863
Report Detail: SB-02623
Citation information
Year: 1992
Title: CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT: SANTA ANA WATERSHED PROJECT AUTHORITY, CHINO BASIN
DESALINATION PROGRAM - PHASE I PROJECT, RIVERSIDE AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA Affliliation: UNIV. OF CALIF. RIVERSIDE, ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH UNIT No. pages: 24
Database record metadata
Entered: 7/18/2014 jay
Last modified: 10/5/2016 rmoritz
IC actions:
Associated resources
General notes
[NADB Keywords: PREHISTORIC; HISTORIC; ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE REPORT; INTERMONTANE VALLEY; PRADO BASIN; NO RESOURCES]
Date User
Address:
Collections:
Disclosure: Not for publication
Record status: Verified
Location information
Author(s): TASKIRAN, AYSE and RACHEL GREELEY
Attributes: Field study
County(ies): San Bernardino
USGS quad(s): Corona North, Prado Dam
Inventory size:
No. maps:
Identifiers
Report No.: SB-02623
Other IDs:
Cross-refs:
Has informals:
No. resources: 0
PLSS:
Date User Action taken
7/18/2014 jay Appended record from NADB database
Type Name
NADB-R 1062623
Voided 92-3.5
864
Report Detail: SB-03012
Citation information
Year: 1995
Title: CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE CAJON/EPTC PIPELINE PROJECT
LOCATED IN PORTIONS OF LOS ANGELES, SAN BERNARDINO, AND ORANGE COUNTIES, CA Affliliation: EIP ASSOCIATES
No. pages: 55
Database record metadata
Entered: 7/18/2014 jay
Last modified: 10/5/2016 rmoritz
IC actions:
Associated resources
General notes
[NADB Keywords: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE REPORT; RANCHING SITE; DAM; FOOD PROCESSING SITE; MACHINERY; HOUSE; BARN; SILO; CHICKEN COOP; METAL HARDWARE; MANO; HAMMERSTONE; FLAKED LITHIC; METATE; TOOLS; BRANDING IRON; TRACTOR; PUMP; BARREL; PESTLE; CHINO HILLS; PREHISTORIC; HISTORIC; AD 1934; AD 1918; HISTORIC STRUCTURES] Date User
Address:
Collections:
Disclosure: Not for publication
Record status: Verified
Location information
Author(s): OWEN, SHELLEY MARIE
Attributes: Field study
County(ies): San Bernardino
USGS quad(s): Prado Dam, Yorba Linda
Inventory size: 13 MILES
No. maps:
Identifiers
Report No.: SB-03012
Other IDs:
Cross-refs:
Has informals:
No. resources: 5
PLSS:
Date User Action taken
7/18/2014 jay Appended record from NADB database
Primary No. Trinomial Name
P-36-005689 CA-SBR-005689H
P-36-005690 CA-SBR-005690
P-36-005691 CA-SBR-005691
P-36-008124 CA-SBR-008124H
P-36-008125 CA-SBR-008125H
Type Name
NADB-R 1063012
865
Report Detail: SB-03687
Citation information
Year: 1997
Title: IDENTIFICATION & EVALUATION OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES-CHINO BASIN DESALINATION PROGRAM, FACILITIES REVISION PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO & RIVERSIDE COUNTIES. 26PP] Affliliation: CRM TECH
No. pages: 26
Database record metadata
Entered: 7/18/2014 jay
Last modified: 10/5/2016 rmoritz
IC actions:
Associated resources
General notes
[NADB Keywords: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE REPORT; CHINO VALLEY; NO RESOURCES] Date User
Address:
Collections:
Disclosure: Not for publication
Record status: Verified
Location information
Author(s): LOVE, BRUCE and BAI TANG
Attributes: Architectural/Historical, Evaluation
County(ies): San Bernardino
USGS quad(s): Corona North, Ontario, Prado Dam
Inventory size: 19 MILES
No. maps:
Identifiers
Report No.: SB-03687
Other IDs:
Cross-refs:
Has informals:
No. resources: 0
PLSS:
Date User Action taken
7/18/2014 jay Appended record from NADB database
Type Name
NADB-R 1063687
866
Report Detail: SB-03874
Citation information
Year: 2002
Title: HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT: APN: 0218-241-11, -13, -14, -17, & -18, SLEGER & MARTIN PROPERTIES NEAR THE CITY OF ONTARIO, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA. 14PP Affliliation: CRM TECH
No. pages: 14
Database record metadata
Entered: 7/18/2014 jay
Last modified: 5/9/2017 ikott
IC actions:
Associated resources
General notes
[NADB Keywords: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE REPORT; SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY; INTERMONTANE VALLEY; NO RESOURCES]
Date User
Address:
Collections: No
Disclosure: Not for publication
Record status:
Location information
Author(s): DAHDUL, MIRIAM
Attributes: Archaeological, Architectural/Historical, Field study County(ies): San Bernardino
USGS quad(s): Corona North
Inventory size: 80 ACRES
No. maps:
Identifiers
Report No.: SB-03874
Other IDs:
Cross-refs:
Has informals:
No. resources: 0
PLSS:
Date User Action taken
7/18/2014 jay Appended record from NADB database
Type Name
NADB-R 1063874
867
Report Detail: SB-04171
Citation information
Year: 2001
Title: CULTURAL RESOURCES EVALUATION: CUCAMONGA AND DEER CREEK CHANNELS ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION. 10PP
Affliliation: CORPS OF ENGINEERS
No. pages: 10
Database record metadata
Entered: 7/18/2014 jay
Last modified: 5/4/2017 ikott
IC actions:
Associated resources
General notes
[NADB Keywords: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE REPORT; SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY; INTERMONTANE VALLEY; CUCAMONGA CREEK; DEER CREEK; NO RESOURCES] Date User
Address:
Collections: No
Disclosure: Not for publication
Record status: Database Complete
Location information
Author(s): MAXWELL, PAMELA
Attributes:
County(ies): San Bernardino
USGS quad(s): Guasti
Inventory size: 52.3 ACRES
No. maps:
Identifiers
Report No.: SB-04171
Other IDs:
Cross-refs:
Has informals:
No. resources: 0
PLSS:
Date User Action taken
7/18/2014 jay Appended record from NADB database
Type Name
NADB-R 1064171
868
Report Detail: SB-04379
Citation information
Year: 2004
Title: AN ARCHAEOLOGCIAL RESOURCE EVALUATION & PALEONTOLOGICAL RECORDS SEARCH FOR THE WEST HAVEN SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT SUBAREA 6 (WEST OF HAVEN) & SUBAREA 12 (WEST OF HAVEN), CITY OF ONTARIO, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA. 56PP
Affliliation: MICHAEL BRANDMAN ASSOCIATES
No. pages:
Database record metadata
Entered: 7/18/2014 jay
Last modified:
IC actions:
Associated resources
General notes
[NADB Keywords: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE REPORT; SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY; INTERMONTANE VALLEY; NO RESOURCES]
Date User
Address:
Collections:
Disclosure:
Record status:
Location information
Author(s): DICE, MICHAEL
Attributes:
County(ies): San Bernardino
USGS quad(s): Guasti
Inventory size: 266.7 ACRES
No. maps:
Identifiers
Report No.: SB-04379
Other IDs:
Cross-refs:
Has informals:
No. resources: 0
PLSS:
Date User Action taken
7/18/2014 jay Appended record from NADB database
Type Name
NADB-R 1064379
869
Report Detail: SB-04506
Citation information
Year: 2001
Title: HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT: CHINO I DESALTER EXPANSION & CHINO II DESALTER & SUPPORT FACILITIES, CHINO BASIN AREA, SAN BERNARDINO & RIVERSIDE COUNTIES. 16PP Affliliation: CRM TECH
No. pages: 16
Database record metadata
Entered: 7/18/2014 jay
Last modified: 10/5/2016 rmoritz
IC actions:
Associated resources
General notes
[NADB Keywords: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE REPORT; CHINO VALLEY; INTERMONTANE VALLEY; NO RESOURCES]
Date User
Address:
Collections:
Disclosure: Not for publication
Record status: Verified
Location information
Author(s): DAHDUL, MIRIAM
Attributes: Field study
County(ies): San Bernardino
USGS quad(s): Corona North, Prado Dam
Inventory size: 3 MILES
No. maps:
Identifiers
Report No.: SB-04506
Other IDs:
Cross-refs:
Has informals:
No. resources: 0
PLSS:
Date User Action taken
7/18/2014 jay Appended record from NADB database
Type Name
NADB-R 1064506
870
Report Detail: SB-04507
Citation information
Year: 2004
Title: HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT: GRAND PARK SPECIFIC PLAN, CITY OF ONTARIO, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA. 16PP
Affliliation: CRM TECH
No. pages: 16
Database record metadata
Entered: 7/18/2014 jay
Last modified: 5/9/2017 ikott
IC actions:
Associated resources
General notes
[NADB Keywords: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE REPORT; CHINO VALLEY; INTERMONTANE VALLEY; NO RESOURCES]
Date User
Address:
Collections: No
Disclosure: Not for publication
Record status: Database Complete
Location information
Author(s): TIBBETT, CASEY
Attributes: Archaeological, Architectural/Historical, Field study County(ies): San Bernardino
USGS quad(s): Corona North
Inventory size: 140 ACRES
No. maps:
Identifiers
Report No.: SB-04507
Other IDs:
Cross-refs:
Has informals:
No. resources: 0
PLSS:
Date User Action taken
7/18/2014 jay Appended record from NADB database
Type Name
NADB-R 1064507
871
Report Detail: SB-05280
Citation information
Year: 2006 (Jun)
Title: Archaeological Survey of the Bravon 12kV Transmission Line, City of Chino, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California.
Affliliation: Southern California Edison
No. pages: 6
Database record metadata
Entered: 7/22/2014 jay
Last modified: 3/25/2015 l0333
IC actions:
Associated resources
General notes
Date User
Address:
Collections: No
Disclosure: Not for publication
Record status: Database Complete
Location information
Author(s): Pollock, Katherine H.
Attributes: Archaeological, Field study
County(ies): San Bernardino
USGS quad(s): Corona North
Inventory size: approx 3.5 miles
No. maps: 1
Identifiers
Report No.: SB-05280
Other IDs:
Cross-refs:
Has informals: No
No. resources: 0
PLSS:
Date User Action taken
7/22/2014 jay Added placeholder record (no info in NADB, SBAIC_REPORTS, or Word bibliography)
3/25/2015 l0333 Data entered by R. Laska
Type Name
NADB-R 1065280
Other SCE
872
Report Detail: SB-05358
Citation information
Year: 1976
Title: Cucamonga Creek 1776-1976 After 200 Years.
Affliliation:
No. pages:
Database record metadata
Entered: 7/18/2014 jay
Last modified:
IC actions:
Associated resources
General notes
Date User
Address:
Collections:
Disclosure:
Record status:
Location information
Author(s): Sider, W.A.
Attributes:
County(ies): San Bernardino
USGS quad(s):
Inventory size:
No. maps:
Identifiers
Report No.: SB-05358
Other IDs:
Cross-refs:
Has informals:
No. resources: 0
PLSS:
Date User Action taken
7/18/2014 jay Appended record from Report Biblio MS Word document Type Name
NADB-R 1065358
873
Report Detail: SB-05700
Citation information
Year: 2006
Title: On-Call Archaeological Monitoring Services: Eastern Trunk Sewer/Kimball Interceptor Sewer, Cities of Ontario and Chino, San Bernardino County, California.
Affliliation: CRM TECH
No. pages: 5
Database record metadata
Entered: 7/18/2014 jay
Last modified: 5/9/2017 ikott
IC actions:
Associated resources
General notes
Date User
Address:
Collections: No
Disclosure: Not for publication
Record status: Database Complete
Location information
Author(s): Hogan, Michael and Bai “Tom” Tang
Attributes: Archaeological, Field study
County(ies): San Bernardino
USGS quad(s): Corona North
Inventory size:
No. maps:
Identifiers
Report No.: SB-05700
Other IDs:
Cross-refs:
Has informals:
No. resources: 1
PLSS:
Date User Action taken
7/18/2014 jay Appended record from Report Biblio MS Word document Primary No. Trinomial Name
P-36-012533
Type Name
NADB-R 1065700
874
Report Detail: SB-05701
Citation information
Year: 2006
Title: A Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory and a Paleontological Assessment for the 111-Acre Avenue Specific Plan Project, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California.
Affliliation: Stantec Consulting Inc.
No. pages: 28
Database record metadata
Entered: 7/18/2014 jay
Last modified: 5/4/2017 ikott
IC actions:
Associated resources
General notes
Date User
Address:
Collections: No
Disclosure: Not for publication
Record status: Database Complete
Location information
Author(s): Wetherbee, Matthew and Sarah Siren
Attributes: Archaeological, Architectural/Historical
County(ies): San Bernardino
USGS quad(s): Corona North, Guasti
Inventory size:
No. maps:
Identifiers
Report No.: SB-05701
Other IDs:
Cross-refs:
Has informals:
No. resources: 0
PLSS:
Date User Action taken
7/18/2014 jay Appended record from Report Biblio MS Word document Address City Assessor's parcel no. Zip code
218-181-17
218-181-21
218-191-19
218-191-20
218-201-30
Type Name
NADB-R 1065701
Paleo
875
Report Detail: SB-05702
Citation information
Year: 2007
Title: Identification and Evaluation of Historic Properties: RP-1 Outfall Parallel Pipeline Project, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California.
Affliliation:
No. pages:
Database record metadata
Entered: 7/18/2014 jay
Last modified:
IC actions:
Associated resources
General notes
Date User
Address:
Collections:
Disclosure:
Record status:
Location information
Author(s): Encarnacion, Deirdre and Daniel Ballester
Attributes:
County(ies): San Bernardino
USGS quad(s):
Inventory size:
No. maps:
Identifiers
Report No.: SB-05702
Other IDs:
Cross-refs:
Has informals:
No. resources: 0
PLSS:
Date User Action taken
7/18/2014 jay Appended record from Report Biblio MS Word document Type Name
NADB-R 1065702
876
Report Detail: SB-05976
Citation information
Year: 2007 (Oct)
Title: Cultural Resource Assessment New Model Colony East Backbone Infrastructure, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California.
Affliliation: Stantec
No. pages: 41
Database record metadata
Entered: 7/22/2014 jay
Last modified: 5/9/2017 ikott
IC actions:
Associated resources
General notes
Date User
Address:
Collections:
Disclosure: Not for publication
Record status: Incomplete (OHP)
Location information
Author(s): Wetherbee, Matthew, Sarah Siren and Gavin Archer Attributes: Archaeological, Field study
County(ies): San Bernardino
USGS quad(s): Corona North, Guasti
Inventory size:
No. maps: 2
Identifiers
Report No.: SB-05976
Other IDs:
Cross-refs:
Has informals:
No. resources: 1
PLSS:
Date User Action taken
7/22/2014 jay Added placeholder record (no info in NADB, SBAIC_REPORTS, or Word bibliography)
8/21/2014 l0333 Data Added by Robin Laska
Primary No. Trinomial Name
P-36-012533
Type Name
NADB-R 1065976
877
Report Detail: SB-06095
Citation information
Year: 2009
Title: Confidential Cultural Resources Specialist Report for the Tehachapi Renewal Transmission Project.
Affliliation: Applied Earthworks
No. pages: 180
Database record metadata
Entered: 7/22/2014 jay
Last modified: 11/14/2016 mgalaz
IC actions:
Associated resources
General notes
Los Angeles Resources: 19-003295, 19-003852, 19-003853, 19-003854, 19-100644, 19-186877 Date User
Address:
Collections:
Disclosure:
Record status: Verified
Location information
Author(s): Applied Earthworks
Attributes: Archaeological, Field study
County(ies): San Bernardino
USGS quad(s): Corona North, Guasti, Ontario, Prado Dam, Yorba Linda Inventory size:
No. maps:
Identifiers
Report No.: SB-06095
Other IDs:
Cross-refs:
Has informals:
No. resources: 5
PLSS:
Date User Action taken
7/22/2014 jay Added placeholder record (no info in NADB, SBAIC_REPORTS, or Word bibliography)
8/18/2014 l0333 Data added by Robin Laska
Primary No. Trinomial Name
P-36-003690 CA-SBR-003690/H Aliso Canyon Site
P-36-019845 CA-SBR-013198H AE-1641-1H
P-36-019846 CA-SBR-013199H AE-1641-2H
P-36-019847 CA-SBR-013200H AE-1641-3H
P-36-019848 AE-1641-4H
Type Name
NADB-R 1066095
878
Report Detail: SB-06818
Citation information
Year: 2010
Title: Identification and Evaluation of Historic Properties: Chino Desalter Phase 3 Expansion Project, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, California.
Affliliation: CRM TECH
No. pages: 35
Database record metadata
Entered: 7/18/2014 jay
Last modified: 10/5/2016 rmoritz
IC actions:
Associated resources
General notes
Date User
Address:
Collections:
Disclosure: Not for publication
Record status: Verified
Location information
Author(s): Tang, Bai “Tom”, Deirdre Encarnacion, Daniel Ballester, and Laura H. Shaker Attributes: Architectural/Historical, Evaluation
County(ies): San Bernardino
USGS quad(s): Corona North, Guasti, Prado Dam
Inventory size:
No. maps:
Identifiers
Report No.: SB-06818
Other IDs:
Cross-refs:
Has informals:
No. resources: 0
PLSS:
Date User Action taken
7/18/2014 jay Appended record from Report Biblio MS Word document Type Name
NADB-R 1066818
879
Report Detail: SB-07149
Citation information
Year: 2012
Title: Archibald SCE/LA 5619A.
Affliliation:
No. pages:
Database record metadata
Entered: 7/18/2014 jay
Last modified:
IC actions:
Associated resources
General notes
Date User
Address:
Collections:
Disclosure:
Record status:
Location information
Author(s): Billat, Lorna
Attributes:
County(ies): San Bernardino
USGS quad(s):
Inventory size:
No. maps:
Identifiers
Report No.: SB-07149
Other IDs:
Cross-refs:
Has informals:
No. resources: 0
PLSS:
Date User Action taken
7/18/2014 jay Appended record from Report Biblio MS Word document Type Name
NADB-R 1067149
880
Report Detail: SB-07655
Citation information
Year: 2012
Title: Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Proposed City Substation and Mira Loma-Jefferson Subtransmission Line Project, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, California.
Affliliation: ICF International
No. pages: 156
Database record metadata
Entered: 7/18/2014 jay
Last modified: 10/5/2016 rmoritz
IC actions:
Associated resources
General notes
Date User
Address:
Collections:
Disclosure: Not for publication
Record status: Verified
Location information
Author(s): Hoffman, Robin, Timothy Yates, and Karen Crawford Attributes: Field study
County(ies): San Bernardino
USGS quad(s): Black Star Canyon, Corona North, Fontana, Guasti, Ontario, Prado Dam Inventory size:
No. maps:
Identifiers
Report No.: SB-07655
Other IDs:
Cross-refs:
Has informals:
No. resources: 0
PLSS:
Date User Action taken
7/18/2014 jay Appended record from Report Biblio MS Word document Type Name
NADB-R 1067655
881
Report Detail: SB-07756
Citation information
Year: 2014 (Jan)
Title: Update to Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey: Chino Desalter Phase 3 Expansion Project, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, California.
Affliliation: CRM Tech
No. pages: 7
Database record metadata
Entered: 10/1/2014 l0333
Last modified: 10/5/2016 rmoritz
IC actions:
Associated resources
General notes
Date User
Address:
Collections: No
Disclosure: Not for publication
Record status: Verified
Location information
Author(s): Tang, Bai "Tom"
Attributes: Archaeological, Field study
County(ies): San Bernardino
USGS quad(s): Corona North, Guasti, Prado Dam
Inventory size: approx 10 miles
No. maps: 3
Identifiers
Report No.: SB-07756
Other IDs:
Cross-refs:
Has informals: No
No. resources: 0
PLSS:
Date User Action taken
10/1/2014 l0333 Data entered by R. Laska
Type Name
NADB-R 1067756
882
Report Detail: SB-07901
Citation information
Year: 2014
Title: Results of the Archaeological Resource Assessment for the 189.1-Acre Watson Corporate Center Project, City of Chino, San Bernardino County, California
Affliliation: LSA Associates, Inc.
No. pages: 22
Database record metadata
Entered: 9/30/2016 rmoritz
Last modified: 9/30/2016 rmoritz
IC actions:
Associated resources
General notes
Date User
Address:
Collections: No
Disclosure: Not for publication
Record status: Verified
Location information
Author(s): Strudwick, Ivan
Attributes: Field study
County(ies): San Bernardino
USGS quad(s): Corona North
Inventory size:
No. maps:
Identifiers
Report No.: SB-07901
Other IDs:
Cross-refs:
Has informals:
No. resources: 0
PLSS:
883
Report Detail: SB-07956
Citation information
Year: 2007
Title: Archaeological Survey report for Southern California Edison's G.O. 131-D Assessment of the Chino A-Bank System and System Split Project San Bernadino County, California Affliliation: Eath Tech, Inc.
No. pages: 10
Database record metadata
Entered: 10/4/2016 sstjames
Last modified: 10/10/2016 ikott
IC actions:
Associated resources
General notes
Date User
Address:
Collections: No
Disclosure: Not for publication
Record status: Database Complete
Location information
Author(s): Doolittle, Christopher J.
Attributes: Archaeological, Architectural/Historical, Field study County(ies): San Bernardino
USGS quad(s): Guasti, Ontario, Prado Dam
Inventory size:
No. maps:
Identifiers
Report No.: SB-07956
Other IDs:
Cross-refs:
Has informals:
No. resources: 0
PLSS:
Date User Action taken
10/4/2016 sstjames Entered by IK.
884
Report Detail: SB-07968
Citation information
Year: 2011
Title: Supplemental Archaeological Survey Report: Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project Segement 8 East (Phases 2 and 3) and West (Phase 4), Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, California Affliliation: Pacific Legacy, Inc.
No. pages: 191
Database record metadata
Entered: 10/5/2016 sstjames
Last modified: 10/6/2016 sstjames
IC actions:
Associated resources
General notes
See report for unrecorded resources.
Date User
Address:
Collections: No
Disclosure: Not for publication
Record status: Database Complete
Location information
Author(s): Holm, Lisa and John Holson
Attributes: Archaeological, Architectural/Historical, Field study County(ies): San Bernardino
USGS quad(s): Corona North, Guasti, Ontario, Prado Dam, Yorba Linda Inventory size:
No. maps:
Identifiers
Report No.: SB-07968
Other IDs:
Cross-refs:
Has informals: Yes
No. resources: 3
PLSS:
Date User Action taken
10/5/2016 sstjames Entered by IK.
Primary No. Trinomial Name
P-36-012533
P-36-012621 10513 East Riverside Drive, Ont
P-36-012622 13751 Haven Ave, Ontario
885
Report Detail: SB-07977
Citation information
Year: 2010
Title: Supplemental Archaeological Survey Report: Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project Segment 8 East (Phases 2 and 3), San Bernardino County California
Affliliation: Pacific Legacy, Inc.
No. pages: 48
Database record metadata
Entered: 10/5/2016 sstjames
Last modified: 10/6/2016 sstjames
IC actions:
Associated resources
General notes
Date User
Address:
Collections: No
Disclosure: Not for publication
Record status: Database Complete
Location information
Author(s): Panich, Lee, Tsim D. Schneider, and John Holson Attributes: Archaeological, Architectural/Historical, Field study County(ies): San Bernardino
USGS quad(s): Corona North, Guasti, Ontario, Prado Dam
Inventory size:
No. maps:
Identifiers
Report No.: SB-07977
Other IDs:
Cross-refs:
Has informals:
No. resources: 2
PLSS:
Date User Action taken
10/5/2016 sstjames Entered by IK.
Primary No. Trinomial Name
P-36-013330 CA-SBR-012533H
P-36-013636 CA-SBR-012622
886
Report Detail: SB-08188
Citation information
Year: 2014
Title: HISTORIC STRUCTURE INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAM FOR THE WATSON CORPORATE CENTER
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Affliliation: Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc.
No. pages: 102
Associated resources
General notes
Address:
Collections: No
Disclosure: Not for publication
Location information
Author(s): Kraft, Jennifer R. and Brian F. Smith
Attributes: Architectural/Historical, Evaluation, Field study County(ies): San Bernardino
USGS quad(s): Corona North
Inventory size:
No. maps:
Identifiers
Report No.: SB-08188
Other IDs:
Cross-refs:
Has informals:
No. resources: 2
Primary No. Trinomial Name
P-36-029054 Foxcroft Farm
P-36-029055 8819 Remington Ave
Address City Assessor's parcel no. Zip code
0218-291-01
0218-291-02
0218-291-07
0218-291-08
0218-291-09
0218-301-01
0218-301-05
0218-301-06
0218-301-07
0218-301-12
0218-301-14
0218-301-15
0218-301-22
1054-371-01
1054-371-02
1054-441-01
1054-441-02
1054-451-01
1054-451-02
1054-461-02
1054-461-03
1055-081-01
1055-081-02
15389 Carpenter Avenue Chino
8819 Remington Avenue Chino
887
Report Detail: SB-08188
Database record metadata
Entered: 10/13/2016 ikott
Last modified: 10/14/2016 ikott
IC actions:
Date User
Record status: Database Complete
PLSS:
888
SB-01499
SB-03012
SB-07977
(all purple shapes)
SB-05358
SB-05976
May depict confidential cultural resource locations. Do not distribute. 0 0.125 0.25 0.5
-Miles
Corona North, CA
Guasti, CA
USGS 7.5' PR:1981
1:24,000
SCCIC #22578
JUL 2021
South Central Coastal Information Center
Reports within project area: None
25 reports within 1-mile radius
(only those within 1/4-mile are mapped)
889
Resource Detail: P-36-012195
P-36-012195
Identifying information
Primary No.:
Trinomial:
Attributes
General notes
Other IDs:
Recording events
Associated reports
Location information
County: San Bernardino
Address:
Database record metadata
Entered: 7/21/2014 jay
Last modified: 5/22/2018 ikott
IC actions:
Date User
Collections: No
Management status
Cross-refs:
Disclosure: Unrestricted
Name: SA CHUL Farms
Resource type:
Age:
Information base:
Accession no(s):
Facility:
PLSS:
UTMs:
Record status: Verified
Building, Structure
Historic
Survey
Attribute codes: AH05 (Wells/cisterns); HP02 (Single family property); HP33 (Farm/ranch); HP39 (Other) USGS quad(s): Guasti
Type Name
Resource Name SA CHUL Farms
Date Recorder(s) Affiliation Notes
6/16/2005 P. Daly Chambers Group, Inc
Address City Assessor's parcel no. Zip code
13923 S Archibald Ave Ontario 91710
Date User Action taken
7/21/2014 jay Imported record from SBR catalog spreadsheet T2S R7W SW¼ of NW¼ of Sec. 14 SBBM
Zone 11 445247mE 3762365mN NAD27
All resources are verified by SCCIC staff
890
Resource Detail: P-36-012533
P-36-012533
Identifying information
Primary No.:
Trinomial:
Attributes
General notes
Other IDs:
Recording events
Associated reports
Location information
County: San Bernardino
Address:
Database record metadata
Entered: 7/21/2014 jay
Last modified: 5/8/2017 mgalaz
IC actions:
Date User
Collections: No
Management status
Cross-refs:
Disclosure: Not for publication
Name:
Resource type:
Age:
Information base:
Accession no(s):
Facility:
PLSS:
UTMs:
Record status: Verified
Site
Historic
Other
Attribute codes: AH07 (Roads/trails/railroad grades)
USGS quad(s): Corona North, Guasti
Date Recorder(s) Affiliation Notes
8/1/2005 Robert Porter CRM Tech
Report No. Year Title Affiliation
2006 On-Call Archaeological Monitoring Services:
Eastern Trunk Sewer/Kimball Interceptor
Sewer, Cities of Ontario and Chino, San
Bernardino County, California.
SB-05700 CRM TECH
2007 Cultural Resource Assessment New Model
Colony East Backbone Infrastructure, City of
Ontario, San Bernardino County, California.
SB-05976 Stantec
2011 Supplemental Archaeological Survey Report:
Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project
Segement 8 East (Phases 2 and 3) and West
(Phase 4), Los Angeles and San Bernardino
Counties, California
SB-07968 Pacific Legacy, Inc.
Address City Assessor's parcel no. Zip code
Archibald Ave Ontario 91716
Date User Action taken
7/21/2014 jay Imported record from SBR catalog spreadsheet T2S R7W Sec. SBBM
Zone 11 445251mE 3760227mN NAD27
Zone 11 445291mE 3763415mN NAD27
891
Resource Detail: P-36-025440
P-36-025440
Identifying information
Primary No.:
Trinomial:
Attributes
General notes
Other IDs:
Recording events
Associated reports
Location information
County: San Bernardino
Address:
Database record metadata
Entered: 7/21/2014 jay
Last modified: 6/18/2015 lnoyes
IC actions:
Date User
Collections: No
Management status
Cross-refs:
Disclosure: Unrestricted
Name: Chino-Mira Loma No. 1 Transmission Line
Resource type:
Age:
Information base:
Accession no(s):
Facility:
PLSS:
UTMs:
Record status: Verified
Structure
Historic
Survey
Attribute codes: HP11 (Engineering structure)
USGS quad(s): Guasti, Ontario, Prado Dam
Type Name
Resource Name Chino-Mira Loma No. 1 Transmission Line
Date Recorder(s) Affiliation Notes
6/1/2010 Wendy Tinsley Becker Urbana Preservation & Planning Report No. Year Title Affiliation
2008 Direct APE Architectural Assessment for Royal
Street Communications, LLC California
Candidate LA2245B, (SCE Chino, Chino-Mira
Loma No.1 M231-T3n), Fern Avenue and
Edison Avenue, Chino, San Bernardino County,
California.
SB-06037 Michael Brandman Associates
Date User Action taken
7/21/2014 jay Imported record from SBR catalog spreadsheet
892
Resource Detail: P-36-025597
P-36-025597
Identifying information
Primary No.:
Trinomial:
Attributes
General notes
Other IDs:
Recording events
Associated reports
Location information
County: San Bernardino
Address:
Database record metadata
Entered: 7/21/2014 jay
Last modified: 5/8/2017 mgalaz
IC actions:
Date User
Collections: No
Management status
Cross-refs:
Disclosure: Unrestricted
Name: The Lee Dairy
Resource type:
Age:
Information base:
Accession no(s):
Facility:
PLSS:
UTMs:
Record status: Verified
Building
Historic
Attribute codes: HP33 (Farm/ranch)
USGS quad(s): Corona North
Type Name
Resource Name The Lee Dairy
Date Recorder(s) Affiliation Notes
5/10/2013 Michael Dice Michael Brandman Associates
Address City Assessor's parcel no. Zip code
10084 Eucalyptus Ave Ontario 91762
Date User Action taken
7/21/2014 jay Imported record from SBR catalog spreadsheet
893
Resource Detail: P-36-026051
P-36-026051
Identifying information
Primary No.:
Trinomial:
Attributes
General notes
Other IDs:
Recording events
Associated reports
Location information
County: San Bernardino
Address:
Collections: No
Management status
Cross-refs:
Disclosure: Not for publication
Name: Devers-San Bernardino 220kV; SCE Hayfield-Chino 220kV Transmission Line Resource type:
Age:
Information base:
Accession no(s):
Facility:
PLSS:
UTMs:
Structure
Historic
Survey, Other
Attribute codes: HP11 (Engineering structure)
USGS quad(s): Fontana, Guasti, Ontario, Prado Dam, Redlands, San Bernardino South Type Name
Resource Name Devers-San Bernardino 220kV
Other P-33-015035
Resource Name SCE Hayfield-Chino 220kV Transmission Line Other Julian Hinds-Mirage 220kV, Devers-Mirage 220 kV,
Devers-San Bernardino No. 1 220kV
Other Mira Loma-Vista 220 kV, and Chino Mira Loma No. 3 220 kV Transmission Lines
Voided 36-027693
Date Recorder(s) Affiliation Notes
2/28/2012 Davidson, et al. LSA Associates, Inc.
Wendy Tinsley/Steven
Treffers
9/1/2013 Urbana Preservation/SWCA Update
7/25/2018 Robert Cunningham ECORP Update
8/29/2014 Daniel Ballester CRM Tech Update. Original record for 36- 027696 (voided)
2/7/2019 Riordan Goodwin LSA Update
Report No. Year Title Affiliation
2014 Archival Research and Evaluation Results of
33 Cultural Resources for Southern California
Edison Company's West of Devers Upgrade
Project, Riverside and San Bernardino
Counties, California
SB-07946 Southern California Edison
2013 Cultural Resources Assessment and Class III
Invetory Volume I. West of Devers Project San
Bernadino and Riverside Counties, California
SB-07955 LSA Associates, Inc.
Subsumes 36-027693
894
Resource Detail: P-36-026051
Database record metadata
Entered: 7/21/2014 jay
Last modified: 7/11/2019 mgalaz
IC actions:
Date User
Record status: Verified
Date User Action taken
7/21/2014 jay Imported record from SBR catalog spreadsheet 7/22/2015 agarcia Database updated.
4/25/2016 mgalaz Updated
2/22/2019 mgalaz Updated
895
Resource Detail: P-36-033020
P-36-033020
Identifying information
Primary No.:
Trinomial:
Attributes
General notes
Other IDs:
Recording events
Associated reports
Location information
County: San Bernardino
Address:
Database record metadata
Entered: 4/18/2019 mgalaz
Last modified: 4/26/2019 mgalaz
IC actions:
Date User
Collections: No
Management status
Cross-refs:
Disclosure: Not for publication
Name: Merrill Commerce Center Iso-1
Resource type:
Age:
Information base:
Accession no(s):
Facility:
PLSS:
UTMs:
Record status: Verified
Other
Prehistoric
Survey
Attribute codes: AP02 (Lithic scatter)
USGS quad(s): Corona North
Type Name
Resource Name Merrill Commerce Center Iso-1
Date Recorder(s) Affiliation Notes
3/5/2019 Jennifer Stropes BFSA
Address City Assessor's parcel no. Zip code
Ontario 021-826-134 91762
896
P - 3 6 - 0 3 3 0 2 0 P - 3 6 - 0 3 3 0 2 0
P - 3 6 - 0 1 2 5 3 3 P - 3 6 - 0 1 2 5 3 3
P - 3 6 - 0 2 6 0 5 1 P - 3 6 - 0 2 6 0 5 1
P - 3 6 - 0 2 5 4 4 0 P - 3 6 - 0 2 5 4 4 0
P - 3 6 - 0 2 5 5 9 7 P - 3 6 - 0 2 5 5 9 7
P - 3 6 - 0 1 2 1 9 5 P - 3 6 - 0 1 2 1 9 5
May depict confidential cultural resource locations. Do not distribute. 0 0.125 0.25 0.5
-Miles
Corona North, CA
Guasti, CA
USGS 7.5' PR:1981
1:24,000
SCCIC #22578
JUL 2021
South Central Coastal Information Center
Resources within project area: None
6 resources within 1-mile radius
897
State of Callfornla--The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
PRIMARY RECORD
Primary # 36-012533
HRI# ____________________________ __
Trinomlal, _________________ _
NRHP Status Code _________________ _
Other Listings ________________________________________ _ Review Code Reviewer Date
Page __ 1_of __ 3_ *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) ____________ __ P1. Other Identlfler: ____________________________________________________________________ _ *P2. Location: V Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County San Bernardino and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.S' Quad Guasti and Corona North, CA Date_..:.1:.;::9:....::8::....:1==---__________ _ T2S; R7W; Sec 10, 11, 14, 15, 22, and 23; S.B. B.M.
Elevation: Approximately 660-750 feet above mean sea level c. Address N/A City Ontario Zip __ ..::.9-=1...:..7-=1..::.6 ____________ _ d. UTM: (Give more than one for large andlor linear resources)Zone---.l.Li 445251 mEl 3760227 mN to 445291 mEl 3763415 mN
UTM Derivation: V USGS Quad GPS
e. Other Locatlonal Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, etc., as appropriate) The site is located underneath Archibald Avenue. The southern end is 250 feet north the intersection of Merrill Avenue and Archibald Avenue, and the northern end is at the intersection of Chino Avenue and Archibald Avenue. *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) The site consists of a layer of historic-era building debris and refuse items lain down as an engineered road bed. The site is underneath the current alignment of Archibald Avenue. The exact size of the site is unknown as the east-west dimensions were not explored. *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) AH 7. Roads/trails/railroad grades *P4. __ Building __ Structure __ ObjectL Site __ District Element of District PSa. ng (Photograph required for buildings, PSb. Description of Photo: (view, date, accession #) Profile view of
roadbed, facing east;
January 7, 2006
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
V Historic Prehistoric Both - -- *P7. Owner and Address: __ c::.l.=. · ..=t..Ly_.:::o.=.f Ontario
P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and
address) Robert Porter and
William Jenson[ CRM TECH[
4472 Orange Street[
Riverside[ CA 92501
*P9. Date Recorded: August and
September 2005
·P1 O. Survey Type: Moni tor ing of
trenching operations
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") Michael Hogan and Bai "Tom" Tang (2006): On-Call Archaeological Monitoring Services [ Eastern Trunk Sewer/Kimball Interceptor Sewer[ cities of Ontario and Chino[ San Bernardino County[ California. Letter report on file[ Archeological Information center[ San Bernardino County Museum[ Redlands.
*Attachments: __ NonelLocation Map __ Sketch Map __ Continuation Sheet __ Building, Structure, and Object Record lArchaeological Record __ District Record ___ Linear Resource Record __ Miliing Station Record ___ Rock Art Record __ Artifact Record __ Photograph Record ___ Other (List) : ____________________________________________ _ DPR S23A (1/9S) *Required information
898
State of California--The Resources Agency Primary # 36-012533 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Trinomial, _____________ _
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE RECORD
Page_2_of_3_ *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) ____________ _ A1. Dimensions: a. Length Approximately 10,250 feet (N-S) b. Width ? (E-W) Method of Measurement: Paced Taped Visual estimate Other: Engineer's Map Method of Determination (Check any that apply.)-: - Artifacts Y Features Soil Vegetation Topography Cut bank Animal burrow Excavation Property boundary Y Other (Explain): Trenching Reliability ofDetermin;t"ion : __ High-=--Medium -Y Low Explain-:----;he site was found during north-south trenching; the eastern and western boundaries are unknown.
Limitations (Check any that apply) : Restricted access Y Pavedlbuilt over Y Site limits incompletely defined __ Disturbances __ Vegetation Y Other (Explain): Partially des~ed in trenching A2. Depth: various None Unknown Method of Determination : _______ _ *A3. Human Remains:_Present~Absent_Possible _Unknown (Explain): _____________ _ *A4. Features: (Number, briefly describe, indicate size, list associated cultural constituents, and show location of each feature on sketch map.) The site consists of an engineered roadbed with crushed bricks, milkglass, ceramics (earthenware and whiteware), and other building materials and trash items. The deposit is relatively uniform in thickness along the length of the site.
*A5. Cultural Constituents: (Describe and quantify artifacts, ecofacts, cultural residues, etc ., not associated with features )_.=:N~o~n:..:e:::..... _________ :__------------------------_ *A6. Were Specimens COliected? ___ No Y Yes (If yes, attach Artifact Record or catalog and identify where specimens are curated.)
*A7. Site Condition: Good __ Fair~Poor (Describe disturbances.): Partially destroyed as part of trenching activities
*AS. Nearest Water (Type, distance, and direction.): Cucamonga Creek, approximately 750 feet to the west
*A9. Elevation: Approximately 660-750 feet above mean sea level A 10. Environmental Setting: (Describe vegetation, fauna, soils, geology, landform, slope, aspect, exposure, etc.): The site is located beneath a paved road in a relatively level floodplain. Soils below and around the site consists of alluvium.
A11. Historlc~ln~rmation: __________________________ ~------~ *A12. Age:_Prehistoric Protohistoric 1542-1769 1769-1848 1848-1880_1880-1914~ 1914-1945 Post 1945_Undetermined Describe position in regional prehistoric chronology or factual historic dates if known: _______________________________________ _
A13. Interpretations: (Discuss scientific, interpretive, ethnic, and other values of site, if known) The artifacts that compose the roadbed fill reportedly came from buildings destroyed or damaged in the March 10, 1933, Long Beach earthquake, but no definitive historical documentation has been found to substantiate that claim.
A1~ Rema~s: The site does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR due to the lack of potential for important archaeological data.
A15. References: (Documents, informants, maps, and other references.) : See Item P11 on p. 1.
A 16. Photographs: (List subjects, direction of view, and accession numbers or attach a Photograph Record.) : ____ _ Original MedialNegatives Kept at: CRM TECH, 4472 Orange Street, Riverside, CA 92501 *A17. Form Prepared by: Nicholas F. Hearth Date: August, 14 2006 Affiliation and Address: CRM TECH, 4472 Orange Street , Riverside, CA 92501 DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
899
State of California--The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
LOCATION MAP
Primary # 36-0 12533
HRI# ____________________________ _
Trinomial
Page __ 3_of __ 3_ *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) ____________ _ *Map Name: Guasti and Corona North
o
... --
~ o
GusaU Quad.
6'
... -
, . -
: -.' ' ,:: ,. . I : t:' i.: II "I .
AVC'
--
.
...
I
-
AVE:
"
• '!.I I
~~ I 0::
-- .. -
SCALE 1 :24,000 vc
, 770 1' 1 ~ ~
:::! II <:>
" :3 t ,<:!. : I ' '/
, .~ -- " 10, "
15 O. _. /
, I
. ;- •
=:
Gail
.... Stdt ' "
-22 -- -' , ' -
o 1000 2000 feet CO
~,~
DPR 523K (1/95)
*Scale: 1: 24,000
Q
..J
«
Q)
~ u
Q:
«
I
.. ....
r
I 1----
f.VCAI,vprVS
, -. •
-,
I
Wcl
*Date of Map:_-=1..::.9-=8-=1 ________ _
I
~
r '"!. ..... 0
. ,
~
~
"
"- Z ' .'
_I'
" ' '
I
?
,-
e ' , .
,
. ~-
-f 2l:::£I?~LE.- -, . - I: i , .,
. *Required information
900
ATTACHMENT B
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES RECORDS SEARCH (SBCM)
901
6 May, 2022
VCS Environmental
Attn: Patrick O. Maxon
30900 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 100
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
PALEONTOLOGY RECORDS REVIEW for proposed site of Parkside SP Project, San Bernardino County, California
Dear Mr. Carson,
The Division of Earth Science of the San Bernardino County Museum (SBCM) has completed a records search for the above-named project in Riverside County, California. The proposed project site (Parkside SP) is in the City of Ontario, California as shown on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute Corona North, California quadrangle.
Geologic mapping of that region done by Morton et al. (2002) indicates almost the entire project area is located atop recent alluvial fan surficial deposits of late Pleistocene and Holocene age (Qyf). Older maps, and those of adjacent areas, call this “younger Quaternary alluvium” (Qa; e.g., Dibblee and Ehrenspeck, 2001), whereas Morton et al. (2002) distinguishes between the alluvial sediment originating from mountainous alluvial fans and that deposited by the Santa Ana River and its tributaries. These sediments are mostly unconsolidated and grey-colored arkosic sands, and are potentially fossiliferous. One small area in the center-north of the project area, around the canal, is covered with unconsolidated, moderately well sorted, fine-to-medium grain eolian sand deposits of Holocene to late Pleistocene age instead (Qye). This small patch represents the southern tip of a much larger expanse of Qye to the east and northeast. Qye is unlikely to be fossiliferous, but units underlying it may be.
Museum
Division of Earth Science
Scott Kottkamp
Curator of Earth Science
2024 Orange Tree Lane, Redlands, California 92374 | Phone: 909.798.8608 902
Parkside SP Project, Ontario, CA
April 21st, 2022
PAGE 2 of 4
Though not exposed at the surface of the project site, older Pleistocene age alluvium (Qoa) directly underlies younger surficial alluvium throughout the Inland Empire region (Dibblee and Ehrenspeck, 2001; Morton et al., 2002, 2003). Reynolds and Reynolds (1991) found that Pleistocene sediments in northwestern Riverside County generally lie about 5 – 15 feet below recent Holocene surface sediments. However, the depth of the recent sediments can be highly variable, ranging from a thin veneer of soil to greater than 24 feet deep. Qoa is highly variable in color and composition, varying from weakly indurated reddish-brown sand, to gray-green silt, to clay with gravel lenses, etc. Examples of nearby surface exposures include early Pleistocene alluvial fan deposits stretching from Chino Airport up to the Puente Hills and fluvial sediments along the Santa Ana River (Morton et al., 2002). Such older alluvial deposits have been found to be highly fossiliferous in the local area, yielding the remains of mastodons, mammoths, Smilodon, camels, horses, bison, and ground sloths, as well as microfossils including rodents.
For this review, I conducted a search of the Regional Paleontological Locality Inventory (RPLI) at the SBCM. The results of this search indicate that no paleontological resources have been discovered within the proposed project site. The nearest fossil localities, SBCM 5.5.48 –
5.5.54, are approximately 1.8 miles southeast of the proposed project site. Early Holocene age subfossil specimens were found at 5.5.48 in Qyf of the same sort as at the project site.
Radiocarbon dating revealed the specimens to range between 10500 ± 100 and 9750 ± 50 years old. Subfossil taxa recovered from 5.5.48 include: Gyraulus parvus, Fossaria blumnoides, Fossaria cf. humilis, Fossaria modicella, Fossaria sp., Physella concolor, Physella sp., Succineidae, Teleostei, Serpentes, Anatidae, Scapanus latimanus, Sylvilagus sp., Thomomys sp., Arvicolinae, cf. Microtus sp., Equus sp., and Bison sp. Localities 5.5.49 – 5.5.54 occurred at the same site as
5.5.48, albeit at depths of 4.9 – 8.2 feet below the surface in Pleistocene age Qoa underlying the younger alluvium of 5.5.48. The fossiliferous older alluvium at these sites was a grey silt with an olive tinge. The following fossils were found at sites 5.5.49 – 5.5.54: recrystalized Fossaria blumnoides and Succineidae shells; Megalonyx sp.; cf. Microtus sp.; Equus sp.; Bison sp.; and unidentifiable bone fragments of small and large mammals. All mammalian fossils were permineralized bone and enamel.
The next closest major fossil localities, SBCM 5.1.23 – 5.1.27, are 2 miles northeast of the project site. Lightly permineralized bones of Bison sp., Camelops sp., Mammut americanum, and other indeterminate large mammals were recovered from Qoa underlying Qye and Qa during construction grading. The contact between Qoa and Qa lay at depths exceeding 6 feet below the surface. Qa composition varied across the site laterally and by depth, ranging from gray poorly sorted sand, to light brownish gray silty fine sand, to a light pale yellow siltstone. Identified fossil elements included a Bison cervical vertebra, a Mammut rib, and several Camelops radii, ulnas, metacarpals, and vertebrae. Fossils were found in highly fragmented states; specimens identified 903
Parkside SP Project, Ontario, CA
April 21st, 2022
PAGE 3 of 4
to genus or species consist of identifiable partial elements surrounded by large numbers of associated fragments. Other taphonomic features include mild to moderate wear on the cortical bone surface, splintering and cracking of longer bone fragments, and the loss or erosion of cancellous bone in some specimens. Marrow cavities tend to be packed with unconsolidated sediment, regardless of the retention or erosion of the cancellous bone.
The RPLI records several other paleontological sites located in the same Pleistocene-age older alluvium within a 5 mile radius of the project site. SBCM 5.5.55 – 5.5.58 are approximately
2.3 miles south of the project site. Permineralized Bison sp., Camelidae, and indeterminate mammal bones were discovered at these sites, within fluvial green-brown clayey sand and silty clay unearthed during construction grading. These stratigraphic units are part of the Qoa underlying the proposed project site, and contacted the younger alluvium and topsoil as little as 6 feet below the surface. SBCM 5.1.12, located approximately 3.3 miles southwest of the project site, contained indeterminate large and small permineralized mammal bones found 6.5 – 8 ft. below the surface in late Pleistocene-age alluvium. The fossiliferous units were comprised of the same green-brown silty clay and clayey sand as SBCM 5.5.48 – 5.5.54. Finally, SBCM 5.1.8, 4 miles northeast of the project site, was discovered in Qoa underlying Oye during the excavation of a borrow pit for the Cal Trans I-15 project. This sediment in this pit has since been partially replaced with artificial fill (Qaf). Premineralized Mammuthus columbi bones were collected from the southwest corner of the borrow pit at a depth of approximately six feet, after being uncovered by an equipment operator.
This records search covers only the paleontological records of the San Bernardino County Museum. It is not intended to be a thorough paleontological survey of the proposed project area covering other institutional records, a literature survey, or any potential on-site survey.
Please do not hesitate to contact us with any further questions that you may have.
Sincerely,
Scott Kottkamp, Curator of Earth Science
Division of Earth Science
San Bernardino County Museum
904
Parkside SP Project, Ontario, CA
April 21st, 2022
PAGE 4 of 4
Literature Cited
Dibblee, T.W., and Ehrenspeck, H.E. 2001. Geologic map of Yorba Linda and Prado Dam quadrangles (eastern Puente Hills), Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California.
Dibblee Geological Foundation. Dibblee Foundation Map DF-75. Scale 1:24,000.
Available at: https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_71710.htm (accessed 20 April 2022).
Morton, D.M., Gray, C.H., Bovard, K.R., and Dawson, M. 2002. Geologic map of the Corona North 7.5' quadrangle, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, California. U.S. Geological Survey. Open-File Report OF-2002-22. Scale 1:24,000. Available at:
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_46492.htm (accessed 19 April 2022).
Morton, D.M., Miller, F.K., Cossette, P.M., and Bovard, K.R. 2003. Geologic map of the San Bernardino 30’ x 60’ quadrangle, California. U.S. Geological Survey. Open-File Report OF-2003-293. Scale 1:100,000. Available at:
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_58935.htm (accessed 4 May 2022).
Reynolds, R. E., and Reynolds, R. L. 1991. The Pleistocene Beneath our Feet: Near-surface Pleistocene Fossils from Inland Southern California Basins. San Bernardino County Museum Association Quarterly 38(3 & 4): 41-43.
905
CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT C
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION (NAHC)/
TRIBAL SCOPING
906
Local Government Tribal Consultation List Request
Native American Heritage Commission
1550 Harbor Blvd, Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA 95691
916-373-3710
916-373-5471 – Fax
[email protected]
Type of List Requested
☐ CEQA Tribal Consultation List (AB 52) – Per Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1, subs. (b), (d), (e) and 21080.3.2 ☐ General Plan (SB 18) - Per Government Code § 65352.3.
Local Action Type:
___ General Plan ___ General Plan Element ___ General Plan Amendment ___ Specific Plan ___ Specific Plan Amendment ___ Pre-planning Outreach Activity Required Information
Project Title:____________________________________________________________________________ Local Government/Lead Agency: ___________________________________________________________ Contact Person: __________________________________________________________________________ Street Address: ___________________________________________________________________________ City:_____________________________________________________ Zip:__________________________ Phone:____________________________________ Fax:_________________________________________ Email:_____________________________________________
Specific Area Subject to Proposed Action
County:________________________________ City/Community: ___________________________ Project Description:
Additional Request
☐ Sacred Lands File Search - Required Information:
USGS Quadrangle Name(s):____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Township:___________________ Range:___________________ Section(s):___________________ 907
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY | Scott Murphy, Executive Director 303 East B Street • Ontario, CA 91764 | (909) 395-2170 | OntarioCA.gov/CommunityDevelopment March 9, 2022
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation
Andrew Salas, Chairperson
P.O. Box 693
San Gabriel, CA 91778
RE: SB 18- Request for Consultation- Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Dear Andrew Salas:
In effort to preserve and protect California Native American traditional tribal cultural places, the City of Ontario invites you to consult on the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, pursuant to Government Code 65352.3. The City of Ontario recognizes that the proposed project may have impacts to potential cultural resources and encourages tribal participation. It is important for the City and the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation to collaborate efforts in order to preserve cultural resources through the local planning process.
The project and contact information are provided below:
Project Name/ File No.: Parkside Plaza Specific Plan Amendment (File No. PSPA21-006) Project Location: The Project site is located in the southern portion of the City of Ontario, within San Bernardino County, California. The City of Ontario is located north of the Cities of Chino and Eastvale, south of the Cities of Upland and Rancho Cucamonga, west of the City of Jurupa Valley, and east of the Cities of Chino and Montclair. The Project site is located approximately 6.8 miles east of State Route 71 (CA-71); 2.8 miles south of Interstate 10 (I-10); 5.8 miles west of Interstate 15 (I-15); and 1 mile north of State Route 60 (CA-60) and within the influence areas of Ontario International Airport and Chino Airport.
At the local scale, the Project site is comprised of 250.9 gross acres of land bound by Carpenter Avenue to the west, Archibald Avenue to the east, Eucalyptus Avenue to the south, and Ontario Ranch Road to the north. The attached exhibits depict the regional location of the site (Exhibit 1-1); project vicinity (Exhibit 1-2); aerial of the project site and surrounding area (Exhibit 1-2); existing specific plan land use (Exhibit 1-3); and proposed specific plan land use (Exhibit 1-4).
Project Description: An amendment to the Parkside Specific Plan to: 1) increase the residential unit capacity from 1,947 to 2,846 dwelling units by modifying density ranges in all planning areas; 2) adjust 908
2 planning area no. 19 boundary by decreasing gross acreage from 15.66 to 2.77 and revise land use from commercial to commercial and residential mixed-use; 3) adjust planning area nos. 18 and 19 boundaries by increasing gross acreage of residential land use from 11.61 to 32.75; 4) introduce new product and update design guidelines; and 5) eliminate the planning area nos. 22, 24, and 25.
Background: The Parkside Specific Plan (File No.PSP03-002) and Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2004011008) were approved and certified by the Ontario City Council on September 5, 2006. An amendment to the Parkside Specific Plan was approved in June 2020. A request to amend the Parkside Specific Plan (File No. PSPA21-006) was received in December 2021 and is currently under review. City staff anticipates that an Addendum to a previously prepared Environmental Impact Report will be prepared for the application and includes the following mitigation measures/conditions. At the request of The Gabrieleno Band of Missions Indians – Kizh Nation, the Applicant shall contact Andrew Salas, Chairperson at (http://www.gabrielenoindians.org/), prior to grading activities and the project shall be subject to following conditions:
(a) The project developer shall retain a Native American Monitor of Gabrieleño Ancestry to conduct a Native American Indian Sensitivity Training for construction personnel prior to commencement of any excavation activities. The training session shall include a handout and focus on how to identify Native American resources encountered during earthmoving activities and the procedures followed if resources are discovered, the duties of the Native American Monitor of Gabrieleño Ancestry and the general steps the Monitor would follow in conducting a salvage investigation. (b) The project developer shall retain a Native American Monitor of Gabrieleño Ancestry to be on-site during all project-related, ground-disturbing construction activities (e.g., pavement removal, auguring, boring, grading, excavation, potholing, trenching, and grubbing) of previously undisturbed native soils to a maximum depth of 30 feet below ground surface. At their discretion, a Native American Monitor of Gabrieleño Ancestry can be present during the removal of dairy manure to native soil, but not at the developers’ expense.
(c) A qualified archaeologist and a Native American Monitor of Gabrieleño Ancestry shall evaluate all archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Tribe shall coordinate with the developer regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request reburial or preservation for educational purposes. If archeological features are discovered, the archeologist shall report such findings to the Ontario Planning Director. If the archeological resources are found to be significant, the archeologist shall determine the appropriate actions, in cooperation with the City that shall be taken for exploration and/or salvage in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f).
(d) Prior to the start of ground disturbing activities, the developer shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint of the project for the respectful reburial of Tribal human remains and/or ceremonial objects. All human skeletal material discoveries shall be reported immediately to the County Coroner. The Native American Monitor shall immediately divert work a minimum of 50 feet from the discovery site and place an exclusion zone around the burial. The Native American Monitor shall notify the construction manager who shall contact the San Bernardino County Coroner. All construction activity shall be diverted while the San Bernardino County Coroner determines if the remains are Native American. The discovery shall be confidential and secure to prevent further disturbance. If Native 909
3 American, the San Bernardino County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as mandated by state law who will then appoint a Most Likely Descendent. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be documented and recovered on the same day, the remains shall be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24-hour guard shall be posted outside working hours. The Tribe shall make every effort to recommend diverting the project and keep the remains in situ and protected. If the project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials will be removed. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be taken, which includes at a minimum detailed descriptive notes and sketches. Additional types of documentation shall be approved by the Tribe for data recovery purposes. Cremations will either be removed in bulk or means necessary to ensure complete recovery of all material. If the discovery of human remains includes four (4) or more burials, the location is considered a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created. The project developer shall consult with the Tribe regarding avoidance of all cemetery sites. Once complete, a final report of all activities shall be submitted to the NAHC. (e) No scientific study or the utilization of any invasive diagnostics shall be allowed to any Native American human remains.
(f) If the San Bernardino County Coroner determines the remains represent a historic non-Native American burial, the burial shall be treated in the same manner of respect with agreement of the San Bernardino County Coroner. Reburial will be in an appropriate setting. If the San Bernardino County Coroner determines the remains to be modern, the San Bernardino County Coroner shall take custody of the remains.
(g) Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony shall be removed to a secure container on site if possible. These items shall be retained and reburied within six months of recovery. The site of reburial/repatriation shall be on the project site, but at a location agreed upon between the Tribe and the developer and protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered.
Lead Agency Contact: Diane Ayala, Senior Planner, City of Ontario, 303 East “B” Street, Ontario, California 91764.
In accordance with Government Code section 65352.3 (a)(2), please respond to this request for consultation within 90 days following receipt of this notification. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, or require additional information or further clarification, please feel free to contact me by telephone at (909)-395-2428 or by email at [email protected]. Thank you, in advance for your timely attention to this matter.
Respectfully,
Diane Ayala
Senior Planner
910
5 911
7 Exhibit 1-4: Proposed Land Use
Exhibit 1-4: Proposed Land Use Plan
912
GABRIELEÑO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS – KIZH
NATION
California State Recognized Aboriginal Tribe of the Los Angeles Basin (Historically known as the Gabrieleño Tribal Council - San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians) GABRIELENO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS – KIZH NATION - PROPOSED TCR MITIGATION MEASURES TCR-1: Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of Ground-Disturbing Activities A. The project applicant/lead agency shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any “ground-disturbing activity” for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). “Grounddisturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching.
B. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the earlier of the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity.
C. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of grounddisturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the project applicant/lead agency upon written request to the Tribe.
D. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point of contact for the project applicant/lead agency that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Kizh to the project applicant/lead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs.
E. Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Kizh monitor and/or Kizh archaeologist. The Kizh will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.
913
TCR-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects A. Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute.
B. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods discovered or recognized on the project site, then all construction activities shall immediately cease. Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 dictates that any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner and all ground-disturbing activities shall immediately halt and shall remain halted until the coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe they are Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 shall be followed.
C. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).
D. Construction activities may resume in other parts of the project site at a minimum of 200 feet away from discovered human remains and/or burial goods, if the Kizh determines in its sole discretion that resuming construction activities at that distance is acceptable and provides the project manager express consent of that determination (along with any other mitigation measures the Kizh monitor and/or archaeologist deems necessary). (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f).)
E. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin (non-TCR) shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, it shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.
F. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.
TCR-3: Procedures for Burials and Funerary Remains:
A. As the Most Likely Descendant (“MLD”), the Koo-nas-gna Burial Policy shall be implemented. To the Tribe, the term “human remains” encompasses more than human bones. In ancient as well as historic times, Tribal Traditions included, but were not limited to, the preparation of the soil for burial, the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains.
B. If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials, the discovery location shall be treated as a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created.
C. The prepared soil and cremation soils are to be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later; other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be considered as associated funerary objects. Cremations will either be removed in bulk or by means as necessary to ensure complete recovery of all sacred 914
materials.
D. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully documented and recovered on the same day, the remains will be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24-hour guard should be posted outside of working hours. The Tribe will make every effort to recommend diverting the project and keeping the remains in situ and protected. If the project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials will be removed.
E. In the event preservation in place is not possible despite good faith efforts by the project applicant/developer and/or landowner, before ground-disturbing activities may resume on the project site, the landowner shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint of the project for the respectful reburial of the human remains and/or ceremonial objects.
F. Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects will be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony will be removed to a secure container on site if possible. These items should be retained and reburied within six months of recovery. The site of reburial/repatriation shall be on the project site but at a location agreed upon between the Tribe and the landowner at a site to be protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered.
G. The Tribe will work closely with the project’s qualified archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be prepared and shall include (at a minimum) detailed descriptive notes and sketches. All data recovery data recovery-related forms of documentation shall be approved in advance by the Tribe. If any data recovery is performed, once complete, a final report shall be submitted to the Tribe and the NAHC. The Tribe does NOT authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive and/or destructive diagnostics on human remains.
PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING:
Any/all revisions to the Kizh’s proposed TCR mitigations set forth above must be requested in writing, and not more than ten (10) calendar days from the date that we consulted on the subject Project. Requested revisions shall be delivered to the Kizh via email at [email protected], and in a Word document, redline format. Please include as the email subject: “REQUEST FOR MITIGATION REVISIONS,” and identify the project name and location/address. If revisions are not requested within 10 calendar days of consultation, the Kizh’s proposed mitigations are presumed accepted as proposed (i.e., as set forth above).
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
915
ATTACHMENT D
HISTORIC PROPERTY SURVEY REPORT
916
Historic Property Survey Report
Proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail
Ontario, CA
Prepared For / Submitted To:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Los Angeles District
915 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 930 Los Angeles, CA 90017
On Behalf Of:
VCS Environmental
30900 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 100
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
Prepared By:
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
7705 El Cajon Boulevard #1
La Mesa, CA 91942
www.urbanapreservation.com
February 2023
917
Historic Property Survey Report
Proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail | Ontario, CA
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
February 2023 | Page ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR) documents the results of an historic-era built environment survey for the proposed construction of a multi-use trail along Cucamonga Creek in Ontario, California. The survey was completed by Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC (Urbana) to inform the regulatory review process for the proposed project. This HPSR is organized to summarize, discuss, and evaluate the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) eligibility status of any historicera built environment improvements observed within the proposed project boundaries, and to analyze the effects and recommended treatment for historic properties within the Area of Potential Effects (APE).
