Ontario City Council
June 20, 2023

Avenue, within Planning Area 1 – Neighborhood 2 of the Countryside Specific Plan (see Figure 1: Project Location). The properties to the north and east are zoned MDR-18 (Medium Density Residential – 11.1 – 18.0 DU/ac) and developed with multiple family apartments. The properties to the south and west are zoned Countryside Specific Plan and developed with single-family detached homes. The Project site is currently used for agriculture activities and is improved with farm equipment storage buildings and livestock enclosures. The Project site is generally flat and drains to the southwest portion of the site. The existing surrounding land uses, zoning, and Policy Plan (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 (see Exhibit D—Existing Site Photographs, attached).

PROJECT ANALYSIS:
(1) Background — The Countryside Specific Plan (File No. PSP04-001) was approved, and the related Environmental Impact Report (“Certified EIR”; State Clearinghouse No. 2004071001) was certified by the City Council on April 18, 2006. The Countryside Specific Plan, adopted on May 2, 2006, established the land use designations, development standards, and design guidelines on 178 gross acres of land, which included the potential development of 819 dwelling units and approximately 9.4 acres of paseos and parks throughout the Specific Plan Area.

On August 16, 2022, the City Council certified The Ontario Plan 2050 Update Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“SEIR”) in conjunction with The Ontario Plan 2050 (“TOP 2050”) (File No. PGPA20-002) General Plan update. Within the TOP 2050 and SEIR, the Project site land use was designated and analyzed as Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR): 5.1 to 11.0 du/ac and Medium Density Residential (MDR): 11.1 to 25.0 du/ac. The previous land use designation was Low Density Residential (LDR): 2.1 to 5.0 du/ac.

On June 9, 2022, the Applicant submitted applications for a Specific Plan Amendment (“SPA”) (File No. PSPA22-002) and Tentative Tract Map No. 20536 (File No. PMTT22-021) to facilitate the construction of 265 single-family and multiple-family dwellings on the Project site.

On May 1, 2023, the Development Advisory Board (DAB) conducted a Public Hearing on Tentative Tract Map 20536 (File No. PMTT22-02) and recommended the Planning Commission approve the Project.
(2) Amendment to Countryside Specific Plan (“SPA”) (File No. PSPA22-002) — To accommodate the proposed Tentative Tract map application, the SPA proposes to amend the Countryside Specific Plan to increase the overall residential density from 6.32 to 7.64 dwelling units per net acres with the overall dwelling unit count from 442 to 601 dwelling units (see Exhibit A—Countryside Specific Plan Land Use Map and Exhibit B – Countryside Specific Plan Land Use Summary, attached). As part of TOP 2050 Update, 7697
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA22-002 & PMTT22-021 (TTM 20536)
May 23, 2023

the land use designation for the Project Site was changed from Low Density Residential (2.1 to 5 du/ac) to Low Medium Density Residential (5.1 to 11 du/ac) and Medium Density Residential (11.1 to 25 du/ac). The SPA proposes to update the land use designation of Planning 1 Neighborhood 2 to implement TOP Policy Plan land use designations and adjust the total unit count to reflect the increase in densities. Currently, Planning Area 1- Neighborhood 2 (RD- 6,000 residential type) regulations allow development of 106 dwelling units designed under RD 6,000 residential type standards. The SPA will replace Neighborhood 2 residential types with a mixture of Cluster Court, Row Townhomes, and RD 3,000 residential types, increasing the allowable dwelling units from 106 dwelling units to 265 dwelling units, consistent with the densities identified in The Ontario Plan 2050 Update.

Planning Area 1 - Neighborhood 2 reallocates dwelling units into three subareas, Neighborhood 2A, 2B and 2C. Development in Neighborhood 2A is planned for Row Townhome (6-Plex) residential type, with 83 units at a density of 13.17 du/ac, Neighborhood 2B planned for a new Cluster Court 3 (8-Plex) residential type, with 126 units at a density of 17.92 du/ac with vehicle access from a common drive, and Neighborhood 2C planned for single-family detached dwellings, with minimum 3,000 square feet lot areas providing for 56 units at a density of 8.75 du/ac.

All changes and additions to the Specific Plan (exhibits, tables, development standards and design guidelines) are contained within the revised Specific Plan document accompanying this report. All additions to the Specific Plan have been highlighted in red and all deletions have been highlighted in red with a strikethrough.

Approval of the related Tentative Tract Map, discussed below, is contingent upon the approval of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment and related Addendum to the Countryside Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2004071001, certified by the City Council on April 18, 2004). (3) Tentative Tract Map — The proposed Project would subdivide two existing agricultural parcels into 141 numbered lots and 27 lettered lots (see Exhibit C: Tentative Tract Map). The numbered lots would accommodate 56 single-family detached parcels, 83 Cluster Court 3 single-family detached parcels, and 126 attached Row Townhome units on two parcels. The proposed lettered lots would accommodate park land, private recreation area, private drives, and private alleys. The tentative tract map also includes dedication of easements for reciprocal access, neighborhood edges, utilities, solid waste collection and public services. Tentative Tract Map approval is contingent on City Council approval of the proposed SPA.
(a) Site Design — The Project site is rectangular in shape with the proposed parcels and private drives in a grid pattern. Residential parcels will border the Project perimeter with the exception of the north half of the west perimeter where an existing park will be expanded into the Project site. The subdivision is designed with 24 feet wide private drives throughout and will provide direct access to single family driveways or 7698
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA22-002 & PMTT22-021 (TTM 20536)
May 23, 2023

common alleys for the Cluster Court 3 and Row Townhome dwelling units. Lot C, proposed as the subdivision’s recreational center, is centrally located north of Private Drive ‘J’ and near the entry drive from Archibald Avenue. (b) Site Access/Circulation — The Project will provide vehicle access from Archibald Avenue to the east, Welsummer Avenue to the south and Lewiston Street to the west. Interior Private Drives ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘F’ create a loop road for the subdivision.

Private Drives ‘G’, ‘H’, ‘I’ and ‘J’ intersect the loop road and create smaller residential blocks as well as provide access to a future recreational amenity.

Multipurpose trails are planned along the east project edge on Archibald Avenue and along the north Project boundary, in compliance with the Countryside Specific Plan.

Interior 4-feet-wide pedestrian sidewalks would be provided along the Private Drives. (c) Landscaping — The Tentative Tract Map will require right-of-way improvements (street, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and parkway) along the surrounding streets.

The on-site and off-site landscape improvements will assist toward creating safe paths and areas for pedestrians to access the Project site.
(d) Signage — All Project signage is required to comply with sign regulations provided in Ontario Development Code Division 8.1. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the installation of any new on-site signage, the Applicant is required to submit Sign Plans for Planning Department review and approval. (e) 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, biotreatment, and evapotranspiration. The PWQMP proposes the use of the Mill Creek Wetland BMP, as planned in the NMC Builders, LLC, Stormwater Treatment Allocation Distribution Table, for stormwater retention and treatment. Any overflow drainage will be conveyed to the public street by way of parkway drains and culverts.
(4) Williamson Act Contract — The Project Site has an active Land Conservation Contact (LLC# 72-384). Agricultural lands under a Williamson Act Contract are governed by the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, also known as the Williamson Act. Upon annexation of the agriculture preserve, the City of Ontario assumed responsibility for administration of the Land Conservation Contracts which existed in the Ontario Ranch area. The City adopted the Agricultural Overlay Zoning District, or a “Right-to-Farm” Ordinance, that would allow existing agricultural uses within Ontario Ranch to continue for as long as the landowner desired.
7699
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA22-002 & PMTT22-021 (TTM 20536)
May 23, 2023

A Land Conservation Contract (LCC) has a minimum term of ten (10) years. However, this term is automatically renewed each year for an additional year, thereby keeping the term of the contract to a period of ten years. This perpetual contract continues until the administering entity (County or City) or the owner files a Notice of Non-renewal, which will then terminate the contract at the end of its remaining term, usually nine (9) years.

When a Non-renewal is filed, the property tax assessment gradually reverts to being computed based upon full market value rather than use. There are no penalties associated with Non-renewals.

Property owners desiring to remove the use restrictions imposed by their LCC prior to the expiration of the contracts’ term (after a Non-renewal is filed) may petition to have the LCC cancelled. Specific criteria must be met, a cancellation fee must be paid, and the reasonable cost of processing the petition must be paid before contracts can be cancelled. The cancellation fee normally equals twelve and one-half (12.5%) percent of the property’s current full market value.

At this time the Property owner does not wish to cancel the LCC on the property, until the entitlements for the Project have been approved and the final sale of the property is complete. The Applicant will be required to submit an LCC application for the nonrenewal and cancellation of LCC number 72-84, which will require Planning Commission and City Council review and approval. Final tract map recordation and the issuance of a grading permit cannot be approved until the LCC is cancelled.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: The subject application was advertised as a public hearing in at least one newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ontario (the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper). In addition, the Project site was posted with one or more large public notification signs and notices were mailed to all owners of real property located within a minimum of 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property that is the subject of the hearing, as shown on the records of the County Assessor.

CORRESPONDENCE: As of the preparation of this Agenda Report, Planning Department staff has not received any written or verbal communications from the owners or occupants of properties surrounding the Project site or from the public in general, regarding the subject application.

AGENCY/DEPARTMENT REVIEWS: Each City agency/department has been provided the opportunity to review and comment on the subject application and recommend conditions of approval to be imposed upon the application. At the time of the Agenda Report preparation, recommended conditions of approval were provided and are appended to the attached Resolutions as "Attachment A." 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 7700
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA22-002 & PMTT22-021 (TTM 20536)
May 23, 2023

that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

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

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.
 Invest in the Growth and Evolution of the City's Economy  Focus Resources in Ontario's Commercial and Residential Neighborhoods  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) 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:
7701
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA22-002 & PMTT22-021 (TTM 20536)
May 23, 2023

 Goal G1: Sustained decision-making that consistently moves Ontario towards its Vision by using The Ontario Plan as a framework for assessing choices.  G 1-2. 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 LU-1 Balance: 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.
 LU-1.1 Strategic Growth. We concentrate growth in strategic locations that help create place and identity, maximize available and planned infrastructure, foster the development of transit, and support the expansion of the active and multimodal transportation networks throughout the City.
 LU-1.3 Adequate Capacity. We require adequate infrastructure and services for all development.
 LU-1.6 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.  Goal LU-2 Compatibility: Compatibility between a wide range of uses and a resultant urban patterns and forms.
 LU-2.6 Infrastructure Compatibility. We require infrastructure to be aesthetically pleasing and in context with the community character.  Goal LU-3 Flexibility: Staff, regulations and processes that support and allow flexible response to conditions and circumstances in order to achieve the Vision.  LU-3.1 Development Standards. We maintain clear development standards which allow flexibility to achieve our Vision and provide objective standards that ensure predictability and deliver the intended physical outcomes.

Housing Element:
 Goal H-2 Housing Supply & Diversity: 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. 7702
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA22-002 & PMTT22-021 (TTM 20536)
May 23, 2023

 H-2.4 Ontario Ranch. We support a premier lifestyle community in the Ontario Ranch, distinguished by diverse housing, highest design quality, and cohesive and highly amenitized neighborhoods.
 H-2.5 Housing Design. We require architectural excellence through adherence to City design guidelines, thoughtful site planning, environmentally sustainable practices, and other best practices.

Community Economics Element:
 Goal CE-1 Complete Community: A complete community that provides for all incomes and stages of life.
 CE-1.6 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 encourage the development of housing supportive of our efforts to attract business in growing sectors of the community while being respectful of existing viable uses.  Goal CE-2 Placemaking: A City of distinctive neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and centers where people choose to be.
 CE-2.1 Development Projects. We require new development and redevelopment to create unique, high-quality places that add value to the community.  CE-2.2 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.
 CE-2.4 Protection of Investment. We require that new development and redevelopment protect existing investment by providing architecture and urban design of equal or greater quality.
 CE-2.5 Private Maintenance. We require adequate maintenance, upkeep, and investment in private property because proper maintenance on private property protects property values.

Safety Element:
 Goal S-1 Seismic & Geologic Hazards: Minimized risk of injury, loss of life, property damage, and economic and social disruption caused by earthquake-induced and other geologic hazards.
7703
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA22-002 & PMTT22-021 (TTM 20536)
May 23, 2023

 S-1.1 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.  S-1.2 Entitlement and Permitting Process. We follow state guidelines and the California Building Code to determine when development proposals must conduct geotechnical and geological investigations.
 Goal S-4 Noise Hazards: An environment where noise does not adversely affect the public’s health, safety, and welfare.
 S-4.1 Noise Mitigation. We utilize the City’s Noise Ordinance, building codes, and subdivision and development codes to mitigate noise impacts.

Mobility Element:
 Goal M-1 Roadway System: A system of roadways that meets the mobility needs a dynamic and prosperous Ontario.
 M-1.1 Roadway Design and Maintenance. We require our roadways to:
• Comply with federal, state, and local design and safety standards; • Meet the needs of multiple transportation modes and users; • Handle the capacity envisioned in the City of Ontario Master Plan of Streets and Highways;
• Be maintained in accordance with best practices;
• Be compatible with the streetscape and surrounding land uses; and • Promote the efficient flow of all modes of traffic through the implementation of intelligent transportation systems and travel demand management strategies.
 M-1.4 Complete Streets. We work to provide a complete, balanced, context-aware, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways, including motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, children persons with disabilities, seniors, movers of commercial goes, and uses of public transportation.

We prioritize implementation of complete streets improvements in environmental justice areas to facilitate opportunities to use active transportation systems.

Community Design Element:
 Goal CD-1 Image & Identity: A dynamic, progressive city containing distinct and complete places that foster a positive sense of identity and belonging among residents, visitors, and businesses.
7704
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA22-002 & PMTT22-021 (TTM 20536)
May 23, 2023

 CD-1.1 City Identity. We take actions that are consistent with the City being a leading urban center in Southern California while recognizing, enhancing, and preserving the character of our existing viable neighborhoods.  CD-1.2 Place Types. We establish Place Types in urban, mixed use, and transit-oriented areas to foster the City's identity as a premier community and require new development within each Place Type to incorporate prescribed urban patterns, forms, and placemaking priorities.
 CD-1.3 Existing Neighborhoods. We require the existing character of viable residential and non-residential neighborhoods be preserved, protected, and enhanced.  Goal CD-2 Design Quality: A high level of design quality resulting in neighborhoods, public spaces, parks, and streetscapes that are attractive, safe, functional, human-scale, and distinct.
 CD-2.1 Quality Building Design and Architecture. We encourage all development projects to convey visual interest and character through:
• Building volume, massing, and height to provide context-appropriate scale and proportion;
• 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 articulated, high quality, durable, and appropriate for the architectural style.
 CD-2.2 Neighborhood Design. We create distinct residential neighborhoods that promote a sense of community and identity by emphasizing access, connectivity, livability, and social interaction through such elements as:
• A pattern of smaller, walkable blocks that promote activity, safety, and access to nearby amenities and services;
• Varied parcel sizes and lot configurations to accommodate a diversity of housing types;
• Traffic calming measures to slow traffic and promote walkability while maintaining acceptable traffic flows and emergency evacuation access; • Floor plans that encourage views onto the street and de-emphasize the visual and physical dominance of garages (introducing the front porch as the "outdoor living room"), as appropriate; and
• Landscaped parkways, with sidewalks separated from the curb and designed to maximize safety, comfort, and aesthetics for all users.  CD-2.5 Streetscapes. We design new and, when necessary, retrofit existing streets to improve walkability, bicycling and transit integration, strengthen connectivity, 7705
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA22-002 & PMTT22-021 (TTM 20536)
May 23, 2023

and enhance community identity through improvements to the public right-of-way such as sidewalks, street trees, parkways, curbs, street lighting and street furniture.  CD-2.6 Connectivity. We promote development of local street patterns, multimodal networks, and connected public spaces that create and unify neighborhoods, rather than divide them, and create cohesive and continuous corridors, rather than independent “islands” through the follow means:
• Local street networks that provide access to both between subdivisions and within neighborhoods and discourage through traffic; • A local street system that is logical and understandable for the user. A grid system is preferred to avoid circuitous and confusing travel paths between internal neighborhood areas and adjacent arterials and to provide adequate emergency and evacuation access; and
• Pedestrian and bicycle networks that provide convenient access to neighborhoods and nearby destinations, such as schools, parks, and other public spaces, commercial areas, and transit stops;
 CD-2.7 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.  CD-2.8 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, maintaining visibility and accessibility, and using lighting.
 CD-2.9 Landscape Design. We encourage durable, sustainable, and drought-tolerant landscaping materials and designs that enhance the aesthetics of structures, create and define public and private spaces, and provide shade and environmental benefits.
 CD-2.10 Parking Areas. We require all development, including single-family residential, to minimize the visual impact of surface, structured, and garage parking areas visible from the public realm in an aesthetically pleasing, safe and environmentally sensitive manner. Examples include:
• Surface parking: Shade trees, pervious surfaces, urban run-off capture and infiltration, and pedestrian paths to guide users through the parking field; • Structured parking: facade articulation, screening, appropriate lighting, and landscaping; and
7706
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA22-002 & PMTT22-021 (TTM 20536)
May 23, 2023

• Garage parking: providing access to single-family residential garages through alley access, recessing garages from the frontage to emphasize front doors or active living spaces.
 CD-2.11 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.
 CD-2.12 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.  CD-2.13 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 CD-5 Protection of Investment: A sustained level of maintenance and improvement of properties, buildings, and infrastructure that protects the property values and encourages additional public and private investments.  CD-5.1 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.
 CD-5.2 Maintenance of Infrastructure. We require the continual maintenance of infrastructure.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Project analyzed under the Addendum to Countryside Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2004071001, certified by the City Council on April 18, 2006) ("Certified EIR") consists of subdividing the Project site for condominium purposes and includes 141 numbered lots, 27 lettered lots, onsite and offsite improvements such as private streets, private drives, sidewalks, landscaping, utilities infrastructure and utilities connections.

The Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA") and an Addendum has been prepared to determine possible environmental impacts. Although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects have 7707
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA22-002 & PMTT22-021 (TTM 20536)
May 23, 2023

been analyzed adequately in an earlier Certified EIR, and have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Certified EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed Project, nothing further is required. The Project will introduce no new significant environmental impacts beyond those previously analyzed in the Certified EIR, and all mitigation measures previously adopted by the Environmental Impact Report, are a condition of project approval and are incorporated in the Addendum.
7708
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA22-002 & PMTT22-021 (TTM 20536)
May 23, 2023

TECHNICAL APPENDIX:

Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:

Existing
Land Use
Policy Plan
Designation
Zoning
Designation
Specific Plan
Land Use
Site: Agriculture
Medium Density Residential
(MDR; 11.1 – 25.0 du/ac);
Low Medium Density Residential
(LMDR; 5.1 – 11.0 du/ac)
Countryside Specific Plan
(Planning Area 1)
Neighborhood 2
[RD-6,000]
North: Multiple Family
Residential
Medium Density Residential
(MDR; 11.1 – 25.0 du/ac)
MDR-18
(Medium Density Residential -

11.1 – 18.0 du/ac)
N/A
South:

Single Family
Residential,
Agriculture
Low Density Residential (LDR; 2.1
– 5.0 du/ac)
Countryside Specific Plan
(Planning Area 2)
Neighborhood 4
[RD-5,000]
East: Multiple Family
Residential
Medium Density Residential
(MDR; 11.1 – 25.0 du/ac)
MDR-18
(Medium Density Residential -

11.1 – 18.0 du/ac)
N/A
West:

Single Family
Residential,
Recreation
Low Density Residential (LDR; 2.1
– 5.0 du/ac)
Countryside Specific Plan
(Planning Area 1)
Neighborhood 1
[RD-5,500]
General Site Statistics
Item Proposed Required Min./Max. Provided (Ranges) Meets Y/N
Project area (in acres): N/A 23.2
Maximum project density
(dwelling units/ac):

5.1 du/ac (Min.)

25.0 du/ac (Max.)

