7831
Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources RBO2201
SB-05424 2006 Historica/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: Planning Area 4, Riverside Drive and
Walker Avenue, City of Ontario, San
Bernardino County, California.
Tang, Bai "Tom", Deirdre CRM Tech
Encarnacion, Daniel
Ballester, Josh
Smallwood, and Terri
Jacquemain
36-013229, 36-013230, 36-013231,
36-013232, 36-013233, 36-013234,
36-013235, 36-013236, 36-013237,
36-013238, 36-013239, 36-013240,
36-013241, 36-013242, 36-013243,
36-013244
NADB-R - 1065424
SB-05976 2007 Cultural Resource Assessment New Model
Colony East Backbone Infrastructure, City of
Ontario, San Bernardino County, California.
Wetherbee, Matthew, Stantec
Sarah Siren and Gavin
Archer
NADB-R - 1065976 36-012533
SB-07968 2011 Supplemental Archaeological Survey Report:
Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project
Segement 8 East (Phases 2 and 3) and West
(Phase 4), Los Angeles and San Bernardino
Counties, California
Holm, Lisa and John Pacific Legacy, Inc.
Holson
36-012533, 36-012621, 36-012622
7832
Primary No. Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs Type Age Attribute codes Recorded by Reports
RBO2201
P-36-013241 Resource Name - CRM Tech
1790-13
Building Historic HP02 2006 (Josh Smallwood, CRM Tech) SB-05424 P-36-013242 Resource Name - CRM Tech
1790-14
Building Historic HP02 2006 (Josh Smallwood, CRM Tech) SB-05424 P-36-013243 Resource Name - CRM Tech
1790-15
Building Historic HP02 2006 (Josh Smallwood, CRM Tech) SB-05424 P-36-013244 Resource Name - CRM Tech
1790-16
Building Historic HP02 2006 (Josh Smallwood, CRM TECH) SB-05424 P-36-025440 Resource Name - Chino-Mira
Loma No. 1 Transmission Line
Structure Historic HP11 2010 (Wendy Tinsley Becker, SB-06037 Urbana Preservation & Planning)
7833
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 B
PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
7834
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 7835
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 7836
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 C
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION CORRESPONDENCE
7837
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
December 7, 2022
David Brunzell
BCR Consulting LLC
Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Assessor Parcel Number 0218-111-60 Project (RBO2201), San Bernardino County Dear Mr. Brunzell:
A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were negative. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites.
Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received.
If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify me. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].
Sincerely,
Cameron Vela
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment
CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño
VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash
SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok
COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan
COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki
COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño
COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay
COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]
COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.
Hitchcock
Miwok/Nisenan
NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov
7838
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Reid Milanovich, Chairperson
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
Phone: (760) 699 - 6800
Fax: (760) 699-6919
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, Director
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA, 92264
Phone: (760) 699 - 6907
Fax: (760) 699-6924
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Augustine Band of Cahuilla
Mission Indians
Amanda Vance, Chairperson
84-001 Avenue 54
Coachella, CA, 92236
Phone: (760) 398 - 4722
Fax: (760) 369-7161
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Cabazon Band of Mission
Indians
Doug Welmas, Chairperson
84-245 Indio Springs Parkway
Indio, CA, 92203
Phone: (760) 342 - 2593
Fax: (760) 347-7880
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Cahuilla Band of Indians
Daniel Salgado, Chairperson
52701 U.S. Highway 371
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 763 - 5549
Fax: (951) 763-2808
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Gabrieleno Band of Mission
Indians - Kizh Nation
Andrew Salas, Chairperson
P.O. Box 393
Covina, CA, 91723
Phone: (626) 926 - 4131
[email protected]
Gabrieleno
Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel
Band of Mission Indians
Anthony Morales, Chairperson
P.O. Box 693
San Gabriel, CA, 91778
Phone: (626) 483 - 3564
Fax: (626) 286-1262
[email protected]
Gabrieleno
Gabrielino /Tongva Nation
Sandonne Goad, Chairperson
106 1/2 Judge John Aiso St.,
#231
Los Angeles, CA, 90012
Phone: (951) 807 - 0479
[email protected]
Gabrielino
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of
California Tribal Council
Robert Dorame, Chairperson
P.O. Box 490
Bellflower, CA, 90707
Phone: (562) 761 - 6417
Fax: (562) 761-6417
[email protected]
Gabrielino
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of
California Tribal Council
Christina Conley, Tribal
Consultant and Administrator
P.O. Box 941078
Simi Valley, CA, 93094
Phone: (626) 407 - 8761
[email protected]
u
Gabrielino
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
Charles Alvarez,
23454 Vanowen Street
West Hills, CA, 91307
Phone: (310) 403 - 6048
[email protected]
Gabrielino
Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla
and Cupeño Indians
Ray Chapparosa, Chairperson
P.O. Box 189
Warner Springs, CA, 92086-0189
Phone: (760) 782 - 0711
Fax: (760) 782-0712
Cahuilla
1 of 3
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Assessor Parcel Number 0218-111- 60 Project (RBO2201), San Bernardino County.
