Ontario City Council
November 19, 2024

such as the Project, are considered normally compatible land use. For normally compatible land use, either the activities associated with the land use are inherently noisy or standard construction methods will sufficiently attenuate exterior noise to an acceptable indoor CNEL. Therefore, the Project would not result in excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area.

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

Threshold f: Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The City's Safety Element includes policies and procedures to be administered in the event of a disaster.

The Ontario Plan seeks interdepartmental and interjurisdictional coordination and collaboration to be prepared for, respond to and recover from everyday and disaster emergencies. The City manages disaster preparedness through the Technical Services Bureau of the Ontario Fire Department. This bureau is responsible for the preparation of the community for disasters and the organization of recovery efforts. The City updated a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan prepared by the Office of Emergency Services of the Ontario Fire Department in 2018. Because the Project Site has been historically used for industrial uses, it is not identified in any of these plans as being an evacuation area.

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

Threshold g: Would the Project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? The Project Site is not located adjacent to wildlands nor is the Project Site located within or adjacent to a very high fire hazard severity zone (CAL FIRE, 2008). Accordingly, the Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. No impact would occur.

4.7.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
As discussed above under the responses to Thresholds “a” and “b,” the Project’s construction and operation would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations to ensure proper use, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. Although the end user(s) of the Project Site are not presently known, if businesses that use or store hazardous materials occupy the Project, the 572
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

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

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

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

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

Therefore, the Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area and would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact associated with airport hazards.

The Project Site does not contain any emergency facilities nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation route; thus, there is no potential for the Project to contribute to any cumulative impacts associated with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

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

4.7.7 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS BEFORE MITIGATION
Threshold a and b: Potentially-Significant Impact. During Project construction and operation, mandatory compliance to federal, State, and local regulations would ensure that the proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the environment due to routine transport, use, disposal, or upset of hazardous materials. However, based on the results of the Phase I/II ESA, PCE impacts potentially 573
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

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.

Threshold c: No Impact. The Project Site is not located within one-quarter mile of any existing or proposed school. Accordingly, the Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Impacts to schools located more than one-quarter mile of the Project Site would be less than significant.

Threshold d: Less-than-Significant Impact. 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 and impacts would be less than significant.

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

Threshold f: Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project Site does not contain any emergency facilities nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation route. During construction and long-term operation, adequate emergency vehicle access is required to be provided. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan.

Threshold g: No Impact. The Project Site is not located in close proximity to wildlands or areas with high fire hazards. Thus, the Project would not expose people or structures to a significant wildfire risk.

4.7.8 MITIGATION
MM 4.7-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall prepare a Soil Management Plan (SMP). The SMP shall include explicit instructions for the appropriate handling, storage, and disposal of any known or potentially impacted soil during soil moving activities. The general contractor will be required to follow the requirements of the SMP and stop work to make notification to the environmental team if any potential impacts are observed at any time the environmental team is not already on-site. The SMP also requires air monitoring activities to monitor the air downwind of the Project Site and appropriate Health and Safety Plans that will be employed by site workers. The SMP shall identify specific requirements intended to protect human health when soil in certain areas of known or suspected impacts are disturbed for any reason, including, without limitation, as a result of demolition, utility installation/repair, soil excavation, drilling, grading/filling activities, stockpile generation, soil management, loading, and transportation. Requirements of the SMP include:
574
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

a. Health and Safety Plan (HASP): A HASP will be prepared and in effect for all activities associated with the SMP and other activities at the Project Site.

Contractors working onsite are expected to be operating under their own health and safety plans.
b. Environmental Monitoring: In accordance with SCAQMD Rules, air monitoring will be necessary in areas where potential PCE contaminated soil are to be disturbed. Air monitoring for dust may also be required in other areas. An air monitoring/health and safety professional will be present during relevant activities and responsibilities will include recording monitoring data on field sheets, which will be kept as part of Project documentation.
c. Soil Monitoring: Soils impacted by PCE that are encountered during site redevelopment will be characterized and documented. The monitoring and sampling activities to be performed include:
• Visual observation performed to detect areas of soil that may be impacted by PCE or other non-VOC hazardous materials, if encountered. • Screening for PCEs using field instruments to document new or previously undetected sources of PCEs.
• Soil sampling and chemical testing performed to evaluate concentrations of PCE.
d. Proper Soil Handling: If impacted soil is encountered, the area will be delineated as necessary with cones, caution tape, stakes, chalk, or flagging, and the area will not be disturbed further until an environmental professional is onsite for observation and determination of whether testing and/or excavation work is required. Stockpile staging areas will be delineated prior to the start of excavation.

All excavations will conform to applicable regulations, including Cal/OSHA Construction Safety Orders. The specific equipment, means, and methods to be utilized for soil removal, handling, and disposition will be selected based on the nature of the work to be conducted and its location on the site. If excavation is conducted during the rainy season (October through April), provisions will need to be made to prevent offsite migration of sediment in runoff. e. Fugitive Dust and Vapor Control: Appropriate procedures will be implemented to control the generation of airborne dust by soil removal activities, including, but not limited to, the use of water as a dust suppressant or stopping activities that have the potential to generate fugitive dust in the event wind conditions change creating an uncontrollable condition.
f. Excavation and Stockpiling: Impacted soil that is excavated and not immediately removed from the site will be stockpiled onsite and covered with plastic sheeting to control dust and minimize exposure to precipitation and wind. If a stockpile remains onsite during the rainy season, a perimeter sediment barrier, constructed 575
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

of material, such as straw bales or fiber roll, will also be installed. The stockpiles will be inspected biweekly at a minimum. During stockpile removal, only the working face of the stockpile will be uncovered. If the stockpiled impacted soil is to be transported offsite for disposal or recycling, the soil will be profiled for waste characteristics. Soil samples will be analyzed for parameters required by the disposal/recycling facility.
g. Responding to Unknown Conditions: If previously unknown impacted soil is suspected (based on visual staining, odors, photo ionization detector readings, or other observations), the area will be delineated and construction activity will cease in this area, and sampling of the unknown material will occur using USEPA methodology. Analysis will be conducted for TPH, metals, and/or VOCs, as appropriate. Analytical results will be compared to applicable regulatory screening levels. Based on this comparison, a determination will be made regarding soil disposition (reuse on-site, off-site transport, and disposal/recycling, etc.).

Additionally, if any UST or other subsurface features are encountered, a similar approach will be taken, and appropriate permitting, as necessary, will be obtained for the removal of the feature(s). Any permitted removals will be conducted with appropriate regulatory oversight, documentation, and reporting. h. Imported fill: As appropriate, offsite soils brought to the site for use as backfill (import fill), if necessary, will be tested in general conformance with the DTSC Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material document. i. Post-construction Requirements: If contaminated soil is left in place, the location of this soil will be surveyed or recorded by use of geographic positioning system equipment. Following the completion of construction, excavation, and disposition activities, a summary report will be prepared. The report will include a summary of activities, locations of soil sources and final disposition of contaminated soil, and estimated quantities of materials. Additionally, removal of any USTs or other subsurface features, if encountered, will be conducted under appropriate permits (if any) and documented in applicable reports for submittal to the Ontario Fire Department, or other regulatory agency, as appropriate.

4.7.9 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATION
Threshold a and b: Less-than-Significant Impact. Mitigation measure MM 4.7-1 would result in the preparation of a SMP for the Project. The SMP identifies requirements intended to protect human health when soil in certain areas of known or suspected areas are disturbed for any reason, including, without limitation, as a result of demolition, utility installation/repair, soil excavation, drilling, grading/filling activities, stockpile generation, soil management, loading, and transportation.

Requirements of the SMP include protocols for the HASP, environmental monitoring, proper soil handling (if impacted soil is encountered), fugitive dust and vapor control, excavation and stockpiling, soil monitoring, soil monitoring, responding to unknown conditions, imported fill, and postconstruction requirements. With the implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.7-1, the risk of 576
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

exposure of hazardous materials to the workers and the public through the routine transport, use, or disposal of contaminated or potentially contaminated soils or accident conditions would be less than significant.
577
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Information in this subsection relies on two technical reports prepared for the Project by Westland Group, Inc. (hereinafter, “Westland”): 1) “Preliminary Hydrology Report”, dated March 2022 (Westland, 2022a); and 2) “Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP)”, dated March 2022 (Westland, 2022b). These reports are provided as Technical Appendix H1 and H2, respectively, to this EIR. All other information sources referenced in this subsection are listed in EIR Section 7.0, References.

The Project Site is located within the Santa Ana River watershed and is under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). As such, information for this subsection also was obtained from the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan (updated June 2019) and the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) for the Santa Ana River watershed (also referred to as “One Water One Watershed Plan Updated 2018,” (February 19, 2019) prepared by the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA). These documents are herein incorporated by reference and are available for public review at the physical locations and website addresses given in EIR Section 7.0, References.

4.8.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Regional Hydrology
The Project Site is located within the 2,650-acre Santa Ana River watershed. Within the Santa Ana River watershed, the Santa Ana River is the principal surface flow water body within the region. The Santa Ana River originates in Santa Ana Canyon in the southern San Bernardino Mountains and runs southwesterly across San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange Counties, where it discharges into the Pacific Ocean at the City of Huntington Beach. The total length of the Santa Ana River and its major tributaries is approximately 700 miles. The location of the Project Site within the Santa Ana River watershed is illustrated on Figure 4.8-1, Santa Ana River Watershed Map.

B. Site Hydrology
The Project Site currently consists of approximately 92% impervious surface area. The natural drainage pattern for the existing condition of the Site is north to south. There are no existing no public storm drain systems at the frontage of the Project Site. Stormwater sheet flows south and discharges onto the existing curb and gutter on Airport Drive. Runoff flows east along Airport Drive and discharges into an existing catch basin located approximately 1,500 feet east of the Site. This existing catch basin is connected to the Lower Etiwanda Creek Channel, which conveys stormwater to the Wineville Basin. (Westland, 2022a, p. 1)
578
579
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

C. Flooding and Dam Inundation
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06071C8633J (effective 09/02/2016), the Project Site is located within FEMA Flood Zone X, which is correlated with areas of minimal flood hazard, determined to be less than the 0.2 percent annual chance flood. (FEMA, 2016)
D. Water Quality
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972 (also referred to as the Clean Water Act, CWA) requires all states to conduct water quality assessments of their water resources to identify water bodies that do not meet water quality standards. Water bodies that do not meet water quality standards due to excessive concentrations of pollutants are placed on a list of impaired waters pursuant to Section 303(d) of the CWA. Impaired water bodies to which stormwater from the City drains to include:

Cucamonga Creek, Reach 1 (Zinc, copper, cadmium, lead); San Antonio Creek (pH); Chino Creek, Reach 2 (Indicator bacteria, pH); Chino Creek, Reach 1B (Nutrients, indicator bacteria, COD); Prado Basin Management Zone (pH); and Prado Park Lake (Nutrients, indicator bacteria) (Ontario, 2022a, Table 5.10-1).

E. Groundwater
The City of Ontario obtains its groundwater from the Chino Groundwater Basin. The Chino Basin is one of the largest groundwater basins in southern California and encompasses about 235 square miles of the Upper Santa Ana River watershed. It lies in portions of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles counties. The Chino Basin has approximately 5 to 7 million acre-feet of water in storage and an estimated 1 million acre-feet of additional unused storage capacity. Prior to 1978, the Basin was in overdraft. After 1978, the Basin has been managed via adjudication by the Chino Basin Watermaster.

The Chino Basin Watermaster has determined the safe yield for the basin and has assigned individual pumping allocations to each water purveyor to ensure that the total groundwater production does not exceed the safe yield. (Ontario, 2022a, p. 5.10-13)
Free water was not encountered during the drilling of any of the borings on the Project Site. 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)
580
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

4.8.2 REGULATORY SETTING
The following is a brief description of the federal, state, and local environmental laws and related regulations related to hydrology and water quality.

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)

2. Federal Flood Insurance Program
The U.S. Congress established the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) with the passage of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. The NFIP is a Federal program enabling property owners in participating communities to purchase insurance as a protection against flood losses in exchange for State and community floodplain management regulations that reduce future flood damages.

Participation in the NFIP is based on an agreement between communities and the Federal Government.

If a community adopts and enforces a floodplain management ordinance to reduce future flood risk to new construction in floodplains, the Federal Government will make flood insurance available within the community as a financial protection against flood losses. This insurance is designed to provide an insurance alternative to disaster assistance to reduce the escalating costs of repairing damage to buildings and their contents caused by floods. The Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration (FIMA) within FEMA is responsible for administering the NFIP and administering programs that provide assistance for mitigating future damages from natural hazards. (FEMA, 2021a)

3. Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Management
Executive Order 11988 requires federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible the long- and shortterm adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of flood plains and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative. In accomplishing this objective, "each agency shall provide leadership and shall take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and to restore 581
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by flood plains in carrying out its responsibilities" for the following actions: (FEMA, 2021b)
• Acquiring, managing, and disposing of federal lands and facilities; • Providing federally-undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements; and • Conducting federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water and related land resources planning, regulation, and licensing activities.

B. State Plans, Policies, and Regulations

1. Porter-Cologne Water Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Act is the principal law governing water quality regulation in California. It establishes a comprehensive program to protect water quality and the beneficial uses of water. The Porter-Cologne Act applies to surface waters, wetlands, and ground water and to both point and nonpoint sources of pollution. Pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Act (California Water Code § 13000 et seq.), the policy of the State is as follows: (SWRCB, 2014) • That the quality of all the waters of the State shall be protected; • That all activities and factors affecting the quality of water shall be regulated to attain the highest water quality within reason; and
• That the State must be prepared to exercise its full power and jurisdiction to protect the quality of water in the State from degradation.

The Porter-Cologne Act established nine Regional Water Boards (based on hydrogeologic barriers) and the State Water Board, which are charged with implementing its provisions and which have primary responsibility for protecting water quality in California. The State Water Board provides program guidance and oversight, allocates funds, and reviews Regional Water Boards decisions. In addition, the State Water Board allocates rights to the use of surface water. The Regional Water Boards have primary responsibility for individual permitting, inspection, and enforcement actions within each of 9 hydrologic regions. The State Water Board and Regional Water Boards have numerous non-point source (NPS) related responsibilities, including monitoring and assessment, planning, financial assistance, and management. (SWRCB, 2014)
The Regional Water Boards regulate discharges under the Porter-Cologne Act primarily through issuance of NPDES permits for point source discharges and waste discharge requirements (WDRs) for NPS discharges. Anyone discharging or proposing to discharge materials that could affect water quality (other than to a community sanitary sewer system regulated by an NPDES permit) must file a report of waste discharge. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the RWQCBs can make their own investigations or may require dischargers to carry out water quality investigations and report on water quality issues. The Porter-Cologne Act provides several options for enforcing WDRs and other orders, including cease and desist orders, cleanup and abatement orders, administrative civil liability orders, civil court actions, and criminal prosecutions. (SWRCB, 2014) 582
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

The Porter-Cologne Act also implements many provisions of the Clean Water Act, such as the NPDES permitting program. The Porter-Cologne Act also requires adoption of water quality control plans that contain the guiding policies of water pollution management in California. In addition, regional water quality control plans (basin plans) have been adopted by each of the Regional Water Boards and get updated as necessary and practical. These plans identify the existing and potential beneficial uses of waters of the State and establish water quality objectives to protect these uses. The basin plans also contain implementation, surveillance, and monitoring plans. (SWRCB, 2014) The Project Site is located within the Santa Ana River watershed and is under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB.

The Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan (updated June 2019) is the governing water quality plan for the region.

2. California Water Code
The California Water Code is the principal state law regulating water quality in California. Water quality provisions must be complied with as contained in numerous code sections including: 1) the Health and Safety Code for the protection of ground and surface waters from hazardous waste and other toxic substances; 2) the Fish and Game Code for the prevention of unauthorized diversions of any surface water and discharge of any substance that may be deleterious to fish, plant, animal, or bird life; 3) the Harbors and Navigation Code for the prevention of the unauthorized discharge of waste from vessels into surface waters; and 4) the Food and Agriculture Code for the protection of groundwater which may be used for drinking water supplies. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), through provisions of the Fish & Game Code (§§ 1601 - 1603) is empowered to issue agreements for any alteration of a river, stream, or lake where fish or wildlife resources may be adversely affected. CDFW regulates wetland areas only to the extent that those wetlands are part of a river, stream, or lake as defined by CDFW. (CA Legislative Info, n.d.) Surface water quality is the responsibility of the RWQCB, water supply and wastewater treatment agencies, and city and county governments. The principal means of enforcement by the RWQCB is through the development, adoption, and issuance of water discharge permits. RWQCB basin plans establish water quality objectives that are defined as the limits or levels of water quality constituents or characteristics for the reasonable protection of beneficial uses of water. (CA Legislative Info, n.d.)

3. California Toxics Rule (CTR)
The California Toxics Rule (CTR) fills gap in California’s water quality standards necessary to protect human health and aquatic life beneficial uses. The CTR criteria are similar to those published in the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. The CTR supplements, and does not change or supersede, the criteria that EPA promulgated for California waters in the National Toxics Rule (NTR).

The human health NTR and CTR criteria that apply to drinking water sources (those water bodies designated in the Basin Plans as municipal and domestic supply) consider chemical exposure through consumption of both water and aquatic organisms (fish and shellfish) harvested from the water. For waters that are not drinking water sources (e.g., enclosed bays and estuaries), human health NTR and CTR criteria only consider the consumption of contaminated aquatic organisms. The CTR and NTR criteria, along with the beneficial use designations in the Basin Plans and the related implementation 583
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

policies, are the directly applicable water quality standards for toxic priority pollutants in California waters. (SWRCB, 2016, pp. 14-15)

4. CDFG Code Section 1600 et seq. (Lake- or Streambed Alteration Agreement Program)
Fish and Game Code § 1602 requires an entity to notify CDFW prior to commencing any activity that may do one or more of the following: (CDFW, n.d.)
• Substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream, or lake; • Substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel or bank of any river, stream, or lake; or
• Deposit debris, waste or other materials that could pass into any river, stream, or lake.

It should be noted that "any river, stream or lake" includes those that are episodic (they are dry for periods of time) as well as those that are perennial (they flow year-round). This includes ephemeral streams, desert washes, and watercourses with a subsurface flow. It may also apply to work undertaken within the flood plain of a body of water. (CDFW, n.d.) CDFW requires a Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Agreement when it determines that the activity, as described in a complete LSA Notification, may substantially adversely affect existing fish or wildlife resources. An LSA Agreement includes measures necessary to protect existing fish and wildlife resources. CDFW may suggest ways to modify a project that would eliminate or reduce harmful impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Before issuing an LSA Agreement, CDFW must comply with CEQA. (CDFW, n.d.)

5. Watershed Management Initiative (WMI)
The State and Regional Water Boards are currently focused on looking at entire watersheds when addressing water pollution. The Water Boards adopted the Watershed Management Initiative (WMI) to further their goals. The WMI establishes a broad framework overlying the numerous federal and State mandated priorities. As such, the WMI helps the Water Boards achieve water resource protection, enhancement and restoration while balancing economic and environmental impacts. (SWRCB, 2017) The integrated approach of the WMI involves three main ideas:
• Use water quality to identify and prioritize water resource problems within individual watersheds. Involve stakeholders to develop solutions.
• Better coordinate point source and nonpoint source regulatory efforts. Establish working relationships between staff from different programs.
• Better coordinate local, state, and federal activities and programs, especially those relating to regulations and funding, to assist local watershed groups. (SWRCB, 2017) 584
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

6. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA)
The 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires governments and water agencies of high and medium priority basins to halt overdraft and bring groundwater basins into balanced levels of pumping and recharge. Under SGMA, these basins should reach sustainability within 20 years of implementing their sustainability plans. The DWR categorizes the priority of groundwater basins. For critically over-drafted basins, that will be 2040. For the remaining high and medium priority basins, 2042 is the deadline. The SGMA also requires local public agencies and Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) in high- and medium-priority basins to develop and implement Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) or Alternatives to GSPs. GSPs are detailed road maps for how groundwater basins will reach long term sustainability. (DWR, n.d.) (DWR, 2020)

7. SWRCB Trash Amendments
On April 7, 2015, the SWRCB adopted an amendment to control trash that applies to the Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California and the Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California. They are collectively referred to as the “Trash Amendments.” The Trash Amendments do the following: (a) establish a narrative water quality objective for trash, (b) corresponding applicability, (c) establish a prohibition on the discharge of trash, (d) provide implementation requirements for permitted storm water and other discharges, (e) set a time schedule for compliance, and (f) provide a framework for monitoring and reporting requirements. The Trash Amendments apply to all surface waters of California and include a land-use-based compliance approach to focus trash controls on areas with high trash-generation rates. Areas such as high density residential, industrial, commercial, mixed urban, and public transportation stations are considered priority land uses. The Santa Ana RWQCB implements the statewide Trash Amendments through Water Code Section 13383 Orders that contain region specific requirements. There are two compliance tracks:
• Track 1. Permittees must install, operate, and maintain a network of certified full capture systems in storm drains that capture runoff from priority land uses. • Track 2. Permittees must implement a plan with a combination of full capture systems, multi-benefit projects, institutional controls, and/or other treatment methods that have the same effectiveness as Track 1 methods. (SWRCB, 2022)
The Project would be required to comply with the latest State Trash Amendments and the MS4 Permit by installing the appropriate Full Capture System or equivalent.