11.4 du/ac Y
Minimum lot size (in SF):

RD Cluster Court 3: 2,000 SF
RD Townhome: 1,400 SF per unit
RD 3,000: 3,000 SF
RD Cluster Court 3: 2,081 SF
RD Townhome: TBD with
Development Plan submittal
RD 3,000: 3,015 SF
Y
Minimum lot depth (in FT):

RD Cluster Court 3: N/A
RD Townhome: N/A
RD 3,000: 70 FT
RD Cluster Court 3: N/A
RD Townhome: N/A
RD 3,000: 70.25 FT
Y
Minimum lot width (in FT):

RD Cluster Court 3: 33 FT
RD Townhome: N/A
RD 3,000: 40 FT
RD Cluster Court 3: 33 FT
RD Townhome: N/A
RD 3,000:

Y
7709
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA22-002 & PMTT22-021 (TTM 20536)
May 23, 2023

Exhibit A: COUNTRYSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP
Existing Proposed

Planning
Area 1
Planning
Area 2
Neighborhood 2
Planning
Area 2
Planning
Area 1
Neighborhood 2
7710
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA22-002 & PMTT22-021 (TTM 20536)
May 23, 2023

Exhibit B: COUNTRYSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE SUMMARY
7711
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA22-002 & PMTT22-021 (TTM 20536)
May 23, 2023

Exhibit C: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 20536
7712
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA22-002 & PMTT22-021 (TTM 20536)
May 23, 2023

Exhibit D: EXISTING SITE PHOTOS
7713
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA22-002 & PMTT22-021 (TTM 20536)
May 23, 2023

7714
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA22-002 & PMTT22-021 (TTM 20536)
May 23, 2023

7715
RESOLUTION NO. PC23-039

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

ONTARIO RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN

ADDENDUM TO THE COUNTRYSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, PURSUANT TO THE

REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT, AS AMENDED, FOR FILE NOS. PSPA22-002 AND PMTT22-021 WHEREAS, RB ONTARIO LLC (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant") has filed Applications for the approval of a Specific Plan Amendment, File No. PSPA22-002, which amendments to the Countryside Specific Plan to increase the number of allowable dwellings, include Cluster Court 3 residential type, and update associated text and exhibits; and Tentative Tract Map No. 20536, File No. PMTT22-021, to subdivide the

23.2-acre Project site into 141 numbered lots and 27 lettered lots to facilitate development of single- and multiple-family residential units located on the west side of Archibald Avenue approximately 875 feet south of Riverside Drive in the City of Ontario, California (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and WHEREAS, the Countryside Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2004071001) was certified on April 18, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "Certified EIR"), in which development and use of the Project site was discussed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director of the City of Ontario has prepared and approved for attachment to the certified Environmental Impact Report, an Addendum to the Certified EIR (hereinafter referred to as "EIR Addendum") in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with State and local guidelines implementing said Act, all as amended to date (collectively referred to as "CEQA"); and
WHEREAS, the EIR Addendum concluded that implementation of the Project could result in a number of significant effects on the environment that were previously analyzed in the Certified EIR, and that the Certified EIR identified mitigation measures that would reduce each of those significant effects to a less-than-significant level; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a), a lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary to a project, but the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not required; and
WHEREAS, the City determined that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR would occur from the Project, and that preparation of an Addendum to the Certified EIR was appropriate; and 7716
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSPA22-002 & PMTT22-021 (TTM 20536)
May 23, 2023

WHEREAS, on May 1, 2023, the Development Advisory Board conducted a hearing to considered the EIR Addendum relative to the Tentative Tract Map request, and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to issue Decision No. DAB23-026, recommending the Planning Commission approve the EIR Addendum; and WHEREAS, the City of Ontario is the lead agency on the Project, and the Planning Commission is the recommending authority for the proposed Specific Plan Amendment and the decision-making body for the proposed Tentative Tract Map; and WHEREAS, the approval of the proposed Tentative Tract Map is contingent on City Council approval of the Specific Plan Amendment and associated EIR Addendum; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the EIR Addendum for the Project, has concluded that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent of supplemental EIR have occurred, and intends to take actions on the Project in compliance with CEQA and state and local guidelines implementing CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the EIR Addendum for the Project is on file in the Planning Department, located at 303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764, and available for inspection by any interested person at that location and are, by this reference, incorporated into this Resolution as if fully set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, 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 Specific Plan Amendment and the decision-making body for the Tentative Tract Map, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
(1) The environmental impacts of this project were reviewed in conjunction with an Addendum to Countryside Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2004071001; certified by the Ontario City Council on April 18, 2006, in conjunction with File No. PSP04-001); and
7717
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSPA22-002 & PMTT22-021 (TTM 20536)
May 23, 2023

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

SECTION 2: Additional Environmental Review Not Required. Based on the Addendum, all related information presented to the Planning Commission, and the specific findings set forth in Section 1, above, the Planning Commission finds that the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact Report is not required for the Project, as the Project:
(1) Does not constitute substantial changes to the Certified EIR that will require major revisions to the Certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and
(2) Does not constitute substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Certified EIR was prepared, that will require major revisions to the Certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects; and (3) Does not contain new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Certified EIR was certified/adopted, that shows any of the following:
(a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the Certified EIR; or
7718
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSPA22-002 & PMTT22-021 (TTM 20536)
May 23, 2023

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

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

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

SECTION 6: Certification to Adoption. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of the Resolution.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
7719
7720
7721
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSPA22-002 & PMTT22-021 (TTM 20536)
May 23, 2023

ATTACHMENT A:

Addendum to Countryside Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report
(Addendum to follow this page)
The Addendum is attached to the
City Council Resolution
7722
RESOLUTION NO. PC23-040

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF FILE NO. PSPA22-002, A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: [I] DIVIDE PLANNING AREA 1
NEIGHBORHOOD 2 INTO DIFFERENT SUBSETS: NEIGHBORHOODS
2A, 2B, AND 2C; [II] INCREASE THE PLANNING AREA 1 UNIT COUNT FROM 442 UNITS TO 601 UNITS AND DENSITY FROM 5.56 DU/AC TO

7.74 DU/AC; [III] CHANGE PLANNING AREA 1 USES TO INCLUDE ATTACHED HOMES AND ELIMINATING THE RD 6000-SQUARE-FOOT
LOT SIZE; AND [IV] VARIOUS TEXT CHANGES TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 POLICY PLAN, AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APNS: 0218-111-60 AND 0218-111- 61 WHEREAS, RB ONTARIO LLC (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant") has filed an Application for the approval of a Specific Plan Amendment, File No. PSPA22-002, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Application applies to 23.2 acres of land generally located on the west side of Archibald Avenue, approximately 875 feet south of Riverside Drive, within the Countryside Specific Plan, and is presently improved with agricultural uses; and WHEREAS, the properties to the north and east of the Project site are within the MDR-18 (Medium Density Residential – 11.1 – 18.0 du.ac) and are developed with multiple family dwellings. The properties to the south and west are within Planning Area 1 of the Countryside Specific Plan, and are developed with single-family detached dwellings; and
WHEREAS, on May 2, 2006, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2828, approving the Countryside Specific Plan (File No. PSP04-001), establishing a master plan for the development of 178 acres of land, inclusive of the Project site; and WHEREAS, the Countryside Specific Plan has been amended over the years to reflect updated policies in The Ontario Plan and market conditions; and WHEREAS, the Project request consists of dividing Planning Area 1- Neighborhood 2 into different subsets (Neighborhoods 2A, 2B and 2C), increasing the unit count in Planning Area 1 from 442 units to 601 units and increasing the density from

5.56 dwelling units/acre to 7.74 dwelling units/acre, changing Planning Area 1- Neighboorhood 2 uses to include Attached Homes, eliminating the RD-6000-square-foot 7723
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSPA22-002
May 23, 2023

lot size, and various text changes to be consistent with The Ontario Plan 2050 Policy Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Countryside Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2004071001) was certified on April 18, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "Certified EIR"), in which development and use of the Project site was discussed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director of the City of Ontario prepared and approved for attachment to the certified Environmental Impact Report, an Addendum to the Certified EIR (hereinafter referred to as "EIR Addendum") in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with State and local guidelines implementing said Act, all as amended to date (collectively referred to as "CEQA"); and WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of this project were thoroughly analyzed in the EIR Addendum, which concluded that implementation of the Project could result in a number of significant effects on the environment that were previously analyzed in the Certified EIR, and that the Certified EIR identified mitigation measures that would reduce each of those significant effects to a less-than-significant level; and WHEREAS, the City's "Local Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" provide for the use of a single environmental assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed; and
WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act — Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. — (hereinafter referred to as "CEQA") and an EIR Addendum has been prepared to determine possible environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the Planning Commission the responsibility and authority to review and make recommendations on the subject Application; and
WHEREAS, the Project has been reviewed for consistency with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan 2050, as State Housing Element law (as prescribed in Government Code Sections 65580 through 65589.8) requires that development projects must be consistent with the Housing Element, if upon consideration of all its aspects, it is found to further the purposes, principals, goals, and policies of the Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and is subject to, and must be consistent with, the policies 7724
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSPA22-002
May 23, 2023

and criteria set forth in the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (hereinafter referred to as "ALUCP"), which applies only to jurisdictions within San Bernardino County, and addresses the noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity; and
WHEREAS, City of Ontario Development Code Division 2.03 (Public Hearings) prescribes the manner in which public notification shall be provided and hearing procedures to be followed, and all such notifications and procedures have been completed; and
WHEREAS, as the first action on the Project, on May 23, 2023, the Planning Commission issued a Resolution recommending the City Council adopt the EIR Addendum, finding that the proposed Project introduces no new significant environmental impacts and applying all previously adopted mitigation measures to the Project, which were incorporated by reference; and
WHEREAS, on May 23, 2023, 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 Addendum, the initial study, and the administrative record for the Project, including all written and oral evidence provided during the comment period. Based upon the facts and information contained in the Addendum, the initial study, and the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
(1) The environmental impacts of the Project were reviewed in conjunction with an Addendum to Countryside Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2004071001; certified by the Ontario City Council on April 18, 2006, in conjunction with File No. PSP04-001); and
(2) The EIR Addendum and administrative record have been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
7725
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSPA22-002
May 23, 2023

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

SECTION 2: Subsequent or Supplemental Environmental Review Not Required. Based on the EIR Addendum, all related information presented to the Planning Commission, and the specific findings set forth in Section 1, above, the Planning Commission finds that the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental Certified EIR is not required for the Project, as the Project:
(1) Does not constitute substantial changes to the Certified EIR that will require major revisions to the Certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and
(2) Does not constitute substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Certified EIR was prepared, that will require major revisions to the Certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects; and (3) Does not contain new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Certified EIR was certified/adopted, that shows any of the following:
(a) The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the Certified EIR; or
(b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the Certified EIR; or
7726
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSPA22-002
May 23, 2023

(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 upon the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation, at the time of Project implementation, the project is consistent with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan (General Plan) component of The Ontario Plan, as the project site is not one of the properties in the Housing Element Sites Inventory contained in Tables B-1 and B-2 of the Housing Element Technical Report.

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

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

On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the Ontario International Airport Land use Compatibility Plan, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. 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 ONT ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-2) and Safety Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the Planning Commission, therefore, finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ONT ALUCP; and SECTION 5: Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above-referenced hearing, 7727
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSPA22-002
May 23, 2023

and upon the specific findings set forth in Sections 1 through 4, above, the Planning Commission hereby concludes as follows:
(1) The proposed Specific Plan, or amendment thereto, 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 proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan 2050, in that the Specific Plan Amendment contributes towards the legislative framework for the implementation of The Ontario Plan components, guiding growth and development within the Project area to achieve optimum results from the City’s physical, economic, environmental, and human resources. (2) The proposed Specific Plan, or amendment thereto, would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City. The development standards and guidelines established by the proposed Specific Plan Amendment have been created with the intent to safeguard and further the public interest, health, safety, convenience, and/or general welfare, and to ensure that the purposes of The Ontario Plan 2050 and the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, are maintained.
(3) In the case of an application affecting specific properties, the proposed Specific Plan, or amendment thereto, will not adversely affect the harmonious relationship with adjacent properties and land uses. The location of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and the proposed conditions under which future developments will be constructed and maintained, is consistent with the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan 2050 and the City’s Development Plan, and, therefore, will not adversely affect the harmonious relationship with adjacent properties and land uses.
(4) In the case of an application affecting specific properties, 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 proposed Specific Plan Amendment has been reviewed by all City departments, which have established that the project site is physically suitable for the anticipated development in terms of parcel size, shape, and availability of utilities.

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 APPROVE the herein described Application, as presented and attached hereto as "Attachment A," and incorporated herein by this reference.
7728
7729
7730
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSPA22-002
May 23, 2023

ATTACHMENT A:

File No. PSPA22-002
Countryside Specific Plan Amendment
(Specific Plan Amendment document to follow this page)
The Countryside Specific Plan Amendment
is attached to the
City Council Resolution
7731
RESOLUTION NO. ______

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

CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO THE COUNTRYSIDE

SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, PURSUANT TO

THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT, AS AMENDED, FOR FILE NO PSPA22-002.

WHEREAS, RB ONTARIO LLC (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant") has filed an Application for the approval of a Specific Plan Amendment, File No. PSPA22-002, which consists of amendments to the Countryside Specific Plan to increase the number of allowable dwellings, include Cluster Court 3, Row Townhomes and RD 3000 residential types, and update associated text and exhibits, to facilitate development of single- and multiple-family residential units located on the west side of Archibald Avenue approximately 875 feet south of Riverside Drive, in the City of Ontario, California (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and WHEREAS, the Countryside Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2004071001) was certified on April 18, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "Certified EIR"), in which development and use of the Project site was discussed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director of the City of Ontario has prepared and approved for attachment to the certified Environmental Impact Report, an Addendum to the Certified EIR (hereinafter referred to as "EIR Addendum") in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with State and local guidelines implementing said Act, all as amended to date (collectively referred to as "CEQA"); and
WHEREAS, the EIR Addendum concluded that implementation of the Project could result in a number of significant effects on the environment that were previously analyzed in the Certified EIR, and that the Certified EIR identified mitigation measures that would reduce each of those significant effects to a less-than-significant level; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a), a lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary to a project, but the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not required; and
WHEREAS, the City determined that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR would occur from the Project, and that preparation of an Addendum to the Certified EIR was appropriate; and WHEREAS, on May 23, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Addendum and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to issue Resolution No. PC23-039 recommending that the City Council conclude that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR 7732
have occurred, and further recommending that the City Council take actions on the Project in compliance with CEQA and state and local guidelines implementing CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ontario is the lead agency on the Project, and the City Council is the decision-making authority for the requested approval to construct and otherwise undertake the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the EIR Addendum for the Project, has concluded that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred, and intends to take actions on the Project in compliance with CEQA and state and local guidelines implementing CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the EIR Addendum for the Project are on file in the Planning Department, located at 303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764, are available for inspection by any interested person at that location and are, by this reference, incorporated into this Resolution as if fully set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

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

SECTION 1. Environmental Determination and Findings. As the decisionmaking authority for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council finds as follows:
(1) The environmental impacts of this project were reviewed in conjunction with an Addendum to Countryside Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2004071001, certified by the Ontario City Council on April 18, 2006) in conjunction with File No. PSPA22-002; and
(2) The EIR Addendum and administrative record have been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
(3) The City's "Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" provide for the use of a single environmental assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed. This Application introduces no new significant environmental impacts; and (4) All previously adopted mitigation measures shall be a condition of project approval, as they are applicable to the Project, and are incorporated herein by this reference; and
7733
(5) The EIR Addendum contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council; and
(6) There is no substantial evidence in the administrative record supporting a fair argument that the project may result in significant environmental impacts.

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

SECTION 3. City Council Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 and 2, above, the City Council hereby finds that based upon the entire record of proceedings before it, and all information received, that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will constitute substantial changes to the Certified EIR, and does hereby approve the EIR Addendum, attached hereto as "Attachment A," and incorporated herein by this reference.
7734
SECTION 4. Indemnification. The Applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Ontario or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Ontario or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul this approval. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding, and the City of Ontario shall cooperate fully in the defense.

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

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 20th day of June 2023. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
7735

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. 2023- was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Ontario at their regular meeting held June 20, 2023 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. 2023- duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held June 20, 2023. _________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
7736
ATTACHMENT A:

Addendum to Countryside Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report
(Addendum to follow this page)
7737

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

1. Project Title/File No.: Barth Farms/PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

2. Lead Agency: City of Ontario, 303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764, (909) 395-2036

3. Contact Person: Edmelynne Hutter, Senior Planner, 909-395-2429, [email protected]

4. Project Sponsor: The Landmark Company, 555 N. El Camino Real #A285, San Clemente California 92672, (858)610-0600

5. Project Location: The project site is located in southwestern San Bernardino County, within the City of Ontario. The City of Ontario is located approximately 40 miles from downtown Los Angeles, 20 miles from downtown San Bernardino, and 30 miles from Orange County. As illustrated on Figures 1 and 2, below, the project site is located on Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN): 0218-111-60 & 61, which is comprised of 23.1 acres of land generally located south of State Route 60 (SR-60), and west of Interstate 15 (I-15).

Figure 1: REGIONAL LOCATION MAP
7738
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

6. Policy Plan (General Plan) Designation: Existing: Countryside Specific Plan - Residential Development (RD) 6,000 square foot lots. The Ontario Plan (TOP) - Medium Density Residential (MDR; 11.1 to 25 du/ac) for northern parcel of project site and Low-Medium Density Residential (LMDR; 5.1-11.0 dwelling units/acre (du/ac)) for southern parcel of project site. Proposed:

Medium Density Residential (MDR; 11.1 to 25 du/ac).

7. Zoning Designation: Existing: Countryside Specific Plan. Proposed: Countryside Specific Plan.

8. Description of Project: The project proposes the following entitlements:

1. Specific Plan Amendment (SPA, File No. PSPA22-002) to the Countryside SP Neighborhood 2 from RD – 6,000 (6,000 square foot lots) with 106 units to Neighborhood 2A Single Family Cluster Detached (83 units), Neighborhood 2B Row Townhomes (126 units), and Neighborhood 2C (56 units) RD-3,000, for a combined total of 265 units. A private recreation area is proposed between Neighborhoods 2A, 2B, and 2C;

2. Tentative Tract Map (File No. PMTT22-021) to subdivide a 23.2 acre site into 265265 lots, for development of 83 cluster single family detached, 126 townhouses, and 56 single family detached houses.

Figure 2: Aerial Site Photograph

PROJECT SITE
7739
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

9. Project Setting: The project site consists of approximately 23.1 acres of land within southern Ontario. The site is generally rectangular in shape and is surrounded by residential establishment. The vacant site was historically used for agriculture uses, including row crop production and a nursery. The site is surrounded to the north by medium density residential housing and neighborhood commercial development, low density residential development to the south, neighborhood commercial and medium density residential development to the east and low density residential units to the west.

10. Project Background: On April 18, 2006, the Ontario City Council adopted the Countryside Specific Plan (SP) and certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH number 2004071001). The Countryside SP is comprised of “Residential - Low Density” land use designation and proposed a variety of housing types within a traditional neighborhood setting designed around a network of paseos, parks, and bicycle trails. The SP anticipated the development of approximately 819 residential units on approximately 178 acres and consists of eight neighborhoods of varying densities. Approximately 10.11 acres of the SP was proposed to be set aside as open space. The Countryside SP Certified EIR is incorporated by reference and available at the City of Ontario, 303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764.

On August 16, 2022, the Ontario City Council adopted The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 and certified the Supplemental EIR (SEIR) (SCH Number 2021070364). TOP 2050 is an update to TOP to guide the City’s development and conservation for the next 30 years through 2050 with particular emphasis on conducting technical refinements to the Policy Plan to comply with state-required mandates; bring long-term growth and fiscal projections into alignment with current economic conditions; and advance the Tracking and Feedback system and Implementation Plan. TOP 2050 Certified SEIR is incorporated by reference and available at the City of Ontario, 303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764.

11. Surrounding Land Uses:

Existing Land Use General Plan
Designation Zoning Designation Specific Plan Land Use
Site: Farming/ Nursery LMDR/ MDR RD-6,000 RD-6,000
North: Multi-Family
Residential NC/ MDR MDR-18/CC NA
South:

Single Family
Detached
Residential, Farming
LDR RD-5,000 RD-5,000
East: Multi-Family
Residential NC/LDR MDR-18/CN NA
West:

Single Family
Detached
Residential, Park
LDR RD-5,500 RD-5,500

12. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement): State Water Resources Control Board for General Construction Stormwater Activity Permit.

13. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project 7740
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? ☒Yes ☐ No
If “yes”, has consultation begun? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ Completed

NEW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OR SUBSTANTIALLY MORE SEVERE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS COMPARED TO THOSE IDENTIFIED IN THE PREVIOUS CEQA DOCUMENT.

The environmental factors checked below were determined to be new significant environmental effects or to be previously identified effects that have a substantial increase in severity either due to a change in project, change in circumstances or new information of substantial importance, as indicated by the checklist and discussion on the following pages. ☐ Aesthetics ☐ Agriculture/Forestry
Resources
☐ Air Quality
☐ Biological Resources ☐ Cultural Resources ☐ Geology / Soils ☐ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
☐ Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
☐ Hydrology/Water Quality
☐ Land Use / Planning ☐ Mineral Resources ☐ Noise
☐ Population / Housing ☐ Public Services ☐ Recreation
☐ Transportation ☐ Utilities / Service Systems ☐ Mandatory Findings of Significance
☐ Tribal Cultural Resources ☐ Wildfire ☐ Energy
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
☐ No substantial changes are proposed in the project and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous approved ND or MND or certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Also, there is no “new information of substantial importance” as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). Therefore, the previously adopted ND or MND or previously certified EIR adequately discusses the potential impacts of the project without modification.
☒ No substantial changes are proposed in the project and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous approved ND or MND or certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Also, there is no “new information of substantial importance” as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). Therefore, the previously adopted ND, MND or previously certified EIR adequately discusses the potential impacts of the project; however, minor changes require the preparation of an ADDENDUM.
7741
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

☐ Substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous ND, MND or EIR due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, or there is “new information of substantial importance,” as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). However, all new potentially significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects are clearly reduced to below a level of significance through the incorporation of mitigation measures agreed to by the project applicant. Therefore, a SUBSEQUENT MND is required. ☐ Substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous environmental document due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, or there is “new information of substantial importance,” as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). However, only minor changes or additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project in the changed situation.

