A. This AST is used to provide new hydraulic oil for equipment operation and maintenance.
• One 499-gallon, single-walled propane AST located east of Building C.

The ASTs were observed to be in good condition with de minimis staining to nearby concrete pads, and no evidence of a significant release. (Farallon, 2022, pp. 8-4)  Septic/Sewer System
Sanitary sewage generated at the Site discharges to three known on-site septic systems, two of which are located on the eastern parcel and one of which is located on the western parcel. Property personnel on the western parcel were unaware of the location of the septic systems. An additional septic system may be located beneath the eastern parcel, which is suspected to be present but not confirmed and cannot be confirmed until subsurface ground disturbance commences as part of the Project’s demolition and grading operation.

Because on-site septic systems appear to be used for domestic sewer, with limited hazardous material use in the proximity that could be introduced to the septic systems as a release pathway, the presence of the septic systems at Building E, Building A, and on the western parcel is considered a de minimis condition for the Site. Because the septic system east of Building B is connected to a building that has been subject to the use and release of chlorinated solvents, this septic system is considered a recognized environmental condition in connection with the Site. (Farallon, 2022, pp. 8-4)  Transformers
Three pad-mounted transformers were observed on the Site on the western parcel. No staining or leakage was observed in the vicinity of the transformers. Based on the good condition of the equipment, the transformers are not expected to represent a significant environmental concern. (Farallon, 2022, pp. 8-5)
B. Airport Hazards
The Project Site is located approximately 2.7 miles east of the Ontario International Airport (ONT).

Under existing conditions, the Project Site is exposed to noise from overflight of aircraft. The Project Site is not located within any ONT Safety Zone.
560
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

C. Wildland Fire Hazards
The Project Site is completely surrounded by urbanized land uses and the Site not located adjacent to any wildlands. Additionally, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) does not identify the Project Site within a very high fire hazard severity zone (CAL FIRE, 2008).

4.7.2 REGULATORY SETTING
Hazardous materials and hazardous wastes are regulated by various federal, State, and local regulations to protect public health and the environment. This section summarizes the overall regulatory framework governing hazardous materials management that is applicable to the Project and the Project Site.

A. Federal Plans, Policies, and Regulations

1. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, also known as CERCLA or Superfund, provides a Federal "Superfund" to clean up uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous-waste sites as well as accidents, spills, and other emergency releases of pollutants and contaminants into the environment (EPA, 2021d). Through CERCLA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was given power to seek out those parties responsible for any release and assure their cooperation in the cleanup. EPA cleans up orphan sites when potentially responsible parties cannot be identified or located, or when they fail to act. Through various enforcement tools, EPA obtains private party cleanup through orders, consent decrees, and other small party settlements. EPA also recovers costs from financially viable individuals and companies once a response action has been completed.

EPA is authorized to implement the Act in all 50 states and U.S. territories. Superfund site identification, monitoring, and response activities in states are coordinated through the state environmental protection or waste management agencies.

The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 reauthorized CERCLA to continue cleanup activities around the country. Several site-specific amendments, definitions clarifications, and technical requirements were added to the legislation, including additional enforcement authorities. Also, Title III of SARA authorized the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).

2. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) gives EPA the authority to control hazardous waste from the "cradle-to-grave;" this includes the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste (EPA, 2021e). RCRA also set forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes. The 1986 amendments to RCRA enabled EPA to address environmental problems that could result from underground tanks storing petroleum and other hazardous substances. 561
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

The Federal Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) are the 1984 amendments to RCRA that focused on waste minimization and phasing out land disposal of hazardous waste as well as corrective action for releases. Some of the other mandates of this law include increased enforcement authority for EPA, more stringent hazardous waste management standards, and a comprehensive underground storage tank program.

3. Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA)
The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1975 (HMTA) empowered the Secretary of Transportation to designate as hazardous material any "particular quantity or form" of a material that "may pose an unreasonable risk to health and safety or property." (OSHA, n.d.).

