Agenda packet — Ontario City Council, July 16, 2024 (part 9 of 14)

GS-2 During excavations exceeding depth of approximately 5 to 10 feet below ground surface, a qualified paleontological monitor shall be present during construction activities to spot check the sediments and depths of excavations to determine the geologic units encountered. If paleontological resources are discovered, full-time 2277
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 80 -
monitoring shall be required during grading, as identified in the Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan.

GS-3 In the event of any fossil discovery, regardless of depth or geologic formation, construction work shall halt within a 50-foot radius of the find until its significance can be determined by a qualified paleontologist. Significant fossils shall be recovered, prepared to the point of curation, identified by qualified experts, listed in a database to facilitate analysis, and deposited in a designated paleontological curation facility in accordance with the standards of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010). A regional repository shall be identified by the City Council and a curatorial arrangement shall be signed prior to collection of the fossils.

Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Proposed Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures above. The City of Ontario hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted.

Rationale for Finding
Deep excavations in soil types below the Holocene alluvium deposits could impact paleontological resources. Mitigation Measure GS-1 would require preparation of a Paleontological Resources Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (PRMMP), and Mitigation Measure GS-2 would require an archeological/paleontological resources monitor onsite during excavation activities that exceed a depth of 10 feet below the ground surface. Mitigation Measure GS-3 also provides additional procedures in the event of fossil discovery. With implementation of Mitigation Measures GS-1 through GS-3, impacts paleontological resources would be reduced to less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 5.7-15)

5. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 5.9-2: Project construction activities may disturb contaminants in the soil associated with the site’s former agricultural uses and could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

Soil Hazards
Grading activities under the ORSC and sewer alignment in the Offsite Improvement Area would involve the disturbance of onsite soils. Specifically, the ORSC would require the excavation and removal of two to three feet of organic material (manure) on the ORSC site associated with the historical dairy operations. Seven Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs)3 were conducted to study the existing conditions of the ORSC site with respect to hazardous materials and identify recommendations for addressing potential “recognized environmental conditions” (REC), including 3 See Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR for more information about the study areas of each ESA.
2278
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 81 -
conditions associated with its former use as a dairy farm. A Phase II ESA for the Pietersma Family Trust study area was also completed prior to publishing the Draft EIR.

Hazardous Materials Sites Listings
The environmental regulatory records reviews conducted as part of the seven Phase I ESAs for the ORSC site searched a variety of regulatory databases to identify whether the study areas were listed.

The ORSC site was identified in Hazardous Waste Tracking System, HAZNET, CalEPA Regulated Site Portal, Enforcement Action Listing, California Integrated Water Quality System, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, Exposure Model for Individuals, Facility Index System, Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System Underground Storage Tank, Hazardous Substance Storage Container, Facility Inventory Database for Underground Storage Tanks, and San Bernardino County Permit databases for the generation of minor quantities of hazardous wastes, previous minor violations, various emissions, a 550-gallon diesel-fuel UST, and for having an active NPDES permit. The hazardous conditions associated with these listings are discussed below.

Recognized/Historical Environmental Conditions
An REC is the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property. The Phase I ESAs for the seven study areas identified two RECs that applied to all study areas:
 The current and/or historical agricultural fields are considered an REC due to the potential for pesticide use.
 The historical/current dairy farm and livestock farming operations and the presence of current or former dairy ponds throughout the site are considered an REC due to the potential for the accumulation of hazardous wastes, including metals, pesticides, and other wastes from hazardous materials and/or pesticide use related to onsite dairy farming and agricultural fields.

The following RECs were also identified for each of the specific study areas:
 Pietersma Family Trust. Staining in the vicinity of the two-diesel fuel above-ground storage tanks (ASTs) adjacent to the concrete-bermed hazardous waste storage area.  15 Dairy River LLC. 500-gallon gasoline underground storage tank (UST) with no records of removal or abandonment. This Phase I also identified leaking hazardous containers and an area of impacted soil as an REC.
 JCLIN Investment LP. Two possible dry cleaners that operated north of the ORSC site in the commercial center on East Riverside Drive between 1978 and 1982, and 1986 and 1988 due to potential use of drycleaning solvents and the potential for impacts to the property through vapor encroachment.

A historical REC refers to a past release that has been remediated to below “residential” standards and given regulatory closure with no use restrictions. The 550-gallon diesel fuel UST on the Sanchez Family Trust property was identified as a historical REC for the Raymundo Flores and Sanchez Family Trust 2279
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 82 -
study areas. This UST is also recognized as an environmental concern by the other Phase I ESAs for the eastern portion of the ORSC site (15 Dairy Farm LLC and Ontario WF Farm LLC). However, the Phase Is note that there is no information to suggest that this UST has had unauthorized releases; it is therefore not considered a REC.

Additional Assessment and Recommendations
The seven Phase I ESAs made the following recommendations to address the identified RECs or provide additional assessment at all portions of the ORSC site:
 Assess shallow soils across the property for the presence of pesticides and metals historically used in agricultural operations.
 Screen for methane in the areas of the property historically occupied by possible dairy farm and livestock farming operations, including the possible waste ponds in the southeastern portion of the ORSC site.
 Comply with the City of Ontario Methane Ordinance for any future redevelopment of the ORSC site.
 Complete site reconnaissance at the time of the Phase II ESAs.4  The following recommendations are relevant to specific study areas:
 Pietersma Family Trust. Soil sampling in the vicinity of identified stained soil adjacent to ASTs in the hazardous materials storage area.
 15 Dairy River LLC. Subsurface sampling in the vicinity of the structures in the northern portion of the property where hazardous materials were likely stored according to historical inspection reports.
 Geophysical survey to determine whether any USTs are present at the property. • Should USTs be discovered, subsurface sampling in the vicinity of the UST(s) is recommended to assess for any potential releases that have impacted subsurface soils.  JCLIN Investment LP. Soil vapor sampling in the northern portion of the property to evaluate whether historical possible drycleaning activities offsite have impacted the subsurface soil vapor beneath the property.

Due to the RECs identified, all portions of the ORSC site are recommended to undergo a Phase II ESA for further assessment of the soil before grading activities begin. Impacts regarding the release of and exposure to soil contaminants on the ORSC site are considered potentially significant. 4 Site reconnaissance was completed at the Pietersma Family Trust study area during the Phase I ESA process. 2280
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 83 -
Mitigation Measure
The following mitigation measure was included in the Draft EIR and the Final EIR and is applicable to the Proposed Project. The measure as provided includes any revisions incorporated in the Final EIR.

HAZ-1 Prior to the issuance of demolition permits or grading permits, whichever is issued first, for individual development projects in the ORSC site, the project applicant/developer shall submit a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) to the City of Ontario prepared under the responsible charge of a Professional Geologist or Professional Engineer. The Phase II ESA shall be prepared in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Designation: E1903-19, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments (ESA): Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Process (ASTM, E 1903-19). 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 of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Regional Water Quality Control Board, Ontario Fire Department and/or County of San Bernardino, as applicable to their oversight jurisdictions. For minor issues the Project Environmental Consultant may self-certify with approval from the City. All contaminated soils and/or material encountered shall be disposed of at a regulated site and in accordance with applicable laws and regulations prior to the completion of grading.

Prior to the issuance of building permits, a report documenting the field activities, results, and any additional recommendations shall be provided to the City of Ontario evidencing that all site remediation activities have been completed inclusive of environment oversight agency document of no further action determinations, as applicable.

Additionally, the following specific conditions shall be adhered to:
 Pesticides. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for any building or structure or the issuance of a grading permit, whichever is issued first, the construction contractor shall provide proof to the City that there are no pesticides on the site that exceed Environmental Protection Agency Regional Screening Levels (EPA RSLs) or Water Board Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs), whichever is more stringent. If on-site pesticides exceed the applicable screening levels, measures shall be taken in compliance with all applicable local, State and federal regulations to either remediate the pesticides on-site, or remove and properly dispose of the pesticides and proof shall be provided to the City of their safe remediation or removal as permitted by law along with agency oversight documentation of no further action determination by DTSC.  Methane. The construction contractor shall submit a subsurface methane soil gas report to the City Building Department, in general accordance with their methane ordinance, to screen for the presence of elevated levels of methane gas prior to installation of building foundations. The recommendations in the 2281
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 84 -
subsurface methane soil gas report to remove or remediate any soils with methane gas levels that exceed accepted regulatory levels shall be implemented in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations as determined by the City Building Department.
 Stained Soil – Pietersma Family Trust. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for any building or structure or the issuance of a grading permit, whichever is issued first, shallow soils impacted with Diesel Range Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH-d) in excess of commercial and residential screening levels adjacent to the aboveground storage tanks in the hazardous materials storage area of the Pietersma Family Trust (parcels 0218-101-01, 0218- 101-02, 0218-101-07, 0218-101-08, 0218-102-10, and 0218-102-11) shall be removed and disposed of in accordance with current regulations. Confirmation sampling shall be conducted as required by current regulations after removal to verify that the impacted soil has been adequately removed from the site or treated insitu (in place) as deemed appropriate by the Project Environmental Consultant at the discretion of the City. If during grading activities hydrocarbon (TPH) stained soil areas are discovered, grading within the area shall be temporarily halted and redirected around the area until the appropriate evaluation and followup measures are implemented. TPH stained soil shall be removed and transported off-site at a State approved disposal site under the observation of the Project Environmental Consultant and confirmation samples collected from the sidewalls and bottom of each excavation area. The confirmation samples shall be transported to a state certified laboratory and analyzed for TPH in accordance with EPA Methods 8015M and 8015B, to ensure that TPH stained soil has been adequately removed from the site. Based on the laboratory results and at the discretion of the City, the San Bernardino County Fire Department, the Project Environmental Consultant, or the City shall determine when the area of the site is suitable for grading activities to resume.
 Underground Storage Tanks (UST) – 15 Dairy LLC. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for any building or structure or the issuance of a grading permit, whichever is issued first, subsurface sampling shall be performed in the vicinity of the structures in the northern portion of the 15 Dairy LLC (parcels 0218-111-08, 0218-111-11, 0218-111-12, 0218-111-49, and 0218-111-50) where hazardous materials were likely stored according to historical inspection reports.

A geophysical survey should be completed to determine whether any Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) are present at the property. Exploratory trenching is required to address and identify anomalies prior to soil sampling.

Should USTs be discovered, subsurface sampling in the vicinity of the UST(s) is recommended to assess for any potential releases that have impacted subsurface soils. All contaminated soils and/or material encountered shall be disposed of at a regulated site and in accordance with applicable laws and regulations prior to the completion of grading. The San Bernardino County Fire Department shall be the lead environmental oversight agency for UST removal activities. 2282
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 85 -
 Soil Vapor Testing – JCLIN Investment, LP. Soil vapor sampling in the northern portion of JCLIN Investment, LP (parcels 0218-101-03, 0218-101-04, 0218-101-05, and 0218-101-06) shall be conducted to evaluate whether historical possible drycleaning activities off-site have impacted the subsurface soil vapor beneath the property. The San Bernardino County Fire Department or Department of Toxic Substances Control shall be the lead agency.

Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Proposed Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Ontario hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted.

Rationale for Finding
Incorporation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would require additional review and testing of the ORSC site through Phase I and Phase II ESAs. Any contaminated media exceeding the applicable regulatory thresholds would be remediated in accordance with state and local agency requirements. This requirement would ensure that all RECs at the ORSC site are identified, documented, and remediated, as necessary or applicable. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would therefore reduce risks to human health and potential impacts of hazards and hazardous materials to less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 5.9- 41)
Impact 5.9-4: Development of the ORSC could interfere with the implementation of an emergency responder or evacuation plan.

Emergency Response
The ORSC would be expected to increase the volume of vehicles leaving the site in event of an emergency, which could hinder traffic conditions and impede the ability of emergency vehicles to access the site. The number of people visiting and working at the ORSC site would fluctuate throughout the year and on a daily basis because the schedule of activities at the proposed baseball stadium and use of the proposed city recreation facilities would vary based on sport seasons. For example, the ORSC is expected to host approximately 3,692 weekday average visitors while approximately 13,650 visitors onsite would be expected during Saturday or Sunday. On such a day, thousands of people might have to evacuate during a large-scale emergency. Development of the ORSC would include construction, which may also temporarily impact traffic in the ORSC site.

Impacts are considered potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures TRAF-2 (see Section D.5, Transportation, below) and TRAF-3 (see Section C.7, Transportation, below) are applicable to this impact and would reduce impacts associated with emergency response and evacuation to less than significant.
2283
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 86 -
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Proposed Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures TRAF-2 and TRAF-3 below. The City of Ontario hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted.

Rationale for Finding
Per Mitigation Measure TRAF-2, a Parking and Event Traffic Management Plan (TMP) would be prepared to ensure that traffic on weekends with major events, such as baseball game at the Minor League Baseball Stadium or tournaments and games held at the City park and indoor athletic facility building, would not impede emergency operations or local traffic. This would ensure that the ORSC does not conflict with the City’s emergency response and evacuation plans during operation of the ORSC.

Mitigation Measure TRAF-3 requires preparation and implementation of a construction management plan to ensure that construction activities do not interfere with emergency access. Additionally, the City’s Building and Safety Department, along with the Ontario Fire Department and Police Department, would review building plans during plan check to ensure that adequate site access is maintained and that roadway improvements and project driveways would not interfere with circulation on adjacent streets. Therefore, the ORSC would not conflict with implementation of emergency response or evacuation plans during construction or operation, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 5.9-41 through 5.9-42)

6. Noise
Impact 5.13-1: Construction activities would result in temporary noise increases in the vicinity of the ORSC site.

Construction Noise
Construction of the ORSC would be completed in five phases, each comprising various construction activities and includes construction on the ORSC site and within the Offsite Improvement Area.

Construction of the ORSC is anticipated to begin in September 2024 and be completed in September 2027, for a total duration of approximately three years. Construction would occur in the hours allowed under Section 5-29.09 of the Ontario Municipal Code, Monday through Saturday, six days per week.

Construction would occur on Saturdays but would be prohibited on Sundays and holidays.

Construction activities are assumed to occur in eight-hour shifts with a one-hour break (e.g., 7:00 am to 4:00 pm or 8:00 am to 5:00 pm weekdays; 9:00 am to 6:00 pm on Saturdays). Nighttime construction for the stadium and parking structures may be necessary for concrete pours and infrastructure improvements.

Construction phases would overlap and result in construction occurring in more than one area. The construction noise analysis utilizes the proposed schedule to determine periods of overlap. Calculated construction noise levels for overlapping activities are summed together to determine an estimated 2284
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 87 -
cumulative monthly construction noise level. Construction activities that are typically the sources of the most construction noise include grading and scraping, with associated equipment generating noise levels as high as 92 dBA Lmax within 50 feet of their operation. Noise-sensitive receptors within approximately 1,000 feet of the ORSC site were analyzed.

Daytime Onsite Construction Noise
Construction noise levels will vary and be dependent on many factors, such as distance to work, type of work, and means and methods used to complete the work. Therefore, the maximum noise level would only be expected for a short period. Table 5.13-14, Predicted Daytime Cumulative Construction Noise Levels, in Section 5.13, Noise, of the Draft EIR, summarizes the daytime (8-hour Leq) of the onsite construction noise analysis. Generally, the loudest periods of construction are predicted to occur at sensitive receptors in the beginning of the ORSC construction, from September 2024 through January 2025 and in May 2025. These loud periods are due to manure hauling, rough and fine grading, and utilities trenching on the ORSC site and along the roadways surrounding the ORSC site. Construction noise levels would be loudest when work is closest to receptors and can be expected to decrease as work moves away from a given receptor or is completed. It should be noted that this analysis conservatively assumes construction activity at all sites during a given phase or activity would occur simultaneously. This is not expected to occur, as different pieces of construction equipment would be in use during different times during construction. As a result, actual noise exposure at these receptor locations would likely be lower than identified in this table. As identified in Table 5.13-14, construction noise levels are not predicted to exceed the daytime Leq 8-hour noise level limit of 80 dBA, and daytime construction noise would be less than significant.

Construction-Related Traffic and Haul Routes
As part of the construction of the ORSC, construction-related truck traffic would be generated. Heavy trucks would be required for transportation of materials and debris during building demolition (Phases 1, 2, and 4) and manure hauling (Phases 1 and 2). Table 5.3-16, Ontario Regional Sports Complex Summary of Construction-Related Truck Trips, in Section 5.13 of the Draft EIR summarizes the planned truck trips during construction of the ORSC. It is anticipated that most workers and vendors will access the site from SR-60 from the Vineyard Avenue or Archibald Avenue Interchanges. Trucks are anticipated to primarily use the following three identified haul routes: Chino Avenue to Walker Avenue to Hellman Avenue; Chino Avenue to Haven Avenue to Ontario Ranch Road; and Chino Avenue to Euclid Avenue. Trucks would then travel back to the ORSC site along the same route. Additionally, it is assumed that all truck trips would be completed during a typical daytime shift and would be evenly distributed throughout the work shift.

To determine a worst-case scenario, traffic-noise levels for the maximum hourly construction truck trips were calculated at sensitive receptors along East Riverside Avenue. Construction-related traffic noise levels were then compared to existing traffic noise levels to determine if significant impacts would occur. Table 5.13-17, Ontario Regional Sports Complex Predicted Construction-Related Traffic Noise Levels, of the Draft EIR summarizes the results of construction-related truck trips during construction of the ORSC. As seen in this table, hourly Leq traffic-noise levels during construction are predicted to be 74 dBA or less at sensitive receptors. Construction-related traffic noise is predicted to increase one decibel 2285
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 88 -
or less over existing conditions. Therefore, no significant impact is anticipated due to construction truck trips.

Nighttime Onsite Construction Noise
Nighttime construction for the stadium and parking structures may be necessary for concrete pours and infrastructure improvements. Work associated with the stadium and various parking structures is scheduled between December 2024 through May 2026 and January 2027 through April 2027.

Table 5.13-15, Predicted Nighttime Cumulative Construction Noise Levels, in Section 5.13 of the Draft EIR, summarizes the results of the nighttime noise analysis. Since nighttime work would occur on an “as necessary” basis, the analysis assumes that each ORSC component would be constructed individually, and multiple components would not be worked on simultaneously during nighttime hours. Should nighttime work become necessary, predicted construction noise levels during construction of the stadium and parking structures around the site are anticipated to exceed 5 dBA over ambient conditions at receptors in Receptor Group 2, Receptor Group 3, and Receptor Group 5.5 The loudest construction-noise levels during nighttime hours would occur at residential and recreational receptors located on the west side of Receptor Group 5, nearest the ORSC site, during Phase 1B and Phase 4 activities. Nighttime construction noise would exceed the nighttime ambient and/or impact threshold and would be a potentially significant impact of the ORSC.

Mitigation Measure
The following mitigation measure was included in the Draft EIR and the Final EIR and is applicable to the Proposed Project. The measure as provided includes any revisions incorporated in the Final EIR.

N-1 The construction contractor shall implement the following measures during construction activities on the ORSC site and Offsite Improvement Area. These measures shall be identified on demolition, grading, and/or building permits.  Prior to construction activities that warrant nighttime construction (e.g., infrastructure work, concrete pours, etc.), the construction contractor shall install noise pathway controls, including noise barriers and enclosures free from gaps and holes, which shall be placed as close as possible to construction areas. The temporary noise barrier shall be a sufficient height to block the direct line-ofsight between the onsite construction areas and offsite noise sensitive receptors and shall be a minimum of 6 feet tall and shall be constructed out of wood or other materials with a minimum surface weight of approximately 2.5 pounds per square foot.
 Construction equipment operating on a site shall be equipped with the appropriate manufacturer’s noise reduction devices, including but not limited to 5 See Table 5.13-6, Existing Traffic Noise Levels by Receptor Group, in Section 5.13 of the Draft EIR for a description of the locations of each receptor group.
2286
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 89 -
a manufacturer’s muffler (or equivalently rated material) that is free of rust, holes, and exhaust leaks.
 Noise from construction devices with internal combustion engines shall be mitigated by ensuring that the engine's housing doors are kept closed, and by using noise-insulating material mounted on the engine housing that does not interfere with the manufacturer's guidelines for engine operation or exhaust.  Portable compressors, generators, pumps, and other such devices shall be covered with noise-insulating fabric to the maximum extent possible that does not interfere with the manufacturer's guidelines for engine operation or exhaust, and shall further reduce noise by operating the device at lower engine speeds during the work to the maximum extent possible.
 Idling onsite of heavy-duty diesel vehicles with Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 10,000 pounds shall be limited to no longer than five minutes while parking, standing, or stopping, as per 13 California Code of Regulations Section 2485, Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling.
 Quieter back-up alarms on construction equipment shall be used whenever feasible.
 Construction vehicles shall be strategically positioned to minimize operation near receptors and avoiding tailgate slamming to the extent possible.

Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Proposed Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measure above. The City of Ontario hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted.

Rationale for Finding
Mitigation Measure N-1 requires installation of temporary noise barriers around the work site that have sufficient heights to block the direct line-of-sight between the onsite construction areas and offsite noise sensitive receptors. With typical installation, temporary noise barriers can provide 5 decibels of noise level reduction to adjacent receptors. Additional mitigation measures, including positioning of equipment away from sensitive receptors and minimizing equipment idling, would further reduce overall noise levels during construction activities. These measures would ensure that noise generated from nighttime construction activities would not exceed the City standard at sensitive receptor locations. (Draft EIR pg. 5.13-63 through 5.13-64)
2287
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 90 -

7. Transportation
Impact 5.17-3: Event traffic could impede emergency access but would not result in potentially hazardous conditions (sharp curves, etc.) or conflicting uses.

Potentially Hazardous Traffic Conditions
Emergency Access Design Considerations
To address fire and emergency access needs, the traffic and circulation components of the ORSC would be designed and constructed in accordance with all applicable City of Ontario design standards for emergency access (e.g., minimum lane width and turning radius). For example, new site access driveways and drives aisles would be designed to meet the minimum width requirements of the City’s Fire Department to allow the passing of emergency vehicles. Additionally, the ORSC includes netting along Riverside Drive and Vineyard Avenue adjacent to Planning Area 5, City Park, so that soccer balls and baseballs would not go into the surrounding roadways. Future development projects under the ORSC would also be required to incorporate all applicable design and safety requirements in the most current adopted fire codes, building codes, and nationally recognized fire and life safety standards of the City and Ontario Fire Department, such as those outlined in the City’s municipal code, which incorporates by reference the California Fire Code. Compliance with these codes and standards is ensured through the City’s and Fire Department’s development review and building permit process.

Additionally, during the building plan check and development review process, the City would coordinate with Ontario Fire Department and Ontario Police Department to ensure that the necessary fire prevention and emergency response features are incorporated into the ORSC and that adequate circulation and access (e.g., adequate turning radii for fire trucks) are provided in the traffic and circulation components of the ORSC. All site and building improvements proposed under the ORSC would be subject to review and approval by the City, Fire Department, and Police Department prior to building permit and certificate of occupancy issuance. Therefore, impacts on emergency access would be less than significant.

Queuing at Caltrans Facilities
Storage capacities for SR-60 and I-15 off ramps in the study area were evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual 7th methodologies (see Appendix L2 of the Draft EIR). Storage capacities for each turning movement were compared against 95th percentile queueing estimates using the Synchro 11 software. All off-ramp queues are forecast to be contained within the available storage capacity and are not anticipated to affect the freeway mainline (see Appendix L2, Table 11, of the Draft EIR).

Therefore, impacts to Caltrans facilities would be less than significant.

Other Hazards
Parking is only considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA if lack of parking generates traffic hazards. Applicants for nonresidential development would be required to provide parking in accordance with the City’s Development Code. The ORSC includes a total of 6,263 parking spaces. Assuming peak attendance similar to historical levels for Minor League Baseball, the ORSC would result in a demand of up to 1,175 parking spaces for the stadium during a peak baseball event. 2288
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 91 -
According to the Parking Memorandum (see Appendix L3 of the Draft EIR), estimated parking demand for the ORSC, including baseball and other events at the stadium, is 5,021 parking spaces at 6 PM, and would not exceed 90 percent of the total supply. Therefore, there is sufficient parking in Planning Areas 1 and 2 to accommodate parking during a peak baseball event at the stadium. Events at the stadium would require preparation of a Parking and Event Traffic Management Plan (TMP) that would identify protocols for the City and stadium to direct/route traffic. Therefore, parking demand created by the Minor League Baseball stadium would not create traffic hazards.

There are no parking ratios identified for sports fields in the City’s Development Code. Peak events at the soccer and baseball/softball fields generate higher traffic volumes than peak games at the stadium and could coincide with events at the stadium. As identified in Table 5.17-5 of the Draft EIR, on weekdays, there would be a maximum of 21,286 vehicle trips on a weekend with a tournament, resulting in a maximum of 10,643 vehicles during a day; however, these vehicles would not be onsite at the same time but spread out throughout the day as individual games start and end. Even during the peak scenario with concurrent events, the ORSC would have sufficient parking spaces left over such that demand would not exceed 90 percent of the parking supply. Therefore, there is sufficient parking onsite to accommodate demand from other activities within the ORSC site in addition to a stadium event.

The ORSC includes netting along Riverside Drive and Vineyard Avenue adjacent to Planning Area 5, which would serve a dual purpose by preventing balls from entering the roadways and inhibiting illegal drop-off of youth sports athletes along these roadways. Events at the sports park would require preparation of a Parking and Event TMP that would identify protocols for the City to direct/route traffic. The TMP would require parking control offices or other personnel acceptable to the City to manage pedestrian flows to and from the facilities, directing pedestrians to the primary corridors serving the ORSC site. Therefore, parking demand created by the events at the outdoor and indoor sports park would not create traffic hazards.

Temporary Construction Truck Traffic
Development of the ORSC would include construction activities that may temporarily impact traffic flow in the vicinity of the ORSC site. Construction traffic is anticipated to generate up to 1,046 daily employee trips, 251 daily vendor trips, and 241 daily hauling trips. Construction schedules provided by the City indicate shifts for contractors and vendors beginning at 7:00 am and concluding between 4:00 pm and 6:00 pm. Hauling trips are expected to take place outside of AM and PM peak hours Oversized vehicles may travel at lower speeds, construction trips could travel during peak hours, staging locations could impact routes and safety, and closure of access roads may occur. Therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant.

Emergency Access and Response
The number of people visiting and working at the ORSC site would fluctuate throughout the year and on a daily basis because the schedule of activities at the proposed baseball stadium and use of the proposed city recreation facilities would vary based on sport seasons. For example, weekday average visitors would be 3,692 but on a weekend there could be 13,650 visitors onsite. On such a day, 2289
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 92 -
thousands of people might have to evacuate during a large-scale emergency. Impacts are considered potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure was included in the Draft EIR and the Final EIR and is applicable to the Proposed Project. The measure as provided includes any revisions incorporated in the Final EIR.

TRAF-2 (See Section D.5, Transportation, below) MM TRAF-2 would also reduce impacts related to hazards from event traffic control.