Therefore, a SUPPLEMENTAL EIR is required.
☐ Substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous environmental document due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, or there is “new information of substantial importance,” as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). Therefore, a SUBSEQUENT EIR is required.

Signature: Date: April 3, 2023
Printed Name: Edmelynne V. Hutter For: City of Ontario

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. A finding of “No New Impact/No Impact” means that the potential impact was fully analyzed and/or mitigated in the prior CEQA document and no new or different impacts will result from the proposed activity. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No New Impact/No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No New Impact/No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No New Impact/No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. A finding of “New Mitigation is Required” means that the project may have a new potentially significant impact on the environment or a substantially more severe impact than analyzed in the previously approved or certified CEQA document and that new mitigation is required to address the impact.
7742
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

3. A finding of “New Potentially Significant Impact” means that the project may have a new potentially significant impact on the environment or a substantially more severe impact than analyzed in the previously approved or certified CEQA document that cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance or be avoided.

4. A finding of “Reduced Impact” means that a previously infeasible mitigation measure is now available, or a previously infeasible alternative is now available that will reduce a significant impact identified in the previously prepared environmental document.

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

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

Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the proposed action.
c. Infeasible Mitigation Measures. Since the previous EIR was certified or previous ND or MND was adopted, discuss any mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible that would in fact be feasible or that are considerably different from those previously analyzed and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives.
d. Changes in Circumstances. Since the previous EIR was certified or previous ND or MND was adopted, discuss any changes in the project, changes in circumstances under which the project is undertaken and/or "new information of substantial importance" that cause a change in conclusion regarding one or more effects discussed in the original document.

7. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

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

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

10. The explanation of each issue should identify:
7743
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

a. the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; b. differences between the proposed activity and the previously approved project described in the approved ND or MND or certified EIR; and c. the previously approved mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

Issues
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation
is Required
No New
Impact /
No Impact
Reduced
Impact

1. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality?)
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining
whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement
methodology provided in Forest protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
7744
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

Issues
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation
is Required
No New
Impact /
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management
district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
7745
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

Issues
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation
is Required
No New
Impact /
No Impact
Reduced
Impact

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

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

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv) Landslides? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life or property?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
7746
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

Issues
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation
is Required
No New
Impact /
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of
greenhouse gases?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

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

10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite; ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 7747
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

Issues
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation
is Required
No New
Impact /
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite;
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
or
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

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

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

13. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

14. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of road or other
infrastructure)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
7748
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

Issues
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation
is Required
No New
Impact /
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
replacement housing elsewhere?

15. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii) Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii) Schools? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv) Parks? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
v) Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

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

17. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code
section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
7749
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

Issues
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation
is Required
No New
Impact /
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
section 5020.1(k), or
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native American tribe.
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

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

20. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. (State CEQA
Guidelines section 15065(a).)
7750
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

Issues
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New
Mitigation
is Required
No New
Impact /
No Impact
Reduced
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve shortterm environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects.)
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

EXPLANATION OF ISSUES

1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Discussion of Effects: The Initial Study for this Project determined no significant impacts within the area of aesthetics. The Initial Study of the Countryside Specific Plan (Countryside SP) Certified EIR indicated the project site does not contain any scenic vistas nor is the site located within or adjacent to a State-designated scenic highway and partial views of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north would be maintained. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Initial Study to the Countryside SP EIR.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Certified EIR analyses are necessary.
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Discussion of Effects: The City of Ontario is served by three freeways: I-10, I-15, and SR-60. I10 and SR-60 traverse the northern and central portion of the City, respectively, in an east to west direction. I-15 traverses the northeastern portion of the City in a north–south direction. These segments of I-10, I-15, and SR-60 have not been officially designated as scenic highways by the California Department of Transportation. As outlined in the Initial Study of the Countryside SP 7751
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

Certified EIR the project site is not located within or adjacent to a State-designated scenic highway and has no historic buildings, or other scenic resources. Therefore, it will not result in adverse environmental impacts.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analyses are necessary.
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
Discussion of Effects: The Initial Study of the Countryside SP Certified EIR determined no significant impacts within the area of aesthetics. Development of the residential component of the project would be compatible with the existing residential subdivisions and would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or surrounding areas. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Initial Study to the Countryside SP EIR.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analyses are necessary.
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Discussion of Effects: The Initial Study for of the Countryside SP Certified EIR determined no significant impacts within the area of aesthetics. The proposed development will introduce new sources of light and glare through the construction of new homes, however they will be required to comply with the requirements of the Ontario Municipal Code and would not substantially affect day or nighttime views. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Initial Study to the Countryside SP EIR.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analyses are necessary.

2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
7752
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Discussion of Effects: The project site is Neighborhood 2 of the Countryside SP. As outlined in the Countryside SP Certified EIR, Neighborhood 2 encompasses 23.2 acres designated as Prime Farmland. The conversion of Prime Farmland to nonagricultural uses from implementation of the Countryside SP was evaluated in the Countryside SP Certified EIR as significant and unavoidable and there was no feasible mitigation identified. The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations addressing the impact (City Council Resolution No. 2006-013).

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis is necessary.
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Discussion of Effects: As outlined in the Countryside SP Certified EIR, Neighborhood 2 is within Williamson Act properties, contract no. 72-384, which encompasses 23.2 acres. The applicant has not filed plans for immediate cancellation of the existing Williamson Act contracts, but a Notice of Nonrenewal will be filed for contract number 72-384, which comprises Neighborhood 2. Any cancellation would be performed in accordance with Government Code Section 51282, subdivision (a). The development of residential uses on property that is under Williamson Act contract would conflict with the Act and this conflict would be significant and unavoidable. The conflict between proposed residential development uses and the Williamson Act and cancellation of these contracts from implementation of the Countryside SP was evaluated in the Countryside SP Certified EIR as significant and unavoidable and there was no feasible mitigation identified. The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations addressing the impact (City Council Resolution No. 2006-013).

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis is necessary.
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)?
Discussion of Effects: At the time the Countryside SP EIR was prepared, impacts to forest land or timberland were not included in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist and therefore it did not identify any significant impacts related to forest or timberland. The Project would not result in the rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production because such land use designations do not exist within the City of Ontario. Therefore, no impacts to forest or timberland are anticipated.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analyses are necessary.
7753
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Discussion of Effects: At the time the Countryside SP EIR was prepared, impacts to forest land or timberland were not included in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist and therefore it did not identify any significant impacts related to forest or timberland. Per the Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP 2050) Certified SEIR, there is currently no land in the City of Ontario that qualifies as forest land as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g). Neither TOP nor the City’s Zoning Code provide designations for forest land. Consequently, the proposed Project would not result in the loss or conversion of forest land.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analyses are necessary.
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Discussion of Effects: As previously discussed, the project site encompasses 23.2 acres designated as Prime Farmland. The conversion of Prime Farmland to nonagricultural uses from implementation of the Countryside SP was evaluated in the Countryside SP Certified EIR as significant and unavoidable and there was no feasible mitigation identified. Additionally, there is currently no land in the City of Ontario that qualifies as forest land as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g). Neither TOP nor the City’s Zoning Code provide designations for forest land. Consequently, to the extent that the proposed Project would result in changes to the existing environment, those changes would not impact forest land.

Mitigation Required: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analyses are necessary.

3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Discussion of Effects: The subject site was previously analyzed in the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR.

The project site’s northern parcel is designated as Medium Density Residential (MDR) and the southern parcel is designated as Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR), in TOP 2050, which allows for a combined total of 217-484 dwelling units on the 23.2-acre site. As the proposed project includes 265 units, it is consistent with these TOP land use designations and the associated number of dwelling units, for which impacts were evaluated in the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR. As outlined in the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR, buildout of TOP 2050 would be consistent with the AQMP under the first criteria, however, air pollutant emissions associated with buildout of TOP 2050 would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) and TOP 2050 would be inconsistent with the AQMP. Mitigation Measures from TOP that would reduce impacts associated with inconsistency with the South Coast AQMD that are applicable to the project and shall be implemented include:
7754
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

Mitigation Measure 3-1: Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Ontario for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts to the City of Ontario Planning Department for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology for assessing air quality impacts. If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD-adopted thresholds of significance [a technical assessment was prepared as part of the Countryside SP Certified EIR indicating peak construction activities would exceed SCAQMD thresholds], the City of Ontario building department shall require feasible mitigation measures to reduce air quality emissions. Potential measures shall be incorporated as conditions of approval for a project and may include:
 Require fugitive dust control measures that exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 403, such as:
• Requiring use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion. • Applying water every four hours to active soil disturbance activities. • Tarping and/or maintaining a minimum of 24 inches of freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials.  Using construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 4 interim or higher exhaust emission limits.  Ensuring construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer’s standards.
 Limiting nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five consecutive minutes.
 Using Super-Compliant VOC paints for coating of architectural surfaces whenever possible. A list of Super-Compliant architectural coating manufacturers can be found on the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s website at: http//www/aqmd.gov/prdas/brochures/SuperCopmliant_AIM.pdf.

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

Mitigation Measure 3-2: The City of Ontario shall evaluate new development proposals within the City and require all developments to include access or linkages to alternative modes of transportation, such as transit stops, bike paths, and/or pedestrian paths (e.g., sidewalks).

Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Ontario for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts to the City of Ontario Planning Department for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology for assessing air quality impacts. If operational-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD-adopted thresholds of significance [a technical assessment was prepared as part of the Countryside SP Certified EIR indicating daily operations would exceed SCAQMD thresholds], the City of Ontario Planning Department shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational 7755
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

activities. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions could include, but are not limited to the following:
 For site-specific development that requires refrigerated vehicles, the construction documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical service connections at loading docks for plug-in of the anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce idling time and emissions.  Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy storage and combined heat and power in appropriate applications to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use.  Site-specific developments with truck delivery and loading areas and truck parking spaces shall include signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles while parked for loading/unloading in accordance with California Air Resources Board Rule 2845 (13 CCR Chapter 10 section 2485).  Provide changing/shower facilities as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures).
 Provide bicycle parking facilities per Section A4.106.9 of CALGreen (Residential Voluntary Measures).
 Provide preferential parking spaces for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles per Section A5.106.5.1 of the CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures).
 Provide facilities to support electric charging stations per Section A5.106.5.3 and A5.106.5.2 of the CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures; Residential Voluntary Measures).
 Applicant-provided appliances shall be Energy Star-certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency (e.g., dishwashers, refrigerators, closes washers and dryers). Installation of Energy Star-certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified by the City during plan check.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Discussion of Effects: The subject site was previously analyzed in the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR.

The project site’s northern parcel is designated as Medium Density Residential (MDR) and the southern parcel is designated as Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR), in TOP 2050, which allows for a combined total of 217-484 dwelling units on the 23.2-acre site. As the proposed project includes 265 units, it is consistent with these TOP land use designations and the associated number of dwelling units, for which impacts were evaluated in the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR. As outlined in the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR, buildout of TOP 2050 would generate short-term emissions that would exceed South Coast AQMD’s regional significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB and would be significant and unavoidable. TOP 2025 Mitigation Measures 3-2 and AQ-1 [above] would reduce air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR 7756
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

analyses are necessary.
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Discussion of Effects: The Countryside SP Certified EIR determined toxic or carcinogenic air pollutants are not expected to occur in any meaningful amounts in conjunction with operation of the proposed land uses within the project site and no mitigation is required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analyses are necessary.
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people)?
Discussion of Effects: The Initial Study for of the Countryside SP Certified EIR determined no impacts as the project does not propose and would not facilitate uses that are significant sources of objectionable odors. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Initial Study to the Countryside SP Certified EIR.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analyses are necessary.

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Discussion of Effects: The subject site was previously analyzed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR and categorized as entirely denuded/developed land with intensive disturbance resulting from a variety of land uses associated with the project site including row crops, residential and commercial activities and roads. According to the Countryside SP Certified EIR, no specialstatus botanical species were present nor any suitable habitat that would support them. No threatened or endangered species have been reported to occur within the project site, however some sensitive species such as loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), as well as migratory avian species and raptors, which may use portions of the site and adjacent areas during the breeding season are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA.) The loss of a special-status avian species, an occupied nest, or substantial interference with roosting and foraging opportunities for migratory Species of Special Concern or raptors as a result of construction or demolition activities, would constitute a potentially significant impact.

However, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a)-SP and BIO-4-SP, that are applicable to the project. A projectspecific Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (DSF) Habitat Suitability Assessment was prepared by ELMT Consulting, Inc. in December 2022. As outlined in this report, the project site is mapped by the US 7757
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as sporting Delhi fine sand soils in a band running north to south on the western and eastern boundary of the project site with the middle of the site supporting Hilmar loamy fine sand. However, since the project site has been continuously farmed for several decades with a variety of crops and disked between rotation of crops with the disking across the band of Delhi Sand soils at a 90-degree angle, the band of Delhi Sand soils that may have historically been present on the site has been thoroughly integrated into the larger areas of clay soils found on the site. Due to these historic and ongoing land uses, no undisturbed native plant community exist on the site. Due to the longstanding regime of crop rotation and disking, the small bands of Delhi Sand soils that was mapped as historically occurring on the site, has been thoroughly mixed with the clay soils and clean Delhi Sands are no longer present. The site is considered unsuitable habitat for DSF. Therefore, no adverse impacts to special status species are anticipated.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1(a)-SP: To ensure that avian Species of Concern, protected migratory species (e.g., Migratory Bird Treaty Act), or raptor species are not injured or disturbed by construction in the vicinity of nesting habitat, the project applicant shall implement the following measures:
 When feasible, all tree removal shall occur between August 30 and February 15 to avoid the breeding season of any raptor species that could be using the area, and to discourage hawks from nesting in the vicinity of an upcoming construction area. This period may be modified with the authorization of the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) [now California Department of Fish and Wildlife, CDFW]; or if it is not feasible to remove trees outside this window then, prior to the beginning of mass grading, including grading for major infrastructure improvements, during the period between February 15 and August 30, all trees and potential burrowing owl habitat within 250 feet of any grading or earthmoving activities shall be surveyed for active raptor nests or burrows by a qualified biologist no more than 30 days prior to disturbance. If active raptor nests or burrows are found, and the site is within 250 feet of potential construction activity, a fence shall be erected around the tree or burrow(s) at a distance of up to 250 feet, depending on the species, from the edge of the canopy to prevent construction disturbance and intrusions on the nest area. The appropriate buffer shall be determined by the City in consultation with CDFG [now CDFW].
 No construction vehicles shall be permitted within restricted areas (i.e., raptor protection zones), unless directly related to the management or protection of legally protected species.
 In the event that a nest is abandoned, despite efforts to minimize disturbance, and if the nestlings are still alive, the developer shall contact CDFG [CDFW] and, subject to CDFG [CDFW] approval fund the recovery and hacking (controlled release of captive reared young) of the nestling(s).  If legally protected species nest is located in a tree designated for removal, the removal shall be deferred until after August 30, or until the adults and young of the year are no longer dependent on the nest site as determined by a qualified biologist.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2(a)-SP: Prior to any groundbreaking within the Specific Plan Area, mitigation fees shall be paid to a land conservancy selected to oversee habitat land acquisition in accordance with the settlement agreement between the City, Sierra Club, and Endangered Habitat League.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4-SP: The project applicant, in consultation with the California 7758
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) [now CDFW], shall conduct a pre-construction survey within the phases of the project site that are scheduled for construction activities.

The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if western burrowing owls are occupying the project site. The survey shall be conducted no more than three weeks prior to grading of the project site.

If the above survey does not identify burrowing owls on the project site, then no further mitigation would be required. However, should western burrowing owls be found on the project site, the following measures shall be required:

The applicant shall avoid all potential western burrowing owl burrows that may be disturbed by project construction during the breeding season between February 15 and August 30 (the period when nest burrows are typically occupied by adults with eggs or young). Avoidance shall include the establishment of a 300-foot diameter nondisturbance buffer zone around any occupied burrows. The buffer zone shall only occur outside of the breeding season (September 1 through February 14).

Based on approval by the CDFG [CDFW], preconstruction and non-breeding season exclusion measures may be implemented to preclude burrowing owl occupation of the project site prior to project-related disturbance, such as grading). Burrowing owls may be passively excluded from burrows in the construction area by placing one-way doors in the burrows according to current CDFG [CDFW] protocol. The one-way doors must be in place for a minimum of three days. All burrows that may be occupied by burrowing owls, regardless of whether they exhibit signs of occupation, must be cleared. Burrows that have been cleared through the use of one-way doors shall then be closed or backfilled to prevent owls from entering the burrow. The one-way doors shall not be used more than two weeks before construction to ensure that owls do not re-colonize the area of construction.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analyses are necessary.
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Discussion of Effects: The project site was previously analyzed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR and does not contain any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified by the California Department of Fish & Game [CDFW] or U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

Therefore, no adverse environmental impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified Countryside SP EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis are necessary.
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 7759
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

Discussion of Effects: The project site was previously analyzed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR and no wetland habitat is present. Therefore, project implementation would have no impact on these resources.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis is necessary.
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Discussion of Effects: The project site was previously analyzed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR and contains row crops and a nursery property that are bounded on all four sides by development. As a result, there are no wildlife corridors connecting this site to other areas.

Therefore, no adverse environmental impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis is necessary.
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Discussion of Effects: The project site was previously analyzed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR which concluded that the implementation of the Specific Plan, in accordance with the mitigation measures contained within the Countryside SP EIR, would ensure that the proposed project would be in substantial conformance with the local applicable policies protecting biological resources. The applicable mitigation measures from the Countryside SP Certified EIR for the proposed project site are outlined above and with implementation, no adverse environmental impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis is necessary.
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Discussion of Effects: The project site was previously analyzed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR and as outlined in the Initial Study, the project site is not located within an adopted HCP, NCCP or other approved habitat conservation plan. The project site is not located within the DSF HCP, a 19-acre area near the intersection of Greystone Drive and the eastern City boundary.

As a result, no adverse environmental impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and 7760
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis is necessary.

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
Discussion of Effects: The project site was previously analyzed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR and no historic or potentially historic resources were identified within the project site, as part of the Barth Farms property. Per the Cultural Resources Assessment (BCR Consulting, LLC., December 2022) of the project site, no cultural resources of any kind (including historic-period or prehistoric archaeological resources, or historic-period architectural resources) were identified.

Therefore, no significant impact related to historical resources is anticipated.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis is necessary.
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Discussion of Effects: Per the Countryside SP Certified EIR, although an intensive pedestrian field survey was not conducted for Neighborhood 2 of the project site, the entire SP area has been subject to substantial disturbance over lengthy periods of time, as a result of livestock movement, livestock waste collection and disposal, agriculture, and other development that would have displaced potential surface and subsurface archaeological resources. Therefore, potential impacts to archaeological resources are not anticipated. Per the Cultural Resources Assessment (BCR Consulting, LLC., December 2022) an intensive pedestrian field survey of the project site was conducted and no cultural resources of any kind (including historic-period or prehistoric archaeological resources, or historic-period architectural resources) were identified. Therefore, no significant impact related to archaeological resources are anticipated. Per the Countryside SP Certified EIR, despite the lack of documented resources in the vicinity, the possibility of discovering archaeological remains during excavation for future projects within the Specific Plan area cannot be completely discounted. No provisions exist for the recovery of previously unknown archaeological resources as a result of ground-disturbing activities associated with site preparation and construction and therefore mitigation measures CUL-2 (a-c)-SP are applicable to the project and would reduce impacts to unknown archaeological resources to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2(a)-SP: Prior to site preparation or grading activities, construction personnel shall be informed of the potential for encountering unique archaeological resources. This shall include the provision of written materials to familiarize personnel with the range of resources that might be expected, the type of activities that may result in impacts, and the legal framework of cultural resources protection. All construction personnel shall be instructed to stop work in the vicinity of a potential discovery until a qualified archaeologist assess the significance of the find and implements appropriate measures to protect or scientifically remove the find. Construction personnel shall also be informed that unauthorized collection of archaeological resources is prohibited.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2(b)-SP: Prior to site preparation and grading activities, the 7761
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

applicant shall retain a qualified (SOPA certified) archaeologist to monitor earth-disturbing activities. The frequency of monitoring shall occur at the discretion of the archaeologist, based upon site condition or other relevant factors. The archaeologist shall also be available on-call to assess any potential resources that may be exposed or discovered when the archaeologist is not present.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2(c)-SP: For any potential archaeological resource uncovered during construction, a qualified archaeologist shall first determine whether it is a “unique archaeological resource” under Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(g). If the archaeological resource is determined to be a “unique archaeological resource,” the archaeologist shall formulate a mitigation plan in consultation with the campus that satisfies the requirements of Section 21083.2 of CEQA. If the archaeologist determines that the archaeological resources is not a unique archaeological resource, the archaeologist may record the site and submit the recordation form to the California Historic Resources Information System South Central Coastal Information Center. The archaeologist shall prepare a report of the results of any study prepared as part of a mitigation plan, following accepted professional practice. Copies of the report shall be submitted to the University and to the California Historic Resources Information System San Bernardino Archaeological Information Center.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis is necessary.
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Discussion of Effects: Per the Countryside SP Certified EIR, no archaeological materials, including human burials, have been discovered in the Countryside Specific Plan Area. However, archaeological contexts are known in the general New Model Colony (Ontario Ranch) area, and the potential still exists for such resources to be present in the Countryside Specific Plan Area.

