Agenda packet — Ontario City Council, October 17, 2023 (part 11 of 18)

PAGE 145
*** MODELOPTs: NonDFAULT CONC FLAT URBAN ADJ_U*
*** THE 1ST HIGHEST 1-HR AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: ALL ***
INCLUDING SOURCE(S):

A0000012 , A0000013 , A0000014 , A0000015 ,
A0000016 ,
A0000017 , A0000018 , A0000019 ,
A0000020 , A0000021 , A0000022 , A0000001 ,
A0000002 ,
A0000003 , A0000004 , A0000005 ,
A0000006 , A0000007 , A0000008 , A0000009 ,
A0000010 ,
A0000011 , A0000023 , A0000024 ,
A0000025 , A0000026 , A0000027 ,
A0000028 , . . . ,
*** DISCRETE
CARTESIAN RECEPTOR POINTS ***
** CONC OF PM_10 IN
MICROGRAMS/M**3 **

X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC (YYMMDDHH)

X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC (YYMMDDHH)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
439684.00 3765470.00 1.93994 (12011417)
439689.00 3765470.00 1.93815 (12011417)
439694.00 3765470.00 1.93787 (12011417)
439699.00 3765470.00 1.93591 (12011417)
439704.00 3765470.00 1.93538 (12011417)
439709.00 3765470.00 1.93304 (12011417)
439714.00 3765470.00 1.93276 (12011417)
439719.00 3765470.00 1.93045 (12011417)
439729.00 3765470.00 1.92778 (12011417)
439734.00 3765470.00 1.92561 (12011417)
439739.00 3765470.00 1.92467 (12011417)
439744.00 3765470.00 1.92253 (12011417)
439749.00 3765470.00 1.92150 (12011417)
439789.00 3765470.00 1.90425 (12011417)
439794.00 3765470.00 1.90157 (12011417)
439799.00 3765470.00 1.89872 (12011417)
439804.00 3765470.00 1.89660 (12011417)
449
2903
439809.00 3765470.00 1.89286 (12011417)
439814.00 3765470.00 1.89066 (12011417)
439819.00 3765470.00 1.88695 (12011417)
439824.00 3765470.00 1.88465 (12011417)
439829.00 3765470.00 1.88045 (12011417)
439844.00 3765470.00 1.87916 (14100607)
439849.00 3765470.00 1.88121 (14100607)
439854.00 3765470.00 1.88322 (14100607)
439859.00 3765470.00 1.88545 (14100607)
439674.00 3765475.00 1.97380 (12011417)
439679.00 3765475.00 1.97335 (12011417)
439684.00 3765475.00 1.97137 (12011417)
439689.00 3765475.00 1.97123 (12011417)
439694.00 3765475.00 1.96926 (12011417)
439699.00 3765475.00 1.96920 (12011417)
439704.00 3765475.00 1.96705 (12011417)
439709.00 3765475.00 1.96659 (12011417)
439714.00 3765475.00 1.96460 (12011417)
439719.00 3765475.00 1.96409 (12011417)
439729.00 3765475.00 1.96099 (12011417)
439734.00 3765475.00 1.95936 (12011417)
439739.00 3765475.00 1.95751 (12011417)
439744.00 3765475.00 1.95664 (12011417)
439749.00 3765475.00 1.95449 (12011417)
439754.00 3765475.00 1.95348 (12011417)
439789.00 3765475.00 1.93922 (12011417)
439794.00 3765475.00 1.93712 (12011417)
439799.00 3765475.00 1.93433 (12011417)
439804.00 3765475.00 1.93159 (12011417)
439809.00 3765475.00 1.92962 (12011417)
439814.00 3765475.00 1.92596 (12011417)
439819.00 3765475.00 1.92369 (12011417)
439824.00 3765475.00 1.92022 (12011417)
439829.00 3765475.00 1.91807 (12011417)
439269.00 3764900.00 0.81860 (13120808)
439369.00 3764900.00 0.81738 (13120808)
439469.00 3764900.00 0.81421 (13120808)
439569.00 3764900.00 0.80580 (13120808)
439669.00 3764900.00 0.78696 (12010217)
439769.00 3764900.00 0.78488 (12010217)
439869.00 3764900.00 0.77825 (12010217)
439969.00 3764900.00 0.75971 (12010217)
440069.00 3764900.00 0.76638 (15010717)
440169.00 3764900.00 0.77186 (15010717)
440269.00 3764900.00 0.77514 (15010717)
439269.00 3765000.00 0.89521 (13120808)
439369.00 3765000.00 0.89461 (13120808)
439469.00 3765000.00 0.89407 (13120808)
439569.00 3765000.00 0.89240 (13120808)
439669.00 3765000.00 0.88376 (13120808)
439769.00 3765000.00 0.85967 (12010217)
439869.00 3765000.00 0.85734 (12010217)
450
2904
439969.00 3765000.00 0.84706 (12010217)
440069.00 3765000.00 0.84339 (15010717)
440169.00 3765000.00 0.84664 (15010717)
440269.00 3765000.00 0.84848 (15010717)
439269.00 3765100.00 0.99136 (13120808)
439369.00 3765100.00 0.99107 (13120808)
439469.00 3765100.00 0.99051 (13120808)
439569.00 3765100.00 0.99203 (13120808)
439669.00 3765100.00 0.99228 (13120808)
439769.00 3765100.00 0.98315 (13120808)
439869.00 3765100.00 0.95380 (13120808)
451
2905
*** AERMOD - VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\Lakes\Ontario_PUDLegacy_Ops-HRA_20221004\Ontario_PUD-Legacy_Ops- *** 10/05/22
*** AERMET - VERSION 16216 *** ***
*** 12:31:02

