Agenda packet — Ontario City Council, July 16, 2024 (part 5 of 14)

3.7.4 Governing Law; Government Code Claim Compliance. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in San Bernardino County.

In addition to any and all contract requirements pertaining to notices of and requests for compensation or payment for extra work, disputed work, claims and/or changed conditions, Contractor must comply with the claim procedures set forth in Government Code sections 900 et seq. prior to filing any lawsuit against the City. Such Government Code claims and any subsequent lawsuit based upon the Government Code claims shall be limited to those matters that remain unresolved after all procedures pertaining to extra work, disputed work, claims, and/or changed conditions have been followed by Contractor. If no such Government Code claim is submitted, or if any prerequisite contractual requirements are not otherwise satisfied as specified herein, Contractor shall be barred from bringing and maintaining a valid lawsuit against the City.

3.7.5 Attorneys’ Fees. If either Party commences an action against the other party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorneys’ fees and all other costs of such action.

3.7.6 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement.

3.7.7 City’s Right to Employ Other Contractors. City reserves right to employ other contractors in connection with this Project.

3.7.8 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on the successors and assigns of the parties.

3.7.9 Assignment or Transfer. Contractor shall not assign, hypothecate or transfer, either directly or by operation of law, this Agreement or any interest herein without the prior written consent of the City. Any attempt to do so shall be null and void, and any assignees, hypothecates or transferees shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer.

3.7.10 Construction; References; Captions. Since the Parties or their agents have participated fully in the preparation of this Agreement, the language of this Agreement shall be construed simply, according to its fair meaning, and not strictly for or against any Party. Any term referencing time, days or period for performance shall be deemed calendar days and not work days. All references to Contractor include all personnel, employees, agents, and subcontractors of Contractor, except as otherwise specified in this Agreement. All references to City include its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers except as otherwise specified in this Agreement. The captions of the various articles and paragraphs are for convenience and ease 1093
BB&K (2023) - 16 - MAINTENANCE SERVICES AGREEMENT
46700.00100\40935194.1
of reference only, and do not define, limit, augment, or describe the scope, content or intent of this Agreement.

3.7.11 Amendment; Modification. No supplement, modification or amendment of this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing and signed by both Parties.

3.7.12 Waiver. No waiver of any default shall constitute a waiver of any other default or breach, whether of the same or other covenant or condition. No waiver, benefit, privilege, or service voluntarily given or performed by a Party shall give the other Party any contractual rights by custom, estoppel or otherwise.

3.7.13 No Third Party Beneficiaries. Except to the extent expressly provided for in Section 3.5.7, there are no intended third party beneficiaries of any right or obligation assumed by the Parties.

3.7.14 Invalidity; Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is declared invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect.

3.7.15 Prohibited Interests. Contractor maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Contractor, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Contractor warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Contractor, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. Contractor further agrees to file, or shall cause its employees or subcontractors to file, a Statement of Economic Interest with the City’s Filing Officer as required under state law in the performance of the Services. For breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of City, during the term of his or her service with City, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom.

3.7.16 Cooperation; Further Acts. The Parties shall fully cooperate with one another, and shall take any additional acts or sign any additional documents as may be necessary, appropriate or convenient to attain the purposes of this Agreement.

3.7.17 Authority to Enter Agreement. Contractor has all requisite power and authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver, and perform the Agreement. Each Party warrants that the individuals who have signed this Agreement have the legal power, right, and authority to make this Agreement and bind each respective Party.

3.7.18 Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original.

3.7.19 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings or agreements. This Agreement may only be modified by a writing signed by both parties.
1094
BB&K (2023) - 17 - MAINTENANCE SERVICES AGREEMENT
46700.00100\40935194.1

SIGNATURES NEXT PAGE
1095
BB&K (2023) - 18 - MAINTENANCE SERVICES AGREEMENT
46700.00100\40935194.1

SIGNATURE PAGE FOR MAINTENANCE SERVICES AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE CITY OF ONTARIO

AND SUPERIOR PAVEMENT MARKINGS
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.

CITY OF ONTARIO Superior Pavement Markings
Approved By:

By:

Scott Ochoa
City Manager Its:

Approved as to Form: Printed Name:

Best Best & Krieger LLP
City Attorney
By:

Its:

Printed Name:

Attested By:

City Clerk
Contractor’s License Number and
Classification
DIR Registration Number
[If Corporation, TWO SIGNATURES,
President OR Vice President AND
Secretary OR Treasurer REQUIRED]
1096
BB&K (2023) Exhibit A-1 MAINTENANCE SERVICES AGREEMENT
46700.00100\40935194.1
EXHIBIT “A”

SCOPE OF SERVICES
Scope of services:

Installation will be required for 10,765 signs throughout the City of Ontario. Provide hourly rate for installation of signs:

The City requires a rendering (pdf or jpg format) for sign fabrication, renderings are required to show: overall dimensions of the sign, material, color, font, font size, wording as will be displayed on the sign (must be readable on the rendering), art such as logo’s, overall height the sign will be mounted. Provide your hourly rate to design the renderings as described above:

Materials:

Provide pricing per sign for these typical exterior sign and materials for installation:
▪ 18”x24” .080 Aluminum blank, Avery 65oo H.I.P. white sheeting and Avery OL-1000 (Anti-Graffiti) ,10,765 Signs
▪ 2-inch X 2-Inch X 10 Foot Square Post (14 Gauge) 8,000 ▪ 3/8 Drive Rivets (8000 Signs, 4 Rivets per sign and post) ▪ ¾ inch Banding Strap (2,765 Signs) Two Straps per Sign ▪ Banding brackets (2,765 Signs) Two brackets per Sign
▪ Banding Buckles 3/4 inch (2,765 Signs) Two Buckles per sign ▪ 24-inch Heavy Duty Anchors (8,000)

1.00 Specifications

1. Materials and supplies must be factory new and meet or better all applicable specifications and all applicable Federal, State, and local requirements. See Exhibit-1 California MUTCD 2014 Sign Charts.

2. Sign Sheeting: Use Avery 6500 H.I.P. White for new signs.

3. Graffiti Overlay New Signs: Use Avery OL-1000 (Anti-Graffiti for new signs.

4. Sign Blanks: Use aluminum .080/alloy alodine treated sign blanks with radius and punch per State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans) specifications.

5. NO SUBSTITUTIONS, NO ALTERNATES for the above specifications.

6. If a given part number is no longer available and has been replaced by an updated part number from that manufacturer, then City’s approval is required prior to vendor ordering and shipping updated part number.

7. All items must meet or better all applicable Federal, State, and local requirements and all applicable OEM requirements.
1097
BB&K (2023) Exhibit A-2 MAINTENANCE SERVICES AGREEMENT
46700.00100\40935194.1

8. City reserves the right to add, change, or delete items at its discretion. The price for items that are added or changed must be priced according to the lower of a similar item, the factored discount percentage from list price of a similar item

1.01 Fabrication & Quality Assurance

1. Fabricate signs using only the highest quality materials and according to the highest quality workmanship.

2. Ensure that all signs are checked thoroughly for quality of materials and workmanship immediately after fabrication and prior to delivery.

3. Replace defective signs and materials at Contractor’s sole expense, within 5 working days of CR’s notification. This applies to any latent defects as well.

4. 1.02 Warranty

1. All items must carry manufacturer’s warranty, which shall not begin until Vendor installs the item.

2. Vendor must handle all warranty related issues

1.03 GIS Inventory

1. The contractor shall be responsible for updating GIS (Geographic Information Systems) data in the City’s database in a timely manner for all 10,765 signs installed. This will be done using a City provided app. The contractor is required to provide mobile devices (iPads or smart phones) for their field crews. The app will be installed on the field crew’s mobile devices, and the City will provide training and installation assistance for field crews.
1098
BB&K (2023) Exhibit A-3 MAINTENANCE SERVICES AGREEMENT
46700.00100\40935194.1

PROPOSAL SCHEDULE
Superior Pavement Markings Inc.

NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT OF EST.

QTY.

UNIT
PRICE
LINE
ITEM

MEASURE COST
1 Initial Mobilization LS 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00
2 18”x24” .080 Aluminum
blank, Avery 65oo H.I.P.
white sheeting and Avery
OL-1000 (Anti-Graffiti)
,10,765 Signs
Each 10,765 $ 29.26 $ 314,983.90

ADDITIONAL SERVICES
3 2-inch X 2-Inch X 10 Foot
Square Post (14 Gauge)
8,000
Each 8,000 $ 35.62 $ 284,960.00
4 3/8 Drive Rivets (8000 Signs,
4 Rivets per sign and post)
Each 32,000 $ 0.80 $ 25,600.00
5 3/4-inch x 2-foot Banding
Strap (2,765 Signs) Two
Straps per Sign
Each 5,530 $ 1.44 $ 7,963.20
6 Banding brackets (2,765
Signs) Two brackets per
Sign
Each 5,530 $ 0.90 $ 4,977.00
1099
Ex. A-4 (BB&K 2020)
46700.00100\33865500.1
7 Banding Buckles 3/4 inch
(2,765 Signs) Two Buckles
per sign
Each 5,530 $ 0.75 $ 2,073.75
8 24-inch Heavy Duty Anchors
(8,000)
Each 8,000 $ 33.26 $ 266,080.00
Sign Installation Rate (Prevailing Wages)
9 Installation will be required
for 8,000 signs on square
tubing and heavy-duty
anchor.

Each 10,765 $ 88.00 $ 704,000.00
10 Installation will be required
for 2,765 signs on existing
light poles with banding
straps, brackets, and buckles
Each 2,765 $ 78.00 $215,670.00
1100
BB&K (2023) Exhibit B-1 MAINTENANCE SERVICES AGREEMENT
46700.00100\40935194.1
EXHIBIT “B”

SCHEDULE OF SERVICES
JULY 1, 2024 TO JUNE 30, 2025
1101
BB&K (2023) Exhibit C-1 MAINTENANCE SERVICES AGREEMENT
46700.00100\40935194.1
EXHIBIT “C”

COMPENSATION
NOT TO EXCEED $1,851,308

PERFORMANCE/PAYMENT BONDS ON THE NEXT PAGE
1102
BB&K (2023) Exhibit C-2 MAINTENANCE SERVICES AGREEMENT
46700.00100\40935194.1

PERFORMANCE BOND
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS:

THAT WHEREAS, the City of Ontario (hereinafter referred to as “City”) has awarded to , (hereinafter referred to as the “Contractor”)
an agreement for
(hereinafter referred to as the “Project”).

WHEREAS, the work to be performed by the Contractor is more particularly set forth in the Contract Documents for the Project dated , (hereinafter referred to as “Contract Documents”), the terms and conditions of which are expressly incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Contractor is required by said Contract Documents to perform the terms thereof and to furnish a bond for the faithful performance of said Contract Documents.

NOW, THEREFORE, we, , the undersigned Contractor and
as Surety, a corporation organized and
duly authorized to transact business under the laws of the State of California, are held and firmly bound unto the City in the sum of DOLLARS,
($ ), said sum being not less than one hundred percent (100%) of the total amount of the Contract, for which amount well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors and administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.

THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that, if the Contractor, his or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, shall in all things stand to and abide by, and well and truly keep and perform the covenants, conditions and agreements in the Contract Documents and any alteration thereof made as therein provided, on its part, to be kept and performed at the time and in the manner therein specified, and in all respects according to their intent and meaning; and shall faithfully fulfill all obligations including the one-year guarantee of all materials and workmanship; and shall indemnify and save harmless the City, its officers and agents, as stipulated in said Contract Documents, then this obligation shall become null and void; otherwise it shall be and remain in full force and effect.

As a condition precedent to the satisfactory completion of the Contract Documents, unless otherwise provided for in the Contract Documents, the above obligation shall hold good for a period of one (1) year after the acceptance of the work by City, during which time if Contractor shall fail to make full, complete, and satisfactory repair and replacements and totally protect the City from loss or damage resulting from or caused by defective materials or faulty workmanship, Surety shall undertake and faithfully fulfill all such obligations. The obligations of Surety hereunder shall continue so long as any obligation of Contractor remains. Nothing herein shall limit the City’s rights or the Contractor or Surety’s obligations under the Contract, law or equity, including, but not limited to, California Code of Civil Procedure section 337.15.

Whenever Contractor shall be, and is declared by the City to be, in default under the Contract Documents, the Surety shall remedy the default pursuant to the Contract Documents, or shall promptly, at the City’s option:
1103
BB&K (2023) Exhibit C-3 MAINTENANCE SERVICES AGREEMENT
46700.00100\40935194.1
(1) Take over and complete the Project in accordance with all terms and conditions in the Contract Documents; or
(2) Obtain a bid or bids for completing the Project in accordance with all terms and conditions in the Contract Documents and upon determination by Surety of the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, arrange for a Contract between such bidder, the Surety and the City, and make available as work progresses sufficient funds to pay the cost of completion of the Project, less the balance of the contract price, including other costs and damages for which Surety may be liable. The term “balance of the contract price” as used in this paragraph shall mean the total amount payable to Contractor by the City under the Contract and any modification thereto, less any amount previously paid by the City to the Contractor and any other set offs pursuant to the Contract Documents.
(3) Permit the City to complete the Project in any manner consistent with local, California and federal law and make available as work progresses sufficient funds to pay the cost of completion of the Project, less the balance of the contract price, including other costs and damages for which Surety may be liable. The term “balance of the contract price” as used in this paragraph shall mean the total amount payable to Contractor by the City under the Contract and any modification thereto, less any amount previously paid by the City to the Contractor and any other set offs pursuant to the Contract Documents.

Surety expressly agrees that the City may reject any contractor or subcontractor which may be proposed by Surety in fulfillment of its obligations in the event of default by the Contractor.

Surety shall not utilize Contractor in completing the Project nor shall Surety accept a bid from Contractor for completion of the Project if the City, when declaring the Contractor in default, notifies Surety of the City’s objection to Contractor’s further participation in the completion of the Project.

The Surety, for value received, hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the Contract Documents or to the Project to be performed thereunder shall in any way affect its obligations on this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the Contract Documents or to the Project, including but not limited to the provisions of sections 2819 and 2845 of the California Civil Code.
1104
BB&K (2023) Exhibit C-4 MAINTENANCE SERVICES AGREEMENT
46700.00100\40935194.1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands and seals this day of , 20 ).
(Corporate Seal)
Contractor/ Principal
By
Title
(Corporate Seal)
Surety
By
Attorney-in-Fact
Signatures of those signing for the Contractor and Surety must be notarized and evidence of corporate authority attached.
(Attach Attorney-in-Fact Certificate) Title
The rate of premium on this bond is per thousand. The total amount of premium charges, $ .
(The above must be filled in by corporate attorney.)

THIS IS A REQUIRED FORM
Any claims under this bond may be addressed to:

NOTE: A copy of the Power-of-Attorney authorizing the person signing on behalf of the Surety to do so must be attached hereto.
(Name and Address of Surety)
(Name and Address of Agent or
Representative for service of
process in California, if different
from above)
(Telephone number of Surety
and Agent or Representative for
service of process in California)
1105
BB&K (2023) Exhibit C-5 MAINTENANCE SERVICES AGREEMENT
46700.00100\40935194.1
Notary Acknowledgment
A notary public or other officer completing this
certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is
attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF
On , 20 , before me, , Notary Public,
personally
appeared , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature of Notary Public

OPTIONAL
Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document
and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document.

CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT Individual
Corporate Officer
Title(s) Title or Type of Document
Partner(s) Limited
General Number of Pages
Attorney-In-Fact
Trustee(s)
Guardian/Conservator Date of Document
Other:

Signer is representing:

Name Of Person(s) Or Entity(ies)
Signer(s) Other Than Named Above
1106
BB&K (2023) Exhibit C-6 MAINTENANCE SERVICES AGREEMENT
46700.00100\40935194.1

PAYMENT BOND
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS That
WHEREAS, the City of Ontario (hereinafter designated as the “City”), has awarded to hereinafter designated as the “Principal,” a contract for the work described as follows:
(the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the work to be performed by the Principal is more particularly set forth in the Contract Documents for the Project dated (“Contract Documents”), the terms and conditions of which are expressly incorporated by reference; and WHEREAS, said Principal is required to furnish a bond in connection with said contract; providing that if said Principal or any of its Subcontractors shall fail to pay for any materials, provisions, provender, equipment, or other supplies used in, upon, for or about the performance of the work contracted to be done, or for any work or labor done thereon of any kind, or for amounts due under the Unemployment Insurance Code or for any amounts required to be deducted, withheld, and paid over to the Employment Development Department from the wages of employees of said Principal and its Subcontractors with respect to such work or labor the Surety on this bond will pay for the same to the extent hereinafter set forth.

NOW THEREFORE, we, the Principal and as Surety,
are held and firmly bound unto the City in the penal sum of Dollars ($ ) lawful money of the United States of America, for the payment of which sum well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.

THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH that if said Principal, his or its subcontractors, heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, shall fail to pay any of the persons named in Section 9100 of the Civil Code, fail to pay for any materials, provisions or other supplies, used in, upon, for or about the performance of the work contracted to be done, or for any work or labor thereon of any kind, or amounts due under the Unemployment Insurance Code with respect to work or labor performed under the contract, or for any amounts required to be deducted, withheld, and paid over to the Employment Development Department or Franchise Tax Board from the wages of employees of the contractor and his subcontractors pursuant to Section 18663 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, with respect to such work and labor the Surety or Sureties will pay for the same, in an amount not exceeding the sum herein above specified.

This bond shall inure to the benefit of any of the persons named in Section 9100 of the Civil Code so as to give a right of action to such persons or their assigns in any suit brought upon this bond.

It is further stipulated and agreed that the Surety on this bond shall not be exonerated or released from the obligation of this bond by any change, extension of time for performance, addition, alteration or modification in, to, or of any contract, plans, specifications, or agreement pertaining or relating to any scheme or work of improvement herein above described, or pertaining or relating to the furnishing of labor, materials, or equipment therefore, nor by any change or modification of any terms of payment or extension of the time for any payment pertaining or relating to any scheme or work of improvement herein above described, nor by any rescission or 1107
BB&K (2023) Exhibit C-7 MAINTENANCE SERVICES AGREEMENT
46700.00100\40935194.1
attempted rescission of the contract, agreement or bond, nor by any conditions precedent or subsequent in the bond attempting to limit the right of recovery of claimants otherwise entitled to recover under any such contract or agreement or under the bond, nor by any fraud practiced by any person other than the claimant seeking to recover on the bond and that this bond be construed most strongly against the Surety and in favor of all persons for whose benefit such bond is given, and under no circumstances shall Surety be released from liability to those for whose benefit such bond has been given, by reason of any breach of contract between the owner or City and original contractor or on the part of any obligee named in such bond, but the sole conditions of recovery shall be that claimant is a person described in Section 9100 of the Civil Code, and has not been paid the full amount of his claim and that Surety does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, addition, alteration or modification herein mentioned and the provisions of sections 2819 and 2845 of the California Civil Code.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands and seals this day of , 20 .
(Corporate Seal)
Contractor/ Principal
By
Title
(Corporate Seal) Surety
By
Attorney-in-Fact
Title
Signatures of those signing for the Contractor and Surety must be notarized and evidence of corporate authority attached. A Power-of-Attorney authorizing the person signing on behalf of the Surety to do so much be attached hereto.

NOTE: A copy of the Power-of-Attorney authorizing the person signing on behalf of the Surety to do so must be attached hereto.
1108
BB&K (2023) Exhibit C-8 MAINTENANCE SERVICES AGREEMENT
46700.00100\40935194.1
Notary Acknowledgment
A notary public or other officer completing this
certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is
attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature of Notary Public

Signer is representing:

Name Of Person(s) Or Entity(ies)
Signer(s) Other Than Named Above
1109
Department: Public Works
Prepared By: Cynthia Heredia-Torres
Staff Member Presenting: Tito Haes, Executive
Director Public Works
Reviewed By: Andrea Ampig, Bonnie Tam
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 22
SUBJECT: AN AMENDMENT TO THE ON-CALL DESIGN SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ARDURRA GROUP, INC. FOR THE SPORTS COMPLEX OFFSITE DESIGN

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
July 16, 2024
SECTION:

CONSENT CALENDAR
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council take the following actions:

A. Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute Amendment No. 1 to the on-call Design Services Agreement with Ardurra Group, Inc., of Newport Beach, California, for the Sports Complex Offsite Design in the amount of $1,784,432 for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $2,384,432; and
B. Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute all documents required for the completion of the project including, but not limited to, contracts, agreements, assessments, easements, reduction of retention accounts, and filing a notice of completion at the conclusion of all construction related activities.

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Invest in the City's Infrastructure (Water, Streets, Sewers, Parks, Storm Drains and Public Facilities)
FISCAL IMPACT: The Fiscal Year 2024-25 Adopted Budget includes appropriations in the Capital Projects-Measure Q Fund for the Sports Complex Offsite Design. The proposed Amendment No. 1 to the on-call Design Services Agreement with Ardurra Group, Inc. is in an amount of $1,784,432, funded by Measure Q, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $2,384,432.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS: On January 16, 2024, the City Council approved an amendment to the on-call Design Services Agreement with Ardurra Group, Inc. to design all off-site improvements and street network for the entire sports complex. This includes widening of streets, new sewer, water, recycled water, and storm drain line improvements surrounding the sports complex.

The proposed Amendment No. 1 to the Design Services Agreement with Ardurra Group is necessary to include landscape and irrigation design of the City’s public parkways for the Ontario Sports Complex Project, as well as construction engineering services for the projects infrastructure 1110
during the construction phase, elements that were not part of the original scope.

Staff solicited a scope and fee from Ardurra Group, Inc., the Engineer of Record, for the landscape and irrigation system design, and construction engineering during construction. Ardurra Group, Inc. developed the project’s plans and specifications and has extensive knowledge of the project which ensures consistency and understanding of the project goals, details, constraints, and concerns. 1111
46700.00100\33287662.1

Page 1 of 3 ends

BB&K 2020
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE DESIGN SERVICES AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE CITY OF ONTARIO AND
ARDURRA GROUP, INC.

1. Parties and Date.

This Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement (as defined herein) is made and entered as of ____________, by and between the City of Ontario (“City”) and Ardurra Group, Inc., a Corporation (“Consultant”). City and Consultant are sometimes individually referred to as “Party” and collectively as “Parties.”

2. Recitals.

2.1 Agreement. The City and Consultant have entered into an agreement entitled “Design Services Agreement” dated June 4, 2024 (“Agreement”).

2.2 Amendment Purpose. The City and Consultant desire to amend the Agreement to revise the scope of services for The Sports Complex Offsite Improvements and the not-to-exceed compensation amount by One Million Seven Hundred Eighty-Four Thousand Four Hundred ThirtyTwo Dollars ($1,784,432) for a total contract amount not-to-exceed Two Million Three Hundred Eighty-Four Thousand and Four Hundred Thirty-Two Dollars ($2,384,432).

2.3 Amendment Authority. This Amendment No. 1 is authorized pursuant to Section

3.37 of the Agreement.

3. Terms.

3.1 Amendment. Section 3.1.1 and 3.10.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
"3.1.1 Scope of Services. Consultant promises and agrees to furnish to City all labor, materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and customary work necessary to fully and adequately supply the professional architectural and related services necessary for the full and adequate completion of the Project consistent with the provisions of this Agreement (hereinafter referred to as “Services”). The Services are more particularly described throughout this Agreement, including Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by 1112
46700.00100\33287662.1

Page 2 of 3 ends

BB&K 2020
reference. All Services shall be subject to, and performed in accordance with, this Agreement, any exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and all applicable local, state, and federal laws, rules and regulations.

All Services performed by Consultant shall be subject to the sole and discretionary approval of the City, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Additionally, Consultant shall comply with all Federal requirements applicable to the Services as set forth in Exhibit A."

3.10.1 Consultant's Compensation for Basic Services. City shall pay to Consultant, for the performance of all Services rendered under this Agreement, the total not to exceed amount of Two Million Three Hundred Eighty-Four Thousand and Four Hundred Thirty-Two Dollars ($2,384,432) ("Total Compensation"). This Total Compensation amount shall be based upon, and may be adjusted according to, the fee schedule and related terms and conditions attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference. The Total Compensation, as may be adjusted upon mutual agreement, shall constitute complete and adequate payment for Services under this Agreement.

Exhibit A and B is hereby revised in its entirety and added Attachment A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

3.2 Continuing Effect of Agreement. Except as amended by this Amendment No. 1, all other provisions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect and shall govern the actions of the parties under this Amendment No. 1. From and after the date of this Amendment No. 1, whenever the term “Agreement” appears in the Agreement, it shall mean the Agreement as amended by this Amendment No. 1.