The proposed undertaking by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Los Angeles District is the rehabilitation and improvement of a multi-use trail along both sides of the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel in the city of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California. On the east and west sides of the channel, the proposed project involves removing and replacing existing asphaltic concrete pavement to rehabilitate an approximately 20-foot-wide multiuse trail and removing and replacing portions of an existing chain link fence adjacent to the channel. The purpose of the project is to provide a multi-use regional recreation trail for the public, as part of creating a comprehensive, non-motorized transportation system in the city of Ontario. The proposed construction project impacts an existing maintenance road immediately adjacent to the Cucamonga Creek Channel, between Edison Avenue (Ontario Ranch Road) on the north and Eucalyptus Avenue on the south. The proposed work will be completed on the banks of the channel, outside of the channel proper, but within the San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFD) right-of-way.
The Corps has determined that the APE for the project occupies approximately 11.79 acres within the Corps area of jurisdiction, which includes Cucamonga Creek and the SBCFCD parcel (APN 0218-231-04). The APE extends from the southeast corner of the intersection of Edison Ave. (Ontario Ranch Road) and Cucamonga Creek and extends south approximately 796 meters (2,612 feet) to the northeast intersection of Eucalyptus Ave. and Cucamonga Creek. The APE includes the channel and the pedestrian bridge across the channel; however, all construction activity will take place along the adjacent access road on both sides and not within the channel or on the bridge. All associated construction work would occur within SBCFCD property on previously disturbed areas.
A cultural resources survey was previously undertaken by VCS Environmental, and a report of this prior survey was completed in July of 2021. VCS did not identify cultural resources within the APE. During an evaluation of the area surrounding the APE, VCS identified one former homestead, determined not to be of modern construction and not eligible for inclusion on the NHRP, and two prehistoric isolates. All were located outside the APE. VCS further noted that the entire APE has been disturbed through natural gullying and erosion, and through agricultural processes to a depth of approximately 1 meter (3 feet). The possibility of buried cultural deposits was therefore considered extremely unlikely.
The Corps initiated consultation on February 14, 2022, with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding the eastern portion of the multi-use trail project. As a result of the consultation, for the next phase of the trail project, the Corps recommended an evaluation of the Cucamonga Creek channel and the adjacent access road regarding potential eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
The purpose of the HPSR is to identify whether the Cucamonga Creek channel and the adjacent access road observed within the project APE meet the definition of an historic property pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and to evaluate 918
Historic Property Survey Report
Proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail | Ontario, CA
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
February 2023 | Page iii
the effects the proposed project may have on those historic properties. Urbana’s methodological approach involved three main tasks: desk and field survey of the APE, contextual and property-specific research, and reporting. In advance of the field survey effort, Urbana prepared a desk survey to evaluate the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel and adjacent access road within the APE. Maps delineating the APE, survey boundaries, and demarcating the location of all historic-era improvements observed are included as Appendix A. A survey table listing these two improvements in the APE is included as Appendix B. Field survey activities were completed in January 2023. All structures and site features within the Direct APE and immediate environs were photographed for further study in this HPSR. Current photos are contained in Appendix C and historic photos are contained in Appendix D. Historic aerial photos are contained in Appendix E.
As a result of the additional effort, Urbana documented and evaluated the Cucamonga Creek channel and the adjacent access road within the APE. Urbana concluded that the Cucamonga Creek channel and the adjacent access road are not eligible for the NRHP, CRHR, or local designation. DPR forms for the Cucamonga Creek channel and the adjacent access road are included in Appendix F. A CRHR Status Code of 6Z are assigned to the creek channel and the access road.
Urbana personnel Wendy L. Tinsley Becker, RPH, AICP, Principal; Douglas E. Kupel, Ph.D., RPA, Senior Historian / Archaeologist; and Alexandrea Baker, MCP, Preservation Planner; prepared this HPSR. All Urbana personnel meet The Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in the disciplines of history and architectural history. Ms. Tinsley Becker is additionally registered as Professional Historian (RPH) #612 and is a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP). Preparer qualifications are included in Appendix G.
Based on historic research as part of this HPSR effort, no specific information was identified to support a positive determination of eligibility for the historic-era improvements within the APE. Contextual and property-specific research did not directly associate any of the improvements with important historical events or patterns of events, or with persons who could be considered important in local, regional, state, or national history. The evaluated channel and adjacent road were not found to embody the distinctive characteristics of a period, style, type, or method of construction, nor were they attributed to the work of an expert architect, builder, designer, etc. Further study of the evaluated improvements would not appear to yield information that could be regarded as important in local, regional, state, or national history.
Consequently, none of the improvements evaluated appear to meet the definition of an historic property pursuant to NHPA Section 106.
Urbana concluded that the proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail project would not cause an effect to a historic property. In general terms, construction of the proposed project would involve demolition and replacement of the existing path within the APE; however, the existing path does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP / CRHR. Consequently, no specific historic property mitigation or treatment is recommended. 919
Historic Property Survey Report
Proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail | Ontario, CA
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
February 2023 | Page iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVESUMMARY.............................................................................................................................. ii I. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................... 1 Methodological Approach and Report Organization ................................................................................ 1 Desk and Field Survey .......................................................................................................................... 1 Research ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Reporting................................................................................................................................................ 2 II. PRESERVATION PLANNING REGULATORY FRAMEWORK.......................................................... 4 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) & Historic Properties ....................................................... 4 Integrity and the NRHP........................................................................................................................ 4 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) & Historical Resources ............................................... 5 Integrity and the CRHR........................................................................................................................ 6 City of Ontario ........................................................................................................................................... 6 III. PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................... 8 IV. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF THE SURVEY CORRIDOR ............................................................... 9 San Bernardino County Region ................................................................................................................ 9 Santa Ana River Watershed ..................................................................................................................... 9 Cucamonga Creek...................................................................................................................................... 10 Communities of Cucamonga Creek .......................................................................................................... 12 Upland ........................................................................................................................................................ 12 Rancho Cucamonga.................................................................................................................................... 13 Ontario........................................................................................................................................................ 15 Eastvale ...................................................................................................................................................... 16 Chino........................................................................................................................................................... 17 V. HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT..................................................................................................... 19 Flood Control of Cucamonga Creek, 1900-1980s..................................................................................... 19 VI. SURVEY FINDINGS AND REGULATORY CONCLUSIONS ............................................................ 28 Survey Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 28 Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel | CRHR Status Code: 6Z................................................ 28 Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel Access Road | CRHR Status Code: 6Z .......................... 29 VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................... 31 Appendices
Appendix A. APE Survey Maps
Appendix B. APE Survey Findings Summary Table
Appendix C. Current Photos
Appendix D. Historic Photos
Appendix E. Historic Aerial Photos
Appendix F. Department of Parks and Recreation 523 Series Forms Appendix G. Preparer Qualifications
920
Historic Property Survey Report
Proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail | Ontario, CA
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
February 2023 | Page 1
I. INTRODUCTION
This Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR) documents the results of an intensive level historic-era built environment survey of the proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail project area in Ontario, California. The survey was completed by Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC (Urbana) on behalf VCS Environmental to inform the regulatory review process for the proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail project. Construction of a multi-use trail is proposed along both sides of the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel in the city of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California. On the east and west sides of the channel, the proposed project involves removing and replacing existing asphaltic concrete pavement to rehabilitate an approximately 20- foot-wide multiuse trail, and removing and replacing portions of an existing chain link fence adjacent to the channel. The purpose of the project is to provide a multi-use regional recreation trail for the public, as part of creating a comprehensive, non-motorized transportation system in the city of Ontario. The proposed construction project impacts an existing maintenance road immediately adjacent to the Cucamonga Creek Channel, between Edison Avenue (Ontario Ranch Road) on the north and Eucalyptus Avenue on the south. The APE includes the channel and the pedestrian bridge across the channel; however, all construction activity will take place along the adjacent access road on both sides and not within the channel or on the bridge. The proposed work will be completed outside of the channel proper, but within the San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFD) right-of-way.
Methodological Approach and Report Organization
Jurisdictions involved in the project include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the County of San Bernardino, and the City of Ontario. Preparation of this HPSR was guided by a definition of the historic properties issued by the National Historic Preservation Act. For the purposes of this HPSR historic properties include buildings, structures, bridges, dams, canals, aqueducts, railroads, ditches and irrigation systems, electric power conveyance facilities, and paved or unpaved roads and highways. The methodological approach entails three main tasks – desk and field survey, research, and reporting.
Desk and Field Survey
In advance of the field survey effort, Urbana prepared a desk survey to identify the Cucamonga Creek channel and adjacent access road in the Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail project area. Desk survey included use of current aerial imagery (obtained from Google Earth Professional), a review of historic aerial imagery ca. 1938- 1975 (obtained from the United States Geological Survey Earth Explorer database and Frame Finder at the University of California Santa Barbara), San Bernardino County Assessor’s Office Property Information System, and other real estate databases. The year-built data was derived for all observed improvements using these cited sources. The locations of historic-era improvements were overlaid against the proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail project APE to identify what improvements directly intersect with project (Direct APE).
Maps delineating the APE survey boundaries, with locations of the channel and access road depicted, are included as Appendix A. The corresponding table of the two improvements is included as Appendix B. Field survey activities were completed in January 2023. The project area was photographed for further study in this HPSR. Notes were compiled on the existing conditions, architectural features, and observed modifications for use in inventory forms. Supplemental observation of structures was completed as part of post-processing.
Current survey photos of the project area are included in Appendix C.
Research
The Prado Basin area is the location of many prior cultural resource studies. These date back to the 1930s when the Historic American Buildings Survey completed documentation of the Yorba-Slaughter Adobe in 1934 and 921
Historic Property Survey Report
Proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail | Ontario, CA
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
February 2023 | Page 2
the Bandini-Cota Adobe in 1936.1 More recent investigations were associated with the development of Prado Dam in 1941 and associated flood control features. Starting in the 1970s, environmental regulation at the federal level resulted in increased levels of research. One of the most complete studies was the Phase II Archaeological Studies of Prado Basin and the Lower Santa Ana River completed in 1985 by Paul Langenwalter and James Brock.2 This was followed by the 1990 report Context Evaluation of Historical Sites in the Prado Basin by Roberta S. Greenwood and John S. Foster.3
A cultural resources survey was undertaken by VCS Environmental, and a report of this survey was completed in July of 2021. As a result of the survey, VCS did not identify any cultural resources within the APE. During an evaluation of the area surrounding the APR, VCS identified one former homestead, determined not to be of modern construction and not eligible for inclusion on the NHRP, and two prehistoric isolates. All were located outside the APE. VCS further noted that the entire APE has been disturbed through natural gullying and erosion, and through agricultural processes to a depth of approximately 1 meter (3 feet). The possibility of buried cultural deposits was therefore extremely unlikely.4 The Corps initiated consultation on February 14, 2022, with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding the eastern portion of the multi-use trail project. As a result of the consultation, for the next phase of the trail project, the Corps recommended an evaluation of the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel and the adjacent access road regarding potential eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
Research resources utilized to inform eligibility evaluations included contextual information and imagery from the Online Archive of California, United States Geological Survey, the BLM Government Land Office online database, digitized copies of historic newspapers, the Robert E. Ellingwood Model Colony History Room at the City of Ontario Public Library, the CLIRWater-California Water Documents Collection at the Claremont Colleges Libraries, the San Bernardino County Flood Control District, and the San Bernardino County Assessor Property Information Management System. Historic photos are contained in Appendix D and historic aerial views are contained in Appendix E. Historic-era maps played a key role in understanding the history of the area and determining the age of the historic properties. Map types reviewed include historical USGS topographical maps and BLM Government Land Office plat maps for the townships associated with the proposed project area.
Lastly, existing cultural resource management reports and context statements were utilized in this study where overlapping themes and survey locations exist. Section IV of this HPSR includes a historical narrative of the proposed project area, brief histories of communities in the vicinity of the proposed project area, and contextual themes identified within the proposed project area. Specific references used in the development of the historical narrative are cited in the endnotes of the report. References for historical information developed for individual property improvements are included in the DPR 523 forms contained within Appendix F.
Reporting
This HBER was undertaken to assist federal permitting agencies in complying with NHPA Section 106. The lead federal agency for the Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail project is the Corps. The state lead review agency is the SHPO. The production of this HPSR conforms to the guidelines contained in the National Historic Preservation Act. Prepared by Urbana under contract to VCS Environmental, this report is organized to summarize, discuss, and evaluate the NRHP / CRHR eligibility status of historic properties in the Direct APE for the Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail project, and to analyze the effects and recommended treatment for historic properties / historical resources within the APE. 922
Historic Property Survey Report
Proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail | Ontario, CA
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
February 2023 | Page 3
Urbana personnel Wendy L. Tinsley Becker, RPH, AICP, Principal; Douglas E. Kupel, Ph.D., RPA, Senior Historian / Archaeologist; and Alexandrea Baker, MCP, Preservation Planner; prepared this HBER. Ms. Tinsley Becker meets The Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standardsin the disciplines of history and architectural history. She is registered as Professional Historian (RPH) #612 and is a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP). Dr. Kupel and Ms. Baker meet The Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in the disciplines of history and architectural history. Resumes for the Urbana team are included in Appendix G.
923
Historic Property Survey Report
Proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail | Ontario, CA
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
February 2023 | Page 4
II. PRESERVATION PLANNING
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) & Historic Properties The NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects of proposed undertakings on historic properties. A historic property is defined as any building, site, district, structure or object that is listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP. In order for a property to qualify for the NRHP, it must meet one of four criteria for evaluation and retain sufficient integrity to convey its significance. Pursuant to National Register Bulletin 15, the quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and
A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction; or D. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Two scenarios exist relative to the effects a potential undertaking may have on historic properties: 1) no historic properties are affected, or 2) historic properties are affected. An adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify it for inclusion in the NRHP in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Adverse effects can include the following:
• physical destruction or damage;
• neglect and deterioration;
• alterations inconsistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties; • relocation of the property or change in the character of the property’s use or setting; • introduction of incompatible visual, atmospheric, or audible elements; and • transfer, lease, or sale of a historic property out of federal control without adequate preservation restrictions.
A finding of no adverse effect may be issued if the effects of proposed undertaking do not meet the examples pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.5(a)(1, 2), or if the undertaking is modified or imposed in order to avoid adverse effects.
Integrity and the NRHP
Integrity is defined as the ability of a property to physically convey its identified significance or historic theme with which it is associated. After a positive eligibility status has been determined, a property’s integrity is reviewed pursuant to National Register Bulletin 15 to determine whether the property physically conveys its significance.
According to National Register Bulletin 15 to retain historic integrity a property will always possess several, and usually most, of the seven aspects of integrity described herein. Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. Setting is the physical environment of a historic property.
Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.
924
Historic Property Survey Report
Proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail | Ontario, CA
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
February 2023 | Page 5
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) & Historical Resources Pursuant to the CEQA PRC § 21084.1, any project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. PRC § 5020.1(q) defines a “substantial adverse change” as demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of the historical resource would be materially impaired.
Historical resources are defined as “a resource listed or eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources” (CRHR) (Public Resources Code, Section 5024.1; 14 CCR 15064.5). Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a), the term “historical resources” includes the following:
• A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Public Resources Code, Section 5024.1). • A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, will be presumed to be historically or culturally significant.
Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. • Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be a historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Public Resources Code Section 5024.1) including the following:
1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in California’s past;
3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. • The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in a historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.
The California Register includes resources listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, as well as some California State Landmarks and Points of Historical Interest. Properties of local significance that have been designated under a local preservation ordinance (local landmarks or landmark districts) or that have been identified in a local historical resources inventory may be eligible for listing in the California Register and are presumed to be significant resources for purposes of CEQA unless a preponderance of evidence indicates otherwise (PRC Section 5024.1, 14 CCR § 4850).
The California Register statute (PRC Section 5024.1) and regulations (14 CCR Section 4850 et seq.) require that at the time a local jurisdiction nominates an historic resources survey for listing in the California Register, the survey must be updated if it is more than five years old. This is to ensure that a nominated survey is as accurate as possible at the time it is listed in the California Register. However, this does not mean that resources identified in a survey that is more than five years old need not be considered “historical resources” for purposes of CEQA. Unless a resource listed in a survey has been demolished, lost substantial integrity, or there is a preponderance of evidence indicating that it 925
Historic Property Survey Report
Proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail | Ontario, CA
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
February 2023 | Page 6
is otherwise not eligible for listing, a lead agency should consider the resource to be potentially eligible for the California Register.5
Integrity and the CRHR
Integrity is the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance. Historical resources eligible for listing in the CRHR must meet one of the criteria of significance described above and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance.
Historical resources that have been rehabilitated or restored may be evaluated for listing. Integrity is evaluated about the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. It must also be judged with reference to the particular criteria under which a resource is proposed for eligibility. Alterations over time to a resource or historic changes in its use may themselves have historical, cultural, or architectural significance.
It is possible that historical resources may not retain sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register, but they may still be eligible for listing in the CRHR. A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the CRHR if it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data.
City of Ontario
Ontario’s Historic Preservation Program seeks to preserve and protect the significant architectural, historical, and cultural resources, which reflect Ontario’s unique character and heritage. In 2003, the State of California Office of Historic Preservation designated the City of Ontario a Certified Local Government (CLG). Division 7.01 of the Ontario Municipal Code contains the City’s Landmarks, Landmark Districts, Residential Preservation Zones and Significant Properties Ordinance that defines the eligibility criteria for properties to be included on the Ontario Register of Historic Resources. Local landmark designation in Ontario is covered by Section
4.02.040.B.2.
7.01.010: The Ontario Register of Historic Resources
A. Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to establish an official local register, which includes an inventory of buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts worthy of preservation due to their significance in history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and/or culture within the City.
B. Applicability. The Historic Preservation Subcommittee is hereby empowered to review evaluations of potential historic resources, which have been identified, recorded, and documented through a Historic Resource Survey, against criteria for local landmark and district designations for the purpose of approving or denying inclusion of a potential historic resource to the Ontario Register. The Historic Preservation Subcommittee shall be responsible for maintaining the Ontario Register.
C. Historic Resource Surveys. The City shall conduct, from time to time, a survey to identify properties that have the potential to become eligible historic resources, as well as areas and neighborhoods that, due to the geographic or thematic concentration of potential historic resources, have the potential to be historic districts.
These properties, surveyed at the reconnaissance level pursuant to standards established by the California Office of Historic Preservation, are identified but not evaluated for historic significance, and, therefore, are not considered eligible historic structures or eligible historic districts.
D. Eligible Historic Resources. Any property or grouping of properties listed on the Ontario Register prior to September 1, 2003, or after September 1, 2003, surveyed at the intensive level pursuant to standards 926
Historic Property Survey Report
Proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail | Ontario, CA
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
February 2023 | Page 7
established by the California Office of Historic Preservation, and determined to meet the designation criteria for local historic landmarks or local historic districts set forth in Section 4.02.040 (Historic Preservation—Local Historic Landmark and Local District Designations, Historic Resource Tiering, and Architectural Conservation Areas) of this Development Code, shall be determined by the Approving Authority to be an “eligible” historic resource.
E. Historic Resources. Those Improvements, buildings, structures, signs, features, Historic Districts, conservation zones, trees, or other objects of cultural, architectural, or historical significance to the City, State, Region, or the Nation, which have been determined to be eligible for nomination or designation and determined to be appropriate for historic preservation by the Approving Authority.
4.02.040.B.2. Local Landmark Designation. A historic resource may be designated an “historic landmark” by the City if it meets the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historic Resources, or it meets one or more of the following criteria:
a. The historic resource exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City’s history; b. The historic resource is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history; c. The historic resource is representative of the work of a notable builder, designer, architect, or artist; d. The historic resource embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction;
e. The historic resource is a noteworthy example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; f. The historic resource embodies elements that represent a significant structural, engineering, or architectural achievement or innovation;
g. The historic resource has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community, or the City; h. The historic resource is one of the few remaining examples in the City, i. region, state or nation, possessing distinguishing characteristics of an architectural or historical type or specimen: or
j. The historic resource has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important to the City’s history or prehistory.
927
Historic Property Survey Report
Proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail | Ontario, CA
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
February 2023 | Page 8
III. PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail project is in Ontario, California. The approximately 11.79 project area is bounded by Ontario Ranch Road (formerly Edison Ave.) to the north and Eucalyptus Avenue to the south. The Corps has determined that the APE for the project occupies approximately 11.79-acres within the Corps area of jurisdiction, which includes the Cucamonga Creek channel and the adjacent easement. The APE extends from the southeast corner of the intersection of Edison Ave. (Ontario Ranch Road) and the Cucamonga Creek channel and extends south approximately 796 meters (2,612 feet) to the northeast intersection of Eucalyptus Ave. and the Cucamonga Creek channel. The APE includes the channel and the pedestrian bridge across the channel; however, all construction activity will take place along the adjacent access road on both sides and not within the channel or on the bridge. All associated construction work would occur within SBCFCD property on previously disturbed areas.
The proposed project is located on public lands owned by the SBCFCD. The project area is within Assessor’s Parcel Number 0218-231-04. The proposed undertaking is the construction of a multi-use trail along Cucamonga Creek in the city of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California.
On the east and west sides of the channel, the proposed project involves removing and replacing existing asphaltic concrete pavement to rehabilitate an approximately 20-foot-wide multiuse trail, and removing and replacing portions of an existing chain link fence adjacent to the channel. The purpose of the project is to provide a multi-use regional recreation trail for the public, as part of creating a comprehensive, non-motorized transportation system in the city of Ontario. The proposed construction project impacts an existing maintenance road immediately adjacent to the Cucamonga Creek Channel, between Edison Avenue (Ontario Ranch Road) on the north and Eucalyptus Avenue on the south. The proposed work will be completed on the banks of the channel, outside of the channel proper, but within the San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFD) right-of-way.
The Corps is requesting permission under Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, as amended (33 USC § 408), for alteration of a completed Corps project. As the issuance of a Section 408 permission is considered an undertaking pursuant to 36 CFR 800.16(y), the Los Angeles District of the Corps has determined that the project is subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 54 United States Code [U.S.C.] 306108, and its implementing regulations under 36 CFR Part 800 (Section 106).
ThisHPSR describes and analyzes a project that would involve:
• removing and replacing existing asphaltic concrete pavement and chain link fence on both sides of the channel; and
• rehabilitating an approximately 2o-foot-wide multi-use trail. 6 In accordance with the NHPA, 54 United States Code [U.S.C.] 306108, and its implementing regulations under 36 CFR Part 800 (Section 106), Urbana conducted survey and assessment of historic properties within the proposed project area and the potential effects on those historic properties. 928
HistoricPropertySurveyReport
Proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail Project | Ontario, CA Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
February 2023 | Page 9
IV. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF THE
SURVEY CORRIDOR
The proposed project is in Ontario, California within San Bernardino County. This HPSR section includes a historical overview of the San Bernardino County region, a brief description of the Santa Ana Watershed, Cucamonga Creek, and a history of the communities Cucamonga Creek passes through.
San Bernardino County Region
The project area is in San Bernardino County, the homeland of indigenous Tongva people from about 8,000 years ago to the present. During the period of Spanish colonization, the Tongva were referred to by the Spanish as the Gabrileño and the Fernandeño after the names of the principal European missions in their territory: Mission San Gabriel Arcángel and Mission San Fernando Rey de España. The Tongva remained in their homeland during the Mexican era starting in 1810, but the relationship with Europeans settlers continued to be difficult for native peoples. The mission era ended with secularization in 1834, another traumatic event for the Tongva since they now became landless peoples.7 The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, with Mexico in 1848, ushered the San Bernardino area into its American period. Horticulture and livestock, based primarily on cattle as the currency and staple of the Mexican rancho system, continued to dominate the economy through the first decade of the Gold Rush, which began in 1848.
San Bernardino County was organized from parts of Los Angeles and San Diego counties in April 1853. The City of San Bernardino became the county seat in 1854. Throughout the 1860s and 1870s, mining defined San Bernardino County: gold in Holcomb, Bear Valleys, and Lytle Creek; silver in Ivanpah and Calico; and borax in the Searles Dry Lake near Trona. In 1893, Riverside County was created out of parts of San Bernardino and San Diego Counties. Since World War II, many areas in San Bernardino County have experienced a boom in urban growth. Accessibility to the region was made easier by the establishment of an interstate freeway system.
Santa Ana River Watershed
The Santa Ana River Watershed is tri-county drainage basin situated in western Riverside County, southwestern San Bernardino County, and eastern Orange County. The Santa Ana River watershed accepts flows from the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains, which form a barrier to moisture transport in winter storms. Each of these three mountain ranges has at least one peak greater than 10,000 feet high. Principal tributaries to the Santa Ana River above Prado Dam (listed clockwise) include San Antonio/Chino Creek, Cucamonga Creek, Lytle Creek, Mill Creek, San Timoteo Creek, and the San Jacinto River, which flows into Temescal Creek. Lytle, Mill, and San Timoteo Creeks converge with the Santa Ana River just above the city of Riverside. Of these, the four major water bodies draining into the Prado Basin above Prado Dam are the Santa Ana River, the longest river in Southern California, Chino Creek, Cucamonga Creek/Mill Creek and Temescal Creek. The effective contributing drainage of the entire river is approximately 2,649 square miles (6864 km2 ).8
See Figure 1 for a depiction of the Santa Ana River Watershed.
The Prado Dam, constructed between 1938 and 1941, is the most significant structure located in the Santa Ana River Watershed. Sited just a few hundred feet north of the banks of the Santa Ana River in Riverside County, the Prado Dam was constructed as a tri- county project to control flooding and preserve ground water. In 1938, the region experienced the most destructive flood Southern California had ever experienced. The Santa Ana River and its tributaries devastated the Prado Basin. Today, the earth-filled dam successfully impounds water from all four major water sources, significantly reducing flood risk, as well as providing water storage for 929
HistoricPropertySurveyReport
Proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail Project | Ontario, CA Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
February 2023 | Page 10
groundwater recharge operations. To encourage and preserve native vegetation, vast portions of the Prado Basin are inundated periodically. As a result, the Prado Dam has created the largest riparian area in Southern California.9
Figure 1. Santa Ana River Watershed Boundary.
Courtesy Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority
https://sawpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/5_1426_SurfaceWater.jpg Cucamonga Creek
Cucamonga Creek has its headwaters on Cucamonga Peak at 8,860 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). Nearby Deer and Day Creeks also drain Cucamonga Peak. Drainage at the canyon mouth of Cucamonga Creek comprises ten (10) square miles of mountainous watershed. Additional drainage from its tributaries, the 19th Street Storm Drain, Red Hill Basin drainage, Cucamonga Storm Drain, excess flow from the Turner and Ely Basins, and from Saw and Lower Deer Creeks bring the total drainage from 80.3 square miles of Cucamonga Creek watershed to the Santa Ana River at the Prado Flood Control Reservoir.10 Historically, Cucamonga Creek has discharged onto an alluvial cone spreading out above the present city of Upland. In earlier years, it is understood that there were four discernible watercourses emanating from the lower extremities of the alluvial cone. The major watercourse was that passing east of Red Hill, the others being comparatively minor, including what was called the West Cucamonga Channel. In the early twentieth century a series of settling basins and check dam facilities were first developed below the canyon mouth. This led to a concentration of stream flows, developed over an extended period of time, and prior to the inception of the 930
HistoricPropertySurveyReport
Proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail Project | Ontario, CA Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
February 2023 | Page 11
SBCFCD in 1939. The initial flood control facilities were constructed in the late twenties. There was a second period of construction from 1932 to 1934 under the direction of the Cucamonga Basin Protective Association.
Figure 2. Map of Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel. 931
HistoricPropertySurveyReport
Proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail Project | Ontario, CA Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
February 2023 | Page 12
Communities of Cucamonga Creek
Starting from the top of the drainage, Cucamonga Creek forms a rough boundary between the cities of Upland and Rancho Cucamonga downstream to the north portion of Red Hill. The creek passes to the east of Red Hill, entirely within the city of Rancho Cucamonga. From 8th Street south to 4th Street, Cucamonga Creek forms the boundary between Rancho Cucamonga and the City of Ontario. It then continues north-south through Ontario, passing through the Ontario Airport and roughly paralleling Archibald Avenue south of the airport.
The Deer Creek Flood Control Channel intersects Cucamonga Creek north of Schaeffer Avenue. Deer Creek is controlled by a debris basin and a spillway before it enters the Cucamonga Creek channel. Cucamonga Creek continues south, passing into the City of Eastvale at the Riverside County line at Remington Avenue. Once in Eastvale, the creek takes a gentle turn to the west over the course of two miles until it reaches the boundary of the City of Chino. The concrete flood control channel ends just east of Hellman Avenue in Chino, which opens into the Mill Creek Wetlands stormwater project. From there the water flows into Prado Reservoir.
Upland
Originally named North Ontario, the City of Upland was incorporated on May 15, 1906. Upland is located at the foot of the highest part of the San Gabriel Mountains. The area below the mountains was an important eastwest travel corridor long used by Native Americans. With the arrival of Spanish explorers and missionaries, the travel route became known as the Old Spanish Trail. Moving through the San Gorgonio Pass and into the San Bernardino Valley, the trail ended up at the San Gabriel Mission. Travelers were few during the Spanish era due to restrictions on trade placed by the Spanish crown. These restrictions were removed upon the independence of Mexico, achieved in 1821. Jedediah Smith was the first American to pioneer the route from Santa Fe to California in 1826, pioneering a route through the Cajon Pass. Mexican explorer Antoni Armijo was the next to re-establish the trail from New Mexico.11
In the Spanish era the lands around San Gabriel Mission were used for ranching. Cattle raising became a major industry, the range lands extended to the base of the San Gabriel mountains, including the current location of Upland. Following the secularization of mission lands by the government of Mexico, the Cucamonga Ranch was granted to Tiburcio Tapia in 1839. The opening of trade and the secularization of the missions established a steady stream of trade along the trail between New Mexico and California. The trail went through the Cajon Pass west through Rancho Cucamonga and Upland to the mission at San Gabriel and a fledgling town at Los Angeles.12
Tiburcio Tapia died in 1845 and his rancho passed to his daughter and her husband Leon V. Prudhomme.
California became part of the United States at the end of the war with Mexico and with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. Although thousands of Forty-Niners flocked to California as part of the Gold Rush, Upland remained sparsely utilized range land along the trail. This changed with the arrival of George Chaffee to the area in 1881. A Canadian, Chaffee first established an irrigation system east of Upland in Etiwanda. In 1882, Chaffee purchased 6,216 acres of the Cucamonga Rancho and important irrigation rights. He developed an overall plan for his “Model Colony,” called Ontario for his home province in Canada. This included the establishment of the San Antonio Water Company at the head of San Antonio Creek, located to the west of Cucamonga Creek.13
Upland was in the northern portion of the Ontario Model Colony. The name Upland came from its location nearer the mountains above Ontario. Ontario was incorporated in 1891, but the area was relatively small. This later led to a dispute between Ontario and Upland. The issue was settled by the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors who called for an election on May 5, 1906. Voters decided the matter by incorporating the city of Upland.14
932
HistoricPropertySurveyReport
Proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail Project | Ontario, CA Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
February 2023 | Page 13
One significant advantage of Ontario was its location along the Old Spanish Trail, renamed in 1912 as the Old Trails Highway. Later, in 1926, the road was designated part of US Route 66. Locals just know it as Foothills Boulevard. Another significant east-west highway in Upland is Interstate-10, which forms the boundary between Upland and Ontario. Also known as the San Bernardino Freeway, this portion of I-10 was completed in 1954. Another significant freeway passing through Upland is State Route 210. Known as the Foothill Freeway, some portions of this highway are part of the interstate system as I-210.15 Upland had a similar history of citrus agriculture compared to surrounding communities. The citrus industry in Upland and neighboring Ontario continued to thrive in the twentieth century, and by the 1930s, citrus had become the dominant agricultural crop for California. This success continued for citrus growers until the mid1940s when the citrus industry began to decline. After World War II, land values began to skyrocket, and growers began to sell their land to developers.16
Rancho Cucamonga
Rancho Cucamonga is an inland city located along the southwest end of San Bernardino County. The city is bordered to the north by the San Gabriel Mountain range, to the west by the city of Upland, to the south by the city of Ontario, and to the east by the city of Fontana. Located approximately 41-miles from Downtown Los Angeles, the city encompasses 40.12 square miles. It is one of fifteen cities comprising the San Bernardino Valley which include the cities of Ontario, Chino, Chino Hills, Upland, Fontana, Rialto, Colton, Montclair, San Bernardino, Loma Linda, Grand Terrace, Highland, Redlands, and Yucaipa. Much of the city is characterized as a suburban development with commercial centers clustered along Foothill Boulevard, Baseline Road, Haven Avenue, and Day Creek Boulevard, and industrial properties located towards the south end of the city. The neighborhoods that comprise Rancho Cucamonga include Alta Loma, Cucamonga, and Etiwanda. Rancho Cucamonga is located adjacent to two major transportation networks that provide regional access between the cities of Los Angeles, Orange, and San Bernardino. Interstate 15 intersects that city in a northwest-southeast orientation and California State Route 210 intersects the city in a west-east orientation. Major arterial routes with local significance include Arrow Highway, Foothill Boulevard, Base Line Road, and Highland Avenue.
During the late 18th century, European exploration of the San Bernardino Valley commenced. The earliest reported exploration occurred during the Spanish occupation of California. In 1771, Father Francisco Garces was the first European to pass through the area. Garces was a Franciscan missionary and explorer who made several expeditions through the region. During his expeditions he managed to establish peaceful relationships with the tribes he encountered along his journey. He later served as a guide to Spanish explorer Juan Bautista De Anza.
In 1772, Garces was followed by Pedro Fages, a Spanish soldier who would later become governor of Alta California. Fages is reported to have reached the region in search of military deserters from the San Diego Presidio. 17
In 1822, following the Mexican War of Independence, California mission lands were confiscated by the new Mexican government and later redistributed to political allies. The Mexican government issued more than 500 land grants of former mission lands to prominent families to encourage settlement and agricultural development of Alta California. Land grants were carefully documented on maps known as diseños, that roughly delineated the boundaries of each grant. Landowners largely focused on the cattle industry and devoted large tracts of land to grazing.18
In 1839, Rancho Cucamonga was granted to Tiburcio Tapia by the new governor of Mexico, Juan Bautista Alvarado. The ranch encompassed a total of 13,000 acres of land, much of which was utilized for cattle grazing.
Following the acquisition of the rancho, Tapia constructed an adobe residence at present-day Red Hill, where he raised livestock.19 In addition to a residence, he established a successful winery which still stands today as 933
HistoricPropertySurveyReport
Proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail Project | Ontario, CA Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
February 2023 | Page 14
Thomas Winery, located at 8916 Foothill Boulevard. At least two identified Gabrieliño rancherias, a Spanish term for small Indian workers’ settlements, existed within Rancho Cucamonga. The rancho would remain under the Tapia family’s ownership into the American occupation of California.20 Following the end of the Mexican-American War in 1848, most Mexican land grants were honored by the U.S. courts per the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Although the treaty assured landowners that their land claims would be honored, Congress passed the California Land Act, which created a board to review all Spanish and Mexican era land grants to determine if they were valid. As a result, rancho owners incurred large legal fees to present their cases. Many lost their land during this time or sold portions of their ranchos to pay for legal fees.
In 1858, Rancho Cucamonga was purchased from Tapia’s daughter by John Rains and his wife Maria Merced William de Rains. Rains was an Alabama born soldier who relocated west to California in 1847. Following his arrival, Rains married Maria Merced Williams, the daughter of Isaacs Williams, owner of Rancho Santa Ana del Chino.21 Under Rains ownership, he expanded the vineyards established under Tapia, and constructed a brick house, located at 8810 Hemlock Street, now listed on the National Register of Historic Places. However, many of California’s ranchos that had survived into the American era were sold and fragmented following a severe drought during the 1860s.
By 1870, Rancho Cucamonga was sold and subdivided into small farms. The area that comprises the presentday city was purchased by Isaias W. Hellman and several businessmen in 1870. Born in 1842, Hellman was a German-born Jewish merchant and banker, who immigrated to the United States in 1859. Hellman is considered the founding father of the University of Southern California. Under his ownership, Hellman formed the Cucamonga Homestead Association, which would lead to the development of the Cucamonga Colony.
Subdivisions, such as the Iowa tract, were created to attract potential investors and spur further growth. Lands were subdivided to include 20-acre lots, with larger lots located along the peripherals of the new settlement for agricultural development.22 Streets were installed in a north-to-south and east-to-west grid pattern, with the heart of the new townsite located between present-day Archibald Avenue, 6th Street, Haven Avenue, and Arrow route.
During the ensuing years, the area became a major agricultural center dedicated primarily to the cultivation of grapes, but also included citrus, olives, and peaches.23 The area’s comparatively rich soil attracted several farmers, as well as laborers of all different nationalities who migrated to work at the farms. Many of these immigrants included Mexican, Italian, Russian, and Canadian laborers, in addition to Chinese railroad workers.
In 1887, irrigation tunnels were dug by Chinese laborers to provide water to the new colony and to irrigate agricultural lands in the vicinity.24 That year, the arrival of the Union Pacific Railroad further facilitated agricultural operations by allowing farmers to export their crops throughout the country. With a reliable supply of water, a railway system, and fertile soil, agriculture would become the town’s main economic venture until the latter half of the 20th century. While the new town developed into a thriving agrarian society, new communities began to emerge around the peripherals of the new settlement, such as Etiwanda, Cucamonga, and Alta Loma, which were later absorbed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in the 1970s.
For much of the early 1900s, vineyards were a vital component of the area’s initial success. Rancho Cucamonga became a major hub for the vineyard and wine industry in California, which would continue throughout the prohibition-era. Crates of grapes were sold to bootleggers and sacramental and medicinal wine was made locally. As the population of Los Angeles increased, the demand for agricultural goods grew in the surrounding areas. The extension of the Pacific Railroad through the area enabled farmers to ship their products to Los Angeles and other adjacent cities. The demand for agricultural products generated the need for laborers, and as a result, Rancho Cucamonga experienced an influx of new residents. At one point it was reported that there was 934
HistoricPropertySurveyReport
Proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail Project | Ontario, CA Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
February 2023 | Page 15
a total of 60 wineries in the Cucamonga area.25 In 1939, the Wine and Grape Festival was created by the people of Rancho Cucamonga to celebrate the success of the wine industry.
In the 1940s, agriculture in the area reached its peak and experienced a gradual decline by the 1950s. The area began to succumb to urban sprawl, marking the end of the winery industry. As the population of Southern California increased following World War II, Rancho Cucamonga was further subdivided and developed for residential and commercial use. New subdivisions replaced agricultural land and architectural styles such as Ranch and Minimal Traditional were introduced in residential construction. Additionally, the construction of major transportation networks such as Interstate15 and State Route 210 further stimulated Rancho Cucamonga’s growth.
By the 1970s, the area experienced another major population increase as families seeking affordable housing relocated from Los Angeles to Rancho Cucamonga. To better manage development, the Tri-Community Incorporation Committee was created to propose cityhood in 1975. In November of 1977, Rancho Cucamonga was incorporated as a city. The unincorporated communities of Cucamonga, Alta Loma, and Etiwanda were absorbed into Rancho Cucamonga. Today, the city is characterized as a suburban community with a population exceeding 178,000. Most of the area’s residential and commercial-use properties were constructed between the 1970s and the present-day.26
Ontario
Ontario was founded in September 1882 by George and William B. Chaffey. The city was named after the Chaffey brother’s home of Ontario, Canada. The Chaffeys moved to Riverside in 1880 with the intention to buy and sell land in the San Bernardino area. They acquired 1,000 acres of the Garcia Rancho in 1881 and later bought an additional 6,000 acres which would form the cities of Ontario and Upland. The Chaffeys wanted to establish a “Model Colony” agricultural community, and to do so they created an irrigation system to bring in an adequate water supply. In 1882, tunnels were constructed to reroute water from San Antonio Creek in the mountains to every parcel of land in Ontario.27 To further irrigation development, the Chaffey brothers formed the San Antonio Water Company (SAWC) in 1882 for acquiring water rights for irrigation and agriculture.28 Over the next five years, the SAWC would establish several sources of water in addition to that provided by San Antonio Creek; they constructed extensive tunnels to access artesian water and several underground wells. The Chaffey brothers ensured property owners and shareholders of the SAWC that the water would become the property of the landowners. The brothers sold all of their water rights in the company to reassure them further.29 According to the book, Ontario: The Model Colony Buyers received one share of water stock with each purchased acre, not to exceed 10 shares. To acquire the shares, the newly formed San Antonio Water Company traded stock to the Chaffeys in return for water rights. The San Antonio Water Company board of directors were Judge Robert M. Widney of Los Angeles, president; George D. Cunningham of Riverside, vice-president; Luther M. Holt also of Riverside, secretary. Charles Chaffey and John C. Dunlap were also on the board...Payment to the Chaffeys for their water rights consisted of 10 shares of stock in the company for each inch of water measured each July 15. They were paid 2,000 shares in advance.30 The established irrigation systems were also used to provide electricity to the City of Ontario. The SAWC established the Ontario Electric Company, which was owned by the landowners of the city. While establishing the two companies and trying to bring water to the city, the Chaffey’s began to design downtown Ontario and the surrounding subdivisions. The brothers wanted a grand thoroughfare that would run through the city. The 7-mile-long Euclid Avenue, with twin roadways and a central mall, was created as the main boulevard running north to south connecting the southern boundaries of the city to the mountains in the north. Every half-mile, paralleling Euclid to the east and west, were 65-foot-wide avenues, and cross streets were laid at quarter-mile 935
HistoricPropertySurveyReport
Proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail Project | Ontario, CA Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
February 2023 | Page 16
intervals through Euclid Avenue.31 In November 1882 the first lots in Ontario were sold to first settlers of the area mostly from Canada and New England. Downtown Ontario and the directly adjacent neighborhoods and agricultural land began to develop quickly.
When they established Ontario, George and William Chaffey originally imagined a citrus agricultural community; however, due to the scarcity of orange trees in 1882, the area initially produced other fruit, including peaches, pears, apples, cherries, and grapes.32 Quickly, though, oranges were planted by 1888 with a reporting of 700 acres of orange crops that year and over 2,000 acres by 1889.33 The citrus pioneers helped rapidly develop the city, and by December 1891 the city was incorporated, and the boundaries extended further in 1901 north beyond the Santa Fe tracks and west to 10th Street. The early groves were planted around San Antonio Street west of Euclid Avenue, but over time the groves surrounded the central downtown area of Euclid Avenue. The first houses in Ontario were constructed in the Victorian style and were surrounded by citrus groves. By the early 20th century, the residential areas north of the city began to develop with Craftsman style residences, discussed further below. In 1903, Ontario had been declared “The Model Colony” as an Act of Congress of the United States for its innovation, principals, and establishment of a new standard for urban living. The Model Colony stood as a prominent example of a successful irrigation project for many years.
Ontario also developed as a dairy farming community from the 1910s into the 1980s. By the mid-1910s the industry started to take form with the first large scale dairy operations. With funding from the American Beet Sugar Industry, the G.S. Moyer dairy was established in 1916, which was one of the city’s earliest commercial dairies.34 In the 1920s, Adolph Whitney found the Royal Dairy, which established Ontario and the Chino Valley as the center of dairy production with his revolutionary cleaning practices which protected his cows from diseases. By the 1920s, Ontario dairy farmers were establishing the area as a leader in the dairy industry.
From the 1920s into the 1960s, the dairy industry took off in the City of Ontario and the Chino Valley and was the number one industry for the region. Many of the new dairyman were Dutch, Portuguese, Swiss, and Mexican immigrants, who introduced new dairy practices and technologies that greatly improved production.
Roaming pastures were replaced by a smaller parlor type barn and dry lot. 35 Without roaming pastures, cows
were now fed hay and grain, and feeding, transporting, and milking all became automated. In the 1960s, a 21- acre agricultural dairy preserve was established in 1960 to protect dairies from encroaching development.
In the 1960s into the 1980s, Ontario and the Chino Valley were the leading producers of dairy in the country.
Increasing profit was the norm for Ontario dairying during the 1970s and early 1980s. By 1979, the largest concentration of dairies in the world was in the approximately 18 square miles that comprise the Chino Valley and produced 60% of the milk in the State of California.36 However, the 1980s saw a drastic decrease in the number of dairies within the region. By 1981, there were only 284 dairies in Ontario down from the 400 which had been in existence during the mid and late 1970s.37 The decline of dairies in the region during this era can be linked to the high level of competition which existed in the market during this time period. By the late 1980s, 1990s and 2000s most of the dairies would leave Ontario due to rising land values along with commercial and residential development. The dairy preserve established in the 1960s was opened to development in 1993 which led to further residential and industrial development of the area. While the majority dairy farmers have migrated out of Ontario, there remains many prominent dairies in the Ontario area. As of 2019, the Inland Empire still had nearly 200,000 dairy cows along with 209 dairies.38 Eastvale
Eastvale shares a history that is tied to its neighboring communities: Corona, Norco, Chino and Ontario. Like these other cities, the early development of Eastvale is related to ranching. In later years, citrus farming and the dairy industry became the mainstay of the economy. Eastvale remined rural and agricultural until the 1990s when suburbanization took over as residents from Orange and Los Angeles counties moved to the area to take 936
HistoricPropertySurveyReport
Proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail Project | Ontario, CA Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
February 2023 | Page 17
advantage of lower housing costs and an improved quality of life.39 Located in what is now the northwest corner of Riverside County (incorporated 1893), Eastvale got its start as part of the Rancho Jurupa, granted by the Mexican government to Juan Bandini. By 1834, the Mexican government had seized Spain’s missions and taken control of its land from Native Americans and Spaniards. To colonize the area and encourage farming and raising livestock, the government handed out land grants to influential and wealthy Mexican politicians. After California became a state in 1850, the land in Riverside County was shared between San Bernardino and San Diego Counties (as of 1853). It wasn’t until 1893 that Riverside County was created. In the minutes of one of the first meetings of the Riverside County Board of Commissioners, “East Vale” is listed as one of 53 school districts. This is probably how Eastvale obtained its name.40
For most of the twentieth century, until 1954, about half of Eastvale was comprised of the Fuller Ranch. First owned by Charles Fuller, it was later the property of his son, automobile dealer O.R. Fuller. The ranch started with production with alfalfa, barley, hay, and stock raising. Fuller later expanded into citrus fruit. O. R. Fuller died in 1946, and the ranch passed into the hands of his widow, Ione Fuller. Mrs. Fuller died in 1951 and the ranch was liquidated when it was sold to dairyman Walter Koenig. By the 1950s, Dairymen began moving their operations into the Santa Ana River valley. Many dairies in Eastvale, the Chino Valley and Ontario were owned and operated primarily by Dutch and Portuguese families.41 Eastvale continued to remain rural and agricultural until the 1990s when dairies began to be replaced by housing developments. This was the result of an influx of residents from urban areas of Los Angeles and Orange County seeking a lower cost of living. This new land use ultimately proved incompatible with dairy operations and a gradual shift in the economic base of the community began. Access to important transportation routes made the community a popular base for residents commuting jobs elsewhere in the Inland Empire. Residents began to explore city status for Eastvale, spurred by changes to state law in 2006 that made incorporation easier for smaller communities. By the spring of 2007, the push for incorporation was well under way. Eastvale incorporated in 2010.42
Chino
The history of Chino began in 1841 when the Spanish governor granted 27,000 acres of the Rancho Santa Ana del Chino to his uncle, Don Antonio Maria Lugo. Don Lugo deeded half of the ranch to his son-in-law Isaac Williams, who created Chino Ranch and planted field crops, vineyards, and several other agricultural products, setting up the area for its future industries of agriculture and dairy. The ranch was purchased in 1881 by Richard Gird, an Arizona silver miner, who imported 200 dairy cattle to the area. In 1887, Gird subdivided his 23,000- acre ranch into 10-acre tracts and set aside the one-mile town site of Chino. Gird wanted a successful and profitable town, so he experimented with several crops to see which would be the most prosperous. He eventually discovered the sugar beet and created a prosperous sugar beet industry in the area. In 1890, Gird received funding from the Oxnard Brothers, the leading beet sugar producer, to construct a beet sugar facility, and by 1900 the plant produced 12,000 tons of sugar each season. Gird also established a narrow-gauge railway, the Chino Valley Railroad, which connected Chino to the Southern Pacific line in Ontario. By 1901, the city was purchased by the Chino Land and Water Company (CLWC), which continued the prosperous sugar factory and expanded development of the city. To increase the population and generate more revenue for the city, the CLWC sold land for a reduced price of $70-$125 an acre. Many thousands of acres of land originally desert was converted to farmland through new water supplies and pipelines and the construction of new buildings. These areas expanded the agricultural industry of Chino from solely sugar beet farming to include alfalfa, corn, potatoes, grain, walnuts, apples, peaches, and apricots.43 937
HistoricPropertySurveyReport
Proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail Project | Ontario, CA Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
February 2023 | Page 18
By 1910, Chino was controlled by the American Beet Sugar Company, which increased the beet sugar industry in Chino to an $11 million a year industry from nine different facilities throughout the city. The facilities employed most of the city’s residents and brought curious tourists to the area. The success of the beet sugar industry and the expansion of Chino led to the incorporation of the city in 1910. That same year the city established the first police and fire services. The American Beet Sugar Company was also influential in establishing the city’s dairy industry. They provided funding to the G.S. Moyer dairy in 1916, which became the city’s earliest commercial dairy. Due to the rise in seed prices in Germany, the beet sugar industry began to shut down in 1917. Other agricultural industries continued to be successful, and canneries began to appear in the area.44
By the 1920s, Chino was emerging as a leader in the dairy industry. Adolph Whitney opened the Royal Dairy in Chino in the mid-1920s and revolutionized the dairy industry through clean facilities and milking techniques.
His success attracted more dairy farmers to the area. The City of Chino was hit hard by the Great Depression and experienced very little growth until the post-World War II boom. To create much needed growth in the city, in 1941 Mayor George Decker approved the construction of the Chino Institute for Men, which brought several jobs to the area. The dairy industry in Chino continued as a thriving industry, expanding throughout the 1930s into the 1940s. During World War II, Chino produced and canned much of the food for soldiers fighting abroad. After the war, Los Angeles began to expand rapidly, developing into the surrounding agricultural and dairy lands. Dairy farmers moved their operations to Chino, where land values were cheaper and there was ample space for larger dairies. The dairy industry dominated in Chino throughout the 1940s and into the 1950s.
Between 1947 and 1955, the number of dairies in the City of Chino increased from 64 to 110. Between 1954 and 1955, 22 dairies were constructed alone. With the expansion of the dairy industry, new jobs were created and between 1950 and 1955 the population of Chino had grown by 29 percent.45 During the 1960s through the 1980s, the industry in Chino diversified to include the California Brass Manufacturing Company, a meat packing plant, a Uniroyal Tire Plant, and the Mary Carter Paint plant. The completion of the Pomona Freeway in 1971 caused the population of Chino and the surrounding cities to grow and created a need for more housing communities and retail services. The city maintained its status as a thriving dairy and agricultural community until the 1980s. With the increase in the price of milk, rising land values, and the overly competitive nature of the milk industry, the dairy industry in Chino began to decrease.
By 1981, the number of dairies farms decreased from 400 in the 1970s to 284 and the number of cows in the region decreased from 190,000 to 163,000. Several of the dairy lands have been sold off, and the areas have been transformed into large, planned neighborhoods.46
938
HistoricPropertySurveyReport
Proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail Project | Ontario, CA Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
February 2023 | Page 19
V. HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT
Flood Control of Cucamonga Creek, 1900-1980s
While the Los Angeles coastal plan is nearly uniformly flat across a span of 25 to 30 miles, it is bordered to the east by the San Gabriel Mountains which rise precipitously to a height of around 7,000 feet in a short distance of only a few miles. The mountains focus and concentrate rainfall coming in from the Pacific Ocean. In turn, the steep terrain accelerates drainage from the mountains. The result of this combination is raging floodwaters that carry heavy quantities of rock, gravel, and sand onto the coastal plain. Cucamonga Creek drains the highest portion of the San Gabriel Mountains and historically carries a heavy flow of water and debris.47 The Los Angeles coastal plain recorded a series of floods with the earliest dating back to 1771. Several floods occurred in the eighteenth century, with the most extensive being in the winter of 1861-1862. Because the area was lightly populated these floods caused little damage to property. This changed in the 1880s when accelerated population growth created a demand for flood protection. In the twenty years from 1890 to 1910, the population of Los Angeles increased from 101,454 to 504,131. Destructive floods in the winter of 1910-1911 led to the creation of several “protection districts” that constructed dikes of stone, wood, and wire to control streams within existing banks.48
The first organized governmental response to floods in the Los Angeles area came after a severe flood in January and February of 1914. In the aftermath of the flood which resulted in $10 million in property damage, it became clear that small, independent protection districts were not up to the challenge. The Los Angeles Board of Supervisors petitioned the state legislature to adopt enabling legislation that created the Los Angeles County Flood Control District. The legislation passed on June 12, 1915.49
Figure 3. Photograph of Cucamonga Canyon showing heavy debris field, Ontario, ca.1900.
Source: University of Southern California. Libraries and California Historical Society. Digitally reproduced by the USC Digital Library. https://doi.org/10.25549/chs-m5964
939
HistoricPropertySurveyReport
Proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail Project | Ontario, CA Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
February 2023 | Page 20
These floods in the teens impacted areas downstream from Cucamonga Creek. The drainage starting at the mouth of Cucamonga Canyon was called Cucamonga Wash at the time. A newspaper report on March 10, 1911, stated “all three transcontinental railroads running through Ontario were washed out today.” These were the Southern Pacific, Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe, and the San Pedro, Los Angeles and Salt Lake. The 1914 flood also caused damage to transportation corridors. An article in The Daily Report newspaper on January 27, 1914 observed “Cucamonga Wash, known as a dry wash, is dry no more. Fed by heavy rains in Cucamonga Canyon, the water tore through the rocky bed with great force and Cucamonga is shut off from Ontario by many washouts on all roads.”50 Residents in the floodplain of Cucamonga Creek quickly organized meetings to develop protection against floods in 1914. They planned to organize a storm water protection district like those found in Los Angeles County. A flood in 1916 gave further impetus to the desire for flood protection. A post-mortem of the 1916 flood noted “on Turner Avenue, Cucamonga, the entire street was washed out from 4 to 12 feet in depth for a distance of 4 ½ miles.” The 1916 flood also left a more long-lasting impact. The flood had the result of entrenching the channel of Cucamonga Creek to the east side of Red Hill.51
Flood control activities were delayed during World War One. After the war, residents started new plans to control Cucamonga Creek. The San Antonio Water Company and the Cucamonga Water Company led these activities. The plans had two purposes: slow the flow of destructive floodwaters to reduce damage to property and allow the war to percolate into the ground and replenish the aquifer. In 1925 the two companies started construction on a rock wall oriented diagonally across the wash just upstream from where it separated into several smaller branches. The initial work also constructed two rock walls oriented perpendicular to the canyon. Additional work continued through 1928 for a total cost of $110,000. Several walls are depicted in 1928 report on the Santa Ana River flood control investigation by William S. Post.52
The investigation into flood control of the Santa Ana River was funded by the State of California in 1925 with an appropriation of $25,000. In 1927 Senator Ralph Swing spearheaded an additional appropriation of $40,000, provided that a matching amount was appropriated by the counties covered by the study. In 1930, the state appropriated $390,000 for additional study of the water resources of California, including the Santa Ana River. This funding resulted in two Bulletins (No. 19 and No. 31) regarding the Santa Ana River by the State of California as part of the Santa Ana investigation. This work was under the direction of noted hydraulic engineer William S. Post (1871- 1945).53
940
HistoricPropertySurveyReport
Proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail Project | Ontario, CA Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
February 2023 | Page 21
Figure 4. Diagram of existing spreading works at Cucamonga Creek.
Source: William S. Post, Santa Ana Investigation, Flood Control and Conservation (State of California, Department of Public Works, Division of Engineering and Irrigation Bulletin No. 19. December 1, 1928), 168. 941
HistoricPropertySurveyReport
Proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail Project | Ontario, CA Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
February 2023 | Page 22
Figure 5. Proposed Plan from Bulletin 31, 1930.
942
HistoricPropertySurveyReport
Proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail Project | Ontario, CA Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
February 2023 | Page 23
The 1930 Bulletin resulted in a recommendation for flood control along Cucamonga Creek remarkably like what was eventually constructed. It started with additional walls across the creek at its mouth above Red Hill. The intent was to create spreading basins where the water slowed by the rock walls could percolate gradually into the aquifer after a flood. The plan also called for the construction of a flood control channel starting at the northeast corner of Red Hill and following the existing bed of the wash running in a southeast direction. The plan called for a juncture with Deer Creek at Haven Avenue. The channel would then continue to the southeast to eventually join with the Santa Ana River. The planned capacity for the channel was 6,000 Cubic Feet per Second (CFS). The estimated cost of the project was $761,60054
To push the plan through, residents in the Alta Loma area formed the Cucamonga Basin Protective Association in 1930. Their goals included strengthening the check dams and extending the flood control channel. This was designed to raise the water table in the area and to conserve the water supply from loss during floods. Officers of the association included George G. Laidlaw, president; John Belcher, first vice-president; J. F. Glass, second vicepresident; R. A. Wagner, engineer, and Mrs. Nelson Crosswell, assistant secretary. Residents expressed fear that a dropping water table could impact continued irrigation from wells. The Cucamonga association was patterned after a similar Chino Basin Protective Association. The first step of the Cucamonga group was to purchase equipment that would allow them to strengthen the check dam system in Cucamonga Canyon. In February 1931 the project was well under way. The City of Ontario allocated $1,000 to the effort. 55 Starting the project during the economic downturn of the Great Depression meant that the effort soon ran out of money. Nearly one year after being formed, in August 1931, members of the Cucamonga Basin Protective Association expressed hope that they would be able to soon resume work on the project. The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors set aside a tax of ten cents that would result in approximately $21,000 that could be matched with state funds for a total of $42,000. Association members also asked the Board to create the “San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District.” The Board of Supervisors initially agreed to allocate only $10,000 for the work in November 1931.
56 In February of 1932 the newspaper reported that the ten-cent tax established in July of 1931 had raised about $35,000 that was allocated to Cucamonga Wash improvements. This augmented an initial assessment of association members in 1930 that had been matched by the County. In July of 1932, the communities of Ontario and Cucamonga volunteered to assist San Bernardino County by providing additional support for the project.
Spearheaded by the Cucamonga Basin Protective Association, the cities offered to provide funds for materials, labor, supervision, and equipment. By October 1932 work had started on a fourth diversion wall across the wash, as well as a gate in the main diversion wall to better regulate flows from winter rains into the spreading basins. The newspaper reported that twenty-five men were employed under the direction of the association.57 As the Great Depression deepened it soon became apparent that state and local communities needed additional help to construct flood control projects. In 1936, Congress established the Flood Control Act, a nationwide policy that authorized funding in civil engineering projects such as dams, levees, channels, and other flood control systems throughout the United States. The 1936 Act stipulated that flood control was an appropriate federal activity and designated the US Army Corp of Engineers as the federal agency in charge. The Act specified that local interests should share the cost of project for channel and levee projects while flood control reservoirs would be the full responsibility of the federal government. This resulted in many local projects and a large expansion in the size of the Corps to keep up with the work. 58
One of the key projects authorized by the 1936 Act was “Construction of reservoirs and related flood-control works for protection of metropolitan area in Orange County, California” on the Santa Ana River. This was the initial construction authorization for Prado Dam. Congress authorized construction costs at $13 million and $3.5 million for land acquisition. Cucamonga Creek is one of the tributaries of the Santa Ana River that flows into Prado Reservoir behind the dam. The Prado Dam and reservoir was originally established as a flood control 943
HistoricPropertySurveyReport
Proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail Project | Ontario, CA Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
February 2023 | Page 24
measure that was expanded to include water conservation as well. Construction on the dam was initiated by the Corps in 1938 and was completed in 1941.The earth-filled dam impounds water from the Santa Ana River and its tributaries, significantly reducing flood risk, as well as providing water storage for groundwater recharge operations.59
This action was timely, for in January of 1937 the nation experienced a “Super Flood” on the lower Ohio River.
The disaster triggered the Flood Control Act of 1937 signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on August 28, 1937, as Public Law 406. It included $25 million for the Ohio Valley Flood Control Program. The Flood Control Act of 1937 also included funds for “preliminary examinations and surveys” for other flood control areas. In California, these included Cucamonga Creek, Deer Creek, San Antonio Creek, and Chino Creek, among others. These four creeks flowed into the Santa Ana River and thus into Prado Reservoir. 60 The adoption of the 1937 Act designating Cucamonga Creek as a location of study by the Corps proved prophetic. In 1938, Southern California was affected by disastrous floods caused by torrential rainfall. The flood of March 2, 1938 inundated parts of Riverside, Los Angeles, and Orange Counties. Centered in the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains, the storm caused widespread flooding throughout the Santa Ana River watershed. Nearly all the bridges in the county located along the Santa Ana River were completely washed away. Residential and business areas were either completely destroyed or badly damaged. Railroad beds and highways were part of the destruction, severely crippling the region. Total 1938 losses reached over $78 million in Southern California combined. The disaster gave a renewed impetus to flood control in San Bernardino County.61
The flood gave impetus to the creation of the SBCFCD in 1939. Soon after the March 1938 flood, the Board of Supervisors established an advisory agency to set up an agency similar to the one Los Angeles had created in 1915. The county-wide district in San Bernardino was attractive for the same reason: The small local water companies and associations could not meet the needs that large floods required. Deputy District Attorney Albert E. Waller drafted the legislation authorizing the district. It was championed by state senator Ralph E.
Swing and adopted by the State Legislature on April 20, 1939. The County Board of Supervisors served as ex officio members of the SBCFCD, which had the authority to contract with the state and federal government to address flooding problems. County Surveyor Harold L. Way was appointed to serve as the chief engineer and R.
