Agenda packet — Ontario City Council, March 18, 2025 (part 18 of 28)

WHEREAS, the Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364) was certified on August 16, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as "Certified EIR"), in which development and use of the Project site was discussed; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director of the City of Ontario prepared and approved for attachment to the certified Environmental Impact Report, an Addendum to the Certified EIR (hereinafter referred to as "EIR Addendum") in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with State and local guidelines implementing said Act, all as amended to date (collectively referred to as "CEQA"); and WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of this Project were thoroughly analyzed in the EIR Addendum, which concluded that implementation of the Project could result in a number of significant effects on the environment that were previously analyzed in the Certified EIR, and that the Certified EIR identified mitigation measures that would reduce each of those significant effects to a less-than-significant level; and WHEREAS, the City's "Local Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" provide for the use of a single environmental assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed; and
WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act — Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. — (hereinafter referred to as "CEQA") and an EIR Addendum has been prepared to determine possible environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the Planning Commission the responsibility and authority to review and make recommendation to the City Council on the subject Application; and WHEREAS, the Project has been reviewed for consistency with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan 2050, as State Housing Element law (as prescribed in Government Code Sections 65580 through 65589.8) requires that development projects must be consistent with the Housing Element, if upon consideration of all its aspects, it is found to further the purposes, principals, goals, and policies of the Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and is subject to, and must be consistent with, the policies and criteria set forth in the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (hereinafter referred to as "ALUCP"), which applies only to jurisdictions within San 4502
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV23-039
February 25, 2025

Page 3 ends

Bernardino County, and addresses the noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity; and
WHEREAS, City of Ontario Development Code Division 2.03 (Public Hearings) prescribes the manner in which public notification shall be provided and hearing procedures to be followed, and all such notifications and procedures have been completed; and
WHEREAS, on February 19, 2025, the Development Advisory Board of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Addendum and the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to issue Decision No. DAB25-004, recommending that the Planning Commission approve the Application; and
WHEREAS, as the first action on the Project, on February 25, 2025, the Planning Commission issued a Resolution recommending the City Council adopt the EIR Addendum, finding that the proposed Project introduces no new significant environmental impacts and applying all previously adopted mitigation measures to the Project, which were incorporated by reference; and
WHEREAS, on February 25, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

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

SECTION 1: Environmental Determination and Findings. As the recommending body for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Addendum, the initial study, and the administrative record for the Project, including all written and oral evidence provided during the comment period. Based upon the facts and information contained in the Addendum, the initial study, and the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
(1) The environmental impacts of this Project were reviewed in conjunction with an Addendum to TOP 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364), certified by the Ontario City Council on August 16, 2022, in conjunction with File No. PGPA20-002; and
4503
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV23-039
February 25, 2025

Page 4 ends

(2) The EIR Addendum and administrative record have been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
(3) The City's "Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" provide for the use of a single environmental assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed. This Application introduces no new significant environmental impacts; and (4) All previously adopted mitigation measures shall be a condition of Project approval, as they are applicable to the Project, and are incorporated herein by this reference; and
(5) The EIR Addendum contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project, and reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and
(6) There is no substantial evidence in the administrative record supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant environmental impacts.

SECTION 2: Subsequent or Supplemental Environmental Review Not Required. Based on the EIR Addendum, all related information presented to the Planning Commission, and the specific findings set forth in Section 1, above, the Planning Commission finds that the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental Certified EIR is not required for the Project, as the Project:
(1) Does not constitute substantial changes to the Certified EIR that will require major revisions to the Certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and
(2) Does not constitute substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Certified EIR was prepared, that will require major revisions to the Certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects; and (3) Does not contain new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Certified EIR was certified/adopted, that shows any of the following:
(a) The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the Certified EIR; or
4504
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV23-039
February 25, 2025

Page 5 ends

(b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the Certified EIR; or
(c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the City declined to adopt such measures; or (d) Mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed in the Certified EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but which the City declined to adopt.

SECTION 3: Housing Element Compliance. Pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 3, Article 10.6, commencing with Section 65580, as the recommending body for the Project, the Planning Commission finds that based upon the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation, at the time of Project implementation, the Project is consistent with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan (General Plan) component of The Ontario Plan 2050, as the Project site is not one of the properties in the Housing Element Sites Inventory contained in Tables B-1 and B-2 of the Housing Element Technical Report.

SECTION 4: Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ("ALUCP") Compliance.

The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
(1) On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the Ontario International Airport Land use Compatibility Plan, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. As the recommending body for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ONT ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-2) and Safety Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the Planning Commission therefore finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ONT ALUCP; and 4505
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV23-039
February 25, 2025

Page 6 ends

SECTION 5: Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above-referenced hearing, and upon the specific findings set forth in the Sections above, the Planning Commission hereby concludes as follows:
(1) The proposed development at the proposed location is consistent with the goals, policies, plans and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan 2050. The proposed Project is located within the Mixed Use - Multimodal (MU-Multimodal land use district of the Policy Plan Land Use Map, and the proposed - PA1 (Hospitality Mixed-Use) of the Empire Groves Specific Plan. The development standards and conditions under which the proposed Project will be constructed and maintained is consistent with the goals, policies, plans, and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan.
(2) The proposed development is compatible with those on adjoining sites in relation to location of buildings, with particular attention to privacy, views, any physical constraint identified on the site and the characteristics of the area in which the site is located. The Project has been designed consistent with the requirements of the City of Ontario Development Code and the proposed - PA1 (Hospitality Mixed-Use) of the Empire Groves Specific Plan, including standards relative to the particular land use proposed (hotel/commercial), as-well-as building intensity, building and parking setbacks, building height, number of off-street parking and loading spaces, on-site and off-site landscaping, and fences, walls and obstructions. (3) The proposed development will complement and/or improve upon the quality of existing development in the vicinity of the Project and the minimum safeguards necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare have been required of the proposed Project. The Planning Commission has required certain safeguards, and imposed certain conditions of approval, which have been established to ensure that: [i] the purposes of the proposed Empire Groves Specific Plan are maintained; [ii] the project will not endanger the public health, safety or general welfare; [iii] the project will not result in any significant environmental impacts; [iv] the project will be in harmony with the area in which it is located; and [v] the project will be in full conformity with the Vision, City Council Priorities and Policy Plan components of The Ontario Plan, and the proposed Empire Groves Specific Plan.
(4) The proposed development is consistent with the development standards and design guidelines set forth in the Development Code, or applicable specific plan or planned unit development. The proposed Project has been reviewed for consistency with the general development standards and guidelines of the proposed Empire Groves Specific Plan that are applicable to the proposed Project, including building intensity, building and parking setbacks, building height, amount of off-street 4506
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV23-039
February 25, 2025

Page 7 ends

parking and loading spaces, parking lot dimensions, design and landscaping, bicycle parking, on-site landscaping, and fences and walls, as-well-as those development standards and guidelines specifically related to the particular land use being proposed (hotel/commercial). As a result of this review, the Planning Commission has determined that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the development standards and guidelines described in the proposed Empire Groves Specific Plan.

SECTION 6: Planning Commission Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in the Sections above, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES the herein described Application, subject to each and every condition set forth in the Department reports attached hereto as "Attachment A," and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 7: Indemnification. The Applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Ontario or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Ontario or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul this approval. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify the Applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding, and the City of Ontario shall cooperate fully in the defense.

SECTION 8: Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Ontario City Hall, 303 East "B" Street, Ontario, California 91764. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk of the City of Ontario.

SECTION 9: Certification to Adoption. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of the Resolution.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
4507
4508
4509
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV23-039
February 25, 2025

Page 10 ends

ATTACHMENT A:

File No. PDEV23-039
Departmental Conditions of Approval
(Departmental conditions of approval to follow this page) 4510
4511
4512
4513
4514
4515
4516
4517
4518
4519
4520
4521
4522
4523
4524
4525
4526
4527
4528
4529
4530
4531
4532
4533
4534

AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLANNING
ĔēĘĎĘęĊēĈĞĊęĊėĒĎēĆęĎĔēĊĕĔėę
Project File No.:

Address:

APN:

Existing Land
Use:

Proposed Land
Use:

Site Acreage:

ONT-IAC Project Review:
$LUSRUW,QÀXHQFH$UHD

This proposed Project is: Exempt from the ALUCP Consistent Consistent with Conditions Inconsistent Reviewed By:

Date:

Contact Info:

Project Planner:

CD No.:

PALU No.:

The project is impacted by the following ONT ALUCP Compatibility Zones:

Safety Noise Impact Airspace Protection 2YHUÀLJKW1RWL¿FDWLRQ Zone 1
Zone 1A
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4
Zone 5
75+ dB CNEL
70 - 75 dB CNEL
65 - 70 dB CNEL
60 - 65 dB CNEL
High Terrain Zone
)$$1RWL¿FDWLRQ6XUIDFHV
Avigation Easement
Dedication
5HFRUGHG2YHUÀLJKW
1RWL¿FDWLRQ
Real Estate Transaction
'LVFORVXUH
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5
$LUSRUW3ODQQHU6LJQDWXUH

CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION
3URSRVHG6WUXFWXUH+HLJKW

Airspace Avigation
Easement Area
Allowable
Height:
$LUVSDFH2EVWUXFWLRQ
6XUIDFHV
The project is impacted by the following Chino ALUCP Safety Zones:

Page 1 ends

Zone 6
Allowable Height:

PSP23-001, PDEV23-039, PDA23-005
southeast corner of Guasti Road and Holt Boulevard
110-322-33
Vacant lot
Specific Plan, Development Plan to construct a 600,000 square foot hotel and commercial building

10.43 n/a
ONT
The proposed project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport (ONT) and was evaluated and found to be consistent with the policies and criteria of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for ONT.

See Attached conditions.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Lorena Mejia
909-395-2276
Lorena Mejia
2/12/2025
2023-024
24-002
120 FT
120 -140 FT
✔
4535
CD No.:

PALU No.:

PROJECT CONDITIONS

AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLANNING
ĔēĘĎĘęĊēĈĞĊęĊėĒĎēĆęĎĔēĊĕĔėę

Page 2 ends

1. The project site is located within an area where 120-140 foot building heights are allowed. The applicant will be required to file for an FAA Obstruction Evaluation/Airport Airspace Analysis (FAA Form 7460-1) and receive a Determination of No Hazard prior to building permit issuance.

2. The project site is located within an area where 120-140 foot building heights are allowed. The applicant will be required to file for an FAA Obstruction Evaluation/Airport Airspace Analysis (FAA Form 7460-1) for any temporary construction equipment such as cranes and receive a Determination of No Hazard for any temporary structures/objects that are over 100 feet in height.
24-002
2023-024
4536

CITY OF ONTARIO

MEMORANDUM
TO: Lorena Mejia, Senior Planner
Planning Department
FROM: Robert Johnson, Deputy Fire Chief
Fire Department
DATE: February 12, 2025
SUBJECT: PDEV23-039 - A Development Plan to construct a 9-story hotel consisting of approximately 596.450 square feet to include 600 rooms, ancillary retail and various amenities on 10.43 acres of land located at 2236 East Holt Boulevard, within the SP (Specific Plan) zoning district and the MTC (Multimodal Transit Center) overlay (APN(s): 0110-322-33). Related File(s): PSP-23-001; PDA-23-005.

The plan does adequately address Fire Department requirements at this time Standard Conditions of Approval apply, as stated below.

See attached access exhibit
SITE AND BUILDING FEATURES:

A. 2022 CBC Type of Construction: Not listed, assumed I-A B. Type of Roof Materials: N/A
C. Ground Floor Area(s): N/A
D. Number of Stories: 9
E. Total Square Footage: 598,441 Sq. Ft.

F. 2022 CBC Occupancy Classification(s): R-1
4537
2 of 5
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:

1.0 GENERAL

1.1 The following are the Ontario Fire Department (“Fire Department”) requirements for this development project, based on the current edition of the California Fire Code (CFC), and the current versions of the Fire Prevention Standards (“Standards.”) It is recommended that the applicant or developer transmit a copy of these requirements to the on-site contractor(s) and that all questions or concerns be directed to the Bureau of Fire Prevention, at (909) 395-2029.

For copies of Ontario Fire Department Standards please access the City of Ontario web site at www.ontarioca.gov/Fire/Prevention.

1.2 These Fire Department conditions of approval are to be included on any and all construction drawings.

2.0 FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS

2.1 Fire Department vehicle access roadways shall be provided to within one hundred and fifty feet (150’) of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building, unless specifically approved. Roadways shall be paved with an all-weather surface and shall be a minimum of twenty-four (24) ft. wide. See Standard #B-004.

2.2 In order to allow for adequate turning radius for emergency fire apparatus, all turns shall be designed to meet the minimum twenty-five feet (25’) inside and forty-five feet (45’) outside turning radius per Standard #B-005.

2.3 Fire Department access roadways that exceed one hundred and fifty feet (150’) in length shall have an approved turn-around per Standard #B-002.

2.4 Access drive aisles which cross property lines shall be provided with CC&Rs, access easements, or reciprocating agreements, and shall be recorded on the titles of affected properties, and copies of same shall be provided at the time of building plan check.

2.5 "No Parking-Fire Lane" signs and /or red painted curbs with lettering are required to be installed in interior access roadways, in locations where vehicle parking would obstruct the minimum clear width requirement. Installation shall be per Standard #B-001.

2.6 Security gates or other barriers on fire access roadways shall be provided with a Knox brand key switch or padlock to allow Fire Department access. See Standards #B-003, B-004 and H001. 4538
3 of 5

2.7 Any time PRIOR to on-site combustible construction and/or storage, a minimum twenty-four feet (24’) wide circulating all weather access roads shall be provided to within one hundred and fifty feet (150’) of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building, unless specifically approved by fire department and other emergency services.

3.0 WATER SUPPLY

3.1 The required fire flow per Fire Department standards, based on the 2022 California Fire Code, Appendix B, is 3000 gallons per minute (g.p.m.) for 4 hours at a minimum of 20 pounds per square inch (p.s.i.) residual operating pressure.

3.2 Off-site (public) fire hydrants are required to be installed on all frontage streets, at a maximum spacing of three hundred feet (300’) apart, on alternating sides of the street. Streets with a center median shall require public hydrants spaced five hundred feet (500’) apart, on the same side of the street.

3.3 Buildings that exceed 100,000 square feet in floor area shall provide an onsite looped fire protection water line around the building(s.) The loops shall be required to have two or more points of connection from a public circulating water main.

3.4 The water supply, including water mains and fire hydrants, shall be tested and approved by the Engineering Department and Fire Department prior to combustible construction to assure availability and reliability for firefighting purposes.

4.0 FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS

4.1 On-site private fire hydrants are required per Standard #D-005, and identified in accordance with Standard #D-002. Installation and locations(s) are subject to the approval of the Fire Department. An application with detailed plans shall be submitted, and a construction permit shall be issued by the Fire Department, prior to any work being done.

4.2 Underground fire mains which cross property lines shall be provided with CC & R, easements, or reciprocating agreements, and shall be recorded on the titles of affected properties, and copies of same shall be provided at the time of fire department plan check. The shared use of private fire mains or fire pumps is allowable only between immediately adjacent properties and shall not cross any public street.

4.3 An automatic fire sprinkler system is required. The system design shall be in accordance with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 13. All new fire sprinkler systems, except those in single family dwellings, which contain twenty (20) sprinkler heads or more shall be monitored by an approved listed supervising station. An application along with detailed plans shall be submitted, and a construction permit shall be issued by the Fire Department, prior to any work being done.
4539
4 of 5

4.4 Wood frame buildings that are to be sprinkled shall have these systems in service (but not necessarily finaled) before the building is enclosed.

4.5 Fire Department Connections (FDC) shall be located on the address side of the building within one hundred fifty feet (150’) of a public fire hydrant on the same side of the street. Provide identification for all fire sprinkler control valves and fire department connections per Standard #D-007. Raised curbs adjacent to Fire Department connection(s) shall be painted red, five feet either side, per City standards.

4.6 A fire alarm system is required. The system design shall be in accordance with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 72. An application along with detailed plans shall be submitted, and a construction permit shall be issued by the Fire Department, prior to any work being done.

4.7 Portable fire extinguishers are required to be installed prior to occupancy per Standard #C-001.

Please contact the Fire Prevention Bureau to determine the exact number, type and placement required.

4.8 A fixed fire extinguishing system is required for the protection of hood, duct, plenum and cooking surfaces. This system must comply with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standards 17A and 96. An application with detailed plans shall be submitted, and a construction permit shall be issued by the Fire Department, prior to any work being done.

4.9 Provide a Fire Command Center in accordance with the Fire Code Section 508.1 in all buildings classified as high-rise buildings by the California Building Code and Group I-2 occupancies having occupied floors located more than 75 feet (23 m) above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access and in all F-1 and S-1 occupancies with a building footprint greater than 500,000 square feet

5.0 BUILDING CONSTRUCTION FEATURES

5.1 The developer/general contractor is to be responsible for reasonable periodic cleanup of the development during construction to avoid hazardous accumulations of combustible trash and debris both on and off the site.

5.2 Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Multitenant or building projects shall have addresses and/or suite numbers provided on the rear of the building. Address numbers shall contrast with their background. See Section 9-1 6.06 of the Ontario Municipal Code and Standards #H-003 and #H-002.

5.6 Knox ® brand key-box(es) shall be installed in location(s) acceptable to the Fire Department.

All Knox boxes shall be monitored for tamper by the building fire alarm system. See Standard #H-001 for specific requirements.
4540
5 of 5

6.0 OTHER SPECIAL USES

6.1 The storage, use, dispensing, or handling of any hazardous materials shall be approved by the Fire Department, and adequate fire protection features shall be required. If hazardous materials are proposed, a Fire Department Hazardous Materials Information Packet, including Disclosure Form and Information Worksheet, shall be completed and submitted with Material Safety Data Sheets to the Fire Department along with building construction plans.

6.3 Underground fuel tanks, their associated piping and dispensers shall be reviewed, approved, and permitted by Ontario Building Department, Ontario Fire Department, and San Bernardino County Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division. In fueling facilities, an exterior emergency pump shut-off switch shall be provided.
4541
\
\
/
/
/
\
\
/
\
\

GENERAL NOTES
1 'NO PARKING-FIRE LANE' SIGNS AND /OR RED
• PAINTED CURBS WITH LETTERING ARE

REQUIRED TO BE INSTALLED IN INTERIOR

ACCESS ROMJWAYS, IN LOCATIONS WHERE

VEHICLE PARKING WOULD OBSTRUCT THE
#B-001.

I
I
I
I

FIRE ACCESS SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1132'= 1'-0'

I I I I
BALl:.ROOM
30 FT
Bldg. Height
' ' \
\
\
\
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
\
I
I O ffon A· SB County Flood Control
1 1 fire Acc~ss. Provide a mit~~~ :::
wide paved area, setbac
; building between the proposed
/ southern wall to the north rooftop
stair access as shown. This Option
requires San Bernardino County
approval.

I
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
\

THE EMPIRE

GROVES HOTEL
Ontario CA 91730
Gensler
500SoulhFigueroastreet
LosAngeles,CatilomIa90071
UniledStates
I 6. Date D11crlpHon
Tel 213.327.3600
Fax213.327.3601
9129123 ISSUEFORENTITLEMENT
1 7112124 REISSUE FOR ENTITLEMENT
2 1212/2024 REISSUE FOR ENTITLEMENT
I Seal/Sign, ture
NOTFOR

CONSTRUCTION
I ProJeetName
Diversified Pacific
Communities
I Project Number

05.4382.000
I Dascrtpllon

FIRE ACCESS PLAN
Seale
As indicated
AS.002
©2015Gensler
4542

CITY OF ONTARIO

LANDSCAPE PLANNING DIVISION
303 East “B” Street, Ontario, CA 91764

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Sign Off
01/28/2025
Jamie Richardson, Sr. Landscape Architect Date
Reviewer’s Name:

Jamie Richardson, Sr. Landscape Architect
Phone:
(909) 395-2615
D.A.B. File No.:

PDEV23-039, PDA-23-005, PSP-23-001
Case Planner:

Lorena Mejia
Project Name and Location:
9-Story, 600 Room Hotel
2236 East Holt Blvd
Applicant/Representative:

Diversified Pacific Development Group, LLC Nolan Leggio [email protected] 10621 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Preliminary Plans (dated 12/12/2024) meet the Standard Conditions for New Development and have been approved considering that the following conditions below be met upon submittal of the landscape construction documents.

Preliminary Plans (dated) have not been approved. Corrections noted below are required before Preliminary Landscape Plan approval.

A RESPONSE SHEET IS REQUIRED WITH RESUBMITTAL OR PLANS WILL BE RETURNED AS INCOMPLETE.

DIGITAL SUBMITTALS MUST BE 10MB OR LESS.

Civil/ Site Plans

1. Mitigation for removed trees shall equal the trunk diameter of heritage trees removed per the Development Code Tree Preservation Policy and Protection Measures, section 6.05.020. A total of 795.5 inches of trunk replacement is required; see below for mitigation options.

2. Show on demo plans and landscape construction plans trees to be preserved, removed or mitigation measures for trees removed, such as:
a. New 15 gallon trees min 1” diameter trunk, in addition to trees required. b. New 24” box trees min 1.5” diameter trunk, in addition to trees required. c. Upsizing trees on the plan one size larger such as 15 gallon to 24” box, or 24” to 36” box size.
d. Monetary value of the trees removed as identified in the “Guide for Plant Appraisal,” approved certified arborist plant appraiser, may be equal to the value of the installation cost of planting, fertilizing, staking, and irrigating 15-gallon trees (100$ each) to the City of Ontario Historic Preservation Fund for city tree planting or city approved combination of the above items.

3. Include improvements to the Cucamonga Flood Control Channel.

4. Before permit issuance, stormwater infiltration devices located in landscape areas shall be reviewed and plans approved by the Landscape Planning Division. Any stormwater devices in parkway areas shall not displace street trees.

5. Stormwater chamber systems shall be designed and configured to allow for required tree locations.

6. Show transformers set back 5’ from paving all sides. Coordinate with landscape plans. Note that if SCE requires bollards (less than 5’ setback from vehicular paving), permanent, decorative bollards will be required; submit cut shets to the Planning Department. 4543

7. Show all backflow devices set back 4’ from paving on all sides. Locate on level grade

8. Locate utilities including light standards, fire hydrants, water, drain, and sewer lines to not conflict with required tree locations—coordinate civil plans with landscape plans.

9. Provide a utility clear space 8’ wide in parkways and 30’ apart for street trees. Move water meters, drain lines, and light standards to the utility minimum spacing and show utility lines at the edges of the parkway, toward the driveway apron, to allow space for street trees.

Landscape Plans

10. Shrub and Ground Cover Palette: Replace Dendromecon and Mimulus are easily overwatered, Isomeris (large and rangy, OK with ample planter areas), Ericameria (invasive), Lavandula (short-lived), Pennisetum/Nassella (invasive) and limit the use of non-invasive ornamental grasses to accent areas (difficult and costly to maintain in masses and poor winter appearance).

11. Show backflow devices with 36” high strappy leaf shrub screening and trash enclosures and transformers, a 4’-5’ high evergreen hedge screening. Do not encircle utility; show as masses and duplicate masses in other locations at regular intervals.

12. Locate light standards, fire hydrants, water, and sewer lines to not conflict with required tree locations. Coordinate civil plans with landscape plans

13. Show all utilities on the landscape plans. Coordinate so utilities are clear of tree locations.

14. Landscape construction plans shall meet the requirements of the Landscape Development Guidelines. See http://www.ontarioca.gov/landscape-planning/standards

15. After a project’s entitlement approval, the applicant shall pay all applicable fees for landscape plan check and inspections at a rate established by resolution of the City Council.