PAGE 146
*** MODELOPTs: NonDFAULT CONC FLAT URBAN ADJ_U*
*** THE 1ST HIGHEST 1-HR AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: ALL ***
INCLUDING SOURCE(S):

X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC (YYMMDDHH)

X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC (YYMMDDHH)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
439969.00 3765100.00 0.94992 (12010217)
440069.00 3765100.00 0.93766 (15010717)
440169.00 3765100.00 0.93990 (15010717)
440269.00 3765100.00 0.94031 (15010717)
439269.00 3765200.00 1.11783 (13120808)
439369.00 3765200.00 1.11904 (13120808)
439469.00 3765200.00 1.11696 (13120808)
439569.00 3765200.00 1.11716 (13120808)
439669.00 3765200.00 1.12179 (13120808)
439769.00 3765200.00 1.12546 (13120808)
439869.00 3765200.00 1.11526 (13120808)
439969.00 3765200.00 1.07910 (13120808)
440069.00 3765200.00 1.07036 (12010217)
440169.00 3765200.00 1.06123 (15010717)
440269.00 3765200.00 1.06152 (15010717)
439269.00 3765300.00 1.33818 (12011417)
439369.00 3765300.00 1.30845 (12011417)
452
2906
439469.00 3765300.00 1.29458 (13120808)
439569.00 3765300.00 1.29112 (13120808)
439669.00 3765300.00 1.29474 (13120808)
439769.00 3765300.00 1.30661 (13120808)
439869.00 3765300.00 1.31146 (13120808)
439969.00 3765300.00 1.29756 (13120808)
440069.00 3765300.00 1.25571 (13120808)
440169.00 3765300.00 1.23672 (12010217)
440269.00 3765300.00 1.23086 (15010717)
439269.00 3765400.00 1.67154 (12011417)
439369.00 3765400.00 1.65476 (12011417)
439469.00 3765400.00 1.63212 (12011417)
439569.00 3765400.00 1.60324 (12011417)
439669.00 3765400.00 1.56211 (12011417)
439769.00 3765400.00 1.56826 (14100607)
439869.00 3765400.00 1.59038 (13120808)
439969.00 3765400.00 1.59150 (13120808)
440069.00 3765400.00 1.57499 (13120808)
440169.00 3765400.00 1.52549 (13120808)
440269.00 3765400.00 1.52387 (12011608)
439269.00 3765500.00 2.19780 (12011417)
439369.00 3765500.00 2.19361 (12011417)
439469.00 3765500.00 2.18060 (12011417)
439569.00 3765500.00 2.16371 (12011417)
439669.00 3765500.00 2.14880 (12011417)
439769.00 3765500.00 2.13312 (12011417)
439869.00 3765500.00 2.09228 (12011417)
439969.00 3765500.00 2.08853 (13120808)
440069.00 3765500.00 2.08038 (13120808)
440169.00 3765500.00 2.06199 (13120808)
440269.00 3765500.00 2.06692 (12011608)
439269.00 3765600.00 3.48269 (12101307)
439369.00 3765600.00 3.46847 (12101307)
439469.00 3765600.00 3.43151 (12101307)
439569.00 3765600.00 3.38714 (12011417)
439669.00 3765600.00 3.37011 (12011417)
439769.00 3765600.00 3.36283 (12011417)
439869.00 3765600.00 3.39883 (12011417)
439969.00 3765600.00 3.42312 (12011417)
440069.00 3765600.00 3.53049 (14101107)
440169.00 3765600.00 3.61368 (14101107)
440269.00 3765600.00 3.66595 (14101107)
439269.00 3765700.00 14.56472 (12101307)
439369.00 3765700.00 15.07590 (12101307)
439469.00 3765700.00 15.66274 (12101307)
439569.00 3765700.00 16.04418 (14101107)
439669.00 3765700.00 16.42742 (14101107)
439769.00 3765700.00 16.65484 (14101107)
439869.00 3765700.00 16.87478 (14101107)
439969.00 3765700.00 16.90265 (14101107)
440069.00 3765700.00 17.19848 (12101207)
440169.00 3765700.00 17.28501 (12101207)
453
2907
440269.00 3765700.00 17.52593 (12101207)
439269.00 3765800.00 4.32810 (12100707)
439369.00 3765800.00 4.36921 (12100707)
439469.00 3765800.00 4.34561 (12100707)
439569.00 3765800.00 4.31596 (12100707)
439669.00 3765800.00 4.30851 (12100707)
439769.00 3765800.00 4.31304 (12100707)
439869.00 3765800.00 4.38199 (13111217)
439969.00 3765800.00 4.12393 (12011717)
440069.00 3765800.00 4.06776 (12011717)
440169.00 3765800.00 4.06044 (12011717)
454
2908
*** AERMOD - VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\Lakes\Ontario_PUDLegacy_Ops-HRA_20221004\Ontario_PUD-Legacy_Ops- *** 10/05/22
*** AERMET - VERSION 16216 *** ***
*** 12:31:02

PAGE 147
*** MODELOPTs: NonDFAULT CONC FLAT URBAN ADJ_U*
*** THE 1ST HIGHEST 1-HR AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION VALUES FOR SOURCE GROUP: ALL ***
INCLUDING SOURCE(S):

X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC (YYMMDDHH)