3.3 Adequate Consideration. The Parties hereto irrevocably stipulate and agree that they have each received adequate and independent consideration for the performance of the obligations they have undertaken pursuant to this Amendment No. 1.

3.4 Severability. If any portion of this Amendment No. 1 is declared invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect.

3.5 Integration. This Amendment represents the entirety of the Parties’ understanding relating to the subject of this Amendment, including written or verbal communications between the Parties, which shall have no relevance unless expressly incorporated herein. This is an integrated amendment.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
1113
46700.00100\33287662.1

Page 3 of 3 ends

BB&K 2020
SIGNATURE PAGE FOR AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE DESIGN SERVICES

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ONTARIO
AND ARDURRA GROUP, INC.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have entered into this Amendment No. 1 as of the day and year first above written.

CITY OF ONTARIO ARDURRA GROUP, INC.

By:

Its:

Printed Name:

By:

Its:

Printed Name:
[If Corporation, TWO SIGNATURES,
President OR Vice President AND Secretary
OR Treasurer REQUIRED]
Approved By:

Scott Ochoa
City Manager
Approved as to Form:
_____________________________________
Best Best & Krieger LLP
City Attorney
Attested By:

City Clerk
1114
Attachment "A"
1115
Mr. Beers
June 12, 2024

Page 2 of 4 ends

1116
Mr. Beers
June 12, 2024

Page 3 of 4 ends



o
o






o
o




1117
Mr. Beers
June 12, 2024

Page 4 of 4 ends


o
o





o
o



1118
Exhibit "B" - Design Fee Schedule
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
Offsite Improvements
Amendment No. 1
Project
Director
Quality
Control
Constructability
Review PM Street Improvement Design Lead
Traffic Design
Lead
OMUC Utilities
Design Lead
Storm Drain
Design Lead
Electrical
Design Lead
Permit
Coordinator
Utility
Coordinator
Project
Engineer V
Project
Engineer IV
Project
Engineer II Engineer I CAD Designer III
CAD
Designer
II
Admin Labor Hrs Labor Costs Landscape
Architect Dry Utilities
KTUA Moran 10%
2024 Hourly Rates $ 315 $ 275 $ 275 $ 265 $ 265 $ 265 $ 265 $ 265 $ 265 $ 200 $ 200 $ 200 $ 190 $ 165 $ 125 $ 175 $ 165 $ 115 TASK 7 ADDITONAL DESIGN SERVICES
Landscape and Irrigation 36 40 72 148 $ 32,740 $ 443,315 $ 44,332 $ 520,387 $ 520,387 $ 520,387 $ 520,387
TASK 8 ADDITIONAL BID PHASE SERVICES
Landscape and Irrigation 4 4 $ 1,060 $ 24,110 $ 2,411 $ 27,581 $ 27,581 $ 27,581 $ 27,581
TASK 9 ENGINEERING SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION
General Requirements 40 8 40 40 40 40 8 52 268 $ 68,680 $ 177,010 $ 17,701 $ 263,391 $ 105,356 $ 131,696 $ 26,339 Pre-Construction 4 20 8 8 8 28 76 $ 17,560 $ - $ 17,560 $ 7,024 $ 8,780 $ 1,756 Construction Meetings 40 4 60 36 60 80 30 84 26 10 430 $ 103,740 $ - $ 4,000 $ 107,740 $ 43,096 $ 53,870 $ 10,774 Change Order Management 64 120 40 40 40 52 60 20 436 $ 107,700 $ - $ 107,700 $ 43,080 $ 53,850 $ 10,770 Requests for Information (RFI) 16 40 32 80 40 52 200 40 40 40 80 660 $ 131,080 $ - $ 131,080 $ 52,432 $ 65,540 $ 13,108 Submittal Management 12 40 40 80 20 40 40 40 80 140 4 80 616 $ 130,060 $ 50,000 $ 5,000 $ 185,060 $ 74,024 $ 92,530 $ 18,506 Design Revisions 32 40 20 80 60 180 80 80 60 80 712 $ 139,000 $ - $ 139,000 $ 55,600 $ 69,500 $ 13,900 Post Construction 24 20 10 16 40 100 60 80 120 120 590 $ 106,490 $ - $ 106,490 $ 42,596 $ 53,245 $ 10,649 $ 1,058,021 $ 423,208 $ 529,011 $ 105,802
TASK 10 ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Other Requested Services (10% total) $ 178,443 $ 71,377 $ 89,222 $ 17,844 $ 178,443 $ 71,377 $ 89,222 $ 17,844
80 164 120 80 300 226 404 140 80 40 40 330 844 210 210 272 240 160 3940 $25,200 $ 45,100 $ 33,000 $21,200 $ 79,500 $ 59,890 $ 107,060 $ 37,100 $ 21,200 $ 8,000 $ 8,000 $ 66,000 $ 160,360 $ 34,650 $ 26,250 $ 47,600 $39,600 $18,400 $ 838,110 $ 644,435 $ 50,000 $ 69,444 $ 4,000 $ 1,784,432 $ 1,042,553 $ 618,232 $ 123,646 FY2025-2026
Total Hours:

FY2024-2025 FY2026-2027
Total Project Cost:

TOTAL

ADDITONAL DESIGN SERVICES

ADDITIONAL BID PHASE SERVICES

ENGINEERING SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION

ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Task Item
Labor Hours
Sub
Markup Direct Costs
Subconsultants
Ardurra Amendment No. 1_ Fee Page 1 of 1 6/12/2024 1119 Department: Utilities
Prepared By: Dennice Raygoza
Staff Member Presenting: Scott Burton, Utilities
General Manager
Reviewed By: Dennice Raygoza, Albert G
Gastelum, Michael Sigsbee
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 23
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FILING OF APPLICATIONS FOR THE STATE

REVOLVING FUNDS FOR VARIOUS CIP PROJECTS FROM THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
July 16, 2024
SECTION:

CONSENT CALENDAR
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a Resolution approving the filing of applications for the State Revolving Funds (SRF) from the State of California Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for various Water Capital Improvement Projects, and authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute any documents including; applications, agreements, and request for reimbursements to carry out necessary project related activities and implement the program.

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Pursue City's Goals and Objectives by Working with Other Governmental Agencies FISCAL IMPACT: The SWRCB offers funding for a variety of water projects to help finance water infrastructure projects. The amount to be submitted through the SRF application(s) process amounts to $128,912,500 for 7 water infrastructure projects. Of these projects, 4 projects are funded through Water Capital and 3 are funded through New Model Colony (NMC) Local and Regional Development Impact Fees (DIF). Some of these projects have combination funding such as 75% Water Capital and 25% NMC DIF, this is reflected in the list of projects shown in Attachment “A.” If projects are selected for funding through the State, an action item will be brought back to City Council for approval. There is no impact to the General Fund.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS:

SRF programs offered by SWRCB offer low-cost financing for a wide variety of water infrastructure projects. These programs have significant financial assets and are capable of financing projects from less than $1 million to greater than $100 million at low-interest costs over a 30-year period.

Staff is pursuing various alternative funding sources such as grants, bond financing, and pending Federal appropriations to fund the Water Capital Improvement Program, including DIF projects related to water infrastructure.
1120
Over the next five years, City Staff estimate capital costs of approximately $180,000,000 for Water Capital and $86,800,000 for NMC Regional and Local DIF projects. This totals an anticipated need of $266,800,000 for water infrastructure projects - 5 Year Water Capital Improvement Program. To help manage long-term rate impacts, Staff is exploring alternative funding sources for these projects. As mentioned, there are 7 projects that will be submitted through the SRF application process which totals 50% of the 5 Year Water Capital Improvement Program. The list of projects to be included in the applications is included in Attachment “A.” It is anticipated that two applications will be submitted to the SWRCB, one application for projects that are funded primarily through Water Capital, and the other application for projects funded through NMC DIF. The program costs eligible for SRF funds include planning, design, and construction activities.

The application process can take up to 16-months for review and approval from the State. If applications are selected for funding, Staff will re-evaluate the needs for funding and will have the flexibility to modify the number of projects and costs if needed. An action will be brought back to City Council for review and approval.

Adoption of the attached resolution will approve the filing of general applications to the SWRCB and authorize the City Manager to negotiate and sign resulting agreements with the SWRCB to obtain funding for water infrastructure projects.
1121
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FILING OF APPLICATIONS FOR

THE STATE REVOLVING FUNDS FOR VARIOUS CIP PROJECTS

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WATER RESOURCES CONTROL
BOARD
WHEREAS, the State of California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Division of Financial Assistance (DFA) has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the SWRCB’s financial assistance programs; and WHEREAS, the SWRCB requires the City Council by resolution to authorize the City Manager, or designee, to sign and file applications and request for reimbursement on behalf of the City for grants/loans or other such funds from the SWRCB’s financial assistance programs and to carry out other necessary project-related activities; and

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF ONTARIO DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, ORDER, AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby find and declare that the above recitals are true and correct.

SECTION 2. The City Manager (the “Authorized Representative”), or designee, is hereby authorized and directed to sign and file, for and on the behalf of the City, a Financial Assistance Application for funding agreements and any amendments thereto from the SWRCB for the planning, design, and construction of Various Capital Improvement Projects, including; New Potable Well, Potable Well No. 53, 13th Street Structural Retrofit, New Ground Water Wellhead Treatment Plant, Ontario Ranch Phase 2B Water Main Improvements, Reservoir 925-1A/Phase 2B, and 1212 Pressure Zone Reservoir and Main at Rochestor (the “Projects”).

SECTION 3. This Authorized Representative, or designee, is designated to provide the assurances, certifications, and commitments required for the financial assistance applications, including negotiation and execution of a financial assistance agreement from the State Water Resources Control Board and any amendments or changes thereto.

SECTION 4. The Authorized Representative, or designee, is designated to represent the City in carrying out the City’s responsibilities under the grant agreements, including certifying disbursement requests on behalf of the City and compliance with applicable state and federal statutory and regulatory requirements related to any federal and state grants or other such funds received.

SECTION 5. Be it further resolved and ordered, that any and all actions, whether previously or subsequently taken by the City, which are consistent with the intent and purposes of the foregoing resolution, shall be, and hereby are, in all respects, ratified, approved, and confirmed.
1122
SECTION 6. This Resolution shall become effective upon its adoption.

SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.

The City Clerk of the City of Ontario shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th day of July, 2024. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
1123

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

CITY OF ONTARIO )
I, SHEILA MAUTZ, City Clerk of the City of Ontario, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that foregoing Resolution No. 2024- was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Ontario at their regular meeting held July 16, 2024 by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
The foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2024- duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held July 16, 2024. _____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
1124
Attachment “A”
SRF Proposed Projects
Application A
No. Project Requests Total Project Costs
1 Potable Well No. 53 $8,000,000
2 13th Street Structural Retrofit $10,000,000
3 New Groundwater Wellhead Treatment Plant $17,250,000
4 *1212 PZ Resv&Main Rochestor (WT-004/WT-006) $23,625,000 Total $58,875,000
*Project contains 75% Water Capital Funding and 25% NMC Regional DIF Funding Application B
No. Project Requests Total Project Costs
1 Ontario Ranch Phase 2B Water Main Improvements (WT-010) $30,037,500 2 Reservoir 925'-1A /Phase 2B (WT-014) $31,500,000
3 New Potable Well (TBD) $8,500,000
Total $70,037,500
Total $128,912,500
Total Anticipated Request:

Projects submitted under SRF Loan will be submitted at 100% of anticipated budgeted cost to maximize the application and obtain as much funding as possible. Two project applications will be submitted, one for water capital projects/DIF projects (Application A) and one for DIF capital projects (Application B). 1125
Department: Police Department
Prepared By: Lizceth Zazueta
Department:

Prepared By: Melissa Sowizdrzal-Morgan
Staff Member Presenting: Mike Lorenz, Chief of
Police
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 24
SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT AWARD INCREASE FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

HOMELAND SECURITY AND THE CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES PROVIDED THROUGH THE FY 2020 URBAN AREA SECURITY INITIATIVE (UASI)

GRANT PROGRAM AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH AMERICAN THREAT ASSESSMENT CONSULTING INC. (A.T.A.C.)

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
July 16, 2024
SECTION:

CONSENT CALENDAR
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute all documents necessary to accept additional funding for a sub-grant award in the amount of $128,810 from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the California Office of Emergency Services provided through the FY 2020 Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) Grant Program and execute Amendment No. 8 to the Professional Services Agreement with American Threat Assessment Consulting Inc. (A.T.A.C.) of Rancho Cucamonga, California, extending the term of the agreement to complete the Facial Recognition Project to July 31st, 2025 and increasing the current funding threshold for a not-to-exceed contract total of $1,777,915.

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Pursue City's Goals and Objectives by Working with Other Governmental Agencies Operate in a Businesslike Manner
Maintain the Current High Level of Public Safety
FISCAL IMPACT: The recommended Amendment increases the authorized contract of $1,604,021 by $173,894 and extends the agreement by one (1) additional year. This brings the total not-toexceed contract amount to $1,777,915. Appropriations of $45,084 are included in the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Adopted Budget under the General Fund for supplies, and if approved, additional appropriations and revenues of $128,810 will be included in the Grants Fund on the next quarterly budget update to City Council. The City is not required to provide matching funds for the reimbursable grant. Appropriations for future fiscal years will be included in the respective fiscal years' budgets for City Council consideration and approval. 1126
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS: The City Council previously approved the acceptance of grant funding on April 19th, 2022, for UASI Fiscal Year 2020 for $603,025 and again on August 16th, 2022, for $600,000 for UASI Fiscal Year 2021.

On July 12th, 2023, the City of Ontario and A.T.A.C entered Amendment No. 6 adding additional compensation and terms to the Ontario Police Department grant fund to accommodate the purchase and installation of cameras to implement a Facial Recognition Project and associated camera networks at the Ontario International Airport (OIA). On May 16th, 2024, the department received a letter from the California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) increasing the UASI FY 2020 (Urban Area Security Initiative) award by $128,810 for a new award total of $731,835.

On October 17th, the City of Ontario and A.T.A.C entered Amendment No. 7 to increase funding for an additional $71,521 for the purchase of CCTV cameras to help with security around the Civic Center as well as establish more active cameras for the Real Time Information Center.

Amendment No. 8 will extend the term of the Professional Services Agreement with American Threat Assessment Consulting Inc. (A.T.A.C.) to complete the Facial Recognition Project to July 31st, 2025, and will increase the funding to include the new CalOES award and additional funding of $45,084 for supplies required to implement the project outside of the scope of the grant. 1127
1128
46700.00100\33287662.1

Page 1 of 7 ends

BB&K 2020
AMENDMENT NO. 8

TO THE SECURITY CAMERAS, ACCESS CONTROL,

PAGING/DURESS INSTALLATION, REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE

SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ONTARIO AND
AMERICAN THREAT ASSESSMENT CONSULTING, INC.

1. Parties and Date.

This Amendment No. 8 to the Agreement (as defined herein) is made and entered as of ____________, by and between the City of Ontario (“City”) and American Threat Assessment Consulting, Inc a corporation(“Contractor”). City and Contractor are sometimes individually referred to as “Party” and collectively as “Parties.”

2. Recitals.

2.1 Agreement. The City and Contractor have entered into an agreement entitled Security Cameras, Access control, Paging/Duress Installation, Repair and Maintenance Service Agreement dated August 1, 2020 (“Agreement”).

2.2 Amendment Purpose. The City and Contractor desire to amend the Agreement to extend term date by one (1) additional year and increase the not to exceed total.

2.3 Amendment Authority. This Amendment No. 8 is authorized pursuant to Section 3.1 of the Agreement.

3. Terms.

3.1 Amendment. Section 3.1.2 of the Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

3.1.2 The term of this Agreement shall be from August 1st, 2020 to July 30th, 2025, unless earlier terminated as provided herein. Vendor shall provide all Goods and complete the Services within the term of this Agreement, and shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines. The Parties may, by mutual, written consent, extend the term of this Agreement if necessary to complete the work.

3.2 Amendment. Section 3.3.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

SHEILA MAUTZ

CITY CLERK
JAMES R. MILHISER

TREASURER

SCOTT OCHOA

CITY MANAGER
PAUL S. LEON
MAYOR

DEBRA PORADA

MAYOR PRO TEM
ALAN D. WAPNER
JIM W. BOWMAN

RUBEN VALENCIA

COUNCIL MEMBERS
1129
46700.00100\33287662.1

Page 2 of 7 ends

BB&K 2020

3.3.1 Contractor shall receive compensation, including authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement at the rates set forth in Amendment No. 8. The total compensation shall not exceed $1,777,915 without written approval of the City Manager. Extra Work may be authorized, as described below, and if authorized, will be compensated at the rates and manner set forth in this Agreement.

3.2 Continuing Effect of Agreement. Except as amended by this Amendment No. 8, all other provisions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect and shall govern the actions of the parties under this Amendment No. 8. From and after the date of this Amendment No. 8, whenever the term “Agreement” appears in the Agreement, it shall mean the Agreement as amended by this Amendment No. 8.

3.4 Severability. If any portion of this Amendment No. 8 is declared invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect.

Page 3 of 7 ends

BB&K 2020
SIGNATURE PAGE FOR AMENDMENT NO. 8 TO THE SECURITY CAMERAS, ACCESS

CONTROL, PAGING/DURESS INSTALLATION, REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE

SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ONTARIO AND AMERICAN THREAT ASSESSMENT CONSULTING, INC.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have entered into this Amendment No. 7 as of the day and year first above written.

CITY OF ONTARIO American Threat Assessment Consulting,
Inc.

If Corporation, Two Signatures, President Or Vice President And Secretary Or Treasurer Required
By:

Its:

Printed Name:

By:

Its:

Printed Name:

Approved By:

Scott Ochoa
City Manager
Approved as to Form:
_____________________________________
Best Best & Krieger LLP
City Attorney
Attested By:

City Clerk
1131
46700.00100\33287662.1

Page 4 of 7 ends

BB&K 2020

EXHIBIT D
“Additional Services”
1132
46700.00100\33287662.1

Page 5 of 7 ends

BB&K 2020
1133
46700.00100\33287662.1

Page 6 of 7 ends

BB&K 2020
1134
46700.00100\33287662.1

Page 7 of 7 ends

BB&K 2020
1135
Department: Police Department
Prepared By: Nicole Alvarez
Department:

Prepared By: Nicole Alvarez
Staff Member Presenting: Mike Lorenz, Chief of
Police
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 25
SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE FOR GRANT FROM CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL FOR THE CANNABIS TAX FUND GRANT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 FOR THE AMOUNT OF $99,200

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
July 16, 2024
SECTION:

CONSENT CALENDAR
RECOMMENDATION: That City Council authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute all documents necessary to accept the 12-month grant in the amount of $99,200.

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Maintain the Current High Level of Public Safety
Pursue City's Goals and Objectives by Working with Other Governmental Agencies FISCAL IMPACT: Grants were announced in June 2024 and funds will be used for eligible costs incurred from July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025. These grant funds are reimbursable on a quarterly basis and fund police overtime to conduct DUI saturation patrols, equipment, and training. The grant approved funding is $99,200 and the City is not required to provide matching funds. To execute the Agreement, the grant requests the department provide documentation from a local governing body, authorizing the organization to receive this grant funding. The approved amount will be included as revenue (and associated expenditure adjustments) in a subsequent quarterly budget report to City Council.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS: The California Highway Patrol (CHP) works closely with state and local agencies and other traffic safety stakeholders to actively address impaired driving. The CHP will consider a variety of factors in determining specific needs for each grant cycle, including opportunities and projects best suited to prevent the loss of life, injuries, and property damage caused by driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs.

The purpose of the Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program (CTFGP) is to provide alternative funding sources to augment, but not supplant, current activities and programs. The CHP will allocate funds for the project categories in accordance with California Code of Regulations (CCR) Sections 1890.05 through 1890.07, as determined by the CHP.
1136
With the passage of Proposition 64, the Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA), California voters mandated the state set aside funding for the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to award grants to local governments and qualified nonprofit organizations, as described in Revenue and Taxation Code Section 34019(f)(3)(B).

The Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program marks an important step toward reducing impaired driving crashes, increasing public awareness surrounding the dangers of impaired driving, and making California’s roadways a safer place to travel.
1137
State of California -- Transportation Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL
Safety, Service, and Security An Internationally Accredited Agency 601 North 7th Street
Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 843-4360
(800) 735-2929 (TT/TDD)
(800) 735-2922 (Voice)
June 6, 2024
File No.: 060.15426.17369
Nicole Alvarez
Ontario Police Department
2500 South Archibald Avenue
Ontario, CA 91761
Dear Ms. Alvarez:

On behalf of the California Highway Patrol (CHP), it is my pleasure to inform you, the Ontario Police Department is conditionally approved for Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program (CTFGP) funding in the amount of $99,200.00. The purpose of this grant funding is to help your agency reduce and mitigate the impacts of impaired driving in your community.

The official Grant Agreement for signature is forthcoming. In order to execute your Grant Agreement, please provide documentation from a local governing body, authorizing your organization to receive this grant funding, to the Cannabis Grants Unit, by email at [email protected], as soon as possible.

Refer to California Code of Regulations Title 13, Division 2, Chapter 13, Section 1890.13(g) for additional information.

The CHP looks forward to partnering with you and your agency on this project in an effort to make California’s roadways a safer place to travel. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the Cannabis Grants Unit at (916) 843-4360.

Sincerely,
K. M. DAVIS, Chief
Enforcement and Planning Division
1138
Department: Public Works
Prepared By: Vivian Quintana
Staff Member Presenting: Tito Haes, Executive
Director Public Works
Reviewed By: Bonnie Tam, Gina Gomez
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 26
SUBJECT: A GOODS AND SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL

DISTRIBUTORS FOR THE PURCHASE OF ELECTRICAL AND LIGHTING SUPPLIES

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
July 16, 2024
SECTION:

CONSENT CALENDAR
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute a Goods and Services Agreement with Consolidated Electrical Distributors, of Ontario, California, for a total contract amount not-to-exceed $593,585 for up to five years.

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Maintain the Current High Level of Public Safety
Operate in a Businesslike Manner
FISCAL IMPACT: The recommended contract award to Consolidated Electrical Distributors is for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $356,151 over the three-year term. Two (2) one-year extensions may be exercised at the City’s sole discretion for an additional $237,434, for a total contract amount not-to-exceed $593,585 over a five-year term. The Fiscal Year 2024-25 Adopted Budget includes appropriation in the Facility Maintenance Fund for the Purchase of Electrical and Lighting Supplies.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS: The Public Works Agency maintains approximately 90 buildings. The purchase of electrical and lighting supplies is necessary for preventative maintenance, scheduled repairs, and emergency repairs due to unexpected equipment failures and vandalism.

In May 2024, the City solicited bids for Bid No. 1797 for Electrical and Lighting Supplies. Two responses were received, one response met the bid criteria and pricing for all items and one did not meet bid criteria. On May 31, 2024, Public Works Agency received an email from Optima Energy, Inc., stating that it is protesting the decision for this bid. The City's bid instructions requires bidders to maintain a facility within 20 road miles from 1425 S. Bon View Avenue, Ontario, CA. Since the vendor did not maintain a facility within the city limits they did not meet the bid criteria. The bids are summarized below:
1139
Name Location Amount
Consolidated Electrical
Distributors
Ontario, CA $118,717
Optima Energy, Inc. Artesia, CA $117,326
Consolidated Electrical Distributors, of Ontario, California, submitted a bid that met all the required specifications with a total contract cost of $356,151, over a three-year term. Based on the proposal, credentials, pricing, favorable reference checks, and having a neighboring facility, Staff recommends awarding the Goods and Services Agreement to Consolidated Electrical Distributors. 1140
(BB&K 2023) - 1 - Goods and Services Agreement
46700.00100\40935206.1

CITY OF ONTARIO

GOODS & SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made and entered into as of , by and between the City of Ontario, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business at 303 East “B” Street, Ontario, California 91764-4196, County of San Bernardino, State of California (“City”) and Consolidated Electrical Distributors, a Corporation with its principal place of business at 1241 W. Brooks St., Ontario, CA 91762 (“Vendor”). City and Vendor are sometimes individually referred to as “Party” and collectively as “Parties” in this Agreement.

RECITALS
A. Vendor desires to perform and assume responsibility for the provision of certain services and goods required by the City on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.

