Agenda packet — Ontario City Council, October 18, 2022 (part 1 of 6)

CITY OF ONTARIO
Regular City Council/Housing Authority
Meeting
OCTOBER 18, 2022
City Hall
303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764
MAYOR PAUL S. LEON • MAYOR PRO TEM ALAN D. WAPNER
COUNCIL MEMBERS JIM W. BOWMAN, DEBRA DORST-PORADA AND RUBEN VALENCIA CITY CLERK SHEILA MAUTZ • TREASURER JAMES R. MILHISER
CITY MANAGER SCOTT OCHOA • CITY ATTORNEY RUBEN DURAN

WELCOME TO A MEETING OF THE ONTARIO CITY COUNCIL
All documents for public review are on file with the Records Management/City Clerk's Department located at 303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764.

Anyone wishing to speak in person during public comment or on a particular item will be required to fill out a blue slip. Blue slips must be turned in prior to public comment beginning or before an agenda item is taken up. The Clerk will not accept blue slips after that time. To comment by email, submit your comments no later than 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting by emailing your name, agenda item you are commenting on and your comments to [email protected]. All comments received by the deadline will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration before action is taken on the matter and will be entered into the record.

Comments will be limited to 3 minutes. Speakers will be alerted when they have 1 minute remaining and when their time is up. Speakers are then to return to their seats and no further comments will be permitted.

In accordance with State Law, remarks during public comment are to be limited to subjects within Council's jurisdiction. Remarks on other agenda items will be limited to those items.

Remarks from those seated or standing in the back of the chamber will not permitted. All those wishing to speak including Council and Staff need to be recognized by the Chair before speaking.

ACCOMODATIONS
If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact CITY OF ONTARIO Regular City Council/Housing Authority Meeting CITY HALL 303 EAST B STREET, ONTARIO CA 91764 • www.OntarioCA.gov 1 ATTACHMENT: 20221018 Closed Session
the City Clerk's office at 909-395-2009. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will help the City make reasonable arrangements. Equipment for the hearing impaired is available in the Records Management Office.

ORDER OF BUSINESS
The regular City Council and Housing Authority meeting begins with Closed Session and Closed Session Comment at 6:00 p.m., Public Comment at 6:30 p.m. immediately followed by the Regular Meeting and Public Hearings. No agenda item will be introduced for consideration after 10:00 p.m. except by majority vote of the City Council.

CALL TO ORDER (OPEN SESSION)

ROLL CALL
Wapner, Bowman, Dorst-Porada, Valencia, Mayor/Chairman Leon

CLOSED SESSION PUBLIC COMMENT
The Closed Session Public Comment portion of the Council/Housing Authority meeting is limited to a maximum of 3 minutes for each speaker and comments will be limited to matters appearing on the Closed Session. Additional opportunities for further Public Comment will be given during and at the end of the meeting.

CLOSED SESSION
GC 54956.9 (d)(4), CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL, ANTICIPATED LITIGATION: One Case

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council Member Bowman

INVOCATION
Dr. Sylvia Lee Mann, Bethel Congregational Church

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney
PUBLIC COMMENTS 6:30 P.M.

CITY OF ONTARIO Regular City Council/Housing Authority Meeting CITY HALL 303 EAST B STREET, ONTARIO CA 91764 • www.OntarioCA.gov 2 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
ATTACHMENT: 20220906 Minutes (Not Official Until Approved) ATTACHMENT: 20220920 Minutes (Not Official Until Approved)

2. BILLS & PAYROLL
The Public Comment portion of the Council/Housing Authority meeting is limited to 30 minutes with each speaker given a maximum of 3 minutes. An opportunity for further Public Comment may be given at the end of the meeting. Under provisions of the Brown Act, Council is prohibited from taking action on oral requests.

To comment by email, submit your comments by email no later than 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting by emailing your name, agenda item you are commenting on and your comment to [email protected]. All Comments received by the deadline will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration before action is taken on the matter and entered into the record. As previously noted -- if you wish to address the Council, fill out one of the blue slips at the rear of the chambers and give it to the City Clerk.

AGENDA REVIEW/ANNOUNCEMENTS
The City Manager will go over all updated materials and correspondence received after the Agenda was distributed to ensure Council Members have received them. He will also make any necessary recommendations regarding Agenda modifications or announcements regarding Agenda items to be considered.

CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under CONSENT CALENDAR will be enacted by one motion in the form listed below – there will be no separate discussion on these items prior to the time Council votes on them, unless a member of the Council requests a specific item be removed from the Consent Calendar for a separate vote.

Each member of the public wishing to address the City Council on items listed on the Consent Calendar will be given a total of 3 minutes.

Minutes for the regular meetings of the City Council and Housing Authority of September 6, 2022 and September 20, 2022, and approving same as on file in the Records Management Department.

Bills September 3, 2022 through September 29, 2022, and Payroll August 28, 2022 through September 24, 2022 when audited by the Finance Committee.

CITY OF ONTARIO Regular City Council/Housing Authority Meeting CITY HALL 303 EAST B STREET, ONTARIO CA 91764 • www.OntarioCA.gov 3 3. A RESOLUTION FOR PLACEMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ON THE SAN BERNARDINO

COUNTY TAX ROLLS
ATTACHMENT: Comm Imp Special Assessments for County Tax Rolls^ 01 RESO^RM ATTACHMENT: Comm Imp Special Assessments for County Tax Rolls^02 EXH A.pdf ATTACHMENT: Comm Imp Special Assessments for County Tax Rolls^03 EXH B.pdf ATTACHMENT: Comm Imp Special Assessments for County Tax Rolls^04 EXH C.pdf

4. AN AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR VIDEO PRODUCTION

SERVICES

5. A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH RDC-S111, INC. FOR LANDSCAPE,

ARCHITECTURE, AND URBAN DESIGN CONSULTING SERVICES

6. DOWNTOWN ONTARIO RETAIL POP-UP PROGRAM
ATTACHMENT: Retail_Pop_Up_Program_Guidelines^01 Attach A.docx

7. A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEMS AT CAMPUS AVENUE AT

FRANCIS STREET AND CAMPUS AVENUE AT WALNUT STREET
That the City Council adopt a Resolution for recovery of fees and costs incurred in abating property and dangerous building violations, as well as administrative citations and civil penalties associated with property maintenance violations, and placing assessments on the San Bernardino County Tax Rolls.

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

ADOPTING A REPORT REQUESTING THE PLACEMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS

ON PROPERTY TAX BILLS FOR CIVIL PENALTIES OR RECOVERY OF COSTS INCURRED FOR ABATEMENT OF VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODES AND ORDINANCES.

That the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Windsong Productions, LLC. increasing the not-toexceed amount by $518,312 to $753,312 for the three-year contract term.

That the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement (on file in the Records Management Department) with RDC-S111, Inc. (a.k.a Studio 111), of Long Beach, California, in the amount of $241,762, for the Planned Unit Development and Mitigated Negative Declaration of West Euclid Avenue in Downtown Ontario.

That the City Council:

A. Consider and Approve the Adoption of the Downtown Ontario Retail Pop-Up Program; and
B. Authorize the City Manager to make any necessary adjustments and execute all necessary documents to implement the Program.

That the City Council award a construction contract (on file in the Records Management Department) with KDC Inc. of Los Alamitos, California, for the construction of traffic signal CITY OF ONTARIO Regular City Council/Housing Authority Meeting CITY HALL 303 EAST B STREET, ONTARIO CA 91764 • www.OntarioCA.gov 4 8. AN AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH M JACK BROOKS, JD FOR

FINANCIAL CONSULTING SERVICES

9. ESTABLISHING A BANK ACCOUNT FOR THE ONTARIO HOUSING AUTHORITY

10. AN AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH COLLABORATIVE SOLUTIONS, LLC.

11. AN ORDINANCE APPROVING FILE NO. PZC19-001, A ZONE CHANGE AT 1063 EAST ELMA STREET
ATTACHMENT: File No. PZC19-001^01 PC Backup
ATTACHMENT: File No. PZC19-001^02 ORD^RM
systems at Campus Avenue at Francis Street and Campus Avenue at Walnut Street (Project) in the amount of $1,367,397 and authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute said contract and all related documents, and file a notice of completion at the conclusion of construction activities.

That the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 6 adding $120,000 to the Professional Services Agreement (on file in the Records Management Department) with M Jack Brooks, JD, of Costa Mesa, California, for the provision of financial consulting services, for a revised contract authority of a not-to-exceed amount of $945,000 and term extension to June 30, 2023.

That the City Council ("City") and the Board of the Ontario Housing Authority ("Authority") authorize the establishment of a bank account with the City's current operating bank. The bank account will be in the name of the Ontario Housing Authority.

That the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute an Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement (on file with the Records Management Department) with Collaborative Solutions, LLC., of Reston, Virginia, to include additional consulting services to incorporate Workday Financials On-Demand Services Support in the amount of $118,800 plus a 10% contingency of $11,880, for a revised not-to-exceed the amount of $3,978,587.

That the City Council consider and adopt an Ordinance approving File No. PZC19-001, a Zone Change amending the zoning designation on 0.07-acres of land from MDR-11 (Low-Medium Density Residential - 5.11 to 11.0 du/ac) to MDR-18 (Medium Density Residential - 11.1 to 18.0 du/ac), for property located at 1063 East Elma Street.

11.1 TO 18.0 DU/AC) TO ENABLE THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF A 0.28-ACRE PROJECT SITE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1048-491-23.

CITY OF ONTARIO Regular City Council/Housing Authority Meeting CITY HALL 303 EAST B STREET, ONTARIO CA 91764 • www.OntarioCA.gov 5 12. AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF MOBILE HOME STRUCTURE FOR INTERIM FIRE STATION 11

13. A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AND A GOODS & SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR OMUC, PARKS

AND MAINTENANCE, AND INTEGRATED WASTE OFFICE IMPROVEMENTS

14. A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AND TWO AMENDMENTS FOR THE PRESSURE REDUCING

STATION REHABILITATION PROJECT
That the City Council authorize the sole source purchase and delivery of one mobile home structure for the Fire Department in the amount of $208,042 from Wholesale Manufactured Homes, California. This structure will be used as sleeping quarters for Interim Fire Station 11.

That the City Council take the following actions:

A. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute Construction Contract No.

D&C20-028 with M. Brey Electric, Inc. of Beaumont, California, for the Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC), Parks and Maintenance, and Integrated Waste Office Improvements Project in the amount of $420,000;
B. Authorize a 10% contingency of $42,000 to address any unforeseen issues that arise during construction;
C. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute a Goods and Services Agreement with Kirksey & Co. of Irvine, California, for OMUC, Parks and Maintenance, and Integrated Waste Office Improvements Project for the Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment (FF&E), consistent with the terms and conditions of the cooperative purchasing contract with Omnia #R191804 in the amount of $369,583; and D. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute all documents required for the completion of the project including, but not limited to, contracts, agreements, assessments, easements, reduction of retention accounts, and filing a notice of completion at the conclusion of all construction related activities.

That the City Council take the following actions:

A. Approve the plans and specifications and award Contract No. UT 1041 (on file in the Records Management Department) to Innovative Construction Solutions Inc. of Costa Mesa, California, for the Pressure Reducing Station Project in the amount of $1,708,000 plus a 10% contingency of $170,800, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $1,878,800, a term of 180 calendar days after issuance of notice to proceed and authorize the City Manager, or his designee to execute said contract and file a notice of completion at the conclusion of all construction activities related to the project.

B. Approve and authorize the City Manager, or designee to execute Amendment No. 2 to the Professional Services Agreement (on file in the Records Management Department) with AKM Consulting Engineers Inc. of Irvine, California, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $129,088 for construction engineering services and a term from October 4, 2022 to September 30, 2023.

C. Approve and authorize the City Manager, or designee to execute Amendment No. 8 to the Professional Services Agreement (on file in the Records Management Department) CITY OF ONTARIO Regular City Council/Housing Authority Meeting CITY HALL 303 EAST B STREET, ONTARIO CA 91764 • www.OntarioCA.gov 6 ATTACHMENT: UT1041 PRV Rehabilitation Project Ph.1 Exhibit A.pdf

15. APPLICATION FOR THE US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FISCAL YEAR 2022 COMMUNITY

ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES HIRING PROGRAM GRANT

16. FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN ANNUAL ACTION PLAN FOR THE 2019- 20 PROGRAM YEAR

17. A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE ONTARIO RANCH BUSINESS PARK SPECIFIC PLAN (FILE NO. PSPA21-002) AND THE RELATED SUBSEQUENT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2019050018) with Kleinfelder Inc. of Ontario, California, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $106,640 for construction management services and a term from October 4, 2022 to May 6, 2023.

That the City Council authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute all documents necessary to apply for and accept a grant award in the amount of $1,250,000 from the US Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) to participate in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 Office Hiring Program (CHP) Grant.

That the City Council approve the Fifth Amendment to the Consolidated Plan Annual Action Plan (on file in the Records Management Department) for the Program Year 2019-20 (“Substantial Amendment”) and authorize the City Manager to take all actions necessary to implement the Substantial Amendment.

PUBLIC HEARINGS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge the City’s zoning, planning or any other decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to the public hearing. Affidavits of posting compliance, for all items below, are on file with the Records Management Department.

That the City Council consider and adopt:

A. A Resolution certifying the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2019050018) prepared for the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment, File No. PSPA21-002, which includes the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and B. A Resolution adopting an Amendment to the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan (File No. PSPA21-002).

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

ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND CERTIFYING THE ONTARIO RANCH BUSINESS

PARK SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2019050018), AND ADOPTING FINDINGS OF CITY OF ONTARIO Regular City Council/Housing Authority Meeting CITY HALL 303 EAST B STREET, ONTARIO CA 91764 • www.OntarioCA.gov 7 ATTACHMENT: File No PSPA21-002^02 AR Exhibits A,B & C ATTACHMENT: File No PSPA21-002^03 AR Exhibit D
ATTACHMENT: File No PSPA21-002^04 PC Backup
ATTACHMENT: File No PSPA21-002^05 EIR RESO^RM
ATTACHMENT: File No PSPA21-002^06 EIR RESO Exhibit A FEIR ATTACHMENT: File No PSPA21-002^07 EIR RESO Exhibit B FEIR MMRP ATTACHMENT: File No PSPA21-002^08 RESO^RM
ATTACHMENT: File No PSPA21-002^09 RESO-SPA Attach A

OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND

REPORTING PROGRAM, LOCATED WITHIN ONTARIO RANCH AND GENERALLY

BORDERED BY EUCALYPTUS AVENUE TO THE NORTH, CAMPUS AVENUE TO THE

EAST, MERRILL AVENUE TO THE SOUTH, AND SULTANA AVENUE TO THE WEST, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF – APNS: 1054-041-01, 1054-041-02; 1054-031-01, 1054-031-02; 1054-261-01, 1054-261-02; 1054-291-01 AND 1054-291-

02. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FILE NO. PSPA21-002, AN AMENDMENT TO THE ONTARIO RANCH

BUSINESS PARK SPECIFIC PLAN, INCORPORATING PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE

EXISTING SPECIFIC PLAN AREA AND ESTABLISHING THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS,

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, AND GUIDELINES WHICH WILL GOVERN THE DEVELOPMENT OF 71.69 ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY BORDERED BY CAMPUS,

SULTANA, MERRILL, AND EUCALYPTUS AVENUES, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APNS: 1054-041-01, 1054-041-02, 1054-031-01, 1054-031-02, 1054-261-01, 1054-261-02, 1054-291-01, AND 1054-291-02.

STAFF MATTERS
City Manager Ochoa

COUNCIL MATTERS
Mayor Leon
Mayor pro Tem Wapner
Council Member Bowman
Council Member Dorst-Porada
Council Member Valencia

ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF ONTARIO Regular City Council/Housing Authority Meeting CITY HALL 303 EAST B STREET, ONTARIO CA 91764 • www.OntarioCA.gov 8

Page 1 of 1 ends

CITY OF ONTARIO

CLOSED SESSION REPORT
City Council // Housing Authority // Other // (GC 54957.1) October 18, 2022
ROLL CALL: Wapner _, Bowman _, Dorst-Porada _, Valencia _, Mayor / Chairman Leon _.

STAFF: City Manager / Executive Director __, City Attorney __ In attendance: Wapner _, Bowman _, Dorst-Porada _,Valencia _, Mayor / Chairman Leon _.  GC 54956.9 (d)(4), CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL, ANTICIPATED LITIGATION: One Case
No Reportable Action Continue Approved
/ / / / / /
Disposition: _________________________________________________________________ Reported by:
___________________________________________
City Attorney / City Manager / Executive Director
9 ONTARIO CITY COUNCIL/

ONTARIO HOUSING AUTHORITY

MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 6, 2022
(Not Official Until Approved)
(Not Official Until Approved)

JOINT MEETINGS
The regular meetings of the Ontario City Council and Housing Authority were held on Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at Ontario City Hall, 303 E. B Street Ontario, California.

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Leon called the joint meetings to order at 6:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Mayor/Chairman Paul S. Leon
Mayor pro Tem/Vice Chair: Alan D. Wapner
Council/Authority Members: Jim W. Bowman, Debra Dorst-Porada and Ruben Valencia
ABSENT: Council/Authority Members: None.

Also present were City Manager / Executive Director Scott Ochoa, City Attorney/Legal Counsel Ruben Duran, and City Clerk / Secretary Sheila Mautz.

CLOSED SESSION PUBLIC COMMENT
Mayor Leon inquired whether persons were present who wished to speak to the Closed Session item. Hearing no one, City Attorney Duran announced the matters for discussion as listed on the agenda, and the City Council recessed to Closed Session at 6:01 p.m. for discussion of the following:
 GC 54656.9(d)(1), CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL, EXISTING LITIGATION Robles, et al. v. City of Ontario et al., Case No. CIVDS 2007038 CALL TO ORDER – OPEN SESSION
Mayor Leon called the meetings to order at 6:31 p.m.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council Member Valencia. 10 Ontario City Council/Ontario Housing
Regular Meeting Minutes – September 6, 2022

Page 2 of 8 ends

INVOCATION
The invocation was led by pastor Daniel Ventura, with Ontario United Reformed Church.

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Duran stated there was no reportable action.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Loree Masonis, spoke on state issues.

Ariana Lomeli, spoke on school safety.

Stephanie, spoke on the City’s successful Hush Party.

Chris Robles, presented an additional map for districting.

Sal Gray, announced upcoming events in the community.

SPECIAL CEREMONIES
PROCLAMATION OF SEPTEMBER 2022 AS NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS MONTH Mayor Leon declared September 2022 as National Preparedness Month and presented Emergency Manager Sagar Patel with the proclamation.

AGENDA REVIEW/ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Manager Ochoa announced the applicant and staff’s request to continue Item No. 11, A Public Hearing To Consider An Ordinance For A Planned Unit Development to the next regularly scheduled meeting.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Council Member Bowman noted there was not a conflict of interest, but recused himself out of an abundance of caution.

MOTION: Moved by Council Member Dorst-Porada, seconded by Mayor pro Tem Wapner and carried by unanimous vote 4-0, to approve the Consent Calendar as presented, with Council Member Bowman recused.

1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes for the Regular Meetings of the City Council and Housing Authority of August 2, 2022, approving the same as on file in the Records Management Department.
11 Ontario City Council/Ontario Housing
Regular Meeting Minutes – September 6, 2022

Page 3 of 8 ends

2. BILLS & PAYROLL
Bills from July 31, 2022 through August 19, 2022 in the amount of $16,932,451.94 and Payroll from July 17, 2022 through August 13, 2022 in the amount of $8,157,877.49, when audited by the Finance Committee.

3. AN AMENDMENT TO A DESIGN SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH

INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING CORPORATION FOR THE FOURTH

STREET STORM DRAIN PROJECT
The City Council approved and authorized the City Manager, or his designee, to execute Amendment No. 10 to the on-call Design Services Agreement with Infrastructure Engineering Corporation of Poway, California, to provide engineering design services for the Fourth Street Storm Drain Project in the amount of $209,930 for a revised not-to-exceed total of $1,565,872.

4. A GOODS AND SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR THE UTILITIES CUSTOMER

SERVICES CENTER AUTOMATED MAIL EXTRACTION AND SCANNING

WORKSTATION
The City Council approved and authorized a three year Goods and Services Agreement with OPEX Co., of Moorestown, New Jersey, for the Utilities Customer Services Center (UCSC) Automated Mail Extraction and Scanning Workstation and Annual Maintenance and License costs in the amount of $141,008, and authorized the City Manager to execute the Agreement and future amendments within the authorization limits.

5. AN ON-CALL SERVICES CONTRACT FOR UTILITY TRENCH PAVING The City Council took the following actions:

A. Rejected PAVECO Construction Inc.’s protest against G.M. Sager Construction Inc. in its entirety;
B. Authorized the City Manager to execute an On-Call Services Contract for up to five years with G.M. Sager Construction Inc., of Pomona, California, for On-Call and Emergency Utility Trench Paving for a not-to-exceed amount $1,695,512.

6. A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR CHANGE MANAGEMENT,

DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A PARTNER TECHNOLOGY

SUCCESS PROGRAM, AND STAFF LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
The City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a three-year Professional Services Agreement with Steelbridge Solutions, Inc., of Eastwood, Kentucky, for consulting services, change management, development and implementation of a partner technology success program, and technology sta leadership development programs for a total not to exceed $300,000.
12 Ontario City Council/Ontario Housing
Regular Meeting Minutes – September 6, 2022

Page 4 of 8 ends

7. QUIT CLAIM DEED AND A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AND FINAL TRACT MAP NO. 20389 The City Council:

A. Authorized the City Manager to execute a Quit Claim Deed to Lennar Homes of California, LLC, for fee title ownership of a portion of Merrill Avenue; and B. Adopted a Resolution approving an Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security and Final Tract Map No. 20389, located south of Merrill Avenue, west of Haven Avenue.

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-135 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN IMPROVEMENT
AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AND FINAL TRACT MAP NO. 20389 LOCATED SOUTH OF MERRILL AVENUE, WEST OF HAVEN AVENUE.

8. AN AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR

CONSULTING SERVICES TO MANAGE AND MAINTAIN THE CITY'S

ENTERPRISE GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM
The City Council authorized the City Manager to execute an Amendment to the current Agreement with Geographic Information Services, INC., Birmingham, Alabama, for consulting services to manage and maintain the City's Enterprise Geographic Information System (GIS) for a total not to exceed amount of $200,000 and extend the terms for one year.

9. PURCHASE OF NEW REPLACEMENT HELICOPTER AND EQUIPMENT The City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a sole source purchase contract with Airbus Helicopters of Grand Prairie, Texas in the amount of $4,100,000 for the purchase of a new helicopter; and authorize the City Manager to execute an Agreement with Hangar One, of Carlsbad, California in the amount of $2,152,341 for the purchase and installation of specialized helicopter equipment.

10. SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ONTARIO HOUSING AUTHORITY AND ONTARIO EMPORIA II HOUSING PARTNERS, L.P.; AND SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE

GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ONTARIO AND THE ONTARIO

HOUSING AUTHORITY, IN AN AMENDED AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$11,500,000.

The City Council ("City") and the Board of the Ontario Housing Authority ("Authority"):

A. Adopted the Resolutions approving the Second Amendment to the Disposition and Development Agreement ("Second Amendment to DDA") between the 13 Ontario City Council/Ontario Housing
Regular Meeting Minutes – September 6, 2022

Page 5 of 8 ends

Housing Authority and Ontario Emporia II Housing Partners, L.P. ("Developer") (on file with Records Management Department); B. Approved the Second Amendment to City Grant Agreement ("Second Amendment to Grant Agreement") between the City and the Authority, providing a grant in an amended amount not to exceed $11,500,000; and C. Authorized the City Manager/Executive Director or his designee to sign all documents necessary to implement the Agreements.

RESOLUTION NO. OHA–111 A RESOLUTION OF THE ONTARIO HOUSING

AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A SECOND

AMENDMENT TO THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE ONTARIO HOUSING AUTHORITY AND ONTARIO EMPORIA II HOUSING PARTNERS, L.P. AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-136 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THAT CERTAIN SECOND AMENDMENT TO CITY GRANT AGREEMENT [EMPORIA PHASE II
MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT] CONCERNING THE GRANT OF STATE AND

DEVELOPER IN-LIEU FEE FUNDS TO THE ONTARIO HOUSING AUTHORITY FOR THE EMPORIA PHASE II AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT.

RESOLUTION NO. OHA–112 A RESOLUTION OF THE ONTARIO HOUSING

AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THAT CERTAIN SECOND AMENDMENT TO CITY GRANT AGREEMENT [EMPORIA PHASE II MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT] CONCERNING THE GRANT OF

STATE AND DEVELOPER IN-LIEU FEE FUNDS TO THE ONTARIO HOUSING AUTHORITY FOR THE EMPORIA PHASE II AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

11. A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (FILE NO. PUD20-001) TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT

STANDARDS, DESIGN GUIDELINES, AND INFRASTRUCTURE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 0.81-ACRES OF LAND
LOCATED AT 549 WEST HOLT BOULEVARD
Notice of public hearing was duly given and affidavits of compliance are on file in the Records Management Department. There was one written communication from Steven Thong.

Mayor Leon opened the public hearing and announced the need to continue the item to the next regular meeting.

MOTION: Moved by Mayor Leon, seconded by Council Member Bowman and carried by unanimous vote 5-0, to continue the item to the next meeting. 14 Ontario City Council/Ontario Housing
Regular Meeting Minutes – September 6, 2022

Page 6 of 8 ends

12. A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER FILE NO. PCUP21-009, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A 128-ROOM LIMITED-SERVICE HOTEL ON 1.83 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 5060 EAST FOURTH STREET
The City Council considered and adopted a Resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit, File No. PCUP21-009, establishing a 128-room limited-service hotel located at 5060 East Fourth Street.

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-137 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FILE NO. PCUP21-009, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A 128-ROOM LIMITED-SERVICE HOTEL ON 1.83 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 5060 EAST

FOURTH STREET, WITHIN THE FREEWAY COMMERCIAL LAND USE DISTRICT

OF THE EXCHANGE SPECIFIC PLAN AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0238-012-30.

Notice of public hearing was duly given and affidavits of compliance are on file in the Records Management Department. There were no written communications.

Mayor Leon opened the public hearing. Hearing no speakers, he closed the public hearing and opened the item for Council discussion.

MOTION: Moved by Council Member Dorst-Porada, seconded by Council Member Valencia and carried by unanimous vote 5-0, to adopt Resolution No. 2022-137.

13. A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE ONTARIO

GATEWAY SPECIFIC PLAN
The City Council considered and adopted a Resolution approving File No.

PSPA22-003, an Amendment the Ontario Gateway Specific Plan, modifying Table

2.B (Permitted Land Uses by Planning areas) to allow "Auto Sales and Services" as a permitted land use in the Oce Planning Area 1 land use district.