4.8.3 BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
Section IX of Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines addresses typical adverse effects to hydrology and water quality, and includes the following threshold questions to evaluate the Project’s impacts on hydrology and water quality (OPR, 2019):
585
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality;
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin; c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows;
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation; e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?

4.8.4 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Threshold a: Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? The Project Applicant would be required to comply with Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, which authorizes the NPDES permit program that covers point sources of pollution discharging to a water body. The NPDES program would require the Project Applicant and/or construction contractor to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and obtain authorization to discharge stormwater under a NPDES construction stormwater permit because the Project would result in construction on a site that is larger than 1 acre. The Project Applicant also would be required to comply with the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Section 13000 et seq., of the California Water Code), which requires that comprehensive water quality control plans be developed for all waters within the State of California. The Project Site is located within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB.
586
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

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

Pursuant to the requirements of the Santa Ana RWQCB and Ontario Municipal Code Title 6, Chapter 6, Article IV and V, the Project Applicant would be required to obtain coverage under the State’s General Construction Storm Water Permit for construction activities (NPDES permit). The NPDES permit is required for all development projects that include construction activities, such as clearing, grading, and/or excavation, that disturb at least one (1) acre of total land area. In addition, the Project Applicant would be required to comply with the Sana Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program. Compliance with the NPDES permit and the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program involves the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP for constructionrelated activities. The SWPPP will specify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that the Project’s construction contractors would be required to implement during construction activities to ensure that potential pollutants of concern are prevented, minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately treated prior to being discharged from the subject property. Examples of BMPs that may be utilized during construction include, but are not limited to, sandbag barriers, geotextiles, storm drain inlet protection, sediment traps, rip rap soil stabilizers, and hydroseeding. Pursuant to Ontario Municipal Code Title 6, Chapter 12, the Project Applicant also would be required to implement erosion control measures to prevent soil erosion by wind. Mandatory compliance with the SWPPP and erosion control measures would ensure that the Project construction does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Therefore, water quality impacts associated with construction activities would be less than significant.

B. Post-Development Water Quality Impacts
The Project Applicant would be required to prepare and implement a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to demonstrate compliance with the City’s NPDES municipal stormwater permit, and to minimize the release of potential waterborne pollutants, including pollutants of concern for downstream receiving waters. The WQMP is a site-specific post-construction water quality management program designed to address the potential release of pollutants of concern for downstream receiving waters and other water pollutants through the use of BMPs. Implementation of the WQMP ensures on-going, long-term protection of the watershed basin. The preliminary WQMP for the Project was prepared by Westland and is included as Technical Appendix H2 to this EIR. As identified in the WQMP, the Project is designed to include underground stormwater retention chambers, source control BMPs, and treatment control BMPs to minimize, prevent, and/or otherwise appropriately treat stormwater runoff flows for pollutants of concern before they are discharged into the municipal storm drain system (Westland, 2022b, pp. 4 to 6). Compliance with the preliminary WQMP would be 587
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

required as a condition or Project approval pursuant to Ontario Municipal Code Title 6, Chapter 6, Article V, and long-term maintenance of on-site BMPs would be required to ensure their long-term effectiveness. Therefore, water quality impacts associated with long-term operational activities would be less than significant.

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

Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality during longterm operation. Impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold b: Would the Project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Water service to the Project Site would be provided by the Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC). As depicted in Figure 3-7, Proposed Utility Plan, water would be accommodated via proposed water lines that would extend from the southeastern and southwestern corners of the building to an existing 12-inch water main at East Airport Drive. The Project Applicant does not propose the use of any wells or other groundwater extraction activities. Therefore, the Project would not directly draw water from the groundwater table. Implementation of the Project has no potential to substantially deplete or decrease groundwater supplies and the Project’s impact to groundwater supplies would be less than significant.

Development of the Project would slightly increase impervious surface coverage on the Project Site, which would, in turn, slightly reduce the amount of water percolating down into the underground aquifer that underlies the Project Site and a majority of the City and surrounding areas (i.e., Chino 588
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Groundwater Basin). Percolation is just one of several sources of groundwater recharge for the Subbasin. A majority of the groundwater recharge in the Chino Groundwater Basin occurs within percolation basins (“recharge basins”) that are located in the northern and western portions of the Basin (CBWM, 2021, Exhibit 3-5). The Project Site is located in the central portion of the Chino Groundwater Basin and would not physically impact any of the major groundwater recharge facilities in the Basin. Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial, adverse effects to local groundwater levels. Additionally, the Project includes design features that would maximize the percolation of onsite stormwater runoff into the groundwater basin, such as underground infiltration chambers and permeable landscape areas. Accordingly, buildout of the Project with these design features would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge or impede sustainable groundwater management of the Chino Groundwater Basin. Based on the foregoing information, the Project would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge.

For the reasons stated above, the Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project would impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold c: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or impeded or redirect flood flows?
The proposed Project entails redevelopment of the Project Site with one warehouse building supported by drive aisles and parking areas for passenger vehicles and trailers. Docking areas are located southfacing façade of the proposed building. Landscape areas are proposed around the perimeter of the Site.

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

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

Stormwater is designed to sheet flow from north to south and be captured by proposed onsite catch basins. The proposed on-site storm drain system is designed to convey the flow into a proposed underground infiltration chamber. This system is designed to meet project’s water quality requirements and provide sufficient storage to meet the 100-year storm hydrology requirement. In a large storm event, stormwater would exit the underground chamber system via pipes and be pumped out through a proposed parkway drain on Airport Drive. Runoff would sheet flow east along Airport Drive and discharge into the existing catch basin to maintain the same point of discharge as the existing condition. (Westland, 2022a, p. 2) See Figure 4.8-1, Proposed Post-Development Hydrology Map, for the postdevelopment drainage map. 589
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

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

A. Erosion and Siltation
The Project would not alter the existing drainage pattern. Pursuant to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board, the Project Applicant would be required to obtain coverage under the State’s General Construction Storm Water Permit for construction activities (NPDES permit). The NPDES permit is required for all development projects, including the Project, that include construction activities, such as clearing, grading, and/or excavation, that disturb at least 1 acre of total land area. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program. Compliance with the NPDES permit and the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program involves the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP for construction-related activities. The SWPPP will specify the BMPs that would be required to be implemented during construction activities to ensure that waterborne pollution – including erosion/siltation – is prevented, minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately treated prior to surface runoff being discharged from the subject property. Examples of BMPs that may be utilized during construction include, but are not limited to, sandbag barriers, geotextiles, storm drain inlet protection, sediment traps, rip rap soil stabilizers, and hydro-seeding. Lastly, the Project would be required to implement erosion control measures pursuant to Ontario Municipal Code Title 6, Chapter 12, and to ensure compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403. Mandatory compliance with the SWPPP and the Cityrequired erosion control measures would ensure that the Project’s implementation does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction activities. Based on the foregoing information, erosion and sedimentation impacts associated with Project construction activities would be less than significant.
590
591
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

During operation of the Project, the Project Applicant would be required to prepare and implement a WQMP to demonstrate compliance with the City’s NPDES municipal stormwater permit, and to minimize the release of potential waterborne pollutants, including pollutants of concern for downstream receiving waters. The WQMP is a site-specific post-construction water quality management program designed to address the potential release of pollutants of concern for downstream receiving waters and other water pollutants through the use of BMPs. Implementation of the WQMP ensures on-going, long-term protection of the watershed basin. The PWQMP for the Project was prepared by Westland and is included as Technical Appendix H2 to 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.

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

Table 4.8-1 Pre-Development Hydrology Summary Table
Storm Event Area (Acres) Tc (min.) Intensity
(in/hr)
Flow Rate
(cfs) (Rational
Method)
Volume(cf)
(Unit
Hydrograph)
2-Year 12.85 14.77 1.71 14.42 --
100-Year 14.20 3.11 38.03 241,431
Source: (Westland, 2022a, Table 4.2.1)
Table 4.8-2 Post-Development Hydrology Summary Table
Storm Event Area (Acres) Tc (min.) Intensity
(in/hr)
Flow Rate
(cfs) (Rational
Method)
Volume(cf)
(Unit
Hydrograph)
2-Year 12.85 12.60 1.20 12.92 --
100-Year 14.39 309 35.24 237,145
Source: (Westland, 2022a, Table 4.2.2)
The proposed Project would not create or contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of the existing downstream storm drain system. At buildout, the Project would discharge approximately 35.24 cubic feet per second (cfs) to the existing storm drain system, which is an approximately 7 percent decrease relative to existing conditions. Furthermore, the underground infiltration system is designed to accommodate the 100-year storm event and would not exceed the flow rates and runoff volumes generated by the existing condition. Once construction is complete, there would not be any substantial 592
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

increase in flood boundaries, levels, or frequencies in any areas outside the development. (Westland, 2022a, p. 4)
Based on the foregoing information, the Project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site. Impacts would be less than significant.

C. Stormwater Drainage System Capacity & Polluted Runoff As described above, buildout of the Project would reduce the cfs of runoff discharged into the existing municipal storm drain system during peak storm events relative to existing conditions. Accordingly, the Project would not create or contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of any existing storm water drainage system, and impacts would be less than significant.

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

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

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

Threshold d: Would the Project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
The Project Site is located approximately 38 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean; consequently, there is no potential for the Project Site to be impacted by a tsunamis as tsunamis typically only reach up to a few miles inland. The Project Site also is not subject to flooding hazards associated with a seiche because the nearest body of water is the San Antonio Dam, approximately 10 miles to the north of the Project Site, which is too far away from the subject property to impact the property with a seiche (Google Earth, 2021). According to The Ontario Plan 2050 EIR, the Project Site is not located within the potential inundation from San Antonio Dam; however, the Project Site is adjacent to an area with potential inundation from debris basins (Ontario, 2022a, Figure 5.10-3). The probability of dam failure is very low, and Ontario has never been impacted by a major dam failure. In addition, dam owners are required to maintain emergency action plans that include procedures for damage assessment and emergency warnings. (Ontario, 2022a, p. 5.10-26) Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant. 593
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Threshold e: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
As discussed under Threshold “a” above, the Project Site is located within the Santa Ana River Basin and Project-related construction and operational activities would be required to comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan by preparing and adhering to a SWPPP and WQMP. As also discussed in Threshold “a” above, implementation of the Project would not conflict with or obstruct the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan and impacts would be less than significant.

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

4.8.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
The cumulative impact analysis considers construction and operation of the Project in conjunction with other development projects in the vicinity of the Project Site and projects located in the Santa Ana River Basin and Chino Groundwater Basin.

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

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

Compliance with these mandatory regulatory requirements, would ensure that development projects within the Santa Ana River watershed, including the proposed Project, would not contribute substantially to water quality impairments during construction.

Operational activities on the Project Site would be required to comply with the Project’s WQMP to minimize the amount of waterborne pollution, including erosion and sediment, discharged from the Site. Other development projects within the watershed would similarly be required by law to prepare 594
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

and implement Site-specific WQMPs to ensure that runoff does not substantially contribute to water quality violations. Accordingly, operation of the Project would not contribute to cumulativelyconsiderable water quality effects.

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

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

Additionally, the Project Site is not located within a special flood hazard area or in an area subject to inundation. Accordingly, development on the Project Site would have no potential to impede or redirect flood flows and a cumulatively-considerable impact would not occur. 595
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

4.8.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS BEFORE MITIGATION
Threshold a: Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality.

Adherence to a SWPPP and WQMP is required as part of the Project’s implementation to address construction- and operational-related water quality.

Threshold b: Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project would not physically impact any of the major groundwater recharge facilities in the Chino Groundwater Basin. The Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project would impede sustainable groundwater management of the Basin.

Threshold c: Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project would be required to comply with applicable water quality regulatory requirements to minimize erosion and siltation. Additionally, the Project would not result in flooding on- or off-site or impede/redirect flood flows. Lastly, the Project would not create or contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.

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

The probability of dam failure is very low, and Ontario has never been impacted by a major dam failure.

In addition, dam owners are required to maintain emergency action plans that include procedures for damage assessment and emergency warnings.

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

4.8.7 MITIGATION
Impacts would be less than significant; therefore, mitigation is not required. 596
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Noise
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

4.9 NOISE
This Subsection addresses the environmental issue of noise, including existing noise levels in the Project area and the Project’s potential to introduce new or elevated sources of noise. The analysis contained herein incorporates information contained in a technical report prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., titled “5355 East Airport Drive Noise Impact Analysis” (noise analysis) and dated August 3, 2022 (Urban Crossroads, 2022e). The report is included as Technical Appendix I to this EIR.

Refer to Section 7.0, References, for a complete list of reference sources used in the analysis presented in this Subsection.

4.9.1 NOISE FUNDAMENTALS
A. Noise Definitions
Noise is simply defined as “unwanted sound.” Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, when it causes physical harm, or when it has adverse effects on health. Because the range of sound that the human ear can detect is large, the scale used to measure sound intensity is based on multiples of 10, the logarithmic scale. The unit of measure to describe sound intensity is the decibel (dB). A sound increase of 10 dB represents a ten-fold increase in sound energy and is perceived by the human ear as being roughly twice as loud. A-weighted decibels (dBA) approximate the subjective response of the human ear to broad frequency noise sources by discriminating against very low and very high frequencies of the audible spectrum (i.e., frequencies that are not audible to the human ear).

The most common sounds vary between 40 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Normal conversation at a distance of three feet is roughly 60 dBA, while a jet engine is 110 dBA at approximately 100 feet (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, pp. 7-8) B. Noise Descriptors
Environmental noise descriptors are generally based on averages, rather than instantaneous, noise levels. The most used noise descriptor is the equivalent level (Leq). Equivalent sound levels are not measured directly but are calculated from sound pressure levels typically measured in A-weighted decibels (dBA). The equivalent sound level (Leq) represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period and is commonly used to describe the “average” noise levels within the environment.

Peak hour or average noise levels, while useful, do not completely describe a given noise environment.

Noise levels lower than peak hour may be disturbing if they occur during times when quiet is most desirable, namely evening and nighttime (sleeping) hours. To account for this, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), representing a composite 24-hour noise level is utilized. The CNEL is the weighted average of the intensity of a sound, with corrections for time of day, and averaged over 24 hours. The time-of-day corrections require the addition of 5 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and the addition of 10 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels at night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. These additions are made to account for the noise sensitive time periods during the evening and night hours when noise can become more intrusive. CNEL does not represent the actual sound level heard at any time, but rather represents the total sound exposure. The 597
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Noise
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

City of Ontario relies on the 24-hour CNEL level to assess land use compatibility with transportation related noise sources (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 8).

C. Sound Propagation
When sound propagates over a distance, it changes in level and frequency content. The manner in which noise reduces with distance depends on geometric spreading, ground absorption, atmospheric effects, and shielding.

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

Sound levels attenuate at a rate of 3 dB for each doubling of distance from a line source (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 8).

2. Ground Absorption
The propagation path of noise from a highway to a receiver is usually very close to the ground. Noise attenuation from ground absorption and reflective wave canceling adds to the attenuation associated with geometric spreading. Traditionally, the excess attenuation has also been expressed in terms of attenuation per doubling of distance. This approximation is usually sufficiently accurate for distances of less than 200 ft. For acoustically hard sites (i.e., sites with a reflective surface between the source and the receiver, such as a parking lot or body of water), no excess ground attenuation is assumed. For acoustically absorptive or soft sites (i.e., those sites with an absorptive ground surface between the source and the receiver such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees), an excess ground attenuation value of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally assumed. When added to the cylindrical spreading, the excess ground attenuation results in an overall drop-off rate of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance from a line source (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, pp. 8-9).

3. Atmospheric Effects
Receivers located downwind from a source can be exposed to increased noise levels relative to calm conditions, whereas locations upwind can have lowered noise levels. Sound levels can be increased at large distances (e.g., more than 500 feet) due to atmospheric temperature inversion (i.e., increasing temperature with elevation). Other factors such as air temperature, humidity, and turbulence can also have significant effects (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 9).

4. Shielding
A large object or barrier in the path between a noise source and a receptor can substantially attenuate noise levels at the receptor. The amount of attenuation provided by shielding depends on the size of 598
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Noise
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

the object and the frequency content of the noise source. Shielding by trees and other such vegetation typically only has an “out of sight, out of mind” effect. That is, the perception of noise impact tends to decrease when vegetation blocks the line-of-sight to nearby residents. However, for vegetation to provide a substantial, or even noticeable, noise reduction, the vegetation area must be at least 15 feet in height, 100 feet wide and dense enough to completely obstruct the line-of-sight between the source and the receiver. This size of vegetation may provide up to 5 dBA of noise reduction. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) does not consider the planting of vegetation to be a noise abatement measure (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 9).

D. Response to Noise
Approximately 16 percent of the population has a very low tolerance for noise and will object to any noise not of their own making. Consequently, even in the quietest environment, some complaints will occur. 20 to 30 percent of the population will not complain even in very severe noise environments.

Thus, a variety of reactions can be expected from people exposed to any given environment. Despite this variability in behavior on an individual level, the population as a whole can be expected to exhibit the following responses to changes in noise levels: an increase of 1 dBA cannot be perceived except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments; a change of 3 dBA is considered “barely perceptible;” and a change of 5 dBA is considered “readily perceptible.” (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 10) E. Vibration
Vibration is the periodic oscillation of a medium or object. Sources of groundborne vibration include natural phenomena (e.g., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides) or human-made causes (e.g., explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment). Vibration sources may be continuous, such as factory machinery, or transient, such as explosions. As is the case with airborne sound, groundborne vibrations may be described by amplitude and frequency. Vibration is often described in units of velocity (inches per second) and decibels (dB) and is denoted as VdB.

The background vibration-velocity level in residential areas is generally 50 VdB. Groundborne vibration is normally perceptible to humans at approximately 65 VdB. For most people, a vibrationvelocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 11).

4.9.2 EXISTING NOISE CONDITIONS
A. Existing Study Area Ambient Noise Conditions
Urban Crossroads recorded 24-hour noise readings at 4 locations in the area of sensitive noise receivers nearest to the Project Site, which are on the opposite side of I-15 and I-10 from the Project Site, on March 8, 2022. The noise measurement locations are identified in Figure 4.9-1, Noise Measurement Locations. The results of the existing noise level measurements are summarized below. Noise measurement worksheets for the hourly noise levels and the minimum and maximum observed noise levels at each measurement location are provided in the noise analysis (refer to Technical Appendix I).