Hazardous materials regulations are subdivided by function into four basic areas:
• Procedures and/or Policies 49 CFR Parts 101, 106, and 107 • Material Designations 49 CFR Part 172
• Packaging Requirements 49 CFR Parts 173, 178, 179, and 180 • Operational Rules 49 CFR Parts 171, 173, 174, 175, 176, and 177 The HMTA is enforced by use of compliance orders (49 U.S.C. 1808(a)), civil penalties (49 U.S.C. 1809(b)), and injunctive relief (49 U.S.C. 1810). The HMTA (Section 112, 40 U.S.C. 1811) preempts state and local governmental requirements that are inconsistent with the statute, unless that requirement affords an equal or greater level of protection to the public than the HMTA requirement.

4. Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990 In 1990, Congress enacted the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act (HMTUSA) to clarify the maze of conflicting state, local, and federal regulations. Like the HMTA, the HMTUSA requires the Secretary of Transportation to promulgate regulations for the safe transport of hazardous material in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce (OSHA, n.d.). The Secretary also retains authority to designate materials as hazardous when they pose unreasonable risks to health, safety, or property.

The statute includes provisions to encourage uniformity among different state and local highway routing regulations, to develop criteria for the issuance of federal permits to motor carriers of hazardous materials, and to regulate the transport of radioactive materials.

5. Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)
Congress passed the Occupational and Safety Health Act (OSHA) to ensure worker and workplace safety. Their goal was to make sure employers provide their workers a place of employment free from recognized hazards to safety and health, such as exposure to toxic chemicals, excessive noise levels, mechanical dangers, heat or cold stress, or unsanitary conditions (EPA, 2021c). In order to establish standards for workplace health and safety, the Act also created the National Institute for Occupational 562
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Safety and Health (NIOSH) as the research institution for OSHA. OSHA is a division of the U.S.

Department of Labor that oversees the administration of the Act and enforces standards in all 50 states.

6. Toxic Substances Control Act
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 provides EPA with authority to require reporting, record-keeping and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures (EPA, 2021f). Certain substances are generally excluded from TSCA, including, among others, food, drugs, cosmetics, and pesticides. TSCA addresses the production, importation, use, and disposal of specific chemicals including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos, radon, and leadbased paint.

Various sections of TSCA provide authority to:
• Require, under Section 5, pre-manufacture notification for "new chemical substances" before manufacture.
• Require, under Section 4, testing of chemicals by manufacturers, importers, and processors where risks or exposures of concern are found.
• Issue Significant New Use Rules (SNURs), under Section 5, when it identifies a "significant new use" that could result in exposures to, or releases of, a substance of concern. • Maintain the TSCA Inventory, under Section 8, which contains more than 83,000 chemicals.

As new chemicals are commercially manufactured or imported, they are placed on the list. • Require those importing or exporting chemicals, under Sections 12(b) and 13, to comply with certification reporting and/or other requirements.
• Require, under Section 8, reporting and record-keeping by persons who manufacture, import, process, and/or distribute chemical substances in commerce. • Require, under Section 8(e), that any person who manufactures (including imports), processes, or distributes in commerce a chemical substance or mixture and who obtains information which reasonably supports the conclusion that such substance or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment to immediately inform EPA, except where EPA has been adequately informed of such information. EPA screens all submissions as well as voluntary "For Your Information" (FYI) submissions. The latter are not required by law, but are submitted by industry and public interest groups for a variety of reasons.

B. State Plans, Policies, and Regulations

1. Cal/OSHA and the California State Plan
Under an agreement with OSHA, since 1973 California has operated an occupational safety and health program in accordance with Section 18 of the federal OSHA. The State of California’s Department of Industrial Relations administers the California Occupational Safety and Health Program, commonly referred to as Cal/OSHA. The State of California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) is the principal agency that oversees plan enforcement and consultation. In addition, the California State program has an independent Standards Board responsible for promulgating State 563
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

safety and health standards, and reviewing variances. It also has an Appeals Board to adjudicate contested citations and the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement to investigate complaints of discriminatory retaliation in the workplace.

Pursuant to 29 CFR 1952.172, the California State Plan applies to all public and private sector places of employment in the State, with the exception of federal employees, the United States Postal Service, private sector employers on Native American lands, maritime activities on the navigable waterways of the United States, private contractors working on land designated as exclusively under federal jurisdiction and employers that require federal security clearances (OSHA, n.d.). Cal/OSHA is the only agency in the State authorized to adopt, amend, or repeal occupational safety and health standards or orders. In addition, the Standards Board maintains standards for certain things not covered by federal standards or enforcement, including: elevators, aerial passenger tramways, amusement rides, pressure vessels, and mine safety training. The Cal/OSHA enforcement unit conducts inspections of California workplaces in response to a report of an industrial accident, a complaint about an occupational safety and health hazard, or as part of an inspection program targeting industries with high rates of occupational hazards, fatalities, injuries or illnesses.