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-138 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FILE NO. PSPA22-003, AN

AMENDMENT TO THE ONTARIO GATEWAY SPECIFIC PLAN, MODIFYING TABLE 2.B (PERMITTED LAND USES BY PLANNING AREAS) TO ALLOW "AUTO SALES AND SERVICES" AS A PERMITTED LAND USE IN THE OFFICE PLANNING AREA 1 LAND USE DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF.

Notice of public hearing was duly given and affidavits of compliance are on file in the Records Management Department. There were no written communications.

Mayor Leon inquired if anyone was interested in speaking to the item, hearing no speakers, he opened the item for Council discussion.
15 Ontario City Council/Ontario Housing
Regular Meeting Minutes – September 6, 2022

Page 7 of 8 ends

MOTION: Moved by Council Member Bowman, seconded by Council Member Dorst-Porada and carried by unanimous vote 5-0, to adopt Resolution No. 2022-138.

STAFF MATTERS
City Manager Ochoa made no announcements.

COUNCIL MATTERS
Council Member Valencia spoke on the Route 66 Cruisin Reunion event and congratulated the CERT team.

Council Member Bowman spoke on the City of Ontario being a unique work family that delivers the best service to the community.

Mayor pro Tem Wapner made no comments.

Council Member Dorst-Porada spoke on the success of the CERT program and thanked staff for their work and announced upcoming events.

Mayor Leon spoke on the Climatec ribbon cutting event and stated a request by Colony High School to proclaim September 9, 2022 as Bobby Joseph Wagner Day.

EMERGENCY ITEM ADDED TO THE AGENDA
Motion made by Council Member Bowman to add an emergency item to agenda given that action was required prior to the next regular meeting.

MOTION: Moved by Council Member Bowman, seconded by Council Member Dorst-Porada and carried by unanimous vote 5-0, to add an emergency item to the agenda.

PROCLAMATION OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2022 AS BOBBY JOSEPH WANGER DAY Mayor Leon declared September 9, 2022 as Bobby Joseph Wagner day.

MOTION: Moved by Mayor Leon, seconded by Council Member Bowman and carried by unanimous vote 5-0, to declare September 9, 2022 as Bobby Joseph Wanger day.

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Leon adjourned the meetings of the Joint Agencies at 7:04 p.m. in memory of Retired Battalion Chief David Anthony Woeste and Fire Engineer Curtis Trevor Gold and announced the next regular meeting to be held on Tuesday, September 20, 2022. 16 Ontario City Council/Ontario Housing
Regular Meeting Minutes – September 6, 2022

Page 8 of 8 ends

Respectfully submitted,
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK/SECRETARY
APPROVED:
______________________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR/CHAIRMAN
17 ONTARIO CITY COUNCIL/

ONTARIO HOUSING AUTHORITY

MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2022
(Not Official Until Approved)
(Not Official Until Approved)

JOINT MEETINGS
The regular meetings of the Ontario City Council and Housing Authority were held on Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at Ontario City Hall, 303 E. B Street Ontario, California.

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Leon called the joint meetings to order at 6:30 p.m.

Also present were City Manager / Executive Director Scott Ochoa, City Attorney/Legal Counsel Ruben Duran, and City Clerk / Secretary Sheila Mautz.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor pro Tem Wapner.

INVOCATION
The invocation was led by Elder Ernest Benion Jr., The Church of God.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Lizbeth Hernandez, invited City Council to participate in National Walk to School Day on October 12, 2022.

Clement Flores, spoke on concerns regarding integrated waste pick up.

Jesse Fonseca, spoke on issues regarding the Ontario International Airport Authority.

Karen Houghey, Representative for San Bernardino County Board Supervisor Curt Hagman invited City Council to a local shredding event. 18 Ontario City Council/Ontario Housing
Regular Meeting Minutes – September 20, 2022

Page 2 of 7 ends

Jonas Narris, requested a four way stop at East 6th Street and Columbia Avenue.

AGENDA REVIEW/ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Manager Ochoa announced the need to continue Item No. 13 to a future meeting.

CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Moved by Council Member Bowman, seconded by Council Member Valencia and carried by unanimous vote 5-0, to approve the Consent Calendar as presented.

1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes for the Regular Meetings of the City Council and Housing Authority of August 16, 2022 approving the same as on file in the Records Management Department.

2. BILLS & PAYROLL
Bills from August 20, 2022 through September 2, 2022 in the amount of $19,630,721.13 and Payroll from August 14, 2022 through August 27, 2022 in the amount of $3,967,369.02, when audited by the Finance Department.

3. A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY, AND FINAL TRACT MAP NO. 20399, LOCATED AT

THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND ONTARIO RANCH ROAD
The City Council adopted a Resolution approving a Subdivision Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security, and Final Tract Map No. 20399, located at the southeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Ontario Ranch Road, within the Grand Park Specific Plan.

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-139 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY, AND FINAL TRACT MAP NO. 20399,

LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND ONTARIO RANCH ROAD.

4. A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE MEASURE I FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL PROJECT NEEDS ANALYSIS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2023-24 TO 2027-28
The City Council considered and adopted a Resolution approving the FY 2023-24 through FY 2027-28 Measure I Five-Year Capital Project Needs Analysis (CPNA) and authorized the City Manager to approve changes to the plan as may be required by the City and/or San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA). 19 Ontario City Council/Ontario Housing
Regular Meeting Minutes – September 20, 2022

Page 3 of 7 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-140 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE MEASURE I FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL PROJECT NEEDS ANALYSIS FOR FY2023-24 TO FY2027-28.

5. CONTRACT AMENDMENT FOR A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES FOR VARIOUS TRANSFORMATIVE

CLIMATE COMMUNITIES (TCC) ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS The City Council approved and authorized the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement (on file in the Records Management Department) with Parsons Transportation Group, Inc., of Ontario, California, to provide Engineering Design Services for various TCC active transportation projects in the amount of $165,500, for a revised not-to-exceed amount of $777,001.

6. A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

AND TWO AMENDMENTS FOR THE SAN ANTONIO TRANSMISSION WATER MAIN PHASE 2 PROJECT
The City Council took the following actions:

A. Rejected CP Construction Co. Inc.'s bid for the San Antonio Transmission Water Main Phase 2 Project for being nonresponsive; and B. Approved the plans and specifications and award Contract No. UT 1046 (on file in the Records Management Department) to James W. Fowler Co. of Dallas, Oregon, for the construction of the San Antonio Transmission Water Main Phase 2, in the amount of $7,995,255 plus a 10% contingency of $799,526, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $8,794,781, a term of 300 calendar days after issuance of notice to proceed and authorized the City Manager, or his designee to execute said contract and file a notice of completion at the conclusion of all construction activities related to the project; and
C. Approved and authorized the City Manager, or his designee to execute a Professional Services Agreement (on file in the Records Management Department) with Petra Geosciences, of Costa Mesa, California, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $257,175 and a term of 300 calendar days after issuance of notice to proceed for geotechnical and material testing services; and
D. Approved and authorized the City Manager, or his designee to execute Amendment No. 11 to the Professional Services Agreement (on file in the Records Management Department) with Infrastructure Engineering Corporation (IEC), of Irvine, California, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $147,291 for construction engineering services and a term from September 20, 2022 to May 3, 2023; and
E. Approved and authorized the City Manager, or his designee to execute Amendment No. 7 to the Professional Services Agreement (on file in the Records Management Department) with Wallace and Associates Consulting, 20 Ontario City Council/Ontario Housing
Regular Meeting Minutes – September 20, 2022

Page 4 of 7 ends

Inc., of Murrieta, California, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $214,872 for construction management services and a term from September 20, 2022 to September 30, 2023.

7. TWO AMENDMENTS TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS FOR

LEGAL AND TECHNICAL SERVICES PERTAINING TO WATER AND

WASTEWATER MATTERS
The City Council took the following actions:

A. Approved and authorized the City Manager or his designee to execute Amendment No. 5 to the Professional Services Agreement (on file in the Records Management Department) with Nossaman LLP of Los Angeles, California, for a term of 2 years with a not-to-exceed amount of $2,500,000 for legal and technical services with respect to matters relating to sewer disposal, water supply, and water rights; and
B. Approved and authorized the City Manager or his designee to execute Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement (on file in the Records Management Department) with Stoel Rives LLP of Sacramento, California, for a term of 2 years with a not-to-exceed amount of $365,000 for legal and financial assessments services with respect to matters relating to sewer disposal, water supply, and water rights.

8. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS FOR ON-CALL WATER AND

SEWER ENGINEERING SERVICES
The City Council took the following actions:

A. Approved and authorized the City Manager, or his designee to execute a Professional Services Agreement (on file in the Records Management Department) with Ardurra Group, Inc., of Tampa, Florida, for up to 5 years with a total not-to-exceed amount of $90,000 for on-call water and sewer engineering services; and
B. Approved and authorized the City Manager, or his designee to execute a Professional Services Agreement (on file in the Records Management Department) with AKM Consulting Engineers, Inc., of Irvine, California, for up to 5 years with a total not-to-exceed amount of $90,000 for on-call water and sewer engineering services; and
C. Approved and authorized the City Manager, or his designee to execute a Professional Services Agreement (on file in the Records Management Department) with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., of Irvine, California, for up to 5 years with a total not-to-exceed amount of $90,000 for on-call water and sewer engineering services.
21 Ontario City Council/Ontario Housing
Regular Meeting Minutes – September 20, 2022

Page 5 of 7 ends

9. AN ENTERPRISE LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH ESRI, INC.

The City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a three-year License Agreement (on-file with the Records Management Department) with ESRI, INC., of Redlands, California, for a Citywide Enterprise License Agreement for Geographic Information System (GIS) software, in an amount not to exceed $573,279.

10. A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE APPENDIX TO THE CITY OF ONTARIO

CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
The City Council adopted a Resolution amending the Appendix to the Conflict of Interest Code to update position classification titles and filing requirements for City employees.

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-141 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND ADOPTING AN AMENDED

APPENDIX OF THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE PURSUANT TO THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT OF 1974.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

11. A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY AND ADOPT THE

CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION REPORT
(CAPER) FOR THE 2021-22 FISCAL YEAR
The City Council took the following actions:

A. Held a public hearing to receive testimony on the draft Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) for the 2021-22 Fiscal Year (on file in the Records Management Department); and
B. Directed staff to prepare and transmit to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) the final CAPER, which will address all public comments received on the draft CAPER; and
C. Authorized the City Manager to execute any and all documents necessary and/or desirable to transmit the CAPER to HUD.

Notice of public hearing was duly given and affidavits of compliance are on file in the Records Management Department. There were no written communications.

Mayor Leon opened the public hearing and inquired if anyone was interested in speaking to the item, hearing no speakers, he opened the item for Council discussion.

MOTION: Moved by Council Member Bowman, seconded by Mayor pro Tem Wapner and carried by unanimous vote 5-0, to receive testimony and adopt the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) for 2021-22 Fiscal Year. 22 Ontario City Council/Ontario Housing
Regular Meeting Minutes – September 20, 2022

Page 6 of 7 ends

12. A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE APPROVING FILE NO.

PZC19-001, A ZONE CHANGE AT 1063 EAST ELMA STREET
The City Council introduced and waived further reading of an Ordinance approving File No. PZC19-001, a Zone Change amending the zoning designation on 0.07-acres of land from MDR-11 (Low-Medium Density Residential - 5.11 to 11.0 du/ac) to MDR-18 (Medium Density Residential - 11.1 to 18.0 du/ac), for property located at 1063 East Elma Street.

ORDINANCE NO. 3223 (FIRST READING) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FILE NO.

PZC19-001, A ZONE CHANGE AMENDING THE ZONING DESIGNATION ON

0.07-ACRE OF LAND FROM MDR-11 (LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL –

5.1 TO 11.0 DU/AC) TO MDR-18 (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL – 11.1 TO

18.0 DU/AC) TO ENABLE THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF A 0.28-ACRE PROJECT SITE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1048- 491-23.

Notice of public hearing was duly given and affidavits of compliance are on file in the Records Management Department. There were two written communications from Brian Sarina and Broque Anderson in opposition to the item.

Mayor Leon opened the public hearing and inquired if anyone was interested in speaking to the item, hearing no speakers, he opened the item for Council discussion.

MOTION: Moved by Council Member Bowman, seconded by Council Member Wapner and carried by a 4-1 vote, with Council Member Dorst-Porada opposed, to introduce Ordinance No. 3223.

13. A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (FILE NO. PUD20-001) TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT

STANDARDS, DESIGN GUIDELINES, AND INFRASTRUCTURE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 0.81-ACRE OF LAND
LOCATED AT 549 WEST HOLT BOULEVARD
The City Council continued the public hearing to a future meeting.

STAFF MATTERS
City Manager Ochoa made no comments.

COUNCIL MATTERS
Council Member Dorst-Porada announced upcoming events.
23 Ontario City Council/Ontario Housing
Regular Meeting Minutes – September 20, 2022

Page 7 of 7 ends

Mayor pro Tem Wapner thanked Staff regarding Route 66 and provided updates regarding Ontario International Airport Authority updates.

Mayor Leon spoke on the success of the Route 66 car show and spoke on September 9th as Bobby Wagner Day.

Council Member Bowman congratulated the Convention Center and Staff for the Route 66 event.

Council Member Valencia echoed City Council’s sentiments regarding the success of the Route 66 event.

Mayor pro Tem announced Yom Kippur was on October 4, 2022, and sought and received concurrence to cancel the next regular meeting.

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Leon adjourned the meetings of the Joint Agencies at 7:00 p.m. and announced the Tuesday, October 4, 2022 was cancelled in observance of Yom Kippur.

Respectfully submitted,
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK/SECRETARY
APPROVED:
_____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR/CHAIRMAN
24 Department: Community Improvement
Prepared By: Douglas J Sorel
Staff Member Presenting:

Scott Murphy, Executive Director Community
Development
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 3
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION FOR PLACEMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ON THE SAN

BERNARDINO COUNTY TAX ROLLS

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
October 18, 2022
SECTION:

CONSENT CALENDAR
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a Resolution for recovery of fees and costs incurred in abating property and dangerous building violations, as well as administrative citations and civil penalties associated with property maintenance violations, and placing assessments on the San Bernardino County Tax Rolls.

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Operate in a Businesslike Manner
Focus Resources in Ontario's Commercial and Residential Neighborhoods FISCAL IMPACT: The levy of special assessments will result in the recovery of $39,081.99 in costs that the City has expended for inspection or abatement of property violations, as well as the collection of $28,739.00 associated with civil penalties and/or fines for continued violations, for a total of $67,820.99 related to 96 parcels. When received, these reimbursements will be deposited into the General Fund. The special assessment revenue is included in the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Adopted Budget.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS: The City has established revolving funds to cover the City costs for abatement of property and dangerous building violations as a result of Community Improvement activities. Additionally, the City has established administrative citations and fines for property maintenance violations and fees and penalties associated with the Systematic Health and Safety Inspection Program, Abandoned and Distressed Property Program, and Weed and Refuse Abatement Program. These costs, fines, fees, and penalties are recovered through placement of special tax assessments upon the properties. The placement of special assessments and collection of revenue is done under Ordinance 3046, Property Appearance (Title 5, Chapter 22 of the Ontario Municipal Code); Chapter 9 of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings; and, Ordinance 2920 for civil penalties for continued violations of the Ontario Municipal Code and fines associated with administrative citations (Title 1, Chapters 2 and 5 of the Ontario Municipal Code).

The City and County currently have a contractual agreement regarding implementation of special assessments; however, a Resolution authorizing the placement of the specific assessments is 25 required.

During this assessment cycle, the Community Improvement Department has billed property owners for: the abatement of violations; the issuance of fines associated with administrative citation; the issuance of fees and penalties associated with the Systematic Health and Safety Inspection Program; the issuance of registration fees and civil penalties associated with the Abandoned and Distressed Property Program; the issuance of notice and re-inspection fees; and, civil penalties for the Weed and Refuse Abatement Program on 446 parcels. Of these, there are remaining amounts due on 96 parcels. Attached are itemized accounts of: (1) costs associated with inspection or abatement as shown in Exhibit A of the Resolution; (2) civil penalties and/or fines for continued violations as shown in Exhibit B of the Resolution; and (3) total amounts per parcel as shown in Exhibit C of the Resolution. All affected property owners were given notice of the imposition of special assessments via certified mail as provided in Ontario Municipal Code Section 1-4.05(a) and have either not requested an appeal or have exhausted the appellate procedure in Ontario Municipal Code Section 1-4.05(b).
26 RESOLUTION NO. ________

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

CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A REPORT REQUESTING THE PLACEMENT

OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ON PROPERTY TAX BILLS FOR CIVIL

PENALTIES OR RECOVERY OF COSTS INCURRED FOR ABATEMENT
OF VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODES AND ORDINANCES.

WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 3046, Property Appearance (Title 5, Chapter 22, of the Ontario Municipal Code) and Chapter 9 of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings provide for the abatement of property nuisances by repair, rehabilitation, demolition or removal; and
WHEREAS, under Resolution 94-112, Resolution ORA-499, and the Cooperation and Reimbursement Agreement entered into on the 15th day of November, 1994, by the City of Ontario and the Ontario Redevelopment Agency, the Ontario Redevelopment Agency made a one-time advance to the City of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000) to repair or abate dangerous buildings and properties throughout the City; and WHEREAS, under a first amendment to the Cooperation and Reimbursement Agreement entered into on the 16th day of July 1996, by the City of Ontario and the Ontario Redevelopment Agency, the Ontario Redevelopment Agency made an additional advance to the City of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) to continue to repair or abate dangerous buildings and properties throughout the City; and WHEREAS, under Resolution 94-113, Resolution ORA-500, and the Cooperation and Reimbursement Agreement entered into on the 15th day of November 1994, by the City of Ontario and the Ontario Redevelopment Agency, the Ontario Redevelopment Agency made a one-time advance to the City of Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000) to repair or abate dangerous buildings and properties in the 6th and Grove area; and WHEREAS, under Resolution 94-12, Resolution ORA-464, and the Cooperation and Reimbursement Agreement entered into on the 22nd day of February 1994, by the City of Ontario and the Ontario Redevelopment Agency, the Ontario Redevelopment Agency made a one-time advance to the City of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000) to repair or demolish dangerous buildings throughout the City; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2894, Systematic Health and Safety Inspection Program (Title 8, Chapter 17, of the Ontario Municipal Code), provides for the collection of unpaid service fees, plus any penalties and accrued interest by Special Assessment; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2920, provides for the assessment of civil penalties for continued violations of the Ontario Municipal Code (Title 1, Chapter 2 of the Ontario Municipal Code), and for fines associated with administrative citations to be collected by Special Assessment (Title 1, Chapter 5 of the Ontario Municipal Code), and establishes a uniform procedure before imposing such Special Assessments (Title 1, Chapter 4 of the Ontario Municipal Code); and
27 WHEREAS, the above said ordinances, resolutions and agreements provide for recovery of costs incurred in the abatement of violations by means of a Special Assessment placed on the tax rolls; and
WHEREAS, the City has incurred costs involved in the abatement of violations under the Ontario Municipal Code and Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, issuing Notices of Violation, and administering the Systematic Health and Safety Program and wishes to recover said costs; and
WHEREAS, the owners of all parcels listed in Exhibit A, B, and C were given notice of imposition of such Special Assessment as provided in Ontario Municipal Code Section 1-4.05(a), and either have not requested an appeal, or have exhausted the appellate procedure provided in Ontario Municipal Code Section 1-4.05(b); and WHEREAS, the City has an executed contract with the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors for collection of said assessments; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council:

1. Confirmed the costs associated with inspection or abatement on the properties as set forth in the report in Exhibit A; and

2. Confirmed the civil penalties and/or fines for continued violations on the properties as set forth in the report in Exhibit B; and

3. Confirmed that Exhibit C contains the total amount assessed for both confirmed costs and confirmed civil penalties and/or fines for each of the properties; and

4. Found and determined that the report, and Exhibits contained therein are true and accurate; and

5. Adopts the above said report and finds that the costs of inspection or abatement on the properties listed are the costs set forth in Exhibit A, the civil penalties and/or fines for continued violations are the penalties and/or fines as set forth in Exhibit B, and the same are hereby charged and placed as special assessments upon the respective properties; and

6. Directs Exhibit C shall be sent to the Auditor-Controller of San Bernardino County and shall be collected on the County tax roll.

The City Clerk of the City of Ontario shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.
28 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 18th day of October 2022. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
_______________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
29 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. 2022- was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Ontario at their regular meeting held October 18, 2022, 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. 2022- duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held October 18, 2022. _____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
30 City of Ontario
Community Improvement Department
2023/2024 Tax Roll Year Special Assessments
Exhibit A - Costs Associated with Inspection or Abatement Parcel Number Address Amount Due
0108-412-18 1722 N DEL NORTE AV, Ontario, CA 91764 91.00 0108-611-08 1380 E SEVENTH ST, Ontario, CA 91764 91.00
0110-071-07 1381 E HOLT BL, Ontario, CA 91761 91.00
0110-272-16 1346 E EL MORADO CT, Ontario, CA 91764 46.00 0110-365-02 935 N SACRAMENTO AV, Ontario, CA 91764 193.40 0110-501-43 1338 N PLACER AV, Ontario, CA 91764 587.00
0113-361-46 1717 S GROVE AV, Ontario, CA 91761 740.03
0113-541-38 2708 S INVERNESS CT, Ontario, CA 91761 46.00 0210-041-58 1434 N SAN DIEGO PL, Ontario, CA 91764 855.12 0210-181-06 809 N TURNER AV, Ontario, CA 91764 1,059.00 0210-192-21 2955 E GUASTI RD, Ontario, CA 91761 239.00
0210-211-33 700 N HAVEN AV, Ontario, CA 91764 627.00
0210-354-06 2043 E YALE ST, Ontario, CA 91764 46.00
0211-222-60 4255 E AIRPORT DR, Ontario, CA 91761 461.37 0211-232-29 4200 E SANTA ANA ST, Unit:B, Ontario, CA 91761 616.41 0216-491-50 1419 E RIVERSIDE DR, Ontario, CA 91761 972.51 0218-044-36 4082 S CANAL WY, Building:, Unit:, Ontario, CA 91761 585.01 0218-614-18 3131 E YOSEMITE DR, Ontario, CA 91762 3,707.32 0238-014-10 4451 E ONTARIO MILLS PW, Building:3, Unit:E, Ontario, CA 91764 823.37 0238-152-02 0 E SCE EASEMENT, Ontario, CA 91761 148.00
1010-101-28 1405 W FOURTH ST, Ontario, CA 91762 91.00
1010-151-06 937 W FOURTH ST, Ontario, CA 91762 91.00
1010-173-22 864 W EL MORADO CT, Ontario, CA 91762 91.00 1010-191-30 1025 W I ST, Ontario, CA 91762 91.00
1010-433-15 1355 W FLORA ST, Ontario, CA 91762 91.00
1010-452-25 515 N AZALEA AV, Ontario, CA 91762 91.00
1010-473-01 929 W FLORA ST, Ontario, CA 91762 46.00
1010-552-26 1425 W STONERIDGE CT, Unit:A, Ontario, CA 91762 230.57 1011-361-08 1517 W MISSION BL, Ontario, CA 91762 83.60
1011-421-11 0 S ELDERBERRY AV, Ontario, CA 91762 148.00 1011-421-12 0 S ELDERBERRY AV, Ontario, CA 91762 148.00 1014-472-94 1017 W FRANCIS ST, Ontario, CA 91762 127.00 1014-511-06 2140 S CYPRESS AV, Ontario, CA 91762 91.00
1046-511-18 0 E EIGHTH ST, Ontario, CA 91764 140.00
1047-252-15 340 W CAROLINE CT, Ontario, CA 91762 650.00 1047-281-33 1528 N BEVERLY CT, Ontario, CA 91762 91.00
1047-311-53 525 W SIXTH ST, Ontario, CA 91762 187.00
1047-331-06 132 W BONNIE BRAE CT, Ontario, CA 91762 127.00 1047-433-11 1202 E SIXTH ST, Ontario, CA 91764 62.03
1047-441-16 1334 N PARKSIDE AV, Ontario, CA 91764 91.00 1047-473-15 1054 E PRINCETON ST, Ontario, CA 91764 4,426.08 1048-043-10 939 N EUCLID AV, Ontario, CA 91762 15.69
1048-131-27 1027 N CUCAMONGA AV, Ontario, CA 91764 231.00 1048-131-28 1023 N CUCAMONGA AV, Ontario, CA 91764 231.00

Page 1 ends

City of Ontario
Community Improvement Department
2023/2024 Tax Roll Year Special Assessments
Exhibit A - Costs Associated with Inspection or Abatement Parcel Number Address Amount Due
1048-213-18 739 E H ST, Ontario, CA 91764 3,979.11
1048-213-23 713 E H ST, Ontario, CA 91764 314.00
1048-252-05 132 E GRANADA CT, Ontario, CA 91764 122.38
1048-292-03 651 W GRANADA CT, Ontario, CA 91762 46.00
1048-292-07 623 W GRANADA CT, Ontario, CA 91762 20.00
1048-366-05 224 E G ST, Ontario, CA 91764 46.00
1048-382-09 556 E F ST, Ontario, CA 91764 46.00
1048-392-14 647 E E ST, Building:1, Unit:101, Ontario, CA 91764 1,027.00 1048-402-26 703 E D ST, Ontario, CA 91764 138.00
1048-471-14 1117 E HOLT BL, Ontario, CA 91761 140.00
1048-504-11 839 E ELMA ST, Ontario, CA 91761 91.00
1048-522-09 523 E HOLT BL, Ontario, CA 91764 6,847.78
1048-561-12 312 N PALM AV, Ontario, CA 91762 46.00
1048-566-07 303 N EUCLID AV, Building:1, Ontario, CA 91762 1,294.00 1049-021-30 534 W BROOKS ST, Ontario, CA 91762 736.50
1049-059-01 421 W EMPORIA ST, Ontario, CA 91762 46.00
1049-101-34 767 E EMPORIA ST, Ontario, CA 91761 167.00
1049-131-16 1050 E HOLT BL, Ontario, CA 91761 140.00
1049-141-24 1194 E HOLT BL, Ontario, CA 91761 148.00
1049-202-08 415 S CALDWELL AV, Ontario, CA 91761 46.00
1049-232-23 551 E SUNKIST ST, Ontario, CA 91761 239.00
1049-303-13 711 W SUNKIST ST, Ontario, CA 91762 46.00
1049-442-06 1113 S GREENWOOD AV, Ontario, CA 91761 1,612.08 1049-451-20 1009 S CAMPUS AV, Ontario, CA 91761 231.00
1050-301-18 403 W LOCUST ST, Ontario, CA 91762 91.00
1050-551-06 645 E SPRUCE ST, Ontario, CA 91761 198.00
1051-321-51 2538 S GROVE AV, Ontario, CA 91761 460.17
1051-381-10 2610 S BON VIEW AV, Ontario, CA 91761 140.46 1083-051-20 2826 S HARBOUR TOWN TR, Ontario, CA 91761 91.00 1083-171-07 3242 E CLEAR LAKE RD, Ontario, CA 91761 607.00 1083-191-53 2713 S CYPRESS POINT PL, Ontario, CA 91761 46.00 1083-321-01 2250 S PONDEROSA AV, Building:1, Ontario, CA 91761 91.00 1083-462-29 2857 S MCCLOUD RIVER LN, Ontario, CA 91761 91.00 39,081.99