Excavation during project related construction activities would have the potential to disturb unknown/undiscovered human remains. Human burials, in addition to being potential archaeological resources, have specific provisions for treatment in Section 5097 of the California Public Resources Code (P.R.C). Disturbing human remains could violate the health code, as well as destroy the resource, which would result in a potentially significant impact. As such, mitigation measure MM CUL-4-SP is proposed to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure CUL-4-SP: In the event of the discovery of a burial, human bone, or suspected human bone, all excavation or grading in the vicinity of the find shall halt immediately, the area of the find shall be protected, and the University immediately shall notify the San Bernardino County Coroner of the find and comply with the provisions of P.R.C. Section 5097 with respect to Native American involvement, burial treatment, and re-burial, if necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis is necessary.

6. ENERGY. Would the project:
7762
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Discussion of Effects: At the time the Countryside SP Certified EIR was prepared, impacts related to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources was not included in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist and therefore it did not identify any significant impacts related to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. The subject site was previously analyzed in the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR. The TOP 2050 designates the project site’s northern parcel as Medium Density Residential (MDR) and the southern parcel is designated as Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR), which allows for a combined total of 217-484 dwelling units on the 23.2-acre site. As the proposed project includes 265 units, it is consistent with these TOP land use designations and the associated number of dwelling units, for which impacts were evaluated in the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR. As outlined in the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR, regulatory compliance (e.g., Building Energy Efficiency Standards, CALGreen, Renewable Portfolio standard (RPS), and Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards) will increase building energy efficiency and vehicle fuel efficiency and reduce building energy demand and transportationrelated fuel usage. Additionally, the TOP 2050 includes policies related to land use and transportation planning and design, energy efficiency, public and active transit, and renewable energy generation that will contribute to minimizing building and transportation-related energy demands overall and demands on nonrenewable sources of energy. Implementation of the policies in TOP 2050 and Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP) policies, in conjunction with regulatory requirements would endure that energy demand associated with growth under TOP 2050 would not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. As no significant energy impacts were identified, no mitigation measures are warranted.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Discussion of Effects: At the time the Countryside SP Certified EIR was prepared, impacts related to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources was not included in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist and therefore it did not identify any significant impacts related to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. The subject site was previously analyzed in the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR. The project site’s northern parcel is designated as Medium Density Residential (MDR) and the southern parcel is designated as Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR), in TOP 2050, which allows for a combined total of 217-484 dwelling units on the 23.2-acre site. As the proposed project includes 265 units, it is consistent with these TOP land use designations and the associated number of dwelling units, for which impacts were evaluated in the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR. As outlined in the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR, the state’s electricity grid is transitioning to renewable energy under California’s RPS Program. Renewable sources of electricity include wind, small hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. The statewide RPS requirements do not directly apply to individual development projects, but to utilities and energy providers such as Southern California Edison (SCE), whose compliance with RPS requirements would contribute to the State of California objective of transitioning to renewable energy. The land uses in the TOP 2050 would comply with the current and future iterations of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen. Furthermore, TOP 2050 includes Environmental Resources Element policies (AR3-1, ER3-2, ER3-3, ER3-4, ER3-5 and ER3-6) and Safety Element policies (S9-1, S9-2, and S9-3) which would support the statewide goal of transitioning the electricity grid to renewable sources and employ best practices regarding energy-saving 7763
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

standards. The TOP 2050 would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of California’s RPS program.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

7. GEOLOGY & SOILS. Would the project:
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication

42. Discussion of Effects: Per the Countryside SP Certified EIR, the project site is located outside the Fault Rupture Hazard Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo zone) and is approximately 6 miles from the nearest fault line, the Chino-Central Avenue Fault. The project site, however, is in a seismically active region and seismic hazards must be taken into account in the design and construction of the residential structures proposed in the SP. As determined by the Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation (LGC Geotechnical, Inc., April 2022) for this Project, the subject site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no faults were identified on the site during the site evaluation. The possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered low since no active faults are known to cross the site. The Countryside SP Certified EIR concluded that implementation of mitigation measures MM G-1 and MM GEO-1-SP would reduce impacts from seismic hazards to less than significant levels. Mitigation measures MM G-1 and MM GEO-1-SP that are applicable to the project and shall be implemented include:

Mitigation Measure G-1: The City shall develop (pull together from existing materials) a Grading and Geotechnical Investigation Standards manual which will be available to developers and consultants in order to ensure the minimum proper soils engineering and engineering geologic study for all sites where grading will occur. Together these standards and policies should effectively mandate proper studies before development approval, in which grading, foundations, and slope stability would be analyzed and any potential hazards identified. Mitigation of the potential hazards would occur through the proper application of recommendations arising from these studies. Topics shall include but not necessarily be limited to soils engineering and foundations, slope stability, erosion, liquefaction/dynamic settlement, shallow groundwater, and fault location/ activity. This manual shall be available at the permit stage prior to initial feasibility and design studies in order to enhance (streamline) the development review and environmental review processes.

Mitigation Measure GEO-1-SP: A final design geotechnical report shall be prepared for the proposed development to provide structure-specific geotechnical recommendations. The final report shall address all issues initially covered int eh Preliminary Geotechnical Report.

Final recommendations on earthwork, spread footings with slabs-on-grade, reinforced mat foundations, post-tensioned mats, friction piles, cathedral retaining (basement) walls, and measures to address soil corrosion shall be identified. The final report shall specify foundation recommendations to ensure issues associated with underlying soils are 7764
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

addressed. Construction of the project shall comply with all recommendations in the final geotechnical report.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified Countryside SP EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis is necessary.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Discussion of Effects: As determined by the Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation (LGC Geotechnical, Inc., April 2022) for this Project, no faults were identified on the site during the site evaluation. The possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered low since no active faults are known to cross the site. The main seismic hazard that may affect the site is ground shaking from one of the active regional faults. The subject site will likely experience strong seismic ground shaking during its design life. The Countryside SP Certified EIR concluded that implementation of mitigation measures MM G-1 and MM GEO-1-SP would reduce impacts from seismic hazards to less than significant levels.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis is necessary.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Discussion of Effects: As identified in the Countryside SP Certified EIR, groundwater saturation of sediments is required for earthquake induced liquefaction. In general, groundwater depths shallower than 50 feet to the surface can cause the highest liquefaction susceptibility. The risk of liquefaction in the immediate project area is low due to a depth to groundwater of greater than 100 feet below ground (fbg). Therefore, the liquefaction potential within the project area is minimal. Implementation of The Ontario Plan strategies, Uniform Building Code and Ontario Municipal Code would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Certified Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis is necessary.
iv. Landslides?
Discussion of Effects: Per the Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation (LGC Geotechnical, Inc., April 2022), regional geologic mapping and local topographic expressions do not indicate the presence of large-scale landslides within or adjacent to the project area. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides due to the relatively flat topography of the project site making the chance of landslides remote. Implementation of The Ontario Plan strategies, Uniform Building Code and Ontario Municipal Code would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP 7765
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

Certified EIR analysis is necessary.
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Discussion of Effects: Soil erosion and loss of topsoil has been previously analyzed by the Countryside SP Certified EIR and found to be less than significant. All construction activity for this Project will comply with Chapter 29 of the CBC, which regulates excavation activities and construction of foundations and retaining walls, as well as Chapter 70 of the CBC, which regulates grading activities, including drainage and erosion control. Compliance with City permit and CBC requirements would minimize effects from erosion. The proposed project would also be implemented in accordance with SOI GPA Policies 21.2.1, 22.1.3 and 22.1.6 (SOI GPA EIR MM G1). The noted policies and MM G-1 both address erosion impacts through investigation, monitoring, and mitigation, and are designed to reduce potentially substantial adverse effects resulting from soil erosion during all phases of project development, implementation, and operation. In addition, project-specific measures MM GEO-2(a)-SP, MM GEO-2(b)-SP, and MM GEO-2(c)-SP from the Countryside SP Certified EIR are applicable and shall be implemented to ensure that specific construction-related erosion risks are further reduced.

Mitigation Measure GEO-2(a)-SP: Erosion control shall be employed and maintained on all vacant areas of the project site that have been graded.

Mitigation Measure GEO-2(b)-SP: The project applicant shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for coverage under the Statewide General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit and shall comply with all applicable requirements, including the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). A copy of the NOI shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of a grading permit.

Mitigation Measure GEO-2(c)-SP: An erosion control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Ontario prior to issuance of grading permits.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis is necessary.
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Discussion of Effects: As outlined in the Countryside SP Certified EIR, slope instability is not expected to pose constraints on development because the SP area is relatively flat. The Project will not create greater landslide potential impacts than were identified in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. In addition, the Project would not result in the location of development on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable because as previously discussed, the potential for liquefaction and landslides associated with the project is less than significant. The Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation (LGC Geotechnical, Inc., April 2022) also concludes project site soils are not generally susceptible to liquefaction due to the lack of groundwater in the upper 50 feet, isolated dry sand settlement is estimated to be 1-inch or less, and site soils are anticipated to have very low expansion potential. The Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation indicates that the recommendations contained therein are considered preliminary and should be confirmed upon 7766
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

completion of grading and earthwork operations. With implementation of The Ontario Plan strategies, Uniform Building Code, Ontario Municipal Code, and Mitigation Measure GEO-1-SP would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis is necessary.
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Discussion of Effects: According to the Countryside SP Certified EIR, the majority of Ontario, including the project site, is located on alluvial and eolian soil deposits. These types of soils are not considered to be expansive. The Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation (LGC Geotechnical, Inc., April 2022) also concludes project site soils are anticipated to have very low expansion potential.

With implementation of The Ontario Plan strategies, Uniform Building Code, Ontario Municipal Code, and Mitigation Measure GEO-1-SP would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis is necessary.
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Discussion of Effects: Per the Countryside SP Certified EIR, the area is served by the local sewer system and the use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems is not proposed.

There will be no impact to the sewage system. There would be no impact related to having soils incapable of inadequately supporting septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis is necessary.
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Discussion of Effects: Per the Countryside SP Certified EIR, potential disturbance or damage to undocumented archaeological resources, undocumented paleontological resources, or human remains could occur and would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Mitigation Measure MM CUL-3(c)-SP.

Mitigation Measure CUL-3(c)-SP: For any potential paleontological resource uncovered during construction, a qualified paleontologist shall first determine whether it is a “unique resource”. If the paleontological resource is determined to be a ”unique resource,” the paleontologist shall formulate a mitigation plan in consultation with the City that satisfies the requirements off the Conformable Mitigation Guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (News Bulletin Number 163, January 1995). If the paleontologist determines 7767
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

that the paleontological resource is not a unique resource, the paleontologist may record the site and submit the recordation form to the Natural History Museum of San Bernardino County. The paleontologist shall prepare a report of the results of any study prepared as part of a mitigation plan, following accepted professional practice. Copies of the report shall be submitted to the City of Ontario and to the Natural History Museum of San Bernardino County.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis is necessary.

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Discussion of Effects: The subject site was previously analyzed in the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR.

The project site’s northern parcel is designated as Medium Density Residential (MDR) and the southern parcel is designated as Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR), in TOP 2050, which allows for a combined total of 217-484 dwelling units on the 23.2-acre site. As the proposed project includes 265 units, it is consistent with these TOP land use designations and the associated number of dwelling units, for which impacts were evaluated in the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR. As outlined in the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR, the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) evaluation was prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA to determine if significant GHG impacts are likely to occur from future development accommodated by TOP 2050. With implementation of the CCAP, the city would achieve the Executive Order (EO) S-03-05 GHG emissions reduction targets, resulting in an 80 percent decrease in GHG emissions in the city by 2050 from existing conditions, and would make substantial progress toward the State’s carbon neutrality goals under EO B-55-18. The TOP 2050, which includes the CCAP, would reduce GHG emissions impacts compared to the TOP 2010, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Discussion of Effects: The subject site was previously analyzed in the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR.

The project site’s northern parcel is designated as Medium Density Residential (MDR) and the southern parcel is designated as Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR), in TOP 2050, which allows for a combined total of 217-484 dwelling units on the 23.2-acre site. As the proposed project includes 265 units, it is consistent with these TOP land use designations and the associated number of dwelling units, for which impacts were evaluated in the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR. As outlined in the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR, future development under the TOP 2050 would be consistent with applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, including California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Scoping Plan and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Connect SoCal. Implementation of TOP 2050 would not obstruct implementation of the CARB Scoping Plan or interfere with SCAG’s ability to implement the regional strategies in Connect SoCal and impacts are less than significant.
7768
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

Mitigation Required: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

9. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?
Discussion of Effects: Per the Countryside SP Certified EIR, due to the current and historic uses of the site, including extensive dairy and agricultural operations, the potential exists for hazardous materials to be encountered over the entirety of the site. Specific Plan build out would result in grading of approximately 178 acres of land and demolition of various existing structures.

Disturbance of soils and demolition of structures could result in the exposure of construction workers, residential occupants, or parkland/paseo users to health or safety risks if contaminated structures, soils, and/ or groundwater are encountered during construction or maintenance.

Exposure to contaminated structures, soil, or groundwater could occur from any of the following:
1) asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paints in on-site structures, pipes, etc.; 2) pesticides/herbicides in the soil; 3) chlorinated solvent plume in the groundwater beneath the site; 4) soil contamination from polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) in areas with transformers; 5) petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH)-contaminated areas of soil adjacent to above-ground storage tanks (ASTs) on the site; or 6) unknown contaminants not previously identified. The Countryside SP Certified EIR included Mitigation Measure MM HM-1, that requires completion of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for all areas on-site to screen the site for further contamination potential. A Phase I ESA and Shallow Soil Sampling (Stantec, December 2022) was conducted for the proposed project site (Neighborhood 2) in compliance with Mitigation Measure MM HM-1. As the site was used for agriculture, application of pesticide and herbicide was anticipated and the potential for accumulation of organochloride pesticide (OCPs) and heavy metals (lead and arsenic) that are common with herbicide application in shallow soils. A shallow soils assessment indicated all OCPs, lead, and arsenic that were detected were below all applicable screening levels. The project site also has empty fuel tanks, waste oil drums, and an approximately 500-gallon diesel fuel storage tank. A shallow soil sampling was conducted to evaluate the potential release to the subsurface in these areas. There were no detections of TPH or volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Therefore, OCPs, arsenic, lead, TPH and VOCs are not considered a concern at the site and no further investigation or need for remediation is necessary. The proposed Project would not result in the routine handling, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, with the limited exception of standard household cleaning products inside residences, chlorine and filters used in pools, and the limited application of pesticides associated with residential landscaping and maintenance practices. As outlined in the Countryside SP Certified EIR, the standard conditions of approval for the City of Ontario include compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations pertaining to the handling, storing, applying, and disposing of all pest control, herbicide, insecticide, and other similar substances as well as compliance by the applicant to certify that all deleterious materials, particularly organic residue from dairy, farming, or agricultural activity, have been removed, properly disposed of, and will not impact the development during the project’s life. Further in the event of a disaster or an incident requiring complex coordination, pre-selected and trained hazardous materials personnel, in conjunction with City and County firefighters, would respond to any hazardous materials incident or illegal hazardous waste disposal complaint. Therefore, no significant long-term operational emissions hazard to the public, including any nearby school, or the environment is anticipated through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials associated with the operation of residential development. 7769
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

Mitigation: This impact would be less than significant per the Countryside SP Certified EIR and Phase I ESA and Shallow Soil Sampling (Stantec, December 2022) and no additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis is necessary. b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Discussion of Effects: The proposed Project does not include the use of hazardous materials or volatile fuels. In addition, there are no known stationary commercial or industrial land uses within close proximity to the subject site, which use/store hazardous materials to the extent that they would pose a significant hazard to visitors/occupants to the subject site, in the event of an upset condition resulting in the release of a hazardous material. As outlined above under threshold 9.a. above, per the Countryside SP Certified EIR, Specific Plan build out would result in grading of approximately 178 acres of land and demolition of various existing structures. Disturbance of soils and demolition of structures could result in the exposure of construction workers, residential occupants, or parkland/paseo users to health or safety risks if contaminated structures, soils, and/ or groundwater are encountered during construction or maintenance. The Countryside SP Certified EIR included Mitigation Measure MM HM-1, that requires completion of a Phase I ESA for all areas on-site to screen the site for further contamination potential. A Phase I ESA and Shallow Soil Sampling (Stantec, December 2022) was conducted for the proposed project site (Neighborhood 2) in compliance with Mitigation Measure MM HM-1 and confirmed that all OCPs, lead, and arsenic that were detected were below all applicable screening levels and there were no detections of TPH or VOCs. Therefore, OCPs, arsenic, lead, TPH and VOCs are not considered a concern at the site and no further investigation or need for remediation is necessary. The proposed Project would not result in the routine handling, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, with the limited exception of standard household cleaning products inside residences, chlorine and filters used in pools, and the limited application of pesticides associated with residential landscaping and maintenance practices. As outlined in the Countryside SP Certified EIR, the standard conditions of approval for the City of Ontario include compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations pertaining to the handling, storing, applying, and disposing of all pest control, herbicide, insecticide, and other similar substances as well as compliance by the applicant to certify that all deleterious materials, particularly organic residue from dairy, farming, or agricultural activity, have been removed, properly disposed of, and will not impact the development during the project’s life. Further in the event of a disaster or an incident requiring complex coordination, pre-selected and trained hazardous materials personnel, in conjunction with City and County firefighters, would respond to any hazardous materials incident or illegal hazardous waste disposal complaint. Therefore, no significant long-term operational emissions hazard to the public, including any nearby school, or the environment is anticipated through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials associated with the operation of residential development.

Mitigation: This impact would be less than significant per the Countryside SP Certified EIR and Phase I ESA and Shallow Soil Sampling (Stantec, December 2022) and no additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis is necessary. c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, 7770
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Discussion of Effects: Per the Countryside SP Certified EIR, the SP area is located within onequarter mile of Ranch View Elementary School, which is located directly southeast of the proposed project site at 3300 Old Archibald Ranch Road. Construction and operation of the proposed project would develop residential units in a planned community and would not include the processing or storage any acutely hazardous materials. A Phase I ESA and Shallow Soil Sampling (Stantec, December 2022) was conducted for the proposed project site (Neighborhood 2) and concluded there are no contaminated soils or otherwise hazardous materials. As outlined in the Countryside SP Certified EIR, the standard conditions of approval for the City of Ontario include compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations pertaining to the handling, storing, applying, and disposing of all pest control, herbicide, insecticide, and other similar substances as well as compliance by the applicant to certify that all deleterious materials, particularly organic residue from dairy, farming, or agricultural activity, have been removed, properly disposed of, and will not impact the development during the project’s life. Further in the event of a disaster or an incident requiring complex coordination, pre-selected and trained hazardous materials personnel, in conjunction with City and County firefighters, would respond to any hazardous materials incident or illegal hazardous waste disposal complaint. Therefore, no significant long-term operational emissions hazard to the public, including any nearby school, or the environment is anticipated with the operation of residential development. As such, the proposed project would have less than significant impacts on the adjacent school.