TRAF-3 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the construction contractor shall prepare and submit a construction management plan. The construction management plan shall be approved by the City of Ontario Public Works Department. The construction management plan shall identify construction hours, truck routes, travel patterns for haul routes, staging and parking areas, staggered worker arrival times, and safety procedures for pedestrians and cyclists. The construction management plan shall prohibit the use of heavy construction vehicles during peak hours. The plan shall also require the construction contractor to implement the following measures during construction activities, which shall be discussed at the pre-grading conference/meeting:
 Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes and provide temporary traffic controls, such as a flag person, during all roadway improvement activities to maintain adequate access for emergency vehicles and personnel.  Develop a traffic plan to minimize interference for emergency vehicles and personnel from demolition and construction activities (e.g., advanced public notice of demolition and construction activities).

Rationale for Finding
Mitigation Measure TRAF-3 would require preparation and implementation of a construction management plan. With implementation of Mitigation Measure TRAF-3, potential impacts associated with construction hazards would be reduced to a level that is less than significant.

Mitigation Measure TRAF-2 would require preparation of a Parking and Event TMP to ensure that traffic on weekends with major events would not impede emergency operations or local traffic. This would ensure that the ORSC does not conflict with the City’s emergency response and evacuation 2290
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 93 -
plans. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to event traffic would remain. (Draft EIR pg. 5.17-29)

8. Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact 5.18-1: The ORSC and offsite sewer extension could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is:
i) listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k). [Threshold TCR-1.i]
ii) determined by the lead agency to be significant pursuant to criteria in Public Resources Code section 5024.1(c).

Tribal Cultural Resources
The Sacred Land File (SLF) search conducted by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) did not indicate the presence of known tribal cultural resources within or immediately adjacent to the ORSC site or Offsite Improvement Area. However, one cultural resource believed to be associated with Native American occupation in the area has been documented within one mile of the ORSC site.

This resource was not found within the boundary of the ORSC site or the Offsite Improvement Area.

Two tribes responded to the City’s invitation for tribal resources consultation, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation and the Cahuilla Band of Indians. All other tribes who have corresponded with the City regarding the ORSC have deferred consultation to other tribes. The Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation provided information regarding the tribe’s cultural connection to the ORSC site and mitigation measures that would reduce impacts to tribal cultural resources in lieu of in-person consultation on November 21, 2023. The Cahuilla Band of Indians consulted with the City on November 27, 2023, and agreed to share relevant cultural reports and include tribal monitors onsite during ground-disturbing activities.

Construction of the ORSC would require excavation and grading of the ORSC site in addition to trenching along Vineyard Avenue for the offsite sewer extension. As such, there is potential to uncover tribal cultural resources during construction, which would also include disturbing previously undisturbed soils. Since the ORSC could result in the discovery of subsurface tribal cultural resources (TCRs), the disturbance of which could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of the resource(s), impacts would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures were included in the Draft EIR and the Final EIR and is applicable to the Proposed Project. The measures as provided include any revisions incorporated in the Final EIR.

TCR-1 Tribal Cultural Resources Monitoring. The project archaeologist, in consultation with interested tribes and the City of Ontario, shall develop an archaeological 2291
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 94 -
monitoring plan (AMP) to address the details, timing, and responsibility of archaeological and cultural activities that will occur on the ORSC site and Offsite Improvement Area. Details in the AMP shall include:

1. Project-related ground disturbance (including, but not limited to, brush clearing, grading, trenching, etc.) and development scheduling;

2. The development of a rotating or simultaneous schedule in coordination with the developer and the project archeologist for designated Native American Tribal Monitors from the consulting tribes during grading, excavation, and grounddisturbing activities on the site: including the scheduling, safety requirements, duties, scope of work, and Native American Tribal Monitors’ authority to stop and redirect grading activities in coordination with all project archaeologists.

Tribes shall coordinate as to Tribal Monitoring concurrent with development;

3. The protocols and stipulations that the City, Tribes, and project archaeologist will follow in the event of inadvertent cultural resources discoveries, including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation.

At least 30 days prior to application for a grading permit and before any brush clearance, grading, excavation, and/or ground-disturbing activities on the site, the developer shall retain a tribal cultural monitor to monitor all ground-disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources.

Pursuant to the AMP, a tribal monitor from the consulting tribes shall be present during the initial grading activities. If tribal resources are found during grubbing activities, the tribal monitoring shall be present during site grading activities.

TCR-2 Treatment and Disposition of Cultural Resources. In the event that Native American cultural resources are inadvertently discovered during the course of any ground-disturbing activities, including but not limited to brush clearance, grading, trenching, etc., at the ORSC site or Offsite Improvement Area, the following procedures will be carried out for treatment and disposition of the discoveries:

1. Temporary Curation and Storage: During the course of construction, all discovered resources shall be temporarily curated in a secure location onsite or at the offices of the project archaeologist. The removal of any artifacts from the ORSC site and Offsite Improvement Area will need to be thoroughly inventoried with tribal monitor oversight of the process;

2. Treatment and Final Disposition: The landowner(s) shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods, and all archaeological artifacts and nonhuman remains as part of the required mitigation for impacts to cultural resources. The City shall relinquish the artifacts through one or more of the following methods:
2292
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 95 -
a. Accommodate the process for onsite reburial of the discovered items with the consulting Native American tribes or bands. This shall include measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts.

Reburial shall not occur until all cataloging, basic analysis, other analyses as recommended by the project archaeologist and approved by consulting tribes, and basic recordation have been completed; all documentation should be at a level of standard professional practice to allow the writing of a report of professional quality;
b. A curation agreement with an appropriate qualified repository in San Bernardino County that meets federal standards per 36 CFR Part 79, and therefore the resource would be professionally curated and made available to other archaeologists/researchers for further study. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to an appropriate curation facility in San Bernardino County, to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation;
c. For purposes of conflict resolution, if more than one Native American tribe or band is involved with the project and cannot come to an agreement as to the disposition of cultural materials, materials shall be curated at the San Bernardino County Museum by default;
d. At the completion of grading, excavation, and ground-disturbing activities on the site, a Phase IV Monitoring Report shall be submitted to the City documenting monitoring activities conducted by the project archaeologist and Native Tribal Monitors within 60 days of completion of grading. This report shall document the impacts to the known resources on the property; describe how each mitigation measure was fulfilled; document the type of cultural resources recovered and the disposition of such resources; provide evidence of the required cultural sensitivity training for the construction staff held during the required pregrade meeting; and, in a confidential appendix, include the daily/weekly monitoring notes from the archaeologist. All reports produced will be submitted to the City, County Museum, and consulting tribes.

TRC-3 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary or Ceremonial Objects. Native American human remains are defined in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute.
a) If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the ORSC site or Offsite Improvement Area, then Public Resource Code 5097.9 as well as Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 shall be followed. 2293
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 96 -
b) Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).
c) Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods.
d) Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.

Rationale for Finding
Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-3 would reduce potential impacts associated with tribal cultural resources to a level that is less than significant by requiring by monitoring, treatment, and final deposition of resources in coordinate with the Tribes. Therefore, with implementation of mitigation impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant . (Draft EIR pg. 5.18-13)

9. Wildfire
Impact 5.20-1: The ORSC could substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

Emergency Response
The number of people visiting and working at the ORSC would fluctuate throughout the year and on a daily basis because the schedule of activities at the proposed baseball stadium and use of the proposed city recreation facilities would vary based on sport seasons. For example, weekday average visitors would be 3,692 but on a weekend there could be 13,650 visitors onsite. On such a day, thousands of people might have to evacuate during a large-scale fire or other emergency. Impacts are considered potentially significant. Development of the ORSC would also include construction activities that may also temporarily impact traffic on the ORSC site.

Therefore, construction, and operation of the ORSC could impair an emergency response plan or evacuation plan, and impacts would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures TRAF-2 (see Section D.5 below) and TRAF-3 (see Section C.7 above) are applicable to this impact and would reduce impacts associated with emergency response and evacuation to less than significant.
2294
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 97 -
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Proposed Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures TRAF-2 and TRAF-3 below. The City of Ontario hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure is feasible, and the measure is therefore adopted.

Rationale for Finding
Per Mitigation Measure TRAF-2, a TMP would be prepared to ensure that traffic on weekends with major events, such as baseball game at the Minor League Baseball Stadium or tournaments and games held at the City park and indoor athletic facility building, would not impede emergency operations or local traffic. This would ensure that the ORSC does not conflict with the City’s emergency response and evacuation plans during operation of the ORSC.

Additionally, Mitigation Measure TRAF-3 requires preparation and implementation of a construction management plan to ensure that construction activities do not interfere with emergency access.

Additionally, the City’s Building and Safety Department, along with the Ontario Fire Department and Police Department, would review building plans during plan check to ensure that adequate site access is maintained and that roadway improvements and project driveways would not interfere with circulation on adjacent streets. Therefore, the ORSC would not conflict with implementation of emergency response or evacuation plans during construction or operation, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 5.20-16)
D. SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CANNOT

BE MITIGATED TO BELOW THE LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following summary describes the unavoidable adverse impact of the Proposed Project where either mitigation measures were found to be infeasible, or the mitigation measures are under the control of another lead agency. The following impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

1. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Impact 5.2-1: The ORSC would convert 53 acres of California Resource Agency designated Prime Farmland to recreational and hospitality land use.

Loss of Prime Farmland
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 the potential impact Farmland because these improvements would be below-ground.

The ORSC site is currently designated for residential uses under TOP 2050. While the ORSC would amend the land use designations of the ORSC site to support the proposed commercial, recreation, and stadium uses, the agricultural impacts of developing the ORSC site with the proposed uses would 2295
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 98 -
be similar to development under the current designation of the ORSC site. Nonetheless, the ORSC would have a significant impact with regard to the conversion of agricultural land on the ORSC site.

Mitigation Measures
In compliance with CEQA, “each public agency shall mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment of any project it carries out or approves whenever it is feasible to do so” (Public Resources Code, Section 21002.1[b]). The term “feasible” is defined in CEQA to mean “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).

For loss of Farmland, it is the policy of Ontario to mitigate impacts within the city boundaries because this is the area the City has direct jurisdictional control over. In accordance with this policy, the City has determined there is no suitable replacement acreage within the City and there are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce the Proposed Project’s significant impacts regarding agricultural conversion to levels that would be less than significant. The following mitigation measures to reduce the impacts on agriculture have been considered; however, none of the measures would feasibly be able to reduce the significant impacts to levels less than significant:
 Retention of Onsite Agricultural Uses. This measure would allow, create, or maintain islands of agricultural uses within an urbanized setting, exacerbating potential land use conflicts and land use incompatibilities. The TOP land use plan does not establish or maintain any “Agricultural” Land Use designations within the City. However, Section 6.01.035(C)(1), AG (Agricultural) Overlay Zoning District, of the Ontario Development Code allows the continuation of existing agricultural uses on an interim basis until such time that the land is developed in accordance with TOP. The AG Overlay provides means for temporary agricultural use of existing farmland in the City but the City’s adopted land use plan and policies would not allow for the permanent retention of agricultural uses once development is proposed. The “Retention of Onsite Agricultural Uses” mitigation strategy would therefore conflict with adopted land use plan and would require amendments to the land use plan. Such an amendment to the land use plan would also conflict with the goals of the regional plans and policies from the Southern California Association of Government (SCAG), which require that the City’s land use plan facilitate the development of City’s remaining agricultural land. For example, to comply with its SCAG-designated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), the City’s Housing Element must provide capacity for new housing development. The City’s adopted 2021-2029 designates approximately 82 percent6 of the City’s housing capacity within Ontario Ranch. Furthermore, the mitigation strategy would conflict with SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (known as Connect SoCal) which prioritizes the development of land within the City’s existing Spheres of Influence to avoid further sprawl and conversion of agricultural land. Based on the preceding, retention of onsite agricultural uses is considered infeasible.
6 As shown in Table 5-16, Availability of Land to Meet RHNA, 2021–2029, in the Housing Element, the City’s total realistic capacity is 26,197 housing units and the total number of housing units of the Opportunity Areas within Ontario Ranch is 21,587 units.
2296
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 99 -
 Replacement of Agricultural Resources Offsite. Replacement of agricultural resources at an offsite location would require the City to purchase offsite replacement acreage not designated as Farmland and improve or restore it to Farmland status. Creation of additional Farmland in the City is contrary to The Ontario Plan (TOP) land use plan policies and vision as summarized previously and would require comprehensive amendment of the Policy Plan, which would in turn conflict with the City’s Housing Element and Connect SoCal. Using another area within Ontario Ranch for mitigation of impacts related to the Proposed Project would result in the same issues as previously described in consideration of onsite mitigation. Therefore, there is no suitable replacement acreage within the city to mitigate for loss of Farmland. Similar to the reasons why onsite mitigation is not feasible, offsite mitigation within Ontario Ranch is also infeasible. Offsite areas may not have sufficient water needed to support agricultural practices. It is also speculative as to whether replacement of agricultural resources offsite meets the additionality requirements of CEQA. Furthermore, it is the policy of Ontario to mitigate impacts within the city boundaries because this is the area the City has direct jurisdictional control over. Additionally, the “Replacement of Agricultural Resources Offsite” mitigation strategy would likely 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. In this regard, the mitigation strategy would likely result in increased, rather than diminished environmental impacts. Based on the preceding, replacement of agricultural resources at offsite locations is considered infeasible.
 Relocation of Prime Farmland Topsoil. Relocation of Farmland topsoil would entail removal of the top 12 to 18 inches of topsoil from Farmland properties and the placement of this soil at sites that have lesser quality soil. This would promote creation of new or additional Farmland status properties in the City, rather than provide for their transition to urban uses. This measure would have its own environmental impacts, including increased truck traffic on local roadways from both hauling soil offsite and replacement soil onsite; increased diesel truck emissions; construction noise; and increased duration of construction. The relocation of prime farmland soils on another active farm would increase other environmental impacts and is therefore considered infeasible. This would be contrary to the TOP land use plan policies and vision as summarized previously and would require comprehensive amendment of the Policy Plan.

Furthermore, the ORSC site is an active dairy, which resulted in soils onsite with high organic content. The ORSC entails removal of soils with high organic content prior to development.

Therefore, removal of high organic content topsoil is already a component of the ORSC. The redesignation of land that is currently designated for urban development to agricultural use would also be inconsistent with the City’s Housing Element and Connect SoCal.  Establishment of Conservation Easement or Preserves. The “Establishment of Conservation Easement or Preserves” mitigation strategy would require comprehensive amendment to the Policy Plan, resulting in the same conflicts with local and regional land use plans/policies discussed above. Local and regional policies have long since slated the Ontario Ranch for suburban development. The City has not indicated that such amendment is warranted or desired and has initiated no such action. At the ORSC site, establishment of agricultural conservation easements or preserves would negate the Proposed Project, requiring the No-Project Alternative, which was 2297
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 100 -
rejected for failing to meet the Proposed Project objectives (see Chapter 7, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR). Based on the preceding, the “Establishment of Conservation Easement or Preserves” mitigation strategy is considered infeasible.
 Payment in Lieu or Transfer of Development Rights. Transferring development rights would involve the purchasing of the right to develop land from a currently undeveloped piece of land and transferring those rights to farmland within the City. The City of Ontario has not implemented a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program. Implementation of a TDR program would require amending the City Development Code and comprehensive amendment of the Policy Plan.

While such a program could be developed to preserve farmland in San Bernardino County, the Important Farmland on the ORSC site would still be developed, resulting in a net loss of Important Farmland in the City. Based on the preceding, implementation of a “Transfer of Development Rights Program” mitigation strategy is considered infeasible.

The City has considered but rejected the collection of fees for offsite mitigation of agricultural impacts. Neither the City nor the adjoining counties have adopted fee programs. Absent viable programs in the region, the imposition of fees would not serve to mitigate the impacts of the Proposed Project. Furthermore, an offsite fee mitigation program would not avoid the loss of farmland; would not minimize the effect of the Proposed Project; would not repair, rehabilitate, or restore the affected farmland; and, absent a viable fee program, would not replace affected farmland with substitute farmland. Thus, such a program would not actually mitigate or substantially lessen the significant impact of the Proposed Project.

Overall, no feasible mitigation measures have been identified, 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 2010 TOP EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2008101140) and 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)
Finding
The City finds that there are no mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less-thansignificant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR, as discussed in Section IV of these Findings (Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), (3)).

As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the Proposed Project outweigh its significant effects on the environment.
2298
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 101 -

2. Air Quality
Impact 5.3-1: The ORSC would conflict with the South Coast AQMD’s Air Quality Management Plan.

AQMP Consistency
South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) is directly responsible for reducing emissions from area, stationary, and mobile sources in the Southern California Air Basin (SoCAB) to achieve the National and California Ambient Air Quality Air Standard (AAQS) and has responded to this requirement by preparing an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The South Coast AQMD Governing Board adopted the 2022 AQMP.

The two principal criteria for conformance with an AQMP are:

1. Whether the project would exceed the assumptions in the AQMP.

2. Whether the project would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timeline attainment of air quality standards.

Criterion 1: Consistency with Regional Growth Assumptions The ORSC is considered a project of statewide, regional, or area-wide significance and could substantially affect the forecast growth assumptions for the region or city per Section 15206(b)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. However, implementation of the ORSC would not involve any residential development and would not have a direct impact on local resident growth assumptions for the city. In addition, approximately 111 acres of the 199-acre site would be used for city park uses, consisting of parking, open park space, multipurpose soccer/football fields, and multiuse baseball/softball fields that would not substantially influence the employment growth forecasts for the city. Therefore, the ORSC is not anticipated to substantially affect demographic projections beyond what is accounted for in the current 2022 AQMP. Therefore, the ORSC would be potentially consistent with the AQMP under the first criterion.

Criterion 2: Consistency with Regional Air Quality Standards The SoCAB is designated nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 under the California and National AAQS,7 nonattainment for PM10 under the California AAQS, and nonattainment for lead (Los Angeles County only) under the National AAQS. Long-term emissions generated by the ORSC would include criteria air pollutants that exceed the South Coast AQMD regional significance thresholds (see discussion of Impact 5.3-3 below). Consequently, buildout of the ORSC could contribute to an increase in frequency 7 The SoCAB is pending a resignation request from nonattainment to attainment for the 24-hour federal PM2.5 standards.

The 2021 PM2.5 Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan demonstrates that the South Coast meets the requirements of the Clean Air Act to allow the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate the SoCAB to attainment for the 65 µg/m3 and 35 µg/m3 24-hour PM2.5 standards. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) will submit the 2021 PM2.5 Redesignation Request to the EPA as a revision to the California State Implementation Plan. 2299
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 102 -
or severity of air quality violations or delay attainment of the AAQS and would be potentially inconsistent with the AQMP under the second criterion.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are applicable for inconsistency with the South Coast AQMD AQMP.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1 (See Section C.1, Air Quality, above) would reduce regional construction emissions to less than significant. Mitigation Measure AQ-2 (see Impact 5.3-3 below) would reduce operational emissions to the extent feasible; however, operational emissions would continue to exceed the South Coast AQMD significance thresholds due to vehicle emissions associated with operation of the ORSC. Because the fuel efficiency and fuel type of vehicles used by future employees and visitors are not under the control of the ORSC, no feasible mitigation was identified to further reduce mobilesource emissions. Therefore, Impact 5.3-1 would remain significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR pg.

5.3-49)
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Proposed Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. These changes are identified in the form of the Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2. The City of Ontario hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted.

The City finds that there are no other mitigation measures that are feasible, taking into consideration specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other factors, that would mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level, and further, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR, as discussed in Section IV of these Findings (Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1), (3); Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), (3)).

Impact 5.3-3: Operational activities associated with the ORSC would generate long-term emissions that exceed South Coast AQMD’s significance thresholds that cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB.

Operational Phase Air Quality Emissions
The ORSC would generate criteria air pollutant emissions from on-road mobile sources, refrigerant use, area sources (e.g., landscaping equipment, architectural coating) and energy (i.e., natural gas used for heating and cooking). The ORSC would also result in periodic increases in daily VMT during events at the Minor League Baseball stadium, multipurpose fields, baseball/softball fields, and indoor athletic facility (volleyball and basketball games).
2300
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 103 -
Table 5.3-11, Ontario Regional Sports Complex Regional Operation Emissions: Worst Case Saturday with Events, and Table 5.3-12, Ontario Regional Sports Complex Regional Operation Emissions: Average Weekday, in Section

5.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, provide a conservative estimate of the maximum and average daily operations emissions associated with the ORSC site. As shown in these tables, implementation of the ORSC would exceed the South Coast AQMD regional significance thresholds for VOC, CO, and PM10 and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. This impact would be potentially significant.

Overlapping Construction and Operational Emissions
Full implementation of the ORSC could take longer than the anticipated construction schedule, depending on funding for park improvements. Thus, its implementation could result in the simultaneous operation and construction of land uses. At the request of South Coast AQMD, Table

5.3-13, ORSC Overlapping Construction and Operational Phase Emissions, in Section 5.3 of the Draft EIR, shows the potential maximum daily emissions from overlap of construction and operation-related (buildout) activities. The table shows the potential maximum daily emissions from an overlap of the worst-case maximum daily emissions from construction activities and the worst-case maximum daily emissions under full buildout conditions of the ORSC. It should be noted that the combined construction and operational emissions shown in Table 5.3-13 are highly unlikely to occur because the maximum daily emissions from construction are drawn from construction years 2024 and 2025 when most ORSC components are under construction, up to 2 years before full operation is anticipated in 2027. Construction and operational impacts are evaluated based on their separate thresholds provided by South Coast AQMD.

Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure was included in the Draft EIR and the Final EIR and is applicable to the Proposed Project. The measure as provided include any revisions incorporated in the Final EIR.

Mitigation Measures TRAF-1 (see Section D.5, Transportation) and TRAF-2 (see Section C.7, Transportation) to reduce vehicle trips and VMT, and Mitigation Measures GHG-1 to GHG-4 (see Section D.3, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, below) for building energy and electric vehicle charging would also reduce operational emissions.

AQ-2 All landscaping equipment (e.g., leaf blower) used for property management shall be electric powered only. The property manager/facility owner shall provide documentation (e.g., purchase, rental, and/or services agreement) to the City of Ontario Planning Department to verify to the City’s satisfaction that all landscaping equipment utilized will be electric powered.

Long-term operation of the ORSC would exceed the South Coast AQMD regional significance thresholds. Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 would be required to reduce VMT and include transportation demand management measures such as pedestrian and active transportation improvements.

Nonetheless, the vehicle fuel source, vehicle fuel efficiency, and travel mode for visitors are largely outside of the control of the ORSC. As such, no additional mitigation would be feasible to reduce vehicle-related emissions. To address VOC and CO emissions from area sources, Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would be required to ensure that all landscaping and property maintenance tools and equipment 2301
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 104 -
are electric powered and do not use fossil fuels. Additionally, Mitigation Measures GHG-1 through GHG-4 would reduce building energy use and would expand the use of electric vehicle charging onsite.

These mitigation measures would reduce operational emissions to the extent feasible. However, longterm emissions would continue to exceed the South Coast AQMD’s regional significance thresholds.

Therefore, Impact 5.3-3 would remain significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR pg. 5.3-53) Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Proposed Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures (AQ-2, TRAF-1, TRAF-2, GHG-1, and GHG-4) identified above. The City of Ontario hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted.

3. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact 5.8-1: The ORSC would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

GHG Emissions
Construction
Construction of the ORSC would generate emissions associated with construction equipment and worker vehicle exhaust, manure off-hauling, site preparation, rough grading, fine grading, utilities trenching, building construction, paving, architectural coating, and finishing and landscaping as well as offsite improvements and sewer construction within the Offsite Improvement Area. A conservative estimate of construction GHG emissions associated with the ORSC is provided in Table 5.8-4, Ontario Regional Sports Complex Construction GHG Emissions, in Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR. As shown, construction of the ORSC would result in 10,687 metric tons of carbon dioxideequivalent (MTCO2e) GHG emissions across the 2024 through 2027 construction period. The South Coast AQMD does not have a significance threshold for construction emissions. Therefore, the GHG emissions generated from full operation of the ORSC are provided in Table 5.8-5, Ontario Regional Sports Complex Operational GHG Emissions, in Section 5.8 of the Draft EIR, and are used to determine whether the ORSC exceeds the net zero emissions thresholds.
2302
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 105 -
ORSC Buildout
Implementation of the ORSC would generate GHG emissions from vehicle trips, water demand, wastewater and solid waste generation, area sources (e.g., consumer cleaning products), and energy usage (i.e., natural gas and electricity). The ORSC would be required to comply with the applicable Building Energy Efficiency Standards and California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen).

The ORSC would also include project design features that address water conservation and waterefficient landscaping that would comply with CALGreen. These features include low-flow fixtures, native landscaping, rainwater catchment system, and dedicated separate landscaping water meters.

These features would all help to reduce GHG emissions.

As shown in Table 5.8-5 in Section 5.8 of the Draft EIR, the ORSC is estimated to generate approximately 21,777 MTCO2e annually, which is considered a net increase from existing conditions.

Consequently, GHG emissions impacts associated with the ORSC are considered potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures were included in the Draft EIR and the Final EIR and are applicable to the Proposed Project. Additionally, Mitigation Measures TRAF-1 and TRAF-2 (See Section D.5, below) and AQ-2 (See Section D.2, Air Quality, above) would also reduce GHG emissions.

GHG-1 The City of Ontario shall require proposed buildings within the ORSC site to be all electric, with electricity to be the only permanent source of energy for all nonemergency building energy needs, including but not limited to water heating; mechanical equipment; and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) (i.e., space-heating and space cooling). All major appliances (e.g., dishwashers, refrigerators, and water heaters) provided/installed shall be electric-powered EnergyStar certified or an equivalent energy efficiency where applicable. The only exception to this measure shall be limited to commercial cooking uses. Prior to issuance of building permits for development projects, applicants shall provide plans that show the aforementioned requirements to the City of Ontario Planning Department. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the City of Ontario Building Department shall verify installation of the electric-powered EnergyStar or equivalent appliances.

GHG-2 The City of Ontario shall require proposed buildings and parking areas within the ORSC site to include onsite renewable energy generation systems. Proposed buildings shall include photovoltaic (PV) and battery energy storage systems compliant with the Prescriptive Requirements of the California Building Standards Code, Part 6, California Energy Code. Proposed buildings may substitute alternative renewable energy generation technology (e.g., wind) for PV systems; however, that alternative generation technology system shall be sized to provide annual electricity equal to what would be provided by a PV system for that building compliant with the Prescriptive Requirements of the California Building Standards Code, Part 6, California Energy Code. Proposed parking areas shall include a PV system or alternative renewable 2303
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 106 -
energy generation system (e.g., wind) to help offset electricity demand generated by electric vehicle charging. Prior to issuance of building permits for development projects, applicants shall provide plans that show the aforementioned requirements to the City of Ontario Planning Department. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the City of Ontario Building Department shall verify installation of the PV and battery energy storage systems or alternative renewable energy generation systems.

Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 requires implementation of transportation demand management (TDM) measures, such as pedestrian and active transportation improvements, to reduce VMT. Nonetheless, the vehicle fuel source, vehicle fuel efficiency, and travel mode for visitors are largely outside of the control of the ORSC, so no additional mitigation would be feasible to reduce vehicle-related emissions.

The second-largest emissions source, energy consumption, results from electricity use and the consumption of natural gas onsite. Therefore, Mitigation Measure GHG-1 is required to reduce all onsite natural gas consumption by requiring all uses that do not include commercial cooking appliances to be designed as all-electric, precluding the installation and use of gas-fueled appliances that are not necessary for commercial cooking activities. In addition, Mitigation Measure GHG-2 would be required to ensure that electricity is generated onsite from renewable sources to the extent feasible.

However, even with the implementation of these mitigation measures, the ORSC emissions would still exceed the no net increase GHG emissions threshold, and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR pg. 5.8-32)
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Proposed Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures discussed above. The City of Ontario hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted.

As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed project outweigh its significant effects on the environment.
2304
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 107 -
Impact 5.8-2: The ORSC could conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Consistency with GHG Reduction Plans
Consistency with CARB Scoping Plan
The adopted 2022 California Air Resources Board (CARB) Scoping Plan is applicable to state agencies but is not directly applicable to cities/counties and individual projects (i.e., the Scoping Plan does not require the City to adopt policies, programs, or regulations to reduce GHG emissions). The ORSC would adhere to the programs and regulations identified by the Scoping Plan and implemented by State, regional, and local agencies to achieve the statewide GHG reduction goals of SB 32 and AB 1279. For example, new buildings within the ORSC site would meet the current CALGreen and Building Energy Efficiency standards at the time they are constructed.

Though statewide efforts could provide downstream reductions at the local level, the 2022 Scoping Plan identifies three priority areas for local actions that would support and amplify the overall state efforts to reduce GHG emissions and achieve the long-term climate goals: 1) transportation electrification, 2) VMT reduction, and 3) building decarbonization. Table 5.8-6, Ontario Regional Sports Complex Consistency to the Scoping Plan Priority Areas, in Section 5.8 of the Draft EIR evaluates consistency of the ORSC with these three Scoping Plan local action priorities and their attributes.

As discussed in the table, the ORSC would generally be inconsistent with the priority areas pertaining to transportation electrification and building decarbonization. Thus, although the ORSC site would adhere either directly or indirectly to statewide strategies, because it would not meet two of the three local action priority areas, it is considered inconsistent with the Scoping Plan.

SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy The Southern California Association of Government (SCAG) adopted the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), Connect SoCal, in September 2020. Connect SoCal does not require that local general plans, proposed projects, or zoning be consistent with the SCS, but provides incentives for consistency to governments and developers. It is anticipated that long-term and short-term (i.e., construction) jobs would be absorbed by the local and regional labor force, which would contribute to minimizing passenger vehicle VMT. However, as discussed in Section 5.17, Transportation, the ORSC would continue to result in a substantial increase in total VMT in the city and would exceed the City’s VMT threshold. Therefore, while the ORSC would be generally consistent with Connect SoCal, it would remain inconsistent with the underlying VMTreducing goals of SCAG’s Connect SoCal; and therefore, and impacts related to consistency with SCAG’s Connect SoCal would be potentially significant.

Ontario CCAP
To ensure new development projects are consistent with the City’s Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP), the CCAP includes implementation of a development review process to reduce GHG emissions associated with new development. The development review process sets procedures for evaluating GHG impacts and determining significance for CEQA purposes by using the “Greenhouse 2305
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 108 -
Reduction Measures Screening Thresholds Tables” to mitigate project GHG emissions that exceed the threshold level. The Screening Tables provide a menu of options that both ensure implementation of the reduction strategies and flexibility for projects to reduce GHG emissions to levels that align with the City’s reduction goals. The ORSC is evaluated for consistency with the CCAP’s applicable strategies in Table 5.8-7, Ontario Regional Sports Complex Consistency with CCAP Strategies, in Section 5.8 of the Draft EIR. As demonstrated in this table, the ORSC would be generally consistent with the GHG emissions reduction strategies in the City’s CCAP. Nonetheless, the ORSC has the potential to conflict with the GHG reduction measures in the City’s CCAP if development projects within the ORSC site do not adhere to the measures in the CCAP. As such, this impact would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures were included in the Draft EIR and the Final EIR and are applicable to the Proposed Project. Additionally, Mitigation Measures GHG-1, GHG-4, AQ-2, TRAF-1, and TRAF-2 would also help the ORSC to achieve consistency with the applicable plans.

GHG-3 The City of Ontario shall require that the parking lots and parking structure install electric vehicle spaces in compliance with the voluntary Tier 2 standards under Section A5.106.5.3.2 of the Non-residential Voluntary Measures in the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code. All site plans submitted to the City of Ontario Planning Department shall illustrate compliance with Section A5.106.5.3.2.

1. For residential development completed between 2020 and 2030, the project shall not produce GHG emissions greater than 5.85 MTCO2e/dwelling unit.

2. For residential development completed after 2030, the project shall not produce GHG emissions greater than 1.53 MTCO2e/dwelling unit.

3. For nonresidential developments of all types completed between 2020 and 2030, the project shall not produce GHG emissions greater than 8.84 MTCO2e/2,500 square feet of conditioned space.

4. For nonresidential developments of all types completed after 2030, the project shall not produce GHG emissions greater than 3.61 MTCO2e/2,500 square feet of conditioned space.

For projects that include both residential and nonresidential space, the residential and nonresidential components must be assessed separately against their respective applicable thresholds.

GHG-4 The City of Ontario shall require applicants to design and construct buildings in Planning Areas 2, 3, and 4 to achieve a 100-point score with the 2022 Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP), Table 6, “Screening Table for Implementing GHG Performance Standards for Commercial, Office, Medical, Hotel, Industrial, and Retail Development, 2030.” Alternatively, the analysis of development projects can be done through emissions calculations to demonstrate equivalent reductions using CalEEMod or a similar tool. Projects that do not use the CCAP Screening Tables to 2306
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 109 -
demonstrate consistency with the 2022 CCAP must demonstrate that they will generate annual GHG emissions that do not exceed the following emission screening thresholds from the CCAP:

1. For residential development completed between 2020 and 2030, the project shall not produce GHG emissions greater than 5.85 MTCO2e/dwelling unit.

2. For residential development completed after 2030, the project shall not produce GHG emissions greater than 1.53 MTCO2e/dwelling unit.

3. For nonresidential developments of all types completed between 2020 and 2030, the project shall not produce GHG emissions greater than 8.84 MTCO2e/2,500 square feet of conditioned space.

4. For nonresidential developments of all types completed after 2030, the project shall not produce GHG emissions greater than 3.61 MTCO2e/2,500 square feet of conditioned space.

For projects that include both residential and nonresidential space, the residential and nonresidential components must be assessed separately against their respective applicable thresholds.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-4 would ensure that development projects within the ORSC are consistent with the City’s CCAP. Additionally, implementation of the mitigation measures GHG-1 through GHG-4 as well as TRAF-1 would reduce impacts to the extent feasible. However, as discussed in Section 5.17, Transportation, of the Draft EIR, the ORSC would continue to result in a substantial increase in total VMT in the City and would exceed the City’s VMT threshold and potentially be inconsistent with the VMT reduction goals in the Scoping Plan and SCS. Therefore, Impact 5.8-2 would be significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR pg. 5.8-34) Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Proposed Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures discussed above. The City of Ontario hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted.

As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed project outweigh its significant effects on the environment.
2307
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 110 -

4. Noise
Impact 5.13-2: Implementation of the ORSC would result in long-term operation-related noise that could exceed local standards and result in noise increases in the vicinity of the ORSC site.

Operational Noise Impacts
The ORSC operational phase activities could result in a substantial increase in long-term noise levels that has the potential to exceed the City of Ontario’s noise standards. Noise sources evaluated include transportation noise, stadium noise (PA 1), athletic field noise (PA 5 and PA 7), and miscellaneous noise sources, as described below.

Stadium Noise
The Leq from stadium activities, namely Minor League Baseball games and concerts, was calculated at each noise-sensitive receptor. The predicted 1-hour Leq was compared to the City’s exterior noise limits in the noise code. Since most activities are active for a full hour, the 1-hour Leq was used as a surrogate to assess compliance with the 15-minute Leq noise limits in the noise code. The noise analysis for the stadium analyzed two scenarios for events expected to occur at the stadium, minor league baseball games and concerts. The assumptions for these scenarios are described in Section 5.13 of the Draft EIR on pages 5.13-34 and 5.13-38.

Noise impacts for minor league baseball game events are considered less than significant because both the average hourly noise levels and maximum hourly noise levels at each receptor group location were less than the City’s allowable daytime exterior noise levels for the land uses of the receptors. Similarly, the average and maximum hourly noise levels from concerts were also found to be below the City’s thresholds for allowable exterior noise.

Athletic Field Noise
The CNEL hourly Leq from onsite outdoor amenities was calculated at each noise-sensitive receptor.

Although sporting events on public facilities approved by the City are exempt from the City’s noise code, the predicted peak 1-hour Leq was compared to exterior noise level limits in the City’s noise code. Since most activities are active for a full hour, the 1-hour Leq was used as a surrogate to assess compliance with the City’s 15-minute Leq noise level limits. Intermittent noise increases may result during batting practice, players cheering for teammates, or referees blowing whistles. However, none of these noise increases would be significant or permanent. Three main scenarios were evaluated to address noise from onsite athletic fields and other outdoor amenities: practice, games, and tournaments. The assumptions and modeled noise levels at receptor locations for each scenario are described in Section 5.13 of the Draft EIR on pages 5.13-43 through 5.13-50.

The noise levels under each of these scenarios would not exceed the City’s allowable exterior noise level standards, overall resulting in a noise environment that is considered compatible with the existing adjacent community.
2308
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 111 -
Miscellaneous Noise Sources
The ORSC site would include several onsite buildings and amenities that may produce miscellaneous sources of noise, including the Chicken N Pickle indoor/outdoor entertainment complex, a two-story hotel, retail shopping, and community recreation center. These structures will be mechanically heated and cooled via heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems/cooling towers and may include interior equipment vented to the exterior via louvers. Additional miscellaneous noise sources may include small loading docks/designated delivery areas to accept deliveries at the proposed hotel, stadium, and retail spaces. The hotel, stadium, recreation center, and Chicken N Pickle may each have emergency generators for use during main power failures. Routine testing is typically required for generators, which results in a temporary increase in noise. Onsite landscape maintenance equipment will also generate occasional noise. The Chicken N Pickle will include pickleball courts, outdoor seating and yard game areas, and outdoor amplified music. Additionally, the stadium will include an amplification system for music and announcements.
 HVAC Equipment. Noise levels from HVAC equipment can vary widely depending on the manufacturer and size of equipment required for a site’s heating and cooling needs. The minimum distance from any structure that would include rooftop mechanical equipment to any noisesensitive land use is approximately 260 feet (from the proposed indoor athletic facility along the southern boundary of the site to a residential structure along Chino Avenue). Noise from mechanical equipment has the potential to exceed the municipal code limits if equipment is located too close or is not shielded. Therefore, HVAC noise is considered a potentially significant impact prior to mitigation.
 Loading Docks. Activities at small loading docks/delivery areas for the hotel, stadium, Chicken N Pickle, and retail spaces may result in intermittent increases in noise levels from truck door slams and pure tone backup alarms on delivery vehicles, for example. As explained in Section 5.13 of the Draft EIR on pages 5.13-53 through 5.13-54, noise levels from these activities are not anticipated to exceed the City’s allowable noise standards due to the distance of receptors to these uses and the effect of onsite structures shielding this noise. Therefore, loading/unloading activities would not result in a significant impact.
 Emergency Generators. Manufacturer’s specifications typically require routine testing of emergency generators, which is generally not exempted by municipal noise ordinances. However, testing would be periodic, assuming a total of 50 hours per year, translating to one hour per week.

Depending on the size of emergency generators, maximum sound levels may range from 86 to 88 dBA at a distance of 23 feet for open generator sets (i.e., without weather or acoustical enclosures).

Weather-proof enclosures would reduce maximum noise levels to approximately 81 dBA at a distance of 23 feet. With sound-attenuating enclosures, maximum sound levels at a distance of 23 feet may range between 72 to 75 dBA, depending on the level of enclosure (i.e., most manufacturers provide various levels of enclosures depending on sound-attenuation needs). To ensure compliance with the City’s noise level limits during routine testing, all emergency generators would be equipped with sound-attenuating enclosures, testing would only occur during daytime hours (7:00 am to 10:00 pm) when noise limits are less stringent, and each emergency generator would be tested individually to preclude a cumulative noise level that exceeds the City’s municipal 2309
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 112 -
limits. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels above limits established in the City’s noise code is thereby not anticipated. Therefore, periodic testing of emergency generators would not result in a significant effect on the existing environment.  Maintenance Equipment. Maintenance of property can occur between 8:00 am and 6:00 pm unless the equipment and activities comply with the noise level limits specified in the code.

However, maintenance of public facilities is exempt from provisions of Section 5-29.08 of the City’s noise code as long as these activities are immediately necessary (i.e., repair and improvements necessary to maintain public service) or cannot be conducted during normal business hours.

Approximate noise levels associated with a gas lawn mower may be as high as 95 dBA at a distance of 3 feet. Residences along Riverside Drive are closest to areas that would require lawn maintenance, at an approximate distance of 100 feet, equating to approximately 65 dBA at the closest residences. It is assumed that landscape maintenance activities can be performed between 8:00 am and 6:00 pm whenever feasible, particularly in areas closest to noise-sensitive land uses where it would be more difficult to otherwise comply with the City’s noise level limits. Lawn maintenance is anticipated to be periodic, occurring two times per week, and lawn maintenance equipment would only result in temporary increases in noise levels. Therefore, periodic lawn maintenance would not result in a significant effect on the existing environment.  Chicken N Pickle. The Chicken N Pickle would include both indoor and outdoor entertainment areas with amplified music, a sports bar, pickleball courts, and yard games as well as outdoor dining and lounging areas. Based on hours of operation from other existing Chicken N Pickle locations, the entertainment complex opens as early as 8:00 am on weekdays and weekends and closes at 11:00 pm on Monday through Thursday, midnight on Fridays and Saturdays, and 10:00 pm or 11:00 pm on Sundays. Amplified music would be subject to provisions of the City’s noise code, including audibility and time of day restrictions. The analysis of concert events at the proposed stadium was used as a conservative proxy for the impact of amplified music from the Chicken N Pickle. Noise levels from concerts held at the proposed stadium would be less than 40 dBA within all surrounding residential neighborhoods. Therefore, amplified music from the outdoor bar areas associated with the Chicken N Pickle is likely to be less than 40 dBA within adjacent residential neighborhoods due to its location onsite and distance to adjacent neighborhoods (closest residence along South Plymouth Avenue is approximately 875 feet from the Chicken N Pickle site, and closest residence to the stadium is approximately 970 feet). Amplified music would rarely be audible within the adjacent communities, as it is anticipated to be below background (L90) noise levels. Reference sound levels for pickleball are identified in a noise study conducted in Arizona.

Based on that study, pickleball noise from 32 players at a distance of 10 feet from the edge of the court was measured at 66.9 dBA. Assuming a minimum distance of 875 feet from the Chicken N Pickle to the nearest residence and direct line of sight, pickleball noise levels would be reduced to approximately 28 dBA. Therefore, pickleball noise is not anticipated to result in a significant effect on the existing environment.

Transportation Noise
Table 5.13-18, Summary of the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Traffic-Noise Levels by Receptor Group, in Section 5.13, Noise, in the Draft EIR, provides the traffic noise levels and changes traffic noise for the 2310
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 113 -
with– and without–ORSC and scenarios compared to existing conditions. A total of two noisesensitive receptors, located in Receptor Group 1 and Receptor Group 3, are predicted to experience traffic-noise levels that exceed the allowable increases in ambient noise levels under the future withORSC conditions.8 Increases in traffic-noise levels are predicted to range between 0 and 5.6 decibels, with the greatest increase occurring in Receptor Group 1. Therefore, traffic noise impacts are considered potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
Miscellaneous Noise
The following mitigation measures were included in the Draft EIR and the Final EIR and are applicable to the Proposed Project. The measures as provided includes any revisions incorporated in the Final EIR.

N-2 HVAC Equipment, Planning Area 6 Indoor Athletic Facility Building. An acoustics study shall be provided to the City of Ontario prior to building permit issuance for the indoor athletic facility in Planning Area 6 that documents compliance with the overnight noise levels in the City’s municipal code (45 dBA at single-family residences from 10:00 pm to 7:00 am). HVAC equipment for the indoor athletic facility shall be designed and/or placed to yield a sound level less than 58 dBA at 50 feet. Noise associated with operation of heating and cooling equipment shall be minimized by the design and strategic placement of equipment.

N-3 HVAC Equipment, Planning Areas 2, 3, 4, and 7 Buildings. An acoustics study shall be provided to the City of Ontario prior to building permit issuance for new structures with HVAC systems in Planning Areas 2, 3, 4, and 7 that documents compliance with the overnight noise levels in the City’s municipal code (45 dBA at single-family residences from 10:00 pm to 7:00 am). HVAC equipment for the indoor athletic facility shall be designed and/or placed to yield a sound level less than 65 dBA at 50 feet to ensure compliance would result in a noise level of approximately 44 dBA at residential land uses to the east along Plymouth Avenue. Noise associated with operation of heating and cooling equipment shall be minimized by the design and strategic placement of equipment.

Mitigation Measures N-2 and N-3 would reduce commercial noise to less than significant noise levels.

Traffic Noise
A number of measures were considered for mitigating or avoiding the traffic noise impacts, as discussed below:
 Special Roadway Paving. Notable reductions in tire noise have been achieved via the implementation of special paving materials, such as rubberized asphalt or open-grade asphalt concrete overlays. For example, Sacramento County conducted a study of pavement noise along 8 See Table 5.13-6, Existing Traffic Noise Levels by Receptor Group, in Section 5.13 of the Draft EIR for a description of the locations of each receptor group.
2311
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 114 -
the Alta Arden Expressway and found improvements in an average of 4 dB compared to conventional asphalt overlay. While special roadway paving has the potential to reduce traffic noise levels to below the impact threshold for the two impacted receptors, implementation of this mitigation strategy is costly. Therefore, considering the approximate costs versus benefits, this mitigation measure is inadequate for reducing the noise impacts to less than significant levels.  Sound Barrier Walls. Some segments may potentially benefit from the installation of sound barrier walls adjacent to the roadways that are predicted to have excessive sound levels due to the project. However, receptors along East Riverside Drive have direct access (via driveways) to the associated roadway that must be maintained. Therefore, barrier walls would prevent access to their individual properties and would be infeasible. Further, impacts to areas located on private property are outside of the control of future Specific Plan developers, so there would be limited admittance (onto these properties) to construct such walls (while neglecting the high cost of such wall systems). For the reasons listed, this approach would not be able to reduce noise impacts at all receptor areas to levels that are below significance. Therefore, noise increases along these segments would be significant and unavoidable.
 Sound Insulation of Offsite Residences. The highest roadway noise levels are predicted to reach up to 76 dBA CNEL. Exterior-to-interior noise reductions depend on the materials utilized, the design of the homes, and their conditions. To determine what upgrades would be needed, a noise study would be required for each house to measure exterior-to-interior noise reduction.

Sound insulation may require upgraded windows, upgraded doors, and a means of mechanical ventilation to allow for a “windows closed” condition. There are no funding mechanisms and procedures that would guarantee that the implementation of sound insulation features at each affected home would offset the increase in traffic noise to interior areas and ensure that the 45 dBA CNEL would be achieved. Therefore, this method was dropped from further consideration.

As identified above, traffic generated by the ORSC would result in a substantial increase in noise levels in the vicinity of noise-sensitive land uses. There are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce traffic generated by vehicles associated with the ORSC. (Draft EIR pg. 5.13-63) Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Proposed Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures discussed above. The City of Ontario hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted.

As described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has determined that this impact is acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, 2312
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 115 -
including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed project outweigh its significant effects on the environment.

5. Transportation
Impact 5.17-2: The ORSC would generate a substantial increase in VMT.

VMT Impacts
Project-Level VMT Impacts
VMT forecasts for the ORSC and citywide average are presented in Table 5.17-3, Ontario Regional Sports Complex Daily VMT per Service Population, in Section 5.17, Transportation, of the Draft EIR As shown in the table, the ORSC is forecast to generate VMT/service population (SP) higher than the citywide average for baseline and cumulative conditions. It should be noted that the citywide average was estimated in accordance with the City’s VMT analysis requirements using the most current available version of San Bernardino County Transportation Agency’s travel demand model (SBTAM) consistent with the City’s TOP 2050 buildout, and the ORSC VMT was estimated off-model using more conservative, project-specific information. Furthermore, the ORSC does not include any residential population and a relatively low employment population compared to the number of VMT generated (i.e., high level of visitors), and therefore results in a very high VMT/SP estimate. Nonetheless, because VMT/SP exceeds the city average, the ORSC would result in a potentially significant impact.

VMT per Visitor
To provide an additional perspective on the ORSC’s VMT generation, an alternate metric, VMT per visitor, was developed for each major recreation and entertainment land use that had visitor estimates available. While this metric should not be used to determine significant impacts under the City’s SB 743 methodology, it provides a more meaningful analysis on the VMT efficiency of the project by providing the expected VMT per user of the ORSC site. Table 5.17-4, Ontario Regional Sports Complex VMT per Visitor, in Section 5.17 of the Draft EIR shows the VMT/Visitor for weekdays, weekends, and all days. As shown in the table, though average VMT is higher on weekends, the higher number of visitors and higher average vehicle occupancy on weekends results in a lower VMT per visitor.

Cumulative VMT Impacts
The ORSC’s effect on VMT in the city (boundary method) is shown in Table 5.17-5, Ontario Regional Sports Complex Daily VMT Within the City Limits, in Section 5.17 of the Draft EIR. This table shows that the ORSC would increase total VMT within the city between 70,128 to 92,086 miles per day and would exceed the “no net increase” thresholds. Therefore, the ORSC would result in a potentially significant cumulative increase in VMT within the city.

As identified previously, because the ORSC includes unique uses that are not in the model (recreation, entertainment, hospitality), SBTAM could not be used to analyze the project’s effect on VMT within the city limits. Therefore, the approach to evaluating cumulative VMT impacts is very conservative because it assumes all VMT associated with the ORSC is new VMT. Nonetheless, cumulative impacts would be potentially significant.
2313
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 116 -
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures were included in the Draft EIR and the Final EIR and are applicable to the Proposed Project.

TRAF-1a Commercial/Hospitality TDM Measures. Applicants for commercial and hotel development in Planning Areas 2, 3, and 4 shall prepare Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures analyzed under a VMT-reduction methodology consistent with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) Final Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (2021) and approved by the City of Ontario. Measures shall include but are not limited to:
 Implement a voluntary commute trip reduction program for employees.  Implement an employee parking cash-out program for employees.  Collaborate with the City to support transit service expansion.  Comply with requirements detailed in the Parking Management Plan, including providing parking validation for retail and hospitality visitors.

TRAF-1b Stadium TDM Measures. The Minor League Baseball stadium operator shall prepare Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures analyzed under a VMT-reduction methodology consistent with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) Final Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (2021) and approved by the City of Ontario. The Baseball Stadium Operator shall implement the following measures at the stadium as part of the TDM plan:
 Implement a voluntary commute trip reduction program for stadium employees.  Implement an employee parking cash-out program for stadium employees.  Implement paid public parking for visitors during stadium events. Cost structure, enforcement, and implementation will be detailed in the Parking Management Plan.
 Incentivize carpooling by providing a discounted parking rate for vehicles with five or more occupants.
 Collaborate with the City to support transit service expansion and support efforts to lower transit fares for stadium attendees.

TRAF-1c City TDM Measures. The City shall prepare Transportation Demand Management (TDM) analyzed under a VMT-reduction methodology consistent with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) Final Handbook for Analyzing 2314
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 117 -
Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (2021). The City shall implement the following measures for city-owned land uses within the Ontario Regional Sports Complex as part of the TDM plan:
 Implement a voluntary commute trip reduction program for recreation employees.
 Implement paid public parking for visitors during soccer, baseball, softball, basketball, and volleyball games and tournaments. Cost structure, enforcement, and implementation will be detailed in the Parking Management Plan.  Incentivize carpooling by providing a discounted parking rate for vehicles with five or more occupants.
 Incentivize vanpooling to and from sports games and tournaments by implementing a vanpooling program for recreational sports attendees that provides affordable van rentals for visiting sports teams.  Collaborate with Omnitrans to increase transit service in the project area and reduce transit fares for stadium attendees.

TRAF-2 The City of Ontario shall prepare and implement a Parking and Event Traffic Management Plan (TMP) for events at the stadium and City athletic facilities prior to opening day of the stadium. The TMP shall outline operational strategies to optimize access to and from the stadium and sports fields within the constraints inherent to a large public event.

The TMP shall have the following high-level objectives.  Minimize single-occupancy auto mode share and reduce vehicle trips and parking demand generated by the project to the maximum extent practicable.  Facilitate and promote safe use of nonautomobile transportation by people attending and supporting games and other events as well as other uses onsite.  Facilitate a high-quality walking experience to the stadium from adjacent hospitality land uses in PAs 2, 3, and 4 by identifying key walking routes and major street crossing locations, so that wayfinding, infrastructure improvements, and/or personnel (e.g., traffic control officers, parking control officers, or other personnel acceptable to the City) can be placed at critical points to manage the interaction of pedestrians and vehicles during medium and large events.  Maximize safety for all transportation users at key locations in and around the ORSC site during event ingress and egress.
 Minimize conflicts between ridesharing (i.e., Lyft, Uber), taxi operations, and walking and biking near the ORSC site.
2315
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 118 -
 Facilitate the safe and efficient flow of vehicle traffic into and out of the site and the adjacent neighborhoods during event conditions.
 Minimize event-related vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian impacts to surrounding residential and commercial areas.
 Minimize impacts to through traffic on adjacent arterial streets by separating project traffic to the extent possible.
 The TMP shall include the following:
 The TMP shall illustrate the recommended event management strategies, including traffic control plans pre- and post-event.
 The TMP shall require parking control officers or other personnel acceptable to the City to manage pedestrian flows to and from the facilities and directing pedestrians to the primary corridors serving the ORSC site.  Event-day measures shall typically begin two hours prior to the event’s start time until the start of the event and then again prior to the event’s conclusion until typically one to two hours after the end of the event, depending on how long it takes for all attendees to exit the stadium and sport fields.  The TMP is intended to be a living document and would be amended periodically by the City and stadium.
 Permanent and/or temporary signs shall be installed on Vineyard Avenue, Riverside Drive, and Chino Avenue to direct event traffic.  The TMP shall address daily parking management in the ORSC site, with additional details for parking management on event days with multiple events.  The City shall establish an operational oversight group made up of the transportation agencies and third party operator(s) that could be impacted by events as well as representation from local businesses and neighborhoods.  The TMP shall identify:
• Queuing lanes for vehicles waiting to enter the parking garages. • Dedicated rideshare/passenger pick-up and drop-off locations. • Fixed overhead signage and temporary signage/traffic control devices. • A dedicated emergency lane.
• Internal roadways and access driveways that may be closed to facilitate pedestrian movement and consolidate access.
2316
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 119 -
• Dedicated pedestrian routes that do not impede vehicle traffic. • Strategies to implement depending on the scale of the event (e.g., differences between weekday game operation and weekend tournament).