X-COORD (M) Y-COORD (M) CONC (YYMMDDHH)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
440269.00 3765800.00 4.07663 (12011717)
439269.00 3765900.00 2.49048 (12100707)
439369.00 3765900.00 2.44857 (12100707)
439469.00 3765900.00 2.39490 (12100707)
439569.00 3765900.00 2.32766 (12100707)
439669.00 3765900.00 2.34570 (13111217)
439769.00 3765900.00 2.39147 (13111217)
439869.00 3765900.00 2.42311 (13111217)
439969.00 3765900.00 2.42579 (13111217)
440069.00 3765900.00 2.39105 (13111217)
440169.00 3765900.00 2.38063 (13111217)
440269.00 3765900.00 2.39922 (12011717)
439649.00 3765310.00 1.31420 (13120808)
439679.00 3765310.00 1.31670 (13120808)
439709.00 3765310.00 1.32027 (13120808)
439739.00 3765310.00 1.32370 (13120808)
439769.00 3765310.00 1.32752 (13120808)
455
2909
439799.00 3765310.00 1.33138 (13120808)
439829.00 3765310.00 1.33388 (13120808)
439859.00 3765310.00 1.33500 (13120808)
439889.00 3765310.00 1.33348 (13120808)
439649.00 3765340.00 1.38371 (13120808)
439679.00 3765340.00 1.38545 (13120808)
439709.00 3765340.00 1.38828 (13120808)
439739.00 3765340.00 1.39287 (13120808)
439769.00 3765340.00 1.39757 (13120808)
439799.00 3765340.00 1.40256 (13120808)
439829.00 3765340.00 1.40612 (13120808)
439859.00 3765340.00 1.40874 (13120808)
439889.00 3765340.00 1.40931 (13120808)
439649.00 3765370.00 1.46317 (13120808)
439679.00 3765370.00 1.46419 (13120808)
439709.00 3765370.00 1.46693 (13120808)
439739.00 3765370.00 1.47127 (13120808)
439769.00 3765370.00 1.47678 (13120808)
439799.00 3765370.00 1.48285 (13120808)
439829.00 3765370.00 1.48834 (13120808)
439859.00 3765370.00 1.49280 (13120808)
439889.00 3765370.00 1.49469 (13120808)
439649.00 3765400.00 1.57213 (12011417)
439679.00 3765400.00 1.56119 (12011808)
439709.00 3765400.00 1.56142 (12011808)
439739.00 3765400.00 1.56204 (13120808)
439769.00 3765400.00 1.56826 (14100607)
439799.00 3765400.00 1.57546 (14100607)
439829.00 3765400.00 1.58255 (13120808)
439859.00 3765400.00 1.58877 (13120808)
439889.00 3765400.00 1.59279 (13120808)
439649.00 3765430.00 1.71989 (12011417)
439679.00 3765430.00 1.70940 (12011417)
439709.00 3765430.00 1.69707 (12011417)
439739.00 3765430.00 1.68119 (12011417)
439769.00 3765430.00 1.67905 (12011808)
439799.00 3765430.00 1.68418 (14100607)
439829.00 3765430.00 1.69291 (14100607)
439859.00 3765430.00 1.70109 (13120808)
439889.00 3765430.00 1.70744 (13120808)
439649.00 3765460.00 1.88705 (12011417)
439679.00 3765460.00 1.87852 (12011417)
439709.00 3765460.00 1.87026 (12011417)
439739.00 3765460.00 1.86032 (12011417)
439769.00 3765460.00 1.84734 (12011417)
439799.00 3765460.00 1.82996 (12011417)
439829.00 3765460.00 1.82431 (12011808)
439859.00 3765460.00 1.83409 (14100607)
439889.00 3765460.00 1.84365 (13120808)
439649.00 3765490.00 2.08024 (12011417)
439679.00 3765490.00 2.07413 (12011417)
439709.00 3765490.00 2.06936 (12011417)
456
2910
439739.00 3765490.00 2.06333 (12011417)
439769.00 3765490.00 2.05619 (12011417)
439799.00 3765490.00 2.04596 (12011417)
439829.00 3765490.00 2.03231 (12011417)
439859.00 3765490.00 2.01424 (12011417)
439889.00 3765490.00 2.01037 (13120808)
457
2911
*** AERMOD - VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\Lakes\Ontario_PUDLegacy_Ops-HRA_20221004\Ontario_PUD-Legacy_Ops- *** 10/05/22
*** AERMET - VERSION 16216 *** ***
*** 12:31:02

PAGE 148
*** MODELOPTs: NonDFAULT CONC FLAT URBAN ADJ_U*
*** THE SUMMARY OF
MAXIMUM PERIOD ( 43848 HRS) RESULTS ***
** CONC OF PM_10 IN
MICROGRAMS/M**3 **