Specific Plan Comments

16. Shrub and Ground Cover Palette: Replace Dendromecon and Mimulus are easily overwatered, Isomeris (large and rangy, OK with ample planter areas), Ericameria (invasive), Lavandula (short-lived), Pennisetum/Nassella (invasive) and limit the use of non-invasive ornamental grasses to accent areas (difficult and costly to maintain in masses and poor winter appearance).
4544

Page 1 of 6 ends

(NOTE: Standard Conditions of Approval are attached.) Form Revised: 12/12/23

PROJECT REVIEW BOARD COMMENTS
* * * BUILDING DEPARTMENT * * *
Planning Case File No(s): PDEV23-039
Case Planner: Lorena Mejia
Applicant: Ontario Project LLC – Gabriel Guerreo
Location: 2236 Holt
Project:

A Development Plan to construct a 9-story hotel consisting of approximately 596.450 square feet to include 600 rooms, ancillary retail and various amenities on

10.43 acres of land located at 2236 East Holt Boulevard, within the SP (Specific Plan) zoning district and the MTC (Multimodal Transit Center) overlay (APN(s):
0110-322-33). Related File(s): PSP-23-001; PDA-23-005.

APN(s): 0110-322-33
Reviewed By: Klaus De Guzman Date: 1/13/2025
Following Standard Building Department Conditions of Approval Are Applicable to This Project:

See checked boxes below
Specific Conditions:

A)
Specific Comments (NOTE: THESE COMMENTS ARE NOT CONDITIONS!):

A)
4545

Page 2 of 6 ends

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

GENERAL CONDITIONS
☒ 1. Shall comply with the latest adopted edition of the following codes as applicable:

A. California Building Code
B. California Residential Code
C. California Existing Building Code
D. California Electrical Code
E. California Mechanical Code
F. California Plumbing Code
G. California Energy Code.

H. California Fire Code
I. California Green Building Standards Code.
☐ 2. The property owner/business operator shall comply with all applicable City of Ontario Municipal Codes and Ordinances.
☒ 3. The requirements of the Department of Environmental Health Services and the Air Quality Management District shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of any permit if hazardous materials are stored and/or used.
☒ 4. Pursuant to the California Business and Professions Code Section 6737, most projects are required to be designed by a California Licensed Architect or Engineer. The project owner or developer should review the section of the California Codes and comply with the regulation ☐ 5. All perimeter / boundary walls shall be designed and constructed so that the outer/exterior face of the wall is as close as possible to the lot line. In any case, the outer/exterior face of the wall shall be within two (2) inches of the lot line. Distances greater than two (2) inches may be approved prior to construction by the Building Official on a case-by-case basis for extenuating circumstances.
☐ 6. All lot lines, easement lines, etc. shall be located and/or relocated in such a manner as to not cause any existing structure to become non-conforming with the requirements of the latest adopted edition of the Building Code, or any other applicable law, ordinance, or code. ☒ 7. The Developer/Owner is responsible for the coordination of the final occupancy. The Developer/Owner shall obtain clearances from each department and division prior to requesting a final building inspection from the Building Department. Each department shall sign the Building Department Job Card
☒ 8. All signs shall be Underwriters Laboratories, or equal, approved. 4546

Page 3 of 6 ends

☐ 9. Permits are required prior to the removal and/or demolition of structures. ☐ 10. In addition to approval from Building Department, approval is required from the County of San Bernardino, Department of Public Health and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region for the Private Sewage Disposal System. ☐ 11. The existing private sewage system will have to be modified as required to accommodate the new use. Plans and/or supporting data will have to be submitted to, and approved by, the Building Department regarding the new use and necessary modifications. Additionally, approval from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region, is required for the new use.
☐ 12. The coach shall bear a State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) insignia indicating the occupancy group and design loads that the coach conforms to, and other relevant information regarding exiting, fire safety, electrical, plumbing and mechanical. The foundation system, porch and awning shall comply with plans that bear the HCD “Standard Plan Approval” stamp. The coach, foundation system, porch and awning shall comply with the City of Ontario’s design loads and site-specific conditions. ☐ 13. The conversion of the existing single-family dwelling(s) into a commercial use changes the occupancy group classification, and therefore the existing buildings must be made to comply with the requirements of all applicable codes for the new occupancy classification. Complete plans, calculations and other specifications shall be submitted to the Building Department for review, approval and subsequent permit issuance. The plans, calculations and other specifications shall be prepared by an Architect or Registered Civil/Structural Engineer licensed by the State of California who is qualified to perform said work. ☐ 14. The site, or a portion of the site, is in a flood hazard area. Justification that the proposed development does not adversely affect the location or carrying capacity of the floodway, nor does it adversely affect upstream or downstream sites shall be provided to Building Department. Additionally, all provisions must be taken to protect the site from flood damage. ☐ 15. All exterior lighting shall be orientated, directed, and/or shielded as much as possible so that direct illumination does not infringe onto adjoining properties. ☒ 16. Site facilities such as parking open or covered, recreation facilities, and trash dumpster areas, and common use areas shall be accessible per the CBC, Chapter 11. ☒ 17. Trash Enclosure shall be covered, and the interior clearances shall be designed to accommodate the following:
 4’ min. side access entrance
4547

Page 4 of 6 ends

 3’ min. wide clear pathway along rear of enclosure between trash bins and back wall.  Trash bins must be oriented sideways to allow access from the narrow dimension.  Use of curbs or wheel stops shall be provided within the enclosure to maintain access clearances and bin orientations.
☒ 18. The applicant/developer shall include the conditions of approval of this resolution on the construction plans.
☒ 19. Site development and grading shall be designed to provide access to all entrances and exterior ground floors exits and access to normal paths of travel, and where necessary to provide access. Paths of travel shall incorporate (but not limited to) exterior stairs, landings, walks and sidewalks, pedestrian ramps, curb ramps, warning curbs, detectable warning, signage, gates, lifts and walking surface materials. The accessible route(s) of travel shall be the most practical direct route between accessible building entrances, site facilities, accessible parking, public sidewalks, and the accessible entrance(s) to the site, California Building Code, (CBC) Chapter 11, Sec, 11A and 11B.
☐ 20. Commercial/Industrial gated site must have at least one pedestrian emergency gate, 3’-0’ x 6’-8” min. gate size, equipped with panel hardware on the inside, and gate must swing out.

Pedestrian emergency gates can be installed integrated with vehicular gates. ☐ 21. New residential single-family dwelling (SFD’s):
 The side yard gate must swing out toward the street.
 The gas meter shall not obstruct side yard access gates.  Air Conditioning unit located at side yard shall maintain 3’ min. clearance from property line wall to AC unit.
 Provide a continuous concrete walk between garage side door to driveway or sidewalk. ☐ 22. New development projects located in the Ontario Ranch specific plan are required to submit a methane assessment report. This report shall be submitted to the Building Department for review and approval at grading plan submittal.
☐ 23. If hazardous substances are used and/or stored, a technical opinion and report, identifying and developing methods of protection from the hazards presented by the hazardous materials may be required. This report shall be prepared by a qualified person, firm, or corporation and submitted to Building Department. This report shall also explain the proposed facility's intended methods of operation and list all of the proposed materials, their quantities, classifications, and the effects of any chemical (material) intermixing in the event of an accident or spill.
☒ 24. The property owner/business operator shall provide a grease interceptor at a location where it shall be easily accessible for inspection, cleaning, and removal of accumulated grease.

The sizing and installation shall conform to the current California Plumbing Code. The grease interceptor shall be constructed in accordance with plans approved by the Director of Public 4548

Page 5 of 6 ends

Works and the Building Official. The property owner/business operator shall contract with a maintenance company for maintenance and cleaning of the grease interceptor.

SITE CONSTRUCTION REQUIRMENTS
☒ 25. All construction sites must be protected by a security fence and screening. The fencing and screening shall always maintained to protect pedestrians ☒ 26. Temporary toilet facilities shall be provided for construction workers. The toilet facilities shall be maintained in a sanitary condition. Construction toilet facilities of the non-sewer type shall conform to ANSI ZA.3
☒ 27. Construction projects which require temporary electrical power shall obtain an Electrical Permit from Building Department. No temporary electrical power will be granted to a project unless one of the following items is in place and approved by Building Department and the Planning Department.
(A) Installation of a construction trailer, or
(B) Security fenced area where the electrical power will be located ☒ 28. Installation of construction/sales trailers must be located on private property. No trailers can be in the public street right of way
☒ 29. Any temporary building, trailer, commercial coach, etc. installed and/or used in connection with a construction project shall comply with City Code. ☐ 30. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit all of the following must be in place: portable toilet with hand wash station, all BMP's, fencing and signage on each adjacent street saying "If there is any dust or debris coming from this site please contact (superintendent number here) or the AQMD if the problem is not being resolved" or something similar to this.

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING/CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
☒ 31. The following grading items shall be completed and/or submitted – as applicable – prior to the issuance of building permits for this project:

A. Precise grading plans shall be approved
B. Rough grading completed
C. Compaction certification completed
D. Pad elevation certification completed
E. Rough grade inspection signed off by a City’s Building Inspector ☒ 32. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall pay all Development 4549

Page 6 of 6 ends

Improvement Fees to the City. Copies of receipts shall be provided to the Building Department prior to permit issuance.
☒ 33. The Tract or Parcel map shall record prior to the issuance of any permits. ☐ 34. The existing parcels shall be combined into a single parcel, or a lot line adjustment shall be done so that the proposed structure(s) does not cross any lot line and complies with all requirements of the California Building Code, prior to any building permits being issued. ☐ 35. Fire sprinklers, fire alarm systems and fire hydrant plans shall be submitted for plan review concurrently with building plans and shall be approved prior to permit issuance ☒ 36. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, school fees need to be paid to school district where project is located
4550

Page 1 of 6 ends

(NOTE: Standard Conditions of Approval are attached.) Form Revised: 12/12/23

A Development Plan to construct a 9-story hotel consisting of approximately 596.450 square feet to include 600 rooms, ancillary retail and various amenities on

APN(s): 0110-322-33
Reviewed By: Klaus De Guzman Date: 1/13/2025
Following Standard Building Department Conditions of Approval Are Applicable to This Project:

See checked boxes below
Specific Conditions:

A)
Specific Comments (NOTE: THESE COMMENTS ARE NOT CONDITIONS!):

A)
4551

Page 2 of 6 ends

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

GENERAL CONDITIONS
☒ 1. Shall comply with the latest adopted edition of the following codes as applicable:

Page 3 of 6 ends

Page 4 of 6 ends

• 3’ min. wide clear pathway along rear of enclosure between trash bins and back wall. • Trash bins must be oriented sideways to allow access from the narrow dimension. • Use of curbs or wheel stops shall be provided within the enclosure to maintain access clearances and bin orientations.
☒ 18. The applicant/developer shall include the conditions of approval of this resolution on the construction plans.
☒ 19. Site development and grading shall be designed to provide access to all entrances and exterior ground floors exits and access to normal paths of travel, and where necessary to provide access. Paths of travel shall incorporate (but not limited to) exterior stairs, landings, walks and sidewalks, pedestrian ramps, curb ramps, warning curbs, detectable warning, signage, gates, lifts and walking surface materials. The accessible route(s) of travel shall be the most practical direct route between accessible building entrances, site facilities, accessible parking, public sidewalks, and the accessible entrance(s) to the site, California Building Code, (CBC) Chapter 11, Sec, 11A and 11B.
☐ 20. Commercial/Industrial gated site must have at least one pedestrian emergency gate, 3’-0’ x 6’-8” min. gate size, equipped with panel hardware on the inside, and gate must swing out.

Pedestrian emergency gates can be installed integrated with vehicular gates. ☐ 21. New residential single-family dwelling (SFD’s):
• The side yard gate must swing out toward the street.
• The gas meter shall not obstruct side yard access gates. • Air Conditioning unit located at side yard shall maintain 3’ min. clearance from property line wall to AC unit.
• Provide a continuous concrete walk between garage side door to driveway or sidewalk. ☐ 22. New development projects located in the Ontario Ranch specific plan are required to submit a methane assessment report. This report shall be submitted to the Building Department for review and approval at grading plan submittal.
☐ 23. If hazardous substances are used and/or stored, a technical opinion and report, identifying and developing methods of protection from the hazards presented by the hazardous materials may be required. This report shall be prepared by a qualified person, firm, or corporation and submitted to Building Department. This report shall also explain the proposed facility's intended methods of operation and list all of the proposed materials, their quantities, classifications, and the effects of any chemical (material) intermixing in the event of an accident or spill.
☒ 24. The property owner/business operator shall provide a grease interceptor at a location where it shall be easily accessible for inspection, cleaning, and removal of accumulated grease.

The sizing and installation shall conform to the current California Plumbing Code. The grease interceptor shall be constructed in accordance with plans approved by the Director of Public 4554

Page 5 of 6 ends

Works and the Building Official. The property owner/business operator shall contract with a maintenance company for maintenance and cleaning of the grease interceptor.

Page 6 of 6 ends

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

CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO THE ONTARIO PLAN
2050 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT,

PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AS AMENDED, FOR FILE NO.

PSP23-001.

WHEREAS, DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant") has filed an Application for the approval of the Empire Groves Specific Plan, File No. PSP23-001, to establish the land use district, development standards, guidelines, and infrastructure improvements for the development of up to 600,000 square feet of hospitality and commercial land uses on 10.43-acres of land located on the southeast corner of Guasti Road and Holt Boulevard, in the City of Ontario, California (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and WHEREAS, in conjunction with the Project, the Applicant also filed an application for a Development Agreement (File No. PDA23-005) between the City of Ontario and Diversified Pacific Development Group, LLC to establish the terms and conditions for the associated Development Plan (File No. PDEV23-039), which will be considered by the City Council and contingent upon approval of the Empire Groves Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Ontario certified the Environmental Impact Report prepared for The Ontario Plan and associated Statement of Overriding Considerations, and issued Resolution No. 2010-003; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ontario adopted the Policy Plan (General Plan) as part of the component framework for The Ontario Plan on January 27, 2010, and issued Resolution No. 2010-004; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ontario certified the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), for the General Plan Amendment for The Ontario Plan 2050 Technical Update on August 16, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director of the City of Ontario has prepared and approved for attachment to the certified Environmental Impact Report, an Addendum to the Certified EIR (hereinafter referred to as "EIR Addendum") in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with State and local guidelines implementing said Act, all as amended to date (collectively referred to as "CEQA"); and
WHEREAS, the EIR Addendum concluded that implementation of the Project could result in a number of significant effects on the environment that were previously analyzed in the Certified EIR, and that the Certified EIR identified mitigation measures that would reduce each of those significant effects to a less-than-significant level; and 4557
WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a), a lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary to a project, but the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not required; and
WHEREAS, the City determined that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR would occur from the Project, and that preparation of an Addendum to the Certified EIR was appropriate; and WHEREAS, on February 25, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Addendum and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to issue Resolution No. PC25-006, recommending that the City Council concluded that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred, and further recommending that the City Council take actions on the Project in compliance with CEQA and state and local guidelines implementing CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ontario is the lead agency on the Project, and the City Council is the decision-making authority for the requested approval to construct and otherwise undertake the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the SEIR Addendum for the Project, has concluded that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred, and intends to take actions on the Project in compliance with CEQA and state and local guidelines implementing CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the EIR Addendum for the Project are on file in the Planning Department, located at 303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764, are available for inspection by any interested person at that location and are, by this reference, incorporated into this Resolution as if fully set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, on March 18, 2025, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the SEIR Addendum, and concluded said hearing on that date; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

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

SECTION 1: Environmental Determination and Findings. As the decisionmaking authority for the Project, The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council finds as follows:
(1) The environmental impacts of this Project were reviewed in conjunction with an Addendum to TOP 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 4558
(State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364), certified by the Ontario City Council on August 16, 2022, in conjunction with File No. PGPA20-002; and (2) The EIR Addendum and administrative record have been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
(3) The City's "Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" provide for the use of a single environmental assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed. This Application introduces no new significant environmental impacts; and
(4) All previously adopted mitigation measures shall be a condition of project approval, as they are applicable to the Project, and are incorporated herein by this reference; and
(5) The EIR Addendum contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council; and
(6) There is no substantial evidence in the administrative record supporting a fair argument that the project may result in significant environmental impacts.

SECTION 2: Additional Environmental Review Not Required. Based on the Addendum, all related information presented to the City Council, and the specific findings set forth in Section 1, above, the City Council finds that the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact Report is not required for the Project, as the Project:
(1) Does not constitute substantial changes to the Certified EIR that will require major revisions to the Certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and
(2) Does not constitute substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Certified EIR was prepared, that will require major revisions to the Certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects; and
(3) Does not contain new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Certified EIR was certified/adopted, that shows any of the following:
4559
(a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the Certified EIR; or
(b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the Certified EIR; or
(c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the City declined to adopt such measures; or
(d) Mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed in the Certified EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but which the City declined to adopt.

SECTION 3: City Council Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 and 2, above, the City Council hereby finds that based upon the entire record of proceedings before it, and all information received, that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will constitute substantial changes to the Certified EIR, and does hereby approve the SEIR Addendum, attached hereto as "Attachment A," and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 4: Indemnification. The Applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Ontario or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Ontario or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul this approval. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding, and the City of Ontario shall cooperate fully in the defense.

SECTION 5: Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Ontario City Hall, 303 East "B" Street, Ontario, California 91764. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk of the City of Ontario.

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

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 18th day of March, 2025. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
4560
ATTEST:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
4561

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

CITY OF ONTARIO )
I, SHEILA MAUTZ, City Clerk of the City of Ontario, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that foregoing Resolution No. 2025- was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Ontario at their regular meeting held March 18, 2025 by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
The foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2025- duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held March 18, 2025. _____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
4562
ATTACHMENT A:

Addendum to TOP 2050
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
(Addendum to follow this page)
4563

ADDENDUM TO THE

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050
Empire Groves Specific Plan
(State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364)
Lead Agency:

CITY OF ONTARIO
Planning Department
303 East B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
Contact: Lorena Mejia, Senior Planner
909.395.2036
Prepared By:

MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 500
Santa Ana, CA 92707
Contact: Frances Yau, AICP
949.472.3505
February 14, 2025
JN 195033
4564
This document is designed for double-sided printing to conserve natural resources. 4565
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

1.1 Project Location ......................................................................................... 1

1.2 Previous Environmental Documents.......................................................... 4

2.0 Description of Project Modifications ................................................................ 7

2.1 Addendum’s Purpose and Need................................................................ 7

2.2 Environmental Setting................................................................................ 8

2.3 Modified Project Description .................................................................... 10

2.4 Addendum Scope of Environmental Review............................................ 16

3.0 Environmental Assessment............................................................................. 19

3.1 Impacts Having No Potential to Result in New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts ...................................................................... 19

3.2 Impacts Potentially Resulting in New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts................................................................................... 21

4.0 Determination/Addendum Conclusion ........................................................... 73

5.0 References ........................................................................................................ 75 4566
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 ii

EXHIBITS
1 Regional Vicinity................................................................................................... 2 2 Site Vicinity........................................................................................................... 3 3 Conceptual Site Plan.......................................................................................... 11 TABLES
1 Proposed Specific Plan Buildout......................................................................... 10 2 Overall Construction Emissions Summary ......................................................... 25 3 Summary of Peak Operational Emissions .......................................................... 26 4 Localized Significance Summary Peak Construction.......................................... 28 5 Energy Consumption.......................................................................................... 37 6 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions .............................................................. 48 7 Significance Criteria Summary ........................................................................... 53 8 Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary ................................................. 55 9 Construction Vibration Levels............................................................................. 56 10 Reference Noise Levels ..................................................................................... 57 11 Operational Noise Levels ................................................................................... 58 12 Operational Noise Level Increases..................................................................... 59

APPENDICES
A Phase I ESA
B Air Quality Impact Analysis
C Biological Technical Report
D Archaeological Resources Report
E Energy Analysis
F Geotechnical Evaluation
G GHG Analysis
H Hydrology Report/WQMP
I Noise Impact Analysis
J VMT Analysis
K Water Supply Assessment
4567
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION
In 2009 and 2010, the City of Ontario (City), as Lead Agency, prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Recirculated Draft EIR, and a Final EIR for The Ontario Plan (TOP). These documents are collectively referred to in this document as the 2010 TOP EIR. TOP consisted of a six-part component framework: 1) Vision, 2) Governance Manual, 3) Policy Plan (General Plan), 4) City Council Priorities, 5) Implementation, and 6) Tracking and Feedback, to guide development of Ontario 20 years or more into the future.

In 2022, the City prepared The Ontario Plan 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (TOP 2050 SEIR; State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364) for The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP 2050), which was an update to TOP to guide the City’s development and conservation for the next 30 years through 2050. TOP 2050 is referred to herein as the “approved project.”
The Empire Groves Specific Plan (referred to herein as the “modified project” or “Specific Plan”) proposes to establish land use regulations, development standards, and design guidelines for a proposed hotel and retail development. This Addendum has been prepared to determine whether the modified project would result in new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts compared to the impacts of the approved project as disclosed in the TOP 2050 SEIR.

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The City of Ontario is in the southwestern portion of San Bernardino County and is surrounded by the cities of Upland and Rancho Cucamonga to the north; the City of Fontana and unincorporated San Bernardino County to the east; the cities of Eastvale and Jurupa Valley to the south; and the cities of Chino and Montclair and unincorporated San Bernardino County to the west; refer to Exhibit 1, Regional Vicinity.

As shown on Exhibit 2, Site Vicinity, the approximately 10.43-acre triangular modified project site (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 0110-322-33) is in the southeastern quadrant of the intersection of East Holt Boulevard and East Guasti Road. The site is bounded by East Holt Boulevard to the north, while East Guasti Road runs along its southern and southwestern edges. The eastern boundary is defined by an existing flood channel and the Cucamonga Creek Trail. To the south of the site lies the Ontario International Airport, which is separated from the site by East Guasti Road, Airport Drive, and a set of railroad tracks. The modified project site (also referred to as “Specific Plan area” herein) has direct access from Interstate 10 (I-10), situated to the north of the site. 4568
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 2
Exhibit 1
Regional Vicinity
4569
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 3
Exhibit 2
Site Vicinity
4570
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 4

1.2 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS
The Ontario Plan Final Environmental Impact Report
In 2009 and 2010, the City prepared a Draft EIR, Recirculated Draft EIR, and Final EIR for The Ontario Plan (TOP). These documents are collectively referred to in this document as the 2010 TOP EIR. TOP consisted of a six-part component framework: 1) Vision, 2) Governance Manual, 3) Policy Plan (General Plan), 4) City Council Priorities, 5) Implementation, and 6) Tracking and Feedback, to guide development of Ontario 20 years or more into the future.

The 2009 Draft EIR identified six environmental topical areas (Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Global Climate Change, Noise, and Traffic and Transportation) with significant and unavoidable impacts.

The 2009 Recirculated Draft EIR was released to provide additional analysis related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts associated with buildout of TOP.

Pursuant to Section 15088.5(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that if an EIR revision is “limited to a few chapters or portions of the EIR, the lead agency need only recirculate the chapters or portions that have been modified,” only the following topic areas were analyzed in the 2009 Recirculated Draft EIR:
• Global Climate Change; and
• Additional Project Alternative: 15 percent GHG Reduction Alternative.

