Ontario City Council
January 20, 2026

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 Implement ing the California Environmental Quality Act" 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 act 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 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 November 17, 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 s. DAB25-034 and DAB25035 , 1278
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV25-007
November 25, 2025

respectively, recommending that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the Application; and

WHEREAS, as the first action on the Project, on November 25, 2025, the Planning Commission issued a Resolution adopting 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 November 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 decision - making 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 the Project were reviewed in conjunction with an Addendum to Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2023110328), certified by the Ontario City Council on July 16, 2024; 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 "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act" 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 P roject approval, as they are applicable to the Project, and are incorporated herein by this reference; and

1279
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV25-007
November 25, 2025

(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

(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 1280
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV25-007
November 25, 2025

the decision-making 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.

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. A s the decision- making 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.

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:

Development Plans

(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 Hospitality land use district of the Policy Plan Land Use Map, and the CCS (Convention Center Services Commercial) zoning district. The development standards and conditions under which the proposed Project will be constructed and 1281
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV25-007
November 25, 2025

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 2050.

(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 CCS (Convention Center Services Commercial) zoning district, including standards relative to the particular land use proposed hotel, 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 impose certain conditions of approval, which have been established to ensure that: [i] the purposes of the Development Code 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 2050.

(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 Development Code that are applicable to the proposed Project, including building intensity, building and parking setbacks, building height, amount of off-street 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). 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 Development Code.

SECTION 6: Planning Commission Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in the Sections above, the Planning Commission hereby 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.

1282
1283
1284
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV25-007
November 25, 2025

ATTACHMENT A:

File No. PDEV25-007
Departmental Conditions of Approval

(Departmental conditions of approval to follow this page)

1285

303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764 Phone: 909.395.2036 / Fax: 909.395.2420

LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Date Prepared: 11/17/2025

File No: PDEV25-007

Project Description: A Development Plan to construct a 226 room hotel totaling 183,903 square feet (including a 158,272 square foot hotel and 25,631 square feet of commercial uses) on 3.41 acres of land located south of Riverside Drive and east of Hellman Avenue within the CCS (Convention Center Services Commercial) zoning district ; (APN: 218-111-67, 218-111-68, and 218- 111-69); submitted by Ontario Ranch Hotel.

Prepared By: Thomas Grahn, Principal Planer
Phone: 909.395.2413 (direct)
Email: [email protected]

The Planning Department, Land Development Section, conditions of approval applicable to the above-described Project, are listed below. The Project shall comply with each condition of approval listed below:

1.0 Standard Conditions of Approval. The project shall comply with the Standard Conditions for New Development, adopted by City Council Resolution No. 2017-027 on April 18, 2017. A copy of the Standard Conditions for New Development may be obtained from the Planning Department or City Clerk/Records Management Department.

2.0 Special Conditions of Approval. In addition to the Standard Conditions for New Development identified in condition no. 1.0, above, t he project shall comply with the following special conditions of approval:

2.1 Time Limits.

(a) Development Plan approval shall become null and void 2 years following the effective date of application approval, unless a building permit is issued and construction is commenced, and diligently pursued toward completion, or a time extension has been approved by the Planning Director . This condition does not supersede any individual time limits specified herein, or any other departmental conditions of approval applicable to the Project, for the performance of specific conditions or improvements.

2.2 General Requirements . The Project shall comply with the following general requirements:

(a) All construction documentation shall be coordinated for consistency, including, but not limited to, architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, landscape and irrigation, grading, utility and street improvement plans. All such plans shall be consistent with the approved entitlement plans on file with the Planning Department.

1286
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PDEV25-007

(b) The project site shall be developed in conformance with the approved plans on file with the City. Any variation from the approved plans must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to building permit issuance.

(c) The herein-listed conditions of approval from all City departments shall be included in the construction plan set for the project , which shall be maintained on site during project construction.

2.3 Landscaping.

(a) The Project shall provide and continuously maintain landscaping and irrigation systems in compliance with the provisions of Ontario Development Code Division 6.05 (Landscaping).

(b) Comply with the conditions of approval of the Planning Department, Landscape Planning Division.

(c) Landscaping shall not be installed until the Landscape and Irrigation Construction Documentation Plans required by Ontario Development Code Division 6.05 (Landscaping) have been approved by the Landscape Planning Division .

(d) Changes to approved Landscape and Irrigation Construction Documentation Plans, which affect the character or quantity of the plant material or irrigation system design, shall be resubmitted for approval of the revision by the Landscape Planning Division, prior to the commencement of the changes.

2.4 Walls and Fences. All Project walls and fences shall comply with the requirements of Ontario Development Code Division 6.02 (Walls, Fences and Obstructions).

2.5 Parking, Circulation and Access.

(a) The Project shall comply with the applicable off-street parking, loading and lighting requirements of City of Ontario Development Code Division 6.03 (Off -Street Parking and Loading).

(b) All drive approaches shall be provided with an enhanced pavement treatment. The enhanced paving shall extend from the back of the approach apron, into the site, to the first intersecting drive aisle or parking space.

(c) Areas provided to meet the City’s parking requirements, including off-street parking and loading spaces, access drives, and maneuvering areas, shall not be used for the outdoor storage of materials and equipment, nor shall it be used for any other purpose than parking.

(d) The required number of off -street parking spaces and/or loading spaces shall be provided at the time of site and/or building occupancy. All parking and loading spaces shall be maintained in good condition for the duration of the building or use.

1287
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PDEV25-007

(e) Parking spaces specifically designated and conveniently located for use by the physically disabled shall be provided pursuant to current accessibility regulations contained in State law (CCR Title 24, Part 2, Chapters 2B71, and CVC Section 22507.8).

(f) The applicant/developer shall either: (a) acquire the adjacent parcels necessary to accommodate the required parking, or (b) enter into a recorded reciprocal parking and access agreement ensuring ongoing shared parking and access rights for hotel operations.

2.6 Site Lighting.

(a) All off -street parking facilities shall be provided with nighttime security lighting pursuant to Ontario Municipal Code Section 4 -11.08 (Special Residential Building Provisions) and Section 4 -11.09 (Special Commercial/Industrial Building Provisions), designed to confine emitted light to the parking areas. Parking facilities shall be lit from sunset until sunrise, daily, and shall be operated by a photocell switch.

(b) Unless intended as part of a master lighting program, no operation, activity, or lighting fixture shall create illumination on any adjacent property.

2.7 Mechanical and Rooftop Equipment.

(a) All exterior roof -mounted mechanical, heating and air conditioning equipment, and all appurtenances thereto, shall be completely screened from public view by parapet walls or roof screens that are architecturally treated so as to be consistent with the building architecture.

(b) All ground -mounted utility equipment and structures, such as tanks, transformers, HVAC equipment, and backflow prevention devices, shall be located out of view from a public street, or adequately screened through the use of landscaping and/or decorative low garden walls.

2.8 Security Standards . The Project shall comply with all applicable requirements of Ontario Municipal Code Title 4 (Public Safety), Chapter 11 (Security Standards for Buildings).

2.9 Signs.

(a) All Project signage shall comply with the requirements of Ontario Development Code Division 8.1 (Sign Regulations).

2.10 Environmental Requirements.

(a) If human remains are found during project
grading/excavation/construction activities, the area shall not be disturbed until any required investigation is completed by the County Coroner and Native American consultation has been completed (if deemed applicable).

(b) If any archeological or paleontological resources are found during project grading/excavation/construction, the area shall not be disturbed until the significance of the resource is determined. If determined to be significant, the resource shall be recover ed by a 1288
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PDEV25-007

qualified archeologist or paleontologist consistent with current standards and guidelines, or other appropriate measures implemented.

2.11 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 any approval of the City of Ontario, whether by its City Council, Planning Commission or other authorized board or officer. 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.

2.12 Additional Fees.

(a) Within 5 days following final application approval, the Notice of Determination (NOD) filing fee shall be provided to the Planning Department. The fee shall be paid by check, made payable to the "Clerk of the Board of Supervisors", which shall be forwarded to the San Bernardino County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, along with all applicable environmental forms/notices, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Failure to provide said fee within the time specified will result in the extension of the statute of limitations for the filing of a CEQA lawsuit from 30 days to 180 days.

(b) After the P roject’s entitlement approval, and prior to issuance of final building permits, the Planning Department’s Plan Check and Inspection fees shall be paid at the rate established by resolution of the City Council.

2.13 Final Occupancy. The Project Architect of record will certify that construction of each building site and the exterior elevations of each structure shall be completed in compliance with the approved plans. Any deviation to approved plans shall require a resubmittal to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to construction. The Occupancy Release Request Form/ Architect Certificate of Compliance shall be provided prior to final occupancy.

After the receipt of this Certification, the Planning Department will conduct a final site and exterior elevations inspection. The Owner’s Representative and Contractor shall be present.

2.14 Additional Requirements.

(a) To accommodate all required vehicle and pedestrian access and all required parking, the applicant/developer shall either: (a) acquire the adjacent parcels necessary to accommodate all proposed improvements , or (b) enter into a recorded reciprocal parking and access agreement ensuring ongoing shared parking and access rights for hotel operations.

(b) The final size and locations of the proposed Digital Advertising Signs integrated into the design of the building shall require separate approval. An approved Master Sign Program and user agreement shall be required in accordance with the Ontario Development Code to establish development standards for design, approved content, sign area, location, and use.

(c) The final design of all perimeter landscaping both within the Public right-of- way and the project site shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.

1289
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PDEV25-007

(d) All windows shall be recessed or provided with surrounds to provide shadow and depth to the elevations. The window final design shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.

1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310

BUILDING

DEPARTMENT

303 East B Street, Civic Center, Ontario, CA 91764

Phone (909)395-2023, Fax (909)395-2180

DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW (DPR) COMMENTS

Planning Case File No(s): PDEV25-007

Submittal No: 1
Case Planner: Thomas Grahn

Applicant: Singh Guvinder

APN(s): 218-111-12, 218-111-49, and 218-111-50

Location: 9309 E Riverside Drive

Project Description: A Development Plan to construct a 231 -unit hotel totaling 161,445 square feet on 3.41 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Riverside Drive and Hellman Avenue, within the CCS (Convention Center Service Commercial) zoning district (APN(s): 218- 111-12, 218-111-49, and 218-111-50). Related File(s): PCUP25-010.

Reviewed By: Klaus de Guzman Phone: (909)395-2173
E-mail: [email protected]
Date: 5/6/2025

All new development projects are required to comply with the minimum Standard Conditions of Approval for New Development pursuant to the City of Ontario Resolution No. 2017-027. Standard Condition of Approval is available for download on Planning Department website under “Application & Resources” or follow link Standard Conditions of Approval.

The following are additional Standard Building Department Conditions of Approval specific to this project.

Items with checked boxes are applicable to this Project:

1311

PDEV25-007 Building COA Revised 2/9/2025 Page 2 of 5

BUILDING DEPARTMENT DPR COMMENTS

GENERAL CONDITIONS
☐ 1 The address for the project is:
☐ 2 Prior to, or at the time of plan check submittal, provide a site plan showing all buildings and the addresses assigned to them as stipulated in (1) above, and a list of these buildings and their assigned addresses on 8-1/2” x 11” paper.
 3 Structures must be designed for 110-mph wind exposure C (per City Ordinance).  4 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.
 5 The property owner/business operator shall comply with all applicable City of Ontario Municipal Codes and Ordinances.
☐ 6 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.
 7 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.  8 All perimeter/boundary walls or fences shall be designed and constructed so that the outer/exterior face of the wall/fence 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.
☐ 9 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 nonconforming with the requirements of the latest adopted edition of the Building Code, or any other applicable law, ordinance, or code.  10 Non-buildable easement(s) needed for this project. Show on plans and provide easement(s) prior to building permits.
 11 The Developer/Owner is responsible for the coordination of the final occupancy. The Developer/Owner shall obtain clearances from each reviewing department and division prior to requesting a final building inspection from the Building Department. Each reviewing department shall sign off in the Building Department permit software.  12 All signs shall be Underwriters Laboratories, or equal, approved.  13 Permits are required prior to the removal and/or demolition of structures. ☐ 14 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. ☐ 15 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. 1312

PDEV25-007 Building COA Revised 2/9/2025 Page 3 of 5

BUILDING DEPARTMENT DPR COMMENTS
☐ 16 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.
☐ 17 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 class ification. 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 wo
☐ 18 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.  19 All exterior lighting shall be orientated, directed, and/or shielded as much as possible so that direct illumination does not infringe onto adjoining properties  20 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.  21 Trash Enclosure shall be covered, and the interior clearances shall be designed to accommodate the following:
• 4’ min. side access entrance
• 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.
 22 The applicant/developer shall include the conditions of approval of this resolution on the construction plans.
 23 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. 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. ☐ 24 Commercial/Industrial gated site must have at least one pedestrian emergency egress gate, 3’-0’ x 6’-8” min. gate size, equipped with panel hardware on the inside, and gate must swing out.

Pedestrian emergency egress gates can be installed integrated with vehicular gates. ☐ 25 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.  26 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. Site must comply with the METHANE ASSESSMENT FOR PROJECTS IN THE ONTARIO RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN guideline. This guideline is available on the Building Department website under General Requirements on Submittal Requirements. 1313

PDEV25-007 Building COA Revised 2/9/2025 Page 4 of 5

BUILDING DEPARTMENT DPR COMMENTS
☐ 27 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.  28 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 Works and the Building Official. The property owner/business operator shall contract with a maintenance company for maintenance and cleaning of the grease interceptor.  29 Onsite private sewer, domestic water, and storm drainage systems shall be designed in accordance with the CPC/UPC requirements, including but not limited to, the sizing of pipes. These systems must be reviewed, approved, and inspected by the Building Department. Design standards used by other departments for off-site sewer, water, and storm drainage systems shall not be used for such onsite systems.
 30 The design for public domestic water, sewer, and storm drainage on any private streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department. Such design need not be submitted to the Building Department for approval.
☐ 31 Provide accessible path of travel between buildings. ☐ 32 When submitting permit applications for new single-family dwellings master/stock plan in the New Model Colony, a table summarizing lots/tract, models, options, square footage, and number of plumbing fixtures, electrical, and mechanical shall be included on the plan. Go to Building Department web site under Applications/Forms for copy of Single Family Track Submittal Form. ☐ 33 When submitting permit applications for production homes, include site plans showing the setback from property lines and the model number/type. See Information Bulletin IB 205 (Tract Homes Phasing Submittal Requirements) on Building Department web site on General Requirements under Submittal Requirements.

SITE CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS

 34 All construction sites must be protected by a security fence and screening. The fencing and screening shall always maintained to protect pedestrians  35 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
 36 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  37 Installation of construction/sales trailers must be located on private property. No trailers can be in the public street right of way.
 38 Any temporary building, trailer, commercial coach, etc. installed and/or used in connection with a construction project shall comply with City Code.
 39 Prior to issuance of a 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
1314

PDEV25-007 Building COA Revised 2/9/2025 Page 5 of 5

BUILDING DEPARTMENT DPR COMMENTS

 40 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  41 Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall pay all Development Improvement Fees to the City. Copies of receipts shall be provided to the Building Department prior to permit issuance.
 42 The Tract or Parcel map shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any permits.  43 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.  44 Fire sprinklers, fire alarm systems and fire hydrant plans shall be submitted to Fire Department for plan check and permit.
 45 Prior to issuance of Building Permits, school fees need to be paid to school district where project is located.

1315

CITY OF ONTARIO

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

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Sign Off
11/3/2025
Jamie Richardson, Sr. Landscape Architect Date
Reviewer’s Name:

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

PDEV25-007, PCU25-010
Case Planner:

Tom Grahn
Project Name and Location:
231 Unit - Hotel
Riverside and Hellman
Applicant/Representative:

Robert Tuttle Architects – Kelsea Stiles [email protected] 38960 Vista Dawn Court
Temecula, CA 92592

Preliminary Plans (dated 10/15/2025) 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. Grade the site to eliminate the low retaining wall and handrail throughout the site; maximize landscape setbacks to allow for maximum 3:1 slopes and / or terracing to eliminate walls.

2. Streets will include large right of ways with tree wells rather than traditional neighborhood parkways to allow for larger groups of pedestrians. During plan check, dimensions, tree wells, hardscape materials, paving patterns, etc., will be explored.

3. Show island planters for shade trees, one space every ten parking spaces for a single row and one space every five spaces for a double row. A tree shall be provided one for every four spaces.

4. Parkway tree locations shall be shown on plans (show tree wells, dimensions TDB) where utilities are proposed. Parkway trees are 30’ apart and a maximum of 45’ apart where residential driveways occur. Show and note a 10’ total space, 5’ clearance on each side of the tree from any utility or hardscape, including water, sewer, drain lines, driveways, and 10’ clear from street lights. Relocate utilities to minimum clearances to allow parkway trees. If part of another project, identify on plans; all streets surrounding project.

5. 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.

6. Show decorative paving at entry’s behind the sidewalk/ROW.

7. Show and dimension transformers set back 5’ from paving all sides. Coordinate with landscape plans.

8. Show and dimension backflow devices set back 4’ from paving on all sides. Locate on level grade. Remove backflow and water meter shown along A Street.

9. Locate utilities including light standards, fire hydrants, water, drain, and sewer lines to not 1316
conflict with required tree locations—coordinate civil plans with landscape plans.

10. Show corner ramp and sidewalk per city standard drawing 1213 with max 10’ or 13’ of ramp and sidewalk behind corners. Show 5’ sidewalk and 7’ parkway within the right of way or as required by Engineering dept.

11. Note for compaction to be no greater than 85% in landscape areas. All finished grades at 1 ½” below finished surfaces. Slopes to be maximum 3:1.

12. Dimension, show and call out for step-outs at parking spaces adjacent to planters; a 12” total wide monolithic concrete curb.

13. Footings for walls, building foundations, and fences shall be designed to allow for required landscape areas with a minimum cover of 2’ and 2’ in front of the footing.

14. Roof drainage, rain gutters, and condenser drainage shall be designed so as not to release onto paving. Downspouts, gutters, and pipes shall be routed into landscape areas or a subsurface drainage system. Provide details.

15. Add Note to Grading and Landscape Plans: Landscape areas where compaction has occurred due to grading activities and where trees or stormwater infiltration areas are located shall be loosened by soil fracturing. For trees, a 12’x12’x18” deep area; for stormwater infiltration, the entire area shall be loosened. Add the following information on the plans: The backhoe method of soil fracturing shall be used to break up compaction. A 4” layer of Compost is spread over the soil surface before fracturing is begun. The backhoe shall dig into the soil lifting and then drop the soil immediately back into the hole. The bucket then moves to the adjacent soil and repeats. The Compost falls into the spaces between the soil chunks created. Fracturing shall leave the soil surface quite rough with large soil clods. These must be broken by additional tilling. Tilling in more Compost to the surface after fracturing per the soil report will help create an A horizon soil. Imported or reused Topsoil can be added on top of the fractured soil as needed for grading. The Landscape Architect shall be present during this process and provide certification of the soil fracturing. For additional reference, see Urban Tree Foundation – Planting Soil Specifications.

Landscape Plans

16. See all comments above to coordinate site and grading plans with the landscape plan.

17. 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.

