Agenda packet — Ontario City Council, June 20, 2023 (part 9 of 32)

303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764 Phone: 909.395.2036 / Fax: 909.395.2420 Notice of Preparation
TO: Property Owners, Responsible Agencies, and Interested Parties FROM: City of Ontario, Planning Department, 303 East “B” Street, Ontario, CA 91764 SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Ontario will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an environmental impact report for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project.

The Project description, location and the probable environmental effects are contained in the attached materials. A copy of the Initial Study ☒ is, ☐ is not, attached and is available at Ontario City Hall, Planning Department. Electronic format of the document can also be obtained online using the following link: https://www.ontarioca.gov/Planning/Reports/EnvironmentalImpact.

The proposed project ☒ is, ☐ is not, considered a project of statewide, regional, or area-wide significance. The proposed project ☐ will, ☒ will not, affect highways or other facilities under the jurisdiction of the State Department of Transportation. A scoping meeting ☒ will, ☐ will not, be held by the lead agency.

Scoping Meeting: If the project meets the criteria requiring the scoping meeting, or if the agency voluntarily elects to hold such a meeting, the date, time, and location of the scoping meeting are as follows:

Date and Time: October 27, 2022, at 6:00 p.m.

Location (this meeting will be held as a virtual meeting via Zoom): The Zoom meeting may be accessed online using the following link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83565725981 ; Webinar ID:
835 6572 5981. Alternatively, the Zoom meeting may be attended via telephone: (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): +1 669 900 9128 or +1 669 444 9171 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 719 359 4580 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 564 217 2000 or +1 646 558 8656 or +1 646 931 3860 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 309 205 3325 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 386 347 5053 or 888 788 0099 (Toll Free) or 833 548 0276 (Toll Free) or 833 548 0282 (Toll Free) or 877 853 5247 (Toll Free)
1660
City of Ontario Planning Department
Notice of Preparation

Page 2 of 2 ends

Review Period: The 30-day review period for this Notice of Preparation begins on October 17, 2022.

Comments will be received until the close of business day on November 15, 2022, at 5:30 p.m.

Please send your response to the contact person identified below. Please be sure to include the name of a contact person for your agency.

Charles Mercier, Principal Planner
City of Ontario Planning Department
303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764
Phone: (909) 395-2425
Email: [email protected]
Project Title/File No.: PSPA22-001
Project Location: The Specific Plan area comprises approximately 584 acres of land located west of Interstate 15 (I-15), and south of State Route 60 (SR-60). The Specific Plan Area lies within the 8,200-acre Ontario Ranch area, bounded generally by Riverside Drive to the north, “Old” East Edison Avenue [alignment] to the south, Mill Creek Avenue and Hamner Avenue to the east, and Haven Avenue to the west, in the City of Ontario, County of San Bernardino.

Project Description: Under the proposed 2022 Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment, the Specific Plan Area would be developed with up to 7,194 dwelling units, up to 925,002 square feet of commercial space, and up to 2,767,148 square feet of light industrial uses.

Project Applicant: BrookCal Ontario LLC/Richland Developers, Inc., 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 425, Irvine, CA 92612
Consulting firm retained to prepare Draft EIR: Applied Planning, Inc, 11762 De Palma Road, 1-C 310, Corona, CA 92883; Contact: Ross Geller (909) 937-0333 Signature: Date: 10/7/2022
Name: Charles H Mercier Title: Principal Planner
Reference: California Code of Regulations, Title 14 (CEQA Guidelines) Sections 15082(a), 15103, and 15375.
1661
Initial Study
for the
Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment
(File No. PSPA22-001)
Prepared for:

City of Ontario
303 East B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
Prepared by:

Applied Planning, Inc.
11762 De Palma Road, 1C-310
Corona, CA 92883
October 2022
1662

INITIAL STUDY
for the
Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment
(File No. PSPA22-001)

Prepared for:

City of Ontario
303 East B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
Prepared by:

Applied Planning, Inc.
11762 De Palma Road, 1-C 310
Corona, CA 92883
October 2022
1663
Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Table of Contents Initial Study Page i
Table of Contents
Section Page

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

1.1 Background and Project Overview ................................................................ 1-1

1.2 Purpose and Disposition of This Document ................................................. 1-2

1.3 Document Organization ................................................................................... 1-5

1.4 Potential Environmental Effects ..................................................................... 1-6

2.0 Project Description ...................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Background and Project Overview ................................................................ 2-1

2.2 Existing Conditions .......................................................................................... 2-5

2.3 Existing and Proposed Land Use Designations ......................................... 2-12

2.4 Project Operations/Occupancy Summary ................................................... 2-16

2.5 Development Concept .................................................................................... 2-17

2.6 Project Objectives ............................................................................................ 2-26

2.7 Discretionary Approvals and Permits ......................................................... 2-31

3.0 Environmental Evaluation ......................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Project Title ........................................................................................................ 3-1

3.2 Lead Agency Name and Address ................................................................... 3-1

3.3 Project Applicant ............................................................................................... 3-1

3.4 Background and Project Overview ................................................................ 3-1

3.5 Previous Environmental Documentation Incorporated by Reference ...... 3-3

3.6 Explanation of Checklist Categories .............................................................. 3-4

3.7 Initial Study Checklist and Substantiation .................................................... 3-6

4.0 Determination ............................................................................................................... 4-1 1664
Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Table of Contents Initial Study Page ii
List of Figures and Tables
Figure Page

2.1-1 Specific Plan Location ................................................................................................... 2-2

2.2-1 Existing Land Uses ....................................................................................................... 2-6

2.2-2 Site Photos (1) ................................................................................................................ 2-7

2.2-3 Site Photos (2) ................................................................................................................ 2-8

2.2-4 Site Photos (3) ................................................................................................................ 2-9

2.2-5 Site Photos (4) .............................................................................................................. 2-10

2.3-1 TOP 2050 Land Use Designations ............................................................................ 2-13

2.3-2 2021 Specific Plan vs. 2022 Specific Plan Amendment .......................................... 2-14 II-1 California Important Farmland Finder .................................................................... 3-12 Table Page

2.1-1 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Land Use Summary .............................................. 2-4 1665

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1666
Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Introduction
Initial Study Page 1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND AND PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Rich-Haven Specific Plan (RHSP) was approved by the City of Ontario in 2015, with subsequent Specific Plan Amendments approved in 2016, 2018, and 2021. The current (2021) Rich-Haven Specific Plan (“2021 Specific Plan”) comprises approximately 584 acres located west of Interstate 15 (I-15), and south of State Route 60 (SR-60). The 2021 Specific Plan Area lies within the 8,200-acre Ontario Ranch area, bounded generally by Riverside Drive to the north, “Old” East Edison Avenue [alignment] to the south, Mill Creek Avenue and Hamner Avenue to the east, and Haven Avenue to the west.

The 2021 Specific Plan entitlements allow for development of up to 7,194 dwelling units (all residential types), up to 990,902 square feet of commercial/office space, up to 1,183,525 square feet of light industrial uses, approximately 27 acres of public parkland, and approximately 20 acres of Southern California Edison (SCE) Parcel open space and SCE Easements. The 2022 RHSP Specific Plan Amendment (2022 Specific Plan Amendment, Project) evaluated in this Initial Study (IS) proposes a new amendment of the RHSP.

Under the proposed 2022 RHSP Specific Plan Amendment, the Specific Plan Area would be developed with up to 7,194 dwelling units, up to 925,002 square feet of commercial space, and up to 2,767,148 square feet of light industrial uses. Other existing RHSP land uses, e.g., public parkland, Southern California Edison (SCE) Parcel open space and SCE Easements would not be substantively affected under the 2022 RHSP Specific Plan Amendment. This IS evaluates potential environmental impacts of entire buildout of the Specific Plan Area that would result from the 2022 RHSP Specific Plan Amendment. 1667
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Introduction
Initial Study Page 1-2
In summary, the proposed 2022 Specific Plan Amendment would result in the following primary revisions to the 2021 Specific Plan:

1. Total residential development within the Specific Plan Area would be maintained at 7,194 dwelling units. Residential units and residential densities would however be reassigned within the Specific Plan Area.

2. Total commercial development would be reduced by approximately 65,900 square feet, an approximate 6.7 percent reduction in the 2021 Specific Plan commercial entitlements.

3. Total light industrial development would be increased by approximately 1,583,623 square feet, an approximate 134 percent increase from the 2021 Specific Plan Amendment.

Other aspects and attributes of the 2021 Specific Plan would be substantively maintained under the proposed 2022 Specific Plan Amendment.

1.2 PURPOSE AND DISPOSITION OF THIS DOCUMENT
This IS was prepared pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Although this IS was prepared with consultant support, all analysis, conclusions, findings and determinations presented in the IS fully represent the independent judgment and position of the City of Ontario, acting as Lead Agency under CEQA. In accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State and local CEQA Guidelines, as the Lead Agency, the City of Ontario is solely responsible for approval of the Project. As part of the decision-making process, the City is required to review and consider the Project’s potential environmental effects. This IS is an informational document, providing the City of Ontario decision-makers, other public agencies, and the public with an assessment of the potential environmental impacts that could result from the Project.
1668
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Introduction
Initial Study Page 1-3
The City of Ontario (Lead Agency) specifically recognizes previous Certified CEQA documentation1 and analysis prepared for the RHSP and its Amendments – as well as related State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 limits and mandates (excerpted below) governing preparation of EIRs when a previous EIR has been Certified for a project. Lead Agency findings (italicized) for these criteria are summarized following each of the listed considerations. Based on the Lead Agency findings presented below and supporting analysis presented in this IS, a new EIR will be prepared that will analyze and disclose potential environmental impacts of the proposed 2022 Specific Plan Amendment.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15162:
(a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

As substantiated in this IS, substantial changes to the previous project are proposed under the RHSP 2022 SPA. These changes include, but are not limited to: land use re-designations and land use reconfigurations, increased industrial development, and modified residential development.

These changes could result in potentially new or different significant environmental impacts not considered or addressed in previous CEQA documentation prepared for the RHSP and its amendments.
1 Rich Haven Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, July 3, 2007 (SCH No. 2006051081); Rich Haven Specific Plan Amendments: 2015, 2016, 2018, 2021 - evaluated as Addendums to Certified EIRs. 1669
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Introduction
Initial Study Page 1-4
Substantive changes proposed by the Project are detailed at IS Section 2.0, Project Description.

IS Section 3.0, Environmental Evaluation discusses and evaluates potentially significant impacts that could result from the Project.
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

Changes in circumstances warranting major revisions of the previous EIR include recent adoption of The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP 2050) and associated General Plan Update. TOP 2050 and the General Plan Update represent a new context for the RHSP that could result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously-identified significant effects presented in the previous RHSP EIR(s). Moreover, changes in circumstances from a regulatory perspective indicate that previous analyses for the RHSP and its Amendments have become increasingly decoupled from evolving CEQA analytic topics and protocols, diminishing the value and applicability of these analyses. These latter changes in circumstances contribute further to the likelihood that the Project could result in new or substantially different or increased impacts than were analyzed in the previous EIR.
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR.

C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce 1670
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Introduction
Initial Study Page 1-5
one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

Please refer to discussions at preceding Items (a) (1) (2).

Based on the preceding, potential environmental impacts of the Project will be evaluated and documented in a Project-specific Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

This IS and accompanying Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR will be available for review for 30 days from October 17, 2022 to November 15, 2022 and can be accessed or obtained by contacting:

City of Ontario
Planning Department
303 East “B” Street
Ontario, CA 91764
Attention: Charles Mercier, Principal Planner
The public is encouraged to contact the City of Ontario for information regarding the Project and related CEQA processes.

1.3 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
This IS includes the following sections:

Introduction: This Section (1.0) describes the CEQA context of the Project, the IS format, and provides a summary of the findings of the IS. 1671
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Introduction
Initial Study Page 1-6
Project Description: This Section (2.0) describes the Project and its Objectives.

Discretionary actions, permits, and consultation necessary to realize the Project are also identified.

Environmental Evaluation: This Section (3.0) provides background information regarding the Project and Lead Agency, and presents responses to each question on the CEQA Initial Study Checklist regarding the possible environmental impacts of the Project. Answers provided in the checklist are substantiated qualitatively in all instances, and quantitatively where feasible and appropriate.

Determination: This Section (4.0) summarizes the results of the IS, and presents the determination regarding the appropriate environmental document for the Project.

Source information cited within this IS is available through, or by contacting, the City of Ontario Planning Department.

1.4 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The analysis presented in this IS indicates that the Project may result in or cause potentially significant effects related to:
• Air Quality;
• Biological Resources;
• Cultural/Tribal Resources;
• Energy;
• Geology and Soils;
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions;
• Hazards/Hazardous Materials;
• Hydrology/Water Quality;
• Land Use and Planning;
• Noise;
• Transportation; and
• Utilities and Service Systems.
1672
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Introduction
Initial Study Page 1-7
Consistent with the conclusion and findings of this IS, an EIR will be prepared for the Project. At a minimum, the EIR will evaluate the Project’s potential environmental impacts under the topical areas identified above. Additional issues or concerns that may be identified pursuant to the EIR NOP process and/or scoping meeting(s) conducted for the Project will also be evaluated and addressed in the EIR. 1673

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1674
Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Initial Study Page 2-1

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 BACKGROUND AND PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Rich-Haven Specific Plan (RHSP) was approved by the City of Ontario in 2015, with subsequent Specific Plan Amendments approved in 2016, 2018, and 2021. The current (2021) Rich-Haven Specific Plan (“2021 Specific Plan”) comprises approximately 584 acres located west of Interstate 15 (I-15), and south of State Route 60 (SR-60). The 2021 Specific Plan Area lies within the 8,200-acre Ontario Ranch area, bounded generally by Riverside Drive to the north, “Old” East Edison Avenue [alignment] to the south, Mill Creek Avenue and Hamner Avenue to the east, and Haven Avenue to the west. Location of the 2021 Specific Plan is presented at Figure 2.1-1. The location and boundaries of the 2022 RHSP Specific Plan Amendment evaluated in this Initial Study (IS) coincide with the location and boundaries in the 2021 Specific Plan.

NOT TO SCALE
Ontario Ranch Road
Riverside Drive
Mill Creek Avenue
Hamner Avenue
Haven Avenue
60 Specific Plan Boundary
City of Ontario
City of Eastvale
1676
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Initial Study Page 2-3
Under the proposed 2022 RHSP Specific Plan Amendment, the Specific Plan Area would be developed with up to 7,194 dwelling units, up to 925,002 square feet of commercial space, and up to 2,767,148 square feet of light industrial uses. Other existing RHSP land uses, e.g., public parkland, Southern California Edison (SCE) Parcel open space and SCE Easements would not be substantively affected under the 2022 RHSP Specific Plan Amendment. This IS evaluates potential environmental impacts of entire buildout of the Specific Plan Area that would result from the 2022 RHSP Specific Plan Amendment.1 In summary, the proposed 2022 Specific Plan Amendment would result in the following primary revisions to the 2021 Specific Plan:

2. Total commercial development would be reduced by approximately 65,900 square feet, an approximate 6.7 percent reduction in the 2021 Specific Plan commercial entitlements.

3. Total light industrial development would be increased by approximately 1,583,623 square feet, an approximate 134 percent increase from the 2021 Specific Plan Amendment.

Other aspects and attributes of the 2021 Specific Plan would be substantively maintained under the proposed 2022 Specific Plan Amendment. A summary of land uses and development by Planning Area is provided at Table 2.1-1. 1 Potential environmental impacts of the Rich Haven Specific Plan were initially evaluated in Rich Haven Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, July 3, 2007 (SCH No. 2006051081). Subsequent Rich Haven Specific Plan Amendments: 2015, 2016, 2018, 2021 have been evaluated as Addendums to Certified EIRs.

While the City could have continued tiering off previous environmental documents in evaluation of the Project’s potential environmental impacts, in order to provide a contemporary and comprehensive analysis of the Project’s impacts, a new Project-level EIR will be developed. 1677
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Initial Study Page 2-4
Table 2.1-1
2022 Specific Plan Amendment Land Use Summary
Planning
Area Land Use Acres(Gross)
Dwelling Units
(Maximum)
Residential Density
(Gross)
Comm./ Office (sf)
(Maximum)
Light Industrial (sf)
(Maximum)
1A Low Density Residential 25.5 128 5.0 - -
1B Low-Medium Density Residential 24.5 294 12.0 - -
1C Medium Density Residential 60.6 1,031 17.0 - -
SCE 1 Edison Parcel 20.0 - - - -
2A Public Park 27.0 - - - -
2B Low-Medium Density Residential 8.1 190 23.5 - -
2C Light Industrial 23.4 - - - 560,617
3A Low-Medium Density Residential
Open Space-Non Recreation

36.1 8.3
560 15.5 - -
3B Low-Medium Density Residential 8.6 190 22.1 - -
3C Light Industrial
Open Space-Non Recreation

21.4 8.5 - - - 512,701
4A Stand Alone Residential Overlay 45.0 1,099 24.4 - -
4B
Regional Commercial
Stand Alone Residential Overlay
Open Space-Non Recreation

5.0 35.2

0.4 1,150 32.7 166,182 -
5A Light Industrial
Open Space-Non Recreation

21.3 3.7 - - - 510,305
5B
Regional Commercial
Stand Alone Residential Overlay
Open Space-Non Recreation

5.0 26.6

7.5 1,150 43.2 76,320 -
5C Regional Commercial 1.0 - - 7,500 -
6A Light Industrial
Open Space-Non Recreation

49.4 6.6 - - - 1,183,525
6B Regional Commercial 25.1 - - 300,000 -
7 Mixed Use Overlay 20.5 552 26.9 162,500 -
8 Regional Commercial 20.5 - - 162,500 -
9 Stand Alone Residential Overlay 20.4 300 14.7 - -
10A Stand Alone Residential Overlay 16.9 550 32.5 - -
10B Regional Commercial 2.8 - - 50,000 -
Total 584.9 7,194 - 925,002 2,767,148
Source: 2022 Rich Haven Specific Plan Amendment
1678
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Initial Study Page 2-5
The discussions presented in this IS reflect information in the preliminary 2022 Specific Plan Amendment, and reflect the range and types of uses envisioned under this Project.

Based on the findings of this IS, the Project may result in certain potentially significant environmental impacts (see IS Section 3.0, Environmental Evaluation). Accordingly, potential environmental impacts of the Project will be evaluated and documented in a Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Within the subsequent Project EIR, discussions will be revised to reflect any substantive changes that may occur as the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment is further defined.

2.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS

2.2.1 THE ONTARIO PLAN (TOP) 2050

2.2.1.1 TOP 2050 Overview and Project Consistency with TOP 2050 The Project would be required to conform with applicable provisions of The Ontario Plan (TOP). TOP 2050 provides long-range guidance for the City of Ontario addressing development and conservation. TOP consists of a six-part component framework: 1) Vision, 2) Governance Manual, 3) Policy Plan (General Plan), 4) City Council Priorities, 5) Implementation, and 6) Tracking and Feedback. TOP 20502 represents the City’s vision for the next 30 years.

The Project has been planned and designed to be consistent with TOP 2050. Within this analysis, unless otherwise noted, TOP 2050 and TOP 2050 SEIR are the basis for the Project’s potential environmental impacts.

2.2.2 EXISTING LAND USES
Existing land uses within, and adjacent to, the Project site are illustrated at Figure 2.2-1 and are described below. Representative photos of existing Project site conditions are presented at Figures 2.2-2 through 2.2-5.
2 TOP 2050 Draft SEIR, and TOP 2050 Final SEIR can be accessed at:
https://www.ontarioplan.org/top2050/.
1679
Figure 2.2-1
Existing Land Uses
Source: Google Earth; Applied Planning, Inc.

NOT TO SCALE
Ontario Ranch Road
Riverside Drive
Mill Creek Avenue
Hamner Avenue
Haven Avenue
Specific Plan Boundary
City of Ontario
City of Eastvale
Residential Uses
SCE
Substation
Residential
Uses
Light Industrial
Uses
Colony
High
Nursery School
Vacant/
Disturbed
Dairy
Vacant/
Disturbed
Active
Development
(Residential)
Residential
Uses
Vacant/Disturbed
Commercial
Uses
Vacant/Disturbed
Active
Development
(Residential)
Vacant/
Disturbed
Vacant/
Disturbed
Residence
Dairy Dairy Vacant/
Disturbed
Residential Residential Residential
1680
Figure 2.2-2
Site Photos (1)
Source: Harmsworth Associates, Inc.
1681
Figure 2.2-3
Site Photos (2)
Source: Harmsworth Associates, Inc.
1682
Figure 2.2-4
Site Photos (3)
Source: Harmsworth Associates, Inc.
1683
Figure 2.2-5
Site Photos (4)
Source: Harmsworth Associates, Inc.
1684
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Initial Study Page 2-11

2.2.2.1 Project Site
Existing land uses within the Specific Plan Area include developed portions of the currently entitled 2021 Specific Plan, and entitled areas that are undeveloped. As of the date of this IS, approximately 468 residential units of the total 7,194 dwelling units entitled under the 2021 Specific Plan have been constructed and are occupied. Existing residential development within the Specific Plan Area is located generally northeast of the intersection of Haven Avenue and Ontario Ranch Road.

The remainder of the 2021 Specific Plan entitlements have yet to be developed. Existing land uses in these areas include a dairy farm in the northern portion of the Specific Plan area, and vacant/disturbed properties through the remaining portions of the site.

Additionally, within the southern portion of the Specific Plan Area, Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission line easements exist along a generally east – west/northeast – southwest alignment within the Specific Plan Area.

2.2.2.2 Vicinity Land Uses
Land uses adjacent to northern portions of the Specific Plan Area include residential development, agricultural uses, and Colony High School. Adjacent to the central Specific Plan Area are an SCE Substation occupying approximately 160 acres to the east, and agricultural/dairy and residential development to the west. The southern portion of the Specific Plan Area is bounded by residential and commercial development to the west across Haven Avenue, and vacant disturbed properties, residences, and dairy farm uses to the south across “Old” Edison Avenue [alignment]. To the east, across Hamner Avenue, are City of Eastvale properties that are developed or are being developed with commercial and light industrial uses.
1685
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Initial Study Page 2-12

2.3 EXISTING and PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATIONS

2.3.1 Project Site
Policy Plan Land Uses
TOP 2050 Policy Plan Land Use designations for the Project site and surrounding areas are presented at Figure 2.3-1. Policy Plan Land Uses proposed by the Project are consistent with TOP 2050 Policy Plan Land Use designations for the Project site.

Zoning Designations
Existing Zoning of the Project site is established by the 2021 Specific Plan. Zoning of the Project site would be modified by the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment described herein.

The 2021 Specific Plan and 2022 Specific Plan Amendment are compared at Figure 2.3-2. 1686
Figure 2.3-1
TOP 2050 Policy Plan Land Use Designations
Source: TOP 2050

NOT TO SCALE

CITY OF EASTVALE
1687
Figure 2.3-2
2021 Specific Plan vs. 2022 Specific Plan Amendment
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan

NOT TO SCALE
2021 SPECIFIC PLAN 2022 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT

FOCUS AREA
2021 Specific Plan
2022 Specific Plan Amendment
1688
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Initial Study Page 2-15

2.3.2 Vicinity Properties
Policy Plan Land Use and Zoning designations of surrounding properties are summarized below. The Project would not affect Land Use and Zoning designations of surrounding properties. Unless noted otherwise, existing and proposed land use designations of vicinity properties are consistent under current and known or anticipated future conditions.

North (across Riverside Drive)
• Policy Plan Land Use Designations: Open Space – Non-Recreation (abutting Riverside Drive), General Commercial, Low Density Residential • Zoning: Specific Plan (Creekside Specific Plan), CT (abutting Riverside Drive), Low Density Residential
South (across East Edison Avenue)
• Policy Plan Land Use Designations: Medium Density Residential, Open Space – Non-Recreation, Low Density Residential.
• Zoning: Specific Plan (Esperanza Specific Plan), Specific Plan w/Agricultural Overlay
East
• Across Hamner Avenue:
o City of Eastvale General Plan: Light Industrial, Commercial Retail o City of Eastvale Zoning: Industrial Park, Specific Plan (Goodman Commerce Center Specific Plan)
• Across Mill Creek Avenue:
o Policy Plan Land Use Designations: Medium Density Residential, Low Density Residential, Business Park
o Zoning: Specific Plan (Edenglen Specific Plan), Specific Plan w/Agricultural Overlay (Developed as SCE Substation)
• Abutting to Northeast:
o Policy Plan Land Use Designation: Public School
o Zoning: Civic
1689
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Initial Study Page 2-16
West (across Haven Avenue)
• Policy Plan Land Use Designations: Office Commercial, Low Density Residential, Low Medium Density Residential, Medium Density Residential Public School, Open Space – Non-Recreation
• Zoning: Specific Plan (West Haven Specific Plan)

2.4 PROJECT OPERATIONS/OCCUPANCY SUMMARY
For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that all Project development will be complete and fully operational by 2025, the Project Opening Year. Operational attributes of the Project land uses are presented below. Please refer also to the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment for details regarding the proposed Land Use Plan, Design Guidelines, and Development Standards.

2.4.1 Light Industrial Land Use
The Project light industrial land uses would accommodate a mix of high-cube fulfillment warehouse uses, refrigerated warehouse uses, and business park uses. Configurations and mix of these uses will be identified in the EIR as the Project is further defined. • All uses are assumed to be open and operational 7 days per week, 24 hours per day.
• Unless otherwise noted herein, all operations would occur internal to main buildings.
• On-site operations would include on-site cargo handling. The most common type of cargo handling equipment is the yard truck designed for moving cargo containers. Yard trucks are also known as yard goats, utility tractors (UTRs), hustlers, yard hostlers, and yard tractors. Any yard trucks based at the Project site would be non-diesel (e.g., gasoline and/or electric-powered). 1690
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Initial Study Page 2-17

2.4.2 Commercial Land Use
The Project commercial land uses are assumed to accommodate a variety of commercial/retail development.
• All uses are assumed to be open and operational 7 days per week, 24 hours per day.
• Unless otherwise noted herein, all operations would occur internal to main buildings.

2.4.3 Residential Land Uses
• Residential land uses are assumed to be developed at quantities and densities reflected in the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment.

2.4.4 Open Space/Park Land Uses
• All open space/park land uses are assumed to be developed only with site/surface improvements supporting outdoor recreational activities.

2.5 DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
Development implemented under the Project would be required to conform to provisions of the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment. In instances where the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment is silent, development proposals within the Specific Plan Area would be required to conform to applicable provisions of the City Development Code. The following discussions reflect preliminary 2022 Specific Plan Amendment information available to date. Within the subsequent Project EIR, discussions will be revised to reflect any substantive changes that may occur as the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment is further defined.

2.5.1 DEVELOPMENT SEQUENCING
The Project land uses would be constructed contingent on the availability of supporting infrastructure (e.g., water, sewer, storm drains, roadways/access) and as market conditions warrant. Generally, the anticipated sequence of development is as follows:
1691
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Initial Study Page 2-18

1. Light industrial/commercial uses; and

2. Residential products and community amenities including parks/open space uses.

2.5.2 SITE DESIGN/ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPTS
All Project development proposals would be required to conform to requirements and implement guidance articulated at 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Section 5, Development Regulations; and Section 6, Design Guidelines. All final Project site plans and building designs would be subject to City review and approval, to include consistency analysis with applicable provisions of the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment.

2.5.3 ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
Access to and within the Specific Plan Area is summarized below. Please also refer to 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Section 4.1, Circulation Plan.

2.5.3.1 Roadways
Regional access to the City and the Specific Plan Area is provided by State Route 60 (E – W) and Interstate 15 (N – S). State Route 60 (SR-60) interchanges with Interstate 15 (I-15) approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the Specific Plan Area. Local access to the Specific Plan Area is provided by existing vicinity roadways. These roadways include Riverside Drive to the north, Haven Avenue to the west, Mill Creek Avenue (partial) to the east, Hamner Avenue to the east, and Ontario Ranch Road which traverses the southern portion of the Specific Plan Area.

Ultimate designs of roadway alignments, roadway configurations, and site access would be required to conform to applicable provisions of the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment and City Conditions of Approval; and would be subject to City review and approval.

Roadways within and abutting the Project site would be constructed to their respective ultimate cross-sections pursuant to the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment design standards and City requirements.3
3 The Specific Plan Amendment proposes modified design standards for Chino Avenue within the Project site, to include enhanced roadway sections with raised landscapes and roundabouts. These modified design standards would be subject to City review and approval as one component of the Specific Plan Amendment. 1692
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Initial Study Page 2-19

2.5.3.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Access
The Project would construct bicycle and pedestrian access improvements consistent with the City Multipurpose Trails and Bikeway Corridor Plan.

Within the Project site, streets would be constructed with sidewalks, providing pedestrian access and inter-connectivity between various residential and mixed-use areas. Trail access would be provided to the various park facilities. As part of the City’s Master Plan of Trails, the SCE Corridor Trail within the Project site would be extended within the linear park areas located within the existing SCE easements. Access to the SCE Corridor Trail would be provided at key points throughout the Project. On-street curb adjacent 5-foot bike lanes would be provided on both sides of the proposed modified/enhanced Chino Avenue section.

2.5.3.3 Bus Service
Bus service is available to the City via Omnitrans and the Riverside Transit Authority (RTA). No bus routes currently provide proximate service (within one-quarter mile) of the 2021 Specific Plan Area. Transit service providers periodically review and update schedules and routes to address ridership, budget, and community demands. The Applicant and City would coordinate Project final designs with Omnitrans and RTA to evaluate the potential for provision of bus services and bus amenities serving the 2021 Specific Plan Area. Omnitrans bus routes and schedules can be accessed at:
https://omnitrans.org. RTA bus routes and schedules can be accessed at:
https://www.riversidetransit.com/index.php/riding-the-bus/maps-schedules.

2.5.4 PARKING
The Project would be required to adhere to parking requirements established under the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment and the City of Ontario Development Code. Parking assignments and design of parking areas within the site would be subject to City review and approval.

2.5.5 LANDSCAPE/STREETSCAPE
The 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Landscape Concept is presented in detail at 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Section 7, Landscape Plan. All landscaping/streetscaping 1693
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Initial Study Page 2-20
implemented under the Project would be required to comply with applicable provisions of the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment and the City Municipal Code. The implemented landscape/streetscape concept would act to enhance perception of the site as developed under the Project, and to screen views of the site interior from off-site vantages.

Landscape and streetscape elements would provide shade and visual interest, define entry/access points, and accentuate site and architectural features.

2.5.6 INFRASTRUCTURE/UTILITIES

2.5.6.1 Water Service
Potable (Domestic) Water
Potable water would be provided by the Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC).4 The Project lies within the OMUC 925 and 1010 Pressure Zones. Within the Project site, water service would be provided by a system of 8-inch to 12-inch water mains constructed within the backbone roadway system. Connecting 8-inch service lines would be provided to individual developments.

The on-site public water system sizing would be required to comply with provisions of a City-approved hydraulic analysis to be conducted at the project-level design stage. All water mains and wells internal to site would be constructed by the merchant builder(s).

In-tract water system design will be provided at the time of subdivision. Final designs of water conveyance systems serving the Project would be required to conform to City and OMUC requirements. Please refer also to 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Section 4.2.1, Domestic Water.
4 Additionally, as discussed in the Specific Plan Amendment, “the Chino Basin Water Master Water Quality Map identifies the Rich-Haven [Project] area within an optimum water quality zone and requires that the owner/developer dedicate a total of two wells within the Specific Plan area to the City of Ontario for production of potable water.” Well dedications within the Project site would be provided if/as required by the City/OMUC.
1694
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Initial Study Page 2-21
Recycled Water
The Project area would be served by OMUC 930/1050 Pressure Zones for recycled water.

A range of recycled water lines would be constructed both on-site and off-site to service the Project. All Master Plan recycled water improvements implemented to serve the Project would be required to conform to the incumbent City Recycled Water Master Plan.

Please refer also to 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Section 4.2.2, Recycled Water, Regional Recycled Water Plan.

The Project would be required to comply with applicable provisions of City Municipal Code Chapter 8c: Recycled Water Use.5 Within the Project area,recycled water would be used for all approved applications, including but not limited to irrigation of parks, schools, street landscaping, recreational trails, HOA-maintained common areas and landscaping. An engineering report approved by the City and the California Department of Public Health is required prior to the use of recycled water.

Within the Project area, the backbone recycled water system would comprise 8-inch to 12-inch lines and would be located in the backbone street system. In-tract recycled water system design would be provided at the time of subdivision. It is noted here that no [emphasis added] recycled water can be used on single-family single lot ownership properties. Per the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment, a clear physical separation between potable and recycled water systems is required, such separations may comprise walls, fences, sidewalks, or mow strips. Please refer also to 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Section 4.2.2, Recycled Water, Local Backbone Recycled Water Plan.

2.5.6.2 Sewer Services
Sewer service would be provided by the City of Ontario. Master Plan sewer system improvements serving the Project and surrounding areas would be constructed consistent with the City’s Sewer Master Plan. All Master Plan sewer improvements implemented to serve the Project would be required to conform to the incumbent City 5 See also: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/ontarioca/latest/ontario_ca/0-0-0-44580#JD_6-8.714 1695
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Initial Study Page 2-22
Sewer System Master Plan. Please refer also to 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Section

4.3, Sewer Master Plan.

2.5.6.3 Stormwater Management System
Storm Drains
Multiple City Master Plan of Drainage storm drain facilities would serve the Project site.

All Master Plan storm water management system improvements implemented to serve the Project would be required to conform to the incumbent City Master Plan of Drainage.

Under post-development conditions, existing southerly trending on-site drainage patterns would be maintained.

Within the Project site, individual developments would implement required stormwater management systems. On-site storm stormwater management system designs would be provided concurrent with development plan submittals. Final designs of stormwater management systems serving the Project would be required to conform to City requirements. Please refer also to 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Section 4.4, Drainage Master Plan, Regional Backbone Drainage Plan.

Water Quality Management Plan
On a regional level, stormwater quality management would be available via the regional Mill Creek Wetlands system. Within the Project site, complementary on-site stormwater management systems that would detain and treat stormwater discharges. Stormwater discharges from the Project would be required to comply with requirements and performance standards established under the incumbent San Bernardino County National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Program MS4 Permit and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). To these ends, developments within the Project site would implement Low Impact Development (LID) Site Design Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce pollutant transport and increase on-site stormwater infiltration. Additionally, all Priority Land Use (PLU) areas within the Project site would be required to comply with the statewide Trash Provisions adopted by the 1696
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Initial Study Page 2-23
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and trash requirements in the most current San Bernardino County Area-Wide MS4 Permit.

Non-structural and structural Source Control BMPs would be documented in the Project WQMPs. Final WQMPs, as approved by the City, would ensure that the Project stormwater management systems have been designed to convey and treat stormwater discharges and limit the post-development peak flows consistent with available storm drain capacities. Please refer also to 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Section 4.4, Drainage Master Plan, Stormwater Quality Measures.