2. California Hazardous Waste Control Law
The Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL) (Health and Safety Code [HSC], Division 20, Chapter

6.5, Section 25100, et seq.) is the primary hazardous waste statute in California (CA Legislative Info, n.d.). The HWCL implements RCRA as a “cradle-to-grave” waste management system in the state. It specifies that generators have the primary duty to determine whether their wastes are hazardous and to ensure its proper management. The HWCL also establishes criteria for the reuse and recycling of hazardous wastes used or reuse as raw materials. The HWCL exceeds federal requirements by mandating source reduction planning and broadening requirements for permitting facilities that treat hazardous waste. It also regulates a number of waste types and waste management activities not covered by federal law (RCRA).

3. California Code of Regulations (CCR), Titles 5, 17, 22 and 26 A variety of California Code of Regulation (CCR) titles address regulations and requirements for generators of hazardous waste (DTSC, n.d.; DTSC, 2019). Title 5 contains the California Plumbing Code which, in Appendix H, establishes detailed standards for the capping, removal, fill, and disposal of cesspools, septic tanks, and seepage pits. Title 17, Division 1, Chapter 8, defines and regulates handling and disposal of lead-based paint. Any detectable amount of lead is regulated. Title 22 contains detailed compliance requirements for hazardous waste generators, transporters, and facilities for treatment, storage, and disposal. Because California is a fully-authorized state according to RCRA, most regulations (i.e., 40 CFR 260, et seq.) have been duplicated and integrated into Title 22. However, because the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) regulates hazardous waste more stringently than the EPA, the integration of state and federal hazardous waste regulations that make up Title 22 does not contain as many exemptions or exclusions as does 40 CFR 260. Title 22 also regulates a wider range of waste types and waste management activities than does RCRA. To aid the regulated 564
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

community, California has compiled hazardous materials, waste, and toxics-related regulations from CCR, Titles 3, 8, 13, 17, 19, 22, 23, 24 and 27 into one consolidated listing: CCR Title 26 (Toxics).

4. Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act
Proposition 65, officially known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.6, Section 25249.5, et seq.), protects the state’s drinking water sources from being contaminated with chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm, and requires businesses to inform Californians about exposures to such chemicals. Proposition 65 requires the state to maintain and update a list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.

5. Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program
California’s Unified Program, overseen by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), protects Californians from hazardous waste and hazardous materials by ensuring local regulatory agencies consistently apply statewide standards when they issue permits, conduct inspections, and engage in enforcement activities. The Unified Program is a consolidation of multiple environmental and emergency management programs, including the following:
o Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act (APSA) Program;
o Area Plans for Hazardous Materials Emergencies;
o California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program; o Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventories (Business Plans); o Hazardous Materials Management Plan (HMMP) and Hazardous Materials Inventory Statements (HMIS) (California Code);
o Hazardous Waste Generator and Onsite Hazardous Waste Treatment (tiered permitting) Programs; and
o Underground Storage Tank Program.

State agency partners involved in the implementation of the Unified Program are responsible for setting program element standards, working with CalEPA to ensure program consistency, and providing technical assistance to the California Unified Program Agencies (CUPAs) and Program Agencies (PAs). The state agencies involved with the Unified Program include CalEPA, Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), CAL FIRE – Office of the State Fire Marshall (CAL FIRE-OSFM), and the State Water Resources Control Board.

6. License to Transport Hazardous Materials
Caltrans regulates hazardous materials transportation on all interstate roads (California Vehicle Code, Section 32000.5, et seq). Within California, the State agencies with primary responsibility for enforcing federal and State regulations and for responding to transportation emergencies are the California Highway Patrol and Caltrans. Together, federal and State agencies determine driver-training 565
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

requirements, load labeling procedures, and container specifications for vehicles transporting hazardous materials.