Page 2 ends

City of Ontario
Community Improvement Department
2023/2024 Tax Roll Year Special Assessments
Exhibit B - Civil Penalties and/or Fines for Continued Violations Parcel Number Address Amount Due
0110-376-13 1874 E PLAZA SERENA ST, Ontario, CA 91764 200.00 0210-181-06 809 N TURNER AV, Ontario, CA 91764 500.00
0210-192-21 2955 E GUASTI RD, Ontario, CA 91761 409.00
0216-361-59 1477 E OAK HILL CT, Ontario, CA 91761 120.00 0216-391-11 1462 E TAM O'SHANTER ST, Ontario, CA 91761 720.00 0216-391-28 2637 S LASSEN AV, Ontario, CA 91761 120.00
0218-111-45 13213 S ONTARIO AV, Ontario, CA 91761 7,500.00 0218-202-03 3071 E SILVER SKY DR, Building:, Unit:, Ontario, CA 91762 150.00 0218-545-36 3262 S PORTSMOUTH LN, Ontario, CA 91761 100.00 0218-911-01 2943 E THOROUGHBRED ST, Ontario, CA 91761 620.00 0238-152-02 0 E SCE EASEMENT, Ontario, CA 91761 500.00
1008-291-10 1553 N HELEN CT, Ontario, CA 91762 990.00
1008-431-23 1133 W SIXTH ST, Ontario, CA 91762 170.00
1010-151-06 937 W FOURTH ST, Ontario, CA 91762 120.00
1010-191-05 932 W GRANADA CT, Ontario, CA 91762 300.00
1011-421-11 0 S ELDERBERRY AV, Ontario, CA 91762 500.00 1011-421-12 0 S ELDERBERRY AV, Ontario, CA 91762 500.00 1014-121-07 0 S OAKS AV, Ontario, CA 91762 170.00
1014-121-08 0 S OAKS AV, Ontario, CA 91762 170.00
1047-202-15 709 E DEODAR ST, Ontario, CA 91764 170.00
1047-281-33 1528 N BEVERLY CT, Ontario, CA 91762 120.00 1047-372-34 547 E FIFTH ST, Ontario, CA 91764 490.00
1047-441-16 1334 N PARKSIDE AV, Ontario, CA 91764 20.00 1048-211-31 807 E GRANADA CT, Ontario, CA 91764 220.00
1048-213-18 739 E H ST, Ontario, CA 91764 1,180.00
1048-504-11 839 E ELMA ST, Ontario, CA 91761 220.00
1049-101-29 829 E EMPORIA ST, Ontario, CA 91761 120.00
1049-141-24 1194 E HOLT BL, Ontario, CA 91761 500.00
1049-232-23 551 E SUNKIST ST, Ontario, CA 91761 500.00
1050-624-15 2115 S SAN ANTONIO AV, Ontario, CA 91762 840.00 1053-321-02 7914 E EDISON AV, Ontario, CA 91761 10,500.00 28,739.00
33 City of Ontario
Community Improvement Department
2023/2024 Tax Roll Year Special Assessments
Exhibit C - Total Amounts per Parcel
Parcel Number Address Amount Due
0108-412-18 1722 N DEL NORTE AV, Ontario, CA 91764 91.00 0108-611-08 1380 E SEVENTH ST, Ontario, CA 91764 91.00
0110-071-07 1381 E HOLT BL, Ontario, CA 91761 91.00
0110-272-16 1346 E EL MORADO CT, Ontario, CA 91764 46.00 0110-365-02 935 N SACRAMENTO AV, Ontario, CA 91764 193.40 0110-376-13 1874 E PLAZA SERENA ST, Ontario, CA 91764 200.00 0110-501-43 1338 N PLACER AV, Ontario, CA 91764 587.00
0113-361-46 1717 S GROVE AV, Ontario, CA 91761 740.03
0113-541-38 2708 S INVERNESS CT, Ontario, CA 91761 46.00 0210-041-58 1434 N SAN DIEGO PL, Ontario, CA 91764 855.12 0210-181-06 809 N TURNER AV, Ontario, CA 91764 1,559.00 0210-192-21 2955 E GUASTI RD, Ontario, CA 91761 648.00
0210-211-33 700 N HAVEN AV, Ontario, CA 91764 627.00
0210-354-06 2043 E YALE ST, Ontario, CA 91764 46.00
0211-222-60 4255 E AIRPORT DR, Ontario, CA 91761 461.37 0211-232-29 4200 E SANTA ANA ST, Unit:B, Ontario, CA 91761 616.41 0216-361-59 1477 E OAK HILL CT, Ontario, CA 91761 120.00 0216-391-11 1462 E TAM O'SHANTER ST, Ontario, CA 91761 720.00 0216-391-28 2637 S LASSEN AV, Ontario, CA 91761 120.00
0216-491-50 1419 E RIVERSIDE DR, Ontario, CA 91761 972.51 0218-044-36 4082 S CANAL WY, Building:, Unit:, Ontario, CA 91761 585.01 0218-111-45 13213 S ONTARIO AV, Ontario, CA 91761 7,500.00 0218-202-03 3071 E SILVER SKY DR, Building:, Unit:, Ontario, CA 91762 150.00 0218-545-36 3262 S PORTSMOUTH LN, Ontario, CA 91761 100.00 0218-614-18 3131 E YOSEMITE DR, Ontario, CA 91762 3,707.32 0218-911-01 2943 E THOROUGHBRED ST, Ontario, CA 91761 620.00 0238-014-10 4451 E ONTARIO MILLS PW, Building:3, Unit:E, Ontario, CA 91764 823.37 0238-152-02 0 E SCE EASEMENT, Ontario, CA 91761 648.00
1008-291-10 1553 N HELEN CT, Ontario, CA 91762 990.00
1008-431-23 1133 W SIXTH ST, Ontario, CA 91762 170.00
1010-101-28 1405 W FOURTH ST, Ontario, CA 91762 91.00
1010-151-06 937 W FOURTH ST, Ontario, CA 91762 211.00
1010-173-22 864 W EL MORADO CT, Ontario, CA 91762 91.00 1010-191-05 932 W GRANADA CT, Ontario, CA 91762 300.00
1010-191-30 1025 W I ST, Ontario, CA 91762 91.00
1010-433-15 1355 W FLORA ST, Ontario, CA 91762 91.00
1010-452-25 515 N AZALEA AV, Ontario, CA 91762 91.00
1010-473-01 929 W FLORA ST, Ontario, CA 91762 46.00
1010-552-26 1425 W STONERIDGE CT, Unit:A, Ontario, CA 91762 230.57 1011-361-08 1517 W MISSION BL, Ontario, CA 91762 83.60
1011-421-11 0 S ELDERBERRY AV, Ontario, CA 91762 648.00 1011-421-12 0 S ELDERBERRY AV, Ontario, CA 91762 648.00 1014-121-07 0 S OAKS AV, Ontario, CA 91762 170.00
1014-121-08 0 S OAKS AV, Ontario, CA 91762 170.00

Page 1 ends

City of Ontario
Community Improvement Department
2023/2024 Tax Roll Year Special Assessments
Exhibit C - Total Amounts per Parcel
Parcel Number Address Amount Due
1014-472-94 1017 W FRANCIS ST, Ontario, CA 91762 127.00 1014-511-06 2140 S CYPRESS AV, Ontario, CA 91762 91.00
1046-511-18 0 E EIGHTH ST, Ontario, CA 91764 140.00
1047-202-15 709 E DEODAR ST, Ontario, CA 91764 170.00
1047-252-15 340 W CAROLINE CT, Ontario, CA 91762 650.00 1047-281-33 1528 N BEVERLY CT, Ontario, CA 91762 211.00 1047-311-53 525 W SIXTH ST, Ontario, CA 91762 187.00
1047-331-06 132 W BONNIE BRAE CT, Ontario, CA 91762 127.00 1047-372-34 547 E FIFTH ST, Ontario, CA 91764 490.00
1047-433-11 1202 E SIXTH ST, Ontario, CA 91764 62.03
1047-441-16 1334 N PARKSIDE AV, Ontario, CA 91764 111.00 1047-473-15 1054 E PRINCETON ST, Ontario, CA 91764 4,426.08 1048-043-10 939 N EUCLID AV, Ontario, CA 91762 15.69
1048-131-27 1027 N CUCAMONGA AV, Ontario, CA 91764 231.00 1048-131-28 1023 N CUCAMONGA AV, Ontario, CA 91764 231.00 1048-211-31 807 E GRANADA CT, Ontario, CA 91764 220.00
1048-213-18 739 E H ST, Ontario, CA 91764 5,159.11
1048-213-23 713 E H ST, Ontario, CA 91764 314.00
1048-252-05 132 E GRANADA CT, Ontario, CA 91764 122.38
1048-292-03 651 W GRANADA CT, Ontario, CA 91762 46.00
1048-292-07 623 W GRANADA CT, Ontario, CA 91762 20.00
1048-366-05 224 E G ST, Ontario, CA 91764 46.00
1048-382-09 556 E F ST, Ontario, CA 91764 46.00
1048-392-14 647 E E ST, Building:1, Unit:101, Ontario, CA 91764 1,027.00 1048-402-26 703 E D ST, Ontario, CA 91764 138.00
1048-471-14 1117 E HOLT BL, Ontario, CA 91761 140.00
1048-504-11 839 E ELMA ST, Ontario, CA 91761 311.00
1048-522-09 523 E HOLT BL, Ontario, CA 91764 6,847.78
1048-561-12 312 N PALM AV, Ontario, CA 91762 46.00
1048-566-07 303 N EUCLID AV, Building:1, Ontario, CA 91762 1,294.00 1049-021-30 534 W BROOKS ST, Ontario, CA 91762 736.50
1049-059-01 421 W EMPORIA ST, Ontario, CA 91762 46.00
1049-101-29 829 E EMPORIA ST, Ontario, CA 91761 120.00
1049-101-34 767 E EMPORIA ST, Ontario, CA 91761 167.00
1049-131-16 1050 E HOLT BL, Ontario, CA 91761 140.00
1049-141-24 1194 E HOLT BL, Ontario, CA 91761 648.00
1049-202-08 415 S CALDWELL AV, Ontario, CA 91761 46.00
1049-232-23 551 E SUNKIST ST, Ontario, CA 91761 739.00
1049-303-13 711 W SUNKIST ST, Ontario, CA 91762 46.00
1049-442-06 1113 S GREENWOOD AV, Ontario, CA 91761 1,612.08 1049-451-20 1009 S CAMPUS AV, Ontario, CA 91761 231.00
1050-301-18 403 W LOCUST ST, Ontario, CA 91762 91.00
1050-551-06 645 E SPRUCE ST, Ontario, CA 91761 198.00
1050-624-15 2115 S SAN ANTONIO AV, Ontario, CA 91762 840.00

Page 2 ends

City of Ontario
Community Improvement Department
2023/2024 Tax Roll Year Special Assessments
Exhibit C - Total Amounts per Parcel
Parcel Number Address Amount Due
1051-321-51 2538 S GROVE AV, Ontario, CA 91761 460.17
1051-381-10 2610 S BON VIEW AV, Ontario, CA 91761 140.46 1053-321-02 7914 E EDISON AV, Ontario, CA 91761 10,500.00 1083-051-20 2826 S HARBOUR TOWN TR, Ontario, CA 91761 91.00 1083-171-07 3242 E CLEAR LAKE RD, Ontario, CA 91761 607.00 1083-191-53 2713 S CYPRESS POINT PL, Ontario, CA 91761 46.00 1083-321-01 2250 S PONDEROSA AV, Building:1, Ontario, CA 91761 91.00 1083-462-29 2857 S MCCLOUD RIVER LN, Ontario, CA 91761 91.00 96 67,820.99

Page 3 ends

Department: Economic Development
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: 4
SUBJECT: AN AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR VIDEO

PRODUCTION SERVICES

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
October 18, 2022
SECTION:

CONSENT CALENDAR
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Windsong Productions, LLC. increasing the not-toexceed amount by $518,312 to $753,312 for the three-year contract term.

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Operate in a Businesslike Manner
Invest in the Growth and Evolution of the City's Economy FISCAL IMPACT: The Fiscal Year ("FY") 2022-23 Adopted Budget includes, and any subsequent Adopted Budget shall include, appropriations for these services. This proposed agreement is not-toexceed $753,312 with the following breakdown per year:

Project FY 21-22 Amount FY 22-23 Amount FY 23-24 Amount State of the City $94,669 $105,000 $110,250
Made in Ontario $74,837 $82,835 $84,000
Misc. City Events
$65,494 (5
events)
$65,000 (5 events) $71,227 (5 events)
TOTAL $235,000 $252,835 $265,477
These projections include a 5% price increase for FY 2023-24.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS: On November 2, 2021, the City executed a Professional Services Agreement with Windsong Productions, LLC. ("Windsong") for video production services following a competitive Request for Proposals process. Windsong Productions, LLC was the top candidate. At the time the Agreement was executed, the not-to-exceed compensation amount was set at $235,000 for the duration of the Agreement term. Since then, it was clarified that the $235,000 amount only covered the cost for services for the initial year of the Agreement term (FY 2021-22). 37 The vendor was asked to provide cost projections through the end of the Agreement term (FY 2023- 24). City Staff is requesting an increase in an amount of $518,312 through the end of FY 23-24, which includes a 5% price increase projection for FY 23-24. Video production services are an imperative part of the City's marketing and advertising efforts as they allow the City to feature businesses to the public, as well as provide engaging visual content for the community. Windsong's services are used for the Made in Ontario series, and annual State of the City video. In addition, Windsong is used to film City events including Route 66 Cruising Reunion, Holiday Tree Lighting Ceremony and the Fourth of July Parade, among others.
38 Department: Economic Development
Prepared By: Peter Pallesen
Staff Member Presenting:

Jennifer McLain Hiramoto, Economic
Development Director
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 5
SUBJECT: A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH RDC-S111, INC. FOR LANDSCAPE,

ARCHITECTURE, AND URBAN DESIGN CONSULTING SERVICES

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
October 18, 2022
SECTION:

CONSENT CALENDAR
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement (on file in the Records Management Department) with RDC-S111, Inc. (a.k.a Studio 111), of Long Beach, California, in the amount of $241,762, for the Planned Unit Development and Mitigated Negative Declaration of West Euclid Avenue in Downtown Ontario.

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Invest in the Growth and Evolution of the City's Economy FISCAL IMPACT: The adopted FY 2022-23 budget includes appropriations in the amount of $222,691 for West Euclid Activation Architect and Engineer Services. An additional appropriation of $19,071 is being requested to cover the total cost of this Professional Services Agreement, bringing the total not-to-exceed amount to $241,762.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS: As the City continues to place a strong focus on the revitalization of Downtown Ontario, Staff seeks to hire a consultant to prepare a Planned Unit Development ("PUD") for the west side of Euclid Avenue. This project area will encompass the westside area of Downtown, running from E Street to Holt Boulevard and extend from Euclid Avenue to Palm Avenue. The PUD will provide development and design standards including open space, building setbacks, parking, street circulation, solid waste handling, and California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") guidelines, among other goals, that will in turn streamline future development and lower the barrier of entry for future investment in the Downtown.

Currently, a Developer or interested investor is required to go through an extensive entitlement process that not only takes valuable time, but increases the cost of the final project, therefore deterring these much-needed investments from occurring. The City currently owns four properties located within the PUD project area. For these properties, the City is interested in repositioning and is looking to partner with the private sector. At present, each Developer is required to individually go through this costly and time-consuming process to permit a more intensive development, such as a mixed-use residential project. The identified solution to this is the PUD. This will allow 39 Developers to more efficiently move through the permitting process, resulting in a lower cost to the Developer and quicker turn-around time for the end project. Ultimately, the PUD will positively impact the City's ability to attract new investment and development into Downtown Ontario, furthering the City's efforts to revitalize the area into a bustling and vibrant center for our residents and visitors.

RDC-S111, Inc., also known as Studio 111, has been engaged by the City as a sole source to prepare the PUD, as well as a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Studio 111 was retained to develop a targeted revitalization strategy for repositioning three City-owned properties on the west side of Euclid Avenue in Downtown Ontario, as well as develop a broader strategy for attracting new investment to Downtown. Due to their extensive and specific knowledge of Downtown, as well as experience in adaptive reuse projects, urban planning, and Downtown revitalization strategies, Staff has determined that any rebidding of the design services would be inefficient. As a result, Staff recommends approval of a Professional Services Agreement for the preparation of the PUD. 40 Department: Economic Development
Prepared By: Peter Pallesen
Staff Member Presenting:

Jennifer McLain Hiramoto, Economic
Development Director
Approved By:

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
October 18, 2022
SECTION:

CONSENT CALENDAR
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

A. Consider and Approve the Adoption of the Downtown Ontario Retail Pop-Up Program; and B. Authorize the City Manager to make any necessary adjustments and execute all necessary documents to implement the Program.

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: This proposed Program will have a fiscal impact to the General Fund in the amount of approximately $380 per month or $4,560, for a maximum of 12 months. These monthly costs will cover Wi-Fi and general utility services. The anticipated City revenues related to this pilot program are estimated to be minimal. Revenue sources include Business License fees for applicants, approximately $55 - $60 per license.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS: The City of Ontario, in its continuing effort to support the revitalization of the Historic Downtown Area, has created the Downtown Ontario Retail Pop-Up Program ("Program"). The Program is intended to provide entrepreneurs and small businesses the opportunity to pilot their unique retail business through a low-risk, and low-cost option. The City will utilize two city-owned commercial suites; located at 137 and 141 N Euclid Avenue as locations for these "pop-up merchants" to open their first brick-and-mortar store. Additional units may be utilized in the future.

Through a competitive application process, selected applicants will be afforded the opportunity to utilize one of these commercial suites for a maximum of six months. The retail units would be leased for a reduced rate of $1.00 per month. In exchange for free utilities, a Wi-Fi hot spot, and discounted rent, the City will require pop-up merchants to meet certain measures, including but not limited to sales, hours of operation, and social media impressions. Economic Development Staff will 41 provide technical support in obtaining all permits and provide marketing assistance.

The advantage of the Program to the City is that these tenants will help deter vandalism and bring life to vacant units in Downtown Ontario. The goal of the Program is to bring new businesses into the City and promote additional investment in Downtown.

In order to proceed with the implementation of the Program, Program guidelines need to be adopted by the City Council. The Program guidelines (Attachment A) contain the details of the eligibility requirements, amount and type of assistance offered, and tenant responsibilities. Staff is requesting that the City Council adopt the Downtown Ontario Retail Pop-Up Program Guidelines (Attachment A). Once approved, the Program will be advertised, and interested applicants may find the application on the Ontario Economic Development website to apply. 42 GENERAL OVERVIEW
The City of Ontario (City) is seeking qualified retailers to participate in a pilot retail pop-up program. Qualified applicants will be offered short-term rentals of Cityowned commercial tenant space in Downtown Ontario. Selected businesses will receive free rent for a term of up to six months. The City is looking for retailers to bring creative and innovative businesses to Downtown Ontario that will complement the City’s Downtown Ontario Activation Strategy.

The first round for the application period will open on October 19, 2022 and will close on November 4, 2022. Applicants will be selected based upon the following:
o Availability of requested space;
o Responsiveness of the proposal;
o Demonstrated ability to adhere to the guidelines and requirements set forth in this document; and,
o Ability to advance the goals of the City’s Downtown Ontario Activation Strategy.

The Downtown Ontario Retail Pop-Up Program will support small businesses looking to grow into a brick-and-mortar store within the next 1-2 years. Disclaimer:
at any time, the City reserves the right to cancel the program and terminate Right of Entry permits.

The City is seeking a mix of creative and innovative businesses which are interested in testing out their concepts and new products. The City is targeting specific types of retail businesses, as detailed below:
o Business and Use Preferences:
 Artisanal uses:
 Specialty food or retail: i.e., cheese shops, olive oil, soap, jewelry, clothing, etc.
 Businesses not eligible include, but not limited to:
 Nightclubs, banquet halls, salons/barbershops, liquor stores, etc.
43  Participating pop-ups will be required to:
o Provide proof of general liability insurance matching the City of Ontario requirements;
o Apply for any permits needed to operate in the City of Ontario, including, but not limited to, a Business License, San Bernardino County Health Permit, ABC License;
o Make a refundable deposit in the amount of $1/square foot, estimated between $1,000 - $2,000.
o Sign a release of liability waiver; and
o Sign a Right of Entry permit for the term (1 to 6 months). The City, at their sole discretion, may determine an option to extend the term.  Operating hours will vary from business to business. Economic Development staff will work with business owners to identify the best operating hours for their business.
 Retail units would be leased for a minimum reduced rate of $1.00/month.

In exchange for free utilities and a Wi-Fi hot spot for internet access, the City will require pop-up merchants to meet certain measures, including but not limited to, sales, hours open, and social media impressions.  Retail units would be provided in “as is” condition. Businesses must provide their own furniture, office equipment, and décor.
 Economic Development staff will provide technical support in obtaining all permits, some marketing assistance, and introductions to the Downtown Ontario Improvement Association (DOIA).

Tenant Responsibilities
 Sign a right of entry permit, pay rent ($1/month), vacate the unit at the end of the agreement, and restore the unit to its original condition.  Provide required liability insurance as stipulated in the right of entry permit.  Provide required City and any other applicable permits/licenses.  Provide all furniture, fixtures, and equipment needed for space.  Provide a creative storefront displace and temporary window signage (City’s Economic Development and Planning staff will provide guidance)  Open and operate the pop-up during the days and hours specified in the right of entry permit.
 Conduct marketing activities to promote your pop-up.
 Supply any necessary staffing (Economic Development staff can assist with connecting you to workforce services).
44  Make the required refundable security deposit.

City of Ontario Responsibilities:
 City will pay utilities (electricity, gas, water, and trash) and provide a Wi-Fi hot spot for each property during the activation period.

PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
The Downtown Ontario Retail Pop-Up Program is looking for unique businesses and entrepreneurs that have a desire to test to their products or services, with a longterm goal of opening their own brick-and-mortar. Selected businesses will be invited to showcase their products and/or offerings in a retail space that will provide an opportunity to sell their products/services and test the local market for a limited time.

Deadline: If you wish to participate in the first round of the Downtown Ontario Retail Pop-Up Program, please submit your application to Peter Pallesen no later than November 4, 2022.

A selection committee consisting of Economic Development staff will review and evaluate proposals using the following criteria:
 Unique and well-crafted products, items, or services that complement the City’s Downtown Activation Strategy;
 Applicant’s previous experience in operating retail pop-ups, events, or service industry; and
 A well thought out marketing and business plan.

QUESTIONS? Please contact Peter Pallesen at (909) 395-2333 or [email protected]
45 Downtown Ontario Retail Pop-Up Program Application
Date: __/__/____
APPLICANT NAME:

Name of Business:

Contact Person (if different from applicant):

Email: Phone:

Business Website (if available): __________
Business Social Media Accounts
Instagram: @___________ Facebook: _____________
Twitter: @_____________ Tik-Tok: ______________
Please provide an accurate and concise description of your pop-up concept. Please include the following details: (1) Business name, (2) primary product or service to intent to sell or offer, (3) price range of your product(s) or service(s), (4) any experience operating a retail pop-up or working in the retailed retail/service industry, (5) operating hours, and (6) your marketing plan and how you intend to promote your pop-up (attach additional pages if needed).

Preferred space: ___ 137 N Euclid Ave. ____ 141 N Euclid Ave.

List any special permits, licenses, or equipment you will need to operate your pop-up:
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
Signature of Applicant Date
46 Department: Engineering
Prepared By: Francisco Herrera
Staff Member Presenting:

Scott Murphy, Executive Director Community
Development
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 7
SUBJECT: A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEMS AT CAMPUS

AVENUE AT FRANCIS STREET AND CAMPUS AVENUE AT WALNUT STREET

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
October 18, 2022
SECTION:

CONSENT CALENDAR
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council award a construction contract (on file in the Records Management Department) with KDC Inc. of Los Alamitos, California, for the construction of traffic signal systems at Campus Avenue at Francis Street and Campus Avenue at Walnut Street (Project) in the amount of $1,367,397 and authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute said contract and all related documents, and file a notice of completion at the conclusion of construction activities.

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Maintain the Current High Level of Public Safety
Focus Resources in Ontario's Commercial and Residential Neighborhoods Invest in the City's Infrastructure (Water, Streets, Sewers, Parks, Storm Drains and Public Facilities)
FISCAL IMPACT: The Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Adopted Budget includes appropriations for the construction of traffic signal systems at Campus Avenue at Walnut Street and Campus Avenue at Francis Street in the amount of $800,000 from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA-SB1). The total recommended expenditure authorization for KDC Inc. consists of $1,243,088 plus a ten percent (10%) contingency of $124,309, for a total of $1,367,397. The additional $567,397 will be funded from Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account fund. Upon approval, the additional appropriations from Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account will be included in the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 First Quarter Budget Update.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS: The scope of services for the project consists of, but is not limited to, the construction of traffic signal poles, foundations, conductors, conduits, signing & striping, and traffic signal & communication equipment as necessary to complete the installation of traffic signals at the two intersections. The project will improve overall pedestrian access, vehicular circulation and provide a higher level of traffic control.

In August 2022, the City solicited bids for the project and 8 bids were received. The following is a 47 summary of the bid results:

COMPANY LOCATION AMOUNT
KDC Inc. Los Alamitos, CA $1,243,088
Elencor Belco Inc. Chino, CA $1,256,240
California Professional Engineering Inc. La Puente, CA $1,380,344 Crosstown Electrical & Data Irwindale, CA $1,308,765
Calpromax Engineering Inc. Placentia, CA $1,419,170
Comet Electric Inc. Chatsworth, CA $1,429,251
Servitec Electric Inc. Walnut, CA $1,612,756
DBX Inc. Temecula, CA $1,853,417
KDC Inc. submitted the lowest responsive bid and has previously performed similar work for the City of Ontario in a satisfactory manner.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: The environmental impacts of this project were reviewed and Staff determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to section 15301 (Class 1, Existing Facilities) of the California Environmental Quality Act, whereas the project consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of lead agency's determination; Section 15302(c) (Class 2, Replacement or Reconstruction) of the California Environmental Quality Act, whereas the project consists of replacement or reconstruction of existing utility systems and/or facilities involving negligible or no expansion of capacity; and, Section 15303 (Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the California Environmental Quality Act, whereas the project consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; and installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures. 48 Department: Financial Services
Prepared By: Doreen Nunes
Staff Member Presenting:

Armen Harkalyan, Executive Director of Finance
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 8
SUBJECT: AN AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH M JACK

BROOKS, JD FOR FINANCIAL CONSULTING SERVICES

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
October 18, 2022
SECTION:

CONSENT CALENDAR
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 6 adding $120,000 to the Professional Services Agreement (on file in the Records Management Department) with M Jack Brooks, JD, of Costa Mesa, California, for the provision of financial consulting services, for a revised contract authority of a not-to-exceed amount of $945,000 and term extension to June 30, 2023.