PROJ-2022-
007273
12/07/2022 01:42 PM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
San Bernardino County
12/7/2022
7839
Morongo Band of Mission
Indians
Ann Brierty, THPO
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
Phone: (951) 755 - 5259
Fax: (951) 572-6004
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Serrano
Morongo Band of Mission
Indians
Robert Martin, Chairperson
12700 Pumarra Road
Banning, CA, 92220
Phone: (951) 755 - 5110
Fax: (951) 755-5177
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Serrano
Pala Band of Mission Indians
Shasta Gaughen, Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer
PMB 50, 35008 Pala Temecula
Rd.
Pala, CA, 92059
Phone: (760) 891 - 3515
Fax: (760) 742-3189
[email protected]
Cupeno
Luiseno
Pechanga Band of Indians
Mark Macarro, Chairperson
P.O. Box 1477
Temecula, CA, 92593
Phone: (951) 770 - 6000
Fax: (951) 695-1778
[email protected]
Luiseno
Pechanga Band of Indians
Paul Macarro, Cultural Resources
Coordinator
P.O. Box 1477
Temecula, CA, 92593
Phone: (951) 770 - 6306
Fax: (951) 506-9491
[email protected]
Luiseno
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
Jill McCormick, Historic
Preservation Officer
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
Phone: (760) 572 - 2423
historicpreservation@quechantrib
e.com
Quechan
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation
Manfred Scott, Acting Chairman
Kw'ts'an Cultural Committee
P.O. Box 1899
Yuma, AZ, 85366
Phone: (928) 750 - 2516
[email protected]
Quechan
Ramona Band of Cahuilla
Joseph Hamilton, Chairperson
P.O. Box 391670
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 763 - 4105
Fax: (951) 763-4325
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Ramona Band of Cahuilla
John Gomez, Environmental
Coordinator
P. O. Box 391670
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 763 - 4105
Fax: (951) 763-4325
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians
Cheryl Madrigal, Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer
One Government Center Lane
Valley Center, CA, 92082
Phone: (760) 297 - 2635
[email protected]
Luiseno
Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians
Bo Mazzetti, Chairperson
One Government Center Lane
Valley Center, CA, 92082
Phone: (760) 749 - 1051
Fax: (760) 749-5144
[email protected]
Luiseno
2 of 3
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Assessor Parcel Number 0218-111- 60 Project (RBO2201), San Bernardino County.
PROJ-2022-
007273
12/07/2022 01:42 PM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
San Bernardino County
12/7/2022
7840
San Manuel Band of Mission
Indians
Jessica Mauck, Director of
Cultural Resources
26569 Community Center Drive
Highland, CA, 92346
Phone: (909) 864 - 8933
Jessica.Mauck@sanmanuelnsn.gov
Serrano
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair
P.O. Box 391820
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 659 - 2700
Fax: (951) 659-2228
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Serrano Nation of Mission
Indians
Wayne Walker, Co-Chairperson
P. O. Box 343
Patton, CA, 92369
Phone: (253) 370 - 0167
[email protected]
Serrano
Serrano Nation of Mission
Indians
Mark Cochrane, Co-Chairperson
P. O. Box 343
Patton, CA, 92369
Phone: (909) 528 - 9032
[email protected]
Serrano
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Isaiah Vivanco, Chairperson
P. O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 654 - 5544
Fax: (951) 654-4198
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural
Resource Department
P.O. BOX 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 663 - 5279
Fax: (951) 654-4198
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla
Indians
Cultural Committee,
P.O. Box 1160
Thermal, CA, 92274
Phone: (760) 397 - 0300
Fax: (760) 397-8146
CulturalCommittee@torresmartineznsn.gov
Cahuilla
3 of 3
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Assessor Parcel Number 0218-111- 60 Project (RBO2201), San Bernardino County.