Vendor represents that it is experienced in providing similar services and goods to public clients, that it and its employees or subcontractors have all necessary licenses and permits to perform the services in the State of California and that is familiar with and understands the needs of City.

B. City desires to engage Vendor to sell to City the materials and/or equipment and/or render such services as more particularly described in this Agreement.

TERMS

1. SCOPE OF SERVICES.

1.1 General Scope of Services. Vendor promises and agrees to furnish to the City all labor, materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and customary work necessary to fully and adequately supply the Electrical & Lighting Supplies services (“Services”) which are more particularly described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. All Services shall be subject to, and performed in accordance with, this Agreement, the exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations.

1.2 Goods. Vendor agrees to sell to City and City agrees to purchase the materials and/or equipment (“Goods”) as specified and per the specifications attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “A”, in the quantities subsequently ordered by the City. Unless specifically stated otherwise, the Goods shall be new and unused and of the current production year.

2. TERM.

2.1 The term of this Agreement shall be from July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2027 unless earlier terminated as provided herein. Vendor shall provide all Goods and complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines.

The Parties may, by mutual, written consent, extend the term of this Agreement if necessary to 1141
(BB&K 2023) - 2 - Goods and Services Agreement
46700.00100\40935206.1
complete the work.

3. FEES AND PAYMENTS.

3.1 Compensation. Vendor shall receive compensation, including authorized reimbursements, for all Goods provided and Services rendered under this Agreement at the rates set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The total compensation shall not exceed Three Hundred Fifty-Six Thousand One Hundred Fifty-One Dollars with Zero Cents ($356,151) without written approval of City’s Manager. Extra Work may be authorized, as described below, and if authorized, will be compensated at the rates and manner set forth in this Agreement.

3.2 Payment of Compensation. Vendor shall submit to City a monthly itemized statement which indicates work completed and hours of Services rendered by Vendor and Goods provided. The statement shall describe the amount of Services and Goods provided since the initial commencement date, or since the start of the subsequent billing periods, as appropriate, through the date of the statement. City shall, within 45 days of receiving such statement, review the statement and pay all non-disputed and approved charges thereon.

3.3 Reimbursement for Expenses. Vendor shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by City.

3.4 Extra Work. At any time during the term of this Agreement, City may request that Vendor perform Extra Work. As used herein, “Extra Work” means any work which is determined by City to be necessary for the proper completion of the Goods and Services, but which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Vendor shall not perform, nor be compensated for, Extra Work without written authorization from City’s Representative.

4. RESPONSIBILITIES OF VENDOR.

4.1 Control and Payment of Subordinates; Independent Contractor. The Services shall be performed by Vendor or under its supervision. Vendor will determine the means, methods and details of performing the Services subject to the requirements of this Agreement. City retains Vendor on an independent contractor basis and not as an employee. Vendor retains the right to perform similar or different services for others during the term of this Agreement. Any additional personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of Vendor shall also not be employees of City and shall at all times be under Vendor’s exclusive direction and control. Neither City, or any of its officials, officers, directors, employees, or agents shall have control over the conduct of Vendor or any of Vendor’s officers, employees or agents, except as set forth in this Agreement. Vendor shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of providing Goods and Services under this Agreement and as required by law. Vendor shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and workers’ compensation insurance.

4.2 Schedule of Services.

Vendor shall perform the Services and provide Goods expeditiously, within the term of this Agreement, and in accordance with the Schedule of Goods and Services set forth in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (“Performance time”). Upon request of City, Vendor shall provide a more detailed schedule of anticipated performance to meet the Schedule of Goods and Services. Vendor agrees that if the Goods are not provided and/or the Services are not completed within the Performance 1142
(BB&K 2023) - 3 - Goods and Services Agreement
46700.00100\40935206.1
Time, it is understood, acknowledged and agreed that the City will suffer damage.

4.2.1 Neither City nor Vendor shall be considered in default of this Agreement for delays in performance caused by circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the nonperforming Party. For purposes of this Agreement, such circumstances include a Force Majeure Event. A Force Majeure Event shall mean an event that materially affects a Party’s performance and is one or more of the following: (1) Acts of God or other natural disasters; (2) terrorism or other acts of a public enemy; (3) orders of governmental authorities (including, without limitation, unreasonable and unforeseeable delay in the issuance of permits or approvals by governmental authorities that are required for the services); (4) strikes and other organized labor action occurring at the site and the effects thereof on the services, only to the extent such strikes and other organized labor action are beyond the control of Vendor and its subcontractors, and to the extent the effects thereof cannot be avoided by use of replacement workers; and (5) pandemics, epidemics or quarantine restrictions. For purposes of this Section, “orders of governmental authorities,” includes ordinances, emergency proclamations and orders, rules to protect the public health, welfare and safety, and other actions of a public agency applicable to the Agreement.

4.2.2 Should a Force Majeure Event occur, the non-performing Party shall, within a reasonable time of being prevented from performing, give written notice to the other Party describing the circumstances preventing continued performance and the efforts being made to resume performance of this Agreement. Force Majeure Events and/or delays, regardless of the Party responsible for the delay, shall not entitle Vendor to any additional compensation.

Notwithstanding the foregoing in this section, the City may still terminate this Agreement in accordance with the termination provisions of this Agreement.

4.3 Conformance to Applicable Requirements. All work prepared by Vendor shall be subject to the approval of City.

4.4 Acceptance. The Goods shall be received subject to City’s inspection and right of rejection. The Goods shall not be considered accepted until inspection, testing and/or use of the Goods is found to be in accordance with the City’s specifications. Final inspection of the Goods shall be at the location specified herein, unless otherwise agreed in writing. If the Goods are found at any time to be defective in material or workmanship, or otherwise not in conformance with specifications, City shall have the right, in addition to any other rights which it may have under warranties or otherwise, to reject such Goods in whole or in part. Rejected Goods shall be held at Vendor’s risk for a reasonable time thereafter and shall be returned or disposed of at Vendor’s expense. No rejected Goods shall be replaced by Vendor without written instruction or authorization from City.

4.5 Coordination of Services. Vendor agrees to work closely with City staff in the performance of Services and shall be available to City’s staff, consultants and other staff at all reasonable times.

4.6 Standard of Care; Performance of Employees. Vendor shall perform all Services under this Agreement in a skillful and competent manner, consistent with the standards generally recognized as being employed by professionals in the same discipline in the State of California.

Vendor represents and maintains that it is skilled in the professional calling necessary to perform the Services. Vendor warrants that all employees and subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. Vendor represents that it, its employees and subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of 1143
(BB&K 2023) - 4 - Goods and Services Agreement
46700.00100\40935206.1
whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services, including a City business license, and that such licenses and approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement. As provided for in the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, Vendor shall perform, at its own cost and expense and without reimbursement from the City, any services necessary to correct errors or omissions which are caused by the Vendor’s failure to comply with the standard of care provided for herein. Any employee of the Vendor or its sub-Vendors who is determined by the City to be uncooperative, incompetent, a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Services, a threat to the safety of persons or property, or any employee who fails or refuses to perform the Services in a manner acceptable to the City, shall be promptly removed by the Vendor and shall not be re-employed to perform any of the Services provided under this Agreement.

4.7 Warranty. In addition to all warranties which may be provided by law, Vendor warrants that the Goods delivered hereunder shall, (a) be free from defect of material or workmanship and conform strictly to the specifications, drawings, or sample specified or furnished; (b) conform to drawings, plans, specifications, samples or other descriptions furnished, specified, accepted or approved by City; and (c) be merchantable and fit for the purposes intended. The warranty shall be for a period of one (1) year, or such longer period as provided by a manufacturer’s warranty or as agreed to by Vendor and City, from the date of final written acceptance of the Goods by City. This warranty shall survive any inspection, delivery, acceptance, or payment by City of the Goods. Vendor, at its own expense, shall repair or replace, at the option of City, any defective Goods within two (2) business days after receipt of notice from City or within four (4) hours in case of emergency, as determined by City. Vendor also warrants that the Goods are free and clear of all liens and encumbrances whatsoever, that Vendor is conveying good and marketable title to same, and that Vendor owns or has a valid license for all of the proprietary technology and intellectual property incorporated within the Goods. Vendor agrees to indemnify, defend and hold City harmless against any and all third-party claims resulting from the breach or inaccuracy of any of the foregoing warranties.

4.8 Reserved.

4.9 Disputes. Should any dispute arise respecting the true value of any work done, of any work omitted, or of any extra work which Vendor may be required to do, or respecting the size of any payment to Vendor during the performance of this Contract, Vendor shall continue to perform the Work while said dispute is decided by the City. If Vendor disputes the City’s decision, Vendor shall have such remedies as may be provided by law.

4.10 Laws and Regulations; Employee/Labor Certifications. Vendor shall keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in any manner affecting its performance under this Agreement, including all Cal/OSHA requirements, and shall give all notices required by law. Vendor shall be liable for all violations of such laws and regulations in connection with this Agreement. If the Vendor performs any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations and without giving written notice to the City, Vendor shall be solely responsible for all costs arising therefrom. City is a public entity of the State of California subject to certain provisions of the Health & Safety Code, Government Code, Public Contract Code, and Labor Code of the State. It is stipulated and agreed that all provisions of the law applicable to the public contracts of a municipality are a part of this Agreement to the same extent as though set forth herein and will be complied with. These include but are not limited to the payment of prevailing wages, the stipulation that eight (8) hours’ labor shall constitute a legal day’s work and that no worker shall be permitted to work in excess of eight (8) hours during any one calendar day except as permitted by law. Vendor shall defend, indemnify 1144
(BB&K 2023) - 5 - Goods and Services Agreement
46700.00100\40935206.1
and hold City, its officials, directors, officers, employees and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with such laws, rules or regulations.

4.10.1 Employment Eligibility; Vendor. By executing this Agreement, Vendor verifies that it fully complies with all requirements and restrictions of state and federal law respecting the employment of undocumented aliens, including, but not limited to, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, as may be amended from time to time. Such requirements and restrictions include, but are not limited to, examination and retention of documentation confirming the identity and immigration status of each employee of the Vendor. Vendor also verifies that it has not committed a violation of any such law within the five (5) years immediately preceding the date of execution of this Agreement and shall not violate any such law at any time during the term of the Agreement. Vendor shall avoid any violation of any such law during the term of this Agreement by participating in an electronic verification of work authorization program operated by the United States Department of Homeland Security, by participating in an equivalent federal work authorization program operated by the United States Department of Homeland Security to verify information of newly hired employees, or by some other legally acceptable method. Vendor shall maintain records of each such verification and shall make them available to the City or its representatives for inspection and copy at any time during normal business hours. The City shall not be responsible for any costs or expenses related to Vendor’s compliance with the requirements provided for in Section 4.10 or any of its sub-sections.

4.10.2 Employment Eligibility; Subcontractors, and Consultants. To the same extent and under the same conditions as Vendor, Vendor shall require all of its subcontractors, and consultants performing any work relating to this Agreement to make the same verifications and comply with all requirements and restrictions provided for herein.

4.10.3 Employment Eligibility; Failure to Comply. Each person executing this Agreement on behalf of Vendor verifies that they are a duly authorized officer of Vendor, and understands that any of the following shall be grounds for the City to terminate the Agreement for cause: (1) failure of Vendor or its subcontractors, or consultants to meet any of the requirements provided for in Sections 4.10.1 or 4.10.2; (2) any misrepresentation or material omission concerning compliance with such requirements (including in those verifications provided to the Vendor under Section 4.10.2); or (3) failure to immediately remove from this contract any person found not to be in compliance with such requirements.

4.10.4 Labor Certification. By its signature hereunder, Vendor certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for Workers’ Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Services.

4.10.5 Equal Opportunity Employment. Vendor represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, handicap, ancestry, sex or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. Vendor shall also comply with all relevant provisions of City’s Minority Business Enterprise program, Affirmative Action Plan or other related programs or guidelines currently in effect or hereinafter enacted.
1145
(BB&K 2023) - 6 - Goods and Services Agreement
46700.00100\40935206.1

4.10.6 Air Quality. Vendor must fully comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations in furnishing or using equipment and/or providing services, including, but not limited to, emissions limits and permitting requirements imposed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Vendor shall specifically be aware of the CARB limits and requirements’ application to “portable equipment”, which definition is considered by CARB to include any item of equipment with a fuel-powered engine. Vendor shall indemnify City against any fines or penalties imposed by CARB or any other governmental or regulatory agency for violations of applicable laws, rules and/or regulations by Vendor, its subcontractors, or others for whom Vendor is responsible under its indemnity obligations provided for in this Agreement.

4.10.7 Water Quality.

4.10.7.1 Management and Compliance. To the extent applicable, Vendor’s Services must account for, and fully comply with, all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations that may impact water quality compliance, including, without limitation, all applicable provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. §§ 1300); the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Cal Water Code §§ 13000-14950); laws, rules and regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency, the State Water Resources Control Board and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board; the City’s ordinances regulating discharges of storm water; and any and all regulations, policies, or permits issued pursuant to any such authority regulating the discharge of pollutants, as that term is used in the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, to any ground or surface water in the State.

4.10.7.2 Liability for Non-Compliance. Failure to comply with the laws, regulations and policies described in this Section is a violation of law that may subject Vendor or City to penalties, fines, or additional regulatory requirements. Vendor shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, volunteers and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, from and against any and all fines, penalties, claims or other regulatory requirements imposed as a result of Vendor’s noncompliance with the laws, regulations and policies described in this Section, unless such noncompliance is the result of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officials, officers, agents, employees or authorized volunteers.

4.10.7.3 Training. In addition to any other standard of care requirements set forth in this Agreement, Vendor warrants that all employees and subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them without impacting water quality in violation of the laws, regulations and policies described in this Section. Vendor further warrants that it, its employees and subcontractors will receive adequate training, as determined by City, regarding the requirements of the laws, regulations and policies described in this Section as they may relate to the Services provided under this Agreement. Upon request, City will provide Vendor with a list of training programs that meet the requirements of this paragraph.

5. PROJECT MANAGEMENT

5.1 City’s Representative. The City hereby designates Lance Verdugo, Assistant Director Municipal Services, or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement (“City’s Representative”). City’s Representative shall have the power to act on behalf of the City for all purposes under this Agreement. Vendor shall not accept direction or orders from any person other than the City’s Representative or his or her designee.
1146
(BB&K 2023) - 7 - Goods and Services Agreement
46700.00100\40935206.1

5.2 Vendor’s Representative. Vendor hereby designates Robert Conover, Manager, or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement (“Vendor’s Representative”). Vendor’s Representative shall have full authority to represent and act on behalf of the Vendor for all purposes under this Agreement. The Vendor’s Representative shall supervise and direct the Services, using his best skill and attention, and shall be responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences, and procedures and for the satisfactory coordination of all work required under this Agreement.

6. INSURANCE.

6.1 Time for Compliance. Vendor shall not commence work under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the City that it has secured all insurance required under this Section. In addition, Vendor shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the City that the subcontractor has secured all insurance required under this Section.

6.2 Minimum Requirements. Vendor shall, at its expense, procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Agreement by the Vendor, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Vendor shall also require all of its subcontractors to procure and maintain the same insurance for the duration of the Agreement. Such insurance shall meet at least the following minimum levels of coverage:

6.2.1 Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as the latest version of the following: (1) General Liability: Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001); (2) Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form number CA 0001, code 1 (any auto); and (3) Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s Liability: Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer’s Liability Insurance. The policy shall not contain any exclusion contrary to the Agreement, including but not limited to endorsements or provisions limiting coverage for (1) contractual liability (including but not limited to ISO CG 24 26 or 21 29); or (2) cross liability for claims or suits by one insured against another.

6.2.2 Minimum Limits of Insurance. Vendor shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with general aggregate limit is used including, but not limited to, form CG 2503, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Agreement/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit; (2) Automobile Liability $2,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and (3) Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s Liability: Workers’ Compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of California. Employer’s Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease. Defense costs shall be paid in addition to the limits.

6.2.3 Manufacturer of Goods. If Vendor is also the manufacturer of any equipment included in the Goods, Vendor shall carry Product Liability and/or Errors and Omissions Insurance which covers said equipment with limits of not less than $1,000,000.

6.2.4 Notices; Cancellation or Reduction of Coverage. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the expiration of any such policy, evidence showing that such insurance coverage has been renewed or extended shall be filed with the City. If such coverage is cancelled or materially reduced, Vendor shall, within ten (10) days after receipt of written notice of such cancellation or 1147
(BB&K 2023) - 8 - Goods and Services Agreement
46700.00100\40935206.1
reduction of coverage, file with the City evidence of insurance showing that the required insurance has been reinstated or has been provided through another insurance company or companies. In the event any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, the City has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid by the City will be promptly reimbursed by Vendor or the City may withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Vendor payments. In the alternative, the City may suspend or terminate this Agreement.

6.2.5 Additional Insured. The City of Ontario, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers shall be named as additional insureds on Vendor’s and its subcontractors’ policies of commercial general liability and automobile liability insurance using the endorsements and forms specified herein or exact equivalents.

6.3 Insurance Endorsements. The insurance policies shall contain the following provisions, or Vendor shall provide endorsements on forms supplied or approved by the City to add the following provisions to the insurance policies:

6.3.1 General Liability. The general liability policy shall include or be endorsed (amended) to state that: (1) using ISO CG forms 20 10 and 20 37, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage, the City of Ontario, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers shall be covered as additional insured with respect to the Services or ongoing and complete operations performed by or on behalf of the Vendor, including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work; and (2) using ISO form 20 01, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage, the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Vendor’s scheduled underlying coverage. Any excess insurance shall contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and noncontributory basis for the benefit of the City, before the City’s own primary insurance, deductible, or self-insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured. Any insurance, deductible, or self-insurance maintained by the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers shall be excess of the Vendor’s insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it in any way. Notwithstanding the minimum limits set forth in Section 6.2.2, any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of coverage shall be available to the parties required to be named as additional insureds pursuant to this Section 6.3.1.

6.3.2 Automobile Liability. The automobile liability policy shall include or be endorsed (amended) to state that: (1) the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Vendor or for which the Vendor is responsible; and (2) the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Vendor’s scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance, deductible, or self-insurance maintained by the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers shall be excess of the Vendor’s insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it in any way. Policy shall contain or be endorsed to contain such provisions. Notwithstanding the minimum limits set forth in Section

6.2.2, any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of coverage shall be available to the parties required to be named as additional insureds pursuant to this Section 6.3.2.
1148
(BB&K 2023) - 9 - Goods and Services Agreement
46700.00100\40935206.1

6.3.3 Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s Liability Coverage. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers for losses paid under the terms of the insurance policy which arise from work performed by the Vendor.

6.3.4 All Coverages. Each insurance policy required by this Agreement shall be endorsed to state that: (A) coverage shall not be suspended, voided, reduced or canceled except after thirty (30) days (10 days for nonpayment of premium) prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City; and (B) any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies, including breaches of warranties, shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers. Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers, or any other additional insureds.

6.4 Separation of Insureds; No Special Limitations; Waiver of Subrogation. All insurance required by this Section shall contain standard separation of insureds provisions. In addition, such insurance shall not contain any special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers.

Requirement of specific coverage or minimum limits contained in this Section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits, or other requirement, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. All policies shall waive any right of subrogation of the insurer against the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers, or any other additional insureds, or shall specifically allow Vendor or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Vendor hereby waives its own right of recovery against City, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers, or any other additional insureds, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its subcontractors.

6.5 Deductibles and Self-Insurance Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. Vendor shall guarantee that, at the option of the City, either: (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers; or (2) the Vendor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense expenses.

6.6 Subcontractor Insurance Requirements. Vendor shall not allow any subcontractors to commence work on any subcontract relating to the work under the Agreement until they have provided evidence satisfactory to the City that they have secured all insurance required under this Section. If requested by Vendor, the City may approve different scopes or minimum limits of insurance for particular subcontractors. The Vendor and the City shall be named as additional insureds on all subcontractors’ policies of Commercial General Liability using ISO form 20 38, or coverage at least as broad.

6.7 Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating no less than A:VIII, licensed to do business in California, and satisfactory to the City.

6.8 Verification of Coverage. Vendor shall furnish City with original certificates of insurance and endorsements effecting coverage required by this Agreement on forms satisfactory to the City. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a 1149
(BB&K 2023) - 10 - Goods and Services Agreement
46700.00100\40935206.1
person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf and shall be on forms provided by the City if requested. All certificates and endorsements must be received and approved by the City before work commences. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time.

6.9 Reporting of Claims. Vendor shall report to the City, in addition to Vendor’s insurer, any and all insurance claims submitted by Vendor in connection with the Services under this Agreement.

7. INDEMNIFICATION.

7.1 Scope of Indemnity. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Vendor shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officials, employees, agents and volunteers free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, suits, actions, proceedings, costs, expenses, liability, judgments, awards, decrees, settlements, loss, damage or injury of any kind, in law or equity, regardless of whether the allegations are false, fraudulent, or groundless, to property or persons, including wrongful death, (collectively, “Claims”) in any manner arising out of, pertaining to, or incident to any acts, errors or omissions, or willful misconduct of Vendor, its officials, officers, employees, subcontractors, consultants or agents arising out of or in connection with the Services, the Goods or this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all expert witness fees, attorneys’ fees and other related costs and expenses. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent required by Civil Code section 2782, Vendor’s indemnity obligation shall not apply to such loss or damage which is caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City.

7.2 Additional Indemnity Obligations. Vendor shall defend, with counsel of City’s choosing and at Vendor’s own cost, expense and risk, any and all Claims covered by this section that may be brought or instituted against City or its officials, employees, agents and volunteers.

In addition, Vendor shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against City or its officials, employees, agents and volunteers as part of any such claim, suit, action or other proceeding. Vendor shall also reimburse City for the cost of any settlement paid by City or its officials, employees, agents and volunteers as part of any such claim, suit, action or other proceeding. Such reimbursement shall include payment for City’s attorney’s fees and costs, including expert witness fees. Vendor shall reimburse City and its officials, employees, agents and volunteers, for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Vendor’s obligation to indemnify shall survive expiration or termination of this Agreement, and shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by the City, its officials, employees, agents and volunteers.

8. CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE

8.1 Prevailing Wages. Vendor is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Section 1720, et seq., and 1770, et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000, et seq., (“Prevailing Wage Laws”), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on “public works” and “maintenance” projects. If the Services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and If the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Vendor agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. City shall provide Vendor with a copy of the prevailing rates of per diem wages in effect at the commencement of this Agreement. Vendor shall make copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to execute the Services available to interested parties upon request, and shall 1150
(BB&K 2023) - 11 - Goods and Services Agreement
46700.00100\40935206.1
post copies at the Vendor’s principal place of business and at the project site. Vendor shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. It is the intent of the parties to effectuate the requirements of sections 1771, 1774, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1813, and 1815 of the Labor Code within this Agreement, and Vendor shall therefore comply with such Labor Code sections to the fullest extent required by law.

8.2 Registration. If the Services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, then pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, the Vendor and all subcontractors must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations.

Vendor shall maintain registration for the duration of this Agreement and require the same of any subcontractor. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the contractor registration requirements mandated by Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1 shall not apply to work performed on a public works project that is exempt pursuant to the small project exemption specified in Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1.

8.3 Compliance Monitoring. This Agreement may also be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. It shall be Vendor’s sole responsibility to comply with all applicable registration and labor compliance requirements. Any stop orders issued by the Department of Industrial Relations against Vendor or any subcontractor that affect Vendor’s performance of Services, including any delay, shall be Vendor’s sole responsibility. Any delay arising out of or resulting from such stop orders shall be considered Vendor caused delay and shall not be compensable by the City. Vendor shall defend, indemnify, and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claim or liability arising out of stop orders issued by the Department of Industrial Relations against Vendor or any subcontractor.

9. SAFETY.

Vendor shall execute and maintain its work so as to avoid injury or damage to any person or property. In carrying out its services, the Vendor shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety of employees appropriate to the nature of the work and the conditions under which the work is to be performed. Safety precautions as applicable shall include, but shall not be limited to: (A) adequate life protection and lifesaving equipment and procedures; (B) instructions in accident prevention for all employees and subcontractors, such as safe walkways, scaffolds, fall protection ladders, bridges, gang planks, confined space procedures, trenching and shoring, equipment and other safety devices, equipment and wearing apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or injuries; and (C) adequate facilities for the proper inspection and maintenance of all safety measures.