NETWORK

GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC

RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZHILL, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID-ID
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
EXH 1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS 2.18082 AT ( 440269.00,
3765700.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC
2ND HIGHEST VALUE IS 2.14786 AT ( 440169.00,
3765700.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC
3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS 2.11887 AT ( 440069.00,
3765700.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC
4TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 2.07937 AT ( 439969.00,
3765700.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC
5TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 2.05444 AT ( 439869.00,
3765700.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC
6TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 2.03560 AT ( 439769.00,
3765700.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC
7TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 1.99410 AT ( 439669.00,
3765700.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC
8TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 1.93748 AT ( 439569.00,
3765700.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC
9TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 1.85402 AT ( 439469.00,
3765700.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC
10TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 1.75481 AT ( 439369.00,
3765700.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC
FREEEXH 1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS 2.08198 AT ( 440169.00,
3765700.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC
2ND HIGHEST VALUE IS 2.08072 AT ( 440269.00,
3765700.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC
3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS 2.07627 AT ( 440069.00,
3765700.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC
4TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 2.05764 AT ( 439969.00,
3765700.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC
458
2912
5TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 2.03652 AT ( 439869.00,
3765700.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC
6TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 2.01278 AT ( 439769.00,
3765700.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC
7TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 1.96641 AT ( 439669.00,
3765700.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC
8TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 1.90454 AT ( 439569.00,
3765700.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC
9TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 1.82739 AT ( 439469.00,
3765700.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC
10TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 1.74831 AT ( 439369.00,
3765700.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC
ONOFFEXH 1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.10010 AT ( 440269.00,
3765700.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC
2ND HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.07144 AT ( 439869.00,
3765800.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC
3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.06589 AT ( 440169.00,
3765700.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC
4TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.04688 AT ( 439769.00,
3765800.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC
5TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.04260 AT ( 440069.00,
3765700.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC
6TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.03377 AT ( 439969.00,
3765800.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC
7TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.03295 AT ( 439569.00,
3765700.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC
8TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.03178 AT ( 439669.00,
3765800.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC
9TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.02769 AT ( 439669.00,
3765700.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC
10TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 0.02663 AT ( 439469.00,
3765700.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC
ALL 1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS 2.18082 AT ( 440269.00,
3765700.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC
2ND HIGHEST VALUE IS 2.14786 AT ( 440169.00,
3765700.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC
3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS 2.11887 AT ( 440069.00,
3765700.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC
4TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 2.07937 AT ( 439969.00,
3765700.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC
5TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 2.05444 AT ( 439869.00,
3765700.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC
6TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 2.03560 AT ( 439769.00,
3765700.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC
7TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 1.99410 AT ( 439669.00,
3765700.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC
8TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 1.93748 AT ( 439569.00,
3765700.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC
9TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 1.85402 AT ( 439469.00,
3765700.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC
459
2913
10TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 1.75481 AT ( 439369.00,
3765700.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC
*** RECEPTOR TYPES: GC = GRIDCART
GP = GRIDPOLR
DC = DISCCART
DP = DISCPOLR
460
2914
*** AERMOD - VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\Lakes\Ontario_PUDLegacy_Ops-HRA_20221004\Ontario_PUD-Legacy_Ops- *** 10/05/22
*** AERMET - VERSION 16216 *** ***
*** 12:31:02

PAGE 149
*** MODELOPTs: NonDFAULT CONC FLAT URBAN ADJ_U*
*** THE SUMMARY
OF HIGHEST 1-HR RESULTS ***
** CONC OF PM_10 IN
MICROGRAMS/M**3 **
DATE

NETWORK

GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC (YYMMDDHH)

RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZHILL, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID-ID
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

EXH HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 17.52593 ON 12101207: AT
( 440269.00, 3765700.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC

FREEEXH HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 17.12930 ON 12101207: AT ( 440269.00, 3765700.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC

ONOFFEXH HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 0.56725 ON 12100707: AT ( 440269.00, 3765700.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC

ALL HIGH 1ST HIGH VALUE IS 17.52593 ON 12101207: AT
( 440269.00, 3765700.00, 289.00, 289.00, 0.00) DC
*** RECEPTOR TYPES: GC = GRIDCART
GP = GRIDPOLR
DC = DISCCART
DP = DISCPOLR
461
2915
*** AERMOD - VERSION 21112 *** *** C:\Lakes\Ontario_PUDLegacy_Ops-HRA_20221004\Ontario_PUD-Legacy_Ops- *** 10/05/22
*** AERMET - VERSION 16216 *** ***
*** 12:31:02

PAGE 150
*** MODELOPTs: NonDFAULT CONC FLAT URBAN ADJ_U*
*** Message Summary : AERMOD Model Execution ***
--------- Summary of Total Messages --------

A Total of 0 Fatal Error Message(s)
A Total of 2 Warning Message(s)
A Total of 1628 Informational Message(s)
A Total of 43848 Hours Were Processed
A Total of 1278 Calm Hours Identified
A Total of 350 Missing Hours Identified ( 0.80
Percent)

******** FATAL ERROR MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***

******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
ME W186 1734 MEOPEN: THRESH_1MIN 1-min ASOS wind speed
threshold used 0.50
ME W187 1734 MEOPEN: ADJ_U* Option for Stable Low Winds used in AERMET
************************************
*** AERMOD Finishes Successfully ***
************************************
462
2916
RESOLUTION NO. PC23-075

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE FILE NO. PUD22-004, THE EUCLID WALNUT PLANNED UNIT

DEVELOPMENT, ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND
DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR A 10.6-ACRE PROJECT SITE GENERALLY

LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF EUCLID AVENUE AND
WALNUT STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—
APNS: 1051-271-67, 1051-271-06, AND 1051-271-66
WHEREAS, LEGACY/COLLIER RESIDENTIAL LLC (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant") has filed an Application for the approval of the Euclid Walnut Planned Unit Development (“PUD”), File No. PUD22-004, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and WHEREAS, the Application applies to 10.6 acres of land generally located at the northwest corner of Euclid Avenue and Walnut Street, within the Mixed Use – Neighborhood Hub 8e – Euclid and Walnut (MU-NH 8e) zoning district, as well as the Euclid Avenue (EA) Overlay district, and is presently improved with commercial development; and
WHEREAS, the properties to the north of the Project site are within the MediumDensity Residential (MDR-18) and the MU-NH 8e zoning districts, and the EA Overlay district, and are developed with multi-family residential units, single-family dwellings, and commercial land uses. The properties to the east are within the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) zoning and EA Overlay districts and are developed with commercial land uses. The properties to the south are within the Low-Density Residential (LDR-5) zoning district and the EA Overlay district and are developed with single-family dwellings.