Mitigation Measures TRAF-1 and TRAF-2 would reduce potential impacts for future development projects to the extent feasible. Future development in the ORSC would need to consider transportation demand management (TDM) measures consistent with those identified in the Mobility Element. TDM techniques include incentives to use transit; incentives to form carpools rather than drive alone; and making home, work, and shopping closer together to shorten travel distances. In addition, Mitigation Measure TRAF-2 would reduce VMT during events. Implementation of TDM measures could reduce VMT by up to 6,101,308 miles, or by up to approximately 10 percent (see Appendix L1 of the Draft EIR). However, Table 5.17-7, Ontario Regional Sports Complex Daily VMT Per Service Population and Per Visitor With Mitigation, in Section 5.17 of the Draft EIR identifies that VMT impacts under the ORSC would remain significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR pg. 5.17-27) Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Proposed Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. These changes are identified in the form of the mitigation measures discussed above. The City of Ontario hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures is feasible, and the measures are therefore adopted.

E. PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE OFFSITE GENERAL

PLAN AMENDMENTS AND REZONE
The Proposed Project would require compliance with SB 330 and SB 166 to ensure no net loss of residential units in the City. As described in Section II.E, Project Description, above the ORSC would require concurrent redesignation and rezoning of land currently designated as Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) to offset the loss of land designated for residential uses on the ORSC site in TOP (referred to as the GPA and Rezone). The parcels proposed for redesignation and rezoning are located south of ORSC site on Vineyard Avenue. The following describes the impacts associated with GPA and Rezone.
2317
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 120 -

1. Aesthetics
The proposed increase in density associated with the GPA and Rezone would allow more housing units to be developed on these parcels (2.1-5 dwelling units per acre under LDR to 11.1 to 25 dwelling units per acre under MDR), which would result in greater building heights and denser building forms than currently allowed.
 Scenic Vistas and Highways. Future development of these parcels in accordance with TOP could partially obstruct views of the San Gabriel Mountains and Santa Ana Mountains when viewed from north or south of Schaefer Avenue near its intersection with Vineyard Avenue and south of Chino Avenue near its intersection with Vineyard Avenue. However, there are no protected public views within the vicinity of these parcels and the City’s scenic corridors, Euclid Avenue and Mission Boulevard, are over two miles west and north of the GPA and Rezone area, respectively. Additionally, development under the existing designation would also have similar impacts on the viewsheds since development of any structures on these parcels could partially obscure views of the mountains from nearby roadways. All development would be subject to TOP 2050 Policy CD-1.5 to ensure that major north-south streets are designed to feature views of the San Gabriel Mountains. Impacts to scenic vistas from rezoning would not be increased when compared to the existing development designation. Like the ORSC site, there are no designated or eligible scenic highways that could be affected by development at the GPA and Rezone area since the nearest eligible route (SR-142) is over seven miles west of the Area. (Draft EIR pg. 5.1-35)  Scenic Quality. Future development of these parcels would comply with the provisions of the Ontario Development Code, Chapter 6, and the policies in the Community Design Element of TOP 2050. Compliance with these standards and policies would ensure that development is consistent with the City’s regulations governing scenic quality. (Draft EIR pg. 5.1-35)  Light/Glare. While this denser scale of development under the proposed rezoning would potentially create more new sources of glare and light when compared to development under the existing designation, the development would comply with the California Building Standards Code regulations concerning light and glare. Additionally, residential development in the City is subject to specific light and glare standards contained in Section 6.01.010, Residential Zoning Districts, of the Ontario Development Code, which require that exterior light fixtures prevent glare and light spillover on to adjacent properties, buildings, and public and private streets and roadways.

Compliance with these standards would ensure that lighting and glare impacts are less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 5.1-35)

2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The GPA and Rezone area includes 45.8 acres of Prime Farmland as designated by the Department of Conservation.
 Loss of Important Farmland. Development of the parcels pursuant to their existing LDR designation would likely result in significant and unavoidable impacts since development on these parcels would require the conversion of Important Farmland to an urban use. Regardless of the type of urban development proposed, the farmland at these parcels would need to be converted, 2318
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 121 -
therefore the proposed GPA and Rezone of the parcels from a lower density residential to a higher density residential use would have no additional impact on these resources. The proposed GPA and Rezone would have no additional impact on important farmland compared to that identified in the 2022 EIR because this land has already been designated urban land uses in TOP, but would result in significant and unavoidable impacts if the parcels are developed. (Draft EIR pg. 5.2-9)  Agricultural Zoning/Williamson Act Contract. Like the ORSC site, the GPA and Rezone area does not encompass land under active Williamson Act contracts. Additionally, the proposed GPA and Rezone would not change the Agricultural Overlay zoning of these parcels. A 19.25-acre portion of the parcels on Vineyard Avenue proposed for the land use change would in addition to the AG Overlay, have an Affordable Housing Overlay to meet the requirements of SB 166. The GPA and Rezone would have no impacts on Williamson Act contracts or agricultural zoning. (Draft EIR pg. 5.2-9)
 Loss of Forestland/Conflicts with Timberland Zoning. The GPA and Rezone area does not contain forestland or timberland zoning and therefore would result in no impacts. (Draft EIR pg.

5.2-9)

3. Air Quality
The GPA and Rezone is not anticipated to result in any additional air quality impacts beyond those identified in the Certified EIR for TOP 2050.
 Consistency with AQMP. As documented in Section 5.17, Transportation, the transportation model was adjusted to reflect the GPA and Rezone. However, the vehicle miles traveled outside the ORSC site does not differ between the future baseline and future with-project conditions. As such, the redesignation and rezoning of these parcels would not result in a significant increase in air quality emissions because these parcels are already designated and zoned as residential use in TOP and the increase in residential density is solely to offset the displacement of the residential land use designation on the 199-acre ORSC site. The offsite GPA and Rezone would be considered consistent with the underlying growth assumptions of the South Coast AQMD’s AQMP. This impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 5.3-45)  Regional Emissions. The offsite GPA and Rezone would allow additional residential development beyond what currently exists along Vineyard Avenue; however, site-specific information related to the construction of the new homes which may be allowed are unknown.

Nonetheless, individual projects facilitated by the GPA and Rezone would be required to go through their own environmental review, and incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 into individual projects would reduce construction-related emissions. In general, increasing residential density is expected to result in a more efficient, compact land use with less energy use per unit and fewer vehicle trips per unit than low density residential uses, which is reflected in Table 5.6-9, Residential Energy Use and Vehicle Trip Generation Rates, in Section 5.6, Energy, of the Draf EIR.

Therefore, the offsite GPA and Rezone would not result in an exceedance of South Coast AQMD’s significance thresholds or cumulatively contribute to a nonattainment designation of the SoCAB. (Draft EIR pg. 5.3-45)
2319
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 122 -
 Sensitive Receptors. The GPA and Rezone along vineyard corridor would increase residential densities along the Vineyard Avenue corridor but would not result in greater impacts than identified in the Certified EIR for TOP 2050. Individual projects facilitated by the GPA and Rezone would be required to go through their own environmental review, and incorporation of TOP 2050 SEIR Mitigation Measure AQ-1 into individual projects would reduce constructionrelated emissions that contribute to health risks at nearby receptors, such as diesel exhaust.

Therefore, the offsite GPA and Rezone would not result in significant impacts associated with exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. (Draft EIR pg. 5.3-46)  Odors. The GPA and Rezone along vineyard corridor would increase residential densities along the Vineyard Avenue corridor but would not result in greater impacts than identified in the Certified EIR for TOP 2050. Additionally, all components of the Proposed Project would be required to comply with South Coast AQMD Rule 402. Therefore, the GPA and Rezone would not generate potentially significant odor impacts affecting a substantial number of people. (Draft EIR pg. 5.3-46)

4. Biological Resources
The existing setting of Offsite General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Rezone area is similar to the ORSC site and Offsite Improvement Area, containing primarily disturbed land used for agriculture.

Many sensitive animal species have the potential to occur in the city, as discussed in Section 5.4, Biological Resources, of the TOP 2050 Draft SEIR.
 Sensitive Species. In compliance with existing federal and State laws, development of the Offsite GPA and Rezone area would be required to determine whether there is potential habitat onsite for sensitive species. If potential habitat were found onsite, focused surveys for those sensitive species potentially present would be required. If sensitive species were found, the project proponent would be required to consult with the CDFW regarding impacts to sensitive species and ensuing mitigation. Like the ORSC site and Offsite Improvement Area of the Proposed Project, development on the Offsite GPA and Rezone area would be required to pay a mitigation fee that would be deposited into a trust fund to be used for the acquisition, restoration, rehabilitation, and maintenance of lands deemed to have long-term conservation value. Compliance with the regulations and procedures detailed above would ensure that impacts to sensitive species are less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 5.4-59)
 Riparian Habitat/Sensitive Natural Communities/Jurisdictional Waters. If the GPA and Rezone area contains surface water areas determined to be jurisdictional to the state and development of the Area would result in impacts to these waters, subsequent development would require CDFW approval pursuant to the Fish and Game Code (Section 1600 et. seq.) in the form of Streambed Alteration Agreements. Such impacts would require mitigation, also subject to CDFW approval. If the waters onsite are determined to be jurisdictional to the USACE, a Section 404 permit under the CWA may also be required. Development of the GPA and Rezone area would be required to comply with existing federal and State laws protecting sensitive habitat and riparian resources to ensure that impacts to these resources are mitigated to less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 5.4-60)
2320
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 123 -
 Wildlife Movement. As described in the SEIR for TOP 2050, no regional wildlife corridors have been identified within the City and like the ORSC site and Offsite Improvement Area, the GPA and Rezone area is largely disturbed and surrounded by urban development, limiting the potential for wildlife movement through the Area. However, like the other components of the Proposed Project, the GPA and Rezone area could contain habitat for nesting birds and roosting bats requiring mitigation to reduce impacts and avoid take of these species. However, any development of the GPA and Rezone would be subject to the existing state and federal laws including the MBTA that ensure the protection of sensitive species, reducing impacts to less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 5.4-60)
 HCP/NCCP and Local Ordinances/Policies. Like the ORSC and Offsite Improvement Area portions of the Proposed Project, the Offsite GPA and Rezone area is not within the boundaries of an HCP/NCCP. The Offsite GPA and Rezone area is within the Ontario Recovery Unit for the DSFLF and may require focused surveys for DSFLF and consultation with the USFWS regarding mitigation of impacts on any DSFLF found, pursuant to Section 7 of the Federal ESA. If the GPA and Rezone area contains heritage trees as defined by Section 6.05.020, Tree Preservation Policy and Protection Measures, of the Ontario Development Code, development on these sites would also be subject the provisions of this section of the Development Code. Compliance with these regulations would ensure that impacts are less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 5.4-60)

5. Cultural Resources
Impacts to cultural resources under the GPA and Rezone are expected to be similar to impacts that would occur under development of the GPA and Rezone area under its existing designation. Potential historic and archaeological resources are listed in Table 5.5-2, Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Within One Mile of the ORSC Site and Offsite Improvement Area, in Section 5.5, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR.  Historic Resources. Known or future historic sites or resources listed in the national, California, or local registers would be protected through local ordinances, TOP 2050 policies, and state and federal regulations restricting alteration, relocation, and demolition of historical resources.

Mitigation Measure 5-1 in the TOP 2050 SEIR requires evaluation of potential historic resources.

The CEQA Guidelines require a project that will have potentially adverse impacts on historical resources to conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Additionally, historic properties in the City are classified based on their determined degree of significance through three tiers, pursuant to Section 4.02.040(H) of the Ontario Development Code. Any type of development proposed for the GPA and Rezone area would require compliance with state and local regulations protecting historic resources. Development of the GPA and Rezone area under its existing designation would result in the same level of impacts to historic resources as development under the proposed designation. (Draft EIR pg. 5.5-29)  Archaeological Resources. Like the ORSC site and Offsite Improvement Area, the GPA and Rezone area contains agricultural uses and is largely undeveloped. Therefore, unknown archaeological resources could exist in the GPA and Rezone area. Development of the GPA and Rezone area would be required to comply with existing federal, state and local regulations that provide protections to archaeological resources. Mitigation Measure 5-2 of the TOP 2050 SEIR 2321
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 124 -
requires projects to provide studies that document the presence/absence of archaeological resources and provide a detailed mitigation plan to avoid and protect any potential resources based on the recommendations of a qualified cultural preservation expert. Development of the GPA and Rezone area under either its existing or proposed designation would likely require ground disturbance, thereby requiring a protection plan to be implemented to mitigate impacts to less than significant. Development of the GPA and Rezone area would require compliance with state and federal regulations in addition to Mitigation Measure 5-2 of the TOP SEIR. (Draft EIR pg. 5.5- 29)
 Human Remains. Development at the GPA and Rezone area has the potential to impact human remains. California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5; CEQA Section 15064.5; and PRC Section 5097.98 mandate that a specific process to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery, as described in Impact 5.5-3 (see Section III.B above). Compliance with state regulations would ensure that this impact is less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 5.5-29)

6. Energy Resources
The GPA and Rezone would not result in any additional impacts with respect to energy.  Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Energy. In general, increasing residential density is expected to result in a more efficient, compact land use with less energy use per unit and fewer vehicle trips per unit than low density residential uses, as shown in Table 5.6-9 in Section 5.6 of the Draft EIR. As a result, per capita energy consumption from the new residences envisioned by the GPA and Rezone is anticipated to decrease from existing conditions. Therefore, the GPA and Rezone would not result in a significant impact related to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. (Draft EIR pg. 5.6-17)  Plan Consistency. As discussed under Impact 5.8-2 (see Section III.B), the two plans or policies that were adopted for the purposes of encouraging energy efficiency and renewable energy which would apply to the Proposed Project include California’s RPS and the City’s CCAP. While the Proposed Project envisions more dense residential development along Vineyard Avenue, the Proposed Project does not include any site-specific proposal for residential development. As such, when individual residential development projects envisioned by the GPA and Rezone undergo their own environmental review, consistency with these plans will be considered, and mitigation will be applied as appropriate and necessary to reduce impacts to less than significant levels.

Nonetheless, future development would be required to meet the version of the CBSC that is in effect at the time it goes through plan check and approval with the City. Therefore, the GPA and Rezone would not result in a significant impact related to consistency with a plan adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions. (Draft EIR pg. 5.6-18)

7. Geology and Soils
These proposed changes under the GPA and Rezone would not result in additional impacts regarding geology and soils. These site-specific topics that would need to be addressed regardless of the type of residential development proposed. Future development at these sites would be required to comply 2322
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 125 -
with federal, State, and local regulations concerning reduction of geologic and soil hazards and the protection of soils and paleontological resources.
 Earthquakes. Projects considered for approval under TOP would be required to comply with seismic safety provisions of the CBC (Title 24, Part 2 of the California Code of Regulations). Such compliance would reduce hazards arising from ground shaking to less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 5.7-13)
 Geohazards. Projects considered for approval under TOP would be required to comply with the California Building Code (CBC). Compliance with the safety provisions of the CBC would ensure less-than-significant impacts from geology and soil hazards. (Draft EIR pg. 5.7-14)  Septic Tanks. Similar to the ORSC, future development would be required to connect to the City’s sewer and treated by IEUA. No impact would occur. (Draft EIR pg. 5.7-14)  Paleontological Resources. The potential to uncover undiscovered paleontological resources is high within the City. Mitigation Measure 5-2 in the 2022 EIR would be applicable for future development associated with the GPA and Rezone. Mitigation Measure 5-2 requires that in the event of an unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources during grading and excavation of the site, a qualified archaeologist would assess the find and develop a course of action to preserve the find. Therefore, Mitigation Measure 5-2 would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to a level that is less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 5.7-14)

8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions. As explained in Section 5.17, of the Draft EIR, VMT outside the 199-acre ORSC does not differ between the future baseline and future with-project conditions.

Because vehicular transportation, expressed in VMT generation, typically constitutes the largest GHG emission source for residential land uses, the redesignation and rezoning of these parcels would not result in a significant increase in GHG emissions. These parcels are already designated and zoned as residential use in TOP and the increase in residential density is solely to offset the displacement of the residential land use designation on the 199-acre ORSC site. Furthermore, in general, increasing residential density is expected to result in a more efficient, compact land use with less energy use per unit and fewer vehicle trips per unit than low density residential uses. Table

5.6-9, Residential Energy Use and Vehicle Trip Generation Rates, in Section 5.6, Energy, illustrates the energy consumption and vehicle trip generation rates anticipated for varying densities of residential development types. The energy consumption rates for the various residential land uses are drawn from CalEEMod default values, which reflect per-unit consumption rates from the CEC’s 2019 Residential Appliance Saturation Survey, and the trip generation rates are drawn from the latest Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th edition). As shown in Table 5.6-9, the GPA and Rezone is expected to result in generally more efficient perunit energy consumption and vehicle trip generation. As a result, per capita GHG emissions from the new residences envisioned by the Offsite Amendments and Zone Changes is anticipated to decrease from existing conditions. Therefore, the GPA and Rezone would not result in a significant impact related to GHG emissions. (Draft EIR pg. 5.8-30) 2323
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 126 -
 Plan Consistency. As discussed under Impact 5.8-2, the three plans that were adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions which would apply to the GPA and Rezone area include CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan, SCAG’s Connect SoCal, and the City’s CCAP. While the Proposed Project envisions more dense residential development along Vineyard Avenue, the GPA and Rezone component does not include any site-specific proposal for residential development. As such, when individual residential development projects envisioned by the TOP Amendments and Zone Changes undergo their own environmental review, consistency with these plans will be considered, and mitigation will be applied as appropriate and necessary to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, the GPA and Rezone would not result in a significant impact related to consistency with plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. (Draft EIR pg. 5.8-30)

9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The proposed land use changes of these parcels would not result in additional impacts with respect to hazardous conditions. The proposed change would allow the same type of use of the parcels but with a greater allowed density. Any impacts concerning hazardous conditions at these sites would be present and require treatment/remediation regardless of the scale of residential development allowed.  Hazardous Materials. Development of the GPA and Rezone area would be required to comply with the applicable Federal, State, and local regulations that govern the use, storage, handling, generation, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Due to the existing agricultural uses at these parcels, Phase I ESAs could be required to assess the potential for hazardous conditions before a project is proposed. Impacts with respect to hazardous materials handling or the potential for release of hazardous materials into the environment for development under the proposed land use change would be similar to development under the existing designation since both designations would only allow residential uses. There would be no additional impacts with regard to hazardous materials from the GPA and Rezone. (Draft EIR pg. 5.9-39)  Hazardous Materials Sites. The GPA and Rezone area does not contain a hazardous materials site as designated by DTSC in the EnviroStor database or SWRCB’s GeoTracker database (DTSC 2024; SWRCB 2024). However, other hazardous conditions associated with previous uses at the GPA and Rezone area that have not been documented in these databases could be present. Site assessments for hazardous materials and remediation of hazardous materials releases could be required for development at the GPA and Rezone area which would be conducted as development is proposed. The proposed offsite land use changes would not result in any additional impacts with respect to hazardous conditions at the site. (Draft EIR pg. 5.9-39)  Airport Hazards. Any projects proposed for the GPA and Rezone area would comply with applicable ONT and Chino Airport land use compatibility measures since the Area is within the Influence Areas of both airports. The proposed land use change could result in taller residential buildings being developed at the GPA and Rezone area when compared to development under the existing designation. However, the GPA and Rezone area is not within the Safety Zones of either airport nor would the maximum allowed height of development under the MDR designation 2324
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 127 -
exceed the airports’ combability policies for building heights in the Influence Areas. No additional impacts with respect to airport hazards would occur. (Draft EIR pg. 5.9-39)  Emergency Plans/Wildfire. While the GPA and Rezone would likely result in an increase in the number of residents at the site under a proposed development, all building plans would be checked by the City’s Building and Safety Department, along with the Ontario Fire Department and Police Department, to ensure that adequate site access is maintained along roadways and driveways.

Development under the proposed land use change would not result in additional impacts with respect to implementing emergency response plans. Additionally, the GPA and Rezone area is not within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone and therefore increased residential density at the GPA and Rezone area would not contribute to increased wildfire risks. (Draft EIR pg. 5.9-39)

10. Hydrology and Water Quality
 Water Quality. The redesignation of these parcels would not result in a significant impact on water quality because these parcels are already designated for residential use in TOP, and the development of the parcels under any urban use would have similar impacts. Construction projects that disturb one acre or more of land would be required to prepare and implement SWPPPs to obtain coverage under the Statewide GCP. Project applicants would also be required to prepare and implement WQMPs specifying BMPs, including LID measures, that would be applied during project design and project operation to minimize water pollution from project operation. This impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 5.10-26)  Groundwater Supplies. Although an increase in the amount of impervious surfaces could result by rezoning from LDR to MDR, which could impact groundwater recharge, future development on the Vineyard Avenue parcels would be required to implement BMPs and LID measures in accordance with the County WQMP guidance and the regional MS4 permit. Implementation of stormwater control measures included in the WQMP would ensure future development on the Vineyard Avenue parcels would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. This impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 5.10-26)
 Alter Drainage Patterns. Although an increase in the amount of impervious surfaces could result by rezoning from LDR to MDR, which could lead to an increase in stormwater runoff, future development on the Vineyard Avenue parcels would be required to comply with the MS4 permit and temporarily retain the volume of stormwater onsite from the 24-hour, 85th percentile storm event. Compliance with the regional MS4 permit requires implementation of site design and source control BMPs that would reduce the potential for pollutants to enter runoff, and treatment control BMPs that remove pollutants from stormwater (e.g., swales and retention basins). Lastly, development associated with the GPA and Rezone would adhere to the State CGP and the City’s Erosion Control Plan requirements. Therefore, impacts from altering drainage patters on erosion or siltation, surface runoff contributing to flooding, impacts to storm drain system and redirecting flood flows would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 5.10-26) 2325
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 128 -
 Release of Pollutants due to Flooding. The redesignation of these parcels would not result in a significant impact regarding the release of pollutants due to project inundation because these parcels are already designated for residential use in TOP, and the development of the parcels under any urban use would have similar impacts. In addition, future development on the Vineyard Avenue parcels would be required to prepare hydrology and hydraulic studies in accordance with the County Hydrology Manual if the parcels are located within a 100-year or 500-year floodplain. This impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 5.10-26)  Conflict with Santa Ana River Basin Plan or Groundwater Basin Plan. The redesignation of these parcels would not result in a significant impact regarding conflict with the Santa Ana River Basin Plan or Chino Basin Watermaster’s Optimum Basin Management Plan because these parcels are already designated for residential use in TOP, and the development of the parcels under any urban use would have similar impacts. Adherence to the State CGP, implementation of the SWPPP, and adherence to the City’s Erosion and Sediment Control Plan requirements, as described in detail in Impact 5.10-1, would also ensure that surface and groundwater quality are not adversely impacted during construction on the Vineyard Avenue parcels. Preparation of WQMPs identifying BMPs for preventing stormwater pollution during post-construction phases would comply with the Santa Ana River Basin Plan. This impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 5.10- 27)

11. Land Use and Planning
The proposed MDR land use designations along the Vineyard Avenue Corridor would not physically divide a community or conflict with policies in TOP since the land is currently designated for residential development under TOP 2050. Therefore, land use and planning impacts associated with the GPA and Rezone would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 5.11-12)

12. Mineral Resources
The parcels proposed for rezoning are located south of ORSC site on Vineyard Avenue. These offsite parcels are not in an MRZ-2 area and development at these parcels would have no impacts on mineral resources. (Draft EIR pg. 5.12-3)

13. Noise
 Traffic Noise. The transportation model was adjusted to reflect the compensatory SB 330 and SB 166 map proposed amendments. As identified in modeling conducted by Fehr & Peers and found in Appendix L1 and Appendix L2 of this Draft EIR, VMT outside the ORSC does not differ between the future baseline and future with-project conditions; and therefore, traffic volumes on roadway segments in the vicinity of the ORSC site associated with this land use map change would not be substantially affected by the increase in density from LDR to MDR.

Furthermore, increasing density results in a more efficient, compact land use that would in fewer vehicle trips than low density residential uses. Table 5.6-9, Residential Energy Use and Vehicle Trip Generation Rates, in Section 5.6, Energy, illustrates the vehicle trip generation rates anticipated for varying densities of residential development types. (Draft EIR pg. 5.13-59) 2326
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 129 -
 Stationary Noise. The GPA and Rezone would not result in new types of stationary noise sources. The City’s Noise Ordinance, building codes, and subdivision and development code regulations reduce noise from future development projects to ensure less than significant impacts. (Draft EIR pg. 5.13-59)
 Airport Noise. The GPA and Rezone area is also within the influence areas of both airports but outside the safety zones and noise contours of both airports. (Draft EIR pg. 5.13-59)  Construction Noise and Vibration. Construction noise and vibration impacts associated with the GPA and Rezone from LDR to MDR would not result in an increase in construction noise levels evaluated in the 2022 EIR. Municipal Code Chapter 29, Section 5-29.09, which limits construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, or any other related building activity to between the hours of 7:00 am and 6:00 pm, Monday through Friday, and 9:00 am to 6:00 pm on weekends to ensure that construction activities occur when people are least sensitive to noise and would not occur in the noise-sensitive portions of the day. Furthermore, Mitigation Measures 12- 2 and 12-4 of the 2022 EIR would be applicable for future development projects if construction activities have the potential to occur near sensitive receptors. (Draft EIR pg. 5.13-59)

14. Population and Housing
As described in Section 3.3.4, The Ontario Plan and Zone Changes, of the Project Description, the ORSC development would require the rezoning of land off the ORSC site in order to comply with the nonet-loss requirements of SB 330 and SB 166. TOP 2050 planned for a total of 1,471 units in the areas designated LDR and MDR on the ORSC site which would be redesignated and rezoned under the ORSC to support the proposed recreation, stadium, and retail/hospitality uses. To offset this loss, 94 acres along the Vineyard Corridor, south of the ORSC site, would be assigned a more intense land use designation, changing from LDR to MDR (see Figure 3-15). The current land use designation in the Vineyard Corridor, LDR, allowed up to 424 units under TOP 2050. Because of SB 330, the combined housing capacity for the ORSC site and the Vineyard Corridor parcels must be maintained, meaning the Vineyard Corridor parcels must support a minimum capacity of 1,895 units (1,471 units to offset the Proposed Project plus 424 units to account for the existing capacity on the parcels where growth potential would be reallocated). To achieve this, the ORSC requires a general plan amendment designating the Vineyard Corridor parcels (94 acres) as MDR instead of LDR, creating capacity for 2,075 units, 180 units more than required to comply with SB 330.