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

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

20. Where space allows, locate trees for shade on buildings, parking lots, seating areas, and paving, screen blank walls and adjacent properties where missing, accent trees to entries and driveways, and provide visibility to signs, windows, and doors. Locate trees 50% of canopy width from walls, buildings, and existing trees.

21. Replace Washingtonia robusta (invasive) revise to filifera.

22. Show 6’ diameter of mulch only at new trees. Detail irrigation dripline outside of mulched root zone.

23. Moderate water Overhead spray systems shall be designed for plant material less than the height of the spray head.

24. Designer or developer to provide agronomical soil testing and include a report on landscape construction plans.

25. Landscape construction plans shall meet the requirements of the Landscape Development Guidelines. See https://www.ontarioca.gov/Planning/Landscape

26. 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.
1317

CITY OF ONTARIO

MEMORANDUM

TO: Thomas Grahn, Senior Planner
Planning Department

FROM: Robert Johnson , Deputy Fire Chief
Fire Department

DATE: May 27, 2025

SUBJECT: PDEV25-007 - A Development Plan to construct a 231- unit hotel totaling 161,445 square feet on 3.41 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Riverside Drive and Hellman Avenue, within the CCS (Convention Center Service Commercial) zoning district (APN(s): 218-111-12, 218-111-49, and 218-111-50). Related File(s): PCUP25-010.

The plan does adequately address Fire Department requirements at this time.

Standard Conditions of Approval apply, as stated below.

SITE AND BUILDING FEATURES:

A. 2022 CBC Type of Construction: Type 1 & 3

B. Type of Roof Materials: Ordinary

C. Ground Floor Area(s): 20,815

D. Number of Stories: 4

E. Total Square Footage: 161,445 Sq. Ft.

F. 2022 CBC Occupancy Classification(s): 2 Hotel

1318

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 (1 50’) 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 radi us 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 instal- led in inter ior access road ways, in locations where vehi cle park ing would obstruct the minimum clear width requirement. Installation shall be per Standard #B-001.

2.6 S ecurity 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 H- 001.

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.

1319

3 of 5

3.0 WATER SUPPLY

3.1 The required fire flow per Fire Department standards, based on the 2022 California Fire Code, Appendix B, is Choose an item. gallons per minute (g.p.m.) for Choose an item. 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 f eet (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 a n 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 ch eck.

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.

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 F ire 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.
1320

4 of 5

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 P ortable 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 F -1 and S-1 occupancy buildings with a building footprint greater than 500,000 sq. ft.

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

5.3 Single station smoke alarms and carbon monoxide alarms are required to be installed per the California Building Code and the California Fire Code.

5.4 Multiple unit building complexes shall have building directories provided at the main entrances. The directories shall be designed to the requirement s of the Fire Department, s ee Section 9-1 6.06 of the Ontario Municipal Code and Standard #H-003.

5.5 All residential chimneys shall be equipped with an approved spark arrest er meet ing the requirements of the California Building Code.

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.

5.7 Placards shall be installed in acceptable locations on buildings that store, use or handle hazardous materials in excess of the quantities specified in the CFC. Placards shall meet the requirements of National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 704.

1321

5 of 5

5.8 The building shall be provided with a Public Safety 800 MHZ radio amplification system per the Ontario Municipal Code Section 4-11.09 (n) and the CFC. The design and installation shall be approved by the Fire Department.

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 Inform ation 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.

6.2 Any High Piled Storage, or storage of combustible materials greater than twelve feet (12’) in height for ordinary (Class I-IV) commodities or storage greater than six feet (6’) in height of high hazard (Group A plastics, rubber tires, flammable liquids, etc.) shall be approved by the Fire Department, and adequate fire protection features shall be required. If High Piled Storage is proposed, a Fire Department High Piled Storage Worksheet shall be completed and detailed racking plans or floor plans submitted prior to occupancy of the building.

1322

CITY OF ONTARIO

MEMORANDUM

FROM: Heather Lugo, Police Department

DATE: November 10, 2025

SUBJECT: PDEV25-007 – A Development Plan to construct a 231-unit hotel totaling 161,445 square feet on 3.41 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Riverside Drive and Hellman Avenue, within the CCS (Convention Center Service Commercial) zoning district (APN(s): 218-111-12, 218-111-49, and 218-111-50). Related File(s): PCUP25-010.

The “Standard Conditions of Approval” contained in Resolution No. 2017 -027 apply. The applicant shall read and be thoroughly familiar with these conditions, including, but not limited to, the requirements below:

• Required lighting for walkways, driveways, doorways, parking lots, hallways, stairwells, and other areas used by the public shall be provided. Lights shall operate via photosensor. Updated photometrics demonstrating required lighting levels for the project area, including the rear parking lot and pool area, shall be provided to the Police Department. The photometric plans shall include the types of fixtures proposed and demonstrate that such fixtures meet the vandal-resistant requirement. Planned landscaping shall not obstruct lighting.
• Rooftop addresses shall be installed on the building as stated in the Standard Conditions. The numbers shall be at a minimum 3 feet tall and 1 foot wide, in reflective white paint on a flat black background, and oriented with the bottom of the numbers towards the addressed street. • Stairwells shall be constructed to either allow for visibility through the stairwell risers or to prohibit public access to the areas behind stairwells
• The Applicant shall install a video surveillance system on the site. Cameras shall cover at a minimum all entry doors, all cash registers, guest registration area, and parking lot entrance and exit. Cameras shall be positioned to maximize the coverage of patrons and vehicles in these areas. Cameras shall record at least 15 frames per second and at a minimum of 720p of resolution. Recordings shall be stored for a minimum of 30 days and made available upon request to any member of the Ontario Police Department. • All exterior electrical outlets shall be secured and locked. • All exterior water spigots / water supply sources shall be secured and locked. • Trash enclosure shall be fully secured /enclosed by locks, mesh and screen grate to reduce crime and encampment opportunities for homeless persons.

The approval of this Conditional Use Permit shall not be construed to permit the sale of alcohol on the premises.

The Applicant shall apply for a modification to this Conditional Use Permit should they desire to sell alcohol.

1323

1324

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:

Form Updated: March 3, 2016Page 1
Zone 6
Allowable Height:

PDEV25-007
SEC of Riverside Drive and east of Hellman Avenue
218-111-67, 218-111-68, and 218-111-69
Vacant/mass graded
226 room hotel totaling 183,903 square feet (including a 158,272 square foot hotel and 25,631 square feet of commercial uses)

0.55 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.
✔
✔
Lorena Mejia
909-395-2276
Thomas Grahn
11/10/2025
2025-009
n/a
55 FT
200 FT +
✔
1325
Department: Economic Development
Prepared By: Karla Tavera
Department:

Prepared By: Karla Tavera
Staff Member Presenting: Jennifer McLain
Hiramoto, Economic Development Director
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 21
SUBJECT:

A RESOLUTION APPROVING CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REVENUE BONDS UP TO $100 MILLION FOR

FINANCING AND REFINANCING A COMMERCIAL HOTEL PROJECT IN ONTARIO

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
January 20, 2026
SECTION:

PUBLIC HEARINGS

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt a resolution to approve the issuance by California Statewide Communities Development Authority ("CSCDA") of one or more series of revenue bonds, from time to time, in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $100,000,000 for the purpose of financing and refinancing the acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, improvement and equipping of a commercial hotel and related facilities owned by National Community Renaissance of California or its affiliates, and certain other matters relating thereto.

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Invest in the Growth and Evolution of the City's Economy Operate in a Businesslike Manner
Pursue City's Goals and Objectives by Working with Other Governmental Agencies FISCAL IMPACT:

There is not a direct fiscal impact to the City associated with this action.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS:

National Community Renaissance of California (National CORE), or an affiliated nonprofit entity (collectively, the “Borrower”), has requested that the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA) issue up to $100 million in one or more series of tax-exempt 501(c) (3) revenue bonds. The financing would be used to acquire, construct, rehabilitate, improve, and equip the commercial hotel and related facilities currently known as the Ontario Airport Hotel and Conference Center, located at 700 N. Haven Avenue in the City of Ontario (the “Facilities”). The Borrower is a California nonprofit public benefit corporation and a qualified 501(c)(3) organization under the Internal Revenue Code.

Because the Facilities are located within the City of Ontario, the Internal Revenue Code (Section 1326
147(f)) requires that the City hold a public hearing (a “TEFRA hearing”) and that the City Council approve the issuance of the bonds. CSCDA has therefore requested that the City Council consider approval of the financing plan for the issuance of the bonds, as well as approval of any future refunding bonds issued by CSCDA to refinance the original bonds.

The City published notice and is conducting the required public hearing to comply with federal tax requirements. Approval of this Resolution would satisfy the City’s role in the TEFRA process.

Importantly, neither the City nor the City Council bears any financial obligation for the repayment of the bonds. The bonds do not constitute a debt, liability, or obligation of the City and do not encumber the City’s general fund, credit, or taxing authority. Repayment of the bonds is solely the responsibility of the Borrower and payable only from the revenues and assets pledged by the Borrower through CSCDA.
1327

RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO

APPROVING THE ISSUANCE BY CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE

COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ONE OR MORE

SERIES OF REVENUE BONDS, FROM TIME TO TIME, IN AN
AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $100,000,000

FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING AND REFINANCING THE

ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, REHABILITATION, IMPROVEMENT

AND EQUIPPING OF A COMMERCIAL HOTEL AND RELATED

FACILITIES OWNED BY NATIONAL COMMUNITY RENAISSANCE OF

CALIFORNIA OR ITS AFFILIATES, AND CERTAIN OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO.

WHEREAS, National Community Renaissance of California or an affiliate thereof (the “Borrower”), a nonprofit public benefit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California and an organization described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “Code”), has requested that the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (the “Auth ority”) adopt a plan of financing to issue one or more series of qualified 501(c)(3) bonds, as defined in Section 145 of the Code, from time to time in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $100,000,000, including bonds issued to refund such revenue bonds (the “Bonds”) for the purpose of, among other things, making a loan to the Borrower to finance and refinance the costs of the acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, improvement and equipping of certain commercial hotel and related facilities currently known as Ontario Airport Hotel and Conference Center, having the street address of 700 N Haven Ave, Ontario, CA 91764 (the “Facilities”) owned by the Borrower or any of its affiliates; and

WHEREAS, the Facilities are located in the City of Ontario (the “City”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “Code”), the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority must be approved by the City because the Facilities are located within the territorial limits of the City; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City (the “Council”) is the elected legislative body of the City and is an applicable elected representative required to approve the issuance of the Bonds under Section 147(f) of the Code; and

WHEREAS, the Authority has requested that the Council approve the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the purpose of financing and refinancing all or any portion of the Facilities in order to satisfy the public approval requirement of Section 147(f) of the Code and the requirements of Section 9 of the Amended and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, dated as of June 1, 1988 (the “Agreement”) of the Authority, among certain local agencies, including the City; and

WHEREAS, the Authority is also requesting that the Council approve the issuance of any refunding bonds hereafter issued by the Authority for the purpose of refinancing the Bonds which financed or refinanced the Facilities (the “Refunding Bonds”) but only in 1328

such cases where federal tax laws would not require additional consideration or approval by the Council; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Code, the Council has, following notice duly given, held a public hearing regarding the issuance of the Bonds, and now desires to approve the plan of financing for the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority; and

WHEREAS, the Council understands that holding the public hearing and approval of this Resolution do not obligate the City or the Council in any manner for payment of the principal or interest on the Bonds , and the Bonds and the obligation to pay principal of and interest thereon and any redemption premium with respect thereto will not constitute an indebtedness or an obligation of the City, within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory debt limitation, or a charge against the general credit or taxin g powers of the City, but will be payable solely from certain revenues duly pledged therefor and generally representing amounts paid by the Borrower.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Ontario as follows:

SECTION 1. The Council hereby approves the plan of financing for the issuance of the Bonds and the Refunding Bonds from time to time by the Authority for the purpose of financing and refinancing all or any portion of the Facilities. It is the purpose and intent of the Council that this Resolution constitute approval of the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority, for the purposes of (a) Section 147(f) of the Code by the applicable elected representative of the governmental unit on whose behalf the Bonds are expected to be issued and the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the area in which the Facilities are located, in accordance with said Section 147(f) and (b) Section 9 of the Agreement. This resolution shall also constitute the approval of the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority within the meaning of the Joint Exercise of Powers Act, comprising Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of the Government Code of the State of California.

SECTION 2. The officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed, jointly and severally, to do any and all things and to execute and deliver any and all documents which they deem necessary or advisable in order to carry out, give effect to and comply with the terms and intent of this Resolution and the financing transaction approved hereby.

SECTION 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

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

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 20th day of January 2026.

1329

_____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR

ATTEST:

____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

____________________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY

1330

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. 2026- was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Ontario at their regular meeting held January 20, 2026 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. 2026- duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held January 20, 2026.

_____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK

(SEAL)

1331
Department: Economic Development
Prepared By: Charity Hernandez
Department:

Prepared By: Charity Hernandez
Staff Member Presenting: Jennifer McLain
Hiramoto, Economic Development Director
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 22
SUBJECT:

CONSIDER APPROVAL, PURSUANT TO THE ADOPTION OF AN ADDENDUM TO THE

CERTIFIED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX (SCH NO. 2023110328), OF AN AMENDED AND

RESTATED DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ONTARIO AND ONTARIO RANCH HOTELS, LLC. FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A HOTEL FEATURING 226-GUEST ROOMS AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EAST

RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND ONTARIO AVENUE

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
January 20, 2026
SECTION:

ADMINISTRATIVE

REPORTS/DISCUSSION/ACTION

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council (“City”) consider and adopt a Resolution approving:

A
.

Adopting an Addendum to the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report for the Ontario Regional Sports Complex (SCH No. 2023110328), certified by the City Council on July 16, 2024; and
B
.

Approving the Amended and Restated Disposition and Development Agreement ("Agreement") between the City of Ontario and Ontario Ranch Hotels, LLC. ("Developer") (on file with the Records Management Department; and
C
.

Authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to sign all documents necessary to implement the Agreement
THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Invest in the Growth and Evolution of the City's Economy Operate in a Businesslike Manner
FISCAL IMPACT:

Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the February 18, 2025 Disposition and Development Agreement (“DDA”), Ontario Ranch Hotels, LLC purchased 2.368 acres of real property at the fair market value of $1,444,594. In addition, the Ontario Ranch Hotels, LLC conveyed to the City certain easement right-of-way interests and a temporary construction easement located at the south westerly corner of Riverside Drive and Vineyard Avenue, consisting of approximately 25,489 square feet area, with an appraised value of $458,802. The easement value was credited against the $1,444,594 purchase price. As a result, the net value of $985,792 in land sale proceeds was be 1332
deposited in the Capital Projects – Measure Q Fund. These funds have been received by the City.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS:

The City of Ontario (“City”) is in the process of developing an approximately 200-acre state-of-the-art regional sports complex to meet the region's growing demand for sports recreation amenities. As the first phase of development is underway with the construction of a Professional Baseball stadium, a retail component is running parallel. Pursuant to the February 18, 2025 DDA, the City sold the real property located at the southeast corner of East Riverside Drive and Ontario Avenue to Ontario Ranch Hotels, LLC.

The City is now interested in amending and restated the DDA to address certain issues that have come to light following the approval of the original DDA. The Amended and Restated DDA removes all language regarding the sale of the property due to the fact that the since the transaction was effectuated on April 4, 2025. The Amended and Restated DDA does include all desired milestones for the development of a hotel at the Ontario Regional Sports Complex (“Development”).

The Development offers an opportunity to continue Ontario’s efforts to engage economic generating opportunities, which will in turn bring more visitors and pedestrians to create an active Sports Empire Stadium Village. The Development will provide for elimination of blighting conditions, develop the site into its highest and best use, generate property tax revenue, produce new jobs (both permanent and temporary), stimulate economic vitality, and continue to spur additional investment within the Sports Empire Stadium Village.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The environmental impacts of the Development were reviewed in conjunction with the Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2023110328), certified by the City Council on July 16, 2024. All previously adopted mitigation measures are a condition of approval of the Amended and Restated DDA and are incorporated herein by this reference.

Staff recommends approval of the Amended and Restated Disposition and Development Agreement pursuant to adoption of the Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report.
1333
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING, PURSUANT TO THE

ADOPTION OF AN ADDENDUM TO THE CERTIFIED FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ONTARIO
REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX (SCH NO. 2023110328), OF AN

AMENDED AND RESTATED DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ONTARIO AND ONTARIO
RANCH HOTELS, LLC. FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A HOTEL
FEATURING 226-GUEST ROOMS AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER
OF EAST RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND ONTARIO AVENUE.

WHEREAS, the City of Ontario (“City”) is in the process of developing an approximately 200-acre state-of-the-art regional sports complex to meet the region's growing demand for sports recreation amenities. As the first phase of development is underway with the construction of a Single -A Minor League Baseball stadium, a retail component is running parallel; and

WHEREAS, p ursuant to the February 18, 2025 D isposition and Development Agreement (“DDA”) the City sold the real property located at the southeast corner of East Riverside Drive and Ontario Avenue to Ontario Ranch Hotels, LLC; and

WHEREAS, t he City is now interested in amending and restated the DDA to address certain issues that have come to light following the approval of the original DDA.

To that end, the Council is requested to approve the Amended and Restated DDA. The Amended and Restated DDA removes all language regarding the sale of the property, as that has previously occurred. The Amended and Restated DDA does include all desired milestones for the development of a hotel at the Ontario Regional Sports Complex (“Development”); and

WHEREAS, the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 202311032 8) was certified on July 16, 2024 (hereinafter referred to as Certified EIR), in which development and use of the Development site was discussed; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Director of the City of Ontario has prepared and approved for attachment to the cer tified 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 Development as documented in the Amended and Restated DDA could result in a number of significant effects on the envi ronment that were previously analyzed in the Certified 1334
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, 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 Development as documented in the Amended and Restated DDA, and that preparation of an Addendum to the Certified EIR was appropriate; and

WHEREAS, the City of Ontario is the lead agency for the Amended and Restated DDA, and the City Council is the decision -making authority for the proposed Amended and Restated DDA ; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the EIR Addendum for the Amended and Restated DDA , has concluded that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent of supplemental EIR have occurred, and intends to take actions on the Amended and Restated DDA in compliance with CEQA and state and local guidelines implementing CEQA; and

WHEREAS, the EIR Addendum for the Amended and Restated DDA is on file in the Planning Department, located at 303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764, is available for inspection by any interested person at that location and is, by this reference, incorporated into this Resolution as if fully set forth herein; 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 decision- making authority for the Amended and Restated DDA the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for the Amended and Restated DDA. Based upon the facts and information contained in the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, the City Council finds as follows:

(1) The environmental impacts of the Development as documented in the Amended and Restated DDA were reviewed in conjunction with an Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2023110328), certified by the Ontario City Council on July 16, 2024; 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
1335

(3) The City's "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act" provide for the use of a single environmental assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed. Th e Development as documented in the Amended and Restated DDA 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 Amended and Restated DDA, 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 Development as documented in the Amended and Restated DDA, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council; and

(6) There is no substantial evidence in the administrative record that the Development as documented in the Amended and Restated DDA 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 Development as documented in the Amended and Restated DDA, as it:

(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 o r 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:

(b) The Development as documented in the Amended and Restated DDA will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the Certified EIR; or

(c) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the Certified EIR; or

(d) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant 1336
effects of the Development as documented in the Amended and Restated DDA , but the City declined to adopt such measures; or

(e) 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. Adoption of Addendum. 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 Developmen t will constitute substantial changes to the Certified EIR, and does hereby adopt the EIR Addendum, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 4. Approval of Amended and Restated Disposition and Development Agreement. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1, 2 and 3, above, the City Council hereby approves the Amended and Restated Disposition and Development Agreement in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to any non-substantive revisions which do not increase the City’s liability and are approved by the City Attorney, and authorizes the City Manager to sign and enter into the Agreement and perform the obligations of the City under the Amended and Restated DDA Agreement.