Remaining topics previously analyzed in the 2009 Draft EIR were determined to be adequately addressed. Analysis in the 2009 Recirculated Draft EIR found that significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the 2009 Draft EIR would remain significant and unavoidable. These determinations were reiterated in the 2010 TOP EIR when it was certified on January 27, 2010.

The Ontario Plan 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report In 2022, the City prepared TOP 2050 SEIR for The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP 2050), which was an update to TOP to guide the City’s development and conservation for the next 30 years through 2050. TOP 2050 is a focused effort, with particular emphasis on technical refinements to the Policy Plan to comply with State housing mandates; conform with new State laws related to community health, environmental justice, climate adaptation, resiliency, and mobility; bring long-term growth and fiscal projections into alignment with current economic conditions; and advance the Implementation Plan and Tracking and Feedback system.

TOP 2050 fulfills the City’s mandatory Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) obligation. TOP 2050 brings long-term growth and fiscal projections into alignment with 4571
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 5
current economic conditions as well as property owner and stakeholder requests, to support the vision for Ontario.

TOP 2050 SEIR identified significant and unavailable impacts related to air quality, cultural resources, noise, and transportation.
4572
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 6
This page intentionally left blank.
4573
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 7

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT MODIFICATIONS

2.1 ADDENDUM’S PURPOSE AND NEED
When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent or supplemental environmental review documentation shall be required unless one or more of the following events occurs:
1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project, which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:

A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
D. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

When none of the above events has occurred, yet minor technical changes or additions to the previously adopted negative declaration are necessary, an addendum may be prepared (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164[b]).
4574
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 8
As discussed below, none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for preparation of subsequent environmental review have occurred. This Addendum supports the conclusion that the modified project modifications are minor or technical changes that do not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. In addition, as discussed below, the modified project modifications would not result in any new or substantially increased significant environmental impacts, no new mitigation measures, or no new alternatives that would substantially reduce significant impacts. As a result, an addendum is an appropriate CEQA document for analysis and consideration of the modified project modifications.

Circulation of an addendum for public review is not necessary (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (c)); however, the addendum must be considered in conjunction with the adopted Final EIR by the decision-making body (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (d)). The modified project is an Addendum to TOP 2050 SEIR (i.e., the certified Final EIR).

CEQA requires a comparative evaluation of a modified project and alternatives to the project, including the “No Project” alternative. TOP 2050 SEIR addressed a reasonable range of alternatives for the approved project. There is no new information indicating that an alternative that was previously rejected as infeasible is in fact feasible, or that a considerably different alternative than those previously studied would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment.

2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Located in an urban environment, the modified project site is an undeveloped, vacant, disturbed lot and is relatively flat with no temporary or permanent structures. Ruderal vegetation, including nonnative trees and shrubs, as well as stockpiled dirt mounds and rocks are present on-site. The site was formerly utilized for agriculture production until the early to mid-1980s and has since remained undeveloped. The site has been maintained through disking and mowing. The modified project site is surrounded by development on all four sides, including a channelized portion of Cucamonga Creek to the east.

GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
According to TOP 2050 Figures LU-01, Land Use Plan, and LU-04, Mixed Use Areas, the modified project site has a Mixed Use-Multimodal (MU-Multimodal) land use designation.

Per TOP 2050 Figure LU-05, Overlay Areas, the site is also within the Ontario Airport Metro Center Overlay.

The City’s future multimodal transit station is under consideration within the MUMultimodal area, which will link rail, regional, local, and airport transit. Intensive office, retail, and residential uses are envisioned to be integrated with the transit station. The transit center is envisioned as an iconic, convenient, and intuitively designed multimodal transportation center that will serve the City and the region at large. 4575
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 9
According to TOP 2050 full buildout summary, the total acreage under the MU-Multimodal designated areas (west of Archibald Avenue and south of I-10) is 72.56 acres, of which

10.43 acres fall in the Specific Plan area. It is estimated that this area will absorb a total of 2,449,727 square feet of nonresidential development and will create 5,993 jobs. Of this, approximately 553,124 square feet is allocated to lodging and the remaining approximately 1,896,603 square feet is allocated to retail and office development. The area has an allowable density of 20.0 to 80.0 dwelling units per acre.

The Ontario Airport Metro Center Overlay is envisioned as the most intensive area in the County with a vertical and horizontal mixture of regional-serving retail, office, restaurant, entertainment, cultural, and residential uses in low- to mid-rise buildings (i.e., 3 to 10 stories in height).

ZONING
According to the City’s Official Zoning Map, dated January 1, 2016, the site is zoned Specific Plan (SP) within the Multimodal Transit Center (MTC) Overlay District. The SP zoning district is established to accommodate the adoption of specific plans pursuant to TOP 2050 Exhibit LU-05, Overlay Areas. All land uses, activities, and facilities within the SP zoning district shall only be allowed pursuant to the applicable Specific Plan document. The MTC Overlay District was established to allow for the interim use of existing buildings located within the overlay district boundary, while preserving the City’s vision for development of a multimodal transit center and supporting mixed-use development.

SURROUNDING LAND USES
Surrounding land uses include a mix of commercial, airport, and industrial uses, which are further described as follows:
• North: East Holt Boulevard bounds the modified project site to the north. The Frontier Center office building and Holiday Inn are located further north. These land uses are designated Hospitality with a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.0, and zoned Convention Center Support Commercial (CCS).
• East: An existing flood channel and the Cucamonga Creek Trail bound the site to the east. Further east is an industrial warehouse development. Land uses to the east are designated Open Space-Non-Recreation and MU-Multimodal (20.0 to

80.0 dwelling units per acre and 1.0 FAR), and zoned SP with an MTC overlay. • South: East Guasti Road bounds the southern modified project boundary. The Ontario Gateway Hotel is located to the south of East Guasti Road. The Ontario International Airport is located further to the south and is separated from the site by East Guasti Road, Airport Drive, and a set of railroad tracks. Land uses to the 4576
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 10
south are designated Hospitality (1.0 FAR), Rail and Airport, and zoned CCS, Railway Corridor (RC), and Ontario International Airport (ONT). • West: East Guasti Road bounds the modified project site to the west. The Ontario Gateway Hotel is located further west and southwest of East Guasti Road. Land uses to the west are designated Hospitality (1.0 FAR) and zoned CCS.

2.3 MODIFIED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The modified project proposes to implement the Empire Groves Specific Plan which would include construction of a hotel and retail development with ancillary site improvements; refer to Exhibit 3, Conceptual Site Plan. The hotel would encompass approximately 553,124 square feet and the local-serving retail component would encompass approximately 46,876 square feet. Buildout of the total development would be approximately 600,000 square feet; refer to Table 1, Proposed Specific Plan Buildout.

Additionally, as shown, the proposed buildout would be within the TOP 2050 full buildout assumptions for the project site based on the MU-Multimodal designation.

Table 1
Proposed Specific Plan Buildout
Land Use Proposed Buildout TOP 2050 Maximum
Buildout for Project Site
Hotel 553,124 square feet 553,124 square feet
Local-Serving Retail 46,876 square feet 1,896,603 square feet TOTAL 600,000 square feet 2,449,727 square feet
Notes: According to TOP 2050 full buildout summary, the total acreage under the City’s MU-Multimodal designated areas is 72.56 acres, of which 10.43 acres fall in the Specific Plan area. It is estimated that the Specific Plan area will absorb a total of 2,449,727 square feet of nonresidential development, consisting of 553,124 square feet of lodging and 1,896,603 square feet of retail and office development.

In compliance with the City of Ontario’s Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP), the modified project proposes to implement Screening Table Measures identified in CCAP Table 6, Screening Table for Implementing GHG Performance Standards for Commercial, Office, Medical, Hotel, Fitness, Industrial, and Retail Development, 2030, that achieve a minimum of 100 points to ensure modified project-related GHG emission impacts remain less than significant. Potential GHG reduction measures include those related to building electrification, solar energy systems, green roofs, urban cooling, transit oriented communities, and transit ridership. The City would be responsible for verifying that Screening Table Measures achieving the requisite points are incorporated into the modified project plans and are appropriately implemented. At the discretion of the City, measures that provide GHG reductions equivalent to GHG emissions reductions achieved via the CCAP Screening Table Measures may be implemented. 4577
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 11
Exhibit 3
Conceptual Site Plan
4578
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 12

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Hotel Component
The hotel component consists of a 600-room hotel with a variety of amenities, including banquet halls, conference rooms, restaurants/cafes, spa and pool facilities, and a rooftop deck. The hotel consists of an east and west wing, connected above by a rooftop floor. In total, there would be eight levels with a rooftop deck with a maximum building height of 120 feet. The first floor of the hotel consists of the lobby, lounge, upscale restaurant and bar, spa, retail area, small meeting rooms, and a spacious banquet/conference center.

The first-floor mezzanine level is planned to include a game room, fitness area, meeting rooms, and a board room in addition to mechanical and electrical equipment. The second floor would house offices and a fitness center, and the remaining floors would be dedicated to hotel rooms. A rooftop pool and lounge terrace are also proposed with a fullservice restaurant and bar.

Local-Serving Retail Component
The local-serving retail and restaurant component would be located on the ground floor and be the focus of the northwest corner of the modified project site as a community plaza. Local-serving retail would consist of business spaces to provide services to the local community. Small businesses may include such uses as coffee shops, food and beverage outlets, retail, print shops, laundry or tailoring services, among others.

Landscaping
Extensive landscaping is proposed on the ground level of the entire site and third and rooftop floors of the hotel building. On the ground level, primary landscaped areas include the entrance area; edge treatments; courtyard, pool, and spa areas; and buffer planting area. Specifically, the primary entranceway to the hotel development from East Guasti Road would be designed with a canal water feature, fountain sculpture, and terraced plantings.

The edge treatments along East Guasti Road and near the intersection of East Guasti Road and East Holt Boulevard would include an array of street trees and decorative flowering trees to provide an aesthetic and safe buffer from vehicular traffic, promoting a pedestrian-friendly environment for the local-serving community plaza. The courtyard, pool, and spa areas would include pools, a water garden, event spaces, a wellness garden, and a food and beverage pavilion landscaped with shade trees, low hedges, and grassy open areas. Lastly, the buffer planting area is located between Cucamonga Creek and the eastern modified project boundary and would include a dense screening hedge to provide a visual privacy barrier that delineates the boundary between the modified project site and trail users along the creek.

On the third floor, a meadow type landscaping is proposed with specimen trees, an herb garden, pathways, and outdoor seating areas with cabanas, a fire pit, and pocket lounges. 4579
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 13
The rooftop area would be divided into the Sky Island on the west and High Gardens on the east. The Sky Island would include a central water feature and rock sculpture with a stone landscaping area, an expansive wooden deck, and pocket seating areas. The High Gardens would include a VIP pool with cabanas, chaise chairs, and outdoor living rooms.

Parking
A total of 932 parking spaces would be provided via a 27-space aboveground lot (for the local-serving retail uses) and a two-level, subterranean parking structure with 905 spaces (for the hotel). The subterranean areas would also include back-of-the-hotel facilities, storage, employee areas, and offices as well as mechanical and electrical equipment.

EMPIRE GROVES SPECIFIC PLAN
The proposed Specific Plan establishes land use regulations, development standards, and design guidelines for future development within the Specific Plan area.

Development Plan
The proposed development plan outlines the comprehensive land use framework, encompassing a summary of the modified project, a depiction of land uses specified in the Specific Plan, and various modified project elements, including landscape concepts and parking facilities. It also presents essential infrastructure plans, covering circulation, fire access, water supply, sewage, recycled water, solid waste, and community facilities.

The Specific Plan consists of one planning area (PA1), Hospitality Mixed-Use. The Hospitality Mixed-Use land use refers to a development that combines hotel uses, ancillary services, and amenities with local-serving commercial uses within a single property.
• Hotel Use: Hotel use is the primary component of Hospitality Mixed-Use and should occupy the majority of the FAR of the development. This includes guest rooms, office space for hotel administration, and may also include restaurant, bars, lounges, day spas, gyms, ballrooms, meeting rooms, and more. • Local-Serving Retail Uses: Local-serving retail uses cater to the daily needs of the local community as well as the hotel use. These businesses may include coffee shops, restaurants, retail, print shops, laundry or tailoring services and similar types of uses. These types of uses can benefit shoppers visiting the surrounding area as well as nearby residents who can access these services by foot.

As detailed in Table 1, total anticipated Specific Plan buildout would be approximately 553,124 square feet of hotel use and 46,876 square feet of local-serving use, totaling 600,000 square feet.

As previously described, the City’s MU-Multimodal designated areas (west of Archibald Avenue and south of I-10) encompass 72.56 acres, of which 10.43 acres fall in the 4580
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 14
Specific Plan area. Based on TOP 2050 full buildout summary, the MU-Multimodal designated areas have an anticipated buildout of 2,449,727 square feet of nonresidential uses (approximately 553,124 square feet for lodging and approximately 1,896,603 square feet for retail and office development). As shown in Table 1, the proposed Specific Plan buildout for both hotel and local-serving retail use would be within the TOP 2050 maximum buildout assumptions for the project site based on the MU-Multimodal designation. Overall, the site’s total anticipated buildout of 2,449,727 square feet under the MU-Multimodal designation would not be exceeded.

Circulation and Access
Potential roadway improvements in the modified project vicinity along East Holt Boulevard, East Guasti Road, and Airport Drive are identified in the Specific Plan that would complement future development of the area as well as improve connectivity.

The pedestrian circulation around the Specific Plan area is provided by existing sidewalks that have gaps at certain locations. The development of the Specific Plan would include sidewalks around the site and development of the community plaza at the intersection of East Holt Boulevard and East Guasti Road.

Infrastructure Plan
• Domestic/Potable Water: Water service to the Specific Plan area would be provided by the City. Currently, there is an existing 12-inch water main in East Guasti Road along the modified project frontage, and an existing 8-inch water main in East Holt Boulevard along the modified project frontage, both available for connection. The modified project proposes water line connections from the site to the existing water mains in East Guasti Road and East Holt Boulevard. • Sewer: Sewer mains are maintained by the City of Ontario and wastewater is treated at the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) Treatment Plant. Several regional trunk sewers collect sewage generated in the City and transport it to IEUA’s Regional Plant No. 1 and Regional Plant No. 5 for treatment. The modified project proposes to install a sewer line on-site to connect to an existing 12-inch sewer main in East Holt Boulevard.
• Recycled Water: Recycled water is provided to the City by the IEUA from its four wastewater reclamation plants. Currently, there are recycled water mains in the vicinity of the Specific Plan Area, with a point of connection located at the intersection of East Guasti Road and East Holt Boulevard. The modified project proposes to install an 8-inch recycled water main in East Guasti Road that connects to an existing 8-inch recycled water main in Convention Center Way (north of East Holt Boulevard) to extend south in East Guasti Road to end east of the Cucamonga Creek Channel.
4581
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 15
• Stormwater: The Specific Plan area would connect to existing storm drain infrastructure systems within adjacent roadways. Specifically, the modified project proposes an underground detention system and stormwater pump in the southeast of the site to convey treated stormwater flows on-site to an existing 108-inch storm drain line in Guasti Road.
• Dry Utilities: Electrical lines would be installed underground to connect to existing Southern California Edison (SCE) infrastructure. Similarly, the modified project would connect to existing gas lines provided by Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). Infrastructure supporting telephone services by AT&T and Verizon and cable television services provided by Time Warner Cable would be installed along with other utilities.

Development Standards
The development standards associated with the proposed Specific Plan serve as the authoritative document that delineates the specific land use designations and regulatory guidelines for the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan establishes standards, including those related to setbacks, maximum building height, floor area ratio, and lot coverage. Specific standards associated with utilities, public and private open space, bicycle parking, and loading areas are also detailed. Additionally, Specific Plan Table 3, Allowable Land Uses, details the allowable uses within the Specific Plan area.

Design Guidelines
The design guidelines establish a clear set of qualitative guiding principles that form a basis for the City to review development within the Specific Plan. The guidelines serve to establish high-quality design for new development and facilitate the design review and planning approval process relative to building configuration and architecture.

The guidelines are not intended as a literal requirement; instead, they serve as a framework for the design review process and cover key elements including building mass, elevation treatment and materials, entrances, façade design and composition, roof forms, materials, colors, landscaping, lighting, and signage. The intent is for the City to use the guidelines as part of the formal design review process, and for the City’s decision-making body to make qualitative findings demonstrating such compliance.

CONSTRUCTION
The modified project is anticipated to be constructed in a single phase for a duration of approximately 15 months.
4582
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 16

DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
The modified project is anticipated to require the following City discretionary permits and approvals:
• CEQA Clearance;
• Development Plan;
• Specific Plan; and
• Development Agreement.

Additionally, the modified project may be required to obtain permits/approvals from the following agencies:
• ONT Inter-Agency Notification Process;
• FAR Part 77 Notification – Federal Aviation Administration; and • NPDES Construction General Permit – Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board.

2.4 ADDENDUM SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
As discussed in the TOP 2050 SEIR, the approved project was determined to have less than significant impacts or no impact with regard to the following environmental issue areas:
• Aesthetics;
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources;
• Biological Resources;
• Energy;
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Population and Housing;
• Public Services;
• Recreation;
• Utilities; and
• Wildfire.

The TOP 2050 SEIR established that, with mitigation, the approved project would result in less than significant impacts related to the following environmental issue areas:
• Geology and Soils; and
• Tribal Cultural Resources.
4583
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 17
The TOP 2050 SEIR determined that the approved project would result in the following significant and unavoidable impacts:
• Air Quality;
• Cultural Resources;
• Noise; and
• Transportation.

This Addendum addresses changes resulting from implementation of the modified project to each of the environmental resource areas noted above. 4584
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 18
This page intentionally left blank.
4585
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 19

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This comparative analysis has been undertaken to analyze whether the modified project would result in any new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts as compared to the approved project that has been subject to the TOP 2050 SEIR. The comparative analysis discusses whether impacts are greater than, less than, or similar to the conclusions discussed in the TOP 2050 SEIR.

3.1 IMPACTS HAVING NO POTENTIAL TO RESULT IN NEW OR SUBSTANTIALLY

MORE SEVERE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources: According to the California Department of Conservation, the modified project site is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land. 1 As such, no agricultural or forestry resources occur on-site. No new or substantially more severe significant impacts to agricultural and forestry resources would result from implementation of the modified project.
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment:

Proposed Empire Resort and Spa, Southeast Corner of E. Holt Boulevard and E.

Guasti Road, APN 0110-322-33-0-000, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California 91761, (Phase I ESA), prepared by Petra Geosciences, Inc., and dated December 5, 2023, was prepared for the modified project; refer to Appendix A, Phase I ESA. According to the Phase I ESA, the modified project site is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Additionally, the Phase I ESA determined that no recognized environmental conditions, controlled recognized environmental conditions, or historical recognized environmental conditions were identified within or affecting the modified project site. Further, the modified project site is not located within 0.25-mile of a school. While modified project construction could involve the use of limited amounts of hazardous materials, such as paints and solvents, gasoline, diesel fuels, and other hazardous materials routinely utilized with construction equipment, activities would be short-term, and the materials used would not be in such quantities, or stored in such a manner, as to pose a significant safety hazard. Given that the modified project site was historically used for agriculture, it is possible that discolored soils, noxious odors, buried pipelines or irrigation channels, and/or other buried objects/debris may be encountered during clearing and grubbing, or future grading. However, similar to the approved project, all modified project-related construction activities would be subject to applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials, specifically those established by the U.S. Department of Transportation, 1 California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/, accessed August 14, 2024. 4586
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 20
California Department of Transportation, and California Highway Patrol, as well as the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act.

Operation of the proposed uses would involve the use of small amounts of hazardous materials, such as cleansers, paints, fertilizers, and pesticides for cleaning and maintenance purposes. However, uses of such hazardous materials would be regulated by the California Fire Code, as well as other federal, State, and local regulations related to the protection of the public’s health and safety.

Following compliance with existing local, State, and federal regulations, impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Thus, no new or substantially more severe significant impacts regarding hazards and hazardous materials would result from implementation of the modified project.
• Mineral Resources: According to Figure 5.12-1, Areas of Mineral Resources Significance, of TOP 2050 SEIR, the modified project site is identified as Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3), which are areas where the significance of mineral deposits cannot be determined from the available data. Development in an MRZ3 area would not result in significant impacts because mineral resources of Statewide or local importance are not identified in those areas on the California Geological Survey’s maps. As such, no new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to mineral resources would result from implementation of the modified project.
• Population and Housing: The modified project site is currently vacant; therefore, the modified project would not displace any existing housing or residents. The proposed hotel and retail uses are considered employment-generating uses.

Employment opportunities resulting from the modified project could directly increase the City’s population, as employees (and their families) may choose to relocate to the City. However, estimating the number of future employees who may choose to relocate to the City would be highly speculative, since many factors influence personal housing location decisions (e.g., family income levels and the cost and availability of suitable housing in the local area). Further, many modified project employees could already live within Ontario or neighboring jurisdictions.

Nonetheless, buildout of the modified project site and other areas designated MUMultimodal was projected by TOP 2050 to create 5,993 jobs associated with lodging and retail/office uses and was analyzed in TOP 2050 SEIR. The modified project is consistent with the MU-Multimodal designation and thus, would not substantially increase employment growth beyond what was previously analyzed in TOP 2050 SEIR. Additionally, the modified project would support this potential increase in population by providing for the infrastructure to accommodate the projected growth (e.g., utility and roadway improvements). Further, the modified project would support the goals of TOP 2050 by providing employment in proximity to multimodal transit. As such, no new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to population and housing would result from implementation of the modified project.
4587
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 21
• Public Services: As discussed above under Population and Housing, while the proposed hotel and retail uses may be growth inducing, such growth has been projected by TOP 2050 for MU-Multimodal designated areas within Ontario. As such, while new development may increase demand for public services, including police protection, fire protection, school, and library services, TOP 2050 SEIR determined that buildout of the approved project would be adequately served by existing and planned public services. No new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to public services would result from implementation of the modified project.
• Recreation: As discussed above under Population and Housing, while the proposed hotel and retail uses may be growth inducing, such growth has been projected by TOP 2050 for MU-Multimodal Designated areas within Ontario.

Additionally, no housing is proposed under the modified project, and the modified project would include extensive public and private open space areas to accommodate the proposed development. As such, demand for parks and other recreational facilities would not substantially increase. No new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to recreation would result from implementation of the modified project.
• Wildfire: According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire, the modified project site is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zone.
2 According to Figure 5.20-2, Fire Hazard Severity Zones, of TOP 2050 SEIR, the modified project site is not located in or near a fire hazard zone.

Thus, no new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to wildfire would result from implementation of the modified project.

3.2 IMPACTS POTENTIALLY RESULTING IN NEW OR SUBSTANTIALLY MORE

SEVERE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

3.2.1 Aesthetics/Light And Glare
Approved Project Findings
TOP 2050 SEIR determined that the approved project would have no impact on Statedesignated scenic highways as there are none in the City. TOP 2050 SEIR concluded that the approved project would not propose any development of a design and/or scale that would impact views of the San Gabriel Mountains, that implementation of the approved project would not conflict with existing zoning and regulations governing scenic quality, and that the approved project would be subject to the City of Ontario Municipal Code (Municipal Code) regarding potential light and glare impacts. Overall, aesthetic 2 California Department of Forestry and Fire, Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area, effective April 1, 2024, https://calfireforestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=988d431a42b242b29d89597ab693d008, accessed August 14, 2024.
4588
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 22
impacts were determined to be less than significant. No mitigation measures were required for the approved project.