In general, the existing background ambient noise levels in the Project area are dominated by traffic 599
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Noise
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

noise associated with automobiles and truck traffic on the local arterial roadway network. It should be noted that hotel uses are generally not considered sensitive receptors since occupants are temporary and transient, but for the purpose of a conservative analysis, hotels are considered sensitive receptors for the analysis of this Project.
• Location L1 represents the noise levels located northwest of the Project Site near Ayres Hotel Ontario Mills Mall at 4395 Ontario Mills Parkway. The noise level measurements collected show an average daytime noise level calculated to be 58.4 dBA Leq and an average nighttime noise level calculated to be 59.0 dBA Leq at Location L1. • Location L2 represents the noise levels located northwest of the Project Site near Hampton Inn & Suites Ontario at 4500 Ontario Mills Parkway. The noise level measurements collected show an average daytime noise level calculated to be 61.7 dBA Leq and an average nighttime noise level calculated to be 61.3 dBA Leq at Location L2. • Location L3 represents the noise levels located northwest of the Project Site near Country Inn & Suites by Radisson, Ontario at Ontario Mills at 4674 Ontario Mills Parkway. The noise level measurements collected show an average daytime noise level calculated to be

67.1 dBA Leq and an average nighttime noise level calculated to be 62.2 dBA Leq at Location L3.
• Location L4 represents the noise levels located northwest of the Project Site near Hyatt Place Ontario/Rancho Cucamonga at 4760 Mills Circle. The noise level measurements collected show an average daytime noise level calculated to be 69.8 dBA Leq and an average nighttime noise level calculated to be 68.2 dBA Leq at Location L4. (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 24)
B. Existing Airport Noise
The Project Site is located approximately 2.7 miles east of the Ontario International Airport (ONT).

This places the Project Site within the ONT Airport Influence Area according to Policy Map 2-1 of the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ONT ALUCP). Within the ONT Airport Influence Area, most of the Project Site is located outside the 65 dB CNEL airport noise impact zone. (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 16)
600
601
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Noise
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

4.9.3 REGULATORY SETTING
The following is a brief description of the federal, state, and local environmental laws and related noise-related regulations.

A. Federal Plans, Policies, and Regulations

1. Noise Control Act of 1972
The Noise Control Act of 1972 establishes a national policy to promote an environment for all Americans free from noise that jeopardizes their health and welfare. The Act also serves to 1) establish a means for effective coordination of Federal research and activities in noise control; 2) authorize the establishment of Federal noise emission standards for products distributed in commerce; and 3) provide information to the public respecting the noise emission and noise reduction characteristics of such products. (EPA, 2021b)
While primary responsibility for control of noise rests with State and local governments, Federal action is essential to deal with major noise sources in commerce, control of which require national uniformity of treatment. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is directed by Congress to coordinate the programs of all Federal agencies relating to noise research and noise control. (EPA, 2021b)

2. Federal Transit Administration
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) published a Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (NVIA), which provides guidance for preparing and reviewing the noise and vibration sections of environmental documents. In the interest of promoting quality and uniformity in assessments, the manual is used by project sponsors and consultants in performing noise and vibration analyses for inclusion in environmental documents. The manual sets forth the methods and procedures for determining the level of noise and vibration impact resulting from most federally-funded transit projects and for determining what can be done to mitigate such impact. (FTA, 2006, p. 1-1) The NVIA also establishes criteria for acceptable ground-borne vibration, which are expressed in terms of root mean square (rms) velocity levels in decibels and the criteria for acceptable ground-borne noise are expressed in terms of A-weighted sound levels. As shown in Table 4.9-1, Ground-Borne Vibration and Ground-Borne Noise Impact Criteria for General Assessment, the FTA identifies three categories of land uses and provides Ground-Based Vibration (GBV) and Ground-Based Noise (GBN) criteria for each category of land use. (FTA, 2006, pp. 8-3 and 8-4) 602
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Noise
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Table 4.9-1 Ground-Borne Vibration and Ground-Borne Noise Impact Criteria for General Assessment
Source: (FTA, 2006, Table 8-1)

3. Federal Highway Administration
The FHWA is the agency responsible for administering the Federal-aid highway program in accordance with Federal statutes and regulations. The FHWA developed the noise regulations as required by the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-605, 84 Stat. 1713). The regulation, Title 23 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations Part 772 Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise, applies to highway construction projects where a State department of transportation has requested Federal funding for participation in the project. The regulation requires the highway agency to investigate traffic noise impacts in areas adjacent to federally-aided highways for proposed construction of a highway on a new location or the reconstruction of an existing highway to either significantly change the horizontal or vertical alignment or increase the number of through-traffic lanes. If the highway agency identifies impacts, it must consider abatement. The highway agency must incorporate all feasible and reasonable noise abatement into the project design. (FHWA, 2017)
The FHWA regulations for mitigation of highway traffic noise in the planning and design of federally aided highways are contained in 23 CFR 772. The regulations contain noise abatement criteria, which 603
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Noise
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

represent the upper limit of acceptable highway traffic noise for different types of land uses and human activities. The regulations do not require meeting the abatement criteria in every instance. Rather, they require highway agencies make every reasonable and feasible effort to provide noise mitigation when the criteria are approached or exceeded. Compliance with the noise regulations is a prerequisite for the granting of Federal-aid highway funds for construction or reconstruction of a highway. (FHWA, 2017)

4. Construction-Related Hearing Conservation
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) hearing conservation program is designed to protect workers with significant occupational noise exposures from hearing impairment even if they are subject to such noise exposures over their entire working lifetimes. Standard 29 CFR, Part 1910 indicates the noise levels under which a hearing conservation program is required to be provided to workers exposed to high noise levels. (OSHA, 2002) Note: This analysis does not evaluate the noise exposure of construction workers within the Project Site based on CEQA requirements, and instead, evaluates the Project‐related construction noise levels at the nearby sensitive receiver locations in the Project study area. Further, periodic exposure to high noise levels in short duration, such as Project construction, is typically considered an annoyance and not impactful to human health. It would take several years of exposure to high noise levels to result in hearing impairment.

B. State Plans, Policies, and Regulations

1. State of California Noise Requirements
The State of California regulates freeway noise, sets standards for sound transmission, provides occupational noise control criteria, identifies noise standards, and provides guidance for local land use compatibility. State law requires that each county and city in the State adopt a General Plan that includes a Noise Element, which is to be prepared according to guidelines adopted by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). The purpose of the Noise Element is to limit the exposure of the community to excessive noise levels.

2. Building Standards Code
The State of California’s noise insulation standards are codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 2, and the California Building Standards Code.

These noise standards are applied to new construction in California for the purpose of controlling interior noise levels resulting from exterior noise sources. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when noise-sensitive structures, such as residential buildings, schools, or hospitals, are developed near major transportation noise sources, and where such noise sources create an exterior noise level of 60 dBA CNEL or higher. Acoustical studies that accompany building plans for noise-sensitive land uses must demonstrate that the structure has been designed to limit interior noise in habitable rooms to acceptable noise levels. For new residential buildings, schools, and hospitals, the acceptable interior noise limit for new construction is 45 dBA CNEL. (BSC, n.d.) 604
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Noise
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

3. OPR General Plan Guidelines
Though not adopted by law, the 2017 California General Plan Guidelines, published by OPR, provides guidance for local agencies in preparing or updating General Plans. The Guidelines provide direction on the required Noise Element portion of the General Plans. The purpose of the Noise Element is to limit the exposure of the community to excessive noise levels. The OPR Guidelines state that General Plan policies and standards must be sufficient to serve as a guideline for compliance with sound transmission control requirements, and directly correlate to the Land Use, Circulation, and Housing Elements. The Guidelines also state that the Noise Element must be used to guide decisions concerning land use and the location of new roads and transit facilities since these are common sources of excessive noise levels. (OPR, 2017a, pp. 131-132) The City’s General Plan (Policy Plan) addresses the topic of noise in its Safety Element. Refer below for a discussion of the City’s Policy Plan.

C. Local Plans, Policies, and Regulations

1. Ontario International Airport, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan The Project Site is located approximately 2.7 miles west of the nearest runway at the ONT and is located within the ONT Airport Influence Area (AIA). The most recent ONT ALUCP was adopted on April 19, 2011. The ALUCP establishes safety zones, airspace protection zones, noise impact zones, and recorded overflight notification zones for areas within the ONT AIA. Most of the Project Site is located outside the 65 dB CNEL airport noise impact zone (Ontario, 2011, Map 2-3, Table 2-3). The 65 dB CNEL area does not have any restrictions for industrial or warehouse uses.

2. City of Ontario Policy Plan
The City’s Policy Plan Safety Element Section S4, Noise Hazards, establishes a goal of maintaining an environment where noise does not adversely affect the public’s health, safety, and welfare. To satisfy this goal, the Policy Plan identifies 6 policies related to: noise mitigation; coordination with transportation authorities; airport noise mitigation; truck traffic; roadway design; and airport noise compatibility. Noise criteria identified at Policy Plan Table LU-7 provide guidelines to evaluate land use compatibility within various noise environments (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 13).

3. City of Ontario Municipal Code
 Construction-Related Noise Standards
Section 5-29.09 of the Ontario Municipal Code establishes the City’s acceptable noise criteria for construction activities. Specifically, it states “No person, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition or any other related building activity, shall operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner that produces loud noise that disturbs a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, or a Police or Code Enforcement Officer, on any weekday except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. or on Saturday or Sunday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m” (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 16).
605
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Noise
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

 Operational Noise Standards
Section 5-29.04(a) of the Ontario Municipal Code identifies the allowable daytime and nighttime ambient exterior noise standards for each land use type. For Manufacturing and Industrial land uses (Noise Zone V), such as this Project, ambient exterior noise levels may not exceed 70 dBA Leq. For residential land uses (Noise Zone I), ambient exterior noise levels may not exceed 65 dBA Leq during the daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and may not exceed 45 dBA Leq during the nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). The lower noise level standard shall apply on the boundary between two (2) different noise zones. If the ambient noise level exceeds the resulting standard, the ambient noise level shall be the standard (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 15).

4.9.4 METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING PROJECT-RELATED NOISE IMPACTS A. Construction Noise Analysis Methodology
For the construction noise analysis, this construction noise analysis was prepared using reference construction equipment noise levels from the FHWA published the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), which includes a national database of construction equipment reference noise emission levels. The RCNM equipment database, provides a comprehensive list of the noise generating characteristics for specific types of construction equipment. In addition, the database provides an acoustical usage factor to estimate the fraction of time each piece of construction equipment is operating at full power (i.e., its loudest condition) during a construction operation. Table 4.9-2, Construction Reference Noise Levels, provides a summary of the reference noise level measurements.

Table 4.9-2 Construction Reference Noise Levels
Construction
Stage
Reference
Construction Activity
Reference Noise
Level @ 50 Feet
(dBA Leq)
1 Combined
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
2 Combined Sound
Power Level
(PWL)3
Demolition
Demolition Equipment 82
Backhoes 74 83 115
Hauling Trucks 72
Site
Preparation
Crawler Tractors 78
Hauling Trucks 72 80 112
Rubber Tired Dozers 75
Grading
Graders 81
Excavators 77 83 115
Compactors 76
Building
Construction
Cranes 73
Tractors 80 81 113
Welders 70
Paving
Pavers 74
Paving Equipment 82 83 115
Rollers 73
606
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Noise
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Construction
Stage
Reference
Construction Activity
Reference Noise
Level @ 50 Feet
(dBA Leq)
1 Combined
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
2 Combined Sound
Power Level
(PWL)3
Architectural
Coating
Cranes 73
Air Compressors 74 77 109
Generator Sets 70 1 FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM). 2 Represents the combined noise level for all equipment assuming they operate at the same time consistent with FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidance.
3 Sound power level represents the total amount of acoustical energy (noise level) produced by a sound source independent of distance or surroundings. Sound power levels calibrated using the CadnaA noise model at the reference distance to the noise source.

Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, Table 8-1)
The construction noise analysis evaluates Project construction-related noise levels at the closest nearby receiver locations in the Project study area, which are located on the opposite side of I-15 and I-10 from the Project Site. Four representative receiver locations were considered in the construction noise analysis. The receiver locations used in the construction noise analysis are shown on Figure 4.9-2, Noise Receiver Locations. Other sensitive land uses in the Project study area that are located at greater distances than those identified in this noise study will experience lower noise levels than those presented in this report due to the additional attenuation from distance and the shielding of intervening structures. Distance is measured in a straight line from the project boundary to each receiver location.

R1: Location R1 represents the existing noise sensitive Ayres Hotel Ontario Mills Mall at 4395 Ontario Mills Parkway, approximately 6,214 feet northwest of the Project Site.

Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project Site, receiver R1 is placed at the building façade. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L1, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

R2: Location R2 represents the existing noise sensitive Hampton Inn & Suites Ontario at 4500 Ontario Mills Parkway, approximately 5,072 feet northwest of the Project Site.

Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project Site, receiver R2 is placed at the building façade. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L2, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

R3: Location R3 represents the existing noise Country Inn & Suites by Radisson, Ontario at Ontario Mills at 4674 Ontario Mills Parkway, approximately 4,482 feet northwest of the Project Site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project Site, receiver R3 is placed at the building façade. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L3, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
607
608
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Noise
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

R4: Location R4 represents the existing noise Hyatt Place Ontario/Rancho Cucamonga at 4760 Mills Circle, approximately 3,872 feet northwest of the Project Site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyards) facing the Project Site, receiver R4 is placed at the building façade. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L4, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

B. Stationary Noise Analysis Methodology
For the operational stationary noise analysis, the noise impact analysis relies on reference noise level measurements collected from similar types of activities to represent the noise levels expected with the development of the Project. Consistent with similar warehouse and industrial uses, the Project business operations would primarily be conducted within the enclosed buildings, except for traffic movement, parking, as well as loading and unloading of trucks at designated loading bays. The on-site Projectrelated noise sources are expected to include: loading dock activity, roof-top air conditioning units, trash enclosure activity, parking lot vehicle movements, and truck movements.

To estimate the Project operational noise impacts, reference noise level measurements for these anticipated uses were collected by Urban Crossroads, Inc. from similar types of activities to represent the noise levels expected with the development of the proposed Project. The projected noise levels assume the worst-case noise environment with the loading dock activity, roof-top air conditioning units, trash enclosure activity, parking lot vehicle movements, and truck movements all operating at the same time. These sources of noise activity will likely vary throughout the day.

Table 4.9-3, Operational Reference Noise Levels, provides a summary of the reference noise level measurements for the types of equipment and site operations that are expected on the Project Site. All operational noise level measurements presented in Table 4.9-3 were normalized to describe a common reference distance of 50 feet. The stationary noise analysis evaluates Project-related noise levels at the nearby receiver locations in the Project study area. The receiver locations used in the stationary noise analysis are the same that are used in the construction analysis (refer to Figure 4.9-2, Noise Receiver Locations).
609
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Noise
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Table 4.9-3 Operational Reference Noise Levels
Noise Source1
Noise
Source
Height
(Feet)
Min./
Hour2
Reference
Noise
Level
(dBA Leq)
@ 50 Feet
Sound
Power
Level
(dBA) Day Night 3
Loading Dock Activity 8' 60 60 65.7 111.5
Roof-Top Air Conditioning
Units 5' 39 28 57.2 88.9
Trash Enclosure Activity 5' 10 10 57.3 89.0
Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 5' 60 60 56.1 87.8
Truck Movements 8' 60 60 59.8 93.2 1 As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2 Anticipated duration (minutes within the hour) of noise activity during typical hourly conditions expected at the Project Site. "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. 3 Sound power level represents the total amount of acoustical energy (noise level) produced by a sound source independent of distance or surroundings. Sound power levels calculated using the CadnaA noise model at the reference distance to the noise source.

Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, Table 7-1)
C. Vibration Analysis Methodology
Vibration levels were predicted using reference vibration levels and logarithmic equations contained in the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) 2018 publication: “Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.” The vibration source levels for Project construction equipment are summarized in Table

4.9-4, Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment.

Table 4.9-4 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment PPV (in/sec)
at 25 feet
Small bulldozer 0.003
Jackhammer 0.035
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Large bulldozer 0.089
Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual Source: : (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, Table 8-5)

4.9.5 BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
According to Section XII of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would result in a significant impact to noise if the Project or any Project-related component would (OPR, 2019):
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies;
610
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Noise
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

b. Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels; c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Noise level increases resulting from the Project are evaluated based on the Appendix G CEQA Guidelines. Under CEQA, consideration must be given to the magnitude of the increase, the existing baseline ambient noise levels, and the location of receivers to determine if a noise increase represents a significant adverse environmental impact. This approach recognizes that there is no single noise increase that renders the noise impact significant.

In relation to Threshold “a,” Project-related construction and operational activities would be subject to the applicable noise standards established by the City’s Municipal Code and Policy Plan. However, neither the Policy Plan nor the Municipal Code defines the levels at which a development project’s temporary or permanent noise increases are considered substantial. Under Threshold “a,” CEQA requires that consideration be given to the to the magnitude of the increase, the existing ambient noise levels, and the location of sensitive receptors in order to determine if a noise increase represents a substantial increase and thus a significant adverse environmental impact. For purposes of this EIR, the metric used to evaluate the significance of the Project’s increase in ambient noise levels is adapted from the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) and FTA. A detailed discussion of the noise exposure criteria is provided in Subsection 4.1 of the Project’s noise impact analysis (refer to Technical Appendix I). Accordingly, in consideration of the City’s Policy Plan and Municipal Code and the FICON and FTA noise exposure criteria, the Project would result in a significant noise impact during operation if any of the following conditions occur:

Project construction activities would result in a significant impact if construction noise conflicts with the City of Ontario Municipal Code (Section 5-29.09(a)) as follows:
o Project-related construction activities take place outside the permitted hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on any weekday or between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m on Saturday or Sunday.

Also, based on the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual:
o Project construction noise levels would exceed the exterior 80 dBA Leq daytime or nighttime noise level standards at adjacent land uses
Project operational activities would result in a significant impact if operational noise exceeds the levels allowed by the City of Ontario Municipal Code (Section 5-29.04(a)) as follows:
611
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Noise
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

o If Project-related operational (stationary-source) noise levels exceed an exterior noise level of 65 dBA Leq, during the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and 45 dBA Leq during the nighttime hour of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

Also, based on FICON’s noise exposure criteria:
o When the existing ambient noise levels:
• are less than 60 dBA CNEL and the Project creates a 5 dBA CNEL or greater Projectrelated noise level increase; or • range from 60 to 65 dBA CNEL and the Project creates a 3 dBA CNEL or greater Projectrelated noise level increase; or • are greater than 65 dBA CNEL and the Project creates a 1.5 dBA CNEL or greater Projectrelated noise level increase; or In relation to Threshold “b,” vibration-generating activities are appropriately evaluated using the Caltrans vibration damage thresholds to assess potential temporary construction-related impacts at adjacent building locations. Accordingly, for evaluation under Threshold “b,” vibration levels are considered significant if Project-related activities would:
o Create or cause to be created any vibration activity that would exceed 0.3 in/sec PPV at an adjacent land use.

Table 2-3 of the ONT ALUCP establishes noise level compatibility contour boundaries for activities on properties, like the Project Site, that are located within the ONT Noise Impact Zone. For evaluation under Threshold “c,” exposure to excessive noise levels from airport operations are considered significant if:
o The Project Site is located in the 65-70 CNEL dB noise contour (or above) and indoor noise levels cannot be attenuated to a level of 50 dB CNEL.

4.9.6 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Threshold a: Would the Project generate substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? The analysis presented on the following pages summarizes the Project’s potential construction noise levels and operational noise levels, including operational noise that would be generated on-site as well as off-site noise that would be generated by Project-related traffic. The detailed noise calculations for the analysis presented here are provided in Appendices 7.1 and 8.1 of the Project’s noise impact analysis (see Technical Appendix I).
612
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Noise
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

A. Construction Noise Impact Analysis
Construction activities on the Project Site would proceed in 6 stages: 1) demolition; 2) site preparation; 3) grading; 4) building construction; 5) paving, and 6) application of architectural coatings. These activities would create temporary periods of noise when heavy construction equipment (i.e. trucks, concrete mixer, portable generators, power tools) is in operation and would cause a short-term increase in ambient noise levels. The Project construction noise levels at nearby receiver locations are summarized in Table 4.9-5, Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary.

Table 4.9-5 Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary
Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Demolition Site
Preparation Grading BuildingConstruction Paving ArchitecturalCoating Highest
Levels2
R1 33.6 30.6 33.6 31.6 33.6 27.6 33.6
R2 35.9 32.9 35.9 33.9 35.9 29.9 35.9
R3 37.1 34.1 37.1 35.1 37.1 31.1 37.1
R4 38.6 35.6 38.6 36.6 38.6 32.6 38.6 1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Figure 4.9-2. 2 Construction noise level calculations based on distance from the construction activity, which is measured from the Project Site boundary to the nearest receiver locations. CadnaA construction noise model inputs are included in Appendix 8.1.

Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, Table 8-2)
To evaluate whether the Project will generate potentially significant short-term noise levels at nearest receiver locations, a construction-related daytime noise level threshold of 80 dBA Leq is used as a reasonable threshold to assess the daytime construction noise level impacts. The construction noise analysis shows that the nearest receiver locations will satisfy the reasonable daytime 80 dBA Leq significance threshold during Project construction activities as shown in Table 4.9-5. Additionally, Project-related construction activities are expected to occur on weekdays (and, potentially, on Saturdays) during the hours when the City’s Municipal Code does not restrict construction noise (i.e., between the hours 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on any weekday or between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m on Saturday or Sunday). Accordingly, construction noise impacts would be less than significant.

If the Project’s construction requires concrete pouring during nighttime hours, the resulting noise levels are summarized in Table 4.9-6, Nighttime Concrete Pouring Noise Level Summary. At all receiver locations, the Project’s nighttime concrete pouring noise levels would not exceed the standards established by the City and impacts would be less than significant. 613
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Noise
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Table 4.9-6 Nighttime Concrete Pouring Noise Level Summary Receiver
Location1 Use
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Paving
Construction2
Nighttime
Threshold3
Threshold
Exceeded?4
R1 Residence 18.6 45 No
R2 Residence 21.2 45 No
R3 Residence 22.5 45 No
R4 Residence 24.1 45 No 1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Figure 4.9-2. 2 Paving construction noise level calculations based on distance from the construction noise source activity to nearby receiver locations.
3 Exterior nighttime noise level standards as shown on Table 5-1 of the Project’s noise impact analysis (refer to Technical Appendix I). 4 Do the estimated Project construction noise levels exceed the nighttime construction noise level threshold?
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, Table 8-4)
B. Operational Noise Impact Analysis – Stationary Noise Stationary (on-site) noise sources associated with long-term Project operation are expected to include idling trucks, delivery truck and automobile parking, delivery truck backup alarms, roof-top air conditioning units, loading and unloading of dry goods, and parking lot vehicle movements. The Project also is expected to generate noise during the loading and unloading of delivery trailers on-site.

The daytime and nighttime Project stationary noise levels at nearby sensitive receptor locations are summarized Table 4.9-7, Daytime Project Operational Noise Levels, and Table 4.9-8, Nighttime Project Operational Noise Levels. Table 4.9-7, Daytime Project Operational Noise Levels, shows the Project operational noise levels during the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The daytime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 22.2 to 27.4 dBA Leq.

Table 4.9-7 Daytime Project Operational Noise Levels
Noise Source1
Operational Noise Levels by Receiver Location (dBA
Leq)
R1 R2 R3 R4
Loading Dock Activity 21.0 25.2 26.4 25.8
Roof-Top Air Conditioning
Units 7.6 10.8 12.1 13.5
Trash Enclosure Activity 0.0 2.6 4.0 0.0
Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 11.5 15.6 16.9 18.5
Truck Movements 12.6 15.4 16.8 16.8
Total (All Noise Sources) 22.2 26.2 27.4 27.2
1 See Exhibit 7-A from the Project’s noise impact analysis (Technical Appendix I) for the noise source locations. CadnaA noise model calculations are included in Appendix 7.1.

Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, Table 7-2)
614
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Noise
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Table 4.9-8, Nighttime Project Operational Noise Levels, shows the Project operational noise levels during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The nighttime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 22.1 to 27.4 dBA Leq.

Table 4.9-8 Nighttime Project Operational Noise Levels
Noise Source1
Operational Noise Levels by Receiver Location (dBA
Leq)
R1 R2 R3 R4
Loading Dock Activity 21.0 25.2 26.4 25.8
Roof-Top Air Conditioning
Units 5.2 8.4 9.7 11.0
Trash Enclosure Activity 0.0 1.7 3.0 0.0
Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 11.5 15.6 16.9 18.5
Truck Movements 12.6 15.4 16.8 16.8
Total (All Noise Sources) 22.1 26.1 27.4 27.1
1 See Exhibit 7-A from the Project’s noise impact analysis (Technical Appendix I) for the noise source locations. CadnaA noise model calculations are included in Appendix 7.1.

Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, Table 7-3)
The daytime and nighttime Project stationary noise levels at nearby receiver locations are summarized in Table 4.9-9, Project Operational Noise Summary – Stationary Noise. As shown, Project stationary noise would not expose nearby receivers to unacceptable daytime or nighttime noise levels during Project operations following Project buildout. Accordingly, Project operation would not result in the exposure of receivers near the Project Site to stationary noise levels that exceed the exterior noise level standards established in the City. Impacts would be less than significant.

Table 4.9-9 Project Operational Noise Summary – Stationary Noise Receiver
Location1
Project Operational
Noise Levels (dBA Leq)2
Noise Level Standards
(dBA Leq)3
Noise Level Standards
Exceeded?4
Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime
R1 22.2 22.1 65.0 45.0 No No
R2 26.2 26.1 65.0 45.0 No No
R3 27.4 27.4 65.0 45.0 No No
R4 27.2 27.1 65.0 45.0 No No 1 See Figure 4.9-2 for the receiver locations. 2 Proposed Project operational noise levels as shown on Table 4.9-7 and Table 4.9-8. 3 Exterior noise level standards, for residential land use, as shown on Table 4-1 from the Project’s noise impact analysis (Technical Appendix I). 4 Do the estimated Project operational noise source activities exceed the noise level standards? "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m.

Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, Table 7-4)
Noise levels that would be experienced at receiver locations when unmitigated Project-source noise is added to the ambient daytime, evening, and nighttime conditions are presented on Table 4.9-10, Project Operational Noise Level Contributions – Daytime and Table 4.9-11, Project Operational Noise Level 615
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Noise
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Contributions – Nighttime. As shown, the Project-related operational noise level increases will satisfy the operational noise level increase criteria at the nearest sensitive receiver locations. On this basis, although the Project would increase noise level in the Project vicinity, Project operational stationarysource noise would not result in a substantial temporary/periodic, or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. Noise impacts associated with long-term on-site operations would be less than significant.

Table 4.9-10 Project Operational Noise Level Contributions – Daytime Receiver
Location1
Total
Project
Operational
Noise
Level2
Measurement
Location3
Reference
Ambient
Noise
Levels4
Combined
Project
and
Ambient5
Project
Increase6
Increase
Criteria7
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
R1 22.2 L1 58.4 58.4 0.0 5.0 No
R2 26.2 L2 61.7 61.7 0.0 5.0 No
R3 27.4 L3 67.1 67.1 0.0 1.5 No
R4 27.2 L4 69.8 69.8 0.0 1.5 No 1 See Figure 4.9-2 for the receiver locations. 2 Total Project daytime operational noise levels as shown on Table 4.9-7. 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Exhibit 5-A from the Project’s noise impact analysis (Technical Appendix I).
4 Observed daytime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 5-1 from the Project’s noise impact analysis. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. 7 Significance increase criteria as shown on Table 4-1 from the Project’s noise impact analysis.

Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, Table 7-5)
Table 4.9-11 Project Operational Noise Level Contributions – Nighttime Receiver
Location1
Total
Project
Operational
Noise
Level2
Measurement
Location3
Reference
Ambient
Noise
Levels4
Combined
Project
and
Ambient5
Project
Increase6
Increase
Criteria7
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
R1 22.1 L1 59.0 59.0 0.0 5.0 No
R2 26.1 L2 61.3 61.3 0.0 5.0 No
R3 27.4 L3 62.2 62.2 0.0 5.0 No
R4 27.1 L4 68.2 68.2 0.0 1.5 No 1 See Figure 4.9-2 for the receiver locations. 2 Total Project nighttime operational noise levels as shown on Table 4.9-8. 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Exhibit 5-A from the Project’s noise impact analysis (Technical Appendix I).
4 Observed nighttime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 5-1 from the Project’s noise impact analysis. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. 7 Significance increase criteria as shown on Table 4-1 from the Project’s noise impact analysis.

Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, Table 7-6)
616
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Noise
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

C. Off-Site Transportation Noise Impact Analysis
Traffic generated by the operation of the proposed Project will influence the traffic noise levels in surrounding off-site areas and at the Project Site. The off-site Project-related traffic represents an incremental increase to the existing roadway volumes, which is not expected to generate a barely perceptible noise level increase of 3 dBA CNEL at nearby sensitive land uses adjacent to study area roadways, since a doubling of the existing traffic volumes would be required to generate a 3 dBA CNEL increase. Due to the low traffic volumes generated by the Project, the off-site traffic noise levels generated by the Project are considered less than significant and no further analysis is required. (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, p. 36)
Threshold b: Would the Project generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
A. Construction Analysis
Construction activities on the Project Site would utilize equipment that has the potential to generate vibration. Vibration levels at sensitive receptors near the Project Site during Project construction are summarized on Table 4.9-12, Construction Equipment Vibration Levels. As shown, none of the receiver locations in the vicinity of the Project Site would be exposed to vibration levels that exceed the applicable significance threshold. Accordingly, Project construction would not generate excessive or substantial temporary groundborne vibration or noise levels and a less-than-significant impact would occur.

Table 4.9-12 Construction Equipment Vibration Levels
Receiver1
Distance
to
Const.

Activity
(Feet)2
Typical Construction Vibration Levels
PPV (in/sec)3 Thresholds
PPV
(in/sec)4
Thresholds
Exceeded?5
Small
bulldozer Jackhammer Loaded Trucks
Large
bulldozer
Highest
Vibration
Level
R1 6,214' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.3 No
R2 5,072' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.3 No
R3 4,482' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.3 No
R4 3,872' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.3 No 1 Receiver locations are shown on Figure 4.9-2. 2 Distance from receiver location to Project construction boundary (Project Site boundary). 3 Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment (Table 4.9-4). 4 Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, April 2020, Table 19, p. 38. 5 Does the peak vibration exceed the acceptable vibration thresholds? "PPV" = Peak Particle Velocity
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2022e, Table 8-6)
B. Operational Analysis
Under long-term conditions, the Project would not include or require equipment or activities that would result in perceptible groundborne vibration beyond the Project Site. Trucks would travel to and from the Project Site along local roadways; however, vibration levels for heavy trucks operating at the posted 617
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Noise
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

speed limits on paved surfaces are not perceptible beyond the roadway. The Project would not result in the exposure of persons to excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels during long-term operation.

Threshold c: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
The Project Site is located approximately 2.7 miles east of ONT. The Project Site is located within the ONT Airport Influence Area but is located outside the 65 dBA CNEL airport noise impact zone.

According to Table 2-3 of the ONT ALUCP, industrial land uses located outside the 65 dBA CNEL noise level contours of ONT, such as the Project, are considered normally compatible land use. For normally compatible land use, either the activities associated with the land use are inherently noisy or standard construction methods will sufficiently attenuate exterior noise to an acceptable indoor CNEL.

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

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

Because the Project’s construction noise levels would be less than significant, construction noise would be temporary in nature, and the Project and other cumulative projects would not combine with Projectrelated construction; cumulative construction impacts would be less than significant.

B. Stationary Noise
The analysis presented for Threshold “a” addresses the Project’s contribution of noise to existing cumulative noise sources (i.e., ambient noise) in the Project area. As previously shown in this Subsection, the Project’s noise contribution would not be perceptible to noise-sensitive receptors in the Project area during daytime or nighttime hours. The Project’s permanent stationary noise impacts would not be cumulatively-considerable.
618
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Noise
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

C. Traffic Noise
The analysis presented under Threshold “a” evaluates the Project’s traffic noise contribution along study area roadways. As summarized in that analysis, due to the low traffic volumes generated by the Project, the off-site traffic noise levels generated by the Project are considered less than significant, therefore, would not be cumulatively-considerable under near- or long-term conditions.

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

As described above, there are no known active or pending construction projects abutting the Project Site that would overlap with the Project’s proposed construction schedule. Accordingly, there is no potential for the Project to contribute to the exposure of persons to substantial temporary groundborne vibration or noise.

Under long-term conditions, the Project would not include or require equipment or activities that would result in perceptible groundborne vibration beyond the Project Site. Trucks would travel to and from the Project Site along local roadways; however, vibration levels for heavy trucks operating at the posted speed limits on paved surfaces are not perceptible beyond the roadway. The Project would not cumulatively-contribute to the exposure of persons to excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels during long-term operation.

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

4.9.8 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS BEFORE MITIGATION
Threshold a: Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project would generate short-term construction and long-term operational noise but would not generate noise levels that exceed the threshold standards.

Threshold b: Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project’s construction and operational activities would not result in a perceptible groundborne vibration or noise. 619
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.9 Noise
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Threshold c: Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed Project would be compatible with noise levels from the ONT and operation of the Project would not expose future employees on the Project Site to excessive noise levels.

4.9.9 MITIGATION
Project impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. 620
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Transportation
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

4.10 TRANSPORTATION
This Subsection assesses transportation impacts resulting from implementation of the Project. In accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 743, further discussed under Subsection 4.10.2 below, the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) adopted changes to the CEQA Guidelines in December 2018, which identify that starting on July 1, 2020, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is the appropriate metric to evaluate a project’s transportation impacts. As of December 2018, when the revised CEQA Guidelines were adopted, automobile delay, as measured by “level of service” (LOS) and other similar metrics, no longer constitutes a significant environmental effect under CEQA. Lead agencies in California are required to use VMT to evaluate project-related transportation impacts.

The analysis in this Subsection is based primarily on information contained in the technical report prepared by Urban Crossroads titled “5355 East Airport Drive Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis” and dated January 3, 2023, and is provided as Technical Appendix J to this EIR (Urban Crossroads, 2023a).

In addition, a trip generation assessment prepared by Urban Crossroads, dated January 3, 2023, was used in this analysis and is included as Technical Appendix K to this EIR (Urban Crossroads, 2023b).

4.10.1EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SETTING
A. Existing Roadway System
The Project Site is located north of East Airport Drive, which is classified as a Minor Arterial under the Policy Plan (Ontario, 2022a). According to the City’s Functional Roadway Classification Plan, minor arterials accommodate less traffic and are for trips of moderate length. Minor Arterials allow a greater level of access to abutting properties so speeds are lower than Other Principal Arterials. Minor Arterials connect our community but ideally should not penetrate residential neighborhoods. The roadway configuration and right-of-way width vary depending on local conditions, but typically accommodate 4 to 6 lanes of traffic and medians. Existing traffic on East Airport Drive consists of both passenger vehicles and trucks passing through the area and accessing nearby land uses.

The primary regional vehicular travel routes serving the Project area are I-10 and I-15, which are located approximately 0.2-mile north and 0.4-mile west of the Project Site, respectively. The Project Site is located approximately 0.4-mile (driving distance) west of the N. Etiwanda Avenue on/off-ramp to I-10 and 3-mile (driving distance) northeast of the Jurupa Avenue on/off-ramp to I-10.

B. Existing Vehicle Miles Traveled
Based on The Ontario Plan, average VMT in the City per service population is 27.61 miles (Urban Crossroads, 2023a).

C. Existing Trip Generation
The Project Site is currently occupied and operating as a grain processing company and corn storage and distribution facility with warehousing space totaling 41,780 square feet. In an effort to understand the existing traffic associated with the current use, traffic counts were collected at the Project Site’s 621
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Transportation
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

driveways on Tuesday, March 1, 2022 through Thursday, March 3, 2022. Table 4.10-1, Existing Trip Generation Summary, summarizes the trip generation by day and the average existing trip generation based on the count data collected over two days. The existing uses on the site generate an average of 316 two-way trips per day, with 30 trips during the AM peak hour and 2 trips during the PM peak hour (in actual vehicles) (Urban Crossroads, 2023b).

Table 4.10-1 Existing Trip Generation Summary
Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Average Existing Trip Generation
Passenger Cars: 11 7 18 0 1 1 209
2-axle Trucks: 2 2 4 0 0 0 17
3-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
4+axle Trucks: 3 4 8 1 0 1 84
Total Truck Trips: 6 6 12 1 0 1 107
Total Trips1 17 13 30 1 1 2 316
1 Total Trips = Passenger Cars + Truck Trips.

Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2023b, Table 1)
D. Existing Truck Routes
The City designates two roadways as “truck routes” in the Project Site vicinity: East Airport Drive (which abuts the Project Site on the south) and Etiwanda Avenue (which is located approximately 0.4- mile east of the Project Site) (Ontario, 2022a).

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

F. Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
There are no existing bicycle facilities within the vicinity of the Project Site. The closest bike route to the Project Site is a Class III bike route located along Ontario Mills Parkway, approximately 0.4 miles north of the Project Site on the opposite side of the freeway. There are no sidewalks on either side of East Airport Drive, with the exception of a small portion along the adjacent development frontage directly to the west at 5351 East Airport Drive.
622
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Transportation
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

4.10.2REGULATORY SETTING
A. State Plan, Policies, and Regulations

1. Senate Bill 743
SB 743, which was codified in Public Resources Code Section 21099, required changes to the CEQA Guidelines regarding the analysis of transportation impacts. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21099, the criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts must “promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.” To that end, in developing the criteria, the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) proposed, and the CNRA certified and adopted changes to the CEQA Guidelines in December 2018, which entailed changes to the thresholds of significance for the evaluation of impacts to transportation. The updated CEQA Guidelines include the addition of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, of which Subdivision b establishes criteria for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts based on project type and using automobile VMT as the metric.

B. Regional Plan, Policies, and Regulations

1. SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council approved and adopted the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (“Connect SoCal”). Connect SoCal is the applicable Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) for the Project. The goals of Connect SoCal are to: 1) Encourage regional economic prosperity and global competitiveness; 2) Improve mobility, accessibility, reliability, and travel safety for people and goods; 3) Enhance the preservation, security, and resilience of the regional transportation system; 4) Increase person and goods movement and travel choices within the transportation system; 5) Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality; 6) Support healthy and equitable communities; 7) Adapt to a changing climate and support an integrated regional development pattern and transportation network; 8) Leverage new transportation technologies and data-driven solutions that result in more efficient travel; 9) Encourage development of diverse housing types in areas that are supported by multiple transportation options; and 10) Promote conservation of natural and agricultural lands and restoration of habitats. Performance measures and funding strategies also are included to ensure that the adopted goals are achieved through implementation of the RTP.

2. San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program
The San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program (CMP) was prepared by the San Bernardino Associated Governments (since re-named as the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority, SBCTA). The intent of the CMP is to create a link between land use, transportation, and air quality planning decisions and to prompt reasonable growth management programs that would more effectively utilize new and existing transportation funds to alleviate traffic congestion and related impacts and improve air quality. The San Bernardino CMP was first adopted in November 1992 and has since been updated 12 times, with the most recent comprehensive update in June 2016. None of 623
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Transportation
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

the roadways in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site are part of the San Bernardino CMP roadway network.

C. Local Plan, Policies, and Regulations

1. Policy Plan Mobility Element
The Policy Plan, part of The Ontario Plan 2050, serves as the City’s General Plan. The Policy Plan Mobility Element provides overall guidance for the City’s responsibility to satisfy the local and subregional mobility needs of our residents, visitors and businesses while maintaining the quality of life. The Mobility Element addresses access and connectivity among the various neighborhoods, villages and districts and a range of mobility options, including vehicular, trucking, freight and passenger rail, air, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit. The Mobility Element goals and policies applicable to the Project are addressed later in this Subsection (see analysis under Threshold “a”).

2. San Bernardino County Measure “I”
Measure “I,” a one-half of one percent sales tax on retail transactions, was approved by San Bernardino County voters in 1989 and extended by County voters in 2004 to remain effective through the year 2040. While Measure “I” is a self‐executing sales tax, it bears discussion here because the funds raised through Measure “I” have funded in the past and will continue to fund new transportation facilities in San Bernardino County, including within the City. The revenue generated by Measure “I” is to be used to fund transportation projects including, but not limited to, roadway improvements, commuter rail, public transit, and other identified improvements. Revenues collected through local traffic impact fee programs are used in tandem with regional Measure “I” revenues to fund projects identified in the SANBAG Development Mitigation Nexus Study, which is included as Appendix G to the San Bernardino County CMP.

3. City of Ontario Development Impact Fee (DIF) Program The City of Ontario created its Development Impact Fee (DIF) program to impose and collect fees from new residential, commercial, and industrial development for the purpose of funding local improvements necessary to accommodate the growth of new residents and businesses. The DIF program include fees for the General City and Ontario Ranch areas of the City. Fees are collected by the City’s Building Department at the time of building permit issuance.