2.5.6.4 Solid Waste Management
The City of Ontario provides solid waste collection services for the City and will service the Project.

2.5.6.5 Electricity
Southern California Edison (SCE) would provide electricity to the site from existing vicinity facilities. SCE facilities located within and adjacent to the Project site consist of 115kV, 66kV, 12kV, towers/power lines and attached communication lines. Facilities less than 34.5kV will be located underground if they are located adjacent to any streets proposed to be improved in conjunction with site improvements.

2.5.6.6 Natural Gas
The Gas Company will provide natural gas to the site. All proposed connections and modifications to Gas Company facilities would conform to Gas Company and City requirements.

2.5.6.7 Fiber Optics System
A backbone fiber optics system (conduits, tracer wire, and fiber) would be constructed within the Project backbone street system. Backbone fiber optic components (conduits, hand holes, tracer wire, and fiber) would be placed underground within a duct and structure system to be installed in a joint trench. In-tract fiber and conduit would be installed per the City’s in-tract fiber optic design guidelines (see:
1697
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Initial Study Page 2-24
https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/InformationTechnology/2014-12-16_in-tract_designguidelines.pdf).

2.5.6.8 Communications Services
Communications services, including wired and wireless telephone and internet services, are available through numerous private providers and would be provided on an asneeded basis. To the extent practical and consistent with City Conditions of Approval, existing and proposed wires, conductors, conduits, raceways, and similar communications improvements within the Project area would be installed underground.

Any necessary surface-mounted equipment, e.g., terminal boxes, transformers, meters, service cabinets, etc., would be screened and would conform to City building setback requirements.

2.5.7 ENERGY EFFICIENCY/SUSTAINABILITY
Energy-saving and sustainable design features and operational programs would be incorporated in all facilities developed pursuant to the Project. The Project would be required to comply with incumbent energy efficiency and performance standards established under the incumbent CALGreen Code and City of Ontario Climate Action Plan (CAP).

2.5.8 CONSTRUCTION AREA TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN
Temporary and short‐term traffic detours and traffic disruptions could result during construction activities including implementation of access and circulation improvements noted above. Accordingly, the Applicant would be responsible for the preparation and submittal of a Construction Area Traffic Management Plan (Plan). Typical elements and information incorporated in the Plan would include, but not be limited to:
• Name of on-site construction superintendent and contact phone number. • Identification of Construction Contract Responsibilities - For example, for excavation and grading activities, describe the approximate depth of excavation, and quantity of soil import/export (if any).
1698
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Initial Study Page 2-25
• Identification and Description of Truck Routes - to include the number of trucks and their staging location(s) (if any).
• Identification and Description of Material Storage Locations (if any). • Location and Description of Construction Trailer (if any). • Identification and Description of Traffic Controls - Traffic controls shall be provided per the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) if the occupation or closure of any traffic lanes, parking lanes, parkways or any other public right-of-way is required. If the right-of-way occupation requires configurations or controls not identified in the MUTCD, a separate traffic control plan must be submitted to the City for review and approval. All right-of-way encroachments would require permitting through the City. • Identification and Description of Parking - Estimate the number of workers and identify parking areas for their vehicles.
• Identification and Description of Maintenance Measures - Identify and describe measures taken to ensure that the work site and public right-of-way would be maintained (including dust control).

The Plan would be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of the first building permit. The Plan and its requirements would also be required to be provided to all contractors as one component of building plan/contract document packages.

2.5.9 OPENING YEAR
For the purposes of this analysis, the Project Opening Year is defined as 2025, by which time all proposed uses are assumed to be complete, occupied, and operational. 1699
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Initial Study Page 2-26

2.6 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The broad vision of the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment is to create a community with a mixture of uses, connected through a series of trails, which provides opportunities for people to live, work and play. Supporting 2022 Specific Plan Amendment objectives are listed below.

Livable Neighborhood Development
• Incorporate Traditional Neighborhood Design guiding principles during the design phase to provide for opportunities to achieve the Project’s vision statement, including:
o Connections. To provide a series of sidewalks and trails connecting community parks, civic uses, employment areas, mixed-use and transit stops designed to be pedestrian friendly to avoid unnecessary automobile trips. o Traditional Street Network. To design a hierarchy of streets connected in a grid network with a variety of routes for pedestrians and vehicles, as well as creating a visually favorable and comfortable environment for pedestrians and bicyclists.
o Main Street Environment. To design commercial/retail areas to a human scale with storefronts oriented to the street providing a “Main Street” atmosphere for strolling and shopping, all within walking distance from most homes. o Public Spaces. To create plazas, parks, and community gathering places placed within centralized areas providing synergy between adjacent land uses. o Identifiable Neighborhoods. To design neighborhoods around a discernable center, which may include a small park, square, school, or mixed-use center, within a five-minute walking distance.
o Mix of Housing. To provide neighborhoods with a range of household types:
a variety of single-family detached homes, attached units for young families, and live/work units for small at-home businesses.
• Design a mixed-use environment to ensure compatible uses that are cohesive and integrate a diversity of residential neighborhoods, with a range of commercial uses, and supporting open spaces.
1700
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Initial Study Page 2-27
• Utilize transportation, utility, and greenways/open space networks to establish clear edges and boundaries.
• Accommodate residential, commercial, open space, public, and other uses in accordance with the generalized distribution of uses depicted within the City’s TOP Land Use Plan.
• Implement elements that will ensure walkability throughout the Project Area to discourage automobile dependency and encourage walking, biking, and other forms of transportation. This is achieved through the incorporation of subarea greenways and pedestrian connections and through sensitive site design of mixeduse development. • Implement technological advances within residential communities, including internet access, to allow residents to shop and work from home and to decrease reliance on automobiles.
• Provide opportunity for at least one major public plaza/square as a centerpiece of community activities, including events and celebrations, outdoor performances, community meetings, picnics, farmers markets, and similar functions. • Establish a clearly defined “edge” for the City’s TOP area, where appropriate, that avoids the use of walls and creation of a “walled” enclave. • Incorporate electrical transmission corridors and similar elements to form “edges” for residential neighborhoods and centers and/or accommodate public greenways/trails/corridors.

Residential District Objectives
• Create a livable community with neighborhoods designed at a human scale and oriented for pedestrian access to mixed-use, educational, and recreational uses. • Provide for a range and diversity of housing products (detached single-family, detached and attached condominiums, and townhomes) that respond to a variety of homeownership needs and desires.
• Design residential projects to complement the character of adjacent neighborhoods.
• Encourage interaction among residents through the provision of an organized, simple, and “neo-traditional” system of streets, pathways, and entries to allow 1701
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Initial Study Page 2-28
residents to walk or bike to parks, recreation, and public facilities (including schools).
• Promote outdoor activity and casual social contact among residents and neighbors by designing neighborhoods around a central park where they can gather. • Provide a focal point of activity within each residential planning area that may include a park, school, common area, or public meeting facility. • Encourage architectural styles and traditional design elements that reflect the historic and eclectic mixture of architecture, reflective of the greater Ontario area. • Increase densities adjacent to commercial centers.
• Establish clear, defined “edges” and “entries” that contribute to neighborhood identity.
• Avoid the use of walls to separate residential areas from arterials and other high traffic volume streets by expanded landscape setbacks, frontage roads, and other appropriate techniques.
• Include clustered multi-family housing within the Residential District, in order to create a diverse range of housing products and opportunities, while still in keeping with the overall low-density residential designation.
• Locate higher-density residential uses that provide population to support adjacent regional commercial centers.
• Provide sufficient on-site recreational amenities within higher density developments.
• Include community-oriented uses such as public meeting rooms, plazas and courtyards, and similar uses.
• Establish visual and physical links among the individual multi-family developments to create a cohesive and continuous corridor. • Design building elevations to promote visual interest. • Provide linkages between community service facilities, multi-family corridors, and residential neighborhoods.

Regional Commercial/Mixed-Use District Objectives
• Accommodate a diversity of large-scale retail, community and neighborhood shopping, office, medical research, entertainment, hotel/motel, dining, housing, 1702
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Initial Study Page 2-29
cultural, public, and similar uses that will serve the Project area and neighboring Planning Areas.
• Function with a high level of activity and/or employment. • Accommodate development of multi-family housing, mixed-use buildings that incorporate housing and retail/office, and live/work facilities. • Accommodate single-use buildings and mixed-use structures containing a variety of uses from residential over retail or office-to-office over retail. • Encourage traditional, mixed-use design of commercial buildings, by requiring a lower maximum floor area ration (FAR) for single-use buildings, and a higher maximum FAR for mixed-use buildings.
• Develop plaza areas and other amenities to provide places of social interaction. • Include one or more public “squares” to serve as gathering places. • Incorporate modulated building volumes, mass, height, and articulated facades to create individual spaces.
• Site a portion of the buildings on peripheral streets to provide connectivity to adjacent uses.
• Orient buildings towards the local streets whenever possible to create an urban edge and sense of arrival and place.
• Include sidewalks of sufficient width to accommodate pedestrian activity and outdoor restaurants, newsstands, and other uses.
• Create visual interest through the opening of streets and sidewalks/plazas towards building elevations.
• Incorporate landscaping to enhance the environment.
• Visually integrate parking structures to continue the intended design character of the district.
• Incorporate multi-family housing to create a cohesive and continuous corridor. • Ensure an appropriate mix of uses (residential and commercial) that are compatible.
• Encourage pedestrian access and ease of use within the mixed-use area by designing pedestrian and bike paths.
• Create a “Main Street” environment with buildings designed to a human scale where pedestrian activity is not overwhelmed by automobile traffic. 1703
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Initial Study Page 2-30
• Utilize urban design to create a “Gateway” or portal to the Ontario Ranch.

Industrial District Objectives
• Incorporate transitions and/or buffers between commercial/mixed-use and industrial areas and adjacent residential areas.
• Contribute to the regional jobs to housing balance by providing employment opportunities while minimizing development impacts on surrounding neighborhoods.
• Create a high-quality industrial park development that attracts an array of businesses and provides employment opportunities within proximity to area residents.
• Provide safe and efficient access/circulation routes for the distribution/transportation of goods.

Circulation Objectives
• Provide a circulation system designed to promote pedestrian activity through a network of off-street pedestrian walkways linking each neighborhood to parks, mixed-use commercial, and residential uses.
• Design a hierarchy of streets connected in a grid network with a variety of routes for pedestrians and vehicles, creating a visually attractive, enhanced, and comfortable environment for pedestrians and bicyclists. • Design streets to incorporate landscaped parkways and pedestrian walkways separated from the street to enhance safety and enjoyment of residents and visitors. • Provide opportunities for transit connections and alternative modes of transportation.

Recreation/Trails Objectives
• Provide new recreational opportunities for residents through the development of a series of public and private parks.
• Provide a series of pedestrian trails connecting community parks, civic uses, mixed-use, and transit stops designed to be pedestrian friendly to avoid unnecessary automobile trips.
1704
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Initial Study Page 2-31
• Incorporate off-street multi-use trails within the Southern California Edison easements.
• Incorporate a system of on- and off-street bicycle pathways with access from the residences to mixed-use areas.
• Use landscaping and streetscape materials that are low maintenance in recreation and trail areas.
• Provide a system of on-street bikeways integrated throughout the Project to provide access to schools, parks, and commercial uses.
• Provide new recreational opportunities for residents through the development of a series of parks ranging in size.

Community Facilities Objectives
• Incorporate existing major utilities into the overall fabric of the community. • Provide opportunities for incorporation of community facilities (e.g., schools, fire station) as identified by affected agencies.

2.7 DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS AND PERMITS
Discretionary actions, permits, and related consultation(s) necessary to approve and implement the Project include, but are not limited to, the following.

2.7.1 LEAD AGENCY DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS AND PERMITS
• EIR Certification;
• Approval of the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment;
• Approval of Tentative Parcel Maps;
• Approval of Development Agreements; and
• Approval of Development Plans.

2.7.2 OTHER CONSULTATION AND PERMITS
Anticipated consultation and permits necessary to realize the Project would or may include the following:
1705
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Initial Study Page 2-32
• Permitting by/through the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) pursuant to requirements of the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit.
• Permitting by/through the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for certain equipment or land uses that may be implemented pursuant to the Project.
• Permitting (i.e., utility construction and connection permits) from affected utility purveyors, notably the City of Ontario, IEUA, and SCE.

Other ministerial permits necessary to realize all on- and off-site improvements related to the development of the Project.
1706

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
1707
Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-1

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION

3.1 PROJECT TITLE
Rich-Haven Specific Plan Project (Project)
PSPA22-001

3.2 LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Ontario, Planning Department
303 East “B” Street
Ontario, CA 91764
Contact: Charles Mercier, Principal Planner

3.3 PROJECT APPLICANT
BrookCal Ontario LLC/Richland Developers, Inc.
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 425
Irvine, CA 92612

3.4 BACKGROUND AND PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Rich-Haven Specific Plan (RHSP) was approved by the City of Ontario in 2015, with subsequent Specific Plan Amendments approved in 2016, 2018, and 2021. The current (2021) Rich-Haven Specific Plan (“2021 Specific Plan”) comprises approximately 584 acres located west of Interstate 15 (I-15), and south of State Route 60 (SR-60). The 2021 Specific Plan Area lies within the 8,200-acre Ontario Ranch area, bounded generally by Riverside Drive to the north, “Old” East Edison Avenue [alignment] to the south, Mill Creek Avenue and Hamner Avenue to the east, and Haven Avenue to the west. Location of the 2021 Specific Plan is presented at Figure 2.1-1. The location and boundaries of the 2022 RHSP Specific Plan Amendment evaluated in this Initial Study (IS) coincide with the location and boundaries in the 2021 Specific Plan.
1708
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-2
The 2021 Specific Plan entitlements allow for development of up to 7,194 dwelling units (all residential types), up to 990,902 square feet of commercial/office space, up to 1,183,525 square feet of light industrial uses, approximately 27 acres of public parkland, and approximately 20 acres of Southern California Edison (SCE) Parcel open space and SCE Easements. The 2022 RHSP Specific Plan Amendment (Project, Project) evaluated in this Initial Study (IS) proposes a new amendment of the RHSP.

Under the proposed 2022 RHSP Specific Plan Amendment, the Specific Plan Area would be developed with up to 7,194 dwelling units, up to 925,002 square feet of commercial space, and up to 2,767,148 square feet of light industrial uses. Other existing RHSP land uses, e.g., public parkland, Southern California Edison (SCE) Parcel open space and SCE Easements would not be substantively affected under the 2022 RHSP Specific Plan Amendment. This IS evaluates potential environmental impacts of buildout of the Specific Plan Area that would result from the 2022 RHSP Specific Plan Amendment.1 In summary, the proposed 2022 Specific Plan Amendment would result in the following primary revisions to the 2021 Specific Plan:

2. Total commercial development would be reduced by approximately 65,900 square feet, an approximate 6.7 percent reduction in the 2021 Specific Plan commercial entitlements.

3. Total light industrial development would be increased by approximately 1,583,623 square feet, an approximate 134 percent increase from the 2021 Specific Plan Amendment.
1 Potential environmental impacts of the Rich Haven Specific Plan were initially evaluated in Rich Haven Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, July 3, 2007 (SCH No. 2006051081). Subsequent Rich Haven Specific Plan Amendments: 2015, 2016, 2018, 2021 have been evaluated as Addendums to Certified EIRs.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-3
Other aspects and attributes of the 2021 Specific Plan would be substantively maintained under the proposed 2022 Specific Plan Amendment.

The discussions presented in this IS reflect preliminary 2022 Specific Plan Amendment information available to date, and reflect the range and types of uses envisioned under this Project. Based on the findings of this IS, the Project may result in certain potentially significant environmental impacts. Accordingly, potential environmental impacts of the Project will be evaluated and documented in a Project EIR. Within the subsequent Project EIR, discussions will be revised to reflect any substantive changes that may occur as the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment is further defined. Please refer also to the detailed discussion of the Project characteristics and attributes presented at IS Section 2.0, Project Description.

3.5 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION, DOCUMENTS

INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Section 15150 of the State CEQA Guidelines permits and encourages that an environmental document incorporate by reference other documents that provide relevant data. The documents outlined in this Section are hereby incorporated by reference, and the pertinent material is summarized throughout this Initial Study. All documents incorporated by reference are available through the City of Ontario Planning Department.

The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP 2050), TOP 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (TOP 2050 SEIR), TOP 2050 Policy Plan (General Plan) Component As one component of The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP 2050), the City has updated the City Policy Plan (General Plan). Concurrent with the General Plan approval process, the City has certified the TOP 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (TOP 2050 SEIR) addressing the potential impacts of the General Plan as updated under TOP 2050. TOP 2050 and TOP 2050 SEIR2 can be accessed at: https://www.ontarioplan.org/top2050/. 2 TOP 2050 SEIR comprises TOP 2050 Draft SEIR, TOP 2050 Final SEIR, and all supporting technical analyses. These documents can be accessed at https://www.ontarioplan.org/top2050/, or by contacting the City of Ontario.
1710
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-4
As noted at IS Section 2.0, Project Description, the Project has been planned and designed to be consistent with TOP 2050 and would therefore not likely result in impacts not currently identified and addressed in TOP 2050 SEIR. Within this analysis, unless otherwise noted, TOP 2050 and TOP 2050 SEIR are the basis for the Project’s potential environmental impacts. TOP 2050 SEIR is a Supplemental EIR tiering off of TOP 2010 Certified EIR. TOP 2050 SEIR identifies potentially significant impacts resulting from TOP 2050 not already considered and addressed in TOP 2010 Certified EIR. As a corollary, impacts that are identified as less-than-significant under TOP 2050 SEIR are also less-than-significant under TOP 2010 Certified EIR. 2022 Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment
The 2022 Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment is the Project evaluated in this IS. To the extent practical, substantive provisions of the Project have been summarized in this IS (see: IS Section 2.0, Project Description). The 2022 Specific Plan Amendment is currently in draft form, and when completed, will be appended to the Project EIR.

3.6 EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST CATEGORIES
“No Impact” applies where the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. For example, if the project site is not located in a fault rupture zone, then the item asking whether the project would result in or expose people to potential impacts involving fault rupture should be marked as “No Impact.” “Less-Than-Significant Impact” applies where the impact would occur, but the magnitude of the impact is considered insignificant or negligible. For example, a development that would nominally increase the amount of surface water runoff generated at a project site would be considered to have a less-than-significant impact on surface water runoff.
“Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less-Than-Significant Impact.” Incorporated mitigation measures should be outlined within the checklist and a discussion should be provided which explains how the 1711
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-5
measures reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. This designation is appropriate for a Mitigated Negative Declaration, where potentially significant issues have been analyzed and mitigation measures have been recommended. “Potentially Significant Impact” applies where the project has the potential to cause a significant and unmitigable environmental impact. If there are one or more items marked as “Potentially Significant Impact,” an EIR is required. 1712
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-6

3.7 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST AND SUBSTANTIATION
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
I. 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, rocks,
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) In a non-urbanized area, 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 the
day or nighttime views in the area?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Substantiation:
a, c) Less-Than-Significant Impact. There are no scenic vistas within the Project site, nor would the Project otherwise adversely affect a designated scenic vista. Views of the San Gabriel Mountains, located to the north of the City, are the dominant scenic resource in the area.

The Project is located in an urbanized area and would be subject to those provisions of TOP 2050 General Plan and City of Ontario Development Code governing scenic quality. TOP 2050 General Plan Community Development 1713
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-7
Element establishes multiple policies that protect scenic resources and promote high quality, visually compatible development. For example, TOP General Plan 2050 Community Design Element Policy CD-1.5 requires that “all major northsouth streets be designed and redeveloped to feature views of the San Gabriel Mountains, which are part of the City’s visual identity and a key to geographic orientation. Such views should be free of visual clutter, including billboards and may be enhanced by framing with trees”; Policy CD-2.1 encourages “all development projects to convey visual interest and character . . .”; Policy CD-2.15 supports “excellence in design and construction quality through collaboration with trade and professional organizations that provide expertise, resources and programs for developers, builders and the public” (TOP 2050 Policy Plan, p. 91).

TOP 2050 General Plan policies governing scenic quality, including those noted above, ensure protection of scenic resources and promote visually compatible and appealing development. These policies are implemented through the City of Ontario Development Code (Development Code Chapter 6.0 Development and Subdivision Regulations, et al.). The City would assure that the Project as implemented would conform to applicable provisions of the Project including the Project Development Regulations and Design Guidelines. The Project Development Regulations and Design Guidelines would, at a minimum, be required to conform to provisions of TOP 2050 General Plan and Development Code. Conformance with the Project would minimize the potential for the Project to adversely affect scenic resources or result in development that would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.

Lastly, the Project has been designed to be consistent with TOP 2050, and by extension would not result in impacts not considered and addressed in the TOP 2050 SEIR. TOP 2050 SEIR concludes that the potential for TOP 2050 General Plan to adversely affect scenic vistas or conflict with zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality would be less-than-significant (TOP 2050 DSEIR Table ES-2, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation; TOP 2050 DSEIR Section 5.1, Aesthetics).
1714
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-8
Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or to conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality is considered less-than-significant. b) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The City of Ontario is served by three freeways, including Interstate 10 (I-10), Interstate 15 (I-15), and State Route 60 (SR-60). The segments of these freeways located within the City are not designated as scenic highways by the California Department of Transportation. There are no scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rocks, outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway located within the Project site. Nor does the Project propose or require facilities or operations that would otherwise substantially damage such resources.

Lastly, the Project has been designed to be consistent with TOP 2050, and by extension would not result in impacts not considered and addressed in the TOP 2050 SEIR. TOP 2050 SEIR concludes that the potential for TOP 2050 General Plan to adversely affect scenic resources would be less-than-significant (TOP 2050 DSEIR Table ES-2, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation; TOP 2050 DSEIR Section 5.1, Aesthetics).

On this basis, the potential for the Project to substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rocks, outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway is considered less-than-significant. d) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The Project would create new sources of lighting, including ground, building-mounted, wall-mounted, and pole-mounted lighting fixtures. The Project would also provide illuminated exterior signs. The City would assure that the Project, as implemented, contains Development Regulations and Design Guidelines that would, at a minimum, conform to City regulations addressing lighting and light overspill (see: Development Code, Division 6.01 – District Standards and Guidelines, Lighting). All subsequent development within the Project area would be required to conform with the Project Regulations and Design 1715
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-9
Guidelines addressing light, glare and overspill. Conformance with the Project would minimize the potential for the Project to result in adverse light and glare impacts.

Lastly, the Project has been designed to be consistent with TOP 2050, and by extension would not result in impacts not considered and addressed in the TOP 2050 SEIR. TOP 2050 SEIR concludes that the potential for TOP 2050 General Plan to create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect the day or nighttime views in the area would be less-than-significant (TOP 2050 DSEIR Table ES-2, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation; TOP 2050 DSEIR Section 5.1, Aesthetics).

Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect the day or nighttime views in the area is considered less-than-significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
II. 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 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
1716
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-10
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
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 nonagricultural 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 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Substantiation:
a) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The California Department of Conservation (CDC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring (FMMP) System designates properties within the Project site as: “Prime Farmland,” “Grazing Land,” and “Other Land.” Please refer to Figure II-1. See also: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. 1717
Figure II-1
California Important Farmland Finder
Source: California Department of Conservation

NOT TO SCALE
1718
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-12
The City of Ontario does not prohibit the transition of agricultural land to urban uses.

While existing agricultural uses are allowed to persist and are accommodated as transitional uses under the City’s Agricultural Overlay District, the City Land Use Plan does not formally designate or allocate any areas of the City as “Agricultural” land uses.

The City of Ontario has acknowledged the planned transition of existing agricultural uses to urbanized uses pursuant to TOP 2050 Land Use Plan (Land Use Plan). As discussed in TOP 2050 DSEIR, “because former agriculture areas within Ontario are now already designated for nonagricultural uses and the current TOP is the baseline for this SEIR, the Proposed Project [TOP 2050] would not conflict with agricultural uses and would not result in conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use” (TOP 2050 DSEIR, p. 5.2-14).

The Project is consistent with TOP 2050 and with land uses and development anticipated under TOP 2050 SEIR. Further, the Project would implement provisions of the Project and requirements of the City Development Code that support buffering of, and separation between, agricultural and urban uses. These requirements support the City’s planned orderly transition of existing agricultural uses to urban uses. These requirements include, but are not limited to:
• Project setback and screening standards that act to buffer and separate potentially incompatible uses.
• City of Ontario Development Code requirements including a minimum 100-foot separation between “a new residential, commercial or industrial development or structure used for public assembly and an existing animal feed trough, corral/pen or an existing dairy/feed lot including manure stockpiles and related wastewater detention basins” (Development Code Chapter 6 Development and Subdivision Regulations, p. 6.01-63).
1719
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-13
Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to result in adverse impacts related to conversion of Farmlands to non-agricultural use would be less-thansignificant. b) Less-Than-Significant Impact.

Agricultural Zoning
The Project site is Zoned “Specific Plan.” The Project does not propose or require uses or activities that would otherwise result in potentially adverse effects at agriculturally-zoned properties. Based on the preceding, Project impacts to or affecting agricultural-zoned properties would be less-than-significant.

Williamson Act Contracts
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (the Williamson Act, Government Code Sections 51200 through 51297.4) encourages the preservation of agricultural lands through tax incentives due to the increasing trend toward the conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses. The Act enables counties and cities to designate agricultural preserves (Williamson Act lands) and within these preserves offer preferential taxation to agricultural landowners based on the agricultural incomeproducing value of the property.

One property within the Project site (APN 0218-161-13) is currently under a Williamson Act Contract (Contract No. 71-235). Buildout of the Project site would require the cancellation or nonrenewal of Contract No. 71-235.

The Project has been designed to be consistent with TOP 2050. Buildout of the Project site and cancellation or nonrenewal of Contract No. 71-235 are consistent with development anticipated under TOP 2050 as evaluated in TOP 2020 SEIR. In this regard, TOP 2050 SEIR concluded that development of the City (including the Project site) pursuant to TOP 2050 would result in City-wide cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts. The Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands beyond those already considered and addressed in TOP 2050 1720
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-14
SEIR. As such, impacts from the Project in this respect would be less than significant. See also: TOP 2050 DSEIR Table ES-2, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation; TOP 2050 DSEIR Section

5.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources.

Based on the preceding, Project impacts to, or affecting, Williamson Act Contract properties would be less-than-significant.
c, d) No Impact. There is currently no land in the City of Ontario that qualifies as forest land or timberland. Neither TOP 2050 General Plan nor the City’s Development Code provide such designations. As such, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land or timberland, or result in the loss or conversion of forest land.
e) No Impact. The Project does not involve other changes to the environment that could result in the conversion of farmland or forest land to other uses beyond those identified under the preceding discussions.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
III. 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
☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
1721
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-15
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Substantiation:
a) Potentially Significant Impact. The Project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), which includes all of Orange County, and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The SCAQMD is locally responsible for administration and implementation of the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Development of the Project could result in the production of additional criteria air pollutants which may interfere with, or obstruct, implementation of the AQMP. These potential impacts will be addressed in the Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) prepared as part of the Project EIR. Mitigation measures will be developed to address any potentially significant impacts. b, c) Potentially Significant Impact. Project demolition activities would result in site disturbance and generation of fugitive dust, and could also result in disturbance and release of asbestos, lead or other toxic materials that may be present in existing onsite structures or in subsurface improvements. Project construction activities would generate fugitive dust and construction equipment emissions.

The implemented Project land uses would generate vehicular trips and associated vehicular-source air pollutant emissions. Project truck traffic would generate diesel emissions and diesel particulate matter (DPM). DPM is a known carcinogen that could result in, or contribute to, adverse health effects. On-site Project operations 1722
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-16
would result in energy consumption and byproduct air pollutant emissions.

Construction-source and operational-source emissions resulting from the Project may contribute to existing and projected regional exceedances of criteria pollutants within the Basin. Localized concentrations of construction-source and operationalsource emissions could adversely affect sensitive receptors.

These potential impacts will be addressed in the Project EIR AQIA. Mitigation measures will be developed to address any potentially significant impacts. d) Less-Than-Significant Impact. Temporary, short-term odor releases are potentially associated with Project construction activities. Potential sources of odors associated with construction activities would include, but not be limited to: asphalt/paving materials, glues, paint, and other architectural coatings. Construction-source odor impacts are minimized through compliance with established regulations (Code of Federal Regulations [CFR], Subpart H-Materials Handling, Storage Use and Disposal, et al.) addressing construction materials storage, use, and disposal. In pertinent part the isolation/containment devices or mechanisms specified under these regulations prevent significant release of odors. The Project would be required to comply with these regulations.

Uses typically considered to be sources of odors or other emissions that could adversely affect a substantial number of people include agricultural operations, cement plants, wastewater treatment plants, and the like. The Project proposes none of these. Rather, the Project would implement contemporary residential, commercial, light industrial, parks, and open-space uses.

Refuse generated by the Project uses could be a source of localized odors. Project refuse is required to be collected, contained, and disposed of as stipulated in the City of Ontario Municipal Code (see: Municipal Code, Chapter 3: Integrated Solid Waste Management). Per the Municipal Code, refuse is to be disposed of in covered receptacles and routinely removed, thereby limiting the escape of odors to the open 1723
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-17
air. Any odors generated would be temporary and transient, with little or no potential to adversely affect a substantial number of people.

Further, all Project construction activities, uses and occupancies would be required to conform to SCAQMD Rule 402. Rule 402 provides in pertinent part that there shall be no “discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.”
Lastly, the Project has been designed to be consistent with TOP 2050, and by extension would not result in impacts not considered and addressed in the TOP 2050 SEIR. As concluded in TOP 2050 SEIR, the potential for TOP 2050 General Plan to result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people would be less-than-significant (TOP 2050 DSEIR Table ES-2, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation; TOP 2050 DSEIR Section 5.3, Air Quality).

Based on the preceding discussion, the potential for the Project to result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people is considered less-than-significant.

Sources: City of Ontario Policy Plan, A Component of The Ontario Plan 2050 (Placeworks); The Ontario Plan 2050 DSEIR, SCH No. 2021070364 (Placeworks) May 2022; City of Ontario Development Code; Code of Federal Regulations; SCAQMD Rule 402; Project Application Materials.
1724
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-18
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. 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.)
though 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 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?
☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
1725
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-19
Substantiation:
a – f) Potentially Significant Impact. Historic and on-going ground-disturbing activities within, and in areas adjacent to, the Project site have substantially altered the Project site from its natural state. Notwithstanding, certain biological resources may be adversely affected by the Project. Special status species that have the potential to occur within the Project or that could be otherwise affected by Project construction and operations include, but are not limited to: the Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly, the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat, and the Burrowing Owl. Therefore, there is a potential for the Project to result in a range of potentially significant biological resources impacts. Accordingly, a Biological Resources Assessment will be conducted as part of the Project EIR. The Assessment will evaluate all potential biological resources impacts listed above that could result from Project construction and operations. The results of the Assessment, along with any necessary mitigation measures, will be presented in the Project EIR.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
V. 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 formal cemeteries?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
1726
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-20
Substantiation:
a, b) Potentially Significant Impact. There are no known historic structures or archaeological resources located within the Project site nor would the Project affect any known off-site resources of historical or archaeological significance. However, TOP 2050 SEIR indicates the potential for discovery of as yet unknown archeological and paleontological resources within the General Plan area is high (TOP 2050 DSEIR, p. 5.7-23).

In areas affected by Project development, historic or archaeological resources may persist in a buried context. These resources could be disturbed during Project sitedisturbing activities. The Project EIR will include a Cultural Resources Assessment of potential historical and archaeological resources impacts that could result from the Project. The Assessment will evaluate and address all potential on-site and offsite cultural resources impacts that could result from the Project. The results of the Assessment, along with any necessary mitigation measures, will be presented in the Project EIR.
c) Less-Than-Significant Impact. There are no known formal cemeteries or informal burial sites within the Project site or in off-site areas that would likely be affected by Project construction activities. The likelihood of encountering human remains in the course of Project development is therefore considered minimal. Further, as required under California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 (b) should human remains be encountered in the course of Project development, “there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has determined . . . that the remains are not subject to the provisions of Section 27491 of the Government Code or any other related provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or 1727
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-21
her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.”
Additionally, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 (c) provides that “[i]f the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American, or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission.” All Project activities would be required to comply with provisions of the California Health and Safety Code and Public Resources Code as summarized above, minimizing or avoiding the potential to disturb human remains.

Lastly, the Project has been designed to be consistent with TOP 2050, and by extension would not result in impacts not considered and addressed in the TOP 2050 SEIR. As concluded in TOP 2050 SEIR, the potential for TOP 2050 General Plan to adversely affect human remains would be less-than-significant (TOP 2050 DSEIR Table ES-2, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation; TOP 2050 DSEIR Section 5.5, Cultural Resources).

Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries would be less-than-significant.

Sources: City of Ontario Policy Plan, A Component of The Ontario Plan 2050 (Placeworks); The Ontario Plan 2050 DSEIR, SCH No. 2021070364 (Placeworks) May 2022; City of Ontario Development Code; California Health and Safety Code; California Public Resources Code; Project Application Materials.
1728
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-22
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. 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?
☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
Substantiation:
a, b) Potentially Significant Impact. The Project would allow for development and operation of various new residential, light industrial, and commercial uses. When compared to existing conditions, construction and operation of the Project would result in increased consumption of energy resources. The Project EIR will analyze the potential for Project consumption of energy resources to result in environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy.

Potential for the Project to conflict with state or local energy plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency will also be evaluated in the Project EIR. Mitigation measures will be proposed for those impacts determined to be potentially significant.

Sources: Project Application Materials.
1729
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-23
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. 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 onor 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 (1994),
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
1730
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-24
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geological feature?
☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
Substantiation:
a. i) Less-Than-Significant Impact. TOP 2050 DSEIR Figure 5.7-2, Regional Faults and Fault Zones identifies active and/or potentially active fault zones in the region, none of which are located within the City. There are no active faults known with the Project site. The Project site is outside any Fault Rapture Hazard Zone (formerly AlquistPriolo Zone). The Project does not propose actions or facilities that would otherwise exacerbate known or probable adverse earthquake fault conditions.

Lastly, the Project has been designed to be consistent with TOP 2050, and by extension would not result in impacts not considered and addressed in the TOP 2050 SEIR. As concluded in TOP 2050 SEIR, the potential for TOP 2050 General Plan to cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault would be less-than-significant (TOP 2050 DSEIR Table ES-2, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation; TOP 2050 DSEIR Section 5.7, Geology and Soils).

Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault is considered less-than-significant. a. ii – iii) Potentially Significant Impact. The Project does not propose actions or facilities that would exacerbate known or probable adverse strong seismic ground shaking, or seismic-related ground failure conditions. However, Southern California in general, including the Project site and surrounding areas, is generally susceptible to seismic events. Therefore, there is a potential for the Project to directly or indirectly 1731
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-25
cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving strong seismic ground shaking, and/or seismic-related ground failure (including liquefaction). As part of the Project EIR, a Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation will be prepared, addressing these potential impacts. Mitigation will be proposed for any impacts determined to be potentially significant. a. iv) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The Project site topography evidences little internal difference, with a moderate northeast to southwest downward trending slope, averaging between +2.0 % to -2.3% (Google Earth Imagery 2022). The Project site is not considered internally susceptible to land sliding. Any slopes manufactured in the course of Project development would be subject to review and approval by the City Building Department to ensure their stability. Adjacent properties also present little topographic relief.

Lastly, the Project has been designed to be consistent with TOP 2050, and by extension would not result in impacts not considered and addressed in the TOP 2050 SEIR. As concluded in TOP 2050 SEIR, the potential for TOP 2050 General Plan to exacerbate geologic hazards in the City, such as on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse would be less-than-significant (TOP 2050 DSEIR Table ES-2, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation; TOP 2050 DSEIR Section 5.7, Geology and Soils).

Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving landslides is considered less-than-significant. b) Less-Than-Significant Impact. Project construction activities would temporarily expose underlying soils, thereby increasing their susceptibility to erosion. Potential erosion impacts incurred during construction activities are mitigated below the level of significance through the Project’s mandated compliance with a Cityapproved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), as well as compliance with SCAQMD Rules that prohibit grading activities and site disturbance during 1732
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-26
high wind events. At Project completion, potential soil erosion impacts in the area will be resolved, as pavement, roads, buildings, and landscaping are established, overcovering previously-exposed soils.

The Project does not propose altering existing topography in a manner that would result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. All Project development plans would be subject to review and approval by the City. As part of this review, the City would ensure that permanent slopes and slope protection would conform to City requirements, thereby minimizing the potential for soil erosion over the life of the Project. City review and approval of development plans would also ensure that stormwater management systems are incorporated that would minimize potential erosion from stormwater runoff, both on-site and off-site.

Lastly, the Project has been designed to be consistent with TOP 2050, and by extension would not result in impacts not considered and addressed in the TOP 2050 SEIR. As concluded in TOP 2050 SEIR, the potential for TOP 2050 General Plan to result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less-than-significant (TOP 2050 DSEIR Table ES-2, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation; TOP 2050 DSEIR Section 5.7, Geology and Soils).

Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil is considered less-than-significant. c, d) Potentially Significant Impact. Adverse/unstable soils or subsurface conditions may exist within the Project site and would be considered potentially significant impacts.

As part of the Project EIR, a Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation will be prepared, addressing these potential impacts. Mitigation will be proposed for any impacts determined to be potentially significant.
1733
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-27
e) Less-Than Significant Impact. The Project uses would be served by municipal sewer services. No septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed by the Project.

Moreover, the Project has been designed to be consistent with TOP 2050, and by extension would not result in impacts not considered and addressed in the TOP 2050 SEIR. As concluded in TOP 2050 SEIR, the potential for TOP 2050 General Plan to 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 would be less-than-significant (TOP 2050 DSEIR Table ES-2, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation; TOP 2050 DSEIR Section 5.7, Geology and Soils).

On this basis, the potential for the Project to affect or be affected by soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be less-than-significant.
f) Potentially Significant Impact. No known paleontological resources or unique geological features exist within the Specific Plan area. However, such resources may exist within the Project site and could be affected by site-disturbing activities. As part of the Project EIR, a Paleontological Resources Assessment will be prepared.

This Assessment, in combination with the Project Geotechnical Investigation, will evaluate and substantiate the potential for the Project to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature.

Pending information indicating otherwise, there is the potential for the Project to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature. The Project EIR will evaluate these impacts and mitigation will be proposed for those impacts determined to be potentially significant.

Sources: City of Ontario Policy Plan, A Component of The Ontario Plan 2050 (Placeworks); The Ontario Plan 2050 DSEIR, SCH No. 2021070364 (Placeworks) May 2022; City of Ontario Development Code; Project Application Materials. 1734
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-28
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the
project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
Substantiation:
a, b) Potentially Significant Impact. Project construction and operations would generate Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. The Project’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions may be potentially significant, both as a source of environmental impacts and in context of applicable plans, policies and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHGs. Accordingly, a Greenhouse Gas Analysis (GHGA) will be prepared as part of the Project EIR. The GHGA findings, together with any necessary mitigation measures, will be presented within the Project EIR.

Source: Project Application Materials.
1735
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-29
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. 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
likely 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 the 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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
1736
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-30
Substantiation:
a – c) Potentially Significant Impact. Implementation of the Project would not require the transportation, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous or potentially hazardous materials beyond those typically employed for the construction and maintenance of the Project uses. However, the Project site could be affected by or could result in potentially significant hazards/hazards materials impacts due to structure demolition, potential presence of methane gas, presence of organic materials, and general hazards or hazardous conditions associated with current and historic agricultural and dairy farming uses.

Prior to, or concurrent with construction of the Project facilities, remediation of existing significant hazards/hazardous materials conditions would be required.

These remedial actions could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport or disposal of hazardous materials; could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment; and could emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The Project EIR will evaluate these potential impacts and will propose mitigation for those impacts determined to be potentially significant.
d) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The subject site is not included on the hazardous materials sites list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.

Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations, ensuring that hazards/hazardous materials impacts are maintained at levels that would be less-than-significant.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-31
result in development of sites that are included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment would be less-than-significant (TOP 2050 DSEIR Table ES-2, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation; TOP 2050 DSEIR Section 5.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials).

On this basis, the potential for the Project to be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 is considered less-than-significant.
e) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The Project site is located within the area subject to provisions of the ONT Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP, July 2018).

The ALUCP defines the ONT Airport Influence Area (AIA) as an area in which current and future airport-related noise, overflight, safety, and airspace protection factors may significantly affect land uses or necessitate restriction on those uses. The Project site is located outside the ONT safety zones (see: TOP 2050 DSEIR Figure 5.9- 2, Airport Safety Zones). All Project development would be required to comply with ALUCP requirements, thereby precluding or minimizing potential airport/aircraftrelated hazards. The Project does not propose or require uses that would contribute to potential airport/aircraft-related hazards.

Moreover, the Project has been designed to be consistent with TOP 2050, and by extension would not result in impacts not considered and addressed in the TOP 2050 SEIR. As concluded in TOP 2050 SEIR, the potential for TOP 2050 General Plan to expose developments or populations to airport/aircraft-related hazards would be less-than-significant (TOP 2050 DSEIR Table ES-2, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation; TOP 2050 DSEIR Section 5.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials).

Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to result in a safety hazard for the people residing or working in the project area is considered less-than-significant. 1738
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-32
Please refer also to discussions addressing airport/aircraft-source noise presented at Checklist Item XIII. Noise (c).
f) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The Project does not propose or require permanent alteration of vehicle circulation routes, and would not interfere with any identified emergency response or emergency evacuation plan. Consistent with City policies, coordination with the local fire and police departments during pre-construction review of Project plans would ensure that potential interference with emergency response plans and evacuation plans are avoided.

Moreover, the Project has been designed to be consistent with TOP 2050, and by extension would not result in impacts not considered and addressed in the TOP 2050 SEIR. As concluded in TOP 2050 SEIR, the potential for TOP 2050 General Plan to impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan would be less-than-significant (TOP 2050 DSEIR Table ES-2, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation; TOP 2050 DSEIR Section 5.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials).

Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan is considered less-than-significant.
g) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The Project site is located in an urbanizing area, and no wildlands are located in the vicinity of the Project site. Fire protection services are provided to the City and the Project site by the Ontario Fire Department. Preconstruction coordination with Fire Department staff and adherence to local fire regulations during construction and operation of the Project would be required. The City and Fire Department would require that fire prevention/fire suppression measures are incorporated in the Project designs and that water delivery systems serving the Project site provide adequate fire flow. Creation and maintenance of firebreaks and fire-defensible spaces adjacent to building and roadways as required by the City and Fire Department would further reduce the potential for exposure to 1739
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-33
wildland fires and the spread of wildland fires. The City would also enforce weed abatement measures, minimizing potential fire fuel loads. Additionally, development of the Project site would act to reduce fire hazards by eliminating existing fire fuel loads such as manure, hay, and weeds; while improving area fire protection infrastructure systems.

Lastly, the Project has been designed to be consistent with TOP 2050, and by extension would not result in impacts not considered and addressed in the TOP 2050 SEIR. As concluded in TOP 2050 SEIR, the potential for TOP 2050 General Plan to expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires would be less-than-significant (TOP 2050 DSEIR Table ES-2, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation; TOP 2050 DSEIR Section 5.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials).

Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to result in significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires is considered less-than-significant.

Please also refer also to the discussions at subsequent Checklist Item XX, Wildfire.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
X. 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?
☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
1740
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-34
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
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 onor off-site? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ (ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or offsite?
☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
(iii) create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
(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?
☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
Substantiation:
a, e) Potentially Significant Impact. Runoff from the Project area may include oils from paved areas and other chemicals which may contribute to degradation of surface and groundwater quality. The Project may also conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan, thereby resulting in potentially significant environmental impacts. Analysis of potential impacts in regard to water quality standards/waste 1741
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-35
discharge requirements, and consistency with an applicable water quality control plan and/or sustainable groundwater management plan will be included in the Project EIR. Mitigation measures will be incorporated to address any potentially significant impacts.
b) Less-Than-Significant Impact. Direct additions or withdrawals of groundwater are not proposed by the Project. Further, construction proposed by the Project will not involve substructures or other intrusions at depths that would significantly impair or alter the direction or rate of flow of groundwater. Water is provided throughout the City by the City of Ontario Utilities Department.3 Groundwater which may be consumed by the Project and the City of Ontario, as a whole, would be recharged pursuant to the Department’s policies and programs. The Project site is not a designated groundwater recharge area. The Project does not propose or require facilities or operations that would otherwise adversely affect designated recharge areas.

Moreover, the Project has been designed to be consistent with TOP 2050, and by extension would not result in impacts not considered and addressed in the TOP 2050 SEIR. As concluded in TOP 2050 SEIR, the potential for TOP 2050 General Plan to substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge and thereby impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin would be less-than-significant (TOP 2050 DSEIR Table ES-2, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation; TOP 2050 DSEIR Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality).

Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin is considered less-than-significant.
3 Water supply availability to the Project generally is discussed at Checklist Item XIX, Utilities and Service Systems.
1742
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-36
c (i) Less-Than-Significant Impact. Please refer to previous discussions at Checklist Item VII, Geology and Soils (b).
c (ii, iv) Potentially Significant Impact. The Project would implement new structures and surface improvements that could result in substantially increased rates of surface runoff, with resulting increased on-site or off-site flooding potential. Similarly, Project structures and surface improvements could alter existing area stormwater runoff patterns in a manner that would create, impede, or redirect flood flows. The Project EIR will address these potential impacts. Mitigation will be proposed for impacts determined to be potentially significant.
c (iii) Potentially Significant Impact. The increase in impervious surfaces created by development of the Project site would result in decreased absorption rates and increased surface runoff. Development of the Project site could also substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner that could 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. The Project EIR will address these potential impacts. Mitigation will be proposed for impacts determined to be potentially significant. d) Potentially Significant Impact. As shown at TOP 2050 DSEIR Figure 5.10-2, Flood Hazard Zones, the Project site is not located proximate to a 100-year flood plain.

The Project site does however lie within the dam inundation zone for the potential San Antonio Dam (see: TOP 2050 DSEIR Figure 5.10-3, Dam Inundation Zones). The Project uses would include limited on-site storage of conventional materials such as petroleum products, landscape fertilizer, cleaning products, etc. that could be released should the Project site be inundated. On this basis, there is a potential risk of release of pollutants due to inundation of the Project site. This impact will be evaluated in the Project EIR. Mitigation will be proposed if the impact is determined to be potentially significant.
1743
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-37
Sources: City of Ontario Policy Plan, A Component of The Ontario Plan 2050 (Placeworks); The Ontario Plan 2050 DSEIR, SCH No. 2021070364 (Placeworks) May 2022; City of Ontario Development Code; Project Application Materials.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. 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?
☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
Substantiation:
a) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The developed Project would establish a pattern of cohesive and complementary land uses. The Project configuration and orientation of land uses, combined with integral development standards and design guidelines, act to preclude division or disruption of an established community, whether that community be internal or external to the Project site.

Physical arrangement of surrounding areas would not be modified or otherwise affected by the Project. Based on the preceding discussion, the Project’s potential to disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community is considered less-than-significant.

b) Potentially Significant Impact. The Project comprises an amendment to the current Rich-Haven Specific Plan. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is intended to achieve land use designations that best represent the development and land use activities contemplated by the Project.
1744
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-38
When a project includes amendments to the applicable land use designation(s), inconsistency with the existing designation(s) is an element of the project itself, which then requires a legislative policy decision of the agency. The request and subsequent approval of a change in designation in this regard does not of itself signify a potential environmental effect. Land use changes proposed by the Project could however result in physical changes translating to potentially significant environmental impacts, as discussed elsewhere in this IS. These potential impacts, as well as Project consistency with applicable land use policies addressing environmental effects, will be evaluated in the Project EIR.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. 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 to 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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Substantiation:
a, b) Less-Than-Significant Impact. Mineral resources in the City are limited to construction aggregates such as sand and gravel. There are currently no permitted mining operations located within the City (TOP 2050 DSEIR, p. 5.12-2). TOP 2050 DSEIR at Figure 5.12-1, Areas of Mineral Resource Significance, indicates that the Project site is 1745
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-39
classified pursuant to the California Geological Survey as Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3). The Project does not propose or require facilities or operations that would affect the availability of locally important or regionally important mineral resources.

Moreover, the Project has been designed to be consistent with TOP 2050, and by extension would not result in impacts not considered and addressed in the TOP 2050 SEIR. As concluded in TOP 2050 SEIR, the potential for TOP 2050 General Plan to result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource would be less-thansignificant (TOP 2050 DSEIR Table ES-2, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation; TOP 2050 DSEIR Section 5.12, Mineral Resources).

On this basis, the potential for the Project to result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and to the residents of the state; or 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 is considered less-than-significant.

Sources: City of Ontario Policy Plan, A Component of The Ontario Plan 2050 (Placeworks); The Ontario Plan 2050 DSEIR, SCH No. 2021070364 (Placeworks) May 2022; Project Application Materials.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. 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?
☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
1746
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-40
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise?
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?
☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
Substantiation:
a - c) Potentially Significant Impact. Construction of the Project would temporarily increase localized noise levels, and occupation of Project facilities will establish long-term stationary operational noise sources. These noise sources could adversely affect sensitive receptors. Further, Project traffic may increase noise levels along affected area roadways, with potentially adverse effects at receiving land uses. Additionally, there is the potential for the Project land uses to be adversely affected by noise generated by operations of the Ontario International Airport.

Accordingly, a Noise Impact Analysis will be prepared as part of the Project EIR.

The Analysis will evaluate and address all Project-source noise impacts. The Analysis will also address potential effects of noise generated by Ontario International Airport operations. Mitigation measures will be proposed for impacts determined to be potentially significant.

Sources: City of Ontario Policy Plan, A Component of The Ontario Plan 2050 (Placeworks); The Ontario Plan 2050 DSEIR, SCH No. 2021070364 (Placeworks) May 2022; City of Ontario Development Code; Project Application Materials. 1747
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-41
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in the area, either directly (e.g., by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (e.g., through the extension or roads or
other infrastructure)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Substantiation:
a) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The Project proposes new and reconfigured residential uses that would directly contribute to population growth. Additionally, the Project light industrial and commercial uses would create additional employment opportunities that could indirectly contribute to population growth. Development proposed by the Project responds globally to existing and anticipated market demands of the City and region, and employment generated by the Project would be a byproduct of this anticipated growth. The Project represents a component of development and growth anticipated by the City, as reflected by the site’s TOP 2050 General Plan Land Use designations.

Moreover, the Project has been designed to be consistent with TOP 2050, and by extension would not result in impacts not considered and addressed in the TOP 2050 SEIR. As concluded in TOP 2050 SEIR, the potential for TOP 2050 General Plan to induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area would be less-thansignificant (TOP 2050 DSEIR Table ES-2, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation; TOP 2050 DSEIR Section 5.14, Population and Housing).
1748
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-42
Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to result in or induce substantial unplanned population growth, either directly or indirectly is considered less-than-significant.
b) Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project would maintain net residential development within the Specific Plan Area when compared to land uses and development entitled under the 2021 Specific Plan. That is, under both the 2021 Specific Plan and the proposed 2022 SPA, 7,194 dwelling units (all residential types) would be entitled. Locations and configurations of entitled residential uses would however be amended under the 2022 SPA. These amendments would not eliminate housing, diminish the potential for new housing, or displace persons from existing housing.

Moreover, the Project would be implemented consistent with TOP 2050. TOP 2050 SEIR concludes that the potential for TOP 2050 General Plan to displace people or housing, necessitating construction of replacement housing would be less-thansignificant (TOP 2050 DSEIR Table ES-2, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation; TOP 2050 DSEIR Section 5.14, Population and Housing).

Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere is considered less-than-significant.

Sources: City of Ontario Policy Plan, A Component of The Ontario Plan 2050 (Placeworks); The Ontario Plan 2050 DSEIR, SCH No. 2021070364 (Placeworks) May 2022; City of Ontario Development Code; Project Application Materials. 1749
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-43
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of the 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:
a) Fire Protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Police Protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Schools? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Parks? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Other public facilities?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Substantiation:
a) Less-Than-Significant Impact. Fire suppression and emergency response services for the Project would be provided by the Ontario Fire Department (OFD). TOP 2050 SEIR recognizes the potential for development pursuant to The Ontario Plan, including development of the area encompassing the Project site to result in increased demands for fire protection services (TOP 2050 DSEIR, p. 5.15-3). TOP 2050 SEIR also recognizes that evaluation of potential environmental impacts resulting from the construction or expansion of new or modified fire protection facilities would be speculative until such time the location(s) of such facilities are determined. The Project provides for potential location of a new fire station at the northwest corner of Ontario Ranch Road (E – W) at Mill Creek Avenue (N – S).

Ultimate need for and location of this fire station would be subject to review and 1750
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-44
approval by the City and Fire Department. Environmental review of this facility would be conducted when and as required by the City.

Additionally, the Project would pay General City (GC) Development Impact Fees, a portion of which is available to offset incremental fire protection service demands generated by the Project. The Project Applicant would pay incumbent Development Impact Fees at issuance of building permit(s).

To the satisfaction of the OFD, the Project would comply with City and OFD fire prevention and suppression requirements, including building/site design requirements, substantiated fire flow adequacy, and provisions for emergency access, thereby reducing potential increased demands for fire protection services.

Lastly, the Project has been designed to be consistent with TOP 2050, and by extension would not result in impacts not considered and addressed in the TOP 2050 SEIR. TOP 2050 SEIR concludes that the potential for TOP 2050 General Plan to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of the new or physically altered fire protection and emergency services would be lessthan-significant (TOP 2050 DSEIR Table ES-2, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation; TOP 2050 DSEIR Section 5.15, Public Services).

Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of the new or physically altered fire protection facilities is considered less-than-significant. b) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The Project does not propose or require construction or modification of police protection facilities. The Project site is not designated or proposed as the location for new or modified police protection facilities. Incremental police protection service demands generated by the Project are offset through Project payment of City of Ontario General City (GC) Development Impact Fees. A portion of the City’s GC Development Impact Fees are allocated for police protection 1751
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-45
services. The Project Applicant would pay incumbent Development Impact Fees at issuance of building permit(s).

Additionally, the Project site plan concept and proposed building designs would be reviewed by the Ontario Police Department (OPD) to ensure incorporation of appropriate safety and security elements. Such design features would include secure building designs, defensible spaces, and area and facility security lighting. These design features would act to reduce Project demands for police protection services.

Lastly, the Project has been designed to be consistent with TOP 2050, and by extension would not result in impacts not considered and addressed in the TOP 2050 SEIR. TOP 2050 SEIR concludes that the potential for TOP 2050 General Plan to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of the new or physically altered police protection services would be less-than-significant (TOP 2050 DSEIR Table ES-2, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation; TOP 2050 DSEIR Section 5.15, Public Services).

Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of the new or physically altered police protection facilities is considered less-than-significant. c) Less-Than-Significant Impact. Public school services for the City of Ontario are provided by the following school districts:
• Chino Valley Unified School District;
• Cucamonga Elementary School District;
• Mountain View Elementary School District; and
• Ontario-Montclair Elementary School District.

Occupancy of the Project residential uses would directly contribute to demands on school services. Indirectly, the Project may contribute to area demands for school 1752
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-46
services if Project employees and their school age children would relocate to school districts serving the City.

The Project does not propose or require construction or modification of school facilities. The Project site is not designated or proposed as the location for new or modified school facilities.

Project incremental impacts to school services would be offset through mandated payment of school impact fees. The Project Applicant would pay incumbent school impact fees at issuance of building permit(s). Payment of school impact fees would reduce the Project’s potential impacts to school services to levels that would be lessthan-significant.

Lastly, the Project has been designed to be consistent with TOP 2050, and by extension would not result in impacts not considered and addressed in the TOP 2050 SEIR. TOP 2050 SEIR concludes that the potential for TOP 2050 General Plan to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of the new or physically altered school facilities would be less-than-significant (TOP 2050 DSEIR Table ES-2, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation; TOP 2050 DSEIR Section 5.15, Public Services).

Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of the new or physically altered school facilities is considered less-than-significant.
d) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The Project includes parks and open space nonrecreation areas that would complement and support development of the Specific Plan Area generally. Potential environmental effects of construction of these facilities are reflected in the scope on analysis of environmental impacts of the Project in total.
1753
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-47
Moreover, the Project has been designed to be consistent with TOP 2050, and by extension would not result in impacts not considered and addressed in the TOP 2050 SEIR. TOP 2050 SEIR concludes that the potential for TOP 2050 General Plan to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of the new or physically altered parks, recreational facilities, or recreational services would be less-than-significant (TOP 2050 DSEIR Table ES-2, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation; TOP 2050 DSEIR Section 5.16, Recreation).

Of themselves, environmental impacts of parks and open space non-recreation areas that would be constructed as part of the Project are considered less-than-significant. e) Less-Than-Significant Impact. Development of the Project would require established public agency oversight including, but not limited to, various plan check and permitting actions by the City. Impacts of the Project would fall within routine tasks of these agencies/departments and are paid for via plan check and inspection fees.

Impacts of the Project would not be of such magnitude that new or physically altered facilities would be required. There are no known or probable other public facilities that would be substantially affected by the Project.

Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of the new or physically altered other public facilities is considered less-than-significant.

Sources: City of Ontario Policy Plan, A Component of The Ontario Plan 2050 (Placeworks); The Ontario Plan 2050 DSEIR, SCH No. 2021070364 (Placeworks) May 2022; Project Application Materials.
1754
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-48
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
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 might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Substantiation:
a, b) Less-Than-Significant Impact. The Project includes parks and open space nonrecreation areas that would complement and support development of the Specific Plan Area generally. Potential environmental effects of construction of these facilities are reflected in the scope on analysis of environmental impacts of the Project in total. Of themselves, environmental impacts of parks and open space nonrecreation areas that would be constructed as part of the Project are considered lessthan-significant. New residential development within the City is required to pay GC Development Impact Fees, a portion of which would be allocated for parks facilities, acting to offset incremental demands on neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. The Applicant would pay all requisite GC Development Impact Fees.

Moreover, the Project has been designed to be consistent with TOP 2050, and by extension would not result in impacts not considered and addressed in the TOP 2050 SEIR. TOP 2050 SEIR concludes that the potential for TOP 2050 General Plan to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of the new or physically altered parks, recreational facilities, or recreational services 1755
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-49
would be less-than-significant (TOP 2050 DSEIR Table ES-2, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation; TOP 2050 DSEIR Section 5.16, Recreation). Please refer also to discussions presented at Checklist Item XV. Public Services (d).

Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated; or to require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment is considered less-than-significant.

Sources: City of Ontario Policy Plan, A Component of The Ontario Plan 2050 (Placeworks); The Ontario Plan 2050 DSEIR, SCH No. 2021070364 (Placeworks) May 2022; Project Application Materials.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. 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 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? ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
1756
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-50
Substantiation:
a) Potentially Significant Impact. The Project would generate auto, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle trips. The Project has the potential to result in increased demand on the local transportation system, including the roadway network, transit service, pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

New or modified land uses proposed under the Project could result in various changes to circulation patterns. Based on the preceding, the Project would have the potential to conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

The Project EIR will evaluate and assess the potential for the Project to conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and thereby result in potentially significant environmental impacts.
b) Potentially Significant Impact. Project traffic may result in substantial additional vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The EIR will evaluate Project VMT impacts against per capita, per service population, or other VMT significance thresholds implemented by the Lead Agency. Mitigation will be developed for impacts determined to be potentially significant.

For informational purposes, and to facilitate Lead Agency planning of area transportation system improvements, the Project EIR will also present a summary of anticipated level-of-service (LOS) deficiencies, together with recommended improvements to address identified deficiencies.
c, d) Potentially Significant Impact. Although preliminary review of the Project does not indicate elements or aspects that would be considered hazardous design features or result in inadequate emergency access, these considerations will be further evaluated in the Project EIR. Mitigation will be developed for impacts determined to be potentially significant.
1757
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-51
Source: Project Application Materials.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.
a) 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:
☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
(i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in the local
register of historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or
☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
(ii) 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 Resource Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
Substantiation:
a. i, ii) Potentially Significant Impact. There are no known Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) within the Project site. Nor is it anticipated that the Project would adversely affect off-site TCRs. However, detailed surveys confirming the presence or absence of these resources has not yet been conducted. A Tribal Cultural Resources Assessment of the Project site and potentially affected off-site areas will be prepared as an element of the Project EIR.

Tribal Resources consultation with requesting Tribes will be conducted as provided for under AB 52, Gatto. Native Americans: California Environmental Quality Act. Pending completion of the Project Cultural Resources survey and any requested Tribal Consultation(s), the potential for the Project to cause a substantial adverse change in the 1758
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-52
significance of a tribal cultural resource is considered potentially significant. The Project EIR will address these potential impacts. Mitigation will be proposed for impacts determined to be potentially significant.

Source: Project Application Materials.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.

Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment, storm water drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunication 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?
☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
1759
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-53
Substantiation:
a) Potentially Significant Impact. The Project would require new or altered infrastructure improvements for: water delivery, wastewater collection, storm water management, electric power distribution, natural gas service, and telecommunications service. Construction of or alteration of these facilities has the potential to cause significant environmental effects. The Project EIR will evaluate these potential impacts. Mitigation will be proposed for impacts determined to be potentially significant.
b) Potentially Significant Impact. The City of Ontario water supply is derived from a combination of local and imported water, obtained primarily from Ontario wells and treatment in the Chino Groundwater Basin, the Chino Desalter Authority (CDA) wells and treatment in the Chino Groundwater Basin, treated State Water Project water from the Water Facilities Authority (WFA), and recycled water from the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA), a member agency of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD).

The Project uses could increase demands on available water supplies. Water supply and availability are recognized as general issues of concern. The City will prepare a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) pursuant to the requirements of SB 610. The results of the WSA will be summarized within the Project EIR.

Pending completion of the Project WSA, the Project’s potential impacts to water supplies and potential effects on the availability of water are considered potentially significant, and will be further addressed in the Project EIR. Mitigation measures will be proposed for those impacts determined to be potentially significant.
c) Potentially Significant Impact. The City maintains a wastewater collection system and contracts with the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) for wastewater treatment. The Project uses could result in increased wastewater treatment 1760
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-54
demands that could exceed available wastewater treatment capacities. The Project EIR will evaluate the potential for the Project to generate wastewater exceeding available treatment capacities. Mitigation will be proposed for impacts determined to be potentially significant.
d, e) Potentially Significant Impact. Solid waste collection services are currently provided to City residents by the City of Ontario Solid Waste Department. Solid Waste generated by the Project would be disposed of at the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill, located in the City of Rialto. Implementation of the Project would result in increased solid waste generation. The Project EIR will evaluate the potential for Project uses to generate waste in excess of state or local standards, or to conflict with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Mitigation will be proposed for impacts determined to be potentially significant.

Sources: City of Ontario Policy Plan, A Component of The Ontario Plan 2050 (Placeworks); The Ontario Plan 2050 DSEIR, SCH No. 2021070364 (Placeworks) May 2022; Project Application Materials.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. 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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
1761
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-55
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Substantiation:
a - d) Less-Than-Significant Impact. CAL FIRE maintains California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps, including maps for State responsibility areas, as well as local responsibility areas.4 As shown on the State responsibility map for southwestern San Bernardino County, the City of Ontario is located within a local responsibility area. According to the local responsibility map, Ontario is located in a non-very high fire hazard severity zone (Non-VHFHSZ).

As such, the Project is not located within or near a state responsibility area, or within an area classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone. All development would be required to comply with City building and Fire Codes. All building plans within the City are reviewed by the Ontario Fire Department to ensure their compliance with the City’s fire code.

Moreover, the Project has been designed to be consistent with TOP 2050, and by extension would not result in impacts not considered and addressed in the TOP 2050 SEIR. TOP 2050 SEIR concludes that the potential for TOP 2050 General Plan to result in substantial adverse wildfire impacts would be less-than-significant 4 https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/
1762
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-56
(TOP 2050 DSEIR Table ES-2, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation; TOP 2050 DSEIR Section 5.20, Wildfire).

Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to substantially impair an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan, expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire, involve infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk, or result in significant postfire risks is considered less-than-significant.

Sources: CAL FIRE; City of Ontario Policy Plan, A Component of The Ontario Plan 2050 (Placeworks); The Ontario Plan 2050 DSEIR, SCH No. 2021070364 (Placeworks) May 2022; Project Application Materials.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
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 impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when reviewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
1763
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-57
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
Substantiation:
a) Potentially Significant Impact. Certain biological and cultural resources may be adversely affected by the Project. Potential impacts in this regard will be addressed within the Project EIR.
b) Potentially Significant Impact. The Project has the potential to result in cumulatively considerable impacts. As discussed in the previous environmental evaluation, implementation of the Project may result in potentially significant impacts under the environmental topics of:
• Air Quality;
• Biological Resources;
• Cultural/Tribal Resources;
• Energy;
• Geology and Soils;
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions;
• Hazards/Hazardous Materials;
• Hydrology/Water Quality;
• Land Use and Planning;
• Noise;
• Transportation; and
• Utilities and Service Systems.

Impacts of the Project, together with impacts of other known or probable related projects, may have considerably cumulative effects under the above-noted 1764
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Evaluation Initial Study Page 3-58
environmental topics. The Project EIR will identify the Project’s contribution to, and context within, potentially significant cumulative environmental impacts. c) Potentially Significant Impact. As indicated by this IS evaluation, the Project may cause or result in certain potentially significant environmental effects, resulting in potentially adverse effects to human beings. While adverse environmental effects that could affect human beings could, to some degree, be substantiated under all CEQA issue areas, Project impacts considered to be potentially significant and that could directly affect human beings include:
• Air Quality;
• Energy;
• Geology and Soils;
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions;
• Hazards/Hazardous Materials;
• Hydrology/Water Quality;
• Land Use;
• Noise;
• Transportation; and
• Utilities and Service Systems.

The Project EIR will address these environmental topics and present mitigation measures addressing potentially significant impacts.
1765

4.0 DETERMINATION
1766
1767
From: Vega, Jaqueline
To: Charles Mercier
Subject: PSPA22-001
Date: Friday, November 4, 2022 2:08:27 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Hello Charles,
Thank you for transmitting the above referenced project to ALUC for review. Please note that the proposed project may be influenced by Ontario International Airport. Please contact them for there procedures, additionally it seems like the project is outside the County and not in our jurisdiction.

Should you have any questions, please contact me.

Jackie Vega
Urban Regional Planner I
Confidentiality Disclaimer
This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure.

If you are not the author's intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please delete all copies, both electronic and printed, and contact the author immediately.

County of Riverside California [countyofriverside.us]
1768
Gavin Newsom, Governor
David Shabazian, Director
NOVEMBER 16, 2022
VIA EMAIL: [email protected]
Charles Mercier, Principal Planner
City of Ontario Planning Department
303 East B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
Dear Mr. Mercier:

INITIAL STUDY AND NOTICE OF PREPERATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE 2022 RICH-HAVEN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT, SCH# 2022100425
The Department of Conservation’s (Department) Division of Land Resource Protection (Division) has reviewed the Initial Study and Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the 2022 Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment Project (Project). The Division monitors farmland conversion on a statewide basis, provides technical assistance regarding the Williamson Act, and administers various agricultural land conservation programs. We offer the following comments and recommendations with respect to the project’s potential impacts on agricultural land and resources.

Project Description
The Rich-Haven Specific Plan (RHSP) was approved by the City of Ontario in 2015, with subsequent Specific Plan Amendments approved in 2016, 2018, and 2021. The current (2021) Rich-Haven Specific Plan comprises approximately 584 acres located west of Interstate I-15, and south of State Route SR-60. The 2021 Specific Plan Area lies within the 8,200-acre Ontario Ranch area, bounded generally by Riverside Drive to the north, “Old” East Edison Avenue to the south, Mill Creek Avenue and Hamner Avenue to the east, and Haven Avenue to the west. The location and boundaries of the 2022 RHSP Specific Plan Amendment evaluated in the Initial Study coincide with the location and boundaries in the 2021 Specific Plan.

In summary, the proposed 2022 Specific Plan Amendment would result in the following primary revisions to the 2021 Specific Plan:

State of California Natural Resources Agency | Department of Conservation 801 K Street, MS 14-15, Sacramento, CA 95814
conservation.ca.gov | T: (916) 324-0850 | F: (916) 327-3430 1769

Page 2 of 3 ends

2. Total commercial development would be reduced by approximately 65,900 square feet, an approximate 6.7 percent reduction in the 2021 Specific Plan commercial entitlements.

3. Total light industrial development would be increased by approximately 1,583,623 square feet, an approximate 134 percent increase from the 2021 Specific Plan Amendment.

Department Comments
The conversion of agricultural land represents a permanent reduction and significant impact to California’s agricultural land resources. CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be reviewed and applied to projects. Under CEQA, a lead agency should not approve a project if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available that would lessen the significant effects of the project.

All mitigation measures that are potentially feasible should be included in the project’s environmental review. A measure brought to the attention of the lead agency should not be left out unless it is infeasible based on its elements.

Consistent with CEQA Guidelines, the Department recommends the County consider agricultural conservation easements, among other measures, as potential mitigation. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15370 [mitigation includes “compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments, including through permanent protection of such resources in the form of conservation easements.”]) Mitigation through agricultural easements can take at least two forms: the outright purchase of easements or the donation of mitigation fees to a local, regional, or statewide organization or agency whose purpose includes the acquisition and stewardship of agricultural easements. The conversion of agricultural land should be deemed an impact of at least regional significance. Hence, the search for replacement lands should not be limited strictly to lands within the project’s surrounding area.