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.

SECTION 6. Certification to Adoption. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of the Resolution.

SECTION 7. Notice of Determination. The Executive Director, or designee, is hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination for the Agreement under CEQA.

SECTION 8. Severability. If any provision of this Resolution or the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance i s held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Resolution that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Resolution are severable. The City declares t hat the City would have adopted this Resolution irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion of this Resolution.

SECTION 9. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.

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

1337
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 20th day of January 2026.

_____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR

ATTEST:

____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

____________________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY

1338

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. 2026- was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Ontario at their regular meeting held January 20, 2026 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. 2026 - duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held January 20, 2026.

_____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK

(SEAL)

1339

303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764 Phone: 909.395.2036 / Fax: 909.395.2420 Addendum to the Ontario Regional
Sports Complex Environmental
Impact Report

1. Project Title/File Nos.: File Nos.: PDEV25-007 – Ontario Residence Inn and Aloft Hotel

2. Lead Agency: City of Ontario-Planning Department, 303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764

3. Contact Person: Thomas Grahn, Phone: (909) 395-2413, Email: [email protected]

4. Project Sponsor: Ontario Ranch Hotel LLC; PO Box 660, Watsonville, CA 95077

5. Project Location: The Project site is located in southwestern San Bernardino County, within the City of Ontario. The City of Ontario is located approximately 40 miles from downtown Los Angeles, 20 miles from downtown San Bernardino, and 30 miles from Orange County. As illustrated on Figures 1 , Regional Location Map , and 2 , Aerial Site Photograph , below, the Project site is located at the southeastern corner of Riverside Drive and South Champions/Hellman Avenue (APNs: 218-111-12, 218-111-49, and 218-111-50). The Project site is bordered by Riverside Drive to the north , A Street to the east, South Champions /Hellman Avenue to the west, and C Street to the south. Regional access is provided via Interstate 15 (I- 15), State Route 60 (SR-60), and SR-83.

6. Policy Plan (General Plan) Designation: Hospitality (HOS)

7. Zoning Designation: Convention Center Support Commercial (CCS)

8. Description of Project: The Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report (ORSC EIR) (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2023110328) was certified on July 16, 2024 and evaluated the development of a variety of recreational opportunities on an approximately 199-gross-acre site (ORSC site) in the City of Ontario (“Approved Project”). The City is now seeking a change to the Approved Project to allow for a 226-key hotel within Planning Area 2 instead of a 100 -key hotel in Planning Area 3 (“Modified Project”). The Modified Project includes the following entitlements:

1. An Amended and Restated Development Agreement between the City of Ontario and Ontario Ranch Hotels and Related to an Easement and pertaining to right-of-way improvements associated with an off -site easement at the southwest corner of Vineyard Avenue and Riverside Drive;

2. A Development Plan (File No. PDEV25-007) to construct a 226-key hotel totaling 158,272 s.f. on 3.41 acres located at the southeast corner of Riverside Drive and South Champions/Hellman Avenue, within the CCS (Convention Center Service Commercial) zoning district (APN(s): 218- 111-12, 218-111-49, and 218-111-50);

1340
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

Figure 1: Regional Location Map
1341
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

Nearmap Imagery Source Date: May 8, 2025
Figure 2: Aerial Site Photograph
1342
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

Development Agreement
The Modified Project would include an amended and restated development agreement between the City of Ontario and Ontario Ranch Hotels for the purchase and sale of the Project site to develop the proposed hotel. The development agreement would also include an easement pertaining to right-of-way improvements associated with an off -site easement at the southwest corner of Vineyard Avenue and Riverside Avenue , which is included in the Offsite improvement area of the Certified EIR.

Development Plan (File No. PDEV25-007)
The Project Applicant seeks to develop the 3.41- acre site as a 226-key hotel with approximately 158,272 square feet (s.f.) of building area as shown on Figure 3, Site Plan. Other amenities in the hotel include an exercise room, an outdoor pool, spa and kiddie pool, multiple outdoor patios with an outdoor bar and fire pits, and roof top bar . The proposed hotel development also includes a 9,994 s.f. conference area, 10,215 s.f. Legends' Attic, and 5,128 s.f. of retail uses, for a total of 25,337 s.f.

Circulation and Parking
Vehicular access will be provided via a total of 3 driveways: one each on C Street, A Street, and South Champions/Hellman Avenue. The Modified Project also includes surface parking with ±242 parking spaces. Of the ±242 spaces, there are ±121 standard automobile parking stalls, 8 accessible parking stalls, and 133 electric vehicle (EV) stalls. Passenger vehicle parking stalls would be located in parking areas positioned at the eastern and northern side of the proposed building and street parking stalls along C Street.

Building Characteristics and Operations
As depicted in Figure 4, Building Elevations – North and West, and Figure 5, Building Elevations – South and East , the proposed building will be a f ive-story, 71.5-foot tall, designed to be visually compatible with adjacent buildings and uses. The primary color scheme of the proposed building would include varying shades of white, browns , blacks, and greys and would be further accented with blue steel and decorative wood siding panels.

The hotel is proposed to operate up to 24 -hours daily, 7 days a week. Based on information provided by the Project Applicant, the total number of employees for daytime shifts will be approximately (7) seven employees. During the day, the typical shift will consist of (3) three room attendants, (2) two front desk clerks, (1) one part time maintenance person, and (1) one hotel manager from 9 a.m. till 4 p.m. After working hours (from 6 p.m. to about 7 a.m.) , the number of employees reduces to (1) one front de sk clerk. Based on the a generation rate of 1 employee per 400 square feet for retail uses per the TOP 2050 assumptions, the 5,128 s.f. retail uses would generate approximately 13 employees. In total, the Modified Project would generate approximately 21 employees.

1343
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

Figure 3: Site Plan
1344
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

Figure 4: Building Elevations – North and West
1345
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

Figure 5: Building Elevations – South and East
1346
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

Landscaping, Signage, and Lighting
As depicted in Figure 6, Landscape Plan, a variety of trees, shrubs, accent plants, and ground cover are proposed along the perimeter of the Project site and parking area. Landscaping will feature drought-tolerant plant materials for a total of 116 trees, including 13 48” box, 12 36” box, 78 24” box trees, 6 16’ brown trunk height trees and 7 20’ brown trunk height trees.

As shown in Figure 7, Conceptual Signage Plan , signage will place along the northern, and southern side of the building façade. Additionally, two monument signs will be located at the driveway entries on C Street and South Champions/Hellman Avenue. Exterior lighting would be installed on-site along building exterior and parking areas, as necessary, for safety, security, and wayfinding. Decorative architectural lighting as well as landscape lighting would also be installed to accent building entries as focal points throughout the site. Ornamental landscaping, lighting, signage, and utility infrastructure improvements/connections would be installed per compliance with the Ontario Development Code.

Infrastructure Improvements
Water service to the Project site will be provided by the Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC). As shown in Figure 8, Conceptual Utilities Plan, water would be accommodated via proposed 6-inch water line s from the northeastern portion of the building to the existing 12- inch water main on C Street. Additionally, a proposed 2-inch recycled water line would extend from the southwestern portion of the proposed building to the existing 12-inch recycled water main on South Champions/Hellman Avenue although the quantity, size and locations of all the proposed water and utility services are subject to change during Final Design as required by the City.

Sanitary sewer service to the Project site would be provided by Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). Sewer would be accommodated via proposed 8- inch and 10 -inch sewer lines that would extend from the northeastern and southeastern corners of the building to an existing 10-inch sewer mains on C Street and South Champions/Hellman Avenue.

The runoff from the site will sheet flow over the parking areas into the ribbon gutter and curb and gutter system. The runoff will th en be intercepted by catch basins and conveyed further by storm drain system into the underground stormtech infiltration system located at the southeastern portion of the site. Using an 18-inch storm drain outlet structure, the excess runoff will be discharged into the curb inlet located offsite at the southeastern corner of the site along A-street.

Electricity will be provided by the Southern California Edison (SCE), natural gas would be provided via Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas) and fiber optic would be provided by OntarioNet . Currently, there are existing overhead power line along Riverside Drive and South Champions /Hellman Avenue and fiber optic line along Riverside Drive . All new dry utility infrastructure would be installed underground and within the Project site.

Project Construction Characteristics:

Project construction would occur in one phase and is expected to commence in in February 2026. Construction activities are as follows:

• Site Preparation
• Building Construction
• Paving
• Architectural Coating & Landscaping

1347
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

Figure 6: Landscape Plan
1348
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

Figure 7: Conceptual Signage Plan
1349
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

Figure 8: Conceptual Utilities Plan
Note: The Conceptual Utilities System Map is not considered Final Design or for Construction and may change during the Design Phase.
1350
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

Changes from the Approved Project/Certified EIR
The land use plan under the Approved Project comprises seven planning areas (PA)—Baseball Stadium (PA 1); Commercial Retail (PA 2); Baseball Stadium Retail -Hospitality (PA 3), Baseball Stadium Retail-Hospitality South (PA 4); City Park – Active Fields (PA 5); City Park–Indoor Athletic Facility (PA 6); and Community Recreation Center (PA 7). The ORSC site was located within the Armstrong Ranch Specific Plan and a pproval of the Approved Project rescinded the Armstrong Ranch Specific Plan and rezone the ORSC site with traditional zoning designations .

Under existing conditions, certain components of the Approved Project are constructed, others are under construction, and the remaining are yet to be constructed. Specifically, the Approved Project allowed for 45,000 s.f. of support retail/commercial uses in five individual buildings in PA 2, a 21,000 s.f. retail building and a 100 -room hotel in PA 3, and up to 114,000 s.f. of retail/commercial uses in PA 4. Under the Modified Project, there would be no changes to PAs 1, 5, 6, and 7. As shown in Table 1, Approved vs. Modified Project, the Modified Project would result in the development of a 226-room hotel and 35,055.44 s.f. of retail uses in PA 2, 10,000 s.f. of retail uses in PA 3, and 36,512.54 s.f. uses in PA 4. The Modified Project would result in a total of 239,839.98 s.f. of commercial uses including 226 hotel rooms, an overall reduction in 10,160.02 s.f. of commercial uses including an increase in 126 hotel rooms compared to the buildout of the Approved Project previously analyzed under the Certified EIR, as shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1 Approved vs. Modified Project

Approved
Project under the
Certified EIR Modified Project
PA 2
Retail 45,000 s.f. 35,055.44 s.f.

Hotel 0
158,272 s.f./
226 Rooms

PA 3
Retail 21,000 s.f. 10,000 s.f.

Hotel
70,000 s.f./
100 rooms 0

PA 4
Retail 114,000 s.f. 36,512.54 s.f.

Total (PAs 2, 3, 4):

Total Retail 180,000 s.f. 81,567.98 s.f.

Total Hotel
70,000 s.f./
100 rooms
158,272 s.f./
226 rooms
Total Commercial
(Retail + Hotel)
250,000 s.f./
100 Rooms
239,839.98 s.f./
226 Rooms
Change -10,160.02 s.f./+126 Rooms

9. Project Setting: As shown in Figure 2, the Project site is currently vacant and recently graded as part of the development of the Approved Project.

1351
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

10. CEQA Requirements for an Addendum: If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency may: (1) prepare a subsequent EIR if the criteria of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) are met, (2) prepare a subsequent negative declaration, (3) prepare an addendum, or (4) prepare no further documentation. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(b)). When only minor technical changes or additions to the negative declaration are necessary and none of the conditions described in section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred, CEQA allows the lead agency to prepare and adopt an addendum. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(b).)

Under Section 15162, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration is required only when:

1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous 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 negative declaration due to the involvement of any 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 negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:

a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous 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.

Thus, if the Modified Project does not result in any of the circumstances listed in Section 15162 (i.e., no new or substantially greater significant impacts), the City may properly adopt an addendum to the Certified EIR.

11. Analysis: According to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum to a previously certified EIR may be used if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 requiring the preparation of a subsequent Negative Declaration or EIR have occurred. The CEQA Guidelines require that a brief explanation be provided to support the findings that no subsequent EIR or Negative 1352
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

Declaration are needed for further discretionary approval. These findings are described below:

1) Required Finding: Substantial changes are not proposed for the project that will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new, significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

Substantial changes are not proposed by the Modified Project and Project implementation will not require revisions to the Certified EIR. The Certified EIR analyzed the direct and physical changes in the environment that would be caused by ORSC; focusing on changes to land use associated with the buildout of the proposed land use plan. As shown in Table 1 above, the Modified Project would result in the development of a 226-room hotel and 35,055.44 s.f. of retail uses in PA 2, 10,000 s.f. of retail uses in PA 3, and 36,512.54 s.f. uses in PA 4. Although the Project would result in an increase in hotel uses, the decrease in retail uses would lead to an overall reduction in commercial uses. As shown in Table 1 above, the Modified Project would result in a total of 239,839.98 s.f. of commercial uses (which includes both hotel and retail uses), an overall reduction in 10,160.02 s.f. in commercial uses compared to the Approved Project. Therefore, the Modified Project will result in less development of PAs 2 to 4 than the Certified EIR analyzed at buildout (i.e., 250,000 s.f. vs. 239,839.98 s.f.). Since the anticipated buildout resulting from the Modified Project will be less than that originally analyzed in the Certified EIR, no revisions to Certified EIR are required. In addition, all previously adopted mitigation measures are a condition of project approval and are incorporated herein by reference. This Addendum provides an analysis of the Modified Project and verification that the Modified Project will no t cause environmental impacts such that any of the circumstances identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present.

2) Required Finding: Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, that would require major revisions of the previous Environmental Impact Report due to the involvement of new significant enviro nmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project was undertaken, that would require major revisions to the Certified EIR. Although the Modified Project would result in the relocation of the proposed hotel from PA 3 to PA 2 and reallocation of retail uses among PAs 2, 3, and 4, the Modified Project would be developed consistent with the commercial land uses of the site as the overall ORSC site was analyzed in the Certified EIR.

Therefore, no proposed changes or revisions to the Certified EIR are required. In addition, all previously adopted mitigation measures are a condition of project approval and are incorporated herein by reference. As discussed above, buildout of the Modified Project will result in less development in PAs 2 to 4 than the Certified EIR analyzed at buildout ; therefore, the Modified Project would not involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects This Addendum provides an analysis of the Modified Project and verification that the Modified Project will not cau se environmental impacts such that any of the circumstances identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present.

1353
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

3) Required Finding. No new information has been provided that would indicate that the proposed project would result in one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR.

No new information has been provided that would indicate the Modified Project would result in any new significant effects not previously discussed in the Certified EIR. The Certified EIR analyzed the Project site for commercial uses . As discussed above, buildout of the Modified Project will result in less development in PAs 2 to 4 than the Certified EIR analyzed at buildout . Therefore, no proposed changes or revisions to the Certified EIR are required. In addition, all previously adopted mitigation measures are a condition of project approval and are incorporated herein by reference. This Addendum provides an analysis of the Modified Project and verification that the Modified Project will not cause environmental impacts such that any of the circumstances identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present.

12. Conclusion: The Certified EIR, as certified by City Council on July 16, 2024, was prepared as a EIR in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s Rules for the Implementation of CEQA and in accordance with Section 15121(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3). The Certified EIR considered the direct physical changes and reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environment that would be caused by the Approved Project . Consequently, the Certified EIR focused on impacts from changes to land use associated with buildout of the Approved Project , and impacts from the resulting employment growth in the City. As described previously, the overall amount of commercial (hotel and retail) development under the Modified Project will be less than the development analyzed in the Certified EIR.

Accordingly, and based on the findings and information contained in the Certified EIR, the analysis in this document , and CEQA statute and State CEQA Guidelines, including Sections 15164 and 15162, the Modified Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified EIR .

No changes or additions to the Certified EIR analyses are necessary, nor is there a need for any additional mitigation measures.

13. Surrounding Land Uses:

Existing Land Use General Plan
Designation Zoning Designation Specific Plan Land
Use
Site: Vacant Hospitality (HOS)
Convention Center
Support Commercial
(CCS)
N/A
North: Golf Course Open Space -
Recreation (OS-R)
Open Space -
Recreation (OS-R) N/A
South: Vacant HOS CCS N/A
East: Cucamonga Creek Open Space – Non
Recreational (OS-NR)
Countryside Specific
Plan Cucamonga Creek
West: Ontario Regional
Sports Complex HOS CCS N/A

1354
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

14. Other public agencies whose approval is anticipated include (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement):

• Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit; Issuance of a Construction General Permit);

• State Water Resources Control Board (Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan);

• South Coast Air Quality Management District (Issuance of Air Quality permits to construct and operation, if necessary)
1355
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007
P
age 17 of 108 FORM J

15. H
ave California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? ☒Yes ☐ No
If “yes”, has consultation begun? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ Completed As part of the Certified EIR, the City of Ontario sent letters to a list of 22 Native American tribes or individuals on September 22, 2023, and a second time on November 17, 2023. Two tribes , the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians –Kizh Nation and the Cahuilla Band of Indians , responded to the City’s invitation for tribal resources consultation. A ll other tribes (Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California, Pala Band of Mission Indians, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians , Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation, and Morongo Band of Mission Indians ) who have corresponded with the City regarding the ORSC have deferred consultation to other tribes. The Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians –Kizh Nation provided information regarding the tribe’s cultural connection to the ORSC site and mitigation measures that would reduce impacts to tribal cultural resources in lieu of in -person consultation on November 21, 2023. The Cahuilla Band of Indians consulted with the City on November 27, 2023, and agreed to share relevant cultural reports and include tribal monitors on -site during ground -disturbing activities. With these interactions completed, the tribal consultation came to an end. 1356
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007
P
age 18 of 108 FORM J
E

NVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
T
he environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
☐ Aesthetics ☐ Agriculture/Forestry
Resources
☐ Air Quality
☐ Biological Resources ☐ Cultural Resources ☐ Geology / Soils ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☐ Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
☐ Hydrology/Water Quality
☐ Land Use / Planning ☐ Mineral Resources ☐ Noise
☐ Population / Housing ☐ Public Services ☐ Recreation
☐ Transportation ☐ Utilities / Service Systems ☐ Mandatory Findings of Significance
☐ Tribal Cultural Resources ☐ Wildfire ☐ Energy
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
O
n the basis of this initial evaluation:
☐ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☐ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIV E DECLARATION will be prepared.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant ” or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earl ier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
☒ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. 1357
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007
Pag
e 19 of 108 FORM J
Sig
nature: Date: November 25, 2025
Printed Name: Thomas Grahn For: City of Ontario
EVALU

ATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. A brie
f explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. , the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on - site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from the "Earlier Analyses” Section may be cross-referenced).