PROJ-2022-
007273
12/07/2022 01:42 PM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
San Bernardino County
12/7/2022
7841
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 D
PALEONTOLOGICAL OVERVIEW
7842
2345 Searl Parkway ♦ Hemet, CA 92543 ♦ phone 951.791.0033 ♦ fax 951.791.0032 ♦ WesternScienceCenter.org November 15th, 2022
BCR Consulting, LLC
Joseph Orozco
505 W. 8th St.
Claremont, CA 91711
Dear Mr. Orozco,
This letter presents the results of a record search conducted for the Assessor Parcel Number 0218-111-60 Project located in the city of Ontario, San Bernardino County, CA. The project site is located north of Chino Avenue, south of East Riverside Drive, and west of South Archibald Avenue, on Township 2 South, Range 7 West, on Section 10 of the Guasti, CA USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle.
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 the 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 you have any questions, or would like further information, please feel free to contact me at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Brittney Elizabeth Stoneburg, MSc
Collections Manager
7843
7844
Memorandum
Date: April 24, 2023
To: Jeff Ragland, The Landmark Company
From: Paul Herrmann, P.E.
Biling Liu
Raymond Poss
Subject: Countryside Specific Plan (Neighborhood 2 Development) Project Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment and Impact Determination
OC22-0942
Fehr & Peers has completed a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment and impact determination for the Countryside Specific Plan Amendment Project (Project) located in the New Model Colony area of Ontario, California. This VMT analysis is consistent with requirements of Senate Bill 743 (SB 743), the Office of Planning and Research’s (OPR’s) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (2018), and the City of Ontario’s adopted VMT Impact Analysis Resolution (No. 2020-071). The assessment concludes that the Project would result in a less-than-significant transportation impact.
The remainder of this memorandum is divided into six sections: Project Description, Analysis Approach, Traffic Modeling Methodology, VMT Estimates, Active Transportation and Public Transit Review, and Transportation Impact Analysis.
Project Description
The City of Ontario approved the Countryside Specific Plan (Specific Plan) and certified the associated Countryside Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report in March of 2006. The Approved Specific Plan is part of the Ontario New Model Colony. The Project area is bounded by the Carmel at the Colony Apartments to the North, Archibald Avenue to the West, and Colonial Ave to the West. Figure 1 shows the approved Specific Plan land use map. The approved Specific Plan allows up to 825 Single Family Dwelling Units (SF DUs).
7845
Section 3. Land Use
3.20 Countryside Specific Plan
Exhibit 10
Land Use Plan
Note: Roundabout location and
dimensions to be determined
as part of tentative tract
map approval.
7846
Jeff Ragland
April 24, 2023
Figure 2 shows the proposed Specific Plan land use plan. The Project proposes to expand neighborhood 2 in the Planning Area 2 from 106 SF DUs to 82 SF DUs and 192 Multi-Family (MF) DUs. This increases the development yield of the Approved Specific Plan area from 825 DUs to 993 DUs. These changes are outlined in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Approved and Proposed Land Use Plan
Area
Approved Plan Proposed Plan
SF DUs SF DUs MF DUs
Neighborhood 2 106 82 192
Specific Plan
Total
825 801 192
Total DUs 825 993
Analysis Approach
The proposed Specific Plan is an amendment to an approved Environmental Impact Report (EIR), so a plan-to-plan comparison was prepared to compare the VMT forecasts for the proposed Specific Plan to the adopted Specific Plan. The adopted Specific Plan covers Planning Areas 1 and 2. The proposed Specific Plan includes amendments to Neighborhood 2 of Planning Area 1. For an ‘apples-to-apples’ comparison, VMT was estimated for Neighborhood 2 under the adopted and proposed specific plans, and VMT was estimated for the entire Countryside Specific Plan area under the adopted and proposed specific plans.