4.10.3BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
According to Section XVI of Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would result in a significant transportation impact if the Project or any Project-related component would (OPR, 2019):
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities;
624
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Transportation
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b); c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); d. Result in inadequate emergency access?

4.10.4IMPACT ANALYSIS
Threshold a: Would the Project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? This response provides an analysis of a project’s potential to conflict with plans, programs, ordinances, or policies that address the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. A project that generally conforms with, and does not obstruct, applicable development plans, programs, ordinances, and policies is considered to be consistent. The transportation plans, policies, programs, ordinances, and standards that are relevant to the Project are identified in the analysis below.

For context, the Project is expected to generate approximately 160 more vehicle trips than are being generated by the uses at the Project Site under existing conditions. (Urban Crossroads, 2023a)In order to develop the traffic characteristics of the proposed Project, trip-generation statistics published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021) for the proposed Project’s land uses was utilized. For purposes of the trip generation assessment, the following ITE land use codes were used:
• ITE land use code 150 (Warehousing)
• ITE land use code 157 (High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse) As shown in Table 4.10-2, Project Trip Generation, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate 476 vehicle trip-ends per day with 42 AM peak hour trips and 46 PM peak hour trips.

Table 4.10-2 Project Trip Generation
Land Use Quantity
Units1
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Actual Vehicles
Warehousing 243.339 TSF
Passenger Cars: 29 7 36 8 28 36 270
2-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 1 0 1 24
3-axle Trucks: 0 1 1 1 1 2 30
4+axle Trucks: 2 1 3 2 2 4 92
Total Truck Trips (Actual Vehicles): 2 2 4 4 3 7 146
Warehousing Trips (Actual Vehicles)2
High-Cube Cold Storage 27.038 TSF
Passenger Cars: 2 0 2 1 2 3 38
2-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
625
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Transportation
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Land Use Quantity
Units1
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total 3-axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
4+axle Trucks: 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
Total Truck Trips (Actual Vehicles): 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
High-Cube Cold Storage Trips (Actual
Vehicles)2
2 0 2 1 2 3 60
Passenger Cars 31 7 38 9 30 39 308
Trucks 2 2 4 4 3 7 168
Total Trips2 33 9 42 13 33 46 476
1 Total Trips = Passenger Cars + Truck Trips.

Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2023b, Table 3)
Taking into consideration that the existing structures proposed for demolition generate 316 daily trips (see Table 4.10-1), the net number of new trips that would be generated by the Project is 160 trips with 12 AM peak hour trips and 44 PM peak hour trips above the trips generated by existing uses. The comparison is shown below in Table 4.10-3, Project Net New Daily Trips.

Table 4.10-3 Project Net New Daily Trips
Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Actual Vehicles:

Existing Use
Passenger Cars: 11 7 18 0 1 1 209
Trucks: 6 6 12 1 0 1 107
Existing Trips (Actual Vehicles)2 17 13 30 1 1 2 316
Proposed Project
Passenger Cars: 31 7 38 9 30 39 308
Trucks 2 2 4 4 3 7 168
High-Cube Cold Storage Trips (Actual
Vehicles)2
33 9 42 13 33 46 476
Passenger Cars 20 0 20 9 29 38 99
Trucks -4 -4 -8 3 3 6 61
Total Trips2 16 -4 12 12 32 44 160
1 Total Trips = Passenger Cars + Truck Trips.

Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2023a, Table 5)
B. Connect SoCal
The fundamental goals of SCAG’s Connect SoCal are to make the SCAG region a better place to live, work, and play for all residents regardless of race, ethnicity, or income class. As shown in Table 4.10- 4, SCAG’s Connect SoCal Goal Consistency Analysis, the Project would not conflict with any applicable goals and policies of SCAG’s regional planning program. As such, Project impacts would be less than significant.
626
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Transportation
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Table 4.10-4 SCAG’s Connect SoCal Goal Consistency Analysis Goals Goal Statement Project Consistency Discussion
1 Encourage regional economic prosperity and
global competitiveness.

No conflict identified. This policy would be
implemented by cities and the counties within the
SCAG region as part of comprehensive local and
regional planning efforts. The Project would
improve the regional economy by redeveloping the
property with a use that supports the regional supply
chain, create new jobs, and creates a new regional
income source that would increase the local tax
base.
2 Improve mobility, accessibility, reliability, and
travel safety for people and goods.

No conflict identified. The Project Applicant would
improve the segment of East Airport Drive that
abuts the Project Site with a new sidewalk, thereby
improving local mobility and travel safety.

Additionally, there are no components of the
Project that would foreseeably result in substantial
safety hazards to motorists or pedestrians, as
discussed under threshold c below.
3 Enhance the preservation, security, and
resilience of the regional transportation system.

No conflict identified. This policy would be
implemented by cities and the counties within the
SCAG region as part of the overall planning and
maintenance of the regional transportation system.

The Project would have no adverse effect on such
planning or maintenance efforts. This policy
provides guidance to the City of Ontario to monitor
the transportation network and to coordinate with
other agencies as appropriate. The Project would
not conflict with the City’s transportation network
or the City’s coordination with other agencies.
4 Increase person and goods movement and
travel choices within the transportation system.

No conflict identified. The Project involves
development of a warehouse distribution facility
within a developed industrial area, along a
designated truck route, and in close proximity to the
State highway system, which would avoid or
shorten truck-trip lengths on other roadways. The
Project would promote an improved quality of life
by constructing infill redevelopment near regional
transportation/transit corridors, which would reduce
vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled, and air
pollution. The Project would construct roadway
frontage improvements, including sidewalks which
would encourage walking in the Project area.
627
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Transportation
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Goals Goal Statement Project Consistency Discussion
5 Reduce greenhouse gas emission and improve
air quality.

No conflict identified. The Project would have a
less than significant impact under the topics of Air
Quality (refer to EIR Subsection 4.2) and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (refer to EIR
Subsection 4.6). Additionally, and as discussed in
EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, and
Subsection 4.4, Energy, the Project would
incorporate various measures required by the
California Green Building Standards Code
(CALGreen) related to building design,
landscaping, and energy systems to promote the
efficient use of energy. The Project also would
construct frontage improvements, including
sidewalks which would encourage walking in the
Project area.
6 Support healthy and equitable communities. No conflict identified. The proposed building design would support the health of occupants and
users by using non-toxic building materials and
finishes, and by using windows to maximize natural
light and ventilation.
7 Adapt to a changing climate and support an
integrated regional development.

No conflict identified. Connect SoCal indicates that
since the adoption of the Connect SoCal, there have
been significant drivers of change in the goods
movement industry including emerging and new
technologies, more complex supply chain
strategies, evolving consumer demands and shifts in
trade policies. Warehouse distribution and ecommerce continues to be one of the most influential factors shaping goods movement. The
Project involves the redevelopment of the Project
Site, historically used for corn storage and grain
mill with a warehouse facility that would diversify
the City of Ontario’s economy and bring
employment opportunities closer to the local
workforce. Co-locating jobs near housing reduces
greenhouse gas emissions caused by long
commutes and contributes to integrated
development patterns.
8 Leverage new transportation technologies and
data-driven solutions that result in more
efficient travel.

No conflict identified. Connect SoCal indicates that
the advancement of automation is expected to have
considerable positive impacts throughout regional
supply chains. Notably, warehouses, such as the
building proposed with the Project, are increasingly
integrating automation to improve operational
efficiencies in response to the surge in direct-toconsumer e-commerce. Additionally, continued developments and demonstrations of electricpowered and automated truck technologies will 628
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Transportation
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Goals Goal Statement Project Consistency Discussion
alter the goods movement environment with farreaching effects ranging from employment to highway safety. The Project would meet
contemporary industry standards to support
advancements in these and other transportation
technologies.
9 Encourage development of diverse housing
types in areas that are supported by multiple
transportation options.

Not applicable. The Project is located in an area
designated for employment-generating uses and is
not planned for housing.
10 Promote conservation of natural and
agricultural lands and restoration of habitats.

Not applicable. The Project Site is completely
disturbed and developed under existing conditions
and has been so for at least 49 years. The entire
Project Site is developed and there are no natural
habitat or agricultural land onsite.

Source: (SCAG, 2020a, p. 9)
C. City of Ontario Policy Plan
The following provides an analysis of the Project’s consistency with applicable goals and policies of the Policy Plan. As demonstrated in Table 4.10-5, Mobility Element Policy Consistency Analysis, the Project would not conflict with the City’s Mobility Element, and impacts associated with conflict of an applicable program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would be less than significant.

Table 4.10-5 Mobility Element Policy Consistency Analysis Policy Project Consistency
Goal M-1: A system of roadways that meets the mobility needs of a dynamic and prosperous Ontario.

Policy M-1.1 Roadway Design and Maintenance.

We require our roadways to:

1. Comply with federal, state and local
design and safety standards;

2. Meet the needs of multiple
transportation modes and users;

3. Handle the capacity envisioned in the
Functional Roadway Classification
Plan;

4. Be maintained in accordance with best
practices;

5. Be compatible with the streetscape and
surrounding land uses; and

6. Promote the efficient flow of all modes
of traffic through the implementation of
intelligent transportation systems and
travel demand management strategies.

No conflict identified. As a standard condition of
approval, the Project would comply with all applicable
federal, State, and local design and safety standards. In addition, the Project would provide sidewalks for
pedestrian access and bike racks to meet the needs of
multiple transportation modes and users. The Project
area is generally surrounded by industrial uses and the Project has been designed to be compatible with the
streetscape and surrounding land uses.

Policy M-1.2 Mitigation of Impacts. We require
development to mitigate its traffic impacts.

No conflict identified. As discussed in Threshold b, the Project would result in a significant VMT impact.
629
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Transportation
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Policy Project Consistency
There are mitigation measures available to reduce
VMT impacts; however, the effectiveness of these
measures are dependent on a yet unknown building
tenant(s) and reductions cannot be guaranteed.

Therefore, Project’s VMT impacts would remain
significant and unavoidable. The State adopted VMT
as a measurement of transportation impacts in
compliance with SB 743, which was codified in Public
Resources Code Section 21099. Pursuant to Section
21099, the criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts must “promote the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions [GHG], the development of
multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of
land uses.” In other words, the significance of VMT
impacts has a direct correlation to GHG impacts. As
concluded in EIR Subsection 4.6, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, the Project would have a less than
significant greenhouse gas emissions impact.

Inconsistency with a goal or policy of an applicable
plan is not itself an environmental impact. Such an
inconsistency may indicate a likelihood of an
environmental impact or to support such a conclusion,
but an inconsistency is not inherently an environmental impact itself. Further, it is well-established in CEQA
case law that a project does not have to be consistent
with each and every goal or policy in a plan to be found consistent with the overall intent of the plan. In this case, although the Project would result in a significant VMT impact, the Project’s GHG impact is less than
significant. As such, no significant physical
environmental effect would result from the Project
exceeding the City’s baseline VMT.

Goal M-2: A system of trails and corridors that facilitate and encourage active modes of transportation.

Policy M-2.2: Bicycle System. We provide offstreet multipurpose trails and Class II bikeways as our preferred paths of travel and use the Class
III for connectivity in constrained circumstances.

When truck routes and bicycle facilities share a
right-of-way, we prefer Class I or Class IV
bicycle facilities. We require new development to
include bicycle facilities, such as bicycle parking
and secure storage areas.

No conflict identified. The Project Site is not located along a bikeway. The closest bikeway to the Project
Site is located at Ontario Mills Parkway. The Project
would be confined to the Project Site and would not
conflict within the existing bikeways. In addition, the Project would provide bike racks in accordance with
CALGreen requirements to accommodate bicycle
access to and from the Project site.

Policy M-2.3: Pedestrian Walkways. We require
streets to include sidewalks and visible
crosswalks at major intersections where
necessary to promote safe and comfortable
mobility between residential areas, businesses,
No conflict identified. The Project Site’s features
(buildings, parking areas, etc.) would be connected by
ADA compliant sidewalks and striped crosswalks
within the parking areas to the existing ensure
pedestrian access throughout Project Site.
630
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Transportation
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Policy Project Consistency
schools, parks, recreation areas, and other key
destination points.

Additionally, the Project would install sidewalk on
East Airport Drive.

Goal M-4: An efficient flow of goods through the City that maximizes economic benefits and minimizes negative impacts.

Policy M-4.1: We designate and maintain a
network of City truck routes that provide for the
safe and efficient transport of goods while
minimizing negative impacts on local circulation
and noise-sensitive land uses, as shown on
Exhibit M-04, Truck Routes. We will minimize
conflicts on truck routes through the design and
implementation of buffers between travel lanes
and pedestrian and bicycle facilities on
designated truck routes.

No conflict identified. According to the Exhibit M-04,
the closest truck route to the Project Site is East Airport Drive, which abuts the Project Site to the south. Trucks servicing the Project would reasonably not utilize City roads that prohibit truck traffic. The Project’s trucks would be required to travel on designated truck routes
to minimize negative impacts to local circulation and
noise-sensitive land uses.

Policy M-4.4: Environmental Considerations.

We support both local and regional efforts to
reduce/eliminate the negative environmental
impacts of goods movement through the planning
and implementation of truck routing and the
development of a plan to evaluate the future
needs of clean fueling/recharging and electrified
truck parking.

No conflict identified. The Project Site located in an
area designated for industrial uses and within close
proximity to I-10 and I-15, which are major
transportation facilities. The proposed building would
accommodate the movement of goods throughout the
region, which would shorten the length of vehicular
trips and increase the reliability of the movement of
goods throughout the region.

Threshold b: Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Changes to State CEQA Guidelines were adopted in December 2018, which requires all lead agencies to adopt vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as a replacement for automobile delay-based level of service (LOS) as the new measurement for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects. This statewide mandate took effect on July 1, 2020. To aid in this transition, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. Based on the Technical Advisory, the City of Ontario has developed and adopted their own VMT methodologies and thresholds, which were adopted by City Council in June 2020.

City Guidelines identify projects that meet certain VMT screening criteria may be presumed to result in a less than significant transportation impact. The City of Ontario utilizes the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) VMT Screening Tool. The Screening Tool allows users to select an assessor’s parcel number (APN) to determine if a project’s location meets one or more of the screening thresholds for land use projects identified in the City Guidelines. The City Guidelines lists the following VMT screening criteria:
• Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening
• Low VMT Area Screening
• Project Type Screening
631
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Transportation
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

A land use project need only meet one of the above screening criteria to result in a less than significant impact.

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

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

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

B. Low VMT Area Screening
As noted in the Technical Advisory, “Residential and office projects that locate in areas with low VMT and that incorporate similar features (density, mix of uses, and transit accessibility) will tend to exhibit similarly low VMT.” The City Guidelines state that projects may be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact if located in an already low VMT generating traffic analysis zones (TAZs) that generates a VMT per service population (SP) that does not exceed the Citywide average under General Plan Buildout condition VMT per service population. The Screening Tool uses the subregional San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM) to measure VMT performance within individual TAZ’s within the region. The Project’s physical location based on parcel number is selected in the Screening Tool to determine the TAZ in which the Project will reside. The Project’s TAZs VMT per service population was compared to Citywide average buildout VMT per service population. The parcel containing the Project was selected and the Screening Tool was run for origindestination (OD) VMT per service population, and results showed the Project is not located within a low VMT generating zone. Therefore, the Project would not meet the Low VMT Area Screening threshold.
632
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Transportation
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

C. Project Type Screening
The City Guidelines identify that local serving retail less than 50,000 square feet or other local serving essential services (e.g., day care centers, public schools, medical/dental office buildings, etc.) are presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. The Project as intended does not contain any local serving uses. Additionally, the City Guidelines state that small projects generating fewer than 110 daily vehicle trips or less may be presumed to have a less than significant impact, subject to discretionary approval by the City. As shown in Table 4.10-1, the Project currently generates an average of 316 vehicle trips per day. Trips generated by the Project’s proposed land uses have been estimated based on trip generation rates collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, 2021. The Project is anticipated to generate 476 daily vehicle trip-ends per day. Therefore, the Project is anticipated to generate 160 net new average daily trips, exceeding the 110 daily vehicle trip threshold, and the Project would not meet the Project Type Screening threshold.

D. VMT Analysis
As the Project was not found to meet any of the aforementioned VMT screening criteria, a project level VMT analysis (Technical Appendix J to this EIR) was prepared to assess the Project’s potential impact to VMT. Consistent with City Guidelines and standard VMT calculation methods, total VMT is calculated from SBTAM’s OD trip matrices and then divided by a project’s service population to derive the VMT efficiency metric VMT per service population. Table 4.10-6, Total VMT, presents Projectgenerated total VMT calculated as the total of passenger car, light-duty, medium-duty, and heavy-duty truck trips.

Table 4.10-6 Total VMT
Base Year (2016) Buildout Year (2050) Baseline (2022)
Automobile VMT 4,337 3,939 4,299
Truck VMT 3,278 4,085 3,357
Total VMT 7,616 8,025 7,655
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2023a, Table 8)
The City Guidelines have identified following recommended threshold: a significant impact would occur if the project VMT per Service Population exceeds the Citywide average for Service Population under General Plan Buildout Conditions. The Project’s baseline and buildout VMT per service population is calculated by dividing by the total VMT the service population or in this case the number of employees generated1
. As shown in Table 4.10-7, Project VMT per Service Population, the City of Ontario has identified a VMT per SP significance threshold of 27.61, which is the City of Ontario’s General Plan Buildout with the TOP model. As shown below, the Project would exceed the City’s VMT per SP impact threshold for both the baseline and TOP buildout conditions (Urban Crossroads, 2023a). Therefore, impacts would be significant.
1 According to Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG’s) Employment Density Study, the Project would generate approximately 226 employees.
633
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Transportation
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Table 4.10-7 Project VMT per Service Population
Baseline Buildout Year
Impact Threshold 27.61 27.61
Project 33.84 35.47
Percent Change +22.56% +28.47%
Potentially Significant? Yes Yes
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2023a, Table 10)
Threshold c: Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
The Project’s potential to increase hazards as a result of a geometric design feature has been assessed to provide adequate truck access/circulation. The Project’s circulation plan is designed to be compatible with all foreseeable vehicles. Vehicular access would be provided via two driveways that would connect with East Airport Drive. Both driveways would include enhanced decorative paving and would provide inbound/outbound access for passenger vehicles and trucks. The driveways are designed as 40 feet wide to accommodate the wide turning radius of the heavy trucks.

The types of traffic generated during operation of the Project (i.e., passenger cars and trucks) would be compatible with the type of traffic generated by surrounding development. All proposed improvements within the public right-of-way would be installed in conformance with City design standards. If any component of Project construction would occur in the public right-of-way and require the partial or full closure of a sidewalk and/or travel lane, all work would be required to adhere to the applicable construction control practices that are specified in the State of California Department of Transportation Construction Manual and the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, to minimize potential safety hazards. The City of Ontario Engineering Department reviewed the Project’s application materials and determined that no hazardous transportation design features would be introduced within the City public right-of-way through implementation of the Project. At the time of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plans, the City will review project access points to ensure adequate sight distance. Based on the foregoing information, the Project’s construction and operation would not create or substantially increase safety hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use and impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold d: Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? The Project is designed to provide access for all emergency vehicles and meet all applicable City of Ontario Fire and Police Department access requirements to ensure that adequate access would be provided for emergency vehicles at Project build out. During construction activities that include road and sidewalk improvements, the Project would provide adequate emergency access along abutting roadways during temporary construction activities within the public right-of-way. Any Project construction activities that would occur within the East Airport Drive public right-of-way and requires a partial or full closure of a sidewalk or vehicle travel lane would require a traffic control plan that 634
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Transportation
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

complies with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and that must be approved by the City of Ontario to ensure that emergency response is not adversely affected. As a result, the Project would not a less than significant impact to emergency access.

4.10.5CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
As described under the response to Threshold “a,” the Project would not conflict with an applicable program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities and, thus, would not cumulatively contribute to a conflict or obstruction with an applicable transportation-related program.