This 180-unit surplus would result in an increase in the total housing capacity of the City, beyond what was analyzed in TOP 2050. Using the City’s average household size of 3.67 persons per household, the estimated population increase associated with the housing unit surplus is approximately 661 residents.

While these additional housing units and population were not accounted for within the buildout of TOP 2050 or SCAG’s 2045 forecasts, they would represent a nominal increase in the total number of housing units and population forecasted in these growth models, a 0.25 percent increase in population compared to SCAG’s 2045 forecast and a 0.16 percent increase when compared to TOP 2050’s population buildout forecast. Additionally, this increase in housing capacity would be aligned the State initiatives to increase housing production in California in order to respond to the State housing crisis (see Section 5.14.1.1, Regulatory Background). Furthermore, the proposed zoning amendment to include 2327
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 130 -
an affordable housing overlay for 19.25 acres of the 94 acres in Vineyard Corridor would implement the objectives of the 2021-2029 Housing Element. Moreover, this increase in housing capacity would help to improve the City’s jobs-housing balance. As described above, in Section 5.14.1.2, Existing Conditions, City is currently jobs-rich with a jobs-housing ratio of 1.37 in 2020. Therefore, the proposed GPA and Rezone would have less than significant impacts on population growth.

As explained, the ORSC would displace housing capacity at the ORSC site but would replace this capacity at Vineyard Corridor, resulting in no-net-loss of housing capacity in the City. As discussed in Impact 5.14-2, some existing residential units would be removed from the ORSC site to accommodate the ORSC but this would not necessitate the replacement of housing elsewhere in the City. The 1,471- unit housing capacity that is designated for the ORSC site under TOP 2050 are not “existing” housing units that have been constructed prior to the Proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed amendments and rezonings at the ORSC site would have no impact concerning displacement since no housing or people exist at the ORSC site (beyond the existing dairy and agricultural-related uses analyzed in Impact

5.14-2) and no replacement housing would need to be constructed. The proposed amendments and zone changes under the Proposed Project would have no impact on displacement. (Draft EIR pg. 5.14- 11)

15. Public Services
 Fire Protection and Emergency Services. The increase in residential units and population could increase demand for fire services at the stations that serve Vineyard Corridor.9 However, as with development under the existing designation for the Vineyard Corridor, development under the proposed land use changes would be reviewed by the City and the OFD on an individual basis and would be required to comply with requirements in effect at the time building permits are issued, including the payment of development impact fees that contribute to funding for additional staffing, facilities, and equipment. This process would ensure that sufficient revenue would be available for necessary service improvements to provide for adequate fire facilities, equipment, and personnel when development is proposed. Impacts to fire protection and emergency services would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 5.15-5)
 Police Protection. The increase in residential units and population could increase demand for police services. Future development under the Proposed Project would also be subject to development impact fees which pay for police services. Police services would receive adequate funding through the City’s general fund to cover the police service needs. Future projects would also be reviewed by the City of Ontario on an individual basis and required to comply with regulations in effect at the time building permits are issued. (Draft EIR pg. 5.15-9)  School Services. Like the ORSC site, the Vineyard Corridor parcels are within the attendance areas of three public school districts, Chino Valley Unified School District for elementary, junior high, and high school (parcels west of Vineyard Avenue); Mountain View School District for elementary and junior high school (parcels east of Vineyard Avenue); and Chaffey Joint Union High School District for high school (parcels east of Vineyard Avenue).Correspondence with the 9 These include Station No. 9, No. 3, and No. 6.
2328
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 131 -
school districts that serve Ontario on behalf of the TOP 2050 SEIR in 2022 noted that the three districts serving the Vineyard Corridor parcels are currently below capacity and would be able to accommodate the buildout population of TOP 2050 (Ontario 2022). Each of these school districts assess their needs individually based on student generation rates from residential development, and charges development impact fees accordingly. Developers would be required to pay the impact fees levied by each school district, set within the limits of SB 50. These payments accommodate the need for new facilities based on the increase in student population in each district. With the payment of development fees, impacts to school services at the districts serving the Vineyard Corridor parcels would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 5.15-12)  Library Services. The provision of library services and future needs of the Ontario library system are guided by the Library Master Plan. The City levies development impact fees on residential development to fund library services and improvements, per the Master Plan (Ontario 2023). With the payment of development fees impacts associated with the additional housing capacity in the Vineyard Corridor would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 5.15-16)

16. Recreation
 The concurrent offsite GPA and Rezone would increase demand for parks and recreation facilities in the City. However, as identified in the TOP 2050 SEIR, development of park facilities would keep pace with the anticipated increase in population from buildout of TOP 2050. Development in Ontario would be required to pay DIF to fund and their fair share of Citywide and Ontario Ranch park impacts. Subsequent environmental review would be required for development of park projects under TOP and would adhere to the development standard of the City to ensure that construction or expansion of recreational facilities would not have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Therefore, impacts to park and recreation facilities of the GPA and Rezone would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 5.16-4)

17. Transportation
The transportation modeling conducted by Fehr & Peers found that VMT outside the 199-acre ORSC site—i.e., the GPA and Rezone area—does not differ between the future baseline and future withproject conditions. Therefore, the GPA and Rezone would not result in an increase in VMT or change in citywide average VMT per service population.

The GPA and Rezone would not conflict with the City’s policies addressing the roadway systems (including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities) or result in any potential traffic hazards in the TOP as this area is already designated for residential uses in TOP. New development in accordance with TOP would be required to undergo review of emergency access as part of the City’s Design Review process. Additionally, the Ontario Fire Department reviews development applications to ensure that adequate emergency accessibility is provided based on local and state guidance.

Therefore, transportation impacts associated with the offsite GPA and Rezone would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 5.17-23)
2329
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 132 -

18. Tribal Cultural Resources
The GPA and Rezone area could contain tribal cultural resources which could be impacted by development activities from a proposed development. A project at the GPA and Rezone area would be required to consult with Native American tribes to AB 52 and/or SB 18, as applicable and comply with state and federal regulations that protect TCRs. This development would also be required to implement Mitigation Measures 5-3 for the TOP 2050 SEIR which requires a qualified archaeologist to prepare a cultural resources assessment of the site, if it is determined to be within a culturally sensitive area for a tribe. Future projects would also comply with Mitigation Measure 5-4 to coordinate with tribal representatives about mitigation measures, in addition to TCR-1 to develop an archaeological monitoring plan and TCR-2 which sets forth the procedures for treatment and disposition of TCRs, if discovered during construction activities.

The proposed action of revising the land use designation of the GPA and Rezone area to allow for increased residential density at the Area would create additional impacts on TCRs. Development of the GPA and Rezone area under the proposed designation would occur within the same project footprint as development under the existing designation and would also be required to comply with the applicable regulations and mitigation measures protecting TCRs. The GPA and Rezone would not result in additional impacts TCRs. (Draft EIR pg. 5.18-10)

19. Utilities and Service Systems
 Wastewater Treatment and Collection. The redesignation of these parcels would not result in a significant impact on the wastewater treatment and collection system because these parcels are already designated as residential use in TOP and there is adequate infrastructure and wastewater treatment capacity for the proposed buildout. Furthermore, wastewater generation rates are decreasing over time with the implementation of CALGreen building codes and more efficient, low-flow plumbing fixtures with new construction. Future development along Vineyard Avenue would be required to comply with all applicable regulations and ordinances issued by IEUA.

Therefore, impacts on the wastewater treatment and collection system associated with the GPA and Rezone would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 5.19-7)  Water Supply and Distribution. The redesignation of these parcels would not result in a significant impact on the water supply and distribution system because these parcels are already designated as residential use in TOP. Furthermore, an increase in density results in a reduction in water demand per dwelling unit. For example, the potable water duty factor for low density residential is 95 gallons per day per person, whereas the factor for medium density residential is 80 gpd/person (OMUC 2020a). Future development along Vineyard Avenue would be required to comply with all applicable regulations and the City’s municipal code Chapter 8B, Section 6-8.52, Water service connection. Therefore, impacts on the water supply and distribution system associated with the GPA and Rezone would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 5.19-24)  Storm Drainage Systems. The redesignation of these parcels would not result in a significant impact on the storm drainage system because these parcels are already designated as residential use in TOP. Although an increase in the amount of impervious surfaces could result by rezoning from low density residential to medium density residential, which could lead to an increase in 2330
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 133 -
stormwater runoff, future development along Vineyard Avenue would be required to comply with the MS4 permit and temporarily retain the volume of stormwater onsite from the 24-hour, 85th percentile storm event. In addition, project applicants would be required to prepare hydrology and hydraulic studies in accordance with the County Hydrology Manual and analyze stormwater flows that result from the 100-year storm event to ensure that the capacities of the storm drain systems are not exceeded. Therefore, impacts on the storm drainage system associated with the GPA and Rezone would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 5.19-31)  Solid Waste. The redesignation of these parcels would not result in a significant impact on the solid waste system because these parcels are already designated as residential use in TOP. And while the amount of solid waste generated could increase by rezoning from low density residential to medium density residential, multi-family residences, which would be allowed under the MDR designation, typically generate less solid waste than single-family residences. Using the latest CalRecycle data for single-family and multi-family disposal rates for Ontario (CalRecycle 2024), multi-family residences generate about 25 percent less solid waste than single-family residences. In addition, future development along Vineyard Avenue would be required to comply with all applicable regulations and the City’s municipal code, Chapter 3, Integrated Waste Management.

Furthermore, the landfills serving the City have a remaining landfill capacity of 7,800,000 cubic yards for Badlands Sanitary Landfill and approximately 144,000,000 cubic yards for El Sobrante Landfill and both landfills have closure dates beyond 2050. Therefore, impacts on the solid waste system associated with the GPA and Rezone would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 5.19- 38)
 Other Utilities. The redesignation of these parcels would not result in a significant impact on the electricity, natural gas, or telecommunications systems because these parcels are already designated as residential use in TOP. As provided in Impact 5.19-8, the electricity and natural gas service providers forecast that they have sufficient energy supplies to meet the demands of the service area, and the rezoning from low density residential to medium density residential for the land along Vineyard Avenue would not significantly affect these forecasts or require additional infrastructure.

Future development along Vineyard Avenue would implement the requirements of the California Energy Code and CALGreen Building Code as required by the City’s municipal code, and new buildings would use new energy-efficient appliances and equipment, pursuant to the Appliance Efficiency Regulations. The City would review project design plans against these codes and ensure compliance before issuing construction permits. These measures would reduce the overall consumption of electricity and natural gas. Therefore, impacts on the electricity, natural gas or telecommunications systems associated with the GPA and Rezone would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 5.19-46)

20. Wildfire
The parcels proposed for the GPA and Rezone are located south of ORSC site on Vineyard Avenue, which remains outside of the SRA and does not contain areas subject to very high wildfire risk. These parcels are also in an urbanized area and therefore it is unlikely that a wildfire would travel into the parcels from adjacent areas.
2331
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 134 -
Development of these parcels would require the review of building plans during plan check to ensure that adequate site access is maintained and that roadway improvements and project driveways would not interfere with circulation on adjacent streets. Additionally, development of these parcels would comply with the CFC and CBC; the City municipal code; and all state, regional, and local requirements.

Compliance with these standards would ensure that development would not exacerbate risk or result in post-wildfire hazards. As such, the upzoning of these parcels from LDR to MDR would not result in new or greater impacts from wildfire. Therefore, wildfire impacts associated with the offsite GPA and Rezone would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 5.20-15) F. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Regarding the Project’s potential to result in cumulative impacts, the City hereby finds as follows:

1. Aesthetics
Aesthetic impacts are localized to the ORSC site and its immediate surroundings. No projects are approved, planned, or anticipated for the general vicinity of the ORSC site in the near future; however, the area is expected to continue to develop according to The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050’s land use plan.

The Proposed Project, including both the ORSC and the GPA and Rezone, would not impact scenic views of the San Gabriel Mountains, and new projects in the vicinity of the ORSC site would also be required to preserve views of the mountains, in accordance with TOP 2050 policies. Impacts to scenic vistas would not be cumulatively considerable.

Agricultural uses in the vicinity of the ORSC site would be expected to convert to more urban uses over time as projects are proposed. Therefore, while the ORSC would create a distinct visual attraction in the area and result in a more urbanized character at the ORSC site when compared to existing conditions, as the vicinity of the ORSC site continues to urbanize, the aesthetic character of the ORSC would become increasingly more compatible with its surroundings. The Proposed Project would have less than significant cumulative impacts with regard to scenic quality.

The ORSC and GPA and Rezone would add to nighttime light and glare in the Ontario Ranch area but would not result in substantial impacts to sensitive residential receptors. Other projects in the vicinity subject to CEQA would also be required to comply with the standards of the California Building Standards Code and Ontario Development Code that reduce impacts from light and glare to less than significant levels. Their impacts would therefore not combine with those of the Proposed Project to adversely impact existing or planned sensitive receptors, such as residential uses. Therefore, the Proposed Project’s contribution to cumulative light and glare impacts is less than considerable, and therefore is less than cumulatively significant. (Draft EIR pg. 5.1-35)

2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The area considered for cumulative impacts to agriculture and forestry resources is the City of Ontario.

Throughout the City, numerous development projects would result in the conversion of agricultural land—including Prime Farmland and Important Farmland and land under Williamson Act contracts— to nonagricultural uses, specifically within Ontario Ranch. This land has been designated for nonagricultural use under TOP and will continue to be developed in accordance with this adopted land 2332
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 135 -
use plan. The Proposed Project, including the ORSC and GPA and Rezone, would, nonetheless, contribute to the reduction of agricultural resources in the City and cumulatively contribute to the loss of agricultural resources. Although the proposed conversion is consistent with the projected decline in agricultural productivity of the region and the Ontario Ranch area, the Proposed Project would result in a cumulatively considerable impact to agricultural resources.

The City of Ontario does not have any forest resources or timberland; therefore, the Proposed Project would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact to forest resources would occur, and impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR pg. 5.2-9)

3. Air Quality
The cumulative setting for air quality is the SoCAB. In accordance with the South Coast AQMD methodology, any project that produces a significant project-level regional air quality impact in an area that is in nonattainment contributes to the cumulative impact. Cumulative projects include new development and general growth within the SoCAB. The SoCAB is nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. Due to the extent of the area potentially impacted from cumulative project emissions, South Coast AQMD consider a project cumulatively significant when project-related emissions exceed the regional emissions thresholds. As identified in Impact 5.3-2 (operation) and Impact 5.3-3 (construction), implementation of the Proposed Project would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the air basins, and cumulative impacts are significant.

The SoCAB is designated nonattainment for O3, PM2.5, PM10, and lead (Los Angeles County only) under the California and/or National AAQS. Construction of cumulative projects would further degrade the regional and local air quality. Air quality would be temporarily impacted during construction activities. Implementation of mitigation measures for related projects would reduce cumulative impacts. As discussed in Impacts 5.3-2 and 5.3-4 (see Section III.C above), construction activities associated with the development of the ORSC would exceed the South Coast AQMD regional significance thresholds for VOC and NOX and localized health risk significance thresholds for cancer risk. Development of the GPA and Rezone at a future date would result in additional construction emissions but construction activities would not overlap with construction of the ORSC.

Implementation of mitigation would contribute to reducing emissions, and construction-related emissions and cancer risks related to the ORSC would not exceed the South Coast AQMD significance thresholds after mitigation. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative construction-related impacts.

For operational air quality emissions, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily regional threshold values is not considered by South Coast AQMD to be a substantial source of air pollution and does not add significantly to a cumulative impact. As discussed in Impact 5.3-3 (see Section III.F), implementation of the overall ORSC would result in emissions that exceed the South Coast AQMD regional significance thresholds for VOC, CO, and PM10. Emissions associated with future development in the GPA and Rezone would contribute to operational air quality impacts in the SoCAB. Despite mitigation, operation-phase emissions would still exceed the VOC, CO, and PM10 regional significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations 2333
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 136 -
for O3 and PM10. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in a cumulatively considerable longterm operational impact. (Draft EIR pg. 5.3-47)

4. Biological Resources
The area considered for cumulative impacts to biological resources is the CDFW inland deserts region.

The ORSC site and Offsite Improvement Area development would result in impacts to 2 sensitive plant species, 11 sensitive wildlife species, and nesting bird species protected under State law. The Proposed Project, including the ORSC and future development of the GPA and Rezone area, would comply with the City’s Habitat Mitigation Fee policy, which would reduce impacts with respect to the cumulative loss of habitat for sensitive species. Additionally, mitigation measures would reduce impacts to sensitive species that may be present on the ORSC site and Offsite Improvement Area to less than significant. Additionally, other projects in the CDFW inland deserts region, including future development of the GPA and Rezone area, would be required to comply with existing state regulations protecting biological resources, which could include the preparation of biological reports and surveys.

Therefore, impacts of the Proposed Project would be less than cumulatively considerable with implementation of mitigation. (Draft EIR pg. 5.4-60)

5. Cultural Resources
The area considered for cumulative impacts to historic and archaeological resources is within a onemile radius of the ORSC site and Offsite Improvement Area, the same area as the records search, which overlaps with the GPA and Rezone area. Twenty-four previously recorded historical and/or archaeological resources were identified within one mile of the ORSC site, according to the records search conducted through the SCCIC. Other projects in the region could demolish or otherwise alter historical and archaeological resources. Other projects, including the development of the GPA and Rezone area, would be required to comply with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, which requires the lead agency to determine if discovered resources are unique or historically significant, and if so, to avoid or mitigate impacts to such resources in accordance with the provisions of PRC Section 21083.2.

The Proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to cultural resources. (Draft EIR pg. 5.5-29)

6. Energy
The areas considered for cumulative impacts to electricity and natural gas supplies and facilities are the SCE and SoCalGas service areas. Other projects in the SCE and SoCalGas service areas, including development in the GPA and Rezone area, would be subject to existing regulations, including the CBSC, which requires new buildings to increase their energy efficiency design. Additionally, the proposed offsite land use changes associated with the ORSC are expected to result in more efficient, compact land uses, thereby potentially reducing energy usage associated with transportation. The GPA and Rezone would therefore not result in any cumulatively considerable impacts. With compliance of existing laws, plans and regulations, cumulative impacts of the Proposed Project would be less than significant, and impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR pg. 5.6-18) 2334
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 137 -

7. Geology and Soils
The cumulative setting for geologic resources is typically site specific. The Proposed Project would not result in significant impacts related to geology and soils. Although the ORSC site may be subject to potentially significant hazards of strong ground shaking, and unstable soil conditions, mandatory compliance with state and City regulations would ensure impacts to geology and soils would be less than significant.

Since impacts associated with geology and soils focus on specific sites or areas, the less-than-significant impacts from the Proposed Project would not contribute to a cumulative increase in hazards in the immediate vicinity of the ORSC site, Offsite Improvement Area, or GPA and Rezone area. Similarly, impacts to paleontological resources are considered site specific. The ORSC site, Offsite Improvement Area, and GPA and Rezone area, do not contain any known fossil localities; however, discovery of these resources has the potential to occur during excavation activities. Implementation of mitigation would reduce impacts associated with paleontological resources in the ORSC site and Offsite Improvement Area. Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with geology and soils would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 5.7-14)

8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Project-related GHG emissions are not confined to a particular air basin but are dispersed worldwide.

Therefore, impacts identified under Impact 5.8-1 and Impact 5.8-2 are not project-specific impacts to global warming, but the ORSC’s contribution to this cumulative impact. As discussed above, the ORSC’s would generate a substantial increase in GHG emissions from existing conditions. Emissions associated with future development in the GPA and Rezone would contribute to the Proposed Project’s GHG emissions impacts. Consequently, the Proposed Project’s cumulative contribution to global climate change impacts are cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR pg. 5.8-30)

9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hazardous Materials. Past, existing, and planned development in the city could pose risks to public health and safety related to the use, storage, handling, generation, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. The Proposed Project, which includes the ORSC, sewer alignment in the Offsite Improvement Area, and the GPA and Rezone, and other development in the vicinity could increase these risks if they are not remediated and/or managed in accordance with applicable regulations.

Compliance with applicable regulations related to public health and safety and hazardous materials would ensure that impacts are reduced to a less than significant level, individually and cumulatively.

Other projects in the City of Ontario would require assessments for hazardous materials, such as assessments of structures on-site (over certain ages) for lead-based paint, asbestos-containing materials, and other contamination from past uses and/or releases. Cleanup of hazardous materials in soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater to regulatory cleanup levels for relevant types of land uses would be required in compliance with applicable federal, state, and regional regulations, as listed in Section 5.9.1.2 of the Draft EIR. Furthermore, development activities on the ORSC site as well as development within the GPA and Rezone area would be required to adhere to the recommendations identified in the sitespecific Environmental Site Assessment to ensure that RECs are identified and remediated. Therefore, the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials by construction and operation of other 2335
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 138 -
projects that would result in site-specific impacts and would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Combined with the Proposed Project, impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR pg.

5.9-40)

10. Hydrology and Water Quality
Hydrology and Drainage. Cumulative projects in the Chino Creek Subwatershed could increase impervious areas and increase stormwater runoff rates. However, all projects within the subwatershed, including the ORSC and future development of the GPA and Rezone area, would be required to prepare hydrology and hydraulic studies in accordance with the County Hydrology Manual and analyze stormwater flows that result from the 100-year storm event to ensure that the capacities of the storm drain systems are not exceeded. Additionally, other projects would be required to comply with MS4 permits applicable in those watersheds. The Santa Ana RWQCB MS4 permit applies to portions of three counties in the Santa Ana Basin. Other projects’ compliance with the requirements of the Santa Ana RWQCB MS4 permit, the San Bernardino County Stormwater Program, and San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual guidance would reduce cumulative impacts to hydrology and drainage to less than significant, and the impacts of the Proposed Project would not be cumulatively considerable.

If projects in the watersheds are within 100-year flood zones, they would be mandated to comply with National Flood Insurance Program requirements. Thus, impacts to hydrology, drainage, and flooding would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 5.10-27) Water Quality. Cumulative projects have the potential to generate pollutants during project construction and operation. Construction projects that disturb one acre or more of land would be required to prepare and implement SWPPPs to obtain coverage under the Statewide GCP. Projects within the watershed, including the ORSC and future development of the GPA and Rezone area, would also be required to prepare and implement WQMPs specifying BMPs, including LID measures, that would be applied during project design and project operation to minimize water pollution from project operation. Thus, no significant cumulative water quality impacts would occur, and the Proposed Project’s water quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR pg. 5.10-27)

11. Land Use and Planning
Cumulative projects in the City would have the potential to result in a cumulative impact if they would, in combination, conflict with existing land use plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact. As described above, the Proposed Project, including the ORSC and the GPA and Rezone would generally be consistent with citywide and regional land use plans that have been adopted to reduce physical environmental impacts. Cumulative development projects in accordance with TOP 2050 would be subject to compliance with regional and local plans reviewed in this section. Other cumulative developments would be reviewed by the City to ensure general consistency with local land use plans. Therefore, the Proposed Project combined with related projects would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to land use and planning. (Draft EIR pg. 5.11-12)
2336
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 139 -

12. Mineral Resources
The City of Ontario includes areas designated as MRZ-2 and MRZ-3. The city contains one area that is designated by the California Geologic Survey as Resource Sectors containing construction aggregate of “regional significance”; however, the ORSC site is 2.67 miles away from this area. Since the ORSC, Offsite Improvement Area, and GPA and Rezone area are not located in a Resource Sector or MRZ2 area and would have no impact on mineral resources, the impact of the Proposed Project would not combine with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects to create a cumulative impact on mineral resources. The Proposed Project has no impact on mineral resources and as such would not lead to a cumulative loss of mineral resources. (Draft EIR pg. 5.12- 3)

13. Noise
Mobile-Source Noise. The cumulative traffic noise levels would increase by a noticeable amount along the roadways analyzed. As identified above, the ORSC would result in a substantial increase in traffic noise at receptors in the vicinity of the ORSC. The GPA and Rezone would cumulatively contribute to overall traffic noise levels. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to traffic noise levels in the city, and cumulative traffic noise impacts are considered significant. (Draft EIR pg. 5.13-60)
Area Sources of Noise (Stadium, Athletic Fields, and Commercial/Hospitality). Unlike transportation noise sources, whose effects can extend well beyond the limits of the ORSC site, stationary-source noise generated by the ORSC is limited to noise impacts to noise-sensitive receptors near the ORSC site. Cumulative noise levels from stationary sources would be negligible at the nearest noise sensitive receptors with mitigation. Consequently, the ORSC would not be cumulatively considerable and would not result in a significant cumulative noise impact. Additionally, stationary noise impacts are not anticipated to increase under the GPA and Rezone since the land uses under the area’s proposed designation would be similar to those of the existing designation. Development in the GPA and Rezone area would also be required to comply with existing regulations in the City’s municipal code that would ensure that new development does not exceed City noise standards. Impacts of GPA and Rezone would also not be cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR pg. 5.13-60) Construction Noise and Vibration. Construction noise and vibration impacts are confined to a localized area. Cumulative impacts would only occur if other projects were being constructed in the vicinity of the ORSC site at the same time as the ORSC construction activities. Noise from construction activities would be temporary and would not be significant with mitigation. No development has been proposed at the GPA and Rezone area and construction noise from development at the GPA and Rezone would be required to comply with regulations in the City’s municipal code in addition to construction noise mitigation measures in the 2022 TOP SEIR.

Therefore, the combined impacts of the ORSC and GPA and Rezone would not be individually or cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR pg. 5.13-60)
2337
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 140 -

14. Population and Housing
The geographic area considered for cumulative impacts is the City of Ontario. The ORSC is not anticipated to result in population growth in the City since no residential development is proposed.

The ORSC would comply with SB 330 and SB 166 (see Section 5.11, Land Use and Planning), and there would be no net loss of residential units in the City with implementation of the ORSC. The GPA and Rezone needed to comply with these housing laws would result in a 180 unit increase in the total housing capacity of the City, Though the increase in jobs and housing units under the ORSC was not anticipated in the local and regional growth forecasts, these jobs are expected to be filled by the local and regional labor force and the population increase associated with the additional housing capacity would represent less than 1 percent of the growth forecasts of TOP 2050 and SCAG. This additional housing capacity will also help to meet the State’s housing goals, implement the goals of the City’s Housing Element, and improve the jobs-housing balance of the City. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in impacts that could combine population and housing impacts in a way that would be cumulatively considerable; therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 5.14-12)

15. Public Services
Fire Protection. The area of cumulative effect for fire protection is the City of Ontario. As seen in Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, of the Draft EIR several pending development projects within a threemile radius of the ORSC site would also increase demand for Ontario Fire Department (OFD) services, specifically at the stations that would serve the ORSC site. The buildout of these projects was included within the buildout analyzed in TOP 2050 SEIR which determined that impacts to fire protection services would be less than significant with the payment of development fees and review of project design from OFD. As identified above, additional staffing for the ORSC would not be needed as staffing during events could be accommodated by the OFD’s existing resources and event staffing would be handled with temporary staffing (backfill positions/overtime). Therefore, as with the ORSC and development of the GPA and Rezone area, these projects would be required to pay Development Impact Fees (DIFs) to offset the cost of equipment, facilities, and staffing needs of OFD.