A helpful source for regional and statewide agricultural mitigation banks is the California Council of Land Trusts. They provide helpful insight into farmland mitigation policies and implementation strategies, including a guidebook with model policies and a model local ordinance. The guidebook can be found at:

California Council of Land Trusts
Of course, the use of conservation easements is only one form of mitigation that should be considered. Any other feasible mitigation measures should also be considered.

Indeed, the recent judicial opinion in King and Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814 (“KG Farms”) holds that agricultural conservation easements on a 1 to 1 ratio are not alone sufficient to adequately mitigate a project’s conversion of agricultural land. KG Farms does not stand for the proposition that agricultural 1770

Page 3 of 3 ends

conservation easements are irrelevant as mitigation. Rather, the holding suggests that to the extent they are considered, they may need to be applied at a greater than 1 to 1 ratio, or combined with other forms of mitigation (such as restoration of some land not currently used as farmland).

Conclusion
The Department recommends further discussion of the following issues:
• Type, amount, and location of farmland conversion resulting directly and indirectly from implementation of the proposed project. • Impacts on any current and future agricultural operations in the vicinity; e.g., land-use conflicts, increases in land values and taxes, loss of agricultural support infrastructure such as processing facilities, etc.
• Incremental impacts leading to cumulative impacts on agricultural land. This would include impacts from the proposed project, as well as impacts from past, current, and likely future projects.
• Proposed mitigation measures for all impacted agricultural lands within the proposed project area.
• Projects compatibility with lands within an agricultural preserve and/or enrolled in a Williamson Act contract.
• If applicable, notification of Williamson Act contract non-renewal and/or cancellation.

Conclusion
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on the Initial Study and Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the 2022 Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment Project. Please provide this Department with notices of any future hearing dates as well as any staff reports pertaining to this project. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact Farl Grundy, Associate Environmental Planner via email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Monique Wilber
Conservation Program Support Supervisor
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
November 14, 2022
Charles H Mercier, Principal Planner
City of Ontario, Planning Department
303 East B Street
Ontario, California 91764
Phone: (909) 395-2425
E-mail: [email protected]
RE: SCAG Comments on the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment [SCAG NO. IGR10750] Dear Charles H Mercier,
Thank you for submitting the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment (“proposed project”) to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for review and comment. SCAG is responsible for providing informational resources to regionally significant plans, projects, and programs per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to facilitate the consistency of these projects with SCAG’s adopted regional plans, to be determined by the lead agencies.1 Pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 375, SCAG is the designated Regional Transportation Planning Agency under state law and is responsible for preparation of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) including the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). SCAG’s feedback is intended to assist local jurisdictions and project proponents to implement projects that have the potential to contribute to attainment of Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) goals and align with RTP/SCS policies. Finally, SCAG is the authorized regional agency for Intergovernmental Review (IGR) of programs proposed for Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development activities, pursuant to Presidential Executive Order 12372.

SCAG staff has reviewed the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment in San Bernardino County. The proposed project includes a Specific Plan Amendment that would allow development of up to 7,194 dwelling units, up to 925,002 square feet (SF) of commercial space, and up to 2,767,148 SF of light industrial uses on a 584-acre site.

When available, please email environmental documentation to [email protected] providing, at a minimum, the full public comment period for review.

If you have any questions regarding the attached comments, please contact the Intergovernmental Review (IGR) Program, attn.: Annaleigh Ekman, Associate Regional Planner, at (213) 630-1427 or [email protected]. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Frank Wen, Ph.D.

Manager, Planning Strategy Department
1 Lead agencies such as local jurisdictions have the sole discretion in determining a local project’s consistency with the 2020 RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal) for the purpose of determining consistency for CEQA. 1778
November 14, 2022 SCAG No. IGR10750
Charles H Mercier Page 2

COMMENTS ON THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
RICH-HAVEN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT [SCAG NO. IGR10750]

CONSISTENCY WITH CONNECT SOCAL
SCAG provides informational resources to facilitate the consistency of the proposed project with the adopted 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS or Connect SoCal). For the purpose of determining consistency with CEQA, lead agencies such as local jurisdictions have the sole discretion in determining a local project’s consistency with Connect SoCal.

CONNECT SOCAL GOALS
The SCAG Regional Council fully adopted Connect SoCal in September 2020. Connect SoCal, also known as the 2020 – 2045 RTP/SCS, builds upon and expands land use and transportation strategies established over several planning cycles to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern. The long-range visioning plan balances future mobility and housing needs with goals for the environment, the regional economy, social equity and environmental justice, and public health. The goals included in Connect SoCal may be pertinent to the proposed project.

These goals are meant to provide guidance for considering the proposed project. Among the relevant goals of Connect SoCal are the following:

SCAG CONNECT SOCAL GOALS
Goal #1: Encourage regional economic prosperity and global competitiveness Goal #2: Improve mobility, accessibility, reliability and travel safety for people and goods Goal #3: Enhance the preservation, security, and resilience of the regional transportation system Goal #4: Increase person and goods movement and travel choices within the transportation system Goal #5: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality Goal #6: Support healthy and equitable communities
Goal #7: Adapt to a changing climate and support an integrated regional development pattern and transportation network
Goal #8: Leverage new transportation technologies and data-driven solutions that result in more efficient travel Goal #9: Encourage development of diverse housing types in areas that are supported by multiple transportation options
Goal #10: Promote conservation of natural and agricultural lands and restoration of habitats For ease of review, we encourage the use of a side-by-side comparison of SCAG goals with discussions of the consistency, non-consistency or non-applicability of the goals and supportive analysis in a table format. Suggested format is as follows:
1779
November 14, 2022 SCAG No. IGR10750
Charles H Mercier Page 3

SCAG CONNECT SOCAL GOALS
Goal Analysis
Goal #1: Encourage regional economic prosperity and global competitiveness
Consistent: Statement as to why;
Not-Consistent: Statement as to why;
Or
Not Applicable: Statement as to why;
DEIR page number reference
Goal #2: Improve mobility, accessibility, reliability and travel safety for people and goods
Consistent: Statement as to why;
Not-Consistent: Statement as to why;
Or
Not Applicable: Statement as to why;
DEIR page number reference
etc. etc.

Connect SoCal Strategies
To achieve the goals of Connect SoCal, a wide range of land use and transportation strategies are included in the accompanying twenty (20) technical reports. Of particular note are multiple strategies included in Chapter 3 of Connect SoCal intended to support implementation of the regional Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) framed within the context of focusing growth near destinations and mobility options; promoting diverse housing choices; leveraging technology innovations; supporting implementation of sustainability policies; and promoting a Green Region. To view Connect SoCal and the accompanying technical reports, please visit the Connect SoCal webpage.

Connect SoCal builds upon the progress from previous RTP/SCS cycles and continues to focus on integrated, coordinated, and balanced planning for land use and transportation that helps the SCAG region strive towards a more sustainable region, while meeting statutory requirements pertinent to RTP/SCSs. These strategies within the regional context are provided as guidance for lead agencies such as local jurisdictions when the proposed project is under consideration.

The 2020 Connect SoCal also identifies a goods movement system in the SCAG region and develops strategies to address expected growth trends and demands in goods movement. For further information on the goods movement strategies, please see the 2020 Connect SoCal Goods Movement Technical Report. For further information on industrial development and warehousing in Southern California, please see Industrial Warehousing in the SCAG Region.

Connect SoCal identified Key Connections that lie at the intersection of land use, transportation and innovation meant to advance policy discussions and strategies to leverage new technologies and create better partnerships to increase progress on the regional goals. Accelerated Electrification is one of the Key Connections and was established to create a holistic and coordinated approach to de-carbonizing or electrifying passenger vehicles, transit, and goods movement vehicles. The Accelerated Electrification Key Connection sets a vision to reduce both the local and global emissions associated with multiple modes of transportation by deploying clean mobility solutions and the infrastructure needed to support them. SCAG staff encourages the lead agency to incorporate clean mobility solutions and supporting infrastructure into the project, as appropriate.

DEMOGRAPHICS AND GROWTH FORECASTS
A key, formative step in projecting future population, households, and employment through 2045 for Connect SoCal was the generation of a forecast of regional and county level growth in collaboration with expert demographers and economists on Southern California. From there, jurisdictional level forecasts were ground-truthed by subregions and local agencies, which helped SCAG identify opportunities and barriers to future development. This forecast helps the region understand, in a very general sense, where we are expected to grow, and allows SCAG to focus attention on areas that are experiencing change and may have increased transportation needs. After a year-long engagement effort with all 197 jurisdictions one-on-one, 82 percent of SCAG’s 197 jurisdictions provided feedback on the forecast 1780
November 14, 2022 SCAG No. IGR10750
Charles H Mercier Page 4
of future growth for Connect SoCal. SCAG also sought feedback on potential sustainable growth strategies from a broad range of stakeholder groups – including local jurisdictions, county transportation commissions, other partner agencies, industry groups, community-based organizations, and the general public. Connect SoCal utilizes a bottomup approach in that total projected growth for each jurisdiction reflects feedback received from jurisdiction staff, including city managers, community development/planning directors, and local staff. Growth at the neighborhood level (i.e., transportation analysis zone (TAZ) reflects entitled projects and adheres to current general and specific plan maximum densities as conveyed by jurisdictions (except in cases where entitled projects and development agreements exceed these capacities as calculated by SCAG). Neighborhood level growth projections also feature strategies that help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from automobiles and light trucks to achieve Southern California’s GHG reduction target, approved by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in accordance with state planning law. Connect SoCal’s Forecasted Development Pattern is utilized for long range modeling purposes and does not supersede actions taken by elected bodies on future development, including entitlements and development agreements. SCAG does not have the authority to implement the plan -- neither through decisions about what type of development is built where, nor what transportation projects are ultimately built, as Connect SoCal is adopted at the jurisdictional level. Achieving a sustained regional outcome depends upon informed and intentional local action. To access jurisdictional level growth estimates and forecasts for years 2016 and 2045, please refer to the Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report. The growth forecasts for the region and applicable jurisdictions are below.

Adopted SCAG Region Wide Forecasts Adopted City of Ontario Forecasts Year 2020 Year 2030 Year 2035 Year 2045 Year 2020 Year 2030 Year 2035 Year 2045 Population 19,517,731 20,821,171 21,443,006 22,503,899 192,072 221,806 236,012 269,050 Households 6,333,458 6,902,821 7,170,110 7,633,451 51,841 60,602 64,787 74,521 Employment 8,695,427 9,303,627 9,566,384 10,048,822 124,571 143,699 152,116 169,331

MITIGATION MEASURES
SCAG staff recommends that you review the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (Final PEIR) for Connect SoCal for guidance, as appropriate. SCAG’s Regional Council certified the PEIR and adopted the associated Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (FOF/SOC) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) on May 7, 2020 and also adopted a PEIR Addendum and amended the MMRP on September 3, 2020 (please see the PEIR webpage and scroll to the bottom of the page for the PEIR Addendum). The PEIR includes a list of project-level performance standards-based mitigation measures that may be considered for adoption and implementation by lead, responsible, or trustee agencies in the region, as applicable and feasible. Project-level mitigation measures are within responsibility, authority, and/or jurisdiction of project-implementing agency or other public agency serving as lead agency under CEQA in subsequent project- and site- specific design, CEQA review, and decision-making processes, to meet the performance standards for each of the CEQA resource categories. 1781
SENT VIA E-MAIL: November 11, 2022
[email protected]
Charles Mercier, Principal Planner
City of Ontario
Planning Department
303 East B Street
Ontario, California 91764
Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the PSPA22-001
South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. Our comments are recommendations on the analysis of potential air quality impacts from the Proposed Project that should be included in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Please send a copy of the Draft EIR upon its completion and public release directly to South Coast AQMD as copies of the Draft EIR submitted to the State Clearinghouse are not forwarded.

In addition, please send all appendices and technical documents related to the air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas analyses and electronic versions of all emission calculation spreadsheets, and air quality modeling and health risk assessment input and output files (not PDF files). Any delays in providing all supporting documentation for our review will require additional review time beyond the end of the comment period.

CEQA Air Quality Analysis
Staff recommends that the Lead Agency use South Coast AQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook and website1as guidance when preparing the air quality and greenhouse gas analyses. It is also recommended that the Lead Agency use the CalEEMod2land use emissions software, which can estimate pollutant emissions from typical land use development and is the only software model maintained by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association.

South Coast AQMD has developed both regional and localized significance thresholds. South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency quantify criteria pollutant emissions and compare the emissions to South Coast AQMD’s CEQA regional pollutant emissions significance thresholds3and localized significance thresholds (LSTs)4to determine the Proposed Project’s air quality impacts. The localized analysis can be conducted by either using the LST screening tables or performing dispersion modeling.

The Lead Agency should identify any potential adverse air quality impacts that could occur from all phases of the Proposed Project and all air pollutant sources related to the Proposed Project. Air quality impacts from both construction (including demolition, if any) and operations should be calculated.

Construction-related air quality impacts typically include, but are not limited to, emissions from the use of 1 South Coast AQMD’s CEQA Handbook and other resources for preparing air quality analyses can be found at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook. 2 CalEEMod is available free of charge at: www.caleemod.com. 3 South Coast AQMD’s CEQA regional pollutant emissions significance thresholds can be found at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf. 4 South Coast AQMD’s guidance for performing a localized air quality analysis can be found at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localized-significance-thresholds. 1782
Charles Mercier 2 November 11, 2022
heavy-duty equipment from grading, earth-loading/unloading, paving, architectural coatings, off-road mobile sources (e.g., heavy-duty construction equipment) and on-road mobile sources (e.g., construction worker vehicle trips, material transport trips, and hauling trips). Operation-related air quality impacts may include, but are not limited to, emissions from stationary sources (e.g., boilers and air pollution control devices), area sources (e.g., solvents and coatings), and vehicular trips (e.g., on- and off-road tailpipe emissions and entrained dust). Air quality impacts from indirect sources, such as sources that generate or attract vehicular trips, should be included in the analysis. Furthermore, emissions from the overlapping construction and operational activities should be combined and compared to South Coast AQMD’s regional air quality CEQA operational thresholds to determine the level of significance.

If the Proposed Project generates diesel emissions from long-term construction or attracts diesel-fueled vehicular trips, especially heavy-duty diesel-fueled vehicles, it is recommended that the Lead Agency perform a mobile source health risk assessment5.

Sensitive receptors are people that have an increased sensitivity to air pollution or environmental contaminants and include schools, daycare centers, nursing homes, elderly care facilities, hospitals, and residential dwelling units. The Proposed Project will include, among others, 7,194 residential units and is located in close proximity to Interstate 15 and State Route 60, and to facilitate the purpose of an EIR as an informational document, it is recommended that the Lead Agency perform a mobile source health risk assessment5to disclose the potential health risks6.

In the event that implementation of the Proposed Project requires a permit from South Coast AQMD, South Coast AQMD should be identified as a Responsible Agency for the Proposed Project in the Draft EIR. The assumptions in the air quality analysis in the EIR will be the basis for evaluating the permit under CEQA and imposing permit conditions and limits. Questions on permits should be directed to South Coast AQMD’s Engineering and Permitting staff at (909) 396-3385.

The California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective7is a general reference guide for evaluating and reducing air pollution impacts associated with new projects that go through the land use decision-making process with additional guidance on strategies to reduce air pollution exposure near high-volume roadways available in CARB’s technical advisory8.

The South Coast AQMD’s Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning9includes suggested policies that local governments can use in their General Plans or through local planning to prevent or reduce potential air pollution impacts and protect public health. It is recommended that the Lead Agency review this Guidance Document as a tool when making local planning and land use decisions.

Mitigation Measures
In the event that the Proposed Project results in significant adverse air quality impacts, CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures that go beyond what is required by law be utilized to minimize these impacts. Any impacts resulting from mitigation measures must also be analyzed. Several resources to 5 South Coast AQMD’s guidance for performing a mobile source health risk assessment can be found at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/mobile-source-toxics-analysis. 6 Ibid.
7 CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective can be found at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf.
8 CARB’s technical advisory can be found at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/landuse.htm. 9 South Coast AQMD. 2005. Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning.

Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/air-quality-guidance/complete-guidance-document.pdf. 1783
Charles Mercier 3 November 11, 2022
assist the Lead Agency with identifying potential mitigation measures for the Proposed Project include South Coast AQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook,10 South Coast AQMD’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the 2022 Air Quality Management Plan, 11 and Southern California Association of
Government’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.
12 Mitigation measures for operational air quality impacts from mobile sources that the Lead Agency should consider in the Draft EIR may include the following:
• Require zero-emissions (ZE) or near-zero emission (NZE) on-road haul trucks such as heavyduty trucks with natural gas engines that meet the CARB’s adopted optional NOx emissions standard at 0.02 grams per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr), if and when feasible. Given the state’s clean truck rules and regulations aiming to accelerate the utilization and market penetration of ZE and NZE trucks such as the Advanced Clean Trucks Rule13 and the HeavyDuty Low NOx Omnibus Regulation14, ZE and NZE trucks will become increasingly more available to use. The Lead Agency should require a phase-in schedule to incentive the use of these cleaner operating trucks to reduce any significant adverse air quality impacts. South Coast AQMD staff is available to discuss the availability of current and upcoming truck technologies and incentive programs with the Lead Agency. At a minimum, require the use of 2010 model year15 that meet CARB’s 2010 engine emissions standards at 0.01 g/bhp-hr of particulate matter (PM) and 0.20 g/bhp-hr of NOx emissions or newer, cleaner trucks. Include environmental analyses to evaluate and identify sufficient electricity and supportive infrastructures in the Energy and Utilities and Service Systems Sections in the CEQA document, where appropriate. Include the requirement in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts. Operators shall maintain records of all trucks associated with project construction to document that each truck used meets these emission standards, and make the records available for inspection. The Lead Agency should conduct regular inspections to the maximum extent feasible to ensure compliance. • Limit the daily number of trucks allowed at the Proposed Project to levels analyzed in the Final CEQA document. If higher daily truck volumes are anticipated to visit the site, the Lead Agency should commit to re-evaluating the Proposed Project through CEQA prior to allowing this higher activity level.
• Provide electric vehicle (EV) charging stations or at a minimum, provide the electrical infrastructure and electrical panels should be appropriately sized. Electrical hookups should be provided for truckers to plug in any onboard auxiliary equipment. 10 https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook 11 South Coast AQMD’s 2022 Air Quality Management Plan can be found at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/airquality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan (Chapter 4 - Control Strategy and Implementation). 12 Southern California Association of Governments’ 2020-2045 RTP/SCS can be found at:
https://www.connectsocal.org/Documents/PEIR/certified/Exhibit-A_ConnectSoCal_PEIR.pdf. 13 CARB. June 25, 2020. Advanced Clean Trucks Rule. Accessed at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-cleantrucks. 14 CARB has recently passed a variety of new regulations that require new, cleaner heavy-duty truck technology to be sold and used in state. For example, on August 27, 2020, CARB approved the Heavy-Duty Low NOx Omnibus Regulation, which will require all trucks to meet the adopted emission standard of 0.05 g/hp-hr starting with engine model year 2024. Accessed at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2020/hdomnibuslownox. 15 CARB adopted the statewide Truck and Bus Regulation in 2010. The Regulation requires diesel trucks and buses that operate in California to be upgraded to reduce emissions. Newer heavier trucks and buses must meet particulate matter filter requirements beginning January 1, 2012. Lighter and older heavier trucks must be replaced starting January 1, 2015. By January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses will need to have 2010 model year engines or equivalent. More information on the CARB’s Truck and Bus Regulation is available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/onrdiesel.htm. 1784
Charles Mercier 4 November 11, 2022
Mitigation measures for operational air quality impacts from other area sources that the Lead Agency should consider in the Draft EIR may include the following:
• Maximize use of solar energy by installing solar energy arrays. • Use light colored paving and roofing materials.
• Utilize only Energy Star heating, cooling, and lighting devices, and appliances. • Use of water-based or low VOC cleaning products that go beyond the requirements of South Coast AQMD Rule 1113.

Design considerations for the Proposed Project that the Lead Agency should consider to further reduce air quality and health risk impacts include the following:
• Clearly mark truck routes with trailblazer signs, so that trucks will not travel next to or near sensitive land uses (e.g., residences, schools, day care centers, etc.). • Design the Proposed Project such that truck entrances and exits are not facing sensitive receptors and trucks will not travel past sensitive land uses to enter or leave the Proposed Project site. • Design the Proposed Project such that any check-in point for trucks is inside the Proposed Project site to ensure that there are no trucks queuing outside. • Design the Proposed Project to ensure that truck traffic inside the Proposed Project site is as far away as feasible from sensitive receptors.
• Restrict overnight truck parking in sensitive land uses by providing overnight truck parking inside the Proposed Project site.

On May 7, 2021, South Coast AQMD’s Governing Board adopted Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) Program, and Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305. Rules 2305 and 316 are new rules that will reduce regional and local emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM), including diesel PM. These emission reductions will reduce public health impacts for communities located near warehouses from mobile sources that are associated with warehouse activities. Also, the emission reductions will help the region attain federal and state ambient air quality standards. Rule 2305 applies to owners and operators of warehouses greater than or equal to 100,000 square feet. Under Rule 2305, operators are subject to an annual WAIRE Points Compliance Obligation that is calculated based on the annual number of truck trips to the warehouse.

WAIRE Points can be earned by implementing actions in a prescribed menu in Rule 2305, implementing a site-specific custom plan, or paying a mitigation fee. Warehouse owners are only required to submit limited information reports, but they can opt in to earn Points on behalf of their tenants if they so choose because certain actions to reduce emissions may be better achieved at the warehouse development phase, for instance the installation of solar and charging infrastructure. Rule 316 is a companion fee rule for Rule 2305 to allow South Coast AQMD to recover costs associated with Rule 2305 compliance activities.

Since the Proposed Project consists of the development of up to 2,767,148-square-foot light industrial use area, if the Proposed Project’s light industrial use is for warehouse, the owners and operators will be required to comply with Rule 2305 once the warehouse is occupied. Therefore, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency review South Coast AQMD Rule 2305 to determine the potential WAIRE Points Compliance Obligation for future operators and explore whether additional project requirements and CEQA mitigation measures can be identified and implemented at the Proposed Project that may help future warehouse operators meet their compliance obligation16. South Coast AQMD staff is available to answer questions concerning Rule 2305 implementation and compliance by phone or email at 16 South Coast AQMD Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) Program. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-xxiii/r2305.pdf. 1785
Charles Mercier 5 November 11, 2022
(909) 396-3140 or [email protected]. For implementation guidance documents and compliance and reporting tools, please visit South Coast AQMD’s WAIRE Program webpage17.

Health Risk Reduction Strategies
Many strategies are available to reduce exposures, including, but are not limited to, building filtration systems with MERV 13 or better, or in some cases, MERV 15 or better is recommended; building design, orientation, location; vegetation barriers or landscaping screening, etc. Enhanced filtration units are capable of reducing exposures. However, enhanced filtration systems have limitations. For example, in a study that South Coast AQMD conducted to investigate filters 18, a cost burden is expected to be within
the range of $120 to $240 per year to replace each filter panel. The initial start-up cost could substantially increase if an HVAC system needs to be installed and if standalone filter units are required. Installation costs may vary and include costs for conducting site assessments and obtaining permits and approvals before filters can be installed. Other costs may include filter life monitoring, annual maintenance, and training for conducting maintenance and reporting. In addition, because the filters would not have any effectiveness unless the HVAC system is running, there may be increased energy consumption that the Lead Agency should evaluate in the Draft EIR. It is typically assumed that the filters operate 100 percent of the time while residents are indoors, and the environmental analysis does not generally account for the times when the residents have their windows or doors open or are in common space areas of the project.

These filters have no ability to filter out any toxic gases. Furthermore, when used filters are replaced, replacement has the potential to result in emissions from the transportation of used filters at disposal sites and generate solid waste that the Lead Agency should evaluate in the Draft EIR. Therefore, the presumed effectiveness and feasibility of any filtration units should be carefully evaluated in more detail prior to assuming that they will sufficiently alleviate exposures to diesel particulate matter emissions.

South Coast AQMD staff is available to work with the Lead Agency to ensure that air quality, greenhouse gas, and health risk impacts from the Proposed Project are accurately evaluated and mitigated where feasible. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Sam Wang
Sam Wang
Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR
Planning, Rule Development & Implementation
SW
SBC221018-15
Control Number
17 South Coast AQMD WAIRE Program. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/waire. 18 This study evaluated filters rated MERV 13 or better. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/handbook/aqmdpilotstudyfinalreport.pdf. Also see 2012 Peer Review Journal article by South Coast AQMD:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ina.12013.
1786
City of Ontario November 16, 2022
303 East “B” Street
Ontario, CA 91764-4196
Attention: Planning Department
Subject: PSPA22-001
Our review of the subject subdivision of PSPA22-001 reveals that the proposed development may interfere with easement rights, and/or facilities held by Southern California Edison within or adjacent to the subdivision boundaries.

Until such time as arrangements have been made with the developer to eliminate this interference, the development of the subdivision may unreasonably interfere with the complete and free exercise of Edison’s rights.

One copy of the following maps with scaled plans (1”=50’ maximum), including all maps submitted in hard copies or emailed in pdf format:
including grading, drainage, landscape and street improvement plans are required to be submitted by the developer to determine the extent of the interference. The Edison facilities and the easements should be plotted on the above reference maps. Included with the above referenced plans, the developer must state the proposed method to eliminate any interference.

Plans should be emailed to following address:

Southern California Edison Company
[email protected]
If you have any questions or need additional information in connection with the subject subdivision, please contact me at (909) 274-1078.

Jeff Clark
Title and Valuation
Vegetation & Land Management
cc:
1787
Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment (File No. PSPA22-001) Summary
Contact Information
SCH Number 2022100425
Lead Agency City of Ontario
Document Title Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment (File No. PSPA22-001) Document Type NOP - Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR Received 10/20/2022
Present Land Use Zoning - Rich-Haven Specific Plan / General Plan: TOP 2050 - LDR, LMDR, OS-NR, OS-R,

MU, IND, GC
Document Description The Project proposes a new amendment of the 2021 Rich-Haven Specific Plan (RHSP) and would be developed with up to 7,194 dwelling units, up to 925,002 square feet of commercial space, and up to 2,767,148 square feet of light industrial uses.

Name Charles H. Mercier
Agency Name City of Ontario
Job Title Principal Planner
Contact Types Lead/Public Agency
Address 303 East B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
Phone (909) 395-2036
Email [email protected]
Name Ross Geller
Agency Name Applied Planning, Inc
Job Title Consultant
Contact Types Consulting Firm
Address 11762 De Palma Road 1-C 310
Corona, CA 92883
Phone
1788
Location
Notice of Completion
(909) 937-0333
Email [email protected]
Name Tim Roberts
Agency Name BrookCal Ontario LLC/Richland Developers, Inc Job Title Project Applicant
Contact Types Project Applicant
Address 3161 Michelson Drive Suite 425
Irvine, CA 92612
Phone (714) 200-1550
Email [email protected]
Name Lorena Mejia
Agency Name City of Ontario
Job Title Senior Planner
Contact Types Lead/Public Agency
Address 303 East B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
Phone (909) 395-2036
Email [email protected]
Counties San Bernardino
Regions Citywide
Cross Streets Riverside Drive, Haven Avenue
Zip 91764
Total Acres 584
State Highways SR-60, I-15
Airports Ontario International Airport
State Review Period
Start
10/20/2022
1789
Attachments
Disclaimer: The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) accepts no responsibility for the content or accessibility of these documents. To obtain an attachment in a different format, please contact the lead agency at the contact information listed above. You may also contact the OPR via email at [email protected] or via phone at (916) 445-0613. For more information, please visit OPR’s Accessibility Site.

State Review Period End 11/19/2022
State Reviewing
Agencies
California Air Resources Board (ARB), California Department of Conservation (DOC), California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Inland Deserts Region 6 (CDFW), California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), California Department of Parks and Recreation, California Department of Transportation, District 8 (DOT), California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics (DOT), California Department of Transportation, Division of Transportation Planning (DOT), California Department of Water Resources (DWR), California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES), California Highway Patrol (CHP), California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), California Natural Resources Agency, California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region 8 (RWQCB), Department of Toxic Substances Control, Office of Historic Preservation, State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water, District 13 Development Types Residential (Units 7194, Acres 307.5), Commercial (Employment is unknown at this time and will be analyzed in DEIR)(Sq. Ft. 925002, Acres 59.4, Employees 1), Industrial (Employment is unknown at this time and will be analyzed in DEIR)(Sq. Ft. 1767148, Acres 115.5, Employees 1)
Local Actions Specific Plan, Site Plan
Project Issues Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Cumulative Effects, Drainage/Absorption, Flood Plain/Flooding, Geology/Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Hydrology/Water Quality, Land Use/Planning, Mandatory Findings of Significance, Noise, Population/Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Sewer Capacity, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities/Service Systems Local Review Period
Start
10/20/2022
Local Review Period End 11/19/2022
Notice of Completion
[NOC] Transmittal form
PSPA22-001_NOC_20221019 PDF 227 K PSPA22-001_NOP_20221019 PDF 112 K 1790

RICH HAVEN SPECIFIC
PLAN

TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Reference Number Agency Date
14822-03 TA Report City of Ontario December 16, 2022
REV
PREPARED BY: Charlene So, PE | [email protected]
Connor Paquin, PE | [email protected]
Aric Evatt | [email protected]
1791
14822-03 TA Report REV
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................................... ii Appendices ............................................................................................................................................................................... iv List of Exhibits.................................................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables .................................................................................................................................................... viii List of Abbreviated Terms ................................................................................................................................ ix 1 Introduction...............................................................................................................................................1

1.5 Summary of Findings ...............................................................................................................................................1

1.2 Project Overview.......................................................................................................................................................2

1.3 Analysis Scenarios .....................................................................................................................................................6

1.4 Study Area ....................................................................................................................................................................7

1.5 Deficiencies ..................................................................................................................................................................7

1.6 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................. 11 2 Methodologies ........................................................................................................................................19

2.1 Level of Service........................................................................................................................................................ 19

2.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis........................................................................................................................... 19

2.3 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Methodology ............................................................................................ 22

2.4 Queuing Analysis .................................................................................................................................................... 23

2.5 Minimum Acceptable Levels of Service (LOS)............................................................................................ 24

2.6 Deficiency Criteria .................................................................................................................................................. 24

2.7 Project Fair Share Calculation Methodology .............................................................................................. 25 3 Area Conditions ......................................................................................................................................27

3.1 Existing Circulation Network ............................................................................................................................. 27

3.2 City of Ontario General Plan Circulation Element.................................................................................... 27

3.3 City of Eastvale General Plan Circulation Element................................................................................... 31

3.4 Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities............................................................................................................................ 31

3.5 Transit Service.......................................................................................................................................................... 31

3.6 Existing (2022) Traffic Counts........................................................................................................................... 31

3.7 Intersection Operations Analysis..................................................................................................................... 38

3.8 Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 38

3.9 Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 42 4 Projected Future Traffic .........................................................................................................................43

4.1 Project Trip Generation ....................................................................................................................................... 43

4.2 Project Trip Distribution ...................................................................................................................................... 47

4.3 Modal Split................................................................................................................................................................. 47

4.4 Project Trip Assignment....................................................................................................................................... 47 1792
14822-03 TA Report REV
iii

4.5 Background Traffic................................................................................................................................................. 60

4.6 Cumulative Development Traffic..................................................................................................................... 60

4.7 Near-Term Traffic Conditions........................................................................................................................... 67

4.8 Horizon Year (2050) Volume Development............................................................................................... 67 5 E+P Traffic Conditions............................................................................................................................69

5.1 Roadway Improvements ..................................................................................................................................... 69

5.2 E+P (Phase 1) Growth Traffic Volume Forecasts...................................................................................... 69

5.2 E+P (Project Buildout) Growth Traffic Volume Forecasts..................................................................... 69

5.3 Intersection Operations Analysis..................................................................................................................... 69

5.4 Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 74

5.5 Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 75

5.6 Project Deficiencies and Recommended Improvements...................................................................... 75 6 Opening Year Cumulative (2027) Traffic Conditions..........................................................................79

6.1 Roadway Improvements ..................................................................................................................................... 79

6.2 Opening Year Cumulative (2027) Without Project Growth Traffic Volume Forecasts............ 79

6.3 Opening Year Cumulative (2027) With Project Traffic Volume Forecasts .................................... 79

6.4 Intersection Operations Analysis..................................................................................................................... 84

6.5 Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 84

6.6 Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 84

6.7 Project Deficiencies and Recommended Improvements...................................................................... 87 7 Horizon Year (2050) Traffic Conditions................................................................................................89

7.1 Roadway Improvements ..................................................................................................................................... 89

7.2 Without Project Traffic Volume Forecasts .................................................................................................. 89

7.3 With Project Traffic Volume Forecasts ......................................................................................................... 89

7.4 Intersection Operations Analysis..................................................................................................................... 89

7.5 Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 95

7.6 Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 95

7.7 Project Deficiencies and Recommended Improvements...................................................................... 97 8 Local and Regional Funding Mechanisms...........................................................................................99

8.1 City of Ontario Development Impact Fee Program................................................................................. 99

8.2 Measure “I” Funds ................................................................................................................................................ 100

8.3 Fair Share Contribution..................................................................................................................................... 101 9 References.............................................................................................................................................103 1793
14822-03 TA Report REV
iv

APPENDICES
Appendix 1.1: Approved Traffic Study Scoping Agreement
Appendix 1.2: Site Adjacent Queuing Analysis Worksheets Appendix 3.1: Traffic Counts – 2022
Appendix 3.2: Existing (2022) Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets Appendix 3.3: Existing (2022) Conditions Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Worksheets Appendix 3.4: Existing (2022) Conditions Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis Worksheets Appendix 4.1: Trip Generation SUmmary
Appendix 4.2: Post Processing Worksheets
Appendix 5.1: E+P (Phase 1) Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets Appendix 5.2: E+P (Buildout) Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets Appendix 5.3: E+P (Phase 1) Conditions Traffic Signal Warrant Operations Analysis Worksheets Appendix 5.4: E+P (Phase 1) Conditions Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis Worksheets Appendix 5.5: E+P (Buildout) Conditions Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis Worksheets Appendix 5.6: E+P (Phase 1) Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets With Improvements
Appendix 5.7: E+P (Buildout) Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets With Improvements
Appendix 6.1: Opening Year Cumulative (2027) Without Project Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets
Appendix 6.2: Opening Year Cumulative (2027) With Project Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets
Appendix 6.3: Opening Year Cumulative (2027) Without Project Conditions Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis Worksheets
Appendix 6.4: Opening Year Cumulative (2027) With Project Conditions Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis Worksheets
Appendix 6.5: Opening Year Cumulative (2027) Without Project Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets With Improvements
Appendix 6.6: Opening Year Cumulative (2027) With Project Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets With Improvements
1794
14822-03 TA Report REV
v
Appendix 7.1: Horizon Year (2050) Without Project Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets
Appendix 7.2: Horizon Year (2050) With Project Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets
Appendix 7.3: Horizon Year (2050) Without Project Conditions Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis Worksheets
Appendix 7.4: Horizon Year (2050) With Project Conditions Off-Ramp Queuing Analysis Worksheets Appendix 7.5: Horizon Year (2050) Without Project Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets With Improvements
Appendix 7.6: Horizon Year (2050) With Project Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis Worksheets With Improvements
1795
14822-03 TA Report REV
vi

LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1-1: Location Map..................................................................................................................................3 Exhibit 1-2: Preliminary Land Use Plan ...........................................................................................................4 Exhibit 1-3: Study Area.......................................................................................................................................5 Exhibit 1-4: Site Access Recommendations .................................................................................................12 Exhibit 1-5: Proposed Chino Avenue Improvements ..................................................................................17 Exhibit 3-1: Existing Number of Through Lanes and Intersection Controls (Page 1 of 2) ......................28 Exhibit 3-1: Existing Number of Through Lanes and Intersection Controls (Page 2 of 2 .......................29 Exhibit 3-2: City of Ontario 2050 General Plan Circulation Element .........................................................30 Exhibit 3-3: City of Eastvale Circulation Element..........................................................................................32 Exhibit 3-4: City of Eastvale General Roadway Plan Cross-Sections..........................................................33 Exhibit 3-5: City of Ontario 2050 Bicycle Facilities .......................................................................................34 Exhibit 3-6: Existing Pedestrian Facilities ......................................................................................................35 Exhibit 3-7: City of Ontario 2050 General Plan Transit Routes ..................................................................36 Exhibit 3-8: Existing Transit Facilities .............................................................................................................37 Exhibit 3-9: Existing (2022) Traffic Volumes (Page 1 of 2) ...........................................................................39 Exhibit 3-9: Existing (2022) Traffic Volumes (Page 2 of 2) ...........................................................................40 Exhibit 4-1: Project (Residential) Trip Distribution.......................................................................................48 Exhibit 4-2: Project (Non-Residential) Trip Distribution ..............................................................................49 Exhibit 4-3: Project (2C, 3C & 5A Industrial – Passenger Cars) Trip Distribution .....................................50 Exhibit 4-4: Project (2C, 3C & 5A Industrial – Trucks) Trip Distribution.....................................................51 Exhibit 4-5: Project (6A Industrial – Passenger Cars) Trip Distribution .....................................................52 Exhibit 4-6: Project (6A Industrial – Trucks) Trip Distribution.....................................................................53 Exhibit 4-7: Project Only (Phase 1) Traffic volumes (Page 1 of 2)...............................................................54 Exhibit 4-7: Project Only (Phase 1) Traffic volumes (Page 2 of 2)...............................................................55 Exhibit 4-8: Project Only (Project Buildout) Traffic volumes (Page 1 of 2) ................................................56 Exhibit 4-8: Project Only (Project Buildout) Traffic volumes (Page 2 of 2) ................................................57 Exhibit 4-9: Project Only (Variance) Traffic volumes (Page 1 of 2) .............................................................58 Exhibit 4-9: Project Only (Variance) Traffic volumes (Page 2 of 2) .............................................................59 Exhibit 4-10: Cumulative Development Locaton Map.................................................................................61 Exhibit 4-11: Cumulative Only Traffic Volumes (Page 1 of 2) .....................................................................62 1796
14822-03 TA Report REV
vii
Exhibit 4-11: Cumulative Only Traffic Volumes (Page 2 of 2) .....................................................................63 Exhibit 5-1: E+P (phase 1) Traffic Volumes (Page 1 of 2) .............................................................................70 Exhibit 5-1: E+P (phase 1) Traffic Volumes (Page 2 of 2) .............................................................................71 Exhibit 5-2: E+P (Buildout) Traffic Volumes (Page 1 of 2)............................................................................72 Exhibit 5-2: E+P (Buildout) Traffic Volumes (Page 2 of 2)............................................................................73 Exhibit 6-1: Opening Year Cumulative (2027) Without Project Traffic Volumes (Page 1 of 2)................80 Exhibit 6-1: Opening Year Cumulative (2027) Without Project Traffic Volumes (Page 2 of 2)................81 Exhibit 6-2: Opening Year Cumulative (2027) With Project Traffic Volumes (Page 1 of 2)......................82 Exhibit 6-2: Opening Year Cumulative (2027) With Project Traffic Volumes (Page 2 of 2)......................83 Exhibit 7-1: Horizon Year (2050) Without Project Traffic Volumes (Page 1 of 2)......................................90 Exhibit 7-1: Horizon Year (2050) Without Project Traffic Volumes (Page 2 of 2)......................................91 Exhibit 7-2: Horizon Year (2050) With Project Traffic Volumes (Page 1 of 2)............................................92 Exhibit 7-2: Horizon Year (2050) With Project Traffic Volumes (Page 2 of 2)............................................93 1797
14822-03 TA Report REV
viii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: Intersection Analysis Locations ......................................................................................................8 Table 1-2: Summary of LOS...............................................................................................................................9 Table 1-3: Summary of Improvements by Analysis Scenario.....................................................................16 Table 2-1: Signalized Intersection LOS Thresholds......................................................................................20 Table 2-2: Unsignalized Intersection LOS Thresholds .................................................................................22 Table 2-3: Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Locations...................................................................................23 Table 2-4: Deficiency Criteria ..........................................................................................................................25 Table 3-1: Intersection Analysis for Existing (2022) Conditions .................................................................41 Table 3-2: Peak Hour Off-Ramp Queuing Summary for Existing (2022) Conditions ...............................42 Table 4-1: Proposed Land Use Summary......................................................................................................44 Table 4-2: Currently Approved Land Uses Trip Generation Summary .....................................................45 Table 4-3: Proposed Project Trip Generation Summary .............................................................................46 Table 4-4: Trip Generation Comparison Summary......................................................................................46 Table 4-5: Cumulative Development land use Summary ...........................................................................64 Table 5-1: Intersection Analysis for E+P Conditions ....................................................................................74 Table 5-2: Peak Hour Off-Ramp Queuing Summary for E+P Conditions ..................................................76 Table 5-3: E+P Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis With Improvements..................................77 Table 6-1: Intersection Analysis for Opening Year Cumulative (2027) Conditions ..................................85 Table 6-2: Peak Hour Off-Ramp Queuing Summary for Opening Year Cumulative (2027) Conditions86 Table 6-3: Opening Year Cumulative (2027) Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis With Improvements ..................................................................................................................................................88 Table 7-1: Intersection Analysis for Horizon Year (2050) Conditions ........................................................94 Table 7-2: Peak Hour Off-Ramp Queuing Summary for Horizon Year (2050) Conditions......................96 Table 7-3: Horizon Year (2045) Conditions Intersection Operations Analysis With Improvements .....98 Table 8-1: Estimated Fee Obligation............................................................................................................100 Table 8-2: Project Fair Share Calculations...................................................................................................101 1798
14822-03 TA Report REV
ix

LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
(1) Reference
ADT Average Daily Traffic
CA MUTCD California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CCI Construction Cost Index
CMP Congestion Management Program
DIF Development Impact Fee
DU Dwelling Units
E+P Existing Plus Project
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
LOS Level of Service
PHF Peak Hour Factor
Project Rich Haven Specific Plan
SBCTA San Bernardino County Transportation Authority
TA Traffic Analysis
v/c Volume to Capacity
vphgpl Vehicles per Hour Green per Lane
1799
14822-03 TA Report REV
x
This page intentionally left blank
1800
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
1 1 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the Traffic Analysis (TA) for Rich Haven Specific Plan (“Project”), which is generally located north of Ontario Ranch Road, south of Riverside Drive, east of Haven Avenue, and on either side of Mill Creek Avenue in the City of Ontario, as shown on Exhibit 1-1. The purpose of this TA is to evaluate the potential circulation system deficiencies that may result from the development of the proposed Project, and where necessary recommend improvements to achieve acceptable operations consistent with General Plan level of service goals and policies. This traffic study has been prepared in accordance with the County of San Bernardino’s Traffic Impact Study Guidelines and consultation with City staff during the traffic study scoping process. (1) The City approved Project Traffic Study Scoping agreement is provided in Appendix 1.1 of this TA.

1.5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The Project is to construct the following improvements as design features in conjunction with development of the site:
• Project to construct Riverside Drive at its ultimate half-section width as a Minor Arterial (6-lanes, 108- foot right-of-way) from the Project’s eastern boundary to Haven Avenue consistent with the City’s standards.
• Project to construct Chino Avenue at its ultimate full-section width as a Minor Arterial (2-lanes, 88-foot right-of-way) from Haven Avenue to Mill Creek Avenue consistent with the City’s standards. It should be noted, Chino Avenue will be constructed to its ultimate full-section width, however will only be striped with one lane of travel in each direction.
• Project to construct Ontario Ranch Road at its ultimate full-section width as a Principal Arterial (8-lanes, 124-foot right-of-way) from Haven Avenue to Hamner Avenue consistent with the City’s standards. • Project to construct Mill Creek Avenue at its ultimate full-section width as a Collector (4-lanes, 88-foot right-of-way) from the Project’s southern boundary to the southern boundary of Planning Area 2C, and at its ultimate half-section width from the southern boundary of Planning Area 2C to the Project’s northern boundary (northern boundary of Planning Area 1C) (with an additional 12-feet of pavement on the east side from the southern boundary of Planning Area 2C to Chino Avenue to facilitate site access) consistent with the City’s standards.
• Project to construct Hamner Avenue at its ultimate half-section width as a Minor Arterial (6-lanes, 108- foot right-of-way) from the Project’s northern boundary to the Project’s southern boundary consistent with the City’s standards.
• Project to construct Haven Avenue at its ultimate half-section width as a Principal Arterial (4-lanes, 124- foot right-of-way) from Riverside Drive to the Project’s southern boundary consistent with the City’s standards.
• Project to install a traffic signal at Haven Avenue & Chino Avenue. • Project to construct a single-lane roundabout at Mill Creek Avenue & Chino Avenue and Twinkle Avenue & Chino Avenue.

Additional details and intersection lane geometrics are provided in Section 1.6 Recommendations of this report.
1801
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
2 1.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW
Exhibit 1-1 illustrates the location map for the proposed Project and Exhibit 1-2 shows the proposed land use plan. The proposed Project is to consist of 7,194 single family and multifamily residential dwelling units, 27.0 acres of public park, 2,780,000 square feet of industrial uses, and 772,500 square feet of retail/office uses. Note that portions of Planning Areas 3A and 4A have already been developed (currently existing). Planning Areas 2, 3, 4A, 5C, 6, 10, and portions of 7, 8, and 9 are anticipated to be developed as part of the first phase with an anticipated Opening Year of 2024. Project Buildout is anticipated in Year 2027. Access to the proposed Project would be provided to the surrounding roadways of Riverside Drive to the north, Haven Avenue to the west, Ontario Ranch Road to the south, and Mill Creek Avenue to the east. Chino Avenue is also an east-west roadway that runs through the Project.

Regional access to the Project site is available from the SR-60 Freeway via Archibald Avenue, Haven Avenue, and Milliken Avenue interchanges and the I-15 Freeway via Cantu Galleano Road. Exhibit 1-3 depicts the location of the proposed Project in relation to the existing roadway network and the study area intersections.

In order to develop the traffic characteristics of the proposed project, trip-generation statistics published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021) for the following land uses have been utilized (2):
• Industrial Park (ITE Land Use Code 130)
• High-Cube Transload Warehouse (ITE Land Use Code 154) • High-Cube Fulfillment Center (Sort) (ITE Land Use Code 155) • High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse (ITE Land Use Code 157) • Single Family Detached Residential (ITE Land Use Code 210) • Multifamily (Low-Rise) Housing (ITE Land Use Code 220) • Public Park (ITE Land Use Code 411)
• General Office (ITE Land Use Code 810)
• Shopping Center (>150,000 square feet) (ITE Land Use Code 820) • Shopping Center (40,000-150,000 square feet) (ITE Land Use Code 821) • Strip Retail (<40,000 square feet) (ITE Land Use Code 822) • High turnover Restaurant (ITE Land Use Code 932)
• Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Thru Window (ITE Land Use Code 934) • Gas Station (4,000-5,000 square feet Convenience Market) (ITE Land Use Code 945) 1802
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
3 EXHIBIT 1-1: LOCATION MAP
1803
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
4 EXHIBIT 1-2: PRELIMINARY LAND USE PLAN
1804
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
5 EXHIBIT 1-3: STUDY AREA
1805
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
6 A portion of the High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse use has been evaluated utilizing the HighCube Warehouse Trip Generation Study, WSP, January 29, 2019. With the development of the proposed Project, the Project is anticipated to generate a total of 95,538 vehicle trip-ends per day with 8,078 AM peak hour trips and 8,036 PM peak hour trips. The assumptions and methods used to estimate the Project’s trip generation characteristics are discussed in greater detail in Section 4.1 Project Trip Generation of this report.

1.3 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS
For the purposes of this traffic study, potential deficiencies to traffic and circulation have been assessed for each of the following conditions:
• Existing (2022)
• Existing plus Project – Phase 1
• Existing plus Project – Project Buildout
• Opening Year Cumulative (2027) Without Project
• Opening Year Cumulative (2027) With Project – Project Buildout only • Horizon Year (2050) Without Project
• Horizon Year (2050) With Project – Project Buildout only

1.3.1 EXISTING (2022) CONDITIONS
Information for Existing (2022) conditions is disclosed to represent the baseline traffic conditions as they existed at the time this report was prepared.

1.3.2 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT (E+P) CONDITIONS
The Existing plus Project (E+P) analysis determines traffic deficiencies that would occur on the existing roadway system with the addition of Project (Phase 1 and Project Buildout) traffic. E+P traffic conditions have been evaluated in order to determine any potential off-site improvements.

1.3.3 OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2027) CONDITIONS
The Opening Year Cumulative conditions analysis determines the potential near-term cumulative circulation system deficiencies. To account for background traffic growth, traffic associated with other known cumulative development projects in conjunction with an ambient growth factor from Existing conditions of 2% per year (compounded annually) are included for Opening Year Cumulative (2027) traffic conditions. The total growth factor for Opening Year Cumulative (2027) traffic conditions is

14.9% (or 1.027 years). Opening Year Cumulative traffic conditions have been evaluated for the proposed Project. This comprehensive list was compiled from information provided by the City of Ontario and other near-by agencies.

1.3.4 HORIZON YEAR (2050) CONDITIONS
Traffic projections for Horizon Year (2050) conditions were derived from the San Bernardino County Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM) using accepted procedures for model forecast refinement and smoothing and is based on the currently adopted The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 General Plan Update, The Horizon Year conditions analysis will be utilized to determine if improvements funded through 1806
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
7 regional transportation mitigation fee programs can accommodate the long-range cumulative traffic at the target Level of Service (LOS) identified in the City of Ontario (lead agency) General Plan. Each of the applicable transportation fee programs are discussed in more detail In Section 8 Local and Regional Funding Mechanisms.

1.4 STUDY AREA
To ensure that this TA satisfies the City of Ontario’s traffic study requirements, Urban Crossroads, Inc. prepared a Project traffic study scoping package for review by City of Ontario staff prior to the preparation of this report. This agreement provides an outline of the Project study area, trip generation, trip distribution, and analysis methodology. The agreement approved by the City is included in Appendix 1.1 of this TA.

The following 27 study area intersections shown on Exhibit 1-3 and listed in Table 1-1 were selected for this TA based on consultation with City of Ontario staff. The “50 peak hour trip” criterion utilized by the City of Ontario is consistent with the methodology employed by the County of San Bernardino, and generally represents a minimum number of trips at which a typical intersection would have the potential to be affected by a given development proposal. Although each intersection may have unique operating characteristics, this traffic engineering rule of thumb is a widely utilized tool for estimating a potential area of influence (i.e., study area). Other analysis intersections, within the adjacent cities were not selected for evaluation as the Project is anticipated to contribute less than 50 peak hour trips.

The intent of a Congestion Management Program (CMP) is to more directly link land use, transportation, and air quality, thereby prompting reasonable growth management programs that will effectively utilize new transportation funds, alleviate traffic congestion and related deficiencies, and improve air quality. Counties within California have developed CMPs with varying methods and strategies to meet the intent of the CMP legislation. Study area intersections that are identified as CMP facilities in the County of San Bernardino per the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) CMP are indicated in Table 1-1. (3)

1.5 DEFICIENCIES
This section provides a summary of deficiencies by analysis scenario. Section 2 Methodologies provides information on the methodologies used in the analysis and Section 3 Area Conditions, Section 5 E+P Traffic Conditions, Section 6 Opening Year Cumulative (2027) Conditions, and Section 7 Horizon Year (2050) Traffic Conditions includes the detailed analysis. A summary of Level of Service (LOS) results for all analysis scenarios is presented in Table 1-2.
1807
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
8 TABLE 1-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS LOCATIONS
# Intersection
1 Archibald Av. & SR-60 WB Ramps
2 Archibald Av. & SR-60 EB Ramps
3 Archibald Av. & Riverside Dr.
4 Archibald Av. & Chino Av.
5 Archibald Av. & Schaefer Av.
6 Archibald Av. & Ontario Ranch Rd.
7 Turner Av. & Riverside Dr.
8 Turner Av. & Chino Av.
9 Turner Av. & Ontario Ranch Rd.
10 Haven Av. & SR-60 WB Ramps
11 Haven Av. & SR-60 EB Ramps
12 Haven Av. & Riverside Dr.
13 Haven Av. & Chino Av.
14 Haven Av. & Schaefer Av.
15 Haven Av. & Ontario Ranch Rd.
16 Twinkle Av. & Chino Av.
17 Mill Creek Av. & Riverside Dr.
18 Mill Creek Av. & Chino Av.
19 Mill Creek Av. & Ontario Ranch Rd.
20 Milliken Av. & SR-60 WB Ramps
21 Milliken Av. & SR-60 EB Ramps
22 Milliken Av. & Riverside Dr.
23 Hamner Av. & Chino Av.
24 Hamner Av. & Ontario Ranch Rd.
25 I-15 SB Ramps & Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd.
26 I-15 NB Ramps & Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd.
27 Wineville Av. & Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd.
1808
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
9 TABLE 1-2: SUMMARY OF LOS

1.5.1 EXISTING (2022) CONDITIONS
The following study area intersection is currently operating at an unacceptable LOS during the peak hours:
• Haven Avenue & Riverside Drive (#13) – LOS F AM peak hour only

1.5.2 E+P CONDITIONS
the following additional study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS during the peak hours under E+P (Phase 1) traffic conditions, in addition to the intersections identified under Existing (2022) traffic conditions:
• Haven Avenue & Chino Avenue (#13) – LOS F PM peak hour only • Haven Avenue & Ontario Ranch Road (#15) – LOS F PM peak hour only • Milliken Avenue & Riverside Drive (#22) – LOS E AM peak hour only • Hamner Avenue & Chino Avenue (#23) – LOS F PM peak hour only • Hamner Avenue & Ontario Ranch Road (#24) – LOS E PM peak hour only # Intersection AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 1 Archibald Av. & SR-60 WB Ramps
2 Archibald Av. & SR-60 EB Ramps
3 Archibald Av. & Riverside Dr.
4 Archibald Av. & Chino Av.
5 Archibald Av. & Schaefer Av.
6 Archibald Av. & Ontario Ranch Rd.
7 Turner Av. & Riverside Dr.
8 Turner Av. & Chino Av.
9 Turner Av. & Ontario Ranch Rd.
10 Haven Av. & SR-60 WB Ramps
11 Haven Av. & SR-60 EB Ramps
12 Haven Av. & Riverside Dr.
13 Haven Av. & Chino Av.
14 Haven Av. & Schaefer Av.
15 Haven Av. & Ontario Ranch Rd.
16 Twinkle Av. & Chino Av. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
17 Mill Creek Av. & Riverside Dr.
18 Mill Creek Av. & Chino Av.
19 Mill Creek Av. & Ontario Ranch Rd. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 20 Milliken Av. & SR-60 WB Ramps
21 Milliken Av. & SR-60 EB Ramps
22 Milliken Av. & Riverside Dr.
23 Hamner Av. & Chino Av.
24 Hamner Av. & Ontario Ranch Rd.
25 I-15 SB Ramps & Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd.
26 I-15 NB Ramps & Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd.
27 Wineville Av. & Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd.
= A - E = F
2045 Without
Project
2045 With
Existing E+P Phase 1 Project
2027 Without
Project
2027 With
E+P Buildout Project
1809
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
10 The following additional study area intersection is anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS during the peak hours under E+P (Project Buildout) traffic conditions, in addition to the intersections identified under Existing (2022) traffic conditions:
• Archibald Avenue & Ontario Ranch Road (#6) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours

1.5.3 OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2027) CONDITIONS
The following study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS during the peak hours under Opening Year Cumulative (2027) Without Project traffic conditions:
• Turner Avenue & Chino Avenue (#8) – LOS F AM peak hour only • Haven Avenue & Riverside Drive (#12) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Milliken Avenue & Riverside Drive (#22) – LOS F AM peak hour only The following additional study area intersections anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS during the peak hours with the addition of Project traffic under Opening Year Cumulative (2027) With Project traffic conditions:
• Archibald Avenue & Riverside Drive (#3) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Archibald Avenue & Ontario Ranch Road (#6) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Haven Avenue & Chino Avenue (#13) – LOS F PM peak hour only • Haven Avenue & Schaefer Avenue (#14) – LOS F AM peak hour only • Haven Avenue & Ontario Ranch Road (#15) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Hamner Avenue & Chino Avenue (#23) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Hamner Avenue & Ontario Ranch Road (#24) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours

1.5.4 HORIZON YEAR (2050) CONDITIONS
The following study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS during the peak hours:
• Archibald Avenue & Riverside Drive (#3) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Archibald Avenue & Chino Avenue (#4) – LOS F PM peak hour only • Turner Avenue & Chino Avenue (#8) – LOS F PM peak hour only • Haven Avenue & Riverside Drive (#12) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Haven Avenue & Chino Avenue (#13) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Haven Avenue & Ontario Ranch Road (#15) – LOS F PM peak hour only • Mill Creek Road & Riverside Drive (#15) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Milliken Avenue & Riverside Drive (#22) – LOS F AM peak hour only • Archibald Avenue & Ontario Ranch Road (#6) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Haven Avenue & Chino Avenue (#13) – LOS F PM peak hour only • Haven Avenue & Schaefer Avenue (#14) – LOS F AM peak hour only • Haven Avenue & Ontario Ranch Road (#15) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours 1810
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
11 • Mill Creek Avenue & Riverside Drive (#17) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Milliken Avenue & Riverside Drive (#22) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Hamner Avenue & Chino Avenue (#23) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Hamner Avenue & Ontario Ranch Road (#24) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours

1.6 RECOMMENDATIONS

1.6.1 SITE ADJACENT AND SITE ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are based on the minimum improvements needed to accommodate site access and maintain acceptable peak hour operations for the proposed Project. The site adjacent recommendations are shown on Exhibit 1-4. The site adjacent queuing analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix 1.2.

The existing lane geometrics and traffic control should remain at the intersection of Haven Avenue & Ontario Ranch Road (#15).

Recommendation 1 – Haven Avenue & Riverside Drive (#12) – The following improvement is necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to construct a northbound left turn lane and right turn lane.

Recommendation 2 – Haven Avenue & Chino Avenue (#13) – The following improvements are necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to install a traffic signal.
• Project to construct a northbound shared through-right turn lane. • Project to construct a southbound left turn lane.
• Project to construct a westbound left turn lane and shared through-right turn lane.

Recommendation 3 – Haven Avenue & Schaefer Avenue (#14) – The following improvement is necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to construct a northbound through lane.

Recommendation 4 – Twinkle Avenue & Chino Avenue (#16) – The following improvements are necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to construct a single-lane roundabout.
• Project to construct a northbound shared left-through-right turn lane. • Project to construct a southbound shared left-through-right turn lane. • Project to construct an eastbound shared left-through-right turn lane. • Project to construct a westbound shared left-through-right turn lane. 1811
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
12 EXHIBIT 1-4: SITE ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS
1812
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
13 Recommendation 5 – Mill Creek Avenue & Chino Avenue (#18) – The following improvements are necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to construct a single-lane roundabout.
• Project to construct a northbound shared left-through-right turn lane. • Project to construct a southbound shared left-through-right turn lane. • Project to construct an eastbound shared left-through-right turn lane. • Project to construct a westbound shared left-through-right turn lane.

Recommendation 6 – Mill Creek Avenue & Ontario Ranch Road (#19) – The following improvements are necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to construct a northbound left turn lane and shared through-right turn lane. • Project to construct a southbound left turn lane and shared through-right turn lane. • Project to construct an eastbound shared through-right turn lane. • Project to construct a westbound shared through-right turn lane.

Recommendation 7 – Riverside Drive is an east-west oriented roadway located on the Project’s northern boundary. Project to construct Riverside Drive at its ultimate half-section width as a Minor Arterial (6-lanes, 108-foot right-of-way) from the Project’s eastern boundary to Haven Avenue consistent with the City’s standards.

Recommendation 8 – Chino Avenue is an east-west oriented roadway located within the Project site.

Project to construct Chino Avenue at its ultimate full-section width as a Minor Arterial (2-lanes, 88-foot right-of-way) from Haven Avenue to Mill Creek Avenue consistent with the City’s standards. It should be noted, Chino Avenue will be constructed to its ultimate full-section width, however will only be striped with one lane of travel in each direction.

Recommendation 9 – Ontario Ranch Road is an east-west oriented roadway located on the Project’s southern boundary. Project to construct Ontario Ranch Road at its ultimate full-section width as a Principal Arterial (8-lanes, 124-foot right-of-way) from Haven Avenue to Hamner Avenue consistent with the City’s standards.

Recommendation 10 – Mill Creek Avenue is a north-south oriented roadway generally located on the Project’s eastern boundary. Project to construct Mill Creek Avenue at its ultimate full-section width as a Collector (4-lanes, 88-foot right-of-way) from the Project’s southern boundary to the southern boundary of Planning Area 2C, and at its ultimate half-section width from the southern boundary of Planning Area 2C to the Project’s northern boundary (northern boundary of Planning Area 1C) (with an additional 12-feet of pavement on the east side from the southern boundary of Planning Area 2C to Chino Avenue to facilitate site access) consistent with the City’s standards.

Recommendation 11 – Hamner Avenue is a north-south oriented roadway located on the Project’s eastern boundary. Project to construct Hamner Avenue at its ultimate half-section width as a Minor Arterial (6-lanes, 108-foot right-of-way) from the Project’s northern boundary to the Project’s southern boundary consistent with the City’s standards.
1813
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
14 Recommendation 12 – Haven Avenue is a north-south oriented roadway located on the Project’s western boundary. Project to construct Haven Avenue at its ultimate half-section width as a Principal Arterial (4-lanes, 124-foot right-of-way) from Riverside Drive to the Project’s southern boundary consistent with the City’s standards.

On-site traffic signing and striping should be implemented agreeable with the provisions of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) and in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the Project site.

Sight distance at each project access point should be reviewed with respect to standard California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and City of Ontario sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plans.

It should be noted, the Project will construct Chino Avenue at its ultimately full-section width, but striping one lane in each direction. Since the proposed roundabouts along Chino Avenue are singlelane roundabouts, one lane in each direction along Chino Avenue will facilities site access without requiring merging of traffic into the roundabout. Although the turning volumes (such as the northbound right turn) at the intersection of Haven Avenue & Chino Avenue may be relatively high during the peak hour, the intersection operations analysis at this location and the roadway segment analysis (see discussion below) are anticipated to operate at acceptable levels. As such, no additional roadway segment widening beyond the 2-lane roadway is recommended along Chino Avenue as the intersections are able to process the turning movement volumes at Haven Avenue & Chino Avenue.

According to the City of Ontario General Plan, a 2-lane roadway has a capacity of 12,500 vehicles per day. Based on a review of Horizon Year traffic volumes along Chino Avenue for the segment between Haven Avenue and Twinkle Avenue, it is estimated that 9,300 vehicles per day will utilize Chino Avenue, which is well within a 12,500 vehicle per day capacity of a 2-lane roadway.

The segment of Chino Avenue, between Twinkle Avenue and Mill Creek Avenue, is anticipated to exceed this capacity for Horizon Year (2050) With Project traffic conditions. This is due to the volumes developed from the City’s new TOP model, which results in a daily volume of 12,800 vehicles per day for the segment of Chino Avenue, between Twinkle Avenue and Mill Creek Avenue. This exceeds the 2-lane capacity of 12,500 vehicles per day. However, it should be noted that in cases where anticipated daily volumes exceed the defined roadway segment capacity (based on the City’s General Plan), a review of the more detailed peak hour intersection operations analysis is undertaken. The more detailed peak hour intersection operations analysis explicitly accounts for factors that affect roadway capacity and is utilized to determine if roadway segment widening is actually necessary. If the intersection operations for the intersections on either side of the roadway segment are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours, roadway segment widening is typically not recommended. The intersections are considered “choke points” along the roadways and if the intersection operations analysis is anticipated to operate at acceptable levels, then it is anticipated that the intersections can process the traffic volumes along the roadway segment without the need for additional roadway segment widening. Additionally, roadway segment analysis is considered a planning level analysis whereas the intersection operations analysis is considered more design level analysis. Based on a review of the anticipated intersection operations analysis under Horizon Year (2050) traffic conditions, the study area intersections along Chino Avenue (at Twinkle Avenue and Mill Creek Avenue) are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours. 1814
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
15 As such, additional roadway segment widening along Chino Avenue is not recommended beyond the 2-lane roadway. It should also be noted, the City’s TOP model classifies Chino Avenue as a 2-lane roadway. Therefore, the proposed 2-lane roadway for Chino Avenue is consistent with the City’s General Plan.

Exhibit 1-5 shows the proposed roadway of Chino Avenue, from Haven Avenue to Mill Creek Avenue.

As shown on Exhibit 1-5, single-lane roundabouts are proposed at the intersections of Twinkle Avenue & Chino Avenue and at Mill Creek Avenue & Chino Avenue. Based on the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) roundabout operational guidelines published in the Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, circulating traffic flows exceeding 1,800 vehicles per hour may indicate the need for a double-lane roundabout. (4) Based on a review of the peak hour traffic volumes under Horizon Year (2050) With Project traffic conditions, the anticipated peak hour traffic flow is 845 vehicles at Twinkle Avenue & Chino Avenue and 1,250 vehicles at Mill Creek Avenue & Chino Avenue. As such, a double-lane roundabout does not appear necessary to process peak hour traffic flows at both Twinkle Avenue & Chino Avenue and Mill Creek Avenue & Chino Avenue, as the single-lane roundabout is anticipated to process the peak hour traffic flows and operate at acceptable LOS during the peak hours under Horizon Year (2050) With Project traffic conditions.

1.6.2 OFF-SITE RECOMMENDATIONS
A summary of the off-site intersection improvements is provided in Table 1-3. For those improvements listed in Table 1-3 and not constructed as part of the Project, the Project Applicant’s responsibility for the Project’s contributions towards deficient intersections is fulfilled through payment of fees or fair share that would be assigned to construction of the identified recommended improvements.
1815
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
16 TABLE 1-3: SUMMARY OF IMPROVEMENTS BY ANALYSIS SCENARIO E+P (Phase 1) E+P (Project Buildout) 2032 Without Project 2032 With Project 2045 Without Project 2045 With Project Estimated
Cost3,4
3 Archibald Av. & Riverside Dr. Ontario None None Add 2nd NB left turn lane Same Same Same Fair Share No $88,500 33.1% $29,260 Add 2nd SB left turn lane Same Same Same Fair Share No $88,500 $29,260 Total: $177,000 $58,520
4 Archibald Av. & Chino Av. Ontario None None None None Add EB right turn lane Same Fair Share No $88,500 37.8% $33,428 Total: $88,500 $33,428
6 Archibald Av. & Merrill Av. Ontario None Add 2nd SB left turn lane Same Same Same Same Construct No $0 17.9% $0 Add 2nd WB through lane Same Same Same Same Construct No $0 $0 Add 2nd NB left turn lane Same Fair Share No $88,500 $15,806 Add 3rd NB through lane Same Fees Yes (ST-002) $0 $0
Add 3rd SB through lane Same Fees Yes (ST-002) $0 $0
Add 3rd EB through lane Same Fair Share No $318,600 $56,902 Total: $407,100 $72,708
8 Turner Av. & Chino Av. Eastvale None None Install a traffic signal Same Same Same Fair Share No $442,500 39.0% $79,030 Total: $442,500 $79,030
12 Haven Av. & Riverside Dr. Ontario Add NB left turn lane Same Same Same Same Same Fair Share No $88,500 63.6% $56,251 Add 2nd NB through lane Same Same Same Same Same Fair Share No $318,600 $202,505 Add 2nd EB through lane Same Same Same Same Same Fees Yes (ST-019) $0 $0 Add NB right turn lane Same Fair Share No $88,500 $56,251 Add 2nd SB through lane Same Fees Yes (ST-014) $0 $0
Add 2nd EB left turn lane Same Fair Share No $88,500 $56,251 Add 2nd WB left turn lane Same Fair Share No $88,500 $56,251 Total: $672,600 $427,511
13 Haven Av. & Chino Av. Ontario Add 2nd NB through lane Same Same Same Same Same Fees Yes (ST-014) $0 -- $0 Add SB left turn lane Same Not Applicable Same as E+P (Phase 1) Not Applicable Same as E+P (Phase 1) Construct No $0 $0 Add 2nd SB through lane Same Same Same Same Same Fees Yes (ST-014) $0 $0 Add WB left turn lane Same Not Applicable Same as E+P (Phase 1) Not Applicable Same as E+P (Phase 1) Construct No $0 $0 Add WB through lane Same Not Applicable Same as E+P (Phase 1) Not Applicable Same as E+P (Phase 1) Construct No $0 $0 Total: $0 $0
14 Haven Av. & Schaefer Av. Ontario None Stripe the 2nd NB through lane Same Same Same Same Construct Yes (ST-014) $0 -- $0 Total: $0 $0
15 Haven Av. & Ontario Ranch Rd. Ontario Add 2nd NB through lane Same Same Same Same Same Construct No $0 -- $0 Add 2nd SB left turn lane Same Same Same Same Same Construct No $0 $0 Add 2nd SB right turn lane Same Same Same Same Same Construct No $0 $0 Stripe the 2nd EB left turn lane Same Same Same Same Same Construct No $0 $0 Total: $0 $0
17 Mill Creek Av. & Riverside Dr. Ontario None None None None Install a traffic signal Same Fair Share No $442,500 62.2% $275,333 Add 3rd EB through lane Same Fees Yes (ST-006) $0 $0
Add 3rd WB through lane Same Fees Yes (ST-006) $0 $0
Total: $442,500 $275,333
22 Milliken Av. & Riverside Dr. Add 2nd NB left turn lane Same Same Same Same Same Construct No $0 44.3% $0 Add 2nd SB left turn lane lane Same Same Same Fair Share No $88,500 $39,200 Add 2nd SB right turn lane Same Fair Share No $88,500 $39,200 Total: $177,000 $78,400
23 Hamner Av. & Chino Av. Install a traffic signal Same Same Same Same Same Construct No $0 -- $0 Add 2nd SB through lane Same Same Same Same Same Construct Yes (ST-017) $0 $0 Total: $0 $0
24 Hamner Av. & Ontario Ranch Rd. Install a traffic signal Same Same Same Same Same Construct No $0 37.8% $0 Add 4th SB through lane Same Same Same Same Same Construct Yes (ST-017) $0 $0 Add 2nd EB left turn lane Same Same Same Same Same Construct No $0 $0 Add 4th WB through lane Same Same Same Same Same Construct No $0 $0 Add 2nd SB right turn lane Same Same Same Fair Share No $88,500 $33,424 Add EB right turn lane Same Same Same Fair Share No $88,500 $33,424 Total: $177,000 $66,849
Total Cost for Improvements $2,584,200 $1,091,779
Total Project Fair Share Contribution to the City of Ontario (non-DIF/other) 6 Total Project Fair Share Contribution to the City of Eastvale 7 1 Improvements included in regional/City DIF programs have been identified as such. 2 Program improvements constructed by project may be eligible for fee credit. In lieu fee payment is at the discretion of the City. 3 Costs have been estimated using the data provided in Appendix "G" of the CMP (2003 Update) for preliminary construction costs with an application of 1.77 factor to adjust costs to 2022. 4 Total project fair share contribution consists of the improvements which are not already included in a pre-existing fee program. 5 Rough order of magnitude cost estimate.
6 Total project fair share contribution consists of the improvements which are not already included in a fee program for those intersections wholly or partially within the City of Ontario. 7 Total project fair share contribution consists of the improvements which are not already included in a fee program for those intersections wholly or partially within the City of Eastvale. $79,030
# Intersection Location Jurisdiction
Project
Responsibility
Improvements
in DIF1,2
Project Fair
Share
Fair Share
Cost5
Ontario,
Eastvale
Ontario,
Eastvale
Ontario,
Eastvale
$1,012,749
1816
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
17 EXHIBIT 1-5: PROPOSED CHINO AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS
1817
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
18 This Page Intentionally Left Blank
1818
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
19 2 METHODOLOGIES
This section of the report presents the methodologies used to perform the traffic analyses summarized in this report. The methodologies described are consistent with City of Ontario’s Traffic Study Guidelines.