V. Ward as assistant engineer. 62
The work of establishing the SBCFCD in 1939 and the assignment of flood control to the duties of the Corps in 1937 seemed to portend a new era of expenditure and construction to protect life and property. However, the start of World War Two brought an end to planning and construction. Activity did not resume until after the war. Action was delayed until 1949 when the Corps published a report supporting constructing a levee around Red Hill to divert the creek to the east. The plan also called for placing Cucamonga Creek into a concrete channel from the downstream end of the levee to Prado reservoir. While the plan would protect agriculture and urban lands, it would also require construction of four new railroad bridges and nineteen new highway bridges.
Despite the lack of assistance from the federal government, local forces led by the SBCFCD took steps to channelize Cucamonga Creek. These changes are apparent in aerial photos of the project area as early as 1949 (Appendix E). Local forces constructed a basin just north of Schaeffer Avenue at Cucamonga Creek to accommodate flow from the Lower Deer Creek Channel. Known as the Lower Cucamonga Spreading grounds, the basin served to retain water from both Cucamonga Creek and Lower Deer Creek and allow the flow to percolate into the aquifer. The creek south of this basin was a soft-bottom channel (no concrete) that traveled in a straight line parallel with and west of Archibald Avenue. In some portions the channel was lined by low unrevetted sand levees and in some portions by pipe and wire fences. The channel made a gentle curve to the 944
HistoricPropertySurveyReport
Proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail Project | Ontario, CA Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
February 2023 | Page 25
west to enter the Prado Reservoir. Despite this work, a 1966 report by the Corps determined that “none of the improvements are effective for the control of large floods.”63 A particular sore point was where Cucamonga Creek crossed Ontario Airport. Here, local forces constructed a reinforced concrete box culvert in three sections to carry water underneath the runway. These culverts, each
16.7-feet by 8-feet and 1,600-feet long, were considered adequate at the time. However, by 1965 new flood flow estimates indicated they were inadequate. The Army Corps suggested the addition of a new set of culverts to accommodate 32,000 CFS of flow would be needed.64 The need for flood control in San Bernardino County was punctuated by a December storm in 1966 that caused considerable damage. Statewide, the flood caused a loss of $28 million. Fortunately, along the 14-mile Cucamonga Creek channel, the water stayed within its banks although there was considerable bank erosion.
The worst damage was to the “G” Street Bridge, which was demolished. A vehicle was washed off Edison Avenue into the channel, and there was some flooding at the Ontario Airport from flood waters backed up at the culverts that passed underneath the runway. Floodwaters also washed out a large section of Base Line Road.65
In 1968 the Corps forwarded a letter to Congress calling for the construction of the Cucamonga Creek Channel.
Congress received the report favorably, and on August 13, 1968, authorized construction of Cucamonga Creek flood control improvements with an estimated cost of $23,600,000. Representative Jerry Pettis of Loma Linda observed “the project will improve the future economy of the area and protect the Ontario International Airport Airstrip which passes over presently inadequate storm drains.”66 For once, the authorization came before the next big flood. In January and February of 1969, a large flood struck Southern California. This time, Cucamonga Creek flowed at historic levels. Measurements indicated that the flow at the canyon mouth was over 14,000 CFS which spewed 3,300,000 cubic yards of debris into the spreading basis. Every major railroad line and highway was severed. The damages attributed to Cucamonga Creek alone totaled $13,500,000.67 Figure 6. Bulldozer dredges Cucamonga Channel, 1969.
The photograph was used in The Daily Report February 24, 1969.
Robert E. Ellingwood Model Colony History Room Photographs 945
HistoricPropertySurveyReport
Proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail Project | Ontario, CA Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
February 2023 | Page 26
The damaging floods of 1969 encouraged local, state, and federal officials to move forward on the project. The first step was environmental review. A draft environmental statement was completed in 1973 and approved in 1975. The Corps concluded that the benefits of the project far outweighed the negatives. Notably, one of the drawbacks was the loss of the earth bottom channels constructed by the county flood control district. These soft-bottom channels allowed groundwater infiltration during gentle rains and would be replaced with an impervious concrete channel.68
Although the flood control effort for Cucamonga Creek had been authorized in 1968, funds needed to be approved. This occurred in 1975 after approval of the environmental work. The first contract was issued on June 27, 1975 for channel outlet works. Another initial task was acquiring right-of-way for the channel. While the SBCFCD already owned some portion of the project through fee simple acquisition and through easements, some of the soft bottom channel existed only through “handshake” agreements with local property owners.
More formal arrangements were needed for the larger project. Much of this ROW acquisition was completed in 1977. This included the parcel contained by the project area. It was acquired by the SBCFCD on September 28, 1977.69 A 1977 report on Corps water resources development California summarized the important aspects of the Cucamonga Creek project.
Construction is under way on the Cucamonga Creek and tributaries project. The project consists of 10 debris basins, about 9,000 feet of diversion, collection and separation levees, and 26 miles of rectangular and trapezoidal concrete channel. The project would provide protection against floods to a 19,000-acre overflow area that includes commercial, industrial, and residential property in Upland, Ontario, Alta Loma, Cucamonga, and San Antonio Heights. It would also protect the Ontario International Airport, the San Antonio Community Hospital, the Colorado River aqueduct, and major interstate highways and railroads. Recreational facilities planned as part of the project include hiking, bicycling, and equestrian trails along channel service roads; and rest stops, staging areas, and picnic facilities along the trail system. A beautification program to improve the project site is also part of the project concept.70 By 1977 the federal cost of the project had ballooned to $76.7 million. This was a big increase from the $26.3 million estimate in 1968. The non-federal portion of the project was estimated at $16.5 million in 1977.
Engineers slated the project for completion in 1981.71 The project was delayed somewhat, due mostly to funding issues. The late 1970s suffered from high inflation. This resulted in an increase in cost. By the time the project was completed in 1982 the cost had increased to $121 million.72 Some additional work remained on landscaping and trails. The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors initiated a request for $2 million in 1983 for completion of bicycle and bridle paths along portions of the Cucamonga Creek channel. These pathways were built upon “patrol roads” which was a thin asphalt road along the top of the embankments next to the channel. While the original purpose was to provide access for maintenance and security vehicles, increasing population in the once flood-prone areas resulted in a demand for recreational facilities.
Recreational use of the channel ROW had been anticipated in the original design for the project. The trails system developed gradually and did not cover all areas of the channel. Much of it was completed by the late 1980s.73
The change in the Cucamonga Creek area of San Bernardino County has resulted in the protection of life and property. As scholar Adam Scott Miller observed in his study of the Santa Ana watershed “Today, southern Californian’s experience a near worry free environment as compared to those who lived here in the early part of the 20th century.” The flood control structures do more than just reduce flooding risk and damages. They also provide wetlands management, habitat for wildlife, green space, and conserve open lands. Projects like the Cucamonga Creek channel are truly multi-use 74
946
HistoricPropertySurveyReport
Proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail Project | Ontario, CA Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
February 2023 | Page 27
Figure 7. Corps Map of Cucamonga Creek Channel, 1976.
947
HistoricPropertySurveyReport
Proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail Project | Ontario, CA Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
February 2023 | Page 28
VI. SURVEY FINDINGS AND
REGULATORY CONCLUSIONS
The APE, and its immediate environment, is characterized by low-density development including agriculture, residential, commercial, recreation, and industrial uses. The proposed construction project impacts an existing maintenance road immediately east and west of the Cucamonga Creek Channel, between Edison Avenue (Ontario Ranch Road) on the north and Eucalyptus Avenue on the south. The proposed work will be completed on the east and west bank of the channel, outside of the channel proper, but within the SBCFCD right-of-way.
Maps delineating the APE survey boundaries, with proposed built environment improvement locations depicted, are included as Appendix A.
Survey Findings
No previously recorded sites are located within the APE. Three previously unrecorded sites, the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel, the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel Access Road, and the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel Pedestrian Bridge, were documented and evaluated. These three built environment cultural resources are historically associated and located on the same Assessor's Parcel. As a result, these three sites were consolidated into a single recordation under the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel, consistent with land ownership.
Table 1. Survey Summary Findings.
Assessor’s
Parcel No.
Direct /
Indirect
APE
Previously
Recorded
Associated Built Environment
Improvements Year Built
CRHR
Status
Code
021823104 Direct
APE N/A Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel 1975-1983 6Z 021823104 Direct
APE N/A Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel Access Road – East and West of Channel 1975-1983 6Z 021823104 Direct
APE N/A Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel Pedestrian Bridge 1975-1983 6Z Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel | CRHR Status Code: 6Z The evaluated parcel includes three primary improvements, one of which is the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel itself. An asphalt road on both sides of the channel spans the entire length of the parcel and continues to the north and south parallel to the channel. The overall length of the Cucamonga Creek channel is approximately 14 miles, with an additional 12 miles associated with the Deer Creek channel and the Lower Deer Creek channel. The width and depth of the channel varies considerably across its entire length, as does the ROW for the project. The walls of the channel are predominantly vertical concrete walls, and the floor of the channel is flat concrete. There are some sections of the channel with trapezoidal walls. Some sections have a slope to one side of the channel. In addition to the channel, associated project features include bridges, culverts, reservoirs, and flooding grounds.
The ROW for the evaluated segment is 160-feet. The shape of the channel in the segment is trapezoidal with a width of the channel at the bottom of 70-feet. The overall width of the channel at the top is 150-feet. The width of the patrol roads on the east and west sides of the channel in the evaluated segment is 10-feet. At the north end of the evaluated segment is Edison Avenue (Ontario Ranch Road) which crosses the channel on a 31- foot-wide bridge. The bridge is supported in the channel by two concrete supports, curved in the upstream direction. There is a narrow access bridge at the middle of the evaluated section that is 15-feet-wide; it, too, is 948
HistoricPropertySurveyReport
Proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail Project | Ontario, CA Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
February 2023 | Page 29
supported by two concrete supports that are curved in the upstream direction. Downstream from Edison Avenue (Ontario Ranch Road) there are two storm drain inlets that convey water into the channel, one on each side of the channel. The Edison Avenue (Ontario Ranch Road) bridge is outside the APE and not evaluated here. The Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel Pedestrian Bridge is within the APE and evaluated separately below.
Work on controlling the flow of Cucamonga Creek began as early as 1925, when local water companies constructed rock walls in the upstream portion of the creek bed to slow and spread water flow. Additional spreading walls were constructed in this upstream area by 1928. Plans advanced in 1930 called for channelization like that of the current orientation. The SBCFCD completed an engineered channelization project between 1945 and 1949, creating a soft-bottom channel for the creek. Cucamonga Creek was completely channelized and controlled by the Corps between 1975 and 1983, which resulted in a modern, concrete flood control channel.
The Cucamonga Creek channel does not appear eligible for the NRHP or CRHR. While it is associated with a trend of events that allowed for the improvement of agricultural lands during the mid-twentieth century, and development of the area into an urban center during the late twentieth century, the channel itself is not directly responsible for these developments and did not play a significant role in the growth and development of the region. Rather, it is one of many factors in the overall trends of San Bernardino County historical development.
The Cucamonga Creek channel is not directly associated with any historical events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history (Criterion A/1). The Cucamonga Creek channel is not directly associated with the productive life of any person significant in our past (Criterion B/2). This concrete channel is relatively plain and utilitarian in nature, and its construction does not represent any innovative design or building technique. Therefore, it does not exhibit any distinctive characteristics or engineering merits that would suggest it is significant under Criterion C/3. Finally, the Cucamonga Creek channel does not have the potential to yield any information important to the study of twentieth century channel construction through intensive study of its design, materials, or construction methods (Criterion D/4).
Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel Access Road | CRHR Status Code: 6Z The Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel Access Road spans the entire length of the channel on both the east and west sides. The width of the road on the top of the channel embankment in the evaluated segment is 10-feet. This pathway was a “patrol road” which was a thin asphalt road along the top of the embankment on each side of the channel. The original and current purpose was to provide access for maintenance and security vehicles. The Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel Access Road, with the existing chain link fence, was constructed from 1975 to 1983 as part of the Corps project to complete a concrete flood control channel for Cucamonga Creek.
The Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel Access Road does not appear eligible for the NRHP or CRHR. It is a narrow and thin asphalt “Patrol Road” associated with the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel, constructed from 1975 to 1983. The access road, including the chain link fence, is a secondary feature that served to construct and later maintain the related modern flood control facility. As such, the access road is not considered significant in and of itself. Because the access road is associated with a cultural resource that does not meet the definition of an historic property pursuant to NHPA Section 106 and that of an historical resource under the CEQA Guidelines, it is not significant for its association with an eligible resource. The Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel Access Road has been found not eligible under NRHP / CRHR Criterion A / 1 as the property is not associated with significant events or patterns of events in state, regional, or local history; not eligible under Criterion B / 2 as the property has not been identified as having an association with an important person; not eligible under Criterion C / 3 as the property does not possess distinctive characteristics or engineering merits; 949
HistoricPropertySurveyReport
Proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail Project | Ontario, CA Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
February 2023 | Page 30
and is not eligible under Criterion D / 4 as further study of the property would not appear to yield information which could be considered important in local, regional, state, or national history.
Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel Pedestrian Bridge | CRHR Status Code: 6Z The Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel Pedestrian Bridge spans the channel in the middle of the project area. The width of the road on the top of the channel embankment in the evaluated segment is 15-feet. The bridge is 160-feet long across the channel. It is supported by two concrete supports that are curved in the upstream direction. This concrete bridge served to provide access to a nearby farm homestead. A water pipe is attached to the south side of the pedestrian bridge; it is no longer connected and is not functional. The original and current purpose of the pedestrian bridge was to provide access for farm workers and farm vehicles. The Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel Pedestrian Bridge, with the existing chain link fence, was constructed from 1975 to 1983 as part of the Corps project to complete a concrete flood control channel for Cucamonga Creek.
The Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel Pedestrian Bridge does not appear eligible for the NRHP or CRHR. It is a narrow concrete bridge constructed from 1975 to 1983 to provide access for farm workers and vehicles to cross the channel. The pedestrian bridge, including the chain link fence, is a secondary feature that is not directly related to the modern flood control facility. The pedestrian bridge is not considered significant in and of itself because it is a simple and modern utilitarian structure. The pedestrian bridge does not meet the definition of an historic property pursuant to NHPA Section 106 and that of an historicalresource under the CEQA Guidelines.
Additionally, the Pedestrian Bridge is not significant for its association with an eligible resource. The Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel Pedestrian Bridge has been found not eligible under NRHP / CRHR Criterion A / 1 as the property is not associated with significant events or patterns of events in state, regional, or local history; not eligible under Criterion B / 2 as the property has not been identified as having an association with an important person; not eligible under Criterion C / 3 as the property does not possess distinctive characteristics or engineering merits; and is not eligible under Criterion D / 4 as further study of the property would not appear to yield information which could be considered important in local, regional, state, or national history.
Regulatory Conclusions
None of the improvements evaluated were considered eligible for the NRHP or CRHR by Urbana. None of the improvements evaluated appear to meet the definition of an historic property pursuant to NHPA Section 106 and that of a historical resource under the CEQA. As a result, Urbana concluded that the proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail project would not cause an effect to an historic property. In general terms, construction of the proposed project would involve demolition and improving and existing access road within the APE; however, the current access road does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP / CRHR.
Consequently, no specific historic property mitigation or treatment is recommended. 950
HistoricPropertySurveyReport
Proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail Project | Ontario, CA Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
February 2023 | Page 31
VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arnold, Joseph L. The Evolution of the 1936 Flood Control Act. Fort Belvoir, VA: United States Army Corps of Engineers, Office of History, 1988.
Bigger, Richard. Flood Control in Metropolitan Los Angeles. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1959.
California Department of Public Works. Santa Ana River Basin, A Plan for Flood Control and Conservation of Waste Water Present and Future Importation Requirements, Sources of Outside Supply, Salinity Intrusion. Division of Water Resources Bulletin No. 31. 1930.
Caltrans. A Historical Context and Methodology for Evaluating Trails, Roads, and Highways in California.
Sacramento, California: California Department of Transportation,2016.
Clucas, Donald L. Century of Community: Upland California, the First One Hundred Years. Upland Calif.:
Dragonflyer Press, 2007.
----- Upland Trails: Early History of Upland and San Antonio Canyon. Upland, Calif.: California Family House Publishers, 2002.
-----, Marilyn Anderson, and Cooper Regional History Museum. Images of America: Upland. Charleston, SC:
Arcadia Pub., 2008.
Emick, Paula. Images of America: Old Cucamonga (SC: Arcadia, 2015).
Flood Control District of San Bernardino County. Flood Control District Celebrates 75th Anniversary. April 7, 2014. https://wp.sbcounty.gov/cao/countywire/?p=933
Funk, John C. San Bernardino County Flood Control District: An Historic and Hydrologic Report on the Flood of February 27 – March 4, 1938 in San Bernardino County. San Bernardino, CA: San Bernardino County Flood Control District, 1978.
----- San Bernardino County Flood Control District: An Historic and Hydrologic Report of the Floods of December 5-- 7, 1966 in San Bernardino County. San Bernardino, CA: San Bernardino County Flood Control District, 1974.
Galvin and Associates. The City of Ontario Historic Context for the New Model Colony Area, September 2004, 17.
Hager, Willi H. Hydraulicians in the USA 1800-2000: A Biographical Dictionary of Leaders in Hydraulic Engineering and Fluid Mechanics. CRC Press, 2020.
Hatheway, Roger, Mark Swanson, and Dana Slawson. Prado Dam HAER No. CA-178: Photographs Written Historical and Descriptive Data. National Park Service, 1996.
McCawley, William. The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Banning, CA: Malki Museum Press, 1996.
951
HistoricPropertySurveyReport
Proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail Project | Ontario, CA Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
February 2023 | Page 32
McGlashan, H. D. and F. C. Ebert. Southern California Floods of January 1916. Washington, D.C.: United States Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 426, 1918.
Meissner, Loren P., and Kim Jarrell Johnson. A Brief History of Eastvale. Charleston, South Carolina: The History Press, 2013.
Miller, Adam Scott "A Watershed Event For a Watershed Community: The Development of Flood Control for the Santa Ana River Basin," History in the Making Vol. 3, Article 7, 2010. https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/history-in-the-making/vol3/iss1/7 Nealon, Sean and Mary Bender.“New Law Boosts Cityhood Efforts: Added Funds from Vehicle License Fees Will Help Communities Seeking to Incorporate.” Riverside, CA: The Press-Enterprise, September 28, 2006.
Ontario City Library. Early Ontario. Charleston SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2014.
Post, William S. Santa Ana Investigation, Flood Control and Conservation. State of California, Department of Public Works, Division of Engineering and Irrigation Bulletin No. 19. December 1, 1928.
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. 50 Years of Progress. Riverside, CA: Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, September 1996.
San Bernardino County Flood Control District. Cucamonga Creek, 1776-1976: After 200 Years. San Bernardino, CA: San Bernardino County Flood Control District, 1976.
Troxell, H.C. Floods of March 1938 in Southern California. Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 844, 1942.
Turhollow, Anthony F. A History of the Los Angeles District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1898-1965. Los Angeles, CA: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975.
United States.
H.R. 8455, An Act Authorizing the Construction of Certain Public Works and Rivers and Harbors for Flood Control and for Other Purposes. 74th Cong., 2nd sess., 1936.
United States. H.R. 7646, To Amend an Act Entitled "An Act Authorizing the Construction of Certain Public Works on Rivers and Harbors for Flood Control, And for Other Purposes, Approved June 22, 1936.75th Cong., 1st sess., 1937.
-----. Santa Ana River And Tributaries, California Letter from The Secretary Of The Army Transmitting A Letter from The Chief Of Engineers, United States Army, Dated September 27, 1948, Submitting A Report, Together With Accompanying Papers And An Illustration, On A Preliminary Examination And Survey Of Santa Ana River And Tributaries, California; Lytle Creek, Waterman Canyon, In The County Of San Bernardino, Calif.; San Jacinto River And Bautista Creek In The County Of Riverside, Calif.; Cucamonga Creek, Deer Creek, San Antonio Creek, And Chino Creek, Calif.; And Santa Ana River And Banning Canyon In Counties Of San Bernardino And Riverside, Calif., Authorized By The Flood, Control Act Approved On August 28, 1937. 81st Cong., 1st Session, 1949, House Document No. 135.
952
HistoricPropertySurveyReport
Proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail Project | Ontario, CA Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
February 2023 | Page 33
-----. Annual report of the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army, 1949 in Annual Reports: Department of the Army, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1949.
-----. Santa Ana River and Tributaries California: Review Report for Flood Control: Cucamonga Creek San Bernardino and Riverside Counties California (with Appendixes). Los Angeles California: U.S. Army Engineer District Los Angeles Corps of Engineers, July 15, 1966. -----. Cucamonga Creek San Bernardino and Riverside Counties California: Letter from the Secretary of the Army Transmitting a Letter from the Chief of Engineers Department of the Army Dated October 11 1967 Submitting a Report Together with Accompanying Papers and Illustrations on a Review of the Report on Cucamonga Creek San Bernardino and Riverside Counties California Requested by a Resolution of the Committee on Public Works House of Representatives Adopted February 24 1960. U.S. Congressional Serial Set, 12815-2 I, 90th Congress, 2d Session House Document No. 323. Washington D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968. -----. S. 3710, Authorizing the Construction, Repair, And Preservation of Certain Public Works on Rivers and Harbors for Navigation, Flood Control, And for Other Purposes. US Statute at Large 82 Stat. 731, Public Law 90-483, August 13, 1968.
US Army Corps of Engineers. Final Environmental Statement Cucamonga Creek and Tributaries, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles: Los Angeles District, 1973. -----. Water Resources Development in California. San Francisco, CA: Division Engineer, South Pacific Division. 1977.
Van Wormer, Stephen R.“A History of Flood Control in the Los Angeles County Drainage Area.” Southern California Quarterly Vol. 73, No. 1 (Spring 1991), pp. 55-94.
VCS Environmental. Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment, Cucamonga Creek Bike Trail Project, Ontario, California. San Juan Capistrano, CA: VCS Environmental, 2021.
Warren, Elizabeth von Till and Ralph J. Roske. Cultural Resources of the California Desert 1776-1880: Historic Trails and Wagon Roads. Riverside, CA: Bureau of Land Management, 1981.
ENDNOTES
1 National Park Service, Historic American Buildings Survey, Cota House Documentation HABS CA-332 (1937), and National Park Service, Historic American Buildings Survey, Slaughter House Documentation HABS CA-333 (1937). 2 Paul E. Langenwalter and James Brock, Phase II Archaeological Studies of Prado Basin and the Lower Santa Ana River, (Los Angeles: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1985).
3 Roberta S. Greenwood and John S. Foster, Context Evaluation of Historical Sitesin the Prado Basin, (Los Angeles: U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, 1990).
4 VCS Environmental, Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment, Cucamonga Creek Bike Trail Project, Ontario, California (San Juan Capistrano, CA: VCS Environmental, 2021).
5 California Office of Historic Preservation, “What is the California Register and What Does It Have to Do With CEQA?” http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21724. Accessed April 2020. 6 VCS, Phase I Assessment, 2021. 7 William McCawley, The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles (Malki Museum Press, 1996), 4 8 F. M. Ralph, et. al., Prado Dam Forecast Informed Reservoir Operations Preliminary Viability Assessment (UC San Diego, 2021), 13-14. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/13091539. 953
HistoricPropertySurveyReport
Proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail Project | Ontario, CA Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
February 2023 | Page 34
9 Roger Hatheway, Mark Swanson, Dana Slawson, Prado Dam HAER No. CA-178: Photographs Written Historical and Descriptive Data (CA: National Park Service, 1996). 10 John C. Funk, An Historic and Hydrologic Report of the Floods of December 5 - 7, 1966 in San Bernardino County (San Bernardino, CA: 1974), 21-22. 11 Elizabeth von Till Warren and Ralph J. Roske. Cultural Resources of the California Desert 1776-1880: Historic Trails and Wagon Roads (Riverside, CA: Bureau of Land Management, 1981), 21. 12 Paula Emick, Images of America: Old Cucamonga (SC: Arcadia, 2015). 13 Donald L. Clucas, Upland Trails: Early History of Upland and San Antonio Canyon (Upland, Calif.: California Family House Publishers, 2002).
14 Galvin and Associates, The City of Ontario Historic Context for the New Model Colony Area, September 2004, 17. 15 Caltrans, A Historical Context and Methodology for Evaluating Trails, Roads, and Highways in California, (Sacramento, California: California Department of Transportation,2016), 109-113. 16 Ontario City Library, Early Ontario (Charleston SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2014), 39. 17 Ibid. 18 University of California, Calisphere: Decline of the Mission System, https://calisphere.org/exhibitions/essay/3/missionsranchos/. 19 Ibid. 20 Paula Emick, Images of America: Old Cucamonga (SC: Arcadia, 2015). 21 Ibid. 22 Alfred Solano, Map of Tract of Land of the Cucamonga Homestead Association: ID: 312861,1874. https://hdl.huntington.org/digital/collection/p15150coll4/id/11378. 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid.
26 City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update. 27 Galvin and Associates, Historic Context for the City of Ontario’s Citrus Industry, February 2007, 5. 28 Galvin and Associates, Citrus Industry, 5. 29 Barker, Richard H. Citrus Roots…Our Legacy: Citriculture to Citrus Culture Volume II. Upland Community Foundation.
Upland, California: 2004, 124.
30 Austen, Ruth. Ontario: The Model Colony: An Illustrated History. Windsor Publication, Inc. 1990: 34-35. 31 Lee, Beatrice Parson. The History and Development of the Ontario Colony: A Thesis Presented to the Department of History, University of California. May 2, 1929: 22.
32 Austen, 60.
33 Dr. R.C. Syke, “The Citrus Industry.” Ontario Record. February 5, 1890. 34 Bryan Musslewhite, Beet Sugar, Cows, and Bedrooms: The Transformation of Chino from a Rural Community to a Modern Suburb: Senior Thesis in History. California State Polytechnic University, 2005. https://www.cpp.edu/~zywang/musslewhite.htm. 35 “From Milk Stools to Herringbones,” Chino Champion, 8. 36 Galvin and Associates, The City of Ontario Historic Context for the New Model Colony Area, September 2004, 17. 37 “Fewer Dairies but More Cows in Chino Milkshed,” Chino Champion, February 27, 1981, 18. 38“Dairy Farming Shrinks Three,” Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, April 11,2005, Accessed May 2020 from http://www.dailybulletin.com. 39 Meissner, Loren P., and Kim Jarrell Johnson. A Brief History of Eastvale. Charleston, South Carolina: The History Press, 2013.
40 https://www.eastvaleca.gov/our-city/about-eastvale/history Accessed January 30, 2023. 41 For a discussion of Fuller Ranch, see http://www.coachbuilt.com/bui/f/fuller/fuller.htm Accessed January 30, 2023. See also Loren P. Meissner, "Fuller Ranch at Eastvale," Eastvale, California: City of Eastvale, 2014. 42 Sean Nealon and Mary Bender. New Law Boosts Cityhood Efforts: Added Funds from Vehicle License Fees Will Help Communities Seeking to Incorporate (Riverside, CA: The Press-Enterprise, September 28, 2006). 43 Bryan Musslewhite, Beet Sugar, Cows, and Bedrooms: The Transformation of Chino from a Rural Community to a Modern Suburb, Senior Thesis in history California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, Spring 2005, https://www.cpp.edu/~zywang/musslewhite.htm. 44 Ibid.
954
HistoricPropertySurveyReport
Proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail Project | Ontario, CA Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
February 2023 | Page 35
45 Economic Survey Shows City, County Growing Rapidly,” Chino Champion, April 21, 1955, 1. 26 Musselwhite, https://www.cpp.edu/~zywang/musslewhite.htm. 46 “Fewer Dairies but More Cows in Chino Milkshed,” Chino Champion, February 27, 1981, 18. 47 Stephen R. Van Wormer, “A History of Flood Control in the Los Angeles County Drainage Area.” Southern California Quarterly Vol. 73, No. 1 (Spring 1991), pp. 55-94.
48 Ibid., 57-59. 49 Ibid., 60-61. 50 San Bernardino County Flood Control District, Cucamonga Creek, 1776-1976: After 200 Years (San Bernardino, CA: San Bernardino County Flood Control District, 1976), 10-11. 51 Ibid., 11-12. For the 1916 flood, see H. D. McGlashan and F. C. Ebert, Southern California Floods of January 1916 (Washington, D.C.: United States Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 426, 1918) 33. 52 San Bernardino County, Cucamonga Creek, 12; William S. Post, Santa Ana Investigation, Flood Control and Conservation.
State of California, Department of Public Works, Division of Engineering and Irrigation Bulletin No. 19. December 1, 1928, 168.
53 Post, Santa Ana Investigation; California Department of Public Works, Santa Ana River Basin, A Plan for Flood Control and Conservation Of Waste Water Present and Future Importation Requirements, Sources of Outside Supply, Salinity Intrusion, (Division of Water Resources Bulletin No. 31. 1930). For Post, see Willi H. Hager, Hydraulicians in the USA 1800-2000: A Biographical Dictionary of Leaders in Hydraulic Engineering and Fluid Mechanics. CRC Press, 2020, 2445. 54 San Bernardino County, Cucamonga Creek, 14-15. 55 “West End Association Favors Strengthening of Check Dams,” San Bernardino County Sun (San Bernardino, California), 20 November 1930, page 14; “Water Users in Organization,” The Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California), 21 November 1930, page 8 and “First Project Done in Water Control Plans,” 5 February 1931, page 6. 56 “Conservation Money Goes to Wash,” The Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California), 14 August 1931, page 14; “Formation of Conservation Area Delayed,” The San Bernardino County Sun (San Bernardino, California), 3 November 1931, page 11; “Water Conservation Project is Underway in Cucamonga Wash,” The Pomona Progress Bulletin (Pomona, California), 17 Nov 1931, page 5. 57 “Cucamonga Wash Work Continued,” The San Bernardino County Sun (San Bernardino, California), 24 February 1932, page 12 and “Cities Willing to Help Board,” 19 July 1932, page 10, and The Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California), 23 October 1932, page 76.
58 Joseph L. Arnold, The Evolution of the 1936 Flood Control Act (Fort Belvoir, VA: United States Army Corps of Engineers, Office of History, 1988).
59 U.S. Congress. House of Representatives, H.R. 8455, An Act Authorizing the Construction of Certain Public Works and Rivers and Harbors for Flood Control and for Other Purposes, 74th Cong., 2nd sess., 1936; Roger Hatheway, Mark Swanson, Dana Slawson, Prado Dam HAER No. CA-178: Photographs Written Historical and Descriptive Data (CA: National Park Service, 1996).
60 U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. H.R. 7646, To amend an Act entitled "An Act authorizing the construction of certain public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other purposes", approved June 22, 1936. 75th Cong., 1st sess., 1937.
61 H.C. Troxell, Floods of March 1938 in Southern California (Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 844, 1942).
62 John C. Funk, San Bernardino County Flood Control District: An Historic and Hydrologic Report on the Flood of February 27 – March 4, 1938 in San Bernardino County (San Bernardino, CA: San Bernardino County Flood Control District, 1978), 1. 63 United States, Santa Ana River and Tributaries California: Review Report for Flood Control: Cucamonga Creek San Bernardino and Riverside Counties California (with Appendixes), (Los Angeles California: U.S. Army Engineer District Los Angeles Corps of Engineers, July 15, 1966). P. 26.
64 Ibid. See also “Airport Aid Pledged to Flood Control,” The San Bernardino County Sun (San Bernardino, California), 10 September 1965, page 1.
65 John C. Funk, San Bernardino County Flood Control District: An Historic and Hydrologic Report of The Floods of December 5- -7, 1966 In San Bernardino County (San Bernardino, CA: San Bernardino County Flood Control District, 1974), 21-23. 66 United States, Cucamonga Creek San Bernardino and Riverside Counties California: Letter from the Secretary of the Army Transmitting a Letter from the Chief of Engineers Department of the Army Dated October 11 1967 Submitting a Report Together with Accompanying Papers and Illustrations on a Review of the Report on Cucamonga Creek San Bernardino and Riverside Counties California Requested by a Resolution of the Committee on Public Works House of Representatives Adopted 955
HistoricPropertySurveyReport
Proposed Cucamonga Creek Multi-Use Trail Project | Ontario, CA Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC
February 2023 | Page 36
February 24 1960. U.S. Congressional Serial Set, 12815-2 I, 90th Congress, 2d Session House Document No. 323; and S. 3710, Authorizing the Construction, Repair, And Preservation of Certain Public Works on Rivers and Harbors for Navigation, Flood Control, And for Other Purposes. US Statute at Large 82 Stat. 731, Public Law 90-483, August 13, 1968.
See also “Flood Control Project Gets Approval,” Montclair Tribune (Montclair, California), July 10, 1968, page 15. 67 San Bernardino County, Cucamonga Creek, 21; “6,000 Evacuated in Worst Southland Storm Since 1938,” The Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California), January 26, 1969, page 1. 68 US Army Corps of Engineers, Final Environmental Statement Cucamonga Creek and Tributaries, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties (Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles: Los Angeles District, 1973). 69 San Bernardino County Department of Public Works Arc GIS map application; Parcel ID 1.301.262A 70 US Army Corps of Engineers, Water Resources Development in California (San Francisco, CA: Division Engineer, South Pacific Division. 1977), 111-112. 71 Ibid., 112.
72 “Water Commissioners Given View of Future Wat Troubles in Area,” The San Bernardino County Sun (San Bernardino, California), November 9 1984, page 28, and “Flood: $67 Million Project,” September 11, 1989, page 12. 73 “Supervisors Back Request for Mentone Dam Study,” The San Bernardino County Sun (San Bernardino, California), October 4 1983, page 22 and “Regional Trail System Envisioned for Ranch Cucamonga,” August 8, 1984, page 27. 74 Adam Scott Miller, "A Watershed Event for a Watershed Community: The Development of Flood Control for the Santa Ana River Basin," History in the Making Vol. 3, Article 7, 2010. Available at: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/history-inthe-making/vol3/iss1/7 See also Flood Control District of San Bernardino County, Flood Control District Celebrates 75th Anniversary. April 7, 2014. Available electronically at https://wp.sbcounty.gov/cao/countywire/?p=933 956
ATTACHMENT E
PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
957
PATRICK MAXON, M.A., RPA
Director | Cultural Services
A certified DBE, SBE & WBE firm 30900 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 100 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
949.489.2700 | vcsenvironmental.com
EDUCATION
1994/MA/Anthropology/
California State University,
Fullerton
1987/BA/Psychology/Sociology
Towson State University,
Towson, MD
VCS TEAM MEMBER SINCE 2017
CERTIFICATIONS/TRAINING
Riverside County
Transportation and Land
Management Agency Certified
Archaeologist (No. 226)
California Energy Commission
Cultural Resources Specialist
(2001)
Registered Professional
Archaeologist (National)/No.
11468/Register of Professional
Archaeologists
Orange County Certified
Archaeologist (1999)
National Historic Preservation
Act Section 106 Compliance
Advanced Certification, 2002
Principal Investigator, Southern
California/Bureau of Land
Management
ABOUT
Patrick Maxon M.A., RPA is a Registered Professional Archaeologist with more than 29 years of experience in all aspects of cultural resources management, including prehistoric and historic archaeology, paleontology, ethnography, and tribal consultation. He has expertise in compliance with NEPA, CEQA, the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, and the Clean Water Act, among others.
Patrick has completed hundreds of cultural resources projects throughout Southern California and in Arizona and Nevada that have involved (1) agency, client, Native American, and subcontractor coordination and consultation; (2) treatment plans and research design development; (3) archival research; (4) field reconnaissance; (5) site testing; (6) data recovery excavation; (7) construction monitoring; (8) site recordation; (9) site protection/preservation; (10) mapping/cartography; (11) laboratory analysis; and (12) report production. He has managed projects within the jurisdiction of the USACE, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, and other federal agencies that require compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. He has also completed projects throughout Southern California under CEQA for State and local governments and municipalities, including Caltrans, the Department of General Services (DGS), the California Energy Commission, the California Department of Water Resources, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW), the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the Los Angeles Unified School District, and others. Patrick meets the Secretary of Interior's standards for historic preservation programs for archaeology and is a Certified Archaeologist in Orange County and for the Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency.
SELECT EXPERIENCE/PROJECTS
Diamond Sports Complex, Lake Elsinore, CA: VCS is undertaking a cultural resources investigation that was initiated by developing a cultural resources monitoring plan with the Pechanga and Soboba Tribes. We subsequently commenced the controlled grading of site CA-RIV-4042 as required in the project mitigation measures. The project was suspended after the discovery of human remains. The City and tribes are consulting on the disposition of the burial.
Mission Trail Development, Lake Elsinore, CA: VCS completed cultural and paleontological resources monitoring, guided by a Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan that we developed, of grading for a housing development. Cultural resources recovered from the site were subsequently reburied on site by the Tribal monitors from the Pechanga and Soboba tribes. Two paleontological specimens: a pair of Mammoth ribs and a horse vertebra, were recovered and analyzed. As they were not museum quality specimens, they were made into a display by the project Applicant.
Home Sweet Home Development, Lakeland Village, CA: Project Manager for a Phase I cultural resources survey. The study consisted of (1) archaeological and paleontological records searches, (2) Native American consultation with the NAHC and subsequent communication with several tribes that wished to consult; (3) pedestrian survey of the project site; and (4) a technical report describing the results of the study and recommended mitigation measure for any potential impacts to resources. No resources were discovered.
958
PATRICK MAXON, M.A., RPA
Director| Cultural Resources VCS Environmental
A certified DBE, SBE & WBE firm 30900 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 100 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
949.489.2700 | vcsenvironmental.com
Qualified ArchaeologistSecretary of Interior Standards and Guidelines of Professional
Qualification & Standards for
Archeology, as per Title 36,
Code of Federal Regulations,
Part 61/
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
Pacific Coast Archaeological
Society
Society for California
Archaeology
Society for American
Archaeology
Association of Environmental
Professionals (OCAEP Board
member since 2005)
Summerly Development Project Cultural Resources Monitoring, Lake Elsinore, CA:
Project Manager for this project, which included grading for a drainage channel, a large sewer line, the subsequent residential development, and a 71-1cre detention basin.
Patrick managed the placement and work of VCS monitors on the project and ensured that any discovery of cultural or paleontological resources was handled appropriately.
Daily field notes describing the activities performed each day were maintained by monitors and were included in the final report. No cultural resources were observed or collected during monitoring activities; however, a large, important assemblage of Pleistocene fossils (bison, camel, mammoth, et al.) was recovered from the lake sediments and recently curated at the We4stern Science Center in Hemet Godinho Dairy Project Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment, Eastvale, California. Mr.
Maxon was the Cultural Resources Project Manager for the Godhino Dairy Project located in the City of Eastvale. He conducted a Phase I cultural resources study for the project, which included cultural and paleontological resources literature reviews, Native American scoping, and a pedestrian field survey of the project site. The site contains the extant remains of the Godinho Dairy which dates to at least the early 1960s. Three prehistoric archaeological sites are recorded within one mile of the project site; one (CARIV-2801) was recorded just a few hundred feet to the southeast. The Santa Ana River was used extensively by prehistoric populations of the area. Paleontologically sensitive Older Quaternary Alluvium likely lies at depth on the project site. No significant archeological resources were discovered on the project site during the survey. The extant Godinho Dairy complex appears to exceed 50 years of age and its recordation and evaluation as a historic resource was recommended. The proposed project would allow for development of the dairy property into a residential neighborhood.
La Rivera Drainage Project Cultural Resources Services, Riverside, California. Mr.
Maxon served as the Cultural Resources Project Manager for the La Rivera Drainage Project located in the City of Riverside. The Phase I cultural resources study included (1) a cultural resources literature review of the project site at the Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University of California, Riverside; (2) contact with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for a review of its Sacred Lands File and to obtain a list of Native American contacts for the project area; (3) preparation of informational letters to all the NAHC-listed contacts in order to ensure a good-faith effort of participation and (4) conducted a paleontological resources literature review for the project at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHMLA). No cultural resources were discovered and no impacts are anticipated. The project proposed to improve existing drainage conditions within the La Rivera residential development and BonTerra Consulting prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for its implementation.
Riverside Energy Resource Center Archaeological and Paleontological, and Biological Services, Riverside County. Mr. Maxon served as the Program Director for the archaeological, paleontological, and biological services at the Riverside Energy Resource Center in Riverside County. He managed all aspects of the archaeological, paleontological, historic, and biological surveys of the power plant site and its associated transmission lines and pipelines; he also coordinated monitoring the power plant site and its associated facilities. Mr. Maxon maintained client contacts, coordinated with the California Energy Commission, and communicated with the Riverside public utilities. In addition, he conducted cultural resources surveys and monitoring, completed the cultural resources survey report, and wrote monthly cultural resources monitoring reports and a final project report. 959
PATRICK MAXON, M.A., RPA
Director| Cultural Resources VCS Environmental
A certified DBE, SBE & WBE firm 30900 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 100 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
949.489.2700 | vcsenvironmental.com
Biological and Cultural Resources Surveys, Jurisdictional Delineations, Track Upgrade from Thermal to Araz. Mr. Maxon was the Cultural Resources Project Manager for the Biological and Cultural Resources Surveys, Jurisdictional Delineations, and Track Upgrade from Thermal to Araz. The project began by consulting and coordinating with local, State, and/or federal agencies (as appropriate); the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO); the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR); and other relevant agencies to develop a Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to consider the cultural resources associated with the project. Mr. Maxon and his crew conducted an intensive 100 percent pedestrian cultural resources survey of the area of potential effect (APE) in transects. Initial Native American consultation and bridge and culvert recordation were provided. There are approximately 609 structures (bridges and culverts) in the project area, of which 512 were built between 1903 and 1960 and are considered historic. An Architectural Historian visited each structure and produced a Primary Record (DPR 523A) and a Location Map (DPR523J).
Desert Ranch Project Cultural Survey, Riverside County. Mr. Maxon served as the Project Manager for the Desert Ranch Project, which consists of approximately seven square miles of desert overlooking the Salton Sea. He helped to provide a Phase I Cultural Resource Inventory for the Client, which entailed a walk of the entire property to survey for archaeological sites. Over 40 sites were recorded and excavation of several is anticipated. In addition to conducting surveys, Mr. Maxon met with the local Indian tribe, the Torres-Martinez Band of Cahuilla Indians, regarding this project.
Lake Elsinore East Lake Specific Plan Amendment Area Cultural Resources Services, City of Lake Elsinore. Mr. Maxon was the Project Manager of the Lake Elsinore East Lake Specific Plan Amendment Area. He was responsible for the assessment of known cultural resources and preparation of final report.
Encino Water Quality Improvement Program Archaeological Monitoring, Encino. As the Project Manager for the Encino Water Quality Improvement Program, Mr. Maxon monitored excavations for pipelines.
Stone Canyon Water Quality Improvement Project Prehistoric Cultural and Biological Resources Investigation and Monitoring, City of Los Angeles. Mr. Maxon was the Project Manager for the Stone Canyon Water Quality Improvement Project in Los Angeles County and was responsible for reconnaissance and report preparation.
Salton Sea Solar Evaporation Pond Pilot Project Archaeological Survey, Imperial County. Mr. Maxon was the Project Manager of the Salton Sea Solar Evaporation Pond Pilot Project. He conducted a field reconnaissance and produced a final report.
East Branch Extension Phase II Water Pipeline Project, Mentone. Mr. Maxon was the Cultural Resources Manager for the East Branch Extension Phase II Water Pipeline Project. The project involved the preparation of all CEQA/NEPA environmental documents, the acquisition of regulatory permits, and construction monitoring. Mr.
Maxon was responsible for a full range of cultural resources services including historic, prehistoric and paleontological archival research, field surveys, evaluation of resources, and report preparation 6th Street Viaduct Project, Los Angeles. As Cultural Resources Project Manager, Mr. Maxon was responsible for coordinating with the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans’s) District 7 on the previously submitted draft Archaeological Survey Report (ASR) and the project’s Area of Potential Effects (AEP) and completing the ASR and Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) Action Plan, which included several revisions, for the proposed project. The ESA Action Plan was developed to protect an archaeological site that was recorded within the AEP. The plan entails 960
PATRICK MAXON, M.A., RPA
Director| Cultural Resources VCS Environmental
A certified DBE, SBE & WBE firm 30900 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 100 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
949.489.2700 | vcsenvironmental.com
surrounding the site with fencing during construction and monitoring of construction in the vicinity of the site.
Saddleback Meadows Development Archaeological Test Excavations, Orange County.
Mr. Maxon was the Program Director of archaeological test excavations for the Saddleback Meadows Development Project. He performed test excavations of ten prehistoric archaeological sites and developed a treatment plan and research design in compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA for two sites (CA-ORA-710 and CA-ORA-711).
Mr. Maxon conducted test excavations on two additional sites (CA-ORA-1435H and CAORA-1437), a data recovery excavation (CA-ORA-711), and laboratory and report preparation. Additionally, he developed a testing plan to evaluate two prehistoric sites (CA-ORA-713 and CA-ORA-715), managed the excavation of those sites, and maintained budgets and relations with the client (TPG Management) and the USACE.
Orange County Water District On-Call Environmental Analyses Services, Orange County, CA: Cultural Resources Manager for the On-Call Contract. Mr. Maxon has provided environmental analyses services on an as-needed basis as part of on-call contracts with the Orange County Water District since 2010. Representative cultural resources task orders completed as part of the on-call contracts, include the following:
• La Palma Recharge Basin, Anaheim, CA
• Prado Basin Mitigation Sites, Orange County, CA
• Fletcher Basin Improvement Project Cultural and Paleontological Resources Mitigation Monitoring Plan, City of Orange, CA
• Centennial Park Injection Well Project, Santa Ana, CA • EW-1 Groundwater Containment and Treatment Project, City of Fullerton, CA. • Santiago Recharge Basin Project, Orange, CA
961
CARRIE LAMBERT
Project Manager I | Senior Archaeologist
A certified DBE, SBE & WBE firm 30900 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 100 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
949.489.2700 | vcsenvironmental.com
Carrie Lambert has over 20 years of experience in archaeology and paleontology.
Prehistoric and historic experience, worked in the lab analyzing and identifying artifacts and shells, artifact curation, report editing, writing, data entry, photography in the field and in the lab, lithic illustrator, field excavation, site testing, data recovery excavation, artifact analyses, archival research, construction monitoring, lab technician archaeological and paleontological, fossil preparator, micro fossil preparator, marine identification and preparator, fossil and artifact curation, excavation and plaster-jacketing of fossil bones, extensive survey work in archaeology and paleontology, and mapping of sites.
SELECT PROJECTS
CLAY STREET | JURUPA VALLEY, CA
The Clay Street project consists of a residential property, Carrie is the lead. archaeological and paleontological monitor.
THE BROOKSIDE TTM NO. 72798 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT | WALNUT, CA The Brookside Project requests approval of a Tentative Tract Map 72798 and Site Plan Approval to allow for the development of a 28-unit single-family detached housing project on approximately 25.84 acres of land. The project site is identified by Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 8709-093-001, -002, and -003. Carrie is the lead archaeologist who worked on conducting an archeological survey of the property.
MCLAUGHLIN VILLAGE TRACT 26937 | MENIFEE, CA
McLaughlin Village proposes development of a subdivision of approximately 14.76 acres into 126 single-family, detached townhome units. The subdivision also creates allocated areas for recreational open space, open space/entry monuments, 416 parking spaces, and landscaping. Carrie is the lead archaeological and paleontological monitor.
DIAZ ROAD | TEMECULA, CA
The project site consists of 7.23 acres and is located at 27635 Diaz Road within the City of Temecula. The project site is currently being used as a parking area and for outdoor storage. There are no existing buildings on the site. The site is improved with existing utility service systems. Carrie is the lead archaeological and paleontological monitor.
GIERSON RANCH PROJECT (WASHINGTON/ADAMS AVENUES) | MURRIETA, CA The Gierson Ranch Project on Washington and Adams Avenues consists of a 107- unit single-family detached condominium subdivision plus 78 attached, junior accessory dwelling units. VCS completed a Phase I Cultural Resources Study including archaeological and paleontological records searches at the Eastern Information Center and the Western Science Center respectively; consulted with the Native American Heritage Commission, and prepared a report. Carrie completed a pedestrian survey of the site. The significant built environment (Ranch house) located adjacent to the site was avoided by the project. Carrie also performed an archaeological survey.
YEARSOF EXPERIENCE
20 YEARS WITH VCS
5 EDUCATION
B.S. Anthropology, University
of California at Riverside, CA,
1998
Associates of Art Degree,
Anthropology, San Diego City
College, CA, 1993
Associates of Art Degree,
Commercial Art, San Diego
City College, CA 1991
962
CARRIE LAMBERT
Project Manager I | Senior Archaeologist VCS Environmental A certified DBE, SBE & WBE firm 30900 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 100 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
949.489.2700 | vcsenvironmental.com
MORENO VALLEY IRIS PARK | MORENO VALLEY, CA
The 10.82-acre Iris Park Project consisted of the construction of 81 single-family residences, as well as onsite roadways and sidewalks, a detention basin, common open space, and private open space areas. Carrie was the lead archaeological and paleontological monitor and represented VCS in the preconstruction meeting to discuss the proposed monitoring and monitored project excavations, per VCS’s Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan, in native younger alluvial sediments/soils and the paleontologically sensitive older alluvial sediments. Carrie worked in cooperation with Tribal monitors from the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, and Soboba.
TIERRA DEL SOL DEVELOPMENT | RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA
The Tierra del Sol Project waslocated within unincorporated Riverside County. The subdivided 16.6-acre lot will be divided into 141 residential lots. Carrie completed sensitivity training at the preconstruction meeting and was lead archaeological and paleontological monitor, along with Tribal monitors. A small number of sediment matrix was collected and processed for micro fossils by Carrie.
SUMMERLY PROJECT: HYDROGEOLOGIC MONITORING AND DRONE SURVEYING |
LAKE ELSINORE, CA
The project consisted of building a large detention basin. Carrie monitored, found fossils, and curated them at the Western Science Center, as well as analyzed fossils and screened sentiment.
PACIFIC MAYFIELD CULTURAL MONITORING| MENIFEE, CA
Carrie was the lead archaeological and paleontological monitor for a large housing development in Menifee with 110.9 acres of housing development. Carrie attended pregrade and safety meetings, mapping prehistoric milling features, and drafted daily monitoring reports. She monitored mass grading of the removal of soils and sediment from the project site, the storm drains and street improvement.
She also ensured the protection and preservation of prehistoric milling features discovered during the monitoring. They will be preserved in place onsite.
RANCHO DIAMANTE | HEMET, CA
Carrie is the lead archaeological and paleontological monitor and lab coordinator for approximately 45 acres of mass grading of the project site. Carrie was the lead in fossil findings and recovery, jacketing fossils, washing matrix, Lab technician, washing sediments, picking for micro fossils, and the preparator of the fossils recovered.
MISSION TRAIL APARTMENTS | LAKE ELSINORE, CA
Mission Trail Apartments Project was a residential development in the City of Lake Elsinore. Carrie monitored and recovered fossils and artifacts. Artifacts were then reburied.
963
CARRIE LAMBERT
Project Manager I | Senior Archaeologist VCS Environmental A certified DBE, SBE & WBE firm 30900 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 100 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
949.489.2700 | vcsenvironmental.com
FRENCH VALLEY | FRENCH VALLEY AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA
French Valley Tract 37028 is a proposed Schedule “A” subdivision of 43.91 acres into 154 single-family residential lots with a minimum lot size of 4,696 square feet, three water quality basins and one drainage basin. Carrie monitored and assisted with relocation of a bedrock milling feature.
MOUNTAIN VIEW AVENUE STRUCTURE | RIVERSIDE, CA
Carrie was the lead archaeologist and paleontological monitor for the bridge project. She recovered and catalogued historic artifacts recovered as well as photographed and aided in identification of historic artifacts.
DIAMOND SPORTS | LAKE ELSINORE, CA
Carrie was the lead archaeological and paleontological monitor. She provided data recovery, recovered artifacts from the archaeological site, mapped the site, GPS artifacts associated with the site, catalogued artifacts and data entry in Excel. 964
DATE: July 13, 2023
TO: Sage McCleve, Lewis Management Corp.
FROM: Alex So, Urban Crossroads, Inc.
JOB NO: 14759-02 VMT
PARKSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) ANALYSIS
Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide the following Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis for the Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Proposed Specific Plan).
The Parkside Specific Plan is bounded by Ontario Ranch Road to the north, Carpenter Avenue to the south and Archibald Avenue to the east in the City of Ontario.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
It is our understanding that the Project is to consist of amending the Parkside Specific Plan (Approved Specific Plan). A land use map for the Approved and Proposed Specific Plan can be found in Attachment A. A summary of the proposed and approved specific plan land uses can be found in Table 1.
TABLE 1: PROPOSED AND APPROVED SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires all lead agencies to adopt VMT as the measure for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects. To comply with CEQA, in June of 2020 the City of Ontario developed and adopted their own VMT methodologies and thresholds (Resolution No. 2020-071) (City Guidelines) (1). This VMT analysis has been developed based on the adopted City Guidelines.
Product Type Approved Proposed Net Change
Single Family Detached 615 DU 804 DU 189 DU
Low-Rise Residential Condominium/Townhouse 1,332 DU 2,047 DU 715 DU Shopping Center 115.00 TSF 15.00 TSF (100.00) TSF
1 DU = dwelling units; TSF = thousand square feet
965
Sage McCleve, Lewis Management Corp.
July 13, 2023
14759-02 VMT
VMT ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS APPROACH
As noted previously, the Proposed Specific Plan is an amendment to an approved Specific Plan.
Therefore, this VMT analysis compares the VMT generated by the Proposed Specific Plan to the Approved Specific Plan.
TRAFFIC MODELING METHODOLOGY
The City Guidelines identifies the San Bernardino Traffic Analysis Model (SBTAM) as the appropriate tool for conducting VMT analysis for land use projects in the City of Ontario, as it considers interaction between different land uses based on socio-economic data, such as population, households, and employment. The calculation of VMT for land use projects is based on the total number of trips generated and the average trip length of each vehicle. The City of Ontario has recently adopted an updated version of SBTAM also known as The Ontario Plan (TOP 2050) model, which contains updated roadway network and socio-economic data within the City of Ontario consistent with the City’s recently adopted TOP and includes a base year of 2019 and a General Plan Buildout of 2050. The TOP 2050 model is consistent with the model used to develop the City’s VMT impact thresholds described in the City Guidelines, therefore, the vehicle trips and average daily trip length for the currently Approved Specific Plan and Proposed Specific Plan are model derived from the TOP 2050 model. Urban Crossroads has obtained the TOP 2050 model from the City of Ontario.
VMT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
For the purposes of this analysis, Project generated VMT has been estimated using the Origin/Destination method and Boundary method. Consistent with City VMT Guidelines, VMT has been presented as total VMT and total VMT per Service Population (i.e., population and employees). Total VMT represents all VMT generated in the City of Ontario on a typical weekday.
Total VMT per service population is an efficiency metric representing VMT generated on a typical weekday per person who lives and/or works in the City or travels to the City for another purpose.
ORIGIN/DESTINATION VMT METHOD
The Origin/Destination (OD) method for calculating VMT sums all weekday VMT generated by trips with at least one trip-end in the study area and tracks those trips to their origin or destination. Origins are all vehicle trips that start in a specific traffic analysis zone, while destinations are all vehicle trips that end in a specific traffic analysis zone. The OD method accounts for all trips (i.e., both passenger cars and trucks) and trip purposes (i.e., total VMT) and therefore provides a more complete estimate of VMT.
BOUNDARY VMT METHOD
The boundary method is the sum of all weekday VMT on the roadway network within a designated boundary (i.e., City boundary or other designated geographic area). The boundary method estimates VMT by multiplying vehicle trips on each roadway segment within the 966
Sage McCleve, Lewis Management Corp.
July 13, 2023
14759-02 VMT
boundary by that segment’s length. This approach consists of all trips, including those trips that do not begin or end in the designated boundary.
PROJECT VMT ESTIMATES
To estimate OD Project generated VMT, standard land use information such as building square footage must first be converted into a TOP 2050 model compatible dataset. The TOP 2050 model utilizes socio-economic data (SED) (e.g., population, households, and employment) for the purposes of vehicle trip estimation. Table 1 summarizes the SED inputs used to represent the Project. SED data was then coded into a separate TAZ to isolate project generated VMT and the boundary VMT for each (Approved Specific Plan and Proposed Specific Plan) of the scenarios. The project effect on VMT was performed using boundary VMT within the City of Ontario. In addition, as the Project is located near the southeastern edge of the City of Ontario, an additional assessment of a 10-mile boundary area surrounding the Project site has also been conducted to ensure trips associated with the project site are not omitted.
TABLE 3: VMT RESULTS
Approved Specific Plan Proposed Specific Plan
Households 1,947 2,851
Population 6,815 9,979
Employment 271 35
Service Population 7,086 10,014
Total OD VMT 137,718 133,318
OD VMT/SP 19.44 13.31
City Boundary VMT 9,604,254 9,601,937
City Boundary VMT/SP 13.61 13.55
10-Mile Boundary VMT 33,922,937 33,927,689
10-Mile Boundary VMT/SP 16.01 15.99
Origin/Destination VMT Findings
The Proposed Specific Plan includes 904 additional dwelling units and the reduction of 100,000 square feet of commercial as compared to the Approved Specific Plan, which results in a reduction of vehicle trips and a reduction in total OD VMT. Total OD VMT divided by the Project’s SP also results in a lower OD VMT per service population for the Proposed Specific Plan as compared to the Approved Specific Plan, which indicates a more efficient land use plan when incorporated with the complementary land uses in the surrounding area as compared to the Approved Specific Plan.
Boundary Method VMT Findings
Boundary VMT is lower under the Proposed Specific Plan conditions in both the City of Ontario boundary and 10-mile radii boundary of the Project location. Subsequently, the Boundary VMT per service population is also lower under the Proposed Specific Plan, which also indicates a more efficient land use plan when incorporated with the complementary land uses in the surrounding area as compared to the Approved Specific Plan.
967
Sage McCleve, Lewis Management Corp.
July 13, 2023
14759-02 VMT
SUMMARY
The Proposed Specific Plan would increase residential density by 904 dwelling units and reduce commercial intensity by 100,000 square feet as compared to the Approved Specific Plan and result in a reduction in VMT per service population as compared to the Approved Specific Plan.
As noted in the Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (CAPCOA, 2021) “Increasing residential densities affect the distance people travel and provide greater options for the mode of travel they choose.
Increasing residential density results in shorter and fewer trips by single-occupancy vehicles and thus a reduction in GHG emissions.”1 This analysis indicates that the Proposed Specific Plan is more efficient from a VMT perspective as compared to the Approved Specific Plan and results in a less than significant impact.
If you have any questions, please contact me directly at [email protected].
1 CAPCOA 2021; Page 70
968
14759-02 VMT
REFERENCES
1. City of Ontario. SB 743 VMT Thresholds. City of Ontario : s.n., June 2020. 969
14759-02 VMT
ATTACHMENT A
LAND USE MAPS
970
14759-02 VMT
APPROVED EIR LAND USE MAP
971
14759-02 VMT
PROPOSED LAND USE MAP
972
W.O. 2022-0076
-
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT AND
WRITTEN VERIFICATION OF SUFFICIENT WATER
SUPPLY
PARKSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT,
CITY OF ONTARIO
Prepared for:
June 15, 2022
www.webbassociates.com973
974
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Table of Contents
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment i
TABLE OF CONTENTS – WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION...................................................................................... 1 Law__________________________________________________________________ 1
1.1 Purpose ______________________________________________________________ 2
1.2 Background___________________________________________________________ 3
1.3 Proposed Project ______________________________________________________ 7
1.4 Prior Water Supply Assessment _________________________________________ 9 Law_________________________________________________________________ 10
1.5 Project Relation to the Urban Water Management Plan ____________________ 10 Relation of Water Supplier to other Urban Water Management Plans ________ 11 Law_________________________________________________________________ 12
1.6 Statewide and Local Water Conservation Efforts__________________________ 13
1.7 Methodology of Analysis_______________________________________________ 14 SECTION 2 - WATER DEMAND ANALYSIS ............................................................... 16 Law_________________________________________________________________ 16
2.1 Citywide Demographic Factors _________________________________________ 17 Climate______________________________________________________________ 17 Population ___________________________________________________________ 17
2.2 City of Ontario’s Current and Future Water Demand_______________________ 18
2.3 Project Site Land Use Assumed in the UWMP____________________________ 22
2.4 Proposed Project Water Demand _______________________________________ 22 Conclusion __________________________________________________________ 24 SECTION 3 - WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS................................................................. 25 Law_________________________________________________________________ 25
3.1. Documenting Wholesale Water Supplies_________________________________ 26 Wholesale Supplies Received __________________________________________ 26 Dry Year Yield Storage Program ________________________________________ 28
3.2. Documenting Water Supplies __________________________________________ 30 Water Supply Capacities ______________________________________________ 32
3.3. Descriptions of All Water Supply Projects________________________________ 34 975
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Table of Contents
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment ii
City Well Production __________________________________________________ 34 Chino Basin Desalter Authority (CDA) Groundwater Production_____________ 35 Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) Recycled Water Supply ______________ 37 San Antonio Water Company (SAWCo) Potable Water Supply ______________ 38
3.4 Documenting Normal Year Water Supply and Demand ____________________ 39
3.5 Documenting Dry Year Water Supply and Demand________________________ 40
3.6 Documenting Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand______________________ 41
3.7 Comparison of Available Water Supply and Demand ______________________ 42 SECTION 4 - GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS................................................................ 44 Law_________________________________________________________________ 44
4.1 Review of Urban Water Management Plan (CWC Section 10910(f)(1))________ 46
4.2 Groundwater Basin Descriptions (CWC Section 10910(f)(2)) ________________ 46 Chino Groundwater Basin Description___________________________________ 46 Legal Right to Pump from the Chino Basin_______________________________ 48
4.3. Recorded Use of Groundwater (CWC Section 10910 (f)(3)) _________________ 54
4.4. Projected Use of Groundwater (CWC Section 10910(f)(4))__________________ 54
4.5. Sufficiency of Groundwater Basin (CWC Section 10910(f)(5)) _______________ 55 Conclusion __________________________________________________________ 61 SECTION 5 - PRIMARY ISSUE FOR ASSESSMENT.................................................. 62 Law_________________________________________________________________ 62
5.1 Findings _____________________________________________________________ 63 SECTION 6 - REFERENCES........................................................................................ 66 SECTION 7 - SPREADSHEETS................................................................................... 68 976
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Table of Contents
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment iii
APPENDICES
A City of Ontario 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) B 2020 City of Ontario Water Master Plan Update
C 2020 City of Ontario Recycled Water Master Plan Update D The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 2020 UWMP E Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) 2020 UWMP
F Water Facilities Authority (WFA) 2020 UWMP
G Chino Basin Desalter Authority 2020 UWMP
H San Antonio Water Company 2020 UWMP
I IEUA Resolution No. 2014-12-1
J 1985 Installment Purchase Agreement Relating to WFA Water Treatment Plan by and between WFA and the City of Ontario
K WFA Ordinance No. 99-07-02
L 2003 Local Agency Agreement by and between IEUA and the City of Ontario M Chino Basin 1978 Judgment and amendments thereto.