10. ACCOUNTING RECORDS.

Vendor shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to all costs and expenses incurred under this Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Vendor shall allow a representative of City during normal business hours to examine, audit, and make transcripts or copies of such records and any other documents created pursuant to this Agreement. Vendor shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement.
1151
(BB&K 2023) - 12 - Goods and Services Agreement
46700.00100\40935206.1

11. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT.

11.1 Grounds for Termination. City may, by written notice to Vendor, terminate the whole or any part of this Agreement at any time and without cause by giving written notice to Vendor of such termination, and specifying the effective date thereof, at least seven (7) days before the effective date of such termination. Upon termination, Vendor shall be compensated only for those Services and Goods which have been adequately rendered to City, and Vendor shall be entitled to no further compensation. If terminated for cause because the Vendor refused or failed to deliver the Goods, the City may obtain Goods by whatever method it may deem expedient. If City’s cost of obtaining the Goods, including compensation for additional managerial and administrative services, will exceed the unpaid balance of the Goods, Vendor will be liable for and will pay the difference to City. Vendor may not terminate this Agreement except for cause.

The rights and remedies of the City provided in this Section shall not be exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law, equity or under this Agreement.

11.2 Effect of Termination. If this Agreement is terminated as provided herein, City may require Vendor to provide all finished or unfinished documents and data and other information of any kind prepared by Vendor in connection with the performance of the Services under this Agreement. Vendor shall be required to provide such document and other information within fifteen (15) days of the request.

11.3 Additional Services. In the event this Agreement is terminated in whole or in part as provided herein, City may procure, upon such terms and in such manner as it may determine appropriate, goods and services similar to those terminated.

12. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

12.1 Delivery of Notices. All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, or at such other address as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose:

Vendor:

City:

Consolidated Electrical Distributors
1241 W Brooks St., Ontario, CA 91762
Attn: Robert Conover, Manager
City of Ontario
303 East “B” Street
Ontario, CA 91764-4196
Attn: Vivian Quintana, Facilities Maintenance Manager
Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed, forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service.

12.2 Subcontracting. Vendor shall not subcontract any portion of the work required by this Agreement, except as expressly stated herein, without prior written approval of City. 1152
(BB&K 2023) - 13 - Goods and Services Agreement
46700.00100\40935206.1
Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement.

12.3 Governing Law; Government Code Claim Compliance. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in San Bernardino County. In addition to any and all contract requirements pertaining to notices of and requests for compensation or payment for extra work, disputed work, claims and/or changed conditions, Vendor must comply with the claim procedures set forth in Government Code sections 900 et seq. prior to filing any lawsuit against the City. Such Government Code claims and any subsequent lawsuit based upon the Government Code claims shall be limited to those matters that remain unresolved after all procedures pertaining to extra work, disputed work, claims, and/or changed conditions have been followed by Vendor. If no such Government Code claim is submitted, or if any prerequisite contractual requirements are not otherwise satisfied as specified herein, Vendor shall be barred from bringing and maintaining a valid lawsuit against the City.

12.4 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement.

12.5 City’s Right to Employ Other Vendors. City reserves right to employ other Vendors in connection with the Goods and Services provided under this Agreement.

12.6 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on the successors and assigns of the parties.

12.7 Assignment or Transfer. Vendor shall not assign, hypothecate, or transfer, either directly or by operation of law, this Agreement or any interest herein without the prior written consent of the City. Any attempt to do so shall be null and void, and any assignees, hypothecates or transferees shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer.

12.8 Construction; References; Captions. Since the Parties or their agents have participated fully in the preparation of this Agreement, the language of this Agreement shall be construed simply, according to its fair meaning, and not strictly for or against any Party. Any term referencing time, days or period for performance shall be deemed calendar days and not work days. All references to Vendor include all personnel, employees, agents, and subcontractors of Vendor, except as otherwise specified in this Agreement. All references to City include its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers except as otherwise specified in this Agreement. The captions of the various articles and paragraphs are for convenience and ease of reference only, and do not define, limit, augment, or describe the scope, content or intent of this Agreement.

12.9 Amendment; Modification. No supplement, modification or amendment of this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing and signed by both Parties.

12.10 Waiver. No waiver of any default shall constitute a waiver of any other default or breach, whether of the same or other covenant or condition. No waiver, benefit, privilege, or service voluntarily given or performed by a Party shall give the other Party any contractual rights by custom, estoppel or otherwise.
1153
(BB&K 2023) - 14 - Goods and Services Agreement
46700.00100\40935206.1

12.11 No Third-Party Beneficiaries. Except to the extent expressly provided for in Section

12.7, there are no intended third-party beneficiaries of any right or obligation assumed by the Parties.

12.12 Invalidity; Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is declared invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect.

12.13 Prohibited Interests. Vendor maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Vendor, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Vendor warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Vendor, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. Vendor further agrees to file, or shall cause its employees or subcontractors to file, a Statement of Economic Interest with the City’s Filing Officer as required under state law in the performance of the Services. For breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of City, during the term of his or her service with City, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom.

12.14 Cooperation; Further Acts. The Parties shall fully cooperate with one another and shall take any additional acts or sign any additional documents as may be necessary, appropriate or convenient to attain the purposes of this Agreement.

12.15 Authority to Enter Agreement. Vendor has all requisite power and authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver, and perform the Agreement. Each Party warrants that the individuals who have signed this Agreement have the legal power, right, and authority to make this Agreement and bind each respective Party.

12.16 Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original.

12.17 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings, or agreements. This Agreement may only be modified by a writing signed by both parties.

12.18 Federal Provisions When funding for the Services and Goods is provided, in whole or in part, by an agency of the federal government, Vendor shall also fully and adequately comply with the provisions included in Exhibit “D” (Federal Requirements) attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (“Federal Requirements”). With respect to any conflict between such Federal Requirements and the terms of this Agreement and/or the provisions of state law, the more stringent requirement shall control.

SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE
1154
(BB&K 2023) - 15 - Goods and Services Agreement
46700.00100\40935206.1

SIGNATURE PAGE FOR GOODS & SERVICES AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE CITY OF ONTARIO

AND CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have entered into this Agreement as of the day and year first above written.

CITY OF ONTARIO CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL

DISTRIBUTORS
By:

Its:

Printed Name:

By:

Its:

Printed Name:

Approved By:

Scott Ochoa
City Manager
Approved as to Form:

Best Best & Krieger LLP
City Attorney
Attested By:

Assistant City Clerk
1155
(BB&K 2023)
46700.00100\40935206.1
Exhibit A-1 Goods and Services Agreement
EXHIBIT “A”

SCOPE OF SERVICES
Scope of Services
Purchase of Electrical and Lighting Supplies.
1156
(BB&K 2023)
46700.00100\40935206.1
Exhibit B-1 Goods and Services Agreement
EXHIBIT “B”

SCHEDULE OF SERVICES
JULY 1, 2024 – JUNE 30, 2027
1157
(BB&K 2023)
46700.00100\40935206.1
Exhibit C-1 Goods and Services Agreement
EXHIBIT “C”

COMPENSATION
NOT TO EXCEED $356,151
1158
Department: Community Development
Prepared By: Rudy Zeledon
Department:

Prepared By: Rudy Zeledon
Staff Member Presenting: Scott Murphy,
Executive Director Community Development
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 27
SUBJECT: A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION FOR THE CANCELLATION OF WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACT NO. 72-384

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
July 16, 2024
SECTION:

PUBLIC HEARINGS
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council consider and adopt a Resolution approving the Tentative Cancellation of Land Conservation Contract No. 72-384, File No. PWIL23-001.

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Invest in the Growth and Evolution of the City's Economy Operate in a Businesslike Manner
Invest in the City's Infrastructure (Water, Streets, Sewers, Parks, Storm Drains and Public Facilities)
Ensure the Development of a Well Planned, Balanced, and Self-Sustaining Community in Ontario Ranch
FISCAL IMPACT: There is not a direct fiscal impact associated with this action. The cancellation fee will be paid by the property owner and will have no fiscal impact on City funds, however, the cancellation of Land Conservation Contract No. 72-384 will have a positive impact on revenue as property taxes for the project area will be reassessed based on residential development rather than agriculture use.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS:

Agricultural lands under a Williamson Act Contract are governed by the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, also known as the Williamson Act. Upon annexation, the City of Ontario assumed responsibility for administration of the Land Conservation Contracts that existed in the Ontario Ranch area. The City adopted the Agricultural Overlay Zoning District, or a “Right-to-Farm” Ordinance, that would allow existing agricultural uses within Ontario Ranch to continue for as long as the landowner desired.

Lennar Homes of California, LLC, has submitted a petition to cancel Land Conservation Contract No. 72-384. The subject property totals 23.2 acres of land and is located on the west side of Archibald 1159
Avenue, approximately 890 feet south of Riverside Drive, at 13150 South Archibald Avenue, within Neighborhoods 2A, 2B and 2C of the Countryside Specific Plan. On May 23, 2023, the Planning Commission approved File No. PMTT22-021 (Tract Map No. 20536) allowing a new subdivision on the Project site for the development of 265 dwelling units. The Williamson Act Contract Cancellation has been submitted in conjunction with a Development Plan (File No. PDEV23-035) to facilitate the construction of the dwelling units, which includes 126 row-town multi-family dwellings, 83 detached cluster dwellings, and 56 single-family detached dwellings, along with utility improvements and community amenities.

CANCELLATION FEE: As required by the Williamson Act, there is a penalty fee for cancellation of an Agricultural Contract. The fee is equal to 12.5 percent of the unrestricted base value of the land. The property appraisal, as determined by the County Assessor’s Office, is valid for one year from the date of assessment. The total cancellation, as determined by the County Assessor, is $2,000,000.

REQUIRED FINDINGS: The cancellation process for Williamson Act Contracts identifies findings which must be made in order to cancel a Contract. The City Council must find that the proposed cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the Williamson Act or is in the public interest. Staff has reviewed the request and believes that the cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the Williamson Act as follows:

1. The cancellation is for land on which a Notice of Non-Renewal has been served.

2. Cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use.

3. Cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent with the applicable provisions of the City’s Policy Plan (General Plan).

4. Cancellation will not result in discontinuous patterns of urban development.

5. There is no proximate non-Contracted land, which is both available and suitable for the alternative proposed use or that development of the subject property will provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate non-Contracted land.

The findings are identified in the attached Resolution. Following each required finding is the supporting statements that satisfy the requirements for cancellation.

CONDITIONS AND CONTINGENCIES: The following conditions and contingencies will be required to be satisfied upon approval of the Tentative Cancellation by the City Council and before Final Cancellation. All applicable conditions must be satisfied within one year of the date of recording of the Certificate of Tentative Cancellation. Conditions and contingencies include:

1. Upon approval, a Certificate of Tentative Cancellation must be recorded with the County Clerk;

2. Payment in full of the penalty fee. If the fee is not paid or a Certificate of Cancellation is not issued within one year from the date of the recording of the Tentative Cancellation, the fee shall be recomputed; and

3. Obtain all necessary approvals (including Specific Plan, EIR adoption, and Tentative Map(s) to commence the specified alternative use.
1160
Within 30 days of satisfaction of the conditions, the City Council must execute and record a Certificate of Final Cancellation of Contract.

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

AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN (ALUCP) COMPLIANCE : The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The environmental impacts of this Project were previously reviewed in conjunction with PSPA22-001 and PMTT22-021, an amendment to the Countryside Specific Plan and a Tentative Tract Map to facilitate the development of 265 dwelling units in Neighborhoods 2A, 2B and 2C, for which an Addendum to Countryside Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2004071001, certified by the City Council on April 18, 2006) ("Certified EIR") was adopted by the City Council on October 5, 2023. This Application introduces no new significant environmental impacts. All previously adopted mitigation measures are a condition of Project approval and are incorporated herein by this reference.

PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW: On June 25, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and voted (7-0) to recommend City Council approval of the Tentative Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract No. 72-384 (File No. PWIL23-001). 1161
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FILE NO. PWIL21-003, A

TENTATIVE CANCELLATION OF LAND CONSERVATION CONTRACT
NUMBER 72-384 FOR 23.2 ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED
ON THE WEST SIDE OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE, APPROXIMATELY 893 FEET SOUTH OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE, AT 13150 SOUTH ARCHIBALD AVENUE, WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODS 2A, 2B AND 2C OF THE

COUNTRYSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APN: 0218-111-60 AND 0218-111-61.

WHEREAS, Lennar Homes of California, LLC ("Applicant") has filed an Application for the approval of the cancellation of Land Conservation Contract Number 72-384, File No. PWIL23-001, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Application applies to 23.2 acres of land generally located on the west side of Archibald Avenue, approximately 893 feet south of Riverside Drive, at 13150 South Archibald Avenue within Neighborhoods 2A, 2B and 2C of the Countryside Specific Plan, and is presently unimproved and formally used for agriculture; and WHEREAS, the properties to the north and east of the Project site are within the MDR-18 (Medium Density Residential 11.1 – 18.0 du/ac) and are developed with multiple family dwellings. The properties to the south and west are within Planning Area 1 Neighborhoods 1 and 4 of the Countryside Specific Plan, and are developed with singlefamily detached dwellings; and WHEREAS, the City, upon annexation, assumed responsibility for administration of the Land Conservation Contracts which existed in the annexed area; and WHEREAS, the City Ontario certified the Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2008101140) for The Ontario Plan (TOP) on January 27, 2010. The adoption of TOP also included the approval of the Policy Plan (General Plan), which replaced the previous Ontario General Plan and New Model Colony General Plan Amendment. The Final TOP EIR concluded that the conversion of agricultural uses to urban uses within Ontario Ranch (NMC) would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to agriculture, therefore a Statement of Overriding Considerations was approved; and WHEREAS, the City’s Agricultural Overlay Zoning District, or a “right-to-farm” ordinance (Development Code Division 6.01, Section 6.01.035), allows existing agricultural uses within Ontario Ranch to continue for as long as the landowner desires; and
WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act — Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. — (hereinafter referred to 1162
as "CEQA") and an initial study has been prepared to determine possible environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, on November 11, 2023, the Applicant submitted a Petition for Cancellation of Land Conservation Contract Number 72-384, with the specified alternative use of residential development; and
WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of this project were reviewed in conjunction with the Countryside Specific Plan, File No. PSP04-001, Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2004071001) certified by the City Council on April 18, 2006; and WHEREAS, the Addendum to the Countryside Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2004071001) was certified by the City Council on October 5, 2023, (“Certified EIR”) in conjunction with File Nos. PSPA22-001 and PMTT22-021, in which development and use of the Project site was discussed; and WHEREAS, the City's "Local Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" provide for the use of a single environmental assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed; and
WHEREAS, the Project has been reviewed for consistency with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan, as State Housing Element law (as prescribed in Government Code Sections 65580 through 65589.8) requires that development projects must be consistent with the Housing Element, if upon consideration of all its aspects, it is found to further the purposes, principals, goals, and policies of the Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and is subject to, and must be consistent with, the policies and criteria set forth in the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (hereinafter referred to as "ALUCP"), which applies only to jurisdictions within San Bernardino County, and addresses the noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity; and
WHEREAS, City of Ontario Development Code Division 2.03 (Public Hearings) prescribes the manner in which public notification shall be provided and hearing procedures to be followed, and all such notifications and procedures have been completed; and
WHEREAS, on June 25, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date, voting (7-0) to issue Resolution No. PC24-027, recommending the City Council approve the Application; and
WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the City Council the responsibility and authority to review and act on the subject Application; and 1163
WHEREAS, on July 16, 2024, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Ontario, as follows:

SECTION 1. Environmental Determination and Findings. As the decisionmaking body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the previous Certified Countryside Specific Plan, File No. PSP04- 001, Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2004071001) and supporting documentation.

Based upon the facts and information contained in the previous Certified EIR and supporting documentation, the City Council finds as follows:
(1) The environmental impacts of this project were previously reviewed in conjunction with File No. PSP04-001, the Countryside Specific Plan for which Certified EIR was adopted by the City Council on April 18, 2006; and (2) The previous Certified EIR contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project; and (3) The previous Certified EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder; and
(4) The previous Certified EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council; and
(5) The proposed project will introduce no new significant environmental impacts beyond those previously analyzed in the previous Certified EIR, and all mitigation measures previously adopted with the Certified EIR, are incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. Housing Element Compliance. Pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 3, Article 10.6, commencing with Section 65580, as the decision-making body for the Project, the City Council finds that based upon the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation, at the time of Project implementation, the project is consistent with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan (General Plan) component of The Ontario Plan, as the project site is not one of the properties in the Housing Element Sites Inventory contained in Tables B-1 and B-2 of the Housing Element Technical Report.

SECTION 3. Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (“ALUCP”) Compliance. The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual 1164
development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the Ontario International Airport Land use Compatibility Plan, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. As the decisionmaking body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ONT ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-2) and Safety Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the City Council, therefore, finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ONT ALUCP; and
SECTION 4. Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced hearing, and upon the specific findings set forth in Section 1 through 3 above, the City Council hereby concludes as follows:
a. The cancellation is for land on which a Notice of Non-Renewal has been served. Pursuant with Government Code § 51245 a Notice of NonRenewal of Land Conservation Contract No. 72-384, was recorded on November 30, 2023, as Instrument No. 2023-0294361, Official Records, has been served.
b. Cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use. Cancellation of the Land Conservation Contract No. 72-384 is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural uses. The properties surrounding the site are developed with residential, with a remaining independent, agricultural site to the south. In addition, the Contract properties are no longer farmed. The change in use on this parcel would be due to the development of the specific plan and not to the cancellation of land conservation contract. Moreover, the policy decision to transition uses in the area from agriculture to urban was made when the City adopted TOP Policy Plan. The environmental consequences of that decision were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report certified in conjunction with The Ontario Plan (TOP). Thus, the City’s prior planning decision, and not the cancellation of the contracts associated with this project, would be the cause of any influence on the decision to remove land from agricultural use. Additionally, to ease the transition from agricultural to urban uses and to minimize conflicts between the two uses, the City has adopted an Agricultural Overlay District.
1165
c. Cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent with the applicable provisions of the City’s General Plan. The City of Ontario TOP Policy Plan (General Plan) land use plan, designates the subject properties for Low Medium Density Residential (5.1 to 11 du/ac) and Medium Density Residential (11.1 to 25 du/ac) and requires a specific plan to be adopted to implement the land uses. The subject properties are located within Neighborhood 2A (RD Cluster Court 3), Neighborhood 2B (RD Row Townhomes) and Neighborhood 2C (RD 3,000 SF lots) of the Countryside Specific Plan and is planned in accordance with the City of Ontario Policy Plan’s (General Plan) land use designation of Low Medium Density Residential (5.1 to 11 du/ac) and Medium Density Residential (11.1 to 25 du/ac) as illustrated by Exhibit LU-01 “Land Use Plan” of the Policy Plan (General Plan).
d. Cancellation will not result in discontinuous patterns of urban development. The cancellation of the Land Conservation Contracts will not result in discontinuous patterns of urban development. The cancellation of the Land Conservation Contract will not result in discontinuous patterns of urban development. The subject properties are part of Countryside Specific Plan. The Ontario Plan Policy Plan (General Plan) includes requirements for subsequent approval by the City of a Specific Plan for development within Ontario Ranch. Specific Plans are required to ensure that sufficient land area is included to achieve unified districts and neighborhoods. The Countryside Specific Plan incorporates the development framework for detailed land use, circulation, infrastructure including drainage, sewer, and water facilities, provision for public services including parks and schools, and urban design and landscape plans. In addition, most of the properties surrounding the site are developed with residential uses and therefore the cancellation of the Williamson Act contract associated with the Project would not result in leapfrog development.
e. There is no proximate non-Contracted land, which is both available and suitable for the alternative proposed use or that development of the subject property will provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate non-Contracted land.

The cancellation of the Land Conservation Contract No. 72-384 will not result in discontinuous patterns of urban development. The contracted land lies within the boundaries of Countryside Specific Plan. The adjacent noncontracted lands to the north, south and west are located within the Countryside Specific Plan and developed with residential uses. The properties to the east are located within Archibald Ranch and developed with residential uses. The development of the subject site and adjacent residential developed non-contracted site within the Countryside Specific Plan will eliminate “leapfrog” development and continue to provide for more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate non-contracted land.
1166
SECTION 5. City Council Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 through 4, above, the City Council hereby APPROVES the herein described Application, attached hereto as “Attachment A,” and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 6. Indemnification. The Applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Ontario or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Ontario or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul this approval. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding, and the City of Ontario shall cooperate fully in the defense.

SECTION 7. Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Ontario City Hall, 303 East “B” Street, Ontario, California 91764. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk of the City of Ontario.

SECTION 8. Certification to Adoption. The City Clerk of the City of Ontario shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th day of July, 2024. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
1167

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
1168
ATTACHMENT “A”
Certificate of Tentative Cancellation of
Land Conservation Contract 72-384
(Document follows this page)
1169

CERTIFICATE OF TENTATIVE CANCELLATION
OF

LAND CONSERVATION CONTRACT
This certifies that in accordance with the California Government Code Article 5, Chapter 7, Division 1 of Title 5 (beginning with Section 51280), the City Council of the City of Ontario has made findings necessary to support issuance of this Certificate of Tentative Cancellation to 72-384, hereinafter referred to as OWNER, for cancellation of the Land Conservation Contract attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit “A”.

This Certificate concerns 29.095 Acres of real property described in Exhibit “B” (map and legal description), attached hereto and made a part hereof, which is in the City of Ontario and which is (all) (a portion) of the property subject to the provisions of the above-referenced contract (“Property”).

The petition for cancellation was accompanied by a proposal for a specified alternative use of the Property, and sets forth the following proposed alternative use:

The City of Ontario Policy Plan (General Plan) land use plan, designates the subject properties for Low Medium Density Residential (5.1 to 11 du/ac) and Medium Density Residential (11.1 to 25 du/ac) and requires a specific plan to be adopted to implement the land uses. Zones. The subject properties are located within Neighborhood 2A (RD Cluster Court 3), Neighborhood 2B (RD Row Townhomes) and Neighborhood 2C (RD 3,000 SF lots) of the Countryside Specific Plan and is planned in accordance with the City of Ontario Policy Plan’s (General Plan) land use designation of Low Medium Density Residential (5.1 to 11 du/ac) and Medium Density Residential (11.1 to 25 du/ac) as illustrated by Exhibit LU-01 “Land Use Plan” of the Policy Plan (General Plan).

The City Council of the City of Ontario will, in accordance with Government Code Section 51283.4(b), within thirty (30) days of receipt of written notice from OWNER that the conditions and contingencies hereinafter set forth have been satisfied, make its determination whether or not such conditions and contingencies are, in fact, satisfied, and if it is determined that the conditions and contingencies have been satisfied, the City will execute, City Manager, a Certificate of Cancellation of the above Land Conservation Contract set forth in Exhibit “A” covering the Property and cause the same to be recorded.

The conditions and contingencies which must be satisfied prior to execution of a Certificate of Cancellation by the City Manager of the City of Ontario are as follows:

1. Payment in full of the cancellation fee, determined in accordance with Government Code Section 51283, in the amount of $2,000,000; and

2. Certification of associated Environmental Impact Report; and

3. Approval of Tentative Maps on the subject property, which are required to commence the specified alternative use; and
Should the OWNER fail to pay the cancellation fee as herein provided within one (1) year from the date this Certificate is recorded or a Certificate of Cancellation cannot otherwise be issued within one (1) year from the date this Certificate is recorded, the cancellation fee shall be recomputed.

If the OWNER has been unable to satisfy the above conditions and contingencies, owner shall so notify the City of Ontario of the particular conditions or contingencies which they are unable to satisfy. Within thirty (30) days after receipt of such notice, and upon a determination that the OWNER is in fact unable to satisfy such conditions and contingencies, the City Manager of the City of Ontario shall execute a Certificate of Withdrawal of this Certificate of Tentative Cancellation and cause such certificate to be recorded. 1170
This Certificate of Tentative Cancellation is hereby executed on this 16th day of July 2024, by the Mayor of the City of Ontario.

Scott Ochoa, City Manager
ATTEST:

City Clerk
State of California
County of _______________
On __________________ before me, ____________________________, Notary Public, personally appeared _____________________________________________________ who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies) and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature __________________________________
(Seal)
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate certifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. 1171
Exhibit "A"
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
Exhibit “B”
1180
Exhibit “B” Continued
1181
Department: Planning
Prepared By: Kimberly Ruddins
Department: Planning
Prepared By: Kimberly Ruddins
Staff Member Presenting: Scott Murphy,
Executive Director Community Development
Reviewed By: Henry Noh, Rudy Zeledon, Scott
Murphy
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 28
SUBJECT: A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER CERTIFICATION OF THE ONTARIO REGIONAL

SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2023110328) AND THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PGPA23-002 AND ZONE CHANGE PZC23-004.