Modified Project Analysis
The modified project proposes a hotel and retail development in accordance with the proposed Empire Groves Specific Plan that establishes a development plan, development standards, and design guidelines to guide development within the Specific Plan area. As detailed in Section 2.2, Environmental Setting, the MU-Multimodal land use designation permits lodging and retail on-site, which is consistent with the modified project’s uses.

While the MU-Multimodal land use designation permits low- to mid-rise buildings ranging from three to 10 stories (approximately 30 to 100 feet) in height, the proposed Specific Plan would permit a maximum height of 10 to 15 stories (approximately 100 to 140 feet).

This would be consistent with the allowable building height for the modified project site based on the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ONT ALUCP; refer to Section 3.2.9, Land Use and Planning). The Specific Plan would include development standards and design guidelines to ensure high-quality design and facilitate the design review and planning approval process within the Specific Plan area.

Development standards would require site setbacks ranging from five to 50 feet, a floor area ratio of 1.0, and a maximum 40 percent lot coverage. The Specific Plan would require that public open space be accessible at the pedestrian level from public sidewalks and would set minimum dimensions for private open spaces that are visible to the public.

Design guidelines would provide direction regarding building massing and elevation treatments, as well as site landscaping, lighting, and sign design. Specifically, lighting would need to be shielded in order to minimize light trespass, glare, and sky glow. Further, lighting provision for modified project construction are detailed in Municipal Code, Title 4, Chapter 11, Section 4-11.11, Construction site security provisions. Collectively, the proposed Specific Plan development standards and design guidelines and existing Municipal Code requirements would ensure the proposed development is consistent with regulations governing scenic quality.

Scenic views of the San Gabriel Mountains, the dominant scenic resource within the City, would not be obstructed with buildout of the proposed Specific Plan. Proposed design guidelines and development standards related to building mass, elevation, and height would ensure the proposed development does not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level.

Further, the proposed development would be adjacent to similar uses, including existing hotels to the north and west. Overall, the modified project would be of similar scale and character to surrounding uses and would be compatible with the buildout envisioned for the MU-Multimodal land use designated site by TOP 2050. The modified project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of TOP 2050 SEIR.
4589
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 23
Certified TOP 2050 SEIR Mitigation Measures: Not Applicable.

Addendum Project Conditions: None.

3.2.2 Air Quality
Approved Project Findings
According to TOP 2050 SEIR, TOP 2050 would be inconsistent with the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) because buildout under TOP 2050 would generate short- and long-term emissions that exceed SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). Additionally, operation of industrial and warehousing land uses accommodated under TOP 2050 could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant concentrations.

Incorporation of mitigation measures that would apply to a development project’s construction phase (2010 TOP EIR Mitigation Measure 3-1) and operational phase (2010 TOP EIR Mitigation Measure 3-2 and TOP 2050 SEIR Mitigation Measure AQ-1) would reduce short- and long-term emissions and subsequently, impacts associated with consistency with the SCAQMD. Additionally, TOP 2050 goals and policies would promote increased capacity for alternative transportation modes.

However, due to the magnitude of residential units that would be planned under TOP 2050 to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment requirements, no additional mitigation measures are available that would reduce impacts below SCAQMD thresholds. Impact pertaining to consistency with an adopted AQMP, short-term and longterm air pollutants emissions, and health impacts to nearby sensitive receptors would remain significant and unavoidable.

According to TOP 2050 SEIR, TOP 2050 would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Modified Project Analysis
The Empire Groves Hotel Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Ontario (Air Quality Impact Analysis), prepared by Urban Crossroads and dated April 19, 2024, was prepared to evaluate potential air quality impacts associated with the modified project; refer to Appendix B, Air Quality Impact Analysis.

Project Consistency with AQMP
In December 2022, SCAQMD released the Final 2022 AQMP (2022 AQMP). The 2022 AQMP continues to evaluate current integrated strategies and control measures to meet the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), as well as explore new and 4590
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 24
innovative methods to reach its goals. Some of these approaches include utilizing incentive programs, recognizing existing co-benefit programs from other sectors, and developing a strategy with fair-share reductions at the federal, State, and local levels.

Similar to the 2016 AQMP, the 2022 AQMP incorporates scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020-2045 RTP/SCS), a planning document that supports the integration of land use and transportation to help the region meet the Federal Clean Air Act requirements. The modified project’s consistency with the AQMP will be determined using the 2022 AQMP as discussed below.
• Consistency Criterion No. 1: The proposed project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.

As demonstrated below, the modified project’s localized and regional construction-source emissions would not exceed applicable regional significance threshold and LST thresholds. As such, a less than significant impact is expected. Further, the modified project’s localized and regional operation-source emissions would not exceed applicable regional significance threshold and localized significance thresholds. As such, a less than significant impact is expected. On the basis of the preceding discussion, the modified project is determined to be consistent with the first criterion. • Consistency Criterion No. 2: The project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the years of project buildout phase.

Peak day emissions generated by construction activities are largely independent on land use assignments, but rather are a function of development scope and maximum area of disturbance. Irrespective of the site’s land use designation, development of the site to its maximum potential would likely occur, with disturbance of the entire site occurring during construction activities. As such, when considering that no emissions thresholds will be exceeded, a less than significant impact would result.

TOP 2050 designates the modified project site as MU-Multimodal. The MU designation allows for a maximum FAR of 1.0 for office and retail uses. Intensive office, retail, and residential uses are envisioned to be integrated with the future multimodal transit station that is under consideration, which links rail, regional, local and airport transit. The modified project includes the development of a hotel with 600 rooms and suites, ballrooms, a spa & fitness center, meeting and conference rooms as well as an outdoor pool and event lawn and locally serving retail uses. Since the modified project’s proposed land uses are consistent with TOP 2050 and as the modified project’s construction and operationalsource air pollutant emissions would not exceed the regional or localized significance thresholds, the modified project is determined to be consistent with the second criterion. 4591
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 25
In conclusion, the modified project would not have the potential to result in or cause federal and/or State ambient air quality standards (i.e., National Ambient Air Quality Standards [NAAQS] and/or CAAQS) violations. The modified project’s proposed uses are consistent with the site’s land use designation and the modified project would not exceed the regional or localized construction and operational thresholds. As such, the modified project is considered to be consistent with the 2022 AQMP and impacts in this regard would be less than significant. The modified project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of TOP 2050 SEIR.

Construction Emissions
As part of the Air Quality Impact Analysis, modified project-related construction-source and operational-source air quality emissions from criteria pollutants (volatile organic compounds [VOCs], nitrous oxides [NOx], carbon monoxides [CO], sulfur oxides [SOx], coarse particulate matter [PM10], and fine particulate matter [PM2.5]) were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1.1.22. Output from the model runs for both construction and operational activity are provided in Appendix B.

The estimated maximum daily construction emissions without mitigation are summarized in Table 2, Overall Construction Emissions Summary. Under the assumed scenarios, emissions resulting from modified project construction would not exceed criteria pollutant thresholds established by the SCAQMD. Therefore, construction impacts in this regard would be less than significant. The modified project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of TOP 2050 SEIR.

Table 2
Overall Construction Emissions Summary
Year Emissions (pounds/day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Summer
2024 4.86 85.10 59.57 0.32 15.68 5.96
2025 39.43 27.80 72.35 0.08 9.62 2.95
Winter
2024 3.67 20.66 46.45 0.06 7.91 2.33
2025 3.30 19.14 43.84 0.06 7.84 2.27
Maximum Daily Emissions 39.43 85.10 72.35 0.32 15.68 5.96 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes: VOC = volatile organic chemical; NOx = nitrous oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter Source: Urban Crossroads, Empire Groves Hotel Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Ontario, April 19, 2024; refer to Appendix B, Air Quality Impact Analysis. 4592
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 26
Operational Emissions
Operational activities associated with the modified project would result in emissions of VOCs, NOX, SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Operational emissions are expected from the following primary sources:
• Area Source Emissions: Area sources include architectural coatings, consumer products, and landscape maintenance equipment.
• Energy Source Emissions: Energy source emissions include combustion emissions associated with generation of natural gas and electricity. However, because electrical generating facilities for the modified project area are located either outside the region (State) or offset through the use of pollution credits (RECLAIM) for generation within the Basin, criteria pollutant emissions from offsite generation of electricity are excluded from the evaluation of significance. • Mobile Source Emissions: Modified project-related air quality emissions derive primarily from vehicle trips associated with the modified project, including employee trips and commercial trips to and from the site associated with the proposed uses. Moreover, vehicles traveling on paved roads would be a source of fugitive emissions due to the generation of road dust inclusive of brake and tire wear particulates. Trip characteristics available from the modified project-specific traffic impact analysis.

The estimated operational-source emissions are summarized in Table 3, Summary of Peak Operational Emissions. Modified project operational activities would not exceed the numerical thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for emissions of any criteria pollutant. As such, operational impacts would be considered less than significant.

The modified project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of TOP 2050 SEIR.

Table 3
Summary of Peak Operational Emissions
Source Emissions (pounds/day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Summer
Mobile Source 19.66 18.24 172.16 0.41 35.25 9.14
Area Source 23.33 0.40 47.22 0.00 0.08 0.06
Energy Source 0.29 5.21 4.38 0.03 0.40 0.40
Maximum Daily Emissions 43.28 23.84 223.76 0.44 35.73 9.60 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Winter
Mobile Source 18.22 19.60 144.10 0.38 35.25 9.14
Area Source 15.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4593
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 27
Localized Significance to Sensitive Receptors
The Air Quality Impact Analysis makes use of methodology included in the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology). The SCAQMD has established that impacts to air quality are significant if there is a potential to contribute or cause localized exceedances of the federal and/or State ambient air quality standards (NAAQS/CAAQS). Collectively, these are referred to as Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). Based on SCAQMD’s LST Methodology, emissions of concern during construction activities are those associated with on-site NOX, CO, PM2.5, and PM10 emissions. The LST Methodology clearly states that “off-site mobile emissions from the project should not be included in the emissions compared to LSTs.” As such, for purposes of the construction LST analysis, only emissions included in the CalEEMod “on-site” emissions outputs were considered.

The SCAQMD recommends that the nearest sensitive receptor be considered when determining a project’s localized air quality impacts. The nearest land use where an individual could remain for 24 hours to the project site has been used to determine localized construction and operational air quality impacts for emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 (since PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds are based on a 24-hour averaging time). Receptors in the modified project area are described and shown in Air Quality Impact Analysis Exhibit 3-B, Receptor Locations.
• R1: Location R1 represents the Ontario Gateway Hotel at 2200 E Holt Blvd, approximately 176 feet west of the modified project site. • R2: Location R2 represents the existing residence at 304 N Placer Privado, approximately 2,802 feet north of the modified project site. • R3: Location R3 represents the existing building of Holiday Inn Ontario Airport at 2155 E Convention Center Way, approximately 237 feet north of the modified project site.
• R4: Location R4 represents the existing residence at 2505 E Date Palm Paseo, approximately 1,968 feet north of the modified project site. • R5: Location R5 represents the existing residence at 710 Via Dolcetto, approximately 3,593 feet northeast of the modified project site. • R6: Location R6 represents the Frontier Center at 2151 E Convention Center Way, approximately 232 feet north of the modified project site.

Source Emissions (pounds/day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Energy Source 0.29 5.21 4.38 0.03 0.40 0.40
Maximum Daily Emissions 34.09 24.81 148.47 0.42 35.64 9.54 SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes: VOC = volatile organic chemical; NOx = nitrous oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter Source: Urban Crossroads, Empire Groves Hotel Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Ontario, April 19, 2024; refer to Appendix B, Air Quality Impact Analysis. 4594
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 28
In order to estimate localized pollutant concentrations resulting from modified project construction, the SCAQMD-approved American Meteorological Society/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD) dispersion model was utilized. AERMOD model outputs are provided in Appendix B. As illustrated in Table 4, Localized Significance Summary Peak Construction, emissions during the peak construction activity would not exceed the SCAQMD’s localized significance thresholds at the maximally exposed receptor location, All other modeled locations in the study area would experience a lesser concentration and consequently a lesser impact.

Table 4
Localized Significance Summary Peak Construction
According to SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a proposed project, if the project includes stationary sources, or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., transfer facilities and warehouse buildings). The modified project does not include such uses, and thus, due to the lack of significant stationary source emissions, no long-term localized significance threshold analysis is warranted.

Based on the Air Quality Impact Analysis, the modified project would not result in potentially adverse CO concentrations or “hot spots”. Further, detailed modeling of project-specific CO “hot spots” is not needed to reach this conclusion. It has long been recognized that CO hotspots are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at congested intersections. Currently, the allowable CO emissions standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams/mile for passenger cars (there are requirements for certain vehicles that are more stringent). To establish a more accurate record of baseline CO concentrations affecting the Basin, a CO “hot spot” analysis was conducted in 2003 for four busy intersections in Los Angeles at the peak morning and afternoon time periods.

This 2003 “hot spot” analysis did not predict any violation of CO standards at any of these busy intersections.

An adverse CO concentration, known as a “hot spot,” would occur if an exceedance of the State one-hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur.

Peak Construction
CO NO2 PM10 PM2.5
Averaging Time
1-Hour 8-Hour 1-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour
Peak Day Localized Emissions 0.05 0.03 0.0366 2.72 1.57 Background Concentration 1.30 1.00 0.085 --
Total Concentration 1.35 1.03 0.12 2.72 1.57
SCAQMD LST 20 9 0.18 10.4 10.4
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO
Notes: NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter
Source: Urban Crossroads, Empire Groves Hotel Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Ontario, April 19, 2024; refer to Appendix B, Air Quality Impact Analysis. 4595
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 29
The ambient 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentration within the modified project study area is estimated to be 1.3 ppm and 1.0 ppm, respectively (2022 data from I-10 Near Road monitoring station). Therefore, even if the traffic volumes for the modified project were double or even triple the traffic volumes generated at the Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway intersection (the nearest intersection out of the four busy intersections studied in 2003 “hot spot” analysis), coupled with the on-going improvements in ambient air quality, the modified project would not be capable of resulting in a CO “hot spot” at any study area intersections.

In December 2018, in the case of Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, the California Supreme Court held that an EIR’s air quality analysis must meaningfully connect the identified air quality impacts to the human health consequences of those impacts, or meaningfully explain why that analysis cannot be provided. As the modified project’s emissions would comply with federal, State, and local air quality standards, the modified project’s emissions are not sufficiently high enough to use a regional modeling program to correlate health effects on a Basin-wide level and would not provide a reliable indicator of health effects if modeled.

In conclusion, results of the LST analysis indicate that the modified project would not exceed the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds during construction. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations during modified project construction. Additionally, the modified project would not have the potential to exceed the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds during operation as the modified project lack significant stationary source emissions. Further, modified project-related traffic would not create or result in a CO “hotspot.” Lastly, as the modified project’s emissions would comply with federal, State, and local air quality standards, they are not sufficiently high enough to use a regional modeling program to correlate health effects on a basin-wide level and would not provide a reliable indicator of health effects if modeled. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations as the result of modified project and localized impacts would be less than significant. The modified project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of TOP 2050 SEIR.

Odor
The modified project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. Potential odor sources associated with the modified project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities and the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the modified project’s (long-term operational) uses.

Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts from construction. The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction and is thus considered less than significant. It is expected that modified project-generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance 4596
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 30
with current solid waste regulations. The modified project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, odors and other emissions (such as those leading to odors) associated with construction and operations activities of the modified project would be less than significant. The modified project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of TOP 2050 SEIR.

Certified TOP 2050 SEIR Mitigation Measures: Not Applicable.

Addendum Project Conditions: None.

3.2.3 Biological Resources
Approved Project Findings
According to TOP 2050 SEIR, there are no sensitive plant species or wildlife movement corridors within the City. However, TOP 2050 SEIR requires all future development located within special-status wildlife critical habitat in the City, including within jurisdictional waters and wetlands, and conservation plans and areas, to conduct focused species surveys where applicable. Additionally, future projects would be required to consult and coordinate with applicable regulating agencies, including, but not limited to, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and implement necessary mitigation measures pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA), Clean Water Act (CWA), and California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Following the focused surveys and agency consultation, any resulting mitigation measures should be implemented. Overall, TOP 2050 SEIR determined that less than significant impacts to biological resources would result as the approved project would not grant specific entitlements for development and would not result in development of new, previously undeveloped areas of the City. No mitigation measures were required for the approved project.

Modified Project Analysis
The Biological Technical Report for the Ontario Hotel Project, San Bernardino County, California (Biological Technical Report), prepared by ECORP Consulting, Inc., and dated December 2024, was prepared for the modified project; refer to Appendix C, Biological Technical Report. The Biological Technical Report involved a literature review using the CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Electronic Inventory, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, NRCS Hydric Soils List, USFWS National Wetlands Inventory, and corresponding U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps, a biological reconnaissance survey of the modified project site and 500-foot buffer conducted on June 28, 2023, and a tree inventory by a certified arborist. 4597
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 31
Riparian Habitat and Sensitive Natural Communities
The Biological Technical Report determined that the modified project site does not contain any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities that would need to be preserved, is not located within a designated wildlife corridor or linkage, does not contain any State or federally protected wetlands, and is not located in a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. As such, no impacts would occur in this regard.

Special-Status Species
No special-status plant or wildlife species were observed during the site survey; however, 12 special-status plant species and 50 special-status wildlife species appeared in the literature review as occurring within five miles of the modified project site. Of the 12 special-status plant species identified, Parry’s spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi) and Brand’s star phacelia (Phacelia stellaris) have a moderate potential to occur on-site.

It is acknowledged that neither species was identified on the modified project site during the field survey and the site provides only marginally or limited amounts of suitable habitat (including soils and elevation factors). Further, Parry’s spineflower and Brand’s star phacelia are not federally or State-listed species. Therefore, it is not likely that the modified project would require a mechanism for “take” of federally or State-listed plant species. If present on-site, these two species are only expected to occur in very low density and modified project-related impacts would not be expected to contribute to an overall decline of populations for these species. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur to special-status plant species.

Of the 50 special-status wildlife species identified, Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii), southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax), and Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus), have a moderate potential to occur on-site. The southern California legless lizard, northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, Los Angeles pocket mouse are all CDFW species of special concern and, if present on the modified project site, these species could be subject to direct impacts through ground disturbance and indirect impacts from construction noise, vibrations, and increased human activity related to modified project development. However, due to the lack of high-quality habitat within the modified project area, the site’s long history of anthropogenic disturbances, and the presence of urban development immediately adjacent to the modified site, if present on the modified project site, these species are only expected to occur in very low density and modified project-related impacts would not be expected to contribute to the overall decline of populations for these species.

Therefore, impacts to southern California legless lizard, northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, Los Angeles pocket mouse would not be considered significant under CEQA, Crotch bumble bee and burrowing owl, both candidate species for listing under CESA, were not present on the modified project site during the field survey; however, these species were determined to have moderate potential to occur based on the presence of 4598
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 32
marginally suitable habitat and/or recent (less than 20 years old) species records within five miles of the modified project site. To ensure good faith effort and best practices are implemented during ground disturbing activities, Standard Condition of Approval (SCA) BIO-1 through SCA BIO-3 would require implementation of best management practices, including pre-construction surveys, monitoring, and other avoidance measures to reduce potential impacts to special-status wildlife species. Specifically, SCA BIO-1 requires preconstruction surveys be conducted based on established protocols provided by the CDFW and/or USFWS, SCA BIO-2 requires construction monitoring to ensure compliance with environmental regulations including the MBTA, and SCA BIO-3 requires consultation with CDFW and/or USFWS if special-status wildlife species are observed during monitoring. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Nesting Birds and Roosting Bats
During the tree inventory, potential nesting habitat for migratory birds and raptors protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code was present in the river red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) and Peruvian pepper trees (Schinus mole) scattered throughout the modified project site. Suitable nesting habitat for ground-nesting bird species, such as mourning doves, as well as suitable roosting habitat for foliage roosting bat species could occur on-site. The project would be subject to compliance with the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code regarding nesting birds. Therefore, SCA BIO2 would require construction monitoring to ensure best practices to minimize impacts to biological resources are implemented.

Certified TOP 2050 SEIR Mitigation Measures: Not Applicable.

Addendum Project Conditions:

SCA BIO-1 Pre-construction Surveys. A biologist should conduct surveys for plants species covered by the San Bernardino County Development Code – Plant Protection and Management (Chapter 88.01) and special-status wildlife species (e.g., desert tortoise, Crotch bumble bee, and burrowing owl), as well as for nesting birds. Surveys should follow established protocols provided by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), if applicable. If special-status species or nesting birds are identified, the biologist should coordinate with CDFW and/or USFWS to develop and implement appropriate measures.

These may include establishing protective buffer zones, rescheduling activities to avoid sensitive periods, or other measures.

SCA BIO-2 Construction Monitoring. During initial ground-disturbing and vegetationclearing activities, a biologist should conduct daily clearance surveys 4599
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 33
(“sweeps”) to ensure compliance with environmental regulations, including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). If an active bird nest, protected by the MTBA or other special-status resource is located, the biologist should establish a visible disturbance-free buffer zone around the nest or resource.

Construction activities within these buffer zones should only proceed once the biologist determines the nest is no longer active.

SCA BIO-3 Response to Wildlife Observations. If special-status wildlife species are observed during monitoring, consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is advised to establish and implement additional protective measures.

These may include further monitoring or specific work restrictions to ensure compliance with environmental regulations, including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the San Bernardino County Development Code – Plant Protection and Management (Chapter 88.01).

3.2.4 Cultural Resources
Approved Project Findings
According to TOP 2050 SEIR, implementation of TOP 2050 could impact historic resources. TOP 2050 would result in an increase in land use intensity but would not result in development in areas of the City that were not planned for development under TOP 2010. Nonetheless, historical resources categorized under the City’s Development Code as Tier III could still be potentially impacted with implementation of new land uses under TOP 2050. 2010 TOP EIR Mitigation Measure 5-1 would require historic or potentially historic resources to be evaluated for historic significance through the City’s Development Code tier system. Major modification or demolition of Tier III resources may be appropriate under certain circumstances. If demolition occurs, the City requires historic resources to be documented and historic features to be salvaged and requires a demolition mitigation fee. Provided that major modification or demolition of Tier III resources may still occur upon implementation of 2010 TOP EIR Mitigation Measure 5-1, the measure would not provide a high level of protection for Tier III historic resources under CEQA. Therefore, impacts to historic resources were determined to remain significant and unavoidable.

Implementation of TOP 2050 could impact archaeological resources as future development that would be accommodated by TOP 2050 could potentially unearth previously unrecorded resources. 2010 TOP EIR Mitigation Measure 5-2 would require preservation and curation of archeological resources if uncovered during development.

Implementation of 2010 TOP EIR Mitigation Measure 5-2 would reduce potential impacts to archeological resources to a less than significant level.

According to TOP 2050 SEIR, grading activities would not adversely impact human remains, if accidently uncovered, because procedures are required under the Public Resources Code and California Health and Safety code. Although soil-disturbing activities 4600
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 34
associated with development in accordance with TOP 2050 could result in the discovery of human remains, compliance with existing regulations would ensure that significant impacts to human remains would not occur.

Modified Project Analysis
The Archaeological Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report for the Ontario Hotel Project on the East Corner of Holt Boulevard and Guasti Road, San Bernardino County, California (Archaeological Resources Report), prepared by ECORP Consulting, Inc. and dated August 2023, was prepared to evaluate potential cultural resources impacts associated with the modified project; refer to Appendix D, Archaeological Resources Report. The Archaeological Resources Report included a records search for the modified project site using the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the South-Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton; literature review, and a field survey. In addition to the official records and maps for archaeological sites and surveys in San Bernardino County, the following historic references were also reviewed during the literature review: Built Environment Resource Directory; the National Register Information System; Office of Historic Preservation, California Historical Landmarks; California Points of Historical Interest Caltrans State Bridge Inventory; and Historic Spots in California. Additionally, a search for a local historical registry was conducted at Ontario Heritage, the nearest historical society in the City of Ontario.