N City of Fontana 2008 Agreement Regarding Transfer of Right of First Purchase of Recharged Reclaimed Water
FIGURES
Figure 1 – Regional Map ................................................................................................. 4 Figure 2 – Aerial View...................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3 – Land Use Plan Used for 2020 UWMP Projections ......................................... 6 Figure 4 - Proposed Project Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Water Supply ............ 8 Figure 5 – Existing (2017) Land Uses in the City (acres) ............................................... 21 Figure 6 – Land Use in the City at Buildout (acres) ....................................................... 21 CHARTS
Chart 4-1 - Annual OMUC Groundwater Production, 2000 - 2021, (AFY) .................... 54 977
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Table of Contents
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment iv
TABLES
Table 2-1 OMUC Service Area Population Estimates, 2010-2040 .......................... 18 Table 2-2 Recorded Citywide Water Demand (AFY)................................................ 19 Table 2-3 Future Citywide Water Demand (AFY) ..................................................... 20 Table 2-4 Water Demand of the Project Site Land Use Assumed in the UWMP..... 22 Table 2-5 Proposed Project Water Demand............................................................ 23 Table 2-6 Proposed Project Water Demand............................................................ 23 Table 3-1 Wholesale Water Supplies Available to WFA (AFY) ................................. 28 Table 3-2 Recorded OMUC Water Supplies (AFY) .................................................. 31 Table 3-3 Projected OMUC Water Supplies (AFY)................................................... 32 Table 3-4 Existing (2020) Supply Capacities ........................................................... 33 Table 3-5 Ultimate Supply Capacities ..................................................................... 34 Table 3-6 Recorded Groundwater Production, 2016-2021 (AFY)............................ 35 Table 3-7 Recorded and Future Recycled Water Supply (AFY)............................... 38 Table 3-8 OMUC Projected Normal Year Supply and Demand (AFY) ..................... 40 Table 3-9 OMUC Projected Single Dry Year Supply and Demand (AFY)................. 41 Table 3-10 OMUC Projected Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand (AFY).............. 42 Table 4-1 Ontario Groundwater Rights Summary.................................................... 53 978
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 1
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Introduction 1 SB 610 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION
Senate Bill 610 (SB 610) was signed into California state law with an effective date of January 1, 2002. SB 610 amended existing legal requirements for confirmation of water supply sufficiency as a condition of approval for development projects. The confirmation of water supply sufficiency is achieved through an assessment of the water supplier's existing and future water sources, and existing and projected water demand in relation to a "project" as defined by California Water Code (CWC) section 10912, resulting in the production of a project-specific Water Supply Assessment (“WSA” or “Assessment”). Additional analysis is required in the WSA if any portion of the water supply includes groundwater. The WSA is prepared and adopted by the water supplier and included in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis for the project. The CEQA Lead Agency must then independently determine, based on the entire record, whether water supplies will be sufficient to satisfy the demands of the project, in addition to existing and planned future uses (CWC section 10911). The WSA is not a commitment to serve the proposed project.
Law
CWC section 10910:
(a) Any city or county that determines that a project, as defined in Section 10912, is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) under Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code shall comply with this part.
CWC section 10912:
For the purpose of this part, the following terms have the following meanings:
979
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 1
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Introduction 2 (a) "Project” means any of the following:
(1) A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. (2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space. (3) A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space. (4) A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms. (5) A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area. (6) A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in this subdivision.
(7) A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project.
1.1 Purpose
The Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC) is a department of the City of Ontario (City) and the water supplier to the City. OMUC commissioned this Assessment from Albert A. Webb Associates (WEBB) on March 28, 2022, to answer the following key question pursuant to SB 610: whether the projected supply for the next 20 years, based on normal, single dry and multiple dry years, will meet the demand projected for the project plus existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses.
980
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 1
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Introduction 3 1.2 Background
The Parkside Specific Plan was adopted in Ontario City Council on August 15, 2006. It was amended by the City on July 20, 2009, relating to PSPA09-001 and on June 16, 2020, relating to PSA R2020-82/EIR Addendum R2020-081. The Parkside Specific Plan is located in the area south of Ontario Ranch Road, north of Eucalyptus Avenue, west of Archibald Avenue, east of Carpenter Avenue and split by the Cucamonga Creek Channel, within the City of Ontario’s 8,200-acre Ontario Ranch (previously referred to as the New Model Colony [NMC]) (Figure 1 - Regional Map). The original 2009 Parkside Specific Plan allowed for up to 1,947 dwelling units on former dairy and agricultural lands (SPA, p. 1-7). The most recent Specific Plan Amendment in 2020 allows for up to 1,947 units at 18.20 units per gross acre (ibid). Currently, the approved Parkside Specific Plan encompasses approximately 251 gross acres. An aerial map of the Project as shown in Figure 2 – Aerial View.
On June 15, 2021, the City adopted its 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) (Resolution No. 2021-059), a copy of which is located in Appendix A.1 The City recently prepared updates to its Water Master Plan and Recycled Water Master Plan in June 2020, which include the current unit water demand factors for potable and recycled water as well as ultimate buildout water demand projections (AKM and Stantec, respectively). The projected water demands of the 2020 UWMP are based on the City’s 2020 master plan updates (pertinent excerpts of the master plans are located in Appendix E and K of the 2020 UWMP). The Specific Plan Land Use Plan that was used in the master plan updates and 2020 UWMP is shown in Figure 3 – Land Use Plan Used for 2020 UWMP Projections. Copies of the master plans are located in Appendix B and Appendix C.
1 The City Council also passed on June 15, 2021, Resolution No. 2021-061 to amend the 2015 UWMP to reflect consistency with the Delta Plan, and Resolution No. 2021-060 to adopt the 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan. 981
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment
Water Supply Assessment
Figure 1 – Regional Location Map Source: County of Riverside GIS, 2017 Map revised May 18, 2020. H:\2022\22-0076\GIS\regional_Location_Map.aprx San Bernardino Co.
Riverside Co.
Los Angeles Co.
San Bernardino Co.
San Bernardino Co.
Orange Co.
Prado
Lake Basin
ONTARIO
CHINO
NORCO
Ontario MUC
Service Area
UPLAND
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
MONTCLAIR
POMONA
CLAREMONT
DIAMOND
BAR
YORBA
LINDA
FONTANA
JURUPA
VALLEY
Ontario Ranch EASTVALE
·|þ}210
·|þ}83
·|þ}71
·|þ}142
§¨¦10
§¨¦15
·|þ}91
·|þ}
·|þ}57
·|þ}60
§¨¦10
§¨¦210
·|þ}
·|þ}91
71 §¨¦15
Map
Area
0 2 4 6
Miles
I
Parkside
Specific Plan
Amendment
Area
982
\\elsinore\WO4\2022\22-0076\GIS\aerial_map\aerial_map.aprx Map created 26 May 2022 Parkside Specific Plan Amendment
Water Supply Assessment
Figure 2 - Aerial View
I
LEGEND
Source: Parkside Specific Plan exhibit 1-2
NTS
Amendment Area
983
LEGEND
H:\2022\22-0076\GIS\existing_land_use_des\existing_land_use_des.aprx Map created 19 May 2022 Source: Parkside Land Use Specific Plan (2006) Figure 3 - Land Use Plan Used for 2020 UWMP Projections I
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment
Water Supply Assessment
984
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 1
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Introduction 7 1.3 Proposed Project
The City is preparing an amendment to the Parkside Specific Plan that would modify the existing land use designations in Planning Areas (PA) 5 through 18 to increase the maximum allowable densities and allow for up to an additional 903 units (an increase from 1,947 units to 2,850 units) over 250 gross acres (226 net acres) with a net density of 16.51 units per acre (“Project”) (SPA, p. 1-7). PA 19 a non-residential area is decreased
12.71 acres. This WSA has been prepared for said amendment to the Parkside Specific Plan (R2020–082). The proposed Project land use plan is shown in Figure 4 –Proposed Land Use Plan. For CEQA compliance, the City is preparing an addendum to the City General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR); therefore, this Project is considered to be “subject to CEQA” pursuant to CWC section 10910. The Project is considered a “project” under SB 610 pursuant to the following CWC section 10912 definition:
(1) A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units.
As shown in Figure 4, PA 1 – PA 4, Channel right-of-way, and PA 20 – PA 23 are not changing as part of the Project.
985
Source: Parkside Land Use Specific Plan (2006) \\elsinore\WO4\2022\22-0076\GIS\existing_land_use_des\existing_land_use_des.aprx Map created 26 May 2022 I
Figure 4 - Proposed Project
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment
Water Supply Assessment
NTS
Amendment Area in Red Cucamonga Creek Channel
986
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 1
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Introduction 9 The Project will have potable and recycled water provided by OMUC. City Ordinance No. 2689 requires all new development to connect to, and use recycled water for all approved uses, including but not limited to landscape irrigation (codified in City Municipal Code Sections 6-8.7 to 6-8.279). The Parkside Specific Plan shall comply with City Ordinance 2689 and make use of recycled water for “all approved uses, including but not limited to irrigation of parks, schools, street landscaping, recreational trails, HOA maintained on-site common areas, and commercial landscaping” (SPA, p. 5-14). There may be interim periods in which recycled water supply is not available due to inadequate pressure. In such cases, the recycled water system will connect to the potable water until recycled water service is available. (ibid).
1.4 Prior Water Supply Assessment
A WSA and Written Verification of Sufficient Water Supply (WV) dated October 27, 2004, were prepared for the 8,200-acre Ontario Ranch by WEBB on behalf of the City.
The 2004 WSA/WV was used for demonstrating water supply sufficiency for the original 2006 Parkside Specific Plan and subsequent amendments thereto (WEBB(2004), p. I-3-6).
In addition, a WV report dated May 21, 2020 was prepared by WEBB for the “Nova at Parkside,” which included PA’s 1, 2, 3, 4, 22 and 24 of the currently approved Parkside Specific Plan (WEBB 2020). The WV report calculated a potable and recycled water demand of 164 AFY and 18 AFY, respectively for PA’s 1,2 3, 4, 22 and 24 (p.ES-2) as shown in Figure 3..
Because the Project increases the number of dwelling units from prior assumptions and proposes denser land uses not previously included in the City’s land use plan, and the City has updated its water use and water supply information since 2004, a new WSA is prepared herein consistent with CWC section 10910(3). This WSA addresses the additional units proposed for Parkside. Per request of OMUC, additional calculations that address the other PAs are included herein (Figure 4). 987
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 1
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Introduction 10 Law
CWC Section 10910:
(h) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, if a project has been the subject of a water supply assessment that complies with the requirements of this part, no additional water supply assessment shall be required for subsequent projects that were part of a larger project for which a water supply assessment was completed and that has complied with the requirements of this part and for which the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), has concluded that its water supplies are sufficient to meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the existing and planned future uses, including, but not limited to, agricultural and industrial uses, unless one or more of the following changes occurs:
(1) Changes in the project that result in a substantial increase in water demand for the project.
(2) Changes in the circumstances or conditions substantially affecting the ability of the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), to provide a sufficient supply of water for the project.
(3) Significant new information becomes available which was not known and could not have been known at the time when the assessment was prepared.
1.5 Project Relation to the Urban Water Management Plan The City of Ontario/OMUC is the water supplier for the Project and has adopted a 2020 UWMP, a copy of which is provided in Appendix A. This WSA will rely on the 2020 UWMP and updated information from OMUC for 2021 data has been added where possible. The assumptions on ultimate (buildout) water demand in the 2020 UWMP for properties within Ontario Ranch were derived from land use-based water demand 988
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 1
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Introduction 11 factors according to the City’s 2020 Water Master Plan. Specifically, all approved Specific Plans and other current planning information were utilized in the 2020 Water Master Plan for the Ontario Ranch area, which includes the Parkside Specific Plan (AKM, p. 4-12). The land use designations that are assumed in the 2020 UWMP water demand projections are based on the approved Parkside Specific Plan land use plan (Figure 3).
As stated in the 2020 Water Master Plan, “For future developments, water unit demand factors were used to estimate future water use. Potable water unit demand factors are generally based on the factors that were developed as a part of a study completed in May 2016 entitled “Ultimate Citywide Water Demand Estimate” (AKM, p. 4-9). Further, “The residential unit demand factors were first developed in terms of gpd/person. Then the maximum densities (people/du and du/ac) were applied to determine the factors in other units. The resulting unit factors in terms of gpd/du and gpd/ac represent the maximum expected demand factors” (ibid). Lastly, the unit water demand factors used for the 2020 UWMP, 2020 Water Master Plan, and herein use recent actual projections of residential densities that are more than those included in the TOP (General Plan) (ibid).
According to the Water Code, if a project’s water demand has been accounted for in the water supplier’s most recent UWMP, then the WSA may use the UWMP as the source of the information required in the WSA. The determination as to whether the Project’s water demand has been accounted for in the most recent UWMP is located in Section 2 – Water Demand Analysis.
Relation of Water Supplier to other Urban Water Management Plans The City is a member agency of several water suppliers: Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA), Water Facilities Authority (WFA), Chino Basin Desalter Authority (CDA), and San Antonio Water Company (SAWCo). IEUA obtains water from The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). In addition, WFA obtains MWD water through IEUA. Each of these water suppliers has adopted individual 2020 UWMPs (copies of said plans are provided in Appendix D through Appendix H). Further, each of these 989
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 1
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Introduction 12 agencies documented coordination with the City for preparation of said UWMP’s and included the City’s projected water demands into their individual UWMPs (MWD (p. 1- 9), IEUA (p. 2-7), SAWCO (p. 4-6), WFA (p. 4-10), and CDA (p. 4-8)).
Law
CWC Section 10910:
(c) (1) The city or county, at the time it makes the determination required under Section 21080.1 of the Public Resources Code [CEQA], shall request each public water system identified pursuant to subdivision (b) to determine whether the projected water demand associated with a proposed project was included as part of the most recently adopted urban water management plan adopted pursuant to Part 2.6 (commencing with Section 10610).
(2) If the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was accounted for in the most recently adopted urban water management plan, the public water system may incorporate the requested information from the urban water management plan in preparing the elements of the assessment required to comply with subdivisions (d), (e), (f), and (g).
(3) If the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was not accounted for in the most recently adopted urban water management plan, or the public water system has no urban water management plan, the water supply assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the public water system's total projected water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the public water system's existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses.
(4) If the city or county is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), the water supply assessment for the project shall include a discussion with 990
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 1
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Introduction 13 regard to whether the total projected water supplies, determined to be available by the city or county for the project during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection, will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses.
1.6 Statewide and Local Water Conservation Efforts
The Ontario City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3027 on September 1, 2015, in response to the statewide Emergency Conservation Regulations mandated at that time by the State Water Resources Control Board. Ordinance 3027 updated the City’s Water Conservation Plan that is codified in Chapter 8A, Title 6 of the City’s Municipal Code (“Water Conservation Plan”).
The City Council adopted its 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan in June 2021, which describes the methods to achieve and the implications of reducing water supplies to at least 50 percent (the plan is located in Chapter 8 of the 2020 UWMP).
The City and OMUC implement various programs to reduce customer water consumption, including stringent use restrictions, actions, and penalties, as well as public outreach, education, and communication programs. As of April 2022, the City is in Stage 2 of the Water Conservation Plan. Stage 2 addresses a water supply shortage of up to 20 percent (WSCP, p. 8-7) and includes the restrictions activated in Stage 1, which are shown below.
991
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 1
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Introduction 14 Excerpt from 2020 City of Ontario Water Shortage Contingency Plan, p. 8-7.
With the signing of Assembly Bill 1668 and SB 606, the state has set an Indoor Residential Standard of 55 gallons per capita per day (GPCD) beginning January 1, 2025, which will decrease to 50 GPCD beginning January 1, 2030 (CWC section 10609.4(a)). The per person unit water use factors used by the City in the 2020 UWMP for water demand planning purposes are based on a minimum of 60 gpd/person for high density residential with recycled water (UWMP, p. 4-10).
In regard to landscaping guidelines for the Project: “Landscaping within the Specific Plan shall be provided in accordance with the Design Guidelines for Streetscapes and Entries utilizing plant materials specified on the Plant Palette included in Section 7, Residential Design Guidelines, and Section 8, Commercial Design Guidelines, established for the Specific Plan” (SPA, p. 6-13). Landscaping shall be subject to the same landscaping guidelines in the adopted Specific Plan, with the addition of more drought tolerant planting options to meet current code requirements” (SPA, p. 7-119).
Native plant materials and non-invasive ornamental landscape materials will be incorporated into the landscaping plan.
1.7 Methodology of Analysis
This Assessment follows the DWR Guidebook for Implementation of Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221 of 2001 (DWR 2003). CWC citations contained herein are current as of January 1, 2022. Section 1 of this Assessment describes the existing and 992
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 1
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Introduction 15 proposed land use designations of the Project site, the proposed Project’s relation to a previous WSA and the water supplier’s most recent UWMP. Section 2 provides the water demand analysis of the Project; Section 3 reviews the projected water supplies for the Project; Section 4 contains the required discussion of the water supplier’s groundwater supplies; and Section 5 concludes the Assessment by answering the primary question at hand.
Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank
993
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 2
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Water Demand Analysis 16 SECTION 2 - WATER DEMAND ANALYSIS
The purpose of this section is to evaluate whether the proposed Project was considered in the water supplier’s planning for water demand. This section will: 1) identify the various water use sectors, 2) identify water demand by those sectors for the next twenty years, and 3) compare the calculated water demand of the proposed Project to the water demand assumed in the most recent UWMP for the same property.
Law
CWC Section 10910:
(c) (2) If the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was accounted for in the most recently adopted urban water management plan, the public water system may incorporate the requested information from the urban water management plan in preparing the elements of the assessment required to comply with subdivisions (d), (e), (f), and (g).
(3) If the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was not accounted for in the most recently adopted urban water management plan, or the public water system has no urban water management plan, the water supply assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the public water system's total projected water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the public water system's existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses.
994
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 2
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Water Demand Analysis 17 2.1 Citywide Demographic Factors
A variety of demographic factors may affect water use. The UWMP Act lists several demographic factors to be detailed in UWMP’s including climate, current and projected population, density, and the mix of customer types (CWC sections 10631(e)(1)-(2)). As suggested by DWR, these data are provided herein and are taken generally from City’s 2020 UWMP (Appendix A).
Climate
The climate of the City including the Project site can be described as generally mild temperatures and virtually no days below freezing. Summers are dry with average maximum daily temperatures in the high 80s to low 90s. The average annual rainfall is roughly 10.68 inches. (UWMP, p. 3-5)
Population
The City is divided into two distinct areas: Old Model Colony (OMC) and Ontario Ranch, which is where the Project is located. The OMC mostly consists of residential, commercial, and industrial developments including the Ontario Airport. Ontario Ranch is currently in the process of a planned conversion from agriculture to residential, commercial, industrial, and public uses.
The OMUC water service area population as of 2020, including both OMC and Ontario Ranch, is estimated at 178,409 persons (UWMP, p. 3-6). Based on the City General Plan (“TOP”) and anticipated development patterns, population at citywide buildout in 2040 is estimated at 362,903 persons as shown in Table 2-1, which is an increase of more than 103 percent over 20 years. Most of the anticipated growth will occur through infill, densification in the OMC and development in Ontario Ranch. 995
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 2
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Water Demand Analysis 18 Table 2-1 OMUC Service Area Population Estimates, 2010-2040 Population Served(a)
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040(b)
163,924 168,777 178,409 232,583 266,339 300,095 362,903 Source: UWMP, p. 3-7.
(a) Does not include the portion of the City that receives water service from Cucamonga Valley Water District. (b) The City estimates buildout by 2040.
The City has considered certain demographic factors in its water management planning, including special housing needs (e.g., low-income earners, single-parent families, large families, seniors, people with disabilities, and homeless persons) (UWMP, p. 3-7).
2.2 City of Ontario’s Current and Future Water Demand
OMUC serves at least 36,514 customer connections as part of its potable and nonpotable water distribution systems (UWMP, p. 2-4). OMUC reports on a fiscal year (FY) basis (July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021) unless required to do otherwise. In FY 20/21, the total potable water demand in the OMUC service area was 33,968 acre-feet (AF) and the recycled water demand was 8,556.74 AF (OMUC(a)). The recorded water demands by customer type for the OMUC water service area are provided in Table 2-2 (next page).
996
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 2
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Water Demand Analysis 19 Table 2-2 Recorded Citywide Water Demand (AFY)
Customer
Type
2005(a) 2010(a) 2015(b) FY 19/20(d) 2021(e)
Volume
No. of Connections
Volume
No. of Connections
Volume
No. of Connections(c)
Volume
No. of Connections
Volume
No. of Connections
Single-Family
Residential 16,421 28,932 13,253 29,473 10,941 26,838 12,502 31,626 12,883.96 31,626 Multi-Family
Residential 6,147 2,244 5,425 2,069 4,839 1,968- 5,068 2,164 4,968.58 2,164 Commercial 8,369 3,095 6,692 3,285 6,584 3,201- 5,359 3,255 5,150.44 3,255 Industrial 2,402 327 2,044 278 1,471 268- 2,078 332 1,638.97 332 Governmental 1,178 320 0 - - - 538 -
Landscape 6,813 1,246 7,170 1,245 4,564 1,100 4,631 1,469 5,560.93 1,469 Agriculture 0 0 0 - - - - - -
Other 378 161 819 308 340 66 368 - 2,679.90 -
Loss 3,154 - - - - - 1,565 - - -
S/T/E 0 - 0 - 206 - - - -
Subtotal 44,863 36,325 35,403 36,658 28,945 33,441- 32,109 38,846 32,882.78 38,846 Recycled
Water 1,829 - 1,547 178 7,208 279 7,812 444 8,556.74 444 Total 46,692 36,325 36,950 36,836 36,153 33,720 39,921 39,290 41,439.52 39,290 Note: AFY = acre feet per year; S/T/E = sales/transfers/exchanges. (a) AKM 2011, pp. 3-2, 3-5.
(b) UWMP 2016, pp. 2-1, 4-2, Appendix B.
(c) CY 2015 Annual Report to Division of Drinking Water. (d) 2020 UWMP, pp. 4-3 and 4-5.
(e) OMUC 2020 Annual Report to Division of Drinking Water, which is reported on Calendar Year basis. Recycled water from OMUC(b).
997
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 2
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Water Supply Analysis 20 The projected citywide water demands from 2025 to 2045 are shown in Table 2-3, which are based on the same proportions of use by sector as those observed in FY 19/20 (UWMP, p. 4-3).
Table 2-3 Future Citywide Water Demand (AFY)
Customer Type 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Single Family
Residential 15,723 17,540 19,109 22,431 22,431
Multifamily
Residential 6,374 7,110 7,746 9,093 9,093
Commercial 6,740 7,519 8,191 9,615 9,615
Industrial 2,613 2,915 3,176 3,728 3,728
Institutional /
Governmental 677 755 822 965 965
Landscape 5,824 6,497 7,078 8,309 8,309
Losses 1,968 2,196 2,392 2,808 2,808
Other 463 5156 562 660 660
Subtotal Potable
Demand(a) 40,382 45,048 49,076 57,609 57,609
Recycled Water
Demand(b) 12,168 13,465 14,762 16,059 16,059
Total Water
Demand 52,550 58,513 63,838 73,668 73,668
Notes: AFY = acre-feet per year; Does not include areas within the City that are not served by OMUC.
Buildout assumed for 2040.
(a) 2020 UWMP, p. 4-4.
(b) 2020 UWMP, p. 4-5. Agricultural water demands are included in recycled water retail demands.
Water use patterns change during dry years. The expected changes to water demand and water supply during dry years are provided in Section 3 – Water Supply Analysis.
The City’s 2020 UWMP and 2020 Water Master Plan assume the same trend in future land use changes within the City. Namely, the City land uses are currently a nearlyequal balance of residential, commercial / industrial, and agricultural as shown in Figure 5. However, agricultural use is projected to be completely replaced with 998
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 2
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Water Supply Analysis 21 residential, commercial, and industrial by buildout, or approximately 2040 as shown in Figure 6.
Figure 5– Existing (2017) Land Uses in the City (acres) Source: 2020 UWMP, p. 3-8.
Figure 6– Land Use in the City at Buildout (acres)
Source: 2020 UWMP, p. 3-8.
30%
37%
1%
32%
Existing Land Use in the City (acres)
Residential (6,124 ac)
Commercial and Industrial (7,508 ac)
Agricultural (Original Model Colony)
(184 ac)
Agricultural (Ontario Ranch) (6,556
ac)
50% 50%
Land Use in the City at Buildout (acres)
Residential (10,869 ac)
Commercial and Industrial
(11,017 ac)
999
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 2
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Water Supply Analysis 22 2.3 Project Site Land Use Assumed in the UWMP
The City’s 2020 Water Master Plan and 2020 UWMP used the approved land use plans for each Specific Plan, including Parkside Specific Plan, to calculate projected water demands. Where there was no approved land use plan, the current (current as of May 2017) General Plan land use plan was used (AKM 2020). These assumptions are shown in a spreadsheet and exhibits in Appendix 4-1 of the Water Master Plan and the land use plan reproduced in Figure 3, herein. Using the City’s current unit water demand factors, the estimated water demands for the Project PA’s and the rest of the Specific Plan that was accounted for in the 2020 UWMP is shown in Table 2-4. Refer to Spreadsheet 1 at the end of the report for calculations.
Table 2-4 Water Demand of the Project Site Land Use Assumed in the UWMP Water Demand Scenarios
Potable Water
Demand
Recycled Water
Demand Total Water Demand
(AFY) (AFY) (AFY)
Total 965 336 1,301
Notes: AFY = acre feet per year; SF = square feet. Refer to Spreadsheet 1. (a) Based on the land use designations, acreages, and dwelling unit counts in Appendix 4-1 of the 2020 Water Master Plan Update (AKM, 2020)
(b) Potable unit water demand factors from AKM 2020, p. 4-10. (c) Recycled water demand factors from Stantec 2020, p. 5.26.
2.4 Proposed Project Water Demand
The potable and recycled water demands of the proposed Project as shown in Figure 4 using the City’s current unit water demand factors for potable and recycled water is detailed in Spreadsheet 2. Table 2-5 summarizes the potable water and recycled water demand for the originally approved SP, the SPA and for the Project only. A comparison on the number of dwelling units for the SP and SPA is provided in Table 2-6. 1000
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 2
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Water Supply Analysis 23 Table 2-5 Proposed Project Water Demand
Water Demand Scenarios
Potable Water
Demand
Recycled Water
Demand Total Water Demand
(AFY) (AFY) (AFY)
Proposed Specific Plan 915 310 1,225
Original Specific Plan 738 310 1,048
Project 176 0.39 177
Table 2-6 Approved and Proposed Dwelling Units
Planning Area Specific Plan Specific Plan
Amendment
Dwelling Units Dwelling Units
PA-1 236 236
PA-2 41 41
PA-3 42 42
PA-4 221 221
PA-5 139 122
PA-6 75 124
PA-7 68 132
PA-8 68 132
PA-9 120 184
PA-10 143 207
PA-11 123 188
PA-12 127 192
PA-13 64 128
PA-14 99 163
PA-15 111 126
PA-16 90 105
PA-17 82 263
PA-18 98 244
Total 1,947 2,850
The following assumptions were made to estimate water demand for the Project:
• Potable water demand was calculated on a per-dwelling-unit basis. 1001
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 2
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Water Supply Analysis 24 • Recycled water demand was calculated on a per-gross-acre basis, to be consistent with the master plans which used gross acres for the Specific Plans. • The potable and recycled water demands of just the additional units were calculated as the difference between the proposed total number of dwelling units and the approved dwelling units. The unit water demand factors changed to match the corresponding land use designations based on maximum densities for each PA.
• Spreadsheet 3 calculates the potable and recycled water demands of the entire Specific Plan including the approved units and proposed additional units of the Project.
• Spreadsheet 4 calculates the potable and recycled water demands of the Specific Plan as currently approved, before the proposed Project.
Conclusion
The estimated total water demand for the entire Parkside Specific Plan that was accounted for in the 2020 UWMP is 1,301 AFY (Table 2-4). The changes proposed by the Project total 177 AFY with the total water demand for the entire Specific Plan Amendment at 1,225 AFY. Because the City’s water demand projections for the same piece of land in the 2020 UWMP were higher than that which is proposed by the Project, it can be deduced that the water demand for the Project was accounted for in the most recently adopted 2020 UWMP.
1002
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Water Supply Analysis 25 SECTION 3 - WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS
This section identifies the sources of potable water utilized and available to the water supplier of the proposed Project. The purpose of this section is to evaluate the water supplies that could be utilized by the proposed Project during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry water years during a 20-year projection.
OMUC is the water supplier to the City and the proposed Project. OMUC has the following sources of water supply: City wells in the Chino Groundwater Basin; treated groundwater from the Chino Desalter Authority (CDA); recycled water from Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA); purchased water from San Antonio Water Company (SAWCo); and imported wholesale water from the Water Facilities Authority (WFA).
Law
CWC Section 10910(d)(1):
The assessment required by this section shall include an identification of any existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project, and a description of quantities of water received in prior years by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), under the existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts.
(2) An identification of existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts held by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), shall be demonstrated by providing information related to all of the following:
(A) Written contracts or other proof of entitlement to an identified water supply. (B) Copies of a capital outlay program for financing the delivery of a water supply that has been adopted by the public water system.
1003
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Water Supply Analysis 26 (C) Federal, state, and local permits for construction of necessary infrastructure associated with delivering the water supply.
(D) Any necessary regulatory approvals that are required in order to be able to convey or deliver the water supply.
3.1. Documenting Wholesale Water Supplies
Many retail water suppliers in California, including OMUC, receive supplies from one or more water wholesalers. SB 610 requires the WSA to document wholesale supplies received by: 1) describing the quantities of water received from each wholesaler in prior years; 2) identifying existing entitlements, water rights, and/or water service contracts held by the City for the wholesale supply; 3) provide proof of entitlements, water rights, service contracts, relevant capital outlay programs, and construction permits for necessary infrastructure to deliver wholesale supplies, if any; and 4) regulatory approvals required to convey or deliver the wholesale supply.
Wholesale Supplies Received
OMUC receives wholesale water from the WFA who purchases untreated imported water from IEUA, who in turn obtains it from The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). WFA and IEUA are both wholesale water suppliers and IEUA is a member agency of MWD. MWD is a wholesaler and contractor for State Water Project water imported from northern California. State Water Project water is available as stipulated by DWR in response to the hydrology and environmental regulations that can change available supply.2 Therefore, imported water supplies to southern California can be highly variable; in January 2014 for example, the allocation of State Water Project water to all contractors was temporarily reduced to 0 percent due to persistent drought conditions. Nonetheless, MWD has projected in its 2020 2 DWR, State Water Project Delivery Capability Report, published every 2 years, as well as “Notice to State Water Project Contractors” issued as often as needed. 1004
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Water Supply Analysis 27 UWMP, 100 percent water supply reliability over the next 20 years (2025-2045) during average, single-dry, and multiple-dry years (MWD UWMP, pp. ES-6 and ES-7).
The amount of imported water purchased by IEUA from MWD is limited by a purchase order agreement that allows IEUA to purchase up to 93,283 acre-feet per year (AFY) at its lowest rate (Tier I) through Dec. 31, 2024 (IEUA Resolution no. 2014-12-1 located in Appendix I). The purchase order agreement includes an annual minimum purchase commitment of 39,835 AFY, which is slightly less than the minimum operational need of the region’s water treatment facilities (i.e., 40,000 AFY; WFA’s Agua de Lajos Treatment Plan (81 mgd capacity), Fontana Water Company’s Sandhill Surface Water Treatment Plant (29 mgd capacity), CVWD’s Lloyd W. Michael Water Treatment Plant (60 mgd capacity), and CVWD’s Royer-Nesbit Water Treatment Plant (11 mgd capacity)) (IEUA 2016 IWRP, p. 36). Resolution 2014-12-1 also establishes how much water WFA, Cucamonga Valley Water District, and Fontana Water Company may purchase from IEUA, up to 69,572 AFY (IEUA 2020 UWMP, p. 2-6).
The WFA was formed in 1980 as a Joint Powers Authority by the cities of Chino, Chino Hills, Ontario, Upland, and the Monte Vista Water District in order to construct and operate water treatment facilities for providing supplemental potable water to the member agencies. In 1985, the City established an agreement to purchase capacity in the WFA water treatment plant; a copy of which is located in Appendix J. Then, in 1988 the WFA finished construction of the Agua de Lejos Water Treatment Plant (WTP) in Upland to treat the imported water from IEUA and MWD to meet drinking water standards.
Currently, the Agua de Lejos WTP has the capacity to treat and disinfect 81 million gallons per day (mgd). Recorded flows through the Agua de Lejos WTP have ranged from 40 to 50 mgd during the peak summer months and can be as low as 9-12 mgd during winter months (http://www.wfajpa.org/#Facilities). As documented in WFA Ordinance No. 99-07-02 (located in Appendix K), the City owns 31.4 percent of the plant capacity of the Agua de Lejos WTP. As of 2020, that proportion is equivalent to 1005
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Water Supply Analysis 28 approximately 25 mgd (28,004 AFY) (AKM 2020, p. 3-2). OMUC can purchase up to 9,915 AFY (8.9 mgd) of imported supply through WFA at Tier 1 rates. Beyond that amount, OMUC could continue to purchase at Tier 2 rates. As of FY 20/21, OMUC purchased 5,851 AF (5.22 mgd) of wholesale water from the WFA (OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 6-37). The actual and projected wholesale water supplies that are projected to be available to WFA through 2045 are shown in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1 Wholesale Water Supplies Available to WFA (AFY) Wholesale
Water
2015(a) 2020(b) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Actual Projected(b)
WFA
(potable) 14,864 25,492 30,651 31,997 33,435 34,829 36,280 Note: WFA = Water Facilities Authority; AFY = acre feet per year. (a) Data for 2015 Actual from IEUA and WFA 2015 UWMP, pp. 3-9 – 3-10. (b) Data for 2020 Actual and 2025 through 2045 Projected from WFA 2020 UWMP (p. 6-18, (Appendix F)).
To reduce dependence on imported water supplies, OMUC joined the “Dry Year Yield Storage Program,” which is described below.
Dry Year Yield Storage Program
The Dry Year Yield (DYY) storage program is a cooperative Conjunctive Use Program Agreement between MWD, IEUA, Chino Basin Watermaster, Three Valleys Municipal Water District, and the Chino Basin groundwater producers (Agreement No. 49960 [DYY 2014]). Under the DYY Program, MWD can store up to 100,000 AFY of water in the Chino Groundwater Basin during wet years when surplus water is available, and to reduce imported water deliveries up to 33,000 AFY in dry, drought, or emergency periods, but not to exceed the amount of water in the MWD storage account (OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 6-18).
The City executed an agreement with IEUA to participate in the DYY program in 2003.
The DYY Agreement was amended in September 2014 to clarify storage measurement 1006
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Water Supply Analysis 29 and extraction from the MWD storage account, define baseline conditions in calculations of performance targets, define procedures for variances in performance targets, revise administrative milestones, and make miscellaneous updates (refer herein to for original agreement and amendments). The 2014 DYY amendments also provided for a minimum imported water delivery of 40,000 AFY during “call” years, establishing minimum needs for direct deliveries from MWD. As of June 30, 2020, the storage balance in the DYY account is 45,961 AF (OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 6-18).
Participation in the DYY program obligates OMUC to reduce its use of imported water from WFA by a fixed amount, known as the “shift obligation” when MWD makes a “call” for their water stored in the Chino Basin. OMUC’s shift obligation is 8,076 AFY, which is the amount OMUC purchases from WFA during a baseline year (OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 6-33). OMUC purchases an additional 2,000 AFY from WFA that is then sold to neighboring water supplier Jurupa Community Services District (JCSD) who does not have an imported water connection. In 2014, JCSD entered into an agreement with the City to participate in the DYY program (a copy of which is located in Appendix L).
During years when MWD makes a “call” for the water in their storage account, OMUC will decrease its purchase of WFA imported water by a combined total of 10,076 AF (8,076 AF plus 2,000 AF) compared to the previous year. To meet its obligation in the DYY program during a “call” year, JCSD will deliver 2,000 AF to OMUC from the Chino Basin Desalter Authority (CDA).
3 DYY funds from DWR local assistance grants were used for the construction of three OMUC groundwater wells (Wells 45, 46, and 47) and an ion-exchange facility located at John Galvin Park to treat water extracted from Wells 44 and 52. When MWD makes a “call” for its stored water, OMUC can operate these facilities to meet its shift obligation. MWD will then pay for the cost of operations and OMUC would pay MWD (through IEUA) the full-service water rate. OMUC can use the DYY facilities to meet its 3 Assuming JCSD’s imported water baseline is 2,000 AFY (JCSD 2014). 1007
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Water Supply Analysis 30 normal water demands during other periods, but OMUC is responsible for the well operation and maintenance costs (OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 6-33).
The additional groundwater capacity provided by this program allows OMUC to increase the percentage supply used to meet peak demands and allow OMUC to be less reliant upon imported water supplies (OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 6-33).
3.2. Documenting Water Supplies
As of the 2020 UWMP, approximately 46 percent of OMUC’s water supply came from groundwater, 34 percent from imported water, and 20 percent of supply was recycled water (OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 6-37).
The recorded water supplies available to OMUC from 2000 to FY 20/21 are provided in Table 3-2 (next page) and the projected water supplies available to OMUC from 2025- 2045 are provided in Table 3-3. In addition, each water supply source is identified as a water supply entitlement, water right, or water service contract per SB 610 guidance.
Appropriative rights to groundwater are discussed in Chapter 4 – Groundwater Analysis.
Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank
1008
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Water Supply Analysis 31 Table 3-2 Recorded OMUC Water Supplies (AFY)
Source 2000(a) 2005(b) 2010(c) 2015(d) FY 19/20(e) FY 20/21(f) Form of
Right
Amount of
Right
Wells 36,862 28,799 20,955 19,544 18,395 20,281 Appropriative Varies
(see Sec. 4)
Purchased
WFA 9,258 13,406 8,923 6,413 6,513 5,851
Capacity
Ownership
25 mgd
(31.4% of plant
capacity)
CDA - - 5,000 3,543 6,636 7,337
Capacity
Ownership 8,533 AFY
SAWCo - - - 443 565 500
Shareholder
Entitlement 600 AFY
Subtotal
Potable 46,120 42,205 34,878 29,943 32,109 33,969 -- -- Recycled 700(g) - 1,547 3,859(h) 7,812(i) 8,556.74(j) Contract Ontario’s share
of sewer flows.
Total
Supply 46,820 42,205 36,425 33,802 39,921 42,525.74 -- -- Notes: WFA = Water Facilities Authority; CDA = Chino Basin Desalter Authority; SAWCo = San Antonio Water Company; FY = fiscal year; AFY = acre-feet per year; mgd = million gallons per day.
(a) Webb 2004, p. 21.
(b) AKM 2011, pp. 3-8 and 5-12.
(c) AKM 2011, p. 4-2.
(d) OMUC UWMP 2016, p. 6-16.
(e) OMUC 2020 UWMP, Table 6-8.
(f) OMUC(a), 2022.
(g) Webb 2004, p. 29.
(h) Does not include recycled water for agriculture deliveries (3,349 AF). (i) The City’s share of sewer flows delivered to treatment plants in FY19/20, was approximately 12,645 AF (OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 6-24). (j) The City’s share of sewer flows delivered to treatment plants in FY20/21, was approximately 12,854 AF (OMUC(b)). 1009
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Water Supply Analysis 32 Table 3-3 Projected OMUC Water Supplies (AFY)
Source 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Form of
Right
Amount of
Right
Wells 20,249 22,915 24,943 31,476 31,476 Appropriative
Varies
(see Sec. 4)
Purchased
WFA 11,000 13,000 15,000 17,000 17,000
Capacity
ownership
25 mgd
(31.4% of
plant capacity)
CDA 8,533 8,533 8,533 8,533 8,533
Capacity
Ownership 8,533 AFY
SAWC
o(a) 600 600 600 600 600
Shareholder
entitlement 600 AFY
Subtotal
Potable 40,382 45,048 49,076 57,609 57,609 -- --
Recycled
12,168 13,465 14,762 16,059 16,059 Contract
Ontario’s
share of sewer
flows.
Total
Supply 52,550 58,513 63,838 73,668 73,668 -- --
Note: AFY = acre feet per year; FY = fiscal year; mgd = million gallons per day.
Source: OMUC 2020 UWMP, Table 6-9, p. 6-38.
(a) According to SAWCo’s 2020 UWMP, the estimated projected annual water demands for OMUC for 2025 through 2045 is 601 AFY.
OMUC anticipates increasing its total water supply by pursuing: 1) full utilization of OMUC’s groundwater rights in the Chino Basin allowed under the Chino Basin Groundwater Adjudication Judgment (including increased groundwater recharge with stormwater and recycled water described in Section 4); 2) expanding use of recycled water; and 3) expanding use of desalter water (OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 6-38).
Water Supply Capacities
The capacity of each source of supply available to OMUC is provided in the 2020 Ontario Water Master Plan (AKM 2020), which is provided in Appendix B. The capacity of the supply system refers to the maximum production rate based on the pumps and infrastructure. For example, the capacity of groundwater wells refers to a pumping rate based on running the pumps at full utilization, 24-hours a day, 7 days a week. Although 1010
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Water Supply Analysis 33 this maximum rate of pumping is assumed in terms of comparing capacities, pumps are rarely used at more than two-thirds capacity. Knowing the system capacity is important to ensure OMUC can meet all demands imposed upon the system, specifically meeting “average day demand” and “maximum day demand.” Demand can be met with multiple supply sources, storage, or a combination of both. OMUC’s reservoirs are not discussed in this Assessment, however, they are used to regulate hourly fluctuations in demand, provide fire flow, and supplement supply during an extended outage of a source (AKM 2020, p. 7-3).
According to the 2020 Water Master Plan, OMUC is required to meet the following water supply criterion from the California Code of Regulations Related to Drinking Water: “a minimum source of supply equal of one maximum day demand of the service area (AKM 2020, p. 10-1). Further, OMUC has set a design criterion in its 2020 Water Master Plan that “requires a source of supply equal to one average day demand (19,280 gpm) from local sources” (AKM 2020, p. 10-1). As the land uses and population changes in OMUC service area, so does the average and maximum day demands. The maximum capacities of existing sources of supply available to OMUC are provided in Table 3-4.
Table 3-4 Existing (2020) Supply Capacities
Source AFY mgd gpm
Existing Wells(a) 62,269 55.6 38,604
WFA at Aqua de Lejos WTP 17,259 15.4 10,700
CDA from Chino I & II
Desalter 8,533 7.62 5,290
Total Existing Capacity 88,061 78.62 54,594
Note: AFY = acre-feet per year; mgd = million gallons per day; gpm = gallons per minute.
Source: Table 10-2 of AKM 2020 (Appendix B). OMUC confirmed for this Assessment that as of 5/2/2022, these capacities have not changed.
(a) Assuming wells operate 24 hours per day for 365 days per year. 1011
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Water Supply Analysis 34 The maximum capacities of the ‘ultimate’ sources of supply available to OMUC according to the City’s 2020 Water Master Plan, are provided in Table 3-5.
Table 3-5 Ultimate Supply Capacities
Source AFY mgd gpm
Existing Wells 62,269 55.6 38,604
Future Wells 48,068 42.9 29,800
Subtotal(a) 110,337 99 68,404
WFA at Aqua de Lejos WTP 17,259 15.4 10,700
CDA from Chino I & II Desalter 5,833 7.62 5,291
Total 133,426 121.52 84,395
Note: AFY = acre-feet per year; mgd = million gallons per day; gpm = gallons per minute.
Source: Table 12-2 of AKM, 2020 (Appendix B).
(a) Assuming wells operate 24 hours per day for 365 days per year.
As described in the 2020 Ontario Water Master Plan, the combined ultimate capacity of existing and future wells is approximately 68,404 gpm (Table 3-5), which is about 192% of the future average day demand (35,716 gpm) and therefore meets the City and state supply criterion for average day demand coming from local sources (p. 12-1).
In addition, the ultimate supply capacity is equivalent to 84,395 gpm, which is about 154% of the City’s future maximum day demand (54,778 gpm); therefore, the City is capable of providing the full projected maximum day demand (AKM 2020, p. 12-1).
However, under ultimate conditions the supply capacity will require additional future wells, as shown in Table 3-5 to meet the water supply criterion for maximum day demand.
3.3. Descriptions of All Water Supply Projects
City Well Production
OMUC currently owns 17 active groundwater wells in the Chino Basin (AKM 2020, p. 6- 1). The Chino Basin is one of the largest groundwater basins in southern California, 1012
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Water Supply Analysis 35 with an estimated 5 million AF,4 with another 1 million AF in additional storage capacity. OMUC is planning seven new wells in the 925 Pressure Zone serving Ontario Ranch with a combined additional supply capacity of 48,068 AFY (Table 3-5) (AKM 2020, p. 12-1).
In FY 20/21, OMUC pumped 17,171 AF from the Chino Basin (CBWM 2021, p. 9.1).
OMUC’s existing (2020) well capacity is approximately 62,269 AFY (Table 3-4).5 The recorded extractions from OMUC wells between 2016 and 2021 are shown in Table 3-
6. Table 3-6 Recorded Groundwater Production, 2016-2021 (AFY) Supply 2016 2017 2018 2018 2020 2021(a)
City wells in
Chino Basin 22,751 24,672 26,109 19,604 18,395 17,171
Note: AFY = acre feet per year. Data shown are Fiscal Years.
Source: OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 6-19, Table 6-1 (Appendix A). (a) CBWM 2021, p. 9.1.
As of 2020, approximately 46 percent of OMUC water supply came from groundwater pumped by OMUC wells in the Chino Basin. OMUC strives to maximize local water supplies and minimize the need for imported water from other regions (OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 1-5). A thorough description of the City’s groundwater rights pursuant to SB 610 guidance is provided in Section 4 – Groundwater Analysis.
Chino Basin Desalter Authority (CDA) Groundwater Production OMUC is a member of the CDA, a joint exercise of powers agency created on September 25, 2001, along with JCSD, Santa Ana River Water Company, IEUA and the 4 The 2020 Safe Yield Recalculation Final Report (May 15, 2020) indicates the estimated total volume of water in storage was 12.6 million AF in July 2018 (WEI 2020, p. 6-15). 5 Assuming wells operate 24 hours per day for 365 days per year. 1013
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Water Supply Analysis 36 cities of Chino, Chino Hills, and Norco. Western Municipal Water District joined CDA on April 2, 2009. The goals of the CDA are:
• Achieve hydraulic control of the Chino Basin to prevent contaminated Chino Basin groundwater from entering Santa Ana River;
• Remove contamination (primarily nitrates, as well as TCE, PCE, and TCP) from groundwater in the southern portion of the Chino Basin; and • Deliver the treated water to member agencies to offset the need for imported water.
CDA provides high-quality drinking water to CDA members through “take or pay” contracts. CDA operates 30 wells and two desalters (salt removers) that treated approximately 35,003 AF of Chino Basin groundwater in 2020 (CDA 2020 UWMP, p. 6- 27). In the future, “CDA will pump up to 40,000 AFY of contaminated groundwater from the Chino Basin for water quality management purposes, groundwater cleanup, and hydraulic control required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. CDA will provide up to 35,200 AFY of treated water to its member agencies” (CDA 2020 UWMP, p. 6-27).
The Chino I Desalter, located at 6905 Kimball Avenue in Chino, was completed in 2000 and expanded in August 2005 to its current rated capacity of 14.2 mgd (CDA 2020 UWMP p. 6-8). However, the Chino I Desalter cannot provide this rated capacity due to the high total dissolved solids (TDS) in the raw groundwater supply. The Chino II Desalter was completed in 2006 and is located at 11202 Harrel Street in the City of Jurupa Valley. The current rated capacity of Chino II Desalter is 33 mgd (CDA 2020 UWMP, p. 6-8).
Although Chino Desalter I capacity will not be increased, additional raw water capacity is provided by five new CDA wells in the Chino Creek Well Field. All five wells have been drilled and equipped.
1014
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Water Supply Analysis 37 According to the 2020 UWMP, in FY 19/20 OMUC purchased approximately 6,636 AF from CDA and in FY 20/21, OMUC purchased 7,337 AF from CDA (Table 3-2). As shown in Table 3-3, the water supply from CDA to OMUC is projected to stabilize at 8,533 AFY by 2025, which would be 16 percent of the total water supply portfolio for OMUC in 2025. The City’s capacity rights to CDA are described in Section 4 – Groundwater Analysis.
Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) Recycled Water Supply OMUC purchases recycled water supplies from IEUA, which treats the City’s wastewater at its four regional wastewater reclamation plants. IEUA provides wastewater treatment services to seven Contracting Agencies, including the City of Ontario. OMUC has been using recycled water produced by IEUA since 1972.
Currently, recycled water is used in the City for agricultural irrigation, landscape irrigation, golf course irrigation and industrial purposes. “Pursuant to the Chino Basin Regional Sewage Service Contract, each Contracting Agency has the right of first purchase of their Base Entitlement. Base Entitlement is defined as the total quantity of sewage delivered into the Regional Sewerage System by the Contracting Agency less normal processing losses resulting from the treatment of sewage” (OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 6-21). In FY 19/20, this amount was 12,645 AF (OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 6-24) and in FY 20/21, this amount was 12,854 AF (OMUC(a)).
In FY 19/20, 7,812 AF of recycled water was purchased by OMUC for direct use (Table 3-2) and then 8,556.74 AF in FY 20/21 (OMUC(b)). This represents roughly 67 percent utilization of recycled water supply available to OMUC in FY 20/21, which is an increase from roughly 62 percent utilization in FY 19/20. Recorded and projected supplies of recycled water available to OMUC are listed in Table 3-7. 1015
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Water Supply Analysis 38 Table 3-7 Recorded and Future Recycled Water Supply (AFY) Beneficial Use
Type 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Agricultural
irrigation 2,905 1,704 1,136 568 0 0
Landscape
irrigation 3,290 7,088 8,612 10,136 11,659 11,659
Golf course
irrigation 631 660 680 700 720 720
Industrial use 986 2,716 3,037 3,358 3,680 3,680
Total 7,812 12,168 13,465 14,762 16,059 16,059
Note: AFY = acre feet per year
Source: OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 6-28 (Appendix A). Ontario reports in Fiscal Years. Buildout estimated for 2040.
Over the next 20 years, landscape irrigation is projected to have the greatest increase in demand for recycled water followed by industrial use within the OMUC service area.
Agricultural properties are expected to convert to more urban land uses, while supplies to golf courses are expected to remain relatively stable. (OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 6-28).
IEUA has prepared recycled water studies, plans, and strategy documents to bring a regional recycled water delivery system to fruition. OMUC updated their Recycled Water Master Plan in 2020 (located in Appendix C) to fully coordinate with IEUA’s recycled water planning efforts.
San Antonio Water Company (SAWCo) Potable Water Supply
SAWCo is a mutual water company and corporation located in Upland. SAWCo has provided water service to its active shareholders for over 135 years. Although SAWCo does not technically meet the threshold as a retailer or wholesale water agency that needs to prepare an UWMP, they have done so nonetheless in 2020.
SAWCo supplies water based on entitlement only, which is based on the number of shares held. The number of shares is finite and considered a commodity that can be divided or sold. The “entire water of the company” and the current entitlement for 2020 1016
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Water Supply Analysis 39 is equivalent to 12,570 AFY, which distributed among the 6,178 shares. The volume per share is subject to change (OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 6-8).
The City owns 295 shares of SAWCo, which equates to a current entitlement of 600 AFY of potable water to OMUC (OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 6-8). In FY 19/20, OMUC received an actual volume of 600 AF (Table 3-2). In FY 20/21, OMUC received 500 AF from SAWCo (OMUC(a) 2022). OMUC has forecasted that future available supplies will be 600 AFY from 2025 to 2045 (Table 3-3). The City receives water from SAWCo indirectly through a connection made in 2015 from SAWCo to the WFA.
SAWCo water supplies are a mixture of potable and non-potable water from San Antonio Creek, the San Antonio Tunnel and three groundwater basins: Chino Basin, Cucamonga Basin, and Six Basins (OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 6-9). No new sources of supply are anticipated to be developed by SAWCo over the planning horizon. Actual supply available to SAWCo in 2020 totaled 2,584 AF of potable supply and 13,762 AF of non-potable supply. In their 2020 UWMP, SAWCo estimates for 2025 and 2030 that total reasonably available supplies will be 15,260 AFY (SAWCo 2020 UWMP, p. 5-10).
In terms of future reliability, SAWCo has stated the following in its 2020 UWMP (p. 6-4):
“SAWCo expects to meet demands under all water year scenarios with existing supply sources.” In addition, SAWCo has future transfer and exchange projects planned to mutually benefit certain shareholders during an emergency, including OMUC. SAWCo is currently constructing several projects to increase storage and capture all raw water released through the Frankish Tunnel. Both projects are anticipated to be completed in early 2021 (SAWCo 2020 UWMP, p. 5-7).
3.4 Documenting Normal Year Water Supply and Demand
OMUC has assumed in its 2020 UWMP that customer water demand and available water supply are equal during “normal” precipitation years. The normal year water supplies available to OMUC, as well as the normal year water demand projections are compared in Table 3-8, which are based on the City’s 2020 Water Use Target of 196 1017
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Water Supply Analysis 40 GPCD for potable water demands (OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 7-9). OMUC has estimated that sufficient supply will be available during any normal year occurring between 2025 and 2045.
Table 3-8 OMUC Projected Normal Year Supply and Demand (AFY) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Supply 52,550 58,513 63,838 73,668 73,668
Demand 52,550 58,513 63,838 73,668 73,668
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Note: AFY = acre feet per year
From OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 7-10 (Appendix A).
3.5 Documenting Dry Year Water Supply and Demand
The following assumptions are made in OMUC’s 2020 UWMP to estimate future water supplies and demands during a single dry year:
• The ratio of total water supplies (including potable and recycled water supplies) available to the City during a historical normal year in FY 19/20 (39,921 AF) and during a historical single dry year in FY 17/18 (43,346 AF) were used to estimate the City’s projected water demands during single dry years (p. 7-9). • Water losses have been included in the potable water demands as 7 percent of the annual demand.
OMUC has determined that the water demands during single dry years over the next 25 years will be met, as shown in Table 3-9.
1018
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Water Supply Analysis 41 Table 3-9 OMUC Projected Single Dry Year Supply and Demand (AFY) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Supply 57,058 63,534 68,847 79,989 79,989
Demand 57,058 63,534 68,847 79,989 79,989
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Note: AFY = acre feet per year
From OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 7-10 (Appendix A).
3.6 Documenting Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand
OMUC has projected that the City can meet water demands during future five consecutive year drought periods, as shown in Table 3-10 (next page).
Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank
1019
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Water Supply Analysis 42 Table 3-10 OMUC Projected Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand (AFY) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
First
Year
Supply 56,080 62,445 67,667 78,618 78,618
Demand 56,080 62,445 67,667 78,618 78,618
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Second
Year
Supply 56,248 62,632 67,870 78,853 78,853
Demand 56,248 62,632 67,870 78,853 78,853
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Third
Year
Supply 59,493 66,246 71,786 83,403 83,403
Demand 59,493 66,246 71,786 83,403 83,403
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Fourth
Year
Supply 54,268 60,428 65,481 76,078 76,078
Demand 54,268 60,428 65,481 76,078 76,078
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Fifth
Year
Supply 47,436 52,820 57,237 66,500 66,500
Demand 47,436 52,820 57,237 66,500 66,500
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Note: AFY = acre-feet per year
From OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 7-11, Table 7-4 (Appendix A).
3.7 Comparison of Available Water Supply and Demand
CWC section 10910 (c)(3) states: If the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was not accounted for in the most recently adopted UWMP…the water assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the public water system’s total projected water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water 1020
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 3
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Water Supply Analysis 43 demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the public water system’s existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses.
As described in Section 2, the annual potable plus recycled water demand for the proposed SPA which includes the Project is estimated at 1,225 AFY. The 2020 UWMP water demand projected a total water demand of 1,301 AFY for the subject property which exceeds the projected demand for the Parkside Specific Plan (Table 2-4).
As shown in Table 3-3 and Table 3-9, the future water supplies available to OMUC are projected to meet the projected water demands for the service area. Further, the future water demands in the 2020 UWMP did account for the potable water demand from the proposed Project.
In regard to future agricultural water needs, agricultural properties within the OMUC service area are expected to convert to urban land uses, which is consistent with the City General Plan Land Use Plan. Many agricultural operations in the City are on private wells and/or use recycled water. As shown in Table 3-7, recycled water deliveries for agricultural irrigation are projected to decrease to zero by 2040. In regard to future industrial water needs, industrial land uses (which may include some manufacturing uses) are the third most common type in the City (Table 3-7) and they are planned by the City General Plan to increase (Table 2-3).
Table 3-9 and Table 3-10 show that OMUC projects water supplies during single-dry and multiple-dry years in volumes sufficient enough to meet the demand of the service area over the next 20 years.
Section 4 will discuss the City’s water rights in light of this water supply and capacity analysis.
1021
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Groundwater Analysis 44 SECTION 4 - GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS
SB 610 requires specific groundwater information to be included in the WSA if groundwater will be a source of water for the proposed project. As discussed in Section 3, groundwater is one of the sources of supply for OMUC and therefore part of the water supply for the proposed Project.
Law
CWC Section 10910 (f):
If a water supply for a proposed project includes groundwater, the following additional information shall be included in the water supply assessment:
(1) A review of any information contained in the urban water management plan relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project. (2)(A) A description of any groundwater basin or basins from which the proposed project will be supplied. (B) For those basins for which a court or the board has adjudicated the rights to pump groundwater, a copy of the order or decree adopted by the court or the board and a description of the amount of groundwater the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), has the legal right to pump under the order or decree. (C) For basins that have not been adjudicated that is a basin designated as a high- or medium- priority pursuant to Section 10722.4, information regarding the following: (i) Whether the department has identified the basin as being subject to critical conditions of overdraft pursuant to Section 12924. (ii) If a groundwater sustainability agency has adopted a groundwater sustainability plan or has an approved alternative, a copy of that alternative or plan. (D) For a basin that has not been adjudicated that is a basin designated as low- or very low priority pursuant to Section 10722.4, information as to whether the department has identified the basin or basins as overdrafted or has projected that the basin will become 1022
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Groundwater Analysis 45 overdrafted if present management conditions continue, in the most current bulletin of the department that characterizes the condition of the groundwater basin, and a detailed description by the public water system or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), of the efforts being undertaken in the basin or basins to eliminate the long-term overdraft condition.
(3) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater pumped by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), for the past five years from any groundwater basin from which the proposed project will be supplied.
The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records. (4) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater that is projected to be pumped by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), from any basin from which the proposed project will be supplied. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records.
(5) An analysis of the sufficiency of the groundwater from the basin or basins from which the proposed project will be supplied to meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project. A water supply assessment shall not be required to include the information required by this paragraph if the public water system determines, as part of the review required by paragraph (1), that the sufficiency of groundwater necessary to meet the initial and projected water demand associated with the project was addressed in the description and analysis required by subparagraph D, paragraph (4) of Section 10631. 1023
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Groundwater Analysis 46 4.1 Review of Urban Water Management Plan (CWC Section 10910(f)(1)) The City’s 2020 UWMP, prepared by AKM on behalf of the City of Ontario (OMUC) was adopted by City Council Resolution 2021-036 and 2021-037 on June 1, 2021 (located in Appendix A). The UWMP includes information relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed Project and is incorporated herein. Relevant information includes: 1) current and projected water demands (Water Use Characterization) through year 2045; 2) a description of the Chino Groundwater Basin (Water Supply Characterization); 3) the reliability of the water supply, projected supply and demand comparisons, and water shortage plans (Water Service Reliability and Drought Risk Assessment and Water Shortage Contingency Plan); and 4) water demand management efforts (Demand Management Measures).6 The ultimate water demand projections of the 2020 UWMP are based on the findings of the City’s 2020 Water Master Plan (AKM 2020) and 2020 Recycled Water Master Plan (Stantec 2020).
4.2 Groundwater Basin Descriptions (CWC Section 10910(f)(2)) The Chino Groundwater Basin is the direct source of groundwater for OMUC. Although water supplied to OMUC from SAWCo may include a combination of groundwater from other basins (i.e., San Antonio Tunnel, Cucamonga Basin, and Six Basins), the amount is minimal, and the basins are described in the 2020 SAWCo UWMP (located in Appendix H).
Chino Groundwater Basin Description
The Chino Basin covers approximately 240 square miles in the upper Santa Ana River Watershed, and underlies parts of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. The state Department of Water Resources (DWR) identifies the Chino Basin as Basin No. 8-002.01, which is a sub-basin of the Upper Santa Ana Valley (Bulletin 118).7 It is estimated the Chino Basin has approximately 5 million AF of water in 6 Words and phrases italicized parenthetically are in reference to chapters so titled in the UWMP. 7 DWR collects, summarizes, and evaluates groundwater data in the “Bulletin 118” series, which present the results of basin evaluations and defines the boundaries of California’s 515 alluvial groundwater basins. An update was provided in 2016. In Bulletin 118, DWR identifies each basin and sub-basin with a number code. 1024
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Groundwater Analysis 47 storage, and an estimated 1 million AF of additional unused storage capacity.8 While still considered a single basin for hydrologic purposes, the Chino Basin is divided into five management zones by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board , Santa Ana Region based on similar hydrologic conditions. Geographically speaking, the City is located in the approximate center of the Chino Basin. DWR Bulletin 118 (2016 update, p. 1) describes the Chino Basin as follows:
The subbasin [Chino Basin] is bound on the northwest by the San Jose fault, on the north by the Cucamonga fault and impermeable rocks of the San Gabriel Mountains, and on the east by the Rialto-Colton fault. The basin is bound on the southeast by the Jurupa Mountains, Pedley Hills, La Sierra Hills, and the approximate location of the Santa Ana River. The Chino fault and impermeable rocks of the Chino Hills and Puente Hills bound the southwest side of the basin. In some areas, the basin boundary coincides with the Chino Basin (1978) groundwater adjudication boundary.