Traffic Modeling Methodology
The Ontario Plan (TOP) Model was utilized to estimate VMT for the Project. The TOP Model began as the San Bernardino Traffic Analysis Model (SBTAM)1 and was updated for use in the City’s General Plan Update EIR adopted in 2022. The roadway network and socio-economic data within the City of Ontario were updated to be consistent with the TOP EIR scenario modeling for Base Year (2019) and General Plan Buildout (2050). Outside of the City of Ontario, this model assumes datasets consistent with the 2016 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
1 SBTAM is a derivative of the SCAG regional travel demand forecasting model and underwent a subarea model development to add detail and refinement within San Bernardino County. 7847
7848
Jeff Ragland
April 24, 2023
Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) with a base year of 2012 and future year of 20402. As recommended in the SBTAM model documentation, model assignment parameters were set to run up-to five loops with a minimum convergence criterion3 of 0.01.
VMT Analysis Methodology
There are multiple ways to estimate VMT for a residential project. Total VMT gives an estimate of the total travel, while VMT per person measures the efficiency of travel. VMT for residential projects is typically presented in the following ways:
Total VMT and VMT per Service Population4 (VMT/SP) from the project, using Origin/Destination (OD) method which tracks all trips starting and ending at the project Home-Based Production (HB) VMT and HB VMT per resident from the project, using the Production/Attraction (PA) method which tracks all resident trips produced by the project Total VMT and VMT/SP within a designated boundary, such as within City limits or 5-mile radius, using the Boundary method which measures effect of the project on VMT within a given area The City of Ontario’s VMT Resolution requires use of SBTAM to forecast total daily VMT/SP to estimate VMT per the following thresholds of significance:
A significant impact would occur if the project VMT/SP (for the land use plan) exceeds the Citywide average for service population under General Plan Buildout Conditions (using the OD method)
A significant impact would occur if the project caused total daily VMT/SP within the City to be higher than the no project alternative under cumulative conditions (using the Boundary method) For purposes of this assessment, HB VMT and HB VMT per resident was also estimated using the PA method to provide additional information for the decision makers.
VMT and VMT per person estimates were calculated using these three methodologies using the City’s recommended VMT assessment tool, the TOP Model. There are limitations in the TOP Model, which is a typical four-step travel demand forecasting model. The model steps, which convert person trips to vehicle 2 Please note that SBTAM does not have an available dataset consistent with the SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS. At the time of this analysis, SBTAM was in the process of being updated with the SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS data, but the data was not available. This analysis uses the most current, available SBTAM model version consistent with the City of Ontario’s VMT Impact Resolution.
7849
Jeff Ragland
April 24, 2023
trips, limit the ability to separate trips by trip purpose (e.g. residential-based trips or work-based trips) while also accounting for all modal trips, as noted further below.
Origin/Destination (OD) VMT
The OD method for calculating VMT sums all weekday VMT generated by trips with at least one trip end in the study area and tracks those trips to their estimated origins/destinations. The OD method is completed after the final loops of assignment in the travel demand model (after person trips have been converted to total vehicle trips). Origins are all vehicle trips that start in a specific traffic analysis zone, and destinations are all vehicle trips that end in a specific traffic analysis zone. OD VMT is typically presented as total VMT or as total VMT/SP.
The OD method accounts for trips that begin or end outside of the travel demand model. OD trip matrices do not separate trips by trip purpose, and therefore VMT cannot be calculated by Home-BasedWork (HBW) attraction VMT per employee or HB production VMT per resident, but only by total VMT. It should also be noted that, although VMT includes trips to/from the City that originate or are destined to locations outside of the model area, those trip lengths are artificially truncated at the model boundary.
Production/Attraction (PA) VMT
The PA method for calculating VMT sums all weekday VMT generated by HB production and HBW attraction trips with at least one trip end in the study area by trip purpose. The PA method tracks trips with at least one trip end in the analysis area to/from their ultimate destination unless that destination is outside of the model boundary area. Productions are land use types that generate trips (residences), and attractions are land use types that attract trips (employment). Productions and attractions are converted from person trips to vehicle trips for the purposes of calculating VMT. PA VMT can be presented as HB VMT per Resident or HBW VMT per Employee.
The PA method allows project VMT to be evaluated based on trip purpose which is consistent with OPR recommendations in the Technical Advisory. For example, a single-use project such as an office building 3 Convergence criteria refers to the acceptable difference in the traffic volumes produced by different loops of the vehicle assignment. A convergence criteria of 0.01 indicates that the model is producing similar outputs with an allowance of 1% difference between each loop. This criterion is outlined in the model documentation as the recommended convergence criteria for the model.