2.1 LEVEL OF SERVICE
Traffic operations of roadway facilities are described using the term "Level of Service" (LOS). LOS is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on several factors, such as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels are typically defined ranging from LOS A, representing completely free-flow conditions, to LOS F, representing breakdown in flow resulting in stop-and-go conditions.

LOS E represents operations at or near capacity, an unstable level where vehicles are operating with the minimum spacing for maintaining uniform flow.

2.2 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The definitions of LOS for interrupted traffic flow (flow restrained by the existence of traffic signals and other traffic control devices) differ slightly depending on the type of traffic control. The LOS is typically dependent on the quality of traffic flow at the intersections along a roadway. The 6th Edition Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology expresses the LOS at an intersection in terms of delay time for the various intersection approaches. (4) The HCM uses different procedures depending on the type of intersection control.

2.2.1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
The City of Ontario requires signalized intersection operations analysis based on the methodology described in the HCM. (4) Intersection LOS operations are based on an intersection’s average control delay. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. For signalized intersections LOS is related to the average control delay per vehicle and is correlated to a LOS designation as described in Table 2-1. 1819
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
20 TABLE 2-1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS
Consistent with Appendix B of the San Bernardino County CMP, the following saturation flow rates, in vehicles per hour green per lane (vphgpl), will be utilized in the traffic analysis for signalized intersections:

Existing, E+P, and Opening Year Cumulative Traffic Conditions:
• Exclusive through: 1800 vphgpl
• Exclusive left: 1700 vphgpl
• Exclusive right: 1800 vphgpl
• Exclusive dual left: 1600 vphgpl
• Exclusive triple left: 1500 vphgpl
Description
Average Control Delay
(Seconds), V/C ≤ 1.0
Level of Service,
V/C ≤ 1.01
Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle length.
0 to 10.00 A
Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths.

10.01 to 20.00 B
Operations with average delays resulting from fair
progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear.

20.01 to 35.00 C
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of
unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.

35.01 to 55.00 D
Operations with high delay values indicating poor
progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios.

Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay.

55.01 to 80.00 E
Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers
occurring due to over saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths.

80.01 and up F
Source: HCM, 6th Edition
1 If V/C is greater than 1.0 then LOS is F per HCM.
1820
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
21 Horizon Year Traffic Conditions:
• Exclusive through: 1900 vphgpl
• Exclusive left: 1800 vphgpl
• Exclusive right: 1900 vphgpl
• Exclusive dual left: 1700 vphgpl
• Exclusive triple left: 1600 vphgpl
The traffic modeling and signal timing optimization software package Synchro (Version 11) has been utilized to analyze signalized intersections. Synchro is a macroscopic traffic software program that is based on the signalized intersection capacity analysis as specified in the HCM. Macroscopic level models represent traffic in terms of aggregate measures for each movement at the study intersections. Equations are used to determine measures of effectiveness such as delay and queue length. The level of service and capacity analysis performed by Synchro takes into consideration optimization and coordination of signalized intersections within a network.

The peak hour traffic volumes have been adjusted using a peak hour factor (PHF) to reflect peak 15- minute volumes. Customary practice for LOS analysis is to use a peak 15-minute rate of flow.

However, flow rates are typically expressed in vehicles per hour. The PHF is the relationship between the peak 15-minute flow rate and the full hourly volume (e.g., PHF = [Hourly Volume] / [4 x Peak 15- minute Flow Rate]). The use of a 15-minute PHF produces a more detailed analysis as compared to analyzing vehicles per hour. Existing PHFs have been used for all analysis scenarios. Per the HCM, PHF values over 0.95 often are indicative of high traffic volumes with capacity constraints on peak hour flows while lower PHF values are indicative of greater variability of flow during the peak hour. (4)

2.2.2 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
The City of Ontario requires the operations of unsignalized intersections be evaluated using the methodology described in the HCM. (4) The LOS rating is based on the weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle (see Table 2-2). At two-way or side-street stop-controlled intersections, LOS is calculated for each controlled movement and for the left turn movement from the major street, as well as for the intersection as a whole. For approaches composed of a single lane, the delay is computed as the average of all movements in that lane. Delay for the intersection is reported for the worst individual movement at a two-way stop-controlled intersection. For all-way stop controlled intersections, LOS is computed for the intersection as a whole (average delay). 1821
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
22 TABLE 2-2: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS

2.3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The term "signal warrants" refers to the list of established criteria used by Caltrans and other public agencies to quantitatively justify or determine the potential need for installation of a traffic signal at an otherwise unsignalized intersection. This TA uses the signal warrant criteria presented in the latest edition of the Caltrans California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). (5) The signal warrant criteria for Existing study area intersections are based upon several factors, including volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, frequency of accidents, and location of school areas. The CA MUTCD indicates that the installation of a traffic signal should be considered if one or more of the signal warrants are met. (5) Specifically, this TA utilizes the Peak Hour Volume-based Warrant 3 as the appropriate representative traffic signal warrant analysis for existing traffic conditions and for all future analysis scenarios for existing unsignalized intersections. Warrant 3 is appropriate to use for this TA because it provides specialized warrant criteria for intersections with rural characteristics. For the purposes of this study, the speed limit was the basis for determining whether Urban or Rural warrants were used for a given intersection. Urban warrants have been used as posted speed limits on the major roadways with unsignalized intersections are 40 miles per hour or below and rural warrants have been used where speeds exceed 40 miles per hour.

Future intersections that do not currently exist have been assessed regarding the potential need for new traffic signals based on future average daily traffic (ADT) volumes, using the Caltrans planning level ADT-based signal warrant analysis worksheets. Similarly, the speed limit has been used as the basis for determining the use of Urban and Rural warrants.

Description
Average Control Delay
(Seconds), V/C ≤ 1.0
Level of Service,
V/C ≤ 1.01
Little or no delays. 0 to 10.00 A
Short traffic delays. 10.01 to 15.00 B
Average traffic delays. 15.01 to 25.00 C
Long traffic delays. 25.01 to 35.00 D
Very long traffic delays. 35.01 to 50.00 E
Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded. > 50.00 F Source: HCM, 6th Edition
1 If V/C is greater than 1.0 then LOS is F per HCM.
1822
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
23 Traffic signal warrant analyses were performed for the following study area intersection shown in Table 2-3:

TABLE 2-3: TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS LOCATIONS
Although unsignalized, the intersections of Twinkle Avenue & Chino Avenue (#16) and Mill Creek Avenue & Chino Avenue (#18) have not been evaluated for traffic signal warrants as these intersections are proposed for roundabouts.

The Existing conditions traffic signal warrant analysis is presented in the subsequent section, Section 3 Area Conditions of this report. The traffic signal warrant analyses for future conditions are presented in Section 5 E+P Traffic Conditions, Section 6 Opening Year Cumulative (2027) Conditions, and Section 7 Horizon Year (2050) Traffic Conditions of this report. It is important to note that a signal warrant defines the minimum condition under which the installation of a traffic signal might be warranted. Meeting this threshold condition does not require that a traffic control signal be installed at a particular location, but rather, that other traffic factors and conditions be evaluated in order to determine whether the signal is truly justified. It should also be noted that signal warrants do not necessarily correlate with LOS. An intersection may satisfy a signal warrant condition and operate at or above acceptable LOS or operate below acceptable LOS and not meet a signal warrant.

2.4 QUEUING ANALYSIS
Consistent with Caltrans requirements, the 95th percentile queuing of vehicles has been assessed at the off-ramps to determine potential queuing deficiencies at the freeway ramp intersections at the SR-60 Freeway at the Archibald Avenue, Haven Avenue, and Milliken Avenue interchanges and at the I-15 Freeway at the Cantu Galleano Road interchange. Specifically, the off-ramp queuing analysis is utilized to identify any potential queuing and “spill back” onto the SR-60 and I-15 Freeway mainlines from the off-ramps.

The traffic progression analysis tool and HCM intersection analysis program, Synchro, has been used to assess the potential deficiencies/needs of the intersections with traffic added from the proposed Project. Storage (turn-pocket) length recommendations at the ramps have been based upon the 95th percentile queue resulting from the Synchro progression analysis. The footnote from the Synchro output sheets indicates if the 95th percentile cycle exceeds capacity. Traffic is simulated for two complete cycles of the 95th percentile traffic in Synchro in order to account for the effects of spillover between cycles. In practice, the 95th percentile queue shown will rarely be exceeded and the queues shown with the footnote are acceptable for the design of storage bays. The 95th percentile queue is derived from the average queue plus 1.65 standard deviations. The 95th percentile queue is not necessarily ever observed it is simply based on statistical calculations. # Intersection
1 Archibald Av. & SR-60 WB Ramps
13 Haven Av. & Chino Av.
19 Mill Creek Av. & Ontario Ranch Rd.
23 Hamner Av. & Chino Av.
1823
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
24 2.5 MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF SERVICE (LOS)
Minimum Acceptable LOS and associated definitions of intersection deficiencies has been obtained from each of the applicable surrounding jurisdictions.

2.5.1 CITY OF ONTARIO
Per the Ontario Plan’s Policy M-1, the City of Ontario utilizes a minimum acceptable LOS of LOS E, where feasible. (6)

2.5.2 CITY OF EASTVALE
The City of Eastvale General Plan Policy C-10 sets a standard of LOS C with LOS D as acceptable in commercial and employment areas and at intersections of any combination of major highways, urban arterials, secondary highways, or freeway ramps. (7) Based on this criterion, where feasible, LOS D is the minimum acceptable LOS at each of the study intersections within the City of Eastvale.

2.5.3 CALTRANS
Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS C and LOS D on State Highway System facilities, however, Caltrans acknowledges that this may not always be feasible and recommends that the lead agency consult with Caltrans to determine the appropriate target LOS. (8) If an existing State highway facility is operating at less than this target LOS, the existing LOS should be maintained. In general, the region-wide goal for an acceptable LOS on all freeways and intersections is LOS D. Consistent with the City of Ontario LOS threshold of LOS D and in excess of the City of Ontario stated LOS threshold of LOS E, LOS D will be used as the target LOS.

2.6 DEFICIENCY CRITERIA
To determine whether the addition of project traffic at a study intersection would result in a traffic deficiency, the following will be utilized:
• When the Without Project condition is at or better than LOS D (or LOS E for CMP intersections and intersections located in the City of Ontario) (i.e., acceptable LOS), and project-generated traffic causes deterioration below LOS D/LOS E (i.e., unacceptable LOS), a deficiency is deemed to occur.

When the Without Project condition is already below LOS D/LOS E (i.e., unacceptable LOS), the Project will be responsible for improving its deficiency to acceptable levels of service. Thus, for intersections operating at unacceptable LOS during either the AM and/or PM peak hour, improvements have been identified to improve the deficiencies of the Project to an intersection LOS that is equal to or better than Without Project conditions (see Table 2-4).

The Project’s contribution to a deficiency can be reduced if the Project is required to implement or fund its fair share of improvements designed to alleviate its contribution to the deficient condition. 1824
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
25 TABLE 2-4: DEFICIENCY CRITERIA
Without
Project Level
of Service
Level of Service Deficient? Improvement Required?
City of Ontario
A A-D No No
B B-D No No
C C-D No No
D D-E No No
E E No No
A-E F Yes Yes, bring LOS to E or better
F F Yes Yes, bring LOS to E or better
City of Eastvale
A A-D No No
B B-D No No
C C-D No No
D D No No
A-D E or F Yes Yes, bring LOS to D or better
E E Yes Yes, bring LOS to D or better
E F Yes Yes, bring LOS to D or better
F F Yes Yes, bring LOS to D or better
In the event that an intersection is operating at or is forecast to operate at a deficient LOS, the CMP guidelines have defined a series of steps to be completed to determine the Project’s contribution to the deficiency of intersections, which has been applied to both CMP and non-CMP study area intersections. The steps are as follows:
• Determine the improvements necessary to achieve an acceptable service level, • Calculate the Project’s share in the future traffic volume projections for the peak hours, • Estimate the cost to implement recommended improvements, and • Calculate the Project’s fair-share contribution to improve the Project’s traffic deficiencies

2.7 PROJECT FAIR SHARE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY
In cases where this TA identifies that the Project would contribute additional traffic volumes to traffic deficiencies, Project fair share costs of improvements necessary to address deficiencies have been identified. The Project’s fair share cost of improvements is determined based on the following equation, which is the ratio of Project traffic to new traffic, and new traffic is total future (Opening Year) traffic less existing baseline traffic:

Project Fair Share % = Project (Project Buildout) AM/PM Traffic / (2050 With Project AM/PM Total Traffic – Existing AM/PM Traffic)
1825
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
26 The project fair share percentage has been calculated for both the AM peak hour and PM peak hour and the highest of the two has been selected. The Project fair share contribution calculations are presented in Section 8 Local and Regional Funding Mechanisms of this TA. The cost of implementing the improvements shown in Table 1-3 have been estimated based on the preliminary construction cost estimates found in Appendix G of the San Bernardino County CMP in conjunction with a total cost escalation factor of 1.77 to more closely approximate current (2022) costs. These cost estimates have been utilized in conjunction with the Project fair share percentages to determine the Project’s fair share cost of the recommended improvements (see Table 7-2). These estimates are a rough order of magnitude only as they are intended only for discussion purposes and do not imply any legal responsibility or formula for contributions or physical improvements. If any analyzed intersections and roadway improvements fall outside of the jurisdiction of the City, the City does not have the authority to construct or demand the construction of such improvements. For this reason, the payment of fair share fees for the improvements identified in Table 1-3 is considered infeasible and therefore results in a significant and unavoidable impact for those locations outside of the City. 1826
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
27 3 AREA CONDITIONS
This section provides a summary of the existing circulation network, the City of Ontario General Plan Circulation Network, and a review of existing peak hour intersection operations, traffic signal warrant, and off-ramp queuing analyses.

3.1 EXISTING CIRCULATION NETWORK
Pursuant to the agreement with City of Ontario staff (Appendix 1.1), the study area includes a total of 27 existing and future intersections as shown previously on Exhibit 1-3. Exhibit 3-1 illustrates the study area intersections located near the proposed Project and identifies the number of through traffic lanes for existing roadways and intersection traffic controls.

3.2 CITY OF ONTARIO GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT
The 2050 Ontario Plan circulation element is shown on Exhibit 3-2. The study area roadways that are classified as 8-lane Other Principal Arterials are identified as having four lanes of travel in each direction. The following study area roadways within the City of Ontario are classified as 8-lane Other Principal Arterials:
• Hamner Avenue from the SR-60 Freeway to Bellegrave Avenue • Edison Avenue
The study area roadways that are classified as 6-lane Other Principal Arterials are identified as having three lanes of travel in each direction and a 14-foot curbed or painted median. The following study area roadways within the City of Ontario are classified as 6-lane Other Principal Arterials:
• Archibald Avenue
• Haven Avenue, between Riverside Drive and SR-60 Freeway • Vineyard Avenue
The study area roadways that are classified as 4-lane Other Principal Arterials are identified as having two lanes of travel in each direction. The following study area roadways within the City of Ontario are classified as 4-lane Other Principal Arterials:
• Haven Avenue, south of Riverside Drive
The study area roadway that is classified as a 6-lane Minor Arterial is identified as having three lanes of travel in each direction. The following study area roadway within the City of Ontario is classified as a 6-lane Minor Arterial:
• Riverside Drive
1827
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
28 EXHIBIT 3-1: EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS (PAGE 1 OF 2)
1828
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
29 EXHIBIT 3-1: EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS (PAGE 2 OF 2
1829
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
30 EXHIBIT 3-2: CITY OF ONTARIO 2050 GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT 1830
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
31 The study area roadways that are classified as Collector Streets are identified as having two to four lanes of travel in each direction. The following study area roadways within the City of Ontario are classified as Collector Streets:
• Chino Avenue
• Schaefer Avenue
• Eucalyptus Avenue
• Merrill Avenue
• Turner Avenue
• Mill Creek Avenue

3.3 CITY OF EASTVALE GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Exhibit 3-3 shows the City of Eastvale General Plan Circulation Element and Exhibit 3-4 shows the City of Eastvale General Plan roadway cross-sections.

3.4 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Exhibit 3-5 illustrates the 2050 Ontario Plan bicycle facilities. Existing pedestrian facilities within the study area are shown on Exhibit 3-6. As shown on Exhibit 3-6, there are limited pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the Project site. Field observations and traffic counts conducted in August 2022 indicate light pedestrian and bicycle activity within the study area.

3.5 TRANSIT SERVICE
Exhibit 3-7 shows the 2050 Ontario Plan transit facilities. The study area within the City of Ontario is currently served by Omnitrans, a public transit agency serving various jurisdictions within San Bernardino County. Exhibit 3-8 shows the existing transit facilities, which indicates that Omnitrans Route 87 could potentially serve the Project site. Transit service is reviewed and updated by Omnitrans periodically to address ridership, budget, and community demand needs. Changes in land use can affect these periodic adjustments which may lead to either enhanced or reduced service where appropriate. As such, it is recommended that the applicant work in conjunction with Omnitrans to potentially provide bus service to the site.

3.6 EXISTING (2022) TRAFFIC COUNTS
The intersection LOS analysis is based on the traffic volumes observed during the peak hour conditions using traffic count data collected in May 2022. The following peak hours were selected for analysis:
• Weekday AM Peak Hour (peak hour between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM) • Weekday PM Peak Hour (peak hour between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM) 1831
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
32 EXHIBIT 3-3: CITY OF EASTVALE CIRCULATION ELEMENT
1832
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
33 EXHIBIT 3-4: CITY OF EASTVALE GENERAL ROADWAY PLAN CROSS-SECTIONS 1833
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
34 EXHIBIT 3-5: CITY OF ONTARIO 2050 BICYCLE FACILITIES 1834
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
35 EXHIBIT 3-6: EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
1835
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
36 EXHIBIT 3-7: CITY OF ONTARIO 2050 GENERAL PLAN TRANSIT ROUTES 1836
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
37 EXHIBIT 3-8: EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES
1837
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
38 The 2022 weekday AM and weekday PM peak hour count data is representative of typical weekday peak hour traffic conditions in the study area. There were no observations made in the field that would indicate atypical traffic conditions on the count dates, such as construction activity or detour routes and near-by schools were in session and operating on normal schedules. As such, no additional adjustments were made to the traffic counts to establish the baseline condition. The raw manual peak hour turning movement traffic count data sheets are included in Appendix 3.1.

Existing weekday ADT volumes are shown on Exhibit 3-11. Where actual 24-hour tube count data was not available, Existing ADT volumes were based upon factored intersection peak hour counts collected by Urban Crossroads, Inc. using the following formula for each intersection leg:

Weekday PM Peak Hour (Approach Volume + Exit Volume) x 12.65 = Leg Volume A comparison of the PM peak hour and daily traffic volumes of various roadway segments within the study area indicated that the peak-to-daily relationship is approximately 7.91 percent. As such, the above equation utilizing a factor of 12.65 estimates the ADT volumes on the study area roadway segments assuming a peak-to-daily relationship of 7.91 percent (i.e., 1/0.0791 = 12.65) and was assumed to sufficiently estimate average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for planning-level analyses.

Existing weekday and weekend peak hour intersection volumes are also shown on Exhibit 3-9.

3.7 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
Existing peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections based on the analysis methodologies presented in Section 2.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis of this report. The intersection operations analysis results are summarized in Table 3-1, which indicates that the following study area intersection is currently operating at an unacceptable LOS during the peak hours:
• Haven Avenue & Riverside Drive (#13) – LOS F AM peak hour only The intersection operations analysis worksheets are included in Appendix 3.2 of this TA.

3.8 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
Traffic signal warrants for Existing traffic conditions are based on existing peak hour intersection turning volumes. The intersection of Turner Avenue & Chino Avenue (#8) currently meets a traffic signal warrant under Existing (2022) traffic conditions. Existing conditions traffic signal warrant analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix 3.3.
1838
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
39 EXHIBIT 3-9: EXISTING (2022) TRAFFIC VOLUMES (PAGE 1 OF 2) 1839
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
40 EXHIBIT 3-9: EXISTING (2022) TRAFFIC VOLUMES (PAGE 2 OF 2) 1840
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
41 TABLE 3-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING (2022) CONDITIONS Level of
Traffic Service Acceptable
# Intersection Control2AM PM AM PM LOS
1 Archibald Av. & SR-60 WB Ramps TS 18.5 28.9 B C D
2 Archibald Av. & SR-60 EB Ramps TS 14.9 13.9 B B D
3 Archibald Av. & Riverside Dr. TS 39.2 34.8 D C E
4 Archibald Av. & Chino Av. TS 20.3 23.7 C C E
5 Archibald Av. & Schaefer Av. TS 10.6 5.9 B A E
6 Archibald Av. & Ontario Ranch Rd. TS 30.6 28.6 C C E
7 Turner Av. & Riverside Dr. TS 33.2 22.5 C C E
8 Turner Av. & Chino Av. AWS 27.3 10.0 D A E
9 Turner Av. & Ontario Ranch Rd. TS 16.3 13.3 B B E
10 Haven Av. & SR-60 WB Ramps TS 14.4 11.2 B B D
11 Haven Av. & SR-60 EB Ramps TS 22.7 17.2 C B D
12 Haven Av. & Riverside Dr. TS 106.4 82.4 F F E
13 Haven Av. & Chino Av. CSS 12.7 13.1 B B E
14 Haven Av. & Schaefer Av. TS 9.0 9.4 A A E
15 Haven Av. & Ontario Ranch Rd. TS 32.1 45.0 C D E
16 Twinkle Av. & Chino Av. E
17 Mill Creek Av. & Riverside Dr. TS 40.9 21.2 D C E
18 Mill Creek Av. & Chino Av. AWS 7.1 7.2 A A E
19 Mill Creek Av. & Ontario Ranch Rd. E
20 Milliken Av. & SR-60 WB Ramps TS 18.6 16.1 B B D
21 Milliken Av. & SR-60 EB Ramps TS 22.4 16.5 C B D
22 Milliken Av. & Riverside Dr. TS 50.7 27.1 D C D
23 Hamner Av. & Chino Av. CSS 13.1 16.3 B C D
24 Hamner Av. & Ontario Ranch Rd. TS 22.6 29.6 C C D
25 I-15 SB Ramps & Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd. TS 26.8 24.3 C C D 26 I-15 NB Ramps & Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd. TS 18.1 18.1 B B D 27 Wineville Av. & Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd. TS 17.8 17.8 B B D *
1 2
TS = Traffic Signal; AWS = All-way Stop; CSS = Cross-street Stop BOLD = Level of Service (LOS) does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS).

Per the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. HCM delay reported in seconds.

Delay1
(secs.)
Future Intersection
Future Intersection 1841
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
42 3.9 OFF-RAMP QUEUING ANALYSIS
A queuing analysis was performed for the off-ramps at the SR-60 Freeway at the Archibald Avenue and Haven Avenue interchanges to assess vehicle queues for the off ramps that may potentially result in deficient peak hour operations at the ramp-to-arterial intersections and may potentially “spill back” onto the SR-60 Freeway mainline. Queuing analysis findings are presented in Table 3-2. It is important to note that off-ramp lengths are consistent with the measured distance between the intersection and the freeway mainline. As shown in Table 3-2, there are no movements that are currently experiencing queuing issues during the weekday AM or weekday PM peak 95th percentile traffic flows. Worksheets for Existing (2022) traffic conditions off-ramp queuing analysis are provided in Appendix 3.4.

TABLE 3-2: PEAK HOUR OFF-RAMP QUEUING SUMMARY FOR EXISTING (2022) CONDITIONS Movement AM PM
Archibald Av. & SR-60 WB Ramps WBL 365 308 2 190 Yes Yes WBL/T/R 1,285 178 2 193 Yes Yes
WBR 365 131 53 Yes Yes
Archibald Av. & SR-60 EB Ramps EBL 325 228 101 Yes Yes
EBL/T/R 1,265 160 132 Yes Yes
EBR 325 74 123 Yes Yes
Haven Av. & SR-60 WB Ramps WBL 240 52 141 Yes Yes
WBL/T 1,370 256 140 Yes Yes
WBR 240 0 0 Yes Yes
Haven Av. & SR-60 EB Ramps EBL 1,400 302 2 163 Yes Yes
EBL/T 660 307 2 165 Yes Yes
EBR 285 42 120 Yes Yes
Milliken Av. & SR-60 WB Ramps WBL 215 95 83 Yes Yes
WBR 1,490 439 2 118 Yes Yes
Milliken Av. & SR-60 EB Ramps EBL 1,415 361 2 212 Yes Yes EBR 1,165 120 167 Yes Yes
I-15 NB Ramps & Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd. SBL 1,435 244 154 Yes Yes SBL/R 550 126 517 Yes Yes
SBR 455 89 466 3 Yes Yes
Wineville Av. & Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd. NBL 1,615 268 188 Yes Yes NBL/R 585 74 61 Yes Yes
2 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 1 Stacking Distance is acceptable if the required stacking distance is less than or equal to the stacking distance provided. An additional 15 feet ofstacking which is assumed to be provided in the transition for turn pockets is reflected in the stacking distance shown on this table, where applicable. 3 Although 95th percentile queue is anticipated to exceed the available storage for the turn lane, the adjacent through lane has sufficient storage to accommodate any spillover without spilling back and affecting the I-15Freeway mainline.

Intersection
Available
Stacking
Distance (Feet)
95th Percentile Queue (Feet)3 Acceptable? 1
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
1842
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
43 4 PROJECTED FUTURE TRAFFIC
This section presents the traffic volumes estimated to be generated by the Project, as well as the Project’s trip assignment onto the study area roadway network. A preliminary land use plan for the proposed Project is shown previously on Exhibit 1-2. The proposed Project is to consist of 7,194 single family and multifamily residential dwelling units, 27.0 acres of public park, 2,780,000 square feet of industrial uses, and 772,500 square feet of retail/office uses. Table 4-1 provides a summary of the proposed land uses and Planning Areas. Note that portions of Planning Areas 3A and 4A have already been developed (currently existing). Planning Areas 2, 3, 4A, 5C, 6, 10, and portions of 7, 8, and 9 are anticipated to be developed as part of the first phase with an anticipated Opening Year of 2024. Project Buildout is anticipated in Year 2027. Access to the proposed Project would be provided to the surrounding roadways of Riverside Drive to the north, Haven Avenue to the west, Ontario Ranch Road to the south, and Mill Creek Avenue to the east. Chino Avenue is also an east-west roadway that runs through the Project.

4.1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is both attracted to and produced by a development. Determining traffic generation for a specific project is therefore based upon forecasting the amount of traffic that is expected to be both attracted to and produced by the specific land uses being proposed for a given development. Trip generation rates for the proposed Project are provided in Appendix 4.1.

4.1.1 CURRENTLY APPROVED
Trip generation for the currently approved land uses are shown in Table 4-2 as evaluated in the Traffic Impact Analysis Report Rich Haven Specific Plan PA 1 & PA 7 Amendment (dated January 2021, prepared by LLG Engineers). The currently approved Specific Plan land uses include 7,194 single family detached and multifamily residential dwelling units, 27.0 acres of public park, 1,183,525 square feet of industrial uses and 990,902 square feet of retail/office uses. As shown in Table 4-2, the currently approved uses generate a total of 91,993 trip-ends per day with 6,372 AM peak hour trips and 8,772 PM peak hour trips.
1843
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
44 TABLE 4-1: PROPOSED LAND USE SUMMARY
PA Land Use Quantity Unit1
1A Single Family Residential (0-5 DU/Ac) 128 DU
1B Single Family Residential (5.1-12 DU/Ac) 94 DU
1B Multifamily Residential (12.1-25 DU/Ac) 200 DU
1C Single Family Residential (5.1-12 DU/Ac) 231 DU
1C Multifamily Residential (12.1-25 DU/Ac) 800 DU
Open Space (Edison Easement) 20.0 AC
Public Park 27.0 AC
2B Multifamily Residential (12.1-25 DU/Ac) 190 DU
2C Light Industrial 560.617 TSF
Public Park 1.3 AC
3A Single Family Residential (5.1-12 DU/Ac) 100 DU
3A Multifamily Residential (12.1-25 DU/Ac) 110 DU
3A Single Family Residential (5.1-12 DU/Ac) 100 DU
3A Multifamily Residential (12.1-25 DU/Ac) 250 DU
3B Multifamily Residential (12.1-25 DU/Ac) 190 DU
3C Light Industrial 512.701 TSF
4A Regional Commercial/Stand Alone Residential Overlay 1,099 DU 4B Regional Commercial/Stand Alone Residential Overlay 1,150 DU 166.182 TSF
5A Light Industrial 510.305 TSF
Open Space 3.7 AC
5B Regional Commercial/Stand Alone Residential Overlay 1,150 DU

76.320 TSF
5C Regional Commercial 7.500 TSF
5E Open Space (Edison Easement) 8.3 AC
5F Open Space (Edison Easement) 8.5 AC
6A Light Industrial 1,183.525 TSF
6B Regional Commercial 300.000 TSF
7/8/9 Regional Commercial/Mixed Use Overlay 852 DU
325.000 TSF
10A/10B Regional Commercial/Stand Alone Residential Overlay 550 DU

50.000 TSF
1 DU = Dwelling Units; TSF = Thousand Square Feet; AC = Acres Portions of this Planning Area has been developed.
1844
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
45 TABLE 4-2: CURRENTLY APPROVED LAND USES TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Land Use Quantity Units1In Out Total In Out Total Daily PA 1A: Single Family Detached Residential 115 DU 21 64 85 72 42 114 1,086 PA 1B: Single Family Detached Residential 175 DU 32 98 130 109 64 173 1,652 PA 1C: Single Family Detached Residential 231 DU 31 95 126 106 62 168 1,605 PA 1C: Multifamily (Low-Rise) Residential 500 DU 59 199 258 198 116 314 4,107 Public Park 27.0 AC 1 0 1 2 1 3 21
PA 2C: Single Family Detached Residential 154 DU 28 86 114 96 56 152 1,454 PA 2B: Single Family Detached Residential 101 DU 19 56 75 63 37 100 953 PA 2B: Single Family Detached Residential 108 DU 20 60 80 67 40 107 1,020 PA 3A: Single Family Detached Residential 109 DU 20 61 81 68 40 108 1,029 PA 5C: Single Family Detached Residential 65 DU 12 36 48 41 23 64 614 PA 5C: Multifamily (Low-Rise) Residential 100 DU 11 35 46 35 21 56 732 PA 3A: Single Family Detached Residential 332 DU 61 185 246 207 122 329 3,134 PA 3B: Single Family Detached Residential 81 DU 15 45 60 51 29 80 765 PA 3B: Multifamily (Low-Rise) Residential 280 DU 30 99 129 99 58 157 2,050 PA 4A: Single Family Detached Residential 1,089 DU 201 605 806 679 399 1,078 10,280 PA 4A: General Office 41.546 TSF 41 7 48 8 40 48 405
PA 4A: Shopping Center 41.545 TSF 24 15 39 76 82 158 1,568 PA 5A: Single Family Detached Residential 703 DU 130 390 520 438 258 696 6,636 PA 5A: General Office 19.080 TSF 19 3 22 4 18 22 186
PA 5A: Shopping Center 19.080 TSF 11 7 18 35 38 73 720
PA 6A: High-Cube Transload 591.763 TSF 53 11 64 27 47 74 1,092 PA 6A: High-Cube Fulfillment Center 295.881 TSF 270 66 336 163 258 421 2,516 PA 6A: High-Cube Cold Storage 295.881 TSF 29 9 38 13 32 45 827 PA 6B: Shopping Center 225.000 TSF 55 33 88 171 186 357 3,539 PA 6B: High Turnover Restaurant 45.000 TSF 102 84 186 113 70 183 2,103 PA 6B: Fast-Food Restaurant w/ Drive-Through 30.000 TSF 256 246 502 212 196 408 5,887 PA 7, 8, 9: Single Family Detached Residential 852 DU 158 472 630 531 312 843 8,043 PA 7, 8, 9: General Office 162.500 TSF 162 27 189 30 157 187 1,583 PA 7, 8, 9: Shopping Center 162.500 TSF 95 58 153 297 322 619 6,134 PA 10A, 10B: Multifamily (Low-Rise) Residential 407 DU 43 144 187 144 84 228 2,979 PA 10A, 10B: General Office 61.700 TSF 62 10 72 11 60 71 601 PA 10A, 10B: Shopping Center 61.700 TSF 36 22 58 113 122 235 2,329 PA 4B: Single Family Detached Residential 1,089 DU 201 605 806 679 399 1,078 10,280 PA 4B: General Office 41.546 TSF 41 7 48 8 40 48 405
PA 4B: Shopping Center 41.545 TSF 24 15 39 76 82 158 1,568 PA 5B: Single Family Detached Residential 703 DU 130 390 520 438 258 696 6,636 PA 5B: General Office 19.080 TSF 19 3 22 4 18 22 186
PA 5B: Shopping Center 19.080 TSF 11 7 18 35 38 73 720
Internal Capture -72 -137 -209 -182 -135 -317 -3,061
Pass-by Reduction -159 -148 -307 -334 -323 -657 -2,391
Total Trips 2,302 4,070 6,372 5,003 3,769 8,772 91,993
Source: Traffic Impact Analysis Report Rich Haven Specific Plan PA 1 & PA 7 Amendment, LLG Engineers, January 2021. 1 DU = dwelling units; TSF = thousand square feet; AC = acres AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
1845
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
46 4.1.2 PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed Project is to consist of 7,194 single family and multifamily residential dwelling units,

27.0 acres of public park, 2,780,000 square feet of industrial uses, and 772,500 square feet of retail/office uses. The trip generation rates used the proposed Project are based upon information collected by the ITE as provided in their latest Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, 2021. The proposed Project trip generation summary is shown in Table 4-3. Detailed trip generation calculations are provided in Appendix 4.1. The proposed Project is anticipated to generate a total of 95,538 twoway trips per day with 8,078 AM peak hour trips and 8,036 PM peak hour trips, in actual vehicles. Passby is based on the ITE’s latest Trip Generation Manual. For the purposes of the operations analysis, the PCE trip generation has been utilized, consistent with the City of Ontario traffic study guidelines.