Development or expansion of fire stations, equipment, and personnel would also be subject to environmental review and impact mitigation per CEQA. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant after payment of taxes, impact fees, and fair-share payments by other projects, and impacts of the ORSC would not be cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR pg. 5.15-5) Police Protection. The area of cumulative effect for police protection is the City of Ontario. As seen in Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, of the Draft EIR several pending development projects within a three-mile radius of the ORSC site would also increase demand for the Ontario Police Department (OPD), as would the area proposed for the GPA and Rezone, as discussed above. Like the ORSC, other cumulative projects in the City, including future development of the GPA and Rezone area, would also pay DIFs and taxes to offset the costs of OPD operations and construction of new and/or expanded police stations. As identified above, additional staffing for the ORSC site would not be needed as staffing during events could be accommodated by the OPD’s existing resources and event staffing would be handled with temporary staffing (backfill positions/overtime). Cumulative impacts would be less than significant after payment of taxes, impact fees, and fair-share payments by other 2338
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 141 -
projects, and impacts of the Proposed Project, including the ORSC and GPA and Rezone, would not be cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR pg. 5.15-9)
School Services. The area affected by cumulative school impacts would be the attendance boundaries of the school districts that serve the ORSC site. Other development projects within the attendance boundaries of these districts, including future development of the GPA and Rezone area, would be required to pay school impacts fees as applicable to reduce impacts to schools associated with increased student populations. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65995(h), payment of the impact fees fully mitigates impacts to school facilities. Other indirect impacts of the Proposed Project on school facilities are analyzed in Chapter 5 of this EIR. The ORSC would not contribute to a cumulative increase in student population that would require the project to contribute fair-share payment of school mitigation fees. Cumulative impacts with regard to the ORSC, GPA and Rezone, and other cumulative development would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 5.15-12) Library Services. The cumulative setting for the Ontario Library System includes the ORSC and development within the Library’s service area. Growth within the city would increase demands for library services. As with the ORSC and future development of the GPA and Rezone, other projects would also pay property taxes and development impact fees, which would support operations and development of new and/or expanded facilities. The ORSC would not introduce new residents into the service area of the Ontario Library System. While the GPA and Rezone would result in a potential increase in population, development of this area would be subject to taxes and fees that would fund library services and reduce the impacts of additional population. Therefore, impacts of the ORSC would not be cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR pg. 5.15-16)

16. Recreation
Growth in the City would increase demands for parks and recreational facilities. Other projects would pay property, sales, and utility taxes and fees supporting the City’s General Fund, part of which would be available for the operation and development of new parks and recreational facilities. If other projects are found by the City to require increases in parklands, like the development of the GPA and Rezone, they would also be required to pay park development fees and/or provide recreation on-site. The ORSC would develop 134.16 acres of new recreation space on the ORSC site, therefore contributing to a net increase in the amount of publicly available recreational amenities for the City. While the proposed GPA and Rezone would increase demand for parks and recreation services, development of these parcels would be subject to DIF that fund parks and recreation services in the City and Ontario Ranch. The ORSC development would overall have a positive cumulative impact on the city’s parks and recreational facilities since it would provide new recreational options to residents and help to offset impacts on existing facilities from other cumulative development. (Draft EIR pg. 5.16-4)

17. Transportation
The cumulative area for transportation impacts is the City of Ontario and San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) region. Cumulative traffic impacts consider the impacts of future growth and development in the SBCTA region. As identified above, the ORSC would result in a significant cumulative impact for vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as a result of a substantial increase in 2339
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 142 -
regional traffic associated with the stadium and sports park. Therefore, VMT impacts of the ORSC are cumulatively considerable.

The ORSC is consistent with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, and the performance and safety of such facilities, and would not combine with other area projects to result in significant impacts to such facilities. Impacts associated with alternative transportation policies are less than significant.

The City’s Emergency Operations Plan provides a means to prepare and maintain systems, supplies, and other logistical items among city departments to support emergency/disaster response and recovery throughout the city. The ORSC would require preparation of a Parking and Event Traffic Management Plan (TMP) for events at the ORSC site. Additionally, the Ontario Fire Department reviews development applications to ensure that adequate emergency accessibility is provided based on local and state guidance. Review of emergency access is also included as part of the City’s Design Review process. Therefore, impacts to emergency response and evacuation are less than significant, and therefore, less than cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR pg. 5.17-23)

18. Tribal Cultural Resources
Cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources occur when the impacts of the ORSC, in conjunction with past, existing, and other foreseeable projects and development in the region, result in multiple and/or cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources in the area. Each future project in the City, including development at the GPA and Rezone area, would be required to evaluate that project’s impacts to site-specific tribal cultural resources as part of the CEQA review, including tribal consultation as required by AB 52 and SB 18, if applicable. Where significant impacts to tribal cultural resources are identified, projects would be required to either avoid impacts or implement feasible mitigation measures to reduce impacts. The ORSC and GPA and Rezone combined with other development projects in the surrounding area would not result in significant and adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources with the incorporation of mitigation. Therefore, impacts of the Proposed Project would not be cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR pg. 5.18-10)

19. Utilities and Service Systems
Wastewater Treatment and Collection. The area considered for cumulative impacts for wastewater is the IEUA service area. Cumulative projects in the IEUA service area, including development of the GPA and Rezone area, could cause significant impacts if they either exceeded wastewater treatment requirements of RWQCBs or generated wastewater exceeding the combined capacities of wastewater treatment plants. Cumulative development within the IEUA service area, including development of the GPA and Rezone area, could result in the need for new and/or expanded wastewater treatment plants. However, as stated previously, IEUA has experienced a decrease in the volume of sewage flow of approximately 10 percent over the last 20 years, due to a decrease in indoor water consumption with new development compliance with California Green Building Standards Code and water conservation efforts. The IEUA anticipates a significant increase in the growth of its service area in the next 10 years, with 40 percent of the growth resulting from new development in Ontario. The IEUA develops 10-year forecasts and specifies capital improvements that will be implemented to meet the increase in demand. The ultimate capacity for wastewater flows to the IEUA WWTPs is 80 mgd by 2060. 2340
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 143 -
Also, future development within the service area, including at the GPA and Rezone area, would be required to comply with all applicable regulations and ordinances issued by IEUA. Wastewater from cumulative projects is assumed in the SSMPs prepared by IEUA and the cities that send wastewater to the IEUA WWTPs. The IEUA and the cities within its service area plan for increased demand with future development. Therefore, with continued compliance with local and regional regulations, cumulative impacts would be less than significant and would not be cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR pg. 5.19-7)
Water Supply and Distribution. The area considered for cumulative impacts for water supply and treatment is the IEUA and City of Ontario service areas. The IEUA and the OMUC obtain groundwater from the Chino Groundwater Basin, which is adjudicated and managed by the Chino Basin Watermaster, imported water from MWD, purchased water from San Antonio Water Company, and recycled water from IEUA. The IEUA and City’s 2020 UWMPs state that there are sufficient water supplies through 2045 to meet projected demands in normal years, single dry years, and multiple dry years. State requirements and City policies and code requirements would result in enhanced water efficiency, and conservation would result in total water demand below the projections in the 2020 UWMP for year 2045. With the implementation of SB X7-7 and State, regional, and local water conservation ordinances, all new development would be required to conserve water use and implement water efficiency measures. In addition, pursuant to SB 610, water supply assessments would be prepared for other large development projects prior to the approval of each project to ensure adequate water supply for new development.

Overall, cumulative water demands would neither exceed planned levels of supply nor require building new water treatment facilities or expanding existing facilities beyond what is currently planned. In addition, future development would be required to pay connection fees, which would offset the costs of system maintenance and capital upgrades to support the new development in the service areas.

Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant and would not be cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR pg. 5.19-25)
Storm Drainage Systems. The area considered for cumulative impacts is the Chino Creek subwatershed. Other projects in this area would increase impervious areas, including the development of the GPA and Rezone area, thus increasing runoff and flows into the storm drain systems. Within San Bernardino County, other projects would also be required to prepare hydrology and hydraulic studies in accordance with the County Hydrology Manual and analyze stormwater flows that result from the 100-year storm event to ensure that the capacities of the storm drain systems are not exceeded. Additionally, other projects, including development of the GPA and Rezone area, would be required to comply with the MS4 permit applicable to those watersheds. The Santa Ana RWQCB MS4 permit applies to portions of three counties in the Santa Ana Basin. Most projects would be required by the MS4 permits to implement low-impact development and on-site stormwater bioretention facilities that would reduce the amount of runoff entering public storm drain systems. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant and would not be cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR pg.

5.19-31)
Solid Waste. The area considered for cumulative impacts to solid waste disposal includes all the cities and counties that dispose of their solid waste in Badlands Sanitary Landfill or El Sobrante Landfill. 2341
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 144 -
These landfills currently have a combined residual daily capacity of 7,900 tons/day and have remaining landfill capacity of 7,800,000 cubic yards for Badlands Sanitary Landfill and approximately 144,000,000 cubic yards for El Sobrante Landfill. Both landfills have closure dates beyond 2050. In addition, State and local regulations and ordinances regarding the recycling of construction debris and organic wastes will further reduce the amount of solid waste transported to these landfills in the future. Therefore, with continued compliance with the applicable regulations, in combination with reasonably foreseeable future development, cumulative impacts of the ORSC and GPA and Rezone would be less than significant, and Proposed Project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR pg. 5.19- 38)
Other Utilities. The area considered for cumulative impacts are the service areas of SCE for electricity, SoCalGas for natural gas, and the service boundaries of the various telecommunications providers.

Other projects within these service areas, including development of the GPA and Rezone area, would increase electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications demands.

The CPUC has identified the Integrated Energy Policy Report as “the appropriate venue for considering issues of load forecasting, resource assessment, and scenario analyses, to determine the appropriate level and ranges of resource needs for load serving entities in California.” The 2019 report shows that California’s electricity sector is leading efforts to reduce GHG emissions and there has been an increase in electricity consumption of only 10 percent while California’s economy grew by 54 percent between 2000 and 2018. Natural gas consumption is expected to level out between 2020 and 2030 with no significant increase due to energy savings from new building standards and the implementation of city and county ordinances that require new construction to have all-electric appliances and heating.

In addition, future projects developed within the SCE service areas, like development of the GPA and Rezone area, would implement the requirements of the California Energy Code and CALGreen Building Code. New buildings would also use new energy-efficient appliances and equipment, pursuant to the Appliance Efficiency Regulations. Counties and cities review project design plans against these codes and ensure compliance before issuing construction permits. These measures would reduce the overall consumption of electricity and natural gas.

The energy providers and telecommunications providers that serve Ontario indicate that they have the capability to serve future increases in population within their service areas without significant changes to the existing infrastructure. Therefore, the ORSC and GPA and Rezone would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 5.19-47)

20. Wildfire
The areas considered for cumulative impacts related to wildfires are Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZs) in the city. Future projects proposed within a very high FHSZ could subject people and structures to wildfire hazards; however, the city does not have lands in the very high FHSZ. As discussed previously, the ORSC would not result in new impacts or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts related to interfering with implementation of emergency response or evacuation plans; exacerbating wildfire risks and exposing project occupants to pollutant concentrations or the 2342
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 145 -
uncontrolled spread of wildfire; exacerbating fire risks or resulting in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment due to the installation or maintenance of infrastructure; or exposing people or structures to significant risks as a results of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

Similarly, the GPA and Rezone area is not located within a very high FHSZ and therefore would not result in an increase in risks associated with wildfire.

Projects within wildfire-prone areas or fire hazard severity zones are required to comply with regulations governing development in such zones, including California Building Code Chapter 7A, CFC Chapter 49, and California Public Resources Code Sections 4291 et seq. Future development would be required to undergo separate CEQA review and identify wildfire impacts and appropriate mitigation measures. Additionally, the OFD reviews development applications as part of the City’s Design Review process to ensure that adequate emergency accessibility is provided according to local and state guidance. Therefore, cumulative wildfire impacts of the Proposed Project would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 5.20-15)
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
An EIR must briefly describe the rationale for selection and rejection of alternatives. The lead agency may make an initial determination as to which alternatives are feasible, and therefore, merit in-depth consideration, and which ones are infeasible.

Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project or to the location of the Project that could feasibly achieve most of its basic objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects identified in the EIR analysis. An EIR is not required to consider every conceivable alternative to a proposed project. Rather, an EIR must consider a reasonable range of alternatives that are potentially feasible; an EIR is not required to consider alternatives that are infeasible. In addition, an EIR should evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Therefore, this section sets forth the potential alternatives to the Project analyzed in the EIR and evaluates them in light of the objectives of the Project, as required by CEQA.

Key provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines relating to the alternatives’ analysis (Section 15126.6 et seq.) are summarized below:
 [T]he discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the Project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the Project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the Project objectives or would be more costly.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[b]).
 “The specific alternative of ‘no project’ shall also be evaluated along with its impact.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[e][1])
 “The no project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure 2343
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 146 -
and community services. If the environmentally superior alternative is the ‘no project’ alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[e][2])
 “The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a ‘rule of reason’ that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f])
 “Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries…, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent)” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f][1]).  “Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f][2][A])  “An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f][3]) A. RATIONALE FOR SELECTING POTENTIALLY FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES The alternatives must include a no-project alternative and a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project if those reasonable alternatives would attain most of the Project objectives while substantially lessening the potentially significant Project impacts. The range of alternatives discussed in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason,” which the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(3) defines as:
. . . set[ting] forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. The range of feasible alternatives shall be selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision-making.

Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives (as described in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)([1]) are environmental impacts, site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the Project proponent could reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to an alternative site. An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably identified and whose implementation is remote or speculative.

For purposes of this analysis, the Project alternatives are evaluated to determine the extent to which they attain the basic Project objectives, while significantly lessening any significant effects of the Project.
2344
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 147 -
B. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE

SCOPING/PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS
The following is a discussion of the alternatives considered during the scoping and planning process and the reasons why they were not selected for detailed analysis in the EIR.

1. Alternate Stadium Location Off-Site
CEQA requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives to the Proposed Project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the Proposed Project. The key question and first step in the analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the Proposed Project in another location.

Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126[5][B][1]).

The City’s existing soccer fields are north of the ORSC site at 2200 Philadelphia Street. However, this site has space constraints and would not accommodate a Minor League Baseball stadium in a northeast configuration10 as required by Major League Baseball. Additionally, it could not accommodate both the number and type of sports fields in addition to hospitality uses given that this site is only 20 acres compared to the ORSC site, which is 199 acres. For these reasons, this alternate site was considered and rejected.

In general, any development of the size and type of the ORSC would have substantially the same impacts on aesthetics, air quality, cultural and paleontological resources, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems. It was determined, therefore, that it is unlikely that there is an alternate ORSC site that could potentially meet the objectives of the ORSC and reduce significant impacts of the Proposed Project as proposed. (Draft EIR pg. 7-5) Finding
The City finds that there are no alternative locations for the Proposed Project that fit the size needed for the sports fields and any development of the size and type of the ORSC would have substantially the same impacts. As described in these Findings of Fact, the Proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts, or impacts that can be mitigated to less than significant. For significant and unavoidable impacts, the City has determined that these impacts are acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed project outweigh its significant effects on the environment, as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.

2. No Stadium
A no-stadium alternative would eliminate the proposed Minor League Baseball Stadium from the sports complex development and replace it with additional City sports park facilities. However, this 10 Major League Baseball requires fields to be oriented to the northeast to prevent the setting sun from being in the batter's eyes.
2345
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 148 -
alternative would not satisfy the primary objectives of the Proposed Project. Therefore, this alternative was considered and rejected. (Draft EIR pg. 7-5)
Finding
The City finds that an alternative without a stadium would not satisfy the primary objective for the project. For significant and unavoidable impacts, the City has determined that these impacts are acceptable because specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including regionwide or statewide environmental benefits, of the proposed project outweigh its significant effects on the environment, as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.

C. ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS
The following alternatives were determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives with the potential to feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Table 7-2, Summary of Impacts of Alternatives Compared to the Proposed Project, in Chapter 7, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, of the Draft EIR, identifies how each of the alternatives selected for further analysis compare to the Proposed Project. Table 7-3, Ability of Each Alternative to Meet the Project Objectives, in Chapter 7, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, of the Draft EIR, provides a summary of the ability of the alternatives to achieve the project objectives.

1. No Project–No Development Alternative
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e), this EIR evaluates a No Project–No Development Alternative to compare the impacts of approving the Proposed Project with the impacts of not approving the Proposed Project. The No Project–No Development Alternative is an alternative that looks at what would happen if no development occurs onsite. The existing site is primarily utilized for dairy and a nursery but there are some rural residential units within the 199-acre ORSC site. This alternative would allow for these land uses to remain. However, no improvements would occur under this alternative. There would be no residential or nonresidential development onsite. This alternative would not require removal of manure or expansion of infrastructure, including roadways and wet and dry utilities. The sewer line extension would not be needed.

This alternative would not trigger SB 330/SB 166; therefore, the TOP amendments and zone change for the parcels south of the project on Vineyard Avenue would not be needed, and those parcels would not be rezoned to Medium Density Residential (MDR) and would remain Low Density Residential (LDR). (Draft EIR pg. 7-6)
Impacts
Aesthetics: Since no development would occur and the site would remain undeveloped under this alternative, there would be no impacts to the visual character or quality of the project area. Existing scenic vistas would be preserved, and no sources of light or glare would be produced. Therefore, aesthetic impacts under this alternative would be reduced compared to the ORSC. (Draft EIR pg. 7-7) Agriculture and Forestry Resources: Under this alternative ORSC site would continue to be used for dairy farming and nursery land uses. No adverse impact related to the loss of important farmland 2346
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 149 -
or conversion of land zoned as agriculture to nonagriculture would occur. Thus, this alternative would eliminate the ORSC’s significant and unavoidable impact to agricultural resources. (Draft EIR pg. 7-7) Air Quality: Air quality impacts would be reduced under this alternative because no development would occur on-site. Without development, the site would not generate any additional vehicle trips or emissions associated with any construction or operational activities and equipment use beyond what currently exists on-site. Thus, this alternative would reduce overall air quality impacts and eliminate significant and unavoidable impacts related to operational emissions. (Draft EIR pg. 7-7) Biological Impacts: Under this alternative, the ORSC site would remain vacant and undeveloped, eliminating adverse impacts on the site’s existing biological resources. The sensitive plant and animal species, jurisdictional waters, and riparian habitats throughout the site and off-site would not be disturbed. Thus, impacts would be reduced compared to the ORSC. (Draft EIR pg. 7-7) Cultural Resources: The ORSC site would remain in its existing conditions under this alternative.

Thus, no grading or construction activities would potentially unearth previously undiscovered cultural resources. Additionally, any areas within the ORSC site considered sensitive to local tribal groups would also not be impacted. Overall, impacts would be reduced in comparison to the ORSC. (Draft EIR pg. 7-7)
Energy: impacts would be reduced under this alternative because no new development would occur on-site. While this alternative would result in less overall energy resource consumption than the ORSC, newer buildings are generally more energy-efficient than older existing buildings Overall, this alternative would reduce overall energy impacts in comparison to the ORSC. (Draft EIR pg. 7-7) Geology and Soils: The site would remain undeveloped. Therefore, no people or structures would be exposed to potential adverse effects of seismic activity, landslides, or ground failure. In addition, no grading or construction activities would occur. Thus, geology and soils impacts would be reduced. (Draft EIR pg. 7-8)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Under this alternative, no construction or operational activities would occur beyond what currently exists on- site, and no new mobile or stationary sources of GHG emissions would be introduced. The undeveloped site also would not generate any new vehicle trips that produce GHG emissions that contribute to global climate change. Overall, no new GHG emissions would be emitted under this alternative. As there would be no net increase in GHG emissions, this alternative would result in no impact with respect to GHG emissions and significant and unavoidable impacts would be eliminated. (Draft EIR pg. 7-8) Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Under this alternative, no construction or operational activities would occur. Therefore, no hazards or hazardous materials would be introduced to the ORSC site.

The site would remain open for use as a dairy and nursery. As a result, the manure from dairy operations would remain on-site. Impacts would be slightly greater under this alternative compared to the Proposed Project because the ORSC eliminates the dairy farm and nursery operations. Overall, impacts would remain less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 7-8) 2347
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 150 -
Hydrology and Water Quality: Under this alternative, no development would occur and the entire site would stay vacant. Without any development, the existing drainage patterns would be retained and would not be altered by the proposed development. The site would also maintain its permeability and would not adversely impact groundwater recharge or increase stormwater flows. However, this alternative would not install infrastructure for water quality and stormwater retention. Overall, impacts to hydrology and water quality on-site would be reduced under this alternative. (Draft EIR pg. 7-8) Land Use and Planning Land: use and planning impacts would be reduced under this alternative.

No zone change or general plan amendment would be required, and SB 330 and SB 166 requirements would not be triggered. Thus, impacts would be reduced and less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 7-8).

Mineral Resources: The ORSC site is not within a regionally or locally significant mineral resource zone. Therefore, no impacts to mineral resources would occur under this alternative. Impacts would be similar in comparison to the ORSC. (Draft EIR pg. 7-8) Noise: Under this alternative, no noise impacts would occur because no development would take place on-site. There would be no construction or operational noises and no vehicular trips to and from the ORSC site since it would remain rural agricultural use. Thus, impacts would be reduced, and significant and unavoidable impacts would be eliminated. (Draft EIR pg. 7-9) Population and Housing: Population and housing impacts would be reduced under this alternative because no development would occur on-site, and no additional employment would be introduced into the city. Therefore, this alternative would not increase the city’s employment, and the city’s jobshousing ratio would remain the same. Impacts would be reduced and would be less than significant.

Public Services: Impacts on public services would be reduced under this alternative because no development would occur on- site, and no additional demand for fire, police, school, or library services would occur. (Draft EIR pg. 7-9)
Recreation: This alternative would have no impact on recreation. Although this alternative would increase demand for new recreational land in the city, it would not provide the environmental benefits of the ORSC. Because the ORSC would provide additional parkland in the city, this alternative would result in greater impacts, but no significant impact would occur. (Draft EIR pg. 7-9) Transportation: This alternative would not generate any vehicle trips and associated VMT because no development would occur on-site. Therefore, this alternative would eliminate the ORSC’s significant and unavoidable impact under SB 743. (Draft EIR pg. 7-9) Tribal Cultural Resources: The ORSC site would remain in its existing conditions under this alternative. Thus, no grading or construction activities would occur that may potentially unearth previously undiscovered cultural resources. Additionally, any areas within the ORSC site considered sensitive to local tribal groups would also not be impacted. Overall, impacts would be reduced in comparison to the ORSC. (Draft EIR pg. 7-9)
Utilities and Service Systems: No development would occur on the ORSC site under this alternative.

Therefore, there would be no demand for water supply or dry utilities (i.e., natural gas and electricity) 2348
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 151 -
services. In addition, no wastewater or solid waste would be generated on-site. Thus, impacts would be reduced in comparison to the ORSC. (Draft EIR pg. 7-9) Wildfire: The ORSC site is not within the wildland-urban interface or in a high fire hazard area.

Therefore, no impacts to wildfire would occur under this alternative. This alternative would reduce impacts associated with emergency access during events at the Minor League Baseball Stadium and City park. Overall, impacts would be similar in comparison to the ORSC. (Draft EIR pg. 7-10) Finding
The No Project–No Development Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives. Since the ORSC site would remain rural agricultural land use, this alternative would not provide a sports complex, consolidate and/or expand the City’s athletic programs, provide a stadium to attract a Minor League Baseball team, allow for connection to OmniTrans bus stops to a stadium, or provide for a way to prioritize development away from sensitive receptors. While this alternative would eliminate the Proposed Project’s impacts to agricultural resources, air quality, GHG, noise, and transportation impacts, this alternative would result in greater recreation impacts. The No Project/No Development Alternative is therefore rejected on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative fails to meet any of the Project objectives; (2) the alternative would result in increased impacts relating to recreation; and (3) the alternative is infeasible.

2. No Project–Armstrong Ranch Alternative
The No Project–Armstrong Ranch Alternative would develop the site based on the approved land use plan, which is the 2017 Armstrong Ranch Specific Plan. The Armstrong Ranch Specific Plan allows for the development of up to 891 residential dwelling units consisting of a variety of single-family detached and attached dwellings and an elementary school site. Residential land use areas are 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 local and City master planned trail systems.

This alternative would not trigger SB 330/SB 166; there would be no TOP amendments and zone change for the parcels south of the ORSC site on Vineyard Avenue, which would not be rezoned to MDR and would remain designated LDR. (Draft EIR pg. 7-10) Impacts
Aesthetics: This alternative would result in new sources of light and glare on the ORSC site and would alter the agricultural landscape on the ORSC site to accommodate the suburban residential neighborhood. This alternative would not require sports field and stadium lighting. As a result, this alternative would reduce aesthetics impacts and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 7-11)
Agriculture and Forestry Resources: This alternative would also result in the loss of important farmland on the 199-acre site. No forestry resource impacts would occur. This alternative would have 2349
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 152 -
similar impacts as the ORSC to agricultural resources. Therefore, this alternative is similar to the ORSC’s significant and unavoidable impact. (Draft EIR pg. 7-11) Air Quality: The ORSC has an accelerated schedule that results in several concurrent Planning Areas being developed at the same time so that the stadium and associated amenities can open by March 2026. Under this alternative, an accelerated schedule would not be warranted. Because the South Coast AQMD recommends utilizing maximum daily emissions thresholds for determining whether a project may generate a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria air pollutants and this alternative would not require an accelerated schedule that may result in concurrent construction activities, maximum daily construction emissions under this alternative would be less than those generated by the ORSC. With mitigation, such as Mitigation Measure AQ-1 which would require the use of Tier 4 construction equipment, this alternative would reduce the ORSC’s short-term regional and localized significant impact during construction. This alternative would be expected to also generate long-term operational criteria air pollutant emissions that exceed the South Coast AQMD significance thresholds.

This alternative is expected to generate higher VOC emissions from consumer product use (e.g., cleaning products, aerosol paints, detergents, personal care products) as residential land uses tend to use consumer products at a higher rate than nonresidential land uses. However, this alternative would generate substantially fewer vehicle trips and VMT compared to the ORSC. Because vehicle trips and VMT would constitute the greatest operational emission source for both this alternative and the ORSC, this alternative would reduce long-term criteria air pollutant emissions compared to the ORSC.