4 Service Population (SP) is the sum of population and employment. 7850
Jeff Ragland
April 24, 2023
could be analyzed based only on the commute VMT, or HBW attraction VMT per employee; and a residential project could be analyzed based on the HB production VMT per resident.
PA matrices do not include external trips that have one trip end outside of the model boundary (IX-XI trips), airport traveler trips, or truck trips, and therefore do not include those trips in the VMT estimates.
This is not consistent with the OPR recommendations that suggest full accounting of VMT should be completed.
Boundary Method VMT
The boundary method is the sum of all weekday VMT (volume on each roadway segment times the segment length) on a roadway network within a designated boundary. Boundary method VMT estimates VMT by multiplying the number of trips on each roadway segment by the length of each segment. This approach consists of all trips, including those trips that do not begin or end in the designated boundary and is another way to summarize VMT. This is the only VMT method that captures the effect of cutthrough and/or displaced traffic.
Boundary VMT can be presented as total VMT or as total VMT/SP. The boundary utilized in the assessment below is the Ontario City Limits Boundary per the requirements of the City’s VMT Resolution.
To provide additional information, a 5- and 10-mile radius boundary is also presented.
VMT Estimates
Both OD and PA Project-level VMT estimates for the two specific plan alternatives were performed using the Adopted General Plan Buildout (2050) scenario of the TOP model using the Socio-Economic Data (SED) input data shown in Table 2. The original SED in the Project TAZs were referenced to estimate persons per household assumptions for the Project. Land uses were coded into a separate TAZ to represent the Project.
7851
Jeff Ragland
April 24, 2023
Table 2: Land Use and VMT Data Summary
Land Use
Adopted Specific Plan Proposed Specific Plan
Neighborhood 2 Full Plan Neighborhood 2 Full Plan
SF DUs 106 825 82 801
MF DUs 0 0 192 192
Total DUs 106 825 274 993
Total Population 404 3,143 825 3,564
HB VMT 6,410 49,869 11,051 54,502
HB VMT/Resident 15.87 15.87 13.40 15.29
OD VMT 12,771 83,535 23,071 93,843
OD VMT/SP 31.61 26.58 27.69 26.33
Citywide SP 705,054 705,475
Citywide Boundary VMT 8,512,227 8,511,538
Citywide Boundary VMT/SP 12.07 12.06
5-Mile Boundary VMT 12,561,684 12,560,402
5-Mile SP 742,736 743,157
5-Mile Boundary VMT/SP 16.91 16.90
10-Mile Boundary VMT 40,421,127 40,420,884
10-Mile SP 2,178,603 2,179,024
10-Mile Boundary VMT/SP 18.55 18.55
Notes:
1. DUs = Dwelling Units.
2. SF = Single Family.
3. MF = Multi-Family.
4. HB VMT = Home-Based Production VMT.
5. OD VMT = Origin/Destination VMT.
6. SP = Service Population; the sum of population and employment.
Source: TOP Model, 2022
7852
Jeff Ragland
April 24, 2023
As shown in Table 2, the following VMT metrics are reduced (e.g. VMT is reduced) when comparing the proposed plan to the approved plan for both Neighborhood 2 isolated and for the full plan:
HB VMT per resident
OD VMT/SP
Boundary VMT/SP within City limits, 5-mile radius and 10-mile radius However, due to the increase in total housing units, the total OD VMT estimated for the proposed Specific Plan is higher with the Proposed Project.
The proposed Project was also compared to the City thresholds of significance:
The Project OD VMT/SP (27.69) and the full specific plan OD VMT/SP (26.33) do not exceed the Citywide average OD VMT/SP (29.42) under General Plan Buildout Conditions The Project did not cause total daily VMT/SP (12.06) within the City to be higher than the no project alternative (12.07) under cumulative conditions (using the City Limit Boundary) The proposed Project is forecast to reduce HB VMT per resident, OD 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.
Active Transportation and Public Transit Review
Potential impacts to public transit, pedestrian facilities and travel, and bicycle facilities and travel were evaluated to determine if the Project conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decreases the performance5 or safety of such facilities.