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration.

Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. , general plans, zoning ordinances) . Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 1358
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

7. Supporting Information Sources . A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:

a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and

b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed
in Certified
EIR

1. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code section 21099, would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) In non- urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality?)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining
whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information
compiled by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement
methodology provided in Forest protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non -agricultural
use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
1359
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed
in Certified
EIR
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management
district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fis h
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
1360
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed
in Certified
EIR
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
§ 15064.5?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to § 15064.5?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

6. ENERGY. Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Spe cial
Publication 42.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iv) Landslides? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on - or off -site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
1361
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed
in Certified
EIR
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life or property?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of
greenhouse gases?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

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

10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
1362
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed
in Certified
EIR
degrade surface or ground water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:

i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off- site;
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite;
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
or
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Impede or redirect flood flows? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

11. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

12. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

13. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
1363
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed
in Certified
EIR
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

14. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of road or other
infrastructure)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

15. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental i mpacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:

i) Fire protection? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ii) Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iii) Schools? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iv) Parks? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
v) Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

16. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

17. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
1364
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed
in Certified
EIR
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code
section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically de fined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code
section 5020.1(k), or
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native American tribe.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

20. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones,

1365
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed
in Certified
EIR
would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. (State CEQA
Guidelines section 15065(a).)

a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a p
lant or
animal community, substantially reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects.)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Note: Authority cited: Public Resources Code sections 21083, 21083.05, 21083.09.

Reference: Gov. Code section 65088.4; Public Resources Code sections 21073, 21074, 21080(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083, 21083.3, 21083.5, 21084.2, 21084.3, 21093, 21094, 21095 and 21151; Sundstrom v.

County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296; Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337; Eureka Citizens for Responsible Govt. v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357; Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1109; San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656.

1366
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

EXPLANATION OF ISSUES

1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:

a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

Summary of Certified EIR Finding: The Certified EIR concluded that The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP 2050) recognized the San Gabriel Mountains as a scenic resource and while the San Gabriel and Santa Ana Mountains we re visible to the north and south of the ORSC site, there are no protected public views within the vicinity of the ORSC site. Additionally, the City’s major scenic corridors, Euclid Avenue and Mission Boulevard, were approximately two miles away from the ORSC site. Moreover, the ORSC would comply with TOP 2050 Policy CD -1.5 which requires that all major north-south streets be designed to feature views of the San Gabriel Mountains and to avoid visual clutter, including billboards. Therefore, impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant.

Discussion of Effects: As discussed above, the Policy Plan (Policy CD-1.5) requires all major north-south streets be designed and deve loped to feature views of the San Gabriel Mountain s.

The Project site is located along South Champions /Hellman Avenue and A Street and are not identified as a major street in the Roadway Classification (Figure M-01) of the Mobility Element within the Policy Plan (City of Ontario, 2022a). Additionally, the Project site is surrounded by urban uses and the Certified EIR assumed buildout of the Project site for commercial uses. The Certified EIR assumes retail uses and multi-story hotel with surface parking on PAs 2 through 4. The type and character of development that would occur on the Project site is similar to what was anticipated by the Certified EIR. Therefore, the Modified Project w ould not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Certified EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, tre es, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

Summary of Certified EIR Finding: The Certified EIR concluded that there are no State Scenic highways through or in the vicinity of the City and the ORSC site. The closest eligible State scenic highway was State Route 142 (SR-142), located seven miles southwest of the ORSC site, and the closest officially designated scenic highway was SR-91 in Anaheim, approximately 21 miles southwest of the ORSC site. Therefore, no impacts to scenic highways would occur.

Discussion of Effects: As discussed above, t he nearest eligible State scenic highway is SR - 142, approximately 7.9 miles to the southwest of the Project site (Caltrans, 2025). In addition, there are no historically significant buildings or any scenic resources identified on or in the vicinity of the Project site. Construction activities would be temporary in nature and would not obstruct scenic resources within a state scenic highway. Therefore, the Modified Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, tre es, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. The Modified Project w ould not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than th ose previously considered and addressed in the Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Certified EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from 1367
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?)

Summary of Certified EIR Finding: The Certified EIR concluded that the City qualified as an urban area and the Approved Project would transform the visual appearance of the ORSC site into a more urbanized setting when compared to existing conditions. However, the ORSC would be consistent with the City’s vision in TOP 2050 and would be subject to TOP 2050 policies governing design quality for development. The ORSC would also require amending the zoning of the ORSC site from the Armstrong Specific Plan to Convention Center Support Retail and Open Space-Recreation. The design and development of the uses on the ORSC site would comply with the applicable provisions for these zoning designations in Section 5.03, Supplemental Land Use Regulations, of the Ontario Development Code. Therefore, the Approved Project would not have a significant impact with respect to being inconsistent with policies or regulations governing scenic quality and impacts would be less than significant.

Discussion of Effects: Project-related changes to local visual character would be less than significant during near -term construction activities because construction activity is currently occurring at the ORSC site, is common in the City, would be temporary in nature, and would not substantially degrade the visual character of the area. The Project site is zoned Convention Center Support Commercial (CCS) and the Modified Project would be required to comply with the development standards established in the City’s Development Code. As part of the development review process, City staff conducted a thorou gh review of the Modified Project’s design and determined that the Modified Project would be consistent with the CCS development standards and design guidelines from the City’s Development Code. Accordingly, there are no components of the Modified Project that would degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and surroundings beyond what was evaluated and disclosed in the Certified EIR. The Modified Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different im pacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Certified EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Summary of Certified EIR Finding: The Certified EIR concluded that existing sources of light and glare on the ORSC site are minimal and the Approved Project would introduce many new sources of nighttime lighting to the ORSC site . According to the lighting plans for the proposed sports fields, no spill light would impact nearby sensitive receptors and the Approved Project would not create a substantial source of new lighting that would affect nighttime views for sensitive receptors. Additionally, buildings would be required to comply with the California Building Standards Code including the standards for lighting and glare set forth in the California Energy Code (CEC) Title 24, Part 6 and CALGreen Title 24, Part 11. Compliance with these standards would ensure that the Approved Project would not create a new source of substantial glare. Therefore, impacts to light and glare would be less than significant.

Discussion of Effects : Under existing conditions, the Project site is primarily surrounded by recreational, residential, and vacant land uses. Street lights are located along East Riverside Drive, and South Champions /Hellman Avenue. N ew lighting will be introduced to the site with the redevelopment of the Modified Project. Pursuant to the requirements of the City’s Development Code, Project on-site lighting will be shielded, diffused or indirect, to avoid glare to pedestrians or motorists. In addition, lighting fixtures will be selected and located to confine the area of 1368
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

illumination to within the Project site and minimize light spillage. Furthermore, consistent with the findings of the Certified EIR, site buildings would be required to comply with the California Building Standards Code including the standards for lighting and glare set forth in the CEC Title 24, Part 6 and CALGreen Title 24, Part 11. Therefore, implementation of the Modified Project would not result in a significant source of light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views. The Modified Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addresse d in the Certified EIR . No changes or additions to the Certified EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information c ompiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provi ded in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:

a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

Summary of Certified EIR Finding: The Certified EIR concluded that the ORSC site contained 53 acres of Prime Farmland, all of which would be converted to non -agricultural use. While conversion of agricultural lands and loss of farmland resulting from the Approved Project were already considered and addressed in the 2010 TOP EIR and Armstrong Ranch Specific Plan EIR, the Approved Project would result in the direct loss of 53 acres of Prime Farmland. None of the mitigation measures considered by the City would feasibly be able to reduce the significant project and cumulative impacts t o levels of less than significant . Therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Discussion of Effects: Majority of the Project site is identified as Unique Farmland while the remaining is designated as Other Land on the map prepared by the California Resources Agency, pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (DOC, 2020). However, the Project site is presently vacant and does not contain any agricultural uses. Although the Modified Project would convert Unique Farmland to non-agricultural use, this change had been considered in the previous environmental documents (Certified EIR, 2010 TOP EIR, Armstrong Ranch Specific Plan EIR), which included the OR SC site. Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Certified EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

Summary of Certified EIR Finding: The Certified EIR concluded that the ORSC site d id not contain any active Williamson Act contracts; therefore, development of the ORSC site would not conflict with a Williamson Act contact . Additionally, the ORSC site was not zoned for agricultural 1369
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

use and was not in the AG Overlay District. The sewer alignment in the Offsite Improvement Area would not conflict with existing zoning because improvements within the Offsite Improvement Area would be below-ground. The ORSC’s redesignation of the site to Open Space-Parkland (OS- R) and Hospitality designations would not conflict with agricultural zoning, and the Approved Project would result in no impact.

Discussion of Effects : The Project site is not zoned for agricultural use. The Project site is zoned Convention Center Support Commercial (CCS) would not result in a loss of land zoned for agriculture. Furthermore, as concluded in the Certified EIR , there is no Williamson Act contract in effect on the ORSC site, including the Project site . Therefore, no impacts to agricultural uses are anticipated, nor will there be any conflict with existing or Williamson Act contracts . The Modified Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Certified EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)?

Summary of Certified EIR Finding: The Certified EIR concluded that there was no forest land in the ORSC site. Existing land uses on the ORSC site consist ed primarily of agricultural land (ranching and farming), a limited number of residences, and miscellaneous commercial uses such as a nursery. The Approved Project would not conflict with zoning for forest land . Therefore, no impacts to forest land would occur.

Discussion of Effects : The Project site is not zoned for forest land or timberland . As concluded in the Certified EIR , t here is no parcel of land in the Project area for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Therefore, implementation of the Modified Project would not conflict with, or cause the rezoning of, forest land or timberland . The Modified Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified EIR . No changes or additions to the Certified EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

Summary of Certified EIR Finding: The Certified EIR concluded that there was no forest land in the ORSC site. Existing land uses on the ORSC site consist primarily of agricultural land (ranching and farming), a limited number of residences, and miscellaneous commercial uses such as a nursery. The Approved Project would not result in the loss of forest land. Therefore, no impacts to forest land would occur.

Discussion of Effects : There is currently no land in the Project area that qualifies as forest land as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g). Additionally, the Project site is presently vacant and does not contain forest land. Consequently, the Modified Project would not result in the loss or conversion of forest land . The Modified Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Certified EIR analyses are necessary. 1370
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

e. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

Summary of Certified EIR Finding: The Certified EIR concluded that the Approved Project would not result in in the conversion of forest land to non -forest use. However, t he Approved Project would result in the conversion of Farmland to non -agricultural use and there were no feasible mitigation measures to reduce the significant impact. Therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Discussion of Effects : As discussed above, the Project s ite include s Unique Farmland ; however, conversion to non-agriculture uses were already analyzed and anticipated in previous environmental documents. Additionally, the Project site does not include forest land. Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in the conversion of forest land to non -forest use. The Modified Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified EIR . No changes or additions to the Certified EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

The analysis in this section is based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Memorandum for Hotel Ontario Aloft + Residence Inn Project prepared by PlaceWorks, Inc. (PlaceWorks) dated November 17, 2025. This report is provided in its entirety as Appendix A of this Addendum. Since preparation of the technical studies, the site plan has been refined and the Modified Project now proposes a 158,272 s.f. hotel building with 226 rooms or a decrease of 11,728 s.f. compared to the building size (170,000 s.f. with 249 rooms) evaluated in the technical studies.

Overall, buildout of the Modified Project proposes a total of 239,839.98 s.f. of commercial uses within PAs 2 through 4 compared to 242,144 s.f. evaluated in the technical studies. This nominal change in the square footage would not substantively change the findings and conclusions of the technical studies and therefore no changes to these studies are warranted. Because the technical studies analyzed 2,304.02 s.f. more than the Modified Project under consideration here, the analysis presented below represents a conservative analysis.

South Coast AQMD Regional and Local Significance Thresholds The City of Ontario utilizes the South Coast AQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook and thresholds of significance to determine the potential significance of Project emissions. A Project may have a significant impact if Project emissions would exceed these air pollution thresholds.

Table 3-1, South Coast AQMD Regional Threshold of Significance , below identifies South Coast AQMD’s regional construction and operational emissions within its jurisdiction.

1371
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

Table 3-1 South Coast AQMD Regional Threshold of Significance Pollutant Construction Regional Thresholds Operational Regional Thresholds NOX 100 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
VOC 75 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
PM10 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
PM2.5 55 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
SOX 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
CO 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day
Notes: lbs/day – Pounds Per Day, NOX – Nitrogen Oxides, VOC – Volatile Organic Compounds, PM10 – Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less, PM2.5 – Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less, SOX – Sulfur Oxides, CO – Carbon Monoxide.

Source: (PlaceWorks, 2025a, Table 2)

The South Coast AQMD also established localized significance thresholds (LSTs) that a project can emit without contributing to an existing or new air quality standard exceedance. LSTs are defined separately for construction and operational activities and a re dependent on location, project size, and distance to sensitive receptors. Table 3-2, South Coast AQMD Localized Threshold of Significance , below identifies South Coast AQMD’s localized construction and operational emissions within its jurisdiction.

Table 3-2 South Coast AQMD Localized Threshold of Significance Acreage Disturbed NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
5 Acres Disturbed per Day (Construction) 270 lbs/day 2,193 lbs/day 16 lbs/day 9 lbs/day 5 Acres Disturbed per Day (Operation) 270 lbs/day 2,193 lbs/day 4 lbs/day 2 lbs/day Notes: Screening-level LSTs for NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 are based on SRA 33 at the minimum reference distance of 82 feet (25 meters).

Source: (PlaceWorks, 2025a, Table 4)

a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

Summary of Certified EIR Finding: The Certified EIR concluded that the Approved Project would generate emissions that exceed the South Coast AQMD operational regional significance thresholds; and thus, would contribute to existing or projected a mbient air quality standards (AAQS) violations. Therefore, the Approved Project would be considered potentially inconsistent with the Air Quality Management Plan ( AQMP). No mitigation measures are applicable for inconsistency with the South Coast AQMD AQMP. Mitigation Measure s AQ-1 and AQ-2 would reduce emissions to the extent feasible; however, operational emissions would continue to exceed the South Coast AQMD significance thresholds due to vehicle emissions associated with operation of the Approved Project. Because the fuel efficiency and fuel type of vehicles used by future employees and visitors were not under the control of the ORSC, no feasible mitigation was identified to further reduce mobile -source emissions. Therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Discussion of Effects: The Modified Project would result in a net decrease of building space across PAs 2 through 4 . Though the amount of hotel space in PA 2 would increase by approximately 170,000 square feet ; like all other uses under the Approved Project, the proposed hotel development would serve the existing demands for this use in the City and region. Since the Modified Project would result in an overall decrease in 10,160.02 s.f. of building space when compared to the Approved Project, the Modified Project is not anticipated to result in a significant 1372
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

increase in jobs beyond what was analyzed in the Certified EIR. Therefore, the Modified Project would not substantially affect housing, employment, or population projections within the region.

Additionally, as demonstrated in Response 3.b, the Modified Project’s decrease in building space would result in less maximum daily air pollutant emissions compared to what was analyzed in the Certified EIR during construction and a ir pollutant emissions generated from operation- related activities would not exceed the South Coast AQMD regional significance threshold values, nor would the Modified Project substantially exceed those of the Approved Project. The Modified Project would not result in a new impac t or substantial increase in operation -phase emissions compared to what was previously analyzed in the Certified EIR. Therefore, though the Modified Project would continue to have significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to consistency with the 2022 AQMP, the Modified Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Certified EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. However, Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-2, presented below, would reduce construction and operational emissions to the extent feasible.

b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?

Summary of Certified EIR Finding: The Certified EIR concluded that construction of the Approved Project would exceed the South Coast AQMD regional significance thresholds.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would require all construction contractors to use Tier 4 Final equipment for the entire off- road construction fleet and “Super -Compliant” architectural coatings th at contain no greater than 10 grams of volatile organic compounds (VOC) content per liter (g/L) of product. Within the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ -1 VOC and NOx emissions would be reduced during construction to below South Coast AQMD significan ce thresholds. As such, short-term air quality impacts from construction activities related to the Approved Project would not exceed threshold after mitigation, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

Long-term operation of the Approved Project would exceed the South Coast AQMD regional significance thresholds. Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 would be required to reduce VMT and include transportation demand management measures such as pedestrian and active transportation improvements. Nonetheless, the vehicle fuel source, vehicle fuel efficiency, and travel mode for visitors are largely outside of the control of the ORSC. As such, no additional mitigation would be feasible to reduce vehicle -related emissions. To address VOC and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions from area sources, Mitigation Measure AQ -2 would be required to ensure that all landscaping and property maintenance tools and equipment are electric powered and do not use fossil fuels. Additionally, Mitigation Measures GHG -1 through GHG- 4 would reduce building energy use and would expand the use of electric vehicle charging on-site.

Mitigation Measures would reduce operational emissions to the extent feasible. However, long - term emissions would continue to exceed the South Coast AQMD’s regional significance thresholds. Therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Discussion of Effects : The following describes project -related impacts from short -term construction activities and long -term operation of the Modified Project compared to the Approved Project.

1373
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

Construction Impacts
Typical construction activities would result in the generation of air pollutants. These emissions would primarily be (1) exhaust from off-road diesel-powered construction equipment; (2) dust generated by construction activities; (3) exhaust from on- road ve hicles; and (4) off -gassing of VOCs from paints and asphalt. Similar to the Approved Project, construction activities under the Modified Project would also produce combustion emissions from various sources, such as on-site heavy-duty construction vehicles, vehicles hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew.

The Modified Project would result in an overall decrease in building square footage across PAs 2 through 4. While the total acreage of disturbance within the PAs would remain similar between the Approved Project and Modified Project, emissions sources commensurate to the level of building space constructed would decrease. For example, total pieces of construction equipment and the number of workers traveling to the site may decrease as a result of the reduction in building space, as would the amount of architectural coatings used for the buildings. Additionally, the Modified Project would, like the Approved Project, comply with Mitigation Measure AQ -1, which would ensure that construction activities associated with the Modified Project utilize construction equipment that meets Tier 4 Final emissions standards and architectural coatings with a VOC content of less than 10 grams per liter. Overall, the Modified Project’s decrease in building space would result in less maximum daily air pollutant emissions compared to what was analyzed in the Certified EIR.

Operational Impacts
Long-term air pollutant emissions associated with development of the uses under the Modified Project typically include area sources (e.g., landscape fuel use, aerosols, architectural coatings, and asphalt pavement), energy use (natural gas), and mobile sources (i.e., on- road vehicles).

When compared to the Approved Project, the Modified Project would result in less overall building square footage. The primary source of operational emissions under the Modified Project are mobile emissions associated with vehicle trips under the Modified Project.

As shown in Table 3-3, Maximum Daily Regional Operational Phase Emissions, air pollutant emissions generated from operation-related activities would not exceed the South Coast AQMD regional significance threshold values, nor would the Modified Project substantially exceed those of the Approved Project. Like the Approved Project, the Modified Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure AQ -2, requiring all landscaping equipment to be all electric. As shown in Table 3- 3, the majority of emissions under the Modified Project are mobile source emissions. The Modified Project would comply with Mitigation Measure TRAF -1 to reduce VMT associated with the Modified Project to the extent possible. Like the Approved Project, no additional mitigation measures are available to reduce impacts associated with VMT. In addition, emissions from building energy use would be minimized because the new buildings would comply with the latest energy standards in addition to Mitigation Measures GHG -1 and GHG -2. While impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, the Modified Project does not identify or require adoption of any further mitigation measures beyond those in the Certified EIR. The Modified Project compared to the Approved Project would not result in any new regional operational emissions impacts or substantially increase the severity of regional operational emissions impacts with respect to cumulatively contributing to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB.

Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Certified EIR analyses are necessary. 1374
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

Table 3-3 Maximum Daily Regional Operational Phase Emissions Source
Emissions (lbs/day)1
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Approved Project
PAs 2 through 42 35 16 255 1 55 14
Total ORSC Emissions3 110 46 738 2 156 40
South Coast AQMD Regional
Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Significant? YES NO YES NO YES NO
Modified Project4
Mobile 28 15 257 1 56 14
Area 6 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Energy <1 2 1 <1 <1 <1
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 34 17 369 1 56 14
South Coast AQMD Regional
Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Regional Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Net Change (Modified Project minus
Approved Project, PAs 2 through 4) -1 1 4 <1 1 <1
New Impact? NO NO NO NO NO NO
1 Both the Approved and Modified Project modeling incorporate Mitigation Measure AQ -2 requiring all -electric landscaping equipment.
2 Emissions under the Approved Project are based on the inputs used for the modeling of PAs 2 through 4 of the ORSC in the Certified EIR. Trip generation for the Approved Project is based on the maximum trip generation scenario calculated by the City of Ontario in 2025 (see Attachment B of Technical Appendix A , Approved and Proposed Project Trip Generation).
3 Operational emissions for all PAs under the ORSC, under the “Worst-Case Saturday” scenario as shown in Table 5.3-18 of the Certified EIR.
4 Modified Project emissions for PA 2 incorporate the project -specific land use information for the proposed Aloft & Residence Inn. Land use inputs for PAs 3 and 4 are based on building square footages noted for the Modified Project in PAs 3 and 4 in Table 1 and the landscaping and parking square footages assumed for the ORSC in PAs 3 and 4. Mobile emissions are based on the maximum trip generation scenario calculated by the City of Ontario in 2025 (see Attachment B of Technical Appendix A ). CalEEMod defaul ts were used for all other emissions sources unless otherwise noted in Attachment A of Technical Appendix A.

Source: (PlaceWorks, 2025a, Table 6)

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The following mitigation measure s from the Certified EIR are applicable to the Modified Project:

AQ-1 The City of Ontario shall require the construction contractor to incorporate the following to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities:

• Use construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 4 (model year 2015 or newer) Final or stricter emission limits for all off-road construction equipment. If Tier 4 Final equipment is not commercially available for a specific piece of 1375
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

equipment, the applicant shall provide documentation (e.g., rental inventory requests), to the City’s satisfaction, or otherwise demonstrate its unavailability to the City of Ontario prior to the issuance of any construction permits and replacement equipme nt used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by the California Air Resources Board regulations.

• If Tier 4 Final equipment is not available, the construction contractor(s) and subcontractor(s) affected shall use Tier 4 Interim equipment.

• If Tier 4 Interim equipment is not available, the construction contractor(s) and subcontractor(s) affected shall use then Tier 3 equipment outfitted with a level 3 diesel particulate filter.

• For purposes of this mitigation measure, “commercially available” shall mean the availability of Tier 4 engines similar to the availability for other large-scale construction projects in the City occurring at the same time and taking into consideration fac tors such as (i) potential significant delays to critical -path timing of construction and (ii) geographic proximity to the project site of Tier 4 equipment.

• During construction, the construction contractor shall maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the construction site for verification by the City of Ontario. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, Equipment Identification Numbers, Engine Family Numbers, and number of construction equipment onsite.

• Use paints with a VOC content that meets the South Coast Air Quality Management District Super Compliant architectural coatings standard of 10 grams per liter (g/L) or less (i.e.,) for coating architectural surfaces.

• Comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403, including the following measures:

• Provide National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)- approved respirators for workers with a prior history of Valley Fever.

• Half-face respirators equipped with a minimum N-95 protection factor for use during worker collocation with surface disturbance activities.

Half-face respirators equipped with N -100 or P -100 filters should be used during digging activities. Employees should wear respirators when working near earth-moving machinery.

• Post warnings onsite and consider limiting access to visitors, especially those without adequate training and respiratory protection.

These identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to and verified by the City.

1376
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

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

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

GHG-2 The City of Ontario shall require proposed buildings and parking areas within the ORSC site to include on -site renewable energy generation systems. Proposed buildings shall include photovoltaic (PV) and battery energy storage systems compliant with the Prescriptive Requirements of the California Building Standards Code, Part 6, California Energy Code.

Proposed buildings may substitute alternative renewable energy generation technology (e.g., wind) for PV systems; however, that alternative generation technology system shall be sized to provide annual electricity equal to what would be provided by a PV system for that building compliant with the Prescriptive Requirements of the California Building Standards Code, Part 6, California Energy Code. Proposed parking areas shall include a PV system or alternative renewable energy generation system (e.g., wind) to help offset electricity demand generated by electric vehicle charging. Prior to issuance of building permits for development projects, applicants sha ll provide plans that show the aforementioned requirements to the City of Ontario Planning Department. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the City of Ontario Building Department shall verify installation of the PV and battery energy storage systems or alternative renewable energy generation systems.

TRAF-1a Commercial/Hospitality TDM Measures. Applicants for commercial and hotel development in Planning Areas 2, 3, and 4 shall prepare Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures analyzed under a VMT-reduction methodology consistent with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associatio n’s (CAPCOA) Final Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (2021) and approved by the City of Ontario. Measures shall include but are not limited to:

• Implement a voluntary commute trip reduction program for employees. 1377
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

• Implement an employee parking cash-out program for employees. • Collaborate with the City to support transit service expansion. • Comply with requirements detailed in the Parking Management Plan, including providing parking validation for retail and hospitality visitors.

c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

Summary of Certified EIR Finding: The Certified EIR concluded that c onstruction of the Approved Project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of toxic air contaminants (TACs) from use of large, offroad construction equipment. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would require the use of newer, lower emitting, Tier 4 Final equipment or better for all off - road construction equipment. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, cancer risks for the residential and daycare maximally exposed receptors (MERs) would be reduced to below the South Coast AQMD significance threshold of 10 cancer cases per one million people.

Therefore, the Approved Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial TAC concentrations during construction, and impacts for construction health risk would be less than significant with mitigation.

The Approved Project is not the type of land use that has the potential to generate substantial on -site criteria air pollutant emissions during operation and on-site project -related operational emissions would not exceed the operational screening -level localized significance thresholds (LSTs). Thus, impacts would be less than significant. Moreover, the combined 22,712 daily trips associated with the Approved Project would not exceed Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD’s) recommended screening criteria of greater than 44,000 vehicles per hour or 24,000 vehicles per hou r; therefore, impacts related to CO hotspots would be less than significant.

Discussion of Effects:

Construction Impacts
LSTs are based on the California Ambient Air Quality Standards ( AAQS), which are the most stringent AAQS to provide a margin of safety in the protection of public health and welfare.

They are designated to protect sensitive receptors most susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and people engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Screening-level LSTs are the amount of project-related emissions at which localized concentrations (ppm or μg/m3) could exceed the AAQS for criteria air pollutants for which the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) is designated nonattainment. They are based on the size of the area disturbed, distance to the nearest sensitive receptor, and Source Receptor Area (SRA).

Due to the decrease in building square footage, the Modified Project would result in less overall construction activity compared the Approved Project, and maximum daily emissions would be less under the Modified Project. To evaluate localized air quality impacts from construction, the Approved Project utilized the LSTs that accounted for the maximum project size available (a project size of 5 acres) and the most conservative receptor distance (25 meters).

Since the Modified Project would also involve activities on a site larger than 5 acres within a 25 meter distanc e of sensitive receptors, it would be subject to the same LSTs as the Approved Project. Therefore, due to the relative reduction in construction activities under the Modified Project from the overall reduction in proposed building square footage, Project emissions would not exceed the applicable LSTs, and impacts would remain less than significant. T herefore, the Modified Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other 1378
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified EIR . No changes or additions to the Certified EIR analyses are necessary.

Construction Health Risk
As noted, the Modified Project would not increase the scale of construction activity at PAs 2 through 4 but would decrease the total amount of building space constructed. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ -1 would continue to be incorporated under the Modified Project, ensuring that health risk impacts from construction activities remain less than significant, and the Modified Project would not increase the health risks for nearby receptors. Therefore, consistent with the findings of the Certified EIR , P roject-related construction activities would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial TAC concentrations with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1. Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Certified EIR analyses are necessary.

Operational Impacts
Operation of the Modified Project would not generate substantial quantities of emissions from on -site stationary sources. Land uses that have the potential to generate substantial stationary sources of emissions that would require a permit from South Coast AQMD include industrial land uses, such as chemical processing and warehousing operations where substantial truck idling could occur on-site. Uses under the Modified Project would be limited to commercial, retail, and hospitality, which would not involve the stationary source emissions common for industrial land uses.

As shown in Table 3-4, Proposed Project Localized On -Site Operational Emissions , on-site emissions sources from the Modified Project would not exceed the operational LSTs used for the Approved Project, which continue to be applicable to the Modified Project. The Modified Project would also not result in a substantial increase in on-site emissions when compared to the Approved Project. Therefore, on-site emissions generated from operation of the Modified Project would not expose off-site sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and TACs. Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Certified EIR analyses are necessary.

Table 3-4 Proposed Project Localized On-Site Operational Emissions Source
Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Approved Project
PAs 2 through 4 0.85 1 <1 <1
Total ORSC Emissions1 4 57 <1 <1
Modified Project
Area Sources <1 <1 <1 <1
Energy Sources 2 1 <1 <1
Total 2 1 <1 <1
South Coast AQMD Screening-Level LST2 270 2,193 4 2
Exceeds Screening-Level LST? NO NO NO NO
1379
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

Source
Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Net Change (Proposed Project minus Approved Project, PAs 2 through 4) 1 1 <1 <1 Exceeds Screening-Level LST? NO NO NO NO
Notes: In accordance with South Coast AQMD methodology, only on-site stationary sources and mobile equipment on the ORSC site are included in the analysis. Modeling assumptions in this table for the Approved and Modified Projects reflect those described in Table 6 of Appendix A.
1 On-site operational emissions for all PAs under the ORSC, as shown in Table 5.3-16 of the Certified EIR. 2 Operational LSTs are based on a 5-acre site and sensitive receptors within 82 meters (25 feet) in SRA 33, consistent with the Certified EIR.

Source: (PlaceWorks, 2025a, Table 6)

CO Hot Spots
Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called hot spots.

These pockets have the potential to exceed the state one -hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the eight-hour standard of 9.0 ppm. Because CO is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into the atmosphere, adherence to AAQS is typically demonstrated through an analysis of localized CO concentrations, typically produced at intersections where vehicles queue for longer periods and are subject to reduced speeds.

The Certified EIR demonstrated that the Approved Project would not generate CO hot spots, and nearby sensitive receptors would not be affected by project -related local air quality impacts. The SoCAB has been designated as attainment under both the national and California AAQS for CO. Under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour —or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mix ing is substantially limited—to generate a significant CO impact (Bay Area Air District 2023). The South Coast AQMD does not currently have adopted CO hotspot screening guidance, so guidance from the Bay Area Air District was utilized to determine whether the Modified Project could result in potentially significant impacts related to CO hotspot generation.

The Certified EIR noted that the Approved Project could generate up to 2,734 peak hour trips (midday peak hour) on a Saturday with concurrent events and a sold -out stadium event.

Using the trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition), the Modified Project would result in the net addition of 278 trips during the midday peak hour under the scenario accounting for use of the baseball stadium on Saturday with no field tournaments, the traffic scenario for which the ORSC as a whole would experience the highest peak hour vehicle trips . Therefore, the total peak hour trips for the ORSC under this scenario with the addition of the Modified Project would be 3,012 trips. The annual average daily vehicle trip volumes surrounding the ORSC site include Chino Avenue (east of Grove Avenue) with 6,420 daily trips and Riverside Drive (east of Vineyard Avenue) with 19,978 daily trips. Assuming that all 3,012 peak hour trips generated by the Approved and Modified Projects would be along Riverside Drive, and assuming that all 19,978 daily trips along Riverside Drive occur during the same peak hour, the combined 22,990 daily trips would not exceed BAAQMD’s recommended screening criteria of greater than 44,000 vehicles per hour or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited.

Impacts with respect to localized CO hotspots would continue to less than significant under the Modified Project, and the Modified Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Certified EIR analyses are necessary. 1380
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. Mitigation Measure AQ-1, presented above, would be applicable to the Modified Project.

d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people)?

Summary of Certified EIR Finding: The Certified EIR concluded that a ny construction - related odor emissions would be temporary and intermittent. Additionally, noxious odors would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the construction equipment and impacts associated with construction-generated odors would be less than significant. The Approved Project included recreational, retail, and hospitality land uses and would not include the types of land uses that are considered to have objectionable odors . Additionally, the Approved Project would replace the existing dairy farm and agricultural fields, which would involve the removal of an estimated 122,437 cubic yards of animal manure across Planning Areas 1 through 5. The removal of manure on-site would result in the reduction in related odors during P roject operation. The Approved Project would also be required to comply with South Coast AQMD Rule 402. Therefore, impacts associated with operational-generated odors would be less than significant.

Discussion of Effects: The threshold for odor is if a project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to South Coast AQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, which states:

A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repos e, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. The provisions of this rule shall not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.

The type of facilities that are considered to have objectionable odors include wastewater treatments plants, compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities. The Certified EIR identified that odors generated by the ORSC would not affect a substantial number of people, and impacts would be less than significant.

The Modified Project consists of uses already anticipated under the Approved Project, which include retail, commercial and hospitality uses. As a result, operation of the Modified Project would not fall within the types of land uses with objectionable odors. Emissions from construction equipment, such as diesel exhaust, and from volatile organic compounds associated with architectural coatings and paving activities, may generate odors. However, these odors would be temporary and intermittent and are not expected to aff ect a substantial number of people.

Similar to the Approved Project, land uses accommodated under the Modified Project would be subject to South Coast AQMD Rule 402, which would contribute to minimizing odor -related nuisances. The Modified Project would not introduce or require any new construction processes that would generate substantial odors compared with what was previously considered in the Certified EIR.

Therefore, odors associated with Project construction and operations would be less than significant. The Modified Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified EIR . No changes or additions to the Certified EIR analyses are necessary. 1381
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:

a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

Summary of Certified EIR Finding: The Certified EIR concluded that out of the 63 identified special-status plant species , there was potential for lucky morning-glory and smooth tarplant to occur within the ORSC site and impacts to special -status plant species would be potentially significant. Additionally, of the 49 special-status wildlife species identified in the literature review, 1 species (burrowing owl) was present, 2 (Crotch bumble bee and Western yellow bat ) had a moderate potential to occur, and 10 (pallid bat, western mastiff bat, pocketed free -tailed bat, big-free tailed bat , Delhi sands flower -loving fly , tricolored blackbird, Swainson’s hawk, white - tailed kite, coastal whiptail, and Los Angeles pocket mouse ) had a low potential to occur in the ORSC site. Moreover, numerous tree and shrub species were present within the site and there were potential impacts to nesting birds. Project lighting would also be required to conform with the standards of the California Building Standards Code which stipulate maximum allowable light levels and light trespass requirements in addition to maximum allowable glare ratings for P roject buildings and lighting; therefore, no impacts to sensitive species from lighting would occur.

Mitigation measures BIO -1 through BIO -9 specif ied the procedures and practices that would reduce potential impacts to all sensitive species that have the possibility of occurring in the ORSC site and Offsite Improvement Area. Most Mitigation Measures would require the implementation of focused biological surveys for each of the identified species or species type (nesting birds and roosting bats) and the preparation of management plans in coordination with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Implementation of these mitigation measures would ensure that the Approved Project identifies protected biological resources and minimizes take of such resources to the extent possible, reducing impacts to less than significant. Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-9, the Approved Project would not have a substantive adverse effect on sensitive plant and wildlife species.

Discussion of Effects: The Project site is currently vacant and recently graded as part of the development of the Approved Project . All previous buildings and structures associated with the past dairy farm ha ve been demolished and there is currently no vegetation or trees onsite.

Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO -9 would continue to be applicable. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts to sensitive plant and wildlife species would be less than significant. The Modified Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified EIR . No changes or additions to the Certified EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The following mitigation measures from the Certified EIR are applicable to the Modified Project:

BIO-1 Worker Environmental Awareness Program and Biological Monitor: Prior to the start of construction of the ORSC site or sewer line within the Offsite Improvement Area, a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) shall be developed by the City or the City’s consultant. A qualified biologist with experience with the sensitive biological resources in the region shall present the WEAP to all personnel working in the ORSC site and Offsite Improvement Area (either temporarily or permanently) 1382
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

prior to the start of project activities. The WEAP may be videotaped and used to train newly hired workers or those not present for the initial WEAP. The WEAP could include but shall not be limited to discussions of the sensitive biological resources associated with the ORSC, project-specific measures to avoid or eliminate impacts to these resources, consequences for not complying with project permits and agreements, and contact information for the lead biologist. Logs of personnel who have taken the training shall be kept on the site at the construction or project office.

In addition to a WEAP, a qualified biologist (biological monitor) with experience monitoring for and identifying sensitive biological resources known to occur in the area shall be present during initial ground-disturbing activities related to the ORSC and Offsite Improvement Area (including fence installation and vegetation removal activities). As required by project permits, the qualifications of a biological monitor may need to be submitted to appropriate wildlife agencies for approval based on the resources the biologist will be monitoring. Biological monitoring duties shall include, but are not limited to, conducting worker education training, verifying compliance with project permits, and ensuring construction activities stay within designated work areas.

The biological monitor shall have the right to halt all activities in an affected area if a special status species is identified in a work area and is in danger of injury or mortality. If work is halted by the biological monitor, work shall proceed only after the hazards to the individual is removed and there is no longer a risk to the individual, or the individual has been moved from harm’s way in accordance with the project’s permits and/or management/translocation plans. The biological monitor shall take representative photographs of the daily activities and shall also maintain a daily log that documents general project activities and compliance with the project’s permit conditions. Non-compliance shall also be documented in the daily log, including any measures that were implemented to rectify the issue.

BIO-2 Rare Plant Survey: A rare plant survey shall be conducted within suitable habitat during the appropriate blooming period for the lucky morning -glory (March through September) and smooth tarplant (April through September). The survey shall be conducted by a botanist or qualified biologist in accordance with the USFWS Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Plants; the CDFW Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Stat us Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities; and the CNPS Botanical Survey Guidelines of the CNPS. One survey shall be conducted during a time of the year that overlaps with all blooming periods (April through September).

If these species are observed during the rare plant survey, individual plants or populations shall be marked with GPS for mapping purposes. If any of these special-status plant species are detected in the ORSC site and Offsite Improvement Area and impacts to these species are unavoidable and impacts would result in deleterious effects to the regional population of the species, the City shall consult with CDFW to develop a mitigation plan or additional avoidance and minimization measures to ensure impacts to these plant species are minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Examples of measures that may be implemented after consultation with CDFW include establishing a no -disturbance buffer around 1383
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

locations of individuals or a population, or additional monitoring requirements during construction of the ORSC and Offsite Improvement Area.