The properties to the west are within the MDR-18 zoning district, and are developed with multi-family residential units; and
WHEREAS, the Project was submitted in conjunction with a Development Plan (File No. PDEV22-027) to construct the first phase of development, and a Certificate of Appropriateness (File No. PHP22-015) to determine whether the Project site is an historic resource and facilitate said development; and
WHEREAS, the PUD establishes the development standards and design guidelines for the Project site to facilitate the two phases of development. Phase 1 is comprised of 9.4 acres of the PUD site (everything except for the existing Carl’s Jr. drivethru restaurant site) and will require the demolition of a combined 100,950 square feet of commercial/retail buildings and related site improvements. Phase 1 will be redeveloped with two four-story and six three-story buildings, providing a combined total of 346 dwelling units, 5,400 square feet of ground floor commercial space, associated on-site 2917
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PUD22-004
September 26, 2023

Page 2 ends

parking for both land uses, recreational amenities for the residential land use and landscaping. Phase 2 will encompass demolition of the Carl’s Jr. restaurant building and related site improvements and construction of one vertical mixed-use building providing an additional 23 dwelling units, 6,600 square feet of ground-floor commercial space and the associated site improvements. Overall, the PUD will facilitate development of a maximum of 369 dwelling units and up to 12,000 square feet of commercial land uses; and
WHEREAS, the PUD outlines the Project’s (a) objectives, including its consistency with The Ontario Plan 2050 and the EA Overlay district; (b) land use plan, including zoning, phasing and build-out, and permitted land uses; (c) development regulations, including intensity and density, building envelope, vehicle access and parking facilities, parking supply and design, residential open space and common amenities, service facilities, signs, landscape and hardscape, fences and walls, public right-of-way improvements, infrastructure, and overall development standards; (d) design criteria, including those for building orientation, access and parking facilities, service facilities, pedestrian linkages, architectural character, massing and scale, articulation and fenestration, architectural details, storefronts, materials and colors, roofs and rooftop equipment, non-residential outdoor dining areas, residential outdoor space and common recreation amenities, and landscape/hardscape elements; and (e) administration, including items not addressed in the PUD, requirements for Development Plans and other applications, and administrative exceptions; and
WHEREAS, Project approval is contingent on Planning Commission approval of the related Certificate of Appropriateness and Development Plan applications, and City Council approval of the Addendum. Issuance of the Project’s Building Permits is contingent upon approval of the related Lot Line Adjustment/Lot Merger application, pursuant to Engineering Department requirements and requests; and WHEREAS, The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364) was certified on August 16, 2022, (hereinafter referred to as "Certified SEIR"), 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 SEIR, an Addendum to the Certified SEIR (hereinafter referred to as "SEIR 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 SEIR 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 2918
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PUD22-004
September 26, 2023

Page 3 ends

Certified SEIR, and that the Certified SEIR identified mitigation measures that would reduce each of those significant effects to a less-than-significant level; and WHEREAS, the City's "Local Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" provide for the use of a single environmental assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed; and
WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act — Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. — (hereinafter referred to as "CEQA") and an SEIR Addendum has been prepared to determine possible environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the Planning Commission the responsibility and authority to review and make recommendation to the City Council on the subject Application; and WHEREAS, the Project has been reviewed for consistency with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan 2050, as State Housing Element law (as prescribed in Government Code Sections 65580 through 65589.8) requires that development projects must be consistent with the Housing Element, if upon consideration of all its aspects, it is found to further the purposes, principals, goals, and policies of the Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and is subject to, and must be consistent with, the policies 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 August 22, 2023, the Planning Commission voted to continue the Project to the September 26, 2023, public hearing, to allow for the applicant and staff to address a comment letter received on August 22, 2023; and WHEREAS, as the first action on the Project, on September 26, 2023, the Planning Commission voted to issue a Resolution recommending the City Council adopt the SEIR 2919
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PUD22-004
September 26, 2023

Page 4 ends

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 September 26, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Project, voting to issue a Resolution recommending the City Council approve the Application and concluded said hearing on that date; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

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

SECTION 1: Environmental Determination and Findings. As the recommending body for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Addendum, the initial study, and the administrative record for the Project, including all written and oral evidence provided during the comment period. Based upon the facts and information contained in the Addendum, the initial study, and the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
(1) The environmental impacts of the Project were reviewed in conjunction with an Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364), certified by the Ontario City Council on August 16, 2022, in conjunction with File No. PGPA20-002; and
(2) The SEIR Addendum and administrative record have been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
(3) The City's "Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" provide for the use of a single environmental assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed. This Application introduces no new significant environmental impacts; and (4) All previously adopted mitigation measures shall be a condition of project approval, as they are applicable to the Project, and are incorporated herein by this reference; and
2920
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PUD22-004
September 26, 2023

Page 5 ends

(5) The SEIR Addendum contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project, and reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and
(6) There is no substantial evidence in the administrative record supporting a fair argument that the project may result in significant environmental impacts.