Mitigation: This impact would be less than significant per the Countryside SP Certified EIR and Phase I ESA and Shallow Soil Sampling (Stantec, December 2022) and no additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis is necessary. d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Discussion of Effects: Per the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA) website calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/ the following data resources provide information regarding facilities or sites identified as meeting the “Cortese List” requirements: List of Hazardous Waste and Substances sites from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database, list of leaking underground storage tank sites from the State Water Board’s GeoTracker database, list of solid waste disposal sites identified by the Water Board with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels outside the waste management unit, list of active Cease and Desist Orders (CDO) and Cleanup and Abatement Orders (CAO) from the list from the State Water Board, and list of hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code identified by DTSC. Per the Phase I ESA and Shallow Soil Sampling (Stantec, December 2022), Neighborhood 2, the proposed project site, is not listed on the hazardous materials site compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, the project would not create a hazard to the public or the environment and no impact is anticipated.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis is necessary.
7771
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

e. For a project located within the safety zone of the airport land use compatibility plan for ONT or Chino Airports, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Discussion of Effects: As outlined in the Initial Study of the Countryside SP Certified EIR, the southern boundary of the SP area is approximately 2.5 miles northwest of the Chino Airport. In addition, the SP area is not located within 2 miles of the Ontario International Airport. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in a safety zone of an airport land use compatibility plan.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis is necessary.
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Discussion of Effects: The closest airports and/or airstrips to the project site are the Chino Airport and the Ontario International Airport, there are no other airports or private airstrips in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the vicinity of a private airstrip.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis is necessary.
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Discussion of Effects: The City's Safety Element, as contained within TOP 2050, includes policies and procedures to be administered in the event of a disaster. TOP seeks interdepartmental and inter-jurisdictional coordination and collaboration to be prepared for, respond to and recover from every day and disaster emergencies. In addition, the project will comply with the requirements of the Ontario Fire Department and all City requirements for fire and other emergency access. Because the project is required to comply with all applicable City codes, any impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.
h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Discussion of Effects: According to the Countryside SP Certified EIR, additional development of the projects area could increase exposure of people and structures to a risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires due to its proximity to undeveloped land. Eucalyptus trees adjacent to the SP area are a source of fuel for wildland fires, and fuel management of these 7772
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

eucalyptus stands has been limited due to lack of urban development in the area. The proposed project could place additional residential units in close proximity to the eucalyptus stands, a known fire hazard. If a wildland fire were to occur, the proposed project would increase the number of persons and residences threatened by such an event. However, the adjacent Cucamonga Creek Channel could serve as a fire brake. In addition, the expansion of the access and circulation within the projects area to include paseos and paved roads would also serve as fire brakes while improving the ability of the City to respond to a fire and reduce the potential hazard of wildland fires to people or structures. The mitigation measures in the Countryside SP Certified EIR applicable to the proposed project and shall be implemented to reduce impacts to less than significant are HM-5(a)-SP through HM-5(d)-SP, as outlined below.

Mitigation Measure HM-5(a)-SP: Landscaping around development areas adjacent to open space shall minimize dense vegetation immediately adjacent to structural development. Specifically, 12 to 18 inches of bare ground shall be kept between structures and grasses or other vegetation.

Mitigation Measure HM-5(b)-SP: In order to maintain a fire break between the undeveloped areas and structures, fuel management setbacks shall be 10 feet from each side of a road and 30 feet from structures.

Mitigation Measure HM-5(c)-SP: Grass and low-to-ground vegetation (e.g., weeds) in proximity to structures shall be kept no more than 6 inches high.

Mitigation Measure HM-5(d)-SP: Design of residential structures shall incorporate appropriate fire suppression systems into building design, which may include fire sprinkler systems, tempered or multiple pane windows, and fire-retardant materials for roofs, exterior walls and siding.

Mitigation: With implementation of mitigation measures MM HM-5(a-d)-SP, this impact would be less than significant per the Countryside SP Certified EIR and no additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis are necessary.

10. HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Discussion of Effects: Per the Countryside SP Certified EIR, implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) identified in both the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and in accordance with the NPDES permit will provide facilities and programs designed to control contaminants in urban runoff from entering the local and regional surface drainage systems and contributing to water quality degradation.

Therefore, with the incorporation of mitigation measures applicable to the project (MM WQ-1 through WQ-8) and compliance with applicable permit requirements, all impacts related to water quality would be reduced to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure WQ-1: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, project developers shall submit a final drainage plan for each proposed project for review and approval by the City Engineer.
7773
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

Mitigation Measure WQ-2: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, project developers shall ensure that coordination between the City of Ontario and the San Bernardino County Flood Control District has been undertaken to demonstrate the ability of the project to meet County flood control requirements.

Mitigation Measure WQ-3: Prior to the issuance of building permits, project developers shall submit to the City Engineer proof of payment of the City’s drainage fees, as applicable.

Mitigation Measure WQ-5: Prior to moving construction equipment on a site within the Sphere of Influence, project developers shall provide evidence to the City Engineer that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit has been obtained from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Once obtained, the NPDES permit shall be retained on the construction site throughout the construction period, and a copy shall be filed with the City Engineer.

Mitigation Measure WQ-6: During construction of individual projects, the City Engineer shall ensure compliance with all terms and conditions outlined in the NPDES permit, including the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) consistent with the California Stormwater Quality Association’s Construction Handbook.

Mitigation Measure WQ-7: Prior to issuance of grading permits, project developers shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for individual proposed projects.

These plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and comment prior to implementing any SWPPP provisions or starting any construction activity. A copy of the SWPPP shall be held by the construction contractor(s) on the construction site throughout development of each project. The City Engineer will monitor and enforce the provisions of the SWPPP.

Mitigation Measure WQ-8: During operation of facilities within the Sphere of Influence, the individual project owners and operators shall ensure that all pest control, herbicide, insecticide and other similar substances used as part of maintenance of project features are handled, stored, applied, and disposed of by those conducting facility maintenance in a manner consistent with all applicable federal, state and local regulations. The City Engineer shall monitor and enforce this provision.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis is necessary.
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Discussion of Effects: The subject site was previously analyzed in the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR.

The project site’s northern parcel is designated as Medium Density Residential (MDR) and the southern parcel is designated as Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR), in TOP 2050, which allows for a combined total of 217-484 dwelling units on the 23.2-acre site. As the proposed project includes 265 units, it is consistent with these TOP land use designations and the associated number of dwelling units, for which impacts were evaluated in the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR. As outlined in the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR, with implementation of City policies that promote Low Impact Development (LID) and infiltration for new development projects and compliance with the Chino Basin Watermaster’s safe yield restrictions, the potential for the project to substantially decrease 7774
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin is less than significant.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; Discussion of Effects: The project will result in altered on-site drainage patterns due to grading activities and changes in land use. However, the project has been previously analyzed by the Countryside SP Certified EIR and it is not anticipated to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in such a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation, flooding, or the exceedance of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. Furthermore, all construction activities will take place under implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) developed in compliance with the General Construction Activities Permit requirements, the Best Management Practices included in the SWPPP, and a stormwater monitoring program would reduce any impacts to below a level of significance. No streams or streambeds are present on the site and no changes in erosion off-site are anticipated.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis is necessary.
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
Discussion of Effects: Per the Countryside SP Certified EIR, implementation of the proposed project would not result in exacerbation of localized flooding due to construction of proposed storm drain improvements necessary to serve the site and adherence to the requirements of the NPDES permit and the WQMP. In order to ensure adequate drainage improvements, all features of the proposed system would be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards set by the City of Ontario and the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. In addition, plans for grading, drainage, and erosion control would be reviewed by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits (Ontario SOI GPA EIR mitigation measure MM WQ-1). In addition, Ontario SOI GPA EIR mitigation measure MM WQ-2 would ensure that coordination between the City and San Bernardino County Flood Control District occurs to ensure the project meets the County flood control requirements. Therefore, with inclusion of the project features designed to minimize drainage, this impact would be less than significant with no further mitigation needed.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis is necessary.
7775
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
Discussion of Effects: Per the Countryside SP Certified EIR, proposed onsite storm drain improvements for the project site would consist of 24-inch pipes, minimum, which would collect and discharge storm water via 48-inch and 72-inch pipes to the Cucamonga Creek Channel and Deer Creek Channel. Both channels drain into the Cucamonga Basin, which is a completed detention basin and groundwater recharge facility designed to accommodate stormwater flows from the region, including the project site. It is not anticipated that the project would create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or create or contribute stormwater runoff pollutants during construction and/or post-construction activity. In addition, the developer must submit to the City Engineer proof of payment of the City’s drainage fees, as applicable prior to issuance of building permits (mitigation measure WQ-3). Because regional and project-site flood control facilities are available to accommodate the project’s increased runoff and project-specific mitigation measure MM HYD3-SP would ensure consistency with the City’s Master Plan of Drainage, impacts are less than significant.

Mitigation Measure HYD-3-SP: All new storm drain infrastructure on site shall be consistent with the City’s Master Plan of Drainage, or otherwise formal amendments or deviations shall be made via coordination and approval from the City.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis is necessary.
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Discussion of Effects: Per the Countryside SP Certified EIR, implementation of the proposed project would not result in exacerbation of localized flooding due to construction of proposed storm drain improvements necessary to serve the site and adherence to the requirements of the NPDES permit and the WQMP. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis is necessary.
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Discussion of Effects: Per the Countryside SP Certified EIR, the proposed project would not place housing or structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. Further, the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR states that there are no large bodies of water that would result in a seiche during seismic activity. Additionally, the reservoirs/aboveground water tanks within the City are enclosed, thereby minimizing the possibility of a seiche. The project site is inland and approximately 30 miles from the ocean and is not at risk of flooding due to tsunamis. Therefore, the impacts associated with the release of pollutants due to inundation would be less than significant.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, 7776
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR and the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR or the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR analysis is necessary. e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Discussion of Effects: Per the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR, adherence to the State Construction General Permit, implementation of the SWPPP, and adherence to the City’s Erosion and Sediment Control Plan requirements would ensure that surface and groundwater quality are not adversely impacted during construction. Projects approved under TOP 2050 would be required to comply with the Santa Ana River Basin Plan and to control pollutants in discharges of stormwater from preconstruction activities under the NPDES permit through preparation of a WQMP identifying BMPs for prevention of stormwater pollution during the post-construction phase, including sitedesign, source-control, and/or treatment BMPs. Therefore, the project would not obstruct or conflict with the Basin Plan or any groundwater management plan and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

11. LAND USE & PLANNING. Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
Discussion of Effects: Per the Countryside SP Certified EIR, the Project site was originally identified as part of the ultimate development of the New Model Colony (NMC) area and development of the Countryside SP would not physically divide a planned community. No adverse impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis are necessary.
b. Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of agencies with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to general plan, airport land use compatibility plan, specific plan, or development code) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Discussion of Effects: Although the proposed project involves an amendment to the Countryside SP for Neighborhood 2 from RD – 6,000 (6,000 square foot lots) with 106 units to Townhomes (126 units), Cluster Single Family Detached (83 units), and Single Family Detached (56 units), for a combined total of 265 units it was previously analyzed in the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR.

The project site’s northern parcel is designated as Medium Density Residential (MDR) and the southern parcel is designated as Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR), which allows for a combined total of 217-484 dwelling units on the 23.2-acre site. As the proposed project includes 265 units, it is consistent with these TOP land use designations and the associated number of dwelling units, for which impacts were evaluated in the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR. As outlined in the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR, one of the purposes of TOP 2050 is to adequately plan and accommodate 7777
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

future growth. Implementation of TOP 2050 accommodates population growth through land use designations, goals, and policies that provide a vision and guide growth in the City. TOP 2050 accommodates future growth by providing for infrastructure and associated public services to accommodate the projected growth of the City. While buildout in accordance with TOP 2050 would substantially increase both population and employment in the City, impacts would be less than significant. The proposed project will not conflict with the TOP or other plans, policies, or regulations.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
Discussion of Effects: The project site was previously analyzed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR and as outlined in the Initial Study, the project site is not located within an adopted HCP, NCCP or other approved habitat conservation plan. The project site is not located within the DSF HCP, a 19-acre area near the intersection of Greystone Drive and the eastern City boundary.

As a result, no adverse environmental impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis are necessary.

12. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
Discussion of Effects: The Initial Study of the Countryside SP Certified EIR determined the Project site is located within a mostly developed area surrounded by urban land uses and is not known to contain any mineral resources. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis are necessary.
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Discussion of Effects: The Initial Study of the Countryside SP Certified EIR determined the site is not known to contain any mineral resources and no impact to mineral resources are anticipated.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis are necessary.
7778
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

13. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Discussion of Effects: As outlined in the Countryside SP Certified EIR, upon completion of the project, noise levels within the project site would be dominated by vehicular traffic on the surrounding roadways. Future exterior noise levels at the residential units planned along the surrounding roadways (including Archibald Avenue, between Riverside Drive and Chino Avenue) of the project site would exceed the City’s 65 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) standard for outdoor activity areas. Future noise levels associated with the surrounding roadways would not exceed the City’s 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standards for residential uses. Noise impacts associated with noise generated as a result of additional traffic from the proposed project’s operation, for both on- and off-site, are considered potentially significant. However, implementation of mitigation measures MM N-1 through MM N-4 would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.

Mitigation Measure N-1: Prior to the issuance of building permits for the planning area in the Sphere of Influence area, an Acoustical Analysis Report shall be submitted to the City Engineer by the project developer. The report shall describe the cumulative effect of road noise on surrounding land uses and recommend mitigation measures, if necessary, to attenuate that noise. If necessary, the City shall establish a noise attenuation fee program that requires developers in the Sphere of Influence area to make a fair share contribution to noise mitigation along some of roads surrounding the Sphere of Influence. The City of Ontario shall evaluate the need for such a fee program and establish participation guidelines prior to the issuance of grading permits.

Mitigation Measure N-2: Prior to the issuance of building permits for the planning areas in the Sphere of Influence area, an Acoustical Analysis Report shall be submitted to the City Building Official and Planning Director by the project developer. The Report shall describe in detail the interior and exterior noise levels for residential uses on the site and the specific design and mitigation features to ensure compliance with the City’s noise criteria of 65 dBA CNEL for outdoor living areas and 45 dBA CNEL for habitable rooms.

Mitigation Measure N-3: Prior to the issuance of building permits for planning areas in the Sphere of Influence area, the required location of noise barriers on the project site shall be detailed in the Acoustical Analysis Report. The Report shall specify the height, location, and types of barriers capable of achieving the desired mitigation affect.

Mitigation Measure N-4: Prior to the issuance of building permits for the planning areas in the Sphere of Influence area, the Acoustical Analysis Report shall identify those residential lots that may require mechanical ventilation to achieve interior noise standards. When the operable doors and windows are open for homes facing roadways, interior 45 dBA CNEL interior noise limit for these units may be exceeded. Therefore, a “windows closed” condition may be required for these units. Any proposed mechanical ventilation must meet the requirements of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) standard. It should be noted that the windows facing some roadways may be openable windows, but the homeowners would have the option to close the windows and still obtain adequate ventilation through the use of mechanical ventilation system. This mechanical ventilation system shall supply two air changes per hour to each habitable room, including 20 percent (one-fifth) fresh make-up air obtained directly from the outdoors. The fresh air inlet duct shall be of sound 7779
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

attenuating construction and shall consist of a minimum of 10 feet of straight or curved duct or 6 feet plus one sharp 90-degree bend. The City Building Official shall ensure that the Acoustical Analysis Report identifies any requirements for mechanical ventilation for the individual onsite residential units.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis is necessary.
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Discussion of Effects: As outlined in the Countryside SP Certified EIR, the proposed Countryside Specific Plan will be constructed in several phases, over the course of several years, so not all of the neighborhoods would be under construction at one time. With the addition of sensitive receptors (new housing units) within close proximity to active construction, the potential for exposure to excessive vibration levels may exceed the Federal Transit Administration 85 VdB threshold at certain locations where new residential dwelling units are located within the project site. This is the case where the southern portion of Neighborhood 2 construction will occur in very close proximity to the northern existing residences in Neighborhoods 5 and 7. The Countryside SP Certified EIR concluded that because sensitive receptors (future residential units) may be in close proximity to active construction, there is a possibility that they would be exposed to groundbourne vibration levels that exceed 85 VdB, which is considered a significant and unavoidable construction-related (temporary) impact. However, mitigation measures were included in the Countryside SP Certified EIR to reduce these potential impacts as much as possible and are applicable to the project.

Mitigation Measure N-6: Construction on the Sphere of Influence site shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday, and shall be prohibited on Sundays and federal holidays.

Mitigation Measure N-8: Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practical from existing residential units on and off the proposed project site.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis is necessary.
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Discussion of Effects: The Countryside SP Certified EIR determined impacts related to exposure of on- and off-site sensitive noise receptors to a substantial permanent increase in offsite ambient noise levels would be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures N-1 through N-5. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Initial Study to the Countryside SP Certified EIR.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and 7780
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis is necessary
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Discussion of Effects: As outlined in the Countryside SP Certified EIR, noise levels generated from construction activities would result in temporary increase in ambient noise levels of over 5 dBA at the existing noise-sensitive receptors outside of and adjacent to the SP, and for a prolonged period of time as the SP construction would be completed in phases, considered a significant impact. Mitigation Measure MM NOI-1-SP is required to reduce construction noise, however even with the incorporation of MM NOI-1-SP, construction of development in the SP would result in a substantial and significant periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels and the impact would be significant and unavoidable. The project shall implement MM NOI-1-SP from the Countryside SP Certified EIR to reduce potential impacts from construction noise to the greatest extent feasible. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Initial Study to the Countryside SP Certified EIR.

Mitigation Measure NOI-1-SP: The project contractor(s) shall implement, but not be limited to, the following best management practices:
 Outdoor construction work on the project shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. on weekdays and Saturdays. No construction activities shall occur on Sundays or federal holidays.
 All construction equipment with a high noise generating potential, including all equipment powered by internal combustion engines, shall be muffled or controlled.  All stationary noise generating equipment, such as compressors, shall be located as far as possible from existing houses.
 Machinery, including motors, shall be turned off when not in use.  Mobile equipment shall not be allowed to run idle near existing residences.  Neighbors within 200 feet of major construction areas shall be notified of the construction schedule in writing, prior to construction; the project sponsor shall designate a “disturbance coordinator” who shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding construction noise: the coordinator (who may be an employee of the developer or general contractor) shall determine the cause of the complaint and shall require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented; a telephone number of the noise disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site fence and on the notification sent to neighbors adjacent to the site.
 Temporary noise barriers shall be installed where feasible and appropriate between the project construction areas and existing and future residences. Barriers shall be at least 10 feet in height.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis are necessary.
e. For a project located within the noise impact zones of the airport land use compatibility plan for ONT and Chino Airports, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
7781
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

Discussion of Effects: The Initial Study of the Countryside SP Certified EIR determined the southern boundary of the Specific Plan area is approximately 2.5 miles northwest of the Chino Airport and not within 2 miles of the Ontario International Airport and is not located within the study-area noise contours of any airport or airstrip. As a result, no impacts from excessive noise levels related to airport operations would occur.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis are necessary.
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Discussion of Effects: The Initial Study of the Countryside SP Certified EIR determined the southern boundary of the Specific Plan area is approximately 2.5 miles northwest of the Chino Airport and not within 2 miles of the Ontario International Airport. As a result, no impacts from excessive noise levels related to airport operations would occur.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis are necessary.

14. POPULATION & HOUSING. Would the project:
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure)?
Discussion of Effects: The subject site was previously analyzed in the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR.

The project site’s northern parcel is designated as Medium Density Residential (MDR) and the southern parcel is designated as Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR), which allows for a combined total of 217-484 dwelling units on the 23.2-acre site. As the proposed project includes 265 units, it is consistent with these TOP land use designations and the associated number of dwelling units, for which impacts were evaluated in the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR. As outlined in the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR, one of the purposes of TOP 2050 is to adequately plan and accommodate future growth. Implementation of TOP 2050 accommodates population growth through land use designations, goals, and policies that provide a vision and guide growth in the City. TOP 2050 accommodates future growth by providing for infrastructure and associated public services to accommodate the projected growth of the City. While buildout in accordance with TOP 2050 would substantially increase both population and employment in the City, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Discussion of Effects: As outlined in the Countryside SP EIR, build out of the SP area would 7782
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

result in replacement of existing dairy operations, agricultural fields, and nursery with residential uses and would displace at least five on-site housing units. However, this displacement is not considered substantial. Less than significant impacts related to the displacement of housing and population would occur.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis are necessary.
c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Discussion of Effects: As outlined in the Countryside SP EIR, build out of the SP area would result in replacement of existing dairy operations, agricultural fields, and nursery with residential uses and would displace at least five on-site housing units. However, this displacement is not considered substantial. Less than significant impacts related to the displacement of housing and population would occur.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis are necessary.

15. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
Discussion of Effects: The site is in a developed area currently served by the Ontario Fire Department and was previously analyzed by the Countryside SP Certified EIR. The Project will not require the construction of any new facilities or alteration of any existing facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new facilities. The project is subject to the City’s development impact fee program which funds fire services. with payment of development impact fees, less than significant impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis are necessary.
ii. Police protection?
Discussion of Effects: The site is in a developed area currently served by the Ontario Police Department and was previously analyzed by the Countryside SP Certified EIR. The Project will not require the construction of any new facilities or alteration of any existing facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new facilities. The 7783
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

project is subject to the City’s development impact fee program which funds police services. With payment of development impact fees, less than significant impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis are necessary.
iii. Schools?
Discussion of Effects: The Countryside SP Certified EIR has determined impacts to school to be potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure PS-1-SP would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure PS-1-SP: Consistent with current requirements, the developer shall pay statutory school fees in effect at the time of issuance of building permits to the MVD (Mountain View School District) and CJUHSD (Chaffey Joint Union High School District) for school facilities, thus ensuring that the new development would bear its fair share of the cost of housing additional students generated.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis are necessary.
iv. Parks?
Discussion of Effects: The site is in a developed area, currently served by the City of Ontario. The Project will not require the construction of any new public facilities or alteration of any existing facilities. A private recreation area is proposed between Neighborhoods 2A, 2B, and 2C. To maintain the current level of service for parks in the City, the City requires payment of specific development impact fees (DIF) for recreational facilities. With payment of development impact fees, less than significant impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis are necessary.
v. Other public facilities?
Discussion of Effects: The site is in a developed area, currently served by the City of Ontario. The Project will not require the construction of any new facilities or alteration of any existing facilities. The City uses development impact fees collected at building permit issuance to provide funding for general public facilities. With payment of development impact fees, less than significant impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis are necessary.
7784
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

16. RECREATION. Would the project:
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Discussion of Effects: Per the Countryside SP Certified EIR, implementation of the proposed project would include the development of residential units in a previously non-residential area.

The adopted and certified Specific Plan Area includes the development of a total of approximately 5.75 acres of parkland in three key areas in and around the project site. These parks would be informal play areas and passive recreational opportunities for residents and would be served by the landscaped paseos. A private recreation area is included in the proposed project, between Neighborhoods 2A, 2B, and 2C. To maintain the current level of service for parks in the City, the City requires payment of specific development impact fees (DIF) for recreational facilities. With payment of development impact fees, less than significant impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis are necessary.
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion of Effects: As stated above, with payment of development impact fees, less than significant impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis are necessary.

17. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Discussion of Effects: As determined in the VMT Assessment, a review of the Project description did not identify any disruption to existing bicycle, pedestrian nor transit facilities; the proposed Project provides consistency related to regional active transportation plans, transit plans, and other mobility infrastructure plans in the New Model Colony (Ontario Ranch) area. New transit trips are anticipated to be generated by the Project, but the Project would not modify transit stop locations or change transit headways. Additional transit ridership demand could increase boarding and alighting activity at existing bus stops and transit terminals located near the Project site. The Project is consistent with the adopted plans regarding bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and is not expected to decrease the performance or safety of these facilities.

Therefore, the Project is considered to have a less-than-significant impact on active transportation and on public transit.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis are necessary.
7785
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Discussion of Effects: At the time the Countryside SP Certified EIR was prepared, impacts related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) was not included in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist and therefore it did not identify any significant impacts related to VMT. As determined in the VMT Assessment, the Project is consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) regarding policies to reduce VMT. The TOP 2050 Model forecast of total daily VMT/SP is the required method for estimating VMT. The proposed Project is forecast to reduce Home-Based Production (HB) VMT per resident, Origin/Destination (OD) VMT per Service Population (VMT/SP) and Boundary VMT/SP as compared to the approved project, and is forecast to produce VMT/SP below the City’s impact thresholds; therefore, this project is anticipated to result in a less-than-significant transportation impact.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis are necessary.
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Discussion of Effects: As determined in the VMT Assessment, the Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). The City of Ontario has adopted engineering standards to ensure consistency in the geometric design of their mobility facilities.

Additionally, all plans undergo an extensive review process at the City to ensure consistency with these adopted standards. This impact is considered less than significant.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis are necessary.
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
Discussion of Effects: As determined in the VMT Assessment, the Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. The Project is proposing improvements at intersections consistent with the Ontario Plan Circulation Element Buildout, therefore increasing the capacity of the network, as identified in the Level of Service (LOS) assessment. With the proposed improvements, the Project is anticipated to provide roadway capacity sufficient to support emergency evacuation scenarios even with the increased density. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis are necessary.

18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and 7786
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? Discussion of Effects: The project site was previously analyzed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR and no historic or potentially historic resources were identified within the project site, as part of the Barth Farms property. Per the Cultural Resources Assessment (BCR Consulting, LLC., December 2022) of the project site, no cultural resources of any kind (including historic-period or prehistoric archaeological resources, or historic-period architectural resources) were identified. Therefore, no significant impact related to historical resources is anticipated.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis is necessary.
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Discussion of Effects: Per the Countryside SP Certified EIR, although an intensive pedestrian field survey was not conducted for Neighborhood 2 of the project site, the entire SP area has been subject to substantial disturbance over lengthy periods of time, as a result of livestock movement, livestock waste collection and disposal, agriculture, and other development that would have displaced potential surface and subsurface archaeological resources. Therefore, potential impacts to archaeological resources are not anticipated. Per the Cultural Resources Assessment (BCR Consulting, LLC., December 2022) an intensive pedestrian field survey of the project site was conducted and no cultural resources of any kind (including historic-period or prehistoric archaeological resources, or historic-period architectural resources) were identified. The results of the Sacred Lands File Search, through the NAHC, did not indicate known Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR) within the project site boundary. Therefore, no significant impact related to Tribal Cultural Resources are anticipated. The City initiated consultation with the following Native American tribes in October 2022, pursuant to AB 52 and/or SB 18: Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California, Fort Yuma Quechan Tribe, Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (formerly known as the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians) and none had comment or requested to consult further. Per the Countryside SP Certified EIR, despite the lack of documented resources in the vicinity, the possibility of discovering archaeological remains during excavation for future projects within the Specific Plan area cannot be completely discounted. No provisions exist for the recovery of previously unknown archaeological resources as a result of ground-disturbing activities associated with site preparation and construction and therefore mitigation measures CUL-2 (a-c)-SP are applicable to the project and would reduce impacts to unknown archaeological resources to a less than significant level.

Mitigation: Refer to mitigation measure CUL-2 (a-c)-SP above. 7787
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Discussion of Effects: Per the Countryside SP Certified EIR, implementation of the proposed project would not require nor result in the construction of new or expanded water treatment facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. The Countryside SP Certified EIR included Mitigation Measure UTIL-1-SP which required the developer of the first phases of development in the SP to prepare a Subarea 5 Sewer Plan in accordance with the New Model Colony (NMC) Sewer Master Plan, which discusses how the project will be served, how the area will be connected to the City’s backbone system, and the area’s impact on downstream facilities. Sewer improvements to serve the proposed project will be required to be constructed in accordance with the Subarea 5 Sewer Plan. In addition, the proposed project would not substantially increase electric power and natural gas demands beyond available supply. The project-generated demand for electricity and natural gas would be negligible in the context of overall demand within the City of Ontario and the state, and thus is not anticipated to require substantial upgrades or expansion of existing electricity systems. Implementation of MM UTIL-3-SP would further reduce impacts to less-than- significant levels. The Project will not have an impact on telecommunications facilities. Therefore, these impacts are less-than-significant.

Mitigation Measure UTIL-3-SP: Project design and construction shall be coordinated with Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas Company, and improvements provided if necessary, in order to ensure that connections are adequate and capacity is available to accommodate estimate demand for gas and electric utilities.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis are necessary.
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Discussion of Effects: The subject site was previously analyzed in the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR.

The project site’s northern parcel is designated as Medium Density Residential (MDR) and the southern parcel is designated as Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR), in TOP 2050, which allows for a combined total of 217-484 dwelling units on the 23.2-acre site. As the proposed project includes 265 units, it is consistent with these TOP land use designations and the associated number of dwelling units, for which impacts were evaluated in the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR. As outlined in the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR, the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) states that there are sufficient water supplies through 2045 to meet project demands in normal years, single dry years, and multiple dry years through 2045 and there are sufficient water supplies to meet the demand for TOP 2050 buildout.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the TOP 2050 Certified SEIR analysis are necessary.
7788
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
Discussion of Effects: As stated in the Countryside SP Certified EIR, implementation of the proposed project would not increase wastewater generation such that existing and planned treatment facilities would be inadequate to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. As part of previous New Model Colony (NMC) planning efforts, wastewater treatment requirements were assessed for future buildout to determine what infrastructure would be necessary. As a result, a new treatment plant RP-5 was proposed to accommodate wastewater demands of the NMC ultimate land uses and was constructed in 2003. The proposed project will be served by the RP-5 treatment plant. This is considered a lessthan-significant impact.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis are necessary.
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Discussion of Effects: Per the Countryside SP Certified EIR, the approximate 4.5 tons per day (tpd) generated by the proposed project would represent 0.05 percent of daily tonnage to the El Sobrante Landfill. As discussed, the Solid Waste Department for the City of Ontario has indicated that the proposed project would dispose of solid waste at this landfill and capacity would be adequate for approximately 30 years. In addition, mitigation measure Mitigation Measure UTIL-2- SP would ensure that a project-related solid waste plan is prepared to ensure that an acceptable amount of project-related solid waste is diverted from landfills. Implementation of this mitigation measure would ensure that impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure UTIL-2-SP: Prior to issuance of building permits for the first project component, the Applicant shall submit a Solid Waste Management Plan to the City’s Recycling Coordinator. This plan shall discuss how the project will implement source reduction and recycling methods in compliance with existing City programs. Additionally, this plan shall include how the project will address the construction and demolitiongenerated waste from the site. These methods shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following:
■ Provision of recycling bins for glass, aluminum, and plastic for visitors and employees of the proposed project
■ Provision of recycling bins for glass, aluminum, plastic, wood, steel, and concrete for construction workers during construction phases
■ Bins for cardboard recycling during construction
■ Scrap wood recycling during construction
■ Green waste recycling of landscape materials
Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis are necessary.
7789
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Discussion of Effects: Per the Countryside SP Certified EIR, this Project complies with federal, state, and local statues and regulations regarding solid waste. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis are necessary.

20. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat or a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Discussion of Effects: As outlined above under Biological Resources, no special-status botanical species were present nor any suitable habitat that would support them. No threatened or endangered species have been reported to occur within the project site, however some sensitive bird species and migratory avian species and raptors may use portions of the site and adjacent areas during the breeding season and are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA.) However, this potential impacts to birds and their nests are reduced to a less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a)-SP and BIO-4-SP, that are applicable to the project. The proposed Project does not have the potential to reduce wildlife habitat, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. As outlined above under Cultural Resources, Per the Cultural Resources Assessment (BCR Consulting, LLC., December 2022) of the project site, no cultural resources of any kind (including historic-period or prehistoric archaeological resources, or historicperiod architectural resources) were identified. The project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Therefore, less than significant impacts resulting from the Project are anticipated.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis are necessary.
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals?
Discussion of Effects: The Project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis is necessary.
7790
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

c. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects.) Discussion of Effects: As outlined in the Countryside SP Certified EIR, buildout of the SP would result in cumulative impacts that are significant and unavoidable to the following: the loss of Prime Farmland and cancellation of Williamson Act contracts, air quality from construction and operational emissions of criteria pollutants, and regional loss of habitat for sensitive species and raptor foraging habitat.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis is necessary.
d. Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Discussion of Effects: As outlined in the analysis above, the Project does not have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Countryside SP Certified EIR. No changes or additions to the Countryside SP Certified EIR analysis is necessary.

EARLIER ANALYSES
(Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration.

Section 15063(c)(3)(D)):
1) Earlier Analyzes Used. Identify earlier analyzes used and state where they are available for review.
a) Countryside Specific Plan Certified EIR
b) The Ontario Plan 2050 Certified SEIR
c) The Ontario Plan 2050
d) City of Ontario Zoning
All documents listed above are on file with the City of Ontario Planning Department, 303 East “B” Street, Ontario, California 91764, (909) 395-2036.
2) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of, and adequately analyzed in, an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards.
7791
Supplemental Environmental Checklist
File Nos.: PMTT22-021 & PSPA22-002

All effects from the above checklist were within the scope of, and adequately analyzed in, the Countryside Specific Plan Certified EIR and The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP 2050) Certified SEIR. 7792

ARCHIBALD AVENUE PROJECT

CITY OF ONTARIO, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS (APNS) 0218-111-60 AND -61
Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Habitat Suitability Assessment Prepared For:

BCR Consulting
505 West 8th Street
Claremont, California 91711
Contact: David Brunzell
Prepared By:

ELMT Consulting, Inc.
2201 N. Grand Avenue #10098
Santa Ana, California 92711
Contact: Thomas J. McGill, Ph.D.

December 2022
7793

ARCHIBALD AVENUE PROJECT

CITY OF ONTARIO, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Habitat Suitability Assessment The undersigned certify that the statements furnished in this report and exhibits present data and information required for this biological evaluation, and the facts, statements, and information presented is a complete and accurate account of the findings and conclusions to the best of our knowledge and beliefs.

Travis J. McGill
Director
Thomas J. McGill, Ph.D.

Managing Director
December 2022
7794
Archibald Avenue Project
Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Habitat Suitability Assessment ES-1 Executive Summary
This report contains the findings of a habitat suitability assessment for the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis; DSF), a federally endangered species, for an approximately 23-acre Project Site located within Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 0218-111-60 and -61, west of Archibald Avenue, north of Chino Avenue, and south of the State Route 60 in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California. The purpose of this assessment was to examine the existing conditions on the proposed Project site and determine if the site supported clean Delhi Sand soils capable of supporting DSF. The habitat suitability assessment fieldwork was conducted by Thomas J. McGill, Ph.D. (ELMT Consulting) on October 31, 2022.

The project site is mapped by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey as supporting Delhi fine sand soils in band running north to south on the western and eastern boundary of the project site. The middle of the project site has been mapped as supporting Hilmar loamy fine sandy. Since the project site has been continuously farmed for several decades with a variety of crops and disked between rotation of crops with disking across the band of Delhi Sand soils occurring at a 90-degree angle, the band of Delhi Sands that may have historically been present has been thoroughly integrated the into the larger areas of clay soils found on the site. Due to these historic and current land uses, no undisturbed native plant communities exist on the site. The site supports one (1) land cover type that is classified as disturbed. Due to the long-standing regime of crop rotation and disking, the small bands of Delhi Sand soils that were mapped as historically occurring on the site, no longer occur, having been thoroughly mixed into the clay soils that surround the band of Delhi Sand soils. No clean Delhi Sands are present, and the site is considered unsuitable habitat for DSF.
7795
Archibald Avenue Project
Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Habitat Suitability Assessment i Table of Contents
Section 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Project Location............................................................................................................. 1 Section 2 Background................................................................................................................... 4 Section 3 Methodology.................................................................................................................. 6

3.1 Soil................................................................................................................................. 6

3.2 Vegetation...................................................................................................................... 6

3.3 Habitat Suitability Assessment ...................................................................................... 6 Section 4 Results............................................................................................................................ 9

4.1 Existing Conditions........................................................................................................ 9 Section 5 Summary and Conclusion.......................................................................................... 11 Section 6 References ................................................................................................................... 12 Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Regional Vicinity ......................................................................................................... 2 Exhibit 2: Project Site ................................................................................................................... 3 Exhibit 3: DSF Recovery Units..................................................................................................... 5 Exhibit 4: Soils.............................................................................................................................. 8 Exhibit 5: DSF Habitat Suitability .............................................................................................. 10 Appendix
Appendix A Site Photographs
7796
Archibald Avenue Project
Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Habitat Suitability Assessment 1 Section 1 Introduction
ELMT Consulting (ELMT) conduced a Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly (DSF) Habitat Suitability Assessment for an approximately 23-acre Project Site located within APNs 0218-111-60 and -61, in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California. Thomas J. McGill, Ph.D., inventoried the project site to determine the suitability ratings of the Delhi Sands habitats on October 31, 2022. This assessment was conducted to determine the extent to which the soils on the project site support clean Delhi fine sand soils capable of providing suitable habitat for DSF, quantify the amount of such habitat, and determine the general location and distribution of such soils within the project site boundaries.

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is generally located west of Interstate 15 and south of State Route 60, east of State Route 83, and north of the State Route 91 in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California.

The site is depicted on Guasti quadrangle of the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) 7.5-minute map series within Section 10 of Township 2 South, Range 7 West (Exhibit 1, Site Vicinity). Specifically, the project site is located immediately west of Archibald Avenue, north of Chino Avenue, south of Riverside Drive, and east of the Cucamonga Creek Channel within APNs 0218-111-60 and -61 (Exhibit 2, Project Site).
7797
Regional Vicinity

DELHI SANDS FLOWER-LOVING FLY SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT

ARCHIBALD AVENUE PROJECT
Exhibit 1
O
Source: USA Topographic Map, San Bernardino County

RIVERSIDE

SAN BERNARDINO
ORANGE
^_

PROJECT

LOCATION
0 0.25 0.5 1
Miles
Legend
Project Site
7798
Project Site

DELHI SANDS FLOWER-LOVING FLY SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT

ARCHIBALD AVENUE PROJECT
Exhibit 2
O
Source: ESRI Aerial Imagery, San Bernardino County
0 125 250 500
Feet
Legend
Project Site
7799
Archibald Avenue Project
Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Habitat Suitability Assessment 4 Section 2 Background
It has been generally acknowledged that DSF can be found to occur in Delhi sand soils, particularly clean dune formations composed of Aeolian sands. Conversely, soils and sands deposited by fluvial processes from the surrounding alluvial fans do not support DSF. These alluvial soils are composed of course sands, cobble and gravel (Tujunga soils) or coarse sands, silts and clays (Cieneba soils). In this part of San Bernardino County, the separation of soil types has been lost due to the mixing and cross contamination from years of agricultural activities, development, and other man-made disturbances.

Depending on the extent of mixing and contamination, some areas formally mapped as Delhi sand soils no longer have potential to support DSF populations. Conversely, some areas formally mapped as Cieneba soils may now supported wind deposited Delhi sand soils and have potential to support DSF.

Six DSF experts (Ken Osborne, Greg Ballmer, Rudy Matoni, Karin Cleary-Rose, Alison Anderson and Tom McGill) used this criterion, the relative abundance of clean Delhi sand soils versus the amount of Cienba or other alluvial soils, to rate the suitability of the habitat to support DSF (Michael Brandman Associates, 2003). Soils high in gravel and alluvial materials, or high in fine materials such as silts and clays, were rated low, while soils that appear to be high in Aeolian deposited sands were rated high.

This qualitative assessment of DSF habitat was further refined by considering the relative degree of soil compaction. Alluvial soils have a tendency to solidify to a hard surface pavement, while Aeolian soils are easier to penetrate and provide good substrate for DSF.

Although it has been common to attribute the presence of four common plant species California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), California croton (Croton californicus), deer weed (Acmispon glaber), and telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora) as indicators of habitat suitability, for the assessment, vegetation composition was not given much weight in making this habitat evaluation.

These dominant plant species, and plant species composition of habitats, may not be directly relevant to larval development (due to likely predatory or parasitic nature of DSF larvae) (Osborne, et al. 2003).

The known immature life histories of the nine asiloid fly families, including that to which the DSF is classified, are primarily predatory and/or parasitic on other invertebrate species (mainly insects) and the presence or absence of plant species appears not to be relevant to the life history of these flies.

Land with suitable DSF habitat includes only those areas with open, clean and unconsolidated Delhi Series soils that have not been permanently altered by residential, commercial, or industrial development, or other human actions. Areas known to contain Delhi sand soils and/or to be occupied by DSF have been divided by USFWS into three recovery units (Colton, Jurupa, and Ontario Recovery Units (USFWS, 1997)). These recovery units are defined as large geographic areas based on geographic proximity, similarity of habitat, and potential genetic exchange.

The project site is located within the Ontario Recovery Unit (Exhibit 2, DSF Recovery Units). The Project Site was originally in an agricultural preserve in south portion of the City of Ontario but I now surround by residential development on all four sides.

7800
DSF Recovery Units

DELHI SANDS FLOWER-LOVING FLY SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT

ARCHIBALD AVENUE PROJECT
Exhibit 3
O
Source: World Topographic Map, Riverside County
0 1 2 4
Miles
Legend
Project Site
Recovery Units
Mapped Delhi Sand Soils
Ontario
Recovery
Unit
Jurupa
Recovery
Unit
7801
Archibald Avenue Project
Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Habitat Suitability Assessment 6 Section 3 Methodology
The criteria discussed in detail below were used to rate the relative abundance of clean Delhi sand soils verses the amount of Cieneba Tujunga, or other alluvial soils, to rate the suitability of the habitat to support DSF. Soils high in gravel and alluvial materials, or high in fine materials such as silts and clays, were rated low, while soils that appear to be high in Aeolian deposited sands were rated high. This qualitative assessment of DSF habitat was further refined by considering the relative degree of soil compaction. Alluvial soils have a tendency to solidify to a hard surface pavement, while Aeolian soils are loose sandy soils that are easier to penetrate and provide good substrate for DSF.