BIO-3 Burrowing Owl Management Plan: A live burrowing owl was documented in the ORSC site and Offsite Improvement Area during a biological survey conducted in September 2023, at which time the individual could have been migrating, arriving for the winter, or late in leaving its summer breeding grounds. Additionally, suitable burrowing owl habitat is present throughout the ORSC site and Offsite Improvement Area. In order to offset potential project related impacts to burrowing owl and its habitat a Burrowing Owl Management Plan (BOMP) shall be developed by a qualified Project biologist who has at least three (3) years of experience working with and/or managing burrowing owls on project sites. The BOMP shall outline project-specific protection measures that a re in accordance with CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (Staff Report; CDFG 2012). The BOMP shall also identify protection measures to be implemented should the species be found on the ORSC site or Offsite Improvement Areas at any time of the year (i.e., migration periods, breeding/summer, and wintering). The BOMP shall outline specific pre - construction survey methods and timing in accordance with the Staff Report and shall include instruction on survey requirements should there be a lapse in construction or project activities. The BOMP shall include project activities before which pre -construction survey requirements shall be required (such as grading, vegetation removal, and fence installation). Mitigation methods outlined in the BOMP shall include, but not be limited to, establishment of no -disturbance buffers around potential or occupied burrowing owl burrows, additional biological monitoring requirements during project activities, and passive relocation during the burrowing owl non-breeding season (September 1 through January 31, annually).

Regular reporting timeframes and requirements for communication with CDFW shall also be clearly outlined in the BOMP. The BOMP shall be submitted to CDFW for review and subject to CDFW approval prior to t he start of Project ground - disturbing activities.

Additionally, the City of Ontario shall continue to carry out the requirements of its Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with IERCD (dated November 21, 2023) to mitigate the loss of suitable burrowing owl habitat resulting from the Project. The MOA outlines the collection of Habitat Mitigation Fees by the City of Ontario that will be managed by a Land Trust for the acquisition, restoration, rehabilitation, and maintenance of lands selected by the Land Trust to have long -term conservation value for burrowing owl.

BIO-4 Preconstruction Surveys for Crotch Bumble Bee: If the Crotch bumble bee is no longer a Candidate or formally listed species under the California ESA at the time ground-disturbing activities occur, then no additional protection measures are proposed for the species.

If the Crotch bumble bee is legally protected under the California ESA as a Candidate or Listed species at the time ground-disturbing activities are scheduled to begin, preconstruction surveys shall be conducted in accordance with CDFW’s Survey Considerati ons for California ESA Candidate Bumble Bee the season immediately prior to project-related ground disturbing activities (including but not limited to vegetation clearing, fence installation, and grading). A minimum of three Crotch bumble bee preconstruc tion surveys shall be conducted at two - to four- week intervals during the colony active period (April through August) when Crotch 1384
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

bumble bees are most likely to be detected. Nonlethal, photo voucher surveys shall be completed by a biologist who holds a Memorandum of Understanding to capture and handle Crotch bumble bee (if nesting and chilling protocol is to be utilized) or by a CDFW -approved biologist experienced in identifying native bumble bee species (if surveys are restricted to visual surveys that will provide high- resolution photo documentation for species verification). The surveyor shall walk through all areas of suitable habitat focusing on areas with floral resources. Surveys shall be completed at a minimum of one person-hour of searching per three acres of suitable habitat during suitable weather conditions (sustained winds less than 8 mph, mostly sunny to full sun, tempera tures between 65 and 90ºF) at an appropriate time of day for detection (at least an hour after sunrise and at least two hours before sunset, though ideally between 9:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m.).

If Crotch bumble bees are detected, CDFW shall be notified by the designated biologist as further coordination may be required to avoid or mitigate certain impacts. At a minimum, two nesting surveys shall be conducted with focus on detecting active nesting colonies within one week and 24 hours immediately prior to ground disturbing activities that are scheduled to occur during the flight season (February through October). If an active Crotch bumble bee nest is detected, an appropriate no disturbance buffe r zone (including foraging resources and flight corridors essential for supporting the colony) shall be established around the nest to reduce the risk of disturbance or accidental take and the designated biologist shall coordinate with CDFW to determine if an Incidental Take Permit under Section 2081 of the California ESA will be required. Nest avoidance buffers may be removed at the completion of the flight season and/or once the qualified biologist deems the nesting colony is no longer active and CDFW has provided concurrence of that determination. If no nests are found but the species is present, a full- time qualified biological monitor shall be present during vegetation or ground disturbing activities that are scheduled to occur during the queen flight period (February through March), colony active period (March through September), and/or gyne flight period (September through October). Because bumble bees move nest sites each year, two preconstruction nesting surveys shall be required during each subsequent year of construction, regardless of the previous year’s findings, whenever vegetation and ground -disturbing activities are scheduled to occur during the flight season if nesting and foraging habitat is still present or has re - established.

BIO-5 Bat Management Plan: A Bat Management Plan shall be prepared by a qualified bat biologist no less than one year prior to the commencement of project -related activities (including, but not limited to, structure removal or demolition, tree removal, grading, and vegetation removal) that shall include specific avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to roosting bats.

The project-specific Bat Management Plan may include any of the following as necessary and appropriate: additional habitat assessments of inaccessible areas that would be directly or indirectly impacted during Project activities, emergence and/or acoustic surveys for bats during the maternity season (April 1 through August 31) to assess the potential for bat maternity roosts in the ORSC site and Offsite Improvement Area, and preconstruction surveys for roosting bats including acoustic monitoring. The Bat Management Plan shall also include recommendations to minimize impacts to roosting bats, including the implementation of no -disturbance buffers, tree - and cliff -swallow nest removal 1385
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

protocols, passive exclusion of bats outside of the maternity and hibernation seasons (if impacts are unavoidable), and/or species -specific replacement alternative roosting habitat.

BIO-6 Tree Avoidance and Removal Process. If trees are scheduled to be removed (e.g., relocating/modified (i.e., trimming) that were determined to be suitable for bat roosting, these activities shall be scheduled during one of the seasonal periods of bat activity listed below, and when evening temperatures are not below 45ºF and rain is not over 0.5 inch in 24 hours:

September 1 to October 31 (preferred): This is after the maternity season but prior to winter torpor.

February 15 to March 31: After winter torpor but prior to the start of the maternity season.

1. If trees with suitable bat roosting habitat are scheduled for removal or relocation outside of the maternity season, tree removal during the time periods and weather parameters described above using the two-step method shall be conducted:

a. Prior to the two-step method, as much as feasible, vegetation and trees within the area that are not suitable for roosting bats shall be removed first to provide a disturbance that might reduce the likelihood of bats using the habitat.

b. Two-step tree removal shall occur over two consecutive days under the supervision of a qualified bat biologist. On Day 1, small branches and small limbs containing no cavity, crevice or exfoliating bark habitat on habitat trees (or outer fronds in the case of palm trees), as identified by a qualified bat biologist are removed first, using chainsaws only (i.e., no dozers, backhoes). The following day (Day 2), the remainder of the tree is to be felled/removed. (The intention of this method is to disturb the tree with noise and vibration and branch removal on Day 1. This should cause any potentially present day -roosting bats to abandon the roost tree after they emerge for nighttime foraging. Removing the tree quickly the next consecutive day should avoid reoccupation of the tree by bats).

2. If tree removal/modification must occur during the maternity season (April 1 to August 31), a qualified bat biologist shall conduct a focused emergence survey(s) of the tree(s) within 48 hours of scheduled work. If a maternity roost is located, whether solitary or colonial, that roost shall remain undisturbed until after the maternity season or until a qualified biological monitor has determined the roost is no longer active.

BIO-7 Delhi Sands Flower -Loving Fly Habitat Suitability Assessment: Prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities (including vegetation removal and fence installation activities), a habitat assessment shall be performed within the ORSC site and Offsite Improvement Area and adjacent areas by a USFWS -permitted biologist with a 10(a)(1)(A) permit to conduct surveys for Delhi sands flower -loving fly and with extensive knowledge of the species. The purpose of the habitat assessment will be to determine the presence of suitable habitat for the species in the ORSC site and Offsite Improvement Area and adjacent areas as well as ascertain the potential 1386
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

for the species to occur on or adjacent to the ORSC site and Offsite Improvement Area. The habitat assessment shall include a site walkover, a check of adjacent empty lots for comparison of habitat quality to the ORSC site and Offsite Improvement Area, pho tographs to document the site conditions, and characterizing the type and quality of the habitats within the ORSC site and Offsite Improvement Area with respect to Delhi sands flower-loving fly.

At the conclusion of the habitat assessment, a brief report of findings as well as recommendations on whether focused surveys must be conducted shall be prepared by the USFWS -permitted biologist. The report shall also include any additional project -specific avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measure recommendations for the species. The City shall follow the recommendations identified in the report of findings.

If Delhi sands flower -loving fly is present in the ORSC site and Offsite Improvement Area and impacts to the species are unavoidable, then the City must initiate consultation with USFWS under either Section 7 or 10 of the federal ESA. If suitable habitat is identified in the ORSC site and Offsite Improvement Area, then the City of Ontario will continue to carry out the requirements of its MOA with IERCD to mitigate for loss of Delhi Sands flower -loving fly habitat. This MOA outlines the collection of Habitat Mitigation Fees by the City of Ontario that will be managed by a Land Trust for the acquisition, restoration, rehabilitation, and maintenance of lands selected by the Land Trust to have long -term conservation value for species such as Delhi Sands flowe r-loving fly. Up to 25 -percent of the total Mitigation Fee collected may be used for the recovery of the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly.

BIO-8 Preconstruction Survey for Nesting Birds: If construction or other project activities are scheduled to occur during the nesting bird and raptor season (generally February 1 through August 31), a preconstruction nesting bird and raptor survey shall be cond ucted by a qualified avian biologist to ensure that active bird nests will not be disturbed or destroyed. The survey shall be completed no more than three days prior to initial ground disturbance. The nesting bird survey shall include the ORSC site an d Offsite Improvement Area and adjacent areas where Project activities have the potential to affect active nests, either directly or indirectly, due to construction activity, noise, human activity, or ground disturbance.

If an active nest is identified, a qualified avian biologist shall establish an appropriately sized nondisturbance buffer around the nest using flagging or staking. Construction activities shall not occur within any non -disturbance buffer zones until the nest is deemed inactive by the qualified avian biologist. If initial ground-disturbing activities are scheduled during the nesting bird season, then a biological monitor shall be present during all vegetation removal activities to ensure no impacts to nesting birds occur.

BIO-9 Biological Resources Best Management Practices: The construction contractor(s) shall implement the following construction best management practices during ground disturbing activities:

 To prevent encroachment into areas immediately adjacent to the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel, temporary fencing should be installed along the eastern perimeter of the ORSC site.

1387
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

 Confine all work activities to a predetermined work area.

 To prevent inadvertent entrapment of wildlife during the construction phase of the ORSC, all excavated, steep -walled holes or trenches more than two feet deep shall be covered at the close of each working day by plywood or similar materials. If the trenches cannot be closed, one or more escape ramps constructed of earthen fill or wooden planks shall be installed. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they should be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals.

 Wildlife are often attracted to burrow - or den-like structures such as pipes and may enter stored pipes and become trapped or injured. To prevent wildlife use of these structures, construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of four inches or greater shall be capped while stored onsite.

 Food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps shall be disposed of in securely closed containers and removed at least once a week from the construction site.

 Use of rodenticides and herbicides on the ORSC site shall be implemented in a manner that reduces the potential for primary or secondary poisoning of non-target species. This is necessary to prevent poisoning of non -target species, including special- status species, and the depletion of prey populations on which they depend. Use of such compounds shall observe label and other restrictions mandated by the USEPA, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and other state and federal legislation. If rodent control must be conducted, zinc phosphide shall be used because it has a proven lower risk to predatory wildlife.

b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations , or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

Summary of Certified EIR Finding: The Certified EIR concluded that no sensitive natural communities were identified and sparsely distributed individuals of mulefat and black willows, ranging from one to three individuals each, were documented in the Offsite Improvement Area for the sewer line in association with the areas mapped as Agriculture land use. Due to their small size and sparse nature, these individuals were not considered a sensitive natural community because they did not fit the classifications of a sensitive natural community according to t he Manual of California Vegetation and by CDFW. As such, no impacts to sensitive natural communities would occur as a result of development of the Approved Project.

Discussion of Effects: The Project site is currently vacant and recently graded as part of the development of the Approved Project . The Project site does not contain any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified by the Department of Fish & Game or Fish & Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (USFWS, 2025). Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in significant impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities . The Modified Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified EIR . No changes or additions to the Certified EIR analyses are necessary.

1388
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

Summary of Certified EIR Finding: The Certified EIR concluded that no aquatic resources were identified on the 199-acre ORSC site and potential aquatic resources were identified within the Offsite Improvement Area. Results of the Aquatic Resources Delineation Report determined that none of the collected samples met all three criteria needed to determine a wetland .

Additionally, there were no features in the wetland delineation study area that met the current definition of Waters of the U.S. to be regulated by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the Cl ean Water Act . Moreover, although indirect impacts to the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel due to runoff and erosion could occur, i mplementation of the best management practices (BMPs) would reduce indirect impacts to a less than significant level.

Therefore, impacts with respect to jurisdictional waters would be less than significant.

Discussion of Effects : According to the USFWS’s National Wetland Inventory , no wetland habitat is present on site (USFWS, 2025). Therefore, consistent with the findings of the Certified EIR, Project implementation would have no impact on these resources . The Modified Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified EIR . No changes or additions to the Certified EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

Summary of Certified EIR Finding: The Certified EIR concluded that no wildlife corridors or linkages were present within the ORSC site and Offsite Improvement Area and no impacts to these resources were expected to occur as a result of development of the ORSC site and sewer alignment in the Offsite Improvement Area. Suitable bat roosting habitat was identified within the ORSC site and Offsite Improvement Area in the form of abandoned buildings and trees. Mitigation Measure BIO-5 required the preparation of a Bat Management Plan no less than one year prior to the commencement of construction activities. The Bat Management Plan would include the measures required to minimize impacts to roosting based on the identified habitat in the ORSC site and Offsite Improvement Area. Additionally, Mitigation Measure BIO -6 outline d the procedures necessary to reduce impacts to roosting bats with respect to tree removals. With the implementation of t hese mitigation measures impacts associated with roostin g bat nursery sites would be reduce to a less than significant level.

Discussion of Effects: No surface water bodies; streams or waterways occur on the Project site. The Project site does not provide nursery sites for wildlife, nor is it conducive to function as a corridor for migratory wildlife. All building and structures associated with the dairy farm has been demolished and there are currently no vegetation or trees onsite. Therefore, no impact related to wildlife movement would occur. However, Mitigation Measure BIO-5 and BIO-6 would continue to be applicable to the Modified Project. The Modified Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Certified EIR analyses are necessary.

1389
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

Summary of Certified EIR Finding: The Certified EIR concluded that the Approved Project would be required to pay the City’s habitat mitigation fee, which was established to cover potential environmental impacts to burrowing owl, DSFLF, raptor foraging, loss of open space, and agricultural lands. Additionally, the ORSC site d id not contain any tree species protected under Section 6.05.020, Tree Preservation Policy and Protection Measures, of the Ontario Development Code and was not located within the boundaries of a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Communities Conservation Plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Discussion of Effects: As discussed previously, the Project site has been recently graded as part of the Approved Project and there is no vegetation or trees existing onsite. Therefore, the Modified Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, and impacts would be less than significant. Moreover, the Project site is not part of an adopted HCP, NCCP or other approved habitat conservation plan (CDFW, 2023) . As a result, no adverse environmental impacts are anticipated. The Modified Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified EIR . No changes or additions to the Certified EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:

a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?

Summary of Certified EIR Finding: The Certified EIR concluded that previous evaluations of buildings and structures on the ORSC site identified four historic period resources, three of which were at 9381 Riverside Drive (P -36-13241 through P -36-13243) and one at 13165 Ontario Avenue (P-36-13244). The previous resource evaluations determined that Resource P -36-13244 was not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP )/California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and did not meet the City’s Historic Context criteria for local significance. An updated Architectural Evaluation for the buildings/structures at 9381 Riverside Drive was conducted and determined that the 9381 Riverside Drive did not meet NRHP or CRHR eligibility criteria or the City’s historic landmark designation. Therefore, impacts to historical resources would be less than significant.

Discussion of Effects: According to the Certified EIR, the previous 2016 Phase II evaluation for the Armstrong Ranch Specific Plan included portions of the Project site (9309 Ontario Avenue) and determined that the structure associated with the abandoned dairy farm does not appear eligible for the NRHP or the CRHR or meet the Historic Context criteria for local significance.

Moreover, under existing conditions, the site has now been graded and the dairy farm is no longer present on the Project site. Therefore, the Modified Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5, and no impacts 1390
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified EIR . No changes or additions to the Certified EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?

Summary of Certified EIR Finding: The Certified EIR concluded the records search at the South-Central Coastal Information Center (SSCIC) determined that there were no Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility (i.e., archaeological resources assessed by the Office of Historic Preservation with respect to National Register eligibility) in the ORSC site. Additionally, according to the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC’s) Sacred Land Files (SLF) record search, no tribal resources were found on the ORSC site. Although there were no current known archaeological resources in the ORSC site, the areas that ha d not been surveyed or studied and could contain archaeological resources. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would ensure the preservation and curation of archeological resources if uncovered during ground -disturbing activities of the ORSC site and sewer ali gnment (Offsite Improvement Area ). Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would ensure that impacts to archaeological resources are mitigated to less than significant levels.

Discussion of Effects: Under existing conditions, the site is vacant and has been graded.

While no adverse impacts to archeological resources are anticipated at this site due to its extent of prior ground disturbance, the presence of previously undiscovered subsurface archaeological resources on the Project site remains possible, and these resources could be affected by ground- disturbing activities associated with construction at the site. As a result, consistent with the findings of the Certified EIR , Miti gation Measure CUL -1 would be implemented to ensure the proper treatment of significant archaeological resources should they be encountered during ground - disturbing construction activities in native soil. Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Certified EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The following mitigation measure from the Certified EIR is applicable to the Modified Project:

CUL-1 Prior to the start of construction, the Project Proponent shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist to monitor all ground -disturbing activities associated with construction of the ORSC site and Offsite Improvement Area. Monitoring is not required for placement of equipment or fill inside excavations that were monitored, above -ground construction activities, or redistribution of soils that were previously monitored (such as the return of stockpiles to use in backfilling). The Monitoring Arch aeologist shall meet or work under the direct supervision of someone meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s professional qualifications standards for prehistoric and historic archaeology. The archaeologist shall be present at a pregrading meeting(s), esta blish procedures for archeological resource monitoring during grading and construction, and establish, in conjunction with the City, procedures to temporarily halt or redirect all work to allow the sampling, identification, and evaluation of all resources as that are encountered by the archaeologist. If archeological features are discovered, the archeologist shall report such findings to the Ontario 1391
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

Planning Director. If the archeological resources are found to be significant, the archeologist shall determine the appropriate actions, in conjunction with the City, that shall be taken for exploration and/or salvage in compliance with CEQA standards.

c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries ?