The records search results indicated that 22 previous cultural resources studies have been conducted within one mile of the modified project area. As a result of those studies, no archaeological resources have been previously recorded within the modified project site. Consultation with Ontario Heritage indicated the possible presence of a historic building in the modified project site; however, no structure was identified through the literature review, historic aerial and topographic map review, or field survey.

As a result of the field survey, a single historic-period isolated artifact, OH-1 (a small shard of sun-colored amethyst glass), was recorded within the modified project site. OH-1 was evaluated using the National Register of Historic Places and California Register of Historical Resources eligibility criteria and found not eligible for listing under any criteria.

OH-1 does not contribute to any known or suspected historic districts; and is neither considered to be a Historic Property for the purpose of Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), nor a Historical Resource under CEQA. OH-1 is not listed in the local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC 5020.1(k), has not been identified as significant in a historical resources survey, as defined in PRC 5024.1(g), and has not been determined to be historically significant by the CEQA lead agency.

Therefore, it is not a historical resource under CEQA and is not a historic property under Section 106 of the NHPA.

In conclusion, the records search did not yield any historic-period or pre-contact cultural resources within the modified project site. The field survey identified a single historicperiod isolated find. Isolated finds are not considered Historic Properties under Section 4601
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 35
106, nor are they considered historic properties under CEQA. Therefore, no Historic Properties under Section 106 of the NHPA or Historical Resources under CEQA would be affected by the modified project.

Due to the modified project area being covered by Holocene alluvium deposit during the period of human occupation in the Americas and the proximity to Cucamonga Creek, which was channelized during the historic period, there exists a potential for buried precontact and historic archaeological sites within the modified project area. However, due to a history of agricultural use, and evidence of earthmoving activities related to the Cucamonga Creek, the Interstate 10 freeway and on-ramp, the Archaeological Resources Report concluded that potential for intact historic subsurface cultural deposits is low.

Nonetheless, there is a potential for disturbing previously unknown archaeological resources during excavation into native soil materials. 2010 TOP EIR Mitigation Measure 5-2 is applicable to the modified project and would require preservation and curation of archeological resources if uncovered during development. As such, upon implementation of 2010 TOP EIR Mitigation Measure 5-2, modified project-related impacts to archeological resources would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Similar to TOP 2050, although soil-disturbing activities associated with development of the modified project could result in the discovery of human remains, compliance with existing law, including procedures are required under the Public Resources Code and California Health and Safety code, would ensure that significant impacts to human remains would not occur. No impacts would occur in this regard.

Overall, cultural impacts would be less than significant with implementation of 2010 TOP EIR Mitigation Measure 5-2. The modified project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of TOP 2050 SEIR.

Certified 2010 TOP EIR Mitigation Measures:
5-2 In areas of documented or inferred from evident archaeological and/or paleontological resource presence, City staff shall require applicants for development permits to provide studies to document the presence/absence of such resources. On properties where resources are identified, such studies shall provide a detailed mitigation plan, including a monitoring program and recovery and/or in situ preservation plan, based on the recommendations of a qualified cultural preservation expert. The mitigation plan shall include the following requirements:
a) Archaeologists and/or paleontologist shall be retained for the modified project and will be on call during grading and other significant grounddisturbing activities. b) Should any cultural resources be discovered, no further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Planning Director or designee 4602
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 36
is satisfied that adequate provisions are in place to protect these resources.
c) Unanticipated discoveries shall be evaluated for significance by a San Bernardino County Certified Professional Archaeologist/Paleontologist.

If significance criteria are met, then the modified project shall be required to perform data recovery, professional identification, radiocarbon dates, and other special studies; submit materials to a museum for permanent curation; and provide a comprehensive final report including a catalog with museum numbers.

Certified TOP 2050 SEIR Mitigation Measures: Not Applicable.

Addendum Project Conditions: None.

3.2.5 Energy
Approved Project Findings
According to TOP 2050 SEIR, regulatory compliance (e.g., Building Energy Efficiency Standards [commonly known as Title 24], CALGreen [California’s green building code], California Renewables Portfolio Standard [RPS], and Corporate Average Fuel Economy [CAFÉ] standards) would increase building energy efficiency and vehicle fuel efficiency and reduce building energy demand and transportation-related fuel usage. Additionally, TOP 2050 includes policies related to land use and transportation planning and design, energy efficiency, public and active transit, and renewable energy generation that will contribute to minimizing building and transportation-related energy demands overall and demands on nonrenewable sources of energy. Implementation of proposed policies under TOP 2050 and City’s Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP), in conjunction with regulatory requirements would ensure that energy demand associated with growth under TOP 2050 would not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. Therefore, TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts. Furthermore, TOP 2050 includes Environmental Resources Element and Safety Element policies that would support the Statewide goal of transitioning the electricity grid to renewable sources and employ best practices regarding energy-saving standards. Therefore, implementation of TOP 2050 would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of California’s RPS program.

TOP 2050 SEIR determined that energy-related impacts would be less than significant.

Modified Project Analysis
The analysis of impacts related to energy use considers construction and operations of the modified project. The analysis of operational electricity and natural gas usage is based on the CalEEMod modeling results for the modified project from the Air Quality Impact Analysis. The modified project’s estimated electricity and natural gas consumption is based primarily on CalEEMod’s default settings for San Bernardino County and consumption factors provided by SCE and SoCalGas, the electricity and natural gas providers for the City and the modified project site, respectively. The results of the 4603
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 37
CalEEMod modeling are included in Appendix B; results of energy use are included in Appendix E, Energy Analysis. The amount of operational fuel consumption was estimated using the modified project’s annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as modeled in CalEEMod, and California Air Resources Board (CARB) Emissions Factor 2021 (EMFAC2021) website platform, which provides typical fuel efficiency for the County.

Construction
This analysis focuses on the on-road (automotive) fuel consumption associated with construction vehicle trips and off-road fuel consumption associated with construction equipment usage. The modified project’s construction equipment fuel consumption is estimated from the modified project’s construction equipment, timing/phasing, and hours of duration for construction equipment as modeled in CalEEMod.

The modified project’s estimated construction-related energy consumption is summarized in Table 5, Energy Consumption.

Table 5
Energy Consumption
Energy Type Modified Project Annual
Energy Consumption1
San Bernadino County
Annual Energy
Consumption2
Percentage
Increase Countywide
Electricity Consumption
(MWh) 11,975 16,629,614 0.0720%
Natural Gas Consumption
(therms) 194,008 562,123,065 0.0345%
Construction Off-Road
Fuel Consumption (Gallon) 37,165 18,336,278 0.2027%
Construction On-Road
Fuel Consumption (Gallon) 205,723 205,723,206 0.1000%
Operational Automotive
Fuel Consumption (Gallon) 938,341 1,110,012,646 0.0845% Notes:

1. Modified project electricity and natural gas consumptions as modeled in California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) computer model provided in Urban Crossroads, Empire Groves Hotel Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Ontario, April 19, 2024; refer to Appendix B, Air Quality Impact Analysis. Fuel consumption calculated based on CalEEMod results.

2. The percentage increases in construction off-road and on-road fuel consumption are compared with the projected Countywide off-road fuel consumption and Countywide on-road fuel consumption in 2024 (assumed first year of construction based on CalEEMod). Countywide off-road construction equipment diesel fuel consumption and on-road fuel consumption are from CARB EMFAC2021.

Refer to Appendix E, Energy Analysis, for modeling outputs.

Construction would consume energy in two general forms: (1) the fuel energy consumed by construction vehicles and equipment; and (2) bound energy in construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass.
4604
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 38
Fossil fuels used for construction vehicles and other energy-consuming equipment would be used during construction of the modified project. Fuel energy consumed during construction would be temporary and would not represent a significant demand on energy resources. In addition, some incidental energy conservation would occur during construction through compliance with State requirements that equipment not in use for more than five minutes be turned off. Construction equipment would also be required to comply with the latest U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and CARB engine emissions standards. These emissions standards require highly efficient combustion systems that maximize fuel efficiency and reduce unnecessary fuel consumption. Due to increasing transportation costs and fuel prices, contractors and owners have a strong financial incentive to avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction. There is growing recognition among developers and retailers that sustainable construction is not prohibitively expensive, and that there is a significant costsavings potential in green building practices and materials.

The modified project-related incremental increase in the use of energy bound in construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes and manufactured or processed materials (e.g., lumber and gas), would not substantially increase demand for energy compared to overall local and regional demand for construction materials. As indicated in Table 5, the modified project’s off-road fuel consumption and on-road fuel consumption from construction in total would be approximately 37,165 gallons and 205,723 gallons, respectively. Consequently, the modified project’s off-road construction equipment diesel fuel consumption and on-road construction fuel consumption would increase San Bernadino County’s consumption by approximately 0.2027 percent and

0.1000 percent, respectively. It should be noted that the Countywide annual diesel consumption is based solely on diesel consumption for the mining and construction sector. As such, construction would have a nominal effect on the local and regional energy supplies.

Construction fuel use is temporary and would cease upon completion of construction activities. There are no unusual project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or State. Additionally, construction contractors would be required to comply with the provisions of California Code of Regulations Title 13, Sections 2449 and 2485, which prohibit diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles and off-road diesel vehicles from idling for more than five minutes and would minimize unnecessary fuel consumption. Construction equipment would be subject to the EPA Construction Equipment Fuel Efficiency Standard, which would also minimize inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary fuel consumption. Furthermore, per applicable regulatory requirements, such as the current CALGreen, the modified project would comply with construction waste management practices to divert a minimum of 65 percent of construction debris.

Therefore, construction fuel consumption would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than other similar development projects. As such, a less than significant impact would occur.
4605
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 39
Operations
As indicated in Table 5, the modified project’s operational automotive transportation is estimated to consume approximately 938,341 gallons of fuel per year. This increase would account for 0.0845 percent of the County’s forecasted annual consumption of fuel for the buildout year of 2025. As such, the modified project would account for a nominal percentage of the forecasted annual operational automotive fuel consumption for the County and, thus, would have a nominal effect on the local and regional energy supplies.

The modified project does not propose any unusual features that would result in excessive long-term operational fuel consumption.

The modified project would be required to comply with the most current and applicable version of the Title 24 standards pertaining to electric vehicle (EV) capable spaces and parking stalls with EV chargers. The modified project would also include features such as bicycle parking, electric vehicle charging station, and vanpool/carpool parking, which would promote near-zero and zero-emissions technologies and encourage alternative modes of transportation. Thus, the modified project would encourage and support the use of EVs and alternative modes of transportation, thus reducing petroleum fuel consumption. Therefore, fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by the modified project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region.

The CEC developed 2024 to 2040 forecasts for energy consumption and peak demand in support of the 2023 IEPR for each of the major electricity and natural gas planning areas and the State based on the economic and demographic growth projections. CEC forecasted baseline electricity consumption grows at a rate of about 1.7 percent annually through 2040.3 The natural gas consumption grows at a rate of about 0.2 percent annually through 2035.4 As shown in Table 5, the modified project’s operational energy consumption at full buildout would result in an annual electricity and natural gas consumption of 11,975 MWh and 194,008 therms, respectively. Table 5 also shows the increase of operational energy consumption would result in approximately 0.0720 percent increase in electricity consumption and approximately 0.0345 percent increase in natural gas consumption over the current Countywide usage. As such, energy consumption would be significantly below CEC’s forecasts and the current Countywide usage.

Therefore, the modified project would be consistent with the CEC’s energy consumption forecasts and would not require additional energy capacity or supplies. The modified project would also consume energy during the same time periods as other surrounding residential and commercial developments. As a result, the modified project would not result in unique or more intensive peak or base period electricity demand.

The modified project would be required to comply with the most current and applicable version of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards (commonly known as Title 24), which 3 California Energy Commission, 2023 Integrated Energy Policy Report, page 130, July 14, 2024. 4 Based on the 2023 Integrated Energy Policy Report, the gas forecast is updated every two years, in odd years. As such, the natural gas consumption shown here is based on the California Energy Commission, Final 2022 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update, page 140, May 10, 2023. 4606
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 40
provide minimum efficiency standards related to various building features, including appliances, water and space heating and cooling equipment, building insulation and roofing, and lighting. The modified project would also comply with CALGreen pertaining to the installation of EV charging stations. Compliance with the most current and applicable Title 24 standards significantly reduces energy usage. Furthermore, the electricity provider, SCE, is subject to California’s RPS. The RPS requires investor-owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 60 percent of total procurement by 2030 and 100 percent of total procurement by 2045. Renewable energy is generally defined as energy that comes from resources which are naturally replenished within a human timescale such as sunlight, wind, tides, waves, and geothermal heat. The increase in reliance of such energy resources further ensures that new development projects will not result in the waste of the finite energy resources. In compliance with Title 24, including the CALGreen, the modified project would install high efficiency lighting and energy efficient appliances. The modified project would also include solar ready roofs. As a result, the modified project would ensure energy consumption to be kept to a minimum through these components.

Based on the analysis above, the modified project would not cause wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of building energy during modified project operation or preempt future energy development or future energy conservation. As such, impacts resulting from the modified project would be less than significant.

Conclusion
As discussed above, impacts regarding energy consumption during construction and operation would be less than significant. Modified project implementation would not result in increased operational electricity, natural gas, or fuel consumption compared to existing conditions. Further, the modified project would be required to adhere to all applicable federal, State, and local requirements pertaining to energy efficiency during construction and operation. As such, energy impacts would be less than significant. The modified project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of TOP 2050 SEIR.

Certified TOP 2050 SEIR Mitigation Measures: Not Applicable.

Addendum Project Conditions: None.

3.2.6 Geology And Soils
Approved Project Findings
TOP 2050 SEIR concluded that buildout of TOP 2050 would not result in significant geology and soils impacts. Development in accordance with TOP 2050 would be subject to potential impacts from ground shaking, liquefaction, seismically induced settlement, 4607
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 41
ground subsidence, compressible soils, expansive soils, and erosion. TOP 2050 would be subject to its Safety Element and the Municipal Code, which would ensure that geology and soils impacts are reduced to less than significant levels.

With regard to paleontological resources, future development in accordance with TOP 2050 would be required to implement 2010 TOP EIR Mitigation Measure 5-2, which requires that, in the event of an unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources during grading and excavation of a site, a qualified archaeologist is required to assess the find and develop a course of action to preserve the find. Accordingly, 2010 TOP EIR Mitigation Measure 5-2 would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to a level that is less than significant.

Modified Project Analysis
The Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed Empire Resort And Spa Project, Approximately 10.4 Acres Of Vacant Land At Southeast Corner Of E. Holt Boulevard And E. Guasti Road, APN 011 032 233, City Of Ontario, San Bernardino, California (Geotechnical Evaluation), prepared by Petra Geosciences, Inc. and dated February 10, 2023, was prepared to evaluate potential geology and soils impacts associated with the modified project; refer to Appendix F, Geotechnical Evaluation.

Faulting
According to the Geotechnical Evaluation, no active or potentially active faults are known to underly the modified project site and the site does not lie within the bounds of an “Earthquake Fault Zone” as defined by the State of California in the Alquist-Priolo (AP) Earthquake Fault Hazard Zoning Act nor within a San Bernardino County fault zone. In addition, no features in the field were observed that would indicate active faulting. The closest known Quaternary fault is the Red Hill – Etiwanda fault which lies approximately 1,500 feet to the north. As such, the Geotechnical Evaluation concluded that the potential for active fault rupture at the site is considered to be very low; no impacts would occur in this regard.

Seismic Ground Shaking
As discussed above, no active or potentially active faults are known to underly the modified project site and the site does not lie within the bounds of an “Earthquake Fault Zone” nor within a San Bernardino County fault zone. The closest known Quaternary fault is the Red Hill – Etiwanda fault which lies approximately 1,500 feet to the north.

Nonetheless, Southern California has numerous active seismic faults subjecting residents to potential earthquake and seismic-related hazards. Therefore, the modified project is anticipated to experience moderate to occasionally high levels of ground motion from nearby faults as well as ground motions from other active seismic areas of the Southern California region.

According to TOP 2050 SEIR, projects considered for approval under TOP 2050 (e.g., 4608
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 42
the modified project) would be required to comply with seismic safety provisions of the California Building Code (CBC) (Title 24, Part 2 of the California Code of Regulations).

Such compliance would minimize potential hazards arising from ground shaking. As such, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.

Liquefaction
According to the Geotechnical Evaluation, the County has identified the general modified project area within a low liquefaction zone. Further, groundwater level is reported at depths of greater than 300 feet below ground surface (bgs). Considering the very dense underlying older alluvial fans deposits that underlay the modified project site, the Geotechnical Evaluation concluded that risks pertaining to liquefaction-induced settlement is considered negligible. As such, no impacts would occur in this regard.

Landslides
According to the Geotechnical Evaluation, the modified project site exhibits nearly level topography that is not subject to landslides. As such, no impacts would occur in this regard.

Soil Erosion
Construction of the modified project would require compliance with the CBC and review of grading plans for individual projects by the City Engineer to ensure no significant impacts regarding soil erosion would occur. In addition, the modified project is required to comply with the requirements of the State’s Construction General Permit (CGP), including preparation of a notice of intent and stormwater pollution prevention Plan (SWPPP). Additionally, the modified project would be required to control pollutants in stormwater discharges per the Water Quality Management Plan for: Empire Hotel, APN:
001032233 (WQMP), prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.; refer to Appendix H, Hydrology Report/WQMP. This would include implementation of non-structural and structural source Best Management Practices (BMPs). Following compliance with the existing regulations and implementation of the WQMP, impacts pertaining soil erosion would be minimized, and a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.

Lateral Spreading, Subsidence, or Collapse Associated With Unstable Soil Lateral spreading is seismically-induced slope instability phenomenon wherein slope failure can occur as a result of liquefaction. According to the Geotechnical Evaluation, risks pertaining to liquefaction-induced settlement is considered negligible. Subsequently, risks pertaining to lateral spreading would also be considered negligible; as such, no impacts would occur in this regard.

Land subsidence may be induced from withdrawal of oil, gas, or water from wells. Based on a search of the California Department of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division's (CalGEM) online mapping application Well Finder, there are no active oil or gas 4609
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 43
wells within a mile of the site. According to the Phase I ESA prepared for the modified project, the closest mapped well to the modified project site (Chino-1002337) is mapped on the north side of I-10, approximately 3,300 feet to the northeast. Further, groundwater level is reported at depths of greater than 300 feet bgs. Considering the very dense underlying older alluvial fans deposits that underlay the modified project site and the distance to the nearest water well, the likelihood of land subsidence is low. As such, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

According to the Geotechnical Evaluation, a notable geotechnical factor affecting the modified project site is the presence of existing artificial fills and low density and dry, younger alluvial soils. For relatively light-weight structures, these upper materials, ranging in depth from approximately six to ten feet bgs across the majority site, in their current state are not considered suitable for support of anticipated loads. Therefore, the Geotechnical Evaluation recommended that these materials be removed to an approximate depth of 10 feet and replaced with engineered fill. Any such building may be supported on a shallow spread footing system embedded in compacted fill soils. The lower approximately 10 feet of the younger alluvial soils are not expected to be suitable for the support of the main, moderate- to high-rise structure. However, a portion of the proposed structure is expected to be supported on footings that are within the two-story subterranean parking. As such, no remedial grading (i.e., over-excavation and replacement) is deemed necessary in this area. Conversely, depending on the anticipated loads, considerations may be given to removing the upper approximately 15 to 20 feet of soils consisting of younger alluvial fan deposits to support the other parts of the proposed main structure. Accordingly, the Geotechnical Evaluation recommends that these materials be removed (over-excavation) to expose the underlying competent older alluvial fan deposits, which shall be verified in the field by the geotechnical consultant. Upon implementation of recommendations as provided in the Geotechnical Evaluation, impacts pertaining to collapsible soils would be less than significant.

As such, impacts pertaining to unstable soils would be less than significant upon implementation of recommendations as provided in the Geotechnical Evaluation.

Expansive Soil
According to the Geotechnical Evaluation, on-site soils are sandy and silty with generally a very low to low expansive potential. As such, no impacts would occur in this regard.

Septic Tanks or Alternative Wastewater Disposal System
The modified project does not propose any septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The modified project proposes to install a sewer line on-site to connect to an existing 12-inch sewer main in East Holt Boulevard. As such, no impacts would occur in this regard.
4610
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 44
Paleontological Resources
Based on the Archaeological Resources Report, the modified project area is comprised of late Pleistocene and early Holocene alluvium, which is characterized by slightly to moderately consolidated deposits consisting mostly of fine to coarse-grained sand, but with thin beds of pebbles, gravels, or silt. Most of the vicinity is alluvial fans and stream valleys removed from mountains. According to the Archaeological Resources Report, there exists the potential for buried pre-contact archaeological sites within the modified project area due to the presence of deep soils deposited during the Holocene period and the likelihood of pre-contact archaeological sites located along perennial waterways such as Cucamonga Creek, which is currently restrained in a constructed channel that forms the eastern boundary of the modified project site. In accordance with TOP 2050 SEIR, the modified project would be required to implement 2010 TOP EIR Mitigation Measure 5-2, which requires that in the event of an unanticipated discovery of paleontological resources during grading and excavation of the site, a qualified paleontologist would assess the find and develop a course of action to preserve the find. Accordingly, 2010 TOP EIR Mitigation Measure 5-2 would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to a level that is less than significant.

Conclusion
As detailed above, the modified project would result in less than significant or no geology and soils impacts including those associated with fault rupture; seismic ground shaking; liquefaction; landslides; soil erosion; unstable soils and associated lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse; expansive soil; and unsupported septic systems. With regard to paleontological resources, the modified project would be required to implement 2010 TOP EIR Mitigation Measure 5-2, which requires that, in the event of an unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources during grading and excavation of a site, a qualified archaeologist is required to assess the find and develop a course of action to preserve the find. Accordingly, 2010 TOP EIR Mitigation Measure 5-2 would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to a level that is less than significant. Overall, impacts pertaining to geology and soils would be less than significant. The modified project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of TOP 2050 SEIR.

Certified 2010 TOP EIR Mitigation Measures:
5-2 In areas of documented or inferred from evident archaeological and/or paleontological resource presence, City staff shall require applicants for development permits to provide studies to document the presence/absence of such resources. On properties where resources are identified, such studies shall provide a detailed mitigation plan, including a monitoring program and recovery and/or in situ preservation plan, based on the 4611
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 45
recommendations of a qualified cultural preservation expert. The mitigation plan shall include the following requirements:
a) Archaeologists and/or paleontologist shall be retained for the modified project and will be on call during grading and other significant grounddisturbing activities. b) Should any cultural resources be discovered, no further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Planning Director or designee is satisfied that adequate provisions are in place to protect these resources.
c) Unanticipated discoveries shall be evaluated for significance by a San Bernardino County Certified Professional Archaeologist/Paleontologist.

Certified TOP 2050 SEIR Mitigation Measures: Not Applicable.

Addendum Project Conditions: None.