The Chino Basin is an adjudicated basin and has been extensively studied by the court-appointed Chino Basin Watermaster (CBWM), with reports available at www.cbwm.org. The following is an excerpt that describes the Chino Basin geology from the Chino Basin Watermaster’s management plan called the “Optimum Basin Management Program” or “OBMP” (1999, p. 2-2):
Chino Basin was formed when eroded sediments from the San Gabriel Mountains, the Chino Hills, Puente Hills, and the San Bernardino Mountains filled a structural depression… The bottom of the Basin – the effective base of the freshwater aquifer – consists of impermeable sedimentary and igneous rocks. The base of the aquifer is overlain by older alluvium of the Pleistocene period followed by younger alluvium of the Holocene period. 8 The 2020 Safe Yield Recalculation Final Report (May 15, 2020) indicates the estimated total volume of water in storage was 12.6 million AF in July 2018 (WEI 2020, p. 6-15). 1025
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Groundwater Analysis 48 The younger alluvium varies in thickness from over 100 feet near the mountains to a just few feet, south of Interstate 10 and generally covers most of the north half of the Basin in undisturbed areas. The younger alluvium is not saturated and thus does not yield water directly to wells.
Water percolates readily in the younger alluvium and most of the large spreading basins are located in the younger alluvium.
The older alluvium varies in thickness from about 200 feet thick near the southwestern end of the Basin to over 1,100 feet thick southwest of Fontana, and averages about 500 feet throughout the Basin.
Legal Right to Pump from the Chino Basin
Water rights to the Chino Basin were adjudicated by the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino in 1978 (a copy of the Judgment and amendments thereto are provided in Appendix M). The court’s Judgment declared the Safe Yield of the Chino Basin at 140,000 acre-feet per year (AFY).9 Withdrawal in excess of Safe Yield is termed Overdraft. The Chino Basin Watermaster may determine that the Operating Safe Yield (OSY) can be higher from year-to-year depending on factors including favorable precipitation and management efforts that maximize the beneficial use of the groundwater Basin.10 The Chino Basin Watermaster has undertaken a safe yield redetermination. In July 2020, the court ordered that the safe yield be reduced by 3% and reset to 131,000 AFY for the period of July 1, 2020, to June 30, 2030. The court previously reset the safe yield from its initial 140,000 AFY to 135,000 AFY in 2017 for the period of 2010 to 2020.
The Chino Basin Watermaster is comprised of three stakeholder groups (or “pools”):
Overlying Agricultural Pool Committee (representing dairymen, farmers, and the State 9 Judgment (1978) defines Safe Yield as, “The long-term average annual quantity of groundwater (excluding replenishment or stored water but including return flow to the Basin from use of replenishment or stored water), which can be produced from the basin under cultural conditions of a particular year without causing an undesirable result.”
10 Judgment (1978) defines Operating Safe Yield (OSY) as, “The annual amount of groundwater which Watermaster shall determine, pursuant to criteria specified in Exhibit “I”, can be produced from Chino Basin by the Appropriative Pool parties free of replenishment obligation under the physical solution herein.” 1026
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Groundwater Analysis 49 of California); the Overlying Non-Agricultural Pool Committee (representing businesses and industries); and the Appropriative Pool Committee (representing local cities, public water districts and private water companies). The Chino Basin Watermaster carries out the provisions of the Judgment including monitoring of the Chino Basin and files an annual report on pumping and replenishment.
The City is a member of both the Overlying Non-Agricultural Pool and the Appropriative Pool. The Judgment allocates a portion of the Safe Yield to the Overlying NonAgricultural Pool and a portion of the OSY to the Appropriative Pool. Pursuant to the Judgment, the City has appropriative rights to 20.742 percent of the OSY allocated to the Appropriative Pool. The City has gained 53.338 percent of the Safe Yield assigned to the Overlying Non-Agricultural Pool (CBWM 44th Annual Report, p. N-8). The assigned share of the Safe Yield and OSY change depending on the Safe Yield set by the court.
The Judgment allocates Safe Yield of the Chino Basin according to the three pools as described above (Appendix M, Paragraph 13). The members of each pool are then enjoined from producing water from the Chino Basin in excess of such allocated amount "except pursuant to the provisions of the Physical Solution" (Appendix M, Paragraph 13(a)-(c)).
The Physical Solution of the Judgment is described in broad terms by Paragraphs 39 through 57 of the Judgment. Paragraph 45 provides the Chino Basin Watermaster with the authority to levy and collect assessments for the purchase of water necessary to balance the production by any party in excess of that party's allocated share of safe yield of the Chino Basin. Paragraphs 49 and 50 then describe the sources of water which are authorized to function as sources of replenishment water and methods by which water can be replenished to the Chino Basin. Exhibit H, Paragraph 7, of the Judgment describes the way in which costs for replenishment water will spread among the members of the Appropriative Pool.
1027
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Groundwater Analysis 50 The afore-cited paragraphs of the Judgment evince a clear expectation that parties, including the City/OMUC, would produce water in excess of their adjudicated production rights. The injunction in Paragraph 13 of the Judgment should thus be interpreted to mean that parties are enjoined from producing water in excess of their adjudicated rights except to the extent that they will pay a replenishment assessment.
The ability to produce water from the Chino Basin is accordingly not a matter of availability, as contemplated and sanctioned by the Judgment for the reasons discussed above, but a matter of cost. Water produced in excess of production rights will cost more than water produced within a party's production rights. Thus, the quantity and reliability of groundwater supplies under the Judgment for purposes of this Assessment is a matter of cost of the water produced from the Chino Basin rather than limitations on production which may otherwise operate to reduce the sufficiency of the groundwater supply.
In addition to the water supplies described in Section 3, OMUC has rights to groundwater held in the Chino Basin as described below (from Chino Basin Watermaster’s Approved 2021/2022 Assessment Package for Production year 2021/2022, dated Nov. 18, 2021) and in Table 4-1:
• Appropriative Right. The City has appropriative rights to 20.742 percent of the OSY allocated to the Appropriative Pool. As of FY 20/21, the OSY is 40,834 AF; therefore, the City’s assigned share is 8,469.8 AF (CBWM 2021 p. 10.1). To supplement the 2017 decrease in safe yield, the City currently receives an additional 1,866.8 AFY transferred from unproduced Agricultural Pool rights (“Safe Yield Reduction”) (CBWM 2021, p. 16.1).
• Overlying Non-Agricultural Right. The City has purchased and has rights to
53.338 percent of the Safe Yield assigned to the Overlying Non-Agricultural Pool, which is currently 7,350.3 AFY. As of FY 20/21, the City’s assigned share is 3,920.6 AF (CBWM 2021, p. 4.1).
1028
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Groundwater Analysis 51 • Land Use Conversions. The City gains rights to additional Chino Basin groundwater as a result of land use conversions from agricultural to nonagricultural uses. This is expected to increase from development of Ontario Ranch; the total of which is adjusted annually by the Watermaster. As of FY 20/21, the City received 4,668.3 AF from land use conversions (CBWM 2021, p.
15.1).
• Annual Early Transfers. The Chino Basin Watermaster can approve an “Early Transfer” of water to the Appropriative Pool equal to the quantity of water not produced by the Overlying Agricultural Pool that is remaining after all land use conversions are satisfied, pursuant to the Peace Agreement.11 The Early Transfer Water is annually allocated among the Appropriative Pool members in accordance with their pro-rata share of the initial Safe Yield. For the City, this is
20.742 percent of the “early transfer” water that the Watermaster may transfer from the Overlying Agricultural Pool (OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 6-10). The amount available for transfer changes from year to year but is projected to increase. In FY 20/21, the City received 4,272.6 AFY as its share of Early Transfer (CBWM 2021, p. 16.1).
• Groundwater Recharge Credits. The City is entitled to water rights due to groundwater recharge with stormwater and recycled water in the Chino Basin.
The credited amount is based on the volume recharged and therefore varies annually but is projected to increase over time. In FY 2018/2019, 2,544 AF of recycled water was recharged for the City. In FY 19/20 and FY 20/21, no 11 In 2007, the parties to the Chino Basin Judgement approved the “Peace Agreement” which is a set of measures proposed by Chino Basin Watermaster to supplement the OBMP Implementation Plan. Focus for the measures were placed on achieving hydraulic control (reduction of groundwater discharge from the Chino North Management Zone to the Santa Ana River). To achieve hydraulic control, re-operation (controlled overdraft) of the groundwater basin is proposed. Strategically placed wells would be constructed in the basin and the groundwater would be pumped to the Desalter to improve the longterm reliability of the basin. 1029
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Groundwater Analysis 52 recharge was credited to the City (OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 6-11; CBWM 2021, p.
12.1).
• Fontana Recycled Water Rights. The City has a long-term contract to purchase up to 3,000 AFY of recharged recycled water rights from the City of Fontana (a copy of which is in Appendix N). The City of Fontana does not operate a water system. The amount purchased by OMUC each year will vary. In FY 2018/2019, the City purchased 2,157 AF of Fontana’s recycled water entitlement. In FY 19/20 and FY 20/21, no recharged water rights were purchased (OMUC 2020 UWMP p. 6-12; CBWM 2021, p. 12.1). • Groundwater Storage Accounts. The City has rights to store water in the Chino Basin (Appropriative and Overlying Non-Agricultural) and has been increasing its various storage accounts in recent years. The City holds water in both local storage accounts and supplemental accounts. Local storage accounts hold un-pumped OSY groundwater rights and stormwater that has been recharged into the Chino Basin. Supplemental accounts hold both imported water and recycled water that has been recharged into the Chino Basin. As of June 30, 2021, the City has 96,992.4 AF in storage pursuant to Appropriative rights (CBWM 2021, pp. 11.1, 12.1). In addition, there is 1,918.0 AF in storage pursuant to Overlying Non-Agricultural rights (CBWM 2021, p.
5.1).
1030
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Groundwater Analysis 53 Table 4-1 Ontario Groundwater Rights Summary
Right Current
FY 2020-2021 (AFY) Future (AFY) Notes
Carryover Beginning
Balance 9,299.5 Varies Varies annually.
Assigned Share of
OSYa
8,469.8
(20.742% of OSY)
8,470
(20.742% of OSY)
OSY determined by
Watermaster.
Safe Yield Reduction 1,866.8 Varies Part of New Ag Pool Reallocation.
Land Use Conversions 4,668.3 16,602 Varies annually. Part of New Ag Pool Reallocation.
Annual Early Transfer 4,272.6 20.742% of Early
Transfer
Subject to change. Part of
New Ag Pool Reallocation.
Groundwater
Recharge Credits 0 9,600
(in 2035)
Based on volume of
stormwater and/or recycled
water recharged.
Fontana Recycled
Water Rights 0 At least 3,000 Contract to purchase.
Annual Production
Right for Appropriative
Pool Subtotal (AFY)
28,576.9 ±37,672
Annual Production
Right for Overlying
Non-Agricultural Pool
7,449.1 At least 3,920.6
(53.338% of SY)
Assigned share of safe
yield is 3,920.6 AF
(53.338% of SY). Actual
production in FY19/20 was
1,552.7 AF.
SAWCo (a) 600
(295 shares) At least 600 Entitlement. Volume per
share subject to change.
Total (AFY) 36,626 ±42,193
Groundwater Storage
Accounts
42,169.2
(Excess Carry Over)
Varies
(Excess Carry Over)
Dependent on annual
availability of un-pumped
OSY water, stormwater,
imported water, and
recycled water.
54,823.2
(Local Supplemental)
Varies
(Local Supplemental)
Total Storage (AF) 96,992.4 ±85,000
Note: AF = acre-feet; AFY = acre-feet per year; OSY = operating safe yield; SY = safe yield. (a) OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 6-8.
Source: Chino Basin Watermaster’s Approved 2021/2022 Assessment Package for Production year 2020/2021, dated Nov. 18, 2021, pp. 4.1, 10.1,11.1, 15.1, 16.1, 20.1, 21.1 [CBWM 2021]. 1031
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Groundwater Analysis 54 4.3. Recorded Use of Groundwater by City of Ontario (CWC Section 10910 (f)(3)) The City's groundwater supply currently comes from 17 active groundwater wells located throughout the OMUC service area within the Chino Basin. As of FY 19/20, OMUC produced 18,395.3 AF from the basin (OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 6-3) and in FY 20/21, 17,171.1 AF was produced (CBWM, p. 8.1). The recorded groundwater production has generally decreased from 36,842 AFY in 2000, as shown in Chart 4-1.
Chart 4-1 - Annual OMUC Groundwater Production, 2000 – 2021, (AFY) (Sources: 2000-2009 from the 2012 Ontario Water Master Plan; 2010 from OMUC 2010 UWMP; and 2011-2020 from OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 6-3; 2021 from CBWM 2021, p. 8.1.)
4.4. Projected Use of Groundwater by the City of Ontario (CWC Section 10910(f)(4)) The proposed Project will receive water from a combination of the City's supply sources including groundwater wells, imported water from WFA, treated groundwater from CDA, and recycled water from IEUA.
Projected groundwater use by OMUC will continue as noted in Table 3-3. The use of groundwater will continue to be dependent upon the cost of extracting, treating, and 1032
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Groundwater Analysis 55 transporting the water to customers. Groundwater from the Chino Basin will be utilized by OMUC either directly by pumping into its distribution system or by treating the groundwater (Wells 44 and 52) at the John Galvin Ion Exchange Plant and then pumping the treated groundwater into the City distribution system. The current and ultimate production capacity of OMUC wells is sufficient to meet current and ultimate demand (Table 3-4).
As shown in Table 4-1, the amount of water that OMUC expects to withdraw from the Chino Basin is well within appropriate right pursuant to the Chino Basin Adjudication of 1978 (Appendix M). In addition to its well production, OMUC will also purchase treated Chino Basin groundwater from CDA. OMUC has 1,500 AFY capacity rights in the Chino I Desalter and 7,033 AFY capacity rights in the Chino II Desalter. Projected use of groundwater via CDA is projected to remain at no more than 8,533 AFY (OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 6-6).
4.5. Sufficiency of Groundwater Basin (CWC Section 10910(f)(5)) The City’s legal right to pump water in an amount necessary to meet all demands as sanctioned and protected by the Judgment as discussed above, is buttressed by several programs and projects directed at ensuring the sufficiency of groundwater supplies from the Chino Basin, particularly during dry years. An adjudicated water right has perhaps the most substantial indicia of reliability of any water right that currently exists in California. An adjudicated right is based upon long-term studies whose purpose it is to protect the long-term functionality of the water source. These rights are coordinated in an established and binding manner with all the other users of the Chino Basin and are overseen by Chino Basin Watermaster which has the authority to mandate and proscribe activities whose purpose is to protect the water source and maximize its long-term beneficial use.
All Chino Basin Watermaster processes are governed by Rules and Regulations and receive active oversight from the Court which, as noted above, retains continuing jurisdiction over the administration of the Judgment. Consequently, the sufficiency of 1033
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Groundwater Analysis 56 the groundwater is not only directed by rigorous Chino Basin Watermaster management processes but validated and ensured by continuing Court oversight.
The OBMP for the Chino Basin has guided the Chino Basin Watermaster’s activities since its adoption in 1998. Chino Basin Watermaster-led basin management activities to ensure the maximization of safe yield and OSY of the Chino Basin include objectives, projects, and programs identified in the Peace Agreement and the OBMP.
Progress is reported in annual reports, biennial, and triennial reports. The key programs include:
1) a comprehensive monitoring program.
2) a comprehensive recharge program.
3) development and implementation of a water supply plan for impaired areas of the Chino Basin.
4) development and implementation of a comprehensive groundwater management plan for Management Zone 1.
5) development and implementation of a regional supplemental water program. 6) development and implementation of cooperative programs with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board – Santa Ana Region and other agencies to improve Basin management.
7) development and implementation of a salt management program. 8) development and implementation of a groundwater storage program; and 9) development and implementation of storage and recovery programs.
As stated, the referenced elements of the OBMP collectively comprise a comprehensive regimen directed to ensuring and maximizing the long-term beneficial use of water in the Chino Basin. In particular, and specific to the location of current and future groundwater production facilities upon which the City relies or will rely to provide water to meet water demands within its service area. OBMP Program Element No. 3, “Develop and Implement Water Supply Plan for the Impaired Areas of the Chino Basin” and Program Element No. 5, “Develop and Implement Regional Supplemental Water 1034
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Groundwater Analysis 57 Program”, address the sufficiency of groundwater from the Chino Basin.
Fundamentally, the goal of Program Elements 3 and 5 is to (2020 OBMP, p. 6):
To maintain and enhance Safe Yield with a groundwater desalting program that is designed to replace declining agricultural groundwater pumping in the southern part of the basin with new pumping to meet increasing municipal water demands in the same area, to minimize groundwater outflow to the Santa River, and to increase Santa Ana River recharge into the basin.
To improve the regional conveyance and availability of imported water and recycled waters throughout the basin.
The achievements from the implementation of the 2000 OBMP for Elements 3 and 5 are summarized below (2020 OBMP, Appendix A, pp. 5 – 6).
Program Element 3 Develop and Implement Water Supply Plan for Impaired Areas (Groundwater Desalting): The objectives of this Program Element are to maintain and enhance the Safe Yield of the basin. The groundwater desalting program was designed to replace declining agricultural groundwater pumping in the southern part of the basin with new groundwater pumping to meet increasing municipal water demands in the same area. The new wells used in the groundwater desalting program were constructed in strategic locations to minimize groundwater outflow to the Santa Ana River and to increase the Santa Ana River recharge into the basin.
In 2000, the groundwater desalting program included a 6,000 AFY treatment plant and a series of wells constructed in the southern part of the Chino Basin near the Chino Airport. Under the OBMP, as of 2018, the desalting program has grown to two treatment plants and additional wells that in aggregate pump and treat about 30,000 AFY degraded groundwater, and the program will reach the OBMP objective of 40,000 AFY in 2019. The groundwater desalting program facilities are owned by the Chino Basin Desalter Authority (CDA).
1035
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Groundwater Analysis 58 Program Element 5: Develop and Implement Regional Supplemental Water Program (Recycled Water Reuse): The objective of this Program Element is to improve the regional conveyance and availability of imported and recycled waters throughout the basin. Since 2000, the IEUA has constructed and operated a recycled water conveyance system throughout the basin enabling it to provide recycled water to its member agencies. Recycled water deliveries grew from about 3,400 AFY in 2000 to about 34,000 AFY in 2017. The recycled water provided by the IEUA has replaced a like amount of groundwater and imported water that would have been otherwise been used for non-potable purposes. Much of the post-2000 increase in supplemental water storage in the Chino Basin is attributable to the increased availability of recycled water. Recycled water is more reliable than imported water, and thus using it in lieu of imported water has improved the sustainability of the Chino Basin and water supply reliability.
Improvements in the regional conveyance and availability of imported water were not achieved.
As indicated in the foregoing OBMP text, the City overlies groundwater supplies in the southern part of the Chino Basin which must be pumped for purposes of meeting new demands, maintaining safe yield, and to protect water quality in the Santa Ana River.
As agricultural production in the southern part of the Chino Basin has declined, it is necessary for these reasons to increase production for municipal uses. This is being achieved through the Chino I and Chino II Desalters, of which the City has a contractual right to purchase 8,533 AFY pursuant to the 2001 “Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Creating the Chino Basin Desalter Authority” and subsequent agreements. Thus, not only was increased Chino Basin water production by the City foreseen in the OBMP but sanctioned and encouraged for purposes of achieving OBMP objectives.
The sufficiency of the groundwater supply that is available to OMUC is assured due to the abundance of groundwater in the central and southern portion of the Chino Basin, OBMP objectives that prioritize and assure production from the southern Chino Basin, 1036
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Groundwater Analysis 59 coupled with desalting and ion-exchange treatment facilities that enable the use of this abundant supply for municipal (potable) purposes. As indicated in the quoted text of the OBMP, southern basin production, where the City is partially located, is the linchpin of several critical OBMP objectives. Thus, the sufficiency of groundwater is heightened and prioritized by the necessity of continued pumping from the southern Chino Basin under the OBMP which is administered by the Chino Basin Watermaster and ultimately enforced by continuing court jurisdiction over the Judgment.
The other referenced OBMP Program Elements are collectively directed to ensuring the sufficiency of Chino Basin groundwater supplies, particularly during dry years, and comprehensively address water quality and quantity, thus maximizing beneficial use over the long-term. Sufficiency of groundwater from the Chino Basin is further assured for the following reasons:
• IEUA is a member agency of MWD, which provides imported water from the State Water Project for direct use by parties to the Judgment in the Chino Basin and for Chino Basin recharge purposes (when supplies are available). IEUA has also reviewed the sufficiency of supplies for its service territory that includes the Chino Basin in connection with its 2020 UWMP.
• IEUA’s UWMP is consistent with, and reiterative of, OBMP projects and programs (see Section 4 of IEUA 2020 UWMP in Appendix E). IEUA anticipates increased limitations for imported water for direct and recharge use while noting reductions during dry years (due to increased reliance on groundwater from the Chino Basin) and in the higher amount otherwise required in the absence of OBMP projects and programs. The UWMP also analyzes the sufficiency of water supplies for single and multiple year drought scenarios and concludes the region is expected to meet 100 percent of its dry year demand under every scenario. Key assumptions included:
1037
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Groundwater Analysis 60 • Reliance on assurances provided by MWD in its 2020 UWMP that it could meet 100 percent of projected supplemental full-service water supply demands through 2040;
• Implementation of MWD’s Chino Basin DYY Storage Program consistent with the contractual shift obligations of the participating agencies of up to 33,000 AF in a twelve-month period; and
• Sustain per capita water use reductions of 20 percent.
IEUA concluded in its 2020 UWMP that the projected available water supply will meet projected water demand due to diversified water supply and water conservation measures. Based on IEUA water supply projections, there are sufficient water supplies to meet normal year water demands, single dry year and multiple dry year demands (IEUA 2020 UWMP, p. 7-7).
CWC section 10631(j) provides that urban water suppliers, that rely upon a wholesale agency for a source of water, such as IEUA, may rely upon water supply information provided by the wholesale agency in fulfilling UWMP informational requirements.
IEUA’s independent analysis of contemporary regional water conditions in conjunction with MWD’s most recent report, provide additional and reliable assurances concerning the sufficiency of imported water supplies that comprise a portion of overall Chino Basin supply sufficiency.
The City’s participation in the DYY Storage Program described in Section 3, along with future water storage and recovery projects will drought-proof the Chino Basin and all other appropriative pool members from imported water shortages. This program is consistent with OBMP Program Element No. 9, “Develop and Implement Storage and Recovery Program.” Benefits to the Chino Basin associated with this program include the construction of facilities to enhance imported water deliveries and the production of water from the Chino Basin. Further demonstrating the sufficiency of Chino Basin groundwater is MWD’s DYY program to use the Chino Basin for dry year supply purposes, thus underscoring that sufficient Chino Basin groundwater is available 1038
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 4
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Groundwater Analysis 61 during dry years not only for local use by agencies such as the City but also in connection with MWD’s regional reliability programs.
The sufficiency of groundwater supplies available to OMUC is assured because of the OBMP programs overseen by the Chino Basin Watermaster and conducted under the auspices of continuing Court jurisdiction that specifically direct and assure the longterm production of water pursuant to the City’s legal rights to produce such water necessary to meet ultimate water demands.
Conclusion
The City’s total annual groundwater production has held relatively stable over the past 10 years at roughly 20,000 AFY (OMUC 2020 UWMP, p. 6-3). Production capacity meets current demands and is projected to increase to meet ultimate demand. The current (FY 20/21) water supply utilized by the City totals approximately 33,969 AFY (potable) and 8,556.74 AFY (recycled water) ( Table 3-2). Currently, the City’s water rights in the Chino Basin as recorded by the Chino Basin Watermaster total approximately 36,026 AFY (Annual Production Rights for Non-Ag Pool plus Appropriative Pool), with an additional 96,992.4 AF in storage (Table 4-1). Although annual fluctuations will occur, the City’s rights are projected to increase over the next 20 years due to more land use conversions and credits from recharge.
The water supplies available to OMUC currently meet and exceed citywide water demands. Groundwater production by OMUC is currently less than their existing rights and within their production capacity. Regardless, OMUC has the means and right to exceed their groundwater allocation in the Chino Basin when required to meet demand pursuant to the Judgment. Further, OMUC has rights to water held in storage that would supply all City demands for more than two years. In addition to groundwater, OMUC can supply water to the Project purchased from the WFA that is within their existing entitlements and capacities.
1039
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 5
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Primary Issue for Assessment 62 SECTION 5 - PRIMARY ISSUE FOR ASSESSMENT
The lead agency for a proposed project …shall determine, based on the entire record, whether projected water supplies will be sufficient to satisfy demands of the project, in addition to existing and planned future uses (CWC section 10911). The lead agency is expected to approve or disapprove the project based on several factors, including but not limited to the WSA.
Law
CWC Section 10910(g)(1):
Subject to paragraph (2), the governing body of each public water system shall submit the assessment to the city or county not later than 90 days from the date on which the request was received. The governing body of each public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this act pursuant to subdivision (b), shall approve the assessment prepared pursuant to this section at a regular or special meeting.
CWC Section 10911(b):
The city or county shall include the water assessment provided pursuant to Section 10910, and any information provided pursuant to subdivision 9a), in any environmental document prepared for the project pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. (c) The city or county may include in any environmental document an evaluation of any information included in that environmental document provided pursuant to subdivision (b). The city or county shall determine, based on the entire record, whether projected water supplies will be sufficient to satisfy the demands of the project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. If the city or county determines that water supplies will not be sufficient, the city or county shall include that determination in its findings for the project.
1040
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 5
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Primary Issue for Assessment 63 The lead agency is expected to review the WSA and decide whether additional water supply information is needed for its consideration of the proposed Project.
5.1 Findings
Whereas:
1. The City of Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC) has been identified as the water supplier for the proposed Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Project).
The proposed Project will increase the Specific Plan’s maximum allowable number of dwelling units by 903 in Planning Area 5 through 18. Planning Area 5 to 18 changes in acreage and commercial Planning Area 19 decreases by 12.71 acres.
2. A previous WSA/WV was prepared in 2004 for the 8,200-acre New Model Colony (now called Ontario Ranch) that includes the Project site; however, it is no longer valid.
3. The estimated potable water demand for the SPA which includes the Project is 915 AFY and the recycled water demand is 310 AFY for a total demand of 1,225 AFY.
4. The City’s 2020 Water Master Plan included in the projections the water demand of the currently approved Parkside Specific Plan which this report estimates as 980 AFY potable water and 409 AFY of recycled water for a total demand of 1,390 AFY. The water demand projections in the 2020 UWMP are based on the water demand projections in the 2020 Water Master Plan.
5. The water demands of the approved Parkside Specific Plan (pre-amendment) is 738 AFY of potable water and 310 AFY for recycled water for a total of 1,048 AFY.
6. The UWMP demand is projected to be 1,301 AFY. The increased water demand for the Project (total of 1,225 AFY) is within the projected water demands 1041
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 5
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Primary Issue for Assessment 64 included in the 2020 UWMP dated July 2021, which was adopted by the Ontario City Council by Resolution 2021-059 on June 15, 2021 (Appendix A).
7. OMUC has an Annual Production Right of 28,576.9 AF currently in the Chino Groundwater Basin as a member of the Appropriative Pool, as well as groundwater storage accounts that total 96,992.4 AF (Table 4-1). The water supply production capacity from City wells is currently 62,269 AFY,12 which is projected to increase to 110,337 AFY to meet demand (Table 3-4 and 3-5).
OMUC produced 17,171 AF of groundwater in FY 20/21 (Table 3-2).
8. In addition to Chino Basin production rights, OMUC holds shareholder entitlements to potable water from SAWCo in the amount of 600 AFY, and capacity rights to imported water from the WFA in the amount of approximately 28,000 AFY. OMUC also has capacity rights to potable water from the CDA in the amount of 8,533 AFY (Table 3-2 and 3-4). In FY 20/21, OMUC purchased 500 AF from SAWCo, 5,851 AF from WFA, and 7,337 AF from CDA (Table 3-2).
9. OMUC is entitled to the recycled water generated by IEUA from the City’s annual share of sewer flows. In FY 20/21, the City delivered 12,854 AF to IEUA wastewater treatment plants, of which 8,556.74 AF was put to non-potable direct recycled water use (Table 3-2).
10.As of FY 20/21, citywide potable and recycled water demands were 33,969 AF and 8,556.74 AF, respectively (Table 2-2); ultimate potable and recycled water demands are projected to be 57,609 AFY and 16,059 AFY, respectively (Table 2- 3).
11.The current production capacities are greater than needed to meet the average day demands under citywide buildout conditions. Additional wells are planned to supply the anticipated ultimate maximum day demand.
12 Assuming wells operate 24 hours per day for 365 days per year. 1042
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Section 5
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Primary Issue for Assessment 65 12.OMUC has forecasted excess water supplies will be available to meet citywide demand during single-dry and multiple dry water years over the next 20 years (Table 3-9 and Table 3-10).
13.Water demands for agricultural land uses in Ontario Ranch are planned to reduce to zero by 2040 with land use conversions and water demands for industrial uses in Ontario Ranch, which may include some manufacturing are expected to increase and partly replace former agricultural uses.
14.Based on the evidence provided herein, the total projected potable and recycled water supplies available to the OMUC during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years over a 20-year projection will be sufficient to meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed Project in addition to the water supplier’s existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses. State mandated conservation efforts will reduce demand in the future.
Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank
1043
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company References
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment 66 SECTION 6 - REFERENCES
AKM 2011 AKM Consulting Engineers, City of Ontario 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.
April 2011.
AKM 2016
AKM Consulting Engineers, City of Ontario 2015 Urban Water Management Plan and Technical Memorandum “Ultimate Citywide Water Demand Estimate.” May 2016.
AKM 2020 AKM Consulting Engineers, City of Ontario 2020 Water Master Plan Update. June 2020.
CBWM 2021 Chino Basin Watermaster, Approved 2021/2022 Assessment Package (Production Year 2020/2021), Nov. 18, 2021.
CBWM 44th
Annual Report Chino Basin Watermaster, Fiscal Year 2020-21 44th Annual Report, 2020.
CDA 2020 Stetson Engineers, Inc. Chino Basin Desalter Authority 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. (Appendix G)
DWR 2003
California Department of Water Resources, Guidebook for Implementation of Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221 of 2001 to assist water suppliers, cities, and counties in integrating water and land use planning. October 8, 2003.
DWR Bulletin
118
Department of Water Resources. 8-002.01 Upper Santa Ana Valley – Chino Bulletin 118 Basin Boundaries. Dated March 5, 2018.)
DYY 2014
Amendment No. 8 to Groundwater Storage Program Funding Agreement No. 49960 By and Among The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and Inland Empire Utilities Agency and Chino Basin Watermaster. September 17, 2014. (Appendix J)
Fontana 2008
Agreement by and between the City of Ontario and the City of Fontana regarding transfer of right of first purchase of recharged reclaimed water. Dated Jan. 15, 2008. (Appendix N)
IEUA 2016
IRWP
Inland Empire Utilities Agency. Integrated Water Resources Plan: Water Supply & Climate Change Impacts 2015-2040. Dated 2016. (Located in Appendix B to the IEUA 2020 UWMP.)
IEUA/WFA 2015 Arcadis. Inland Empire Utilities Agency and Water Facilities Authority 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Final. June 2016. (Appendix C)
IEUA 2020 Kennedy Jenks. Inland Empire Utilities Agency 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021 (Appendix C)
IEUA Resolution
No. 2014-12-1
Purchase Order for System Water to be Provided by The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Purchaser: Inland Empire Utilities Agency) and IEUA Resolution No. 2014-12-1. Effective January 1, 2015. (Appendix F) JCSD 2014
Amendment Number 1 to Agreement by and between City of Ontario and Jurupa Community Services District Establishing an Operational Plan for Metropolitan Water District/Chino Basin Groundwater Storage Program, Providing for Water Supply to Ontario’s New Model Colony and Interconnection to Increase Water Supply Reliability. November 21, 2014. (Appendix L)
1044
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company References
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment 67 Judgment
Judgment, Chino Basin Municipal Water District v. City of Chino, et al., San Bernardino Ct. No. 164327 (filed Jan. 30, 1978). Includes amendments thereto. (Appendix M)
MWD The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. (Appendix D)
OBMP 1999 Wildermuth Environmental, Optimum Basin Management Program Phase I report prepared for Chino Basin Watermaster. August 19, 1999.
OBMP 2020 Wildermuth Environmental, 2020 Optimum Basin Management Program Update Report, January 2020.
OMUC 2020
UWMP
Stetson Engineers, City of Ontario 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021 (Appendix A)
OMUC(a)
Ontario Municipal Utility Company. Personal communication with Christopher Quach, P.E., Senior Associate Engineer, information from “FY 20/21 Production Spreadsheet” May 2, 2022.
OMUC(b)
Ontario Municipal Utility Company. Personal communication with Christopher Quach, P.E., Senior Associate Engineer, information from “FY 20/21 IEUA RW Reconciliation Spreadsheet”. May 2, 2022.
Ord. 2689 Ontario Municipal Code, Chapter 8C: Recycled Water Use, effective Jun. 17, 1999.
Ord. 3027 Ontario Municipal Code, Chapter 8A: Water Conservation Plan, effective Oct. 1, 2015.
Ord. 99-07-02 Ordinance No. 99-07-02 Ordinance of the Water Facilities Authority-JPA Repealing Ordinance 96-09-01. (Appendix H)
SAWCO 2021 Water Systems Consulting. San Antonio Water Company 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. September 2021. (Appendix H)
SPA SC Ontario Development Company, LLC. Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (2020). Draft March 2022.
Stantec Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. Recycled Water Master Plan Update for City of Ontario Municipal Water Utilities Company. Final June 22, 2020. (Appendix C) WEBB 2004 Albert A. Webb Associates, Water Supply Assessment and Written Verification of Sufficient Water Supply for the New Model Colony. October 27, 2004.
WEBB 2006 Albert A. Webb Associates, Final Environmental Impact Report for Parkside Specific Plan. July 2006.
WEBB 2020 Albert A. Webb Associates, Water Supply Verification, Nova at Parkside, Tentative Tract Map No. 20316. May 21, 2020.
WEI 2020 Wildermuth Environmental, Inc. 2020 Safe Yield Recalculation Final Report prepared for the Chino Basin Watermaster. May 15, 2020.
WFA 1985
Installment Purchase Agreement Relating to Water Facilities Authority Water Treatment Plant by and between Water Facilities Authority, as Seller and City of Ontario, as Purchaser. Dated as of October 1, 1985. (Appendix J) WFA 2020 Stetson Engineers. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan for Water Facilities Authority. June 2021 (Appendix F)
1045
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company Spreadsheets
Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment 68 SECTION 7 - SPREADSHEETS
1046
Water Supply Assessment Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Spreadsheet 1 Spreadsheet 1 ‐ Parkside Specific Plan Accounted for in 2020 UWMP Water Demand Projections Residential Land Use Dwelling
Units Density Potable Water
Demand Factor
Potable Water
Demand
Potable
Water
Demand
Recycled
Water Demand
Factor
Recycled
Water Demand
Recycled
Water
Demand
Grand Total
Type (DU) (DU/AC) (GPD/DU or
GPD/AC) (GPD) (AFY) (GPD/AC) (GPD) (AFY) (AFY)
PA-1a 2.66
Low Medium Density
Residential (w/ RW) 23 8.65 360 8,280 9.27 700 1,862 2.09 11.36 PA-1b 3.65
Low Medium Density
Residential (w/ RW) 32 8.77 360 11,520 12.90 700 2,555 2.86 15.77 PA-1c 8.01
Low Medium Density
Residential (w/ RW) 70 8.74 360 25,200 28.23 700 5,607 6.28 34.51 PA-2a 4.69
Medium Density
Residential (w/ RW) 55 11.73 268 14,740 16.51 750 3,518 3.94 20.45 PA-2b 4
Medium Density
Residential (w/ RW) 47 11.75 268 12,596 14.11 750 3,000 3.36 17.47 PA-3 4.68
Medium Density
Residential (w/ RW) 80 17.09 268 21,440 24.02 750 3,510 3.93 27.95 PA-4 7.45
Medium Density
Residential (w/ RW) 114 15.30 268 30,552 34.22 750 5,588 6.26 40.48 PA-5 8.91
Medium Density
Residential (w/ RW) 223 25.03 268 59,764 66.94 750 6,683 7.49 74.43 PA-6 8.2
Low Medium Density
Residential (w/ RW) 90 10.98 360 32,400 36.29 700 5,740 6.43 42.72 PA-7 9.06
Low Medium Density
Residential (w/ RW) 100 11.04 360 36,000 40.33 700 6,342 7.10 47.43 PA-8 7.55
Low Medium Density
Residential (w/ RW) 83 10.99 360 29,880 33.47 700 5,285 5.92 39.39 PA-9 10.25
Medium Density
Residential (w/ RW) 256 24.98 268 68,608 76.85 750 7,688 8.61 85.46 PA-10 8.67
Medium Density
Residential (w/ RW) 217 25.03 268 58,156 65.14 750 6,503 7.28 72.43 PA-11 7.98
Medium Density
Residential (w/ RW) 200 25.06 268 53,600 60.04 750 5,985 6.70 66.74 PA-12 11.55
Medium Density
Residential (w/ RW) 289 25.02 268 77,452 86.76 750 8,663 9.70 96.46 PA-13 8.27
Low Medium Density
Residential (w/ RW) 91 11.00 360 32,760 36.70 700 5,789 6.48 43.18 PA-14 6.96
Medium Density
Residential (w/ RW) 174 25.00 268 46,632 52.23 750 5,220 5.85 58.08 PA-15 8.09
Medium Density
Residential (w/ RW) 202 24.97 268 54,136 60.64 750 6,068 6.80 67.44 PA-16 7.44
Medium Density
Residential (w/ RW) 186 25.00 268 49,848 55.84 750 5,580 6.25 62.09 PA-17 7.81
Low Medium Density
Residential (w/ RW) 84 10.76 360 30,240 33.87 700 5,467 6.12 40.00 PA-18 4.57
Medium Density
Residential (w/ RW) 85 18.60 268 22,780 25.52 750 3,428 3.84 29.36 PA-19 6.59
Medium Density
Residential (w/ RW) 85 12.90 268 22,780 25.52 750 4,943 5.54 31.05 Subtotal
Residential 157.04 - 2,786 - - 799,364 895 - 115,020 129 1,024 PA-1-4, 17-24
(half of channel 6.5
Open Space Recreational
(w/ RW) - - 0 0 0.00 2350 15,275 17.11 17.11
PA-20 1.57
Open Space Recreational
(w/ RW) - - 1000 1570 1.76 2350 3,690 4.13 5.89
PA-21 15.49 Public Facility (w/ RW) - - 0.00 2100 32,529 36.44 36.44 PA-22a 17.96
Open Space Recreational
(w/ RW) - - 1000 17,960 20.12 2350 42,206 47.28 67.39
PA-22b 9.6
Open Space Recreational
(w/ RW) - - 1000 9,600 10.75 2350 22,560 25.27 36.02
PA-22c 30.91
Open Space Recreational
(w/ RW) - - 1000 30,910 34.62 2350 72,639 81.37 115.99
PA-23 0.96 Public Facility (w/ RW) - - 0.00 2100 2,016 2.26 2.26 PA-24 2.4 Public Facility (w/ RW) - - 0.00 2100 5,040 5.65 5.65 PA-25 0.96
Open Space Recreational
(w/ RW) - - 1000 960 1.08 2350 2,256 2.53 3.60
PA-26 1
Open Space Recreational
(w/ RW) - - 1000 1,000 1.12 2350 2,350 2.63 3.75
Subtotal
Community
Facilities 87.35 - --- 62,000 69 - 185,285 208 277
Total 244.39 ‐ ‐‐ ‐ 861,364 965 ‐ 300,305 336 1,301
Source:
UWMP = Urban Water Management Plan; WMP = Water Master Plan; TOP = The Ontario Plan; DU = dwelling unit; AC = acre; gpd = gallons per day; AFY = acre‐feet per year.
1. Source: Appendix 4‐1 "Future Land Use Information" of 2020 Water Master Plan Update (AKM), pp. 13, 24.
Planning Area Acres
2 Source of potable factors is Appendix E and Appendix K of the 2020 Ontario UWMP, which are excerpts from "City of Ontario Water Master Plan Update" (AKM), June 2020, pp. 4‐10‐4‐11; and "Recycled Water Master Plan Update" (Stantec), June 22, 2020, p. 5.26.
H:\2022\22‐0076\Report\ 1047
Water Supply Assessment Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Spreadsheet 2 Spreadsheet 2 - Proposed "Project" Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Water Demand Planning
Area Project Land Use
Project
Additional
Units (DU)
Project
Gross
Acres
(AC)(4)
TOP Max
Density
(DU/AC)
Potable Water
Demand
Factor
(GPD/DU or
GPD/AC)(4)
Recycled
Water
Demand
Factor
(GPD/AC) (6)
Potable
Water
Demand
(GPD)
Potable
Water
Demand
(AFY)
Recycled
Water
Demand
(GPD)
Recycled
Water
Demand
(AFY)
Total Water
Demand
(AFY)
1 Green Court/Lane Loaded
Products 1, 2 & 4 - 0
Medium Density
Residential (w/ RW) 25 268 750 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00
2 Lane Load Product 3 - 0
Medium Density
Residential (w/ RW) 25 268 750 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00
3 Lane Load Product 3 - 0
Medium Density
Residential (w/ RW) 25 268 750 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00
4 Green Court/Lane Loaded
Products 1, 2, 3 & 4 - 0
Medium Density
Residential (w/ RW) 25 268 750 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00
5 HD Townhomes (17) -1.43
Medium Density
Residential (w/ RW) 25 268 750 -4,556 -5.10 -1,073 -1.20 -6.30 6 Attached Auto Court 6-8 Plex 49 1.7
Medium Density
Residential (w/ RW) 25 268 750 6,232 6.98 1,275 1.84 8.82 7 Green Court 6-8 Plex 64 -1.15
Medium Density
Residential (w/ RW) 25 268 750 10,896 12.21 -863 -0.45 11.76 8 Auto Court 6-8 Plex 64 1.89
Medium Density
Residential (w/ RW) 25 268 750 10,896 12.21 1,418 1.96 14.16 9 Row Townhomes 64 -1.12
Medium Density
Residential (w/ RW) 25 268 750 17,152 19.21 -840 -0.94 18.27 10 Row Townhomes 64 2.33
Medium Density
Residential (w/ RW) 25 268 750 17,152 19.21 1,748 1.96 21.17 11 HD Townhomes 65 -1.23
High Density Residential
(w/ RW) 40 201 800 4,824 5.40 -984 -0.65 4.76
12 Row Townhomes 65 -1.22
Medium Density
Residential (w/ RW) 25 268 750 5,736 6.43 -915 -0.36 6.06 13 Attached Auto Court 64 -1.05
Medium Density
Residential (w/ RW) 25 268 750 11,264 12.62 -787 -0.40 12.21 14 Triplex 64 -1.2
High Density Residential
(w/ RW) 40 201 800 6,231 6.98 -960 -0.68 6.30
15 HD Townhomes 15 -1.65
Medium Density
Residential (w/ RW) 25 268 750 4,020 4.50 -1,238 -1.39 3.12 16 HD Townhomes 15 -1.01
Medium Density
Residential (w/ RW) 25 268 750 4,020 4.50 -758 -0.85 3.65 17 Row Townhomes 181 19.77
Low Medium Density
Residential (w/ RW) 11 360 700 72,704 81.44 13,839 15.23 96.67 18 Duplex 146 1.37
High Density Residential
(w/ RW) 40 201 800 13,764 15.42 1,096 1.98 17.40
903 16.00 - -- - 180,335 202 10,959 16 218
19 Commercial - -12.71
General Commercial (w/
RW) - 1,800 1,100 -22,878 -25.63 -13,981 -15.66 -41.29
20 Fire Station - 0 Public Facility (w/ RW) - 1,700 2,100 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 21 Great Park - 0
Open Space Recreational
(w/ RW) - 1,000 2,350 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00
22 Private Rec - 0
Open Space Recreational
(w/ RW) - 1,000 2,350 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00
23 CD Well Site - 0 Public Facility (w/ RW) - 1,700 2,100 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 - -12.71 - -- - -22,878 -26 -13,981 -16 -41
- Channel Row (5) -0
Open Space NonRecreational (w/o RW) - 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 Subtotal Other Uses -- - --- 00 0 0 0
903 3.29 - --- 157,457 176 -3,023 0.39 177
UWMP = Urban Water Management Plan; WMP = Water Master Plan; TOP = The Ontario Plan; DU = dwelling unit; AC = acre; gpd = gallons per day; AFY = acre-feet per year. 3 Unit water demand factors are in GPD/DU or GPD/acre. Recycled water factor assumed GPD/acre. Potable and recycled water factor from City's 2020 Water Master Plan, Table 4-8. 4 The proposed Project changes the maximum allowable density in PA-5 through 18, and reduces the acreage of PA 19. This table shows the effect of the amendment and no water demands are shown for PA's that are not affected by the amendment.
5 Channel row will not have a demand for potable or recycled water. 2 Source of potable factors is "City of Ontario Water Master Plan Update" (AKM), June 2020, pp. 4-10-4-11; source of recycled water factors is "Recycled Water Master Plan Update" (Stantec), June 22, 2020, p. 5.26.
Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (1) Current Water Demand Factors(2) Project Potable and Recycled Water Demand (GPD and AFY) Corresponding TOP Land
Use
1 Source: "Parkside Specific Plan As Amended June 16, 2021, dated 03-28-2022, Table 3-1.
Subtotal Proposed "Project" Residential
Uses
Total Proposed "Project" Land Use Plan(9)
Subtotal "Project" Community Facilities
H:\2022\22‐0076\Report\ 1048
Water Supply Assessment Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Spreadsheet 3 Spreadsheet 3 ‐ Proposed Parkside Specific Plan Amendment #1 Water Demand Planning
Area (PA) Land Use
Proposed
Dwelling
Units (DU)
Proposed
Gross Acres
(AC)
Proposed
Gross
Density/ S.F.
(DU/AC)
TOP Max
Density
(DU/AC)(4
)
Potable
Water
Demand
Factor
(GPD/DU,
Recycled
Water
Demand
Factor
(GPD/AC)
Potable Water
Demand (GPD)
Potable
Water
Demand
(AFY)
Recycled
Water
Demand (GPD)
Recycled
Water
Demand
(AFY)
Total Water
Demand
(AFY)
1 Green Court/Lane
Loaded Products 1, 2 &
4 236 19.97 11.82
Medium Density Residential
(w/ RW) 25 268 750 63,248 70.85 14,978 16.78 87.62 2 Lane Load Product 3 41 3.57 11.48
Medium Density Residential
(w/ RW) 25 268 750 10,988 12.31 2,678 3.00 15.31 3 Lane Load Product 3 42 3.06 13.73
Medium Density Residential
(w/ RW) 25 268 750 11,256 12.61 2,295 2.57 15.18 4 Green Court/Lane
Loaded Products 1, 2, 3
& 4 221 15.5 14.26
Medium Density Residential
(w/ RW) 25 268 750 59,228 66.34 11,625 13.02 79.37 5 HD Townhomes 122 8.14 14.99
Medium Density Residential
(w/ RW) 25 268 750 32,696 36.62 6,105 6.84 43.46 6 Attached Auto Court 6‐
8 Plex 124 9.04 13.72
Medium Density Residential
(w/ RW) 25 268 750 33,232 37.22 6,780 7.59 44.82 7 Green Court 6‐8 Plex 132 8.15 16.20
Medium Density Residential
(w/ RW) 25 268 750 35,376 39.63 6,113 6.85 46.47 8 Auto Court 6‐8 Plex 132 8.53 15.47
Medium Density Residential
(w/ RW) 25 268 750 35,376 39.63 6,398 7.17 46.79 9 Row Townhomes 184 9.37 19.64
Medium Density Residential
(w/ RW) 25 268 750 49,312 55.24 7,028 7.87 63.11 10 Row Townhomes 207 9.89 20.93
Medium Density Residential
(w/ RW) 25 268 750 55,476 62.14 7,418 8.31 70.45 11 HD Townhomes 188 6.88 27.33
High Density Residential (w/
RW) 40 201 800 37,788 42.33 5,504 6.17 48.49 12 Row Townhomes 192 10.58 18.15
Medium Density Residential
(w/ RW) 25 268 750 51,456 57.64 7,935 8.89 66.53 13 Attached Auto Court 128 7.48 17.11
Medium Density Residential
(w/ RW) 25 268 750 34,304 38.43 5,610 6.28 44.71 14 Triplex 163 5.92 27.53
High Density Residential (w/
RW) 40 201 800 32,763 36.70 4,736 5.30 42.00 15 HD Townhomes 126 6.97 18.08
Medium Density Residential
(w/ RW) 25 268 750 33,768 37.82 5,228 5.86 43.68 16 HD Townhomes 105 6.82 15.40
Medium Density Residential
(w/ RW) 25 268 750 28,140 31.52 5,115 5.73 37.25 17 Row Townhomes 263 24.64 10.67
Low Medium Density
Residential (w/ RW) 11 360 700 94,680 106.05 17,248 19.32 125.38 18 Duplex 244 8.11 30.09
High Density Residential (w/
RW) 40 201 800 49,044 54.94 6,488 7.27 62.20 2,850 172.62 16.51 ‐ ‐‐ ‐ 748,131 838 129,279 145 983 19 Commercial 2.95 15,000 General Commercial (w/ RW) ‐ 1,800 1,100 5,310 5.95 3,245 3.63 9.58 20 Fire Station 1.72 ‐ Public Facility (w/ RW) ‐ 1,700 2,100 2,924 3.28 3,612 4.05 7.32 21 Great Park 58.86 ‐
Open Space Recreational (w/
RW) ‐ 1,000 2,350 58,860 65.93 138,321 154.94 220.87 22 Private Rec 1 ‐
Open Space Recreational (w/
RW) ‐ 1,000 2,350 1,000 1.12 2,350 2.63 3.75
23 CD Well Site 0.13 ‐ Public Facility (w/ RW) ‐ 1,700 2,100 221 0.25 273 0.31 0.55 Subtotal Community
Facilities ‐ 64.66 ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ 68,315 77 147,801 166 242
‐ Channel Row (5) ‐ 13 ‐
Open Space Non‐Recreational
(w/o RW) ‐ 0 2,350 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00
Subtotal Other Uses ‐ ‐ 13.00 ‐ ‐‐ ‐ 00 0 0 0 Total Proposed Land
Use Plan(9) 2,850 250.28 ‐ ‐‐ ‐ 816,446 915 277,080 310 1,225 UWMP = Urban Water Management Plan; WMP = Water Master Plan; TOP = The Ontario Plan; DU = dwelling unit; AC = acre; gpd = gallons per day; AFY = acre‐feet per year. 2 Source of potable factors is "City of Ontario Water Master Plan Update" (AKM), June 2020, pp. 4‐10‐4‐11; source of recycled water factors is "Recycled Water Master Plan Update" (Stantec), June 22, 2020, p. 5.26. 3 Unit water demand factors are in GPD/DU or GPD/acre. Recycled water factor assumed GPD/acre. Potable and recycled water factor from City's 2020 Water Master Plan, Table 4‐8. 4 The proposed Project only changes of the permitted density in PA‐5 through 18 and the acreage of PA 19.. 5 Channel row will not have a demand for potable or recycled water.
1. Source: "Parkside Specific Plan As Amended June 16, 2021, dated 03‐28‐2022, Table 3‐1.
Parkside Specific Plan and Amendment (1) Current Water Demand Factors(2) Project Potable and Recycled Water Demand (GPD and AFY) Corresponding TOP Land Use
Subtotal Proposed Residential Uses
H:\2022\22‐0076\Report\ 1049
Water Supply Assessment Parkside Specific Plan Spreadsheet 4 Spreadsheet 4 ‐ Parkside Specific Plan Approved Water Demand Planning
Area (PA) Approved Specific Plan Land Use
Approved
Dwelling
Units (DU)
Approved
Gross Acres
(AC)(4)
Approved
Gross
Density
(DU/AC) (5)
TOP Max
Density
(DU/AC)
Potable
Water
Demand
Factor
(GPD/DU or
GPD/AC)(4)
Recycled
Water
Demand
Factor
(GPD/AC) (6)
Potable Water
Demand (GPD)
Potable
Water
Demand
(AFY)
Recycled
Water
Demand
(GPD)
Recycled
Water
Demand
(AFY)
Total Water
Demand
(AFY)
1 Green Court/Lane Loaded Products 1,
2 & 4 236 19.97 11.82
Medium Density Residential (w/
RW) 25 268 750 63,248 70.85 14,978 16.78 87.62 2 Lane Load Product 3 41 3.57 11.48
Medium Density Residential (w/
RW) 25 268 750 10,988 12.31 2,678 3.00 15.31 3 Lane Load Product 3 42 3.06 13.73
Medium Density Residential (w/
RW) 25 268 750 11,256 12.61 2,295 2.57 15.18 4 Green Court/Lane Loaded Products 1,
2, 3 & 4 221 15.5 14.26
Medium Density Residential (w/
RW) 25 268 750 59,228 66.34 11,625 13.02 79.37 5 HD Townhomes 139 9.57 14.52
Medium Density Residential (w/
RW) 25 268 750 37,252 41.73 7,178 8.04 49.77 6 Attached Auto Court 6‐8 Plex 75 7.34 10.22
Low Medium Density Residential
(w/ RW) 11 360 700 27,000 30.24 5,138 5.76 36.00 7 Auto Court 6‐8 Plex 68 9.3 7.31
Low Medium Density Residential
(w/ RW) 11 360 700 24,480 27.42 6,510 7.29 34.71 8 Green Court 8‐10 Plex 68 6.64 10.24
Low Medium Density Residential
(w/ RW) 11 360 700 24,480 27.42 4,648 5.21 32.63 9 Triplex 120 10.49 11.44
Medium Density Residential (w/
RW) 25 268 750 32,160 36.02 7,868 8.81 44.84 10 Row Townhomes 143 7.56 18.92
Medium Density Residential (w/
RW) 25 268 750 38,324 42.93 5,670 6.35 49.28 11 HD Townhomes 123 8.11 15.17
Medium Density Residential (w/
RW) 25 268 750 32,964 36.92 6,083 6.81 43.74 12 Triplex 127 11.8 10.76
Low Medium Density Residential
(w/ RW) 11 360 700 45,720 51.21 8,260 9.25 60.47 13 Attached Auto Court 64 8.53 7.50
Low Medium Density Residential
(w/ RW) 11 360 700 23,040 25.81 5,971 6.69 32.50 14 Duplex 99 7.12 13.90
Medium Density Residential (w/
RW) 25 268 750 26,532 29.72 5,340 5.98 35.70 15 Duplex 111 8.62 12.88
Medium Density Residential (w/
RW) 25 268 750 29,748 33.32 6,465 7.24 40.56 16 Triplex 90 7.83 11.49
Medium Density Residential (w/
RW) 25 268 750 24,120 27.02 5,873 6.58 33.60 17 Row Townhomes 82 4.87 16.84
Medium Density Residential (w/
RW) 25 268 750 21,976 24.62 3,653 4.09 28.71 18 HD Townhomes 98 6.74 14.54
Low Medium Density Residential
(w/ RW) 11 360 700 35,280 39.52 4,718 5.28 44.80 Subtotal Approved Residential Uses 1,947 156.62 ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ 567,796 636 114,948 129 765 19 Commercial 15.66 ‐ General Commercial (w/ RW) ‐ 1,800 1,100 28,188 31.57 17,226 19.30 50.87 20 Fire Station 1.72 ‐ Public Facility (w/ RW) ‐ 1,700 2,100 2,924 3.28 3,612 4.05 7.32 21 Great Park 58.86 ‐ Open Space Recreational (w/ RW) ‐ 1,000 2,350 58,860 65.93 138,321 154.94 220.87 22 Private Rec 1 ‐ Open Space Recreational (w/ RW) ‐ 1,000 2,350 1,000 1.12 2,350 2.63 3.75 23 CD Well Site 0.13 ‐ Public Facility (w/ RW) ‐ 1,700 2,100 221 0.25 273 0.31 0.55 Subtotal Community Facilities ‐ 77.37 ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ 91,193 102 161,782 181 283 ‐ Channel Row ‐ 13 ‐
Open Space Non‐Recreational
(w/o RW) ‐ 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00
Subtotal Other Uses ‐ 13.00 ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ 00 0 0 0 Total Approved Land Use Plan(9) 1,947 ‐ 246.99 ‐ ‐‐ ‐ 658,989 738 276,730 310 1,048 UWMP = Urban Water Management Plan; WMP = Water Master Plan; TOP = The Ontario Plan; DU = dwelling unit; AC = acre; gpd = gallons per day; AFY = acre‐feet per year. 3 Unit water demand factors are in GPD/DU or GPD/acre. Recycled water factor assumed GPD/acre. Potable and recycled water factor from City's 2020 Water Master Plan, Table 4‐8. 4 The proposed Project only changes of the permitted density in PA‐5 through 18 and the decrease in acreage in PA 19. 5 Channel row will not have a demand for potable or recycled water. 2 Source of potable factors is "City of Ontario Water Master Plan Update" (AKM), June 2020, pp. 4‐10‐4‐11; source of recycled water factors is "Recycled Water Master Plan Update" (Stantec), June 22, 2020, p. 5.26.
Parkside Specific Plan (1) Current Water Demand Factors(2) Project Potable and Recycled Water Demand (GPD and AFY) Corresponding TOP Land Use
1. Source: "Parkside Specific Plan As Amended June 16, 2021, dated 03‐28‐2022, Table 3‐1.
H:\2022\22‐0076\Report\ 1050
WRITTEN VERIFICATION OF SUFFICIENT WATER SUPPLY
FOR PARKSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
1051
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
Written Verification for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.1 Introduction___________________________________________________________ 1
1.2 Purpose ______________________________________________________________ 1
1.3 Project Description and Water Demand___________________________________ 2
1.4 Verification of Sufficient Water Supply____________________________________ 3 20-Year Water Supply Availability ______________________________________ 3 Urban Water Shortage Contingency Analysis (Plan)_______________________ 4 Supply Reduction for Specific Water Use Sector _________________________ 4 Amount of Water That Can Be Reasonably Relied Upon from Specific Supply Project(s) _____________________________________________________ 5
1.5 Substantial Evidence of Verification of Sufficient Water Supply ______________ 5
1.6 Impacts to Agricultural and Industrial Users _______________________________ 5
1.7 Priority to Proposed Lower Income Housing Projects ______________________ 7
1.8 Verification That Relies on Groundwater __________________________________ 9
1.9 Finding of Sufficient Water Supply ______________________________________ 10 References ______________________________________________________________ 11 1052
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
Written Verification for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment 1 SB 221 Written Verification of Sufficient Water Supply
1.1 Introduction
Senate Bill 221 (SB 221) was enacted in 2001 and became effective as of January 1, 2002. SB 221 establishes the relationship between the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) prepared for a project pursuant to Senate Bill 610 (SB 610), and the project approval under the Subdivision Map Act. SB 221 amends Section 11010 of the Business and Professional Code, and amends Section 65867.5 to add Sections 66455.3 and 66473.7 to the California Government Code. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.7, the public water supplier must provide a written verification of sufficient water supply (WV) prior to the approval of a tentative subdivision map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, or a development agreement for a subdivision of property of more than 500 dwelling units, except as specified, including the design of the subdivision or similar type of improvement.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of the WV is to provide the legislative body of a city, county, or the designated advisory agency with written verification from the applicable public water supplier that a sufficient water supply is available, or, in addition, a specified finding is made by the local agency that sufficient water supplies are, or will be, available prior to completion of the project.
The WV shall be supported by substantial evidence, which may include relevant portions of an applicable Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) or a WSA prepared per SB 610. Many of the requirements for SB 610 compliance will satisfy the requirements of SB 221. There are four factors to be considered in a WV which are not required in a WSA as specified by Government Code Section 66473.7. Those four factors, which are specifically addressed in this WV are as follows:
1053
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
Written Verification for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment 2 1. Historical water supplies for at least 20 years;
2. Urban Water Shortage Contingency Analysis prepared for the water supplier’s UWMP;
3. Supply reduction for “specific water use sector” per water supplier’s resolution, ordinance, or contract; and
4. Amount of water that can be reasonably relied upon from specific supply projects, subject to the determinations outlined in Government Code Section 66473.7.
1.3 Project Description and Water Demand
This WV has been prepared in conjunction with a WSA for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (“Project”). The Parkside Specific Plan currently encompasses approximately 250 gross acres within the City of Ontario’s 8,200-acre Ontario Ranch.
Annexed in 1999, the presently agricultural Ontario Ranch is planned to be developed into residential, commercial, industrial, and public uses (UWMP, p. 3-1). The proposed Project will change the number of Planning Areas (PAs) from 25 to 23 and change the acreages, maximum allowable densities, and maximum allowable dwelling units of PA5 through PA-19. With these changes, approximately 16 gross acres of non-residential PA will convert to residential uses and the total number of allowable units in the Specific Plan will increase by 903 units from 1,947 units to 2,850 units (SPA, p. 1-7).
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not change PA-1 through PA-4, and PA20 through PA-23 and the Cucamonga Creek Channel right-of-way.