The City Guidelines, consistent with OPR’s Technical Advisory states that cumulative impacts on VMT “… metrics such as VMT per capita or VMT per employee, i.e., metrics framed in terms of efficiency (as recommended below for use on residential and office projects), cannot be summed because they employ a denominator. A project that falls below an efficiency-based threshold that is aligned with long-term goals and relevant plans has no cumulative impact distinct from the project impact. Accordingly, a finding of a less than significant project impact would imply a less than significant cumulative impact and vice versa. This is similar to the analysis typically conducted for greenhouse gas emissions, air quality impacts, and impacts that utilize plan compliance as a threshold of significance.” Since the Project was found to have a significant and unavoidable impact at the project level, it is considered to be cumulatively-considerable and therefore to have a significant cumulative impact as well.

The Project would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact under the topics discussed under Thresholds “c” and “d” because the Project would not cause or exacerbate existing transportation design safety concerns or adversely affect emergency access and there are no cumulative development projects adjacent to the Project Site that could contribute additive effects that could degrade motor vehicle or pedestrian safety or emergency vehicle access in proximity to the Project Site.

4.10.6SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS BEFORE MITIGATION
Threshold a: Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project would not conflict with an applicable program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system.

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

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

Threshold d: Less-than-Significant Impact. Adequate emergency access would be provided to the Project Site during construction and long-term operation. The Project would not result in inadequate emergency access to the Site or surrounding properties. 635
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Transportation
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

4.10.7MITIGATION
MM 4.10-1 Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the building operator shall prepare and submit for approval to the City of Ontario Community Development Department a Transportation Demand Management Program (TDMP). The TDMP shall specify measures that the building operator will commit to implementing in an effort to reduce vehicle miles traveled for its on-site employees. The TDMP shall include provisions, incentives, and programs for employee ridesharing programs, carpools, vanpools, transit use, bike travel, avoidance of peak periods of traffic congestion, and on-site parking preferences for zero-emission vehicles, among other items that have reasonable potential of reducing employee reliance on single-occupant gas-powered vehicles during peak time travel periods (rush hours).

4.10.8SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATION
Threshold b: Significant and Unavoidable Direct and Cumulatively-Considerable Impact.

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

Under the most favorable circumstances and ideal conditions a project can realize a maximum reduction of 45% in commute VMT through implementation of the trip reduction program measures listed below. However, ideal conditions are rarely realized as variables such as a project’s locational context limitation (i.e., non-urban areas). Additionally, to achieve ideal conditions a project must achieve one hundred percent employee participation and maximum employee eligibility, which are not generally expected. The proposed Project would require a minimum VMT per service population reduction of 25.58% to achieve a less than significant impact, which cannot be assured for the proposed Project. The 2021 Handbook lists the following possible trip reduction measures. • T-5 – Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing (up to 4.0% reduction) • T-8 – Provide Ridesharing Program (up to 8% reduction) • T-9 – Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program (up to 5.5% reduction) • T-10 – Provide End-of-Trip Facilities (up to 4.4% reduction) • T-11 – Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool (up to 20.4% reduction) 636
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.10 Transportation
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

• T-12 – Price Workplace Parking (up to 20.0% reduction) • T-13 – Implement Employee Parking Cash-Out (up to 12.0% reduction) Mitigation measure MM 4.10-1 will reduce the Project’s VMT per service population by some percentage based on the level of participation achieved, but based on the above-described factors, it is not feasible to reduce VMT to below a level of significance. However, as the Project area and surrounding communities develop as envisioned under the City of Ontario General Plan (TOP), new residential, retail, and industrial development would be implemented. These actions could collectively alter transportation patterns, improve the region’s jobs/housing ratio, reduce VMT, and support implementation of new or alternative TDM measures. With the implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.10-1, VMT is expected to be reduced, but the Project’s impacts related to VMT would still be significant and unavoidable.
637
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.11 Tribal Cultural Resources Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

4.11 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
The analysis in this subsection relies on information from a cultural resources record search titled “Cultural Resources Records Search Results for the 5355 Airport Drive Project, Ontario, California”, dated May 20, 2022. The report was prepared by BFSA and is included as Technical Appendix C to this EIR. The analysis in this subsection also contains information obtained by the City during consultation with local Native American tribal representatives. All references used in this subsection are listed in EIR Setion 7.0, References.

In addition, much of the written and oral communication between Native American tribes and the City, is considered confidential in respect to places that may have traditional cultural significance (Government Code Section 65352.4), and although relied upon in part to inform the preparation of this EIR subsection, those communications are treated as confidential and are not avaialble for public review. Under existing law, environmental documents must not include information about the location of archaeological sites or sacred lands or any other information that is exempt from public disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act (California Code Regulations Section 15120(d)).

4.11.1EXISTING CONDITIONS
BFSA performed an archaeological records search through the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University (CSU), Fullerton. The records search provided information regarding previous archaeological studies in the Project area and any previously recorded sites within a one-half mile radius of the Project Site. Three resources were identified within one-half mile of the Project Site; however, none were located within the Project boundaries. The resources include a historic railroad track alignment, a historic foundation, and a historic transmission line alignment. (BFSA, 2022)

4.11.2REGULATORY SETTING
The following is a brief description of applicable State environmental laws and related regulations governing the protection of tribal cultural resources.

A. State Plan, Policies, and Regulations

1. Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52)
California 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. The legislature added new requirements regarding tribal cultural resources in AB 52. 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 (OPR, 2017b). By taking this proactive approach, the legislature also intended to reduce the potential for delay and conflicts in the environmental review process. 638
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.11 Tribal Cultural Resources Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

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, Section 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 Section 20184.3 (b)(2) provides examples of mitigation measures that lead agencies may consider to avoid or minimize impacts to tribal cultural resources
Section 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.

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)

2. State Health and Safety Code
California Health and Safety Code Section 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 (CA Legislative Info, 1987). 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. Section 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, Health and Safety Code Sections 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.
639
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.11 Tribal Cultural Resources Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

California Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.98 states that whenever the commission receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains pursuant to HSC subdivision (c) of Section 7050.5, it shall immediately notify those persons that are the most likely descendants. The descendants may inspect the site and make recommendations to the landowner as to the treatment of the human remains. The landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity around the remains is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until coordination has occurred with the descendants regarding their recommendations for treatment, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains. The descendants shall complete their inspection and make recommendations within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. (CA Legislative Info, n.d.)

4.11.3METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATING TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES IMPACTS The analysis of tribal cultural resources is based on a cultural resource records search through SCCIC at CSU Fullerton, historic background research, a review of historic aerial photographs, and a visit to the Project Site. In addition, this analysis is based on consultation between the City and interested Native American tribes pursuant to AB 52.

4.11.4BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
According to Section XVII of Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would result in a significant impact to tribal resources if the Project or any Project-related component would (OPR, 2019):
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

4.11.5IMPACT ANALYSIS
Threshold a: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size 640
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.11 Tribal Cultural Resources Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
No prehistoric resource sites, features, places, or landscapes were identified on the Project Site that are either listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Places. To be eligible for the Register, a resource must include the following:
(A) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage;
(B) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; (C) 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
(D) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

No resources were identified on the Project Site that meet any of the four criteria listed above to be eligible for the California Register and no pre/protohistoric resource sites or isolates are known to exist on the Project Site. (BFSA, 2022) Furthermore, no substantial evidence was presented to or found by the City that led to the identification of any resources on the Project Site that in the City’s discretion had the potential to be considered a tribal cultural resource.

As part of the AB 52 consultation process required by State law, the City sent notification of the Project to Native American tribes with possible traditional or cultural affiliation to the Project area. The City consulted with each tribe that requested consultation. During the course of the tribal consultation process, tribal monitoring was requested during the Project’s ground-disturbing construction activities.

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

As discussed under EIR Subsection 4.3, the Project Site does not contain a known cemetery site and human remains have not been previously discovered on the Site. Mandatory compliance with State law (California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98) would 641
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.11 Tribal Cultural Resources Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

ensure that, in the unlikely event that human remains are discovered during Project construction, the remains would be identified in accordance with proper protocols and the remains would be treated or disposed with appropriate dignity. Accordingly, the Project would not result in a substantial adverse effect to tribal cultural resources associated with human remains.

4.11.6CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
The potential for Project construction to result in cumulatively-considerable impacts to tribal, religious, and cultural resources were analyzed in conjunction with other projects located in southwestern San Bernardino County and northwestern Riverside County that occur in the same tribal influence areas as the Project Site. The other development projects within these areas would have a similar potential to uncover tribal cultural resources during construction activities. Therefore, the potential for Project construction to impact tribal cultural resources is a cumulatively-considerable impact for which mitigation is required.

4.11.7SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS BEFORE MITIGATION
Threshold a: Significant Direct and Cumulatively-Considerable Impact. The Project Site does not contain any recorded, significant tribal cultural resource sites; therefore, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or a local register of historical resources.

Nonetheless, Project construction activities have the potential to unearth and adversely impact tribal cultural resources that may be buried at the Project Site.

4.11.8MITIGATION
MMs 4.3-1 through 4.3-3 shall apply (refer to subsection 4.3, Cultural Resources).

4.11.9SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATION
Threshold a: Less-than-Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of MMs 4.4-1 through 4.4-3 would ensure the proper identification and subsequent treatment of any significant tribal cultural resources that may be encountered during ground-disturbing activities associated with Project development. With implementation of the required mitigation, the Project’s potential impact to significant tribal cultural resources would be reduced to less-than-significant. 642
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.12 Utilities and Service Systems Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

4.12 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
This Subsection addresses the topics of water service and supply, wastewater collection and treatment, storm water conveyance facilities, and solid waste collection and disposal. The analysis contained in this Subsection is also based in part on information obtained from the Project’s Preliminary Hydrology Report (Westland, 2022a) (Technical Appendix H1), the City of Ontario Policy Plan, and the City of Ontario Municipal Code.

4.12.1EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Water Service
The Project Site is located in the service area of the Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC).

The OMUC service area encompasses the entire City of Ontario. Under existing conditions, there is an existing 12-inch water main on East Airport Drive and a 24-inch recycled water main on East Airport Drive that ends approximately west of South Wineville Avenue.

According to the OMUC’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City’s water supply sources include: groundwater pumped from the Chino Basin; treated groundwater from the Chino Basin produced by the Chino Basin Desalter Authority; treated, imported water purchased from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) through Water Facilities Authority; groundwater and/or surface water purchased from San Antonio Water Company; and recycled water purchased from Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). (OMUC, 2021)
B. Wastewater Service and Treatment
Sanitary sewage generated at the Project Site currently discharges to surface septic systems located beneath the site Two known septic systems are located on the eastern parcel and one known system is located on the western parcel. Interviews with Property personnel on the western parcel indicated they were unaware of the location of the septic systems. (Farallon, 2022, pp. 8-4) C. Stormwater Conveyance Facilities
The natural drainage pattern for the existing condition of the Project Site is north to south. There is no existing public storm drain systems at the frontage of the Project Site. Stormwater sheet flows south and discharge onto the existing curb and gutter on Airport Drive. Runoff flows east along Airport Drive and discharge into an existing catch basin located approximately 1,500 east of the Project Site. The existing catch basin is connected to the Lower Etiwanda Creek Channel, which conveys stormwater to the Wineville Basin. (Westland, 2022a)
D. Solid Waste Collection and Disposal
The City of Ontario collects solid waste for residences and businesses within the City, including the Project Site. Based on data reported to the State Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), in 2019, the City generated 287,983 tons of solid waste requiring disposal. A majority (218,454 tons) of the City’s solid waste, in 2019, was disposed at the El Sobrante Landfill, followed 643
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.12 Utilities and Service Systems Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

by disposal of waste at the Badlands Sanitary Landfill (47,574 tons), and Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill (14,099 tons). The remaining 7,856 tons of City waste generated in 2019 was disposed of at the following locations: Antelope Valley Public Landfill, Azusa Landfill, Blythe Sanitary Landfill, Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill, Clean Harbors Buttonwillow LLC, Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill, Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill, Lost Hills Composting & Bioenergy, Olinda Alpha Landfill, Prima Deshecha Landfill, San Timoteo Sanitary Landfill, Simi Valley Landfill & Recycling Center, and Victorville Sanitary Landfill. (CalRecycle, 2019)
The Badlands Sanitary Landfill has a permitted disposal capacity of 4,800 tons per day with a remaining capacity of 15,748,799 cubic yards. The Badlands Sanitary Landfill is estimated to reach capacity, at the earliest time, in the year 2022. (CalRecycle, 2022a) The El Sobrante Landfill is permitted to received 16,054 tons of solid waste per day with a remaining capacity of 143,977,170 cubic yards. The El Sobrante Landfill is estimated to reach capacity, at the earliest time, in the year 2051. (CalRecycle, 2022b) The Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill is permitted to received 7,500 tons of solid waste per day with a remaining capacity of 61,219,377 cubic yards. The El Sobrante Landfill is estimated to reach capacity, at the earliest time, in the year 2045. (CalRecycle, 2022c) E. Dry Utilities
Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electricity services to a large majority of southern and central California, including the Project Site. SCE serves 180 cities across 50,000 square miles of service area. Existing overhead power lines occur along East Airport Drive that are aligned in an eastwest direction along the southern boundary of the Project Site. (Google Earth, 2022) The Project Site is located in the natural gas service area of Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), which maintains local underground service lines in the City. Under existing conditions, there is an existing 10-inch gas line on East Airport Drive.

4.12.2REGULATORY SETTING
The following is a brief description of the federal, state, and local environmental laws and related regulations related to utilities and service systems.

A. State Plan, Policies, and Regulations

1. Urban Water Management Planning Act
The Urban Water Management Planning Act (UWMP Act) was proposed and adopted to ensure that water planning is conducted at the local level, as the State of California recognized that two water agencies in the same region could have very different impacts from a drought. The UWMP Act requires water agencies to develop Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) over a 20-year planning horizon, and further required UWMPs to be updated every five years. UWMPs are exempt from compliance with CEQA. (DWR, 2016, p. 1-2)
The UWMPs provide a framework for long term water planning and inform the public of a supplier’s plans for long-term resource planning that ensures adequate water supplies for existing and future 644
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.12 Utilities and Service Systems Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

demands. This part of the California Water Code (CWC) requires urban water suppliers to report, describe, and evaluate:
• Water deliveries and uses;
• Water supply sources;
• Efficient water uses;
• Demand management measures; and
• Water shortage contingency planning. (DWR, 2016, p. 1-3) The UWMP Act has been modified over the years in response to the State’s water shortages, droughts, and other factors. A significant amendment was made in 2009, after the drought of 2007-2009 and as a result of the governor’s call for a statewide 20 percent reduction in urban water use by the year 2020.

This was the Water Conservation Act of 2009, also known as SB X7-7. This Act required agencies to establish water use targets for 2015 and 2020 that would result in statewide savings of 20 percent by 2020. Beginning in 2016, retail water suppliers are required to comply with the water conservation requirements in SB X7-7 in order to be eligible for State water grants or loans. Retail water agencies are required to set targets and track progress toward decreasing daily per capita urban water use in their service area, which will assist the State in meeting its 20 percent reduction goal by 2020. (DWR, 2016, p. 1-2)

2. California Senate Bill 610
The California Water Code (Water Code) §§ 10910 through 10915 were amended by the enactment of SB 610 in 2002. SB 610 requires an assessment of whether available water supplies are sufficient to serve the demand generated by a proposed project, as well as the reasonably foreseeable cumulative demand in the region over the next 20 years under average normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry year conditions. Under SB 610, water assessments must be furnished to local governments for inclusion in any environmental documentation for certain projects (as defined in Water Code 10912 [a]) subject to CEQA. (DWR, 2003; CA Legislative Info, n.d.) For the purposes of SB 610, “project” means any of the following:
(1) A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. (2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space.
(3) A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space.
(4) A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms. (5) A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area.
(6) A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in this subdivision. (7) A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500-dwelling unit project. (DWR, 2003; CA Legislative Info, n.d.) 645
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.12 Utilities and Service Systems Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Because the Project proposes an approximately 270,337 square feet (s.f.) of industrial building, a water supply assessment was not required.

3. CA. Water Code § 10610 et seq. (Senate Bill 901)
Signed into law on October 16, 1995, Senate Bill (SB) 901 required every urban water supplier to identify as part of its urban water management plan, the existing and planned sources of water available to the supplier over a prescribed 5-year period. The code requires the water service purveyor to assess the projected water demand associated with a proposed project under environmental review. Later provisions of SB 901 required compliance in the event that the proposed Project involved the adoption of a specific plan, amendment to, or revision of the land use element of a general plan or specific plan that would result in a net increase in the state population density. Upon completion of the water assessment, cities and counties may agree or disagree with the conclusions of the water service purveyors, but cannot approve projects in the face of documented water shortfalls without first making certain findings. (CA Legislative Info, n.d.)

4. Executive Order B-29-15
Executive Order (EO) B-29-15 ordered the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to impose restrictions to achieve a 25-percent reduction in potable urban water usage through February 28, 2016; directed the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to lead a statewide initiative, in partnership with local agencies, to collectively replace 50 million square feet of lawns and ornamental turf with drought tolerant landscapes; and directed the California Energy Commission to implement a statewide appliance rebate program to provide monetary incentives for the replacement of inefficient household devices. (SWRCB, 2020)

5. Executive Order B-37-16
Signed on May 9, 2016, EO B-37-16 established a new water use efficiency framework for California.

The order bolstered the state’s drought resilience and preparedness by establishing longer-term water conservation measures that include permanent monthly water use reporting, new urban water use targets, reducing system leaks and eliminating clearly wasteful practices, strengthening urban drought contingency plans, and improving agricultural water management and drought plans. (SWRCB, 2020)

6. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA)
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) established a new structure for managing California’s groundwater resources at a local level by local agencies. SGMA required, by June 30, 2017, the formation of locally-controlled groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) in the State’s high- and medium-priority groundwater basins and subbasins (basins). A GSA is responsible for developing and implementing a groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) to meet the sustainability goal of the basin to ensure that it is operated within its sustainable yield, without causing undesirable results.

The GSP Emergency Regulations for evaluating GSPs, the implementation of GSPs, and coordination 646
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.12 Utilities and Service Systems Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

agreements were adopted by DWR and approved by the California Water Commission on May 18, 2016. (DWR, n.d.)