In general, the New Model Colony Area has been undergoing major re-development over the past decade as it shifts from agricultural to residential land uses. There are limited active transportation facilities and 5 Per the OPR Technical Advisory, decrease of performance does not include increase in users. 7853
Jeff Ragland
April 24, 2023
transit service in undeveloped areas. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are proposed as part of the Ontario General Plan and Bicycle Master Plan on most roadways throughout the New Model Colony area.
Bicycle Facilities Review
There are four bicycle facility classifications recognized by the City of Ontario and are classified as follows:
Class I Bikeways (Bike Paths)
Class I bicycle facilities are bicycle trails or paths that are off-street and separated from automobiles. They are a minimum of eight feet in width for two-way travel and include bike lane signage and designated street crossings where needed. A Class I Bike Path may parallel a roadway (within the parkway) or may be a completely separate right-of-way that meanders through a neighborhood or along a flood control channel or utility right-of-way.
Class II Bikeways (Bike Lanes)
Class II bicycle facilities are striped lanes that provide bike travel and can be either located next to a curb or parking lane. If located next to a curb, a minimum width of five feet is recommended. However, a bike lane adjacent to a parking lane can be four feet in width. Bike lanes are exclusively for the use of bicycles and include bike lane signage, special lane lines, and pavement markings.
Class III Bikeways (Bike Routes)
Class III Bikeways are streets providing for shared use by motor vehicles and bicyclists. While bicyclists have no exclusive use or priority, signage both by the side of the street and stenciled on the roadway surface alerts motorists to bicyclists sharing the roadway space and denotes that the street is an official bike route.
Class IV Bikeways (Cycle Tracks)
Class IV bicycle facilities, sometimes called cycle tracks or separated bikeways, provide a right-of-way designated exclusively for bicycle travel adjacent to a roadway and are protected from vehicular traffic via separations (e.g. grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, on-street parking). California Assembly Bill 1193 (AB 1193) legalized and established design standards for Class IV bikeways in 2015.
Existing and proposed bicycle facilities in the study area are shown in Figure 3. Adjacent to the Project Site, a Class I bike path is proposed along Archibald. Within the Project limits, a Class I multi-purpose bike trail is provided adjacent to Colonial Avenue between Riverside Drive and just south of Darien Street. This 7854
Jeff Ragland
April 24, 2023
trail is proposed to extend to Chino Avenue to connect with additional proposed trails on Chino Avenue and adjacent to kinglet Avenue and Dolomite Street to connect with Archibald Avenue. Another Class I facility is proposed on Schaefer Avenue between the Deer Creek Channel and Archibald Avenue.
Pedestrian Facilities Review
Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signals, and multi-use trails. The portions of the New Model Colony area that have already been re-developed have accessible pedestrian facilities. At existing signalized intersections, adjacent to and within the Project site, crosswalks and pedestrian pushbutton actuated signals are provided. At existing unsignalized intersections, adjacent to and within the Project site, striped crosswalks are generally provided. Under the assumption that pedestrian facilities will continue to be constructed as the New Model Colony area develops, the Project will be part of a safe and efficient pedestrian network.
The Project proposes to develop a network of paved sidewalks separated from vehicular travel lanes by landscaped parkway throughout the Project site. Sidewalks are proposed on the Project-side of Archibald Avenue. A multi-purpose bike and pedestrian paseo is proposed along the perimeter of the Project and connecting to the Cucamonga Creek Channel.
7855
7856
Jeff Ragland
April 24, 2023
Public Transit Review
There are bus and regional rail service options available in the City of Ontario. Since the New Model Colony and Ontario Ranch areas are mostly undeveloped at this time, limited routes and transit options are available near the Project site. It is anticipated that new routes will be proposed to support the future development, but those routes have not been identified at this time. Existing transit routes in the study area are shown on Figure 4.
Bus Service
Omnitrans
Omnitrans provides local and express services to San Bernardino County, which includes the City of Ontario. The only Omnitrans route that provides service near the Project site is Route 87 north and east of the Project site. The closest bus stop is at Riverside Drive and Archibald Avenue.