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Operate in a Businesslike Manner
FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed amendment increases the total authorized contract amount from $825,000 to $945,000. Appropriations for the increased contractual amount of $120,000 will be included in the Fiscal Year 2022-23 First Quarter Budget Update as part of the capital improvement program carryforward in the Information Technology Fund for these services.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS: Over the last few years, the City of Ontario's Financial Services Agency has experienced some challenges including departure of key finance personnel, new leadership direction, and reorganization of the Agency. In addition, the Agency recently implemented a new financial system, as well as a new centralized cashiering system, that went live on July 1, 2022.

Currently, Financial Services staff is involved with design and configuration of phase 2 of the financial system project; phase 2 includes the budget, inventory, and customer contracts modules.

Also, Staff is continuing to assist with the impacts of post "go live" issues such as system updates, streamlining of processes, creation of reports, updating financial policies and procedures, and the development of a citywide finance 101 training program. This all has resulted in the need to contract for professional financial consulting services to ensure the City's financial activities continue to operative effectively and efficiently, and the on-going post go live developments for phase 1 and the implementation of phase 2 of the financial system project are successful. Since April 2019, the City has contracted M Jack Brooks, JD to provide these services; however, the contract has exhausted its original limits of compensation and time of performance. For continuity in providing effective and efficient financial services to the City, an increase to the contract authority amount and an extension of their services is recommended. 49 Department: Financial Services
Prepared By: William B Quan
Staff Member Presenting:

Armen Harkalyan, Executive Director of Finance
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 9
SUBJECT: ESTABLISHING A BANK ACCOUNT FOR THE ONTARIO HOUSING AUTHORITY

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
October 18, 2022
SECTION:

CONSENT CALENDAR
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council ("City") and the Board of the Ontario Housing Authority ("Authority") authorize the establishment of a bank account with the City's current operating bank.

The bank account will be in the name of the Ontario Housing Authority.

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Operate in a Businesslike Manner
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no direct fiscal impact associated with establishing a bank account for the Ontario Housing Authority.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS: The City's current bank requires that a separate bank account be established for each tax identification number to make deposits. The Ontario Housing Authority and the City of Ontario have separate tax identification numbers. In order to accept payments via checks, money orders, ACH, and wires that are payable to the Ontario Housing Authority, the bank account name must be the Ontario Housing Authority. The funds that are deposited into this new bank account will then be transferred to the City's operating bank account. The designated bank account signers will be the same as the City's operating bank signers. The recommendation is for City Council to authorize the establishment of a new bank account named the Ontario Housing Authority. City Treasurer, Jim Milhiser concurs with this recommendation. 50 Department: Information Technology
Prepared By: Samantha Robles
Staff Member Presenting:

Colin Fernandes, Executive Director Information
Technology
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 10
SUBJECT: AN AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH COLLABORATIVE SOLUTIONS, LLC.

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
October 18, 2022
SECTION:

CONSENT CALENDAR
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute an Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement (on file with the Records Management Department) with Collaborative Solutions, LLC., of Reston, Virginia, to include additional consulting services to incorporate Workday Financials On-Demand Services Support in the amount of $118,800 plus a 10% contingency of $11,880, for a revised not-to-exceed the amount of $3,978,587.

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Operate in a Businesslike Manner
FISCAL IMPACT: The Fiscal Year 2022-23 Adopted Budget includes appropriations from the Information Technology Fund for consulting services. The proposed Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement increases the authorized contract amount by $130,680, which includes a 10% contingency amount of $11,880, if needed, with a total contract not-to-exceed amount of $3,978,587 and extends the Agreement through September 30, 2023. If approved, appropriations will be added to the future years’ budgets consistent with the annual adoption process.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS: The consulting firm Collaborative Solutions, LLC has provided the City with on-demand support services for Workday Human Capital Management (HCM) for over four years and was also the City's implementation partner for Workday Finance Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system.

On June 1, 2018, the original contract amount was $92,160 and included on-demand support services for Workday HCM. On March 10, 2020, the City approved Amendment No. 1 to this Agreement to increase the amount from $92,160 to $100,000 for additional on-demand support services for Workday HCM. On May 1, 2020, the City approved Amendment No. 2 to this Agreement to increase the amount from $100,000 to $400,000 and extend the terms for three years to support our Workday HCM. On July 7, 2020, based on the bid awarded to Workday and Collaborative for the implementation of a new ERP system, the City approved Amendment No. 3 to this Agreement to 51 increase the amount from $400,000 to $2,650,298 to expand the scope of work to include consulting services related to the implementation of the new Workday Finance ERP system. On August 17, 2022, the City approved Amendment No. 4 to this Agreement to increase the amount from $2,650,298 to $3,847,907 to expand the scope to include additional consulting services related to the implementation of the new Workday Finance (ERP) system.

As the Workday Financials module transitions from implementation to production utilization, Collaborative will provide the City of Ontario with ongoing full-suite Workday support and configuration services by leveraging their deep understanding of the City's Human Resources and Finance configuration and business rules, government experience, and Workday's technology, ensuring proper execution of short-term requirements and long-term growth and flexibility. Staff requests City Council approval to extend the Agreement to September 2023 with a not-to-exceed amount of $3,978,587.
52 Department: Planning
Prepared By: Alexis Vaughn
Department: Planning
Prepared By: Edmelynne V Hutter
Staff Member Presenting:

Scott Murphy, Executive Director Community
Development
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 11
SUBJECT: AN ORDINANCE APPROVING FILE NO. PZC19-001, A ZONE CHANGE AT 1063 EAST

ELMA STREET

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
October 18, 2022
SECTION:

CONSENT CALENDAR
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council consider and adopt an Ordinance approving File No.

PZC19-001, a Zone Change amending the zoning designation on 0.07-acres of land from MDR-11 (Low-Medium Density Residential - 5.11 to 11.0 du/ac) to MDR-18 (Medium Density Residential -

11.1 to 18.0 du/ac), for property located at 1063 East Elma Street.

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Operate in a Businesslike Manner
Focus Resources in Ontario's Commercial and Residential Neighborhoods FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed Zone Change would facilitate the future construction of five multiple-family residential units. This subsequent Development would result in the one-time collection of Building plan check and permitting fees, development impact fees, as well as on-going increased property tax.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS: On September 20, 2022 the City Council introduced and waived further reading of an ordinance approving the Zone Change. The Applicant is requesting the approval of a Zone Change, amending the zoning designation on a 0.07-acre parcel of land from MDR-11 (Low-Medium Density Residential – 5.1 to 11.0 du/ac) to MDR-18 (Medium Density Residential – 11.1 to 18.0 du/ac). It is the intent of the Applicant to merge, by Lot Line Adjustment, the subject site with the neighboring 0.21-acre property to the west, to create a 0.28-acre project site. The Zone Change will facilitate the Development Plan (File No. PDEV19-028) approval of a 6,649-square-foot apartment building consisting of five residential units with enclosed garages. The proposed development will replace an existing 1,880-square-foot, three-unit apartment building that was likely constructed in or near 1948. The existing building is not considered a historic resource. In conjunction with the Development Plan, a Variance (File No. PVAR19-004) is necessary to increase the maximum allowable percentage of tandem parking spaces from 12 percent (one tandem space) to 23 percent (three tandem spaces). This will allow for the requisite number of 53 covered parking stalls to be provided for the Project.

The proposed Zone Change is in the interest of good planning practice as it will:

Bring the entire project site’s zoning into conformance with The Ontario Plan 2050 General Plan Update (File No. PGPA20-002), which changed the site’s Policy Plan land use designation from LMDR (Low-Medium Density Residential) to MDR (Medium Density Residential); Make zoning designation of the smaller subject parcel consistent with the zoning designation of the majority of the project site; and
Allow for the development of five multiple-family dwelling units on the overall 0.28-acre Project site.

On August 23, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the Zone Change, along with the Development Plan and Variance, and unanimously voted (6-0) to recommend approval of the Zone Change. Additionally, the Development Plan and Variance were approved, subject to the City Council’s approval of the Zone Change.

HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE: The project is consistent with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan (General Plan) component of The Ontario Plan, as the project site is not one of the properties in the Available Land Inventory contained in Table A-3 (Available Land by Planning Area) of the Housing Element Technical Report Appendix.

The City's "Guidelines for the Implementation of 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. The previously adopted mitigation measures will be a condition of subsequent Development Plan approval.
54 Case Planner: Alexis Vaughn Hearing Body Date Decision Action Planning Director
Approval:

DAB 08/15/22 Approval Recommend
PC 08/23/22 Final
Submittal Date: 05/14/2019 CC 09/20/22
FILE NOS.: PZC19-001, PVAR19-004, and PDEV19-028
SUBJECT: A Zone Change (File No. PZC19-001) amending the zoning designation on 0.07- acre of land from MDR-11 (Low-Medium Density Residential – 5.1 to 11.0 du/ac) to MDR18 (Medium Density Residential – 11.1 to 18.0 du/ac), to enable development of a 0.28- acre project site, in conjunction with a Variance to deviate from the maximum Development Code standard for percentage of tandem parking spaces, from 12 percent to 23 percent, and a Development Plan (File No. PDEV19-028) to construct five multiple-family residential units located at 1063 East Elma Street, within the MDR-18 (Medium Density Residential – 11.1 to 18.0 du/ac) zoning district (APNs: 1048-461-17 and 1048-491-23); submitted by Maria G. Oseguera. City Council action is required for File No.

PZC19-001.

PROPERTY OWNER: Maria G. Oseguera
RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the Planning Commission consider and approve File Nos.

PDEV19-028 and PVAR19-004, and consider and recommend to the City Council for approval File No. PZC19-001, pursuant to the facts and reasons contained in the staff report and attached resolutions, and subject to the conditions of approval contained in the attached departmental reports.

PROJECT SETTING: The
Project site is comprised
of 0.28-acre of land
located at 1063 East Elma
Street, within the MDR-11
(Low-Medium Density
Residential – 5.1 to 11.0
du/ac) and MDR-18
(Medium Density
Residential – 11.1 to 18.0
du/ac) zoning districts,
and is depicted in Figure
1: Project Location. The
site is currently
developed with a three- Figure 1: Project Location
303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764 Phone: 909.395.2036 / Fax: 909.395.2420

PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT
August 23, 2022
Approval
ZC - Final
55 Planning Commission Staff Report
File Nos.: PZC19-001, PVAR19-004, and PDEV19-028
August 23, 2022

Page 2 of 21 ends

unit multiple-family residence, which will be razed to accommodate the development of the Project site.

The land use surrounding the Project site is residential and includes a mix of single-family and multiple-family dwellings. The land to the north of the Project site is zoned LDR-5 (LowDensity Residential – 2.1 to 5.0 du/ac), the land to the east is zoned MDR-18, the land to the west is zoned MDR-11, and the land to the south is a mix of both MDR-11 and MDR-18 zoning districts. The existing surrounding land uses, zoning, and general plan and specific plan land use designations are summarized in the “Surrounding Zoning & Land Uses” table located in the Technical Appendix of this report.

PROJECT ANALYSIS:
(1) Background — The Applicant is requesting to construct a 6,649-square-foot apartment building, consisting of five residential units with enclosed garages, as well as a detached trash enclosure and recreational patio with trellis. A Variance is being processed in conjunction with the Development Plan to increase the maximum allowable percentage of tandem parking spaces (refer to Development Code Section

6.03.025.C.3), from 12 percent to 23 percent, which will allow for the requisite covered parking stalls to be provided for the Project. The Project site currently consists of two parcels, and the applicant will file a Lot Line Adjustment to create one contiguous Project site.

In order to facilitate the Project, a Zone Change (File No. PZC19-001) has also been requested for the smaller, 0.07-acre parcel, from MDR-11 (Low-Medium Density Residential – 5.1 to 11.0 du/ac) to MDR-18 (Medium Density Residential – 11.1 to 18.0 du/ac). The Zone Change is reviewed by the Planning Commission for recommendation to the City Council and will:
 Bring the full Project site’s zoning into conformance with The Ontario Plan 2050 General Plan Update (File No. PGPA20-002, which changed the site’s Policy Plan land use designation from LMDR (Low-Medium Density Residential) to MDR (Medium Density Residential));
 Make the smaller parcel consistent with the zoning designation of the remainder of the Project site; and
 Allow for the development of five dwelling units on the overall 0.28-acre Project site.

While the existing residential structure does not have a building permit on file, it is likely it was constructed in or near 1948, based on the Building Department’s permit history records. The building is not considered a historic resource.

On August 15, 2022, the Development Advisory Board conducted a hearing to consider the Variance and the Development Plan, and concluded the hearing on that date, and 56 Planning Commission Staff Report
File Nos.: PZC19-001, PVAR19-004, and PDEV19-028
August 23, 2022

Page 3 of 21 ends

unanimously voted to recommend that the Planning Commission approve the Applications.
(2) Zone Change (File No. PZC19-001) — The westerly portion of the Project site is a

0.07-acre parcel making up approximately one quarter of the overall Project area and is currently zoned MDR-11 (Medium-Density Residential – 5.1 to 11.0 du/ac). The westerly parcel is 23.6 feet wide and unbuildable as a stand-alone parcel. As such, the applicant filed a Zone Change request to rezone this parcel to be consistent with the main Project parcel, which is zoned MDR-18 (Medium-Density Residential – 11.1 to 18.0 du/ac, and the current underlying TOP land use designation (Medium Density Residential (11.1-25 du/ac)). Once the Zone Change is approved, the Applicant will submit a Lot Line Adjustment application to merge the Project site into one parcel. As conditioned, Project approval is contingent on City Council approval of the Zone Change application. (3) Variance (File No. PVAR19-004) — The Applicant is requesting approval of a Variance to exceed the maximum allowable percentage of tandem parking spaces within a multiple-family residential project, from 12 percent to 23 percent. The Project site’s dimensions, in combination with an unbuildable sewer easement, and surrounding existing one-story development, impose substantial limitations on development that would preclude the Project from attaining the maximum percent of tandem parking spaces allowed, while at the same time providing the required landscaping and recreation improvements, meeting building setbacks and drive aisle dimensions, meeting the minimum density requirement, and limiting potential impacts to the surrounding neighborhood, such as excessive building height, in a neighborhood consisting of predominantly one- and two-story structures.

Staff believes that the Variance request is consistent with TOP Goal LU3, which promotes flexibility in order to respond to special conditions and circumstances in order to achieve the Vision. The Variance request to increase the number of tandem parking spaces, each pair of which have been conditioned to be assigned to a single dwelling unit, will result in a superior development that will achieve the following:
 Allow for the residential building, accessory buildings, outdoor parking stalls, and central drive aisle to meet all current Development Code standards.  Allow for the required landscape improvements to be provided.  Allow for the installation of a recreational area for the Project’s residents.  Prevent the building from increasing in height to three or more stories, which could negatively impact the predominantly one- and two-story neighborhood.  Allow for first-floor dwelling units that provide an additional option for residents who may require accessibility accommodations.

In acting on a Variance request, the Planning Commission must consider and clearly establish certain findings of fact, which are prescribed by State law and the City’s Development Code. The facts and findings have been provided in the attached 57 Planning Commission Staff Report
File Nos.: PZC19-001, PVAR19-004, and PDEV19-028
August 23, 2022

Page 4 of 21 ends

resolution for Variance File No. PVAR19-004, as basis for approval of the requested Variance.
(4) Development Plan (File No. PDEV19-028)
(a) Site Design/Building Layout — The Project site currently consists of two parcels, the smaller of which is generally undevelopable as a stand-alone lot due to the lot’s narrow width (approximately 23.6 feet). As conditioned, the Applicant will pursue a Lot Line Adjustment to incorporate the smaller lot into the Project site to allow for more flexibility in development of the site. The apartment building will be sited along the eastern portion of the Project site and the ancillary recreational facility, outdoor parking, and trash enclosure will be sited along the western portion of the Project site. The access drive will occupy the center of the Project site and allow for vehicular access to the enclosed and unenclosed parking spaces. Pedestrian access to the site will be provided via a walkway that connects from the apartment building to the public sidewalk (see Exhibit B—Site Plan). The current residential building and ancillary structures will be demolished to accommodate construction of the proposed Project.

The two dwelling units on the first floor will have a private, enclosed patio between the building and the eastern property line. The three dwelling units on the second floor will each have a private balcony, also facing east. Two exterior stairwells provide access to the second-floor units and are located along the northern and southern ends of the building. One one-bedroom and four two-bedroom units will be provided, ranging from approximately 500 to 1,140 square feet in area (see Exhibit D—Floor Plans). (b) Site Access/Circulation — The apartment complex will be served by one centrally-located vehicular drive aisle. Enclosed garages for each unit will be situated at ground level and accessed by the drive aisle. Additional open parking spaces will be provided opposite the garages.
(c) Parking — The Development Code requires multiple-family residential land uses to provide 1.75 parking spaces for each one-bedroom dwelling, including one space in a garage or carport, and 2.0 spaces for each two-bedroom dwelling, including one space in a garage or carport, in addition to guest parking spaces at the rate of 0.25 space for each dwelling. The Development Code thus requires 13 on-site parking spaces, and 13 spaces have been provided, as demonstrated in Figure 2: Parking Table, below.

Figure 2: Parking Table
Type of Use No.

Dwellings Parking Ratio SpacesRequired
Spaces
Provided
One-Bedroom Unit 1 1.75 parking spaces, including
one space in a garage or carport 1.75 2
Two-Bedroom Unit 4 2.0 parking spaces, including one
space in a garage or carport 8 8
58 Planning Commission Staff Report
File Nos.: PZC19-001, PVAR19-004, and PDEV19-028
August 23, 2022

Page 5 of 21 ends

Guest Parking 0.25 spaces per dwelling
(minimum 3 spaces) 3 3
TOTAL 5 13 13
Garage spaces have been provided with a 60 to 65-square-foot storage area, having an approximate volume of 480 to 520 cubic feet. A minimum of 240 cubic feet of storage area is required by the Development Code.

The Development Code limits the amount of tandem parking for a multiple-familydwelling project to 12 percent of the required parking. Given the development constraints on the site, the applicant filed for a Variance to increase the percentage of tandem spaces from 12 to 23 percent. Two units will have one enclosed garage space and one outdoor parking space, and three units will have two enclosed garage spaces in a tandem configuration. The Project has been conditioned such that tandem parking spaces within an enclosed garage will be assigned to one dwelling unit. Further, the project has been conditioned such that the storage of personal items may occur in a garage only to the extent that such storage does not impede vehicle parking nor reduce the number or required minimum size of the required garage space; and, no dwelling or home occupation activities shall be allowed to occur within the garage spaces, which will serve to ensure that adequate on-site parking remains in place. (d) Architecture — The proposed building has a contemporary architectural design with Spanish influences, using arches as a key element (see Exhibit C—Exterior Elevations). The exterior walls will be treated with white stucco and furnished with wood outlookers, shutters, gable end detailing, wrought-iron elements, decorative Spanish-style arched garage and front doors, and enhanced window trim. Spanish roof tile will be provided, in addition to a decorative wrought-iron porch and arcade railing. The second floor’s private balconies will feature an open trellis to provide partial shade. Additional screening will be provided for any outdoor mechanical equipment.

A small recreational facility has been proposed to the rear of the lot, at the northwest corner of the Project site. The facility will be comprised of a picnic area with overhead trellis and decorative chimney feature, as well as a small lawn area and dog run. (e) Landscaping — The Project provides landscaping improvements throughout the site, including areas along the building frontage and perimeter of the property (See Exhibit E—Conceptual Landscape Plan). For multiple-family residential projects, the Development Code requires all areas not occupied by buildings and hardscape, such as sidewalks or parking stalls, to be fully landscaped. The Project proposes a total of 3,290 square feet of landscaped areas (26.4 percent of the Project site), and will utilize a variety of trees, shrubs, vines, and groundcovers such as Valley Oak, Brisbane Box, Mexican Redbud, Crape Myrtle, True Green Elm, Dwarf Strawberry Tree, Southern Moon Hawthorn, Parry’s Agave, Flax Lily, Cleveland Sage, Creeping Fig, Dymondia, and St. Augustine Grass.
59 Planning Commission Staff Report
File Nos.: PZC19-001, PVAR19-004, and PDEV19-028
August 23, 2022

Page 6 of 21 ends

The front setback will be fully landscaped, as will a small greenspace area toward the northeast corner of the Project site. Additionally, a small lawn will be provided next to the picnic area. Beyond the picnic area, the applicant has proposed a small dog run, as no major plantings or structures may occupy this area due to a sewer easement. (f) Signage — All signage and addressing for the site will need to meet Development Code, Building Code, and Municipal Code standards and will be reviewed in the Plan Check process.
(g) Utilities (drainage, sewer) — Public utilities (water and sewer) are available to serve the Project. Furthermore, the Applicant has submitted a Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (“PWQMP”) which establishes the Project’s compliance with storm water discharge/water quality requirements. The PWQMP includes site design measures that capture runoff and pollutant transport by minimizing impervious surfaces and maximizes low impact development (“LID”) best management practices (“BMPs”), such as retention and infiltration. The proposed development will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern.

A sewer easement exists to the rear of the Project site, which impacts placement of substantial landscaping and does not permit the construction of permanent features or wall footings. The main area impacted by this easement is the northwest corner of the Project site. As such, simple plantings and a moveable wrought iron fence have been proposed for this area to accommodate the easement.
(5) Senate Bill 18 (SB-18) — At the time of project submittal, a General Plan Amendment was attributed to the file, which was later absorbed by The Ontario Plan 2050 Update, approved by the City Council on August 16, 2022. Tribal notification was required for the project pursuant to the requirements of SB-18, which requires cities and counties to consult with Native American tribes when adopting and amending general plans and specific plans. Staff received responses from two Tribes:
 The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI) stated that the Project site is located outside of their ancestral territory and as such no consultation would be required.
 The Morongo Band of Mission Indians stated that the area is located within the Tribe’s aboriginal territory and requested to be provided future notices but declined to initiate a consultation.

Pursuant to SB-18, staff provided The Morongo Band of Mission Indians with notification of the Planning Commission public hearing a minimum of ten days prior to the hearing. (6) Code Enforcement Case — The Project site has an active Community Improvement (previously Code Enforcement) case for several issues. Since the Applicant has been actively pursuing redevelopment of the site, the Community Improvement 60 Planning Commission Staff Report
File Nos.: PZC19-001, PVAR19-004, and PDEV19-028
August 23, 2022

Page 7 of 21 ends

Department has granted deadline extensions for code compliance improvements and actions, which will be eliminated with redevelopment and construction activities.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE ONTARIO PLAN: The proposed project is consistent with the principles, goals and policies contained within the Vision, Governance, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan (TOP). More specifically, the goals and policies of TOP that are furthered by the proposed project are as follows:
(1) City Council Goals.
 Operate in a Businesslike Manner
 Focus Resources in Ontario’s Commercial and Residential Neighborhoods (2) Vision.

Distinctive Development:
 Commercial and Residential Development
 Development quality that is broadly recognized as distinctive and not exclusively tied to the general suburban character typical of much of Southern California. (3) Governance.

Decision Making:
 Goal G1: Sustained decision-making that consistently moves Ontario towards its Vision by using The Ontario Plan as a framework for assessing choices.  G1-2 Long-term Benefit. We require decisions to demonstrate and document how they add value to the community and support the Ontario Vision (4) Policy Plan (General Plan)
Land Use Element:
 Goal LU1: A community that has a spectrum of housing types and price ranges that match the jobs in the City and that make it possible for people to live and work in Ontario and maintain a quality of life.
 LU1-6 Complete Community: We incorporate a variety of land uses and building types in our land use planning efforts that result in a complete community where residents at all stages of life, employers, workers and visitors have a wide spectrum of 61 Planning Commission Staff Report
File Nos.: PZC19-001, PVAR19-004, and PDEV19-028
August 23, 2022

Page 8 of 21 ends

choices of where they can live, work, shop and recreate within Ontario. (Refer to Complete Community Section of Community Economics Element).  Goal LU2: Compatibility between a wide range of uses.

Housing Element:
 Goal H2: Diversity of types of quality housing that are affordable to a range of household income levels, accommodate changing demographics, and support and reinforce the economic sustainability of Ontario.
 H2-5 Housing Design. We require architectural excellence through adherence to City design guidelines, thoughtful site planning, environmentally sustainable practices and other best practices.

Goal H5: A full range of housing types and community services that meet the special housing needs for all individuals and families in Ontario, regardless of income level, age or other status.

Community Economics Element:
 Goal CE1: A complete community that provides for all incomes and stages of life.
 CE1-6 Diversity of Housing. We collaborate with residents, housing providers and the development community to provide housing opportunities for every stage of life; we plan for a variety of housing types and price points to support our workforce, attract business and foster a balanced community.
 CE2-1 Development Projects. We require new development and redevelopment to create unique, high-quality places that add value to the community.  CE2-2 Development Review. We require those proposing new development and redevelopment to demonstrate how their projects will create appropriately unique, functional and sustainable places that will compete well with their competition within the region.
 CE2-4 Protection of Investment. We require that new development and redevelopment protect existing investment by providing architecture and urban design of equal or greater quality.
 CE2-5 Private Maintenance. We require adequate maintenance, upkeep, and investment in private property because proper maintenance on private property protects property values.
62 Planning Commission Staff Report
File Nos.: PZC19-001, PVAR19-004, and PDEV19-028
August 23, 2022

Page 9 of 21 ends

Safety Element:
 Goal S1: Minimized risk of injury, loss of life, property damage and economic and social disruption caused by earthquake-induced and other geologic hazards.  S1-1 Implementation of Regulations and Standards. We require that all new habitable structures be designed in accordance with the most recent California Building Code adopted by the City, including provisions regarding lateral forces and grading.