7. California Solid Waste Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939, 1989) The Integrated Waste Management Act (IWMA) established an integrated waste management hierarchy to guide the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) and local agencies in implementation, in order of priority: (1) source reduction, (2) recycling and composting, and (3) environmentally safe transformation and land disposal (it should be noted that the CIWMB no longer exists, and its duties have been assumed by CalRecycle). As part of the IWMA, the CIWMB was given a purpose to mandate the reduction of disposed waste. (CalRecycle, 2018a) The IWMA also required:
• The establishment of a task force to coordinate the development of city Source Reduction and Recycling Elements (SRREs) and a countywide siting element. (CalRecycle, 2018a) • Each city, by July 1, 1991, to prepare, adopt and submit a SRRE to the county which includes the following components: waste characterization; source reduction; recycling; composting; solid waste facility capacity; education and public information; funding; special waste (asbestos, sewage sludge, etc.); and household hazardous waste. (CalRecycle, 2018a) • Each county, by January 1, 1991, to prepare a SRRE for its unincorporated area, with the same components described above, and a countywide siting element, specifying areas for transformation or disposal sites to provide capacity for solid waste generated in the jurisdiction which cannot be reduced or recycled for a 15-year period. • Each county to prepare, adopt, and submit to the Board an Integrated Waste Management Plan (IWMP), which includes all of the elements described above. (CalRecycle, 2018a) • Each city or county plan to include an implementation schedule which shows: diversion of 25 percent of all solid waste from landfill or transformation facilities by January 1, 1995 through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities; and, diversion of 50 percent of all solid waste by January 1, 2000 through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities. (CalRecycle, 2018a)
• The CIWMB to review the implementation of each SRRE at least once every two years. (CalRecycle, 2018a)
• The IWMA required the CIWMB, in conjunction with an inspection conducted by a Lead Enforcement Agency (LEA), to conduct at least one inspection per year of each solid waste facility in the state. (CalRecycle, 2018a)
Additionally, the IWMA established a comprehensive statewide system of permitting, inspections, enforcement, and maintenance for solid waste facilities. (CalRecycle, 2018a) 647
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.12 Utilities and Service Systems Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

8. Waste Reuse and Recycling Act (AB 1327)
The Waste Reuse and Recycling Act (WRRA) required the CIWMB to approve a model ordinance for adoption by any local government for the transfer, receipt, storage, and loading of recyclable materials in development projects by March 1, 1993. The WRRA also required local agencies to adopt a local ordinance by September 1, 1993 or allow the model ordinance to take effect. The WRRA requires all development projects that are commercial, industrial, institutional, or marina in nature and where solid waste is collected and loaded, to provide an adequate area for collecting and loading recyclable materials over the lifetime of the project. The area is required to be provided before building permits are issued. (CalRecycle, 2018b)

9. Mandatory Commercial Recycling Program (AB 341)
Assembly Bill (AB) 341 (Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011 (Chesbro, AB 341)) directed CalRecycle to develop and adopt regulations for mandatory commercial recycling. CalRecycle initiated formal rulemaking with a 45-day comment period beginning Oct. 28, 2011. The final regulation was approved by the Office of Administrative Law on May 7, 2012. AB-341 was designed to help meet California’s recycling goal of 75% by the year 2020. AB 341 requires all commercial businesses and public entities that generate 4 cubic yards or more of waste per week to have a recycling program in place. In addition, multi-family apartments with five or more units are also required to form a recycling program. (CalRecycle, 2020)

10. 2016 California Green Building Standards Code (CAL Green; Part 11 of Title 24, California Code of Regulations)
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11 is referred to as the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code). CALGreen became effective January 1, 2017, and is applicable to the planning, design, operation, construction, use, and occupancy of every newly constructed building or structure throughout the State of California (including residential structures and elementary schools). 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). Section 5.408.3 of the CALGreen Code requires that 100 percent of trees, stumps, rocks, and associated vegetation and soils resulting from land clearing shall be reused or recycled. For a phased project, such material may be stockpiled on-site until the storage site is developed. Unless otherwise noted in the regulation, all newly constructed buildings in California are subject of the requirements of the CALGreen Code. (CEC, 2018)
648
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.12 Utilities and Service Systems Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

11. California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (24 CA. Code Regs. 6)
The Building Energy Efficiency Standards were first adopted in 1976 and have been updated periodically since then as directed by statute. In 1975 the Department of Housing and Community Development adopted rudimentary energy conservation standards under their State Housing Law authority that were a precursor to the first generation of the Standards. However, the Warren-Alquist Act was passed one year earlier with explicit direction to the Energy Commission (formally titled the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission) to adopt and implement the Standards. The Energy Commission’s statute created separate authority and specific direction regarding what the Standards are to address, what criteria are to be met in developing the Standards, and what implementation tools, aids, and technical assistance are to be provided. (CEC, 2018) The Standards contain energy and water efficiency requirements (and indoor air quality requirements) for newly constructed buildings, additions to existing buildings, and alterations to existing buildings.

Public Resources Code Sections 25402 subdivisions (a)-(b) and 25402.1 emphasize the importance of building design and construction flexibility by requiring the Energy Commission to establish performance standards, in the form of an “energy budget” in terms of the energy consumption per square foot of floor space. For this reason, the Standards include both a prescriptive option, allowing builders to comply by using methods known to be efficient, and a performance option, allowing builders complete freedom in their designs provided the building achieves the same overall efficiency as an equivalent building using the prescriptive option. Reference Appendices are adopted along with the Standards that contain data and other information that helps builders comply with the Standards. (CEC, 2018)
The 2019 update to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards focuses on several key areas to improve the energy efficiency of newly constructed buildings and additions and alterations to existing buildings.

The most significant efficiency improvements to the residential Standards include the introduction of photovoltaic into the prescriptive package, improvements for attics, walls, water heating, and lighting.

The most significant efficiency improvements to the nonresidential Standards include alignment with the ASHRAE 90.1 2017 national standards. The 2019 Standards also include changes made throughout all of its sections to improve the clarity, consistency, and readability of the regulatory language. (CEC, 2018)
Public Resources Code Section 25402.1 also requires the Energy Commission to support the performance standards with compliance tools for builders and building designers. The Alternative Calculation Method (ACM) Approval Manual adopted by regulation as an appendix of the Standards establishes requirements for input, output, and calculational uniformity in the computer programs used to demonstrate compliance with the Standards. From this, the Energy Commission develops and makes publicly available free, public domain building modeling software in order to enable compliance based on modeling of building efficiency and performance. The ACM Approval Manual also includes provisions for private firms seeking to develop compliance software for approval by the Energy Commission, which further encourages flexibility and innovation. (CEC, 2018) 649
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.12 Utilities and Service Systems Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

B. Local Plan, Policies, and Regulations

1. The Policy Plan
The Policy Plan, part of The Ontario Plan, serves as the City’s General Plan. The Policy Plan Environmental Resource Element has several principles, goals, and policies that are applicable to the Project pertaining to water, wastewater, solid waste, and recycling. On August 16, 2022, the City approved The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP 2050), which include updates to the Policy Plan.

2. City of Ontario Municipal Code
The City of Ontario Municipal Code contains regulations related to utilities and service systems. The specific Municipal Code policies that are relevant to the Project are as follows:

Title 6, Sanitation and Health, Chapter 3: Integrated Solid Waste Management, sets forth uniform requirements and regulations for the direct and indirect users of the solid waste collection services of the City. It also allows for the City to comply with all applicable state and federal laws, including, but not limited to, The Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, California Code Title 14, Division 7, and any subsequent amendments to each.

Title 6, Sanitation and Health, Chapter 6: Stormwater Drainage System. The purpose of this chapter is to ensure the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the City of Ontario by prescribing regulations to effectively prohibit non-stormwater discharges into the City's stormwater drainage system.

Title 6, Sanitation and Health, Chapter 8A: Water Conservation Plan, The purpose of this chapter is to minimize the potential for a water shortage through the practice of water conservation, and to minimize the effect of a shortage of water supplies on the water customers of the City. It is furthermore the intent of this chapter to adopt provisions that will significantly reduce the inefficient consumption of water, thereby extending the available water resources necessary for domestic, sanitation, and fire protection of the community to the greatest extent possible.

4.12.3BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
According to Section I of Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would result in a significant impact to utilities and service systems if the Project or any Project-related component would (OPR, 2019):
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects; b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years;
650
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.12 Utilities and Service Systems Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments;
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals; e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

4.12.4IMPACT ANALYSIS
Threshold a: Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
A. Water and Wastewater
The Project would include the installation of water lines within the Project Site. Water would be accommodated via proposed water lines that would extend from the southeastern and southwestern corners of the building to an existing 12-inch water main at East Airport Drive. Additionally, recycled water to the Project Site would be provided via a proposed 8-inch recycled water main along East Airport Drive. The proposed 8-inch recycled water main would extend from the west of South Wineville Avenue to the eastern boundary of the Project Site and connect to the existing 24-inch recycled water main.

Sanitary sewer service to the Project Site would be provided by OMUC’s sanitary sewer wastewater collection system and conveyed to the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) for wastewater treatment. Sewer would be accommodated via proposed 6-inch sewer line that would extend from the southwestern corners of the building to a proposed 8-inch OMUC sewer main on East Airport Drive.

There is an existing 8-inch OMUC sewer main on East Airport Drive that ends approximately at the western boundary of the Project Site where the proposed 8-inch sewer main would connect to.

Although the Project would result in new water and wastewater line connections, these connections would be part of the Project’s construction phase, which is evaluated throughout this EIR. The construction of the Project’s water and wastewater lines necessary to serve the Project would not result in any significant physical effects on the environment that are not already identified and disclosed as part of this EIR. Impacts would be less than significant.

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

The proposed on-site storm drain system will convey the flow into a proposed underground infiltration chamber. In a large storm event, stormwater will exit the underground chamber system via pipes and 651
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.12 Utilities and Service Systems Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

will be pumped out through a proposed parkway drain on Airport Drive. Runoff will sheet flow east along Airport Drive and discharge into the existing catch basin, located approximately 1,500 feet east of the Project Site, to maintain the same point of discharge as the existing condition.

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

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

C. Dry Utilities
Electricity will be provided by SCE. All new dry utility infrastructure would be installed underground and within the Project Site. Connections to the existing utility networks are available in the Project area and any offsite improvements would occur within improved rights-of-way, which are inherent to the Project’s construction phase and have been evaluated throughout this EIR. Because the Project Site has been previously developed with industrial uses that requires electric power and telecommunication services, implementation of the Project is not anticipated to limit the ability of service providers to provide service to Project. Therefore, the Project would not require or result in the construction or expansion of new facilities, and impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold b: Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
OMUC is responsible for supplying potable water to the Project Site. The OMUC’s 2020 UWMP includes an analysis of water supply reliability projected through 2045 under normal years, single dry year, and multiple dry years. OMUC’s total water demand for 2020 was approximately 32,109 AF (OMUC, 2021). OMUC’s forecasts for projected water demand based on the population projections of the Southern California Associations of Governments (SCAG), which rely on the adopted land use designations contained within the general plans that cover the geographic area within OMUC’s service.

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

Therefore, the City has sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements/resources and no new or expanded entitlements are needed. Impacts would be less than significant.
652
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.12 Utilities and Service Systems Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Threshold c: Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? IEUA is responsible for supplying wastewater treatment services to the Project Site. There are four recycling plants (RPs) within the IEUA’s service area. Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 1 (RP-1) is located in the City of Ontario and has been in operation since 1948. According to IEUA’s 2020 UWMP, the current wastewater treatment capacity of RP-1 is 44 MGD, although it currently treats approximately 21 MGD. (IEUA, 2021)
The Project Site is currently developed and served by septic tank systems. The Project Applicant would demolish the existing structures and redevelop the Site with an approximately 270,337 s.f. building.

The Project is calculated to generate 28,776 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater (2,200 gpd/acre ×

13.08 acres = 28,776 gpd). The wastewater generated by the Project would only represent approximately 0.13 percent of the excess treatment capacity of RP-1 ([28,776 gpd ÷ 23 million gpd] × 100 = 0.13 %); therefore, it is anticipated that RP-1 have sufficient treatment capacity to provide service to the Project. The associated increase in wastewater generation would have a negligible effect on the wastewater treatment provider. As such, the IEUA’s existing wastewater treatment facilities are anticipated to have adequate capacity to serve the Project’s project demand in addition to its existing commitments. Impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold d: Would the Project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Solid waste generated during the operation of the Project is anticipated to be collected by the City of Ontario and is anticipated to be hauled to either Badlands Sanitary Landfill or El Sobrante Landfill. As previously discussed, the Badlands Sanitary Landfill has a permitted disposal capacity of 4,800 tons per day with a remaining capacity of 15,748,799 cubic yards. The Badlands Sanitary Landfill is estimated to reach capacity, at the earliest time, in the year 2022 (CalRecycle, 2022a). The El Sobrante Landfill is permitted to received 16,054 tons of solid waste per day with a remaining capacity of 143,977,170 ton. The El Sobrante Landfill is estimated to reach capacity, at the earliest time, in the year 2051. (CalRecycle, 2022b; CalRecycle, 2022c)
Based on the generation rate of 1.42 pounds per 100 s.f. per day, the proposed 270,337 s.f. building would result in approximately 3,838 pounds per day (1.91 tons per day). As previously stated, the Badlands Sanitary Landfill has a permitted disposal capacity of 4,800 tons per day and the El Sobrante Landfill has a permitted disposal capacity of 16,054 tons per day. The Project generated solid waste represents a nominal portion of the landfill’s capacity and would not contribute significantly to the daily landfill capacity, and the landfill facilities are sufficient. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant
653
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.12 Utilities and Service Systems Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Threshold e: Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
The following federal and state laws and regulations govern solid waste disposal:
• AB 939 (Chapter 1095, Statutes of 1989), the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 required each city, county, and regional agency to develop a source reduction and recycling element of an integrated waste management plan that contained specified components, including a source reduction component, a recycling component, and a composting component. With certain exceptions, the source reduction and recycling components were required to divert 50 percent of all solid waste from landfill disposal or transformation by January 1, 2000, through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities.
• AB 32 (Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006), the California Global Warming Solutions Act, established mandatory recycling as one of the measures to reduce GHG emissions adopted in the Scoping Plan by the California Air Resources Board. • AB 341 (Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011) requires that all “commercial” generators of solid waste (businesses, institutions, and multifamily dwellings) establish recycling and/or composting programs. AB 341 goes beyond AB 939 and establishes the new recycling goal of 75 percent by 2020.

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

4.12.5CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the Project Site in conjunction with other development projects and planned development within the service area for the respective utility provides or the service area for specific facilities (e.g., wastewater treatment facilities).

As with the Project, each individual related development project would require the construction of necessary infrastructure (water and wastewater lines, storm drain facilities, dry utilities, and others) to serve the project. Each individual development project is subject to review for utility capacity to avoid unanticipated interruption of service or inadequate supplies. Coordination with the utility providers would allow for the provision of utility services to the Project and other developments. The Project and other planned projects are subject to connection and service fees to offset increased demand and assist in facility expansion and service (at the time of need). Therefore, the Project impacts would not 654
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.12 Utilities and Service Systems Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

contribute to a significant cumulative impact associated with construction of utility infrastructure or provision of utility services.

OMUC has sufficient potable water supplies to meet existing and future demands through the year 2040 under normal, single-dry, and multiple dry years. As such, the Project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact on water supply.

According to IEUA’s 2020 UWMP, the current wastewater treatment capacity of RP-1 is 44 MGD, although it currently treats approximately 21 MGD. As such, there is adequate existing and proposed capacity to provide wastewater treatment for the Project and cumulative development. Therefore, the Project would not result in a significant cumulative impact on wastewater treatment facilities.

The City, including the Project Site and cumulative development, are within the service area of the Badlands Sanitary Landfill or El Sobrante Landfill and a majority of the City’s solid waste is disposed of at the Badlands Sanitary Landfill or El Sobrante Landfill. The remaining portions of the City’s solid waste are disposed of at landfills with adequate capacity throughout the County and surrounding counties within the State. The solid waste generated by construction and operation of the Project would represent nominal portions of daily disposal capacities at existing landfill facilities. The existing landfill facilities have sufficient daily capacity to handle solid waste during the Project’s construction and operation and would not directly result in the need for expanded solid waste disposal facilities.

Further, the Project would adhere to applicable local and State regulations during both construction and long-term operation to reduce solid waste generation. Other cumulative development would be required to comply with such regulations. Therefore, the Project would not have a significant cumulative impact related to solid waste disposal and compliance with regulations addressing the reduction of solid waste generation and disposal.

4.12.6SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS BEFORE MITIGATION
Threshold a: Less-than-Significant Impact. The physical environmental effects associated with installing the Project’s proposed connections to existing utility infrastructure, as well as installation of on-site and off-site storm water management, water, and wastewater infrastructure have been evaluated throughout this EIR and no adverse impacts specific to the provision utilities services have been identified. Mitigation measures are identified, where necessary, for construction-related effects that would reduce construction-phase impacts to the maximum feasible extent. Impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold b: Less-than-Significant Impact. Based on the information provided in the OMUC’s UWMP, OMUC has sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project in normal, dry, and multiple dry years and impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold c: Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project’s proposed wastewater generation would not exceed the capacity of the RP-1. The Project’s wastewater generation would represent a nominal increase in wastewater treatment demand and impacts would be less than significant. 655
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 4.12 Utilities and Service Systems Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

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

Threshold e: No Impact. The Project would comply with all applicable federal, State, and local statues and regulations pertaining to management and reduction of solid waste. No impacts associated with regulatory compliance would occur.

4.12.7MITIGATION
Project impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. 656
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

5.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS

IMPLEMENTED
The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR disclose the significant environmental effects of a project which cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(b)).

As described in detail in Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis, of this EIR, the proposed Project is anticipated to result in impacts to the environment that cannot be reduced to below a level of significance after the consideration of Project design features, compliance with applicable federal, State and local regulations, and the application of the feasible mitigation measures identified in this EIR. The significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level below thresholds of significance consist of the following:
• Transportation (Vehicle Miles Traveled): After the application of feasible mitigation measures, effectiveness of the TDM strategies that have potential to reduce the Project VMT are dependent on as yet unknown Project building tenant(s); therefore, Project impacts related to VMT would be significant and unavoidable on a direct and cumulatively-considerable basis.

5.2 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES WHICH WOULD BE CAUSED BY

THE PROJECT SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED
The CEQA Guidelines require EIRs to address any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(c)). An environmental change would fall into this category if: a) the project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources; b) the primary and secondary impacts of the project would generally commit future generations to similar uses; c) the project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents; or d) the proposed consumption of resources are not justified (e.g., the project results in the wasteful use of energy).

Determining whether the Project may result in significant irreversible environmental changes requires a determination of whether key non-renewable resources would be degraded or destroyed in such a way that there would be little possibility of restoring them. Natural resources, in the form of construction materials and energy resources, would be used in the construction of the proposed Project.

The consumption of these natural resources would represent an irreversible change to the environment; however, development of the Project Site would have no measurable adverse effect on the availability of such resources, including resources that may be non-renewable (e.g., construction aggregates, fossil fuels). Additionally, the Project is required by law to comply with the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), which will minimize the Project’s demand for energy, including energy produced from non-renewable sources. A more detailed discussion of Project energy consumption is provided in EIR Subsection 4.4, Energy.
657
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

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

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

EIR Subsection 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, provides an analysis of the potential for hazardous materials to be transported to/from the Project Site and/or used on the Project Site during construction and operation. As concluded in Subsection 4.7, mandatory compliance with federal, State, and local regulations related to hazardous materials handling, storage, and use by all Project construction contractors (near term) and occupants (long-term) would ensure that any hazardous materials used on-site would be safely and appropriately handled to preclude any irreversible damage to the environment that could result if hazardous materials were released from the Site.

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

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

5.3 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
CEQA requires a discussion of the ways in which the proposed Project could be growth inducing. The CEQA Guidelines identify a project as growth inducing if it would foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d)). New employees and new residential populations represent direct forms of growth. These direct forms of growth have a secondary effect of expanding the size of local markets and inducing additional economic activity in the area.

A project could indirectly induce growth at the local level by increasing the demand for additional goods and services associated with an increase in population or employment and thus reducing or removing the barriers to growth. This typically occurs in suburban or rural environs where population 658
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

growth results in increased demand for service and commodity markets responding to the new population of residents or employees.

According to regional population projections included in SCAG’s Connect SoCal, the City of Ontario’s population is projected to grow by 96,900 residents between 2016 and 2045 (approximately 1.94% annual growth). Over this same time period, employment in the City is expected to add 55,400 new jobs (approximately 1.6% annual job growth) (SCAG, 2020b) Additionally, The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP 2050) projected a total of 129,562 dwelling units, 261,91,779 sq ft of non-residential uses, 410,492 residents and 296,002 jobs in 2050. (Ontario, 2022b) Economic growth would likely take place as a result of the Project’s operation. The Project’s employees (short-term construction and longterm operational) would purchase goods and services in the region, but any secondary increase in employment associated with meeting these goods and services demands is expected to be accommodated by existing goods and service providers and, based on the amount of existing and planned future commercial and retail services available in areas near the Project Site, would be highly unlikely to result in any unanticipated, adverse physical impacts to the environment. In addition, the Project would generate approximately 75 employees per shift, a majority of which would likely be filled by residents of the housing units either already built or planned for development within the City of Ontario and nearby incorporated and unincorporated areas. Accordingly, because it is anticipated that most of the Project’s future employees would already be living in the City of Ontario or the larger Inland Empire area, the Project’s introduction of employment opportunities on the Project Site would not induce substantial growth in the area.

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

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

5.4 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT DURING THE EIR SCOPING PROCESS CEQA Guidelines Section 15128 requires that an EIR “…contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant and 659
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

were therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR.” The Project’s Notice of Preparation for this EIR, both of which are included in Technical Appendix A to this EIR, determined that implementation of the Project would clearly have no potential to result in significant impacts under eight (8) environmental issue areas: agriculture and forestry resources, biological resources, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and wildfire.

Therefore, these issue areas were not required to be analyzed in detail in EIR Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis. A brief analysis of the Project’s impacts to agriculture and forestry resources, biological resources, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and wildfire is presented below.

5.4.1 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Threshold a: Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
The Project Site is presently industrial and does not contain any agricultural uses. Further, the Site is identified as Urban and Built-up Land on the map prepared by the California Resources Agency, pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (DOC, 2018). The Project does not have the potential to convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use. As a result, no adverse environmental impacts are anticipated.