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
July 16, 2024
SECTION:

PUBLIC HEARINGS
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council take the following actions:

A. Consider and adopt a Resolution certifying the Ontario Regional Sports Complex (ORSC) Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2023110328) including a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and B. Consider and adopt a Resolution approving the General Plan Amendment (File No. PGPA23- 002); and
C. Introduce and waive further reading of an Ordinance approving the Zone Change (File No.

PZC23-004).

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Invest in the Growth and Evolution of the City's Economy Operate in a Businesslike Manner
Invest in the City's Infrastructure (Water, Streets, Sewers, Parks, Storm Drains and Public Facilities)
Encourage, Provide or Support Enhanced Recreational, Educational, Cultural and Healthy City Programs, Policies and Activities
Ensure the Development of a Well Planned, Balanced, and Self-Sustaining Community in Ontario Ranch
FISCAL IMPACT: The redesignation of land use from residential to open space will have the impact of reducing future potential property tax revenue. Other properties, however, will be designated for higher densities and/or commercial uses, resulting in increased revenue opportunities. Further, the Ontario 1182
Sports Complex will also generate revenue as part of the complex operations, offsetting the loss in property taxes.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS: The Ontario Regional Sports Complex (ORSC) Project site is comprised of approximately 199 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Vineyard Avenue and Riverside Drive within the Armstrong Ranch Specific Plan. The Project site is presently vacant and was previously used for agricultural purposes, such as livestock raising and dairy farming. The site is bounded by Riverside Drive to the north, Chino Avenue to the south, the future Vineyard Avenue to the west, and the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel to the east. Additionally, the Project includes the Vineyard Avenue Corridor which proposes general plan amendments and zone changes. The Vineyard Avenue Corridor is comprised of approximately 94 acres of land and is bounded to the north by Chino Avenue, to the south by Ontario Ranch Road, and on the east and west sides of Vineyard Avenue.

The Project site for the ORSC is located within the boundary of the Armstrong Ranch Specific Plan (ARSP). The ARSP and its related Environmental Impact Report (File No. PSP15-002) (State Clearinghouse No. 2006111009) were adopted by the City Council on December 5, 2017. The ARSP allowed for the development potential of up to 891 residential dwelling units consisting of a variety of single-family detached and attached dwellings and an elementary school. The ARSP proposed residential land use areas that were divided into six individual neighborhood planning areas linked by a network of street-separated sidewalks and trails that also connect the neighborhoods to a variety of park spaces, a proposed elementary school, and City master planned trail systems. The ARSP Environmental Impact Report identified Significant and Unavoidable Adverse Impacts related to conversion of Prime Farmland and Farmland to nonagricultural uses and the exceedance of South Coast Air Quality Management Districts (SCAQMD) thresholds for both daily operations and cumulative impacts.

The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will replace the Armstrong Ranch Specific Plan with Open Space Recreation (OS-R) and Convention Center Support Commercial (CCS) land use and zoning designations.

Ontario Regional Sports Complex (OSRC) — The ORSC would provide a variety of experiences, including a 6,000-capacity, minor league baseball stadium with supportive retail/hospitality uses, and a City regional park and community recreation facilities, including a recreation center, aquatics center, and baseball, softball, football and soccer fields. The land use plan for the ORSC encompasses seven planning areas that include the following:

Planning Area 1: Baseball Stadium (PA 1) — The proposed ORSC will establish a 16-acre sports and entertainment hub, centered around a minor league baseball stadium generally located at the southwest corner of Riverside Drive and Ontario Avenue. The stadium is designed to meet league standards and will have a 6,000-person capacity with 4,500 fixed seats. The stadium will feature lighting for evening games, with lights typically activated at 5:00 pm on game days and turned off approximately one hour after the game ends. A sound system, including speaker arrays on light poles and canopies within the seating areas, provides communication and entertainment during events, starting with pregame music two hours prior to the start of the game and ending with the conclusion of the game. The stadium will host up to 71 home games per season along with 46 potential concerts and other events, 1183
totaling a maximum of 117 events annually. PA 1 includes Parking Structure A, a three-story parking structure containing approximately 1,600 parking spaces.

Planning Area 2: Commercial Retail (PA 2) — PA 2 has a project area of 19.62 acres and is located at the southeast corner of Riverside Drive and Ontario Avenue. PA 2 is primarily dedicated to commercial uses and provides a total building area of 45,000 square feet including 1,500 surface parking spaces.

Planning Area 3: Baseball Stadium Retail and Hospitality (PA 3) — PA 3 has a project area of

4.58 acres and is located along the eastern and southern boundaries of the baseball stadium and is designated for commercial and hospitality land uses. PA 3 includes the construction of a 21,000 square-foot retail building alongside a 70,000 square-foot hotel, featuring 100 rooms, meeting spaces, and a café. Parking for both the retail and hotel uses are intended to be shared with the adjacent parking areas within PA 2, PA 4, and the Parking Structure A.

Planning Area 4: Baseball Stadium Retail and Hospitality South (PA 4) — PA 4 is located south of the baseball stadium and is 8.54 acres in size and includes 114,000 square-feet of commercial/retail land uses. PA 4 proposes a 50,000 square-foot specialty restaurant use with an additional 50,000 square-feet of outdoor recreational space, including pickleball courts. PA 4 also includes 250 surface parking spaces.

Planning Area 5: City Park Active Fields (PA 5) — PA 5 is located at the southeast corner of Riverside Drive and Vineyard Avenue and has a project area of 110.92 acres. PA 5 will provide 13 lighted multipurpose sports fields, 8 lighted baseball/softball/Little League fields, and a central park with picnic areas. The park will feature various amenities including playground areas, batting cages, support and concession buildings, paseos, trails, and other passive open space areas. These fields will primarily serve the American Youth Soccer Organization, with practices once or twice a week and games mostly on weekends. The 8 multiuse baseball/softball/Little League fields will be available for local softball leagues and Little League who will primarily use these fields during their respective seasons. During the offseason, the fields are available for use by any organized group with a permit/reservation. A total of approximately 2,000 parking spaces are proposed for PA 5 within the four-story, 1,000 space Parking Structure B located along the western portion of the planning area along Vineyard Avenue and an additional 1,000 surface parking spaces west of Ontario Avenue.

Planning Area 6: City Park Indoor Athletic Facility (PA 6) — PA 6 is located at the northwest corner of Ontario Avenue and Chino Avenue and has a project area of 7.58 acres. PA 6 will include a two-story indoor athletic facility totaling 159,450 square-feet, including 388 parking spaces. The indoor athletic facility is 66,560 square-feet and can be utilized for either eight basketball courts or 16 volleyball courts. A total of 34,200 square-feet will be allocated for a dedicated sports performance area, incorporating a turf space for workouts/training and four pop-up batting cage/pitching tunnels. The remaining 58,690 square-feet includes a lobby and office space, locker and training rooms, restrooms, and a kitchen.

Planning Area 7: Community Recreation Center (PA 7) — The community recreation center is located at the northeast corner of Ontario Avenue and Chino Avenue. PA 7 includes a 70,000 square-foot community center/administration building, a 13,000 square-foot aquatics facility with an outdoor pool, a Little League field, a 25,000 square-foot operator facility, 1184
maintenance yard, picnic shelter, 8 exercise stations, playground, outdoor skate park, and eight tennis and pickleball courts. Operating hours for the community center are Monday through Friday from 8:00 am to 11:00 pm, and Saturdays and Sundays from 8:00 am to 3:00 pm, hosting a total of 212 programs annually. Nighttime illumination is available until 10:00 pm for the baseball/Little League field, skate park, tennis courts and 525 parking spaces.

Projected attendance aligns with existing Ontario facilities, estimating approximately 196,500 indoor participants and 196,300 outdoor participants, totaling 392,800 participants annually, with an average of 1,076 participants daily.

The primary access points to the ORSC will be from Riverside Drive to the north, Vineyard Avenue to the west, and Chino Avenue to the south. Ontario Avenue and the proposed Street A will serve as the primary north-south connections, facilitating internal access and connectivity to all areas of the project site and providing access and connection between Riverside Drive and Chino Avenue. Offsite improvements associated with the ORSC project include street widening and intersection improvements on Vineyard Avenue, Riverside Drive, and Chino Avenue, consistent with the City's Circulation Plan. New pathways adjacent to the ORSC site include bicycle and pedestrian pathways, such as a Class I multi-use trail along Vineyard Avenue and Class II bike lanes along Riverside Drive.

Improved pedestrian pathways that include new sidewalks and enhanced lighting will be provided throughout the ORSC site and aligns with TOP's Mobility Elements policies.

Development of the ORSC would require on- and off-site infrastructure improvements, including roadway widening, signalization, storm drains, new water and sewer lines, relocation and undergrounding of electrical poles, and connection to the City's fiber-optic network. Off-site improvements require the extension of a sewer line within the Vineyard Avenue right-of-way south of Chino Avenue to Eucalyptus Avenue. The proposed sewer line would be 12 to 20 inches in diameter and extends approximately 10,578 feet connecting to an existing line within Eucalyptus Avenue. The expansion of the sewer line expands opportunities for expedited future developments.

General Plan Amendment (File No. PGPA23-002) — The Policy Plan land use plan designates the Project area as Low-Density Residential (LDR) and Medium-Density Residential (MDR). The proposed Project will require a change in the existing land use designations to accommodate recreational facilities and regional-serving entertainment, retail, and service uses, including hotels and restaurants. The proposed Project will establish the following:

Convert 134.42 acres of Low-Density Residential (LDR) and Medium-Density Residential (MDR) to Open Space-Parkland (OS-R);
Convert 51.57 acres of Low-Density Residential (LDR) to Hospitality (HOS); Convert 94 acres of Low-Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) generally located along Vineyard Avenue, south of the project; and Remove the Affordable Housing Overlay on 36.18 acres of land within the Project boundary and add the Affordable Housing Overlay to 19.25 acres of land on the east side of Vineyard Avenue, south of Schaefer Avenue.

Zone Change (File No. PZC-23-004) — The ORSC site is located within the Armstrong Ranch Specific 1185
Plan. The Vineyard Avenue corridor area, south of the ORSC Project Area, is zoned SP/AG (Specific Plan/Agricultural Overlay). The ORSC project proposes to rescind the Armstrong Ranch Specific Plan and intends to rezone the following:

Convert 134.43 acres from the Armstrong Ranch Specific Plan to the OS-R (Open Space Recreation) zoning district;
Convert 51.57 acres from the Armstrong Ranch Specific Plan to CCS (Convention Center Support Commercial) zoning district generally located south of Riverside Drive and west of the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel; and
Remove the AH (Affordable Housing) overlay zoning district on 36.18 acres of land from within the Project and add the AH (Affordable Housing) Overlay zoning district to 19.25 acres of land within the SP (Specific Plan)/AG (Agricultural) Overlay generally located on the east side of Vineyard Avenue, south of Schaefer Avenue.

Compliance with State Housing Mandates — The ORSC project requires TOP 2050 adjustments to comply with Senate Bill 330 and Senate Bill 166 regulations. In compliance with SB 330, mandating no net loss of residential capacity citywide (refer to TOP 2050 Table LU-03), the 199-acre project site is currently designated for LDR and MDR uses and allows for up to 1,471 residential unit capacity (including ARSP). To offset the residential unit capacity reduction, a total of 94 acres south of the project site within the Vineyard Avenue Corridor parcels would be redesignated from LDR to MDR.

In compliance with SB 330, relocation of the Project units plus the residential unit capacity within the Vineyard Avenue Corridor parcels results in the need for a combined residential capacity of 1,895 dwelling units. A General Plan Amendment designating the Vineyard Avenue Corridor parcels as MDR provides a residential unit capacity of 2,075 units, exceeding the SB 330 requirement by 180 units.

Compliance with SB 166 requires maintaining an inventory of suitable sites to fulfill low and very low RHNA obligations at all times. The ORSC site includes a total of 36.18 acres designated within the existing AH Overlay with a total capacity of 194 low to moderate units. To comply with SB 166, two parcels within the 94-acre Vineyard Avenue Corridor, totaling 19.25 acres with a capacity of 212 low to moderate units are identified for accommodating the residential unit capacity as a result of the ORSC project. The two parcels (APNs: 218-18-102 and 218-18-115) will be added to the Housing Element Sites Inventory.

Public Outreach — The outreach for the ORSC EIR has been influenced by several fact-gathering processes, used to gain information and insight from a broad range of persons, professions, and the public. The fact-gathering and public participation process was broad and inclusive and included the following elements:

September 14, 2023 — The Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) for the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (“SEIR”) for The Ontario Regional Sports Complex was posted to the City website and posted announcements on social media. The NOP solicits input on the scope and content of the environmental analysis ensuring that potential impacts and concerns are identified early in the planning process. The City mailed out 79 letters to individuals who requested notifications for environmental assessments.

September 27, 2023 — The Planning Department hosted a Scoping Meeting for the ORSC at 1186
Westwind Recreation Center in response to the NOP. This Scoping Meeting was organized in conjunction with the NOP to introduce the Project and the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) process. It served as an occasion for outside agency representatives and the public to collaborate with the City in defining the scope and content of the environmental analysis for the EIR. There were 38 attendees at the Scoping Meeting that allowed an opportunity for the community to have an interactive discussion with city staff and the consultant team. During the Scoping Meeting, the items discussed included providing an overview of the ORSC project, CEQA processing, construction schedule, types of uses anticipated in the City Park, as well as transportation and infrastructure improvements.

Community concerns included increased traffic and management strategies, lack of access to residential units located off of Riverside Drive, increases in post-construction truck and vehicle volumes, project site accessibility and safety concerns along Vineyard Avenue.

Community members also highlighted the need for public outreach in the programming of the City Park.

November 13, 2023 — A second Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) was released for an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) to due public’s request for a more thorough environmental assessment. It was posted to the City website and posted announcements on social media. The City mailed out 79 letters to individuals who requested notifications for environmental assessments.

November 17, 2023 — In compliance with Senate Bill 18 and Assembly Bill 52 notification requirements (Tribal Consultation), the City mailed a separate project notice to 36 local tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Two consultation requests were received during the requisite 90-day response period by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians Kizh Nation and the Cahuilla Band of Indians.

On December 6, 2023 — The Planning Department conducted a virtual second Scoping Meeting based on the revised environmental assessment for the full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as a result of community input. The second meeting hosted 33 public attendees who raised concerns regarding environmental impacts, community engagement, and economic implications. Comments emphasized the importance of addressing air and water quality, traffic, historical resources, and the need for inclusive outreach, particularly within a one-mile radius of the project site. Additionally, questions were raised regarding project approval status, economic impacts, property ownership, and financial accountability.

February 9, 2024 — Staff mailed letters with a notice of intent to 828 property owners within 600 feet of the Project site. The letter informed property owners of the project overview, including information on the sports complex, general plan amendment, and zone change. The letter contained staff’s contact info and encouraged property owners to contact staff if they had further questions.

April 4, 2024 — The Notice of Availability (“NOA”) for the draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for The Ontario Regional Sports Complex (State Clearing House No. 2023110328) was posted to the City website and posted announcements on social media. The NOA indicated that the SEIR was available for review and that the City would accept comments through May 20, 2024. Staff sent out 108 notification letters to real property addresses and 153 emails to 1187
persons requesting to be notified of city environmental assessments.

June 5, 2024 —In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the Project was publicly noticed in the Daily Bulletin newspaper and was posted to the City website. The notice was posted 20 days before the scheduled review, ensuring adequate time for public awareness and comment.

June 18, 2024 — Staff sent out 7 flash drives containing the Final Environmental Impact Report and response to comments on the DEIR to the agencies and organizations that commented on the DEIR. The FEIR was posted to the City website.

June 25, 2024 — The City of Ontario Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered the entire oral and written record for the project. A total of three comment letters were received the day of the Planning Commission hearing. A total of 15 members of the public provided comments and expressed that the project EIR requires more review time, concerns raised at the hearing included: insufficient analysis, air quality and greenhouse gas concerns, loss of agricultural land, loss of affordable housing, and infrastructure not supporting future development.

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: Of the 20 areas considered by the EIR, all but 5 of the impact areas were mitigated to a level of less than significant. The 5 remaining impact areas, even with the mitigation measures, could not be reduced to less than significant, resulting in some impacts remaining potentially significant and unavoidable. These areas include:

Agricultural Resources — Conversion of agricultural-designated land to urban land uses is a significant and unavoidable impact. There are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce the ORSC's significant impacts to agricultural resources to levels that would be less than significant. The ORSC would result in the direct loss of 53-acres of Prime Farmland. None of the mitigation measures considered by the City would feasibly be able to reduce the significant impacts to levels less than significant, and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. The ORSC site contains 53-acres of Prime Farmland, all of which would be converted to nonagricultural use. The sewer alignment in the Offsite Improvement Area would not have potential impact to Farmland because these improvements would be belowground. The California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) was established in 1982 to track changes in agricultural land use and to help preserve areas of Important Farmland. Prime Farmland is defined as, "The highest rated Important Farmland is Prime Farmland and defined as having the best combination of physical and chemical features and is able to sustain long-term agricultural production. The land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields and it must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date". During the 1950s, the Chino Valley was primarily known for dairy farming utilizing dry-lot dairy farming methods, however, during the 1960s dairy farmers in the Chino Valley were being outcompeted by dairies in the Central Valleys. In an effort to retain existing agricultural uses in Ontario and the County, the San Bernardino County Land Preserve was established in 1968 under the auspices of California's Williamson Act (law intended to preserve California farmland granting substantial tax breaks 1188
to property owners agreeing to restrict their land to agricultural uses for at least 10 year).

The Agricultural Preserve encompassed approximately 15,200 acres and was under the jurisdiction of the County of San Bernardino. By 1997, over half of the dairies within the Agricultural Preserve had left. In 1998, the County San Bernardino paved the way for the annexation of the 15,200-acre Agricultural Preserve, with 8,200 acres being annexed by the City of Ontario and 7,000 acres annexed by the City of Chino. As part of the annexation, the City adopted Sphere of Influence General Plan, consisting of residential, commercial, and industrial uses, and certified the EIR, which identified the loss of agricultural lands as significant and unavoidable. In 2001, the City of Ontario adopted, and still maintains, the Agricultural Overlay Zone and Right-to-Farm ordinance within Ontario Ranch to act as a "buffering" device between existing agricultural uses and urban development. In 2010, The Ontario Plan (General Plan Update) Land Use Plan continued to reflect urbanized uses with the Environmental Impact Report identifying the loss of agricultural lands as significant and unavoidable. In 2017, the Armstrong Ranch Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report was certified and identified the conversion of Prime Farmland to urban uses and loss of Farmland as significant and unavoidable. In 2022, The Ontario Plan 2050, an update to the General Plan, certified the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and identified that the City of Ontario's Land Use Plan no longer designates agricultural land uses in the City. Over the last several years, agricultural and dairy farming operations have declined as a result of economic constraints and regulatory requirements. The ARSP Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2006111009) identified conversion and loss of Prime Farmland significant and unavoidable, with no feasible mitigation measures which would substantially lessen the Proposed Project’s significant impacts related to the loss of Prime Farmland and conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use. This finding is consistent with the finding in 1998 Sphere of Influence General Plan, the 2010 TOP EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2008101140) and the Armstrong Ranch Specific Plan EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2006111009) that there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce impacts on Important Farmland or the conversion of agricultural land to nonagricultural uses, and thus impacts would be significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR pg. 5.2-12).

Air Quality — The ORSC is anticipated to exceed operational emission thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD), potentially leading to violations of Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) and inconsistent with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) regarding cumulative impacts from long-term regional operation emissions.

Emissions from vehicle operations at the site are expected to consistently surpass AQMD thresholds due to factors beyond the Project's control, such as vehicle types and fuel efficiency. As such, no feasible mitigation measures have been identified to align with AQMP requirements.

Green Houses Gasses Emissions — The ORSC is anticipated to lead to a significant increase in on-site greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. To mitigate this impact, the Project is required to implement transportation demand management (TDM) measures, such as enhancing pedestrian and active transportation options to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). It is important to note that the ORSC has limited control over certain factors, including visitors' 1189
choice of vehicle fuel source, fuel efficiency, or travel mode. As such, additional mitigation measures to reduce vehicle-related emissions are not feasible. Addressing the second-largest emission source, energy consumption, primarily from electricity and natural gas on-site, is crucial. The Project is required to transition to all-electric operations for uses with the exception to commercial cooking appliances. Moreover, the Project must prioritize on-site electricity generation from renewable sources whenever feasible. While these strategies aim to mitigate emissions, conflict with plans adopted to reduce GHG emissions and magnitude of vehicle related GHG emissions, it is anticipated that the ORSC's overall emissions would still exceed the "no net increase" GHG emissions threshold.

Noise — The ORSC would result in potentially significant long-term increase in noise levels associated with traffic and commercial noise. Before constructing buildings in Planning Areas 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7, an acoustics study must be conducted to ensure that the noise from HVAC equipment stays within acceptable limits outlined in the Ontario Municipal Code. The indoor athletic facility within PA 6 sound levels from HVAC equipment should be less than 58 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. For the other Planning Areas, the sound level should be less than 65 dBA at 50 feet to maintain noise levels around 44 dBA at residential areas. To achieve this, the design and placement of HVAC equipment should minimize noise during operation. However, there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce traffic noise impacts of the ORSC. This is consistent with the findings from the 2010 TOP EIR.

Transportation — Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) would increase under the ORSC. Mitigation Measures TRAF-1 and TRAF-2 would reduce potential impacts for future development projects to the extent feasible. Future development in the Ontario Regional Sports Complex would need to consider Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures consistent with those identified in the Mobility Element. A draft TDM Plan provides techniques including incentives to use transit; incentives to form carpools rather than drive alone; and making home, work, and shopping closer together to shorten travel distances. Mitigation Measure TRAF-2 would reduce VMT during events and will include strategies to manage traffic flow, direct pedestrians, and handle parking before, during, and after events. A draft Event Transportation Management Plan (TMP) was prepared to manage parking and traffic before, during, and after events at the stadium and nearby athletic facilities. The plan aims to reduce traffic and parking demand, encourage alternative transportation methods such as walking and biking, and ensure safety for all attendees. The TMP will be regularly updated and will involve collaboration with transportation agencies, businesses, and local neighborhoods.

Specific measures include designated parking areas, rideshare drop-off points, signage, and dedicated lanes for emergency and pedestrian access.

RECOMMENDATION: On June 25, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the applications. After considering all public testimony, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend that the Council: 1) certify the EIR, including adoption of the Statement of Overriding Considerations and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; 2) approve General Plan Amendment (File No. PGPA23-002); and 3) approve the Zone Change (File No. PZC-23-003). 1190
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO,

CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2023110328) FOR THE ONTARIO REGIONAL
SPORTS COMPLEX (ORSC) FOR FILE NOS. PGPA23-002 AND PZC23- 004 AND ADOPT ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, INCLUDING A

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM.

WHEREAS, the Armstrong Ranch Specific Plan and related Environmental Impact Report (File No. PSP15-002) (State Clearinghouse No. 2006111009) were approved on December 5, 2017, for the development potential of up to 891 residential dwelling units, comprising a variety of single-family detached and attached dwellings, and an elementary school site. The residential land use areas are divided into 6 individual neighborhood planning areas connected by a network of street-separated sidewalks and trails, linking the neighborhoods to various park spaces, a proposed elementary school, and local and City master planned trail systems; and
WHEREAS, the City is proposing to rescind the Armstrong Ranch Specific Plan to facilitate the construction of a 6,000-capacity Minor League Baseball stadium, retail/hospitality spaces, and a city regional park with diverse recreational facilities; and WHEREAS, the Policy Plan land use plan designates the Project area as LowDensity Residential (LDR) and Medium-Density Residential (MDR). The proposed Project necessitates a modification in the existing land use designations to accommodate recreational facilities and regional-serving entertainment, retail, and service uses, including hotels and restaurants. As part of this conversion, the proposed Project will:
 Convert 134.42 acres of Low-Density Residential (LDR) and MediumDensity Residential (MDR) to Open Space-Parkland (OS-R) located south of Riverside Drive, north of Chino Avenue, east of the unimproved right-ofway for Vineyard Avenue and west of Whispering Lakes Lane.  Convert 51.57 acres of Low-Density Residential (LDR) to Hospitality (HOS) generally located south of Riverside Drive, north of Chino Avenue, east of Whispering Lakes Lane, and west of the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel.
 Convert 94 acres of Low-Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) generally located south of Chino Avenue, north of Ontario Ranch Road, and east and west of Vineyard Avenue.  Remove the Affordable Housing overlay on 36.18 acres of land south of Riverside Drive, north of Chino Avenue, and east of the unimproved rightof-way for Vineyard Avenue. 1191
 Add the Affordable Housing (AH) overlay zoning district on 19.25 acres of land generally located north of Ontario Ranch Road, south of Schaefer Avenue and east of the unimproved right-of-way for Vineyard Avenue.