Route 87 operates Monday to Saturday between 4:35 AM and 9:50 PM with one-hour headways and provides service to Rancho Cucamonga and Eastvale through the Ontario Ranch area along Riverside Drive and Archibald Avenue
Rail Service
Metrolink
Commuter train service in the City of Ontario is provided by Metrolink, which provides service throughout the Southern California region. The Ontario-East Metrolink Station is located near the corner of Mission Boulevard and Haven Avenue, approximately 3.4 miles northeast of the Project site. The Metrolink railroad runs east-west through the middle of the city, with grade separations at Milliken and Haven Avenues. This same rail line is occasionally used by freight trains when the Union Pacific Railroad line (running east-west south of the I-10 freeway) is closed or restricted for limited periods. Local freight train traffic in the city includes switches on various spur lines serving the industrial areas at the southern section of the city.
Riverside Line links downtown Riverside to Union Station in downtown Los Angeles with a stop at the Ontario Train Station. There are five morning trains and one afternoon train to Union Station on weekdays. There are five afternoon trains from Ontario to Riverside on weekdays.
7857
omnitrans.org 1.800.966.6428 ROUTES & SCHEDULES 75
87 CHAFFEY COLLEGE - ONTARIO - EASTVALE
FREQUENCY
M-F SAT SUN
60 60 N/A
HOLT
HAVEN
Colony
High
School
7858
Jeff Ragland
April 24, 2023
Amtrak
Amtrak is a passenger railroad service that provides medium and long-distance inter-city rail service throughout the United States. Locally, a station is provided northwest of the Project on the corner of Euclid Avenue at Holt Boulevard. Two lines are available at the Ontario Station.
Sunset Limited Line provides intercity rail service three times per week between Los Angeles and New Orleans, Louisiana, with California stops in Los Angeles, Pomona, Ontario and Palm Springs. The service is available at the Ontario Train Station at 10:54 PM from Los Angeles.
Texas Eagle Line provides intercity rail service three times per week between Los Angeles and Chicago, Illinois, with California stops in Los Angeles, Pomona, Ontario and Palm Springs. The service is available at the Ontario Train Station at 10:54 PM from Los Angeles.
Transportation Impact Analysis
This assessment answers the following four questions from Appendix G. For purposes of this EIR, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:
T-1 Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
T-2 Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b) regarding policies to reduce vehicle miles travelled (VMT).
T-3 Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
T-4 Result in inadequate emergency access.
T-1 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 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 7859
Jeff Ragland
April 24, 2023
the performance or safety of these facilities. Therefore, the Project is considered to have a less-thansignificant impact on active transportation and on public transit.
T-2 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 HB VMT per resident, OD 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.
T-3 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.
T-4 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) assessment6. 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.
Conclusion
The Project proposes increased density as compared to the approved plan and/or what is zoned in the City’s General Plan. Densification in urban areas is a strategy promoted by the State to reduce VMT. VMT estimates were prepared to provide comparisons between approved and proposed which indicate that the proposed Project has a lower VMT/SP. The Project’s forecast VMT is also lower than the City’s threshold of significance. Therefore, the Project is more efficient from a VMT perspective and is anticipated to result in a less-than-significant transportation impact. The Project is also anticipated to 6 Countryside Specific Plan Amendment (Neighborhood 2 Development) Traffic Study, LLG, November 23 2022. 7860
Jeff Ragland
April 24, 2023
result in a less-than-significant impact related to consistency with regional plans, design, and emergency evacuation.