Threshold b: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
The Project Site is not zoned for agricultural use. The Project Site is zoned Heavy Industrial. The Project’s implementation would not require a zone change and would not result in a loss of land zoned for agriculture. The Project is consistent with the development standards and allowed land uses of the proposed zone. Furthermore, there is no Williamson Act contract in effect on the subject Site.

Therefore, no impacts to agricultural uses are anticipated, nor will there be any conflict with existing or Williamson Act contracts.

Threshold c: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production?
The Project is zoned Heavy Industrial and does not contain forest land. The Project is consistent with the development standards and allowed land uses of the Heavy Industrial zone. The City’s Zoning Map does not designate any parcels of land in the Project area for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 660
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Threshold d: Would the Project conflict result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
There is currently no land in the City of Ontario that qualifies as forest land as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g). Neither the Policy Plan nor the City’s Zoning Code provide designations for forest land. Consequently, the Project would not result in the loss or conversion of forest land.

Threshold e: Would the Project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
The Project Site is currently zoned Heavy Industrial and is not designated as Farmland. The Project Site is currently developed with industrial uses and there are no agricultural uses occurring onsite. As a result, to the extent that the Project would result in changes to the existing environment those changes would not result in the loss of Farmland to non-agricultural use.

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

5.4.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Threshold a: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The Project Site is currently developed with a grain processing company and a corn storage and distribution facility. The Project Site is in an urbanized and industrialized area in the City of Ontario and vegetation onsite is limited to ornamental species. The Project Site is located within an area that has not been identified as containing species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). As a part of the Project, existing vegetation within the developed portion of the Project Site would be removed and replaced with a variety of trees and ornamental vegetation. The relocation and/or replacement of on-site vegetation and trees would not have a substantial adverse effect on candidate, sensitive or specialstatus species, as defined by the CDFW or the USFWS. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 661
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Threshold b: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
The Project Site is currently developed with industrial uses and is in a highly urbanized and industrialized area in the City. The Project Site does not contain any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified by the CDFW or the USFWS (USFWS, 2020). Therefore, no adverse environmental impacts are anticipated.

Threshold c: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands [as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act] (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
There are no wetlands habitat present on site (USFWS, 2020). Therefore, Project implementation would have no impact on these resources.

Threshold d: Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No surface water bodies, streams or waterways occur on the Project Site. The Project Site does not provide nursery sites for wildlife, nor is it conducive to function as a corridor for migratory wildlife.

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

Threshold e: Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? The City of Ontario does not have any ordinances protecting biological resources. Further, the Site does not contain any mature trees necessitating the need for preservation. As a result, no adverse environmental impacts are anticipated.
662
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Threshold f: Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan [(HCP)], Natural Community Conservation Plan [(NCCP)], or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
The Project Site is not part of an adopted HCP, NCCP or other approved habitat conservation plan (CDFW, 2019). As a result, no adverse environmental impacts are anticipated.

5.4.3 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Threshold a: Would the Project physically divide an established community? The Project Site is located in an area that is currently developed with urban land uses. Existing industrial development borders the Site to the south, west, and east; the BNSF railroad track borders the Site to the north. The Project Applicant would redevelop the Site with another industrial use with associated parking and landscaping improvements. The Project will be of similar design and size to surrounding development. The Project would not have the potential to physically divide an established community. No adverse impacts are anticipated.

Threshold b: Would the Project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
The Project Site is designated for Industrial by the City’s Policy Plan and the Heavy Industrial zoning district. The Project Applicant would redevelop the Project Site in accordance with the underlying land use designation and applicable zoning ordinance development standards. No change to the existing land use designation or zoning is required or proposed by the Project. The Project is consistent with the Policy Plan and does not interfere with any policies for environmental protection. As such, no impacts are anticipated.

5.4.4 MINERAL RESOURCES
Threshold a: Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? The Project Site is located within a mostly developed area surrounded by urban land uses. As shown in Figure 5.12-1 of The Ontario Plan 2050 Final Supplemental EIR, the Project Site is designated as Mineral Resource Zone MRZ-3 (Ontario, 2022b). Areas designated by the State of California Geologist as MRZ-3 include land that the significance of mineral deposits cannot be determined from the available data. According to the Policy Plan, there are no permitted mining operations in the City.

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

There are no known mineral resources in the area. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. 663
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Threshold b: Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
As discussed in Response 5.4.4(a) above, there are no known mineral resources in the area. The Project would not result in the loss of availability of locally-important mineral resources. No impacts are anticipated.

5.4.5 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Threshold a: Would the Project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? The Project would result in the development of approximately 270,337 s.f. warehouse facility, replacing an existing grain processing and corn storage and distribution facility. According to Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) Employment Density Study, the Project would generate approximately 226 employees (Urban Crossroads, 2022f). According to the California Employment Development Department (EDD), as of June 2022, the City of Ontario has a labor force of 92,300 persons and of that labor force, 3,200 are unemployed (unemployment rate of 3.5 percent) (EDD, 2022). According to SCAG’s 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, the City of Ontario is anticipated to employ approximately 169,300 persons by 2045 (SCAG, 2020b). As discussed above, TOP 2050 projected a total of 296,002 jobs in 2050.

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

Operation of the Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the Project area, either directly or indirectly and would not exceed regional or local growth projections. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

Threshold b: Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The Project Site does not contain any housing and there are no people living at the Project Site that would be displaced by the Project. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. 664
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

5.4.6 PUBLIC SERVICES
Threshold a: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire Protection?
ii. Police Protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?
A. Fire Protection
Fire protection services are provided by the Ontario Fire Department (OFD). OFD serves these residents from 10 strategically located fire stations, including the Ontario International Airport fire station, with a daily staffing level of 59 sworn firefighters. These fire stations house nine 4-person paramedic engine companies, three 4-person truck companies, an 8-person Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) station, 1 fire investigation supervisor, and 2 battalion chiefs (Ontario, 2022c). The closest fire station to the Project Site is Station 7, located at 4901 Vanderbilt Street, approximately 1.3 miles to the southwest of the Project Site.

The proposed building would be in accordance with the applicable provisions of the adopted California Fire Code (CFC) and the City’s Municipal Code Section 4-4.01, ordinances, and standard conditions regarding fire prevention and suppression measures related to water improvement plans, fire hydrants, fire access, and water availability. The Project Site is in a developed area currently served by OFD.

The Project will not require the construction of any new fire protection facilities or alteration of any existing fire protection facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new fire protection facilities. Development impact fees (DIF) would also be collected in order to build and supply necessary infrastructure for fire protection services, as necessary. No impacts are anticipated.

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

The Project Site is in a developed area, currently served by OPD. The Project will not require the construction of any new police protection facilities or alteration of any existing police protection facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new police protection facilities. DIF would also be collected in order to build and supply necessary infrastructure for police protection services, as necessary. No impacts are anticipated. 665
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

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

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

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

5.4.7 RECREATION
Threshold a: Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
The Project is not proposing any significant new housing or large employment generator that would cause an increase in the use of neighborhood parks or other recreational facilities. No impacts are anticipated.

Threshold b: Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
The Project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Implementation of the Project would not result in any adverse physical effects on the environment due to the construction of recreational facilities. No impacts are anticipated. 666
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

5.4.8 WILDFIRE
Threshold a: Would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The State Responsibility Area (SRA) is the land where the State of California is financially responsible for the preservation and suppression of wildfires. The SRA does not include lands within City boundaries or in federal ownership; therefore, the Project Site does not have the potential to be in an SRA. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s fire hazard map for the Local Responsibility Area (LRA), the Project Site is not within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CAL FIRE, 2008).

The City updated the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan prepared by the Office of Emergency Management in 2018. The purpose of the Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) is to demonstrate the plan for reducing and/or eliminating risk in the City. The HMP process encourages communities to develop goals and projects that will reduce risk and build a more disaster resilient community by analyzing potential hazards.

Construction of the Project would be generally confined to the Project Site and would not physically impair access to the Site or Project area. During both construction and long-term operation, the Project would be required to maintain adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles as required by the City and OFD. Because the Project is required to comply with all applicable City codes and is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), any emergency evacuation or emergency response plan impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.

Threshold b: Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the Project exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? As demonstrated above, the Project Site is not in or near an SRA or LRA or lands classified as VHFHSZ. Implementation of the Project would not add wildland vegetation to the Project Site or change site topography (such as adding large slopes) so as to exacerbate wildfire spread. Adjacent areas to the Project Site are also urbanized; therefore, there are no wildlands adjacent to the Site that may expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire due to slope and prevailing winds. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. 667
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 5.0 Other CEQA Considerations Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Threshold c: Would the Project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
The Project would not require the installation of infrastructure that would exacerbate fire risk. The Project would connect to the existing Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC) 12-inch water main on East Airport Drive. Sanitary sewer service to the Project Site would be provided by Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). Sewer would be accommodated via proposed 6-inch sewer line that would extend from the southwestern corners of the building to a proposed 8-inch sewer main on East Airport Drive. The proposed 8-inch sewer main would connect to an existing 8-inch sewer main on East Airport Drive that ends approximately at the western boundary of the Project Site.

Although the Project would require the installation of utility infrastructure connection, the construction of these improvements is inherent to the Project’s construction phase and impacts associated with the Project construction phase are evaluated throughout this EIR. In addition to the Project’s utility infrastructure, the Project would result in the installation of on-site fire hydrants, that are designed in accordance with the OFD standards. The internal waterlines are anticipated to supply sufficient fire flows and pressure to meet the demands required for on-site fire hydrants. Therefore, the proposed connections to existing infrastructure would not be anticipated to exacerbate fire risk on or off-site or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold d: Would the Project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
As discussed above, the Project Site is not located within a landslide zone (DOC, 2021) or in a FEMA flood zone (FEMA, 2016). Regardless of the landslide susceptibility, the Project would be required by the California Building Code (CBC) and City’s Building Code to comply with the recommendations identified in the Project’s Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, which would ensure that the Project is engineered and constructed to maximize stability and preclude safety hazards to on-site areas. The implementation of the Project would not increase the risk of landslides after a wildfire compared to existing conditions. Impacts would be less than significant.

Moreover, the Project would result in minor changes to the existing drainage patterns of the Project Site. However, such changes would not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding or result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The Project would replace the existing developed Site with a single industrial building and would not add wildland vegetation that would not readily transmit wildfire. Therefore, the Project would reduce the risk of wildfire spread. In the event that wildfire occurs in the Project vicinity, the Project would not result in an increased risk of downslope or downstream flooding because it is within an area of minimal flooding and Project runoff would be adequately conveyed by the existing storm drain infrastructure. Therefore, the implementation of the Project would not increase the risk of downslope or downstream flooding.

Impacts would be less than significant.
668
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

6.0 ALTERNATIVES
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a Project may have on the environment. In compliance with CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(a), an EIR must “describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives”.

Although the Project evaluated in this EIR would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts on the environment, this Section identifies potential alternatives to the Project and evaluates them, as required by CEQA.

Key provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines on alternatives (Sections 15126.6(b)–15126.6(f)) are provided below to explain the foundation and requirements for the alternatives analysis in the EIR. • The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objective, or would be more costly (Section 15126.6(b)).
• The specific alternative of ‘no project’ shall also be evaluated along with its impact (Section 15126.6(e)(1)).
• The “no project” analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation is published, and at the time the environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. If the environmentally superior alternative is the “no project” alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives (Section 15126.6(e)(2)).
• The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by the “rule of reason” that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. The range of feasible alternatives shall be selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision making. Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent) (Section 15126.6(f)).
669
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

• For alternative locations, “only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR” (Section 15126.6(f)(2)(A)).
• If the lead agency concludes that no feasible alternative locations exist, it must disclose the reasons for this conclusion, and should include the reasons in the EIR. For example, in some cases there may be no feasible alternative locations for a geothermal plant or mining project, which must be in close proximity to natural resources at a given location (Section 15126.6(f)(2)(B)).
• An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative (Section 15126.6(f)(3)).

6.1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
As demonstrated in Section 4.0 of this EIR, implementation of the Project would result in significant adverse environmental effects under one environmental issue area that cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance after the implementation of mandatory regulatory requirements and feasible mitigation measures. The unavoidable significant impact is as follows:
• Transportation (Vehicle Miles Traveled): After the application of feasible mitigation measures, effectiveness of some of the Transportation Demand Management Program (TDMP) strategies that have potential to reduce the Project Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) are dependent on as yet unknown Project building tenant(s). Therefore, Project impacts related to VMT would be significant and unavoidable on a direct and cumulatively-considerable basis.

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

A. To expand economic development and facilitate job creation in the City of Ontario by redeveloping the property with a new, in-demand industrial use adjacent to an alreadyestablished industrial area.

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

C. To develop industrial buildings with loading bays in close proximity to designated truck routes and the State highway system to avoid or shorten heavy truck-trip lengths on City and regional roads.
670
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

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

E. To develop a project that has architectural design and operational characteristics that complement other existing and planned buildings in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site and minimize conflicts with other nearby land uses.

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

6.3 ALTERNATIVES UNDER CONSIDERATION
CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(e) requires that an alternative be included that describes what would reasonably be expected to occur on the property in the foreseeable future if the proposed Project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services (i.e., “no project” alternative). For development projects that include a revision to an existing land use plan, the “no project” alternative is considered to be the continuation of the existing land use plan into the future. For projects other than a land use plan (for example, a development project on an identifiable property such as the proposed Project evaluated herein), the “no project” alternative is considered to be a circumstance under which the proposed Project does not proceed (CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(e)(3)(A-B). For the alternatives’ analysis in this Draft EIR, the “No Project/No Development Alternative” was considered.

6.3.1 NO PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE
The No Project/No Development Alternative considers no development on the Project site beyond what occurs on the site under existing conditions (as described in EIR Section 3.0). As such, the Alternative is considered to be the scenario where the existing grain processing company and corn storage and distribution facility are retained and the facility continues to process grain and corn into the future. Under this alternative, no improvements would be made to the Project site and none of the Project’s internal parking, utility, and other infrastructure improvements would occur. This alternative was selected by the City to compare the environmental effects of the proposed Project with an alternative that would leave the Project site undeveloped in its general existing conditions.

6.3.2 REDUCED BUILDING AREA ALTERNATIVE
The Reduced Building Area Alternative considers a proposal where the Project site would be redeveloped with two uses: a light industrial building and a trailer parking lot. Under this Alternative, a 135,169 s.f. light industrial building (including related site improvements such as truck loading/unloading areas and parking, passenger vehicle parking, landscaping, signage, and public utility connections) would be developed on the eastern portion of the Project site and a trailer parking lot would be developed on the western portion of the Project site. This alternative was selected to evaluate a scenario that would reduce the total building area on the Project site relative to the Project but still allow productive industrial use of the entire Project site. 671
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

6.3.3 REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
The Reduced Intensity Alternative considers a proposal where a portion of the Project site would be redeveloped with an industrial building with a total square footage of 63,500 s.f. and the remainder of the site would be cleared of its existing uses but not be developed. This represents a reduced in development of 206,837 s.f. compared to the Project (an approximately 76.5 percent reduction in building space). Under this alternative, no high-cube cold storage uses would occur. Access to the site would be similar to the Project with a proportional reduction in the number of passenger vehicle parking spaces to service the building. The balance of the site would be used for trailer parking exclusively serving the 63,500 s.f. building user. Although the proposed building size would be reduced, the development impact area would generally remain the same as the Project. This alternative was selected to evaluate a scenario that would reduce the total building size on the Project site, eliminate the high-cube cold storage use, and would not take into account of existing trips generation in order to reduced vehicle and truck trips and significant impacts associated with VMT.

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

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

6.4.1 ALTERNATIVE SITES
CEQA requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives to the Project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the Project. The key question and first step in the analysis is determining whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by developing the project at another location. Only 672
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(f)(2)).

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

Development of the Project in an alternative location in the general vicinity of the Project site would not reduce the VMT impact, as trip lengths would not substantially reduce such that the VMT impact could be relieved. Also, placing the Project in a different location would result in similar less-thansignificant environmental impacts as would occur with implementation of the Project at its proposed location because the Project’s environmental effects are primarily related to vehicles traveling to/from the Project site (air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions) and not related to the presence of sensitive resources on the Project site or its location near sensitive receptors. Vehicle-related impacts are a direct reflection of the Project’s expected operational characteristics, regardless of the property where the Project is located. In fact, if an alternative site were selected for the Project that was located farther from major arterial roads that are designated truck routes, like East Airport Drive for example, or regional freeways like I-15 and I-10, than the Project Site, the severity of the Project’s VMT impacts would increase as miles traveled for vehicles going to/from the Project would increase.

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

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

6.5 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
The City has identified the following alternatives as a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15126.6. These alternatives are described in more detail and evaluated for their level of environmental effects, compared to the Project’s environmental effects.

The following discussion compares the impacts of each alternative considered by the City with the impacts of the Project, as detailed in Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis, of this EIR. Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code §21002.1), CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(d) requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening 673
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

the significant effects of the Project. Therefore, the analysis provided herein focuses on a comparison of the Project’s significant impacts to the level of impact that would occur under each evaluated alternative. The Project’s significant and unavoidable impact is VMT. Although the Project’s lessthan-significant impacts also are compared to the alternatives evaluated herein, the emphasis of the comparative discussion in this analysis relates to the significant impacts of the Project that require mitigation as required by CEQA. A conclusion is provided for each significant impact of the Project as to whether the alternative results in one of the following: 1) reduction or elimination of the Project’s impact, 2) a greater impact than would occur under the Project, 3) the same impact as the proposed Project, or 4) a new impact in addition to the Project’s impacts.

Table 6-1, Alternatives to the Project – Comparison of Environmental Impacts, at the end of this Section compares the significant impacts of the Project with the level of impact that would be caused by the alternatives evaluated herein and identifies the ability of each alternative to meet the fundamental purpose and basic objectives of the Project, listed above under 6.2, Project Objectives.

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

A. Aesthetics
The No Project/No Development Alternative does not involve any new development or change in current uses. Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, the visual character and quality of the Project Site would be maintained in its existing condition. No new structures, landscaping, or lighting would be introduced on the Project Site. The No Project Alternative would not have the potential to conflict with the existing character or quality of existing and planned development surrounding the Project Site and would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would impact nighttime views in the area. No significant aesthetic impacts related to aesthetics were identified for the Project and no significant aesthetic impacts would occur under this alternative.

B. Air Quality
The No Project/No Development Alternative would not involve construction activities. The No Project/No Development Alternative would result in less construction-related air pollutant emissions 674
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

compared to the Project; however, the Project’s construction-related air quality impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not avoid any significant constructionrelated air quality impacts.

The Project Site currently contains a grain processing company and a corn storage and distribution facility that generate nominal amounts of air pollution associated with typical business operations. The No Project Alternative would leave the Project Site in its existing condition and would retain these uses (and less than significant amounts of air pollution).

C. Cultural Resources
The No Project/No Development Alternative would leave the Project Site in its existing condition; no grading would occur under this Alternative and there would be no potential impacts to subsurface archeological resources that may exist beneath the ground surface. Although there are mitigation measures identified in EIR Subsection 4.3 that would reduce the Project’s direct and cumulatively considerable impacts to cultural resources to below a level of significance, implementation of the No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid potential impacts to cultural resources associated with the Project and would require no mitigation.

D. Energy
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, the existing uses on the Project Site would continue to operate; therefore, there would be nominal demand for near-term and long-term electricity and fuel use on the Site. Selection of this Alternative would result in a less than significant impact to energy and would reduce the Project’s near- and long-term energy use.

E. Geology and Soils
The No Project/No Development Alternative would leave the Project Site in its existing condition. The No Project/No Development Alternative would not construct any new structures on the Project Site; accordingly, there would be no potential for this Alternative to expose people or structures to safety risks associated with geologic hazards.

With respect to paleontological resources, the No Project Alternative would not involve any excavation or grading activities; therefore, the potential to discover previously unidentified paleontological resources is eliminated. As such, the potential for impacts to paleontological resources with the No Project/No Development Alternative would be less than with the Project; however, the Project’s potential impacts would be less than significant with Project level mitigation. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not avoid any significant impacts related to paleontological resources.

F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, no new development would occur on the Project Site and the existing facility on-site would continue to operate. With the exception of ongoing nominal 675
5355 East Airport Drive
Environmental Impact Report 6.0 Alternatives
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006