WHEREAS, the Project proposes to rescind the Armstrong Ranch Specific Plan and intends to rezone:
 Convert 134.43 acres from the Armstrong Ranch Specific Plan to OS-R (Open Space Recreation) zoning district located south of Riverside Drive, north of Chino Avenue, west of unimproved right-of-way for Whispering Lakes Lane, and east of the unimproved right-of-way for Vineyard Avenue.
 Convert 51.57 acres from the Armstrong Ranch Specific Plan to CCS (Convention Center Support Commercial) zoning district generally located south of Riverside Drive, north of Chino Avenue, east of Whispering Lakes Lane, and west of the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel. and west of the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel.
 Remove the AH (Affordable Housing) overlay zoning district on 36.18 acres of land located south of Riverside Drive, north of Chino Avenue, and east of the unimproved right-of-way for Vineyard Avenue.
 Add the AH (Affordable Housing) Overlay zoning district on 19.25 acres of land within the SP (Specific Plan)/AG (Agricultural) Overlay generally located north of Ontario Ranch Road, south of Schaefer Avenue and east of the unimproved rightof-way for Vineyard Avenue; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) was originally issued September 15, 2023; and WHEREAS, an NOP for the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") was reissued on November 14, 2023. The public review period extended from November 14, 2023, to December 15, 2023. The NOP was published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and was posted at the San Bernardino County Clerk's office on November 14, 2023.

Copies of the NOP were made available for public review at the City of Ontario Planning Department and the City's website; and
WHEREAS a scoping meeting for the Draft EIR was held virtually on Wednesday December 6, 2023, at 6:00 pm. The notice of a public scoping meeting was included in the NOP; and
WHEREAS, preparation of a Draft EIR, which was made available for a 45-day public review period that began April 4, 2024 and ended May 20, 2024. The scope of the Draft EIR was determined based on the State and Local California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines, comments received in response to both NOPs, and comments received at the scoping meetings conducted by the City of Ontario. The Notice of Availability ("NOA") for the Draft EIR was sent on April 4, 2024 to interested persons and 1192
organizations, the State Clearinghouse for distribution to public agencies, posted at the San Bernardino County Clerk’s office and the City of Ontario, and published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. Additionally, copies of the Draft EIR were made available for review at City Hall, the Ovitt Family Community Library, as well as on the City's website; and WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR"), for the Ontario Regional Sports Complex ("OSRC") Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2023110328) consists of the Draft EIR and the comments and responses to comments made on the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, the ORSC Final EIR Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for File Nos. PGPA23-002 and PZC23-004, have been prepared in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Guidelines for implementation of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, copies of the Final EIR were distributed to the City Council, Planning Commission, City departments, and federal, state, regional, local, and other agencies and individuals; and
WHEREAS, on June 25, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Final EIR at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard and the Final EIR was fully studied and recommended to City Council approval of the FEIR; and
WHEREAS, on July 16, 2024, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Final EIR at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard and the Final EIR was fully studied; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Ontario, as follows:

SECTION 1: Environmental Determination and Findings. As the approving body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR and supporting documentation. Based upon the facts and information contained in the Final EIR and supporting documentation, including all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council finds as follows:
(1) The environmental impacts of this Project were reviewed in conjunction with the OSRC Final EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2023110328) that was prepared; and
(2) The Final EIR contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project; and
1193
(3) The Final EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
(4) The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council.

SECTION 2: City Council Action. Based on the entire record before the City Council and all written and oral evidence presented, the City Council finds the Final EIR complies with CEQA for the following reasons:
(1) The Final EIR analyzes the environmental effects of the Project and finds that, if the OSRC is adopted as proposed by this plan, and with the implementation of proposed mitigation measures, the following impacts will still be significant and unavoidable: agricultural resources (loss of Prime Farmland soils), air quality (inconsistent with AQMP cumulative impacts for long-term regional operational emissions), greenhouse gasses emissions (conflict with plans adopted to reduce GHG emissions, magnitude of GHG emissions), noise (mobile sources), and transportation (increase in vehicle miles traveled); and
(2) The City Council further finds that the Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations, demonstrates that The ORSC's benefits outweigh its significant and unavoidable impacts, and therefore the City would be justified in approving the ORSC notwithstanding said significant and unavoidable impacts.

SECTION 3: Housing Element Compliance. Pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 3, Article 10.6, commencing with Section 65580, as the decision-making body for the Project, the City Council finds that based upon the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation, at the time of Project implementation, the Project is consistent with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan (general plan) component of TOP 2050.

SECTION 4: Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ("ALUCP") Compliance. The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670, et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
(1) On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the ALUCP, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport (hereinafter referred to as "ONT"), which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. As the decision-making body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the facts and 1194
information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ALUCP Table 2-2) and Safety Zones (ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ALUCP Map 2-4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the City Council therefore, finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ALUCP.
(2) On August 2, 2022, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted a Development Code Amendment to establish the Chino Airport ("CNO") Overlay Zoning District ("OZD") and Reference I, Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ("CNO ALUCP"). The CNO OZD and CNO ALUCP established the Airport Influence Area for Chino Airport, solely within the City of Ontario, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. The CNO ALUCP is consistent with policies and criteria set forth within the Caltrans 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. The proposed Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Chino Airport and was evaluated and found to be consistent with the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and the CNO ALUCP. As the decisionmaking body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the CNO ALUCP compatibility factors, including Safety, Airspace Protection, Overflight. As a result, the City Council therefore, finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and the Chino ALUCP.

SECTION 5: Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced hearing, and upon the specific findings set forth in Sections 1 through 4, above, the City Council concludes as follows:
(1) The proposed Final EIR is consistent CEQA and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines.

SECTION 6: Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Ontario City Hall, 303 East "B" Street, Ontario, California 91764. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk of the City of Ontario.

The City Clerk of the City of Ontario shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.
1195
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th day of July, 2024. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
1196

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
1197
ATTACHMENT A:

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2023110328)
A Component of The Ontario Regional Sports Complex
(OSRC) Environment Impact Report
1198
June 2024 | Final Environmental Impact Report
State Clearinghouse No. 2023110328

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX
for City of Ontario
Prepared for:

City of Ontario
Contact: Thomas Grahn, Senior Planner
303 East “B” Street
Ontario, California 91764
(909) 395-2413
Prepared by:

PlaceWorks
Contact: Nicole Vermilion, Principal
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100
Santa Ana, California 92707
714.966.9220
[email protected]
www.placeworks.com
1199
1200

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL E IR

CITY OF ONTARIO
Table of Contents
June 2024 Page i
Section Page

1. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 FORMAT OF THE FEIR................................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.3 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ................................. 1-2

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ......................................................................................................2-1

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR ................................................................................................3-1

3.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................3-1

3.2 DEIR REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS .....................................................3-1

APPENDICES
Appendix A1 Parking Traffic Demand Management Plan
Appendix A2 Preliminary Event Traffic Management Plan
Appendix A3 Updated Cumulative Project List
Appendix B1 Rough Grading Phase I and 2 Hydrology Study Appendix B2 ORSC Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan Appendix B3 ORSC Drainage Memorandum
Appendix C ORSC Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix D1 Additional Noise Analysis
Appendix D2 Revised Concert Noise Figure 5.13-7
Appendix E Resumes from Comment Letter O2
Appendix F Generator Emissions Modeling
1201

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO
Table of Contents
Page ii PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
1202
June 2024 Page 1-1

1. Introduction

1.1 INTRODUCTION
This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations §§ 15000 et seq.).

According to the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132, the FEIR shall consist of:
(a) The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) or a revision of the Draft; (b) Comments and recommendations received on the DEIR either verbatim or in summary; (c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies comments on the DEIR; (d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and
(e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency.

This document contains responses to comments received on the DEIR for the Ontario Regional Sports Complex during the public review period, which began April 4, 2024, and closed May 20, 2024. This document has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and represents the independent judgment of the Lead Agency. This document and the circulated DEIR comprise the FEIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132.

1.2 FORMAT OF THE FEIR
This document is organized as follows:

Section 1, Introduction. This section describes CEQA requirements and content of this FEIR.

Section 2, Response to Comments. This section provides a list of agencies and interested persons commenting on the DEIR; copies of comment letters received during the public review period, and individual responses to written comments. To facilitate review of the responses, each comment letter has been reproduced and assigned a number (A-1 through A-5 for letters received from agencies and tribes, and O-1 through O-2 for letters received from organizations; no comments from residents were received). Individual comments have been numbered for each letter and the letter is followed by responses with references to the corresponding comment number.
1203

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

1. Introduction

Page 1 ends

Section 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR. This section contains revisions to the DEIR text and figures as a result of the comments received by agencies and interested persons as described in Section 2, and/or errors and omissions discovered subsequent to release of the DEIR for public review.

The responses to comments contain material and revisions that will be added to the text of the FEIR. The City of Ontario has reviewed this material and determined that none of this material constitutes the type of significant new information that requires recirculation of the DEIR for further public comment under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. None of this new material indicates that the project will result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the DEIR. Additionally, none of this material indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in Section 15088.5.

1.3 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (a) outlines parameters for submitting comments, and reminds persons and public agencies that the focus of review and comment of DEIRs should be “on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the environment and ways in which significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible. …CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.”
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (c) further advises, “Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Section 15204 (d) also states, “Each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency’s statutory responsibility.” Section 15204 (e) states, “This section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section.”
In accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, copies of the written responses to public agencies will be forwarded to those agencies at least 10 days prior to certifying the environmental impact report.

The responses will be forwarded with copies of this FEIR, as permitted by CEQA, and will conform to the legal standards established for response to comments on DEIRs. 1204
June 2024 Page 2-1

2. Response to Comments
Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the Lead Agency (City of Ontario) to evaluate comments on environmental issues received from public agencies and interested parties who reviewed the DEIR and prepare written responses.

This section provides all written responses received on the DEIR and the City of Ontario’s responses to each comment.

Comment letters and specific comments are given letters and numbers for reference purposes. Where sections of the DEIR are excerpted in this document, the sections are shown indented. Changes to the DEIR text are shown in underlined text for additions and strikeout for deletions.

The following is a list of agencies and persons that submitted comments on the DEIR during the public review period.

Number
Reference Commenting Person/Agency Date of Comment Page No.

Agencies & Tribes
A1 Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians 4/16/2024 2-3 A2 Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians 4/26/2024 2-7
A3 Department of California Highway Patrol 5/14/2024 2-11 A4 City of Eastvale 5/20/2024 2-15
A5 City of Chino 5/202024 2-19
Organizations
O1 Michael Shonafelt on behalf of Pacific Communities Builder Inc. 5/20/2024 2-23 O2
Aidan P. Marshall on behalf of Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (CARE CA) 5/20/2024 2-37
1205

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

This page intentionally left blank.
1206

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-3
LETTER A1 – Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (1 page) 1207

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

This page intentionally left blank.
1208

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-5
A1. Response to Comments from Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Xitaly Madrigal, Cultural Resources Analyst, dated April 16, 2024.

A1-1 The City acknowledges the commenter’s statement that the Proposed Project is not within the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians’ (Tribe) Traditional Use Area, that the Tribe defer to other tribes in the area, and that the comment letter concludes the Tribe’s consultation efforts. This comment does not raise an issue with the analysis of the DEIR, and no further response is necessary.
1209

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

This page intentionally left blank.
1210

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-7
LETTER A2 – Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians (1 page)
1211

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

This page intentionally left blank.
1212

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-9
A2. Response to Comments Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, Deneen Pelton, Cultural Resources Department Coordinator, dated April 29, 2024.

A2-1 The City acknowledges the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians’ (Tribe’s) statement that the Proposed Project is not within the Tribe’s specific Area of Historic Interest and that therefore, the Tribe does not have additional information to provide. This comment does not raise an issue with the analysis of the DEIR, and no further response is necessary. 1213

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

This page intentionally left blank.
1214

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-11
LETTER A3– Department of California Highway Patrol (1 page) 1215

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

This page intentionally left blank.
1216

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-13
A3. Response to Comments from Department of California Highway Patrol, S. Suàrez, Captain Commander, Rancho Cucamonga Area, dated May 14, 2024.

A3-1 The Draft EIR, Section 5.17, Transportation, evaluated transportation impacts associated with both the construction phase and operational phase of the Proposed Project while Section 5.15, Public Services, evaluated the potential impacts to emergency services, including police service. It should be noted that Senate Bill 743 eliminated auto delay, level of service, and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as the sole basis for determining significant impacts under CEQA.

Temporary construction traffic impacts of the Proposed Project are identified on page

5.17-20, including the potential for oversized vehicles, construction worker trips, vendor trips, and haul trips. Mitigation Measure TRAF-3 requires that construction contractors prepare a construction management plan that would require coordination with the applicable emergency response agencies, including the California Highway Patrol (CHP), to minimize construction traffic conflicts.

Police service impacts of the Proposed Project are addressed on page 5.15-7. While the number of people in and around the ORSC site would fluctuate, the general increase in activity under the ORSC would result in periodic increases in demands for police protection by Ontario Police Department (OPD). It is not anticipated that there would be a demand for additional service by the CHP as no impacts to Caltrans facilities were identified (see page 5.17-20).

Nonetheless, operation of the Proposed Project would generate a substantial increase in VMT (see page 5.17-19 through 5.17-21). To reduce vehicle trips, TRAF-1 requires that the operators of the commercial/hospitality, stadium, and city facilities prepare a Transportation Demand Management Plan. In addition, TRAF-2 requires that the City prepare a Parking and Event Traffic Management Plan to optimize access to and from the ORSC site to improve safety, minimize conflicts with ride sharing, facilitate the safe and efficient flow of vehicle traffic during events, etc. Mitigation Measure TRAF-2 also requires that the City establish an operational oversight group made up of transportation agencies and third-party operators that could be impacted by events. The CHP may wish to participate in this oversight group.

As requested by the Commenter, the City will work with the CHP to monitor and enforce rules related to vehicle safety and the California Vehicle Code provisions. 1217

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

This page intentionally left blank.
1218

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-15
LETTER A4 – City of Eastvale (2 pages)
1219

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1220

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-17
A4. Response to Comments from David Murray, City Planner, City of Eastvale, dated May 20, 2024.

Intro Response to Comments from the City of Eastvale on the ORSC are provided in responses A4-1 through A4-3 below.

A4-1 The Draft EIR, Section 5.17, Transportation, details the methodology used to develop Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) estimates for the Proposed Project. The locally validated and calibrated travel demand model (SBTAM) was updated to be consistent with The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 land use assumptions. Outside the City of Ontario, land use is consistent with SCAG’s 2016 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) with updated land use for pending and approved development projects within a three-mile radius.

As described in Appendix L2, Traffic Impact Analysis, in the Draft EIR, the transportation analysis accounted for pending and approved development projects within a three-mile radius of the ORSC site that would have a potential impact on study intersections. The list of projects is provided in Appendix E of the Traffic Impact Analysis, found on page L2-364 in Appendix L2 of the Draft EIR. Development in the Leal Specific Plan and other active Eastvale development projects were included in this analysis.

At the request of the Commenter, Draft EIR Table 4-1, Cumulative Projects within a ThreeMile Radius, has been updated to be consistent with the list of cumulative projects used in the traffic impact analysis (see Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR) A4-2 See response to Comment A4-1. The Draft EIR, Section 5.17, Transportation, evaluated transportation impacts associated with the Proposed Project. Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) eliminated auto delay, level of service (LOS), and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as the sole basis for determining significant impacts under CEQA.

As such, the Draft EIR evaluates transportation impacts based on VMT metrics.

Appendix L2, Traffic Impact Analysis, of the Draft EIR, included an evaluation of vehicle delay at intersections within the traffic study area per the City of Ontario’s General Plan Circulation Element LOS policy to plan for future infrastructure needs. A discussion of the LOS analysis methodology can be found on pages L2-13 through L2-20 in Appendix L2 of the Draft EIR. As identified in this section, the LOS analysis study area included collector or higher roadway intersections where the Proposed Project would generate 50 or more peak hour trips, consistent with the requirements in the County of Riverside Transportation Department Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service and Vehicle Miles Traveled (December 2020) and the San Bernardino County Transportation Impact Study Guidelines (July 2019).

The regional nature of the ORSC suggests most trips to and from the ORSC site will utilize regional highways (e.g. Interstate 15, State Route 60), with less than three percent 1221

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

of trips utilizing local roadways south of Ontario Ranch Road (see the discussion on trip distribution and assignment on pages L2-44 through L2-52 in Appendix L2 of the Draft EIR). The ORSC also provides additional recreational facilities for the region, which could relieve congestion impacts at existing recreation facilities within and bordering the City of Eastvale (e.g. Silverlakes Soccer Complex).

A4-3 The City of Ontario values the interest of neighboring jurisdictions and their support in managing transportation impacts collaboratively. Mitigation Measure TRAF-2 requires that the City establish an event operational oversight group made up of transportation agencies and third-party operators that could be impacted by events. The City of Eastvale may wish to participate in this oversight group.
1222

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-19
LETTER A5 – City of Chino (1 page)
1223

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

This page intentionally left blank.
1224

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-21
A5. Response to Comments from Chris Cortez, Assistant Planner, City of Chino, dated May 17, 2024.

Intro Responses to Comments from the City of Chino on the ORSC are provided in responses A5-1 through A5-2 below.

A5-1 The Draft EIR, Section 5.17, Transportation, evaluated transportation impacts of the Proposed Project. Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) eliminated auto delay, level of service (LOS), and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as the sole basis for determining significant impacts under CEQA. As such, the Draft EIR evaluates transportation impacts based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) metrics.

Appendix L2, Traffic Impact Analysis, of the Draft EIR, included an evaluation of vehicle delay at intersections within the traffic study area per the City of Ontario’s General Plan Circulation Element LOS policy to plan for future infrastructure needs. A discussion of the LOS analysis methodology can be found on pages L2-13 through L2-20 in Appendix L2 of the Draft EIR. As identified in this section, the LOS analysis study area included collector or higher roadway intersections where the Proposed Project would generate 50 or more peak hour trips. An analysis of roadway segments was not conducted as the City of Ontario measures delay based on intersection turning movements. Also, intersections typically constrain the roadway system, not roadway segments; and are therefore, more appropriate for detailed assessment such as that completed for the Proposed Project.

As identified on page L2-34 of Appendix L2 in the Draft EIR, the intent of the Traffic Impact Analysis was to evaluate typical daily traffic and commonly occurring events to appropriately size transportation infrastructure. Worst-case events, such as multiple tournaments during a stadium event occur infrequently; and therefore, would not warrant the infrastructure to be designed for this worst-case scenario. For a day with both tournament and stadium events, traffic would be managed through implementation of the Parking and Event Traffic Management Plans in accordance with Mitigation Measures TRAF-1a through TRAF-1c and TRAF-2, which requires that the City prepare an Event Traffic Management Plan to optimize access to and from the ORSC site to improve safety, minimize conflicts with ride sharing, facilitate the safe and efficient flow of vehicle traffic during events, etc. Mitigation Measure TRAF-2 also requires that the City establish an operational oversight group made up of transportation agencies and third-party operators that could be impacted by events. The City of Chino may wish to participate in this oversight group.

A5-2 See response to Comment A5-1 regarding congestion-based metrics pursuant to SB 743.

Section 5.17, Transportation, of the Draft EIR evaluated potential transportation impacts to regional facilities, major arterials, and the public transportation system. As identified on page 5.17-21, storage capacities for State Route 60 (SR-60) and Interstate 15 (I-15) offramps were evaluated; and the Proposed Project is not anticipated to affect the freeway 1225

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

mainline (see Appendix L2, Table 11). Likewise, the Proposed Project would not conflict with the City’s multimodal plans, including transit service (see Draft EIR page 5.17-17). 1226

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-23
LETTER O1 – Newmeyer Dillion, on behalf of Pacific Communities Builder, Inc. (PCB) (10 pages) 1227

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1228

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-25
1229

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1230

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-27
1231

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1232

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-29
1233

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1234

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-31
1235

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1236

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-33
O1. Response to Comments from Michael W. Shonafelt, Newmeyer Dillion, on behalf of Pacific Communities Builder, Inc. (PCB), dated May 20, 2024.

Intro Responses to comments written on behalf of Pacific Communities Building, Inc., (PCB) are provided in responses O1-1 through O1-8 below. The City disagrees with the Commenter that the Draft EIR fails to comply with CEQA.

O1-1 This Comment concerns the commenter’s opinions regarding PCB’s preliminary application to the City with regard to residential development. However, this Comment does not provide any comments regarding the Draft EIR, which analyzes the ORSC project. As this Comment does not address the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is necessary.

O1-2 See response to Comment O1-1. This Comment does not provide any comments regarding the Draft EIR, which analyzes the ORSC project. As this Comment does not address the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is necessary.

O1-3 See responses to Comments O1-1 and O1-2. This Comment does not provide any comments regarding the Draft EIR, which analyzes the ORSC project. As this Comment does not address the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is necessary.

O1-4 The Draft EIR for the Proposed Project was circulated for public review on April 4, 2024, while the PCB’s application was submitted on April 8, 2024 (which was found to be incomplete, email dated May 7, 2024). Because the release of the Draft EIR for the ORSC predates the PCB application, the City disagrees with the claim that the Draft EIR intentionally omits references to what is a previously unknown proposed residential project within the ORSC site. Furthermore, this Draft EIR analyzes impacts of the Proposed Project and includes consideration of residential development along Vineyard Avenue at the ORSC site as a potential alternative to the Proposed Project.

O1-5 See responses to Comments O1-1 through O1-4 above. This Comment does not address the content of the Draft EIR; and therefore, no further response is necessary.

O1-6 See responses to Comments O1-1 through O1-4 above. CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a)(1) states that, “the lead agency should describe physical environmental conditions as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective.” Section 15125(a)(3) further states that, “an existing conditions baseline shall not include hypothetical conditions, such as those that might be allowed, but have never actually occurred, under existing permits or plans, as the baseline.” Consistent with these provisions of the CEQA Guidelines, Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, of the Draft EIR describes the existing conditions of the ORSC site, which serves as the baseline for the analysis of impacts in the Draft EIR. 1237

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

As described in detail in Section 3.3.4, General Plan Amendment and Rezone, in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the Proposed Project would necessitate a general plan amendment to implement the ORSC. This action triggers a concurrent General Plan Amendment and Rezone on Vineyard Corridor (GPA and Rezone) to comply with State requirements under Senate Bills 330 and 166 to replace the residential housing capacity designated for the site in The Ontario Plan (TOP).

The PCB project application was submitted to the City after the Draft EIR was circulated for public review. As such, the City disagrees with the Commenter that the PCB proposed project was required to be considered as an existing or pending project for land use compatibility in Section 5.11, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR. The application for the residential project would, at most, represent an alternative to the Proposed Project rather than a project component. Chapter 7, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, contemplates an alternative development plan that would retain the residential corridor along Vineyard Avenue (see section 7.6, Vineyard Avenue Residential Corridor Alternative, and Figure 7-2, Vineyard Avenue Residential Corridor Alternative) and would allow for up to 1,267 dwelling units.

O1-7 As acknowledged by the Comment, the Draft EIR analyzes the impacts of the proposed off-site GPA and Rezone at a programmatic-level throughout Chapter 5, Environmental Analysis, of the Draft EIR. The programmatic-level review included in the Draft EIR is appropriate for the SB 330 and SB 166 GPA and Rezone action associated with the Proposed Project.

As stated on page 3-77, Section 3.3.4.3, Environmental Effects of Off-Site TOP Amendments and Zone Changes, “future, site-specific, development consistent with the off-site GPA and Rezone are not evaluated at a project-level because these actions are solely for compliance with SB 330 and SB 166.” Section 3.3.4.3 further provides that the potential impacts associated with these programmatic land use changes are compared to the impacts the Supplemental EIR certified in 2022 for TOP 2050, which was incorporated by reference in the Draft EIR. At the time of drafting the Draft EIR and its circulation for public review, no development application was proposed for projects in the Vineyard Corridor; and therefore, the Draft EIR disclosed that the proposed changes “would not result in direct physical impacts to the environment that would warrant a project-level analysis.” (pg. 3-77, paragraph 3, of the Draft EIR). Since no specific development has been proposed in the Vineyard Corridor, no project-level details are known. Therefore, a project-level analysis of the Vineyard Corridor GPA and Rezone would be speculative.