Community Design Element:
 CD1-3 Neighborhood Improvement. We require viable existing residential and non-residential neighborhoods to be preserved, protected, and enhanced in accordance with our land use policies.
 Goal CD2: A high level of design quality resulting in public spaces, streetscapes, and developments that are attractive, safe, functional and distinct.  CD2-1 Quality Architecture. We encourage all development projects to convey visual interest and character through:
• Building volume, massing, and height to provide appropriate scale and proportion; and
• A true architectural style which is carried out in plan, section and elevation through all aspects of the building and site design and appropriate for its setting; and
• Exterior building materials that are visually interesting, high quality, durable, and appropriate for the architectural style.
 CD2-8 Safe Design. We incorporate defensible space design into new and existing developments to ensure the maximum safe travel and visibility on pathways, corridors, and open space and at building entrances and parking areas by avoiding physically and visually isolated spaces, maintenance of visibility and accessibility, and use of lighting.
 CD2-9 Landscape Design. We encourage durable landscaping materials and designs that enhance the aesthetics of structures, create and define public and private spaces, and provide shade and environmental benefits.  CD2-13 Entitlement Process. We work collaboratively with all stakeholders to ensure a high degree of certainty in the efficient review and timely processing of all development plans and permits.
 CD3-3 Building Entrances. We require all building entrances to be accessible and visible from adjacent streets, sidewalks or public open spaces. 63 Planning Commission Staff Report
File Nos.: PZC19-001, PVAR19-004, and PDEV19-028
August 23, 2022

Page 10 of 21 ends

 CD3-5 Paving. We require sidewalks and road surfaces to be of a type and quality that contributes to the appearance and utility of streets and public spaces.  CD3-6 Landscaping. We utilize landscaping to enhance the aesthetics, functionality and sustainability of streetscapes, outdoor spaces and buildings.  Goal CD5: A sustained level of maintenance and improvement of properties, buildings and infrastructure that protects the property values and encourages additional public and private investments.
 CD5-1 Maintenance of Buildings and Property. We require all public and privately owned buildings and property (including trails and easements) to be properly and consistently maintained.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The environmental impacts specific to this project were previously reviewed in conjunction with File No. PGPA20-002, a General Plan update for which an Environmental Impact Report (State Clearing House No. 2021070364) was certified by the City Council on August 16, 2022. This application introduces no new significant environmental impacts. The City's "Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)" provide for the use of a single environmental assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed. The previously adopted mitigation measures shall be a condition of project approval and are incorporated herein by this reference. 64 Planning Commission Staff Report
File Nos.: PZC19-001, PVAR19-004, and PDEV19-028
August 23, 2022

Page 11 of 21 ends

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: See attached department reports. 65 Planning Commission Staff Report
File Nos.: PZC19-001, PVAR19-004, and PDEV19-028
August 23, 2022

Page 12 of 21 ends

TECHNICAL APPENDIX:

Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:

Existing Land Use General Plan
Designation Zoning Designation Specific Plan Land Use
Site: Vacant and singlefamily residential
LMDR (Low-Medium
Density, 5.1-11 du/ac)
and MDR (MediumDensity, 11.1-25 du/ac)
MDR-11 (Medium
Density, 5.1-11 du/ac)
and MDR-18 (MediumDensity, 11.1-18 du/ac)
N/A
North: Single-family residential LDR (Low-Density
Residential, 2.1-5 du/ac)
LDR-5 (Low-Density, 2.1-
5 du/ac)
N/A
South: Multi-family residential
LMDR (Low-Medium
Density, 5.1-11 du/ac)
and MDR (MediumDensity, 11.1-25 du/ac)
MDR-11 (Medium
Density, 5.1-11 du/ac)
and MDR-18 (MediumDensity, 11.1-18 du/ac)
N/A
East: Multi-family residential MDR (Medium-Density,

11.1-25 du/ac)
MDR-18 (MediumDensity, 11.1-18 du/ac)N/A
West: Single-family residential LMDR (Low-Medium
Density, 5.1-11 du/ac)
MDR-11 (Medium
Density, 5.1-11 du/ac)
N/A
General Site & Building Statistics
Item Required Min./Max. Provided (Ranges) Meets
Y/N
Project area (in acres): 0.23-acre min. 0.28 acres Y
Maximum project density
(dwelling units/ac):

11.1-18 du/ac 18 du/ac Y
Maximum coverage (in %): 60% 27% Y
Front yard setback (in FT): 20 FT 20FT Y
Side yard setback (in FT): 5 10 Y
Rear yard setback (in FT): 5 10 Y
Parking setback (in FT): 5 FT (interior), 10 FT (front) 5 FT (interior), 40 FT (front) Y Maximum height (in FT): 45 FT 26’ Y
Parking – resident: 10 spaces 10 spaces Y
Parking – guest: 3 spaces 3 spaces Y
Open space – private: 200 SF/unit 257.5 SF/unit avg Y
Open space – common: 300 SF/unit 473.4 SF/unit Y
66 Planning Commission Staff Report
File Nos.: PZC19-001, PVAR19-004, and PDEV19-028
August 23, 2022

Page 13 of 21 ends

Dwelling Unit Statistics:

Unit Type Size (in SF) No. Bedrooms No. Bathrooms No. Stories Private Open Space (in SF)
1 500 1 1 1 390
2 1,140 2 1 1 135 - 390
67 Planning Commission Staff Report
File Nos.: PZC19-001, PVAR19-004, and PDEV19-028
August 23, 2022

Page 14 of 21 ends

Exhibit A—PROJECT LOCATION MAP
68 Planning Commission Staff Report
File Nos.: PZC19-001, PVAR19-004, and PDEV19-028
August 23, 2022

Page 15 of 21 ends

Exhibit B—SITE PLAN
69 Planning Commission Staff Report
File Nos.: PZC19-001, PVAR19-004, and PDEV19-028
August 23, 2022

Page 16 of 21 ends

Exhibit C—EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
East and West Elevations
70 Planning Commission Staff Report
File Nos.: PZC19-001, PVAR19-004, and PDEV19-028
August 23, 2022

Page 17 of 21 ends

Exhibit C—EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS (CONTINUED)
North and South Elevations
71 Planning Commission Staff Report
File Nos.: PZC19-001, PVAR19-004, and PDEV19-028
August 23, 2022

Page 18 of 21 ends

Exhibit C—EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS (CONTINUED) – RENDERINGS
Rear Project View: East-Facing and West-Facing Elevations 72 Planning Commission Staff Report
File Nos.: PZC19-001, PVAR19-004, and PDEV19-028
August 23, 2022

Page 19 of 21 ends

Exhibit C—EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS (CONTINUED) – RENDERINGS
Front Project View: West-Facing and East-Facing Elevations 73 Planning Commission Staff Report
File Nos.: PZC19-001, PVAR19-004, and PDEV19-028
August 23, 2022

Page 20 of 21 ends

Exhibit D—FLOOR PLANS
First Floor Second Floor
74 Planning Commission Staff Report
File Nos.: PZC19-001, PVAR19-004, and PDEV19-028
August 23, 2022

Page 21 of 21 ends

Exhibit E—CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
75 RESOLUTION NO. PC22-049

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR FILE NO.

PZC19-001, A ZONE CHANGE AMENDING THE ZONING DESIGNATION ON 0.07-ACRE OF LAND FROM MDR-11 (LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL – 5.1 TO 11.0 DU/AC) TO MDR-18 (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL – 11.1 TO 18.0 DU/AC) TO ENABLE DEVELOPMENT OF A 0.28-ACRE PROJECT SITE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF— APNS: 1048-461-17 AND 1048-491-23.

WHEREAS, MARIA G. OSEGUERA ("Applicant") has filed an Application for a Zone Change, File No. PZC19-001, as described in the title of this Resolution. The term “Project” or “Project parcel” shall refer to the subject Zone Change Application and the referenced 0.07-acre site, and the term “development project” refers to the greater 0.28- acre development project site tied to and inclusive of the Zone Change Application; and WHEREAS, the Application applies to 0.07 acres of land located at 1063 East Elma Street, within the MDR-11 (Medium-Density Residential – 5.1 to 11.0 du/ac) zoning district, and is presently vacant; and
WHEREAS, the Application proposes to modify the zoning district of the Project site, from MDR-11 (Medium Density Residential – 5.1 to 11.0 du/ac) to MDR-18 (Medium Density Residential – 11.1 to 18.0 du/ac); and
WHEREAS, the Application has been filed in conjunction with File Nos. PDEV19- 028 and PVAR19-004, and will facilitate the orderly development of the adjacent approximately 0.21-acre parcel with a five-unit apartment complex; and WHEREAS, the property to the north of the Project site is within the LDR-5 (LowDensity Residential – 2.1 to 5.0 du/ac) zoning district and is developed with single-family homes. The property to the east is within the MDR-18 (Medium Density Residential – 11.1 to 18.0 du/ac) zoning district and is developed with multiple-family dwellings. The property to the south is within the MDR-11 (Medium Density Residential – 5.1 to 11.0 du/ac) zoning district and is developed with multiple-family dwellings. The property to the west is within the MDR-11 (Medium Density Residential – 5.1 to 11.0 du/ac) zoning district and is developed with a single-family dwelling; and
WHEREAS, the Zone Change Project’s parcel is currently unbuildable due to its shallow width. As such, the Applicant has filed for a Zone Change to make the zoning of this parcel consistent with the adjacent 0.21-acre parcel and the underlying TOP Land Use Designation (Medium Density Residential (11.1-25 du/ac) – Exhibit “A” proposed Zone Change included in this Resolution), in order to facilitate a lot line adjustment to create one cohesive developable parcel; and
76 Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PZC19-001
August 23, 2022

Page 2 ends

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 initial study has been prepared to determine possible environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of this Project were previously reviewed in conjunction with File No. PGPA20-002, a General Plan update for which an Environmental Impact Report (State Clearing House No. 2021070364) was certified by the City Council on August 16, 2022. This application introduces no new significant environmental impacts. The City's "Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)" provide for the use of a single environmental assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed. The previously adopted mitigation measures shall be a condition of Project approval, and are incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the City's "Local Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" provide for the use of a single environmental assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed; and
WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the Planning Commission the responsibility and authority to review and make recommendation to the City Council on the subject Application; and WHEREAS, the Project has been reviewed for consistency with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan, 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 (“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
77 Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PZC19-001
August 23, 2022

Page 3 ends

WHEREAS, on August 23, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

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

SECTION 1: Environmental Determination and Findings. As the recommending authority for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the previous Certified EIR and supporting documentation. Based upon the facts and information contained in the previous Certified EIR and supporting documentation, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
(1) The environmental impacts specific to this Project were previously reviewed in conjunction with File No. PGPA20-002, update to the City’s General Plan for which a Certified EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364) was adopted by the City Council on August 16, 2022.
(2) The previous Certified EIR contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project; and (3) The previous Certified EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder; and
(4) The previous Certified EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and
(5) The proposed Project will introduce no new significant environmental impacts beyond those previously analyzed in the previous Certified EIR, and all mitigation measures previously adopted with the Certified EIR, are incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2: Subsequent or Supplemental Environmental Review Not Required. Based on the 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 78 Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PZC19-001
August 23, 2022

Page 4 ends

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 the recommending authority for the Project, the Planning Commission finds that based on the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation, at the time of Project implementation, the Project is consistent with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan (General Plan) component of The Ontario Plan, as the Project site is not one of the properties in the Available Land Inventory contained in Table A-3 (Available Land by Planning Area) of the Housing Element Technical Report Appendix.

SECTION 4: Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (“ALUCP”) Compliance. The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the ALUCP, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport (hereinafter referred to as “ONT”), which encompasses lands 79 Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PZC19-001
August 23, 2022

Page 5 ends

within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. As the recommending authority for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ALUCP Table 2-2) and Safety Zones (ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ALUCP Map 2-4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the 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 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 Section 1 through 4, above, the Planning Commission hereby concludes as follows:
(1) The proposed Zone Change 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. The Project parcel is currently unbuildable, and is not consistent with the goals, policies, plans and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan) and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan. The proposed Zone Change will enable consistency and compatibility with these items, by creating consistency with the underlying The Ontario Plan Policy Plan Land Use Designation (Medium Density Residential, 11.1-25 du/ac), which envisions a variety of well-designed medium-density housing options. Further, the Zone Change will allow for flexible redevelopment of the overall development project site with approval of the related Development Plan (File No. PDEV19-028) and Variance (File No. PVAR19-004) application requests. Without approval of the Zone Change, the Project parcel will remain vacant and underutilized, and the development project area will remain in poor condition and underutilized.
(2) The proposed Zone Change would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City. The proposed Zone Change Project will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City. With approval of the related Development Plan (File No. PDEV19-028) and Variance (File No. PVAR19-004) application requests, the Project will enable orderly redevelopment of the overall development project site and will provide a public benefit for both the Project site and development project site, by allowing for public right-of-way improvements, an increase in landscaping in the neighborhood, and elimination of public nuisances and Community Improvement (Code Enforcement) infractions. The development project will also provide visual improvements 80 Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PZC19-001
August 23, 2022

Page 6 ends

from public view, including cleaning up and redesigning the deteriorating site. The Project site and development project site are located within a residential neighborhood, surrounded by existing single-family and multiple-family developments and will neither expose others nor be exposed to any impacts not typically found in residential neighborhoods. Without approval of the Zone Change, the Project parcel will remain vacant and underutilized, and the development project area will remain in poor condition and underutilized.
(3) The proposed Zone Change will not adversely affect the harmonious relationship with adjacent properties and land uses. The Zone Change Application will bring the subject Project parcel into compliance with The Ontario Plan’s General Plan Land Use Plan. Further, the proposed zoning designation is the same as the adjacent neighborhood to the east and is complementary to and compatible with the zoning designations of the neighborhoods to the north, west, and south. As the overall development project’s site is currently developed with a three-unit multiple-family dwelling that does not meet Development Code standards (including setbacks, landscaping, and parking), the Zone Change will allow for redevelopment of the site that meets major development standards and the multiple-family development intent for the overall zoning district.
(4) The subject site is physically suitable, including, but not limited to, parcel size, shape, access, and availability of utilities, for the request and anticipated development. The current Project site is not physically suitable for development, as the dimensions of the subject Project parcel are substandard for residential development. As such, the Applicant has requested a Zone Change application in order to make the Project parcel consistent with the adjacent 0.21-acre parcel to the east. The consistency will allow the Applicant to apply for a Lot Line Adjustment to facilitate the orderly development of a five-unit apartment complex on the overall development project site. The Zone Change will thus enable the subject Project parcel to be physically suitable for development. With approval of the Zone Change Application, access and utilities will be available to serve the overall development project site.

SECTION 6: Planning Commission Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 through 5, above, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES the herein described Application.

SECTION 7: Indemnification. The Applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Ontario or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Ontario or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul this approval. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding, and the City of Ontario shall cooperate fully in the defense.
81 82
83 Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PZC19-001
August 23, 2022

Page 9 ends

Exhibit “A” – Proposed Zone Change
Existing Zoning:

MDR -11, Low Medium Density Residential
Proposed Zoning:

MDR -18, Medium Density Residential N
D Street
Elma Street Elma Street Virginia Avenue
Virginia Avenue
Nocta Street Nocta Street
Project Site Project Site
84 ORDINANCE NO.________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FILE NO. PZC19-001, A ZONE CHANGE AMENDING THE ZONING DESIGNATION ON 0.07-ACRE OF LAND
FROM MDR-11 (LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL – 5.1 TO 11.0 DU/AC) TO MDR-18 (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL – 11.1 TO 18.0 DU/AC) TO ENABLE DEVELOPMENT OF A 0.28-ACRE PROJECT SITE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF – APN: 1048-491-23.

WHEREAS, MARIA G. OSEGUERA ("Applicant") has filed an Application for the approval of a Zone Change, File No. PZC19-001, as described in the title of this Ordinance. The term “Project” or “Project parcel” shall refer to the subject Zone Change Application and the referenced 0.07-acre site, and the term “development project” refers to the greater 0.28-acre development project site tied to and inclusive of the Zone Change Application; and
WHEREAS, the Application applies to 0.07 acre of land generally located 1063 East Elma Street, within the MDR-11 (Medium-Density Residential – 5.1 to 11.0 du/ac), and is presently vacant; and
WHEREAS, the Application proposes to modify the zoning district of the Project site from MDR-11 (Medium Density Residential – 5.1 to 11.0 du/ac) to MDR-18 (Medium Density Residential – 11.1 to 18.0 du/ac); and
WHEREAS, the Application has been filed in conjunction with File Nos. PDEV19- 028 and PVAR19-004, and will facilitate the orderly development of the adjacent approximately 0.21-acre parcel with a five-unit apartment complex; and WHEREAS, the property to the north of the Project site is within the LDR-5 (LowDensity Residential – 2.1 to 5.0 du/ac) zoning district and is developed with single-family homes. The property to the east is within the MDR-18 (Medium Density Residential – 11.1 to 18.0 du/ac) zoning district and is developed with multiple-family dwellings. The property to the south is within the MDR-11 (Medium Density Residential – 5.1 to 11.0 du/ac) zoning district and is developed with multiple-family dwellings. The property to the west is within the MDR-11 (Medium Density Residential – 5.1 to 11.0 du/ac) zoning district and is developed with a single-family dwelling; and
WHEREAS, the Zone Change Project’s parcel is currently unbuildable due to its shallow width. As such, the Applicant has filed for a Zone Change to make the zoning of this parcel consistent with the adjacent 0.21-acre parcel and the underlying TOP Land Use Designation (Medium Density Residential (11.1-25 du/ac) – Exhibit “A” proposed Zone Change included in this Ordinance), in order to facilitate a lot line adjustment to create one cohesive developable parcel; and
85 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 initial study has been prepared to determine possible environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of this Project were previously reviewed in conjunction with File No. PGPA20-002, a General Plan update for which a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (State Clearing House No. 2021070364) was certified by the City Council on August 16, 2022. This application introduces no new significant environmental impacts. The City's "Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)" provide for the use of a single environmental assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed. The previously adopted mitigation measures shall be a condition of Project approval, and are incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the City's "Local Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" provide for the use of a single environmental assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed; and
WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA") and an initial study has been prepared to determine possible environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the City Council the responsibility and authority to review and act on the subject Application; and
WHEREAS, the Project has been reviewed for consistency with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan, as State Housing Element law (as prescribed in Government Code Sections 65580 through 65589.8) requires that development projects must be consistent with the Housing Element, if upon consideration of all its aspects, it is found to further the purposes, principals, goals, and policies of the Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport (“ONT”), 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 (“ONT 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
86 WHEREAS, on August 15, 2022, the Development Advisory Board of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the related Variance (File No. PVAR19-004) and Development Plan (File No. PDEV19-028), and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to issue Decision Nos. DAB22-031 and DAB22-032 recommending the Planning Commission approve the Variance and Development Plan; and WHEREAS, on August 23, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the related Variance (File No. PVAR19-004) and Development Plan (File No. PDEV19-028), and concluded said hearing on that date, voting (6-0-1) to issue Decision Nos. PC22-050 and PC22-051, approving the related Variance and Development Plan, respectively; and
WHEREAS, on August 23, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date, voting (6 – 0) to issue Resolution No. PC22-049, recommending the City Council approve the Application; and
WHEREAS, on September 20, 2022, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.

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

SECTION 1. Environmental Determination and Findings. As the decisionmaking body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the previous Certified EIR and supporting documentation. Based upon the facts and information contained in the previous Certified EIR and supporting documentation, the City Council finds as follows:
(1) The environmental impacts of this project were previously reviewed in conjunction with File No. PGPA20-002, an update to the City’s General Plan for which a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364) was certified by the City Council on August 16, 2022.
(2) The previous Certified EIR contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project; and (3) The previous Certified EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder; and
(4) The previous Certified EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council; and
(5) The proposed project will introduce no new significant environmental impacts beyond those previously analyzed in the previous Certified EIR, and all mitigation measures previously adopted with the Certified EIR, are incorporated herein by this reference.
87 SECTION 2. Subsequent or Supplemental Environmental Review Not Required. Based on the 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 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 the decision-making body for the Project, the City Council finds that based on the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation, at the time of Project implementation, the Project is consistent with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan (General Plan) component of The Ontario Plan, as the Project site is not one of the properties in the Available Land Inventory contained in Table A-3 (Available Land by Planning Area) of the Housing Element Technical Report Appendix.

SECTION 4. Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (“ALUCP”) Compliance. The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted 88 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 (“ALUCP”), establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport (“ONT”), which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. As the decision-making body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ALUCP Table 2-2) and Safety Zones (ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ALUCP Map 2-4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the City Council, therefore, finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ALUCP.

SECTION 5. Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced hearing, and upon the specific findings set forth in Section 1 through 4, above, the City Council hereby concludes as follows:
(1) The proposed Zone Change 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. The Project parcel is currently unbuildable, and is not consistent with the goals, policies, plans and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan) and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan. The proposed Zone Change will enable consistency and compatibility with these items, by creating consistency with the underlying The Ontario Plan Policy Plan Land Use Designation (Medium Density Residential, 11.1-25 du/ac), which envisions a variety of well-designed medium-density housing options. Further, the Zone Change will allow for flexible redevelopment of the overall development project site with approval of the related Development Plan (File No.

PDEV19-028) and Variance (File No. PVAR19-004) application requests. Without approval of the Zone Change, the Project parcel will remain vacant and underutilized, and the development project area will remain in poor condition and underutilized. (2) The proposed Zone Change would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City. The proposed Zone Change Project will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City. With approval of the related Development Plan (File No.

PDEV19-028) and Variance (File No. PVAR19-004) application requests, the Project will enable orderly redevelopment of the overall development project site and will provide a public benefit for both the Project site and development project site, by allowing for public right-of-way improvements, an increase in landscaping in the neighborhood, and elimination of public nuisances and Community Improvement (Code Enforcement) infractions. The development project will also provide visual improvements from public view, including cleaning up and redesigning the deteriorating site. The Project site and development project site are located within a residential neighborhood, surrounded by existing single-family and multiple-family developments and will neither expose others nor 89 be exposed to any impacts not typically found in residential neighborhoods. Without approval of the Zone Change, the Project parcel will remain vacant and underutilized, and the development project area will remain in poor condition and underutilized. (3) The proposed Zone Change will not adversely affect the harmonious relationship with adjacent properties and land uses. The Zone Change Application will bring the subject Project parcel into compliance with The Ontario Plan’s General Plan Land Use Plan. Further, the proposed zoning designation is the same as the adjacent neighborhood to the east and is complementary to and compatible with the zoning designations of the neighborhoods to the north, west, and south. As the overall development project’s site is currently developed with a three-unit multiple-family dwelling that does not meet Development Code standards (including setbacks, landscaping, and parking), the Zone Change will allow for redevelopment of the site that meets major development standards and the multiple-family development intent for the overall zoning district.
(4) The subject site is physically suitable, including, but not limited to, parcel size, shape, access, and availability of utilities, for the request and anticipated development. The current Project site is not physically suitable for development, as the dimensions of the subject Project parcel are substandard for residential development. As such, the Applicant has requested a Zone Change application in order to make the Project parcel consistent with the adjacent 0.21-acre parcel to the east. The consistency will allow the Applicant to apply for a Lot Line Adjustment to facilitate the orderly development of a five-unit apartment complex on the overall development project site. The Zone Change will thus enable the subject Project parcel to be physically suitable for development. With approval of the Zone Change Application, access and utilities will be available to serve the overall development project site.

SECTION 6. City Council Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 through 5, above, the City Council hereby APPROVES the herein described Zone Change, attached hereto as “Exhibit A,” and incorporated herein by this reference.

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

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

SECTION 9. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any entity, person or circumstance is held for any reason to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not 90 affect other provisions or applications of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The People of the City of Ontario hereby declare that they would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 10. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days following its adoption.

SECTION 11. Publication and Posting. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption and shall cause a summary thereof to be published at least once, in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ontario, California within 15 days following the adoption. The City Clerk shall post a certified copy of this ordinance, including the vote for and against the same, in the Office of the City Clerk, in accordance with Government Code Section 36933.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this ____ day of _________ 2022. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
91 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 Ordinance No. ____ was duly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Ontario held _____________ and adopted at the regular meeting held ___________, 2022 by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
_________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
I hereby certify that the foregoing is the original of Ordinance No. _____ duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held ____________, and that Summaries of the Ordinance were published on ___________ and _____________, in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper.
__________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
92 EXHIBIT A:

File No. PZC19-001;
Zone Change for 1063 East Elma Street
Existing Zoning:

MDR -11, Low Medium Density Residential
Proposed Zoning:

MDR -18, Medium Density Residential N
D Street
Elma Street Elma Street Virginia
Av
e
n
u
e
Virginia
Av
e
n
u
e
Nocta Street Nocta Street
Project Site Project Site
93 Department: Municipal Services
Prepared By: Daniel P Beers
Staff Member Presenting:

Tito Haes, Executive Director Public Works
Reviewed By: Bonnie Tam
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 12
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF MOBILE HOME STRUCTURE FOR INTERIM FIRE STATION 11

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
October 18, 2022
SECTION:

CONSENT CALENDAR
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize the sole source purchase and delivery of one mobile home structure for the Fire Department in the amount of $208,042 from Wholesale Manufactured Homes, California. This structure will be used as sleeping quarters for Interim Fire Station 11.

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Invest in the City's Infrastructure (Water, Streets, Sewers, Parks, Storm Drains and Public Facilities)
FISCAL IMPACT: The Fiscal Year 2022-23 Adopted Budget includes appropriations in the NMC (New Model Colony) – Fire Impact Fund for the design and purchase of Interim Fire Station 11. The total cost of the structure recommended for purchase is $208,042.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS: Due to the continued growth of residential and commercial buildings in the Ontario Ranch portion of the City, including the new Amazon distribution center projected to be operational by May 2023, there is a need for a new Fire Station 11 in that region. To meet this short time frame, Staff plans to erect an interim Fire Station 11 at the southeast corner of Eucalyptus and Bon View.

With the recent completion of the permanent Fire Station 9 facility, Staff will repurpose the former Interim Fire Station 9 structures and move them to the Interim Fire Station 11 location. However, Interim Fire Station 11 requires an additional structure to provide sufficient sleeping quarters for firefighters stationed there. Wholesale Manufactured Homes supplied the original structure for Interim Fire Station 9. In order to ensure a proper fit when joining the two structures, purchase of a second structure from Wholesale Manufactured Homes is required. 94 Department: Municipal Services
Prepared By: Adrian Escamilla
Staff Member Presenting:

Tito Haes, Executive Director Public Works
Reviewed By: Bonnie Tam
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 13
SUBJECT: A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AND A GOODS & SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR

OMUC, PARKS AND MAINTENANCE, AND INTEGRATED WASTE OFFICE

IMPROVEMENTS

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
October 18, 2022
SECTION:

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

A. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute Construction Contract No. D&C20-028 with M. Brey Electric, Inc. of Beaumont, California, for the Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC), Parks and Maintenance, and Integrated Waste Office Improvements Project in the amount of $420,000;
B. Authorize a 10% contingency of $42,000 to address any unforeseen issues that arise during construction;
C. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute a Goods and Services Agreement with Kirksey & Co. of Irvine, California, for OMUC, Parks and Maintenance, and Integrated Waste Office Improvements Project for the Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment (FF&E), consistent with the terms and conditions of the cooperative purchasing contract with Omnia #R191804 in the amount of $369,583; and
D. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute all documents required for the completion of the project including, but not limited to, contracts, agreements, assessments, easements, reduction of retention accounts, and filing a notice of completion at the conclusion of all construction related activities.

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Invest in the City's Infrastructure (Water, Streets, Sewers, Parks, Storm Drains and Public Facilities)
FISCAL IMPACT: The construction and FF&E costs for the the OMUC, Parks and Maintenance, and Integrated Waste Office Improvements Project is $789,583, plus $42,000 contingency, for a total not to exceed $831,583. The Fiscal Year 2022-23 Adopted Budget includes appropriations of $24,389 in the Facility Maintenance Fund, $507,580 in the Integrated Waste Facilities Fund, $239,691 in the Water Capital Fund, and $59,923 in the Sewer Capital Fund. 95 BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS: The existing spaces for the OMUC, Parks and Maintenance Department, and Integrated Waste Department Project need remodeling and rehabilitation to accommodate operational and additional staffing needs. The Project includes complete reconfiguration of office spaces, including new flooring, ceiling grid, electrical, HVAC, and FF&E.