Nonetheless, long-term impacts would remain significant due to the magnitude of residential development envisioned under this alternative. (Draft EIR pg. 7-12) Biological Impacts: This alternative would result in similar impacts to biological resources as the ORSC. Like the Proposed Project, ground-disturbing activities that have the potential to impact sensitive habitat and species would be required for the entire 199-acre site and for off-site infrastructure. Mitigation would ensure that this alternative would have less than significant impacts.

Therefore, this alternative would have similar biological resources impacts, and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 7-12)
Cultural Resources: This alternative would result in similar impacts to cultural resources as the ORSC.

Like the Proposed Project, ground-disturbing activities that have the potential to unearth cultural resources would be required for the entire 199-acre site and Offsite Improvement Area associated with the sewer line in the Vineyard Avenue right-of- way. Mitigation would ensure that this alternative would have less than significant impacts. Therefore, this alternative would have similar cultural resources impacts, and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 7-12) Energy: New development under both this alternative and the ORSC would be designed and constructed compliant with the latest Energy Efficiency Standards of the California Building Standards Code. This alternative is expected to result in less overall energy resource consumption than the ORSC.

This alternative would result in fewer vehicle trips and VMT than the ORSC; however, the fuel efficiency of vehicles used by future occupants under this alternative and visitors and employees of the ORSC are the result of increasing fuel efficiency standards established by the EPA and CARB. It is expected that fuel efficiency for vehicles used for both this alternative and the ORSC would improve with time as new more fuel-efficient vehicles incrementally replace less-efficient ones in future years. 2350
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 153 -
As a result, this alternative would reduce fuel use compared to the ORSC and long-term impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 7-15)
Geology and Soils: This alternative would result in similar impacts to geology and soils, including paleontological resources, as the ORSC. Like the Proposed Project, ground-disturbing activities that have the potential to unearth paleontological resources would be required for the entire 199-acre site and the Offsite Improvement Area associated with the sewer line in the Vineyard Avenue right-ofway. Adherence to the recommendations in the soils and geohazards studies and mitigation for paleontological resources would ensure that this alternative would have less than significant impacts.

Therefore, this alternative would have similar geology and soils impacts, and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 7-15)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: This alternative would also generate a substantial increase in GHG emissions but would generate substantially fewer vehicle trips and VMT compared to the ORSC.

Because vehicle trips and VMT tend to be the greatest GHG emissions source for land use development projects, this alternative would reduce long-term GHG emissions compared to the ORSC. As a result, development associated with this alternative would be consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan. Therefore, this alternative would be consistent with the GHG reduction goals of Senate Bill (SB) 32. This alternative would eliminate the ORSC’s significant GHG emissions impact. (Draft EIR pg. 7-15)
Hazards and Hazardous Materials: This alternative would result in similar impacts to hazards and hazardous materials as the ORSC. Like the Proposed Project, ground-disturbing activities would be required for the entire 199-acre site that would require removal of manure from past dairy operations.

Adherence to the recommendations in the Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments would result in less than significant impacts. Additionally, residential and the school land uses would have similar operational phase hazards as the ORSC. This alternative would reduce impacts associated with emergency access during events at the Minor League Baseball Stadium and City park. Overall, this alternative would have similar hazards and hazardous material impacts as the ORSC, and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 7-15)
Hydrology and Water Quality: This alternative would result in similar impacts to hydrology and water quality as the ORSC. Like the Proposed Project, hydrology studies and preliminary water quality management plans (WQMP) would be required to address operational best management practices (BMP) to prevent erosion, retain stormwater on-site, and reduce water pollution. During construction, construction contractors would adhere to the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).

Adherence to the BMPs in the SWPPP and WQMP would ensure less than significant impacts during construction and operation, respectively. Therefore, this alternative would have similar hydrology and water quality impacts as the ORSC and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 7-16) Land Use and Planning: This alternative is consistent with the land use designations of TOP and zoning. Therefore, this alternative does not trigger SB 330 and SB 166 and the need to rezone the parcels south of the ORSC site on Vineyard Avenue. This alternative would have similar impacts as the ORSC regarding consistency with policies in regional and local plans. Overall, this alternative would 2351
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 154 -
slightly reduce land use planning impacts compared to the ORSC, and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 7-16)
Mineral Resources: The ORSC site is not within a regionally or locally significant mineral resource zone. Therefore, no impacts to mineral resources would occur under this alternative. Impacts would be similar in comparison to the ORSC. (Draft EIR pg. 7-16) Noise: This alternative would result in an increase in transportation and other stationary sources of noise that are common with residential and school land uses. This alternative would generate substantially fewer vehicle trips and VMT compared to the ORSC. As a result, this alternative would eliminate the ORSC’s significant traffic noise impact. Additionally, this alternative would substantially reduce noise from youth sports games and tournaments and Minor League Baseball games. Thus, impacts would be reduced, and significant and unavoidable impacts would be eliminated. (Draft EIR pg. 7-16)
Population and Housing: This alternative would result in an increase in both housing and population on-site. The ORSC does not include housing on-site but does trigger SB 330 and SB 166, which requires concurrent land use changes to ensure no net loss of housing in the city. Overall, population and housing impacts would be similar compared to the ORSC and would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 7-16)
Public Services: This alternative would result in an increase in population on-site and a commensurate increase in public service calls. However, the ORSC could generate substantial public service demand during peak events during games, tournaments, and events at the stadium. On a day without an event, this alternative would result in an increase in impacts compared to the ORSC. However, during events, this alternative would have less impact compared to the ORSC. Overall, impacts of this alternative to public services and facilities would be less than for the ORSC and would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 7-17)
Recreation: This alternative would result in an increase in population in the city, thereby increasing demand for recreation services. Recreation demand from this alternative would be offset through creation of on-site recreational amenities and, if necessary, through payment of in-lieu fees that would offset any increase in demand to less than significant levels. Compared to the ORSC, which provides for 134.42 acres of open space-parkland use, this alternative would increase recreational impacts; however, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 7-17) Transportation: This alternative would also generate an increase in vehicle trips and VMT in the city.

However, this alternative would generate substantially fewer vehicle trips and VMT compared to the ORSC. Additionally, because this alternative does not trigger any TOP amendments or zone changes, this alternative is not likely to generate VMT that would exceed the citywide average VMT or VMT per service population. Additionally, this alternative does not require a parking and event management plan to reduce transportation hazards. This alternative would eliminate the ORSC’s significant transportation impact. (Draft EIR pg. 7-17)
Tribal Cultural Resources: This alternative would result in similar impacts to tribal cultural resources as the ORSC. Like the Proposed Project, ground-disturbing activities that have the potential to unearth 2352
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 155 -
tribal cultural resources would be required for the entire 199-acre site and the Offsite Improvement Area associated with the sewer line expansion in the Vineyard Avenue right-of-way. Mitigation would ensure that this alternative would have less than significant impacts. Therefore, this alternative would have similar tribal cultural resources impacts, and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 7-17)
Utilities and Service Systems: This alternative would also require extension of wet and dry utilities to serve the residences and school within the 199-acre site and the Offsite Improvement Area associated with needed sewer line expansion in the Vineyard Avenue right-of-way. As identified in the water supply assessment (Appendix N), water demand would be higher under this alternative than under the ORSC. Therefore, this alternative is assumed to result in slightly higher impacts to utilities and service systems compared to the ORSC, but impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 7-17)
Wildfire: The ORSC site is not within the wildland-urban interface or in a high fire hazard area.

Therefore, no impacts to wildfire would occur under this alternative. This alternative would reduce impacts associated with emergency access during events at the Minor League Baseball Stadium and City park. Overall, impacts would be similar in comparison to the ORSC. (Draft EIR pg. 7-18) Finding
The No Project–Armstrong Ranch Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives. Since the ORSC site would be developed as a suburban residential neighborhood, this alternative would not provide a sports complex, consolidate and/or expand the City’s athletic programs, or provide a stadium onsite to attract a Minor League Baseball team proximate to OmniTrans bus stops on Riverside. This alternative would also not prioritize development away from existing and future sensitive receptors surrounding the site. The alternative would also eliminate significant and unavoidable impacts to GHG, noise, and transportation, but this alternative would result in greater impacts to recreation and utilities and service systems. This Alternative is therefore rejected on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative fails to meet any of the Project objectives; (2) the alternative would result in increased impacts relating to recreation and utilities and service systems; and (3) the alternative is infeasible.

3. Vineyard Avenue Residential Corridor Alternative
The ORSC triggers concurrent rezoning of residential land use offsite to comply with SB 330 and SB 166. The Vineyard Avenue Residential Corridor Alternative would eliminate the need to rezone the residential parcels offsite because this alternative would provide for 36.2 acres of high-density residential (HDR) development along Vineyard Avenue within the 199-acre ORSC site in lieu of some of the soccer/football fields and baseball/softball/Little League fields in Planning Area 5. Rezoning required under SB 330 and SB 166 would occur onsite along Vineyard Avenue. This alternative would:
 Convert 98.22 acres of Low Density Residential (LDR) to Open Space-Parkland (OS-R).  Convert 51.57 acres of Low Density Residential (LDR) to Hospitality (HOS) for a baseball stadium, ancillary/supportive retail, and lodging uses. 2353
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 156 -
This alternative would retain TOP residential along Vineyard Avenue and would redesignate these parcels from MDR to HDR to comply with SB 330 and SB 166 for the 149.79 acres of residential land being converted from residential to HOS and OS-R land uses.

To accommodate the onsite residential, this alternative would reduce the size of PA 5 by 36.2 acres and would eliminate Parking Structure B. Because of the loss of 36 acres, this alternative would only accommodate 7 soccer/football fields and 5 baseball/softball/Little League fields.11 All other planning areas would remain the same as the ORSC (i.e., PA 1, PA 2, PA 3, PA 4, PA 6, and PA 7). Surface parking in PA 5 (1,000 spaces) and Parking Structure A (1,600 spaces) would be able to accommodate parking for the remaining athletic fields in PA 5. (Draft EIR pg. 7-19) Impacts:

Under the Vineyard Avenue Residential Corridor Alternative, impacts on aesthetics, GHG emissions, land use and planning, public services, and transportation would be reduced in comparison to the ORSC. This alternative would have similar impacts for agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, mineral resources, population and housing, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. Air quality, energy, and recreation impacts would be greater under this alternative.

Aesthetics. This alternative would result in new sources of light and glare on the ORSC site and would alter the agricultural landscape on the ORSC site to accommodate the residential uses along Vineyard Avenue and sports complex, as shown on Figure 7-2 in the Draft EIR. This alternative would result in 5- to 6-story-tall (maximum of 75 feet tall) residential buildings to accommodate the HDR uses along Vineyard Avenue. This alternative would still require sport field and stadium lighting, but to a lesser extent than the ORSC because approximately half the fields would be eliminated. Additionally, receptors to the west and northwest would be buffered from sports field lighting on the ORSC site as a result of the multifamily residential buildings on Vineyard Avenue. As a result, this alternative would reduce aesthetics impacts and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 7-20) Agricultural and Forestry Resources. This alternative would also result in the loss of important farmland on the 199-acre site. No forestry resource impacts would occur. This alternative would have similar impact as the ORSC to agricultural resources, and impacts would be significant. (Draft EIR pg. 7-20)
Air Quality. This alternative would have similar construction impacts as the ORSC. This alternative eliminates some of the sports fields and would require additional vertical construction for the HDR land uses along Vineyard Avenue. Because this alternative would keep the stadium as part of the land use buildout, several Planning Areas would be developed at the same time so that the stadium and associated amenities can open by March 2026, same as the ORSC. With mitigation, such as Mitigation Measure AQ-1 which would require the use of Tier 4 construction equipment, this alternative would reduce short-term regional and localized significant impacts during construction; and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR pg. 7-23) 11 PA 7 includes one additional baseball/softball/Little League field for a total of five baseball/softball/Little League fields under this alternative, four of them in PA 5.
2354
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 157 -
Biological Resources. This alternative would result in similar impacts to biological resources as the ORSC. Like the Proposed Project, ground-disturbing activities that have the potential to impact sensitive habitat and species would be required for the entire 199-acre site and for off-site infrastructure in the Vineyard Avenue right-of-way. Mitigation would ensure that this alternative would have less than significant impacts. Therefore, this alternative would have similar biological resources impacts, and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 7-23) Cultural Resources. This alternative would result in similar impacts to cultural resources as the ORSC.

Like the ORSC, ground-disturbing activities that have the potential to unearth cultural resources would be required for the entire 199-acre site and for off-site infrastructure in the Vineyard Avenue right-ofway. Mitigation would ensure that this alternative would have less than significant impacts. Therefore, this alternative would have similar cultural resources impacts, and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 7-23)
Energy. This alternative would generate an increase in demand for electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel associated with the operation of 1,267 residential units and the sports complex.

New development under both this alternative and the ORSC would be designed and constructed compliant with the latest Energy Efficiency Standards of the California Building Standards Code. This alternative would result in greater vehicle trips and VMT than the ORSC; however, the fuel efficiency of vehicles used by future residents, employees, and visitors under this alternative and the ORSC are the result of increasing fuel efficiency standards established by the EPA and CARB. It is expected that fuel efficiency for vehicles used for both this alternative and the ORSC would improve with time as new more fuel-efficient vehicles incrementally replace less-efficient ones in future years. Nonetheless, energy consumption associated with this alternative would be greater than that of the ORSC.

Therefore, this alternative would slightly increase long-term energy impacts compared to the ORSC, and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 7-23) Geology and Soils. This alternative would result in similar impacts to geology and soils, including paleontological resources, as the ORSC. Like the Proposed Project, ground-disturbing activities that have the potential to unearth paleontological resources would be required for the entire 199-acre site and Offsite Improvement Area associated with the sewer extension in the Vineyard Avenue right-ofway. Adherence to the recommendations in the soils and geohazards studies and mitigation for paleontological resources would ensure that this alternative would have less than significant impacts.

Therefore, this alternative would have similar geology and soils impacts, and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 7-24)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. This alternative would also generate a substantial increase in GHG emissions. The decrease in the number of sports fields would result in a 44 percent decrease in VMT associated with the soccer fields and a 44 percent decrease in VMT associated with the baseball/softball fields. Total trips and VMT would increase with this alternative as a result of the additional trips from the residential component (31 percent increase in VMT on weekdays and 5 percent increase in VMT on weekends). However, average daily VMT per service population (VMT/SP) would fall from 248.6 to 51.79 (79 percent reduction). This is due to the significantly higher service population for this alternative compared to the ORSC. Because vehicle trips and VMT would constitute the greatest operational GHG emission source for both this alternative and the ORSC, this alternative would also 2355
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 158 -
exceed the City’s no net increase threshold for GHG emissions. Therefore, this alternative would reduce impacts associated with consistency with the plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions but would not eliminate the ORSC’s significant GHG impact. (Draft EIR pg. 7-24) Hazards and Hazardous Materials. This alternative would result in similar impacts to hazards and hazardous materials as the ORSC. Like the Proposed Project, ground-disturbing activities would be required for the entire 199-acre site to remove the manure from past dairy operations. Adherence to the recommendations in the Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments would have less than significant impacts. Additionally, residential uses on Vineyard Avenue would have similar operational phase hazards as the ORSC. This alternative would reduce impacts associated with emergency access during events at the Minor League Baseball Stadium and City park. Overall, this alternative would have similar hazards and hazardous material impacts as the ORSC, and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 7-24)
Hydrology and Water Quality. This alternative would result in similar impacts to hydrology and water quality as the ORSC. Like the Proposed Project, hydrology studies and preliminary WQMPs would be required to address operational BMPs to prevent erosion, retain stormwater on-site, and reduce water pollution. During construction, construction contractors would adhere to the SWPPP.

Adherence to the BMPs in the SWPPP and WQMP would ensure less than significant impacts during construction and operation, respectively. Therefore, this alternative would have similar hydrology material impacts as the ORSC and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 7-24) Land Use and Planning. While this alternative triggers SB 330 and SB 166, the concurrent land use change would be confined to the ORSC site, and there would be no need to rezone the parcels south of the ORSC site on Vineyard Avenue. This alternative would have similar impacts associated with consistency with policies in regional and local plans. Overall, this alternative would slightly reduce land use planning impacts compared to the ORSC, and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 7-25)
Mineral Resources. The ORSC site is not within a regionally or locally significant mineral resource zone. Therefore, no impacts to mineral resources would occur under this alternative. Impacts would be similar in comparison to the ORSC. (Draft EIR pg. 7-25) Noise. This alternative would decrease the number of sports fields, resulting in a 44 percent decrease in VMT associated with the soccer fields and a 44 percent decrease in VMT associated with the baseball/softball fields. Total trips and VMT would increase with this alternative as a result of the additional trips from the residential component (31 percent increase in VMT on weekdays and 5 percent increase in VMT on weekends). As a result, this alternative would result in a slight increase in traffic noise impacts. This alternative would reduce sports field noise from games and tournaments because there would be fewer fields within the ORSC site. The high density residential component of this project on Vineyard Avenue would buffer receptors to the west and northwest from sports field noise. Overall, this alternative would result in slightly greater noise impacts compared to the ORSC. (Draft EIR pg. 7-25)
Population and Housing. This alternative would result in an increase in housing and population onsite. The ORSC does not include housing but does trigger SB 330 and SB 166, which requires 2356
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 159 -
concurrent land use changes to ensure no net loss of housing in the city. SB 330 and SB 166 requires no net loss of residential capacity citywide. While this alternative would increase housing onsite, overall housing capacity citywide would be the same. Therefore, population and housing impacts would be similar compared to the ORSC and would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 7-25) Public Services. This alternative would result in an increase in population on-site and a commensurate increase in public service calls. On a day with an event, this alternative would slightly reduce impacts compared to the ORSC because there would be fewer fields for games and tournaments. Overall, impacts of this alternative to public services and facilities would be less than that of the ORSC and would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 7-25)
Recreation. This alternative would result in an increase in population in the city, thereby increasing demand for recreation services. Recreation demand from this alternative would be offset through creation of on-site recreational amenities and, if necessary, through payment of in-lieu fees that would offset any increase in demand to less than significant levels. Compared to the ORSC, which provides for 134.42 acres of open space-parkland use, this alternative would slightly increase recreational impacts; however, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 7-26) Transportation. This alternative would generate an increase in vehicle trips and VMT in the city. The decrease in the number of sports fields would result in a 44 percent decrease in VMT associated with the soccer fields and a 44 percent decrease in VMT associated with the baseball/softball fields.

However, total trips and VMT would increase with this alternative because of the additional trips from the residential component (31 percent increase in VMT on weekdays and 5 percent increase in VMT on weekends). However, average daily VMT per service population (VMT/SP) would fall from 248.6 to 51.79 (79 percent reduction). This is due to the significantly higher service population for this alternative compared to the ORSC. Therefore, this alternative would substantially reduce but would not eliminate the ORSC’s significant transportation impact. (Draft EIR pg. 7-26) Tribal Cultural Resources. This alternative would result in similar impacts to tribal cultural resources as the ORSC. Like the Proposed Project, ground-disturbing activities that have the potential to unearth tribal cultural resources would be required for the entire 199-acre site and the Offsite Improvement Area associated with the sewer line in the Vineyard Avenue right-of-way. Mitigation would ensure that this alternative would have less than significant impacts. Therefore, this alternative would have similar tribal cultural resources impacts, and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 7-26) Utilities and Service Systems. This alternative would require extension of wet and dry utilities to serve the residential, commercial/hospitality, and recreational facilities within the 199-acre site and also may warrant extension of the sewer in the Vineyard Avenue right-of-way. Water demand would be higher under this alternative compared to the ORSC as a result of the residential units in addition to the City park land uses. Therefore, this alternative would result in slightly higher impacts to utilities and service systems compared to the ORSC, but impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 7-26)
Wildfire. The ORSC site is not within the wildland-urban interface or in a high fire hazard area.

Therefore, no impacts to wildfire would occur under this alternative. This alternative would reduce 2357
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 160 -
impacts associated with emergency access during events at the Minor League Baseball Stadium and City park. Overall, impacts would be similar in comparison to the ORSC. (Draft EIR pg. 7-26) Finding
The Vineyard Avenue Residential Corridor Alternative would also meet the project objectives, but to a lesser extent than the ORSC since fewer sports fields would be constructed. This alternative would also not prioritize development away from sensitive receptors as the residential corridor would place high density land uses proximate to existing future sensitive receptors on Vineyard Avenue. this Alternative would not eliminate any of the Proposed Project’s significant impacts, and air quality, energy, and recreation impacts would be greater under this alternative. This Alternative therefore is rejected on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative would meet the project objectives, but to a lesser extent than the ORSC since fewer sports fields would be constructed; (2) the alternative fails to avoid or reduce any of the Proposed Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts; (3) the alternative would result in increased impacts relating to air quality, energy, and recreation impacts; and (4) the alternative is infeasible.

4. Alternative Stadium Location Onsite Alternative
The Alternate Stadium Location Onsite Alternative would shift the Minor League Baseball stadium farther away from sensitive receptors on Riverside Drive and Plymouth Avenue. As a result, commercial and hospitality uses in PAs 1, 2, 3, and 4 would be shifted to the southwest corner of the site, and some of the baseball/softball fields and surface parking would be shifted to the northeast.

Buildout of this alternative would have the same number of fields, stadium capacity, and nonresidential square footage as the ORSC. (Draft EIR pg. 7-27)
Impacts:

Under the Alternate Stadium Location Onsite Alternative, impacts on aesthetics, noise, and transportation would be substantially reduced in comparison to the ORSC. This alternative would have similar impacts to the ORSC for all other environmental resources.

This alternative would substantially lessen impacts associated with aesthetics, noise, and transportation while still meeting most of the project objectives. The remaining impacts are generally the same as the ORSC.

Aesthetics. This alternative would result in new sources of light and glare on the ORSC site and would alter the agricultural landscape on the ORSC site to accommodate the commercial, hospitality, and city park land uses, as shown on Figure 7-3. This alternative would relocate the stadium to the southwest corner of the site near Vineyard Avenue and Chino Avenue. The lighting associated with the stadium is the most intense lighting on the ORSC site. Relocating the fields to the southwest portion of the ORSC site would substantially reduce light and glare from the stadium component at existing residential uses. As a result, this alternative would reduce aesthetics impacts, and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 7-27)
2358
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 161 -
Agricultural and Forestry Resources. This alternative would also result in the loss of important farmland on the 199-acre site. No forestry resource impacts would occur. This alternative would have similar impact as the ORSC to agricultural resources, and impacts would be significant. (Draft EIR pg. 7-27)
Air Quality. This alternative would have the same construction impacts as the ORSC. This alternative would also generate the same long-term criteria air pollutant emissions as the ORSC. Because this alternative would keep the stadium as part of the land use buildout, several Planning Areas would be developed at the same time so that the stadium and associated amenities can open by March 2026, same as the ORSC. With mitigation, such as Mitigation Measure AQ-1 which would require the use of Tier 4 construction equipment, this alternative would reduce short-term regional and localized significant impact during construction; and impacts would be less than significant. Overall, this alternative would result in the same short-term and long-term air pollutant emissions impact compared to the ORSC, and impacts would be significant. (Draft EIR pg. 7-28) Biological Resources. This alternative would result in similar impacts to biological resources as the ORSC. Like the Proposed Project, ground-disturbing activities that have the potential to impact sensitive habitat and species would be required for the entire 199-acre site and for off-site infrastructure. Mitigation would ensure that this alternative would have less than significant impacts.

Therefore, this alternative would have similar biological resources impacts, and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 7-28)
Cultural Resources. This alternative would result in similar impacts to cultural resources as the ORSC.

Like the Proposed Project, ground-disturbing activities that have the potential to unearth cultural resources would be required for the entire 199-acre site and for off-site infrastructure. Mitigation would ensure that this alternative would have less than significant impacts. Therefore, this alternative would have similar cultural resources impacts, and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 7- 28)
Energy. This alternative would have the same energy demand as the ORSC. New development under both this alternative and the ORSC would be designed and constructed compliant with the latest Energy Efficiency Standards of the California Building Standards Code. Moreover, the fuel efficiency of vehicles used by future residents, employees, and visitors under this alternative and the ORSC are the result of increasing fuel efficiency standards established by the EPA and CARB, and vehicle trips and VMT generated by the ORSC and this alternative would be the same. Therefore, this alternative would have similar impacts to energy, and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 7-28) Geology and Soils. This alternative would result in similar impacts to geology and soils, including paleontological resources, as the ORSC. Like the Proposed Project, ground-disturbing activities that have the potential to unearth paleontological resources would be required for the entire 199-acre site and for off-site infrastructure. Adherence to the recommendations in the soils and geohazards studies and mitigation for paleontological resources would ensure that this alternative would have less than significant impacts. Therefore, this alternative would have similar geology and soils impacts, and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 7-31) 2359
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 162 -
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Operationally, this alternative would constitute the same land use types and sizes and vehicle trip and VMT generation as the ORSC. Therefore, this alternative would also generate a substantial increase in GHG emissions beyond existing conditions, and GHG emissions would be significant, the same as for the ORSC. (Draft EIR pg. 7-31) Hazards and Hazardous Materials. This alternative would result in similar impacts to hazards and hazardous materials as the ORSC. Like the Proposed Project, ground-disturbing activities would be required for the entire 199-acre site to remove manure from past dairy operations. Adherence to the recommendations in the Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments would have less than significant impacts. Therefore, this alternative would have similar hazards and hazardous material impacts as the ORSC, and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 7-31) Hydrology and Water Quality. This alternative would result in similar impacts to hydrology and water quality as the ORSC. Like the Proposed Project, hydrology studies and preliminary WQMPs would be required to address operational BMPs to prevent erosion, retain stormwater onsite, and reduce water pollution. During construction, construction contractors would adhere to the SWPPP.

VMT per service population (VMT/SP) would be the same for this alternative as for the ORSC.

Moving the stadium and associated parking structure to the southwest would make Chino Avenue the primary entry point for event traffic (assuming parking is shifted as well), which may improve access because Chino Avenue is expected to carry lower through-traffic volumes. Pedestrian access is expected to be the same because sidewalks are proposed for all streets. Transit access would be less direct, with service only along Riverside Drive. Moving the stadium could improve the separation between the city park sports fields and the stadium, improving traffic operations during weekends with multiple major events (e.g., simultaneous concert and tournament). Therefore, this alternative would reduce but would not eliminate the ORSC’s significant transportation impact. (Draft EIR pg. 7-32) Tribal Cultural Resources. This alternative would result in similar impacts to tribal cultural resources as the ORSC. Like the Proposed Project, ground-disturbing activities that have the potential to unearth tribal cultural resources would be required for the entire 199-acre site and Offsite Improvement Area associated with the sewer line in the Vineyard Avenue right-of-way. Mitigation would ensure that this alternative would have less than significant impacts. Therefore, this alternative would have similar tribal cultural resources impacts, and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 7-33) Utilities and Service Systems. This alternative would also require extension of wet and dry utilities to serve the residential, commercial/hospitality, and recreational facilities on the 199-acre site and would also require extension of the sewer line in the Vineyard Avenue right-of-way. This alternative would have the same impacts to utilities and service systems, and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pg. 7-33)
Wildfire. The ORSC site is not within the wildland-urban interface or in a high fire hazard area.