3.2.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Approved Project Findings
According to TOP 2050 SEIR, with implementation of the City’s Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP), TOP 2050 would achieve the State’s GHG emissions efficiency target without implementation of additional local GHG reduction measures. Goals and policies in TOP 2050 and actions in the CCAP would minimize GHG emissions generated by the residential and nonresidential land uses in the City. Implementation of TOP 2050 would not obstruct implementation of the CARB Scoping Plan or interfere with SCAG’s ability to implement the regional strategies in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. Overall, TOP 2050 would not result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts related to GHG emissions with implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, as well as the City’s CCAP. Less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.

Modified Project Analysis
The Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis, City of Ontario (GHG Analysis), prepared by Urban Crossroads and dated September 9, 2024, was prepared to evaluate potential greenhouse gas impacts associated with the modified project; refer to Appendix G, GHG Analysis.
4612
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 46
Threshold of Significance
The City of Ontario adopted the CCAP on December 16, 2014. The CCAP contains further guidance on the City’s GHG Inventory reduction goals, policies, guidelines, and implementation programs. The purpose of the CCAP is to provide guidance on how to analyze GHG emissions and determine significance during the CEQA review of proposed development projects within the City of Ontario. The CCAP builds upon the Reduction Plan to address City-specific information and City-specific GHG reduction measures. To address the State’s requirement to reduce GHG emissions, the City prepared the CCAP with the goal of reducing GHG emissions within the City by 15 percent below 2008 levels by the year 2020. The City’s target is consistent with the AB 32 target and ensures that the City o achieves GHG reductions locally that complement and are consistent with State efforts to reduce GHG emissions.

As part of the CCAP, the City published a guidance document titled Greenhouse Gas Emissions, CEQA Thresholds and Screening Tables in December 2014. As part of this guidance, the City determined that if GHG emissions of a given project exceeds 3,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e) per year, then project emissions would need to be reduced by 25 percent when compared to year 2008 emissions levels.

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

TOP 2050 includes an update to the City’s CCAP (CCAP Update) originally adopted in 2014. The CCAP Update is a plan to reduce GHG emissions and improve community resilience to hazardous conditions associated with climate change. The CCAP Update includes updated emissions inventories; updated emissions forecasts; identifies GHG emissions reduction targets to achieve the GHG reduction goals of the City consistent with Senate Bill 32, Executive Order S-03-05, and substantial progress toward the State’s carbon neutrality goals of Executive Order B-55-18; and measures, that when quantified, achieve the GHG reduction targets for the City. As noted in TOP 2050 SEIR, the measures included in the CCAP Update are not substantially different than that of the previous CCAP and therefore, there is no change in the environmental impacts associated with the CCAP Update. Because the CCAP Update addresses GHG emissions reductions and is consistent with the requirements of AB 32, SB 32, and international efforts to reduce GHG emissions, projects that comply with the CCAP Update would have a less than significant GHG impact.

GHG Emissions
CalEEMod version 2022.1.1.22 was used to calculate modified project-related GHG emissions. Output from the model runs for construction and operational activity are provided in Appendix G. CalEEMod includes GHG emissions from the following source categories: construction, area, energy, mobile, waste, water, and refrigerants.

The modified project’s construction activities would generate CO2 and CH4 emissions. For construction phase emissions, GHGs are quantified and amortized over the life of the 4613
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 47
modified project. To amortize the emissions over the life of a project, the SCAQMD recommends calculating the total GHG emissions for the construction activities, dividing it by a 30-year project life then adding that number to the annual operational phase GHG emissions. As such, construction emissions were amortized over a 30-year period and added to the annual operational phase GHG emissions. Operational activities associated with the modified project would result in emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, and refrigerants from the following direct and indirect primary sources:
• Area Source Emissions: Direct GHG emissions from area sources are mostly associated with landscape maintenance equipment. Landscape maintenance equipment would generate emissions from fuel combustion and evaporation of unburned fuel. Equipment in this category would include lawnmowers, shedders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chain saws, and hedge trimmers used to maintain the landscaping of a project.
• Energy Source Emissions: Direct GHG emissions from energy sources are mostly associated with combustion emissions associated with natural gas and electricity. • Mobile Source Emissions: Direct GHG emissions from mobile sources are mostly associated with vehicle trips, including employee trips to and from the site associated with the proposed uses. Trip characteristics available from the modified project-specific traffic impact analysis.
• Water Supply, Treatment, and Distribution: Indirect GHG emissions result from the production of electricity used to convey, treat, and distribute water and wastewater.

The amount of electricity required to convey, treat, and distribute water depends on the volume of water as well as the sources of the water. • Solid Waste: The proposed land uses would result in the generation and disposal of solid waste. A percentage of this waste would be diverted from landfills by a variety of means, such as reducing the amount of waste generated, recycling, and/or composting. The remainder of the waste not diverted would be disposed of at a landfill. GHG emissions from landfills are associated with the anaerobic breakdown of material. GHG emissions associated with the disposal of solid waste associated with the modified project were calculated by CalEEMod using default parameters.
• Refrigerants: Air conditioning (A/C) and refrigeration equipment associated with the buildings are anticipated to generate GHG emissions. CalEEMod automatically generates a default A/C and refrigeration equipment inventory for each project land use subtype based on industry data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

CalEEMod quantifies refrigerant emissions from leaks during regular operation and routine servicing over the equipment lifetime and then derives average annual emissions from the lifetime estimate. Note that CalEEMod does not quantify emissions from the disposal of refrigeration and A/C equipment at the end of its lifetime. GHG emissions associated with refrigerants were calculated by CalEEMod using default parameters.

The modified project’s anticipated GHG emissions are identified in Table 6, Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions. As shown, construction and operation of the modified project would generate approximately 9,661.88 MTCO2e per year.
4614
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 48
Table 6
Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emission Source CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerants CO2e
Metric Tons/year1
Annual construction-related emissions
amortized over 30 years 85.04 0.00565 0.00736 0.0940 87.47 Mobile Source 6,302.52 0.32 0.32 10.69 6,415.24
Area Source 22.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.10
Energy Source 2,923.18 0.27 0.02 0.00 2,936.99
Water Source 21.21 0.50 0.01 0.00 37.19
Waste 29.31 2.93 0.00 0.00 102.55
Refrigerants 0.00 0.00 0.00 60.33 60.33
Total CO2e (All Sources) 9,661.88 MTCO2e per year
Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent Source: Urban Crossroads, Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis, City of Ontario, April 19, 2024; refer to Appendix G, GHG Analysis.

The purpose of the CCAP Update is to provide guidance on how to analyze GHG emissions and determine significance during the CEQA review of proposed development projects within the City. Because the CCAP Update addresses GHG emissions reductions and is consistent with the requirements of AB 32, SB 32, and international efforts to reduce GHG emissions, compliance with the CCAP Update fulfills the description of mitigation found in the State CEQA Guidelines.

The modified project would implement Screening Table Measures that achieve the requisite points as a project design feature as detailed above in Section 2.3, Modified Project Description. The City would verify that the Screening Table Measures achieving the requisite points are incorporated in the modified project plans prior to issuance of building permits and are appropriately implemented prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy.

Appendix 3.2, CCAP Screening Tables, of Appendix G identifies potential CCAP Screening Table Measures to be implemented by the modified project. As such, the modified project would be consistent with CCAP Update and is considered to have a less than significant individual and cumulatively considerable impact regarding GHG emissions.

Certified TOP 2050 SEIR Mitigation Measures: Not Applicable.

Addendum Project Conditions: None.

3.2.8 Hydrology And Water Quality
Approved Project Findings
According to TOP 2050 SEIR, the approved project would not exacerbate risk of flood hazards, tsunamis, or seiches or risk release of pollutants due to inundation. However, future development in the City would increase impervious areas, thus increasing runoff and flows into storm drainage systems. As such, TOP 2050 SEIR requires all future 4615
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 49
development 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 existing and planned storm drain systems are not exceeded. Additionally, future projects would be required to comply with the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) multiple separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit and the San Bernardino County Stormwater Program. Upon implementation of regulatory requirements, including low impact design strategies and construction and post-construction best management practices, and TOP 2050 policies and programs, the approved project would result in less than significant impacts to hydrology and water quality, and no mitigation measures were required for the approved project.

Modified Project Analysis
The Preliminary Hydrology Report for Diversified Empire Hotel, APN: 0010-322-33, Southeast of Holt Blvd and Guasti Road (Hydrology Report), prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., and dated October 2023, and the Water Quality Management Plan for: Empire Hotel, APN: 001032233 (WQMP), prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., were prepared for the modified project; refer to Appendix H, Hydrology Report/WQMP.

The modified project site consists of vacant, undeveloped land. According to the Hydrology Report, the modified project site is located within Zone X per the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), indicating that the site has a 0.2 percent annual chance of flood hazard; as such, potential flooding hazards would be less than significant in this regard.

Currently, the modified project site generally drains in the southeast direction with two main drainage areas (DAs). Runoff from DA 1 flows southeast towards Guasti Road, where there is a curb and gutter on the other side of the road with an existing catch basin, as well as a 108-inch storm drain line that collects stormwater for nearby properties.

Runoff from DA 2 flows to the east towards the Cucamonga Channel. Current predevelopment flows are detailed in Hydrology Report Table 1, Pre-Development Flows, for the 10- and 100-year storm events.

Following implementation of the modified project, the modified project site would consist of one main drainage area comprised of five sub-areas. Runoff from the drainage subareas would be intercepted by a combination of trench drains, area drains, and curb inlets, which would then be conveyed into a proposed underground detention system located southeast of the site. A stormwater pump is also proposed in the southeast side to pump runoff into the proposed underground detention system to be treated and conveyed into the existing 108-inch storm drain line in Guasti Road. Unmitigated post-development flows are detailed in Hydrology Report Table 2, Post-Development Flows (Un-Mitigated).

With the proposed underground detention system and stormwater pump, the Hydrology Report concluded that the modified project would not cause a significant impact to downstream systems and discharges would be less than existing conditions. Therefore, the modified project would not increase the severity or permanence of impacts related to 4616
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 50
the City’s storm drain system, and no new impacts would occur. No new mitigation measures are required.

Similar to the approved project, in order to minimize impacts to erosion on-site, the modified project would be required to comply with the requirements of the State’s CGP, including preparation of a notice of intent and SWPPP. Additionally, the modified project would be required to control pollutants in stormwater discharges per the WQMP prepared for the modified project. This would include implementation of non-structural and structural source BMPs, including LID requirements consistent with the Santa Ana RWQCB MS4 and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program.

Following compliance with the existing regulations and implementation of the WQMP, water quality standards and waste discharge requirements would not be exceeded, and surface water and groundwater quality would not be degraded. The modified project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantial increase the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of TOP 2050 SEIR.

Certified TOP 2050 SEIR Mitigation Measures: Not Applicable.

Addendum Project Conditions: None.

3.2.9 Land Use and Planning
Approved Project Findings
TOP 2050 SEIR concluded that the approved project’s impacts related to land use and planning would be less than significant. Although the approved project would change existing land use designations, implementation of TOP 2050 would ensure compatibility among adjacent land uses to establish a sense of community and enhance the City’s character; overall, it was determined that the approved project would not divide an established community. Additionally, the approved project was found to be consistent with the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, the ONT ALUCP, and the Chino Airport Master Plan.

Modified Project Analysis
The modified project proposes a Specific Plan that establishes a development plan, development standards, and design guidelines to guide development within the Specific Plan area. The modified project site is bound on all sides by existing roadways to the north, south, and west, and by the Cucamonga Channel to the east. Therefore, the modified project would not physically divide an established community.

The modified project would be consistent with the envisioned buildout of the site’s MUMultimodal designation and Ontario Airport Metro Center Overlay by TOP 2050. As detailed in Section 2.2, TOP 2050 anticipates full buildout of the project site’s MUMultimodal designation to be approximately 2,449,727 square feet of nonresidential uses (553,124 square feet for lodging and 1,896,603 square feet for retail and office 4617
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 51
development). As shown in Table 1, the proposed Specific Plan buildout would result in 553,124 square feet of hotel use and 46,876 square feet of local-serving retail use. Thus, the project would be within TOP 2050 buildout assumptions for the project site.

Additionally, the modified project would contribute towards the Ontario Airport Metro Center Overlay vision providing an intensive development with vertical and horizontal mixtures of regional-serving uses. Further, the proposed Specific Plan would be consistent with the site’s SP zoning. The proposed development would also be adjacent to similar uses, including hotels to the north and west.

Development within the City is also subject to applicable ONT ALUCP land use compatibility standards. The modified project is required to undergo the ONT InterAgency Notification Process with the ONT Airport Authority to ensure consistency with policies set forth in the ONT ALUCP. As described in Section 3.2.1, Aesthetics/Light and Glare, and Section 3.2.10, Noise, the modified project would be consistent with building height and noise-related hazards policies detailed in the ONT ALUCP. In addition to the ONT-IAC approval, the modified project would also require Federal Aviation Administration approval of the proposed building height per Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77, Subpart B, and by the California Public Utilities Code, Sections 21658 and 21659.

Thus, the modified project would not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations, and impacts would be less than significant.

Overall, the modified project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantial increase the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of TOP 2050 SEIR.

Certified TOP 2050 SEIR Mitigation Measures: Not Applicable.

Addendum Project Conditions: None.

3.2.10 Noise
Approved Project Findings
According to TOP 2050 SEIR, construction activities associated with buildout of TOP 2050 would result in temporary noise increases at sensitive receptors during construction activities and could create groundborne vibration during construction activities in excess of established standards. 2010 TOP EIR Mitigation Measure 12-4 would reduce potential impacts associated with construction from individual development projects to the extent feasible, and 2010 TOP EIR Mitigation Measure 12-2 would reduce potential impacts associated with construction vibration from individual development projects to the extent feasible. However, due to the potential for proximity of construction activities to sensitive uses, the number of construction projects occurring simultaneously, and the potential duration of construction activities, TOP 2050 could still result in a temporary substantial increase in noise levels above ambient conditions and exceedance of the 80 dBA Leq threshold and generate excessive vibration levels at sensitive receptor locations. 4618
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 52
Therefore, TOP 2050 SEIR concluded that construction noise and vibration impacts in accordance with TOP 2050 would remain significant and unavoidable.

Buildout associated with TOP 2050 would not result in new types of stationary noise sources. Furthermore, TOP 2050 includes Safety Element Policy S-4.1, Noise Mitigation, which utilizes the City’s Noise Ordinance, building codes, and subdivision and development code regulations to reduce noise from future development projects. As such, stationary noise impacts would be less than significant. In regard to transportation noise, TOP 2050 traffic noise level increase along studied roadway segments in the City would not result in the exceedance of the significance threshold when other noise sources such as rail have been taken into considerations. Additionally, TOP 2050 includes Safety Element Policies S-4.2, Coordination with Transportation Authorities, S-4.4, Truck Traffic, and S-4.5, Roadway Design, that would minimize traffic noise impacts. As such, transportation noise impacts would be less than significant. Moreover, according to TOP 2050 SEIR, TOP 2050’s commercial and industrial operations would not generate significant vibration impacts, and vibration from industrial and commercial operations would be less than significant.

According to TOP 2050 SEIR, implementation of TOP 2050 could expose noise sensitive uses to excessive noise levels from the Ontario International Airport. With the implementation of 2010 TOP EIR Mitigation Measure 12-1, impacts to future sensitive receptors from excessive airport-related noise would be reduced to interior noise levels of 45 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) or less. While interior noise levels are required to achieve the interior noise limits of Title 24 and Title 25, exterior noise levels may continue to exceed the noise compatibility criteria for the City. Consequently, TOP 2050 SEIR concluded that airport noise compatibility impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Modified Project Analysis
The Empire Groves Hotel Noise Impact Analysis, City of Ontario (Noise Impact Analysis), prepared by Urban Crossroads and dated May 13, 2024, was prepared to evaluate potential noise impacts associated with the modified project; refer to Appendix I, Noise Impact Analysis.

Significance Criteria
Noise impacts shall be considered significant if any of the following occur as a direct result of the proposed development. Table 7, Significance Criteria Summary, shows the significance criteria summary matrix that includes the allowable criteria used to identify potentially significant incremental noise level increases. 4619
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 53
Table 7
Significance Criteria Summary
Land Use Condition(s) Significance Criteria
Daytime Nighttime
On-Site
Traffic Noise
All
Exterior Noise Level Criteria From TOP
2050 LU-07 Noise Level Exposure and
Land Use Compatibility Guidelines
See Noise Impact Analysis
Exhibit 3-A
Residential
Interior Noise Level Standard From
TOP 2050 LU-07 Noise Level Exposure
and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines
45 dBA CNEL
Non-Residential
Interior Noise Level Standard From
TOP 2050 LU-07 Noise Level Exposure
and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines
50 dBA CNEL
Off-Site
Noise Sensitive
if ambient is < 60 dBA CNEL ≥ 5 dBA CNEL increase
if ambient is 60-65 dBA CNEL ≥ 3 dBA CNEL increase
if ambient is > 65 dBA CNEL ≥ 1.5 dBA CNEL increase
Non-Noise
Sensitive if ambient is > 75 dBA CNEL ≥ 3 dBA CNEL increase Operational
Residential Exterior Noise Level Limit From City of
Ontario Municipal Code Section 5-

29.09(a)
55 dBA Leq 45 dBA Leq
Commercial 65 dBA Leq 60 dBA Leq
Noise Sensitive
if ambient is < 60 dBA Leq ≥ 5 dBA Leq increase
if ambient is 60-65 dBA Leq ≥ 3 dBA Leq increase
if ambient is > 65 dBA Leq ≥ 1.5 dBA Leq increase
Construction
Residential Noise Level Thresholds From FTA’s
Transit Noise and Vibration Impact
Assessment Manual.
80 dBA Leq 70 dBA Leq
Commercial 85 dBA Leq 80 dBA Leq
Commercial
Vibration Level Thresholds From
Caltrans’ Transportation and
Construction Vibration Manual.

0.5 PPV
(in/sec) n/a
Airport Noise Long- and ShortTerm Lodging
Exterior Noise Level Criteria From TOP
2050 LU-07 Noise Level Exposure and
Land Use Compatibility Guidelines
70 dBA CNEL
Interior Noise Level Standard From
TOP 2050 LU-07 Noise Level Exposure
and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines
45 dBA CNEL
Source: Urban Crossroads, Empire Groves Hotel Noise Impact Analysis, City of Ontario, May 13, 2024; refer to Appendix I, Noise Impact Analysis.

Construction Noise
This section analyzes potential impacts resulting from the short-term construction activities associated with the development of the modified project. According to Section 5-29.09, Construction activity noise regulations, of the Municipal Code states: No person, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition or any other related building activity, shall operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner that produces loud noise that disturbs a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, or a Police or Code Enforcement Officer, on any weekday except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. or on Saturday or Sunday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. In addition, neither TOP 2050 or the Municipal Code establish numeric maximum acceptable construction source noise levels at potentially affected receivers for CEQA analysis purposes. Therefore, a numerical construction threshold based on the 4620
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 54
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual is used for analysis of daytime construction impacts. The FTA considers a daytime exterior construction noise level of 80 dBA Leq as a reasonable threshold for noise sensitive residential land use.

Noise generated by the modified project construction equipment would include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators that when combined can reach high levels. The number and mix of construction equipment are expected to occur in the following stages:
• Site Preparation
• Grading
• Building Construction
• Paving
• Architectural Coating
To describe construction noise activities, this construction noise analysis was prepared using reference construction equipment noise levels from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), which includes a national database of construction equipment reference noise emission levels. The RCNM equipment database, provides a comprehensive list of the noise generating characteristics for specific types of construction equipment. In addition, the database provides an acoustical usage factor to estimate the fraction of time each piece of construction equipment is operating at full power (i.e., its loudest condition) during a construction operation.

Using the reference construction equipment noise levels from RCNM and the CadnaA noise prediction model, calculations of the modified project construction noise level impacts at the nearby sensitive receiver locations were completed; refer to Appendix I for detailed CadnaA construction noise model inputs. For construction noise assessment, construction equipment can be considered to operate in two modes: stationary and mobile. As defined, stationary equipment operates in a single location for one or more days at a time, with either fixed-power operation (e.g., pumps, generators, and compressors) or variable-power operation (e.g., pile drivers, rock drills, and pavement breakers). Mobile equipment moves around the construction site with power applied in cyclic fashion, such as bulldozers, graders, and loaders. The FTA and FHWA recommend noise impacts from stationary equipment be assessed from the center of the equipment location, while noise impacts from mobile construction equipment should be assessed from the center of the equipment activity area (e.g., construction site). Thus, to assess a more realistic and reasonable worst-case construction scenario while accounting for the dynamic nature of construction activities, this construction noise analysis models the equipment combination with the highest reference combined level as a moving point within the construction area (modified project site boundary). Construction impacts are based on the highest noise level calculated at each receiver location. To evaluate whether the modified project would generate potentially significant short-term noise levels at nearest receiver locations, a construction-related daytime noise level threshold of 80 dBA 4621
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 55
Leq is used as a reasonable threshold to assess the daytime construction noise level impacts at residential locations.

As shown in Table 8, Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary, the construction noise levels are expected to range from 34.4 to 60.0 dBA Leq, and the highest construction levels are expected to range from 40.4 to 60.0 dBA Leq at the nearest receiver locations.

Table 8
Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary
As shown in Table 8, the construction noise levels at the nearest receiver locations would not exceed the daytime significance thresholds. Therefore, construction noise impacts would be less than significant at all receiver locations. The modified project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of TOP 2050 SEIR.

Construction Vibration
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. It is expected that ground-borne vibration from modified project construction activities would cause only intermittent, localized intrusion. Ground-borne vibration levels resulting from typical construction activities occurring within the modified project site were estimated by data published by the FTA and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).

However, while vehicular traffic is rarely perceptible, construction has the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary ground vibration, depending on the specific construction activities and equipment used. Based on the representative vibration levels presented for various construction equipment types, it is possible to estimate the potential construction vibration levels using vibration assessment methods defined by Caltrans.

Vibration-generating activities are appropriately evaluated using the Caltrans vibration damage thresholds to assess potential temporary construction-related impacts at Receiver1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Threshold
Threshold
Exceeded
?
Site
Preparation Grading BuildingConstruction Paving ArchitecturalCoating Highest
Levels
R1 57.0 60.0 58.0 60.0 54.0 60 80 No
R2 39.5 42.5 40.5 42.5 36.5 42.5 80 No
R3 56.3 59.3 57.3 59.3 53.3 59.3 80 No
R4 42.5 45.5 43.5 45.5 39.5 45.5 80 No
R5 37.4 40.4 38.4 40.4 34.4 40.4 80 No
Notes:

1. Noise receiver locations are shown on Noise Impact Analysis Exhibit 9-A, Construction Noise Source And Receiver Locations; refer to Appendix I, Noise Impact Analysis.

Source: Urban Crossroads, Empire Groves Hotel Noise Impact Analysis, City of Ontario, May 13, 2024; refer to Appendix I, Noise Impact Analysis.
4622
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 56
adjacent building locations. The nearest noise sensitive buildings adjacent to the modified project site can best be described as “modern industrial/commercial buildings” with a maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.5 PPV (in/sec).

Ground vibration levels associated with various types of construction equipment at each nearby receiver locations are summarized in Table 9, Construction Vibration Levels.

Table 9
Construction Vibration Levels
At distances ranging from 176 feet to 3,593 feet from modified project construction area (at the modified project site boundary), construction vibration levels are estimated to be less than 0.01 PPV (inch per second [in/sec]) at the nearest vibration sensitive receiver.

Based on maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.50 PPV (in/sec), the typical modified project construction vibration levels would fall below the building damage thresholds at all the receiver locations. Further, vibration levels at the site of the closest sensitive receiver are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period but will occur rather only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating simultaneously adjacent to the modified project site perimeter. Therefore, the modified project-related vibration impacts during typical construction activities are considered less than significant. The modified project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of TOP 2050 SEIR.