On July 7, 2022, Staff solicited bids for the construction of the OMUC, Parks and Maintenance, and Integrated Waste Office Improvements Project. Staff received four (4) construction bids ranging from $420,000 and $479,000 for the project.

All the bids received are listed below:

Vendor Location Amount
M. Brey Electric, Inc. Beaumont, California $420,000
Armstrong Cal Builders, Inc. Signal Hill, California $421,900 R Dependable CONST, INC. San Bernardino, California $427,000 KBCI Rowland Heights, California $479,000
After review of all bids, it was determined that M. Brey Electric, Inc. located in Beaumont, California, submitted the lowest responsible bid. Based on the credentials, pricing, and favorable reference checks, Staff recommends awarding Construction Contract No. D&C20-028 for the OMUC, Parks and Maintenance, and Integrated Waste Office Improvements Project to M. Brey Electric, Inc. The estimated completion date is February 2023.

In addition, the furnishings, fixtures, and equipment of the OMUC, Parks and Maintenance, and Integrated Waste Office Improvements Project is recommended to be purchased from Kirksey & Co. using the cooperative purchasing contract with Omnia #R191804 in the amount of $369,583.

In general conformation with the provisions of Government Code Section 54201 through 54204, Ontario Municipal Code Section 2-6.29 allows for the purchase of supplies and equipment through cooperative purchasing programs. Cooperative purchasing allows the City to pool its procurement power with other public agencies to obtain lower pricing than otherwise might be possible. 96 Department: Utilities
Prepared By: Cynthia Heredia-Torres
Staff Member Presenting:

Scott Burton, Utilities General Manager
Reviewed By: Dennice Raygoza, Albert G
Gastelum, Michael Sigsbee
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 14
SUBJECT: A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AND TWO AMENDMENTS FOR THE PRESSURE

REDUCING STATION REHABILITATION PROJECT

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
October 18, 2022
SECTION:

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

C. Approve and authorize the City Manager, or designee to execute Amendment No. 8 to the Professional Services Agreement (on file in the Records Management Department) with Kleinfelder Inc. of Ontario, California, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $106,640 for construction management services and a term from October 4, 2022 to May 6, 2023.

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Invest in the City's Infrastructure (Water, Streets, Sewers, Parks, Storm Drains and Public Facilities)
FISCAL IMPACT: The recommended Contract award to Innovative Construction Solutions Inc. is for $1,708,000 plus a 10% contingency of $170,800, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $1,878,800.

Proposed Amendment No. 2 to AKM Consulting Engineers Inc. increases the agreement by $129,088, for a total revised agreement amount of not-to-exceed $408,279. Proposed Amendment 97 No. 8 to Kleinfelder Inc. increases the agreement by $106,640 for a total revised agreement amount of not-to-exceed $1,867,456. The total cost for the recommended action is $2,114,528.

The Fiscal Year 2021-22 Adopted Capital Improvement Program includes appropriations from the Water Capital Fund in the amount of $1,227,035 for this project, which will be included in the project carryover process at the Fiscal Year 2022-23 First Quarter Budget Update Report. If approved, additional appropriations in the amount of $887,493 from the Water Capital Fund will also be included in the Fiscal Year 2022-23 First Quarter Budget Update Report to City Council.

Appropriations were not originally included in the budget to avoid over appropriation of funds.

There is no impact to the General Fund.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS: The City's potable water system includes approximately 614 miles of pipeline, five (5) pressure zones, and twenty (20) Pressure Reducing Stations (PRS). The main function of a PRS is to maintain a steady preset pressure in a pressure zone by regulating water from a higher-pressure zone to a lower pressure zone using various sized pressure reducing valves.

PRS’s are critical facilities for maintaining adequate service pressures during high demand periods and to meet fire flow requirements.

The City's Water Master Plan and a conditions assessment completed by Kleinfelder Inc. were used to identify deficiencies in various PRS’s which require rehabilitation for continuous safe and reliable operations.

There are six (6) PRS’s that require rehabilitation improvements. These improvements include upgrading PRS’s to meet current safety standards, implementing corrosion prevention measures to extend the life of PRS components, and integrating with the City’s Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) System to allow for metering, remote flow control, and monitoring of facility operations.

The PRS’s that will be part of the rehabilitation improvements and are identified in the attached Exhibit “A” include:

PRS 02 - located at Euclid Avenue and the 60 Freeway
PRS 03 - located at Grove Avenue and the 60 Freeway
PRS 05 - located at Archibald Avenue and Philadelphia Avenue PRS 08 - located at Etiwanda Avenue and Francis Street
PRS 12 - located at Haven Avenue and Francis Street
PRS 13 - located at Haven Avenue and Francis Street
On July 14, 2022, five (5) bids were received for Bid No. 1542, Pressure Reducing Station Rehabilitation Project, OMUC Contract No. UT 1041. The bids ranged from a low bid amount of $1,708,000 to a high bid amount of $2,667,000 as summarized below:
98 Bidder Locations Amount
Innovative Construction
Solutions Inc.

Costa Mesa, CA $1,708,000
Canyon Springs Enterprises Hemet, CA $1,945,000
316 Engineering & Construction
Inc.

Rosemead, CA $2,014,036
T. E. Roberts, Inc. Orange, CA $2,132,178
Ferreira Coastal Construction
Company
Rancho Cucamonga, CA $2,667,000
Staff recommends the City Council award to Innovative Construction Solutions Inc. of Costa Mesa, California, based on their expertise and ability to perform the work in a timely manner, their successful completion of this type of work in the past, and as the lowest responsible bidder.

Support services will be required during construction of the Pressure Reducing Station Project. AKM Consulting Engineers Inc. will provide construction management services. The City first contracted with AKM Consulting Engineers Inc. in October of 2019 after an extensive Request for Proposal selection processes for on-call project management services. Kleinfelder Inc. will provide construction and engineering services as they are the Engineer of Record for the Project and developed the project’s plans and specifications. The City first contracted with Kleinfelder Inc. in May of 2019 after an extensive Request for Proposal selection process for on-call design services.

Staff solicited scope and fee from both consultants.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project has been reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has been determined to be categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Article 19 Section 15031, which states that operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of Class 1 “Existing Facilities” are exempt from the requirements of CEQA. Thus, no further CEQA analysis is required. 99 N
E
s

ONTARIO

MUNICIPAL

UTILITIES

COMPANY
UT1041 Pressure Reducing Valve Rehabilitation Project Ph. 1 Exhibit A 100
Department: Police Department
Prepared By: Lizceth Zazueta
Staff Member Presenting:

Mike Lorenz, Chief of Police
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 15
SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR THE US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FISCAL YEAR 2022

COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES HIRING PROGRAM GRANT

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
October 18, 2022
SECTION:

CONSENT CALENDAR
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute all documents necessary to apply for and accept a grant award in the amount of $1,250,000 from the US Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) to participate in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 Office Hiring Program (CHP) Grant.

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Maintain the Current High Level of Public Safety
Operate in a Businesslike Manner
Pursue City's Goals and Objectives by Working with Other Governmental Agencies Focus Resources in Ontario's Commercial and Residential Neighborhoods FISCAL IMPACT: Grant awards were announced October 13, 2022, and the grant will fund 75% of the base salary of ten (10) additional police sworn personnel incurred during the five-year grant period, which is from October 1, 2022, through September 30, 2027. The City's General Fund will be required to cover the remaining 25% of the base salary for three (3) years, as well as all other additional expenses associated with these positions, including skills and certifications compensation, fringe benefits, retirement, overtime, uniforms, purchase of vehicles, and vehicle maintenance. Due to the lengthy and extensive hiring process, all the costs associated with the 10 police sworn positions will be included in the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Proposed Budget.

The approximate grant funding reimbursement requested was $1,250,000. Since awarded, the estimated cost for FY 2023-24 will be $1,887,927 and the estimated total cost for the life of the grant is $11,068,999. For the 5th year of the grant (FY 2026-27), General Fund will absorb 100% of the costs associated with these positions. The related revenue and expenditures will be included in the FY 2023-24 Proposed Budget presented to City Council.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS: The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) has approved the city’s application for funding under the FY 2022 COPS Office Hiring Program (CHP) Grant in the amount of $1,250,000. This grant provides funding for the Police Department to hire 101
ten (10) entry-level police officers in an effort to increase the Department’s community policing capacity and crime prevention efforts. The FY 2022 CHP award covers up to 75% of the entry-level salary and fringe benefits for each approved position for a three-year period, with a maximum amount of $125,000 per position over the three-year period. There is a minimum 25% local cash match (cost share) requirement.

Funding under this program will support three (3) years of officer salaries within a five (5)-year period of performance to accommodate time needed for recruitment and hiring. The Department must retain each CHP-funded position for twelve (12) months following the three (3) years of funding for that position. The additional officer positions must be added to the Department’s budget and must be above the number of locally funded officer positions that would have existed in the absence of the award. Absorbing CHP-funded positions through attrition (rather than adding extra positions to the Department’s budget with additional funding) does not meet the retention requirement.

The award of these grant funds for additional officers will allow the Police Department: (1) to hire ten (10) entry-level COPS Office-funded officers allowing for equal number of officers to be redeployed to focus on initiating or enhancing community policing through the mobile response unit, (2) to proactively impact crime and improve the quality of life (3) to build legitimacy and trust within the community, (3) to increase Police-Based response to persons in crisis, (4) to reduce violent crime (particularly gun violence), and (5) to combat hate and domestic extremism through comprehensive services including behavioral health, medical care, alternative law enforcement solutions, rehabilitation, substance abuse treatment, and transitional housing. 102
Department: Housing
Prepared By: Hannah K Mac Kenzie
Staff Member Presenting:

Scott Murphy, Executive Director Community
Development
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 16
SUBJECT: FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN ANNUAL ACTION PLAN FOR THE 2019-20 PROGRAM YEAR

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
October 18, 2022
SECTION:

CONSENT CALENDAR
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Fifth Amendment to the Consolidated Plan Annual Action Plan (on file in the Records Management Department) for the Program Year 2019-20 (“Substantial Amendment”) and authorize the City Manager to take all actions necessary to implement the Substantial Amendment.

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Pursue City's Goals and Objectives by Working with Other Governmental Agencies FISCAL IMPACT: The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has reallocated $1,068,626 in Emergency Solutions Grant Coronavirus (ESG-CV3) funds to the City of Ontario authorized by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). These funds include $106,862 for eligible administration costs. There is no impact to the General Fund. If approved, the associated revenue and expenditures will be included in the next Quarterly Budget Update to the City Council.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS: On June 4, 2019, the City Council approved the Fiscal Year 2019-20 One-Year Action Plan as part of the Consolidated Plan. The CARES Act was signed by President Trump on March 27, 2020 to respond to the growing effects of the coronavirus health crisis. The CARES Act made available CDBG-CV and ESG-CV funds to entitlement jurisdictions. In addition, the CARES Act provides some flexibility and waivers with regard to CDBG-CV and ESG-CV.

On April 2, 2020, the City received notification of federal CARES Act funding from HUD. Per the notification, the City received $1,096,879 in Community Development Block Grant Coronavirus (CDBG-CV) funds and $552,724 in Emergency Solutions Grant Coronavirus (ESG-CV). These funds were submitted as the first amendment to the 2019-20 One-Year Annual Action Plan and approved by the City Council on May 5, 2020. On June 9, 2020, the City received a second notification of allocation of federal CARES Act funding from HUD indicating that the City will receive an additional $1,584,528 in ESG funding, referred to as ESG-CV2. These funds were submitted as the second amendment to the 2019-20 One-Year Annual Action Plan and approved by the City Council on 103
August 18, 2020. On September 11, 2020, the City received a third notification of allocation of federal CARES Act funding from HUD allocating an additional $1,246,263 in CDBG funding, referred to as CDBG-CV3. These funds were submitted as the third amendment to the 2019-20 One-Year Annual Action Plan and approved by the City Council on October 20, 2020. All CARES Act funding is to be utilized in a way that prevents, prepares for, and responds to COVID-19 impacts. On May 4, 2021, the City Council approved the fourth amendment to the 2019-20 One-Year Annual Action Plan, modifying how previously awarded CDBG-CV and ESG-CV allocations were programmed.

On September 23, 2022, the City received a notification of allocation of federal CARES Act funding from HUD indicating that the City will receive an additional $1,068,626 in reallocated ESG-CV funding. The funding is to be utilized in a way that prevents, prepares for, and responds to COVID19 impacts. A summary of the spending recommendations are as follows:

Program Description
Funding
Amount
Homeless
Prevention and
Rapid ReHousing
Provide emergency grants, for up to six months, to very low-income renters (50% or below of Area Median Income (AMI)) at risk of homelessness. Eligible uses of funds include deferred and prospective rent payments to prevent eviction and deferred utility payments to prevent utility shut off. Payments will be paid directly to property owner and/or utility companies. Maximum assistance per household is $15,000.
$661,764
Motel Voucher
Program
Provide motel vouchers for identified homeless households, with a preference provided to those identified as most vulnerable to the impacts of COVID-19. Supportive services will be provided to connect these households with permanent housing and other needed social services.
$300,000
Administration
Administer the grant in compliance with federal requirements.

Administration costs are capped at 10% of the grant amount. $106,862
TOTAL ESG-CV $1,068,626
The Fifth Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2019-20 One-Year Action Plan was advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on October 13, 2022. The draft document was made available for public review via the City’s website from October 13, 2022, to October 17, 2022. Subsequent to City Council approval, the plan will be submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Staff recommends approval of the Substantial Amendment to program the CARES Act ESG reallocation.
104
Department: Planning
Prepared By: Alexis Vaughn
Staff Member Presenting:

Scott Murphy, Executive Director Community
Development
Reviewed By: Charles Mercier, Rudy Zeledon
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 17
SUBJECT: A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE ONTARIO RANCH BUSINESS PARK SPECIFIC PLAN (FILE NO. PSPA21-002) AND THE RELATED

SUBSEQUENT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2019050018)

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
October 18, 2022
SECTION:

PUBLIC HEARINGS
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council consider and adopt:

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Invest in the Growth and Evolution of the City's Economy Operate in a Businesslike Manner
Invest in the City's Infrastructure (Water, Streets, Sewers, Parks, Storm Drains and Public Facilities)
Ensure the Development of a Well Planned, Balanced, and Self-Sustaining Community in Ontario Ranch
FISCAL IMPACT: Adoption of the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment would result in both short and long-term fiscal impacts to the City. Short-term impacts include infrastructure improvements to serve the new Business Park and Industrial development. The cost of these improvements is included in the Nexus Study and Development Impact Fees (“DIF”) previously adopted by the City Council. The developer will be required to install improvements or pay the DIF associated with the various improvements. Long-term fiscal impacts include the ongoing operations and maintenance services (police, fire, maintenance, etc.) necessary to serve the new development. To address this impact, the developer will be required to form and/or join a 105
Community Facilities District to cover the additional public service costs. No Original Model Colony dollars will be used to fund this Ontario Ranch development.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS: The Project site is comprised of 71.69 acres of land located immediately adjacent to the existing Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan, within the Ontario Ranch area of the City. The Project is bordered by Sultana Avenue on the west, Eucalyptus Avenue on the north, Campus Avenue on the east, and Merrill Avenue on the south, as depicted in Exhibit A:

Project Location Map, attached. The Project site is currently occupied by agricultural uses, including dairy farms and row crops, several residential structures, and vacant land that was previously used for agriculture. There are currently no active Williamson Act Contracts on the Project site.

On September 15, 2020, the City Council approved the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan (File No. PSP18-002), which established the development standards and guidelines for 84.9 acres of land located immediately to the west of the Project site. The Specific Plan established two land use districts, Business Park and Industrial–General, which would facilitate the potential development of up to 1,905,027 square feet of General Industrial and Business Park development. The Specific Plan’s Environmental Impact Report reviewed a maximum development intensity at 0.45 floor area ratio ("FAR") for Business Park developments and 0.54 FAR for Industrial–General developments.

These maximum FARs, which are below The Ontario Plan ("TOP") Policy Plan (General Plan) buildout thresholds, have been carried over into the land area covered by the proposed Specific Plan Amendment.

The Policy Plan component of TOP provides the basic framework for development within the City, including the area commonly referred to as Ontario Ranch. Since receipt of the Project application and release of the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, the City proposed an update to the City’s General Plan (“TOP 2050 Update”, File No. PGPA20-002), modifying the Project site’s underlying Policy Plan land use districts from 56 acres of Low-Medium Density Residential (5.1-11 du/ac) and 18 acres of Business Park (0.6 FAR) to 11.63 acres of Business Park (0.6 FAR) and 60.06 acres of Industrial (0.55 FAR), which was approved by the City Council on August 16, 2022. Updating the TOP land use districts allowed for a consistent industrial corridor, which spans from Euclid Avenue on the west, to the Cucamonga Creek Channel on the east, and from Eucalyptus Avenue on the north, to Merrill Avenue on the south (refer to Figure 4 of the PC Backup). As part of the TOP 2050 Update, analyses were also completed to satisfy the requirements of SB 330, which requires cities to replace displaced residential units elsewhere in the city, to incur “no net loss” of residential capacity within a city.

The Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan (File No. PSP18-002) established a comprehensive set of design guidelines and development regulations to (1) guide and regulate site planning, landscape, and architectural character; (2) ensure that excellence in community design is achieved during Project development; (3) institute procedures and requirements to approve new development within the Project site; and (4) ensure that Policy Plan goals and policies are achieved.

The Amendment to the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan proposes to expand the Specific Plan area by 71.69 acres of land and apply these same guidelines, regulations, and procedures to facilitate development thereon. The Project proposes updates to the land use plan, circulation plan, infrastructure plan, and phasing plan. No changes to the design guidelines, landscape standards, or sign standards are proposed. A copy of the proposed amended Ontario Ranch Business Park 106
Specific Plan is included as Attachment A of the recommended resolution for File No. PSPA21-002.

The Ontario Ranch Specific Plan currently consists of two Planning Areas ("PAs") that allow for a variety of commercial, office, technology, light manufacturing, and warehouse/distribution uses.

The Land Use Plan implements the overall vision of TOP by providing opportunities for employment in manufacturing, distribution, research and development, service, and supporting retail land uses at intensities designed to meet the demand of current and future market conditions. The Project proposes to add PA 3 and PA 4 to the existing Specific Plan (see Exhibit B: Specific Plan Land Use Plan, attached). PA 3 is proposed for Business Park land uses and will complement existing PA 1. PA 4 is proposed for Industrial-General land uses and will complement existing PA 2. The new Planning Areas follow the same FAR restrictions as the existing Planning Areas (see Exhibit C: Maximum Specific Plan Buildout, attached). The Specific Plan will continue to limit the maximum buildout within the Business Park land use districts (PA 1 and PA 3) to 0.45 FAR, and will limit the maximum buildout within the Industrial–General land use districts (PA 2 and PA 4) to 0.54 FAR . The maximum allowed FAR buildout for each Planning Area are less than the maximum buildout allowed by the Policy Plan in the Business Park (0.6 FAR) and Industrial (0.55 FAR) land use districts.

On October 27, 2020, the Planning Commission approved a Development Plan (File No. PDEV18- 036) for the construction of 1,552,747 square feet of industrial development within PA 1 and PA 2, including 1,447,123 square feet of Industrial-General buildings and 105,624 square feet of Business Park buildings. Building permits have been issued for construction Phases 1 and 2 within PA 1 and PA 2. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment introduces construction Phase 3 to the Specific Plan, which encompasses PA 3 and PA 4, allowing for a maximum of 1,640,730 square feet of IndustrialGeneral and Business Park development (see Exhibit C: Maximum Specific Plan Buildout, attached).

PA 3, located along the Project site's Eucalyptus Avenue frontage, between Sultana and Campus Avenues, is 11.63 acres in size and can potentially be developed with 227,951 square feet of Business Park buildings. The Specific Plan still limits buildings within the Business Park land use district, which front onto a public right-of-way, to a maximum building footprint of 125,000 square feet. PA 4, located along the Project site's Merrill Avenue frontage, between Sultana and Campus Avenues, is 60.06 acres in size and can be potentially developed with up to 1,412,739 square feet of Industrial-General buildings. Per the Specific Plan Amendment, Phase 3 may be broken down into sub-phases as needed, pending land acquisition and market conditions.

The Business Park and Industrial-General Specific Plan land uses are consistent with the Policy Plan Land Use Plan and other approved Specific Plans located along the same corridor, including the existing Ontario Ranch Business Park, South Ontario Logistics Center, Merrill Commerce Center, and West Ontario Commerce Center. The Business Park land use district has been established specifically to act as a buffer between the industrial land uses and Chino Airport to the south, from the future residential, commercial, and mixed-use land uses north of Eucalyptus Avenue (refer to Figure 4 of the PC Backup). The Project would provide consistency for the entire industrial corridor located south of Eucalyptus Avenue, between Euclid Avenue and the Cucamonga Creek Channel.

The Project site is located within the Chino Airport Overlay Zoning District and is impacted by Safety Zone 6 (refer to Figure 7 of the PC Backup). The Safety Zone policies and criteria provide restrictions that limit building height and placement, lot coverage, concentration of people, storage of hazardous materials, and excludes or limits sensitive land uses (residential, schools, day care 107
centers, hospitals, etc.). The Project site is also impacted by existing aircraft traffic patterns from Runway 3-21, where aircraft fly directly over the Project site while making Touch-and-Go landings, a maneuver where aircraft land on a runway and take off again without coming to a full stop; the pilot then circles the airport in a defined pattern to allow many landings to be practiced in a short time.

The Project site is also located within the Agricultural Overlay zoning district. While agricultural land uses are allowed to remain in perpetuity as allowed by the Agricultural Overlay zoning district, the City’s Right-to-Farm ordinance, landowners are not required to continue agricultural land uses and are not precluded from establishing other appropriate land uses. Should landowners wish to redevelop their property or sell to another developer, development must be consistent with the Policy Plan Land Use Plan, the Chino Airport Overlay Zoning District, and an approved specific plan.

The proposed Specific Plan Amendment updates the existing Specific Plan’s Circulation Plan to include the expanded (annexed) land area. Future traffic signals will now be constructed or modified at the following major intersections (refer to Figure 8 of the PC Backup):

Eucalyptus Avenue and Sultana Avenue
Eucalyptus Avenue and Campus Avenue
Merrill Avenue and Sultana Avenue
Merrill Avenue and Campus Avenue
Additionally, primary access into the Business Park development will be provided along Eucalyptus Avenue to the north, Sultana Avenue to the west, and Campus Avenue to the east. Primary access into the Industrial development will be provided along Merrill Avenue to the south, Sultana Avenue to the west, and Campus Avenue to the east. No design changes will be made to the streets currently listed within the existing Specific Plan; however, Campus Avenue will be added to the Specific Plan, which will run north-south along the Project’s eastern boundary and will be improved with a 35-foot wide neighborhood edge. The neighborhood edge will include a 23-foot wide landscape buffer and a 12-foot wide parkway containing a five-foot wide sidewalk.

The backbone infrastructure to serve all areas of the Specific Plan will be installed by the developer in accordance with the Ontario Ranch (New Model Colony) Master Plans for streets, water (including recycled water), sewer, storm drain, and fiber optic facilities. Natural gas will be provided by The Gas Company and electricity by SCE. Development of the Project requires the developer to install all infrastructure necessary to serve the Project as a standalone construction project, with phasing and details to be reviewed and approved by means of a Development Agreement, to be acted on in conjunction with the subdivision application for the Project site (refer to Figure 9 of the PC Backup).

The Specific Plan Amendment will update infrastructure and services to cover the proposed Project area, including but not limited to streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, portable water, recycled water, sewer, fiber optic, storm drain, and other utilities like gas and electric. As this Project site is the last remaining piece in the industrial corridor, many of the infrastructure plans are already in place. This Project will require future development projects to tie in and provide fair share fees and reimbursements.

The Project does not propose any changes to the existing Specific Plan design guidelines, landscape 108
standards, or signage. The existing regulations will continue to apply to all future development.

Under the provisions of Senate Bill 330 (“SB 330”), the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code Section 65589.5 et seq.), TOP 2050 Update proposed changes to the Project’s General Plan Land Use designations (from Residential and Business Park, to Business Park and Industrial land uses) and has completed the requisite review of impacts and replacement of impacted dwelling unit counts (“no net loss”) to a more appropriate site within the City. TOP 2050 Update was reviewed and approved by the City Council on August 16, 2022.

Ontario International Airport — On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the Ontario International Airport Land use Compatibility Plan (“ALUCP”), establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. The proposed Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport and was evaluated and found to be consistent with the policies and criteria of the ALUCP. Any special conditions of approval associated with uses in close proximity to the airport are included in the conditions of approval provided with the attached resolutions.

Chino Airport — On August 2, 2022, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted a Development Code Amendment to establish the Chino Airport Overlay Zoning District (“CNO OZD”) and Reference L, Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (“CNO ALUCP”). The CNO OZD and ALUCP established the Airport Influence Area for Chino Airport, solely within the City of Ontario, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. The CNO ALUCP is consistent with policies and criteria set forth within the Caltrans 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.

The proposed Project is located within the Chino Airport Influence Area and was evaluated and found to be consistent with the policies and criteria of the CNO ALUCP. Future development within Project Site shall be subject to Open Land and people per acre occupancy intensity calculations that are described below.

The Project site is located within Safety Zone 6 (Handbook Generic Safety Zones) and new development will be required to provide Open Land (an open area that is 300 feet long by 75 feet 109
wide) and people per acre limits. Safety Zone 6 is required to provide a minimum of 10 percent of Open Land, and occupancy is limited to 300 people per acre on average, and a maximum of 1,200 people in any one acre.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Specific Plan is located in the City of Ontario in what was formerly the 8,200-acre City of Ontario Sphere of Influence ("SOI") area. On January 7, 1998, the City of Ontario adopted the New Model Colony (“NMC”) General Plan Amendment, setting forth a comprehensive strategy for the future development of the SOI. The NMC is generally bordered by Riverside Drive to the north, Milliken Avenue to the east, Euclid Avenue to the west and Merrill Avenue to the south.

The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report — On January 27, 2010, the City Council adopted The Ontario Plan (“TOP”) and certified the accompanying Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) (State Clearinghouse No. 2008101140). TOP includes the General Plan for the entire City, including the NMC (now referred to as “Ontario Ranch”). TOP EIR identified many areas that might have a potentially significant impact on the environment. These areas included: 1) Aesthetics; 2) Biological Resources; 3) Geology and Soils; 4) Hazards and Hazardous Materials; 5) Hydrology and Water Quality; 6) Land Use and Planning; 7) Mineral Resources; 8) Population and Housing; 9) Public Services; 10) Recreation; and 11) Utilities and Service Systems. Through the EIR process, these potential impacts were analyzed, revisions were incorporated into the plan, and/or mitigation measures were identified that reduced the potential environmental impacts to a level that was less than significant.