Therefore, no impacts to wildfire would occur under this alternative. Impacts would be similar in comparison to the ORSC. (Draft EIR pg. 7-33)
Finding
The Alternate Stadium Location Onsite Alternative would meet all the project objectives but would not meet fundamental Project Objective 6 and Objective 7. Under this Alternative the bus stops would be over a quarter of a mile from the stadium entrance. This alternative would also shift the stadium away from the center location within the 199-acre ORSC site, across from the Whispering Winds golf to the southwest corner of the site, which would be proximate to future sensitive receptors along the Vineyard Avenue corridor. Under this alternative, impacts on aesthetics, noise, and transportation would be substantially reduced in comparison to the ORSC. This Alternative therefore is rejected on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative fails to meet fundamental Project Objective 6 and Objective 7; (2) the alternative would have similar impacts to the ORSC for all environmental resources except for aesthetics, noise, and transportation; and (3) the alternative is infeasible. 2361
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 164 -
D. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
An EIR must identify an “environmentally superior” alternative and where the No Project Alternative is identified as environmentally superior, the EIR is then required to identify as environmentally superior an alternative from among the others evaluated. Based on the analysis contained within the Draft EIR, the Alternate Stadium Location Onsite Alternative has been identified as the “environmentally superior” to the Proposed Project.

The Alternate Stadium Location Onsite has been identified as the environmentally superior alternative.

CEQA does not require the lead agency (the City of Ontario) to choose the environmentally superior alternative. Instead, CEQA requires the City to consider environmentally superior alternatives, weigh those considerations against the environmental impacts of the Proposed Project, and make findings that the benefits of those considerations outweigh the harm. “Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[c]).

The City Council rejects the Alternate Stadium Location Onsite Alternative on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative fails to meet fundamental Project Objective 6 and Objective 7; (2) the alternative would have similar impacts to the ORSC for all environmental resources except for aesthetics, noise, and transportation; and (3) the alternative is infeasible. Therefore, the Alternate Stadium Location Onsite Alternative is eliminated from further consideration.

V. ADDITIONAL CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
A. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES DUE TO THE PROJECT
Section 15126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the proposed project should it be implemented. Specifically, the State CEQA Guidelines state:

Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highways improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.

Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if:
 The primary and secondary impacts would generally commit future generations to similar uses; 2362
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 165 -
 The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources;  The project would involve uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project; or  The proposed irretrievable commitments of nonrenewable resources are not justified (e.g., the project involves the wasteful use of energy).

In the case of Proposed Project, implementation would cause the following significant irreversible changes:
 Implementation of the ORSC and extension of the sewer alignment in the Offsite Improvement Area would include construction activities that would entail the commitment of nonrenewable and/or slowly renewable energy resources; human resources; and natural resources such as lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, steel, copper, lead, other metals, water, and fossil fuels. Operationally, development on the ORSC site would require the use of electricity, fossil fuels, and water. The commitment of resources required for the construction and operation of the ORSC would limit the availability of such resources for future generations or other uses during the life of the ORSC.
 An increased commitment of social services and public maintenance services (e.g., police, fire, and sewer and water services) would also be required. The energy and social service commitments would be long-term obligations in view of the low likelihood of returning the land to its original condition once it has been developed.
 The uses associated with the ORSC would increase vehicle trips over the long term. Emissions associated with such vehicle trips would contribute to the South Coast Air Basin’s nonattainment designation for ozone (O3) and particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10).  Development of the ORSC site is a long-term, irreversible commitment of land.

B. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Pursuant to Section 15126(d) and 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines, this section is provided to examine ways in which the Project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. To address this issue, potential growth-inducing effects will be examined through analysis of the following questions:
 Would this project remove obstacles to growth, e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area, or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development?
 Would this project result in the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired levels of service?
 Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment?
2363
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 166 -
 Would approval of this project involve some precedent-setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment? Please note that growth-inducing effects are not to be construed as necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. This issue is presented to provide additional information on ways in which the Proposed Project could contribute to significant changes in the environment, beyond the direct consequences of developing the land use concept examined in the preceding sections of this EIR.

1. Would this project remove obstacles to growth, e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area, or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development? Approval and development of the ORSC would involve the extension of infrastructure to service the proposed recreational, service, and stadium uses. The ORSC site consists primarily of agricultural land (ranching and farming), a limited number of residences, and miscellaneous commercial uses such as a nursery, which are currently served by limited infrastructure. The Proposed Project would develop the ORSC site with urban uses, which would include construction of infrastructure extensions and improvements, such as roadways, storm drains, water pipes, solid waste collection systems, and energy/communication extensions.

Option 2 sewer improvements in the Offsite Improvement Area would extend sewer lines from the ORSC site to Eucalyptus Avenue, which could include growth in the Ontario Ranch as a result of expansion of services. Impacts to sewer facilities are discussed further in Section 5.19, Utilities and Service Systems.

In addition, the ORSC would increase the demand for electricity, which could require expansion of energy infrastructure provided by Southern California Edison, and may require expansion of natural gas infrastructure provided by the Southern California Gas Company. While these improvements are consistent with the City’s utility master plans, the construction of these improvements could facilitate the further urbanization of the Proposed Project vicinity, which primarily consists of the agricultural uses. Impacts to existing utilities and service systems and potential needs for future improvements are discussed further in Section 5.19, Utilities and Service Systems.

The Proposed Project includes the extension of Vineyard Avenue between Riverside Drive and Chino Avenue. Additionally, the Proposed Project would also involve expansion of Chino Avenue between Vinyard Avenue and the Cucamonga Channel to its ultimate full-width right-of-way (ROW) and Riverside Drive to its half-width ROW. It would also improve internal roadways (e.g., Ontario Avenue) to accommodate the increased trips under the ORSC. These expansions could induce further growth in the Ontario Ranch area pursuant to TOP 2050. Transportation impacts are analyzed in Section 5.17, Transportation.

Furthermore, the Proposed Project would involve land use changes to the ORSC site to accommodate the proposed recreational, hospitality, and commercial uses. The Proposed Project also includes concurrent redesignation of the residential parcels in the Vineyard Corridor south of the ORSC site to achieve a no-net-loss in housing units in accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 330 and SB 166. As a result 2364
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 167 -
of these changes, the Proposed Project would result in a surplus of 180 housing units (see Chapter 3, Project Description, Section 3.3.4, The Ontario Plan and Zone Changes). Therefore, the land use changes under the Proposed Project induce additional growth in the Ontario Ranch area. (Draft EIR pg. 10-2)

2. Would this project result in the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired levels of service?
While the Proposed Project would not directly contribute to population growth in the City, the specific uses under the ORSC would result in a higher number of average daily visitors to the ORSC site when compared to the development proposed under the Armstrong Ranch Specific Plan, specifically during stadium events and sports tournaments at the proposed sports facilities. This may require additional/expanded public services facilities (fire and police). As discussed in Section 5.15, Public Services, impacts to public services would be less than significant with review of individual site plans by the fire and police departments for site-specific requirements and payment of developer impact fees. (Draft EIR pg. 10-2)

3. Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment? During construction of the ORSC site and Offsite Improvement Area, a number of design, engineering, and construction jobs would be created. Construction employees would be absorbed from the regional labor force, and the construction of the ORSC would not attract a substantial number of new workers to the region. The operation of the ORSC would result in 1,026 new jobs in the city.

Activities under the ORSC could also result in increased business and economic opportunities in the vicinity of the ORSC site. For example, attendees of stadium events and sports games/practices at the city park facilities may seek goods and services from the nearby commercial centers due to their proximity. Environmental impacts could therefore occur if the increased demand from the ORSC causes development or redevelopment of retail/restaurant/commercial uses in the City. However, the Proposed Project would not directly result in redevelopment of other land uses in the City.

The land use changes under the Proposed Project include redesignation of the ORSC site to accommodate the stadium, retail, and recreational uses of the ORSC and concurrent redesignation of the residential parcels in the Vineyard Corridor south of the ORSC site to achieve no net loss in housing units in accordance with SB 330 and SB 166. As a result of these changes, the Proposed Project would result in a surplus of 180 housing units, referred to as the GPA and Rezone throughout this Draft EIR (see Chapter 3, Project Description, Section 3.3.4, The Ontario Plan and Zone Changes). The GPA and Rezone would create additional housing capacity in the City and would result in an increased population. These additional residents would seek shopping, entertainment, employment, home improvement, auto maintenance, and other economic opportunities in the City, resulting in increased demand for these services. However, as described in Section 5.14, Population and Housing, this increase would represent a small increase a 0.25 percent increase in population compared to SCAG’s 2045 forecast and a 0.16 percent increase when compared to TOP 2050’s population buildout forecast, which is likely to have a negligible effect on the market for good and services in region. Although the Proposed Project would have indirect growth-inducing effects, these effects would not create a significant impact on the environment. (Draft EIR pg. 10-3)
2365
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 168 -

4. Would approval of this project involve some precedent-setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment?
As identified above, the ORSC would require land use changes, including the redesignation and rezoning of the ORSC site for Open Space-Parkland/Open Space-Recreation and Hospitality/Convention Center. The Proposed Project also includes concurrent redesignation of the residential parcels in the Vineyard Corridor south of the ORSC site to achieve no net loss in housing units in accordance with SB 330 and SB 166. The ORSC site is primarily surrounded by agricultural uses that have been designated for future urban development under TOP as part of the City’s vision to develop the master-planned Ontario Ranch community. TOP 2050 designates a majority of the undeveloped land surrounding the ORSC site as Low Density Residential. The ORSC would serve as a regional destination for sports-related activities and events; and therefore, could induce the development of more supporting commercial uses in the place of residential. However, these would require full environmental analysis of the impacts of such actions.

The ORSC does not propose changes to any of the City’s building safety standards (i.e., building, grading, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, or fire codes) to implement this project. The ORSC would comply with all applicable City plans, policies, and ordinances to ensure that there are no conflicts with adopted land development regulations and that any environmental impacts are minimized. Therefore, the Proposed Project, in and of itself, would not be a precedent-setting action; however, the approval of a regional sports destination in Ontario Ranch could influence the development of additional supporting commercial uses in the area to serve the increased demand of visitors. Nonetheless, the impacts of subsequent similar actions would require environmental analysis and associated mitigation to ensure that such subsequent impacts would not significantly affect the environment. (Draft EIR pg. 10-4)
VI. FINDINGS ON RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR AND

REVISIONS TO THE FINAL EIR
The Final EIR contains response to comments, clarifications, revisions, and corrections to the Draft EIR. The focus of the response to comments is on the disposition of significant environmental issues as raised in the comments, as specified by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(b). The City provided written responses to each comment made by a public agency, as set forth in Section 2 of the Final EIR, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(b), and revisions and corrections to the Draft EIR are found in Section 3 of the Final EIR.

City staff has reviewed this material and determined that none of this material constitutes the type of significant new information that requires recirculation of the Draft EIR 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 Draft EIR.

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 of the CEQA Guidelines.
2366
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 169 -
VII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of the Proposed Project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered “acceptable” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093[a]). CEQA requires the agency to support, in writing, the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are infeasible to mitigate.

Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the FEIR or elsewhere in the administrative record (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 [b]). The agency’s statement is referred to as a Statement of Overriding Considerations.

The following provides a description of the project’s significant and unavoidable adverse impact and the justification for adopting a statement of overriding considerations.

A. SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Although most potential project impacts have been substantially avoided or mitigated, as described above, there remains seven project impacts for which complete mitigation is not feasible. The EIR identified the following significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the project, which would continue to be applicable upon implementation of the Proposed Project:

1. Agricultural Resources
 Impact 5.2-1. 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.

2. Air Quality
 Impact 5.3-1. The ORSC would generate emissions that exceed the South Coast AQMD operational regional significance thresholds; and thus, would contribute to existing or projected AAQS violations. Therefore, overall, the ORSC would be considered potentially inconsistent with the AQMP. No mitigation measures are applicable for inconsistency with the South Coast AQMD AQMP. Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would reduce operational emissions to the extent feasible; however, operational emissions would continue to exceed the South Coast AQMD significance thresholds due to vehicle emissions associated with operation of the ORSC site operations.

Because the fuel efficiency and fuel type of vehicles used by future employees and visitors are not under the control of the ORSC, no feasible mitigation was identified to further reduce mobilesource emissions. Therefore, Impact 5.3-1 would remain significant and unavoidable.  Impact 5.3-3. Long-term operation of the ORSC would exceed the South Coast AQMD regional significance thresholds. Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 would be required to reduce VMT and include transportation demand management measures such as pedestrian and active transportation 2367
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 170 -
improvements. Nonetheless, the vehicle fuel source, vehicle fuel efficiency, and travel mode for visitors are largely outside of the control of the ORSC. As such, no additional mitigation would be feasible to reduce vehicle-related emissions. To address VOC and CO emissions from area sources, Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would be required to ensure that all landscaping and property maintenance tools and equipment are electric powered and do not use fossil fuels. Additionally, Mitigation Measures GHG-1 through GHG-4 would reduce building energy use and would expand the use of electric vehicle charging onsite. Mitigation measures would reduce operational emissions to the extent feasible. However, long-term emissions would continue to exceed the South Coast AQMD’s regional significance thresholds cumulatively contributing to air quality impacts in the SoCAB. Therefore, Impact 5.3-3 would remain significant and unavoidable.

3. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 Impact 5.8-1. The ORSC would generate a substantial increase in GHG emissions onsite.

Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 requires implementation of transportation demand management (TDM) measures, such as pedestrian and active transportation improvements, to reduce VMT.

Nonetheless, the vehicle fuel source, vehicle fuel efficiency, and travel mode for visitors are largely outside of the control of the ORSC. As such, no additional mitigation would be feasible to reduce vehicle-related emissions. The second-largest emission source, energy consumption, results from electricity use and the consumption of natural gas onsite. Therefore, Mitigation Measure GHG-1 is required to reduce all onsite natural gas consumption by requiring all uses that do not include commercial cooking appliances to be all electric, precluding the installation and use of gas-fired appliances. In addition, Mitigation Measure GHG-2 would be required to ensure that electricity is generated onsite from renewable sources to the extent feasible. The mitigation measures would reduce emissions to the extent feasible. However, the ORSC emissions would still exceed the no net increase GHG emissions threshold. Therefore, Impact 5.8-1 would be significant and unavoidable.
 Impact 5.8-2. The ORSC would be potentially inconsistent with plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, including the California Air Resources Board’s 2022 Scoping Plan, the Southern California Association of Governments’ sustainable communities strategy, and the City’s community climate action plan (CCAP). Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-4 would ensure that development projects on the ORSC site are consistent with the City’s CCAP.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1 through GHG-3 and TRAF-1 would reduce impacts to the extent feasible. However, as discussed in Section 5.17, Transportation, the ORSC would continue to result in a substantial increase in total VMT in the City, would exceed the City’s VMT threshold, and would potentially be inconsistent with the VMT reduction goals in the Scoping Plan and sustainable communities strategy. Therefore, Impact 5.8-2 would be significant and unavoidable

4. Noise
 Impact 5.13-2. The ORSC would result in potentially significant long-term increase in noise levels associated with traffic noise and commercial noise. Mitigation Measures N-2 and N-3 would reduce commercial noise to less than significant noise levels. However, there are no feasible mitigation 2368
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 171 -
measures to reduce traffic noise impacts of the ORSC. Therefore, Impact 5.13-2 would remain significant and unavoidable.

5. Transportation
 Impact 5.17-2. 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 TDM measures consistent with those identified in the Mobility Element. TDM techniques include incentives to use transit; incentives to form carpools rather than drive alone; and making home, work, and shopping closer together to shorten travel distances. In addition, Mitigation Measure TRAF-2 would reduce VMT during events. However, VMT impacts under the ORSC site would remain.

Impact 5.17-2 would be significant and unavoidable.

B. PROJECT BENEFITS IN SUPPORT OF THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS
The following section describes the benefits of the Proposed Project that outweigh the project’s unavoidable adverse effects and provides specific reasons for considering the project acceptable even though the FEIR has indicated that there will be seven significant project impacts despite mitigation measures being implemented for the Proposed Project. Accordingly, this Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding potentially significant adverse environmental impacts resulting from the Proposed Project, as set forth below, has been prepared. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(c), the Statement of Overriding Considerations will be included in the record of the project approval and will also be noted in the Notice of Determination. Each of the benefits identified below provides a separate and independent basis for overriding the significant environmental effects of the Proposed Project.

Having reduced the potential effects of the Proposed Project through all feasible mitigation measures as described previously herein, and balancing the benefits of the Proposed Project against its potential unavoidable adverse impacts on agricultural resources, air quality, GHG emissions, noise, and transportation, the City finds that the following legal requirements and benefits of the Proposed Project individually and collectively outweigh the potentially significant unavoidable adverse impacts for the following reasons:

1. Implements the Objectives Established for the Proposed Project The Proposed Project would implement the vision shaped by the following objectives:
 Support the community’s vision for a “premier” city by providing the opportunity to incorporate comprehensive public facilities programing, including the development of a sports complex with associated mixture of uses.
 Consolidate City sports park operation.
 Expand recreational opportunities in support of youth and adult soccer, baseball, softball, basketball, and volleyball.
2369
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 172 -
 Broaden sports programs to include aquatics, tennis and pickleball programs for youth and adults.  Provide a high-quality stadium for a minor league sports team.  Allow for safe, convenient transit access from the Stadium to OmniTrans bus stops on Riverside Drive.
 Prioritize development away from sensitive receptors.

2. Implements Specific Park and Recreational Goals and Policies of The Ontario Plan The Ontario Plan (TOP) sets forth the goals, policies, and directions the City will take in managing its future. It is the blueprint for development and a guide to achieving the long-term, citywide vision. The ORSC would implement the following Park and Recreational policies of TOP:
 PR-1.1 Access to Parks. In all new residential development areas, we strive to provide a park and/or recreational facility within walking distance (¼ mile) of every residence and prioritize the establishment of parks in environmental justice areas that do not have adequate access to parks.  PR-1.5 Acreage Standard. We strive to provide 5 acres of parkland (public and private) per 1,000 residents.
 PR-1.7 Special Needs/Universal Design. We attempt to provide recreational opportunities at parks for people of all ages and abilities.
 PR-1.12 Trails. We promote connections between parks and local trails including those managed by other public agencies.
 PR-1.15 Trail Connectivity. We strengthen and improve equestrian, bike, and multipurpose trail connections within the City and work to improve trail connections into adjacent jurisdictions.  PR-2.1 Participation. We program park facilities to maximize utilization and participation, while considering park size, location, and population served.  PR-2.3 Community Involvement. We involve the local community in planning programs for neighborhood and community park facilities.
 PR-2.4 Access to Programs. We provide a range of recreational and physical exercise programs that are accessible to residents of all income levels throughout the community and prioritize establishing and maintaining equitable access for residents in environmental justice areas.  PR-2.5 Partnerships. We partner with local and regional agencies, nonprofit organizations, and the private sector to provide a comprehensive range of recreational programs.

3. Provides Infrastructure to Support the Project and Ontario Ranch Development within the Ontario Ranch has been constrained by a lack of infrastructure. The Proposed Project includes the following infrastructure improvements in the vicinity of the ORSC:
2370
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 173 -
 Roadway Infrastructure
 Riverside Drive: Vineyard Avenue to Cucamonga Channel (half-width improvements).

The ORSC site would require dedication and improvements to the south side of Riverside Drive to its ultimate ROW width of 104 feet.
 Ontario Avenue (full-width improvements). The ORSC site would require construction of Ontario Avenue within the ORSC site to its ultimate ROW width and dedication of the frontage along Ontario Avenue.
 Vineyard Avenue: Riverside Drive to Chino Avenue (full-width improvements). The ORSC site would require construction of the Vineyard Avenue extension south of Riverside Drive to Chino Avenue to its full-width ROW.
• Chino Avenue: Vineyard Avenue to Cucamonga Channel (full-width improvements).

The ORSC site would require construction of Chino Avenue along the southern boundary to its full-width ROW.
 Sewer Infrastructure
 Option 1. Installation of sewer lines to the east and connection to Inland Empire Utility Agency pipe along Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel. This option would allow for sewer to be installed within existing ROW.
• Sewer Option 2, Offsite Improvement Area. Installation of the sanitary sewer along Vineyard Avenue south to Eucalyptus Avenue via the existing ROW of Vineyard Avenue. This option would require new sewer lines to extend within the proposed Vineyard Avenue improved ROW to Chino Avenue, transition to trenching within the unimproved dedicated ROW south of Chino Avenue, connecting to the existing sewer line within the improved intersection at Eucalyptus Avenue. This proposed sewer line is anticipated to be between 12 and 20 inches in diameter and 10,578 feet of linear pipes from Chino Avenue to Eucalyptus Avenue.
 Domestic Water. The ORSC site would require installation of domestic water lines in Vineyard Avenue, Chino Avenue, and Ontario Avenue.
 Recycled Water. The ORSC site would include recycled water. The ORSC site would extend recycled water lines west along Riverside Drive and in Chino Avenue, connecting to Vineyard Avenue and Ontario Avenue.
 Electricity. The ORSC site may include relocation or undergrounding of several existing power lines. The ORSC site would require undergrounding of existing lines along Chino Avenue at the southern boundary, and existing power poles along Riverside Drive would be relocated.  Fiber Optic. The ORSC site would also expand the City’s fiber optic network, known as OntarioNet, to service the ORSC site. OntarioNet has an 864- and 432-strand fiber-optic backbone ring that includes spare conduits for future expansion. The fiber-optic backbone ring terminates at four key communications facilities in the city, each of which houses a 200+ gigabit per second (Gig) self-healing ring known as the “Core Network.” The Core Network allows the City to offer a catalog of services known as the “Access Network,” which provides 1 Gig to 10 Gig 2371
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 174 -
internet services, local area network (LAN) extensions, and wireless or Wi-Fi services for the community and City operations.

Infrastructure provided by the Proposed Project would serve the project site and greater Ontario Ranch community.

4. Provides Higher-Paying Employment Opportunities and Economic Benefits The ORSC site has historically been used for agricultural uses, specifically dairy farming. Agricultural uses in Ontario Ranch have been in decline as economic pressures have shifted such uses to the Central Valley and outside of California. The Proposed Project offers a timely opportunity to attract regional and neighborhood-serving amenities currently deficient in Ontario. There is strong inclination toward team sports and outdoor activities, particularly among younger generations, which underscores the promising potential for an outdoor sports complex. Soccer is the most popular sport, with more than 100,000 participants in the market area, followed by baseball with 63,000 participants. Ontario ranks sixth in spending on participant sports.12 The stadium, sports park, community center, and commercial development provides an opportunity to capture sales tax revenue that could be used to improve public services and facilities. The Market Study conducted for the ORSC identified that the Proposed Project would have a positive economic impact and would result in job creation in Ontario.

5. Other Considerations
 Even without any growth in the City, which is not a realistic scenario, the significant impacts relating to air quality and GHG emissions will occur simply due to regional growth.  Impacts relating to construction noise and vibration are temporary in nature.  Impacts related to events (noise and traffic) are short term and do not occur on a daily basis.

C. Conclusion
The City Council hereby declares that, pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the Proposed Project against any unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to approve the Proposed Project. Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, if the benefits of the Proposed Project outweigh the Proposed Project’s unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, those impacts may be considered “acceptable.” Having reduced the adverse significant environmental effect of the Proposed Project to the extent feasible by adopting the Mitigation Measures contained in the EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and this Resolution; having considered the entire administrative record on the Proposed Project; and having weighed the benefits of the Proposed Project against its unavoidable adverse impact after mitigation, the City Council has determined that the social, economic and environmental benefits of the Proposed Project, described above, separately and individually 12 Ontario. 2023, July, 31. Ontario Sports Park Market Study. 2372
46700.12006\42263023.2
Ontario Regional Sports Complex
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - 175 -
outweigh the Proposed Project’s potential unavoidable adverse impacts and render those potential adverse environmental impacts acceptable.

VIII. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) attached as Exhibit “C.” Implementation of the mitigation measures contained in the MMRP is hereby made a condition of approval of the Project. In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures set forth herein and the MMRP, the MMRP shall control.

IX. CERTIFICATION
The City Council finds that it has been presented with the EIR, which it has reviewed and considered, and further finds that the EIR is an accurate and objective statement that has been completed in full compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines and that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council.

The City Council declares that no evidence of new significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 has been received by the City Council after circulation of the Draft EIR which would require recirculation.

Therefore, the City Council hereby certifies the EIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings. 2373
June 2024| Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
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
909.395.2036
Prepared by:

PlaceWorks
Contact: Nicole Vermilion, Principal
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100
Santa Ana, California 92707
714.966.9220
[email protected]
www.placeworks.com
2374
2375

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

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

1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM............................ 1

1.2 PROJECT LOCATION ....................................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................................................. 2

1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS........................................................................................................................ 5

2. MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS.............................................................................. 7

2.1 CATEGORIZED MITIGATION MEASURES/MATRIX......................................................................... 7

3. REPORT PREPARATION ............................................................................................................. 39

3.1 LIST OF PREPARERS....................................................................................................................................... 39 2376

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

CITY OF ONTARIO
Table of Contents
Page ii PlaceWorks
List of Tables
Table Page
Table 1 Ontario Regional Sport Complex Amenities Summary.................................................................. 3 Table 2 Proposed Land Use Designations...................................................................................................... 4 Table 3 Mitigation Monitoring Requirements................................................................................................ 9 2377
June 2024 Page 1

1. Introduction

1.1 PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been developed to provide a vehicle by which to monitor mitigation measures and conditions of approval outlined in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR), State Clearinghouse No. 2023110328 for the Ontario Regional Sports Complex (ORSC) and associated off-site sewer improvements and land use changes (together referred to as the Proposed Project).

The MMRP has been prepared in conformance with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and City of Ontario Monitoring Requirements. Section 21081.6 states:
(a) When making findings required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 21081 or when adopting a mitigated negative declaration pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 21080, the following requirements shall apply:
(1) The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of a responsible agency or a public agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead or responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program.
(2) The lead agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based.

1.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The ORSC site is in the southern portion of Ontario, which is known as the Ontario Ranch. The ORSC site is on the southeast corner of Vineyard Avenue and Riverside Drive in the Armstrong Ranch Specific Plan area.

The ORSC site is bounded to the north by Riverside Drive, to the south by Chino Avenue, to the west by the unimproved right-of-way for Vineyard Avenue, and to the east by the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel. Much of the ORSC site is presently vacant and was primarily used for agricultural purposes, including the raising of livestock and dairy farming. Other land uses on the ORSC site include a nursery east of Ontario Avenue. Vineyard Avenue currently terminates at Riverside Drive. 2378

ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

CITY OF ONTARIO

1. Introduction

Page 2 ends

Ontario City CouncilJuly 16, 2024

Ontario City Council
July 16, 2024