Summary of Certified EIR Finding: The Certified EIR concluded the Approved Project would require demolition, ground clearing, excavation, grading, and other construction activities, in order to accommodate the proposed improvements onsite and offsite sewer improvements. In the unlikely event soil-disturbing activities associated with the Approved Project could result in the discovery of human remains, compliance with existing law including California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5; CEQA Section 15064.5; and PRC Section 5097.98 would ensure that significant impacts to human remains would not occur. Therefore, impacts to human remains would be less than significant.

Discussion of Effects: The Project is in an area that has been previously disturbed by the development of the ORSC . The possibility of uncovering human remains during Project -related grading activities is remote due to fact that the recent demolition and grading activities of the site has substantially disturbed the subsurface of the site . Thus, human remains are not expected to be encountered during any construction activities. However, as concluded in the Certified EIR, in the unlikely event that human remains are discovered, existing regulations, including the California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, would afford protection for human remains discovered during redevelopment activities including but not limited to demolition, site preparation and grading, infrastructure installation, and other ground -disturbing activities. Furthermore, standard s have been imposed on the Modified Project that in the event of unanticipated discoveries of human remains are identified during excavation and construction activities, the area shall not be disturbed until any require d investigation is completed by the County Coroner and/or Native American consultation has been completed, if deemed applicable. Consistent with the findings of the Certified EIR, mandatory compliance with these requirements would ensure that no significant impacts associated with the discovery of human remains would occur. Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Certified EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

6. ENERGY. Would the project:

The analysis in this section is based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Memorandum for Hotel Ontario Aloft + Residence Inn Project prepared by PlaceWorks, Inc. (PlaceWorks) dated November 17, 2025. This report is provided in its entirety as Appendix A of this Addendum.

a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?

Summary of Certified EIR Finding: The Certified EIR concluded that construction of the Approved Project would result in minimal electricity and no natural gas usage during construction activities. Additionally, demands for energy associated with transportation fuels would come from the transport and use of construction equipment, delivery vehicles and haul trucks, and construction employee vehicles that would use diesel fuel or gasoline . The construction contractors would be required to minimize nonessential idling of construction equipment in 1392
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

accordance with the 13 CCR, Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Section 2449. Such required practices would limit wasteful and unnecessary energy consumption. Therefore, the Approved Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of fuel use during construction.

Operation of the Approved Project would create demand for electricity and natural gas for building energy use and demand for electricity, compressed natural gas, diesel, and gasoline for vehicle transportation . Regulatory compliance (e.g., Building Energy Efficiency Standards, CALGreen, 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, the ORSC site would include design features pursuant to the applicable energy efficiency requirements in effect at the time the respective building undergoes permitting, encourage active transportation, and incorporate renewable energy generation that will contribute to minimizing building and transportation-related energy demands overall and demands on nonrenewable source s of energy. Therefore, implementation of the Approved Project would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary energy consumption and impacts would be less than significant.

Discussion of Effects:

Construction Impacts
The Modified Project would result in less building square footage constructed than under the Approved Project. Energy consumption during construction activities under the Modified Project would therefore be similar or less than that of the Approved Project. Electricity and fuel resources would be consumed temporarily during construction activities. For example, electric - powered construction equipment could include hand tools (e.g., power drills, table saws) and lighting. Natural gas or other types of fuel would be used for construction vehicles and equipment.

Use of such equipment would be considered necessary for the construction of the Modified Project, and all construction equipment would cease operating upon completion of Pr oject construction. Furthermore, to limit wasteful and unnecessary energy consumption, construction contractors would be required to minimize nonessential idling of construction equipment during construction, in accordance with Section 2449 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9.

Overall, energy consumption during construction under the Modified Project would be similar to that of the Approved Project; the Modified Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Certified EIR analyses are necessary .

Operational Impacts

Building Energy: Electricity and Natural Gas
Operation of the Modified Project would generate new demand for electricity (e.g., appliances and cooling), natural gas (e.g., cooking and heating), and transportation energy.

The proposed electricity and natural gas consumption from operation under the Modified Project is shown in Table 6-1, Operation-Related Building Energy Consumption . Though the Modified Project would generate additional energy demand at the site, it would be similar to the energy demand for PAs 2 through 4 of the Approved Project. Like the Approved Project, the Modified Project would also be required to comply with the applicable Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen requirements. Compliance with the current Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen would be consistent with the goals outlined in Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, as the Modified Project would promote the use of renewable energy and decrease 1393
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

reliance on fossil fuels to meet the energy demands of the Modified Project. Additionally, the Modified Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures AQ-2, GHG-1, GHG-2, and GHG-3, which would decrease natural gas usage under the Modified Project and promote on - site renewable energy generation.

In addition to the proposed building energy efficiency, Southern California Edison is required to comply with the State’s RPS, which mandates utilities to procure a certain proportion of electricity from eligible renewable and carbon -free sources and increasing the proportion through the coming years, with an ultimate procurement requirement of 100 percent by 2045. The RPS requirements would support use of electricity by the Modified Project that is generated from renewable or carbon -free sources. Overall, the Modified Project would generally be consistent with the goals outlined in Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines regarding increasing energy efficiency, decreasing reliance on fossil fuels, and increasing renewable energy sources. Because the Modified Project would comply with these regulations, it would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy demands.

Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Certified EIR analyses are necessary.

Table 6-1 Operation-Related Building Energy Consumption Land Use1 Electricity
(kWh/year)
Natural Gas
(kBTU/year)
Approved Project
PAs 2 through 4 3,500,028 3,152,123
Total ORSC Emissions 17,338,246 12,359,271
Modified Project
PAs 2 through 4 3,678,327 6,107,068
Net Change ( Modified Project minus Approved Project,
PAs 2 through 4) 178,299 2,954,945
Percent Increase Under Modified Project 1% 24%
Source: (PlaceWorks, 2025a, Table 9)

Transportation Energy
The Modified Project would result in the consumption of transportation energy during operation from the use of motor vehicles associated with employees and visitors to the site, in addition to truck deliveries for the commercial uses. When compared to the Approved Project, the Modified Project involves similar land uses and would generate similar types of trips to the Project site. Additionally, as demonstrated in Table 6 -2, the number of trips under the Modified Project would be similar to those under the Approved Project. As shown in Table 6-2, Average Daily Trip Generation Comparison for the Approved and Modified Project, the Modified Project would result in an increase in trips during the scenarios modeled for events on Saturdays, but would result in a decrease in trips during the weekday scenario.

1394
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

Table 6-2 Average Daily Trip Generation Comparison for the Approved and Modified Project Weekday with
Stadium Event
Saturday with Tournament (No
Baseball Stadium Event)
Saturday with
Baseball Stadium
Event (No
Tournaments)
Approved Project 8,060 8,035 8,035
Modified Project 7,638 8,149 8,149
Difference -422 (-5.2%) 114 (1.4%) 144 (1.4%)
Source: (PlaceWorks, 2025a, Table 10)

Additionally, compliance with Mitigation Measure GHG -3 would require the installation of electric vehicle charging above the mandatory amount, allowing for increased electric vehicle charging under the Proposed Project. Compliance with Mitigation Measure TRAF-1 would help to decrease VMT and associated vehicle fuel consumption associated with the Modified Project.

Moreover, the general fuel efficiency of vehicles with each passing year would improve on average. The improvement in fuel efficiency would be attributable to the statewide fuel reduction strategies and regulatory compliances (e.g., CAFE standards), resulting in new cars that are more fuel efficient and the attrition of older, less fuel- efficient vehicles. The CAFE standards are not directly applicable to land use development projects, but to car manufacturers. Thus, neither the Modified Project nor the Ci ty has direct control of the fuel efficiency of vehicles that are manufactured and available. However, compliance with the CAFE standards by car manufacturers would ensure that vehicles produced in future years have greater fuel efficiency and would generally result in an overall benefit of reducing fuel usage by providing the population of the P roject site’s region more fuel -efficient vehicle options. In addition, because electricity generated in California is required to meet the increasing renewable ener gy mix requirements under the State’s RPS, a greater and greater share of electricity consumed for transportation energy demand under the Modified Project would be sourced from renewable energy sources rather than fossil fuels.

Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Certified EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?

Summary of Certified EIR Finding: The Certified EIR concluded that the California RPS program requirements do not directly apply to individual development projects, but to utilities and energy providers such as SCE, whose compliance with RPS requirements would contribute to the State of California objective of transitioning to renewable energy. Additionally, as discussed in the GHG section of the Certified EIR, the Approved Project would be generally considered consistent with the City’s C ommunity Climate Action Plan (CCAP) and consistent with its energy efficiency and renewable energy strategies. Therefore, the Approved Project would be consistent with the California RPS program and the City’s CCAP, and impacts would be less than significant.

Discussion of Effects : The following evaluates consistency of the Modified Project with California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard program and the Ontario CCAP.

1395
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

California RPS Program
The State’s electricity grid is transitioning to renewable energy under California’s Renewable Energy Program. Renewable sources of electricity include wind, small hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. Electricity production from renewable sources is generally considered carbon neutral. Executive Order S -14-08, signed in November 2008, expanded the State’s RPS to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. This standard was adopted by the legislature in 2011 (Senate Bill [SB] X1-2). SB 350 (de Leon) was signed into law September 2015 and establishes tiered increases to the RPS—40 percent by 2024, 45 percent by 2027, and 50 percent by 2030. SB 350 also set a new goal to double the energy -efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas through energy efficiency and conservation measures.

On September 10, 2018, Governor Brown signed SB 100, which supersedes the SB 350 requirements. Under SB 100, the RPS for public -owned facilities and retail sellers consist of 44 percent renewable energy by 2024, 50 percent by 2026, 52 percent by 2027, and 60 percent by 2030. The bill also established a state policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zero - carbon resources supply 100 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured t o serve all state agencies by December 31, 2045.

Additionally, SB 1020 adds interim targets to the SB 100 framework to require renewable energy and zero-carbon resources to supply 90 percent of all retail electricity sales by 2035 and 95 percent of all retail electricity sales by 2040. Under SB 100 and SB 1020, the state cannot increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid or allow resource shuffling to achieve the 100 percent carbon-free electricity target.

The Statewide RPS goal is not directly applicable to individual development projects, but to utilities and energy providers such as SCE, which is the utility that would provide all of electricity needs for the Modified Project. Compliance of SCE in meeting the RPS goals would ensure the State is meeting its objective in transitioning to renewable energy. In addition, the Modified Project would be required to comply with the applicable Building Energy Efficiency Standards and implement the requirements under Mitigation Measures AQ -2 and GHG-1 through GHG-3, which would contribute to increasing energy efficiency and renewable energy use under the Modified Project.

Therefore, implementation of the Modified Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of California’s RPS Program.

Ontario CCAP
The City of Ontario adopted the CCAP to implement a plan to reduce GHG emissions to achieve SB 32 emission reduction targets by year 2030 and additional reductions beyond year 2030. While the CCAP’s primary focus is reducing community-wide GHG emissions, a main strategy in the plan relates to improving energy efficiency, reducing fossil fuel energy consumption, and promoting renewable energy consumption in its place. The Certified EIR concluded that the Approved Project would generally be considered consis tent with the City’s CCAP and its energy efficiency and renewable energy strategies, as shown in Table 5.8 -7 of the Certified EIR. Like the Approved Project, the Modified Project would comply with these CCAP strategies and implement mitigation measures that further increase energy efficiency and renewable energy generation.

Similar to the Approved Project, the Modified Project would be required to comply with the California Building Standards Code, including the Building Energy Efficiency Standards in Part 6, that is in effect at the time that each proposed structure is designed. Currently, the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards require that new structures of specified occupancy types either include rooftop solar systems or be designed in such a way they achieve the same energy efficiency as if solar were included. The Modified Project would also receive the benef its of the 1396
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

ORSC’s pedestrian and active transportation improvements throughout and adjacent to the ORSC site, such as sidewalks and bicycle lanes, that would reduce VMT and transportation fuel consumption. Moreover, the Modified Project would comply with applicable water efficiency standards in CALGreen to reduce the amount of water and electricity consumed for treatment and transport during operation. These features support the Modified Project’s consistency with the Ontario CCAP strategies that are focused on energy efficiency and renewable energy. Therefore, the Modified Project would be consistent with the Ontario CCAP, and impacts would remain less than significant.

Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Certified EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

7. GEOLOGY & SOILS. Would the project:

a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:

i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication

42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?

iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

iv. Landslides?

Summary of Certified EIR Finding: The Certified EIR concluded that the ORSC site was not within any Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and the potential for surface rupture at the site was considered remote. Additionally, compliance with the standards of the California Building Code (CBC ) and Ontario Municipal Code to ensure that structures designed for human occupancy would meet earthquake resistance standards and reduc e impacts from seismic ground shaking to a less than significant level. Due to the depth to groundwater on the site and its vicinity (approximately 190 feet below the existing ground surface), the potential for liquefaction based on the existing conditions was low and impacts with respect to liquefaction hazards would be less than significant. Furthermore, according the California Geological Survey’s Deep-Seated Landslide Susceptibility Map, the ORSC site was in an area of low landslide hazard susceptibility and impacts would be less than significant.

Discussion of Effects : Ground rupture is the visible offset of the ground surface when an earthquake rupture along a fault affects the Earth’s surface. Southern California, including the City of Ontario, is subject to the effects of seismic activity due to the active faults that traverse the area. Active faults are defined as those that have experienced surface displacement within Holocene time (approximately the last 11,000 years) and/or are in a State -designated Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. As shown in Figure S-01, Regional Faults and Fault Zones, of the TOP 2050, the Project site is not located with an Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (City of Ontario, 2022a). Fault rupture would not occur on the Project site since no active faults cross the Project site, and no impacts would occur.

1397
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

Southern California is a seismically active area and properties in the City of Ontario, including the Project site, are subject to periodic ground shaking and other effects from earthquake activity along nearby regional faults. The Project site is not at an increased risk relative to the surrounding areas. Consistent with the findings in the Certified EIR, Project-related structures and buildings would be required to be designed and built-in compliance with the CBC (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2), which contains provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type, the types of soil and rock onsite, and the probable strength of ground motion , the Ont ario Municipal Code, and all other ordinances adopted by the City related to construction and safety. Therefore, as structures would be designed to meet or exceed CBC standards for earthquake resistance, the Modified Project would not create significant impacts related to seismic ground shaking, and impacts would be less than significant.

Seismic-related ground failure includes, but is not limited to, liquefaction. Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, granular soils behave similarly to fluids when subject to high intensity seismic events. Liquefaction occurs when three general conditions coexist:
1) shallow groundwater, 2) low-density non-cohesive (granular) soils and 3) high -intensity ground motion. According to the Department of Conservation and Certified EIR , the Project site is not located within an area of shallow groundwater or liquefaction zone (CDC, 2025) . Therefore, consistent with the findings in the Certified EIR , the Modified Project does not have the potential to expose people or structures to seismic -related liquefaction, and impacts would be less than significant.

Slope failures in the form of landslides are common during strong seismic shaking in areas of steep hills. The Project site and surrounding area are generally flat with no significant slopes and is not located within a landslide zone (CDC, 2025) . Therefore, impacts related to landslides would be less than significant. The Modified Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Certified EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

Summary of Certified EIR Finding: The Certified EIR analyzed thresholds b, c, and d together and concluded that the Approved Project would involve the grading the 199-acre site to remove or relocate the organic matter associated with historical dairy operations on the site in addition to off-site construction on surrounding roadways. Trenching, grading, and compacting associated with the construction of buildings; the modification, construction, and relocation of underground utility lines; and installation of landscaping and construction of hardscape could e xpose on-site soil to wind and water erosion during construction activities. According to the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the ORSC site ha d a medium to high susceptibility to soil erosion. However, compliance with the CBC and Ontario Municipal Code and review of grading plans by the City Engineer would ensure impacts related to erosion would be less than significant.

Discussion of Effects: Erosion is the movement of rock and soil from place to place. Erosion occurs naturally by agents such as wind and flowing water; however, grading and construction activities can greatly increase erosion if effective erosion control measures are not used. Common means of soil erosion from construction sites include water, wind, and being tracked offsite by vehicles. The Project site is currently graded and contain exposed soils; however, c onsistent with the findings in the Certified EI R, the Modified Project would be required to compl y with the CBC and Ontario Municipal Code to ensure impact related to erosion would be less than significant.

1398
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

Moreover, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Order No. 2009- 0009-DWQ (General Construction Permit) contains water quality standards and stormwater discharge requirements that apply to construction projects of one acre or more. The General Construction Permit was issued pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations for implementing part of the federal Clean Water Act. The General Construction Permit requires preparation of a SWPPP that identifies the sources of pollution that may affect the quality of stormwater discharges and describes and ensures the implementation of BMPs to reduce the pollutants, including silt and soil, in construction stormwater discharges. Examples of BMPs that are commonly included in SWPPPs are shown in Table 7-1, below.

Table 7-1 Examples of Construction-Phase Stormwater Pollution Prevention BMPs Category Goal Sample Measures
Erosion Controls Prevent soil particles from being
detached from the ground
surface and transported in runoff
Preserving existing vegetation;
soil binders; geotextiles and mats
Sediment controls Filter out soil particles that have
entered runoff
Barriers such as slit fences and
gravel bag berms; and street
sweeping
Tracking Controls Prevent soil from being tracked
offsite by vehicles
Stabilized construction roadways
and entrances/exits
Wind Erosion Control Prevent soil from being
transported offsite by wind
Similar to erosion controls above
Non-stormwater Management Prevent discharges of soil from site by means other than runoff
and wind
BMPs regulating various
construction practices; water
conservation
Waste and Materials
Management
Prevent release of waste
materials into storm discharges
BMPs regulating storage and
handling of materials and wastes

The Modified Project will be required to comply with the NPDES permit by preparing and implementing a SWPPP specifying BMPs for minimizing pollution of stormwater with soil and sediment during Project constructio n. Adherence to the BMPs in the SWPPP would reduce, prevent, or minimize soil erosion from Project -related site preparation and construction activities.

Therefore, compliance to all applicable regulations related to s oil erosion would ensure no significant erosion impacts would occur . The Modified Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Certified EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

Summary of Certified EIR Finding: The Certified EIR concluded that the ORSC site could expose persons or structures to potentially significant hazards from compressible soils and the 2023 geotechnical study recommended that prior to placement of compacted fills, all nonengineered fills and loose, porous, or compressible soils be removed down to competent ground. Therefore, compliance with the CBC and Ontario Municipal Code, in addition to review of grading plans by the City Engineer and incorporation of recommendations from the project geotechnical investigations, would ensure no significant impacts would occur.

1399
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

According to the NRCS web soil survey, an approximately 52 -acre portion of the site was underlain by Hilmar loamy fine sand has a high corrosion potential for steel. The remaining portion of the site was underlain by Delhi fine sand has a low corrosion potential. The 2015 study and 2023 study provided recommendations to correct and reduce existing on -site soils and geotechnical conditions of the ORSC site , i ncluding protecting pipes by utilizing coatings and using clean backfills and a cathodic protections system . The incorporation of these recommendations in addition to compliance with the CBC and review from the City Engineer would ensure that impacts related to corrosive soils are less than significant.