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

SECTION 3: Housing Element Compliance. Pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 3, Article 10.6, commencing with Section 65580, as 2921
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PUD22-004
September 26, 2023

Page 6 ends

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

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

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

On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the Ontario International Airport Land use Compatibility Plan, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. As the decisionmaking body for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ONT ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2- 2) and Safety Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the Planning Commission finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ONT ALUCP; and SECTION 5: Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above-referenced hearing, and upon the specific findings set forth in Sections 1 through 4, above, the Planning Commission hereby concludes as follows:
(1) The proposed PUD, 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 Project is consistent with the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan in that the mixed-use standards and guidelines specified in the PUD align with The Ontario Plan 2050. Section 2.1 of the Euclid Walnut Planned Unit Development (“PUD”), titled “Consistency with The Ontario Plan”, describes how the PUD complies with the Policy Plan goals, policies, and plans.
2922
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PUD22-004
September 26, 2023

Page 7 ends

(2) The proposed PUD, or amendment thereto, would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City.

The Planning Commission has required certain safeguards through conditions of approval, which have been established to ensure that: [i] the purposes of the Planned Unit Development are maintained; [ii] the project will not endanger the public health, safety or general welfare; [iii] the project will not result in any significant environmental impacts; [iv] the project will be in harmony with the area in which it is located; and [v] the project will be in full conformity with the Vision, City Council Priorities and Policy Plan components of The Ontario Plan 2050.
(3) In the case of an application affecting specific property(ies), the proposed PUD, or amendment thereto, will not adversely affect the harmonious relationship with adjacent properties and land uses. While the PUD Project area is situated on the Euclid Avenue (EA) Overlay district, it is located 0.4-mile south of the locally- and nationally-recognized landmark and historic cultural landscape corridor, and 3 miles south of the City’s Downtown Historic District; therefore, the Project is outside of and does not contain any historic resources. The adjacent neighborhood consists of existing single- and multiple-family dwellings and commercial development, which also do not qualify as historic resources. The PUD has ensured that on-site development is sensitive to and complementary of the surrounding development, and the surrounding development is compatible with the proposed residential and commercial mixed-use development. Therefore, the Project does not 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. In preparing the PUD, a thorough review and analysis of the proposed Project and the subject site’s physical suitability for the Project was completed, including analysis of the Project size and shape, intensity of development, building height and setbacks, site access, site landscaping and drainage, fences and walls, vehicle and pedestrian circulation, availability of mass transit, necessary street dedication and easements, public right-of-way improvements, availability of utilities and other infrastructure needs, off-street parking, building orientation and streetscapes, architectural character, building materials and character, and site signage. Based upon this review and analysis, the subject site has been deemed physically suitable, including but not limited to parcel size, shape, access, and availability of utilities for the proposed PUD and proposed development. (5) The proposed PUD is superior to that which could be obtained through the application of the Development Code or a specific plan. The PUD will establish minimum building setbacks, parking and open space requirements, private storage provisions, a planting palette, allowable land uses preferable to support the proposed development and the surrounding community, and more. These standards will facilitate 2923
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PUD22-004
September 26, 2023

Page 8 ends

the development of up to 369 dwelling units and 12,000 square feet of commercial space and accompanying improvements. The proposed PUD will allow for subsequent development that is superior to that which could be obtained through the application of the Development Code by itself, by means of facilitating the development of high-density apartments, restaurants, retail shops, and other commercial services that will serve to achieve the City’s goals of economic revitalization and aesthetic enhancements along an underutilized portion of the Euclid Avenue corridor. Lastly, the PUD will further serve to implement the vision of the EA Overlay district, the Mixed Use – Neighborhood Hub 8e – Euclid and Walnut (MU-NH 8e) zoning district, and the Mixed Use - Neighborhood Activity Hub: 20.0 to 75.0 du/ac; 1.0 FAR office/retail (MU-NH) land use district of the Policy Plan by allowing for this vibrant and well-designed mixed-use development.

SECTION 6: Planning Commission Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 through 5, above, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES the herein described Euclid Walnut Planned Unit Development, attached hereto as “Attachment A”, subject to each and every condition set forth in the Department reports attached hereto as "Attachment B," and incorporated herein by this reference.

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

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

SECTION 9: Certification to Adoption. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of the Resolution.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2924
2925
2926
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PUD22-004
September 26, 2023

Page 11 ends

ATTACHMENT A:

File No. PUD22-004
Euclid Walnut Planned Unit Development
(Document to follow this page)
2927
Euclid
Walnut
Planned Unit Development
A Project by Legacy Partners
City of Ontario
PUD 22-004
2928
2929
Euclid/Walnut
Planned Unit Development
City of Ontario
PUD 22-004
City Council Approval Date - TBD
City Council Ordinance No. TBD
303 E. B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
(909) 395-2000
ontarioca.gov
Applicant:

Legacy Partners
5141 California Avenue
Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92617
2930
4 | Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction. 7
Chapter 2: Objectives 11

2.1 Consistency with The Ontario Plan 11

2.2 Euclid Avenue (EA) Overlay District
and Historic Resources 18

2.3 Euclid/Walnut PUD Objectives 19
Chapter 3: Land Use Plan 21

3.1 Land Use and Zoning 21

3.2 Phasing and Build-Out 22

3.3 Permitted Uses 24
Chapter 4: Development
Regulations 27

4.1 Intensity 28

4.2 Density 28

4.3 Building Envelope 28

4.4 Vehicle Access 28

4.5 Parking Facilities, Supply and
Design 29

4.6 Residential Open Space and
Common Amenities 29

4.7 Service Facilities 30

4.8 Signs 30

4.9 Landscape/Hardscape 30

4.10 Fences and Walls 31

4.11 Public Right-of-Way Improvements31

4.12 Infrastructure 31

4.13 Summary of Development
Standards 32
Chapter 5: Design Criteria 35

5.1 Building Orientation 36

5.2 Access and Parking Facilities 36

5.3 Service Facilities 36

5.4 Pedestrian Linkages 37

5.5 Architectural Character 37

5.6 Massing & Scale 37

5.7 Articulation & Fenestration 37

5.8 Architectural Details 37

5.9 Storefronts 41

5.10 Material & Colors 41

5.11 Roofs/Rooftop Equipment 41

5.12 Non-Residential Outdoor Dining
Areas 41

5.13 Residential Outdoor Space,
Common Recreational
Amenities 41

5.14 Landscape/Hardscape Elements 42
Chapter 6: Administration 47

6.1 Items Not Addressed in PUD 47

6.2 Development Plan and Other
Applications 48

6.3 Administrative Exceptions 48
2931
Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development | 5
Exhibit 1-1:

Exhibit 3-1:

Exhibit 3-2:

Exhibit 5-1:

Exhibit 5-2:

Exhibit 5-3:

Exhibit 5-4:

Exhibit 5-5:

Exhibit 5-6:

Exhibits
Table 3-1:

Table 4-1:

Table 5-1:

Tables
PUD Location Map 8
Land Use/Zoning Map 22
Phase 1 Conceptual Site Plan 23
Architectural Character — Vertical Mixed-Use 38
Architectural Character — Three-Story Residential 39
Architectural Character — Four-Story Residential 40
Typical Common Recreational Amenity 41
Typical Courtyard 41
Fence/Wall Concepts 44
Permitted Uses 24
Summary of Development Standards 32
Master Plant Palette 42
2932
6 | Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development 2933
Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development | 7
Introduction
Introduction
The Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development
(PUD) functions as a set of planning and design
principles, development regulations, and
performance standards to guide and govern the
redevelopment of a commercial shopping center
into a mixed-use development. The project
site comprises three parcels located on the
northwest corner of Euclid Avenue and Walnut
Street, as shown on Exhibit 1-1: PUD Location
Map. This PUD will facilitate development of
high-density apartments, restaurants, retail
shops, and other commercial services that
will achieve the City’s goals to economically
revitalize and aesthetically enhance an
underutilized parcel on the Euclid Avenue
corridor.
1 2934
8 | Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development
This document is organized to fulfill the requirements for a PUD, as set forth in the Ontario Development Code (ODC). The Euclid/Walnut PUD replaces the existing zoning district designation and ODC regulations applicable to the affected properties. The properties also lie within the “EA – Euclid Avenue Overlay” district. Any applicable requirements of the overlay district shall remain in full force and effect. Unless otherwise defined or stated herein, definitions and interpretations contained in the ODC shall apply. City staff and private developers will rely on this PUD to determine whether precise plans for development (“Development Plans”) adequately meet the City’s land use and design objectives of The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050.

Exhibit 1-1: PUD Location Map
2935
This page was intentionally left blank.
2936
10 | Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development 2937
Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development | 11
Objectives
Objectives

2.1 Consistency with The Ontario Plan
The Ontario Plan (TOP), the City’s
comprehensive plan, has undergone a significant
update to shape the Ontario community
through 2050. TOP 2050 has three policy level
components: the Vision, a Governance Manual,
and the Policy Plan (General Plan).
2 2938
12 | Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development
The Ontario Vision – adopted by the City
Council envisioning “A sustained, communitywide prosperity which continuously adds value and yields benefits.” Value is comprehensive
in this regard and is expressed in land,
revenues, infrastructure, businesses, education,
employment, health, community services,
recreation, etc. In particular, Ontario is
committed to being “A Premier Community by
Design.” One of the foundations to accomplish
this is described in the Vision as ensuring
that development is “distinctive.” The Euclid/
Walnut PUD helps the City realize specific
“Points of Vision” as outlined for “Distinctive
Development” as follows:
• A system of vibrant retail, town, and
neighborhood centers responsive to market
demands and woven into the fabric of the
community.
• A demonstrated ability to attract housing in
pursuit of our acknowledged responsibility to
balance housing with the job growth that drives
our quality of life.
• Superior quality and design of the built
environment and open spaces through careful
attention to detail at every scale, including
public and private spaces and structures.

The Governance Manual – institutionalizes
Ontario’s approach to governance and provides
a business plan for the City. Ontario believes the
City has the obligation to create, maintain, and
grow economic value. The Manual guides the
City’s leadership and ensures that TOP 2050 is
integrated into daily operations and provides for
effective administration. The Euclid/Walnut PUD
is established in conformance with the City’s
requirements and includes an administrative
section consistent with provisions contained
in the ODC for consideration of “Development
Plans.”
The Policy Plan (General Plan) – includes
the Land Use Element, which designates
the subject parcels within the Euclid/Walnut
PUD as “MU - Mixed Use.” Generally, these
properties are developed with a mix of uses
that, when concentrated, create focal points
for community activity and facilitate walking,
biking, and transit use The MU – Mixed Use land
use category accommodates a horizontal and/or
vertical mix of retail, service, office, restaurant,
entertainment, cultural, and residential uses.

The densities and intensities of the MU – Mixed
Use designation represent the intended level of
anticipated development; however, individual
projects may vary depending upon an approved
master plan, such as a specific plan or planned
unit development.

Within the Land Use Element, the MU – Mixed
Use designation is broken down into unique
sub-categories to further refine the type of
mixed-use development desired by the City.

The parcels comprising the Euclid/Walnut PUD
are part of a sub-area categorized as MU-NH
– Mixed Use Neighborhood Activity Hub. This
specific designation envisions low-rise (three to
five stories) buildings, with a mix of retail and
residential uses that will create identity and
place, and serve surrounding residents. This
category allows for residential densities ranging
from 20 to 75 dwelling units per acre and nonresidential intensity of 1.00 floor area ratio (FAR). Five locations within the City have the
MU-NH land use designation. The Future Buildout Projections Table of the Land Use Element provides details for each of these five MU-NH
sub-areas. The build-out of the 16-acre “MU-NH
(Euclid & Walnut)” sub-area is projected to be
369 dwelling units and 142,840 square feet of
non-residential development.