Operational Noise
This section analyzes the potential operational noise impacts resulting from stationary noise sources, including the operation of events with amplified sound, outdoor activities, swimming pool/spa activities, roof-mounted air conditioning units, loading dock activities, and parking lot vehicle movement, as well as potential operational traffic noise impacts.

Receiver1 Distance
(Feet)1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq) Threshold
PPV
(in/sec)4
Threshold
Exceeded
?
Site
Preparation Grading BuildingConstruction Paving HighestLevels R1 176 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.50 No
R2 2,802 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.50 No
R3 237 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.50 No
R4 1,968 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.50 No
R5 3,593 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.50 No
Notes:

1. Noise receiver locations are shown on Noise Impact Analysis Exhibit 9-A, Construction Noise Source And Receiver Locations; refer to Appendix I, Noise Impact Analysis. Distances are measured from receiver locations to the nearest construction boundary (modified project site boundary).

Source: Urban Crossroads, Empire Groves Hotel Noise Impact Analysis, City of Ontario, May 13, 2024; refer to Appendix I, Noise Impact Analysis.
4623
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 57
Stationary Noise
This operational noise analysis is intended to describe noise level impacts associated with the expected typical of daytime and nighttime activities at the modified project site.

To analyze noise impacts originating from the modified project, the operational noise levels are evaluated against standards established in the City of Ontario Municipal Code, 5-29.04, Exterior noise standards. Section 5-29.04(a) of the Municipal Code sets a stationary-source average Leq exterior noise limit for not to be exceeded 65 dBA Leq during daytime hours and 45 dBA Leq during nighttime hours at residential properties and 65 dBA Leq during daytime hours and 60 dBA Leq during nighttime hours at commercial properties, such as those nearest the modified project site.

To estimate the modified project operational noise impacts, reference noise levels were collected from sample manufacturers specifications for similar equipment, published research, and/or measurements of similar activities that represent the noise levels expected with the development of the modified project. It is important to note that the predicted noise levels assume the worst-case noise environment with the events with amplified sound, outdoor activities, swimming pool/spa activities, roof-mounted air conditioning units, loading dock activities, and parking lot vehicle movement all operating continuously. These sources of noise activity will likely vary throughout the day.

A detailed description of the reference noise levels are shown in Table 10, Reference Noise Levels, which are used to estimate the modified project’s operational noise impacts.

Table 10
Reference Noise Levels
Noise Source
Noise
Source
Height
(Feet)
Minutes within the
Hour
Reference
Noise
Level
(dBA Leq)
@ 50 Feet
Sound
Power
Level
Day Night
(dBA)3
Day Night
Event/Announcement Speaker 5' 60 60 75.6 107.2
Outdoor Gatherings 5' 60 60 59.9 91.5
Swimming Pool Activities 5' 60 60 63.0 94.6
Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 5' 45 30 77.4 109.0
Loading Dock Activities 8' 60 60 71.8 103.4
Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 0’ 60 60 31.4 63.0
Source: Urban Crossroads, Empire Groves Hotel Noise Impact Analysis, City of Ontario, May 13, 2024; refer to Appendix I, Noise Impact Analysis.

Using the reference noise levels to represent the proposed modified project operations that include events with amplified sound, outdoor activities, swimming pool/spa activities, roof-mounted air conditioning units, loading dock activities, and parking lot vehicle movement, the Noise Impact Analysis calculated the operational source noise levels that are expected to be generated at the modified project site and the modified project-related noise level increases that would be experienced at each of the sensitive receiver 4624
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 58
locations. Table 11, Operational Noise Levels, shows the modified project operational noise levels during the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., as well as the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

Table 11
Operational Noise Levels
The daytime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 37.9 to 56.3 dBA Leq; the nighttime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 36.1 to 55.0 dBA Leq. As shown in Table 11, operational noise levels associated with the modified project would satisfy the City’s daytime and nighttime exterior noise level standards at all nearby receiver locations.

Noise Source
Operational Noise Levels by Receiver Location1
(dBA Leq)
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5
Daytime Operational Noise
Event/Announcement Speaker 22.1 31.0 51.8 34.8 29.1
Outdoor Gatherings 49.4 31.3 49.6 34.0 27.7
Swimming Pool Activities 18.5 28.2 48.1 32.3 27.0
Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 52.8 38.6 50.8 40.3 35.5 Loading Dock Activities 20.8 5.0 22.0 33.1 28.5
Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 30.2 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total (All Noise Sources) 54.4 40.2 56.3 43.0 37.9
Daytime Threshold 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No
Nighttime Operational Noise
Event/Announcement Speaker 21.1 30.1 50.8 33.9 28.2
Outdoor Gatherings 48.4 30.4 48.8 33.1 26.8
Swimming Pool Activities 17.6 27.2 47.2 31.3 26.0
Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 50.1 35.9 48.1 37.6 32.7 Loading Dock Activities 20.8 5.0 22.0 33.1 28.5
Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 30.2 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total (All Noise Sources) 52.4 38.2 55.0 41.3 36.1
Nighttime Threshold 60.0 45.0 60.0 45.0 45.0
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No
Notes:

Source: Urban Crossroads, Empire Groves Hotel Noise Impact Analysis, City of Ontario, May 13, 2024; refer to Appendix I, Noise Impact Analysis.
4625
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 59
To describe the operational noise level increases, the operational noise levels are combined with the existing ambient noise levels measurements for the nearest receiver locations potentially impacted by operational noise sources. The difference between the combined modified project’s noise levels and ambient noise levels describes the noise level increases to the existing ambient noise environment. As indicated in Table 12, Operational Noise Level Increases, the modified project-related daytime and nighttime operational noise level increases are expected to range up to 1.7 dBA Leq at the nearest receiver locations. As such, the modified project-related operational noise level increases would satisfy the operational noise level increase significance criteria presented on Noise Impact Analysis Table 4-1, Significance Criteria Summary. Therefore, the incremental operational noise level increase is considered less than significant at all receiver locations.

Table 12
Operational Noise Level Increases
Receiver
Location1
Modified
Project
Operational
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
2 Measurement
Location3
Reference
Ambient
Noise
Levels (dBA
Leq)
4 Combined
Modified
Project
and
Ambient
(dBA Leq)5
Increase
(dBA Leq)
Increase
Criteria (dBA
Leq)6
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?
Daytime Operational Noise
R1 54.4 L1 64.2 64.6 0.4 3.0 No
R2 40.2 L2 59.1 59.2 0.1 5.0 No
R3 56.3 L3 62.0 63.0 1.0 3.0 No
R4 43.0 L4 71.7 71.7 0.0 1.5 No
R5 37.9 L5 66.5 66.5 0.0 1.5 No
Nighttime Operational Noise
R1 52.4 L1 61.2 61.7 0.5 3.0 No
R2 38.2 L2 58.3 58.3 0.0 5.0 No
R3 55.0 L3 58.3 60.0 1.7 3.0 No
R4 41.3 L4 67.7 67.7 0.0 1.5 No
R5 36.1 L5 61.7 61.7 0.0 1.5 No
Notes:

1.Noise receiver locations are shown on Noise Impact Analysis Exhibit 9-A, Construction Noise Source And Receiver Locations; refer to Appendix I, Noise Impact Analysis.

2.Refer to Table 10 above.

3.Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Noise Impact Analysis Exhibit 5-A, Noise Measurement Locations.

4.Observed ambient noise levels measured by Urban Crossroads are shown on Noise Impact Analysis Table 5-1, 24-Hour Ambient Noise Level Measurements.

5.Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the modified project operational activities.

6.Refer to Table 7, Significance Criteria Summary.

Source: Urban Crossroads, Empire Groves Hotel Noise Impact Analysis, City of Ontario, May 13, 2024; refer to Appendix I, Noise Impact Analysis.
4626
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 60
Overall, the operational noise levels associated with the modified project would not exceed the City’s daytime and nighttime exterior noise level standards at all nearby receiver locations and would not result in significant increases. As such, operational noise impacts resulting from stationary noise sources would be less than significant. The modified project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of TOP 2050 SEIR.

Traffic Noise
To assess the off-site traffic CNEL noise level impacts associated with development of the proposed modified project, noise level contours were developed based on modified project-specific traffic impact analysis; refer to Noise Impact Analysis Appendix 7.1, OffSite Traffic Noise Calculations, which includes a summary of the dBA CNEL traffic noise level contours. Noise level contour boundaries represent the equal levels of noise exposure and are measured in CNEL from the center of the roadway. Noise contours were used to assess the modified project's incremental 24-hour dBA CNEL traffic-related noise impacts at land uses adjacent to roadways conveying modified project-related traffic. The noise contours represent the distance to noise levels of a constant value and are measured from the center of the roadway for the 70, 65, and 60 dBA CNEL noise levels. The noise contours do not consider the effect of any existing noise barriers or topography that may attenuate ambient noise levels. In addition, because the noise contours reflect modeling of vehicular noise on area roadways, they appropriately do not reflect noise contributions from the surrounding stationary noise sources within the study area.

Roadway segments are analyzed in each of the following timeframes: Existing With and Without Modified Project Conditions, Opening Year 2026 With And Without modified Project Conditions, and Cumulative 2050 With And Without modified Project Conditions.

The analyses for each timeframe are as followed:
• Existing With And Without Modified Project Conditions: Noise Impact Analysis Table 7-1, Existing Without Project Conditions Noise Level Contours, presents the “Existing Without Project Conditions” CNEL noise levels, which are expected to range from 57.5 to 67.6 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography. Noise Impact Analysis Table 7-2, Existing With Project Conditions Noise Level Contours, shows that roadway noise levels from “Existing With Project Conditions” would range from 58.7 to 67.7 dBA CNEL. As shown in Table 7-7, Existing Off-Site Project-Related Traffic Noise Impacts, the “Existing With Project Conditions” would generate a noise level increase of up to 2.5 dBA CNEL on the study area roadway segments.

Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise impacts as presented in Table 7, the modified project-related traffic noise level increases are considered less than significant under “Existing With Modified Project” conditions at the land uses adjacent to roadways conveying modified project-related traffic. 4627
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 61
• Opening Year (2026) With And Without Project Conditions: Noise Impact Analysis Table 7-3, OY 2026 Without Project Conditions Noise Level Contours, presents the “Opening Year (2026) Without Modified Project Conditions” CNEL noise levels, which are expected to range from 60.3 to 69.0 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography. Noise Impact Analysis Table 7-4, OY 2026 With Project Conditions Noise Level Contours, shows that roadway noise levels from “Opening Year (2026) With Modified Project Conditions” would range from 61.0 to 69.0 dBA CNEL. As shown on Noise Impact Analysis Table 7-8, OY 2026 Off-Site Project-Related Traffic Noise Impacts, “Opening Year (2026) Without Modified Project Conditions” would generate a noise level increase of up to 1.6 dBA CNEL.

Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise impacts as presented in Table 7, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level increases due to unmitigated opening year modified project-related traffic noise levels.
• Cumulative 2050 With And Without Modified Project Conditions: Noise Impact Analysis Table 7-5, Cumulative 2050 Without Project Conditions Noise Level Contours, presents the “Cumulative 2050 Without Modified Project Conditions” CNEL noise levels, which are expected to range from 63.1 to 69.6 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography. Noise Impact Analysis Table 7-6, Cumulative 2050 With Project Conditions Noise Level Contours, shows that roadway noise levels from “Cumulative 2050 Without Modified Project Condition” would range from 66.3 to

69.7 CNEL. Noise Impact Analysis Table 7-9, Cumulative 2050 Off-Site ProjectRelated Traffic Noise Impacts, shows that the modified project off-site contribution to cumulative traffic noise level increases up to 0.5 dBA CNEL.

Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise impacts as presented in Table 7, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would not experience substantial noise level increases due to modified project-related traffic noise level increases and impacts in this regard would be considered less than significant.

Overall, the modified project would result in less than significant traffic noise impacts during operation. The modified project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of TOP 2050 SEIR.

Operational Vibration
The modified project would not generate additional long-term operational traffic, and no new stationary noise sources are anticipated. Operational noise impacts resulting from the modified project would be less than significant. Further, the modified project would not involve railroads operations or substantial heavy truck trips and would not result in 4628
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 62
significant vibration impacts at surrounding uses during operation. As such, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard. The modified project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of TOP 2050 SEIR.

Airport Noise
The modified project site is located approximately 350 feet north of the Ontario International Airport (ONT). This places the modified project site within the ONT Airport Influence Area according to Policy Map 2-1 of the ONT ALUCP. The ONT ALUCP was amended July 2018 to promote compatibility between airport and the surrounding land uses. Since the modified project site is located within the ONT Airport Influence Area, the modified project is subject to the Noise Criteria established in the ONT ALUCP. As shown on Noise Impact Analysis Exhibit 3-B, the modified project site is located within the 60 to 70 dBA CNEL airport noise level contours. Specifically, as shown on Noise Impact Analysis Exhibit 8-A, the 65 dBA CNEL noise level contours cross the southern portion of the modified project site, while the remainder of the modified project site would be located between the 60 and 65 CNEL noise level contours of Ontario Airport.

According to Table 2-3 of the ONT ALUCP, the short-term lodging land use (i.e., hotel) within the 60 to 70 dBA CNEL is considered a conditionally compatible land use which must demonstrate compliance with the interior noise standard of 45 CNEL.

As shown in Noise Impact Analysis Tables 8-4, First Floor Interior Noise Levels (CNEL), through 8-12, Ninth Floor Interior Noise Levels (CNEL), on-site interior traffic noise levels would not exceed the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level standard for hotel rooms and additional noise abatement measures are not needed. As such, airport noise impacts would be less than significant. The modified project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of TOP 2050 SEIR.

Certified TOP 2050 SEIR Mitigation Measures: Not Applicable.

Addendum Project Conditions: None.

3.2.11 Transportation
Approved Project Findings
TOP 2050 SEIR determined that the approved project would result in less than significant impacts related to the circulation system, hazardous traffic conditions due to geometric design, and adequate emergency access. However, TOP 2050 SEIR found that due to the approved project’s anticipated population increase, an increase in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) would occur, which would result in potentially significant impacts. As such, TOP 2050 SEIR included Mitigation Measure T-1, which would require that prior to 4629
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 63
approval of discretionary projects under TOP 2050 and subject to VMT reduction analysis, applicants shall demonstrate compliance with the City’s VMT Guidelines for CEQA assessment of VMT impacts. For projects with VMT per Service Population exceeding the County’s significance threshold, a mitigation plan shall be developed and implemented. Mitigation should consist of 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, and approved by the City (if applicable). However, given the uncertainty of the effectiveness of implementing TDM measures at a Citywide level and of their effectiveness at reducing Citywide VMT, VMT impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable.

Modified Project Analysis
The Empire Groves Hotel – VMT Analysis, (VMT Analysis), prepared by Translutions, Inc., and dated October 12, 2023, was prepared for the modified project; refer to Appendix J, VMT Analysis.

Based on the City’s VMT guidelines, a project would result in a significant VMT impact if either of the following conditions are satisfied:

1. Project Generated VMT: A significant impact would occur if the project VMT per Service Population (VMT/SP) exceeds the Citywide average for Service Population under General Plan Buildout Conditions; or

2. Project Effect on VMT: A significant impact would occur if the project causes total daily VMT within the City to be higher than the no project alternative under cumulative conditions.

Based on the results of the VMT Analysis modeling, modified project-generated VMT would be 32.13 VMT/SP and the Citywide average at General Plan buildout would be

32.55 VMT/SP; therefore, the modified project would result in less than significant VMT impacts. Additionally, based on the modeling, for future year 2045, Citywide average at General Plan buildout with the modified project would be 22.64 VMT/SP, and Citywide average at General Plan buildout without the modified project would be 22.73 VMT/SP.

Therefore, implementation of the modified project would lower Citywide VMT/SP at buildout year 2045 and would result in a less than significant impact.

While the modified project does not propose new bicycle facilities or new transit infrastructure, the modified project would continue to provide access to existing facilities, including multipurpose trails, as well as stops and connections for Metrolink, Amtrak, West Valley Connector BRT, Ontario Airport Loop, and Metro. As described in Section

2.3, Modified Project Description, the modified project would provide sidewalk improvements along the site perimeter, including visible crosswalks at major intersections and the Specific Plan identifies potential future roadway improvements along East Holt Boulevard, East Guasti Road, and Airport Drive that would further expand the multimodal 4630
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 64
transportation network in the modified project area. All transportation improvements would be designed to City standards and would enhance connectivity through and around the modified project site as well as between neighboring districts and the airport. Further, no roadway improvements are proposed that would create geometric design hazards or impact emergency access in the modified project area.

Certified TOP 2050 SEIR Mitigation Measures: Not Applicable.

Addendum Project Conditions: None.

3.2.12 Tribal Cultural Resources
Approved Project Findings
According to TOP 2050 SEIR, future development as a result of TOP 2050 implementation could occur in portions of the City with sensitivity to tribal cultural resources. Grading and construction activities in undeveloped areas or redevelopment that requires deeper soil excavation than in the past could potentially disturb tribal cultural resources. However, TOP 2050 SEIR determined that 2010 TOP EIR Mitigation Measures 5-3 (tribal consultation and preparation of a cultural resources assessment) and 5-4 (construction-related tribal resources mitigation) as well as TOP 2050 SEIR Mitigation Measures TCR-1 (tribal cultural resources monitoring plan) and TCR-2 (treatment and disposition of cultural resources) would reduce potential impacts associated with tribal cultural resources to less than significant levels. Therefore, TOP 2050 SEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Modified Project Analysis
As of July 1, 2015, California Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) was enacted and expanded CEQA by establishing a formal consultation process for California tribes within the CEQA process. AB 52 states that prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report for a project, a lead agency shall begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project, if the tribe requested to the lead agency, in writing, to be informed by the lead agency of proposed projects in that geographic area and the tribe requests consultation. As this environmental document (i.e., an Addendum) is not a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report, AB 52 consultation would not apply to the modified project.

Nevertheless, tribal consultation under AB 52 and California Senate Bill (SB) 18 was conducted as part of TOP 2050 SEIR, which resulted in the inclusion of 2010 TOP EIR Mitigation Measures 5-3 (tribal consultation and preparation of a cultural resources 4631
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 65
assessment) and 5-4 (construction-related tribal resources mitigation) as well as TOP 2050 SEIR Mitigation Measures TCR-1 (tribal cultural resources monitoring plan) and TCR-2 (treatment and disposition of cultural resources) to reduce potential impacts associated with tribal cultural resources to less than significant levels.

SB 18 states that prior to a local (city or county) government’s adoption of any general plan or specific plan, or amendment to general and specific plans, or a designation of open space land proposed on or after March 1, 2005, the city or county shall conduct consultations with California Native American tribes for the purpose of preserving or mitigating impacts to Cultural Places. The modified project proposes to construct a hotel and retail development with associated site improvements in accordance with the proposed Empire Groves Specific Plan. As such, tribal consultation under SB 18 is required and was conducted for the modified project. As required, the City distributed letters by e-mail to applicable tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The City initiated tribal consultation on October 29, 2024, by emailing letters that provided a description of the modified project and notified each tribe of the opportunity to consult with the City regarding the modified project.

The City initiated consultation on November 12, 2024, with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (Kizh Nation) and concluded consultation on December 3, 2025. The Kizh Nation did not identify any cultural resources on the project site, however, the tribe requested project conditions to be included regarding tribal monitoring and notification that are included below. The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation e-mailed the City on November 5, 2025, and did not identify any cultural resources on the project site however requested project conditions to be included consistent with TOP 2050 SEIR Mitigation Measures TCR-1 and TCR-2 that are included below. The modified project would not result in any new or substantially increased impacts that were not identified as part of the Certified TOP 2050 SEIR.

Certified TOP 2050 SEIR Mitigation Measures:

TCR-1 Tribal Cultural Resources Monitoring. The project archaeologist, in consultation with interested tribes, the developer, and the City of Ontario, shall develop an archaeological monitoring plan (AMP) to address the details, timing, and responsibility of archaeological and cultural activities that will occur on the project site. 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 ground disturbing 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 (if the tribes cannot come 4632
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 66
to an agreement on the rotating or simultaneous schedule of tribal monitoring, the Native American Heritage Commission shall designate the schedule for the onsite Native American Tribal Monitor for the proposed project);

3. The protocols and stipulations that the developer, 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 tribe 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., for the proposed project, 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 on-site or at the offices of the project archaeologist. The removal of any artifacts from the project site 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 applicant shall relinquish the artifacts through one or more of the following methods and provide the City of Ontario with evidence of same:
a. Accommodate the process for on-site 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 4633
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 67
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.

Addendum Project Conditions: Below are tribal project conditions for the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation and Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation.

A. Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation:

1. In the event that cultural resources are discovered during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Department (YSMN) shall be contacted, as detailed within TOP 2050 SEIR Mitigation Measures TCR-1, regarding any pre-contact finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. 4634
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 68

2. If significant pre-contact cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to YSMN for review and comment, as detailed within TOP 2050 SEIR Mitigation Measures TCR-1. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the project and implement the Plan accordingly.

3. If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities associated with the project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and that code enforced for the duration of the project.

4. The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Management Department (YSMN) shall be contacted, as detailed in TOP 2050 SEIR Mitigation Measure TCR-1, of any pre-contact cultural resources discovered during project implementation, and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a Cultural Resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in coordination with YSMN, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents YSMN for the remainder of the project, should YSMN elect to place a monitor on-site.

5. Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to YSMN. The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with YSMN throughout the life of the project
B. Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation:

1. The project applicant or lead agency shall retain a Native American Tribal Monitor from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation to ensure proper oversight of Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR).

The Tribal Cultural Resources monitoring plan shall address the details, timing, and responsibilities for cultural resource activities occurring on the project site. The plan shall include:
a. Project-related ground disturbance (including, but not limited to, brush clearing, grading, trenching, etc.) and development scheduling.
4635
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 69
b. Full-time presence of a designated Native American Tribal Monitor from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation during all grading, excavation, and ground-disturbing activities on the site. The monitor shall coordinate with the developer to ensure safety requirements, duties, and scope of work are adhered to. The Tribal Monitor shall also have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities if tribal cultural resources are identified.
c. Protocols and stipulations to address inadvertent discoveries of Tribal Cultural Resources, including immediate evaluation by the Kizh Nation. 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 from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation to monitor all such activities. A Tribal Monitor shall be present during all initial grading activities.

If tribal resources are identified during grubbing activities, the Tribal Monitor shall continue to be present during subsequent grading activities.

2. Treatment and Disposition of Cultural Resources. In the event that Tribal Cultural Resources are inadvertently discovered during the course of any ground-disturbing activities, including but not limited to brush clearance, grading, trenching, etc., the following procedures shall be followed to ensure proper and disposition of the discoveries:
a. Temporary Curation and Storage: During construction, all discovered resources shall be temporarily curated in a secure onsite location under the oversight of the Tribal Monitor from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation.
b. Treatment and Final Disposition All discovered cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods, and
archaeological artifacts, shall remain under the custodianship of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. Final disposition shall occur through the following process of On-site Reburial. Discovered items shall be reburied on-site in coordination with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. Measures shall be taken to ensure the future reburial area is protected from any potential future impacts. Reburial shall only occur after cataloging, basic analysis, recordation, and any other necessary documentation have been completed in consultation with the Kizh Nation.
4636
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 70

3. Phase IV Monitoring Report: Upon completion of grading, excavation, and ground-disturbing activities, a Phase IV Monitoring Report shall be submitted to the City of Ontario within 60 days. This report shall document:
a. All monitoring activities conducted by the Tribal Monitors from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation.
b. The impacts to known resources on the property.
c. A summary of how each mitigation measure was fulfilled. d. The type and disposition of cultural resources recovered. e. Evidence of cultural sensitivity training provided to construction staff prior to project commencement.
f. A confidential appendix including daily/weekly monitoring notes prepared by the monitors. All reports produced shall be submitted to the City of Ontario, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, and any other relevant agencies.