TABLE 4-3: PROPOSED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY

4.1.3 TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON
As shown in Table 4-4, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate an additional 7,411 trip-ends per day with 1,969 additional AM peak hour trips and 392 fewer PM peak hour trips as compared to the uses evaluated in the currently approved Specific Plan. Since the currently approved TOP 2050 traffic forecasts include the currently approved Rich Haven Specific Plan, the trip generation comparison shown in Table 4-4 has been utilized for Horizon Year (2050) traffic conditions only.

TABLE 4-4: TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON SUMMARY
Land Use In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Actual Vehicles:

Phase 1 Total Trips 1,634 2,101 3,735 2,199 1,832 4,031 47,226 Phase 2 Total Trips 2,005 2,338 4,343 2,281 1,724 4,005 48,312 Project Buildout Total Trips (Actual Vehicles) 3,639 4,439 8,078 4,480 3,556 8,036 95,538 Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE):

Phase 1 Total Trips 1,694 2,140 3,834 2,231 1,893 4,124 48,922 Phase 2 Total Trips 2,005 2,338 4,343 2,281 1,724 4,005 48,312 Project Buildout Total Trips (PCE) 3,699 4,478 8,177 4,512 3,617 8,129 97,234 1 DU = dwelling units; TSF = thousand square feet; AC = acres AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use In Out Total In Out Total Daily
2021 SPA Trip Generation 2,302 4,070 6,372 5,003 3,769 8,772 91,993 Proposed Project Trip Generation 3,639 4,439 8,078 4,480 3,556 8,036 95,538 Existing Uses 67 196 263 217 127 344 3,866
Variance 1,404 565 1,969 -306 -86 -392 7,411
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
1846
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
47 4.2 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
The Project trip distribution and assignment process represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the Project site. The trip distribution pattern is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site, the location of surrounding uses, and the proximity to the regional freeway system. Since the distribution patterns is influence by the type of land use, separate distribution patterns have been evaluated for the residential, non-residential, and industrial (passenger cars and trucks) uses. The Project trip distribution patterns are shown on the following Exhibits:
• Exhibit 4-1: Project (Residential) Trip Distribution
• Exhibit 4-2: Project (Non-Residential) Trip Distribution • Exhibit 4-3: Project (2C, 3C & 5A Industrial – Passenger Cars) Trip Distribution • Exhibit 4-4: Project (2C, 3C & 5A Industrial – Trucks) Trip Distribution • Exhibit 4-5: Project (6A Industrial – Passenger Cars) Trip Distribution • Exhibit 4-6: Project (6A Industrial – Trucks) Trip Distribution

4.3 MODAL SPLIT
The potential for Project trips to be reduced by the use of public transit, walking or bicycling have not been included as part of the Project’s estimated trip generation. Essentially, the Project’s traffic projections are "conservative" in that these alternative travel modes would reduce the forecasted traffic volumes.

4.4 PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT
The assignment of traffic from the Project area to the adjoining roadway system is based upon the Project trip generation, trip distribution, and the arterial highway and local street system improvements that would be in place by the time of initial occupancy of the Project. Based on the identified Project traffic generation and trip distribution patterns, Project (Phase 1) and Project (Project Buildout) weekday ADT and weekday peak hour intersection turning movement volumes, in actual vehicles, are shown on Exhibits 4-7 and 4-8, respectively. The Project Only traffic volumes, in actual vehicles, for the variance in trip generation from the proposed Project to the currently approved Specific Plan utilized for Horizon Year (2050) conditions is shown in Exhibit 4-9. 1847
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
48 EXHIBIT 4-1: PROJECT (RESIDENTIAL) TRIP DISTRIBUTION 1848
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
49 EXHIBIT 4-2: PROJECT (NON-RESIDENTIAL) TRIP DISTRIBUTION 1849
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
50 EXHIBIT 4-3: PROJECT (2C, 3C & 5A INDUSTRIAL – PASSENGER CARS) TRIP DISTRIBUTION 1850
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
51 EXHIBIT 4-4: PROJECT (2C, 3C & 5A INDUSTRIAL – TRUCKS) TRIP DISTRIBUTION 1851
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
52 EXHIBIT 4-5: PROJECT (6A INDUSTRIAL – PASSENGER CARS) TRIP DISTRIBUTION 1852
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
53 EXHIBIT 4-6: PROJECT (6A INDUSTRIAL – TRUCKS) TRIP DISTRIBUTION 1853
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
54 EXHIBIT 4-7: PROJECT ONLY (PHASE 1) TRAFFIC VOLUMES (PAGE 1 OF 2) 1854
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
55 EXHIBIT 4-7: PROJECT ONLY (PHASE 1) TRAFFIC VOLUMES (PAGE 2 OF 2) 1855
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
56 EXHIBIT 4-8: PROJECT ONLY (PROJECT BUILDOUT) TRAFFIC VOLUMES (PAGE 1 OF 2) 1856
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
57 EXHIBIT 4-8: PROJECT ONLY (PROJECT BUILDOUT) TRAFFIC VOLUMES (PAGE 2 OF 2) 1857
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
58 EXHIBIT 4-9: PROJECT ONLY (VARIANCE) TRAFFIC VOLUMES (PAGE 1 OF 2) 1858
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
59 EXHIBIT 4-9: PROJECT ONLY (VARIANCE) TRAFFIC VOLUMES (PAGE 2 OF 2) 1859
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
60 4.5 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC
Future year traffic forecasts have been based upon background (ambient) growth at 2% per year, compounded annually, for 2027 traffic conditions. The total ambient growth is 14.9% for 2027 traffic conditions. The ambient growth factor is intended to approximate regional traffic growth. This ambient growth rate is added to existing traffic volumes to account for area-wide growth not reflected by cumulative development projects. Ambient growth has been added to daily and peak hour traffic volumes on surrounding roadways, in conjunction with traffic generated by the development of future projects that have been approved but not yet built and/or for which development applications have been filed and are under consideration by governing agencies. 2027 traffic volumes are provided in Section 6 of this report. The traffic generated by the proposed Project was then manually added to the base volume to determine With Project forecasts.

4.6 CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC
A cumulative project list was developed for the purposes of this analysis through consultation with planning and engineering staff from the City of Ontario. The cumulative projects listed are those that would generate traffic and would contribute traffic to study area intersections. Exhibit 4-10 illustrates the cumulative development location map. A summary of cumulative development projects and their proposed land uses are shown in Table 4-5. If applicable, the traffic generated by individual cumulative projects was manually added to the Without Project forecasts to ensure that traffic generated by the listed cumulative development projects in Table 4-5 are reflected as part of the background traffic. In an effort to conduct a conservative analysis, the cumulative projects are added in conjunction with the ambient growth identified in Section 4.5 Background Traffic. The Cumulative Only ADT and peak hour intersection turning movement volumes, in actual vehicles, are shown on Exhibit 4-11. 1860
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
61 EXHIBIT 4-10: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LOCATON MAP
1861
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
62 EXHIBIT 4-11: CUMULATIVE ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES (PAGE 1 OF 2) 1862
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
63 EXHIBIT 4-11: CUMULATIVE ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES (PAGE 2 OF 2) 1863
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
64 TABLE 4-5: CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE SUMMARY
# Project/Location Land Use Quantity Units1
City of Ontario
Business Park 227.951 TSF
High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse 913.053 TSF
High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse 179.135 TSF
Warehouse 320.551 TSF
Single Family Detached 716 DU
Shopping Center 87.000 TSF
High-Cube Fulfillment Warehouse 1,447.123 TSF
Business Park 457.904 TSF
Business Park 1,075.235 TSF
High-Cube Fulfillment Warehouse 2,819.282 TSF
High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse 563.857 TSF
Warehousing 954.218 TSF
Single Family Detached 804 DU
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) 2,046 DU
Park 58.860 AC
High-Cube Fulfillment Warehouse 7014.000 TSF
Business Park 1441.000 TSF
Single Family Detached 270 DU
Condo/Townhouse 1,872 DU
General Office 462.281 TSF
Shopping Center 194.278 TSF
Countryside Single Family Detached 819 DU
Armstrong Ranch Single Family Detached 994 DU
Single Family Detached 2,020 DU
Multi-Family Attached (Apartments) 586 DU
Shopping Center 250.000 TSF
Single Family Detached 484 DU
Multi-Family Attached (Apartments) 843 DU
Single Family Detached 149 DU
Multifamily Housing 654 DU
Elementary School 650 STU
Shopping Center 87.000 TSF
General Light Industrial 42.160 TSF
High-Cube Warehouse 168.640 TSF
O13 PDEV10-008 - Dry Food Storage Mini-Warehouse 17.000 TSF Single Family Detached 914 DU
Multi-Family Attached (Apartments) 496 DU
Single Family Detached 310 DU
Multi-Family Attached (Condo) 274 DU
Shopping Center 217.520 TSF
Business Park 550.000 TSF
Single Family Detached 176 DU
Shopping Center 26.000 TSF
O15 Edenglen (50% Complete)
O17 Tuscana Village
O11 West Haven
O12 Haven Gateway
O14 Esperanza (50% Complete)
O10 Grand Park (80% Complete)
O4 South Ontario Logistics Center
O5 Parkside Specific Plan
O6 Merrill Commerce Center
O7 Parente Home Ranch SP
O8
O9 The Avenue (50% Complete)
O3 Ontario Ranch Commerce Center
O1 Ontario Ranch Business Park
O2 Subarea 29 & Amendment (75% complete)
1864
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
65 City of Chino Shopping Center 15 TSF
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) 698 DU
Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) 440 DU
Public Parks 21.60 AC
General Office 77.597 TSF
Shopping Center 77.597 TSF
Multifamily Housing 549 DU
Office 16.300 TSF
Shopping Center 36.800 TSF
Pharmacy with Drive-Thru 12.900 TSF
Supermarket 45.000 TSF
Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Thru 6.500 TSF
Fast Casual Restaurant 13.750 TSF
Quality Restaurant 13.750 TSF
Single Family Detached 552 DU
Public Park 3.0 AC
Self Storage & RV Storage 120.000 TSF
Sports Park 41.8 AC
C4 Ag. Buffer, Bungalow, Lic. Product, Liberty Deluxe, Lyon 2 & 3 Single Family Detached 474 DU Fast-food w/ Drive-Thru 3.218 TSF
Shopping Center 2.300 TSF
Warehousing 205.820 TSF
General Light Industrial 51.030 TSF
Business Park 110.620 TSF
C7 Kimball Business Park Gas Station w/ Market 16 VFP
Fast-Food with Drive-Thru 2.500 TSF
Chaffey College Expansion Junior/Community College 93.50 AC College Park Commercial Shopping Center 7.50 AC
Church 27.000 TSF
General Office 16.969 TSF
Shopping Center 17.785 TSF
High-Turnover (Sit Down) Restaurant 15.876 TSF
Warehousing 715.000 TSF
Light Industrial 255.000 TSF
Business Park 233.000 TSF
Self-Storage 110.000 TSF
Specialty Retail 25.000 TSF
Pharmacy/Drugstore with Drive-Thru 13.000 TSF
Fast-Food with Drive-Thru 8.600 TSF
Elementary School 1,200 STU
Library 10.00 AC
Community Center 10.00 AC
Park 8.00 AC
C13 Fairfield Inn & Suites (PL 17-0060 & PL 17-0061) Hotel 111 RM C14 Watson Industrial Park (90% complete) High-Cube Warehouse 388.990 TSF C11 Majestic Gateway
C12 The Preserve Civic Center
C10 Altitude Business Centre
C2 The Preserve Town Center (Blocks 6 and 7)
C3 Pines Community
C5 Farmer Boys
C6 Euclid & Bickmore Warehouse
C8
C9 The Campus at College Park
C1 Falloncrest at the Preserve
1865
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
66 High-Cube Fulfillment Warehouse 1982.700 TSF
High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse 100.000 TSF
Church 47.979 TSF
Daycare 190 STU
Single Family Detached 60 DU
Condo/Townhouse 160 DU
C18 Archibald's (PL 17-0037) Fast-Food with Drive-Thru 3.147 TSF Single Family Detached 691 DU
Condo/Townhouse 132 DU
Neighborhood Retail 21.780 TSF
Church 400 SEAT
C20 Eagle's Nest (storage for 33 aircraft) Aviation Storage 8.3 AC C21 Lewis Block 3 Single Family Detached 114 DU
Single Family Detached 220 DU
Multifamily (Low-Rise) Residential 85 DU
Recreational Community Center 16.000 TSF
High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse 138.804 TSF
High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse 786.558 TSF
City of Eastvale
Single Family Detached 39 DU
Multifamily Housing 90 DU
E2 TR29997 Single Family Detached 122 DU
Multifamily Housing 216 DU
Shopping Center 2.500 TSF
Fast-Food Without Drive-Thru 2.500 TSF
E4 Eastvale Commerce Center (75% complete) Shopping Center 162.500 TSF E5 PP23219 (PM35865) (50% complete) General Light Industrial 738.430 TSF Free-Standing Discount Superstore 192.000 TSF
Specialty Retail 9.200 TSF
Fast-Food Without Drive-Thru 7.200 TSF
Coffee/Donut Shop w/ Drive Thru 2.000 TSF
Fast-Food with Drive-Thru 3.500 TSF
Gas Station w/ convenience store and car wash 16 VFP
Shopping Center 267.200 TSF
General Light Industrial 801.500 TSF
Business Park 280.275 TSF
E9 15-1508 - Industrial Warehouse Warehousing 155.000 TSF Lifestyle Center (Commercial) 1,300.000 TSF
General Commercial 225.000 TSF
Office 920.000 TSF
Hotel 450 RM
High Density Residential 500-660 DU
City of Chino Hills
CH1 Country Club Villas Condo/Townhouse 46 DU
Hospital 55.000 TSF
Medical Office Building 86.952 TSF
Hotel 120 RM
Shopping Center 38.848 TSF
Restaurant 7.200 TSF
1 TSF = Thousand Square Feet; DU = Dwelling Unit; VFP = Vehicle Fueling Position ; AC = Acres; RM = Rooms E10 Leal Master Plan
CH2 Heritage Professional Center
E3 Sumner Place
E6 Eastvale Shopping Center
E8 SP00358 - The Ranch at Eastvale (75% complete)
C22 Lewis Block 11
C23 Chino Flight
E1 Magnolia Ranch
C16 Church
C17 Appesetche Residential
C19 Rancho Miramonte
C15 Majestic Chino Heritage
1866
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
67 4.7 NEAR-TERM TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
The “buildup” approach combines existing traffic counts with a background ambient growth factor to forecast Opening Year Cumulative (2027) traffic conditions. An ambient growth factor accounts for background (area-wide) traffic increases that occur over time up to the year 2027 from the year 2022.

Traffic volumes generated by the Project are then added to assess the near-term traffic conditions.

The 2027 roadway networks are similar to the Existing conditions roadway network, with the exception of future driveways proposed to be developed by the Project.

The near-term traffic analysis includes the following traffic conditions, with the various traffic components:
• Opening Year Cumulative (2027) Without Project
o Existing 2022 counts
o Ambient growth traffic (14.9%)
o Cumulative Development Traffic
o Opening Year Cumulative (2027) With Project
o Existing 2022 counts
o Ambient growth traffic (14.9%)
o Cumulative Development Traffic
o Project (Project Buildout) traffic

4.8 HORIZON YEAR (2050) VOLUME DEVELOPMENT
Traffic projections for Horizon Year (2050) without Project conditions were derived from the SBTAM using accepted procedures for model forecast refinement and smoothing for study area intersections located within the County of San Bernardino and are based on the City on Ontario TOP 2050 currently approved General Plan forecasts. The traffic forecasts reflect the area-wide growth anticipated between Existing (2022) conditions and Horizon Year (2050) traffic conditions. In most instances the traffic model zone structure is not designed to provide accurate turning movements along arterial roadways unless refinement and reasonableness checking is performed. Therefore, the Horizon Year (2050) peak hour forecasts were refined using the model derived long range forecasts, base (validation) year model forecasts, along with existing peak hour traffic count data collected at each analysis location in May 2022. The SBTAM has a base (validation) year of 2016 and a horizon (future forecast) year of 2050. The difference in model volumes (2050-2016) defines the growth in traffic over the 32-year period.

The refined future peak hour approach and departure volumes obtained from the model output data are then entered into a spreadsheet program consistent with the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP Report 765), along with initial estimates of turning movement proportions.

A linear programming algorithm is used to calculate individual turning movements which match the known directional roadway segment forecast volumes computed in the previous step. This program computes a likely set of intersection turning movements from intersection approach counts and the initial turning proportions from each approach leg.
1867
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
68 The SBTAM uses an AM peak period-to-peak hour factor of 0.35 and a PM peak period-to-peak hour factor of 0.27. These factors represent the relationship of the highest single AM peak hour to the modeled 3-hour AM peak period (an even distribution would result in a factor of 0.33) and the highest single PM peak hour to the modeled 4-hour PM peak period (an even distribution would result in a factor of 0.25).
1868
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
69 5 E+P TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This section discusses the traffic forecasts for E+P conditions and the resulting intersection operations, traffic signal warrant, and off-ramp queuing analyses.

5.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for E+P conditions are consistent with those shown previously on Exhibit 3-1, with the exception of the following:
• Project driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by the Project to provide site access are also assumed to be in place for E+P conditions only (e.g., intersection and roadway improvements at the Project’s frontage and driveways).

5.2 E+P (PHASE 1) GROWTH TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS
This scenario includes Existing traffic volumes plus the addition of Project (Phase 1) traffic. The weekday ADT and weekday AM and PM peak hour volumes, in actual vehicles, which can be expected for E+P traffic conditions are shown on Exhibit 5-1.

5.2 E+P (PROJECT BUILDOUT) GROWTH TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS This scenario includes Existing traffic volumes plus the addition of Project (Project Buildout) traffic.

The weekday ADT and weekday AM and PM peak hour volumes, in actual vehicles, which can be expected for E+P traffic conditions are shown on Exhibit 5-2.

5.3 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
E+P peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections based on the analysis methodologies presented in Section 2 Methodologies of this TA. The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 5-1 for E+P traffic conditions, which indicates that the following additional study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS during the peak hours under E+P (Phase 1) traffic conditions, in addition to the intersections identified under Existing (2022) traffic conditions:
• Haven Avenue & Chino Avenue (#13) – LOS F PM peak hour only • Haven Avenue & Ontario Ranch Road (#15) – LOS F PM peak hour only • Milliken Avenue & Riverside Drive (#22) – LOS E AM peak hour only • Hamner Avenue & Chino Avenue (#23) – LOS F PM peak hour only • Hamner Avenue & Ontario Ranch Road (#24) – LOS E PM peak hour only The following additional study area intersection is anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS during the peak hours under E+P (Project Buildout) traffic conditions, in addition to the intersections identified under Existing (2022) traffic conditions:
• Archibald Avenue & Ontario Ranch Road (#6) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours 1869
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
70 EXHIBIT 5-1: E+P (PHASE 1) TRAFFIC VOLUMES (PAGE 1 OF 2) 1870
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
71 EXHIBIT 5-1: E+P (PHASE 1) TRAFFIC VOLUMES (PAGE 2 OF 2) 1871
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
72 EXHIBIT 5-2: E+P (BUILDOUT) TRAFFIC VOLUMES (PAGE 1 OF 2) 1872
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
73 EXHIBIT 5-2: E+P (BUILDOUT) TRAFFIC VOLUMES (PAGE 2 OF 2) 1873
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
74 TABLE 5-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR E+P CONDITIONS
The intersection operations analysis worksheets for E+P (Phase 1) and E+P (Project Buildout) traffic conditions are included in Appendices 5.1 and 5.2, respectively.

5.4 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
The traffic signal warrant analysis for E+P traffic conditions is based on the peak hour volumes or planning level ADT volume-based traffic signal warrants. The following unsignalized study area intersections of are anticipated to meet a traffic signal warrant under E+P (Phase 1) traffic conditions (see Appendix 5.3):
• Haven Avenue & Chino Avenue (#13)
• Hamner Avenue & Chino Avenue (#23)
Level of Level of Level of
Service Service Service Acceptable

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM LOS
1 Archibald Av. & SR-60 WB Ramps TS 18.5 28.9 B C 18.3 28.5 B C 18.2 28.2 A C D 2 Archibald Av. & SR-60 EB Ramps TS 14.9 13.9 B B 14.8 13.6 B B 14.6 13.4 B B D 3 Archibald Av. & Riverside Dr. TS 39.2 34.8 D C 44.0 39.1 D D 48.3 44.8 D D E 4 Archibald Av. & Chino Av. TS 20.3 23.7 C C 23.9 30.9 C C 28.2 42.6 C D E 5 Archibald Av. & Schaefer Av. TS 10.6 5.9 B A 10.9 6.0 B A 11.4 6.4 B A E 6 Archibald Av. & Ontario Ranch Rd. TS 30.6 28.6 C C 36.2 22.8 D C 142.5 91.8 F F E 7 Turner Av. & Riverside Dr. TS 33.2 22.5 C C 35.9 22.8 D C 37.7 22.9 D C E 8 Turner Av. & Chino Av. AWS 27.3 10.0 D A 36.6 10.9 E B 45.4 11.5 E B E 9 Turner Av. & Ontario Ranch Rd. TS 16.3 13.3 B B 18.5 14.9 B B 26.8 24.1 C C E 10 Haven Av. & SR-60 WB Ramps TS 14.4 11.2 B B 16.7 13.9 B B 19.0 16.5 B B D 11 Haven Av. & SR-60 EB Ramps TS 22.7 17.2 C B 23.6 20.4 C C 39.9 45.6 D D D 12 Haven Av. & Riverside Dr. TS 106.4 82.4 F F >200.0 >200.0 F F >200.0 >200.0 F F E 13 Haven Av. & Chino Av. CSS/TS 12.7 13.1 B B 35.5 >100.0 D F >100.0 >100.0 F F E 14 Haven Av. & Schaefer Av. TS 9.0 9.4 A A 14.4 11.3 B B 93.5 28.4 F C E 15 Haven Av. & Ontario Ranch Rd. TS 32.1 45.0 C D 74.6 84.4 E F >200.0 >200.0 F F E 16 Twinkle Av. & Chino Av. RB 4.7 4.9 A A 6.4 6.8 A A E 17 Mill Creek Av. & Riverside Dr. TS 40.9 21.2 D C 56.3 24.5 E C 60.8 27.1 E C E 18 Mill Creek Av. & Chino Av. AWS/RB 7.1 7.2 A A 10.6 9.5 B A 12.5 11.5 B B E 19 Mill Creek Av. & Ontario Ranch Rd. TS 22.0 22.7 C C 53.5 41.9 D D E 20 Milliken Av. & SR-60 WB Ramps TS 18.6 16.1 B B 20.4 23.7 C C 23.4 45.2 C D D 21 Milliken Av. & SR-60 EB Ramps TS 22.4 16.5 C B 25.0 17.0 C B 31.5 19.4 C B D 22 Milliken Av. & Riverside Dr. TS 50.7 27.1 D C 60.3 40.6 E D 93.5 66.2 F E D 23 Hamner Av. & Chino Av. CSS 13.1 16.3 B C 29.3 51.2 D F >100.0 >100.0 F F D 24 Hamner Av. & Ontario Ranch Rd. TS 22.6 29.6 C C 33.8 70.2 C E 139.7 171.1 F F D 25 I-15 SB Ramps & Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd. TS 26.8 24.3 C C 30.2 24.9 C C 19.3 26.4 B C D 26 I-15 NB Ramps & Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd. TS 18.1 18.1 B B 38.4 24.8 D C 41.1 35.5 D D D 27 Wineville Av. & Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd. TS 17.8 17.8 B B 18.0 18.2 B B 18.7 18.7 B B D * BOLD = Level of Service (LOS) does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 1 2 TS = Traffic Signal; AWS = All-way Stop; CSS = Cross-street Stop; RB = Roundabout; TS = Traffic Signal # Intersection
Traffic
Control2
Existing (2022) E+P (Phase 1)
Delay1 Delay1
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
(secs.) (secs.)
Per the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. HCM delay reported in seconds.

E+P (Project Buildout)
Delay1
(secs.)
1874
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
75 There are no unsignalized study area intersections evaluated for E+P (Project Buildout) traffic conditions, since all unsignalized study area intersections have previously met a traffic signal warrant under Existing or E+P (Phase 1) traffic conditions.

5.5 OFF-RAMP QUEUING ANALYSIS
Queuing analysis findings for E+P are presented in Table 5-2. As shown in Table 5-2, there are no movements that are anticipated to experience queuing issues during the weekday AM or weekday PM peak 95th percentile traffic flows, consistent with Existing (2022) traffic conditions. Worksheets for E+P (Phase 1) and E+P (Project Buildout) traffic conditions queuing analysis are provided in Appendices

5.4 and 5.5, respectively.

5.6 PROJECT DEFICIENCIES AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Improvements needed to achieve acceptable LOS have been identified at intersections or off-ramps that are anticipated to operate at a deficient LOS under E+P traffic conditions.

5.6.1 IMPROVEMENTS TO ADDRESS DEFICIENCIES AT INTERSECTIONS Improvement strategies have been recommended at intersections that have been identified as deficient under E+P traffic conditions in an effort to achieve an acceptable LOS. The effectiveness of the recommended improvement strategies to address E+P traffic deficiencies are presented in Table 5-3. Worksheets for E+P (Phase 1) and E+P (Project Buildout) conditions, with improvements, HCM calculation worksheets are provided in Appendices 5.6 and 5.7, respectively.

5.6.2 IMPROVEMENTS TO ADDRESS DEFICIENCIES ON OFF-RAMP QUEUES As shown in Table 5-2, there are no movements that are anticipated to experience queuing issues during the weekday AM or weekday PM peak 95th percentile traffic flows for E+P traffic conditions. As such, no improvements have been identified.
1875
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
76 TABLE 5-2: PEAK HOUR OFF-RAMP QUEUING SUMMARY FOR E+P CONDITIONS

AM PM AM PM AM PM
Archibald Av. & SR-60 WB Ramps WBL 365 308 2 190 Yes Yes 308 2 190 Yes Yes 308 2 190 Yes Yes WBL/T/R 1,285 178 2 193 Yes Yes 178 2 193 Yes Yes 178 2 193 Yes Yes WBR 365 131 53 Yes Yes 146 53 Yes Yes 155 53 Yes Yes
Archibald Av. & SR-60 EB Ramps EBL 325 228 101 Yes Yes 228 101 Yes Yes 228 101 Yes Yes EBL/T/R 1,265 160 132 Yes Yes 160 143 Yes Yes 160 151 Yes Yes EBR 325 74 123 Yes Yes 84 133 Yes Yes 94 141 Yes Yes
Haven Av. & SR-60 WB Ramps WBL 240 52 141 Yes Yes 52 141 Yes Yes 52 141 Yes Yes WBL/T 1,370 256 140 Yes Yes 256 140 Yes Yes 256 140 Yes Yes WBR 240 0 0 Yes Yes 0 0 Yes Yes 0 0 Yes Yes
Haven Av. & SR-60 EB Ramps EBL 1,400 302 2 163 Yes Yes 302 2 163 Yes Yes 302 2 163 Yes Yes EBL/T 660 307 2 165 Yes Yes 307 2 165 Yes Yes 307 2 165 Yes Yes EBR 285 42 120 Yes Yes 129 491 2,3 Yes Yes 367 2,3 843 2,3 Yes Yes Milliken Av. & SR-60 WB Ramps WBL 215 95 83 Yes Yes 172 235 2,3 Yes Yes 313 3 504 2,3 Yes Yes WBR 1,490 439 2 118 Yes Yes 439 2 159 Yes Yes 439 2 208 2 Yes Yes Milliken Av. & SR-60 EB Ramps EBL 1,415 361 2 212 Yes Yes 380 2 212 Yes Yes 380 2 212 Yes Yes EBR 1,165 120 167 Yes Yes 184 332 2 Yes Yes 308 2 384 2 Yes Yes I-15 NB Ramps & Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd. SBL 1,435 244 154 Yes Yes 209 154 Yes Yes 183 154 Yes Yes SBL/R 550 126 517 Yes Yes 239 875 2,3 Yes Yes 941 2,3 1,101 2,3 Yes Yes SBR 455 89 466 3 Yes Yes 218 734 2,3 Yes Yes 883 2,3 1,004 2,3 Yes Yes Wineville Av. & Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd. NBL 1,615 268 188 Yes Yes 447 2 420 2 Yes Yes 724 2 694 2 Yes Yes NBL/R 585 74 61 Yes Yes 89 63 Yes Yes 163 86 Yes Yes
2 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 1 Stacking Distance is acceptable if the required stacking distance is less than or equal to the stacking distance provided. An additional 15 feet of stacking which is assumed to be provided in the transition for turn pockets is reflected in the stacking distance shown on this table, where applicable. 3 Although 95th percentile queue is anticipated to exceed the available storage for the turn lane, the adjacent through lane has sufficient storage to accommodate any spillover without spilling back and affecting the SR-60 and I-15 Freeway mainline.

AM Peak PM Peak
E+P (Project Buildout)
95th Percentile
Queue (Feet) Acceptable? 1 95th Percentile Queue (Feet) Acceptable? 1 E+P (Phase 1)
95th Percentile
Queue (Feet) Acceptable? 1
Intersection AM Peak PM Peak
Existing (2022)
Movement AM Peak PM Peak
Available
Stacking
Distance (Feet)
1876
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
77 TABLE 5-3: E+P CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WITH IMPROVEMENTS Traffic Acceptable
Control3

L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM LOS
6 Archibald Av. & Ontario Ranch Rd.

E+P (Phase 1):

E+P (Project Buildout): TS 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 62.7 52.0 E D 12 Haven Av. & Riverside Dr.

E+P (Phase 1): TS 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 44.8 35.3 D D E+P (Project Buildout): TS 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 77.8 65.7 E E 13 Haven Av. & Chino Av.

E+P (Phase 1): TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 17.8 23.4 B C E+P (Project Buildout): TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 22.7 68.0 C E 14 Haven Av. & Schaefer Av.

E+P (Phase 1):

E+P (Project Buildout): TS 1 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 5.0 18.3 A B 15 Haven Av. & Ontario Ranch Rd.

E+P (Phase 1): TS 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 2 4 1 28.0 24.7 C C E+P (Project Buildout): TS 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 2 4 1 54.9 78.2 D E 22 Milliken Av. & Riverside Dr.

E+P (Phase 1): TS 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 29.2 23.6 C C E+P (Project Buildout): TS 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 39.7 30.9 D C 23 Hamner Av. & Chino Av.

E+P (Phase 1): TS 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6.2 6.3 A A
E+P (Project Buildout): TS 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 10.7 8.5 B A 24 Hamner Av. & Ontario Ranch Rd.

E+P (Phase 1): TS 2 3 1 2 4 2 2 4 1 2 4 1 25.3 33.5 C C E+P (Project Buildout): TS 2 3 1 2 4 2 2 4 1 2 4 1 71.2 75.2 E E 1 2
3 TS = Traffic Signal; TS = Traffic Signal
4 Improvement includes modifying the traffic signal to implement protected left turn phasing for the northbound and southbound approaches.

D
When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.

L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; 1 = Improvement
Per the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.

Not Applicable
Not Applicable
E
E
E
D
D
(secs.) Service
E
E
Intersection Approach Lanes1 Delay2
Level of
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
1877
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
78 This Page Intentionally Left Blank
1878
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
79 6 OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2027) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This section discusses the traffic forecasts for Opening Year Cumulative (2027) conditions and the resulting intersection operations, traffic signal warrant, and off-ramp queuing analyses.

6.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for Opening Year Cumulative (2027) conditions are consistent with those shown previously on Exhibit 3-1, with the exception of the following:
• Project driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by the Project to provide site access are also assumed to be in place for Opening Year Cumulative (2027) conditions (e.g., intersection and roadway improvements at the Project’s frontage and driveways). • Project driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by the Project to provide site access are also assumed to be in place for Opening Year Cumulative (2027) conditions (e.g., intersection and roadway improvements at the Project’s frontage and driveways).

6.2 OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2027) WITHOUT PROJECT GROWTH TRAFFIC

VOLUME FORECASTS
This scenario includes Existing traffic volumes plus an ambient growth factor of 14.9% plus traffic from pending and approved but not yet constructed known development projects in the area. The weekday ADT and weekday AM and PM peak hour volumes, in actual vehicles, which can be expected for Opening Year Cumulative (2027) Without Project traffic conditions are shown on Exhibit 6-1.

6.3 OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2027) WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUME

FORECASTS
This scenario includes Opening Year Cumulative (2027) Without Project traffic in conjunction with the addition of Project (Project Buildout) traffic. The weekday ADT and weekday AM and PM peak hour volumes, in actual vehicles, which can be expected for Opening Year Cumulative (2027) With Project traffic conditions are shown on Exhibit 6-2.
1879
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
80 EXHIBIT 6-1: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2027) WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES (PAGE 1 OF 2)
1880
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
81 EXHIBIT 6-1: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2027) WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES (PAGE 2 OF 2)
1881
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
82 EXHIBIT 6-2: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2027) WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES (PAGE 1 OF 2)
1882
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
83 EXHIBIT 6-2: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2027) WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES (PAGE 2 OF 2)
1883
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
84 6.4 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
Opening Year Cumulative (2027) peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersections based on the analysis methodologies presented in Section 2 Methodologies of this TA.