7861
7862
7863
7864
7865
7866
7867
7868
7869
7870
7871
7872
7873
7874
7875
7876
7877
7878
7879
7880
7881
7882
7883
7884
7885
7886
7887
7888
7889
7890
7891
7892
7893
7894
7895
7896
7897
7898
7899
7900
7901
7902
7903
7904
7905
7906
7907
7908
7909
7910
7911
7912
7913
7914
7915
7916
7917
7918
7919
7920
7921
7922
7923
7924
7925
7926
7927
7928
7929
7930
7931
7932
7933
7934
7935
7936
7937
7938
7939
7940
7941
7942
7943
7944
7945
7946
7947
7948
7949
7950
7951
7952
7953
7954
7955
7956
7957
7958
7959
7960
7961
7962
7963
7964
7965
7966
7967
7968
7969
7970
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FILE NO. PSPA22-002, A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: [1] DIVIDE PLANNING AREA 1 NEIGHBORHOOD 2 INTO DIFFERENT SUBAREAS:
NEIGHBORHOODS 2A, 2B, AND 2C; [2] 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; [3] CHANGE PLANNING AREA 1
USES TO INCLUDE ATTACHED HOMES AND ELIMINATING THE RD
6000-SQUARE-FOOT LOT SIZE; AND [4] VARIOUS TEXT CHANGES TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 POLICY PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APN: 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 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 7971
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 City Council the responsibility and authority to review and act on the subject Application; and
WHEREAS, the Project has been reviewed for consistency with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan, as State Housing Element law (as prescribed in Government Code Sections 65580 through 65589.8) requires that development projects must be consistent with the Housing Element, if upon consideration of all its aspects, it is found to further the purposes, principals, goals, and policies of the Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and is subject to, and must be consistent with, the policies and criteria set forth in the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (hereinafter referred to as "ALUCP"), which applies only to jurisdictions within San Bernardino County, and addresses the noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity; and
WHEREAS, City of Ontario Development Code Division 2.03 (Public Hearings) prescribes the manner in which public notification shall be provided and hearing procedures to be followed, and all such notifications and procedures have been completed; and
7972
WHEREAS, on May 23, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the EIR Addendum and the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to issue Resolution No. PC23-039, recommending the City Council adopt the EIR Addendum, and voting to issue Resolution No. PC23-040, recommending the City Council approve the Application; and WHEREAS, as the first action on the Project, on June 20, 2023, the City Council issued a Resolution adopting the EIR Addendum, finding that the proposed Project introduces no new significant environmental impacts and applying all previously adopted mitigation measures to the Project, which were incorporated by reference; and WHEREAS, on June 20, 2023, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this 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: Housing Element Compliance. Pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 3, Article 10.6, commencing with Section 65580, as the decision-making body for the Project, the City Council finds that based 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 2: 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 decisionmaking body for the Project, the City Council 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 City Council, therefore, finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in 7973
conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ONT ALUCP; and
SECTION 3: Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced hearing, and upon the specific findings set forth in Sections 1 and 2, above, the City Council 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 4: City Council Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 through 3, above, the City Council hereby APPROVES the herein described Application.
SECTION 5: 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 7974
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 6: Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Ontario City Hall, 303 East "B" Street, Ontario, California 91764. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk of the City of Ontario.
The City Clerk of the City of Ontario shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 20th day of June 2023. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________
SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
BEST, BEST & KRIEGER LLP
CITY ATTORNEY
7975
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. ____ duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held June 20, 2023. _________________________________
SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
7976
ATTACHMENT A:
File No. PSPA22-002;
AMENDMENT TO COUNTRYSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN
(Document follows this page)
7977
7978
7979
7980
7981
7982
7983
7984
7985
7986
7987
7988
7989
7990
7991
7992
7993
7994
7995
7996
7997
7998
7999
8000
8001
8002
8003
8004
8005
8006
8007
8008
8009
8010
8011
8012
8013
8014
8015
8016
8017
8018
8019
8020
8021
8022
8023
8024
8025
8026
8027
8028
8029
8030
8031
8032
8033
8034
8035
8036
8037
8038
8039
8040
8041
8042
8043
8044
8045
8046
8047
8048
8049
8050
8051
8052
8053
8054
8055
8056
8057
8058
8059
8060
8061
8062
8063
8064
8065
8066
8067
8068
8069
8070
8071
8072
8073
8074
8075
8076
8077
8078
8079
8080
8081
8082
8083
8084
8085
8086
8087
8088
8089
8090
8091
8092
8093
8094
8095
8096
8097
8098
8099
8100
8101
8102
8103
8104
8105
8106
8107
8108
8109
8110
8111
8112
8113
8114
8115
8116
8117
8118
8119
8120
8121
8122
8123
8124
8125
8126
8127
8128
8129
8130
8131
8132
8133
8134
8135
8136
8137
8138
8139
8140
8141
8142
8143
8144
8145
8146
8147
8148
8149
8150
8151
8152
8153
8154
8155
8156
8157
8158
8159
8160
8161
8162
8163
8164
8165
8166
8167
8168
8169
8170
8171
8172
8173
8174
8175
8176
8177
8178
8179
8180
8181
8182
8183
8184
8185
8186
8187
8188
8189
8190
8191
8192
8193
8194
8195
8196
8197
8198
8199
8200
8201
8202
8203
8204
8205
8206
8207
8208
8209
8210
8211
8212
8213
8214
8215