3.2.13 Utilities and Service Systems
Approved Project Findings
TOP 2050 SEIR determined that, following compliance with all applicable regulations and ordinances issued by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA), wastewater generated by the approved project could be adequately treated by the wastewater service provider and would not require the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities or exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Additionally, TOP 2050 SEIR concluded that water demand in the City is projected through 2045 in the City of Ontario 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (2020 UWMP), and therefore the City’s water supply and delivery systems are adequate to meet the requirements of the approved project. Further, as discussed in Section 3.2.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, in order to ensure existing and proposed drainage systems under the approved project are adequate to serve buildout of TOP 2050, TOP 2050 SEIR requires all future development 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, future projects would be required to comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB MS4 permit and the San Bernardino County Stormwater Program. Lastly, TOP 2050 determined that existing and/or proposed facilities would be able to accommodate solid waste generated by the approved project, and that the approved project would comply with related solid waste regulations. Overall, 4637
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 71
it was determined that impacts to utilities and service systems would be less than significant following compliance with existing regulations and policies.

Modified Project Analysis
The modified project proposes to install a sewer line on-site to connect to an existing 12- inch sewer main in East Holt Boulevard. As the modified project site is currently vacant, development of the modified project would generate additional wastewater compared to existing conditions, which could increase sewer flows and increase demand on the wastewater treatment provider. However, the modified project has a similar footprint compared to the site buildout envisioned by the approved project. As such, the City’s Sewer Master Plan and Capital Improvement Program accounted for buildout of the modified project site, and the modified project would be adequately served by the existing conveyance system. Additionally, as stated in TOP 2050 SEIR, 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 ten years, with 40 percent of the growth resulting from new development in the City. The IEUA develops 10-year forecasts and specifies capital improvements that will be implemented to meet the increase in demand; further, future projects have been assumed in the IEUA’s Sewer System Management Plans. The modified project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of TOP 2050 SEIR.

The modified project proposes water line connections from the site to an existing 12-inch water main in East Guasti Road along the modified project frontage and an existing 6- inch water main in East Holt Boulevard along the modified project frontage. Additionally, the modified project proposes to install an 8-inch recycled water main in East Guasti Road that connects to an existing 8-inch recycled water main in Convention Center Way (north of East Holt Boulevard) to extend south in East Guasti Road to end east of the Cucamonga Creek Channel. Given that the modified project site is currently vacant, development of the modified project would increase water demand. As stated in TOP 2050 SEIR, the City has the discretion to require water capacity studies associated with new development and redevelopment and currently requires site-specific studies to determine a project’s impact throughout the water system. As such, Water Supply Assessment and Written Verification of Sufficient Water Supply for the Empire Groves Hotel Specific Plan (Water Supply Assessment), prepared by PlaceWorks and dated August 2024, was prepared for the modified project; refer to Appendix K, Water Supply Assessment. Based on the Water Supply Assessment, the modified project would result in total potable water demand of approximately 80.60 acre-feet per year (AFY) and total recycled water demand of approximately 13.35 AFY. Development of the project site consistent with the site’s MU-Multimodal land use designation was previously included in the 2020 UWMP. Therefore, water demand associated with the modified project was compared to water demand associated with buildout of the site as a mixed-use 4638
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 72
development consistent with the 2020 UWMP. The results showed that the modified project would result in a net increase in potable water demand by 43.55 AFY compared to the approved project and a net decrease in recycled water demand by 1.71 AFY compared to the approved project. Nonetheless, the net increase in potable water demand is within the 2020 UWMP projected water demand increases for the years 2025 to 2030, which is within the timeframe in which the modified project is anticipated to be completed. Furthermore, the City has the ability to increase groundwater production from the Chino Basin as well as increase imported water. As such, the City would have sufficient water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry years through the year 2045 to meet all projected water demands associated with its existing and future customers, including the modified project. The modified project would also be required to pay connection fees, which would offset the costs of system maintenance and capital upgrades to support the new development in the City’s service area. The modified project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of TOP 2050 SEIR.

The modified project proposes stormwater improvements consisting of an underground detention system and stormwater pump in the southeast corner of the site. According to the Hydrology Report prepared for the modified project, modified project implementation would increase impervious areas on-site, thereby increasing flows discharging from site.

As such, the proposed stormwater pump would be installed to convey flows to the proposed underground detention system for treatment and restricted flow into an existing 108-inch stormwater line in Guasti Road. The proposed stormwater improvements would ensure the modified project do not cause a significant impact to downstream systems and discharge flows are reduced compared to existing conditions. The modified project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of TOP 2050 SEIR.

Given that the modified project site is currently vacant, development of the modified project would increase solid waste generation and increase demand for solid waste services. The approved project was estimated to occupy approximately two percent of the Badlands Sanitary Landfill and the El Sobrante Landfill remaining capacities. Given that the modified project has a similar development potential to the buildout envisioned for the City’s MU-Multimodal designated areas by the approved project, it is not anticipated that development of the modified project would substantially increase solid waste generation. Additionally, the modified project would be required to comply with CALGreen, AB 341, AB 1826, and TOP 2050 policies regarding waste diversion. The modified project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of TOP 2050 SEIR.

Certified TOP 2050 SEIR Mitigation Measures: Not Applicable.

Addendum Project Conditions: None.
4639
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 73

4.0 DETERMINATION/ADDENDUM CONCLUSION
As detailed in the analysis presented above, this Addendum supports the conclusion that the modified project constitutes minor or technical changes and do not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects as compared to the conclusions of TOP 2050 SEIR. No new information has become available and no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the approved project was being undertaken since the certification of TOP 2050 SEIR have occurred. As identified in TOP 2050 SEIR, the approved project would result in significant environmental impacts with regard to air quality, cultural resources, noise, and transportation. However, the modified project would not substantially increase the severity of these effects. In addition, there are no new or different mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce these significant impacts. 4640
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 74
This page intentionally left blank.
4641
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 75

5.0 REFERENCES
California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/, accessed August 14, 2024.

California Department of Forestry and Fire, Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area, effective April 1, 2024, https://calfireforestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=988d431a42b242b29d 89597ab693d008, accessed August 14, 2024.

ECORP Consulting, Inc., Archaeological Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report for the Ontario Hotel Project on the East Corner of Holt Boulevard and Guasti Road, San Bernardino County, California, August 2023.

ECORP Consulting, Inc., Biological Technical Report for the Ontario Hotel Project, San Bernardino County, California, December 2024.

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., Preliminary Hydrology Report for Diversified Empire Hotel, APN: 0010-322-33, Southeast of Holt Blvd and Guasti Road, October 2023.

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., Water Quality Management Plan for: Empire Hotel, APN: 001032233.

Petra Geosciences, Inc., Phase I Environmental Site Assessment: Proposed Empire Resort and Spa, Southeast Corner of E. Holt Boulevard and E. Guasti Road, APN 0110-322-33-0-000, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California 91761, December 5, 2023.

Petra Geosciences, Inc., Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed Empire Resort And Spa Project, Approximately 10.4 Acres Of Vacant Land At Southeast Corner Of E. Holt Boulevard And E. Guasti Road, APN 011 032 233, City Of Ontario, San Bernardino, California, February 10, 2023.

PlaceWorks, Water Supply Assessment and Written Verification of Sufficient Water Supply for the Empire Groves Hotel Specific Plan, August 2024.

Translutions, Inc., Empire Groves Hotel – VMT Analysis, October 12, 2023.

Urban Crossroads, Empire Groves Hotel Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Ontario, April 19, 2024.

Urban Crossroads, Empire Groves Hotel Greenhouse Gas Analysis, City of Ontario, September 9, 2024.
4642
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 76
Urban Crossroads, Empire Groves Hotel Noise Impact Analysis, City of Ontario, May 13, 2024.
4643
Empire Groves Specific Plan
Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report February 2025 77

APPENDICES
4644
Appendix A
Phase I ESA
4645
ENGINEERS + GEOLOGISTS + ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT

PROPOSED EMPIRE RESORT AND SPA
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF E. HOLT BOULEVARD AND E. GUASTI ROAD ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER (APN) 0110-322-33-0-000
CITY OF ONTARIO, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 91761

DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC COMMUNITIES
December 5, 2023
J.N. 22-398
4646
ENGINEERS + GEOLOGISTS + ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
Offices Strategically Positioned Throughout Southern California

RIVERSIDE COUNTY OFFICE
40880 County Center Drive, Suite M, Temecula, CA 92591
T: 951.600.9271 F: 951.719.1499
For more information visit us online at www.petra-inc.com December 5, 2023
J.N. 22-398

DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC COMMUNITIES
10621 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
Attention: Mr. Nolan Leggio
Subject: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment: Proposed Empire Resort and Spa, Southeast Corner of E. Holt Boulevard and E. Guasti Road, APN 0110-322-33-0-000, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California 91761
Dear Mr. Leggio:

Petra Geosciences, Inc. (Petra) presents this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the abovereferenced site. This assessment has been conducted in accordance with our Supplemental Proposal No. 22-398P, dated October 20, 2023, and in conformance with the scope and limitations of the standards set forth in the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Practice E 1527-21, the EPA’s All Appropriate Inquiry (AAI) regulations 40 CFR Part 312.

This opportunity to be of service to you is sincerely appreciated. Please do not hesitate to call this office if you have questions pertaining to this report.

Respectfully submitted,
PETRA GEOSCIENCES, INC.
______________________________
Edward Lump Siamak Jafroudi, PhD
Associate Geologist Senior Principal Engineer
4647

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Proposed Empire Resort and Spa
Southeast Corner of E. Holt Boulevard and E. Guasti Road Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 0110-322-33-0-000
City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California 91761

INTRODUCTION
The information presented in this report includes the results of our recent site reconnaissance, a review of pertinent literature, and recent federal, state, and local government agency records. Our field reconnaissance, data gathering, and compilation was performed by Mr. Edward Lump, Associate Geologist, with oversight by Dr. Siamak Jafroudi President and Principal Engineer.

SITE DESCRIPTION AND GENERAL INFORMATION

1. The subject property is a vacant site located at the southeasterly corner of E. Holt Boulevard and E.

Guasti Road in the city of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California. The site is bounded by hotel properties to the north and west; improved Cucamonga Creek to the east and a distribution center and vacant land beyond; and a railroad line to the south with Ontario International Airport beyond.

Sidewalks are not present along any street edges bounding the subject property. Chain link fencing delineates the subject site boundary perimeter. A site location map is included as Figure 1.

2. The subject site is comprised of one parcel of approximately 10.4-acres with Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 0110-322-33-0-000. A plan showing recent conditions on the site is included as Figure 2.

3. Access to the subject property is via an open gate off E. Guasti Road near E. Holt Boulevard. A second locked gate is situated further south. At the time of our field reconnaissance, the site was vacant land.

A majority of the subject site is covered with moderately thick to thick, dry native vegetation with somewhat scattered trees; however, an irregularly shaped strip of cleared vegetation exists along the westerly side of the subject site, exposing native soil. Some of this cleared area is covered with gravel.

Some of the trees have been uprooted and partially ground up to mulch. A thinner strip of partially cleared vegetation exists along the east property boundary with Cucamonga Creek. Windblow trash and debris is common along the northern boundary with E. Holt Boulevard and to a lesser extent along the west and south boundary with E. Guasti Road. Windblown trash and debris are occasionally observed along the east edge of the dirt area and the brush area of the northwesterly area onsite. The site slopes gently to the southeast with existing elevations on the order of 965 feet above mean sea level (msl) to 950 feet above msl (USGS, 1981).

4. Within the subject property trash and debris is minimal. The largest area of debris is in the northeastern portion of the subject site, where what appears to be remnants of a homeless encampment was observed.

Three dumped piles of soil noted in the south-central area of the subject property appear to be relatively recent. It appears these soil piles were placed on top of a relatively thin layer of leveled fill soil. Except for roots/rootlets, the surface of these piles was clean of trash and debris. Except for occasional concrete fragments, trash and debris was limited within the subject property. A few small areas of waste concrete and asphalt were noted among the brush in the interior of the subject site.

5. No water wells were observed on site during our reconnaissance. 4648
DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC COMMUNITIES December 5, 2023
Proposed Empire Resort and Spa / Ontario J.N. 22-398
Page ii

6. Overhead power lines were observed adjacent to the subject property during our site reconnaissance.

Overhead lines with one pole mounted transformer were noted outside the fence along the east side of E. Guasti Road near a fire hydrant. The transformer appeared to be in good condition at the time of our reconnaissance. No ground surface staining or distressed vegetation was noted below the transformer.

No pad mounted transformers were observed; however, yellow bollards were observed near two high voltage SCE risers and a vault within the southwesterly portion of the subject site. Closer to the open gate, a buried concrete water valve box was observed inside the fence line.

7. Information obtained during this assessment indicated that the subject property and vicinity appeared to have been utilized for agricultural purposes in the form of grape orchards from at least 1938 to sometime after/during 1975 and before/during 1985. No structures were observed within the subject site boundary from at least 1938 to the present day. From 1985 to 2023, the subject property was vacant and undeveloped land with relatively uniform native vegetation and scattered trees. Holt Boulevard was constructed along the north side of the subject property from at least 1938. Guasti Road was constructed along the south and western site boundary sometime after/during 1985 and before/during 1989.

Historical information reviewed during this assessment includes aerial photographs (dating back to 1938), USGS topographical maps (dating back to 1897), and interviews.

8. No sites were identified in our search of various government agency database records, which appear to have impacted the soils or groundwater beneath the subject site.

9. There was no evidence of drums, above ground storage tanks, underground storage tanks, sumps, pits, pools, or lagoons identified within the subject property boundary during our site assessment.

RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Recognized environmental conditions are defined by the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) as any hazardous substance or petroleum product under conditions that indicate an existing, past, or material threat of release into the structures, ground, groundwater, or surface water at the subject site. If the presences of recognized environmental conditions are identified on a subject site, it may warrant additional research, site assessment, and/or action.
• No REC’s have been identified within or affecting the subject property.

Controlled recognized environmental conditions (CREC’S) are defined by the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Practice E 1527-21 as a recognized environmental condition resulting from the past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority (i.e., as evidenced by the issuance of a no further action letter or equivalent, or meeting risk-based criteria established by regulatory authority), with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls. For example, if a leaking underground storage tank has been cleaned up to a commercial use standard but does not meet unrestricted residential cleanup criteria; this would be considered a controlled recognized environmental condition. The “control” is represented by the (inferred) restriction that the property remains commercial. 4649
DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC COMMUNITIES December 5, 2023
Proposed Empire Resort and Spa / Ontario J.N. 22-398
Page iii
• No CREC’s have been identified within or affecting the subject property.

Historical recognized environmental conditions (HREC’S) are defined by the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Practice E 1527-21 as a past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with the property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory agency, without subjecting the property to any required controls (i.e., property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls or engineering controls). • No HREC’s have been identified within or affecting the subject property.

We have performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in general conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E 1527-21 for the subject property, APN 0110-322-33-0-000, located at the southeast corner of E. Holt Boulevard and E. Guasti Road, in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in the section titled data gaps of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject property at this time.

SITE CONSIDERATIONS
The items presented below are not considered recognized environmental conditions in accordance with ASTM E 1527-21. Although these items may warrant consideration in conjunction with any planned development activities, they are not recognized environmental conditions. The information regarding possible actions relative to these items has been provided as guidance.

1. With re-development of any former agricultural property, a certain amount of unknown subsurface conditions may be anticipated. Any discolored soils, noxious odors, buried pipelines or irrigation channels, and/or other buried objects/debris encountered during clearing and grubbing, or future grading and development should be left in place until an experienced environmental professional (such as Petra) has had the opportunity to evaluate the conditions and provide recommendations if needed.

2. It is possible that abandoned irrigation lines will be encountered during demolition, clearing, and grubbing, or rough grading. If these irrigation lines are concrete, they should be left in place until an experienced environmental professional (such as Petra) has had the opportunity to evaluate the conditions and provide recommendations if needed. In the event concrete irrigation lines are encountered, caution should be taken to not crush the lines until it can be ascertained that they do not contain asbestos.

3. It is recommended that all debris and trash observed on the subject site be removed and disposed of in accordance with current local, state and federal disposal regulations. 4650
DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC COMMUNITIES December 5, 2023
Proposed Empire Resort and Spa / Ontario J.N. 22-398
Page iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................................1 Purpose...............................................................................................................................................................1 Involved Parties..................................................................................................................................................1 SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT ..........................................................................................................................................1 SITE OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................................................3 PREVIOUS LAND USE...............................................................................................................................................4 PREVIOUS REPORTS .................................................................................................................................................4 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...................................................................................................................................4 Geology..............................................................................................................................................................4 Surface Water.....................................................................................................................................................5 Groundwater.......................................................................................................................................................5 RESULTS OF ASSESSMENT .....................................................................................................................................5 Site Observation.................................................................................................................................................5 Adjacent Site and Vicinity Observations ...........................................................................................................7 Government Agency Database Research ...........................................................................................................7 Results of Agency Records Search ....................................................................................................................7 Orphan Sites.....................................................................................................................................................11 Local Agencies.................................................................................................................................................11 Vapor Migration...............................................................................................................................................13 Evaluation of Records Search Results..............................................................................................................14 Results of Aerial Photo Analysis .....................................................................................................................14 Historical USGS Topographic Maps................................................................................................................16 Environmental Lien and Activity and Use Limitations Search 1980 ...............................................................17 Preliminary Title Report...................................................................................................................................18 Fire Insurance Maps and City Directories........................................................................................................18 City Directory ..................................................................................................................................................19 EDR Property Tax Map Report........................................................................................................................20 Building Permits...............................................................................................................................................20 Interviews.........................................................................................................................................................20 User / Client Knowledge ..................................................................................................................................21 Data Failures and Data Gaps............................................................................................................................22 DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS .......................................................................22 Regulatory Actions...........................................................................................................................................23 Adjacent and Nearby Properties.......................................................................................................................23 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB’s) .................................................................................................................23 Underground Storage Tanks.............................................................................................................................23 Above Ground Storage Tanks..........................................................................................................................24 Stormwater/Wastewater Discharge ..................................................................................................................24 Pesticide and Herbicide Residue ......................................................................................................................24 Asbestos-Containing Materials ........................................................................................................................24 Lead-Based Paints............................................................................................................................................25 Landfills...........................................................................................................................................................25 Water Supplies.................................................................................................................................................25 Waste Generation and Storage .........................................................................................................................25 CONCLUSIONS .........................................................................................................................................................25 SITE CONSIDERATIONS .........................................................................................................................................26 LIMITATIONS ...........................................................................................................................................................27 4651
DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC COMMUNITIES December 5, 2023
Proposed Empire Resort and Spa / Ontario J.N. 22-398
Page v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
QUALIFICATIONS....................................................................................................................................................27 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................................29

ATTACHMENTS

FIGURES

APPENDIX A

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

APPENDIX B

AGENCY SEARCH RESULTS

APPENDIX C

EDR HISTORICAL REPORTS

APPENDIX D

INTERVIEWS

APPENDIX E

PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT

APPENDIX F

RESUMES
4652

INTRODUCTION
The information presented in this report includes the results of our recent field reconnaissance, a review of various federal, state, and local government agency records, and a review of historic aerial photographs and topographic maps for the site and vicinity. This report includes a summary of our findings, our opinion as to the current environmental condition of the site, and recommendations for additional work, if needed.

Purpose
This assessment was conducted to determine if any recognized environmental conditions exist on the subject site. Recognized environmental conditions are defined by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) as any hazardous substance or petroleum product under conditions that indicate an existing, past, or material threat of release into the structures, ground, groundwater, or surface water at the subject site.

This assessment is also intended to satisfy the requirement for conducting all appropriate inquiries into the previous ownership and uses of a property for the purposes of meeting the all appropriate inquiries provisions necessary to qualify for certain landowner liability protections under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).

We have performed this assessment in general conformance with the scope and limitations of the standards set forth in the ASTM Practice E 1527-21, the EPA’s All Appropriate Inquiry (AAI) regulations 40 CFR Part 312.

Involved Parties
This report was prepared by Petra Geosciences, Inc. (Petra), at the request of Diversified Pacific Communities, for their exclusive use. Use of this report or reliance thereon by other parties or projects is not authorized. The report may not be suitable for other parties or other purposes.

SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT
The scope of this assessment included the following:

1. Performing a site reconnaissance to identify the current conditions and land use of the subject site and adjoining properties, during which visual evidence of prior uses of the subject site and adjoining properties were noted. The site reconnaissance included an observation of the site surface and the site perimeter. Representative photographs of our site walk are provided in Appendix A. 4653
DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC COMMUNITIES December 5, 2023
Proposed Empire Resort and Spa / Ontario J.N. 22-398

Page 2 ends

2. Researching historical land use of the subject site and vicinity by reviewing available historical aerial photographs, United States Geologic Survey (USGS) topographic maps, fire insurance maps, city directories, and other reasonably ascertainable maps and data (Appendix C).

3. Review Preliminary Title Search document by Ticor Title, dated May 6, 2022, provided by the client (Appendix E).

4. Conducting a search for Environmental Liens and Activities and Use Limitations (AULs) back to 1980 for the subject property parcel (Appendix C).

5. Performing a cursory review of local and regional geological conditions as they pertain solely to commenting of recognized environmental conditions for the site.

6. Obtaining and reviewing a search of pertinent federal, state, and local regulatory agency databases concerning environmental conditions on and in the vicinity of the site. As specified in the ASTM and AAI standards, the following databases were searched using, at a minimum, the recommended search radius:
• Federal National Priority List (NPL) site list,
• Federal Delisted NPL site list,
• Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) site list,
• Federal CERCLIS- No Further Remedial Action Planned (CERC-NFRAP) site list, • Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information (RCRA) Corrective Action Report (CORRACTS) facilities list,
• Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS Treat, Store and Dispose (RCRA-TSD) facilities list, • Federal RCRA generators list,
• Federal institutional control/engineering control registries, • Federal Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) list, • State and tribal lists of hazardous waste sites identified for investigation or remediation including: State- and tribal-equivalent NPL, State, and tribal-equivalent CERCLIS lists, • State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists, • State and tribal leaking storage tank lists,
• State and tribal registered storage tank lists,
• State and tribal institutional control/engineering control registries, • State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites, and
• State and tribal Brownfield sites.

In the interest of thoroughness, numerous non-ASTM and non-AAI required databases were also searched. These databases are listed and discussed in the database search included within this report (Appendix B).

7. Contacting and interviewing knowledgeable persons, such as property owners, managers, and representatives of local government agencies regarding historical site use and current site conditions, if possible.

8. Evaluating the presence of recognized environmental conditions at the subject site through visual observation and research of reasonably ascertainable records. Recognized environmental conditions may include the presence of hazardous materials, petroleum products, underground storage tanks, above ground storage tanks, drums, chemical containers, polychlorinated biphenyls 4654
DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC COMMUNITIES December 5, 2023
Proposed Empire Resort and Spa / Ontario J.N. 22-398

Page 3 ends

Ontario City CouncilMarch 18, 2025

Ontario City Council
March 18, 2025