7. California Hazardous Materials Release Response Plan and Inventory Law of 1985 The Business Plan Act requires preparation of Hazardous Materials Business Plans and disclosure of hazardous materials inventories, including an inventory of hazardous materials handled, plans showing where hazardous materials are stored, an emergency response plan, and provisions for employee training in safety and emergency response procedures for businesses that handle, store, or transport hazardous materials in amounts exceeding specified minimums (California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95, Article 1). Statewide, DTSC has primary regulatory responsibility for management of hazardous materials, with delegation of authority to local jurisdictions that enter into agreements with the State. Local agencies are responsible for administering these regulations.

Several state agencies regulate the transportation and use of hazardous materials to minimize potential risks to public health and safety, including CalEPA and the California Emergency Management Agency. The California Highway Patrol and Caltrans enforce regulations specifically related to the transport of hazardous materials. Together, these agencies determine container types used and license hazardous waste haulers for hazardous waste transportation on public roadways.

8. California Government Code (CGC) Section 51178
This section specifies that the Director of CalFire, in cooperation with local fire authorities, shall identify areas that are Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) in Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs), based on consistent statewide criteria, and the expected severity of fire hazard. Per CGC Section 51178, a local agency may, at its discretion, exclude an area within its jurisdiction that has been identified as a VHFHSZ, if certain conditions are met and/or specific findings can be made regarding the availability of effective fire protection services within the affected area.

C. Local Plans, Policies, and Regulations

1. Local Permitting Requirements
The aforementioned federal and State hazardous materials regulations require all businesses that handle more than a specified amount of hazardous materials or extremely hazardous materials to obtain a hazardous materials permit and submit a business plan to its local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). The CUPA also ensures local compliance with all applicable hazardous materials regulations.

The CUPA is the San Bernardino County Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Division. The San Bernardino County Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Division also manages the following hazardous waste programs: 1) Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory; 2) California Accidental Release Program; 3) Underground Storage Tanks; 4) Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act/Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan; 5) Hazardous Waste Generation and Onsite Treatment; and 6) Hazardous Materials Management Plans and Inventory. 566
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

2. City of Ontario Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
The City of Ontario’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) is a plan that the City reviews, monitors, and updates approximately every five years to reflect changing conditions and new information regarding hazards faced by the City of Ontario. The most current version is dated 2018 and it identify the City’s hazards, review, and assess past disaster occurrences, estimate the probability of future occurrences, and set goals to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from natural and man-made hazards. The LHMP contains a series of goals and mitigation programs to address each of the hazards.

3. Ontario International Airport – Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan The Ontario International Airport (ONT) Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) establishes safety zones, airspace protection zones, noise impact zones, and recorded overflight notification zones for areas within the ONT. The Project Site is located approximately 2.3 miles east of the ONT and is located within its airport influence area (AIA). Accordingly, the Project Site is subject to the ONT ALUCP. The Project Site is not located within any ONT Safety Zone but a small portion of the Site abutting East Airport Drive is located in an ONT noise impact zone (60-65 decibels). (Ontario, 2011)

4. SCAQMD Rule 1403 – Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities Rule 1403 requires the implementation of specific work practices to limit asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities, including the removal and associated disturbance of asbestos-containing materials (ACM) (SCAQMD, 2007). The requirements for demolition and renovation activities include asbestos surveying, notification, ACM removal procedures and time schedules, ACM handling and clean-up procedures, and storage, disposal, and landfilling requirements for asbestos-containing waste materials (ACWM).

4.7.3 METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATING HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IMPACTS The analysis of potential hazards and hazardous materials-related impacts is based on hazardous materials investigations prepared specifically for the Project Site. The investigations included site reconnaissance, review of published reports, maps, and aerial photographs, field investigations, and laboratory testing. The analysis also included a review of the City’s Policy Plan, information sources from State and Federal agencies, a review of applicable airport land use plans, hazardous materials mapping, fire hazard mapping, and other resource databases.

4.7.4 BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
Section VIII of Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines addresses typical adverse effects due to hazards and hazardous materials, and includes the following threshold questions to evaluate the Project’s impacts from hazards and hazardous materials (OPR, 2019):
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials;
567
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment;
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment;
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area; f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan;
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?