Due to the depth of groundwater (approximately 190 feet below the existing ground surface) and the low moisture level of the soil, the potential for lateral spreading on the site was considered low. Moreover, t here was a potential for subsidence in the Ontario area due to groundwater pumping and extraction from the Chino Basin. It was anticipated that if subsidence due to groundwater extraction were to occur, it would affect the entire region and not result in significant differential settlement across the site. Additionally, the 2023 study reported that soils at the ORSC site ha d a subsidence factor of 0.15 foot and note d that the degree to which fill soils were compacted may require adjustments in grades near the completion of grading to balance the earthwork. The incorporation of the recommendations from the studies of the remaining portions of the ORSC site would ensure that impacts regarding lateral spreading and subsidence for the ORSC site to be less than significant.

Discussion of Effects : As stated previously under Response 7.a, the Project site is not susceptible to landslides or liquefaction. As concluded in the Certified EIR, there is potential for other geologic hazards on the Project site, including compressible soils, corrosion, and subsidence.

However, Project-related structures would be required to be designed and built-in compliance with the CBC and the Ontario Municipal code, which requires the Modified Project to implement the recommendations of the site-specific geotechnical investigation. Consistent with the findings in the Certified EIR, compliance with the CBC , Ontario Municipal Code, recommendations from geotechnical investigations, and City review of grading plans would ensure that impact s would be less than significant. Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Certified EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

Summary of Certified EIR Finding: The Certified EIR concluded that 2015 geotechnical study determined that the soils on the studied portion of the ORSC site had a low to medium expansion potential while the 2023 study determined that soils at the ORSC site ha d a very low expansion classification. Additionally, the 2023 study recommend ed that potential expansive properties of the soils be reassessed and verified at the completion of rough grading. With the c ompliance to the CBC and Ontario Municipal Code and recommendations of the respective geotechnical investigations and City Engineer, impacts associated with expansive soils would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Discussion of Effects: Expansive soils are defined as soils possessing clay particles that react to moisture changes by shrinking or swelling . As discussed previously, soils at the Project site have a very low expansion classification . Consistent with the findings of the Certified EIR, the Modified Product would be required to comply with the CBC , Ontario Municipal Code and recommendations of the respective geotechnical investigation to ensure no adverse impacts 1400
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

related to expansive soils would occur. Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Certified EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

Summary of Certified EIR Finding: The Certified EIR concluded that the Approved Project would not include septic systems and include installation of new sewer infrastructure connect ing to the public sewer system that serves the City. Therefore, no impacts related to septic tanks would occur.

Discussion of Effects: No septic tanks will be used as part of the Modified Project. The Project would connect to the existing wastewater disposal system. Accordingly, consistent with the findings of the Certified EIR, no impact would occur. The Modified Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Certified EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

Summary of Certified EIR Finding: The Certified EIR concluded that records search through the Western Science Center in Hemet produced no results for fossil localities within the ORSC site and Offsite Improvement Area or within a one-mile radius of the area. However, deep excavations at approximately 5 to 10 feet below ground surface in soil types below the Holocene alluvium deposits could impact paleontological resources. Mitigation Measure GS -1 would require preparation of a Paleontological Resources Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (PRMMP) and Mitigation Measure GS -2 would require an archeological/paleontological resources monitor onsite during excavation activities that exceed a depth of 10 feet below the ground surface.

Mitigation Measure GS -3 also provid es additional procedure in the event of fossil discovery.

Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures GS-1 through GS-3, potential impacts to paleontological resources would be reduced to a level that is less than significant.

Discussion of Effects : The Project has been graded as part of the Approved Project; therefore, the potential to discover paleontological resources would be low. However, in an event of unanticipated discovery, the Modified Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures GS-1 through GS-3 to ensure construction activities will not continue or will be moved to other parts of the Project site and a qualified paleontologist shall be contacted to determine the significance of these resources in the ev ent unanticipated paleontological resources are identified during excavation. Consistent with the findings of the Certified EIR , With the implementation of Mitigation Measures GS -1 through GS-3, impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant. The Modified Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Certified EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The following mitigation measure s from the Certified EIR are applicable to the Modified Project:

1401
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

GS-1 Prior to grading, a Paleontological Resources Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (PRMMP) shall be prepared by a Qualified Paleontologist meeting the standards of Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010). The PRMMP shall discuss the laws and regulations for t he protection of paleontological resources, the significance of fossils, and protocol to follow in case a discovery is made. The PRMMP shall also outline the duties of paleontological monitoring onsite, including the salvaging and preparation of fossi ls and the final submission of all paleontological resources to an accredited museum or facility for curation.

GS-2 During excavations exceeding depth of approximately 5 to 10 feet below ground surface, a qualified paleontological monitor shall be present during construction activities to spot check the sediments and depths of excavations to determine the geologic unit s encountered. If paleontological resources are discovered, full- time monitoring shall be required during grading, as identified in the Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan.

GS-3 In the event of any fossil discovery, regardless of depth or geologic formation, construction work shall halt within a 50-foot radius of the find until its significance can be determined by a qualified paleontologist. Significant fossils shall be recovered , prepared to the point of curation, identified by qualified experts, listed in a database to facilitate analysis, and deposited in a designated paleontological curation facility in accordance with the standards of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2 010). A regional repository shall be identified by the City Council and a curatorial arrangement shall be signed prior to collection of the fossils.

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:

The analysis in this section is based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Memorandum for Hotel Ontario Aloft + Residence Inn Project prepared by PlaceWorks, Inc. (PlaceWorks) dated November 17, 2025. This report is provided in its entirety as Appendix A of this Addendum.

a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

Summary of Certified EIR Finding: The Certified EIR concluded that the City has identified a no net increase threshold of zero and the Approved Project would generate approximately 21,777 MTCO 2e annually . Mitigation Measure TRAF -1 requires implementation of transportation demand management (TDM) measures, such as pedestrian and active transportation improvements, to reduce VMT. Nonetheless, the vehicle fuel source, vehicle fuel efficiency, and travel mode for visitors are largely outside of the control of t he ORSC, hence, no additional mitigation would be feasible to reduce vehicle -related emissions. The second -largest emissions source, energy consumption, results from electricity use and the consumption of natural gas on - site. Therefore, Mitigation Measure GHG-1 is required to reduce all on-site natural gas consumption by requiring all uses that do not include commercial cooking appliances to be designed as all- electric, precluding the installation and use of gas fueled appliances that are not necessary for commercial cooking activities. In addition, Mitigation Measure GHG -2 would be required to ensure that electricity is generated on -site from renewable sources to the extent feasible. The se mitigation measures would reduce emissions to the extent feasible. However, the ORSC emissions 1402
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

would still exceed the no net increase GHG emissions threshold. Therefore, i mpacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Discussion of Effects:

Construction Impacts
Because the Modified Project would involve a decrease in the overall building square footage across PA 2 through PA 4, equipment use during construction of the Modified Project would be similar to or less than what was identified for PA 2 through PA 4 of the Approved Project.

This would result in similar if not fewer construction GHG emissions generated for the Proposed Project when compared to the Approved Project . The Certified EIR noted that the South Coast AQMD does not have an adopted threshold for construction GHG emissions. Therefore, determination of significance for GHG emissions impacts in the Certified EIR was limited to those under operation of the Approved Project. The South Coast AQMD recommends that average annual construction emissions be amortized over 30 years and added to operational emissions to account for temporary GHG emissions from construction phases (South Coast AQMD 2009) However, because construction equipment use and subsequent construction GHG emissions would be similar or decrease under the Modified Project, construction emissions from the Modified Project would not contribute to a net increase in total ORSC construction GHG emissions, and the evaluation of GHG emissions under the Modified Project is therefore limited to operational emissions.

Operational Impacts
The Certified EIR assessed the emissions of the Approved Project against a zero net increase threshold, consistent with the State’s carbon neutrality goals under AB 1279. Under this threshold, the Modified Project in combination with the Approved Project would have a significant impact with respect to GHG emissions if its total emissions would exceed the no net increase threshold utilized in the Certified EIR . The Modified Project’s operation-phase GHG emissions compared to the Approved Project are shown in Table 8 -1, Project-Related Operation GHG Emissions. As shown below, implementation of the Modified Project would not result in an increase in GHG emissions compared to what was analyzed in the Certified EIR primarily due to mobile source emissions (e.g., privately owned vehicles from visitors and employees traveling to the project site) which are not under the control of the City or P roject Applicant. However, as shown in Table 8, the increase in operational GHG emissions resulting from the Modified Project would constitute an increase of an estimated 468 MT CO2e per year, or an increase in total ORSC emissions by approximately 2.1 percent. Therefore, the significant GHG effect identified in the Certified EIR would not be substantially more severe with implementation of the Modified Project.

The Modified Project’s compliance with the Ontario CCAP efficiency threshold, as shown in Table 8, is discussed in Impact b, below.

As shown in Table 8-1, the Modified Project would result in a slight increase in GHG emissions when compared to the Approved Project, primarily due to the slight increase in vehicle trip generation and hotel building space energy needs, and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Nonetheless, operational GHG emissions would be reduced through compliance with Mitigation Measures GHG -1 through GHG- 4 in addition to AQ -2, and TRAF-1. Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and GHG -2 require all -electric building de sign and on -site renewable energy systems and were incorporated under the Approved Project to address GHG emissions reductions.

As discussed below in Response 8.b, Mitigation Measures GHG-3 and GHG-4 were incorporated to reduce impacts associated with consistency with the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan and the Ontario CCAP.
1403
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

In addition to the requirements specific to projects in the ORSC, State emissions reductions requirements would also reduce emissions throughout the lifetime of the Modified Project. For example, the State’s electricity grid is transitioning to renewable energy under California’s RPS Program requirements, which is expanded by regulations such as SB 100. SB 100 established a landmark policy requiring renewable energy and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of electric retail sales by 2045. The statewide RPS goal is not directly applicable to individual development projects but to utilities and energy providers such as SCE, which is the utility that would provide all of electricity needs for the Modified Project. SCE’s compliance with the RPS goals would support the State in meeting its objective in transitioning to renewable energy. These features and progress toward achieving RPS goals would help to reduce operational GHG emissions.

Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Certified EIR analyses are necessary.

Table 8-1 Operation-Related Building Energy Consumption Source
Project GHG
Emissions
(MTCO2e/Year)
Approved Project
PAs 2 through 4 9,265
Total ORSC Emissions1 21,777
Modified Project
Mobile 8,347
Area 0
Energy 1,217
Water 36
Solid Waste 87
Refrigerants 46
Total Project Emissions 9,732
Net Change (Modified Project minus Approved Project, PAs 2 through 4) 468
Significant Increase? No
Ontario CCAP Efficiency Threshold (MTCO 2e/2,500 square feet of conditioned building space)2 8.84
Proposed Project GHG Efficiency Threshold (MTCO2e)3 100.5 Exceeds GHG Efficiency Threshold? Yes
1 Total emissions for all PAs of the ORSC as shown in Table 5.8-5 of the Certified EIR. 2 Ontario CCAP efficiency threshold for non-residential buildings operational before 2030. 3 Based on the total 242,144 square feet of proposed building space across PAs 2 through 4.

Source: (PlaceWorks, 2025a, Table 8)

1404
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. Mitigation Measures AQ-2, GHG-1 through GHG-4, and TRAF-1are applicable to the Modified Project.

b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Summary of Certified EIR Finding: The Certified EIR concluded that the ORSC would be potentially inconsistent plans adopted for the purpose of reduce GHG emissions, including CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan, Southern California Association o f Governments ’ ( SCAG’s) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), and the City’s CCAP.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-4 would ensure that development projects within the ORSC are consistent with the City’s CCAP. Additionally, implementation of the Mitigation Measures GHG-1 through GHG-3 as well as TRAF- 1 would reduce impacts to the extent feasible.

However, the ORSC would continue to result in a substantial increase in total VMT in the City , exceed the City’s VMT threshold , and potentially be inconsistent with the VMT reduction goals in the Scoping Plan and SCS. Therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Discussion of Effects:

CARB Scoping Plan
The adopted 2022 CARB Scoping Plan is applicable to State agencies but is not directly applicable to cities/counties and individual projects (i.e., the Scoping Plan does not require the City to adopt policies, programs, or regulations to reduce GHG emissions). However, new regulations adopted by the State agencies outlined in the Scoping Plan result in GHG emissions reductions at the local level. As a result, local jurisdictions benefit from reductions in transportation emissions rates, increases in water efficiency in the building and landscape codes, and other statewide actions that affect a local jurisdiction’s emissio ns inventory from the top down.

Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the low-carbon fuel standard and changes in the corporate average fuel economy standards (e.g., Pavley I and Pavley California Advanced Clean Cars program). Like the Approved Project, the Modified Project would adhere to the programs and regulations identified by the Scoping Plan and implemented by State, regional, and local agencies to achieve the statewide GHG reduction goals of SB 32 and AB 1279. For example, new buildin gs under the Proposed Project would meet the current CALGreen and Building Energy Efficiency standards at the time they are constructed. Table 8-1 demonstrates that the Modified Project would result in a minor increase in GHG emissions when compared to the Approved Project; however, the Modified Project would incorporate Certified EIR Mitigation Measures GHG- 1, GHG-2, and GHG-3, and would therefore be consistent with the Scoping Plan objectives to demonstrate consistency with the State’s long-term carbon neutrality goals.

Though Statewide efforts could provide downstream reductions at the local level, the 2022 Scoping Plan identifies three priority areas for local actions that would support and amplify the overall state efforts to reduce GHG emissions and achieve the long -term climate goals: 1) transportation electrification, 2) VMT reduction, and 3) building decarbonization. The Certified EIR incorporated Mitigation Measures GHG -1 and GHG -3 to ensure that projects under the ORSC would incorporate all- electric building desig n and EV charging infrastructure with the voluntary CALGreen Tier 2 standards, consistent with the first and third 2022 Scoping Plan priority areas.

Because the Approved Project exceeded the City’s VMT thresholds after incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the Certified EIR determined that the Approved Project would not be consistent with the second Scoping Plan priority area for VMT reduction. Compliance with Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and GHG-3 would ensure that the Modified Project is also consistent with the transportation electrification and building decarbonization priority areas. While the Modified Project would also comply with Mitigation Measure TRAF -1 to reduce VMT impacts and 1405
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

would result in similar VMT when compared to the Approved Project, impacts would continue to remain significant and unavoidable with respect to compliance with the VMT reduction priority area. The Modified Project would not result in a new impact or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the Certified EIR.

SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy SCAG adopted the 2024 -2050 RTP/SCS, Connect SoCal, in September 2024. Connect SoCal finds that land use strategies that focus on new housing and job growth in areas rich with destinations and mobility options would be consistent with a land use development pattern that supports and complements the proposed transportation network. The overarching strategy in Connect SoCal is to plan for the southern California region to grow in more compact communities in transit priority areas and priority growth areas; provide neighborhoods with efficient and plentiful public transit; establish abundant and safe opportunities to walk, bike, and pursue other forms of active transportation; and preserve more of the region’s remaining natural lands and farmlands.

Connect SoCal’s transportation projects help more efficiently distribute population, housing, and employment growth, and forecast development is generally consistent with regional-level general plan data to promote active transportation and reduce GHG emissions. The pr ojected regional development, when integrated with the proposed regional transportation network in Connect SoCal, would reduce per-capita GHG emissions related to vehicular travel and achieve the GHG reduction per capita targets for the SCAG region.

Connect SoCal does not require that local general plans, proposed projects, or zoning be consistent with the SCS, but provides incentives for consistency to governments and developers.

The Certified EIR concluded that because the Approved Project would not result in population growth and would incorporate VMT reduction strategies, the Approved Project would be consistent with Connect SoCal and impacts would be less than significant. The Modified Project would implement Mitigation Measure TRAF -1 and would re sult in similar impacts with respect to population growth.

Ontario CCAP
To ensure new development projects are consistent with the Ontario CCAP, the CCAP includes implementation of a development review process to reduce GHG emissions associated with new development. The development review process sets procedures for evaluating GHG impacts and determining significance for CEQA purposes by using the “Greenhouse Reduction Measures Screening Thresholds Tables” to mitigate project GHG emissions that exceed the threshold level. The screening tables provide a menu of options that both ensure implementation of the reduction strategies and flexibility for projects to reduce GHG emissions to levels that align with the City’s reduction goals. The Certified EIR analyzed the Approved Project’s consistency with the applicable strategies of th e CCAP in Table 5.8 -7, Ontario Regional Sports Complect Consistency with CCAP Strategies, of the Certified EIR. While the Approved Project was found to be consistent with the strategies in the CCAP, Mitigation Measure GHG -4 was incorporated to ensure that individual development projects in the ORSC would adhere to the measures in the CCAP. This mitigation measure requires projects in PAs 2 through 4 to either achieve a 100 -point score under the CCAP’s GHG performance standards (Table 6, “Screening Table for Implementing GHG Performance Standards for Commercial, Office, Medical, Hotel, Industrial, and Retail Development, 2030,” of the CCAP) or demonstrate that annual emissions would not exceed the applicable GHG efficiency threshold.

For purposes of showing consistency with the Ontario CCAP and demonstrating compliance with Mitigation Measure GHG-4, a comparison of the Modified Project’s emissions to the applicable efficiency threshold of the CCAP is shown in Table 8 -1. The Modified Project is anticipated to become operational before 2030; therefore, the 8.84 MTCO 2e per 2,500 square
1406
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007

feet of conditioned space efficiency metric was utilized to determine the Modified Project’s consistency with the CCAP. As shown in Table 8-1, the Modified Project’s emissions would exceed the 8.84 MTCO2e per year efficiency metric of the CCAP for nonresidential development projects, with an estimated efficiency of 100.5 MTCO 2e per year per 2,500 square feet of conditioned space, which is principally the result of the Modified Project’s mobile and energy-source GHG emissions. Therefore, the Modified Project will be required to achieve a 100 -point score in the screening table of the CCAP (Table 6 of the CCAP) to show compliance with Mitigation Measure GHG-4.

Furthermore, like the Approved Project, the Modified Project would be consistent with all relevant strategies in the Ontario CCAP. The Modified Project would largely be subject to the same regulatory requirements as development in the rest of the ORSC, including requirements related to energy efficiency, transportation emissions reductions, offroad equipment emissions reductions, waste diversion, and water use efficiency. The Modified Project would also be required to comply with all applicable mitigation measures under the Approved Project that align with the strategies in the CCAP, including Mitigation Measures GHG-1, GHG-2, GHG-3, and TRAF-1. Thus, the Modified Project would not result in a new impact or substantial increase in the severity of impacts when compared to the Certified EIR with respect to consistency with the CCAP.

Therefore, the Modified Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Certified EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. Mitigation Measures GHG -1, AQ -2, and TRAF-1a are applicable to the Modified Project. Additionally, t he following mitigation measures from the Certified EIR are applicable to the Modified Project. Modification was made to Mitigation Measure GHG-4 to reflect edits for specifying the pathway of compliance outlined in the measure.

Because the Modified Project’s GHG emissions would exceed the applicable CCAP GHG efficiency threshold, the Modified Project would need a 100- point score on the CCAP’s Table 6 screening table.

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

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

1. For residential development completed between 2020 and 2030, the 1407
Addendum to the Ontario Regional Sports Complex Environmental Impact Report File No.: PDEV25-007