TOP also identified several potential impacts that, even with revisions and/or mitigation measures, could not be reduced to a level of less than significant. These areas included:
(a) Agriculture Resources.

Impact 5.2-1. Buildout of TOP would convert 3,269.3 acres of California Resource Agency designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance to residential, commercial, mixed-use, and industrial land uses. Consequently, Impact 5.2-1 would remain significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required.

Impact 5.2-2. There are a number of Williamson Act contracts within the City that have yet to expire. Buildout of TOP would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of these contracts.

The current use of these contracts would slow the rate of conversion from agricultural to nonagricultural land but it would not impede the conversion. Since there are some Williamson Act contracts still active in the Ontario Ranch, implementation of the proposed land use plan for The Ontario Plan would conflict with these contracts and cause a significant impact. Consequently, Impact 5.2-2 would remain significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required.

Impact 5.2-3. Development of the City in accordance with TOP would increase the amount of nonagricultural land uses. When nonagricultural land uses are placed near agricultural uses, the odors, noises, and other hazards related to agriculture conflict with the activities and the quality of life of the people living and working in the surrounding areas. Consequently, conversion of agricultural uses in the city may cause farms and agricultural land uses outside the City to be converted to nonagricultural uses because of the nuisances related to agriculture. Impact 5.2-3 110
would remain significant and unavoidable. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required.
(b) Air Quality.

Impact 5.3-1. The Project would not be consistent with the Air Quality Management Plan (“AQMP”) because air pollutant emissions associated with buildout of the City of Ontario would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations in the South Coast Air Basin (“SoCAB”). Furthermore, buildout of the Proposed Land Use Plan would exceed current estimates of population, employment, and vehicle miles traveled for Ontario and, therefore, these emissions are not included in the current regional emissions inventory for the SoCAB. As both criteria must be met in order for a project to be considered consistent with the AQMP, the Project would be considered inconsistent with the AQMP. Consequently, Impact 5.3-1 would remain significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required.

Impact 5.3-2. Construction activities associated with buildout of TOP would generate short-term emissions that exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (“SCAQMD”) regional significance thresholds; cumulatively contribute to the SoCAB’s nonattainment designations for O3, PM10, and PM2.5; and potentially elevate concentrations of air pollutants at sensitive receptors.

Consequently, Impact 5.3-2 would remain significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required.

Impact 5.3-3. Buildout of TOP would generate long-term emissions that would exceed SCAQMD’S regional significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the SoCAB nonattainment designations for O3, PM10, and PM2.5. Consequently, Impact 5.3-3 would remain significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required.

Impact 5.3-5. Approval of residential and other sensitive land uses within 500 feet of I-10, I-15, or SR-60 would result in exposure of persons to substantial concentrations of diesel particulate matter. Consequently, Impact 5.3-5 would remain significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required.

Impact 5.3-6. Conversion of agricultural land to nonagricultural uses would temporarily expose residents to objectionable odors. Consequently, Impact 5.3-6 would remain significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required. (c) Cultural Resources.

Impact 5.5-1. Although protective regulations are in place and preservation policies are included in TOP, implementation of the Proposed Land Use Plan, especially within growth focus areas, has the potential to impact Tier III historic resources. Mitigation Measure 5-1 would require a historical evaluation for properties within historic resources in the Focus Areas under the City’s ordinance.

However, the ordinance does not provide a high level of protection for Tier III resources. As a result, historical resources categorized under the Ordinance as Tier III could potentially be impacts with implementation of the Proposed Land Use Plan. Consequently, Impact 5.5-1 would remain significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required. (d) Global Climate Change.

Impact 5.6-1. Buildout of the City of Ontario would generate greenhouse gas emissions that would significantly contribute to global climate change impacts in California. GHG emissions generated in 111
the City would significantly contribute to climate change impacts in California as a result of the growth in population and employment in the City and scale of development activity associated with buildout of the Proposed Land Use Plan. Consequently, Impact 5.6-1 would remain significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required. (e) Noise.

Impact 5.12-1. Buildout of the Proposed Land Use Plan would result in an increase in traffic on local roadways in the City of Ontario, which would substantially increase noise levels. Consequently, Impact 5.12-1 would remain significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required.

Impact 5.12-2. Noise-sensitive uses could be exposed to elevated noise levels from transportation sources. Any sighting of new sensitive land uses within a noise environment that exceeds the normally acceptable land use compatibility criterion would result in a potentially significant impact and would require a separate noise study through the development review process to determine the level of impacts and required mitigation. Consequently, Impact 5.12-2 would remain significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required.

Impact 5.12-3. Construction activities associated with buildout of the individual land uses associated with the Proposed Land Use Plan would expose sensitive uses to strong levels of ground borne vibration. Consequently, Impact 5.12-3 would remain significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required.

Impact 5.12-5. Construction activities associated with buildout of the individual land uses associated with the Proposed Land Use Plan would substantially elevate noise levels in the vicinity of sensitive land uses. Consequently, Impact 5.12-5 would remain significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required.

Impact 5.12-6. Noise-sensitive land uses within the 65 dBA CNEL contour of the Los Angeles/Ontario International Airport would be exposed to substantial levels of airport-related noise. Consequently, Impact 5.12-6 would remain significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required.
(f) Transportation and Traffic.

Impact 5.15-1. Buildout of the Proposed Land Use Plan would result in additional traffic volume that would significantly cumulatively contribute to main-line freeway segment impacts. The City’s development impact fees cannot be used for improvements to roadway facilities under Caltrans jurisdiction. Consequently, impacts to freeway segments within the City under Impact 5.16-1 would be significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required.

While these impacts will be significant and unavoidable, the City determined that the benefits of the Ontario Ranch development outweigh the potential unavoidable, adverse impacts of the plan. As a result, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts that could not be fully mitigated to a level of “less than significant.” Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Subsequent Environmental Impact Report — A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2019050018) was prepared for this Project in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. Through the Notice of Preparation and scoping meeting discussion, the following areas of potential impact were identified 112
and addressed:

Agricultural Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Energy
Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Noise
Public Services
Transportation and Traffic
Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities and Service Systems
Wildfire
The Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Subsequent EIR evaluates each of these various areas and identifies mitigation measures and/or revisions to the plan to lessen the level of impact. With the implementation of the various mitigation measures, many of the potential adverse impacts can be reduced to a level of less than significant. Of the 16 areas considered by the EIR, all but four of the impact areas were mitigated to a level of less than significant, after adoption of the TOP 2050 Update. The four remaining impact areas, even with the mitigation measures, could not be reduced to less than significant, resulting in some impacts remaining potentially significant and unavoidable. These areas include:
(a) Agriculture and Forestry Resources.

Impact 4.1-1. The proposed Project would convert Farmland to non-agricultural use. No feasible mitigation measures have been identified that would mitigate agricultural resources to below a level of significance. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Impact 4.1-5. The proposed Project would convert Farmland to non-agricultural use. No feasible mitigation measures have been identified that would mitigate agricultural resources to below a level of significance. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. (b) Air Quality.

Impact 4.2-1. The proposed Project would be inconsistent with the applicable air quality plan.

Implementation of the Project would result in air pollutant emissions that exceed SCAQMD’s operational emission thresholds following completion of the Project. Although MMs AQ-1 through AQ-6 would reduce Project emissions by the greatest feasible amount, Project emissions levels would remain significant and would contribute to the nonattainment designations in the SCAB.

Therefore, the Project would be inconsistent with the AQMP, resulting in a significant and 113
unavoidable impact despite the implementation of mitigation.

In addition, in accordance with South Coast AQMD Rule 2305 (refer to South Coast Air Quality Management District under Section 4.2.2 Regulatory Setting of the Subsequent Draft Subsequent EIR) the Project operator would be required to pay a mitigation fee if the Project does not generate enough WAIRE Points. The Project operator may be required to implement additional emission reduction strategies. Conservatively, this EIR is not taking credit for these potential reductions.

Compliance with proposed Rule 2305 would reduce emissions below what is currently analyzed. (Draft Subsequent EIR, pp. 4.2-17 through 4.2-18.).

Impact 4.2-2. The proposed Project would be inconsistent with the applicable air quality plan. Longterm operational emissions attributable to the Project are summarized in Draft Subsequent EIR Table 4.2-9: Unmitigated Operational Emissions. Primary sources of operational criteria pollutants are from motor vehicle use and area sources.

As indicated in Draft Subsequent EIR Table 4.2-9, operation of the Project would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for NOX. The majority of the Project’s NOX emissions are from mobile sources.

Mitigation measures would be required to reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible; however, emissions of motor vehicles are controlled by State and Federal standards, and the Project has no control over these standards. MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 have been identified to reduce operational emissions. MM AQ-2 requires that all cargo handling equipment used on a daily basis (yard trucks/hostlers, forklifts, etc.) be electric. MM AQ-3 requires the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce single occupant vehicle trips and encourage transit. MM AQ-4 requires the buildings to be designed to accommodate electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure, MM AQ-5 requires electrical hookups at all loading bays, and MM AQ 6 prohibits idling when engines are not in use. Additionally, SC AQ-9 through SC AQ 11 would provide designated parking to promote the use of alternative fuels and clean fleets, facilitate future installation of EV supply equipment, and limit idling times. Draft Subsequent EIR Table 4.2-10, Mitigated Operational Emissions shows that despite the implementation of MM AQ-2 through MM AQ 6, operational emissions of NOx would remain above the SCAQMD’s thresholds; therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable. (Draft Subsequent EIR, pp. 4.2-20 through 4.2-23.). (c) Greenhouse Gases.

Impact 4.6-1. Implementation of the proposed Project would result in both short-term construction and long-term operational greenhouse gas emissions. The Project would result in direct emissions of CO2, N2O, and CH4 from construction equipment and the transport of materials and construction workers to and from the Project site. The GHG emissions only occur during temporary construction activities and would cease once construction is complete. The total GHG emissions generated during all phases of construction were combined and are shown in Table 4.7-2, Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft Subsequent EIR.

The Project would result in the generation of approximately 5,988 MTCO2e over the course of construction. Construction GHG emissions are typically summed and amortized over the lifetime of the Project (assumed to be 30 years), then added to the operational emissions. The amortized Project construction emissions would be 200 MTCO2e per year. Once construction is complete, the generation of these GHG emissions would cease.
114
Operational or long-term emissions occur over the life of the Project. GHG emissions would result from direct emissions such as Project-generated vehicular traffic, on-site combustion of natural gas, and operation of any landscaping equipment. Operational GHG emissions would also result from indirect sources, such as off-site generation of electrical power, the energy required to convey water to, and wastewater from the Project, the emissions associated with solid waste generated from the Project, and any fugitive refrigerants from air conditioning or refrigerators.

Total GHG emissions associated with the Project are summarized in Table 4.7-3, Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Draft Subsequent EIR. As shown in Table 4.7-3, the Project’s unmitigated emissions would be approximately 24,929 MTCO2e annually from both construction (amortized) and operations. Project-related GHG emissions would exceed the SCAQMD’s 10,000 MTCO2e per year threshold for industrial uses. The majority of the GHG emissions (70 percent) are associated with non-construction related mobile sources. Emissions of motor vehicles are controlled by State and Federal standards, and the Project has no control over these standards.

The Project would generate approximately 19,268 MTCO2e per year with the implementation of operational air quality MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6. MM AQ-2 requires the use of electrical off-road equipment such as forklifts and hostlers/yard trucks. MM AQ-3 requires the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce single-occupant vehicle trips and encourage public transit. MM AQ-4 requires the buildings to be designed to accommodate electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure, MM AQ-5 requires electrical hookups at all loading bays, and MM AQ 6 prohibits idling when engines are not in use.

Standard condition (SC) GHG-1 through SC GHG-9, as required by the CBC, would provide designated parking to promote the use of alternative fuels and clean fleets, facilitate future installation of EV supply equipment, and limit idling times. Furthermore, MM GHG-1 requires the installation of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels to offset the Project’s energy consumption and MM GHG 2 requires the Project to meet or exceed CALGreen Code Tier 2 standards to further improve energy efficiency.

With mitigation, the majority (89 percent) of emissions are from mobile sources and neither the Project Applicant nor the City have regulatory authority to control tailpipe emissions, no feasible mitigation measures exist that would reduce the Project’s impacts with respect to mobile operational emissions to less than significant levels. While the Project has some control over GHG emissions (refer to MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6), the majority of emissions are beyond the Project’s control. However, MM GHG-3 would require that the Project incorporate Project Design Features to achieve a minimum score of 100 points on the Screening Tables. As stated in the Community CAP, projects that achieve a minimum score of 100 points or provide additional mitigation that achieves a 25 percent reduction are considered less than significant. However, at the time of this analysis, the City’s CAP update is underway and the potential timeframes for approval and adoption of the City CAP update are unknown. Once approved, the CAP may implement performance standards and GHG emissions reduction targets differing from the current CAP. There is the potential that even after achieving more than 100 points on the current Screening Tables, the Project may conflict with as-yet-unknown performance standards and GHG emissions reduction targets implemented under the anticipated CAP updates, and thereby result in GHG emissions that would be considered to represent a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, even with the implementation of 115
MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 and MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-3, this Project impact is conservatively considered significant and unavoidable.

Impact 4.76-2. Implementation of the proposed Project would conflict with the City’s Community Climate Action Plan (“CAP”). Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would require future individual projects accommodated under the proposed Project to be designed to achieve at least 100 points on the City’s GHG Screening Threshold Table. This measure would ensure that future individual projects are consistent with the City’s Community CAP and would reduce Impact 4.6-2 to less than significant. However, there is the potential for the Project to generate GHG emissions that would result in significant impacts on the environment. Pending adoption of the City CAP update; a determination that the City CAP as updated is consistent with applicable State and regional GHG emissions reduction plans; and a determination that the proposed Project is consistent with the CAP as updated, the potential for Project GHG emissions to result in a significant impact on the environment is conservatively considered to be a significant and unavoidable impact. (d) Transportation and Traffic.

Impact 4.13-2. The proposed Project was found to exceed the City’s adopted Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”) threshold by 19.61 percent. Although the Project VMT could be reduced through the measures identified above, this analysis has conservatively not taken any credit for these VMT measures. Inclusion of such VMT reduction measures in areas that are characteristically suburban in context are noted to be limited to a maximum VMT reduction of 15 percent, which is not enough to reduce Project-generated VMT to a level below the City’s adopted significance threshold. Finally, as future Project design features and building tenants are not yet known, reductions in VMT related to the above TDM measures cannot be accurately estimated or guaranteed. Therefore, the Project’s transportation impact based on VMT is conservatively considered significant and unavoidable.

Impacts would be significant, unavoidable, and unmitigable for the Project. The VMT reduction measures could include VMT measures 1, 6 and 7 above. Furthermore, MM GHG-1 may provide further VMT reduction depending on which GHG reduction strategies are chosen from the City’s CAP Screening Table discussed in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. No other mitigation measures are feasible to reduce VMT below the City’s thresholds of significance. (e) Land Use and Planning.

At the time of publication of the Draft SEIR, the Project’s proposed land uses were inconsistent with the City’s 2010 TOP. However, the City’s 2050 TOP Update was approved and certified by the City Council on August 16, 2022, which established TOP Land Use districts which are consistent with the proposed Project’s land use districts. As such, the previously analyzed significant cumulative Land Use and Planning Impact is no longer applicable to the Project.

Following completion of the Draft SEIR, a Notice of Availability of the Draft SEIR was published in the newspaper and was sent to all state, county and local agencies, and property owners that received a Notice of Preparation, as well as any other interested parties requesting notification. The 45-day public review period required by CEQA began on June 7, 2022 and ended on July 21, 2022.

During the 45-day public review period, the City received six comment letters from various public agencies and interested parties, including:
116
Letters from the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission and the Jurupa Unified School District were received, with each indicating that they had “no comments.” The South Coast Air Quality Management District requested additional information. The information was provided, and no further follow-up comments were provided by the District.

Lozeau Drury LLP requested a copy of the Draft SEIR, which was provided. No further followup comments were received.

Concerns were also raised regarding a perceived increase in truck traffic due to redesignating residential land uses to industrial land uses and the need for additional analysis of the two primary Chino Airport access intersections on Merrill Avenue in the vicinity of the Project. It was also suggested that conditions be placed on the Project to coordinate truck traffic, similar to the requirements the City of Chino places on their projects.

The City of Eastvale stated a concern that by breaking up review of the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan into two projects and by failing to sufficiently analyze the additive impacts from incorporating the Project site into the original Ontario Ranch Business Park area, the Draft Subsequent EIR’s impact analyses may appear to be less than actual cumulative impacts that may have arose from one larger overall project. The City of Eastvale also requested revisions to the traffic analysis to more accurately demonstrate potential traffic impacts and requested the payment of Development Impact Fees to the City of Eastvale to mitigate for traffic impacts caused by the Project.

Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, the City prepared individual responses to all the aforementioned comments. The full responses to comments are included in the Final SEIR appended to the resolution prepared for the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, provided with this report.

While mitigation of all potential impacts to a level of less than significant is desirable, the fact that four areas will remain significant and unavoidable is not unexpected. The identification of these areas as significant and unavoidable validates the work previously completed for the 2010 TOP and 2050 TOP Update. Staff continues to believe that the benefits of the proposed development outweigh the potential impacts associated with it.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: On August 30, 2022, the Planning Commission reviewed the Specific Plan Amendment and accompanying Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. At the meeting several people spoke both in favor and opposition to the project. A letter in opposition was provided to the Commission from Susan A. Phillips, on behalf of the Robert Redford Conservancy, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, and the Southern California Agricultural Land Foundation. Staff has provided a response to the comment letter (see Exhibit D: Coalition Letter of Opposition to the Ontario Ranch Business Park Plan Amendment, attached). After receiving all public testimony, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (5-0-2) to recommend that the City Council approve the Specific Plan Amendment and certify the related Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, including the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
117
Exhibit A – Project Location Map
118
Exhibit B – Specific Plan Land Use Plan
Specific Plan Amendment
Boundary (Area to be
Annexed to ORBP SP)
119
Exhibit C – Maximum Specific Plan Buildout
120
FMI: Susan A. Phillips [email protected]
Coalition Letter of Opposition to the Ontario Ranch Business Park Plan Amendment August 19, 2022
Dear Ontario Planning Commissioners:

We are a coalition of individuals and organizations who have come together in opposition to the Ontario Ranch Business Park Plan Amendment. As a group, we wish to create an alternative vision for the remaining farmland in Ontario that can mitigate some of the existing detriments of the logistics industry and that can provide for a cooler, greener future for Ontario residents.

We also believe that warehouse and industrial development in Ontario has reached capacity for reasons of environmental justice, GHG and pollutant emissions, traffic, noise, human health concerns, and environmental degradation. We urge members of the Ontario Planning Commission to vote no on this project. The Ontario Ranch Business Park Plan Amendment would pave over 71.69 acres of prime farmland. A no vote could instead pave the way for innovative, agroecological stewardship of this remaining agricultural land in Ontario, honoring Ontario’s historical legacy and cementing Ontario’s place as a forward thinking, sustainable city.

For generations, Ontario communities have been harmed by continual warehouse growth due to detrimental air quality impacts, temporary jobs with significant health and safety hazards and little accountability, and increased traffic. According to CalEnviroScreen data, the census tract in which this project amendment resides has a pollution burden above the 99th percentile, making this one of the most polluted census tracts in the state. We know the City has benefited financially from the presence and construction of warehouses. We as a coalition believe that no amount of financial gain can offset the costs to human and environmental health that this projects represents.
1 a
b
121
The top issues for residents and community members in the area are air quality and traffic.

Trucks already impact the lives of Ontario residents with existing truck routes that create pollution, noise, and congestion. The top issues globally and locally have to do with climate change and increased heat.

The Warehouse CITY (Community Cumulative Impact Tool) generates the following statistics for the City of Ontario. The statistics represent an underestimation but are alarming nonetheless, especially for a city aiming to have balance:

The City of Ontario currently has ~664 warehouses,
These cover ~5091 acres of land and lead to
~96k truck trips per day.

This results in a daily emission of ~131 pounds of particulate matter, ~15205 pounds of NOx,
and over 8 million pounds of GHG emissions.

The cumulative impact tool shows that the current rate of GHG emissions associated with Ontario warehouses is in excess of 6.75 million pounds of CO2 per year, given an assumed HDDT VMT of 25 miles per day. According to current standards, the social cost of carbon is $51 per ton. This calculation was developed to provide guidance for federal clean air policy. This number is based on older mathematical models and there is wide agreement that it is a radical underestimation of carbon’s true cost. Utilizing the $51 standard, the annual estimated cost of carbon stemming from Ontario’s warehouse infrastructure already exceeds $63 million per year.

This number will grow by 3.8% per year if warehouse VMT follows current growth projections, and this project amendment simply continues this carbon-intensive trend.

As noted in the DEIR, significant consequences in terms of pollution and GHGs, as well as traffic, noise, safety, and congestion will accompany this construction. In terms of GHGs, the tool estimates that Ontario warehouses have increased CO2 emissions by approximately 1.27 MTCO2e per year. These numbers do not even factor in the airport or rail both of which significantly add to the pollution and climate burden of continued industrial development.. 2 b
c
122
Fig. 1 Map generated from Warehouse CITY on August 19, 2022. Courtesy Robert Redford Conservancy and Radical Research LLC. https://radicalresearch.shinyapps.io/WarehouseCITY/ The outsized role that Ontario plays in global logistics clearly results in challenges for air quality, human health, and the environment. To continue to add to this burden needs further thought until these data can be considered by the Planning Commission. According to CEQA, any planned project must account for the cumulative impact of past, present and future projects.

This plan fails to do that. In particular, we are concerned that housing is slated to be constructed in close proximity (across the street) from the development. A more robust cumulative impact analysis must be completed in order for this project to move forward. 3 c
123
According to the DEIR, this project will create 748 additional truck trips per day that will cause congestion, noise, pollution, and danger for Ontario residents. Furthermore, residents are concerned with significant impacts on children. The South Ontario community is growing, and all the new developments house young families. Ontario residents are highly concerned about the impact of trucks on children’s health. Ontario already has the worst air quality in San Bernardino County. The California Enviroscreen data score for PM 2.5 is above the 90th percentile due to the nexus of airports, freeways, and train lines. Moving in additional truck traffic will not only impact air quality but also congestion. This is not the right direction for our diverse Ontario communities, some of whom are considered disadvantaged.

Several things are troubling about the process surrounding this matter:

The newly approved General Plan for the City of Ontario does not include any agricultural land despite this topic now being a “topic of controversy” within the City.

Similarly, this DEIR does not account for the controversy that surrounds the elimination of Ontario farmland. The elements of the EIR indicate significant and unavoidable impacts on increasingly rare prime farmland, as well as on air quality, disadvantaged communities, greenhouse gas emissions, and multiple species. All of these impacts require mitigation, and the measures proposed do not adequately address them. In particular, the lack of feasible alternatives for farmland loss is insufficient in the EIR and thus in violation of CEQA mandates. Due to significant and unavoidable impacts to farmland as stated in the EIR, the consideration of mitigation measures (currently deemed infeasible in the EIR), or alternative plans need consideration.

This project amendment went through robust physical and fiscal planning prior to the adoption of an Environmental Justice element. Further, the General Plan does not have an environmental justice element included with it, either as a stand-alone section, or throughout the document. While we have heard the City’s assertion that the EJ element is throughout the document, we see little evidence of this. If a significantly robus EJ element had been considered and adopted, we fail to see how the City could be contemplating this project amendments or others like it. Continuing to expand warehouse infrastructure in a City that is already saturated with polluting infrastructure is a continuation of activities harmful to human health.

There are significant impacts that can and should be mitigated but have not been. The City may not adopt a statement of overriding considerations to approve a project where feasible, less environmentally damaging alternatives exist and feasible mitigation measures have not been adopted.
4 d
e
f
g
124
The “policy of the state” reflected in the California Environmental Quality Act is that projects with significant environmental impacts may not be approved “if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects . . .” (Pub. Resources Code § 21002.) More specifically, CEQA states:

Pursuant to the policy stated in Sections 21002 and 21002.1, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless …:
(a). . . (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations . . . make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
(Pub. Resources Code § 21081.)
It is settled law that:

CEQA contains substantive provisions with which agencies must comply. The most important ... is the provision requiring agencies to deny approval of a project with significant adverse effects when feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures can substantially lessen such effects. (Sierra Club v. Gilroy City Council (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 30, 41, italics added.) Indeed, in a case decided on July 7, 2006, a court analyzed the “substantive mandate” of CEQA, then set aside a college campus master plan project because there was not substantial evidence to support a college district’s findings of economic and legal infeasibility of mitigation. (County of San Diego v.

Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College (2006) –Cal. App.--, slip opinion, pp. 18-29.)
“Feasible” is defined as “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (Pub. Resources Code § 21061.1.) The definition does not require the agreement of the project applicant. “Each public agency shall mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment of projects that it carries out or approves whenever it is feasible to do so.” (Lincoln Place Tenants Ass'n v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1491, 1508, emphasis added.) 5 h
125
This project has impacts that can and must be mitigated. These are inappropriately labeled as unavoidable, but they in fact may be avoided by properly adopting mitigation measures and alternatives.

Traffic remains a key issue. The initial traffic study was conducted in 2019, during COVID, and despite a request from the City of Chino, the City of Ontario disagrees that it should be reconducted. In addition to additional thousands of truck trips per day, surrounding communities that include elementary, middle, and high schools, local residents will have to deal with years of construction.

We incorporate by reference the objections stated in the California Department of Fish and Wildlife letter of July 21, 2021, The City of Chino letter of August 2, 2021, The South Coast AQMD letter of August 3, 2021, and the CARB letter of August 6, 2021. While one or more of these letters may be withdrawn, the objections stated in the letters are valid and we incorporate them as if fully stated herein. We urge you to vote no on this item.

Given the points above, we call for this item to be voted down due to lack of community voice, environmental concerns, loss of prime farmland and lack of plans for mitigation, and significant harm to disadvantaged communities.

This decision represents a permanent decrease in the amount of farmland in the state of California. Building warehouses on this prime farmland is an unwise decision when climate-related disasters disrupt the supply chain, when predicted climate-related food shortages threaten the well-being of thousands in our already food insecure region, and when shrinking biodiversity threatens the very fabric of our ecosystems. We need to prioritize building health-promoting infrastructure, NOT pollution promoting infrastructure like warehouses. With poor air-quality days, days over 90 degrees, and traffic all increasing, we need to protect, preserve, and invest in green spaces and working lands that can act as regional lungs and help communities breathe more easily. The proposed conversion of working lands to industrial uses is an irreversible change that goes against Governor Newsome and CNRA’s call for the state to “Expand Nature-Based Solutions.” In Executive order N-82-20 Governor Newsome calls for protecting working lands as climate-smart solutions to worsening climate change. The elimination of prime farmland, as proposed, limits Ontario’s capacity to deliver a healthy quality of life to its residents and be a leader in innovating solutions. Climate-related challenges are not in our distant future. They are happening now. Power outages, extreme heat and wind events, drought, natural disasters—all of these are straining our systems beyond capacity. Increased heat, lack of water percolation, loss of biodiversity, and increased fossil fuel consumption 6 h
i
126
associated with warehouse and business park development will only exacerbate these problems.