4.7.5 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Threshold a: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Threshold b: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Implementation of the Project would require demolition and removal of all existing structures and improvements on the Project Site, as well as the removal of all materials stored on the Site, and would result in the construction and long-term operation of one warehouse distribution building on the Site.

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

A. Impact Analysis for Existing Site Conditions

1. Soil Vapor
In March 2022, Farallon conducted soil and soil vapor sampling at the Site to assess former UST areas and septic systems, and the new building footprint for the potential for vapor intrusion issues. Results 568
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

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

2. Building Materials
The use of ACMs (a known carcinogen) and lead paint (a known toxin) was common in building construction prior to 1978. Because the Project Site contains structures known to be constructed before 1978, there is potential for ACMs and surfaces covered with lead paint to be present on the Project Site.

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

During demolition of the existing buildings on-site, there also is a potential to expose construction workers to health hazards associated with lead-based paint (LBP). The Project’s demolition and construction contractors would be required to comply with CCR Title 17, Division 1, Chapter 8, which includes requirements such as employer provided training, air monitoring, protective clothing, respirators, and hand washing facilities. Mandatory compliance with the requirements of CCR Title 17, Division 1, Chapter 8 would ensure that construction workers and the public are not exposed to 569
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

significant LBP health hazards during demolition and/or during transport of demolition waste to an appropriate disposal facility, and would ensure that impacts related to LBP remain less than significant.

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

C. Impact Analysis for Long-Term Operation
The future building occupant(s) for the Project Site are not yet identified. However, the Project is designed to house warehouse distribution occupants and it is possible that hazardous materials could be used during the course of a future building user’s daily operations. State and federal CommunityRight-to-Know laws allow the public access to information about the amounts and types of chemicals in use at local businesses. Laws also are in place that requires businesses to plan and prepare for possible chemical emergencies. Any business that occupies the warehouse building on the Project Site and that handles hazardous materials (as defined in Section 25500 of California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95) will require a permit from the San Bernardino County Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division in order to register the business as a hazardous materials handler. Such businesses also are required to comply with California’s Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law, which requires immediate reporting to the County of San Bernardino Fire Department and the State Office of Emergency Services regarding any release or threatened release of a hazardous material, regardless of the amount handled by the business, and to prepare a Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan (HMBEP). An HMBEP is a written set of procedures and information created to help minimize the effects and extent of a release or threatened release of a hazardous material. With mandatory regulatory compliance, the Project would not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, storage, emission, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor would the Project increase the potential for accident conditions which could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Based on the foregoing 570
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

information, potential hazardous materials impacts associated with long-term operation of the Project are regarded as less than significant.

Threshold c: Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
The Project Site is not within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The nearest school to the Project Site is the Chaparral Elementary School, which is located approximately 2.23 miles southeast of the Project Site. Accordingly, the Project has no potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, and/or wastes within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. No impact would occur.

Threshold d: Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Government Code Section 65962.5 requires State Department of Health Services (DTSC), State Water Resources Control Board, and the State Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery to maintain a list of hazardous materials sites that fall within specific, defined categories. As discussed in Subsection 4.7.1A.2, current and previous uses of the Project Site are included in several listings. No violations indicating a spill or a release were identified in the listings. Therefore, theses listings are not considered to represent a significant environmental concern. Additionally, Farallon searched the GeoTracker database and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control online EnviroStor database (EnviroStor database) for records related to the Site, but found no listings.

Two facilities (Costco Distribution Center to the south and Praxair, Inc. to the east) in the Project’s vicinity were also recorded in several listings. However, based on the status, depth to groundwater, and location of the property at a cross-gradient direction from the Project Site, no evidence was found to indicate that these properties represent a recognized environmental condition in connection with the Project Site. (Farallon, 2022, pp. 6-2 to 6-3) Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold e: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
The Project Site is located approximately 2.7 miles east of the Ontario International Airport (ONT).

According to the Ontario International Airport (ONT) Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), the Project Site is located within the ONT Airport Influence Area (Ontario, 2011). Moreover, the Project Site is located outside the 65community noise equivalent level (CNEL) noise impact zone and is subject to the Noise Criteria established on Table 2-3 in the ONT ALUCP. According to Table 2-3 of the ONT ALUCP, industrial land uses located outside the 65 dBA CNEL noise level contours of ONT, 571
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006