The level of known detail for a project determines the level of specificity required in the Draft EIR (Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1036).

The Comment does not provide any comments with regard to the environmental analysis for the proposed GPA and Rezone in Chapter 5, instead noting only that the density 1238

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-35
allowed in the area would increase. The Draft EIR acknowledges that the GPA and Rezone would result in denser development within the Vineyard Corridor when compared to the level of development allowed under the parcels’ existing land uses in TOP 2050 and this assumption of maximum development under the proposed density increase forms the basis for the analysis in each topical section of Chapter 5 of the Draft EIR. Therefore, the City disagrees with the Commenter that the Draft EIR improperly piecemeals and/or defers the environmental analysis of the GPA and Rezone. The Proposed Project has independent utility from any potential future residential development of the Vineyard Corridor so there is no piecemealing.

The City also disagrees with the Commenter that the TOP 2050 SEIR did not contemplate the housing and population increase of the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project triggers SB 330 and SB 166 because current TOP identifies the ORSC site for residential land uses. This action triggers the need to upzone property offsite to make up for the potential loss in housing capacity within the City. The GPA and Rezone area is directly south of the ORSC site on Vineyard Avenue, which was already identified for residential uses in TOP. There is no change in housing capacity compared to that evaluated in TOP 2050 SEIR because the increase in density within the GPA and Rezone area corresponds to the decrease in residential density on the ORSC site. Based on the analysis in Chapter 5 of the Draft EIR, there are no significant impacts associated with this change to the surrounding area and landscape.

The City also disagrees with the Commenter’s assertions that the Draft EIR would preclude future environmental review for a development application for residential uses within the GPA and Rezone area. The Draft EIR provides project-level environmental clearance for the ORSC project. However, the GPA and Rezone triggered by SB 330 and SB 166 was evaluated at the same program-level of review conducted for TOP 2050.

Discretionary approval for development projects within the City, including the GPA and Rezone area, would be subject to CEQA.

O1-8 See responses to Comments O1-1 through O1-7 above. This Comment does not address the content of the Draft EIR; and therefore, no further response is necessary. 1239

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

This page intentionally left blank.
1240

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-37
LETTER O2 – Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardoza, on behalf of Californias Allied for a Responsible Economy (CARE CA) (54 pages)
Please note that the two resumes originally part of this comment letter are provided as Appendix E to this FEIR. 1241

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1242

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-39
1243

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1244

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-41
1245

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1246

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-43
1247

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1248

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-45
1249

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1250

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-47
1251

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1252

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-49
1253

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1254

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-51
1255

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1256

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-53
1257

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1258

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-55
1259

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1260

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-57
1261

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1262

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-59
1263

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1264

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-61
1265

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1266

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-63
1267

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1268

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-65
1269

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1270

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-67
1271

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1272

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-69
1273

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1274

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-71
1275

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1276

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-73
1277

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1278

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-75
1279

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1280

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-77
1281

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1282

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-79
1283

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1284

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-81
1285

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1286

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-83
1287

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1288

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-85
1289

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1290

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-87
1291

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1292

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-89
1293

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

1294

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-91
O2. Response to Comments from Aidan P. Marshall, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardoza, on behalf of Californias Allied for a Responsible Economy (CARE CA), dated May 20, 2024.

Intro Responses to specific comments regarding agricultural resources, air quality, health risk, hazardous materials, and noise, are provided in responses O2-4 through O2-34. City staff has reviewed the EIR and determined that none of this material constitutes significant new information requiring recirculation of the DEIR under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. None of the comments contain substantial evidence that the Proposed Project will result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the DEIR, a significant increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. No further response is necessary.

O2-1 This comment provides a description of the organization, the Commenter’s interest in the Proposed Project, and who they represent. No response is necessary.

O2-2 This comment describes Commenter’s review of the legal background of CEQA and its purpose. No response is necessary.

O2-3 This comment further describes Commenter’s view of the legal responsibility of the lead agency to disclose and analyze significant impacts of the Proposed Project and adopt all feasible mitigation under CEQA. No response is necessary.

O2-4 The City’s reasoning for rejecting the “Establishment of Conservation Easement or Preserves” mitigation measure includes additional considerations beyond the legal feasibility of mitigation measure. Feasible means “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (Public Resources Code Section 21061.1; see also CEQA Guidelines, Section 15364 [same definition but with addition of “legal” factors].) As discussed on page 5.2-11 in Section 5.2, Agricultural Resources, of the Draft EIR, the establishment of agricultural land and/or conservation easements within the City would require comprehensive amendment to TOP, resulting in potential conflicts with local and regional land use plans/policies like the Southern California Association of Government’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy and the City’s adopted Housing Element, which facilitate the development of City’s remaining agricultural land. The Commenter’s proposed mitigation strategy could also result in potentially adverse environmental impacts including, but not limited to, impacts to biological resources, hydrology/water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and land use and planning.

O2-5 The City does not dispute that Agricultural Conservation Easements (ACE) can partially mitigate for loss of agricultural land in certain circumstances. However, the City finds that ACEs are not feasible mitigation at this time because there are no current ACEs within 1295

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

the City or San Bernardino County that meet the additionality requirements under CEQA that would provide for mitigation at a 1:1 ratio.

The Draft EIR outlines why ACEs are not a feasible measure for the Proposed Project.

While mitigation via the use of ACEs may be a possibility for future CEQA projects in the Central Valley, there are currently no ACE banks within the City of Ontario, or San Bernardino County, that would be available for purchase for CEQA projects in the Ontario Ranch. The Commenter has not identified a mitigation banking program in San Bernardino County that has ACE available for purchase within the development timeframe of the Proposed Project that would provide for substitute Farmland resources.

Based on information from the American Farmland Trust, the only Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easement (PACE) banking available in California are in the City of Davis, Sonoma County, and San Deigo County.

The Commenter asserts that lack of ACE banks or substitute farmland within City borders or in San Bernardino County is not, in its opinion, a basis for the City to find ACEs to be infeasible as mitigation for the Proposed Project. However, Resolution No. 2010-003, adopted by the City on January 27, 2010, details the City’s existing policy.

Specifically, the Resolution found that that the replacement of agricultural resource offsite, including via establishment of conservation easements or preserves, would, given the lack of viability of such mitigation within the City, only be possible in parcels in another portion of the state. It further found that “such distant mitigation would not reduce impacts because these mitigation parcels could have no bearing or relationship on the loss of agricultural lands within the City and this mitigation strategy would cause no net change in Important Farmland conversion within the state because new Important Farmland cannot be created.” It is these findings, adopted by the City over 14 years ago, which constitute the City’s existing policy regarding the City’s requirement for local availability of agricultural lands to serve as mitigation for any impacts to agricultural resources.

Payment into an ACE mitigates not the loss of agricultural production itself but the loss of sites that have the potential to be viable for farming. Agricultural land under the California Department of Conservation (CDC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) in 1982 established the Farmland standards based on soil quality and irrigation status. As identified in the 2022 SEIR for TOP 2050, between 2014 and 2016 in the County of San Bernardino there was a loss of 1,244 Farmland acres. Given the urbanization in Ontario and the greater San Bernardino County, there are unlikely to be “new” suitable sites in San Bernardino that are not already under agricultural production that would offset Farmland acres acreage loss to zero. Because mitigation for ACE needs to be additional for it to be mitigation under CEQA, and, per City policy (as discussed above) needs to be within the City or surrounding County, given the absence of an existing ACEs available to offset the loss of Farmland, ACE is determined to be infeasible as mitigation for the Proposed Project.
1296

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-93
O2-6 The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed the final rule to introduce Tier 4 emissions standard on May 11, 2004. Because equipment with these emissions standards were phased in between 2008 through 2015 by the EPA, construction equipment with engines with 50 horsepower and more that meet Tier 4 emissions are readily available in construction fleets throughout California.

Additionally, South AQMD in their comment letters to lead agencies frequently recommends use of Tier 4 construction equipment. In South Coast AQMD’s 2022 Air Quality Management Plan Policy Brief ’s indicates that Tier 4 equipment comprises 50 percent of all off-road equipment in California, and Tier 4 Final comprised 35 percent of all equipment in California in year 2021.1
The City has determined this mitigation measure to be feasible. Therefore, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 is effective at mitigating the Proposed Project’s potentially significant construction impacts, and Commenter’s speculation that it would be infeasible due to the lack of availability of Tier 4 equipment is without support. However, it is reasonable that specialized equipment needed for specific tasks during project construction could see limited availability. Considering the time-sensitive nature of the Proposed Project’s construction schedule, and at the request of the Commenter, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 was modified to include alternative emission control equipment to ensure emission reductions in the unlikely event that Tier 4 Final equipment not be available (see Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR). In addition, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 was modified to further define that “commercially available” constitutes the availability of Tier 4 engines similar to the availability for other large-scale construction projects in the City occurring at the same time and taking into consideration factors such as potential significant delays to 1 South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2022, May. Draft 2022 Air Quality Management Plan. Policy Briefs; Black Box Measures. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2022-air-qualitymanagement-plan/combined-bb-measures.pdf?sfvrsn=8 1297

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

critical-path timing of construction and geographic proximity to the project site of Tier 4 equipment.

O2-7 Stationary source emissions were not included in the emissions modeling in the Draft EIR because the quantity, location, fuel type, horsepower, annual operating hours, daily operating hours, and emission control specifications of stationary equipment are unknown; and thus, determined to be speculative.

Additionally, stationary equipment, such as emergency generators require permits from South Coast AQMD to ensure that the equipment incorporates the Best Available Control Technology and do not exceed the emissions thresholds, consistent with District Regulations IX, Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources (NSPS), and XIII, New Source Review. Accordingly, the potential air quality impacts of such equipment must be less than significant pursuant to a rule of general application.

While the equipment parameters for potential stationary sources are wholly unknown at this time, the Commenter is recommending that diesel-fired backup generators be included in the emissions modeling. At the request of the Commenter, Section 5.3, Air Quality, and Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, was modified to incorporate emissions from up to four backup generators (see Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR). Four backup generators were assumed for this additional emissions assessment to account for the potential for stadium, hotel, recreational center, and Chicken N’ Pickle buildings to need backup power source. Each generator is assumed to be 100 horsepower, operate 100 hours annually, and operate one hour daily (see Final EIR Appendix F). As shown therein, the addition of four generators would not cause an exceedance of the South Coast AQMD thresholds or substantially increase impacts evaluated in the Draft EIR.

O2-8 Section 5.3, Air Quality, page 5.3-44 discusses the potential for manure haul activities to result in odors affecting a substantial number of people. The City’s expert disagrees that the Draft EIR’s evaluation of potential odors from construction activities, such as manure haul, is not supported by substantial evidence, conclusory, or fails to address all sources of odors.

The ORSC site previously operated as a dairy farm; and therefore, the existing baseline conditions include odors from onsite manure and the haul of animal manure off-site in accordance with the San Bernadino Regional Water Quality Board, which requires dairy farms to comply with all requirements pertaining to Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO Permit)2 which includes manure to be removed periodically (180 days) to minimize potential impacts to water quality. Therefore, the haul of manure offsite during construction of the Proposed Project would not constitute a change from existing conditions as it relates to odor impacts to nearby receptors. Additionally, the Proposed 2 Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board General Waste Discharge Requirements for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (Dairies and Related Facilities) (Order No. R8-2018-0001). 1298

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-95
Project would permanently remove manure from the ORSC site, thereby resulting in a long-term improvement in odors in the local vicinity during operation of the Proposed Project.

Furthermore, there are no known air quality complaints from the historic manure removal operations in the Ontario Ranch; and no known violations under South Coast AQMD Rule 403 from existing operations on the ORSC site.

Manure haul associated with the Proposed Project would also be subject to the dust control restrictions of South Coast AQMD District Rule 403, which too would reduce the prevalence of manure dust generated during material movement activities.

The Commenter further states that Rule 402 is insufficient in ensuring less-thansignificant odor impacts; however, it is not clear whether the Commenter is referring to potential odor impacts during construction or operation. Page 5.3-44 of the Draft EIR cites Rule 402 as to ongoing operations analysis rather than the construction odor analysis because Rule 402 provides a regulatory mechanism by which odors can be mitigated in the community should the public complain about odors. Further, an odor complaint itself does not necessarily indicate that odors affect a substantial number of people and are significant under CEQA. The operational analysis concludes that typically only large facilities such as wastewater treatment plants, compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities are the type of facilities that have the potential to affect a substantial number of people. The Proposed Project is not one of these project types; and therefore, as concluded on page 5.3-44, would not have significant odor impacts.

O2-9 The City disagrees that Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 constitutes improper deferral of mitigation. Phase I environmental site assessments (ESAs) were conducted for the entire ORSC site. While the Phase I ESAs recommend a Phase II be conducted, conducting Phase II ESAs prior to project approval would be impractical given the potential phasing and timing of the different components of the Proposed Project and the fact that some components of the Proposed Project are city-initiated components (e.g., stadium, sports complex, community center) and other components would be developer initiated (e.g., commercial/hospitality uses). Additionally, not all parcels within the ORSC site are currently owned by the City of Ontario, making the Phase II ESA for these parcels infeasible. A Phase II was conducted for the limited portion of the site that is owned by the City and would be constructed first (phase 1). Therefore, the EIR includes Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 to ensure that Phase II ESAs are conducted prior to grading activities for each project component and provides detailed performance standards to ensure that the requirements of the Phase II ESAs are adhered to. However, at the request of the 1299

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

Commenter, revisions to Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 have been made (see Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR).

O2-10 The City disagrees that Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 constitutes improper deferral of mitigation. See response to Comment O2-9 substantiating that Phase II ESAs are infeasible currently and that including them as a mitigation measure subject to detailed performance standards is not improper deferral under CEQA.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 includes performance standards for the preparation of the Phase II ESAs based on the Environmental Site Assessment Standard Practice (ASTM).

The Mitigation Measure states that “If the site is found to be impacted with potential contaminants of concern at levels exceeding applicable regulatory thresholds, the project applicant shall remediate all contaminated media, under the oversight and in accordance with state and local agency requirements (California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Ontario Fire Department, etc.).” The performance standards for remediation are the regulatory thresholds for the local agency with oversight. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 also identifies actions that achieve that performance standard. The Mitigation Measure requires that, “If the site is found to be impacted with potential contaminants of concern at levels exceeding applicable regulatory thresholds, the project applicant shall remediate all contaminated media, under the oversight and in accordance with state and local agency requirements (California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Ontario Fire Department, etc.).”
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 also requires that documentation of compliance with this measure be provided to the City of Ontario. Therefore, the City of Ontario is the oversight agency that would ensure compliance. However, the agencies with oversight authority also include the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Ontario Fire Department.

Additionally, revisions to Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 have been made (see Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR) to incorporate the recommendations identified in the Phase I ESAs and the Phase II ESA from December 2023. The agencies with oversight over the required recommendations have been identified. Additional performance standards and actions that have also been included.

City staff has reviewed the EIR and determined that none of this material constitutes the type of significant new information that requires recirculation of the DEIR for further public comment under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. None of this new material indicates that the Proposed Project will result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the DEIR. Additionally, none of this material indicates that there would be a significant increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other 1300

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-97
circumstances requiring recirculation described in Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines
O2-11 At the request of the Commenter, the ASTM standard has been revised in Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 (see Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR).

O2-12 The Comment describes the occurrence of Coccidiodes Immitis (Valley Fever cocci) in San Bernardino County, which includes over 20,000 square miles predominantly in the Inland Empire, east of the San Bernardino National Forest. The ORSC site is separated from the arid region of the Inland Empire by a mountain range, resulting in low occurrence of Valley Fever cocci in the Inland Empire. The California Department of Public Health prepared a Valley Fever Fact Sheet in 2021 that identifies the density of reported cases of Valley Fever in 2018, which ranges from fewer than 5 cases per 100,000 people to greater than 100 cases per 100,000 people. According to the California Department of Public Health’s Valley Fever Fact Sheet, San Bernardino County experienced fewer than 5 reported cases of Valley Fever per 100,000 people in 2018, which corresponds with the category for the lowest reported case density in the Valley Fever Fact Sheet.3 Therefore, the potential for Valley Fever cocci to be present with the ORSC site is very low.

Transmission of Valley Fever cocci occurs mostly through naturally occurring winds, as well as dust storms blowing “infected” dust (dust containing Valley Fever fungus spores) into new areas. The cause of Valley Fever is most prevalent in undisturbed soils. Since the ORSC site was historically used for dairy farming, the risk of Valley Fever cocci on disturbed agricultural land is considered low.4
Additionally, implementation of South Coast AQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust control further reduces the potential for Valley Fever. The Proposed Project would trigger the large grading requirements of South Coast AQMD, which includes application chemical stabilizers, frequent watering, avoiding construction activity during high winds, and cleaning of equipment. Similarly, measures that include preventing spillage or bulk material loss, securing sufficient freeboard space, and covering transported materials are already required by the California Vehicle Code for material transport during project construction.

Nonetheless, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 has been modified to include measures that would further minimize any potential worker exposure to Valley Fever cocci at the ORSC site (see Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR).
3 California Department of Public Health. 2021. June. Valley Fever Fact Sheet. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/ValleyFeverFactSheet.pdf. 4 California Department of Public Health. 2013. June. Preventing Work-Related Coccidioidomycosis (Valley Fever). https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DEODC/OHB/HESIS/CDPH%20Document%20Library/CocciFact.pdf. 1301

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

O2-13 See also response to Comment 02-8. The City’s expert disagrees with the Commenter’s conclusion that the construction emissions analysis fails to disclose air quality impacts from removal of manure. Section 5.3, Air Quality, includes an evaluation of localized construction impacts and a construction health risk assessment (HRA), which includes the manure haul phase in the emissions modeling (see page 5.3-32 through 5.3-34). As shown in Figures 5.3-2a through 5.3-2d of the Draft EIR, off-site haul routes were included as emission sources in the dispersion modeling for the construction HRA.

It should be noted that the ORSC site previously operated as a dairy farm; and therefore, the existing baseline conditions include decomposing manure onsite.

Furthermore, Manure haul associated with the Proposed Project would be subject to the dust control restrictions of South Coast AQMD District Rule 403, which would reduce the prevalence of manure dust generated during material movement activities.

No changes to the EIR are warranted because the Proposed Project would not generate new sources of manure. Manure from historical dairy operations would be removed from the ORSC site; thereby resulting in an improvement in air quality/odors from historic decomposition of existing manure.

O2-14 The City’s expert disagrees with the Commenter’s conclusion that the noise impact analysis in Section 5.13, Noise, does not provide an adequate assessment of the baseline noise conditions in the vicinity of the ORSC site. The ambient noise survey conducted for the Proposed Project (see pages 5.13-8 through 5.13-9) provides a conservative assessment of noise levels on the ORSC site and vicinity as described below.

The noise consultant completed two long-term (24-hour) measurements near and within the ORSC site to characterize the existing conditions at homes and land uses in the area.

As identified by the Commenter, homes closer to the roadway are exposed to higher sound levels. However, existing roadway noise was captured in the existing traffic noise model (see page 5.13-9). For other analyses, such as that for concerts and sporting events, the measured baseline level is used since it is more conservative when assessing ambient degradation. Therefore, the baseline noise monitoring survey and the traffic noise modeling, included in Section 5.13.1.3, Existing Conditions, reflect the baseline noise conditions in the ORSC vicinity. For these reasons, no additional noise measurements are warranted to establish baseline conditions.

O2-15 At the request of the Commenter, Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. (HMMH) conducted an ambient degradation analysis to disclose the net increase in noise levels that might occur with the Proposed Project. The construction noise analysis has been supplemented with a comparison of the construction noise levels compared to existing environmental conditions (see Appendix D1 of the Final EIR and Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR).
1302

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-99
While the measured existing noise levels establish the baseline noise conditions, an increase in ambient noise levels for the Proposed Project is not applicable to construction activities. This type of threshold only identifies whether the noise is audible or clearly audible, whereas the use of an absolute threshold determines when such activities have the potential to be annoying to a substantial number of people. The use of an absolute significance threshold for construction noise determines whether temporary construction noise has become loud enough to become annoying above the background noise.

The 80 decibel (dBA) Leq 8-hour noise limit for daytime construction activities has been documented nationally5, and within California as an absolute noise threshold suitable for construction activities. As cited in the City of Los Angeles construction noise threshold guidance 6 , the 80 dBA absolute threshold would be similar to a noise increase of approximately 10 dBA (based on an existing 70 dBA ambient noise level, a typical noise level along major roadways) to 25 dBA (based on an existing 55 dBA ambient noise level, a typical noise level in a quieter residential neighborhood) over the ambient noise level, which is a similar setting as the City of Ontario where noise sensitive land uses are located.

This is documented in Table 5.13-6, Existing Traffic Noise Levels by Receptor Group, as well as through ambient noise monitoring in Table 5.13-4, Summary of Long-Term Noise Measurement Result: LT-01 (Cucamonga Channel Walking Path), and Table 5.13-5, Summary of Long-Term Noise Measurement Results: LT-02 (South Whispering Lakes Lane).

For example, ambient noise levels for residential areas north of Riverside Drive closer to the ORSC site equate to 72 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) (see Table

5.13-5) while receptors to the east have an ambient sound level of 59 dBA CNEL (see Table 5.13-4). As stated above, using the City of Los Angeles’s construction noise threshold of 80 dBA would equate to a 10 dBA and 25 dBA increase in ambient sound levels for sensitive receptors surrounding the ORSC site. Therefore, based on the data and project setting, the City of Ontario has chosen to use the recommended Los Angeles construction noise threshold of 80 dBA, rather than an incremental increase from existing conditions to evaluate potential noise impact during the Proposed Project construction activities.

Pursuant to Section 15064(b)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, “Lead agencies may also use thresholds on a case-by-case basis”. Therefore, CEQA does not require that significance threshold be adopted and allows for use of significance thresholds so long as they are supported by substantial evidence. The City of Los Angeles’s significance thresholds need 5 The 80 dBA Leq(8-hour) absolute threshold is used by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for construction noise near residential uses during daytime hours. Federal Transit Administration. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibrationimpact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf 6 Los Angeles, City of. 2023. December. Construction Noise and Vibration, Proposed Updates to Thresholds and Methodology. https://planning.lacity.gov/odocument/fba26ae5-ca95-48c3-aaceae3bf0cb43b1/Construction%20Noise%20and%20Vibration%20- %20Proposed%20Updates%20to%20Thresholds%20and%20Methodology%20&%20Attachments.pdf 1303

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

not be adopted to provide the substantial evidence needed for environmental impact evaluations. In fact, the Los Angeles construction noise and vibration guidance was based on input from expert stakeholders in environmental noise.7 O2-16 See response to Comment A2-15. As identified above, the 80 dBA absolute threshold for construction noise significance threshold is supported by substantial evidence and already considers an increase in ambient from construction activities of approximately 10 dBA increase in ambient along major roadways or 25 dBA increase in ambient in residential areas. As noted above, the 80 dBA construction noise threshold is supported by a preponderance of evidence in California and nationally.

It should be noted that because the construction analysis was modeled using SoundPlan, construction activities were modeled as area sources, which include multiple pieces of equipment. Figures 5.13-2 through 5.13-4 in the Draft EIR graphically show the distance from construction activities on the ORSC site to offsite sensitive receptors.

O2-17 At the request of the Commenter, the operational noise analysis has been supplemented with a comparison of the operational noise levels compared to existing environmental conditions (see Appendix D1 of the Final EIR and Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR).

While the existing noise levels establish the baseline noise conditions, the increase in ambient noise levels for the project is not applicable to construction activities, which only identify whether the noise is audible or clearly audible. The use of an absolute threshold determines when such activities have the potential to be annoying to a substantial number of people. In comparison an absolute significance threshold based on the municipal code determines whether long-term noise has become loud enough to become annoying.

Therefore, the City has chosen to utilize the noise limits identified in the City’s Municipal Code rather than an incremental increase from existing conditions as the threshold of significance for construction noise. The noise limits in the City’s Municipal Code have been adopted via ordinance.