3.1 SOIL
Onsite and adjoining soils were researched prior to the field visit using the United States Department of Agricultural (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Survey (NRCS) Soil Survey for San Bernardino County, California. In particular, the USDA NRCS was reviewed to determine the location of mapped Delhi fine sand soils on or within the immediate vicinity of the project site. The project site is underlain by Delhi fine sand and Hilmar loamy fine sand soils (refer to Exhibit 4, Soils).

3.2 VEGETATION
Vegetative resources and surrounding land uses were also assessed as part of determining baseline conditions by walking meander transects and recording all species observed and adjacent land uses.

Common plant species observed during the field investigation were identified by visual characteristics and morphology in the field and recorded in a field notebook. Unusual and less-familiar plants were photographed in the field and identified in the laboratory using taxonomic guides. Taxonomic nomenclature used in this study follows the 2012 Jepson Manual (Hickman 2012). In this report, scientific names are provided immediately following common names of plant species (first reference only).

3.3 HABITAT SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT
The scope of the updated habitat suitability assessment was to determine the continued presence and distribution of consolidated and unconsolidated soils and to further evaluate the quality of Delhi Sands across the site as it pertains to DSF. ELMT biologist Tom McGill surveyed the project site on October 31, 2022.

The habitat suitability assessment consisted of a visual and tactile inspection of all areas on the project site that contain Delhi sand soils. The soils within the project site are mapped as Delhi fine sands (Exhibit 3, Soils). The site was evaluated for the quality or purity of Delhi Sands and for its potential to support DSF. Areas were assigned one or more ratings ranging between 1 and 5, with 5 being the best quality and most suitable habitat:

1. Soils dominated by heavy deposits of alluvial material including coarse sands and gravels with little or no Delhi sand soils and evidence of soil compaction. Developed areas, non-Delhi sands 7802
Methodology
Archibald Avenue Project
Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Habitat Suitability Assessment 7 soils with high clay, silt, and/or gravel content. Delhi sands extensively and deeply covered by dumping of exotic soils, rubble, trash or organic debris. Unsuitable.

2. Delhi sand soils are present, but the soil characteristics include a predominance of alluvial materials (Tujunga Soils and Hilmar loamy sand), or predominance of other foreign contamination. Sever and frequent disturbance (such as maintenance yard or high use roadbed).

Very Low Quality.

3. Although not clean, sufficient Delhi sand soils are present to prevent soil compaction.

Moderately contaminated Delhi sands. Delhi sands with moderate to high disturbance (such as annual disking). Sufficient Delhi sands are present to prevent soil compaction (related to contamination by foreign soils). Some sandy soils exposed on the surface due to fossorial animal activity. Low Quality.

4. Abundant clean Delhi sand soils with little or no foreign soils (such as alluvial material, Tujunga soils or Hilmar loamy sand) present. Moderate abundance of exposed sands on the soil surface. Low vegetative cover. Evidence of moderate degree of fossorial animal activity by vertebrates and invertebrates. May represent high quality habitat with mild or superficial disturbance. Moderate Quality.

5. Sand dune habitat with clean Delhi sand soils. High abundance of exposed sands on the soil surface. Low vegetative cover. Evidence (soil surface often gives under foot) of high degree of fossorial animal activity by vertebrates and invertebrates. Sand associated plant and arthropod species may be abundant. High Quality.

It should be noted that habitat qualities often vary spatially within a site so that conditions on a site fall within a range of qualities. Further, overall habitat quality is affected by the overall habitat value of a site.
7803
Db Hr
Db
Soils

DELHI SANDS FLOWER-LOVING FLY SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT

ARCHIBALD AVENUE PROJECT
Exhibit 4
O
Source: ESRI Aerial Imagery, Soil Survey Geographic Databases, San Bernardino County 0 125 250 500
Feet
Legend
Project Site
Delhi fine sand (Db)
Hilmar loamy fine sand (Hr)
7804
Archibald Avenue Project
Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Habitat Suitability Assessment 9 Section 4 Results

4.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The proposed project site is an undeveloped property in the City of Ontario. The site is bounded to the north, west, south, and east by existing development. The site has been actively farmed for several with a variety of crops and disked between rotation of crops. No native vegetation exists on the project site. The current crop in place during the assessment was wheat.

The project site is mapped by the as supporting Delhi fine sand soils in band running north to south on the western and eastern boundary of the project site. The project site has been subject to a variety of anthropogenic impacts for several decades due to farming of the site, including crop rotation, disking, irrigation and use of fertilizers, herbicides and insecticides. There is no indication of a band of intact band of clean Delhi Sand soils.

4.2 SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT
Dr. McGill examined of the soil quality on the project site on October 31, 2022, using the referenced DSF habitat suitability scale (Ballmer, Osborne, McGill 2003). Although a small portion of the project site is mapped by NRCS as supporting Delhi Sand soils, farming of the site, combined with disking the band of Delhi Sand soils at a 90-degree angle, has thoroughly mixed what Delhi Sands that may have historically existed on the project site, with the much larger areas of clay soils found on either side of the central band of Delhi Sand soils. Due to these historic and ongoing land uses, no undisturbed native plant communities exist on the site. The site supports one (1) land cover type that is classified as disturbed. It is evident that the long-standing regime of crop rotation and disking that the small band of Delhi Sand soils mapped within the center of the site, has been thoroughly mixed with the clay soils that surround this small band. No clean Delhi Sands are present and the site is considered unsuitable habitat for DSF (refer to Exhibit 5, DSF Habitat Suitability). 7805
DSF Habitat Suitability

DELHI SANDS FLOWER-LOVING FLY SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT

ARCHIBALD AVENUE PROJECT
Exhibit 5
O
Source: ESRI Aerial Imagery, San Bernardino County
0 250 500 1,000
Feet
Legend
Project Site
Habitat Suitability Rating - 1
Unsuitable
7806
Archibald Avenue Project
Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Habitat Suitability Assessment 11 Section 5 Summary and Conclusion
A small band of Delhi Sand soil was assessed on October 31, 2022, using the referenced DSF habitat suitability scale (Ballmer, Osborne, McGill 2003), to determine the band provided intact, clean Delhi Sand soils capable of supporting a population of DSF. Although the project site is mapped by NRCS as sporting Delhi Sand soils, farming of the site, combined with the disking of the band of Delhi Sand soils at a 90-degree angle has thoroughly mixed what Delhi Sands that may have historically on the site with the much larger areas of clay soils found on either side of the central band of Delhi Sand soils.

Due to these historic and ongoing land uses, no undisturbed native plant community exist on the site.

The small band of Delhi Sand soils that was mapped as historically occurring on the site, has been thoroughly mixed with the clay soils and clean Delhi Sands are no longer present. The site is considered unsuitable habitat for DSF and was assigned a habitat suitability rating of 1. 7807
Archibald Avenue Project
Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Habitat Suitability Assessment 12 Section 6 References
Osborne, K.H. 2002a. Focused surveys for the Delhi Sand giant flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) on a 125-acre portion of the Fontana Business Center site. Submitted to USFWS October 15, 2002.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2021. Web Soil Survey.

Online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. 1996. Habitat Conservation Plan in support of the issuance of a Section 10(a) permit for incidental take of the endangered Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) in connection with the completion of the Cantara residential project in the City of Colton, California.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. 1997. Final Recovery Plan for Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, Portland, Or. 51 pages.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019. Recovery Plan Amendment for Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. 2008. Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Carlsbad, California. March 2008. 7808
Appendix A Site Photographs
7809
Appendix A – Site Photographs
Photograph 1. Looking Northwest across the agricultural field from the southern boundary of the Site.

Photograph 2. Looking West from inside the eastern boundary of the Site. 7810
Appendix A – Site Photographs
Photograph 3. A close-up of the soils within center of the Site. Soils are dark, indicative of Clay Soils.

Photograph 4. Looking North at the center of the Site where Delhi Sand soils have been mapped. 7811
Appendix A – Site Photographs
Photograph 5. Closeup of the soils with the center of the site. Note the dark color and clumping of the soils, indicative of high clay content of the soils.

Photograph 6. Looking North from the center of the site, along the north boundary. Note the dark color and clumping of the soils, indicative of the high clay content of the soils. 7812

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
Assessor Parcel Number 0218-111-60
City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California
Prepared for:

Jeff Ragland
RB Ontario LLC
858-610-0600
[email protected]
Prepared by:

David Brunzell, M.A., RPA
Contributions by Timothy Blood, M.A.

BCR Consulting LLC
Claremont, California 91711
Project No. RBO2201
Data Base Information:

Type of Study: Intensive Survey
Resources Recorded: None
Keywords: Archibald Ave, Negative Findings
USGS Quadrangle: 7.5-minute Guasti, California (1981)
December 16, 2022
7813
D E C E M B E R 1 6 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
A S S E S S O R P A R C E L N U M B E R 0 2 1 8 - 111 - 60 ii

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
BCR Consulting LLC (BCR Consulting) is under contract to RB Ontario LLC to complete a Cultural Resources Assessment of Assessor Parcel Number 0218-111-60 Project (the project) located in the City of Ontario (City), San Bernardino County, California. A cultural resources records search, intensive-level pedestrian field survey, Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File Search, and vertebrate paleontological resources overview were conducted for the project in partial fulfillment of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The records search results revealed that 11 previous cultural resource studies have taken place, and five cultural resources have been identified within the half-mile research radius. None of the previous studies have assessed the project site for cultural resources and no cultural resources have been identified within its boundaries. No cultural resources of any kind were identified during the field survey. Therefore, no significant impact related to historical resources is anticipated and no further investigations are recommended for the proposed project unless:
• The proposed project is changed to include areas that have not been subject to this cultural resource assessment;
• Cultural materials are encountered during project activities.

The current study attempted to determine whether significant archaeological deposits were present on the proposed project site. Although none were yielded during the records search and field survey, ground-disturbing activities have the potential to reveal buried deposits not observed on the surface. Prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing activities, field personnel should be alerted to the possibility of buried prehistoric or historic cultural deposits. In the event that field personnel encounter buried cultural materials, work in the immediate vicinity of the find should cease and a qualified archaeologist should be retained to assess the significance of the find. The qualified archaeologist shall have the authority to stop or divert construction excavation as necessary. If the qualified archaeologist finds that any cultural resources present meet eligibility requirements for listing on the California Register or the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), plans for the treatment, evaluation, and mitigation of impacts to the find will need to be developed. Prehistoric or historic cultural materials that may be encountered during ground-disturbing activities include:
• historic-period artifacts such as glass bottles and fragments, cans, nails, ceramic and pottery fragments, and other metal objects;
• historic-period structural or building foundations, walkways, cisterns, pipes, privies, and other structural elements;
• prehistoric flaked-stone artifacts and debitage (waste material), consisting of obsidian, basalt, and or cryptocrystalline silicates;
• groundstone artifacts, including mortars, pestles, and grinding slabs; • dark, greasy soil that may be associated with charcoal, ash, bone, shell, flaked stone, groundstone, and fire affected rocks;
• human remains.

Findings were negative during the Sacred Lands File search with the NAHC (see Appendix C). The City will initiate Assembly Bill (AB) 52 Native American Consultation for the project.

Since the City will initiate and carry out the required Native American Consultation, the results of the consultation are not provided in this report. However, this report may be used during 7814
D E C E M B E R 1 6 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
A S S E S S O R P A R C E L N U M B E R 0 2 1 8 - 111 - 60 iii
the consultation process, and BCR Consulting staff is available to answer questions and address concerns as necessary.

According to CEQA Guidelines, projects subject to CEQA must determine whether the project would “directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource”. The Paleontological Overview provided in Appendix D has recommended that:

The geologic units underlying the project area are mapped primarily as alluvial fan deposits from the Holocene and late Pleistocene epochs (Morton and Miller, 2006).

Pleistocene alluvial units are considered to be highly paleontologically sensitive. The Western Science Center does not have localities within the project area or within a 1 mile radius; however, WSC does have localities in similarly mapped localities across Southern California.

Any fossil specimen from the Assessor Parcel Number 0218-111-60 Project would be scientifically significant. Excavation activity associated with the development of the project area would impact paleontologically sensitive Pleistocene alluvial units, and it is the recommendation of the Western science Center that a paleontological resource mitigation program be put in place to monitor, salvage, and curate any recovered fossils associated with the study area.

If human remains are encountered during any project activities, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. 7815
D E C E M B E R 1 6 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
A S S E S S O R P A R C E L N U M B E R 0 2 1 8 - 111 - 60 iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ................................................................................................. ii INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................1 REGULATORY SETTING ...............................................................................................1 NATURAL SETTING.............................................................................................................5 CULTURAL SETTING...........................................................................................................5 PREHISTORIC CONTEXT..............................................................................................5 HISTORY ........................................................................................................................6 PERSONNEL........................................................................................................................8 METHODS............................................................................................................................8 RESEARCH ....................................................................................................................8 FIELD SURVEY ..............................................................................................................9 RESULTS .............................................................................................................................9 RESEARCH ....................................................................................................................9 FIELD SURVEY ..............................................................................................................9 RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................................10 REFERENCES....................................................................................................................12

FIGURES
1: Project Location Map.......................................................................................................2 TABLES
A: Cultural Resources and Reports Within One Half-Mile of the Project Site........................9

APPENDICES
A: RECORDS SEARCH BIBLIOGRAPHY
B: PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
C: NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION CORRESPONDENCE
D: PALEONTOLOGICAL OVERVIEW
7816
D E C E M B E R 1 6 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
A S S E S S O R P A R C E L N U M B E R 0 2 1 8 - 111 - 60 1 INTRODUCTION
BCR Consulting LLC (BCR Consulting) is under contract to RB Ontario LLC to complete a Cultural Resources Assessment of Assessor Parcel Number 0218-111-60 Project (project) in the City of Ontario (City), San Bernardino County, California. The project occupies approximately 23 acres and is bounded by residential properties to the west, south, and north and Archibald Avenue borders the project site to the east. A cultural resources records search, intensive pedestrian field survey, vertebrate paleontological resources overview, and Sacred Lands File search with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) were conducted for the project in partial fulfillment of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project site is located in Section 10 of Township 2 South, Range 7 West, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian. It is depicted on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Guasti, California (1981) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (Figure 1).

Regulatory Setting
The California Environmental Quality Act. CEQA applies to all discretionary projects undertaken or subject to approval by the state’s public agencies (California Code of Regulations 14(3), § 15002(i)). Under CEQA, “A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14(3), § 15064.5(b)). State CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(a) defines a “historical resource” as a resource that meets one or more of the following criteria:
• Listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register)
• Listed in a local register of historical resources (as defined at Cal. Public Res. Code § 5020.1(k))
• Identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of § 5024.1(g) of the Cal. Public Res. Code
• Determined to be a historical resource by a project's lead agency (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14(3), § 15064.5(a))
A historical resource consists of “Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California…Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be ‘historically significant’ if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources” (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14(3), § 15064.5(a)(3)).

The significance of a historical resource is impaired when a project demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for the California Register. If an impact on a historical or archaeological resource is significant, CEQA requires feasible measures to minimize the impact (State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4 (a)(1)). Mitigation of significant impacts must lessen or eliminate the physical impact that the project will have on the resource.

Section 5024.1 of the Cal. Public Res. Code established the California Register. Generally, a resource is considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets 7817
7818
D E C E M B E R 1 6 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
A S S E S S O R P A R C E L N U M B E R 0 2 1 8 - 111 - 60 3 the criteria for listing in the California Register (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14(3), § 15064.5(a)(3)).

The eligibility criteria for the California Register are similar to those of the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), and a resource that meets one or more of the eligibility criteria of the National Register will be eligible for the California Register.

The California Register program encourages public recognition and protection of resources of architectural, historical, archaeological, and cultural significance, identifies historical resources for state and local planning purposes, determines eligibility for state historic preservation grant funding and affords certain protections under CEQA. Criteria for Designation:

1. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.

2. Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history.

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values.

4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation.

In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, the California Register requires that sufficient time has passed since a resource’s period of significance to “obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resources.” (CCR 4852 [d][2]).

Fifty years is normally considered sufficient time for a potential historical resource, and in order that the evaluation remain valid for a minimum of five years after the date of this report, all resources older than 45 years (i.e. resources from the “historic-period”) will be evaluated for California Register listing eligibility, or CEQA significance. The California Register also requires that a resource possess integrity. This is defined as the ability for the resource to convey its significance through seven aspects: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

Finally, CEQA requires that significant effects on unique archaeological resources be considered and addressed. CEQA defines a unique archaeological resource as any archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:

1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.

2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.

3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.
7819
D E C E M B E R 1 6 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
A S S E S S O R P A R C E L N U M B E R 0 2 1 8 - 111 - 60 4 CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 Appendix G includes significance criteria relative to archaeological and historical resources. These have been utilized as thresholds of significance here, and a project would have a significant environmental impact if it would:
a) cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in section 10564.5;
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 10564.5;
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

Tribal Cultural Resources. The Legislature added requirements regarding tribal cultural resources for CEQA in Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) that took effect July 1, 2015. AB 52 requires consultation with California Native American tribes and consideration of tribal cultural resources in the CEQA process. By including tribal cultural resources early in the CEQA process, the legislature intended to ensure that local and Tribal governments, public agencies, and project proponents would have information available, early in the project planning process, to identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources. By taking this proactive approach, the legislature also intended to reduce the potential for delay and conflicts in the environmental review process. To help determine whether a project may have such an effect, the Public Resources Code requires a lead agency to consult with any California Native American tribe that requests consultation and is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a Proposed Project. Since the City will initiate and carry out the required AB52 Native American Consultation, the results of the consultation are not provided in this report. However, this report may be used during the consultation process, and BCR Consulting staff are available to answer questions and address comments as necessary.

Paleontological Resources. CEQA provides guidance relative to significant impacts on paleontological resources, indicating that a project would have a significant impact on paleontological resources if it disturbs or destroys a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Section 5097.5 of the California Public Resources Code specifies that any unauthorized removal of paleontological remains is a misdemeanor. Further, California Penal Code Section 622.5 sets the penalties for damage or removal of paleontological resources. CEQA documentation prepared for projects would be required to analyze paleontological resources as a condition of the CEQA process to disclose potential impacts. Please note that as of January 2018 paleontological resources are considered in the geological rather than cultural category. Therefore, paleontological resources are not summarized in the body of this report. A paleontological overview completed by the Western Science Center is provided as Appendix D.

City of Ontario. The City has adopted the Ontario Development Code that establishes historic preservation activities and requirements. Properties may be designated at the local level as Historic Landmarks or Districts. Unless there is evidence for extraordinary importance, only properties over 50 years of age are eligible for inclusion. A property that meets one or more of the following criteria is eligible to be placed on the City’s List of Historic Landmarks and Districts if:
7820
D E C E M B E R 1 6 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
A S S E S S O R P A R C E L N U M B E R 0 2 1 8 - 111 - 60 5 1. It meets the criteria for listing in the NRHP; or

2. it meets the criterion for listing in the CRHR; or

3. it meets one of more of the following criteria:

A. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City’s history; B. It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history; C. It is representative of the work of a notable builder, designer, architect, or artist; D. It embodies distinguishing characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction;
E. It is noteworthy example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; F. It embodies elements that represent a significant structural, engineering, or architectural achievement or innovation;
G. It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community of the City; or H. It is one of the few remaining examples in the City, region, state, or nation possessing distinguishing characteristics of an architectural or historical type or specimen.

I. It has yielded or is likely to yield information important to the City’s history or prehistory.

Landmarks and Districts listed in the National Register or the California Register are automatically listed as City Historic Landmarks and Districts. A City Landmark and/or District must also possess integrity.

NATURAL SETTING
The project is located in the Pomona Valley, which is bounded on the west by the San Jose Hills, on the south by the Chino Hills, on the north by the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains (USGS 1981), and on the east by La Sierra and the Jurupa Mountains. Local rainfall ranges from 5 to 15 inches annually (Jaeger and Smith 1971:36-37). The area containing the project site exhibits a very gradual southerly slope, which lies on a flood plain that feeds the Santa Ana River approximately five miles to the south (USGS 1981). The native biology of the region is difficult to reconstruct due to weed abatement, development of agriculture, and municipal, and industrial impacts. However, the project site is situated in the Upper Sonoran Life Zone, which is locally present between approximately 500 and 5,000 feet AMSL. This zone typically comprises cismontane valleys and low mountain slopes dominated by mixed coastal sage scrub and chaparral vegetation communities (Williams 2008).