A no vote will pave the way for considering long-term investments in a regenerative, sustainable agriculture zone that can feed our communities, promote biodiversity, create climate resilience, and provide housing and education for generations to come.

The value of open and working lands is only now being realized as we face the climate crisis head on. Ontario could form an important part of 30x30 which is an international, national, and state-wide movement to conserve 30% of open and working lands and coastal waters by 2030 as a nature-based solution to climate change.

By voting no, the Ontario Planning Commission has the potential to become a regional, state, and national leader in how to build equitable, climate resilient, and sustainable cities with a forward-thinking vision—right here in the Inland Empire. This move would open up state and national funding streams from entities interested in the links between preserving open and working lands and building climate-smart, agricultural solutions for our current and projected climate-related problems. There is over $1 billion worth of climate-smart funding for nature-based climate solutions. Ontario is already the recipient of a CA TCC grant based on quality community engagement and work done to support health outcomes in disadvantaged communities. A vote to convert working lands to industrial uses will close the door for this great city to future funds that prioritize clean energy, public transit, urban greening, and local food security.

From an economic perspective, prime farmland has tremendous value that cannot be understated. While economic benefit cannot compete with the cold, hard cash that warehouse development offers, think of the public health benefit and dollars saved through the decrease of intergenerational asthma that now runs in Ontario families, think of chronic, diet-related illnesses such as diabetes and heart disease. Think of the failed blue-collar promise that has actually worsened poverty in the decades since warehouse development began. In 2021, the United Ways of California showed in their “Real Costs Measure in CA” report and mapping tool that 34% of Ontario families struggled to make ends meet and earned less than the real cost of living. This can be compared with neighboring cities like Chino Hills and Rancho Cucamonga where it was only 22% of households. Not surprisingly, Fontana, which has also experienced heavy warehouse development, comes in at 45% of households. Clearly the industry isn’t providing for the benefit of working families in our communities. We cannot keep investing in projects that do not serve residents’ needs.
7 i
j
k
127
Now instead think of a vibrant food hub based on sustainable agriculture practices that develops jobs, clean energy, and human health. Think of the ability of Ontario to bring in grant-related income that recognizes the benefits of carbon capture, water filtration, and biodiversity preservation. With the passage of SB 1383, using the land to compost organic wastes could be a steady income source for Ontario from other cities in the region. All of these things pay in real dollars as well as in human health, resilience, and sustainability. For Ontario, this can become business as usual, and it is essential. It is also very much in line with Ontario’s rich agrarian past, which we envision is also part of Ontario’s innovative future.

In 1882, George and William Chaffey surveyed and put up for sale the Ontario Colony lands.

These primarily agricultural lands were devoted to citrus and other fruits, such as peaches, lemons, and grapes. Agriculture is such an important part of Ontario’s legacy. The Babcock peach comes from its farmer’s fields along with fourteen other varieties of stone fruit. In 1933, Professor E.B. Babcock developed the Babcock peach with white fruit and no fuzz. Moreover, the ever-present Armstrong Garden Centers began in Ontario as the Armstrong Nursery that developed the Snow Queen nectarine and the Bonanza peach. Unlike many cities in Southern California, Ontario still has a portion of its land as agriculture and remains in productive use.

Ontario can continue to showcase its roots as an agricultural center. In 2015, the zoning maps show more than six square miles zoned for agriculture. Now, less than seven years later, the newly adopted TOP 2050 ignores this legacy and plans to rezone the agricultural lands as industrial lands. Pasadena and Pomona wish they would have set aside lands to showcase their heritage and invest in their future. Ontario has the chance, as well as the chance to showcase continued links between Ontario and innovation in educational facilities, architectural innovation, and reformulated sustainable farms.

As you already know, agricultural land is valued in two ways: either as remaining in agricultural production or as land that is to be developed. We urge you to think of the value of the land in a third way: as part of a climate-smart strategy whose value is incalculable. Transforming dairies to sustainable farms is one of the most powerful forms of green infrastructure, and the potential for it is right in Ontario’s backyard. Farmland is an increasingly rare asset as cities face uncertain futures. The Great Park plan is a wonderful start but insufficient to make the city a beacon for the type of progressive innovation whose benefits will literally save lives.

Warehouses may provide financial benefits for some, but they ultimately create environmental and human health detriments that are all too well known to Ontario residents. To continue to ignore these is irresponsible.

We believe Ontario is the place to combine innovative, sustainable farming techniques with tree belts, educational facilities, and net-zero medium and low-density housing. We envision the 8 k
l
128
acreage as a hub for the most innovative architectural and farming techniques, for regional food conferences and knowledge exchanges, and for agri-tourism that would bring many people to the region. This plan could also include large agrivoltaic arrays—photovoltaic solar arrays placed over growing areas or livestock shading structures that create clean energy and enhance water conservation and shade in our hot and dry region. This energy would not only power the community—it's possible that excess energy could be sold to the nearby Chino airport or fed back into the Southern California Edison grid to keep the footprint of Ontario’s new construction to the north in line with its ambitious Climate Action Plan. We also envision the use of biochar—either from reformulated, sustainable dairy practices or from the nearby forests—to enhance both carbon sequestration and increase microbial life, as well as water retention.

Additionally, the area would be a generator of quality high-road jobs for local residents from agroecological farmers, to organics recycling technicians, to solar energy builders, to habitat restorationists, to educators, to food processors and urban arborists. The wave of green job creation that would be spurred by an agricultural zone will benefit those directly working in the zone as well as promote ripples of healthy, climate-smart economic benefits across the city through the agricultural economic multiplier effect. Each farm job created in fruit, vegetable, nursery, and egg production creates over 2.0 additional jobs along the food chain as well as each $1 leading to $1.5 dollars in the economy (Vergati and Sumner, 91, 2012). Development of clean energy and preservation of working lands will benefit the local and regional quality of life as well. We also envision education around the region’s agricultural and tribal history, emphasizing multiple connections to the land in Ontario through time. You would demonstrate how a city can be dedicated to both development and sustainability.

Voting yes on the project would simply mean more of the same: the problems that plague Ontario and the region, including health issues, low-paying, temporary jobs, and dangerous congestion in our air and on our roads. Our community does not want that. We do not want trucks idling in our neighborhoods, crowding our streets, slowing our commutes, and compromising our children’s futures.

With this vote, Ontario has the opportunity to think for a moment—to halt or pause this process instead of fast-tracking it. Allow community members to build a vision along with you about the future we all want to see. This future should not include more warehouses. We urge you to vote no on this project amendment in order to consider an alternative land use plans and to require mitigation that will have less impact, as mandated by CEQA.

We also urge the City to apply for a SALC planning grant to study the potential for agricultural land retention in the city, and should adopt a voluntary mitigation measures to replace all lost 9 l
m
n
o
129
prime farmland with an equal amount of prime farmland in the city through land trusts and/or conservation easements. The City should facilitate the adoption of urban agriculture practices in vacant City lots.

With these materials, we urge you to vote no on this Ontario Ranch Business Park Plan Project.

Sincerely,
Randy Bekendam, Executive Director
Southern California Agricultural Land Foundation
Susan A. Phillips, Director
Robert Redford Conservancy for Southern California Sustainability, Pitzer College Joaquin Castillejos, Community Organizer
Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice
10 o
130
Comment Letter O2
[INSERT COMMENT LETTER HERE WITH BRACKETS]
131
Letter O2 Robert Redford Conservancy for Southern California Sustainability, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, Southern California Agricultural Land Foundation
August 19, 2022
Response O2-a
Comment noted for the record. However, no specific comments on the contents of the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) are provided. Pursuant to State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15088(a), a lead agency is only required to evaluate and respond to comments raised on environmental issues, and thus no further response is necessary. The opinions expressed in this comment will be considered by the City of Ontario (City) during deliberations on the Ontario Ranch Business Park II Specific Plan Amendment Project (Project).

Response O2-b
Comment noted for the record. See Response O2-a. These opinions will be considered by the City during Project deliberations. No further response is required.

Response O2-c
The comment cites data from the Warehouse CITY (Community Cumulative Impact Tool). However, the reference used in the letter of “Warehouse CITY (Community Cumulative Impact Tool)” redirects to the “RadicalResearch” site and tool. The various assumptions utilized in RadicalResearch model are neither clearly defined nor adequately substantiated. For example, as identified under the “Readme” tab, subsection “Methods” for this tool, the model estimates building area by assuming a “0.65 [floor area ratio (FAR)]” for each parcel.
1 The generic assumption of 0.65 FAR exceeds the 0.60
maximum allowable FAR under The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050, it also exceeds the actual FAR of existing and proposed/approved industrial projects. Moreover, the data is irrelevant to the Project at hand, because the assumed 0.65 FAR exceeds the Project FAR by more than 33% (the Project FAR is 0.54 for Industrial uses and 0.45 for Business Park).

Air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts were analyzed based on the Project Traffic Analysis (Appendix I of the Draft Subsequent EIR), which stated the Project would generate 3,656 new vehicle trips (2,908 new passenger vehicle trips and 748 new truck trips). Mobile source emissions were modeled by conservatively assuming the Project would generate 28,461,798 total annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) (17,571,222 VMT associated with passenger vehicles and 10,890,576 VMT associated with trucks). As a result, only operational air quality impacts and GHG impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable, however construction air quality and GHG impacts remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated, as explained in more detail in Section 4.2 Air Quality and Section 4.7 Greenhouse Gas of the Draft Subsequent EIR. Additionally, the Project would not result in significant impacts to noise as discussed in Section 4.11, Noise of the Draft Subsequent EIR. Further, congestion and safety are not considered a significant impact and no other 1 Robert Redford Conservancy for Southern California Sustainability, Pitzer College, Radical Research LLC. Warehouse CITY Documentation (alpha v1.08 - released August 15, 2022). Readme – “Methods.” Retrieved from: https://radicalresearch.shinyapps.io/WarehouseCITY/. 132
mitigation measures are feasible to reduce VMT below the City’s thresholds of significance. See Section 4.14, Transportation and Traffic of the Draft Subsequent EIR for more detail.

Lastly, provided in Appendix I of the Draft Subsequent EIR, the Traffic Analysis (TA) cumulative project list was prepared through consultation with planning and engineering staff from the City of Ontario.

The cumulative projects listed are those that would generate traffic and would contribute traffic to Project area intersections. The neighboring jurisdictions were contacted to include key projects in their respective cities that would generate traffic and would contribute traffic to Project area intersections. Additionally, page 107 of the TA describes the model growth for the Project. Through a conservative analysis approach and in conjunction with the addition of cumulative projects that are not consistent with the City TOP Policy Plan, additional growth has also been applied on a movementby-movement basis, where applicable, to estimate reasonable traffic volume forecasts. Therefore, the additional growth would account for any potential cumulative projects that are not located on the project list. Based on the reasons above, cumulative impacts from nearby cumulative projects, including those either planned, under environmental review, approved, or under construction, as well as an applied growth factor, were accounted for in the cumulative analyses for the Draft Subsequent EIR. The balance of this comment does not raise an environmental issue with the Draft Subsequent EIR. Therefore, no further response is required.

Response O2-d
Comment noted for the record. Refer to Response O2-c above. These opinions will be considered by the City during Project deliberations. No further response is required.

Response O2-e
The comment states that the Draft Subsequent EIR does not account for the controversy that surrounds the elimination of farmland in the City, and the measures proposed do not adequately address them.

The City disagrees with this assertion. First, TOP 2050 does indeed continue to allow for agricultural uses within the City. Existing agricultural uses are still allowed to persist as non-conforming uses (see TOP 2050 Policies ER-5.3 and ER-5.4).

Second, as discussed in Section 4.1, Agriculture and Forestry Resources of the Draft Subsequent EIR, the conversion of agricultural lands and loss of Prime Farmland resulting from the Project have already been considered and addressed in the TOP EIR, including a Statement of Overriding Considerations that was adopted in January 2010 as part of the City’s TOP approval. As further discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR, the conversion of existing agricultural uses to urban uses would be consistent with the TOP 2050 Update, and the continuation of agricultural uses would be incongruous with the continuing urbanization in the City, as evident in the lack of “Agricultural” Land Use designations under the adopted Land Use Plan of the TOP 2050 Update. On that point, the Draft Subsequent EIR explains on pages 4.1.13 through 4.1.16 that no feasible mitigation measures were identified to substantially lessen the Project’s significant impacts related to agricultural resources to a less-than-significant level. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15364, feasibility should take into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors. Therefore, “agencies may 133
conclude that a mitigation measure…is impractical or undesirable from a policy standpoint and reject it as feasible on that ground.” See City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417.

Additionally, the Project build-out area is designated for urban development pursuant to the City’s TOP 2050 Update Policy Plan. Existing agricultural uses are in various stages of converting to urban uses that are consistent with the TOP 2050 Update Policy Plan. As agricultural uses diminish, so too do the necessary support uses such as feed stores, agricultural equipment sales and rentals, and manure services. In addition, as described previously, dairy farming has become less and less viable in the City . The dairy industry in San Bernardino County has consistently and sharply declined since 2000, and incentives to convert to urban uses increase. Existing agricultural uses within the City are becoming economically unsustainable and represent land uses that are increasingly incongruous with continuing urbanization .

The reasons for the gradual transition of the Ontario Ranch Specific Plan area away from agriculture and to various forms of development are many, including: 1) rising costs of maintaining agricultural practices within an urban environment; 2) increasing costs and complexity of compliance with a myriad of governmental regulations, including air quality regulations from the SCAQMD and water quality regulations from the Regional Water Quality Control Board; 3) significant costs of maintaining adequate clean soil for agricultural production in light of decades of accumulation of agricultural wastes; and 4) increasing costs of transporting the agricultural products. These increasing costs, complexities and risks are weighed by individual landowners, who are now voluntarily selling their land for development, consistent with City’s TOP and policy planning over the last 20+ years.

In fact, the transition of existing agricultural uses and farmland to non-agricultural uses is an unavoidable effect of implementing the TOP 2050 Update. In 2010, the TOP EIR considered various mitigation measures that could reduce impacts to agricultural resources, but concluded that there no feasible measures would reduce the loss of agriculture to levels that would be less than significant.

That conclusion remains valid today, as evidenced in TOP 2050 Update.

Lastly, the Project site is within an industrial corridor designated by the City in the TOP 2050, to provide for an appropriate mix of land uses within the City and within Ontario Ranch more specifically.

The Project site is adjacent to the Chino Airport and an existing approved industrial project, and is within a corridor of other recently approved industrial projects. These industrial projects, due to their high land value and economics, are able to fund significant infrastructure costs within the Ontario Ranch, which could not be carried by residential development, and certainly not by ongoing agricultural uses.

Response O2-f
Comment noted for the record. Refer to Response O2-c above. These opinions will be considered by the City during Project deliberations. No further response is required. 134
Response O2-g
Comment noted for the record. Refer to Response O2-a above. These opinions will be considered by the City during Project deliberations. No further response is required.

Response O2-h
The comment makes general assertions regarding additional mitigation or alternatives that should be considered in the Draft Subsequent EIR, but provides no specific comment or recommendations in that regard.

The City provided specific responses to comments made by the City of Chino regarding the Project’s traffic analysis (note that, per SB743, operational traffic impacts are no longer a significant impact under CEQA). See Section 2.0, Response to Comments, of the Project Final Subsequent EIR for more information.

With respect to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment letters cited in the comment (from California Department of Fish and Wildlife, City of Chino, SCAQMD and the California Air Resources Control Board), these NOP comment letters were included in Draft Subsequent EIR Appendix A and were considered during preparation of the Draft Subsequent EIR. Each of these organizations received a copy of the Draft Subsequent EIR Notice of Availability, and only the City of Chino and SCAQMD provided further comments. Responses to these subsequent comments are provided in the Final EIR.

Response O2-i
Comment noted for the record. See Response O2-a. These opinions will be considered by the City during Project deliberations. No further response is required.

Response O2-j
Comment noted for the record. See Response O2-a. These opinions will be considered by the City during Project deliberations. No further response is required.

Response O2-k
Comment noted for the record. See Response O2-a. These opinions will be considered by the City during Project deliberations. No further response is required.

Response O2-l
Comment noted for the record. See Response O2-a. These opinions will be considered by the City during Project deliberations. No further response is required.

Response O2-m
Comment noted for the record. See Response O2-a. These opinions will be considered by the City during Project deliberations. No further response is required. 135
Response O2-n
Comment noted for the record. See Response O2-a. These opinions will be considered by the City during Project deliberations. No further response is required.

Response O2-o
Comment noted for the record. See Response O2-a. These opinions will be considered by the City during Project deliberations. No further response is required. 136
Approval
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
Planning Commission Staff Report
File No.: PSPA21-002
August 30, 2022

Page 11 of 26 ends

various public agencies and interested private parties. Letters received from public agencies included the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission and the Jurupa Unified School District, which indicated that they had “no comment” regarding the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. Additionally, a letter was received from the South Coast Air Quality Management District, which requested additional information in order to complete their review; however, staff did not receive any follow-up comments from this agency.

Comment letters were also received from the neighboring cities of Chino and Eastvale.

The City of Chino suggested that a revised list of cumulative projects surrounding the project site should be used, so that the document’s projections/analyses have greater accuracy (the letter cited a project located within the City of Chino that was not included on the project list). Concerns were also raised regarding a perceived increased truck traffic due to re-designating residential land uses to industrial land uses and the need for additional analysis of the two primary Chino Airport access intersections on Merrill Avenue, in the vicinity of the Project. It was also suggested that conditions be placed on the Project to coordinate truck traffic, similar to the requirements the City of Chino places on their projects.

A comment letter was received from a private party (Lozeau Drury LLP), requesting a copy of the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, which was provided electronically by means of the City’s website.

Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, the City prepared individual responses to all the aforementioned comments. The full responses to comments are included in Attachment B, Response to Comments, appended to the resolution prepared for Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, provided with this report.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE ONTARIO PLAN: The proposed project is consistent with the principles, goals and policies contained within the Vision, Governance, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan (“TOP”). More specifically, the goals and policies of TOP that are furthered by the proposed project are as follows:
147
Planning Commission Staff Report
File No.: PSPA21-002
August 30, 2022

Page 12 of 26 ends

(1) City Council Goals.
 Invest in the Growth and Evolution of the City’s Economy  Operate in a Businesslike Manner
 Invest in the City’s Infrastructure (Water, Streets, Sewers, Parks, Storm Drains and Public Facilities)
 Ensure the Development of a Well Planned, Balanced, and Self-Sustaining Community in the New Model Colony
(2) Governance.

Decision Making:
 Goal G1: Sustained decision-making that consistently moves Ontario towards its Vision by using The Ontario Plan as a framework for assessing choices.  G1-2 Long-term Benefit. We require decisions to demonstrate and document how they add value to the community and support the Ontario Vision. (3) Policy Plan (General Plan)
Land Use Element:
 LU1-1 Strategic Growth. We concentrate growth in strategic locations that help create place and identity, maximize available and planned infrastructure, and foster the development of transit.
 LU1-6 Complete Community: We incorporate a variety of land uses and building types in our land use planning efforts that result in a complete community where residents at all stages of life, employers, workers and visitors have a wide spectrum of choices of where they can live, work, shop and recreate within Ontario. (Refer to Complete Community Section of Community Economics Element).  Goal LU2: Compatibility between a wide range of uses.

Community Economics Element:
 Goal CE2: A City of distinctive neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, where people choose to be.
 CE2-1 Development Projects. We require new development and redevelopment to create unique, high-quality places that add value to the community.  CE2-2 Development Review. We require those proposing new development and redevelopment to demonstrate how their projects will create 148
Planning Commission Staff Report
File No.: PSPA21-002
August 30, 2022

Page 13 of 26 ends

appropriately unique, functional and sustainable places that will compete well with their competition within the region.
 CE2-4 Protection of Investment. We require that new development and redevelopment protect existing investment by providing architecture and urban design of equal or greater quality.
 CE2-5 Private Maintenance. We require adequate maintenance, upkeep, and investment in private property because proper maintenance on private property protects property values.

Community Design Element:
 Goal CD1: A dynamic, progressive city containing distinct neighborhoods and commercial districts that foster a positive sense of identity and belonging among residents, visitors, and businesses.
 CD1-1 City Identity. We take actions that are consistent with the City being a leading urban center in Southern California while recognizing the diverse character of our existing viable neighborhoods.
 CD1-2 Growth Areas. We require development in growth areas to be distinctive and unique places within which there are cohesive design themes.  CD1-3 Neighborhood Improvement. We require viable existing residential and non-residential neighborhoods to be preserved, protected, and enhanced in accordance with our land use policies.
 Goal CD2: A high level of design quality resulting in public spaces, streetscapes, and developments that are attractive, safe, functional and distinct.  CD2-1 Quality Architecture. We encourage all development projects to convey visual interest and character through:
• Building volume, massing, and height to provide appropriate scale and proportion;
149
Planning Commission Staff Report
File No.: PSPA21-002
August 30, 2022

Page 14 of 26 ends

• A true architectural style which is carried out in plan, section and elevation through all aspects of the building and site design and appropriate for its setting; and
• Exterior building materials that are visually interesting, high quality, durable, and appropriate for the architectural style.
 CD2-7 Sustainability. We collaborate with the development community to design and build neighborhoods, streetscapes, sites, outdoor spaces, landscaping and buildings to reduce energy demand through solar orientation, maximum use of natural daylight, passive solar and natural ventilation, building form, mechanical and structural systems, building materials and construction techniques.  CD2-8 Safe Design. We incorporate defensible space design into new and existing developments to ensure the maximum safe travel and visibility on pathways, corridors, and open space and at building entrances and parking areas by avoiding physically and visually isolated spaces, maintenance of visibility and accessibility, and use of lighting.
 CD2-9 Landscape Design. We encourage durable landscaping materials and designs that enhance the aesthetics of structures, create and define public and private spaces, and provide shade and environmental benefits.  CD2-10 Surface Parking Areas. We require parking areas visible to or used by the public to be landscaped in an aesthetically pleasing, safe and environmentally sensitive manner. Examples include shade trees, pervious surfaces, urban run-off capture and infiltration, and pedestrian paths to guide users through the parking field.  CD2-11 Entry Statements. We encourage the inclusion of amenities, signage and landscaping at the entry to neighborhoods, commercial centers, mixed use areas, industrial developments, and public places that reinforce them as uniquely identifiable places.
 CD2-12 Site and Building Signage. We encourage the use of sign programs that utilize complementary materials, colors, and themes. Project signage should be designed to effectively communicate and direct users to various aspects of the development and complement the character of the structures.  CD2-13 Entitlement Process. We work collaboratively with all stakeholders to ensure a high degree of certainty in the efficient review and timely processing of all development plans and permits.
 Goal CD3: Vibrant urban environments that are organized around intense buildings, pedestrian and transit areas, public plazas, and linkages between and within developments that are conveniently located, visually appealing and safe during all hours.
150
Planning Commission Staff Report
File No.: PSPA21-002
August 30, 2022

Page 15 of 26 ends

 CD3-1 Design. We require that pedestrian, vehicular, bicycle and equestrian circulation on both public and private property be coordinated and designed to maximize safety, comfort and aesthetics.
 CD3-2 Connectivity Between Streets, Sidewalks, Walkways and Plazas. We require landscaping and paving be used to optimize visual connectivity between streets, sidewalks, walkways and plazas for pedestrians.
 CD3-3 Building Entrances. We require all building entrances to be accessible and visible from adjacent streets, sidewalks or public open spaces.  CD3-5 Paving. We require sidewalks and road surfaces to be of a type and quality that contributes to the appearance and utility of streets and public spaces.  CD3-6 Landscaping. We utilize landscaping to enhance the aesthetics, functionality and sustainability of streetscapes, outdoor spaces and buildings.  Goal CD5: A sustained level of maintenance and improvement of properties, buildings and infrastructure that protects the property values and encourages additional public and private investments.
 CD5-1 Maintenance of Buildings and Property. We require all public and privately-owned buildings and property (including trails and easements) to be properly and consistently maintained.
 CD5-2 Maintenance of Infrastructure. We require the continual maintenance of infrastructure.

Due to provisions of Senate Bill 330 (“SB 330”), The Housing Accountability Act (Government Code Section 65589.5 et seq.) which was passed by the California Legislature, signed by the Governor, and became effective on January 1, 2020, the Project was made contingent upon approval of The Ontario Plan 2050 Update (PGPA20- 002), due to re-designating the underlying Land Uses for the Project site. The Ontario Plan 2050 Update proposed changes to the Project’s site General Plan Land Use Plan (from Residential and Business Park into Business Park and Industrial land uses) and has completed the requisite review of impacts and replacement of impacted dwelling unit counts (“no net loss”) to a more appropriate site within the City. The Ontario Plan 2050 Update was reviewed and approved by the City Council on August 16, 2022. 151
Planning Commission Staff Report
File No.: PSPA21-002
August 30, 2022

Page 16 of 26 ends

AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN (ALUCP) COMPLIANCE: The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. (1) Ontario International Airport — On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the Ontario International Airport Land use Compatibility Plan (“ALUCP”), establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. The proposed Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport and was evaluated and found to be consistent with the policies and criteria of the ALUCP. Any special conditions of approval associated with uses in close proximity to the airport are included in the conditions of approval provided with the attached resolutions.
(2) Chino Airport — On August 2, 2022, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted a Development Code Amendment to establish the Chino Airport Overlay Zoning District (“CNO OZD”) and Reference L, Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (“CNO ALUCP”). The CNO OZD and ALUCP established the Airport Influence Area for Chino Airport, solely within the City of Ontario, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. The CNO ALUCP is consistent with policies and criteria set forth within the Caltrans 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.

The proposed Project is located within the Chino Airport Influence Area and was evaluated and found to be consistent with the policies and criteria of the CNO ALUCP.

Future development within Project Site shall be subject to Open Land and people per acre occupancy intensity calculations that are described below.

The Project site is located within Safety Zone 6 (Handbook Generic Safety Zones) and new development will be required to provide Open Land (an open area that is 300 feet long by 75 feet wide) and people per acre limits. Safety Zone 6 is required to provide a minimum of 10 percent of Open Land, and occupancy is limited to 300 people per acre on average, and a maximum of 1,200 people in any one acre.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Specific Plan is located in the City of Ontario in what was formerly the approximate 8,200-acre City of Ontario Sphere of Influence (SOI) area. On January 7, 1998, the City of Ontario adopted the New Model Colony (“NMC”) General Plan Amendment, setting forth a comprehensive strategy for the future development of the SOI. The NMC is generally bordered by Riverside Drive to the north, Milliken Avenue to the east, Euclid Avenue to the west and Merrill Avenue to the south. 152
Planning Commission Staff Report
File No.: PSPA21-002
August 30, 2022

Page 17 of 26 ends

Ontario City CouncilOctober 18, 2022

Ontario City Council
October 18, 2022