O2-18 The City disagrees with the Commenter’s assertion that a 10 dB increase in ambient noise is a threshold of significance under CEQA. The Commenter has not provided substantial evidence as to why a 10 dB increase in ambient noise would be a threshold of significance for long-term operational noise under CEQA. The stadium noise and athletic field noise analysis is evaluated based on the hourly thresholds in the City’s Municipal Code and is not a CNEL threshold that considers 24-hour average noise levels, with penalties for noise in the evening and nighttime hours. Stadium and athletic events within the ORSC site would not occur in the nighttime hours (defined by the City of Ontario as 10 PM – 7 AM) 7 Public feedback is an integral part of determining community noise level criteria. The City of Los Angeles also conducted a hearing to hear and consider public testimony on the thresholds on December 20, 2023, as part of the threshold update. 1304

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-101
when people are more sensitive to noise as most events would end by 9-10 PM during the evening period (7 PM – 10 PM).

The City disagrees with the soundpower reference level cited by the Comment. The sports facility referenced by the Commenter is for a stadium concert at a substantially larger venue than the Proposed Project (e.g., 68,500-to-82,500-person capacity compared to the Proposed Project’s 6,000-person capacity). The input used in SoundPLAN assumed lower output quieter environment such as an acoustic band or easy listening music as a “festival concert” setting based on default source terms included in the SoundPLAN propagation software. This was selected based on feedback from the City on what types of concerts would take place at the future stadium. The Proposed Project is a 6,000-person capacity stadium that would not have heavy metal, rap, or rock concerts such as those that might be observed at larger stadiums like Santa Clara Stadium (62,500 capacity) or Giants Stadium (82,500 capacity), associated with sound power levels similar to those mentioned by the commentor of approximately 135 dB LwA. However, to provide an even more conservative analysis of concert noise, a more conservative concert source level has also been modeled at 100 dB LwA which is based on a small concert using source terms in the default SoundPLAN library (see Appendices D1 and D2 of the Final EIR and Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR). The result of this updated analysis resulted in incremental increases in the sound levels that are still well below the City of Ontario noise thresholds.

O2-19 This Comment serves as a conclusion to the statements provided in this Comment Letter.

As discussed in the responses above, revisions have been made to the Draft EIR (see Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR), as appropriate, to address issues raised in this Comment Letter. City staff has reviewed the EIR and determined that none of this material constitutes the type of significant new information that requires recirculation of the DEIR for further public comment under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. None of this new material indicates that the Proposed Project will result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the DEIR. Additionally, none of this material indicates that there would be a significant increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.

O2-20 The Comment summarizes information from the project description of the Draft EIR.

Responses to the specific concerns raised are provided in the responses to Comments O2- 21 through O2-26.

O2-21 See response to Comment O2-12. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 has been modified to include measures that would further minimize any potential worker exposure to Valley Fever cocci at the ORSC site (see Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR). 1305

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

O2-22 See response to Comment O2-13. No changes to the EIR are warranted because the Proposed Project would not generate new sources of manure. Manure from historical dairy operations would be removed from the ORSC site; thereby resulting in an improvement in air quality/odors from historic decomposition of existing manure.

O2-23 See response to Comment O2-6. The City has determined Mitigation Measure AQ-1 to be effective at mitigating the Proposed Project’s potentially significant construction impacts and the Commenter’s speculation that it may be infeasible due to the lack of availability of Tier 4 equipment is without support. However, at the request of the Commenter, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 was modified to define what “commercially available” would constitute for securing Tier 4 equipment and include alternative emission control equipment to ensure emission reductions in the unlikely event that Tier 4 Final equipment not be available (see Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR).

O2-24 See response to Comment O2-10 and O2-11. At the request of the Commenter, the ASTM standard has been revised in Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 (see Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR).

O2-25 See response to Comment O2-7. Emissions from backup generators are speculative as this information is currently unknown. However, at the request of the Commenter, Section 5.3, Air Quality, and Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, was modified to incorporate emissions from up to four backup generators (see Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR). The addition of four generators would not cause an exceedance of the South Coast AQMD thresholds or substantially increase impacts evaluated in the Draft EIR.

O2-26 The Comment concludes that the Proposed Project could result in significant impacts if allowed to proceed. No response is necessary.

O2-27 The Comment summarizes the Commenter’s qualifications for the review of the Proposed Project’s noise analysis and provides information about health effects caused by noise. The specific issues raised by the Commenter are provided in response to Commenter O2-28 through O2-34.

O2-28 See response to Comment O2-14. The City’s expert disagrees with the Commenter’s conclusion that the noise impact analysis in Section 5.13, Noise, does not provide an adequate assessment of the baseline noise conditions in the vicinity of the ORSC site.

The ambient noise survey conducted for the Proposed Project (see pages 5.13-8 through

5.13-9) provides a conservative assessment of noise levels on the ORSC site and vicinity.

Additionally, the ambient noise survey was supplemented by traffic noise modeling (see page 5.13-9). The baseline noise monitoring survey and the traffic noise modeling included in Section 5.13.1.3, Existing Conditions, reflect the baseline noise conditions in the ORSC vicinity.
1306

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
June 2024 Page 2-103
O2-29 See response to Comments O2-15 and O2-16. The 80 dBA construction noise threshold is supported by a preponderance of evidence in California and nationally. Pursuant to Section 15064(b)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, “Lead agencies may also use thresholds on a case-by-case basis”. Therefore, CEQA does not require that significance threshold be adopted and allows for use of significance thresholds so long as they are supported by substantial evidence.

O2-30 Construction noise levels were predicted using area sources in SoundPLAN. The area sources represent the entire proposed work area for each work phase and mirror the phase boundaries and ORSC areas within the report figures. The source levels used for each area source incorporate all projected equipment types, quantities, and estimated used for each construction phase. The predicted construction noise levels assume a worst-case scenario where all equipment would be operating simultaneously under the usage factor assigned in Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM). This assumption is conservative because it is unlikely that all equipment would operate simultaneously for the entire construction effort at a given construction area.

O2-31 See response to Comment O2-15. A supplemental memorandum has been completed to compare construction noise levels to the measured, ambient conditions (see Final EIR Appendix D1). Mitigated construction noise levels utilize a conservative noise level reduction of 5 dB from noise blankets.

O2-32 See response to Comments O2-17 and O2-18. The stadium noise and athletic field noise analysis is evaluated based on the hourly thresholds in the City’s Municipal Code and is not a CNEL threshold that considers 24-hour average noise levels, with penalties for noise in the evening and nighttime hours. Stadium and athletic events within the ORSC site would not occur in the nighttime hours (defined by the City of Ontario as 10 PM – 7 AM) when people are more sensitive to noise as most events would end by 9-10 PM which is within the evening period (defined as 7 PM – 10 PM)..

At the request of the Commenter, the operational noise analysis has been supplemented with a comparison of the operational noise levels compared to existing environmental conditions (see Appendix D of the Final EIR and Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR).

The result of this updated analysis resulted in incremental increases in the sound levels that are still well below the City of Ontario noise thresholds.

O2-33 See response to Comment O2-18 regarding concert noise. The City disagrees with the soundpower reference level cited by the Commenter. The sports facility referenced by the Commenter is for a stadium concert at a substantially larger venue than the Proposed 1307

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

Project (e.g., 68,500-to-82,500-person capacity compared to the Proposed Project’s 6,000- person capacity). At the request of the Commenter, the stadium concert noise scenario has been supplemented with an additional noise modeling scenario that considers a “Pavilion with band (minor electroacoustic amplification)” concert event with a sound power level of 100 dBA (see Appendices D1 and D2 of the Final EIR and Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR). The result of this updated analysis resulted in incremental increases in the sound levels that are still well below the City of Ontario noise thresholds.

O2-34 See response to Comment O2-14 and O2-28 related to the baseline noise measurements.

Page J5-13 of Appendix J5, Commercial/Miscellaneous Noise Technical Report, details the information related to the HVAC analysis. The report indicates recommended design noise levels for the HVAC equipment for each facility to ensure noise impact will not occur at nearby noise sensitive land uses. Additionally, the design recommendations for HVAC noise to achieve the municipal code limits were included as Mitigation Measures N-2 and N-3.

O2-35 The Comment summarizes the issues raised in the preceding comments within this letter, which are addressed in the responses to Comments O2-28 through O2-34, above. 1308
June 2024 Page 3-1

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR

3.1 INTRODUCTION
This section contains revisions to the DEIR based upon (1) additional or revised information required to prepare a response to a specific comment; (2) applicable updated information that was not available at the time of DEIR publication; and/or (3) typographical errors. This section also includes additional mitigation measures to fully respond to commenter concerns as well as provide additional clarification to mitigation requirements included in the DEIR.

None of the revisions to the DEIR require recirculation of the document. Recirculation is only required when significant new information is added. Information is not significant unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect. Recirculation is not required where the new information merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.) As explained below, none of the changes adds any new significant information and recirculation is not required.

3.2 DEIR REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
The following text has been revised in response to comments received on the DEIR. Revisions are shown in double underline for additions and strikeout for subtractions.

Pages 4-17 through 4-18, Table 4-1, Cumulative Projects within a Three-Mile Radius, Chapter 4, Environmental Setting.

The following table has been revised in response to Comment A4-1 from Eastvale to ensure that Table 4-1 includes the complete list of cumulative projects included in the Traffic Impact Analysis in Appendix L2 (page L2-364) of the Draft EIR.

Table 4-1 Cumulative Projects Within a Three-Mile Radius Project/Applicant Name Location Project Type/Size Status Piemonte/Airport Area (City of Ontario)
File No. PDEV20-008 –
Industrial Development
Northeast corner of Airport
Drove/Haven Avenue 200,291 SF of industrial building space Entitled File No. PDEV 19-025
Palmer Apartments /
Commercial Retail
Southeast corner of Vineyard
and Inland Empire Blvd
950 residential units
5,000 SF of commercial building space Entitled, under construction File PDEV19-067: Hyatt
Dual Hotel 265 Rooms
Southeast corner of
Archibald/Inland Empire
157,370 SF of commercial building
space
Entitled
File No. PDEV19-054-
Townhomes
Southwest corner of Via
Alba/Via Villagio 72 residential units Entitled, under construction 1309

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Page 3 ends

Table 4-1 Cumulative Projects Within a Three-Mile Radius Project/Applicant Name Location Project Type/Size Status File No. PDEV19-061 -
Townhomes
Northeast corner of Ontario
Center Parkway/ Via Alba 110 residential units Entitled, under construction File No. 21-013 - Retail
Shopping Center
Southeast corner of Haven Ave.
and 4th Street
91,163 SF of commercial building
space Entitled, under construction
File No. PDEV17-016 -
Cambria Hotel- 124
Rooms
535 N Turner Avenue 83,500 SF of commercial building
space
Entitled
PDEV21-018 - Industrial
Development
Southeast corner of
Jurupa/Milliken 168,172 SF of industrial building space Entitled PDEV22-014
Residential/Commercial
Development
Southeast and Southwest
corners of Via Piemonte and Via
Villagio
694 residential units
63,655 SF of commercial building
space
Entitled
File No. PDEV21-047 -
Industrial
East of Haven Avenue, west of
Doubleday and Dupont
Avenues, north of Jurupa Street
and south of Airport Drive
4,263,454 SF of industrial building
space
Entitled
File No. PDEV19-057-
Industrial
Northeast corner of Haven Ave.
and 60FWY 281,000 SF of industrial building space Entitled, in process File PDEV18-031 -
Commercial/Industrial
Southwest corner of Riverside
Drive and Hamner
52,000 SF of commercial building
space
968,092 SF of industrial building space
Entitled, in process
File No. PDEV19-059-
Industrial
Northwest corner of Riverside
Drive and Milliken Avenue
5,552 SF of commercial building space
295,991 SF of industrial building space Entitled, in process File No. PDEV21-003-
Industrial 1486 East Holt 26,000 SF of industrial building space Entitled, in process File No. PDEV22-009-
Industrial
Southeast corner of Sultana
Avenue and Mission Blvd 79,323 SF of industrial building space Entitled File No. PDEV21-035-
Industrial
Southeast corner of Sultana
Avenue and Belmont Street 59,984 SF of industrial building space Entitled File No. PDEV21-037-
Industrial 1516 South Bon View Avenue 167,400 SF of industrial building space Entitled File No. PDEV22-012 -
Commercial
West side of Archibald Avenue
approximately 300 feet south of
Philadelphia Street
7,225 SF of commercial building space Entitled
File No. PDEV21-045 -
Commercial 2575 South Archibald Avenue 1,796 SF of commercial building space Entitled TOTAL
1,826 residential units
783,590 SF of commercial space
6,509,707 SF of industrial space
Additional Cumulative Projects in the Traffic Study Area PDEV21-018 - Industrial
Development
SE Corner Jurupa Ave/Milliken
Ave
Industrial Park: 168,170 SF Approved
File No. PDEV19-057-
Industrial
NE Corner Haven Ave/SR-60 Industrial Park: 2,810 SF In Review 1310

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
June 2024 Page 3-3
Table 4-1 Cumulative Projects Within a Three-Mile Radius Project/Applicant Name Location Project Type/Size Status File PDEV18-031 -
Commercial/Industrial
SE Corner Riverside
Drive/Hamner Ave
Shopping Plaza (40,000-150,000): 520
SF
In Review
File PDEV18-031 -
Commercial/Industrial
SE Corner Riverside
Drive/Hamner Ave
Industrial Park: 968,030 SF In Review
File No. PDEV19-059-
Industrial
NE Corner Riverside
Drive/Milliken Ave
Strip Retail Plaza (<40,000): 5,550 SF In Review
File No. PDEV19-059-
Industrial
NE Corner Riverside
Drive/Milliken Ave
Industrial Park: 295,990 SF In Review
File No. PDEV21-037-
Industrial
1516 South Bon View Avenue Industrial Park: 167,400 SF In Review Industrial Building(s) SW corner of Milliken and SR60Industrial Park: 39,330 SF Approved Ontario Ranch Business
Park SP
NE Corner Merrill Ave/Euclid
Ave
Warehousing/Business Park: 1,905,030
SF
Approved
Merrill Commerce Center
SP
Eucalyptus Ave/Grove Ave Warehousing/Mixed Use: 8,455,000 SF Approved South Ontario Logistics
Center SP
Eucalyptus Ave/Campus Ave Warehousing: 5,333.52 SF Approved Ontario Ranch Business
Park SP Expansion
NE Corner Merrill Ave/Euclid
Ave
Warehousing/Business Park: 1,640,690
SF
Approved
Rich Haven Specific Plan
Commercial
Riverside Drive/Haven Ave Shopping Center (>150,000): 204,500 SF
Approved
Portion of Grand Park SP SE Corner Ontario Ranch
Rd/Archibald Ave
SF Attached Housing: 362 dwelling
units
Approved
Edenglen Riverside Drive/Mill Creek Ave MF Housing (Low Rise): 108 dwelling units
Approved
Rich Haven Twinkle Ave/Moonlight St MF Housing (Low Rise): 120 dwelling units
Approved
The Avenue Ontario Ranch Road/Mill Creek
Ave
SF Detached Housing: 106 dwelling
units
Approved
The Avenue School Ontario Ranch Road/Mill Creek
Ave
Elementary School: 800 students Approved
Parkside Specific Plan
(SF)
Ontario Ranch Road/Archibald
Ave
SF Detached Housing: 540 dwelling
units
Approved
Parkside Specific Plan
(MF)
Ontario Ranch Road/Archibald
Ave
MF Housing (Low Rise): 508 dwelling
units
Approved
Commercial Hellman Ave and Eucalyptus
Ave
Shopping Center (>150,000): 2,100 SF Approved
SF Residential SE Corner Eucalyptus
Ave/Haven Ave
SF Detached Housing: 3,733 dwelling
units
Approved
Commercial SE Corner Eucalyptus
Ave/Haven Ave
Shopping Plaza (40,000-150,000): 870
SF
Approved
Elementary School Ontario Ranch Area TBD Elementary School: 800 students Approved Middle School Ontario Ranch Area TBD Middle School: 1,200 students Approved 1311

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Page 3 ends

Table 4-1 Cumulative Projects Within a Three-Mile Radius Project/Applicant Name Location Project Type/Size Status Total Preserve SP - SF
Res
Pine Ave and Hellmann Ave SF Detached Housing: 1,791 dwelling units
Approved
Total Preserve SP - MF
Res
Pine Ave and Hellmann Ave MF Housing (Low Rise): 2,675 dwelling units
Approved
Majestic Chino Logistics
Center
SE Mountain Ave/Bickmore Ave Various: 2,082,750 SF Approved Industrial Building(s) 13404 Yorba Ave Industrial Park: 325,000 SF Approved Preserve SP Business
Park
Pine Ave and Hellmann Ave Various: 7,980,000 SF Approved Altitude Business Center
(Preserve SP)
Kimball Avenue and Terminal
Court
Industrial Park: 50,000 SF Approved
SF/MF Housing West of Meadowhouse/Desert
Holly
MF Housing (Low Rise): 149 dwelling
units
Approved
Preserve SP - Industrial Pine Ave and Hellmann Ave Industrial Park: 925,360 SF Approved Commercial NE Corner of Euclid Ave and
Schafer Ave
Shopping Plaza (40,000-150,000):
71,360 SF
In Review
Industrial Building(s) 13610 Yorba Ave Industrial Park: 305,000 SF In Review FedEx SW corner of Fern Ave and
Bickmore Ave
Industrial Park: 476,290 SF Approved
El Pollo Loco 6981 Schaefer Ave Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Through: 2,000 SF
Approved
Goodman-Commerce
Center Offices
SW Corner Bickmore Ave and
San Antonio Ave
Business Park: 160,000 SF Approved
Goodman-Commerce
Center Shopping Center
SW Corner Bickmore Ave and
San Antonio Ave
Shopping Plaza (40,000-
150,000):63,000 SF
Approved
Commercial 5985 Eucalyptus Ave Shopping Plaza (40,000-150,000):
50,630 SF
In Review
Church 5985 Eucalyptus Ave Church: 27,000 SF In Review
Commercial 6312 Riverside Drive Strip Retail Plaza (<40,000): 6,440 SF In Review Restaurant 6312 Riverside Drive Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Through: 2,310 SF
In Review
Car Wash 6312 Riverside Drive Automatic Car Wash: 3,610 SF In Review Leal SP - 168 units NE Corner of Hamner
Ave/Limonite Ave
MF Housing (Low Rise): 168 dwelling
units
In Review
Leal SP - 102 units NE Corner of Hamner
Ave/Limonite Ave
MF Housing (Low Rise): 102 dwelling
units
In Review
Leal SP - 94 units NE Corner of Hamner
Ave/Limonite Ave
SF Detached Housing: 94 dwelling units In Review
Leal SP - 74 units NE Corner of Hamner
Ave/Limonite Ave
SF Detached Housing: 74 dwelling units In Review
Leal SP - 320 units NE Corner of Hamner
Ave/Limonite Ave
MF Housing (Low Rise): 320 dwelling
units
In Review
1312

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
June 2024 Page 3-5
Table 4-1 Cumulative Projects Within a Three-Mile Radius Project/Applicant Name Location Project Type/Size Status Restaurant Building SE Corner of Hamner Ave and
Schleisman Rd
High Turnover Sit Down Restaurant:
7,760 SF
Approved
Business Park NE Corner of Hamner Ave and
Goodman Way
Business Park: 249,970 SF Approved
Fast Food Pad NW Corner of Archibald Ave
and Chandler Ave
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive
Through: 2,210 SF
Approved
Walmart Eastvale 14100 Limonite Ave Commercial/Gas Station: 177 SF; 16 gas pumps
Approved
Homestead Archibald Ave and Limonite Ave Industrial Park: 1,080,600 SF Approved

TOTAL TRAFFIC STUDY AREA
27,732,791 Commercial/Industrial Square Feet
10,850 Dwelling Units
2,800 Students
16 gas pumps
Pages 5.1-27, Section 5.1, Aesthetics. Information regarding the parking lot lighting has been added.

As discussed above, for the purposes of this analysis, a standard of 0.9 foot-candle was used for a significance determination because this standard considers both the type of adjacent land uses as well as the time of day the lights would be on. The spill light and light trespass from the proposed lighting at the 0.9 fc contour is shown on Figure 5.1-7a, Sports Field and Stadium Lighting Spill (0.9 Foot-Candle Threshold). Additionally, the light spill at the 0.5 fc and 0.3 fc contours is provided in Figures 5.1-7b, Sports Field and Stadium Lighting Spill (0.5 FootCandle Threshold), and 5.1-7c, Sports Field and Stadium Lighting Spill (0.3 Foot-Candle Threshold), respectively. Parking lots would also have light poles that range in height from 25-30 feet. However, the potential for light spillage from parking lot areas is lower than that of the Stadium and City Park facilities because the light poles would not be as tall (i.e., 25 to 30 feet compared to 99 to 110 feet for the stadium and sports fields). Lighting for parking lot areas would comply with Municipal Code Section 4-11which requires a minimum of one footcandle of light on the parking surface during the hours of darkness. Parking lots would not directly abut adjacent residential areas and would fall below the 0.9 fc contour lighting threshold. 1313

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Page 3 ends

Pages 5.3-31 through 5.3-32, Table 5.3-11, Ontario Regional Sports Complex Regional Operation Emissions: Worst Case Saturday with Events, Table 5.3-12, Ontario Regional Sports Complex Regional Operation Emissions: Average Weekday, and Table 5.3-13, ORSC Overlapping Construction and Operational Phase Emissions, Section 5.3, Air Quality. Potential stationary source emissions from backup generators have been incorporated into the emissions modeling tables in response to Comments O2-7 from CARE CA.

Table 5.3-11 Ontario Regional Sports Complex Regional Operation Emissions: Worst Case Saturday with Events
Source
Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs./day)
VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
ORSC
Mobile 86 43 735 1 156 40
Area 33 <1 54 <1 <1 <1
Energy <1 3 3 <1 <1 <1
Stationary Sources (Generators) 1 2 2 <1 <1 <1
Total 119 120 46 48 792 794 2 156 40
South Coast AQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? Yes No Yes No Yes No
Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1. Highest winter or summer emissions are reported. (see Appendix D1) Notes: lbs. = Pounds.

Table 5.3-12 Ontario Regional Sports Complex Regional Operation Emissions: Average Weekday Source
Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs./day)
VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
ORSC
Mobile 59 31 535 1 115 30
Area 33 0 54 <1 <1 <1
Energy <1 3 3 <1 <1 <1
Stationary Sources (Generators) 1 2 2 <1 <1 <1
Total 92 93 34 36 592 594 1 116 30
South Coast AQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? Yes No Yes No No No
Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1. Highest winter or summer emissions are reported. (see Appendix D1) Notes: lbs. = Pounds.
1314

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
June 2024 Page 3-7
Table 5.3-13 ORSC Overlapping Construction and Operational Phase Emissions Source
Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/Day)
VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Construction Phase 82 224 406 1 23 7
ORSC Operational Phase 119 120 46 48 792 794 2 156 40
Total Combined Maximum Daily 201 202 270 272 1,198 1,200 3 179 47 Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1. Highest winter or summer emissions are reported. (see Appendix D1) Note: lbs = Pounds.

Page 5 ends

stationary source emissions from backup generators have been incorporated into the emissions modeling tables in response to Comments O2-7 from CARE CA.

Table 5.3-16 ORSC Localized On-Site Operational Emissions Source
Onsite Pollutants (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Area Sources <1 54 <1 <1
Energy Sources 3 3 <1 <1
Stationary Sources (Generators) 2 2 <1 <1
Total 6 4 57 59 <1 <1
South Coast AQMD Screening-Level LST1 270 2,193 4 2
Exceeds Screening-Level LST? No No No No
Sources: CalEEMod Version 2022.1; South Coast AQMD 2009.

Notes: In accordance with South Coast AQMD methodology, only on-site stationary sources and mobile equipment on the ORSC site are included in the analysis. 1 Operational LSTs are based on a 5-acre site and sensitive receptors within 82 meters (25 feet) in SRA 33.

Page 5 ends

Comments O2-6, O2-12, and O2-23 from CARE CA.

AQ-1 The City of Ontario shall require the construction contractor to incorporate the following to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities:
 Use construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 4 (model year 2008 2015 or newer) Final or stricter emission limits for all off-road construction equipment. If Tier 4 Final equipment is not commercially available for a specific piece of equipment, the applicant shall provide documentation (e.g., rental inventory requests), to the City’s satisfaction, or otherwise demonstrate its unavailability to the City of Ontario prior to the issuance of any construction permits and replacement equipment used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by the California Air Resources Board regulations. 1315

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX FINAL EIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Page 3 ends

Ontario City CouncilJuly 16, 2024

Ontario City Council
July 16, 2024