The City of Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC)1 is the water supplier for the Project and for the City. OMUC commissioned a WSA and WV from Albert A. Webb Associates (WEBB) on March 23, 2022. The purpose of preparing this WV for the entire Project is to preclude the need for individual “Written Verification” letters being 1 OMUC is a department of the City of Ontario and the terms may be used interchangeably herein. 1054
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
Written Verification for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment 3 prepared for the individual residential development projects that will qualify for a WV within the Parkside Specific Plan Amendment area. SB 221 applies to the Project because there will be residential subdivisions that may have more than 500 units which exceed the criteria set in 66473.7(a) of 500 units.
The key question for this WV to address per SB 221 is whether the water supplier is able to provide a sufficient water supply based upon an analysis as to whether water supplies available during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years within a 20-year projection will meet the projected demand associated with the proposed subdivision, in addition to existing and planned future uses, including, but not limited to, agriculture and industrial uses (DWR 2003).
1.4 Verification of Sufficient Water Supply
A detailed evaluation of OMUC’s water supply was performed under the attached WSA for the Project. Attached to the WSA is the adopted City of Ontario 2020 UWMP which addresses normal, single dry, and multiple dry year conditions (Appendix A). The 2020 UWMP determined that sufficient water supply exists to support the demands of the OMUC service area. The WSA determined that the water demand of the Project is less than the water demand for the same site that was assumed in the 2020 UWMP; therefore, the demand was accounted for in the 2020 UWMP. The WSA concludes that sufficient water supply exists to support the Project. 20-Year Water Supply Availability
OMUC has been able to meet all water demands with its available water supplies for the past 20 years. Table 3-2 of the attached WSA shows the recorded water supplies from 2000-2021 that were utilized to meet the demand within OMUC’s service area. A supply source that is available to OMUC that is not included in Table 3-2 are the groundwater storage accounts to which OMUC has rights to store water in the Chino Basin. As of FY 20/21, the City has approximately 96,992.4 AF held in storage (CBWM, pp. 11.1, 12.1).
1055
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
Written Verification for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment 4 Urban Water Shortage Contingency Analysis (Plan)
The urban water shortage contingency analysis (Water Shortage Contingency Plan [WSCP]) prepared for the most recent UWMP is contained within Chapter 8 of Ontario’s 2020 UWMP (Appendix A). The WSCP is based on a draft Water Conservation Plan located in Appendix N of the 2020 UWMP that is an update of the City’s Ordinance No. 3027. The WSCP includes stages of action, prohibitions on end uses, penalties and enforcement measures, determination of water shortage reductions, revenue and expenditure impacts, and catastrophic supply interruption.
The 2020 WSCP and draft Water Conservation Plan are consistent with the stringent emergency conservation regulations mandated by the State Water Resources Control Board in response to statewide drought conditions. The purpose of the ordinance and the Water Conservation Plan are to minimize the potential for a water shortage through the practice of water conservation, and to minimize the effect of a shortage of water supplies on the water customers of the City. In addition, it is the intent of the ordinance and the Water Conservation Plan to adopt provisions that will significantly reduce the inefficient consumption of water, thereby extending the available water resources necessary for domestic, sanitation, and fire protection of the community to the greatest extent possible (Municipal Code Sec. 6-8.21).
The 2020 WSCP and draft Water Conservation Plan describe the methods to respond to a water supply shortage of more than 50 percent. Six stages of conservation are described (Stages 1-6) with increasing conservation requirements and penalties depending on the severity of the shortage (UWMP, p. 8-8).
Supply Reduction for Specific Water Use Sector
OMUC’s 2020 WSCP and draft Water Conservation Plan establish voluntary and mandatory water conservation requirements which shall take effect upon implementation. During a water shortage crisis, certain mandatory restrictions on water use will be imposed on the public. The voluntary water use prohibitions apply at all times. Stage 1 to 6 prohibitions will be progressively implemented according to the 1056
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
Written Verification for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment 5 severity of the water crisis (OMUC 2020 UWMP, Appendix N). The restrictions and prohibitions on end users that correspond to Stages 1 to 6 are outlined in Table 8-2 of the City’s 2020 UWMP (p. 8-3). OMUC does not have a water supply allocation plan.
No single water use sector is identified in the 2020 WSCP or draft Water Conservation Plan for supply reductions in the event of a water shortage crisis.
Amount of Water That Can Be Reasonably Relied Upon from Specific Supply Project(s)
This requirement of the WV pertains to projected water supplies that the water supplier can reasonably rely on that are not currently available to the public water system. All projected water supplies are currently available to OMUC but may not be fully utilized to date. Descriptions of the supplies available to OMUC are in Section 3 of the attached WSA.
1.5 Substantial Evidence of Verification of Sufficient Water Supply This WV does not rely on projected water supplies that are not currently available to OMUC. The water supplies that OMUC will continue to rely on that are projected to be sufficient to meet current and future needs are described in Section 3 of the attached WSA. Because projected supply sources are currently available to OMUC, supporting information pursuant to Gov. Code section 66473.7 is not provided herein. This would include written contracts or other proof of valid rights to supplies under development, an adopted capital outlay program to finance delivery of supplies under development, permits to construct supply infrastructure for supplies under development, and regulatory approvals for conveyance or delivery of supplies under development.
Copies of the rights, contracts, and other entitlements to water supplies available to OMUC are provided in the appendices to the attached WSA.
1.6 Impacts to Agricultural and Industrial Users
Gov. Code section 66473.7 requires this WV to contain a description of reasonably foreseeable impacts of the proposed subdivision on the availability of water resources 1057
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
Written Verification for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment 6 for agricultural and industrial uses within the water supplier’s service area that are not currently receiving water from the water supplier but are utilizing the same sources of water. Water used by industrial and agricultural users that is not provided to them by OMUC would come from their private wells to access the Chino Groundwater Basin, which OMUC also utilizes. Adverse impacts to such entities as a result of the Project is not anticipated because the Chino Basin is an adjudicated basin with a court appointed Watermaster who monitors and enforces the provisions of the 1978 Judgment and subsequent orders of the court. As discussed in Section 4 of the attached WSA, the Watermaster develops and implements an Optimum Basin Management Program to sustainably manage the basin for all users.
In regard to agricultural users, the original (2006) Parkside Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) stated: “The GPA [General Plan Amendment] for the NMC [New Model Colony, now referred to as Ontario Ranch] (1998) projects a nearly 100 percent conversion of existing agricultural land to non-agricultural uses, except for approximately 200 acres of land that are owned by the County of San Bernardino and managed by the Southern California Land Foundation…This property will not be converted to non-agricultural uses by the proposed project [Parkside Specific Plan] (WEBB 2006, p. III-1-8). Further, “The General Plan Amendment for the New Model Colony [Ontario Ranch] Final EIR was certified with Overriding Consideration findings related to the cumulative loss of agriculture. Cumulative losses of Farmland resulting from this project [Parkside Specific Plan] were a part of that original Final EIR and Statement of Overriding Consideration” (WEBB 2006, p. III-1-13). As planned for by the City and discussed in the attached WSA, agricultural properties are projected to decrease with the conversion of Ontario Ranch to non-agricultural activities (WSA Figures 8 and 9). Table 3-7 of the attached WSA also forecasts declines in recycled water use by agriculture, reaching zero use by 2040. As of 2020, there are 20 agricultural recycled water irrigation sites (2020 Annual Report to DDW). The proposed future subdivision(s) is (are) not anticipated to have adverse impacts on the shared water supply source because the 2020 UWMP has incorporated planned future 1058
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
Written Verification for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment 7 declines in agricultural use in the water demand projections, which includes declines in private wells and conversion to OMUC supplies.
In regard to industrial uses, they are currently (2020) the third most common land use type in the City (after Agricultural Multi-Use at 21.2 percent and Residential at 19.3 percent), making up approximately 5,498 acres or 17.3 percent of the total (AKM 2020, p. 2-5). The ultimate citywide land use plan (The Ontario Plan 2010) plans for an increase of business parks and industrial uses to cover about 7,818 acres or 24.6 percent at buildout (AKM 2020, p. 2-7). Further, the 2020 UWMP projections in the attached WSA show potable water use by industrial uses increasing from 2,078 AFY in 2020 to 3,728 AFY in 2040 (WSA Table 2-3) and industrial use of recycled water is projected to increase from 986 AFY in 2020 to 3,680 AFY in 2045 (WSA Table 3-7). As of 2020, there are three industrial recycled water sites (2020 Annual Report to DDW).
The proposed future subdivision(s) is (are) not anticipated to have adverse impacts on the shared water supply source because the 2020 UWMP water demand projections have accounted for future increases in potable and recycled water use by industrial uses, in addition to other uses.
For each acre of agricultural land that converts to urban use, the initial Safe Yield of the appropriative pool member serving the converted land is increased by 2 acre-feet. In addition, properties that were on private wells are expected to connect to OMUC infrastructure. Therefore, OMUC’s share of the Safe Yield will continue to increase as Ontario Ranch develops, in addition to a decline in private wells in the Chino Basin.
1.7 Priority to Proposed Lower Income Housing Projects
Pursuant to Gov. Code section 65589.7, the determinations made by the WV shall be consistent with the obligation of a public water system to grant a priority for the provision of available and future water resources or services to proposed housing developments that help meet the City’s (or County’s) share of the regional housing needs for lower income households.
1059
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
Written Verification for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment 8 The 2020 UWMP states that the City has considered the demographic factors of severely low-income earners, single-parent families, large families, seniors, people with disabilities, and homeless persons “which can affect the City’s water management planning” (p. 3-7). Further, the 2020 UWMP indicates that lower income residential demands are included in water use projections (ibid, p. 4-12).
OMUC recognizes the obligation that is required pursuant to Gov. Code section 65589.7 and will provide service to customers regardless of housing type or income level. The following excerpt (next page) from the Parkside Specific Plan (March 2022 draft) “General Plan Consistency Analysis” describes the Project’s consistency with applicable policies from the City General Plan Housing Element (pp. 9-3, 9-4). 1060
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
Written Verification for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment 9 Housing Element
GOAL H2: Diversity of types of quality housing that are affordable to a range of household income levels, accommodate changing demographics, and support and reinforce the economic sustainability of Ontario.
H2-4 New Model Colony. We support a premier lifestyle
community in the New Model Colony distinguished by
diverse housing, highest design quality, and cohesive
and highly amenitized neighborhoods.
The Specific Plan features detached and attached
single-family and multi-family housing types in a variety of plotting configurations distinguished by the highest design quality and cohesive and highly amenitized
neighborhoods.
H2-5 Housing Design. We require architectural
excellence through adherence to City design guidelines, thoughtful site planning, environmentally sustainable
practices and other best practices.
The Specific Plan has is own design guidelines to
achieve architectural excellence.
GOAL H4: Increased opportunities for low and moderate income households and families to afford and maintain quality ownership and rental housing opportunities, including move-up opportunities.
H4-4: Mixed-income Housing. We encourage the
integration of affordable housing in the New Model
Colony, Ontario Airport Metro Center Area, and existing neighborhoods.
The Specific Plan provides for a wide range of home
ownership opportunities for many different lifestyles.
GOAL H5: A full range of housing types and community services that meet the special housing needs for all individuals and families in Ontario, regardless of income level, age or other status.
H5-1 Senior Housing. We support the development of
accessible and affordable senior housing and provide
financial assistance for seniors to maintain and improve their homes.
All development will meet the required accessibility
requirements of either the California Residential Code or the California Building Code.
H5-3 Disabled People. We increase the supply of
permanent, affordable and accessible housing for
people with disabilities, and provide assistance to allow them to maintain and improve their homes.
All development will meet the required accessibility
requirements of either the California Residential Code or the California Building Code.
Source: Parkside Specific Plan (March 2022 draft) “General Plan Consistency Analysis” (pp. 9-3, 9-4).
1.8 Verification That Relies on Groundwater
Law
Gov. Code Sec. 66473.7 (h)
Where a water supply for a proposed subdivision includes groundwater, the public water system serving the proposed subdivision shall evaluate, based on substantial evidence, the extent to which it or the landowner has the right to extract the additional groundwater needed to supply the proposed subdivision.
Nothing in this subdivision is intended to modify state law with regard to groundwater rights.
1061
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
Written Verification for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment 10 Section 4 of the attached WSA describes OMUC’s legal right to extract groundwater from the Chino Basin.
1.9 Finding of Sufficient Water Supply
As depicted in Table 3-2 and Table 3-3 of the attached WSA, the City’s existing and ultimate total water supply (39,921 AFY in FY 19/20 and 73,668 AFY in 2045, respectively) are sufficient to meet the existing and anticipated water demands from its service area including the proposed Project’s demand of 1,225 AFY (WSA Table 2-5).
Based on the analysis herein and the attached WSA, OMUC finds that “sufficient water supply” is available to support the projected subdivisions within the Parkside Specific Plan amendment area as it is currently described herein.
Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank
1062
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
Written Verification for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment 11 References
AKM 2020 AKM Consulting Engineers, City of Ontario 2020 Water Master Plan Update. June 2020. (WSA Appendix B)
CBWM Chino Basin Watermaster. Approved 2021/2022 Assessment Package for Production Year 2021-2022. November 18, 2021.
Judgment Judgment, Chino Basin Municipal Water District v. City of Chino, et al., San Bernardino Ct. No. 164327 (filed Jan. 30, 1978). Includes amendments thereto. (WSA Appendix M)
SPA SC Ontario Development Company, LLC, Parkside Specific Plan March 2022 Draft.
UWMP Stetson Engineers. City of Ontario 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. (WSA Appendix A)
Webb 2006 Albert A. Webb Associates. Parkside Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2004011008. July 2006.
WSA Albert A. Webb Associates. Water Supply Assessment for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment. May 2022.
1063
1064
RESOLUTION NO. ________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FILE NO. PSPA21-006, AN AMENDMENT TO THE PARKSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN TO; A) INCREASE THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT CAPACITY FROM 1,947 TO 2,851 DWELLING UNITS BY
MODIFYING DENSITY RANGES IN RESIDENTIAL PLANNING AREAS
AND ADJUSTING CERTAIN PLANNING AREA BOUNDARIES; B)
DECREASE COMMERCIAL LAND USE FROM 11.15 ACRES OF LAND
TO 2.77 ACRES OF LAND WITHIN PLANNING AREA 19; C) DECREASE GREAT PARK LAND USE FROM 58.86 ACRES OF LAND TO 37.38
ACRES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 21; D) INCREASE RESIDENTIAL
LAND USE FROM 9.58 ACRES OF LAND TO 27.81 ACRES WITHIN
PLANNING AREAS 17 AND 18; E) UPDATE CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND BUILDING CATEGORIES; AND F) ELIMINATE THE PRIVATE OPEN SPACE LAND USE IN PLANNING AREAS 23, 24, AND 25, WHICH IS COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 250-ACRES OF LAND
BORDERED BY CARPENTER AVENUE ON THE WEST, ARCHIBALD
AVENUE ON THE EAST, EUCALYPTUS AVENUE ON THE SOUTH, AND
ONTARIO RANCH ROAD ON THE NORTH AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF—APNS: 0218-221-10, 0218-221-11, 0218-231-45, 0218-231-04, 0218-231-08, 0218-231-10, 0218-231-11, 0218-231-13, 0218-231-15, 0218-231-16, 0218-231-23, 0218-231-24, 0218-231-31, 0218-231-32, 0218-231-34, 0218-231-36, 0218-231-39, 0218-063-06, 0218-063-07, 0218-073-04, 0218-073-06, 0218-073-07, 0218-063-04 AND 0218-231-47 AND 0218-231-48.
WHEREAS, SC ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC. (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant") has filed an Application for the approval of an Amendment to the Parkside Specific Plan, File No. PSPA21-006, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and WHEREAS, the Application applies to approximately 250 acres of land generally located east of Carpenter Avenue, west of Archibald Avenue, south of Ontario Ranch Road, and north of Eucalyptus Avenue within the Parkside Specific Plan and is presently improved with detached single-family homes located within Planning Areas 2 thru 4, the Cucamonga Flood Control Channel, Chino Basin Desalter well site, and a City Fire Station; and
WHEREAS, the property to the north of the Project site is within the Avenue Specific Plan zoning district and is undeveloped. The property to the east is within the Grand Park Specific Plan zoning district and is undeveloped. The property to the south is within the Merrill Commerce Center and Subarea 29 zoning district and is developed with Industrial and single family residential. The property to the west is within the Specific Plan and Agricultural Overlay zoning district, and is developed with Agricultural; and 1065
WHEREAS, the Project will increase the allowable residential unit capacity from 1,947 to 2,851 dwelling units by increasing the anticipated number of units across all residential planning areas, except for Planning Areas 1 thru 4, and adjusting boundaries of Planning Areas 17, 18, 19 and 21 consistent with The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Medium Density Residential land use designation density range of 11.1 to 25 dwelling units per acre (du/acre), and increase residential land use from 9.58 acres of land to 27.81 acres within Planning Areas 17 and 18; and
WHEREAS, the Project will result in the decrease of commercial use from 11.15 acres of land/115,000 square feet to 1.81 acres of land/15,000 square feet within Planning Area 19, and decrease Grand Park land use from 58.86 acres of land to approximately
37.38 acres within Planning Area 21 which is also consistent with the 2050 Ontario Plan (TOP); and
WHEREAS, the Project will eliminate the private open space land use in Planning Areas 23, 24, and 25; and
WHEREAS, the Project will clarify the description of housing typologies to include detached Lane Loaded, Cluster Homes (Auto Courts and Green Courts), Row Townhomes, and Multifamily Attached Home Types, and expand the number of PAs in which each typology is allowed to be developed to encourage a diversity of housing types within the Specific Plan area; and
WHEREAS, the Project will allow street parking on private streets to accommodate guest parking requirements, and multiple-family rental developments within a master plan community may deviate from the standard garage interior clear space of 10 feet by 20 feet as required by the Development Code to 9 feet by 20 feet or 10 feet by 18 feet where garages are proposed to meet parking requirements, and no more than 33 percent of required parking may be counted where the reduction is utilized; and WHEREAS, the Parkside Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2004011008) was certified on September 5, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "Certified EIR"), in which development and use of the Project site was discussed; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director of the City of Ontario prepared and approved for attachment to the certified Environmental Impact Report, an Addendum to the Certified EIR (hereinafter referred to as "EIR Addendum") in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with State and local guidelines implementing said Act, all as amended to date (collectively referred to as "CEQA"); and WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of this project were thoroughly analyzed in the EIR Addendum, which concluded that implementation of the Project could result in a number of significant effects on the environment that were previously analyzed in the Certified EIR, and that the Certified EIR identified mitigation measures that would reduce each of those significant effects to a less-than-significant level; and 1066
WHEREAS, the City's "Local Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" provide for the use of a single environmental assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed; and
WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act — Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. — (hereinafter referred to as "CEQA") and an EIR Addendum has been prepared to determine possible environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the City Council the responsibility and authority to review and act on the subject Application; and
WHEREAS, the Project has been reviewed for consistency with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan, as State Housing Element law (as prescribed in Government Code Sections 65580 through 65589.8) requires that development projects must be consistent with the Housing Element, if upon consideration of all its aspects, it is found to further the purposes, principals, goals, and policies of the Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and is subject to, and must be consistent with, the policies and criteria set forth in the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (hereinafter referred to as "ALUCP"), which applies only to jurisdictions within San Bernardino County, and addresses the noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity; and
WHEREAS, City of Ontario Development Code Division 2.03 (Public Hearings) prescribes the manner in which public notification shall be provided and hearing procedures to be followed, and all such notifications and procedures have been completed; and
WHEREAS, on November 28, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the EIR Addendum and the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to issue Resolution No. PC23-094, recommending the City Council adopt the EIR Addendum, and voting to issue Resolution No. PC23-095, recommending the City Council approve the Application; and WHEREAS, as the first action on the Project, on December 19, 2023, the City Council issued a Resolution adopting the EIR Addendum, finding that the proposed Project introduces no new significant environmental impacts and applying all previously adopted mitigation measures to the Project, which were incorporated by reference; and WHEREAS, on December 19, 2023, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date; and 1067
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Ontario, as follows:
SECTION 1: Housing Element Compliance. Pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 3, Article 10.6, commencing with Section 65580, as the decision-making body for the Project, the City Council finds that based upon the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation, at the time of Project implementation, the Project is consistent with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan (General Plan) component of The Ontario Plan, as the project site is not one of the properties in the Housing Element Sites Inventory contained in Tables B-1 and B-2 of the Housing Element Technical Report.
SECTION 2: Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ("ALUCP") Compliance.
The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. (1) On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the Ontario International Airport Land use Compatibility Plan, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. As the decision-making authority for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ONT ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-2) and Safety Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the City Council, therefore, finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ONT ALUCP; and (2) On August 2, 2022, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted a Development Code Amendment to establish the Chino Airport (“CNO”) Overlay Zoning District (“OZD”) and Reference I, Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (“CNO ALUCP”). The CNO OZD and CNO ALUCP established the Airport Influence Area for Chino Airport, solely within the City of Ontario, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. The CNO ALUCP is consistent with policies and criteria set forth within the Caltrans 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. The proposed Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Chino Airport and was evaluated and found to be consistent with the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and the CNO ALUCP. As the decisionmaking authority for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the facts 1068
and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the CNO ALUCP compatibility factors, including Safety, Airspace Protection, Overflight. As a result, the City Council, therefore, finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and the Chino ALUCP.
SECTION 3: Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced hearing, and upon the specific findings set forth in Sections 1 and 2, above, the City Council hereby concludes as follows:
(1) The proposed Specific Plan, or amendment thereto, is consistent with the goals, policies, plans and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan, in that the Specific Plan Amendment contributes toward the legislative framework for the implementation of The Ontario Plan components, guiding growth and development within the project area to achieve optimum results from the City’s physical, economic, environmental, and human resources. (2) The proposed Specific Plan, or amendment thereto, would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City. The development standards and guidelines established by the proposed Specific Plan Amendment have been created with the intent to safeguard and further the public interest, health, safety, convenience, and/or general welfare, and to ensure that the purposes of The Ontario Plan and the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, are maintained.
(3) In the case of an application affecting specific property(ies), the proposed Specific Plan, or amendment thereto, will not adversely affect the harmonious relationship with adjacent properties and land uses. The location of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and the proposed conditions under which future developments will be constructed and maintained, is consistent with the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan and the Development Code, and, therefore, will not adversely affect the harmonious relationship with adjacent properties and land uses. (4) In the case of an application affecting specific property(ies), the subject site is physically suitable, including, but not limited to, parcel size, shape, access, and availability of utilities, for the request and anticipated development.
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment has been reviewed by all City departments, which have established that the project site is physically suitable for the anticipated development in terms of parcel size, shape, and availability of utilities.
SECTION 4: City Council Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 through 3, above, the City Council hereby APPROVES the herein described amendment to the Parkside Specific Plan, attached hereto as "Attachment A," and incorporated herein by this reference.
1069
SECTION 5: Indemnification. The Applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Ontario or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Ontario or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul this approval. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding, and the City of Ontario shall cooperate fully in the defense.
SECTION 6: Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Ontario City Hall, 303 East "B" Street, Ontario, California 91764. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk of the City of Ontario.
The City Clerk of the City of Ontario shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 19th day of December 2023. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________________
SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
CITY ATTORNEY
1070
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )
CITY OF ONTARIO )
I, SHEILA MAUTZ, City Clerk of the City of Ontario, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that foregoing Resolution No. 2023- was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Ontario at their regular meeting held December 19, 2023 by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
____________________________________
SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
The foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2023- duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held December 19, 2023. _____________________________________
SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
1071
ATTACHMENT A:
File No. PSPA21-006;
Amendment to the Parkside Specific Plan
(Document follows this page)
1072
Specific Plan — August 2006 I
Amended June 2020
Adopted August 2006
Specific Plan Amendment R2020–082 Adopted June 16, 2020 November 2023 DRAFT
1073
II Specific Plan — August 2006
Amended June 2020
2001368
1074
Specific Plan — August 2006 III
Amended June 2020
November 2023 DRAFT
SPECIFIC PLAN
Portions of Subareas 22 and 23
Parkside at New Model Colony Ontario Ranch
PSP03-002
Approved by City of Ontario City Council on 08/15/2006
Amended by City of Ontario City Council on 07/20/2009 (PSPA09-001) Amended by City of Ontario City Council on 06/16/2020 (SPA R2020-82/EIR Addendum R2020-081) Community Developer
SC ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC
1156 N. Mountain Avenue
Upland, California 91785
Contact: Damon Gascon Sage McCleve
(909) 946-7596 (909) 579-1240
Community Planner, Architect
WHA INC.
680 Newport Center Drive, Suite 300
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Contact: Julia Malisos
(949) 250-0607
Landscape Architect
SITESCAPES
3195 Airport Loop Drive, Suite B
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Contact: Rick Polhamus
(949) 644-9370
Civil Engineer
L.D. KING, INC.
210390 Commerce Center Drive Suite C-250
Ontario, California 91730
Contacts: Timothy Stapleton & Carla Berard
(909) 945-0526
1075
IV Specific Plan — August 2006
Amended June 2020
November 2023 DRAFT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1: Specific Plan Overview
1.0 Specific Plan Overview ................................................................................ 1-3
1.0.1 Purpose for Amendment................................................................ 1-9
1.0.2 Governing Documents.................................................................... 1-9
1.0.3 Specific Plan Components............................................................ 1-10 Chapter 2: Introduction
2.0 Introduction................................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 Purpose and Objectives............................................................................... 2-1
2.1.1 Purpose .......................................................................................... 2-1
2.1.2 Objectives....................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Specific Plan Proposal.................................................................................. 2-5
2.2.1 Project Summary............................................................................ 2-5
2.3 Authority and Requirements....................................................................... 2-6
2.3.1 Authority ........................................................................................ 2-6
2.3.2 Requirements of the Specific Plan.................................................. 2-6
2.3.3 Development Agreement Required................................................ 2-7
2.4 Development Approval Components.......................................................... 2-7
2.5 CEQA Compliance........................................................................................ 2-8
2.6 Relationship to General Plan and Zoning..................................................... 2-8
2.7 Development Plan Review........................................................................... 2-8
2.8 Airport Land Use Compatibility Planning Consistency ................................ 2-8 1076
Specific Plan — August 2006 V
Amended June 2020
November 2023 DRAFT
Chapter 3: Existing Conditions/Utilities
3.0 Existing Conditions/Utilities ........................................................................ 3-1
3.1 Property Ownership .................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Consistency ....................................... 3-1
3.3 Existing Site Conditions and Improvements................................................ 3-1
3.4 Surrounding Land Uses................................................................................ 3-1
3.5 Topography.................................................................................................. 3-1
3.6 Hydrology .................................................................................................... 3-1
3.7 Existing Circulation/Access.......................................................................... 3-3
3.7.1 Regional Circulation........................................................................ 3-3
3.7.2 Local Circulation ............................................................................. 3-3
3.8. Existing Infrastructure/Utilities................................................................... 3-6
3.8.1 Water ............................................................................................. 3-6
3.8.2 Groundwater Wells ........................................................................ 3-6
3.8.3 Sewer.............................................................................................. 3-6
3.8.4 Stormwater/Drainage Facilities...................................................... 3-6
3.8.5 Solid Waste Disposal ...................................................................... 3-6
3.8.6 Natural Gas .................................................................................... 3-7
3.8.7 Electrical Facilities .......................................................................... 3-7
3.8.8 Communication Systems................................................................ 3-7
3.9 Geology and Soils........................................................................................ 3-7
3.10 Seismicity................................................................................................... 3-7
3.11 Vegetation ................................................................................................. 3-8
3.12 Biological Resources.................................................................................. 3-8 1077
VI Specific Plan — August 2006
Amended June 2020
November 2023 DRAFT
Chapter 4: Land Use
4.0 Land Use...................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Introduction................................................................................................. 4-1
4.2 Residential Use ............................................................................................ 4-2
4.2.1 Variety of Housing Types................................................................ 4-2
4.2.2 Traditional Neighborhood Design................................................... 4-2
4.3 Parks, Open Space and Recreational Facilities............................................. 4-5
4.3.1 Parks............................................................................................... 4-5
4.3.2 Multi-Purpose Trails ....................................................................... 4-5
4.4 Cucamonga Creek Channel Trail .................................................................. 4-6
4.5 Commercial ................................................................................................. 4-6
4.5.1 Neighborhood Center..................................................................... 4-6
4.6 Public Use (Fire Station and Well Sites)....................................................... 4-6
4.7 Dairy Farming .............................................................................................. 4-6
4.8 Airport Land Use Compatibility Planning (ALUCP)....................................... 4-6 Chapter 5: Infrastructure & Services
5.0 Infrastructure and Services.......................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Circulation ................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1.1 Streets............................................................................................ 5-1
5.1.2 Non-Ontario Ranch Planned Street Condition
Along Park/Paseo Uses .................................................................. 5-7
5.1.3 Traffic Calming................................................................................ 5-7
5.1.4 Pedestrian Circulation .................................................................. 5-12
5.1.5 Bicycle Plan................................................................................... 5-12
5.2 Water Master Plans................................................................................... 5-12
5.2.1 Domestic and Recycled Water ..................................................... 5-12
5.2.2 Domestic Water............................................................................ 5-12
5.2.3 Master Planned Recycled ............................................................ 5-14 1078
Specific Plan — August 2006 VII
Amended June 2020
November 2023 DRAFT
5.3 Sewer Master Plan..................................................................................... 5-16
5.4 Drainage .................................................................................................... 5-16
5.4.1 NPDES Compliance....................................................................... 5-18
5.5 Public Services........................................................................................... 5-20
5.5.1 Schools ......................................................................................... 5-20
5.5.2 Fire Department Services............................................................. 5-20
5.5.3 Police Department Services.......................................................... 5-20
5.5.4 Libraries........................................................................................ 5-20
5.5.5 Public Transportation ................................................................... 5-20
5.6 Public Utilities............................................................................................ 5-21
5.6.1 Telecommunications..................................................................... 5-21
5.6.2 Natural Gas................................................................................... 5-21
5.6.3 Electricity...................................................................................... 5-21
5.7 Integrated Waste....................................................................................... 5-21
5.8 Grading Concept........................................................................................ 5-22
5.9 Phasing ...................................................................................................... 5-24 Chapter 6: Development Regulations
6.0 Development Regulations ........................................................................... 6-1
6.1 Introduction................................................................................................. 6-1
6.2 Definition of Terms...................................................................................... 6-1
6.3 Applicability................................................................................................. 6-1
6.4 Administration............................................................................................. 6-1
6.5 Methods and Interpretation........................................................................ 6-1
6.6 General Site Development Criteria.............................................................. 6-1
6.7 Implementation........................................................................................... 6-2
6.8 Development Permit ................................................................................... 6-3
6.9 Subdivision Maps......................................................................................... 6-3 1079
VIII Specific Plan — August 2006
Amended June 2020
November 2023 DRAFT
6.10 Specific Plan Modifications and Amendments ......................................... 6-3
6.10.1 Minor Modifications..................................................................... 6-3
6.10.2 Specific Plan Amendments........................................................... 6-4
6.11 Appeals...................................................................................................... 6-4
6.12 Project Financing ....................................................................................... 6-4
6.13 Maintenance Responsibilities.................................................................... 6-5
6.14 Residential Development Standards ......................................................... 6-8
6.14.1 Residential Detached ................................................................... 6-8
6.14.2 Residential Attached .................................................................... 6-9
6.15 Neighborhood Center Commercial Land Use Development Standards .. 6-10
6.16 Public Use (Fire Station) Development Standards................................... 6-12
6.17 Landscape Standards............................................................................... 6-12
6.17.1 General Provisions...................................................................... 6-12
6.17.2 Landscape Standards.................................................................. 6-13
6.17.3 Walls and Fences........................................................................ 6-13
6.18 Signage .................................................................................................... 6-14
6.18.1 Master Sign Program Contents................................................... 6-14
6.19 Private Recreational Facilities.................................................................. 6-14 1080
Specific Plan — August 2006 IX
Amended June 2020
November 2023 DRAFT
Chapter 7: Residential Design Guidelines
7.0 Residential Design Guidelines ..................................................................... 7-1
7.1 Introduction................................................................................................. 7-1
7.1.1 Guiding Principles........................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Architectural Styles...................................................................................... 7-2
7.2.1 Introduction.................................................................................... 7-2
7.2.2 Architectural Philosophy ................................................................ 7-2
7.2.3 Architectural Styles......................................................................... 7-3 American Colonial .......................................................................... 7-6 American Traditional ...................................................................... 7-8 Farmhouse ................................................................................... 7-10 Craftsman..................................................................................... 7-12 Andalusian.................................................................................... 7-14 Provence ...................................................................................... 7-16 Spanish Colonial ........................................................................... 7-18 Tuscan .......................................................................................... 7-20 Cottage......................................................................................... 7-22 Adaptive American Traditional..................................................... 7-24 Adaptive Farmhouse .................................................................... 7-26 Adaptive Mediterranean.............................................................. 7-28
7.3 Massing (Single-Family)............................................................................. 7-32
7.3.1 Introduction.................................................................................. 7-32
7.3.2 General Elements......................................................................... 7-33
7.3.3 Front Articulation ......................................................................... 7-34
7.3.4 Roof Forms................................................................................... 7-34
7.3.5 Garage Placement & Treatment .................................................. 7-35
7.3.6 Balconies and Projections............................................................. 7-36 1081
X Specific Plan — August 2006
Amended June 2020
November 2023 DRAFT
7.3.7 Elevation Enhancement................................................................ 7-37
7.3.8 Varied Massing ............................................................................. 7-37
7.3.9 Corner Lots/Critical Edge Conditions............................................ 7-37
7.4 Materials and Details................................................................................. 7-39
7.4.1 Introduction.................................................................................. 7-39
7.4.2 Doors and Entries......................................................................... 7-40
7.4.3 Windows....................................................................................... 7-40
7.4.4 Rakes and Eaves ........................................................................... 7-41
7.4.5 Exterior Lighting and Fixtures....................................................... 7-41
7.4.6 Roof Materials.............................................................................. 7-42
7.4.7 Colors ........................................................................................... 7-42
7.4.8 Accent Materials........................................................................... 7-43
7.4.9 Wall Finishes................................................................................. 7-43
7.5 Attached and Multi-Family Guidelines ...................................................... 7-44
7.5.1 Architectural Inspiration - Themes and Styles.............................. 7-44
7.5.2 Architectural Plotting & Massing Concepts.................................. 7-46
7.6.1 Introduction.................................................................................. 7-50
7.6.2 Home Type Criteria....................................................................... 7-51 A. Conventionally Loaded Lane Homes (PA 1-4)........................... 7-52 Conventionally Loaded Lane Homes - Product 2 (PA 1 & 4)......... 7-53 Conventionally-Loaded Lane Homes (up to 12-Plex)-
Product 3 (PA 2, 3 & 4)........................................................ 7-54 Conventionally-Loaded Lane Homes- Product 4 (PA 1 & 4).......... 7-55 B. Detached Green Court Cluster (Up to 8 - 10-Plex) ......................... (PA 1, 4, 7 & 8) .................................................................... 7-56 C. Conventionally Loaded Lane Homes (Full Driveways)..................... (PA 1, 7 & 8)* ...................................................................... 7-60 1082
Specific Plan — August 2006 XI
Amended June 2020
November 2023 DRAFT
D. Conventionally Loaded Lane Home (Varied Driveways)
(PA 1, 7 & 8)* ......................................................................7-62 F. Semi-Detached Green Court Cluster (8 to 10 Plex).......................... (PA 1, 6, 7 & 8)* .................................................................. 7-66 G. Detached Auto Court Cluster (Full Driveways)................................ (PA 1, 7 & 8)* ...................................................................... 7-68 H. Detached Auto Court Cluster (Varied Driveways) ........................... (PA 1, 7 & 8)* ...................................................................... 7-70 I. Attached Duplex ............................................................................... (PA 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, & 18)*...................... 7-72 J. Attached Triplex ............................................................................... (PA 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 & 18)*........................... 7-74 K. Attached Higher Density Townhomes (PA 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 18)* ............................................................................7-76 L. Attached Row Townhomes(PA 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, & 18)*..................................................................................... 7-78 M. Attached Auto Court Cluster (10- to 14-Plex)...(PA 6, & 13, 14, 15, 16 & 18)* ............................................................................ 7-80
7.7 Landscape.................................................................................................. 7-82
7.7.1 Introduction ................................................................................. 7-82
7.7.2 Overall Streetscapes and Entries.................................................. 7-82
7.7.3 Perimeter Streetscape Design ...................................................... 7-82
7.7.4 Interior Streetscape Design.......................................................... 7-89
7.7.5 Lanes (Private Alleys).................................................................... 7-89
7.7.6 Entries and Monumentation ........................................................ 7-94
7.7.7 Parks and Open Space ................................................................ 7-104
7.7.8 Recreation Area Plan.................................................................. 7-105
7.7.9 Paseo Trail System...................................................................... 7-111
7.7.10 Community Walls and Fencing ................................................. 7-116
7.7.11 Outdoor Lighting ...................................................................... 7-117
7.7.12 Mailboxes................................................................................. 7-117 1083
XII Specific Plan — August 2006
Amended June 2020
November 2023 DRAFT
7.8 Landscape Implementation..................................................................... 7-118
7.8.1 Improvement Responsibility Landscape Maintenance............... 7-118
7.8.2 Homebuilder Landscape Requirements..................................... 7-118
7.9 Design Guideline Implementation........................................................... 7-120
7.9.1 Design Review Submittal Requirements..................................... 7-120 Chapter 8: Commercial Design Guidelines
8.0 Commercial Design Guidelines.................................................................... 8-1
8.1 Introduction................................................................................................. 8-1
8.1.1 Guiding Principles........................................................................... 8-1
8.1.2 Review Process............................................................................... 8-2
8.2 Commercial Design Guidelines.................................................................... 8-2
8.2.1 Introduction.................................................................................... 8-2
8.2.2 Site Planning................................................................................... 8-2
8.2.3 Building Design............................................................................... 8-3
8.2.4 Architectural Details....................................................................... 8-4
8.2.5 Open Space and Landscaping......................................................... 8-5 Chapter 9: General Plan Consistency
9.0 General Plan Consistency ............................................................................ 9-1 Appendix: Legal Description
Parcel A:............................................................................................................. A-2 Parcel B:............................................................................................................. A-2 1084
Specific Plan — August 2006 XIII
Amended June 2020
November 2023 DRAFT
List of Tables
Chapter 1: Specific Plan Overview .............................................1-1 Table 1-1: Parkside Land Use Summary ................................................ 1-7 Chapter 2: Introduction ..............................................................2-i Chapter 3: Existing Conditions/Utilities.......................................3-i Chapter 4: Land Use ...................................................................4-i Table 4-1: Parkside Land Use Summary ................................................ 4-3 Chapter 5: Infrastructure & Services...........................................5-i Chapter 6: Development Regulations..........................................6-i Table 6-1: Maintenance Responsibilities................................................ 6-6 Table 6-2: Neighborhood Commercial Development Standards.......... 6-11 Chapter 7: Residential Design Guidelines....................................7-i Table 7-1: Conventionally Loaded Lane Homes Development Standards7-53 Table 7-2: Detached Green Court Cluster Development Standards...... 7-57 Table 7-3: Conventionally Loaded Lane Home
Development Standards ............................................................. 7-61 Table 7-4: Conventionally Loaded Lane Home
Development Standards ............................................................. 7-63 Table 7-5: Detached Green Court Paseo Cluster (6- or 8-Plex) Development Standards ............................................................. 7-65 Table 7-6: Detached Green Court Cluster Development Standards...... 7-67 Table 7-7: Detached Auto Court Cluster (6-Plex)
Development Standards ............................................................. 7-69 Table 7-8: Detached Auto Court Cluster (6- or 8-Plex)
Development Standards ............................................................. 7-71 1085
XIV Specific Plan — August 2006
Amended June 2020
November 2023 DRAFT
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Chapter 1: Specific Plan Overview .............................................1-1 Exhibit 1-1: Regional Location Map ....................................................... 1-4 Exhibit 1-2: Vicinity Map........................................................................ 1-5 Exhibit 1-3: Land Use Plan...................................................................... 1-6 Chapter 2: Introduction ..............................................................2-i Exhibit 2-1: Policy Plan Land Use Plan ................................................... 2-2 Exhibit 2-2: Policy Plan Functional Roadway Classification Plan............ 2-3 Chapter 3: Existing Conditions/Utilities.......................................3-i Exhibit 3-1: Existing Property Ownership............................................... 3-2 Exhibit 3-2: Aerial Photo ........................................................................ 3-4 Exhibit 3-3: Policy Plan Functional Roadway Classification Plan............ 3-5 Table 7-9: Attached Duplex Development Standards........................... 7-73 Table 7-10: Triplex Development Standards......................................... 7-75 Table 7-11: Attached Higher Density Townhomes
Development Standards ............................................................. 7-77 Table 7-12: Attached Townhomes Development Standards................. 7-79 Table 7-13: Attached Auto Court Cluster (10- to 14-Plex) Development Standards ............................................................. 7-81 Table 7-14: On-Site Tree Size.............................................................. 7-118 Table 7‑15: Community Plant Palette................................................. 7-121 Table 7‑15: Community Plant Palette................................................. 7-122 Table 7‑15: Community Plant Palette................................................. 7-123 Table 7‑15: Community Plant Palette................................................. 7-124 Table 7‑15: Community Plant Palette................................................. 7-125 Table 7‑15: Community Plant Palette................................................. 7-126 1086
Specific Plan — August 2006 XV
Amended June 2020
November 2023 DRAFT
Chapter 4: Land Use ...................................................................4-i Exhibit 4-1: Land Use Plan...................................................................... 4-2 Chapter 5: Infrastructure & Services...........................................5-i Exhibit 5-1: Vehicular Circulation Master Plan....................................... 5-3 Exhibit 5-2: Other Principal Arterial Street Sections............................... 5-4 Exhibit 5-3: Collector Street Sections ..................................................... 5-5 Exhibit 5-4: Local Street Sections ........................................................... 5-6 Exhibit 5-5: Entry Street Sections........................................................... 5-8 Exhibit 5-6: Primary Private Street Sections........................................... 5-9 Exhibit 5-7: Private Lane/Alley Sections................................................. 5-9 Exhibit 5-8: Neighborhood Street Tapers............................................. 5-10 Exhibit 5-9: Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation Master Plan................ 5-11 Exhibit 5-10: Conceptual Domestic Water Master Plan ....................... 5-13 Exhibit 5-11: Conceptual Recycled Water Plan..................................... 5-15 Exhibit 5-12: Conceptual Sewer Master Plan ....................................... 5-17 Exhibit 5-13: Conceptual Storm Drain Master Plan.............................. 5-19 Exhibit 5-14: Conceptual Grading Plan ................................................ 5-23 Exhibit 5-15: Conceptual Phasing Plan................................................. 5-25 Chapter 6: Development Regulations..........................................6-i Chapter 7: Residential Design Guidelines....................................7-i Exhibit 7-1: Plotting and Massing ........................................................ 7-47 Exhibit 7-2: Conceptual Streetscape Master Plan ................................ 7-84 Exhibit 7-3: Archibald Ave. Streetscape................................................ 7-85 Exhibit 7-4: Eucalyptus Ave. Streetscape.............................................. 7-86 Exhibit 7-5: Ontario Ranch Rd. Streetscape ......................................... 7-87 Exhibit 7-6: Carpenter Ave. Streetscape............................................... 7-88 Exhibit 7-7: Hellman Ave. Streetscape ................................................. 7-90 Exhibit 7-8: Primary Local Street.......................................................... 7-91 1087
XVI Specific Plan — August 2006
Amended June 2020
November 2023 DRAFT
Exhibit 7-9: Conceptual Lane (Private Alley) Streetscape..................... 7-92 Exhibit 7-10: Conceptual Lane (Private Alley) Streetscape................... 7-93 Exhibit 7-11: Community Gateway Monument Plan............................ 7-94 Exhibit 7-12: Community Gateway Monument Concept...................... 7-95 Exhibit 7-13: Primary Community Gateway Entry Concept.................. 7-97 Exhibit 7-14: Major Community Gateway (Gated) Concept................. 7-99 Exhibit 7-15: Secondary Community Entry Monument Plan .............. 7-100 Exhibit 7-16: Secondary Community Entry (Gated) Concept.............. 7-101 Exhibit 7-17: Secondary Community Entry Monument Concept ........ 7-103 Exhibit 7-18: Recreation Areas........................................................... 7-104 Exhibit 7-19: Pocket Park Concept A .................................................. 7-106 Exhibit 7-20: Pocket Park A Rendering .............................................. 7-107 Exhibit 7-21: Pocket Park Concept B................................................... 7-107 Exhibit 7-22: Recreation Area Concept A ........................................... 7-108 Exhibit 7-23: Recreation Area Concept B ........................................... 7-109 Exhibit 7-24: Cucamonga Creek Channel Regional Trail Easement ... 7-110 Exhibit 7-25: Channel Regional Trail Easement Plan.......................... 7-111 Exhibit 7-26: Fence/Wall Plan ............................................................ 7-112 Exhibit 7-27: Wall Detail..................................................................... 7-113 Exhibit 7-28: View Fence Detail.......................................................... 7-114 Exhibit 7-30: Privacy Vinyl Wall Detail ............................................... 7-115 Exhibit 7-29: Combo Wall Detail ........................................................ 7-115 Chapter 8: Commercial Design Guidelines...................................8-i Exhibit 8-1: Retail Site Plan .................................................................... 8-8 Chapter 9: General Plan Consistency...........................................9-i Appendix: Legal Description ......................................................A-1 A-1: Legal Description ............................................................................A-3 1088
Chapter 1: Specific Plan Overview
New York City, New York: Park Row and City Hall Park
1089
1090
Specific Plan —August 2006 1-3
Amended June 2020
November 2023 DRAFT
1.0 Specific Plan Overview
Parkside is comprised of approximately 250.9248.46 gross acres and 23 Planning Areas (exclusive of Cucamonga
Creek). The Specific Plan includes the western portion of Subarea 23, between Cucamonga Creek and Archibald
Ave., and the eastern portion of Subarea 22, between
Cucamonga Creek and future Carpenter Ave. The entire
Specific Plan area amounts to 237.9 acres in 25 planning areas (exclusive of Cucamonga Creek). Net project
acreage amounts to 203.2 acres. Refer to Table 1-1:
Parkside Land Use Summary.
The regional context and local setting of the Specific
Plan area are illustrated in Exhibit 1-1: Regional Location Map and Exhibit 1-2: Vicinity Map.
The Specific Plan is consistent with and implements
the Medium Density Residential allocation (11.1 to
25 dwelling units permitted per gross acre) and broad
“community design” policy requirements for Ontario
Ranch, including a general neo-traditional community
design. These include:
• Integration with and connectivity to the Great Park;
• Creation of a “sense of place;”
• Diversity in housing product and architecture;
• Pedestrian connectivity;
• Smaller “neighborhoods;” and
• Elimination of the “subdivision” feel.
On January 26th, 2010, the City adopted The Ontario
Plan (TOP) which serves as the City’s new business
plan and includes a long-term Vision and a principle
based Policy Plan (General Plan). The City’s Policy Plan, which acts as the City’s General Plan, designates (Policy Plan Exhibit LU-1 - Land Use Plan) the project site for development of Medium Density Residential (11.1 to
25 dwelling units per acre), Neighborhood Commercial,
Public Facility, and Open Space -Parkland.
Consistent with the adopted 2010 adopted 2050 Ontario
Plan General Plan, Parkside is allowed a maximum of
1,947 2,851 residential units, Neighborhood Commercial
area, a fire station and a Chino Desalter Authority (CDA) production well site; see Table 1-1: Parkside Land Use
Summary. The 2050 TOP allows for 3,813 units.
A variety of residential neighborhoods are planned within Parkside, with varying product design and architectural character. Residential products envisioned for Parkside include, but are not limited to, conventional/compact
single family detached homes, green/motorcourt clusters, duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, condominiums, and
apartments. A maximum total of 1,947 2,846 dwelling
units are proposed for Parkside.
It should be noted that use of the term “Parkside”
throughout this document applies to the entire Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan area is held under a single ownership, by SC Ontario Development Company, LLC
(“SC Ontario”), with the following exceptions: Cucamonga Creek Channel, The New Home Company owns PA-2
through PA-4, the City owns the Fire Station (PA-20),
and Chino Desalter Authority owns PA-2623.
The Parkside Specific Plan area occupies a strategic
location providing a crucial link between major active
recreation uses planned east of Archibald Ave., and
the future Town Center residential and mixed use
development planned to the west of Parkside.
1091
1-4 Specific Plan — August 2006
Amended June 2020
November 2023 DRAFT
NTS
Exhibit 1-1: Regional Location Map
JURUPA
VALLEY
EASTVALE
1092
Specific Plan —August 2006 1-5
Amended June 2020
November 2023 DRAFT
Legend Exhibit 1-2: Vicinity Map
Specific Plan Site
County Boundaries
City Boundaries
Ontario Ranch Rd.
Chino Ave.
Archibald Ave.
Hamner Ave. Haven Ave.
South Grove Ave.
Sumner Ave.
Eucalyptus Ave.
Limonite Rd.
Schiesman Rd.
Kimball Ave.
Pine Ave.
City of Ontario
Chino Airport
City of Chino
Merrill Ave.
Cucamonga Creek Channel
Bellegrave Ave.
Riverside County
San Bernardino County
NTS
1093
1-6 Specific Plan — August 2006
Amended June 2020
November 2023 DRAFT
Legend
Medium Density Residential (11.1 - 25 du/ac)
Neighborhood Commercial (0.4 FAR)
Public Facility
Open Space - Parkland
Open Space - Private/Village Edges
Roads - Master Planned
Roads - Local
Cucamonga Creek Channel
NTS
Archibald Avenue
Ontario Ranch Road
Eucalyptus Avenue
PA 10
PA 9
PA 11
PA 12
PA 8
PA 7
PA 14
PA 13
PA 6
PA 5
PA 16
PA 15
PA 18
PA 19
PA
20 PA 21 PA 21 PA 21 PA 21
PA
22 PA 17
PA 4
PA 3 PA 2
PA 1
Cucamonga Creek Channel
Hellman Avenue
Carpenter Avenue
East Grand Park Drive
Exhibit 1-3: Land Use Plan
East Grifth Court
PA 23
1094
Specific Plan —August 2006 1-7
Amended June 2020
November 2023 DRAFT
Land Use Lot Size /
Use
Gross
Acreage
Net
Acreage
*Gross Density
Range / S.F. SF Lots / D.U.
Residential
PA-1 (Green Court/Lane Loaded Products 1, 2 & 4)
(Cluster Homes, Detached Lane Loaded) SFD 19.97 15.57 15.63 10-18 11.82 236 PA-2 (Lane Loaded Product 3) (Detached Lane Loaded) SFD 3.57 2.66 2.69 10-18 11.48 41 PA-3 (Lane Loaded Product 3) (Detached Lane Loaded) SFD 3.06 3.07 2.38 2.40 10-18 13.68 42 PA-4 (Green Court/Lane Loaded Products 1, 2, 3 & 4)
(Detached Lane Loaded) SFD 15.52 13.62 13.68 10-18 14.24 221 PA-5 (HD Townhomes) (HD Townhomes, Duplex,
Triplex) (Row Townhomes, Multifamily Attached) MF 9.57 8.14 8.15 15-22 12.75
16.19 139 155
PA-6 (Cluster Homes, Multifamily Attached Attached
Auto Court 10-14 Plex, Detached Green Court 8-10
Plex)
MF 7.34 7.67 7.19 6.89
8-14 16.17
11.86 75 91
PA-7 (Cluster Homes, Detached Lane Loaded )(Auto
Court 6-8 Plex) (Detached Green Court Cluster
Product 1 6-10 Plex, Detached Green Court Cluster,
Conventionally Loaded Lane Homes, Detached Green
Court Paseo Cluster, Detached Auto Court Cluster,
Detached Lane Loaded)
SFD 9.30 8.99 7.49 7.19 8-14 14.68 68 132
PA-8 (Cluster Homes, Detached Lane Loaded )(Green
Court 8-10 Plex) (Detached Auto Court Cluster 6-10
Plex, Detached Green Court Cluster, Green Court 8-10
Plex, Detached Lane Loaded, Detached Green Court
Cluster, Conventionally Loaded Lane Homes, Detached
Green Court Paseo Cluster,)
SFD 6.64 8.88 8.31 6.69 10-16 14.86 68 132
PA-9 (Triplex) (Row Townhomes, Multifamily
Attached HD Townhomes, Duplex, Triplex) MF 10.49 8.37 8.70 6.69 10-16 21.98 120 184 PA-10 (Row Townhomes) (Row Townhomes,
Multifamily Attached HD Townhomes, Duplex,
Triplex)
MF 7.56 10.02 9.60 7.72 17-25 20.66 143 207
PA-11 (HD Townhomes) (Row Townhomes,
Multifamily Attached HD Townhomes, Duplex,
Triplex)
MF 8.11 10.74 9.77 7.72 15-22 17.50 123 188
PA-12 (Triplex) (Row Townhomes, Multifamily
Attached HD Townhomes, Duplex, Triplex) MF 11.8 9.3 12-18 16.27 127 192 PA-13 (Row Townhomes, Multifamily Attached Auto
Court, Attached Row Townhomes) MF 8.53 6.34 8-14 15.01 64 128 PA-14 (Row Townhomes, Multifamily Attached)
(Duplex) (Attached Triplex, Attached Row
Townhomes, HD Townhomes, Autocourts)
MF 7.12 9.50 8.45 6.69 12-18 17.16 99 163
PA-15 (Row Townhomes, Multifamily Attached)
(Duplex) (Attached Triplex, Attached Row
Townhomes, HD Townhomes, Autocourts)
MF 8.62 6.97 6.85 12-18 14.62 111 126
PA-16 (Row Townhomes, Multifamily Attached)
(Triplex) (Attached Triplex, Attached Row
Townhomes, HD Townhomes, Autocourts)
MF 7.83 9.77 9.17 7.35 10-16 10.75 90 105
Table 1-1: Parkside Land Use Summary
1095
1-8 Specific Plan — August 2006
Amended June 2020
November 2023 DRAFT
Land Use Lot Size /
Use
Gross
Acreage
Net
Acreage
*Gross Density
Range / S.F. SF Lots / D.U.
PA-17 (Row Townhomes, Multifamily Attached)
(Row Townhomes) (Attached Duplex, Attached
Triplex, Attached Row Townhomes, HD Townhomes,
Autocourts)
MF 4.87 24.12 4.54 22.06
17-25 10.90
14.37 82 347
PA-18 (Row Townhomes, Multifamily Attached)
(HD Townhomes ) (Attached Triplex, Attached Row
Townhomes, HD Townhomes, Attached Autocourts)
MF 6.74 12.97 5.04 9.28
15-22 18.81
12.41 98 161
Residential Subtotal 156.62
191.68
162.67
153.32
14.77 14.87
1947
2851
Non-Residential
PA-19 (Commercial) 15.66 2.68 11.15 1.81 15,000 -
PA-20 (Fire Station) 1.72 1.39 - 10,464 -
PA-21 (Great Park) 58.86
37.38 33.99 43.50 - -
PA-22 (Private Rec) 1.0 1.87 1.0 1.32 - -
PA-23 (Private Rec) (CDA Well Site) 1.9 0.13 1.34 0.13 - - PA-24 (Private Rec) 1 1 - -
PA-25 (Private Rec) 1 1 - -
PA-26 (CD Well Site) 0.13 0.13 - -
Non-Residential Subtotal 81.27
43.78 38.64 48.15 25,464 -
Channel ROW 13 13 - -
Total Project 250.89
248.46
214.31
214.47
14.77 14.87 1,947
2,851
NOTES:
1) Gross acres taken to center line of streets.
2) Adjusted gross acres taken to street ROW dedicated to the City 2) Net acres taken to street right of way
4) A total of 34.69 acres of master planned roadway is included in the project * Density range is shown is based on net acres. The General Plan is based on adjusted gross acres 3) Proposed product types in each Planning Area are subject to change based on final development submittal. 4) A density transfer of 15.0% may occur between Planning Areas. 1096
Specific Plan —August 2006 1-9
Amended June 2020
November 2023 DRAFT
Homes will frame the Great Park community recreation
area, defining public space, activities, and visually
establishing a community “sense of place.”
Non-residential uses proposed in the Specific Plan
include a commercial lot at the northwest corner of
Archibald Avenue and East Grand Park Drive on the
southwest corner of Ontario Ranch Rd. and Archibald
Ave. A public fire station directly west of the commercial site that fronts on the Great Park, and a CDA well site.
The Great Park extends east to west through the center of the Specific Plan area and provides a unique community
sense of place. All of the Parkside community is within a 1/4 mile walk of the Great Park, establishing Parkside as a walkable community.
A system of pedestrian trails and sidewalks links all
residential neighborhoods with the planned park and
internal private recreation amenities. Additionally,
connections to the Cucamonga Creek Channel trail
are planned.
The internal street system includes a modified grid and landscaped parkways in all local residential streets. Refer to Exhibit 1-3: Land Use Plan.
1.0.1 Purpose for Amendment
This Specific Plan Amendment (2022) modifies the
permitted units allowed in the unbuilt Planning Areas
of the Parkside Specific Plan boundary. Consistent with the proposed The Ontario Plan 2050 Update, density in
these Planning Areas can range from 11.1 to 25 dwelling units per acre. Additionally, in compliance with the
TOP update The Ontario Plan 2050 Update, PA-19, has
reduced in size, thus granting more area for residential development.
The Specific Plan Amendment (2019) modifies modified
the land use plan to improve the interface between the
residential neighborhoods and the Great Park, provided
better internal circulation and access to the private
recreation centers, incorporated a CDA production well
site, introduced new home types to support the goals
of the Specific Plan, added additional architectural
styles and reallocated density between planning areas.
The range of home types provides for a varied and
dynamic neighborhood composition serving a wide
range of family and income types. New home types
with development standards have been introduced to
increase the home type variation in the neighborhoods
and increase opportunities for homes with architecturefront designs. The new home types include high density detached homes, cluster configurations, condominiums
and apartments.
The modifications to the Specific Plan have been
incorporated into the body of the text, standards, and
exhibits of this document. Revisions to the Design
Guidelines, ownership name change and minor text
revisions have also been completed. The amendment shall not be referenced for the remainder of this document
as the standards and guidelines of the Specific Plan are designed to create a cohesive community.
1.0.2 Governing Documents
Development of Parkside will be regulated by the
following documents:
• The Ontario Plan (TOP) Policy Plan (General Plan)
which establishes policies governing land use,
1097
1-10 Specific Plan — August 2006
Amended June 2020
November 2023 DRAFT
circulation, housing, conservation and open space,
noise, safety, and public facilities within the Specific Plan area;
• The Parkside Specific Plan, to include a Land Use
Plan, Infrastructure Plan, Design Guidelines, and
Development Regulations;
• The Ontario Development Code, as applicable to
the project site, where the Specific Plan is silent on
development standards and regulations;
• The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans of Chino
Airport and Ontario International Airport;
• The approved Parkside Environmental Impact
Report; and
• Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R’s) to
be established by the developer of Parkside, and
other developers of Parkside as a means of ensuring
and enforcing quality design and development of
the master planned community.
1.0.3 Specific Plan Components
The Parkside Specific Plan is organized into the following sections in addition to Section 1, Specific Plan Overview.
Section 2: Introduction
The Introduction provides:
• The project setting;
• A general description of the project proposal;
• The goals and policies of the Specific Plan;
• The entitlements to accompany the Specific Plan;
• The relationship of the Specific Plan to The Ontario
Plan (TOP) Policy Plan (General Plan) and the Ontario
Development Code.
Section 3: Existing Conditions
This section describes the setting for the project, outlining the existing physical conditions on and around the site at the time of the original approval.
Section 4: Land Use
The Land Use section describes the various residential
planning areas and residential types, commercial planning area, public use planning area, and the parks and multipurpose trails within the planned community.
Section 5: Infrastructure and Public Improvements
This section provides information on proposed circulation improvements, the planned backbone water, sewer, and
storm drain systems, the grading concept for the project site, and a discussion of public utilities and services to serve the Specific Plan area.
Section 6: Development Regulations
The Development Regulations identify permitted uses
and standards regulating the development of various
residential product types, commercial use, fire station, well site and parks. The relationship of the Parkside
Specific Plan development regulations to the Ontario
Development Code is also provided. The policies and
procedures for the City’s review and approval of future development proposals within the Specific Plan are
included in this section. This section provides the
methods and procedures for interpreting and amending
the Parkside Specific Plan, as necessary in the future. 1098
Specific Plan —August 2006 1-11
Amended June 2020
November 2023 DRAFT
Section 7: Design Guidelines
The Specific Plan Design Guidelines are intended to
direct the site planning, landscaping, and architectural quality of the development. Streetscapes, entries,
edge treatments, walls and fencing, lighting, signage,
and architectural design are addressed in the Design
Guidelines.
Section 8: Commercial Design Guidelines
This section will direct site planning, architectural design, and landscaping for the commercial lot.
Section 9: General Plan Consistency
This section includes the General Plan consistency
matrix describing the relationship of the Specific Plan to each policy of The Ontario Plan (TOP) Policy Plan
(General Plan).
1099
1-12 Specific Plan — August 2006
Amended June 2020
November 2023 DRAFT
Page intentionally left blank
1100
Chapter 2: Introduction
New York City, New York: Central Park
1101
1102
Specific Plan — August 2006 2-1
Amended June 2020
November 2023 DRAFT
2.0 Introduction
The Specific Plan is comprised of 250.9248.46 gross
acres included in Planning Subareas 22 and 23 of
the Ontario Ranch within the City. The Specific Plan
portions of Planning Subareas 22 and 23 are comprised
of 133.76 168.72 gross acres and 104.13 149.95 gross
acres respectively, exclusive of 13 acres included in the Cucamonga Creek Channel. The project site illustrated
in Exhibit 1-2: Vicinity Map is bounded by Ontario
Ranch Rd. on the north, Archibald Ave. on the east,
Eucalyptus Ave. on the south, and Carpenter Street on
the west. The Parkside Specific Plan is a comprehensive plan proposed by SC Ontario Development Company,
LLC for the development of residential neighborhoods
designed to reflect the small town character of established communities. The Specific Plan also includes a commercial site, parks (public and private), a fire station, and a well site.