The intersection analysis results are summarized in Table 6-1 for Opening Year Cumulative (2027) traffic conditions, which indicates that the following study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS during the peak hours under Opening Year Cumulative (2027) Without Project traffic conditions:
• Turner Avenue & Chino Avenue (#8) – LOS F AM peak hour only • Haven Avenue & Riverside Drive (#12) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Milliken Avenue & Riverside Drive (#22) – LOS F AM peak hour only The following additional study area intersections anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS during the peak hours with the addition of Project traffic under Opening Year Cumulative (2027) With Project traffic conditions:
• Archibald Avenue & Riverside Drive (#3) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Archibald Avenue & Ontario Ranch Road (#6) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Haven Avenue & Chino Avenue (#13) – LOS F PM peak hour only • Haven Avenue & Schaefer Avenue (#14) – LOS F AM peak hour only • Haven Avenue & Ontario Ranch Road (#15) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Hamner Avenue & Chino Avenue (#23) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Hamner Avenue & Ontario Ranch Road (#24) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours The intersection operations analysis worksheets for Opening Year Cumulative (2027) Without Project and With Project traffic conditions are included in Appendices 6.1 and 6.2, respectively.

6.5 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
All unsignalized study area intersections are anticipated to meet a traffic signal warrant under previous scenarios. As such, traffic signal warrants have not been evaluated for Opening Year Cumulative (2027) traffic conditions.

6.6 OFF-RAMP QUEUING ANALYSIS
Queuing analysis findings for Opening Year Cumulative (2027) traffic conditions are presented in Table 6-2. As shown in Table 6-2, there are no movements that are anticipated to experience queuing issues during the weekday AM or weekday PM peak 95th percentile traffic flows. Worksheets for Opening Year Cumulative (2027) Without Project and With Project traffic conditions queuing analysis are provided in Appendices 6.3 and 6.4, respectively.
1884
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
85 TABLE 6-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2027) CONDITIONS Level of Level of
Service Service Acceptable

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM LOS
1 Archibald Av. & SR-60 WB Ramps TS 21.9 28.8 C C 21.5 28.5 C C D 2 Archibald Av. & SR-60 EB Ramps TS 15.9 15.0 B B 15.8 14.6 B B D 3 Archibald Av. & Riverside Dr. TS 79.3 68.9 E E 101.6 93.7 F F E 4 Archibald Av. & Chino Av. TS 31.2 48.6 C D 51.9 76.2 D E E 5 Archibald Av. & Schaefer Av. TS 13.0 10.7 B B 15.5 11.2 B B E 6 Archibald Av. & Ontario Ranch Rd. TS 60.1 49.1 E D 194.8 128.0 F F E 7 Turner Av. & Riverside Dr. TS 54.9 26.4 D C 56.4 26.7 E C E 8 Turner Av. & Chino Av. AWS 92.9 12.6 F B >100.0 16.2 F C E 9 Turner Av. & Ontario Ranch Rd. TS 17.5 13.5 B B 42.1 42.1 D D E 10 Haven Av. & SR-60 WB Ramps TS 17.6 12.8 B B 44.7 19.1 D B D 11 Haven Av. & SR-60 EB Ramps TS 27.0 17.1 C B 47.7 43.0 D D D 12 Haven Av. & Riverside Dr. TS >200.0 >200.0 F F >200.0 >200.0 F F E 13 Haven Av. & Chino Av. CSS/TS 29.9 25.2 D D 179.0 >200.0 F F E 14 Haven Av. & Schaefer Av. TS 12.1 12.9 B B 116.2 57.5 F E E 15 Haven Av. & Ontario Ranch Rd. TS 49.9 62.6 D E >200.0 >200.0 F F E 16 Twinkle Av. & Chino Av. RB 6.4 6.8 A A E
17 Mill Creek Av. & Riverside Dr. TS 61.6 22.2 E C 78.7 30.4 E C E 18 Mill Creek Av. & Chino Av. AWS/RB 7.1 7.2 A A 12.5 11.5 B B E 19 Mill Creek Av. & Ontario Ranch Rd. TS 55.0 43.2 D D E 20 Milliken Av. & SR-60 WB Ramps TS 17.3 19.5 B B 26.2 50.1 C D D 21 Milliken Av. & SR-60 EB Ramps TS 26.8 17.3 C B 40.0 26.0 D C D 22 Milliken Av. & Riverside Dr. TS 82.3 46.9 F D 168.3 160.4 F F D 23 Hamner Av. & Chino Av. CSS 14.0 18.1 B C 196.8 >100.0 F F D 24 Hamner Av. & Ontario Ranch Rd. TS 31.0 50.3 C D 184.5 >200.0 F F D 25 I-15 SB Ramps & Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd. TS 30.7 28.0 C C 22.6 23.9 C C D 26 I-15 NB Ramps & Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd. TS 35.6 16.0 D B 51.8 54.3 D D D 27 Wineville Av. & Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd. TS 18.5 18.8 B B 20.1 19.8 C B D * BOLD = Level of Service (LOS) does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 1 2 TS = Traffic Signal; AWS = All-way Stop; CSS = Cross-street Stop; RB = Roundabout # Intersection
Traffic
Control2
2027 Without Project 2027 With Project
Delay1 Delay1
(secs.)
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
Per the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. HCM delay reported in seconds. (secs.)
1885
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
86 TABLE 6-2: PEAK HOUR OFF-RAMP QUEUING SUMMARY FOR OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2027) CONDITIONS

AM PM AM PM
Archibald Av. & SR-60 WB Ramps WBL 365 373 2,3 245 2 Yes Yes 373 2,3 245 2 Yes Yes WBL/T/R 1,285 300 2 251 2 Yes Yes 308 2 251 2 Yes Yes
WBR 365 257 2 55 Yes Yes 257 2 55 Yes Yes
Archibald Av. & SR-60 EB Ramps EBL 325 269 109 Yes Yes 269 109 Yes Yes EBL/T/R 1,265 180 261 2 Yes Yes 193 278 2 Yes Yes
EBR 325 164 225 2 Yes Yes 177 225 2 Yes Yes
Haven Av. & SR-60 WB Ramps WBL 240 69 174 Yes Yes 69 174 Yes Yes WBL/T 1,370 427 2 176 Yes Yes 427 2 176 Yes Yes
WBR 240 0 0 Yes Yes 0 0 Yes Yes
Haven Av. & SR-60 EB Ramps EBL 1,400 349 2 178 Yes Yes 349 2 178 Yes Yes EBL/T 660 353 2 181 Yes Yes 353 2 181 Yes Yes
EBR 285 69 149 Yes Yes 400 2,3 873 2,3 Yes Yes
Milliken Av. & SR-60 WB Ramps WBL 215 103 90 Yes Yes 325 3 514 2,3 Yes Yes WBR 1,490 514 2 220 2 Yes Yes 514 2 294 2 Yes Yes
Milliken Av. & SR-60 EB Ramps EBL 1,415 418 2 234 Yes Yes 438 2 234 Yes Yes EBR 1,165 150 272 2 Yes Yes 381 2 449 2 Yes Yes
I-15 NB Ramps & Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd. SBL 1,435 232 172 Yes Yes 185 172 Yes Yes SBL/R 550 571 2,3 881 2,3 Yes Yes 1,362 2 1,362 2 No No SBR 455 444 802 2,3 Yes Yes 1,293 2 1,260 2 No No
Wineville Av. & Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd. NBL 1,615 313 214 Yes Yes 759 2 604 2 Yes Yes NBL/R 585 81 67 Yes Yes 189 73 Yes Yes
2 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 2027 With Project
95th Percentile
Queue (Feet) Acceptable? 1 95th Percentile Queue (Feet) Acceptable? 1 Intersection Movement
Available
Stacking
Distance (Feet)
2027 Without Project
AM Peak PM Peak PM Peak
1 Stacking Distance is acceptable if the required stacking distance is less than or equal to the stacking distance provided. An additional 15 feet of stacking which is assumed to be provided in the transition for turn pockets is reflected in the stacking distance shown on this table, where applicable. 3 Although 95th percentile queue is anticipated to exceed the available storage for the turn lane, the adjacent through lane has sufficient storage to accommodate any spillover without spilling back and affecting the SR-60 Freeway mainline.

AM Peak
1886
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
87 6.7 PROJECT DEFICIENCIES AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS Improvements needed to achieve acceptable LOS have been identified at intersections or off-ramps that are anticipated to operate at a deficient LOS under Opening Year Cumulative (2027) traffic conditions.

6.7.1 IMPROVEMENTS TO ADDRESS DEFICIENCIES AT INTERSECTIONS Improvement strategies have been recommended at intersections that have been identified as deficient under Opening Year Cumulative (2027) traffic conditions in an effort to achieve an acceptable LOS. The effectiveness of the recommended improvement strategies to address Opening Year Cumulative (2027) traffic deficiencies are presented in Table 6-3. Worksheets for Opening Year Cumulative (2027) Without Project and With Project traffic conditions, with improvements, HCM calculation worksheets are provided in Appendices 6.5 and 6.6, respectively.

6.7.2 IMPROVEMENTS TO ADDRESS DEFICIENCIES ON OFF-RAMP QUEUES As shown previously in Table 6-2, there are no movements that are anticipated to experience queuing issues during the weekday AM or weekday PM peak 95th percentile traffic flows for Opening Year Cumulative (2027) traffic conditions. As such, no improvements have been identified. 1887
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
88 TABLE 6-3: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2027) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS

ANALYSIS WITH IMPROVEMENTS
Traffic Acceptable
Control3

L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM LOS
3 Archibald Av. & Riverside Dr.

Without Project: TS 2 3 0 2 3 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 45.2 45.5 D D With Project: TS 2 3 0 2 3 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 53.6 52.9 D D
6 Archibald Av. & Merrill Av.

Without Project: TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 24.4 26.2 C C With Project: TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 55.1 47.0 E D
8 Turner Av. & Chino Av.

Without Project: TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 10.7 6.,5 B A With Project: TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 13.2 7.0 B A
12 Haven Av. & Riverside Dr.

Without Project: TS 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 35.0 21.9 C C With Project: TS 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 79.2 32.3 E C
13 Haven Av. & Chino Av.

Without Project: TS 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 18.2 19.7 B B With Project: TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 32.0 75.4 C E
14 Haven Av. & Schaefer Av.

Without Project: TS 1 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 10.9 12.3 B B With Project: TS 1 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 12.7 36.4 B D
15 Haven Av. & Ontario Ranch Rd.

Without Project: TS 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 2 4 1 26.2 25.3 C C With Project: TS 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 2 4 1 77.3 77.9 E E
22 Milliken Av. & Riverside Dr.

Without Project: TS 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 23.5 20.9 C C With Project: TS 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 54.3 23.1 D C
23 Hamner Av. & Chino Av.

Without Project: TS 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2.5 23.1 A C With Project: TS 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 12.0 3.4 B A
24 Hamner Av. & Ontario Ranch Rd.

Without Project: TS 2 3 1 2 4 2 2 4 1 2 4 1 22.2 28.1 C C With Project: TS 2 3 1 2 4 2 2 4 1 2 4 1 35.8 54.7 D D
1 2
3 TS = Traffic Signal; TS = Traffic Signal
4 Improvement includes modifying the traffic signal to implement protected left turn phasing for the northbound and southbound approaches.

E
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; 1 = Improvement
Per the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown.

E
D
D
When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.

D
E
E
E
Intersection Approach Lanes1 Delay2
Level of
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (secs.) Service E
E
1888
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
89 7 HORIZON YEAR (2050) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This section discusses the methods used to develop Horizon Year (2050) Without and With Project traffic forecasts, and the resulting intersection operations and traffic signal warrant analyses.

7.1 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The lane configurations and traffic controls assumed to be in place for Horizon Year (2050) conditions are consistent with those shown previously on Exhibit 3-1, with the exception of the following:
• Project driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by the Project to provide site access are also assumed to be in place for Horizon Year conditions only (e.g., intersection and roadway improvements along the Project’s frontage and driveways). • If applicable, driveways and those facilities assumed to be constructed by cumulative developments to provide site access are also assumed to be in place for Horizon Year conditions only.

7.2 WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS
This scenario includes the refined post-process volumes obtained from the SBTAM (see Section 4.8 Horizon Year (2050) Volume Development of this TA for a detailed discussion on the post-processing methodology). The weekday ADT and weekday AM and PM peak hour volumes, in actual vehicles, which can be expected for Horizon Year (2050) Without Project traffic conditions are shown on Exhibit 7-1.

7.3 WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS
This scenario includes the refined post-process volumes obtained from the SBTAM, plus the variance in traffic generated by the buildout proposed Project compared to the approved Specific Plan. The weekday ADT and weekday AM and PM peak hour volumes, in actual vehicles, which can be expected for Horizon Year (2050) With Project traffic conditions are shown on Exhibit 7-2.

7.4 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
LOS calculations were conducted for the study intersections to evaluate their operations under Horizon Year (2050) Without Project conditions with roadway and intersection geometrics consistent with Section 7.1 Roadway Improvements. As shown on Table 7-1, the following study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS during the peak hours:
• Archibald Avenue & Riverside Drive (#3) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Archibald Avenue & Chino Avenue (#4) – LOS F PM peak hour only • Turner Avenue & Chino Avenue (#8) – LOS F PM peak hour only • Haven Avenue & Riverside Drive (#12) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Haven Avenue & Chino Avenue (#13) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Haven Avenue & Ontario Ranch Road (#15) – LOS F PM peak hour only 1889
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
90 EXHIBIT 7-1: HORIZON YEAR (2050) WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES (PAGE 1 OF 2) 1890
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
91 EXHIBIT 7-1: HORIZON YEAR (2050) WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES (PAGE 2 OF 2) 1891
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
92 EXHIBIT 7-2: HORIZON YEAR (2050) WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES (PAGE 1 OF 2) 1892
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
93 EXHIBIT 7-2: HORIZON YEAR (2050) WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES (PAGE 2 OF 2) 1893
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
94 TABLE 7-1: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR HORIZON YEAR (2050) CONDITIONS Level of Level of
Service Service Acceptable

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM LOS
1 Archibald Av. & SR-60 WB Ramps TS 26.4 29.8 C C 26.7 29.7 C C D 2 Archibald Av. & SR-60 EB Ramps TS 17.6 17.0 B B 17.6 17.2 B B D 3 Archibald Av. & Riverside Dr. TS 124.3 159.7 F F 119.2 153.1 F F E 4 Archibald Av. & Chino Av. TS 56.9 107.1 E F 59.3 105.4 E F E 5 Archibald Av. & Schaefer Av. TS 24.2 15.1 C B 25.7 20.4 C C E 6 Archibald Av. & Ontario Ranch Rd. TS >200.0 167.8 F F >200.0 169.7 F F E 7 Turner Av. & Riverside Dr. TS 72.1 30.3 E D 78.7 37.6 E D E 8 Turner Av. & Chino Av. AWS >100.0 18.4 F C >100.0 15.7 F C E 9 Turner Av. & Ontario Ranch Rd. TS 45.1 74.5 D E 62.6 62.1 E E E 10 Haven Av. & SR-60 WB Ramps TS 21.3 17.0 C B 20.5 15.1 C B D 11 Haven Av. & SR-60 EB Ramps TS 51.0 17.9 D B 50.6 16.6 D B D 12 Haven Av. & Riverside Dr. TS >200.0 >200.0 F F >200.0 >200.0 F F E 13 Haven Av. & Chino Av. CSS/TS >100.0 >100.0 F F 60.8 62.6 E E E 14 Haven Av. & Schaefer Av. TS 12.9 16.3 B B 13.0 13.7 B B E 15 Haven Av. & Ontario Ranch Rd. TS 71.5 >200.0 E F 105.3 131.1 F F E 16 Twinkle Av. & Chino Av. RB 6.4 6.8 A A E
17 Mill Creek Av. & Riverside Dr. TS >200.0 >200.0 F F >200.0 144.5 F F E 18 Mill Creek Av. & Chino Av. AWS/RB 8.0 23.2 A C 11.6 12.1 B B E 19 Mill Creek Av. & Ontario Ranch Rd. TS 12.5 17.4 B B E 20 Milliken Av. & SR-60 WB Ramps TS 29.7 54.4 C D 33.4 51.0 C D D 21 Milliken Av. & SR-60 EB Ramps TS 54.9 49.9 D D 49.5 48.4 D D D 22 Milliken Av. & Riverside Dr. TS >200.0 >200.0 F F >200.0 >200.0 F F D 23 Hamner Av. & Chino Av. CSS >100.0 >100.0 F F 52.6 43.3 F E D 24 Hamner Av. & Ontario Ranch Rd. TS 124.6 >200.0 F F 276.3 >200.0 F F D 25 I-15 SB Ramps & Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd. TS 33.6 45.0 C D 19.5 22.7 B C D 26 I-15 NB Ramps & Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd. TS 36.5 48.4 D D 28.0 53.2 C D D 27 Wineville Av. & Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd. TS 21.7 21.3 C C 22.3 20.9 C C D * BOLD = Level of Service (LOS) does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 1 2 TS = Traffic Signal; AWS = All-way Stop; CSS = Cross-street Stop; RB = Roundabout # Intersection
Traffic
Control2
2045 Without Project 2045 With Project
Delay1 Delay1
(secs.) (secs.)
Future Intersection
Future Intersection
Per the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. HCM delay reported in seconds.
1894
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
95 • Mill Creek Road & Riverside Drive (#15) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Milliken Avenue & Riverside Drive (#22) – LOS F AM peak hour only • Archibald Avenue & Ontario Ranch Road (#6) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Haven Avenue & Chino Avenue (#13) – LOS F PM peak hour only • Haven Avenue & Schaefer Avenue (#14) – LOS F AM peak hour only • Haven Avenue & Ontario Ranch Road (#15) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Mill Creek Avenue & Riverside Drive (#17) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Milliken Avenue & Riverside Drive (#22) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Hamner Avenue & Chino Avenue (#23) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Hamner Avenue & Ontario Ranch Road (#24) – LOS F AM and PM peak hours As shown on Table 7-1, the addition of the variance in Project (Project Buildout) traffic is not anticipated to result in any new deficiencies from those identified under Horizon Year (2050) Without Project traffic conditions. The intersection operations analysis worksheets for Horizon Year (2050) Without Project and With Project traffic conditions are included in Appendices 7.1 and 7.2, respectively.

7.5 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
All unsignalized study area intersections are anticipated to meet a traffic signal warrant under previous scenarios. As such, traffic signal warrants have not been evaluated for Horizon Year (2050) traffic conditions.

7.6 OFF-RAMP QUEUING ANALYSIS
Queuing analysis findings for Horizon Year (2050) traffic conditions are presented in Table 7-2. As shown in Table 7-2, there are no movements that are anticipated to experience queuing issues during the weekday AM or weekday PM peak 95th percentile traffic flows. Worksheets for Horizon Year (2050) Without Project and With Project traffic conditions queuing analysis are provided in Appendices 7.3 and 7.4, respectively.
1895
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
96 TABLE 7-2: PEAK HOUR OFF-RAMP QUEUING SUMMARY FOR HORIZON YEAR (2050) CONDITIONS

AM PM AM PM
Archibald Av. & SR-60 WB Ramps WBL 365 421 2,3 282 2 Yes Yes 421 2,3 282 2 Yes Yes WBL/T/R 1,285 363 2 290 2 Yes Yes 358 2 290 2 Yes Yes
WBR 365 302 2 57 Yes Yes 302 2 57 Yes Yes
Archibald Av. & SR-60 EB Ramps EBL 325 305 117 Yes Yes 305 117 Yes Yes EBL/T/R 1,265 235 336 2 Yes Yes 235 331 2 Yes Yes
EBR 325 210 264 2 Yes Yes 210 264 2 Yes Yes
Haven Av. & SR-60 WB Ramps WBL 240 75 195 2 Yes Yes 75 195 2 Yes Yes WBL/T 1,370 487 2 191 Yes Yes 487 2 191 Yes Yes
WBR 240 0 0 Yes Yes 0 0 Yes Yes
Haven Av. & SR-60 EB Ramps EBL 1,400 397 2 196 Yes Yes 397 2 196 Yes Yes EBL/T 660 403 2 198 Yes Yes 403 2 198 Yes Yes
EBR 285 37 392 2,3 Yes Yes 86 169 Yes Yes
Milliken Av. & SR-60 WB Ramps WBL 215 16 269 2 Yes No 112 283 2,3 Yes Yes WBR 1,490 645 2 611 2 Yes Yes 645 2 611 2 Yes Yes
Milliken Av. & SR-60 EB Ramps EBL 1,415 503 2 263 2 Yes Yes 503 2 263 2 Yes Yes EBR 1,165 581 2 512 2 Yes Yes 522 2 447 2 Yes Yes
I-15 NB Ramps & Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd. SBL 1,435 307 192 Yes Yes 205 192 Yes Yes SBL/R 550 659 2,3 1,108 2,3 Yes Yes 1,093 2,3 1,049 2,3 Yes Yes SBR 455 612 2,3 1,104 2 Yes Yes 1,018 2,3 945 2,3 Yes Yes Wineville Av. & Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd. NBL 1,615 319 646 2 Yes Yes 444 2 699 2 Yes Yes NBL/R 585 82 86 Yes Yes 96 93 Yes Yes
2 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. 1 Stacking Distance is acceptable if the required stacking distance is less than or equal to the stacking distance provided. An additional 15 feet of stacking which is assumed to be provided in the transition for turn pockets is reflected in the stacking distance shown on this table, where applicable. 3 Although 95th percentile queue is anticipated to exceed the available storage for the turn lane, the adjacent through lane has sufficient storage to accommodate any spillover without spilling back and affecting the SR-60 and I-15 Freeway mainline.

Intersection Movement AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Available
Stacking
Distance (Feet)
2045 Without Project 2045 With Project
95th Percentile
Queue (Feet) Acceptable? 1 95th Percentile Queue (Feet) Acceptable? 1 1896
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
97 7.7 PROJECT DEFICIENCIES AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS Improvements needed to achieve acceptable LOS have been identified at intersections or off-ramps that are anticipated to operate at a deficient LOS under Horizon Year (2050) traffic conditions.

7.7.1 IMPROVEMENTS TO ADDRESS DEFICIENCIES AT INTERSECTIONS Improvement strategies have been recommended at intersections that have been identified as deficient under Horizon Year (2050) traffic conditions in an effort to achieve an acceptable LOS. The effectiveness of the recommended improvement strategies to address Opening Year Cumulative (2050) traffic deficiencies are presented in Table 6-3. Worksheets for Horizon Year (2050) Without Project and With Project traffic conditions, with improvements, HCM calculation worksheets are provided in Appendices 7.5 and 7.6, respectively.

7.7.2 IMPROVEMENTS TO ADDRESS DEFICIENCIES ON OFF-RAMP QUEUES As shown previously in Table 7-2, there are no movements that are anticipated to experience queuing issues during the weekday AM or weekday PM peak 95th percentile traffic flows for Horizon Year (2050) traffic conditions. As such, no improvements have been identified. 1897
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
98 TABLE 7-3: HORIZON YEAR (2045) CONDITIONS INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS WITH

IMPROVEMENTS
Traffic Acceptable
Control3

L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM LOS
3 Archibald Av. & Riverside Dr.

Without Project: TS 2 3 0 2 3 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 63.4 71.6 E E With Project: TS 2 3 0 2 3 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 69.7 76.2 E E
4 Archibald Av. & Chino Av.

Without Project: TS 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 47.5 75.8 D E With Project: TS 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 48.1 67.7 D E
6 Archibald Av. & Merrill Av.

Without Project: TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 57.7 45.4 E D With Project: TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 71.9 45.7 E D
8 Turner Av. & Chino Av.

Without Project: TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 15.6 7.3 B A With Project: TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 16.6 7.3 B A
12 Haven Av. & Riverside Dr.

Without Project: TS 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 0 2 2 0 66.7 61.6 E E With Project: TS 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 0 2 2 0 69.3 63.0 E E
13 Haven Av. & Chino Av.

Without Project: TS 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 19.4 53.5 B D With Project: TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 26.6 27.5 C C
15 Haven Av. & Ontario Ranch Rd.

Without Project: TS 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 4 1 29.9 47.0 C D With Project: TS 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 4 1 62.2 79.0 E E
17 Mill Creek Av. & Riverside Dr.

Without Project: TS 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 74.1 51.5 E D With Project: TS 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 78.5 30.6 E C
22 Milliken Av. & Riverside Dr.

Without Project: TS 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 40.7 48.4 D D With Project: TS 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 41.2 45.6 D D
23 Hamner Av. & Chino Av.

Without Project: TS 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6.7 12.4 A B With Project: TS 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3.1 4.2 A A
24 Hamner Av. & Ontario Ranch Rd.

Without Project: TS 2 3 1 2 4 2 2 4 1 2 4 1 43.7 52.8 D D With Project: TS 2 3 1 2 4 2 2 4 1 2 4 1 54.6 54.7 D D
1 2
3 TS = Traffic Signal; TS = Traffic Signal
4 Improvement includes modifying the traffic signal to implement protected left turn phasing for the northbound and southbound approaches.

When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.

Intersection Approach Lanes1 Delay2
Level of
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound (secs.) Service D
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
D
D
1898
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
99 8 LOCAL AND REGIONAL FUNDING MECHANISMS
Transportation improvements within the City of Ontario are funded through a combination of construction of improvements, development impact fee programs or fair share contributions, such as the City of Ontario Development Impact Fee (DIF) program. Identification and timing of needed improvements is generally determined through local jurisdictions based upon a variety of factors.

8.1 CITY OF ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM
The City of Ontario has created its own local DIF program to impose and collect fees from new residential, commercial, and industrial development for the purpose of funding roadways and intersections necessary to accommodate City growth as identified in the City’s General Plan Circulation Element. The City’s DIF includes regional improvements to comply with Measure “I.” The fee schedule was last updated in January 2020 and is reviewed/adjusted annually based upon changes in the construction cost index (CCI). Under the City’s DIF program, the City may grant to developers a credit against specific components of fees when those developers construct certain facilities and landscaped medians identified in the list of improvements funded by the DIF program.

The timing to use the DIF fees is established through periodic capital improvement programs which are overseen by the City’s Public Works Department. Periodic traffic counts, review of traffic accidents, and a review of traffic trends throughout the City are also periodically performed by City staff and consultants. The City uses this data to determine the timing of implementing the improvements listed in its facilities list. The City also uses this data to ensure that the improvements listed on the facilities list are constructed before the LOS falls below the LOS performance standards adopted by the City.

In this way, the improvements are constructed before the LOS falls below the City’s LOS performance thresholds.

The Project Applicant will be subject to the City’s DIF fee program and will pay the requisite City DIF fees at the rates then in effect pursuant to the City’s ordinance. The Project Applicant’s payment of the requisite DIF at the rates then in effect, pursuant to the City DIF Program, would satisfy the Project’s proportional improvement requirements at potentially affected DIF-funded facilities. 1899
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
100
TABLE 8-1: ESTIMATED FEE OBLIGATION

8.2 MEASURE “I” FUNDS
In 2004, the voters of San Bernardino County approved the 30-year extension of Measure “I,” a onehalf of one percent sales tax on retail transactions, through the year 2040, for transportation projects including, but not limited to, infrastructure improvements, commuter rail, public transit, and other identified improvements. The Measure “I” extension requires that a regional traffic impact fee be created to ensure development is paying its fair share. A regional Nexus study was prepared by SBCTA and concluded that each jurisdiction should include a regional fee component in their local programs in order to meet the Measure “I” requirement. The regional component assigns specific facilities and cost sharing formulas to each jurisdiction and was most recently updated in November 2011.

Revenues collected through these programs are used in tandem with Measure “I” funds to deliver projects identified in the Nexus Study. While Measure “I” is a self-executing sales tax administered by SBCTA, it bears discussion here because the funds raised through Measure “I” have funded in the past and will continue to fund new transportation facilities in San Bernardino County. $ PER UNIT
$4,847.00
$3,237.00
Retail/Service Uses $9.794
Business Park Uses $5.824
Industrial Uses $3.002
Source: City of Ontario General City (GC) Development Impact Fees (DIF), effective January 1, 2020.

Fee Calculation
Program Category Unit Cost Units Local Circulation
Streets, Signals and
Bridges
Detached Dwellings $4,847.00 1,553 $7,527,391
Streets, Signals and
Bridges
Attached Dwellings $3,237.00 5,641 $18,259,917
Streets, Signals and
Bridges
Retail/Service Uses $9.794 925,002 $9,059,470
Streets, Signals and
Bridges
Business Park Uses $5.824 316,724.6 $1,844,604
Streets, Signals and
Bridges
Industrial Uses $3.002 2,450,423.4 $7,356,171
Total Transportation Impact Fees $44,047,553
Fee Reference
Detached Dwellings
Attached Dwellings
1900
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
101

8.3 FAIR SHARE CONTRIBUTION
Project improvement may include a combination of fee payments to established programs, construction of specific improvements, payment of a fair share contribution toward future improvements or a combination of these approaches. Improvements constructed by development may be eligible for a fee credit or reimbursement through the program where appropriate (to be determined at the City’s discretion).

When off-site improvements are identified with a minor share of responsibility assigned to proposed development, the approving jurisdiction may elect to collect a fair share contribution or require the development to construct improvements. Detailed fair share calculations, for each peak hour, has been provided in Table 8-2 for the applicable deficient study area intersections.

These fees are collected with the proceeds solely used as part of a funding mechanism aimed at ensuring that regional highways and arterial expansions keep pace with the projected population increases.

TABLE 8-2: PROJECT FAIR SHARE CALCULATIONS
3 Archibald Av. & Riverside Dr.

AM: 3,446 447 4,798 1,352 33.1%
PM: 3,650 488 5,165 1,515 32.2%
4 Archibald Av. & Chino Av.

AM: 2,394 17 4,035 1,641 1.0%
PM: 2,456 556 3,928 1,472 37.8%
6 Archibald Av. & Merrill Av.

AM: 2,559 469 5,185 2,626 17.9%
PM: 3,059 13 6,371 3,312 0.4%
8 Turner Av. & Chino Av.

AM: 1,260 226 1,967 707 32.0%
PM: 698 270 1,391 693 39.0%
12 Haven Av. & Riverside Dr.

AM: 2,425 203 4,598 2,173 9.3%
PM: 2,160 1,610 4,693 2,533 63.6%
17 Mill Creek Av. & Riverside Dr.

AM: 1,693 656 2,841 1,148 57.1%
PM: 1,035 756 2,250 1,215 62.2%
22 Milliken Av. & Riverside Dr.

AM: 1,893 153 4,547 2,654 5.8%
PM: 2,071 1,471 5,392 3,321 44.3%
24 Hamner Av. & Ontario Ranch Rd.

AM: 2,989 1,482 6,913 3,924 37.8%
PM: 3,706 529 8,642 4,936 10.7%
1 BOLD =
2 For intersections where the Horizon Year project only volumes are negative, the opening year cumulative volumes have been utilized.

Highest fair share percentage is highlighted.
# Intersection Existing
(2022)
Project
Buildout
2045 With
Project2
Total New
Traffic
Project % of
New Traffic1
1901
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
102
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
1902
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
103
9 REFERENCES

1. County of San Bernardino. Transportation Impact Study Guidelines. County of San Bernardino :
s.n., July 2019.

2. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual. 11th Edition. 2021.

3. San Bernardino Associated Governments. Congestion Management Program for County of San Bernardino. County of San Bernardino : s.n., Updated June 2016.

4. Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). 6th Edition. s.l. : National Academy of Sciences, 2016.

5. California Department of Transportation. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). [book auth.] California Department of Transportation. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). 2014, Updated March 30, 2021 (Revision 6).

6. The Planning Center for The City of Ontario. The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report.

Ontario : s.n., July 2009.

7. The City of Eastvale. Adopted Genreal Plan. Eastvale : s.n., June 13, 2012.

8. California Department of Transportation. Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies.

December 2002.
1903
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report REV
104
This page intentionally left blank
1904
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report
APPENDIX 1.1: APPROVED TRAFFIC STUDY SCOPING AGREEMENT
1905
Rich Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis
14822-03 TA Report
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
1906
14822-03 TA Scope REV
August 19, 2022
Mr. Jay Bautista
City of Ontario
303 E. B Street
Ontario, CA 91764

RICH HAVEN SPECIFIC PLAN TRAFFIC STUDY SCOPING AGREEMENT Mr. Jay Bautista,
Urban Crossroads, Inc. has prepared the following assessment for the proposed Rich Haven Specific Plan development (Project) to establish a traffic analysis (TA) scope of work that would be prepared in support of the proposed Rich Haven Specific Plan Amendment. The Project is north of Ontario Ranch Road, south of Riverside Drive, east of Haven Avenue, and on either side of Mill Creek Avenue in the City of Ontario. The following memo outlines the project-related trip generation, trip distribution patterns, proposed study area and analysis scenarios expected to be included in the Project traffic analysis.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Exhibit 1 illustrates the location map for the proposed Project and Exhibit 2 shows the proposed land use plan. It is our understanding that the Project is to consist of amending the Rich Haven Specific Plan to accomplish the following:

1. Total acreage of the Specific Plan would increase by approximately 6.3-acres (approximately 1 percent) to include all properties accurately and correctly within the Specific Plan boundary.

2. Total residential development within the Specific Plan would be maintained at 7,194 dwelling units. Residential units and densities would however be reassigned within the Specific Plan.

3. Total commercial development would be reduced by 65,900 square feet (approximately 7 percent reduction from the 2021 Specific Plan commercial entitlements).

4. Total light industrial development would be increased by 1,583,623 square feet (approximately 134 percent increase from the 2021 Specific Plan light industrial entitlements).

Note that portions of Planning Areas 5A, 5C, and 6A have already been developed (currently existing). For Planning Areas 5A and 5C, approximately 164 dwelling units of the proposed 560 dwelling units have been built and occupied. Planning Area 6A is proposed to allow for 1,099 dwelling units and as of the date of the traffic counts 316 dwelling units have been sold.

Remaining units in these PAs will be included as part of Phase 1. Planning Areas 4A, 4B, 4C, 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D, 6A, 6B, 6D, 7A, 8A, 8B, and 9A are anticipated to be developed as part of the first phase with an anticipated Opening Year of 2024. Project Buildout is anticipated in Year 2027. For purposes of the TA, the mix of uses for each planning area is summarized on Table 1. Access to the proposed Project would be provided to the surrounding roadways of Riverside Drive to the

1.1-1
1907
Mr. Jay Bautista
City of Ontario
August 19, 2022

Page 2 of 14 ends

Ontario City CouncilJune 20, 2023

Ontario City Council
June 20, 2023