CULTURAL SETTING
Prehistoric Context
The project site is located within the traditional boundaries of the Gabrielino (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1925). The Gabrielino probably first encountered Europeans when Spanish explorers reached California's southern coast during the 15th and 16th centuries (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1925). The first documented encounter, however, occurred in 1769 when Gaspar de Portola's expedition crossed Gabrielino territory (Bean and Smith 1978). Other brief encounters took place over the years, and are documented in McCawley 1996 (citing numerous sources). The Gabrielino name has been attributed by association with the Spanish mission of San Gabriel, and refers to a subset of people sharing speech and customs with 7821
D E C E M B E R 1 6 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
A S S E S S O R P A R C E L N U M B E R 0 2 1 8 - 111 - 60 6 other Cupan speakers (such as the Juaneño/Luiseño/Ajachemem) from the greater Takic branch of the Uto-Aztecan language family (Bean and Smith 1978). Gabrielino villages occupied the watersheds of various rivers (locally including the Santa Ana) and intermittent streams. Chiefs were usually descended through the male line and often administered several villages. Gabrielino society was somewhat stratified and is thought to have contained three hierarchically ordered social classes which dictated ownership rights and social status and obligations (Bean and Smith 1978:540-546). Plants utilized for food were heavily relied upon and included acorn-producing oaks, as well as seed-producing grasses and sage. Animal protein was commonly derived from rabbits and deer in inland regions, while coastal populations supplemented their diets with fish, shellfish, and marine mammals (Boscana 1933, Heizer 1968, Johnston 1962, McCawley 1996). Dog, coyote, bear, tree squirrel, pigeon, dove, mud hen, eagle, buzzard, raven, lizards, frogs, and turtles were specifically not utilized as a food source (Kroeber 1925:652).

History
Historic-era California is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish or Mission Period (1769 to 1821), the Mexican or Rancho Period (1821 to 1848), and the American Period (1848 to present).

Spanish Period. The first European to pass through the area is thought to be a Spaniard called Father Francisco Garces. Having become familiar with the area, Garces acted as a guide to Juan Bautista de Anza, who had been commissioned to lead a group across the desert from a Spanish outpost in Arizona to set up quarters at the Mission San Gabriel in 1771 near what today is Pasadena (Beck and Haase 1974). Garces was followed by Alta California Governor Pedro Fages, who briefly explored the region in 1772. Searching for San Diego Presidio deserters, Fages had traveled through Riverside to San Bernardino, crossed over the mountains into the Mojave Desert, and then journeyed westward to the San Joaquin Valley (Beck and Haase 1974).

Mexican Period. In 1821, Mexico overthrew Spanish rule and the missions began to decline.

By 1833, the Mexican government passed the Secularization Act, and the missions, reorganized as parish churches, lost their vast land holdings, and released their neophytes (Beattie and Beattie 1974).

American Period. The American Period, 1848–Present, began with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. In 1850, California was accepted into the Union of the United States primarily due to the population increase created by the Gold Rush of 1849. The cattle industry reached its greatest prosperity during the first years of the American Period. Mexican Period land grants had created large pastoral estates in California, and demand for beef during the Gold Rush led to a cattle boom that lasted from 1849–1855. However, beginning about 1855, the demand for beef began to decline due to imports of sheep from New Mexico and cattle from the Mississippi and Missouri Valleys. When the beef market collapsed, many California ranchers lost their ranchos through foreclosure. A series of disastrous floods in 1861–1862, followed by a significant drought further diminished the economic impact of local ranching. This decline combined with ubiquitous agricultural and real estate developments of the late 19th century, set the stage for diversified economic pursuits that continue to this day (Beattie and Beattie 1974; Cleland 1941).
7822
D E C E M B E R 1 6 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
A S S E S S O R P A R C E L N U M B E R 0 2 1 8 - 111 - 60 7 Ontario. Ontario, California was founded as a township in September 1882 by George and William B. Chaffey, named after their home of Ontario, Canada. The brothers purchased 6,218 acres of land with water rights and set aside 640 acres for the community of Ontario. Half of the initial 640 acres was deeded to the Chaffey Agricultural College as an endowment. On December 10, 1891, Ontario was incorporated as a city under the California Constitution with a City Council-City Manager form of government. In 1903, Ontario was proclaimed a “Model Irrigation Colony” by an Act of Congress. Ontario had many modern innovations, many of which still show their value today. An impressive two-hundred feet wide and eight miles long, Euclid Avenue (on the National Register List of Historic Places) was the stately back-bone of the colony.

Provisions for an electric railway, water rights for each landowner, a local educational institution, electric lights, one of the first long distance telephone lines, and public access to water and transportation set a new standard for rural communities and irrigation practices and ensured the success of the Model Colony. Water originating from the nearby San Gabriel Mountains was readily available. In addition to accessible water, climate conditions in Ontario were similar to those in the Mediterranean with dry, hot summers and cool, moist winters as regular occurrences. Ontario first developed as an agricultural community, largely, but not exclusively, devoted to the citrus industry. In addition to oranges, the production of peaches, walnuts, lemons, olives and grapes were also important to the growth of Ontario and neighboring cities (City of Ontario; Galvin & Associates 2004:7).

In 1923, airplane enthusiasts Waldo Waterman and Archie Mitchell established Latimer Field.

From that point on, Ontario became an aviation town. Urban growth pushed the fliers east until they took up their permanent residence located at the Ontario World Airport. During WWII, this airport was a busy training facility for pilots. After WWII, construction boomed in Ontario as the city’s growth more than doubled by the end of the 1950s. In 1954, four new schools were built, with land for three more being purchased. That same year, the Interstate 10 opened for public use, diminishing or altering commercial traffic through Ontario. The downtown area found competition in neighborhood shopping centers that featured large parking lots and national brand chain stores (Rounds 1999:125-126).

As the citrus industry declined, large tracts of orange groves gave way to new housing for settlers to the region. Following the 1960s and 1970s, the city’s population had grown from 46,617 to 87,300 residents as Ontario expanded its boundaries eastward to encompass Guasti and the large tracts of vineyards beyond it (Rounds 1999:130). Ontario has become a diversified community with approximately 173,000 residents in 2015. Although the City boundaries have been extended from 0.38 square miles in 1891 to almost 50 square miles today, Ontario’s Historic Downtown still retains the original subdivision pattern established by the Chaffey brothers (City of Ontario 2018).

The dry, arid climate made Ontario amenable to several agricultural products. While irrigation innovations brought abundant water to Ontario for its booming citrus industry, the cultivation of grape vineyards and wineries enjoyed similar success in the area. Secondo Guasti, an Italian immigrant who arrived in California in 1883, saw promise in the sandy sediment and subsurface water supply of the area south of Cucamonga and Ontario. Together with several other Italians, 7823
D E C E M B E R 1 6 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
A S S E S S O R P A R C E L N U M B E R 0 2 1 8 - 111 - 60 8 Guasti purchased 2,000 acres of land for $60,000 to establish the Italian Vineyard Company (The Ontario City Library 2017:74; Rounds 1999:88). Guasti township, an unincorporated community comprising 1,200 mostly Italian and Mexican immigrants who worked on the vineyards and wine-making processes, was concurrently established. Secondo Guasti funded the construction of a fire station, a school, markets and shops, a dairy and farms, rows of clapboard houses for workers, and much more to be utilized by the community. Guasti’s winery operation was modern by contemporary standards, with grapes being mechanically crushed and transported by conveyors, pumps, and hoses. In 1908 a narrow-gauge railroad brought grapes to the crusher, and in 1909 a refrigeration plant was installed to control fermentation temperatures. At its peak, the Italian Vineyard Company was renowned as the largest vineyard in the world, comprising nearly 5,000 acres of vineyards (Hees 2015).

Vineyards and wineries persisted as a specialty of the area through the first half of the 1900s.

Even during the years of Prohibition, the vineyards continued to produce grapes for sacramental wine or home winemaking. Over the course of the ensuing decades, the vineyard workforces diversified from Italian immigrant labor to include Mexicans, Asians, and African Americans. Secondo Guasti passed away in 1927, leaving the company to his son Secondo II before his death in 1934. The Italian Vineyard Company’s winery site was sold to Garrett & Company in 1945, then to the Biane family in 1957 who operated Brookside Winery on-site until the 1980s (Ontario City Library 2017: 73, 75). The success of vineyards and their production in the first half of the twentieth century would not carry over to the latter half. At its peak in the 1940s, the region contained 60 wineries and over 45,000 acres of vineyards (Weeks 2008: 49). By the 1950s, profits for the region’s sweet wine began to decline as national tastes began to favor dry table wines. New, more profitable wineries began springing up along California’s northern coastal regions that were more favorable to drier varieties of wine (Rounds 1999:128).

PERSONNEL
David Brunzell, M.A., RPA acted as the Project Manager and Principal Investigator for the current study. Mr. Brunzell also compiled the technical report and performed the cultural resources record searches through the South-Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC).

BCR Consulting Field Director Joseph Orozco, M.A., R.P.A., Crew Chief Timothy Blood, M.S., and Staff Archaeologist Doug Kazmier, B.A. completed the field survey. Mr. Blood also contributed to the technical report. The paleontological overview (provided in Appendix D) was completed by Professional Paleontologist Brittney Elizabeth Stoneburg, Collections Manager for the Western Science Center.

METHODS
Research
Mr. Brunzell completed an archaeological records search using SCCIC records at California State University, Fullerton for the current project. This archival research reviewed the status of all recorded historic and prehistoric cultural resources, and survey and excavation reports completed within the project site boundaries and within a half-mile radius of it. Additional resources reviewed included the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), the California Register, and documents and inventories published by the California Office of Historic Preservation. These include the lists of California Historical Landmarks, California 7824
D E C E M B E R 1 6 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
A S S E S S O R P A R C E L N U M B E R 0 2 1 8 - 111 - 60 9 Points of Historical Interest, Listing of National Register Properties, and the Inventory of Historic Structures.

Field Survey
An intensive-level cultural resources field survey of the project site was conducted on October 31, 2022. The survey was conducted by walking parallel transects spaced approximately 15 meters apart across the accessible project site. Soil exposures were carefully examined for evidence of cultural resources. Digital photographs were taken at various points within the project site. A hand-held global positioning system (GPS) unit was available for mapping purposes, and detailed notes were taken to record field conditions and any discoveries.

RESULTS
Research
Data from the SCCIC revealed that 11 previous cultural resource studies have taken place, and five cultural resources have been recorded within one half-mile of the project site. The project site has never previously been assessed for cultural resources, and no cultural resources have been previously identified within its boundaries. The records search results are summarized in Table A and a complete bibliography is provided in Appendix A.

Table A. Cultural Resources and Reports Within One Half-Mile of the Project Site USGS 7.5
Min Quad Cultural Resources Within One Half-Mile of Project Studies Within One Half-Mile Guasti (1981) P-36-13241: Hist.-Period Residence (1/2 Mile NW) P-36-13242: Hist.-Period Residence (1/2 Mile NW)
P-36-13243: Hist.-Period Residence (1/2 Mile NW)
P-36-13244: Hist.-Period Residence (1/4 Mile W)
P-36-25440: Hist.-Period Transmission Line (1/4 Mile S) SB-317, 655, 800, 1029, 4150,
4171, 4174, 4675, 5424, 5976,
7968
Limited additional land-use research was performed to help characterize potential for the project site to contain any historic-period resources. Aerial photos show that the buildings, structures, and facilities that occupy the project site were constructed between 1985 and 1994 (United States Department of Agriculture 1985, 1994). Since the buildings are less than 45 years old, they are not historic in age and do not warrant further consideration under CEQA, or as a City landmark or District. Research has not yielded any evidence for historic or prehistoric resources located within the project site boundaries.

Field Survey
During the field survey BCR Consulting personnel carefully inspected the project site, and identified no cultural resources within its boundaries. Surface visibility was averaged approximately 40 percent within the project site. Ground disturbances were severe and resulted from a variety of natural and artificial factors, including pavement installation and modular building and agricultural development, as well as mechanical weed abatement, surface erosion, and adjacent road and residential construction. No historic-period or prehistoric cultural resources of any kind were identified within the project site boundaries. 7825
D E C E M B E R 1 6 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
A S S E S S O R P A R C E L N U M B E R 0 2 1 8 - 111 - 60 10 RECOMMENDATIONS
BCR Consulting conducted a cultural resources assessment of Assessor Parcel Number 0218-111-60 located in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California. No cultural resources of any kind (including historic-period or prehistoric archaeological resources, or historic-period architectural resources) were identified. Therefore, no significant impact related to historical resources is anticipated and no further investigations are recommended unless:
• The proposed project is changed to include areas that have not been subject to this cultural resource assessment;
• Cultural materials are encountered during project activities.

The current study attempted to determine whether significant archaeological deposits were present on the proposed project site. Although none were yielded during the records search and field survey, ground-disturbing activities have the potential to reveal buried deposits not observed on the surface. Prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing activities, field personnel should be alerted to the possibility of buried prehistoric or historic cultural deposits. In the event that field personnel encounter buried cultural materials, work in the immediate vicinity of the find should cease and a qualified archaeologist should be retained to assess the significance of the find. The qualified archaeologist shall have the authority to stop or divert construction excavation as necessary. If the qualified archaeologist finds that any cultural resources present meet eligibility requirements for listing on the California Register or the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), plans for the treatment, evaluation, and mitigation of impacts to the find will need to be developed. Prehistoric or historic cultural materials that may be encountered during ground-disturbing activities include:
• historic-period artifacts such as glass bottles and fragments, cans, nails, ceramic and pottery fragments, and other metal objects;
• historic-period structural or building foundations, walkways, cisterns, pipes, privies, and other structural elements;
• prehistoric flaked-stone artifacts and debitage (waste material), consisting of obsidian, basalt, and or cryptocrystalline silicates;
• groundstone artifacts, including mortars, pestles, and grinding slabs; • dark, greasy soil that may be associated with charcoal, ash, bone, shell, flaked stone, groundstone, and fire affected rocks;
• human remains.

Findings were negative during the Sacred Lands File search with the NAHC (see Appendix C). The City will initiate Assembly Bill (AB) 52 Native American Consultation for the project.

Since the City will initiate and carry out the required Native American Consultation, the results of the consultation are not provided in this report. However, this report may be used during the consultation process, and BCR Consulting staff is available to answer questions and address concerns as necessary.

According to CEQA Guidelines, projects subject to CEQA must determine whether the project would “directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource”. The Paleontological Overview provided in Appendix D has recommended that:
7826
D E C E M B E R 1 6 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
A S S E S S O R P A R C E L N U M B E R 0 2 1 8 - 111 - 60 11 The geologic units underlying the project area are mapped primarily as alluvial fan deposits from the Holocene and late Pleistocene epochs (Morton and Miller, 2006).

Pleistocene alluvial units are considered to be highly paleontologically sensitive. The Western Science Center does not have localities within the project area or within a 1 mile radius; however, WSC does have localities in similarly mapped localities across Southern California.

Any fossil specimen from the Assessor Parcel Number 0218-111-60 Project would be scientifically significant. Excavation activity associated with the development of the project area would impact paleontologically sensitive Pleistocene alluvial units, and it is the recommendation of the Western science Center that a paleontological resource mitigation program be put in place to monitor, salvage, and curate any recovered fossils associated with the study area.

If human remains are encountered during any project activities, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. 7827
D E C E M B E R 1 6 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
A S S E S S O R P A R C E L N U M B E R 0 2 1 8 - 111 - 60 12 REFERENCES
Bean, Lowell John, and Charles Smith
1978 California, edited by R.F. Heizer. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W.C.

Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C.

Beattie, George W., and Helen P. Beattie
1974 Heritage of the Valley: San Bernardino’s First Century. Biobooks: Oakland.

Beck, Warren A., and Ynez D. Haase
1974 Historical Atlas of California. Oklahoma City: University of Oklahoma Press.

Boscana, Father Geronimo
1933 Chinigchinich: Alfred Robinson's Translation of Father Geronimo Boscana's Historic Account of the Belief, Usages, Customs and Extravagancies of the Indians of this Mission of San Juan Capistrano Called the Acagchemem Tribe. Fine Arts Press, Santa Ana.

City of Ontario
2018 Ontario’s History. Electronic Document: https://www.ontarioca.gov/planning/ historic-preservation/ontarios-history. Accessed December 21, 2018.

Cleland, Robert Glass
1941 The Cattle on a Thousand Hills—Southern California, 1850-80. San Marino, California: Huntington Library.

Galvin & Associates
2004 Historic Context for the New Model Colony Area. Sacramento, California.

Hees, Randy
2015 The Italian Vineyard Company Pacific Coast Narrow Gauge. Electronic document:
http://www.pacificng.com/template.php?page=roads/ca/ivco/index.htm. Accessed 11/14/2019.

Heizer, Robert F.
1968 Introduction and Notes: The Indians of Los Angeles County: Hugo Reid's Letters of 1852, edited and annotated by Robert F. Heizer. SW Museum, Los Angeles.

Jaeger, Edmund C., and Arthur C. Smith
1971 Introduction to the Natural History of Southern California. California Natural History Guides: 13. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Johnston, B.E.
1962 California's Gabrielino Indians. Southwest Museum, Los Angeles.

Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 78.

Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Reprinted 1976, Dover Publications. 7828
D E C E M B E R 1 6 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
A S S E S S O R P A R C E L N U M B E R 0 2 1 8 - 111 - 60 13 McCawley, William
1996 The First Angelinos, The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Malki Museum Press/Ballena Press Cooperative Publication. Banning/Novato, California.

Ontario City Library
2017 Early Ontario. Arcadia Publishing. California.

Rounds, Michael
1999 Ontario: the Gem of the Foothills. Heritage Media Corp.

United States Department of Agriculture
1985 Aerial Photos of San Bernardino County. Electronic Document: historicaerials.com.

Accessed 12/14/2022
1994 Aerial Photos of San Bernardino County. Electronic Document: historicaerials.com.

Accessed 12/14/2022
United States Geological Survey
1981 Guasti, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map.

Williams, Patricia, Leah Messinger, Sarah Johnson
2008 Habitats Alive! An Ecological Guide to California's Diverse Habitats. California Institute for Biodiversity, Claremont, California.
7829
D E C E M B E R 1 6 , 2 0 2 2 B C R C O N S U L T I N G

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T
A S S E S S O R P A R C E L N U M B E R 0 2 1 8 - 111 - 60

APPENDIX A

RECORDS SEARCH BIBLIOGRAPHY
7830
Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources RBO2201
SB-00317 1976 DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF THE
CULTURAL RESOURCES: CUCAMONGA,

DEMENS, DEER AND HILLSIDE CREEK

CHANNELS, SAN BERNARDINO AND

RIVERSIDE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA

ARCHAEOLOGICAL

RESEARCH UNIT, UCR
MARTZ, PATRICIA 36-000270, 36-000895, 36-000897,
36-000898, 36-000899, 36-000900,
36-000901, 36-000902, 36-015231
NADB-R - 1060317;
Voided - 76-4.2
SB-00655 1978 REPORT OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE
ASSESSMENT CONDUCTED FOR A 900-

ACRE PARCEL LOCATED IN THE

SOUTHWEST OF ONTARIO IN SAN

BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

ARCHAEOLOGICAL

RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT

CORPORATION
NADB-R - 1060655; COTTRELL, MARIE G.

Voided - 78-6.2
SB-00800 1979 ARCHAEOLOGICAL - HISTORICAL

RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR CHINO

AVENUE/WALKER AVENUE TO

CUCAMONGA CHANNEL

SAN BERNARDINO

COUNTY MUSEUM

ASSOCIATION
NADB-R - 1060800; HEARN, JOSEPH E.

Voided - 79-6.7
SB-01029 1980 CULTURAL RESOURCE OVERVIEW FOR

THE SERRANO SUBSTATION TO MIRA

LOMA SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION
ROUTE ALTERNATIVE CORRIDOR RIGHTOF-WAY

GREENWOOD AND

ASSOCIATES
FOSTER, JOHN M. and
ROBERTA S.

GREENWOOD
36-000270, 36-000897, 36-000898,
36-000899, 36-000900, 36-000902,
36-001543, 36-001570, 36-001608,
36-002067, 36-002068, 36-002259,
36-002260, 36-002317, 36-003023,
36-003690, 36-004032, 36-060002
NADB-R - 1061029;
Voided - 80-9.15
SB-04150 2002 PROPOSED WIRELESS DEVICE
MONOPINE & EQUIPMENT CABINET;
WHISPER LAKE SITE, 2450 RIVERSIDE
DR, ONTARIO, CA. 12PP
NADB-R - 1064150 BUDINGER, FRED E. TETRA TECH, INC
SB-04171 2001 CULTURAL RESOURCES EVALUATION:

CUCAMONGA AND DEER CREEK
CHANNELS ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.
10PP
NADB-R - 1064171 MAXWELL, PAMELA CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SB-04174 1998 PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE

ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR VACANT

COMMERCIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT
THE NW CORNER OF S. ARCHIBALD AVE
& E. RIVERSIDE DR, ONTARIO, CA. 12PP

HVN ENVIRONMENTAL

SERVICE CO
NADB-R - 1064174 HEKIMIAN, KENNETH K.

SB-04675 2006 HISTORICAL/ARHAEOLOGICAL

RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT,
PLANNING AREA 5, ARCHIBALD AVENUE

AND CHINO AVENUE, CITY OF ONTARIO,

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

ENCARNACION,

DEIRDRE
NADB-R - 1064675