2.1 Purpose and Objectives
2.1.1 Purpose
The Parkside Specific Plan serves to implement the City’s Policy Plan (General Plan) for the project site (refer to Exhibit 2-1: Policy Plan Land Use Plan and provides
zoning regulations for development of the project site by establishing permitted land use, development standards, infrastructure requirements, and implementation
requirements for development. A comprehensive set
of design guidelines and development regulations are
included to guide and regulate site planning, landscape, and architectural character within the community
ensuring that excellence in community design is achieved during project development. The Parkside Specific Plan
establishes the procedures and requirements to approve
new development within the project site.
The Specific Plan is designed to address the following
guiding planning principles:
• Diversity and choice of single-family and multi-family housing types and opportunities to address a variety
of lifestyles, home sizes, and economic segments
of the marketplace;
• Connectivity among land uses within the Specific
Plan area and to surrounding public facilities and
the existing Ontario community, including the Great
Park; Refer to Exhibit 2-2: Policy Plan Functional
Roadway Classification Plan,
• Use of traditional development patterns found in older established neighborhoods in Southern California;
• Recreational amenities within walking distance of
all residential neighborhoods;
• Bicycle and pedestrian accessibility and mobility to
encourage alternative modes of travel, within the
project site, and along the Cucamonga Channel
Regional Trail;
• Diversity in architectural design; and
• Sustainable development practices addressing
energy efficiency.
2.1.2 Objectives
The following objectives are established for the
Specific Plan.
Residential Areas
• Residential neighborhoods designed at a “human
scale” and oriented to pedestrian activity;
1103
2-2 Specific Plan — August 2006
Amended June 2020
November 2023 DRAFT
Exhibit 2-1: Policy Plan Land Use Plan
NTS
Legend
PONY DR
PINTO PL
SURREY WY
GREENBRIAR DR
BRONCO DR NORTH SHO
BLACK HORSE DR
T
PONY DR STA LLION WY
COLT WY
WRA N GLER PL
BLACK HORSE DR
CHAPARRAL ST
ROCKY PL
CLOVER WY
PEACHTREE
LN
OLD ARCHIBALD RANCH RD
G REY FOX LN
BI G RANGE RD
WRANGLER PL WRANGLER PL
PALOMINO PL
MUSTANG DR
BLACK HORSE DR
CENTUR OI N WY
SCOUT CT
PEACHTREE PL
BURNING TREE DR MUSTANG PL
PALOMINO PL
PINTO PL
TUMBLEWEED ST
CHAPARR AL ST
AR
VE
ONTARIO RANCH RD
CHINO AVE CHINO AVE
CHINO AVE
CHINO AVE
CENTURION
PLA
OLD ARCHIBALD RANCH R
STALLION WY
G
DR
PONY
WY
CLOVER PL
STALLION ST
SWEETWATER
DR
ROCKYWY
ARA B IAN PL
CLYDESDALE ST
ARCADIAN SHORES AV
BURNING TREE DR
THOROUGHBRED ST
BIG RANGE RD
NORTH SHORES DR
CHINO AV
TURNER AV
W
ARCHIBALD AVE
CARPENTER AVE
ARCHIBALD AVE
EUCALYPTUS AVE
ARCHIBALD AVE ARCHIBALD AVE
MERRILL AVE
CARPENTER AVE
ONTARIO RANCH RD
EUCALYPTUS AVE
MERRILL AVE
EDISON AVE
WALKER AVE WALKER AVE
PTUS AVE
SON AVE
VINEYARD AVE
WALKER AVE
ONTARIO AVE O
SCHAEFER AVE SCHAEFER AVE
CHAEFER AVE
ARBOR LN ARBOR LN
MERRIL AVE MERRIL AVE
KENSINGTON AVE ROSE PETAL WY
WICKFORD ST
OXFORD LN
MCC LEVE WY WEST
MCCLE VE WY EAST
CENTENNIAL CI WEST CE NTE NNIA L CI EAST
VICTORY LN
HE RITAG E PASE O
CROWN CT
PRIMROSE PL
SALISBURY WY
DEVONSHIRE LN
DISCOVERY ST
CELEBRATION AVE
PARKPLACE AVE PARKVIEW ST
HOPKINS ST
GROWER AVE
GREEN AVE
HYCHE AVE
DULISSE AVE WING ST
KLASSEN ST
CELEBRAT OI N AVE
PARKPLACE AVE
TURNER AV
NEW HAVEN DR
ONTARIO RANCH RD
SCHAEFER AVE
RUTHERFORD DR
LA AVENIDA DR ALEXANDER AVE
YOUNTVILLE DR
OAK V ILLE AVE
EDISO
LA AVENIDA DR
SCHAEFER AVE
CHIP SMITH WY
ALBRIGHT LN
VICTORIA ST COTTAGE
GARDEN WY
PINE RIDG
SOMERSTON WY
MONDAVI WY
TRINITAS WY
MAYACAMA WY
SILVER OAK WY STERLING
ST
ARTESSA
WY
CLOVERDALE WY
INGLENOOK WY
CARNEROS AV
NEW
COLON
DARIEN ST
BOUNTIFUL TR
GRAPEVINE TR
ROSEMARY WY
THOMPSON ST
MT. RAINIER DRIVE
GLACIER TRAIL BISCAYNE ST
ZION TRAIL
DENALI DRIVE
ACADIA AVE YELLOWSTONE DRIVE
YOSEMITE DRIVE
GRAND PARK ST
ACADIA AVE
ARCHES TRAIL
ROCKY MOUNTAIN ST
TURNER AVE
OLYMPIC DRIVE
DERBY LN
WILLIAMSBURG LN BARNVELDER
WYANDOTTE
ORPINGTON
TANGERINE WAY
APRICO T W A
AGRARIAN ST Y
PAINTED CRESCENT ST
PERENNIAL DR
STARRY N GI HT LN MASTERPIECE ST
OPHELIA LN
PASTEL LN
SWALLOWTAIL LN
MONARCH PL
BUTTERFLY LN
LAVENDER DR
LILAC LN ORCHARD ST
SAGEWOOD LN
KINGS DR
CASTLE LN
GARDEN GATE LN
BORDEAUX DR
BOWERY PL WILSHIRE RD
PENNY LN
BOURBON ST
ABBEY RD
GRAFTON ST
BROADWAY AV
BEALE WY OCEAN WY
CANAL WY
SCOTT WY
ROGERS WY
WAYNE AV
KENT WY
DIANA WY
BANNER ST
MURDOCK LN
PARKER LN
HOWLETT LN
DRYDEN AV
KINGSTON AV
MANITOBA PL
OTTAWA AV
CORNWALL ST
EDMONTON ST
ALBERTA ST
SARNIA ST
CALGARY ST
WINNIPEG AV
WELLAND AV
SILVER SKY DR
COPPERHILL ST
FLAGSTONE
AV
REFLECTION LN
SUSSEX PRIVADO
JASMINE
LN
BANTAM
PASEO
BRAHMA
PASEO
BRESSEPASEO
JAVAPASEO
CLEMENTINE
DR
AVOCADO
TR
STARK LN
ECHO
CT
KENDALL LN TRELLIS WY
BODEGA WY
CELLARS
WY
MIDSUMMER
PRIVADO WILD HORSE PRIVADO
CARDINALE
PRIVADO
PAR
PRI
QUIN
PRIV
HELLMAN AVE
EUCALYPTUS AVE
OLIVIA WY
BLAIRE WY
CHARLOTTE AV
LOLA AV
STELLA AV
ELLIE AV
CORA WY
SCARLETT LN SCARLETT LN
MABEL LN MABEL LN
CLARA LN CLARA LN
HARPER ST HARPER ST
PENELOPE LN PENELOPE LN
PARKVIEW ST
REESE WY
ANSLEY AV
AVERY AV
TATUM LN
HARLOW LN
MAE WY
EMBRY LN
IVY AV IVY AV
PIPER WY
HAZEL ST
VIOLET LN
TREE BLOSS
ASPEN S
HEARTWOO
SUMAC S
E CHINO
E EDISON
E EUCALYPTUS
E EDISON E EDISON
CHAMPAGNE AVE FRANCIS ST
CHABLIS AVE
CLARK ST
ST
ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY
PHILADELPHIA ST
ETIWANDA AVE ETIWANDA AVE ETIWANDA AVE
S ETIWANDA
N ETIWANDA
E SANTA ANA
www.ontarioplan.org
entirety is
nce Area
re
safety,
may
necessitate
LEGEND
Residential
Rural (0 - 2 du/ac)
Low Density (2.1 - 5 du / ac)
Medium Density (11.1 - 25 du / ac)
High Density (25.1 - 45 du / ac)
Industrial (0.55 FAR)
Business Park (0.6 FAR)
Neighborhood Commercial (0.4 FAR)
General Commercial (0.4 FAR)
Hospitality (1.0 FAR)
Mixed Use
Mixed Use
1. Downtown
2, East Holt
3. Meredith
4. Multimodal Mixed Use
5. Inland Empire Corridor
6. Guasti
7. Ontario Center
8. Ontario Mills
9. NMC East
10. NMC West
11. Euclid/Francis
12. 60/Hamner
Retail/Service
Employment
Other
Office Commercial (0.75 FAR)
Low-Medium Density (5.1 - 11 du / ac)
CHARDONNAY CT
(private drainage road)
ROCHESTER AVE
E K LOOP
CREEK
R RD
A RVR RD
WBERRY CREEK
SNOW
GRAEAGLE
MILL CREEK
M AD RVR RD
KINGS RVR LN
AMERICAN RIVER RD
SAN LORENZO RVR RD
GREYSTONE DR
BRENTSTONE ST
HARTFORD ST MONO CK
SHERWIN CK PL WY
SALMON RIVER DR OWENS RIVER
LN
McGEE CK LN
YUBA RIVER
DR
WY
CK PL
HOLCOMB
AK CK CT
O CRK WAY
EEL RIVER PL
BRUSH CK PL SALT CK WY
McCLOUD RVR LN
RUSSIAN RVR DR
YUBA RIV DR
BOISE CK PL
DOUBLEDAY AVE
BEAVER
CK LN
EEK DR
YUBA RIVER DR
MERCED RIVER RDMcCLOUD RIVER RD
TRUCKEE RVR
MILLIKEN AVE
STANFORD AVE
DUPONT AVE
COLORADO RVR RBUTTE CK PL D
McCLOUD RIVER RD
STONE CK
SILVERADO
CREEK PL
KLAMATH RIVER DR
FOX CK LN
E L O PE CREEK DR
DOUBLDAY AVE
JURUPA ST
ZINFANDEL CT
VANDERBILT ST
HUDSON AVE
FRANCIS ST FRANCIS ST
CHAMPAGNE AVE FRANCIS ST
CHABLIS AVE
CLARK ST
JURUPA ST
VINTAGE AVE
VINTAGE AVE
SANTA ANA ST
MALAGA PL
SARAH PL SARAH PL
JURUPA ST
AUTO C ENTER DR
McNAMARA ST
WINEVILLE AVE
AUTO CENTER DR
ROCHESTER AVE
WANAM AKER AVE
WALL ST
WOODR UFF WAY
ROCKEFELLER AVE
LOWELL ST
SANTA ANA ST
DUPONT AVE
DOUB LEDAY AVE
SANTA ANA ST
EBONY ST SEQUOIA AVE
AIRPORT DR
CLEVELAND AVE
GUASTI RD
BRICKELL ST
AIRPORT DR
BRICKELL ST
BRICKELL PRIVADO WANAMAKER AVE
ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY
GIBRALTAR ST
AIRPORT DR
ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY
VINTAGE AVE
FRANKLIN
AVE
ONTARIOMILLSDR
MILLS CIRCLE
ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY
INLAND EMPIRE BLVD
FERRARI L N
CENTER
MALL
DR
MILLS CIRCLE
GURNEEAVE
FRA N KLIN AVE
ONTARIO M ILL S DR ROCHESTER AVE
WINEVILLE AVE
DR
MISSION BLVD
DUPONT AVE
ST
MILLIKEN AVE
ONTARIO FWY (I-15)
MILLIKEN AVE MILLIKEN AVE
ONTARIO FWY (I-15)
PHILADELPHIA ST
WINEVILLE AVE
BURGUNDY PL
PHILADELPHIA ST
ETIWANDA AVE ETIWANDA AVE ETIWANDA AVE
FOURTH ST BARRINGTON AVE
ONTARIO FWY (I-15)
SAN BERNARDINO FWY (I-10)
SHEA DR
CIS ST
PACIFIC
PRIVADO
SLATER
CIR
MILL CK
GUASTI RD
MOTOR LN
L STONE DR
CLEVELAND AVE
EUCALYPTUS AVE
CHINO AV
VIA ASTI
VIA ALBA
VIA PIEMONTE
VIA VILLAGIO
VIA TURIN
ONTARIO CENTER PARKWAY
KETTERING D R
COMMERCE PARKWAY COMMERCE PARKWAY
TOYOTA W Y
CONCOURS ST
CONCOURS ST
CONCOURS ST
EDENGLEN AVE
AUBUR N WY
NI L CALLAWAY DR DENWOOD DR
HERITAGE LN
GR OVELAND DR
COTTAGE WY
EDENGLEN AVE
QUIN CY WY
EDENGLEN AVE
HAMPSHIRE DR BETHANY WY
EMORY LN
OAKWOOD DR EDENGLEN AVE
TULANE WYHAMPTON WY
BRADLEY LN CLAREMONT D R
WESTMONT LN HAMILTON WY
CAMBRIDGE DR
HAMNER AVE HAMNER AVE
ONTARIO RANCH RD
BELLEGRAVE AVE
7 8
12 E AIRPORT
S MILLIKEN S HAMNER
S ETIWANDA
E PHILADELPHIA
E INLAND EMPIRE
S VINTAGE
N MILLIKEN
N ETIWANDA
S WINEVILLE
E SANTA ANA
E JURUPA
ISON
±
BIT LU-01
USE PLAN
www.ontarioplan.org
Note: The City of Ontario in its entirety is
located within the Airport Influence Area
of Ontario International Airport.
An area in which current or future
airport-related noise, overflight, safety,
or airspace protection factors may
significantly affect land uses or necessitate
restriction on those uses.
Refer to the LA/Ontario Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan for further
information.
LEGEND
Residential
Public Facility
Airport
Rail
Landfill
Overlays
Rural (0 - 2 du/ac)
Low Density (2.1 - 5 du / ac)
Medium Density (11.1 - 25 du / ac)
High Density (25.1 - 45 du / ac)
Open Space - Water
Open Space - Parkland
Open Space - Non Recreation
Industrial (0.55 FAR)
Business Park (0.6 FAR)
Neighborhood Commercial (0.4 FAR)
General Commercial (0.4 FAR)
Hospitality (1.0 FAR)
Mixed Use
Mixed Use
1. Downtown
2, East Holt
3. Meredith
4. Multimodal Mixed Use
5. Inland Empire Corridor
6. Guasti
7. Ontario Center
8. Ontario Mills
9. NMC East
10. NMC West
11. Euclid/Francis
12. 60/Hamner
Retail/Service
Employment
Other
Public School
Office Commercial (0.75 FAR)
Low-Medium Density (5.1 - 11 du / ac)
Chino Airport Overlay
Industrial
Business Park Landfill Impact Area
CHARDONNAY CT
(private drainage road)
NORTHSHORES PL
DRIFTWOOD PL
ROCHESTER AVE
SEAGULL AVE
FAIRFIELD ST
CRYSTAL SPGS PL
ROCK SPGS PL
OAK SPRINGS PL
FOX GLEN LP
ACORNGLENN PL
GLENNPLBADGER
FOX GLEN LP LYTLE CREEK LP
BEAR CK
LYT LE C RE E K LOOP
H ONEYGLENN WY
ALISO CREEK
CREEK
OA K HILL DR PONY DR
PINTO PL
CRYSTAL
LK CT
PA R K GLENN WY
CT
COLD CK WY
FIRECREST CT
WOODLARK DR
ARCADIAN SHORES RD
WALNUT ST
HAZELTINE ST DRPEACHTREE PL PEACHTREE PL
BROOKSIDE CT
COTTONWOOD TR
COTTONWOOD CT
ST ANDREWS DR PEACHTREE PL DUNES ST
MERION ST PEACHTREE PLPLAINFIELD DR
NORTH
SHORES DR
NORTH
SHORES
SHORES
RD
ARCADIAN
TURNER AVE
PLAINFIELD DR
COLONIAL AVE
COG HILL CT COG HILL CT
DUNES ST
CYPRESS POINT PL CYPRESS POINT PL
PINE VALLEY AVE
ARCADIAN SHORES RD
SURREY WY
GREENBRIAR DR
N
BRONCO DR
ORTH SHORE D
LONGHORN ST R
PEACHTREE PL
NORTH SHORE DR
PLAINFIELDDR
BLACK HORSE DR
TURNER AVE
PONY DR STA LLION WY
COLT WY
WRA N GLER PL
BLACK HORSE DR
CHAPARRAL ST ROCKY PL
CLOVER WY
PEACHTREELN
OLD ARC HIBALD RANCH RD
G REY FOX LN
HARBOUR TOWN TR
CANTERBURY
COLON AI L AVE CANTERBURY
RICHMOND ST
BROOKSIDE ST
O AK HILL DRPINE VALLEY
WALNUT ST
WI L MINGTON DR
COLON AI L AVE
SEA ISLAND PL
DOVER PL
LEXINGTON PL
TAM O'
SHANTER
HAZELTINE ST
COGHILL ST
DUNES ST PINE VALLEY AVE
CEDAR RIDGE DUNES ST DESERT FOREST AVE CEDAR RIDGE
ST. ANDREWS ST
OAKMONT ST
T URNSTONE AVE
TAM O SHANTER
WALNUT ST
DUNLIN WY
BI G RANGE RD
WRANGLER PL WRANGLER PL
PALOMINO PL
MUSTANG DR
BLACK HORSE DR
CENTURION WY
LAGO ST
WOOD
OAKLEAF
CT
RD
POPLAR DR
WOOD CT
MORNING
ST. TROPEZ DR
BISON WY
FAWN CT
BLUE FOX DR
WY
ANTELOPE
REINDEER LN
PL
DEE
CRYS
R CREEK LOOP TAL LK RD
PINECONEWY
REDPINE PL
RIPPLING BROO K PL CARIBOU PL
CLEAR LA K E RD
ELSINORE WY
ANTLER RD
GINGER
GLENN RD
CEDAR
SHADOW
WARM
SODA
SPRINGS
CT
CK WY
SPGS CT
ASH G ATE WY
MI L ANO ST
GENOA
ASHGATE PL
ASHGATE CT
S U MMER ISLAND
APPLEWOOD DR
NECTAR
CREE KSIDE DR
ALDER C REEK DR
OAK CREEK DR
O A K C REEK
OAK CREEK
STRAWBERRY CREEK PL ADLER CK TUOLUMNE
CT C EDARGLEN
LAURELTREE DR GINGERWOOD RD
OAKLEAF RD
MORNINGWOOD CT
SCOUT CT
PEACHTREE PL
BURNING TREE DR MUSTANG PL
PALOMINO PL
PINTO PL
TUMBLEWEED ST
CHAPARRAL ST
COLD SPRINGS PL
R
WAY
USH CREEK SAN LORENZO RVR RD
YUBA RVR RD
B GI CREEK STRAWBERRY CREEK
SNOW
GRAEAGLE
TUOLUMNE PL
COUNTRY OA K S LOOP
MILL CREEK
M AD RVR RD
KINGS RVR LN
AMERICAN RIVER RD
SAN LORENZO RVR RD
GREYSTONE DR
BRENTSTONE ST
HARTFORD ST MONO CK
SHERWIN CK PL WY
SALMON RIVER DR OWENS RIVER
LN
McGEE CK LN
YUBA RIVER
DR
WY
CK PL
HOLCOMB LIVEOAK CK CT
SANTIAGO CRK WAY
EEL RIVER PL
BRUSH CK PL SALT CK WY
McCLOUD RVR LN
RUSSIAN RVR DR
YUBA RIV DR
BOISE CK PL
WHITE STAG RD ANTLER RD
EV ER GREEN DR
MOOSE DEER DR
ANTLER RD
ALDER DR
CANARY CT ACORN PL
CAPRI ST
DAY CREEK DR
HONEYBROOK WY
DEER CREE K L OOP
CLEAR LAKE RD
BUFFALO RD
BLACKPINE PL
CT SUGAR MAPLE
MONTEG O AVE
TURNER AVE
DOUBLEDAY AVE
GINGERWOOD RD
COUNTRY OAKS
OAK CR E EK DR
EAGLE CK PL
MOOSE CK LN
CARIBOU CK CT
GRIZZLEY CK CT CONDOR CK LN
BEAVER
CK LN
EL K CREEK DR
BIG CREEK RD
YUBA RIVER DR
MERCED RIVER RDMcCLOUD RIVER RD
TRUCKEE RVR
MILLIKEN AVE
STANFORD AVE
DUPONT AVE
EXCISE AVE
PO NI TE AVE
SPRUCE ST
CEDAR ST
STERLING ST
PO NI TE AVE
TURNER AVE
POMONA FWY (SR-60)
POINTE AVE
BUSI NESS PARKWAY
CEDAR ST
FRANCIS ST
PROFORMA AVE
DE SOTO PL
PROFORMA AVE
SPRUCE CT DEL RIO PL CEDAR ST HELLMAN AVE
COLORADO RVR RBUTTE CK PL D
McCLOUD RIVER RD
STONE CK
SILVERADO
CREEK PL
KLAMATH RIVER DR
FOX CK LN
ANTE L O PE CREEK DR
ST
AVION PL
TOWER DR
JURUPA ST
LINDSAY PRIVADO
JURUPA ST
TURNER AVE
DOUBLDAY AVE
CARNEGIE AVE
LA SALLE ST
FRANCIS ST M E TRO WAY
JURUPA ST JURUPA ST
ZINFANDEL CT
VANDERBILT ST
HUDSON AVE
FRANCIS ST FRANCIS ST
CHAMPAGNE AVE FRANCIS ST
CHABLIS AVE
CLARK ST
JURUPA ST
VINTAGE AVE
VINTAGE AVE
SANTA ANA ST
MALAGA PL
SARAH PL SARAH PL
JURUPA ST
AUTO C ENTER DR
McNAMARA ST
WINEVILLE AVE
AUTO CENTER DR
ROCHESTER AVE
WANAM AKER AVE
WALL ST
WOODR UFF WAY
ROCKEFELLER AVE
LOWELL ST
SANTA ANA ST
DUPONT AVE
DOUB LEDAY AVE
SANTA ANA ST
GUASTI RD
AIRPORT DR
PEPPER TREE LN
SYCAMORE RDTURNER AVE
GUASTI RD
CENTRELAKE
DR
EBONY ST SEQUOIA AVE
PONDEROSA AVE
AIRPORT DR
CLEVELAND AVE
GUASTI RD
BRICKELL ST
AIRPORT DR
BRICKELL ST
BRICKELL PRIVADO WANAMAKER AVE
ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY
GIBRALTAR ST
AIRPORT DR
ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY
VINTAGE AVE
FRANKLIN
AVE
ONTARIOMILLSDR
MILLS CIRCLE
ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY
INLAND EMPIRE BLVD
FERRARI L N
CENTER
INLAND EMPIRE BLVD
LOTUS AVE
SHELBY ST
TRIUMPH LN
CORVETTE DR
JAGUAR WY
TURNER AVE
INLAND EMPIRE BLVD
DEL RIO WY
ST
HELLMAN AVE
DEL RIO PL
CENTER AVE
MALL
DR
MILLS CIRCLE
GURNEEAVE
FRA N KLIN AVE
ONTARIO M ILL S DR ROCHESTER AVE
WINEVILLE AVE
ST
RIVERSIDE DR
ELPHIA ST
FOURTH ST
ARCHIBALD AVE ARCHIBALD AVE ARCHIBALD AVE
PHILADELPHIA ST
ARCHIBALD AVE
ARCADIAN SHORES RD
OAK HILL DR
FAIRFIELD ST TURNSTONE
ARCHIBALD AVE
RIVERSIDE DR
MISSION BLVD
HAVEN AVE
MISSION BLVD
DUPONT AVE
HAVEN AVE
FOURTH ST
HAVEN AVE
MILLIKEN AVE
ONTARIO FWY (I-15)
MILLIKEN AVE MILLIKEN AVE
ONTARIO FWY (I-15)
PHILADELPHIA ST
WINEVILLE AVE
BURGUNDY PL
PHILADELPHIA ST
ETIWANDA AVE ETIWANDA AVE ETIWANDA AVE
FOURTH ST BARRINGTON AVE
EXCISE AVE
ONTARIO RANCH RD
MERCEDES LN
CHINO AVE
ONTARIO FWY (I-15)
SAN BERNARDINO FWY (I-10)
SHEA DR
PONDEROSA AV
SEQUOIA AV
FRANCIS ST
PACIFIC
PRIVADO
SLATER
CIR
GOLDEN TRAILS
SILVER SADDLE ST
PALOMINO CT
CENTURION PL
PLAINFIELD PL
OLD ARCHIBALD RANCH RD STALLION WY
ROAN ST
RODEO PL
ARCADIAN
SHORES
RD
JOSHUA TREE RD
CENTURION PL
JOSHUA TREE ST
AUTUMN
RIDGE
RDROCKY LN
GREENBRIAR
DR
PONY
WY
CLOVER PL
STALLION ST
SWEETWATER
DR
ROCKYWY
CLOVER LN
DUNES ST
LAUREL VLY LN
SEA ISLAND TR
LOCUST CT
MILL CK
GUASTI RD
CARRILLO PRIVADO
JOHN BANGS DR
MOTOR LN
EAR L STONE DR
AR A BIAN PL
CLYDESDALE ST
ARCADIAN SHORES AV
BURNING TREE DR
THOROUGHBRED ST
BIG RANGE RD
NORTH SHO RES DR
CHINO AV
TURNER AV
ARCHIBALD AVE
CLEVELAND AVE
EUCALYPTUS AVE
HAVEN AVE HAVEN AVE
EDISON AVE
ARCHIBALD AVE
EUCALYPTUS AVE
SUMNER AVE
ARCHIBALD AVE ARCHIBALD AVE
MERRILL AVE
ONTARIO RANCH RD
ONTARIO AVE ONTARIO AVE
SMID ERLE LP
CHINO AV
VIA ASTI
VIA ALBA
VIA PIEMONTE
VIA VILLAGIO
VIA TURIN
ONTARIO CENTER PARKWAY
GOLDEN OAK RD
HOFER RANCH RD.
KETTERING D R
OLD GUASTI RD
GUASTI RD
COMMERCE PARKWAY COMMERCE PARKWAY
AIRPORT DR
TOYOTA W Y
CONCOURS ST
CONCOURS ST
CONCOURS ST
CONCOURS ST
TA H OE DR
AS H GAT E WAY
SEDONA CT
DUESE N BERG DR
EDENGLEN AVE
AUBUR N WY
NI L CALLAWAY DR DENWOOD DR
HERITAGE LN
GR OVELAND DR
COTTAGE WY
EDENGLEN AVE
QUIN CY WY
EDENGLEN AVE
HAMPSHIRE DR BETHANY WY
EMORY LN
OAKWOOD DR EDENGLEN AVE
TULANE WYHAMPTON WY
BRADLEY LN CLAREMONT D R
WESTMONT LN HAMILTON WY
CAMBRIDGE DR
HAMNER AVE HAMNER AVE
VIA TERRANO VIA CORVINA
VIA FIANO
VIAMOLINARA
VIA DOLCETTO
VIA BAROLO
ARBOR LN ARBOR LN
MERRIL AVE MERRIL AVE
KENSINGTON AVE ROSE PETAL W Y
WIC KFOR D ST
OX FORD LN
MCC LE VE W Y WEST
MCC LE VE W Y EAST
CEN TE NNIA L CI WEST CE N TE NNIA L CI EAST VICTORY LN
HE RITAG E PA SE O
CROWN
CT PRIMROSE PL
SALISBURY WY
DEVONSH IRE LN
DISC OVERY ST
CELEBRAT OI N AVE
PARKPLACE AVE PARKVIEW ST
HOPKINS ST GROWER AVE
DULISSE AVE
GREEN AVE
HYCHE AVE
WING ST
KLASSEN ST
CELEBRAT OI N AVE
PARKPLACE AVE
TURNER AV
NEW HAVEN DR
ONTARIO RANCH RD
ONTARIO RANCH RD ONTARIO RANCH RD
SCHAEFER AVE
RUTHERFORD DR
LA AVENIDA DR
ALEXANDER AVE
YOUNTVILLE DR
O A K V ILLE AVE
EDISON AVE
LA AVENIDA DR
SCHAEFER AVE
CHIP SM IT H WYALBR IGH T LN
VICT ORIA ST COTTAGE
GAR DEN W Y
PINE RIDGE LP SOMERSTON WY MONDAVI WY MERRYVILLE
WY
TRINITAS WY
MAYACAMA WY
SILVER OAK WY
STERLING ST
ARTESSA WY
CLOVERDALE WY
INGLENOOK WY
CARNEROS AV
PLYMOUTH AVE NEWTON AVE
COLONIAL AVE
SALEM ST
NORWICH ST
DANBURY ST
COLCHESTER ST
BENNINGTON ST
LEWISTON ST
DARIEN ST
BELLEGRAVE AVE
OAK KNOLL LP
CALGARY ST
POR SCHE WY
4 5
6 7 8
12 9
3 3
E CHINO
E RIVERSIDE
S ARCHIBALD
S HAVEN
E AIRPORT
N HAVEN
S MILLIKEN S HAMNER
S ETIWANDA
E PHILADELPHIA
E INLAND EMPIRE
E JURUPA
S VINTAGE
N MILLIKEN
N ETIWANDA
S WINEVILLE
N ARCHIBALD
E SANTA ANA
S SUMNER
E JURUPA
E EUCALYPTUS
E INLAND EMPIRE
EDISON E EDISON
E EDISON
±
Approved by City Council on January 27, 2010
0 1 2
Miles
EXHIBIT LU-01
LAND USE PLAN
www.ontarioplan.org
Note: The City of Ontario in its entirety is
located within the Airport Influence Area
of Ontario International Airport.
An area in which current or future
airport-related noise, overflight, safety,
or airspace protection factors may
significantly affect land uses or necessitate
restriction on those uses.
Refer to the LA/Ontario Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan for further
information.
LEGEND
Residential
Public Facility
Airport
Rail
Landfill
Overlays
Rural (0 - 2 du/ac)
Low Density (2.1 - 5 du / ac)
Medium Density (11.1 - 25 du / ac)
High Density (25.1 - 45 du / ac)
Open Space - Water
Open Space - Parkland
Open Space - Non Recreation
Industrial (0.55 FAR)
Business Park (0.6 FAR)
Neighborhood Commercial (0.4 FAR)
General Commercial (0.4 FAR)
Hospitality (1.0 FAR)
Mixed Use
Mixed Use
1. Downtown
2, East Holt
3. Meredith
4. Multimodal Mixed Use
5. Inland Empire Corridor
6. Guasti
7. Ontario Center
8. Ontario Mills
9. NMC East
10. NMC West
11. Euclid/Francis
12. 60/Hamner
Retail/Service
Employment
Other
Public School
Office Commercial (0.75 FAR)
Low-Medium Density (5.1 - 11 du / ac)
Chino Airport Overlay
Commercial
I-10/Grove Interchange Area
Industrial
Business Park Landfill Impact Area
CHARDONNAY CT
(private drainage road)
NORTHSHORES PL
DRIFTWOOD PL
ROCHESTER AVE
SEAGULL AVE
FAIRFIELD ST
CRYSTAL SPGS PL
ROCK SPGS PL
OAK SPRINGS PL
FOX GLEN LP
ACORNGLENN PL
GLENNPLBADGER
FOX GLEN LP LYTLE CREEK LP
BEAR CK
LYT LE C RE E K LOOP
H ONEYGLENN WY
ALISO CREEK
CREEK
OA K HILL DR PONY DR
PINTO PL
CRYSTAL
LK CT
PA R K GLENN WY
CT
COLD CK WY
FIRECREST CT
WOODLARK DR
ARCADIAN SHORES RD
WALNUT ST
HAZELTINE ST DRPEACHTREE PL PEACHTREE PL
BROOKSIDE CT
COTTONWOOD TR
COTTONWOOD CT
ST ANDREWS DR PEACHTREE PL DUNES ST
MERION ST PEACHTREE PLPLAINFIELD DR
NORTH
SHORES DR
NORTH
SHORES
SHORES
RD
ARCADIAN
TURNER AVE
PLAINFIELD DR
COLONIAL AVE
COG HILL CT COG HILL CT
DUNES ST
CYPRESS POINT PL CYPRESS POINT PL
PINE VALLEY AVE
ARCADIAN SHORES RD
SURREY WY
GREENBRIAR DR
N
BRONCO DR
ORTH SHORE D
LONGHORN ST R
PEACHTREE PL
NORTH SHORE DR
PLAINFIELDDR
BLACK HORSE DR
TURNER AVE
PONY DR STA LLION WY
COLT WY
WRA N GLER PL
BLACK HORSE DR
CHAPARRAL ST ROCKY PL
CLOVER WY
PEACHTREELN
OLD ARC HIBALD RANCH RD
G REY FOX LN
HARBOUR TOWN TR
CANTERBURY
COLON AI L AVE CANTERBURY
RICHMOND ST
BROOKSIDE ST
O AK HILL DRPINE VALLEY
WALNUT ST
WI L MINGTON DR
COLON AI L AVE
SEA ISLAND PL
DOVER PL
LEXINGTON PL
TAM O'
SHANTER
HAZELTINE ST
COGHILL ST
DUNES ST PINE VALLEY AVE
CEDAR RIDGE DUNES ST DESERT FOREST AVE CEDAR RIDGE
ST. ANDREWS ST
OAKMONT ST
T URNSTONE AVE
TAM O SHANTER
WALNUT ST
DUNLIN WY
BI G RANGE RD
WRANGLER PL WRANGLER PL
PALOMINO PL
MUSTANG DR
BLACK HORSE DR
CENTURION WY
LAGO ST
WOOD
OAKLEAF
CT
RD
POPLAR DR
WOOD CT
MORNING
ST. TROPEZ DR
BISON WY
FAWN CT
BLUE FOX DR
WY
ANTELOPE
REINDEER LN
PL
DEE
CRYS
R CREEK LOOP TAL LK RD
PINECONEWY
REDPINE PL
RIPPLING BROO K PL CARIBOU PL
CLEAR LA K E RD
ELSINORE WY
ANTLER RD
GINGER
GLENN RD
CEDAR
SHADOW
WARM
SODA
SPRINGS
CT
CK WY
SPGS CT
ASH G ATE WY
MI L ANO ST
GENOA
ASHGATE PL
ASHGATE CT
S U MMER ISLAND
APPLEWOOD DR
NECTAR
CREE KSIDE DR
ALDER C REEK DR
OAK CREEK DR
O A K C REEK
OAK CREEK
STRAWBERRY CREEK PL ADLER CK TUOLUMNE
CT C EDARGLEN
LAURELTREE DR GINGERWOOD RD
OAKLEAF RD
MORNINGWOOD CT
SCOUT CT
PEACHTREE PL
BURNING TREE DR MUSTANG PL
PALOMINO PL
PINTO PL
TUMBLEWEED ST
CHAPARRAL ST
COLD SPRINGS PL
R
WAY
USH CREEK SAN LORENZO RVR RD
YUBA RVR RD
B GI CREEK STRAWBERRY CREEK
SNOW
GRAEAGLE
TUOLUMNE PL
COUNTRY OA K S LOOP
MILL CREEK
M AD RVR RD
KINGS RVR LN
AMERICAN RIVER RD
SAN LORENZO RVR RD
GREYSTONE DR
BRENTSTONE ST
HARTFORD ST MONO CK
SHERWIN CK PL WY
SALMON RIVER DR OWENS RIVER
LN
McGEE CK LN
YUBA RIVER
DR
WY
CK PL
HOLCOMB LIVEOAK CK CT
SANTIAGO CRK WAY
EEL RIVER PL
BRUSH CK PL SALT CK WY
McCLOUD RVR LN
RUSSIAN RVR DR
YUBA RIV DR
BOISE CK PL
WHITE STAG RD ANTLER RD
EV ER GREEN DR
MOOSE DEER DR
ANTLER RD
ALDER DR
CANARY CT ACORN PL
CAPRI ST
DAY CREEK DR
HONEYBROOK WY
DEER CREE K L OOP
CLEAR LAKE RD
BUFFALO RD
BLACKPINE PL
CT SUGAR MAPLE
MONTEG O AVE
TURNER AVE
DOUBLEDAY AVE
GINGERWOOD RD
COUNTRY OAKS
OAK CR E EK DR
EAGLE CK PL
MOOSE CK LN
CARIBOU CK CT
GRIZZLEY CK CT CONDOR CK LN
BEAVER
CK LN
EL K CREEK DR
BIG CREEK RD
YUBA RIVER DR
MERCED RIVER RDMcCLOUD RIVER RD
TRUCKEE RVR
MILLIKEN AVE
STANFORD AVE
DUPONT AVE
EXCISE AVE
PO NI TE AVE
SPRUCE ST
CEDAR ST
STERLING ST
PO NI TE AVE
TURNER AVE
POMONA FWY (SR-60)
POINTE AVE
BUSI NESS PARKWAY
CEDAR ST
FRANCIS ST
PROFORMA AVE
DE SOTO PL
PROFORMA AVE
SPRUCE CT DEL RIO PL CEDAR ST HELLMAN AVE
COLORADO RVR RBUTTE CK PL D
McCLOUD RIVER RD
STONE CK
SILVERADO
CREEK PL
KLAMATH RIVER DR
FOX CK LN
ANTE L O PE CREEK DR
ST CT
E PRIVADO
FRANCIS ST
AVION PL
TOWER DR
JURUPA ST
LINDSAY PRIVADO
JURUPA ST
TURNER AVE
DOUBLDAY AVE
CARNEGIE AVE
LA SALLE ST
FRANCIS ST M E TRO WAY
JURUPA ST JURUPA ST
ZINFANDEL CT
VANDERBILT ST
HUDSON AVE
FRANCIS ST FRANCIS ST
CHAMPAGNE AVE FRANCIS ST
CHABLIS AVE
CLARK ST
JURUPA ST
VINTAGE AVE
VINTAGE AVE
SANTA ANA ST
MALAGA PL
SARAH PL SARAH PL
JURUPA ST
AUTO C ENTER DR
McNAMARA ST
WINEVILLE AVE
AUTO CENTER DR
ROCHESTER AVE
WANAM AKER AVE
WALL ST
WOODR UFF WAY
ROCKEFELLER AVE
LOWELL ST
SANTA ANA ST
DUPONT AVE
DOUB LEDAY AVE
SANTA ANA ST
BORN CT
GUASTI RD
AIRPORT DR
PEPPER TREE LN
SYCAMORE RDTURNER AVE
GUASTI RD
CENTRELAKE
DR
EBONY ST SEQUOIA AVE
PONDEROSA AVE
AIRPORT DR
CLEVELAND AVE
GUASTI RD
BRICKELL ST
AIRPORT DR
BRICKELL ST
BRICKELL PRIVADO WANAMAKER AVE
ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY
GIBRALTAR ST
AIRPORT DR
ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY
VINTAGE AVE
FRANKLIN
AVE
ONTARIOMILLSDR
MILLS CIRCLE
ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY
INLAND EMPIRE BLVD
FERRARI L N
CENTER
INLAND EMPIRE BLVD
LOTUS AVE
SHELBY ST
TRIUMPH LN
CORVETTE DR
JAGUAR WY
TURNER AVE
INLAND EMPIRE BLVD
HACIENDA DR
LAMANCHA WYDEL RIO WY
LA DENEY ST
HELLMAN AVE
DEL RIO PL
CENTER AVE
MALL
DR
MILLS CIRCLE
GURNEEAVE
FRA N KLIN AVE
ONTARIO M ILL S DR ROCHESTER AVE
WINEVILLE AVE
SIXTH ST
DR
ST
RIVERSIDE DR
HILADELPHIA ST
FOURTH ST
ARCHIBALD AVE ARCHIBALD AVE ARCHIBALD AVE
PHILADELPHIA ST
ARCHIBALD AVE
ARCADIAN SHORES RD
OAK HILL DR
FAIRFIELD ST TURNSTONE
ARCHIBALD AVE
RIVERSIDE DR
MISSION BLVD
HAVEN AVE
MISSION BLVD
DUPONT AVE
HAVEN AVE
FOURTH ST
HAVEN AVE
MILLIKEN AVE
ONTARIO FWY (I-15)
MILLIKEN AVE MILLIKEN AVE
ONTARIO FWY (I-15)
PHILADELPHIA ST
WINEVILLE AVE
BURGUNDY PL
PHILADELPHIA ST
ETIWANDA AVE ETIWANDA AVE ETIWANDA AVE
FOURTH ST BARRINGTON AVE
EXCISE AVE
ONTARIO RANCH RD
MERCEDES LN
VE CHINO AVE
ONTARIO FWY (I-15)
SAN BERNARDINO FWY (I-10)
SHEA DR
PONDEROSA AV
SEQUOIA AV
FRANCIS ST
PACIFIC
PRIVADO
SLATER
CIR
GOLDEN TRAILS
SILVER SADDLE ST
PALOMINO CT
CENTURION PL
PLAINFIELD PL
OLD ARCHIBALD RANCH RD STALLION WY
ROAN ST
RODEO PL
ARCADIAN
SHORES
RD
JOSHUA TREE RD
CENTURION PL
JOSHUA TREE ST
AUTUMN
RIDGE
RDROCKY LN
GREENBRIAR
DR
PONY
WY
CLOVER PL
STALLION ST
SWEETWATER
DR
ROCKYWY
CLOVER LN
DUNES ST
LAUREL VLY LN
SEA ISLAND TR
LOCUST CT
MILL CK
GUASTI RD
CARRILLO PRIVADO
JOHN BANGS DR
MOTOR LN
EAR L STONE DR
AR A BIAN PL
CLYDESDALE ST
ARCADIAN SHORES AV
BURNING TREE DR
THOROUGHBRED ST
BIG RANGE RD
NORTH SHO RES DR
CHINO AV
TURNER AV
ARCHIBALD AVE
CLEVELAND AVE
EUCALYPTUS AVE
HAVEN AVE HAVEN AVE
EDISON AVE
ARCHIBALD AVE
EUCALYPTUS AVE
SUMNER AVE
ARCHIBALD AVE ARCHIBALD AVE
MERRILL AVE
ONTARIO RANCH RD
ONTARIO AVE ONTARIO AVE
SMID ERLE LP
CHINO AV
VIA ASTI
VIA ALBA
VIA PIEMONTE
VIA VILLAGIO
VIA TURIN
ONTARIO CENTER PARKWAY
GOLDEN OAK RD
HOFER RANCH RD.
KETTERING D R
OLD GUASTI RD
GUASTI RD
COMMERCE PARKWAY COMMERCE PARKWAY
AIRPORT DR
TOYOTA W Y
CONCOURS ST
CONCOURS ST
CONCOURS ST
CONCOURS ST
TA H OE DR
AS H GAT E WAY
SEDONA CT
DUESE N BERG DR
EDENGLEN AVE
AUBUR N WY
NI L CALLAWAY DR DENWOOD DR
HERITAGE LN
GR OVELAND DR
COTTAGE WY
EDENGLEN AVE
QUIN CY WY
EDENGLEN AVE
HAMPSHIRE DR BETHANY WY
EMORY LN
OAKWOOD DR EDENGLEN AVE
TULANE WYHAMPTON WY
BRADLEY LN CLAREMONT D R
WESTMONT LN HAMILTON WY
CAMBRIDGE DR
T
HAMNER AVE HAMNER AVE
VIA TERRANO VIA CORVINA
VIA FIANO
VIAMOLINARA
VIA DOLCETTO
VIA BAROLO
ARBOR LN ARBOR LN
MERRIL AVE MERRIL AVE
KENSINGTON AVE ROSE PETAL W Y
WIC KFOR D ST
OX FORD LN
MCC LE VE W Y WEST
MCC LE VE W Y EAST
CEN TE NNIA L CI WEST CE N TE NNIA L CI EAST VICTORY LN
HE RITAG E PA SE O
CROWN
CT PRIMROSE PL
SALISBURY WY
DEVONSH IRE LN
DISC OVERY ST
CELEBRAT OI N AVE
PARKPLACE AVE PARKVIEW ST
HOPKINS ST GROWER AVE
DULISSE AVE
GREEN AVE
HYCHE AVE
WING ST
KLASSEN ST
CELEBRAT OI N AVE
PARKPLACE AVE
TURNER AV
NEW HAVEN DR
ONTARIO RANCH RD
ONTARIO RANCH RD ONTARIO RANCH RD
SCHAEFER AVE
RUTHERFORD DR
LA AVENIDA DR
ALEXANDER AVE
YOUNTVILLE DR
O A K V ILLE AVE
EDISON AVE
LA AVENIDA DR
SCHAEFER AVE
CHIP SM IT H WYALBR IGH T LN
VICT ORIA ST COTTAGE
GAR DEN W Y
PINE RIDGE LP SOMERSTON WY MONDAVI WY MERRYVILLE
WY
TRINITAS WY
MAYACAMA WY
SILVER OAK WY
STERLING ST
ARTESSA WY
CLOVERDALE WY
INGLENOOK WY
CARNEROS AV
QVC WY
PLYMOUTH AVE NEWTON AVE
COLONIAL AVE
SALEM ST
NORWICH ST
DANBURY ST
COLCHESTER ST
BENNINGTON ST
LEWISTON ST
DARIEN ST
BELLEGRAVE AVE
OAK KNOLL LP
CALGARY ST
POR SCHE WY
4 5
6 7 8
12 9
3 3
E CHINO
E RIVERSIDE
S ARCHIBALD
S HAVEN
E AIRPORT
N HAVEN
S MILLIKEN S HAMNER
S ETIWANDA
E PHILADELPHIA
E INLAND EMPIRE
E JURUPA
S VINTAGE
N MILLIKEN
N ETIWANDA
S WINEVILLE
N ARCHIBALD
E SANTA ANA
S SUMNER
E JURUPA
E EUCALYPTUS
E INLAND EMPIRE
E EDISON E EDISON
E EDISON
±
Approved by City Council on January 27, 2010
0 1 2
Miles
EXHIBIT LU-01
LAND USE PLAN
www.ontarioplan.org
Note: The City of Ontario in its entirety is
located within the Airport Influence Area
of Ontario International Airport.
An area in which current or future
airport-related noise, overflight, safety,
or airspace protection factors may
significantly affect land uses or necessitate
restriction on those uses.
Refer to the LA/Ontario Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan for further
information.
LEGEND
Residential
Public Facility
Airport
Rail
Landfill
Overlays
Rural (0 - 2 du/ac)
Low Density (2.1 - 5 du / ac)
Medium Density (11.1 - 25 du / ac)
High Density (25.1 - 45 du / ac)
Open Space - Water
Open Space - Parkland
Open Space - Non Recreation
Industrial (0.55 FAR)
Business Park (0.6 FAR)
Neighborhood Commercial (0.4 FAR)
General Commercial (0.4 FAR)
Hospitality (1.0 FAR)
Mixed Use
Mixed Use
1. Downtown
2, East Holt
3. Meredith
4. Multimodal Mixed Use
5. Inland Empire Corridor
6. Guasti
7. Ontario Center
8. Ontario Mills
9. NMC East
10. NMC West
11. Euclid/Francis
12. 60/Hamner
Retail/Service
Employment
Other
Public School
Office Commercial (0.75 FAR)
Low-Medium Density (5.1 - 11 du / ac)
Chino Airport Overlay
Commercial
I-10/Grove Interchange Area
Industrial
Business Park Landfill Impact Area
CHARDONNAY CT
(private drainage road)
OLIVE ST
PLACER
CT
CAROLINE
SAN DIEGO
AV
HARVARD PL
CT
NORTHSHORES PL
DRIFTWOOD PL
ROCHESTER AVE
SEAGULL AVE
FAIRFIELD ST
CRYSTAL SPGS PL
ROCK SPGS PL
OAK SPRINGS PL
FOX GLEN LP
ACORNGLENN PL
GLENNPLBADGER
FOX GLEN LP LYTLE CREEK LP
BEAR CK
LYT LE C RE E K LOOP
H ONEYGLENN WY
ALISO CREEK
CREEK
OA K HILL DR PONY DR
PINTO PL
CRYSTAL
LK CT
PA R K GLENN WY
CT
COLD CK WY
L ST
M O' SHANTER CT
T
PL
RAYMOND PL
CHERRY HILL ST
HAZELTINE
CT
HAZELTINE
CT
CALAVERA S PL
TAM O SHANTER
PARKSIDE DR
V RI GINIA WY
MARIGOLD WAY
REWS ST
DEERFIELD ST
M
VIRGINIA PL
ERION ST
MARIGOLD WY DORAL CT
MERION CT
AMADOR
DORAL CT
MILDRED PL
PARCO AVE
COTTONWOOD ST COTTONWOO D ST
MERION CT
DORAL CT
SANDPIPER AV DEERFIELD ST E
D
MILDRED PL
EL NORTE AVEMAIDSTONE ST
ST ANDREWS ST IMPE RIAL
LASSEN AVE
BERMUDA
DUNES
ST
WALKER AVE
BERMUDA DUNES STHARBOUR AVE CASTLE MAIDSTONE
ST
COTTONWOOD ST
CARNOUSTIE CT
HOLMES PL
MARIGOLD PL
HOLMES PL
MILDRED PL BANYAN
DEL NORTE AVE
OAK HILL OAK HILL SANDPIPER PL IMPE RIAL PL
BANYAN ST
LAKE AVE
BERMUDA DUNES ST
TAM O SHANTER
LASSEN AVE
SPYGLASS CT
DORAL
CT
INVE RNESSCT
COSTACT
MERION DR
CASTLE HARBOUR PL
MEADOW B ROOK PL
CASCADES CASCADES TR PINEHURST CT AUGUSTA AVE
DORAL ST
MERION ST
RIVERSIDE DR
FAIRFIELD ST
OAK HILL CT
BANYAN ST
CHERRY HILL ST
OAK HILL CT
PINEHURST PL
BANYAN CT
TAM O SHANTER
HAZELTINE ST
AUGUSTA AVE
BROOKSIDE ST
ST ANDREWS PL
BANYAN
QUAKER R DI GE PL
OAK HILL CT
CHERRY HILL ST PRARIE DUNES PL
BANYAN ST
HILL ST
BOCA RATON CT
T AI RA AVE
BALBOA AVE
VALENCIA AVE
CHERRY
SAN DIEGO PL
SACRAMENTOPL
WHISPERING
BALBOA
PEBBLEBEACHCT
LAKES
INVERNESS
BROOKSIDE DR
ST ANDREWS DR
BAKER AVE
D VI ERSA DR
TAM A RASK DR W HISPERING LAKES LN
SANDPIPER AVE HAZELTINE ST
DEL NORTE PL
ST ANDREWS CT
MILDRED PL
AMADOR PL
OAKH I LL DR
CALAV ERAS
PL
DEL N ORTE PL
FIRECREST CT
WOODLARK DR
ARCADIAN SHORES RD
WALNUT ST
HAZELTINE ST DRPEACHTREE PL PEACHTREE PL
BROOKSIDE CT
COTTONWOOD TR
COTTONWOOD CT
ST ANDREWS DR PEACHTREE PL DUNES ST
MERION ST PEACHTREE PLPLAINFIELD DR
NORTH
SHORES DR
NORTH
SHORES
SHORES
RD
ARCADIAN
TURNER AVE
PLAINFIELD DR
COLONIAL AVE
COG HILL CT COG HILL CT
DUNES ST
CYPRESS POINT PL CYPRESS POINT PL
PINE VALLEY AVE
ARCADIAN SHORES RD
SURREY WY
GREENBRIAR DR
N
BRONCO DR
ORTH SHORE D
LONGHORN ST R
PEACHTREE PL
NORTH SHORE DR
PLAINFIELDDR
BLACK HORSE DR
TURNER AVE
PONY DR STA LLION WY
COLT WY
WRA N GLER PL
BLACK HORSE DR
CHAPARRAL ST ROCKY PL
CLOVER WY
PEACHTREELN
OLD ARC HIBALD RANCH RD
G REY FOX LN
UNES ST BERMUDA DUNES ST
VINEYARD AVE BERMUDA DUNES CT
HARBOUR TOWN TR
CANTERBURY
COLON AI L AVE CANTERBURY
RICHMOND ST
BROOKSIDE ST
O AK HILL DRPINE VALLEY
WALNUT ST
WI L MINGTON DR
COLON AI L AVE
SEA ISLAND PL
DOVER PL
LEXINGTON PL
TAM O'
SHANTER
HAZELTINE ST
COGHILL ST
DUNES ST PINE VALLEY AVE
CEDAR RIDGE DUNES ST DESERT FOREST AVE CEDAR RIDGE
ST. ANDREWS ST
OAKMONT ST
T URNSTONE AVE
TAM O SHANTER
WALNUT ST
DUNLIN WY
BI G RANGE RD
WRANGLER PL WRANGLER PL
PALOMINO PL
MUSTANG DR
BLACK HORSE DR
CENTURION WY
LAGO ST
WOOD
OAKLEAF
CT
RD
POPLAR DR
WOOD CT
MORNING
ST. TROPEZ DR
BISON WY
FAWN CT
BLUE FOX DR
WY
ANTELOPE
REINDEER LN
PL
DEE
CRYS
R CREEK LOOP TAL LK RD
PINECONEWY
REDPINE PL
RIPPLING BROO K PL CARIBOU PL
CLEAR LA K E RD
ELSINORE WY
ANTLER RD
GINGER
GLENN RD
CEDAR
SHADOW
WARM
SODA
SPRINGS
CT
CK WY
SPGS CT
ASH G ATE WY
MI L ANO ST
GENOA
ASHGATE PL
ASHGATE CT
S U MMER ISLAND
APPLEWOOD DR
NECTAR
CREE KSIDE DR
ALDER C REEK DR
OAK CREEK DR
O A K C REEK
OAK CREEK
STRAWBERRY CREEK PL ADLER CK TUOLUMNE
CT C EDARGLEN
LAURELTREE DR GINGERWOOD RD
OAKLEAF RD
MORNINGWOOD CT
SCOUT CT
PEACHTREE PL
BURNING TREE DR MUSTANG PL
PALOMINO PL
PINTO PL
TUMBLEWEED ST
CHAPARRAL ST
COLD SPRINGS PL
R
WAY
USH CREEK SAN LORENZO RVR RD
YUBA RVR RD
B GI CREEK STRAWBERRY CREEK
SNOW
GRAEAGLE
TUOLUMNE PL
COUNTRY OA K S LOOP
MILL CREEK
M AD RVR RD
KINGS RVR LN
AMERICAN RIVER RD
SAN LORENZO RVR RD
GREYSTONE DR
BRENTSTONE ST
HARTFORD ST MONO CK
SHERWIN CK PL WY
SALMON RIVER DR OWENS RIVER
LN
McGEE CK LN
YUBA RIVER
DR
WY
CK PL
HOLCOMB LIVEOAK CK CT
SANTIAGO CRK WAY
EEL RIVER PL
BRUSH CK PL SALT CK WY
McCLOUD RVR LN
RUSSIAN RVR DR
YUBA RIV DR
BOISE CK PL
WHITE STAG RD ANTLER RD
EV ER GREEN DR
MOOSE DEER DR
ANTLER RD
ALDER DR
CANARY CT ACORN PL
CAPRI ST
DAY CREEK DR
HONEYBROOK WY
DEER CREE K L OOP
CLEAR LAKE RD
BUFFALO RD
BLACKPINE PL
CT SUGAR MAPLE
MONTEG O AVE
TURNER AVE
DOUBLEDAY AVE
GINGERWOOD RD
COUNTRY OAKS
OAK CR E EK DR
EAGLE CK PL
MOOSE CK LN
CARIBOU CK CT
GRIZZLEY CK CT CONDOR CK LN
BEAVER
CK LN
EL K CREEK DR
BIG CREEK RD
YUBA RIVER DR
MERCED RIVER RDMcCLOUD RIVER RD
TRUCKEE RVR
MILLIKEN AVE
STANFORD AVE
DUPONT AVE
EXCISE AVE
PO NI TE AVE
SPRUCE ST
CEDAR ST
STERLING ST
PO NI TE AVE
TURNER AVE
POMONA FWY (SR-60)
POINTE AVE
BUSI NESS PARKWAY
CEDAR ST
FRANCIS ST
PROFORMA AVE
DE SOTO PL
PROFORMA AVE
SPRUCE CT DEL RIO PL CEDAR ST HELLMAN AVE
CARLOS AVE
LYNX PL
CEDAR ST QUAKER RIDGE P
GREVILLEA CT L
VINEYARD AVE
MONTICELLO CT
BAKER AVE
CASTLE HARBOUR PL SHEARWATER ST
FREMONT CT
CEDAR ST
AUGUSTA CT
WALKER AVE
PINEHURST AVE
SPRUCE ST
CEDAR ST
PARCO AVE
WALKER AVE
AUGUSTA PL SKYLARK ST
FRANCIS ST
MONTICELLO ST
FRANCIS ST
CUCAMONGA AVE
LOCUST ST
COLORADO RVR RBUTTE CK PL D
McCLOUD RIVER RD
STONE CK
SILVERADO
CREEK PL
KLAMATH RIVER DR
FOX CK LN
ANTE L O PE CREEK DR
MARIGOLD PL
LOCUST ST
ACACIA CT
WOODLAWN ST
PARKSIDE PL
ACACIA ST
MILDRED AVE
LOCUST ST BAKER AVE
ELM ST
ACACIA ST SACRAMENTO AVE
VINEYARD AVE
VALENCIA ST
BALBOA AVE
ELM ST
LOCUST CT
MAPLE PRIVADO
CARLOS AVE
BALBOA AVE
FRANCIS ST
AVION PL
TOWER DR
JURUPA ST
LINDSAY PRIVADO
JURUPA ST
TURNER AVE
DOUBLDAY AVE
CARNEGIE AVE
LA SALLE ST
VINEYARD AV
AIRPORT DR
WALKER AVE
AIRPORT DR
KERN ST
PEACH AVE
ONTARIO BLVD
GROVE PL
MAIN ST
CUCAMONGA AVE
MAITLAND ST
CALIFORNIA ST CUCAMONGA AVE
JEFFERSON ST
WASHINGTON ST
ST
FRANCIS ST M E TRO WAY
JURUPA ST JURUPA ST
ZINFANDEL CT
VANDERBILT ST
HUDSON AVE
FRANCIS ST FRANCIS ST
CHAMPAGNE AVE FRANCIS ST
CHABLIS AVE
CLARK ST
JURUPA ST
VINTAGE AVE
VINTAGE AVE
SANTA ANA ST
MALAGA PL
SARAH PL SARAH PL
JURUPA ST
AUTO C ENTER DR
McNAMARA ST
WINEVILLE AVE
AUTO CENTER DR
ROCHESTER AVE
WANAM AKER AVE
WALL ST
WOODR UFF WAY
ROCKEFELLER AVE
LOWELL ST
SANTA ANA ST
DUPONT AVE
DOUB LEDAY AVE
SANTA ANA ST
CACIA ST CUCAMONGA AVE
ST
ST
ST
EMPORIA ST
IMPERIAL AVE
ELMA CT LASSEN PL
ELMA CT
CORONA AVE
SACRAMENTO AVE
VINEYARD AVE
CONVENTION CENTER WAY
DEARBORN CT
VINEYARD / TERMINAL WAY
GUASTI RD
AIRPORT DR
PEPPER TREE LN
SYCAMORE RDTURNER AVE
GUASTI RD
CENTRELAKE
DR
EBONY ST SEQUOIA AVE
PONDEROSA AVE
AIRPORT DR
CLEVELAND AVE
GUASTI RD
BRICKELL ST
AIRPORT DR
BRICKELL ST
BRICKELL PRIVADO WANAMAKER AVE
ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY
GIBRALTAR ST
AIRPORT DR
ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY
VINTAGE AVE
FRANKLIN
AVE
ONTARIOMILLSDR
MILLS CIRCLE
MARIN AVE
MADERA AVE
MADERA AVE
H ST
BAKER AVE
GRANADA CT
PLAZA SERENA
ORANGE AVE
PLACER AVE
SACAMENTO AVE
SAN DIEGO AVE
ROSEWOOD CT
JAY ST NAPA AVE
MERCED AVEROSEWOOD CT
MARIPOSA AVE
GRANADA CT LASSEN AVE
HUMBOLDT PL
GLENN PL
D ST
FLORA ST
HUMBOLDTCT
F ST
EL DORADOCT
GLENN
CT
EL MORADO CT
LAKE AVE
E
GLENN AVE
HUMBOLDT CT
IMPERIAL AVE
L DORA DO AVE
DEL NORTE AVE
CALAVERAS AVE CALAVERAS AVE
I ST
LASSEN
AVE
LAKE AVE
FRESNO ST
GLENN AVE
HUMBOLT
EL DORADO AVE
ROSEWOOD
CT
FLORA ST ALAMEDA AVE AMADOR AVE
ALAMEDA AVE
PARKSIDE AVE
VIRGINIA AVE
G ST VIRGINIA AVE FLORA ST PARKSIDE AVE
E ST
HOLMES AVE
CUCAMONGA AVE
HOLMES AVELA PALOMA AVE
CUCAMONGA AVE
LA PALOMA AVE
R O SEWOOD ST
ST
CT
T
ARD LN
ERENA
ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY
INLAND EMPIRE BLVD
FERRARI L N
CENTER
INLAND EMPIRE BLVD
LOTUS AVE
SHELBY ST
TRIUMPH LN
CORVETTE DR
JAGUAR WY
TURNER AVE
INLAND EMPIRE BLVD
G ST
MARIPOSA AVE
LAKE AVE
HAWTHORNE ST
EL DORADO AVE
HAWTHORNE ST
BONNIE BRAE CT
YALE ST
PRINCETON ST
MANDALAY ST
PRINCETON ST
YALE ST
FIFTH ST ORANGE AVE PLACER AV
HAWTHORNE ST
VINEYARD AVE
FIFTH ST
BRAE CT
MULBERRY CT BALBOA WAY
BONNIE
HAWTHORNE CT
CARLOS PL
SI ADORA WAY
HACIENDA DR
LAMANCHA WYDEL RIO WY
LA DENEY ST
HELLMAN AVE
DEL RIO PL
YALE ST
CENTER AVE
MALL
DR
MILLS CIRCLE
GURNEEAVE
FRA N KLIN AVE
ONTARIO M ILL S DR ROCHESTER AVE
WINEVILLE AVE
CORONA AVE
LA DENEY CT
SIXTH ST
ARROYO DR
ALONDRA AVE
CARLO S
SOLANO PL
ALONDRA CT
DEODAR ST
SA N DIEGO
PL
SACRAMENTO PL
ORANGE PL
ST
ST
T
HOLMES CT
LA PALOMA
CT
HARVARD PL
VIRGINIA AVE
PARKSIDE AVE
BONNIE BRAE CT
FIFTH ST
CAROLINE ST
VIRGINIA AVE
CAROLINE CT VIRGINIA AVE
HOLMES CT
XTH ST
T
ORANGE
PLACER AVE
SACRAMENTO AVE
SAN DIEGO AVE
T R NI ITY LOOP ALVARADOLA PAZ AVE
SEVENTH ST
HIGHLAND CT
OLIVE ST
SYCAMORE ST BARRANCA AVE
CAROLINE CT
HACIENDA
SYCAMORE CT
HACIENDA DR
CAR OLINE DR DEODAR ST
SOLANO AVE
ALVARADO CT
SYCAMORE CT
SEVENTH ST VIRGINIA AVE
HIGHLAND CT
OLIVE CT
RAYMOND ST RAYMOND CT PARKSIDE
EIGHTH ST
AMADOR AVE
CALAVERAS AVE RAYMOND ST
HIGHLAND
CT
DEL NORTE AVE
EL DORADO AVE OLIVE
CTEL DORADO AVE
GLENN AVE
HUMBOLT AVE
EL DORADOAV
SYCAMORE ST
SYCAMORE
HUMBOLDT AVE
LAKEAV
MADERAAV
CORONA AVE
SEVENTH ST
MADERA
MAR NI AVE
ORANGE CT
PLACER PL
ISADORA WAY
CARLOS AV
LA DENEY DR
LASSEN AVE
C
DEL NORTE CT
ALAVERA CT
LA DENEY DR
AMADOR AVE
AMADOR AVE
ALVARADO ST
ELPHIA ST
FWY (I-10)
GROVE AVE
BAKER AV
FOURTH ST FOURTH ST
HOLT BLVD
GROVE AVE
GROVE AVE
MISSION BLVD
GROVE AVE GROVE AVE
RIVERSIDE DR
PHILADELPHIA ST
FOURTH ST
ARCHIBALD AVE ARCHIBALD AVE ARCHIBALD AVE
PHILADELPHIA ST
ARCHIBALD AVE
ARCADIAN SHORES RD
OAK HILL DR
FAIRFIELD ST TURNSTONE
ARCHIBALD AVE
RIVERSIDE DR
MISSION BLVD
HAVEN AVE
MISSION BLVD
DUPONT AVE
HAVEN AVE
FOURTH ST
HAVEN AVE
MILLIKEN AVE
ONTARIO FWY (I-15)
MILLIKEN AVE MILLIKEN AVE
ONTARIO FWY (I-15)
PHILADELPHIA ST
WINEVILLE AVE
BURGUNDY PL
PHILADELPHIA ST
ETIWANDA AVE ETIWANDA AVE ETIWANDA AVE
FOURTH ST BARRINGTON AVE
EXCISE AVE
CHINO AVE CHINO AVE
ONTARIO RANCH RD
EUCALYPTUS AVE
MERRILL AVE
CUCAMONGA AVE
LA DENEY
DR
DEODAR ST
HIGHLAND CT
LEEDS AVE
BAKER AVE
L
LASSEN AVE
AKE AVE
LAKE
HUMBOLT
AV
MADERAAV
MARINAV
CORONA AVE
SOLANO AVE OLIVE CT
MERCEDES LN
MISSION BLVD
CHINO AVE CHINO AVE
CHINO AVE
BAKER AVE
CHINO AVE
GROVE AVE GROVE AVE GROVE AVE GROVE AVE
EDISON AVE
ONTARIO FWY (I-15)
SAN BERNARDINO FWY (I-10)
SHEA DR
PONDEROSA AV
SEQUOIA AV
FRANCIS ST
PACIFIC
PRIVADO
SLATER
CIR
GOLDEN TRAILS
SILVER SADDLE ST
PALOMINO CT
CENTURION PL
PLAINFIELD PL
OLD ARCHIBALD RANCH RD STALLION WY
ROAN ST
RODEO PL
ARCADIAN
SHORES
RD
JOSHUA TREE RD
CENTURION PL
JOSHUA TREE ST
AUTUMN
RIDGE
RDROCKY LN
GREENBRIAR
DR
PONY
WY
CLOVER PL
STALLION ST
SWEETWATER
DR
ROCKYWY
CLOVER LN
DUNES ST
LAUREL VLY LN
SEA ISLAND TR
EIGHTH ST
LOCUST CT
MILL CK
GUASTI RD
CARRILLO PRIVADO
MOORE WY
JOHN BANGS DR
MOTOR LN
EAR L STONE DR
HOLMES AV
G
HOLMES PL
ARFIELD AVE
CUCAMONGA AVE
AR A BIAN PL
CLYDESDALE ST
ARCADIAN SHORES AV
BURNING TREE DR
THOROUGHBRED ST
BIG RANGE RD
NORTH SHO RES DR
CHINO AV
TURNER AV
GROVE AVE
WALKER AVE
ARCHIBALD AVE
CARPENTER AVE
CLEVELAND AVE
EUCALYPTUS AVE
HAVEN AVE HAVEN AVE
EDISON AVE
ARCHIBALD AVE
EUCALYPTUS AVE
SUMNER AVE
ARCHIBALD AVE ARCHIBALD AVE
MERRILL AVE
CARPENTER AVE
ONTARIO RANCH RD
EUCALYPTUS AVE
MERRILL AVE
EDISON AVE
WALKER AVE WALKER AVE
EUCALYPTUS AVE
EDISON AVE
VINEYARD AVE
WALKER AVE
ONTARIO AVE ONTARIO AVE
SMID ERLE LP
CHINO AV
GREEN PRIVADO
PRIVADO
CHIEF
VIA ASTI
VIA ALBA
VIA PIEMONTE
VIA VILLAGIO
VIA TURIN
ONTARIO CENTER PARKWAY
GOLDEN OAK RD
HOFER RANCH RD.
KETTERING D R
OLD GUASTI RD
GUASTI RD
COMMERCE PARKWAY COMMERCE PARKWAY
AIRPORT DR
TOYOTA W Y
CONCOURS ST
CONCOURS ST
CONCOURS ST
CONCOURS ST
AVION ST
AVION ST
BAKER AV
MARIPOSA AV
ELMA ST
D ST
NOCTA ST
MARIN AV
NOCTA ST
MADERA AV
COTTONWOOD CT PARKSIDE AV
VIRGINIA PL
COTTONWOOD CT
TA H OE DR
AS H GAT E WAY
LAKE PL LAKE AVE
DEODAR ST
MARIPOSA AV
MARINAV
MADERAAV
HIGHLAND CT
OLIVE ST
RAYMOND ST
MARINAV
MARIPOSA AV
FLORA ST
SEDONA CT
DUESE N BERG DR
ORANGE PRIVADO
PLACER PR VI ADO
SOLANO PRIVADO
HARVARD PRIVADO
PLACER PRIVADO PLACER PRIVADO
EDENGLEN AVE
AUBUR N WY
NI L CALLAWAY DR DENWOOD DR
HERITAGE LN
GROVELAND DR
COTTAGE WY
EDENGLEN AVE
QUIN CY WY
EDENGLEN AVE
HAMPSHIRE DR BETHANY WY
EMORY LN
OAKWOOD DR EDENGLEN AVE
TULANE WYHAMPTON WY
BRADLEY LN CLAREMONT D R
WESTMONT LN HAMILTON WY
CAMBRIDGE DR
RAYMONDPL
ELM CT
WALNUT ST
SCHAEFER AVE SCHAEFER AVE
SCHAEFER AVE SCHAEFER AVE
HAMNER AVE HAMNER AVE
VIA TERRANO VIA CORVINA
VIA FIANO
VIAMOLINARA
VIA DOLCETTO
VIA BAROLO
ARBOR LN ARBOR LN
MERRIL AVE MERRIL AVE
KENSINGTON AVE ROSE PETAL W Y
WIC KFOR D ST
OX FORD LN
MCC LE VE W Y WEST
MCC LE VE W Y EAST
CEN TE NNIA L CI WEST CE N TE NNIA L CI EAST VICTORY LN
HE RITAG E PA SE O
CROWN
CT PRIMROSE PL
SALISBURY WY
DEVONSH IRE LN
DISC OVERY ST
CELEBRAT OI N AVE
PARKPLACE AVE PARKVIEW ST
HOPKINS ST GROWER AVE
DULISSE AVE
GREEN AVE
HYCHE AVE
WING ST
KLASSEN ST
CELEBRAT OI N AVE
PARKPLACE AVE
TURNER AV
NEW HAVEN DR
ONTARIO RANCH RD
ONTARIO RANCH RD ONTARIO RANCH RD
SCHAEFER AVE
RUTHERFORD DR
LA AVENIDA DR
ALEXANDER AVE
YOUNTVILLE DR
O A K V ILLE AVE
EDISON AVE
LA AVENIDA DR
SCHAEFER AVE
CHIP SM IT H WYALBR IGH T LN
VICT ORIA ST COTTAGE
GAR DEN W Y
PINE RIDGE LP SOMERSTON WY MONDAVI WY MERRYVILLE
WY
TRINITAS WY
MAYACAMA WY
SILVER OAK WY
STERLING ST
ARTESSA WY
CLOVERDALE WY
INGLENOOK WY
CARNEROS AV
JAY ST
QVC WY
PLYMOUTH AVE NEWTON AVE
COLONIAL AVE
SALEM ST
NORWICH ST
DANBURY ST
COLCHESTER ST
BENNINGTON ST
LEWISTON ST
DARIEN ST
BELLEGRAVE AVE
OAK KNOLL LP
CALGARY ST
POR SCHE WY
3 4
5 6
7 8
12 9
10 10
3 3
E FOURTH
S GROVE
E D
E CHINO
E RIVERSIDE
S ARCHIBALD
S HAVEN
E AIRPORT
E EDISON
N HAVEN
N GROVE
S MILLIKEN S HAMNER
S VINEYARD
S ETIWANDA
E HOLT
E EIGHTH
E PHILADELPHIA
E INLAND EMPIRE
E JURUPA
S VINTAGE
N MILLIKEN
N ETIWANDA
S WINEVILLE
N ARCHIBALD
E SANTA ANA
S SUMNER
N VINEYARD
E JURUPA
E EUCALYPTUS
E INLAND EMPIRE
E EDISON E EDISON
E EDISON
E PHILADELPHIA
±
Approved by City Council on January 27, 2010
0 1 2
Miles
EXHIBIT LU-01
LAND USE PLAN
www.ontarioplan.org
Note: The City of Ontario in its entirety is
located within the Airport Influence Area
of Ontario International Airport.
An area in which current or future
airport-related noise, overflight, safety,
or airspace protection factors may
significantly affect land uses or necessitate
restriction on those uses.
Refer to the LA/Ontario Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan for further
information.
LEGEND
Residential
Public Facility
Airport
Rail
Landfill
Overlays
Rural (0 - 2 du/ac)
Low Density (2.1 - 5 du / ac)
Medium Density (11.1 - 25 du / ac)
High Density (25.1 - 45 du / ac)
Open Space - Water
Open Space - Parkland
Open Space - Non Recreation
Industrial (0.55 FAR)
Business Park (0.6 FAR)
Neighborhood Commercial (0.4 FAR)
General Commercial (0.4 FAR)
Hospitality (1.0 FAR)
Mixed Use
Mixed Use
1. Downtown
2, East Holt
3. Meredith
4. Multimodal Mixed Use
5. Inland Empire Corridor
6. Guasti
7. Ontario Center
8. Ontario Mills
9. NMC East
10. NMC West
11. Euclid/Francis
12. 60/Hamner
Retail/Service
Employment
Other
Public School
Office Commercial (0.75 FAR)
Low-Medium Density (5.1 - 11 du / ac)
Chino Airport Over
Commercial
I-10/Grove Interchange Area
Industrial
Business Park Landfill Impact Area
Specific Plan Site
1104
Specific Plan — August 2006 2-3
Exhibit 2-2: Policy Plan Functional Roadway Classification Plan Legend
Specific Plan Site
2 Lanes
6 Lanes
4 Lanes
4 Lanes
4 Lanes
8 Lanes
Collector Street
Minor Arterial
Other Principal Arterial
Figure M-2
Functional Roadway
Classification Plan
Freeways
Railroads
Other Principal Arterial
8 Lanes
6 Lanes
4 Lanes
Minor Arterial
6 Lanes
4 Lanes
Collector Street
4 Lanes
2 Lanes
!(! Enhanced Intersections
) Grade-Separated Rail Crossings
Freeway Interchange
Figure M-2
Functional Roadway
Classification Plan
Freeways
Railroads
Other Principal Arterial
8 Lanes
6 Lanes
4 Lanes
Minor Arterial
6 Lanes
4 Lanes
Collector Street
4 Lanes
2 Lanes
!(! Enhanced Intersections
) Grade-Separated Rail Crossings
Freeway Interchange
Figure M-2
Functional Roadway
Classification Plan
1) All streets not shown on the map and legend are classified as Freeways
Railroads
Other Principal Arterial
8 Lanes
6 Lanes
4 Lanes
Minor Arterial
6 Lanes
4 Lanes
Collector Street
4 Lanes
2 Lanes
!(! Enhanced Intersections
) Grade-Separated Rail Crossings
Freeway Interchange
Figure M-2
Functional Roadway
Classification Plan
1) All streets not shown on the map and legend are classified as local streets.
2) Enhanced Intersections allow flexibility from the standard intersection configuration to increase capacity, improve operation, and respond to local conditionsEnhancements may include Freeways
Railroads
Other Principal Arterial
8 Lanes
6 Lanes
4 Lanes
Minor Arterial
6 Lanes
4 Lanes
Collector Street
4 Lanes
2 Lanes
!(! Enhanced Intersections
) Grade-Separated Rail Crossings
Freeway Interchange
Figure M-2
Functional Roadway
Classification Plan
1) All streets not shown on the map and legend are classified as local streets.
2) Enhanced Intersections allow flexibility from the standard intersection configuration to increase capacity, improve operation, and respond to local conditions. Enhancements may include additional lanes, reduced median width, increased right-of-way Freeways
Railroads
Other Principal Arterial
8 Lanes
6 Lanes
4 Lanes
Minor Arterial
6 Lanes
4 Lanes
Collector Street
4 Lanes
2 Lanes
!(! Enhanced Intersections
) Grade-Separated Rail Crossings
Freeway Interchange
Figure M-2
Functional Roadway
Classification Plan
1) All streets not shown on the map and legend are classified as local streets.
2) Enhanced Intersections allow flexibility from the standard intersection configuration to increase capacity, improve operation, and respond to local conditions. Enhancements may include additional lanes, reduced median width, increased right-of-way width, removal of on-street bike lanes, or reduction of parkway Freeways
Railroads
Other Principal Arterial
8 Lanes
6 Lanes
4 Lanes
Minor Arterial
6 Lanes
4 Lanes
Collector Street
4 Lanes
2 Lanes
!(! Enhanced Intersections
) Grade-Separated Rail Crossings
Freeway Interchange
NTS
"
!(!
!(!
!(!
!(!
!(!
!(!
!(!
!(!
!(!
!(!
!(!
!(!
!(!
e Dr
e
Ave
ve
Eucalyptus Ave
Merrill Ave
W
alk
er Av
e
H
a
m
n
er Av
e
H
ellm
a
n
Av
e
|ÿ
60 H
a
v
e
n
Av
e
Mill Cre
e
k
Av
e
Arc
hib
ald
Av
e
T
urn
er Av
e
Vin
e
y
ard
Av
e
Gro
v
e
Av
e
p
Bellegrave Ave
Ontario Ranch Rd
Schaefer Ave
Chino Ave
1105
2-4 Specific Plan — August 2006
Amended June 2020
• Connectivity provided among residential
neighborhoods and recreational areas through a
network of pedestrian sidewalks;
• Connectivity provided between residential
neighborhoods and the adjacent commercial land
use, as well as to the central Great Park, by multipurpose trail linkages, paseos and sidewalks; • A variety of housing types incorporated into the
land use plan addressing lifestyle considerations
of singles, families, and empty nesters;
• Residential neighborhoods designed around a
Great Park green core, framing green spaces and
promoting passive recreational activity and casual
social interaction among neighbors; and
• Residential neighborhoods with diverse
architectural styles with both traditional and
modern design elements.
Commercial Area
• Neighborhood commercial uses to meet the needs
of the residential community within the project
site as well as the larger surrounding market area;
• Provision for paseos, trails, and sidewalks connecting the residential community with the commercial
center and adjacent uses;
• The development of plaza areas and other amenities
within the commercial center providing space for
social interaction; and
• Orientation of commercial buildings to the street
and Great Park wherever possible, to create an
urban edge and sense of arrival.
Streets and Pedestrian/Bicycle Mobility
• Streets and lanes (private alleys) designed in a
modified grid pattern, reminiscent of traditional
neighborhood streets;
• Streets with landscaped parkways and pedestrian
walkways separated from the street, to create a
pleasant pedestrian environment, promoting friendly
interaction among neighbors;
• Several traffic calming techniques within the
proposed street design, including enhanced parkway
landscaping, median landscaping, tapered street
intersections, and alley entrances to influence a
driver’s peripheral vision and encourage motorists
to drive more slowly; and
• Inside turning radii at corners reduced to slow
traffic at corners.
Recreation/Multi-purpose Trails
• New recreational opportunities for residents through
the development of the Great Park to include areas
for passive recreation;
• Private recreation amenities;
• Extension of the City’s planned multipurpose trails
through the Specific Plan including the multi-purpose
trail within the Cucamonga Creek Trail Corridor
connecting Ontario Ranch Rd. with Eucalyptus Ave.,
and the surrounding area; and
• A system of multipurpose trails integrated into
the Specific Plan area providing pedestrian and
bicycle access from the residential community to
surrounding areas.
1106
Specific Plan — August 2006 2-5
Sustainable Development
• Native plant materials and non-invasive ornamental
landscape materials will be incorporated into the
landscaping plan.
• Residential development will be connected to the
commercial land use area located within the site
through pedestrian and bicycle trails promoting
walking and bicycling as an alternative means of
automobile travel to and from these areas;
• Residential development will be equipped with
the latest technology for internet access allowing
residents to shop and work on-line, thereby reducing
vehicle trips to employment centers and shopping;
• Canopy trees will be utilized in public areas such as parkways, medians, and the Great Park to provide
shade to counteract the heat island effect;
• Roadway widths will be reduced as much as possible
to minimize heat generating asphalt surfaces; and
• Recycled water will be utilized for the Great Park,
neighborhood edges and other common landscape
areas.
2.2 Specific Plan Proposal
2.2.1 Project Summary
The Specific Plan Land Use Plan is described below and
in the Table 1-1: Parkside Land Use Summary.
A. Residential Uses
The Specific Plan will provide for development of a
variety of residential housing types, many oriented
toward park and open space amenities and designed to
promote walkability and interaction among residents.
Residential development within the Specific Plan area
will contain up to 1,947 2,851 dwelling units (per Table 1-1: Parkside Land Use Summary), providing a varied mix of single-family detached, single-family attached, and
multi-family attached housing types as described below.
1. Residential Detached
Examples of single-family detached residential products that may be used in the Specific Plan include:
2- and 3-Story Detached Homes
Single-family detached homes may consist of residential units with vehicular access provided from lanes (private alleys) or motor courts, via interior streets, with direct access garages. These residential areas will be developed at an approximate density of 8-14 dwelling units per acre.
Green Court and Motor Court
Green Court/Cluster or Motor Court/Cluster singlefamily detached residential development may consist of residential units with vehicular access provided
from lanes (private alleys) or motor courts, via interior streets, with direct access garages. These residential
areas will be developed at an approximate density of
10-16 dwelling units per acre.
Larger Green Court/Cluster single-family detached
residential development consists of lane-served
residential units designed with an orientation to the
street or green court spaces. Residential areas will be developed at an approximate density of 8-14 dwelling
units per acre.
1107
2-6 Specific Plan — August 2006
Amended June 2020
November 2023 DRAFT
2. Residential Attached
Examples of multi-family attached residential products
that may be used in the Specific Plan include:
Triplexes and Duplexes:
Triplex and duplex residential homes will be designed
with vehicular access provided from lanes. This residential area will be developed at an approximate density of
10-16 dwelling units per acre, with some buildings
fronting the Great Park. Triplex and duplex buildings
could include townhomes, flat or carriage units in 3 unit per structure configurations for triplexes and 2 unit per structure configurations for duplexes.
Townhomes:
Multi-family attached units with orientation to the Great Park and local streets with direct access garages, in
varying orientations. Residential neighborhoods will be developed at an approximate density of 12-25 dwelling
units per acre, in townhome and condominium designs.
Multi-family Attached Homes
High density multi-family attached homes accessed from
lanes (private alleys). Densities average approximately 18-25 dwelling units per acre, and include such residential uses as apartments, condominiums, and townhomes.
2.3 Authority and Requirements
2.3.1 Authority
State Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3,
Article 8, Section 65450-57 grants authority to cities to adopt Specific Plans for purposes of implementing the
goals and policies of their General Plans. The Government Code specifies that specific plans may be adopted either by resolution or by ordinance and that the Specific
Plan is required to be consistent with the General Plan.
The City adopts specific plans by ordinance, thereby
establishing the zoning regulations for development of
the project site. The requirements of the Specific Plan shall take precedence over the Ontario Development
Code. In instances where the Specific Plan is silent, the Ontario Development Code shall prevail.
2.3.2 Requirements of the Specific Plan
California Government Code Section 65451 sets forth
the minimum requirements and review procedures for
Specific Plans as follows:
A Specific Plan shall include a text and a diagram or
diagrams, which specify all of the following in detail:
• The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the area covered
by the plan;
• The proposed distribution, location, and extent
and intensity of major components of public and
private transportation, sewage, water, drainage,
solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential
facilities proposed to be located within the area
covered by the plan and needed to support the
land uses described in the plan;
• Standards and criteria by which improvements
will proceed, and standards for the conservation,
development, and utilization of natural resources,
where applicable;
• A program of implementation measures including
regulations, programs, public works projects and
the financing measures necessary to carry out the
paragraphs above; and
1108
Specific Plan — August 2006 2-7
Amended June 2020
November 2023 DRAFT
• The Specific Plan shall include a statement of the
relationship of the Specific Plan to the General Plan.
The Parkside Specific Plan meets the requirements of
the State Government Code.
2.3.3 Development Agreement Required
Unless done in a coordinated manner and with adequate
fiscal planning, development projects within the
Ontario Ranch are likely to present a challenge in their implementation because of the lack of existing public
facilities, including, streets, sewerage, transportation, drinking water, school, and utility facilities. California law has established a mechanism for ensuring the adequate
provision of such facilities, while at the same time
providing assurances to applicants that, upon approval of the project, the applicants can proceed with their projects.
Approval of this Specific Plan without a development
agreement may result in a waste of resources, escalate
the cost of housing to the consumer, and discourage
investment in and commitment to comprehensive
planning, as envisioned by the City, which seeks to make maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public.
Therefore, a statutory development agreement,
authorized pursuant to California Government Code
sections 65864 et seq., shall be required as part of the approval of this Specific Plan. For the above-mentioned reasons, the development agreement for this Specific
Plan shall include, among other things, methods for
financing acquisition and construction of infrastructure, acquisition and development of adequate levels of park
land, and schools, as well as the provision of adequate housing opportunities for various segments of the
community consistent with the regional housing needs
assessment. Such development agreement shall have
been fully approved before the issuance of the first
building permit for this project.
2.4 Development Approval Components
The components of the development approval process
for the Specific Plan are as follows:
General Plan Policy Plan
The proposed 2050 Ontario Plan (TOP) establishes
the direction and vision for the City providing a single guidance system that will shape the Ontario community
for the future. TOP provides for policies to accommodate change over a 30-year period commencing in 2010, the
beginning of the planning period. TOP consists of a six part Component Framework: 1) Vision, 2) Governance
Manual, 3) Policy Plan, 4) City Council Priorities, 5)
Implementation, and 6) Tracking and Feedback.
Specific Plan
The Policy Plan (General Plan)proposed2050Ontario Plan
requires the approval of a Specific Plan for development of the project site to ensure that sufficient land area is included to achieve unified districts and neighborhoods.
The City has zoned the project site as Specific Plan.
This zoning designation requires that a Specific Plan be approved to guide development of the project site and to implement the goals and policies of the Policy Plan. The Specific Plan provides the zoning regulations to govern development of the project site. The requirements of
the Specific Plan shall take precedence over the Ontario Development Code. In instances where the Specific Plan
is silent, the Ontario Development Code shall prevail.
1109
2-8 Specific Plan — August 2006
Amended June 2020
November 2023 DRAFT
Subdivision Maps
Tentative tract map(s) will be reviewed by the City for the residential portion of the Specific Plan indicating the approximate location of lot lines, streets, and proposed grading. Following approval by the City of the tentative tract map(s), a final map(s) will be prepared. Lot maps will be approved by the City for development proposed
within the commercial portion of the Specific Plan.
2.5 CEQA Compliance
A project site Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared by the City for the Specific Plan, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), addressed
impacts associated with the Specific Plan and subdivision map. The EIR recommended mitigation measures
to reduce impacts of the project site to a less than
significant level. The EIR was prepared as the basis for the environmental review for all subsequent discretionary and ministerial actions.
2.6 Relationship to General Plan and
Zoning
The City’s Policy Plan, which acts as the City’s General Plan, designates the project site for development as follows:
• Medium Density Residential
(11.1 -25 dwelling units per acre)
• Neighborhood Commercial
• Public Facilities
• Open Space -Parkland
The Policy Plan (General Plan) proposed 2050 Ontario
Plan establishes a development capacity of 1,947 2,851
dwelling units and approximately 115,000 square feet
of commercial mixed use for the project site.
California Government Code (Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Section 65450-65457) permits the adoption and administration of specific plans as an implementation tool for elements contained in the local general plan. Specific plans must demonstrate consistency in regulations,
guidelines, and programs with the goals and policies
set forth in the general plan. The Parkside Specific Plan has been prepared in conformance with the goals and
policies of the City’s Policy Plan (General Plan) proposed 2050 Ontario Plan. The policy analysis is located in the Appendix of this document, describes the manner in
which the Parkside Specific Plan complies with the Policy Plan policies applicable to the project.
2.7 Development Plan Review
Following the approval of the Specific Plan, all development proposals for individual residential neighborhoods or
product areas within the Specific Plan will be subject
to the Development Plan Review process pursuant
to Chapter 2.0 Administration and Procedures of the
Ontario Development Code.
2.8 Airport Land Use Compatibility
Planning Consistency
All development proposals or Specific Plan Amendments
are required to be consistent with the Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plans of Chino Airport and Ontario
International Airport.
1110
Chapter 3: Existing Conditions/Utilities
Denver, Colorado: City Park, Robert Burns Monument
1111
1112
Specific Plan — August 2006 3-1
3.0 Existing Conditions/Utilities
3.1 Property Ownership
The Specific Plan area is comprised of approximately
250.9 gross acres. SC Ontario owns approximately 237.9
gross acres of the project site. San Bernardino County
Flood Control District owns the right-of-way for the
Cucamonga Creek Channel that comprises approximately
13.0 gross acres, and effectively divides the eastern
half of the project site from the western half, crossing the site from north to south approximately 1,650 feet
west of Archibald Ave. Exhibit 3-1: Existing Property
Ownership depicts the property ownership within the
Parkside Specific Plan area.
3.2 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
Consistency
The Project Site is located within the Airport Influence Areas of Chino Airport and Ontario International Airport (ONT).
3.3 Existing Site Conditions and
Improvements
The Parkside Specific Plan area is generally undeveloped and general agricultural operations are scattered
throughout the area, including an irrigation pond
located within the northwestern portion of the project
site. The approximate 250.89-gross acre project site
has historically been used for general crop–related
agricultural purposes (alfalfa, corn, milo, sorghum, etc.) and flood control.
3.4 Surrounding Land Uses
Uses surrounding the Parkside Specific Plan area
include rural residential, dairy farming, agricultural, nursery, Southern California Edison (SCE) Substation,
and roadways. The surrounding land uses are as follows:
North: Dairy farming, poultry farming, nursery, crops,
rural residential, and SCE Substation
South: Dairy farming and rural residential
East: Dairy farming, crops, and rural residential
West: Dairy farming, crops, and rural residential
Refer to Exhibit 3-2: Aerial Photo for further detail
relative to existing and surrounding land uses.
3.5 Topography
The existing ground within the project site generally
slopes to the southwest at approximately 0.8% to 2.0%.
Exhibit 5-16: Conceptual Grading Plan illustrates the
topographic features of the Parkside Specific Plan area.
3.6 Hydrology
The Parkside Specific Plan area is presently in agricultural use; therefore, only a limited portion of the project site is now covered with impervious surfaces. Normal rainfall for the area is, therefore, able to percolate through onsite soils and does not result in high volumes of surface runoff, typically associated with urban areas. The entire project site drains generally to the south and southeast towards the Cucamonga Creek. The project site is located approximately one-half mile south of the Cucamonga
Basin. The Cucamonga Basin provides regional storm
water runoff and drainage capacity to portions of south Ontario. The Cucamonga Creek Channel, which bisects
the Parkside Specific Plan, is an improved concrete
trapezoidal channel.
1113
3-2 Specific Plan — August 2006
Amended June 2020
November 2023 DRAFT
Lot 9: 0218-231-17
Lot 10: 0218-231-18
Lot 11: 0218-231-19
Lot 12: 0218-231-20
Lot 13: 0218-231-21
Lot 14: 0218-231-22
Lot F: 0218-231-28
Lot G: 0218-231-29
Exhibit 3-1: Existing Property Ownership
NTS
Tract. No 18048: SC Ontario Development Company, LLC
Lot H: 0218-231-30
Lot I: 0218-231-31
Lot J: 0218-231-32
Lot K: 0218-231-33
Lot L: 0218-231-34
Lot M: 0218-231-35
Lot P: 0218-231-38
Lot Q: 0218-231-39
Lot 1: 0218-231-09
Lot 2: 0218-231-10
Lot 3: 0218-231-11
Lot 4: 0218-231-12
Lot 5: 0218-231-13
Lot 6: 0218-231-14
Lot 7: 0218-231-15
Lot 8: 0218-231-16
Legend
SC Ontario Development Company, LLC
City of Ontario
San Bernardino County Flood Control
0218-181-17
1114
Specific Plan — August 2006 3-3
State Highway SR-83 (Euclid Ave.) extends along the
western boundary of the Ontario Ranch and is 2.5 miles
west of the Specific Plan area via Ontario Ranch Road.
Another major State Highway in the area is SR-71 (Chino Valley Freeway). This freeway is a major commuter route in southwestern San Bernardino County, connecting the
SR-91 freeway with SR-60 and I-10 freeways. SR-71 is
located 6.5 miles west of the Parkside Specific Plan area via Ontario Ranch Rd./Edison Ave.
3.7.2 Local Circulation
Access to the project site is provided from streets adjacent to the Parkside Specific Plan area. Ontario Ranch Rd.
abuts the project site on the north and is currently
improved with two travel lanes west of the Archibald
Ave. intersection, easterly to and beyond the western
property boundary. Archibald Ave. abuts the project site on the east and is currently improved with four travel
lanes, two travel lanes southbound and two travel lanes northbound and a landscape median. Eucalyptus Ave.
abuts the project site on the southwestern half of the
Parkside Specific Plan area and is currently unimproved.
Exhibit 1-2, Regional Location Map illustrates the existing regional and local circulation surrounding the Parkside Specific Plan area. Exhibit 3-3: Policy Plan Functional Roadway Classification Plan illustrates the arterial
streets in the area.
Groundwater within and surrounding the project site,
as a whole, contains certain high concentrations of salt, attributable to historic agricultural activities such as dairy farming. The high organic content of on-site soils has contributed incrementally to the degradation of
surface and groundwater quality. Removal of the organic materials, which constitute by-products of those dairy
operations, and compliance with National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and other storm
water permit requirements will be required as part of
project site development.
3.7 Existing Circulation/Access
3.7.1 Regional Circulation
The Pomona Freeway, State Route (SR-60), is located
2.25 miles north of the project site. Currently, access to SR-60 is to the north, via Archibald Ave. In this region, SR-60 has full diamond-type interchanges with Euclid
Ave., Grove Ave., Vineyard Ave., Archibald Ave., Haven
Ave., and Milliken Ave. SR-60 carries approximately
160,000 vehicles per day in this area.
The Ontario Freeway, Interstate 15 (I-15), is located 2.4 miles east of the project site and carries approximately 90,000 vehicles per day in the vicinity of the Ontario
Ranch area. The closest arterial interchange is located at Limonite Ave. in Riverside County, which is 3.8 miles to the east, via Archibald Ave. to Limonite Ave. or at
Ontario Ranch Rd./Cantu/Galleano Ranch Rd., located
2.5 miles to the east.
1115
3-4 Specific Plan — August 2006
Amended June 2020
November 2023 DRAFT
Ontario Ranch Rd.
Archibald Ave.
NTS
Eucalyptus Ave.
Cucamonga Creek Channel
Exhibit 3-2: Aerial Photo
Existing Groundwater Well Location
1116
Specific Plan— August 2006 3-5
Amended June 2020
November 2023 DRAFT
Exhibit 3-3: Policy Plan Functional Roadway Classification Plan Legend
Specific Plan Site
2 Lanes
6 Lanes
4 Lanes
4 Lanes
4 Lanes
8 Lanes
Collector Street
Minor Arterial
Other Principal Arterial
Figure M-2
Functional Roadway
Classification Plan
Freeways
Railroads
Other Principal Arterial
8 Lanes
6 Lanes
4 Lanes
Minor Arterial
6 Lanes
4 Lanes
Collector Street
4 Lanes
2 Lanes
!(! Enhanced Intersections
) Grade-Separated Rail Crossings
Freeway Interchange
Figure M-2
Functional Roadway
Classification Plan
Freeways
Railroads
Other Principal Arterial
8 Lanes
6 Lanes
4 Lanes
Minor Arterial
6 Lanes
4 Lanes
Collector Street
4 Lanes
2 Lanes
!(! Enhanced Intersections
) Grade-Separated Rail Crossings
Freeway Interchange
Figure M-2
Functional Roadway
Classification Plan
1) All streets not shown on the map and legend are classified as Freeways
Railroads
Other Principal Arterial
8 Lanes
6 Lanes
4 Lanes
Minor Arterial
6 Lanes
4 Lanes
Collector Street
4 Lanes
2 Lanes
!(! Enhanced Intersections
) Grade-Separated Rail Crossings
Freeway Interchange
Figure M-2
Functional Roadway
Classification Plan
1) All streets not shown on the map and legend are classified as local streets.
2) Enhanced Intersections allow flexibility from the standard intersection configuration to increase capacity, improve operation, and respond to local conditionsEnhancements may include Freeways
Railroads
Other Principal Arterial
8 Lanes
6 Lanes
4 Lanes
Minor Arterial
6 Lanes
4 Lanes
Collector Street
4 Lanes
2 Lanes
!(! Enhanced Intersections
) Grade-Separated Rail Crossings
Freeway Interchange
Figure M-2
Functional Roadway
Classification Plan
1) All streets not shown on the map and legend are classified as local streets.
2) Enhanced Intersections allow flexibility from the standard intersection configuration to increase capacity, improve operation, and respond to local conditions. Enhancements may include additional lanes, reduced median width, increased right-of-way Freeways
Railroads
Other Principal Arterial
8 Lanes
6 Lanes
4 Lanes
Minor Arterial
6 Lanes
4 Lanes
Collector Street
4 Lanes
2 Lanes
!(! Enhanced Intersections
) Grade-Separated Rail Crossings
Freeway Interchange
Figure M-2
Functional Roadway
Classification Plan
1) All streets not shown on the map and legend are classified as local streets.
2) Enhanced Intersections allow flexibility from the standard intersection configuration to increase capacity, improve operation, and respond to local conditions. Enhancements may include additional lanes, reduced median width, increased right-of-way width, removal of on-street bike lanes, or reduction of parkway Freeways
Railroads
Other Principal Arterial
8 Lanes
6 Lanes
4 Lanes
Minor Arterial
6 Lanes
4 Lanes
Collector Street
4 Lanes
2 Lanes
!(! Enhanced Intersections
) Grade-Separated Rail Crossings
Freeway Interchange
NTS
"
!(!
!(!
!(!
!(!
!(!
!(!
!(!
!(!
!(!
!(!
!(!
!(!
!(!
e Dr
e
Ave
ve
Eucalyptus Ave
Merrill Ave
W
alk
er Av
e
H
a
m
n
er Av
e
H
ellm
a
n
Av
e
|ÿ
60 H
a
v
e
n
Av
e
Mill Cre
e
k
Av
e
Arc
hib
ald
Av
e
T
urn
er Av
e
Vin
e
y
ard
Av
e
Gro
v
e
Av
e
p
Bellegrave Ave
Ontario Ranch Rd
Schaefer Ave
Chino Ave
1117
3-6 Specific Plan — August 2006
Amended June 2020
November 2023 DRAFT
3.8. Existing Infrastructure/Utilities
3.8.1 Water
New water mains are located in both Ontario Ranch
Rd. and Archibald Ave. adjacent to the Parkside Specific Plan area.
3.8.2 Groundwater Wells
In compliance with the Chino Basin Water Master’s Well
Procedure for Developers, a well use/destruction plan
and schedule for all existing private/agricultural wells shall be submitted to the City of Ontario for approval
prior to the issuance of permits for any construction
activity. If a private well is actively used for water supply, the Developer shall submit a plan to abandon such well
and connect users to the City’s water system (residential to the domestic water system and agricultural to the
recycled water system) when available. Wells shall be
destroyed/abandoned per the California Water Resource
Guidelines and require permitting from County Health
Department. The location of existing well (PA-26) is
shown in Figure 2.# Exhibit 1.3.
3.8.3 Sewer
Sewer mains are located in both Ontario Ranch Rd. and
Archibald Ave. Currently, wastewater disposal within the Specific Plan area is currently provided through septic tanks and subsurface disposal fields. Prior to grading
operations, existing septic tanks and subsurface disposal fields will need to be abandoned in accordance with
Department of Health Services requirements.
3.8.4 Stormwater/Drainage Facilities
The Cucamonga Creek Channel bisects the Parkside
Specific Plan area. The Cucamonga Creek Channel is an
improved concrete lined trapezoidal channel. During
periods of heavy rainfall, when ground surfaces are
saturated, surface runoff is collected in the existing
drainage ditches located within the Specific Plan area.
The project site is located approximately one-half mile south of the Cucamonga Basin. The Cucamonga Basin
acts as a regional flood control facility for portions of south Ontario. The City’s Master Plan of Drainage includes storm drain lines in Eucalyptus Ave., with connections
to the Cucamonga Creek Channel, to drain on-site flows
from the Specific Plan area.
3.8.5 Solid Waste Disposal
There is no solid waste disposal in the vicinity of the project site.
1118
Specific Plan — August 2006 3-7
3.8.6 Natural Gas
The Southern California Gas Company (SCG) provides
natural gas service within the project site. Facilities within the area include an existing 8 inch line, reducing to 6 inches, along Archibald Ave., a 6-inch line and a
36-inch transmission line along Ontario Ranch Rd. (the
36-inch transmission line is located along the south side of Ontario Ranch Rd.).
3.8.7 Electrical Facilities
Southern California Edison Company (SCE) provides
electricity to the project site. SCE has overhead facilities in the area servicing the existing farms and dairies.
Existing facilities surrounding the Specific Plan area, outside of the Specific Plan boundary, include 66 KV and 12 KV lines extending along the north side of Ontario
Ranch Rd. and 66 KV and 12 KV lines extending along
the east side of Archibald Ave. Existing facilities within the project site include a 12 KV line and a 120 V line
located west of the Cucamonga Creek Channel. The
development of the Specific Plan area will increase
electrical power requirements and SCE will develop the
required distribution system. All existing lines, less than
34.2 KV, within the Specific Plan area shall be removed or undergrounded.
3.8.8 Communication Systems
Spectrum provides telephone service within the project
area. Currently, telephone service is provided to the
residences, dairies, and farms in the area.
3.9 Geology and Soils
The City General Plan EIR identified the project site as containing Delhi series soils, as mapped by the United
States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service in 1971 and 1980. Delhi series soils have been
used for agriculture, primarily for grapes and citrus,
since the 1800’s.
3.10 Seismicity
The General Plan identified numerous earthquake
faults within a 50-mile radius of the project site. Major mapped faults include, but are not limited to, the Chino, Whittier and North Elsinore, and Cucamonga Faults. For
the “maximum probable earthquake” (MPE), defined as
the 100-year event normally considered in the design of non-critical structures, the values range from about 0.13 to 0.20 g (i.e., the unit force of gravity). In the design of certain critical or important facilities such as hospitals and dams, the “maximum credible earthquake” (MCE)
should yield an estimated peak horizontal acceleration
in the range of 0.33 to 0.52 g.
A zone of concentrated, relatively low-magnitude
seismicity extends to the southwest from the San Jacinto fault zone (Rialto-Colton branch) along an “inferred fault near Fontana.” Where the “inferred fault” (Fontana
trend) stops, this zone of micro-seismicity continues
in a southwesterly to westerly direction terminating in the Ontario Ranch. It is expected that the MPE for this fault structure could produce horizontal accelerations
in the range of 0.3 to 0.5 g. More distant faults are
1119
3-8 Specific Plan — August 2006
Amended June 2020
capable of larger earthquakes with a higher probability of occurrence. The San Andreas fault is expected to
generate a MCE event every 150 to 200 years, yielding
a peak horizontal ground acceleration of approximately
0.21 to 0.26 g.
The Uniform Building Code (UBC), establishes procedures designed to ensure that all development occurs in a safe manner relative to those known hazards.
3.11 Vegetation
The project site has been extensively used for agricultural operations, including both dairy use and the cultivation of row crops. Those areas not in active agricultural
production are occupied by rural residential housing,
farm buildings, and other ancillary facilities. The natural vegetation and soils conditions that once occurred
throughout the site have been significantly altered
through human uses.
3.12 Biological Resources
Agriculture comprises the vast majority of the total
land use within Ontario Ranch area (GPA EIR for the
NMC,1998). Consequently, the project area has been
exposed to widespread and extreme levels of humanrelated disturbances through agricultural uses. The 250-acre site contained existing structures associated
with crop production (e.g., sheds), evidence of former
residential structures, cultivated areas, ruderal areas, and an irrigation pond. The large pond was historically filled with industrial process wastewater generated by
Sunkist Growers, Inc. as well as extracted ground water.
The irrigation pond no longer receives water from Sunkist Growers, Inc. or wells and has dried up. Cucamonga Creek Channel, a concrete lined flood control facility, traverses the center of the project site, but offers little habitat function or value. Agricultural land uses surround the
project site; however, urban development exists to the
northeast within the City of Ontario, and to the southeast in Riverside County.
1120
Specific Plan — August 2006 4-i
Chapter 4: Land Use
San Fransisco, California: Golden Gate Park
1121
4-ii Specific Plan — August 2006
Amended June 2020
November 2023 DRAFT
1122
Specific Plan — August 2006 4-1
Amended June 2020
November 2023 DRAFT
4.0 Land Use
4.1 Introduction
Parkside is comprised of approximately 250.9 gross
acres. The Specific Plan includes the western portion of Subarea 23, between Cucamonga Creek and Archibald
Ave., and the eastern portion of Subarea 22, between
Cucamonga Creek and future Carpenter Ave. The entire
Specific Plan area amounts to 237.9 acres in 25 planning areas (exclusive of Cucamonga Creek). Net project
acreage amounts to 203.2 acres.
The Specific Plan is consistent with and implements
the Medium Density Residential allocation (11.1 to
25 dwelling units permitted per gross acre) and broad
“community design” policy requirements for the Ontario
Ranch, including a general neo-traditional community
design. These include:
• Integration with and connectivity to the Great Park;
• Creation of a “sense of place;”
• Diversity in housing product and architecture;
• Pedestrian connectivity;
• Smaller “neighborhoods;” and
• Elimination of the “subdivision” feel.
Parkside is envisioned to provide a neighborhood
lifestyle in a wide range of planning areas, featuring
a variety of residential housing types, all designed
around a major community amenity, the Great Park.
All residential neighborhoods are designed within easy
walking distance to internal recreational amenities,
commercial retail uses and the Great Park. For more
information see the Conceptual Great Park Master Plan
adoped by City Council December 2021. Connectivity
within the Specific Plan is provided through a system of sidewalks, multi-purpose trails and on-street bike lanes linking residential neighborhoods to one another, parks, off-site schools, and to the commercial retail area. A
component of the trail system is the Cucamonga Creek
Trail within the Specific Plan area. These improvements represent a part of the City’s Master Planned multipurpose trail system planned for the Ontario Ranch.
Residential development is designed to address a
variety of income levels and lifestyles, such as singles, families, executives, and “empty nesters.” Housing types will include such types as clustered “green court” or
“motor court” single-family detached homes, and a
wide variety of multi-family attached products including, but not limited to, triplexes, duplexes, row townhomes, condominiums, and apartments. At least one pocket park
is expected to be located in each quadrant of the plan.
A commercial land use is provided for in the Specific
Plan, in Planning Area 24 19. The Specific Plan allows
for the development of approximately 115,000 square
feet of neighborhood commercial, retail and service
uses conveniently located adjacent to Archibald Ave.
and Ontario Ranch Rd.
The Land Use diagram illustrated in Exhibit 4-1: Land Use Plan illustrates the overall land use pattern within the Specific Plan area. Table 4-1: Parkside Land Use Summary documents statistical totals for the Specific Plan.
1123
4-2 Specific Plan — August 2006
Amended June 2020
November 2023 DRAFT Archibald Avenue
Ontario Ranch Road
Eucalyptus Avenue
PA 10
PA 9
PA 11
PA 12
PA 8
PA 7
PA 14
PA 13
PA 6
PA 5
PA 16
PA 15
PA 18
PA 19
PA
20 PA 21 PA 21 PA 21 PA 21
PA
22 PA 17
PA 4
PA 2
PA 1
Cucamonga Creek Channel
Hellman Avenue
Carpenter Avenue
East Grand Park Drive
East Grifth Court
PA 23
NTS
4.2 Residential Use
Residential land uses within the Specific Plan comprise approximately 156.62 191.68 gross acres. The Specific
Plan will permit the development of up to 1,947 2,851
single-family detached and attached multi-family
residential dwelling units. Residential land use areas
are contained within distinctive neighborhoods, linked
by a network of sidewalks, paseos, and on-street bicycle paths connecting all the neighborhoods to the central
Great Park.
4.2.1 Variety of Housing Types
Parkside provides a unique mix of housing types to
address the needs of a variety of lifestyle choices and economic segments. A variety of detached and attached
residential products, with a variety of architectural
styles and features will be offered. (See Chapter 7.2
for further details).
4.2.2 Traditional Neighborhood Design
The community plan for Parkside offers a strong
neighborhood character and identity for residents and
visitors through a traditional approach to street design, architecture, and landscape design elements to reflect
a similar character to that of older traditional Southern California neighborhoods, including Ontario with a
modern interpretation of traditional styles. The design features described below “activate” the streetscene
and promote friendly interaction between neighbors.
Exhibit 4-1: Land Use Plan
1124
Specific Plan — August 2006 4-3
Amended June 2020
November 2023 DRAFT
Land Use Lot Size /
Use
Gross
Acreage
Net
Acreage
*Gross Density
Range / S.F. SF Lots / D.U.
Residential
PA-1 (Green Court/Lane Loaded Products 1, 2 & 4)
(Detached Lane Loaded) SFD 19.97 15.57 15.63 10-18 11.82 236 PA-2 (Lane Loaded Product 3) (Detached Lane Loaded) SFD 3.57 2.66 2.69 10-18 11.48 41 PA-3 (Lane Loaded Product 3) (Detached Lane Loaded) SFD 3.06 3.07 2.38 2.40 10-18 13.68 42 PA-4 (Green Court/Lane Loaded Products 1, 2, 3 & 4)
(Detached Lane Loaded) SFD 15.52 13.62 13.68 10-18 14.24 221 PA-5 (HD Townhomes) (HD Townhomes, Duplex,
Triplex) MF 9.57 8.14 15-22 12.75 139 155
PA-6 (Attached Auto Court 10-14 Plex, Detached
Green Court 8-10 Plex) MF 7.34 7.67 6.89 7.19 8-14 16.17 75 91 PA-7 (Auto Court 6-8 Plex) (Detached Green Court
Cluster Product 1 6-10 Plex, Detached Green
Court Cluster, Conventionally Loaded Lane Homes,
Detached Green Court Paseo Cluster, Detached Auto
Court Cluster, Detached Lane Loaded)
SFD 9.30 8.99 7.49 7.19 8-14 14.68 68 132
PA-8 (Green Court 8-10 Plex) (Detached Auto Court
Cluster 6-10 Plex, Detached Green Court Cluster,
Green Court 8-10 Plex, Detached Lane Loaded,
Detached Green Court Cluster, Conventionally Loaded
Lane Homes, Detached Green Court Paseo Cluster,)
SFD 6.64 8.88 6.18 8.31 10-16 14.86 68 132
PA-9 (Triplex) (Row Townhomes, HD Townhomes,
Duplex, Triplex) MF 10.49 8.37 8.70 6.69 10-16 21.98 120 184 PA-10 (Row Townhomes) (Row Townhomes, HD
Townhomes, Duplex, Triplex) MF 7.56 10.02 7.22 9.60 17-25 20.66 143 207 PA-11 (HD Townhomes) (Row Townhomes, HD
Townhomes, Duplex, Triplex) MF 8.11 10.74 7.22 9.77 15-22 17.50 123 188 PA-12 (Triplex) (Row Townhomes, HD Townhomes,
Duplex, Triplex) MF 11.8 9.3 12-18 16.27 127 192
PA-13 (Attached Auto Court, Attached Row
Townhomes) MF 8.53 6.34 8-14 15.01 64 128
PA-14 (Duplex) (Attached Triplex, Attached Row
Townhomes, HD Townhomes, Autocourts) MF 7.12 9.50 6.18 8.45 12-18 17.16 99 163 PA-15 (Duplex) (Attached Triplex, Attached Row
Townhomes, HD Townhomes, Autocourts) MF 8.62 6.97 6.85 12-18 14.62 111 126 PA-16 (Triplex) (Attached Triplex, Attached Row
Townhomes, HD Townhomes, Autocourts) MF 7.83 9.77 7.35 9.17 10-16 10.75 90 105 PA-17 (Row Townhomes) (Attached Duplex, Attached
Triplex, Attached Row Townhomes, HD Townhomes,
Autocourts)
MF 4.87 24.12 4.54 22.00 17-25 10.90 82 347
PA-18 (HD Townhomes ) (Attached Triplex, Attached Row
Townhomes, HD Townhomes, Attached Autocourts) MF 6.74 12.97 5.04 9.27 15-22 18.81 98 161 Residential Subtotal 156.62
191.68
131.79
162.67
14.77 14.87
1947
2851
Table 4-4: Parkside Land Use Summary
1125
4-4 Specific Plan — August 2006
Amended June 2020
November 2023 DRAFT
Land Use Lot Size /
Use
Gross
Acreage
Net
Acreage
*Gross Density
Range / S.F. SF Lots / D.U.
Non-Residential
PA-19 (Commercial) 15.66 2.68 11.15 1.81 15,000 -
PA-20 (Fire Station) 1.72 1.39 - 10,464 -
PA-21 (Great Park) 58.86
37.38 54.4 33.99 - -
PA-22 (Private Rec) 1.0 1.87 1.0 1.32 - -
PA-23 (Private Rec) (CDA Well Site) 1.9 0.13 1.34 0.13 - - PA-24 (Private Rec) 1 1 - -
PA-25 (Private Rec) 1 1 - -
PA-26 (CD Well Site) 0.13 0.13 - -
Non-Residential Subtotal 81.27
43.78 71.41 38.64 25,464 -
Channel ROW 13 13 - -
Total Project 250.89
248.46
216.2
214.31
14.77 14.87 1,947
2,851
NOTES:
1) Gross acres taken to center line of streets.
2) Adjusted gross acres taken to street ROW dedicated to the City 2) Net acres taken to street right of way
4) A total of 34.69 acres of master planned roadway is included in the project * Density range is shown is based on net acres. The General Plan is based on adjusted gross acres 3) Proposed product types in each Planning Area are subject to change based on final development submittal. 4) A density transfer of 15.0% may occur between Planning Areas. • A traditional grid and geometric street design in
residential neighborhoods, with sidewalks separated
by landscaped parkways curb adjacent sidewalk and
parkways, which provide visual interest, slower traffic, lower traffic volumes, and enhance a pedestrian
orientation circulation for neighborhoods. Design
solutions such as curb adjacent sidewalks enable
greater product and homeowner diversity, land use
efficiency, and answer to site constraints such as
the Cucamonga Creek Channel. Sidewalks are an
important feature for residential neighborhoods, and
implementing curb adjacent ones allow pedestrian
movement even with site dimensions that would not
otherwise accommodate higher density product.
• Sidewalks separated by a landscaped parkway
promote pedestrian mobility, beautify the streetscene
and lend a pedestrian scale;
• Streets adjacent to the Great Park may include onstreet parking for park and recreation uses to the north and south, and a “linear” landscape treatment
on both sides of the street. Parkways adjacent to
both sides of the street are planned to be heavily
landscaped;
1126
Specific Plan — August 2006 4-5
Amended June 2020
November 2023 DRAFT
• The architecture for residences within Parkside will
be designed to focus on human scale details which
will enhance the pedestrian friendly character of
the community. These features may include the use
of front porches, railings, enhanced entries, a mix
of materials and textures, and authentic detailing
on elements such as windows and doors, columns,
balconies, and lighting; and
• Innovative garage designs will be utilized where
appropriate in order to de-emphasize the visual
impact of garage doors on the streetscene.
4.3 Parks, Open Space and Recreational
Facilities
Parkside has been designed as a planned community “in
the park.” The Great Park is the key organizational element for the entire community. Further, refined recreation
planning is currently underway by the City on this segment of the Great Park and adjacent portions of the entire
facility. Other open space and recreation opportunities for Parkside are included in the private recreation
facilities which are integral to the neighborhoods in the project. The private recreation facilities/locations will be provided during the Development Plan Review process.
4.3.1 Parks
An integral part of the development of the residential
program within the development boundary of the 250.9
248.46-acre Specific Plan is approximately 63.9 45 60
gross acres of park and recreational areas, including the Great Park, which provides primarily passive recreational opportunities for residents of the project and the
surrounding community. The City’s park dedication
requirements may be met through a combination of
improved park land and payment of fees. Refer to Chapter
7.7, Landscape, included in the overall Residential Design Guidelines for the project, for park plans for Parkside, including the Great Park Plan and blow-ups of the pocket parks and private community recreation acres.
The Policy Plan (Policy PR1-5) has established a standard of 5 acres of parkland (public and private) per 1,000
residents, with a minimum of 2 acres of developed
private park space per 1,000 residents (Policy PR1-6).
Private parks are required to be approximately a quarter mile walking/biking distance from each residence.
This private park requirement may be met within any
residential development, or by satisfying the in-lieu
park development impact fee as approved by the City.
Fees will be paid to fulfill the balance of the City’s park requirement (the remaining 3 acres per 1, 000 residents).
4.3.2 Multi-Purpose Trails
Multi-purpose trails are an integral element in creating accessibility and mobility within the Specific Plan area.
An off-street multi-purpose trail will be provided within the right-of-way on the west side of Archibald Ave.
adjacent to the Specific Plan area between Ontario
Ranch Rd. and Eucalyptus Ave. Adequate right-of-way
will be provided for on-street bicycle lanes with the
improvement of Eucalyptus Ave. This bicycle system will link residential neighborhoods to the planned parks and the commercial site located within the development area, as well as providing connectivity to future development areas within the Specific Plan area
1127
4-6 Specific Plan — August 2006
Amended June 2020
November 2023 DRAFT
4.6 Public Use (Fire Station and Well
Sites)
1.72 gross acres (PA-20) is the site of a new fire station.
Proposed directly west of the Neighborhood Center and
fronting on the Great Park, is allocated to future use as a City Fire Station. Additionally, a CDA well site consisting of approximately 0.13 acres is proposed located in the
Great Park (PA-23). Refer to Exhibit 4-1: Land Use Plan.
4.7 Dairy Farming
The Ontario Ranch area contains existing dairies and feed lots. A minimum 100-foot separation shall be required
between a new residential, commercial, or industrial
development, or structures 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. The 100-foot
separation requirement may be satisfied by an off-site
easement acceptable to the Planning Director with
adjacent properties, submitted with the initial final map and recorded prior to or concurrent with the final map.
4.8 Airport Land Use Compatibility
Planning (ALUCP)
The Specific Plan area is located within the Airport
Influence Area of Chino Airport and the Ontario
International Airport (ONT). The area is considered to
be an “Existing Land Use” as defined by the Riverside
County ALUCP for Chino Airport and ONT ALUCP. There
is an existing Development Agreement in place for the
property and is therefore not subject to the policies and criteria of the ALUCP for either airport. However it is recommended that the standard real estate transaction
disclosures be applied any development.
4.4 Cucamonga Creek Channel Trail
A link of the City’s Master Plan of Trails includes a portion of the multi-purpose trail which will be developed in
the Specific Plan area, extending a multi-purpose trail from Ontario Ranch Rd. southerly to Eucalyptus Ave.
in the Cucamonga Creek Channel. Access to this trail
will be provided at key points within the Great Park for pedestrian and bicycle accessibility. A conceptual plan for the Cucamonga Creek Trail is illustrated in Exhibit 12, Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation Plan, and Exhibits 37- 37a, Channel Regional Trail Easement Plan, in Chapter 7, Design Guidelines.
4.5 Commercial
The Specific Plan includes approximately 15.7 2.68 gross acres designated for development of neighborhood
commercial.
4.5.1 Neighborhood Center
The Specific Plan provides for the development of
approximately 115,000 square feet of Neighborhood
Center Commercial land uses adjacent to Archibald Ave.
and Ontario Ranch Rd. Commercial development at this
location is conveniently located to serve the residential community of Parkside as well as the surrounding
community. Pedestrian and bicycle connectivity between
residential land use areas within Parkside and the future commercial center will be provided. Commercial uses
which could be developed within this land use district
include, but are not limited to, local servicing commercial uses, such as grocery, drug store, small restaurants,
small retail shops, and personal services.
1128
Specific Plan — August 2006 5-i
Chapter 5: Infrastructure & Services
Chicago, Illinois: Lincoln Park
1129
1130
Specific Plan — August 2006 5-1
Amended June 2020
November 2023 DRAFT
5.0 Infrastructure and Services
The infrastructure, utilities, and public services to be provided to support development of the Parkside Specific Plan are discussed in this section.
5.1 Circulation
The circulation plan for the Specific Plan area will provide efficient movement of vehicular traffic throughout
the community as well as a pleasant environment for
pedestrian and bicycle circulation, reducing the reliance on the automobile for travel. The plan reinforces the
concept of traditional neighborhood design with a grid
street pattern. Exhibit 5-1: Vehicular Circulation Master Plan illustrates the roadway system planned for the
Specific Plan area.
The project site will be served by a system of new
and varied parkway, arterial and collector roadway
classifications to be improved per the requirements
of the City Council Approved 2010 The Ontario Plan
(TOP), General Plan, the 2012 Master Plan of Streets and Highways, and through proposed primary local streets to be constructed as part of the project site development.
Improvements will be constructed for Archibald Ave.,
Ontario Ranch Rd., Eucalyptus Ave., and Carpenter Ave., all of which border the project site. Proposed Hellman
Ave. will be fully developed to serve the project site.
Within the Parkside Specific Plan area, local collector streets and local interior streets will provide for efficient movement of vehicles and pedestrians through the
project. If the site plan does not comply with the Ontario Municipal Code, a Parking Management Plan will be
required to show that proposed parking conditions
are suitable. On-street parking is permitted on private roads and may be counted toward guest parking along
with uncovered parking, when home typologies do
not include standard two-car garages. Multi-family
rental developments within a master plan area that
utilize garage spaces to completely fulfill their covered parking requirement may deviate from standard garage
dimensions by a maximum of 1 foot in width and or 2
feet in length per stall. All other requirements found in this Specific Plan and the Ontario Code shall apply. The developer will be required to submit a parking analysis to the City to ensure the proposal is in conformance with the City’s Parking Code for residential developments.
5.1.1 Streets
The developer(s) of the Parkside Specific Plan area will be responsible for the off-site improvements along the
entire project frontage or as otherwise indicated. Phasing of the improvements will be implemented as required
by the City Engineer and pursuant to the mitigation
measures identified in the EIR and/or the Conditions of Approval established on the approved tentative maps
for the project. Additionally, bus turnouts within the
Specific Plan area may be required to be constructed
to the satisfaction of the City and Omnitrans.
The minimum design speeds to be used for centerline
curve radii, superelevation, corner sight distance, vertical and horizontal alignment, and sight distance, etc. are
listed below:
Ontario Ranch Rd.50 m.p.h.
Archibald Ave. 50 m.p.h.
Eucalyptus Ave. 45 m.p.h.
Hellman Ave. 40 m.p.h.
The traffic study prepared for the Parkside Specific Plan will determine the need for additional rights-of-way at critical intersections in order to accommodate additional left and right turn lanes.
On-street parking is prohibited on all master planned
roadways.
1131
5-2 Specific Plan — August 2006
Amended June 2020
November 2023 DRAFT
Hellman Ave.
As a Collector, Hellman Ave., is designed to carry less traffic than the Principal Arterials. Hellman Ave., located within the western half of the project site, will be
improved as depicted on Exhibit 5-2: Collector Street
Sections—Hellman Ave. Access to this street via driveways from residential units and on-street parking will be
prohibited.