This PUD regulates the redevelopment of

10.6 acres of this sub-area to create a mixeduse project providing a total of 369 dwelling units and 12,000 non-residential square feet.

The other 5.4 acres of the sub-area is located
north of the PUD boundary and currently
developed with 15 single family dwelling units,
and approximately 28,000 square feet of nonresidential development. There is a nominal increase to the total build-out projection for
the number of residential dwelling units within
this sub-area resulting from the combination
of existing to remain and construction of new
within the boundaries of this PUD. However,
2939
Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development | 13
Objectives
In addition to the requirements of the Land Use
Element, all mixed-use development is subject
to specific “Place Types” as defined in the
Community Design Element, which represent
the intended outcome and character for each
area. The Euclid/Walnut PUD falls within Place
Type 8 (a-e). Properties with this Place Type
are considered “Neighborhood Center – Infill”
development where commercial and residential
parcels were largely developed in an incremental
manner prior to 2020. The Community Design
Element acknowledges that many properties
in this Place Type range in size, complexity,
and relationships with surrounding streets
and neighborhoods, and that redevelopment
could result in horizontal or vertical mixed use.

However, all of these centers are envisioned
to incorporate site design that prioritizes safe,
attractive, and well-shaded pedestrian access on
site, from the public rights-of-way, and from the
adjacent neighborhoods.

Implementation of the Euclid/Walnut PUD will
achieve many City goals and policies outlined in
The Policy Plan (General Plan). Those specific
goals and polices are as follows.

Land Use Element
Goal LU-1 Balance
A community that has a spectrum of housing
types and price ranges that match the jobs in the
City and that make it possible for people to live
and work in Ontario and maintain a quality of
life.
• LU-1.1 Strategic Growth. We concentrate growth
in strategic locations that help create place
and identity, maximize available and planned
infrastructure, foster the development of
transit, and support the expansion of the
active and multimodal transportation networks
throughout the City.
• LU-1.5 Jobs-Housing Balance. We coordinate
land use, infrastructure, and transportation
planning and analysis with regional, county, and
other local agencies to further regional and
subregional goals for jobs-housing balance.
• LU-1.6 Complete Community. We incorporate
a variety of land uses and building types in
our land use planning efforts that result in a
complete community where residents at all
stages of life, employers, workers, and visitors
have a wide spectrum of choices of where they
can live, work, shop and recreate within Ontario.
it is offset by a significant reduction in
the build-out of non-residential square
footage should the existing uses/buildings
remain unchanged on the 5.4-acre portion.

Implementation of this PUD would still allow
for redevelopment of the 5.4 acre portion
of the sub-area of up to 130,000 of nonresidential square footage, consistent with the TOP 2050 build-out projections for this
sub-area.
2940
14 | Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development
Goal LU-2 Compatibility
Compatibility between a wide range of uses and
resultant urban patterns and forms.
• LU-2.1 Land Use Decisions. We minimize
adverse impacts on adjacent properties when
considering land use and zoning requests.
• LU-2.2 Buffers. We require new uses to provide
mitigation or buffers between existing uses
where potential adverse impacts could occur.

Additional mitigation is required when new uses
could negatively impact environmental justice
areas.

Goal LU-4 Phased Growth
Development that provides short-term value
only when the opportunity to achieve our Vision
can be preserved.
• LU-4.2 Interim Development. We allow
development in urban, mixed use, and transitoriented Place Types that is not immediately reflective of our ultimate Vision for the Place
Type, provided it can be modified or replaced
when circumstances are right to support
development aligned with the Place Type
Vision. We will not allow development that
impedes, precludes, or compromises our ability
to achieve our Vision.
• LU-4.3 Infrastructure Timing. We require that
the necessary infrastructure and services
be in place prior to or concurrently with
development.
• LU-4.4 Shared Infrastructure. We encourage
and facilitate the use of shared infrastructure
(including shared or managed parking) in urban,
mixed use, and transit-oriented Place Types.

Housing Element
Goal H-2 Housing Supply & Diversity
Diversity of types of quality housing that are
affordable to a range of household income
levels, accommodate changing demographics,
and support and reinforce the economic
sustainability of Ontario.
• H-2.1 Corridor Housing. We revitalize
transportation corridors by encouraging the
production of higher density residential and
mixed-uses that are architecturally, functionally,
and aesthetically suited to corridors.
• H-2.5 Housing Design. We require architectural
excellence through adherence to City
design guidelines, thoughtful site planning,
environmentally sustainable practices, and
other best practices.
• H-2.6 Infill Development. We support the
revitalization of neighborhoods through the
construction of higher-density residential
developments on underutilized residential and
commercial sites.

Goal H-3 Governmental Regulations
A City regulatory environment that balances the
need for creativity and excellence in residential
design, flexibility and predictability in the
project approval process, and the provision of an
adequate supply and prices of housing.
• H-3.2 Flexible Standards. We allow flexibility in
the application of residential and mixed-use
development standards in order to gain benefits
such as exceptional design quality, economic
advantages, sustainability, or other benefits
that would otherwise be unrealized.

Environmental Resources Element
Goal ER-1 Water & Wastewater
A reliable and cost-effective system that permits
the City to manage its diverse water resources
and needs.
• ER-1.4 Supply-Demand Balance. We require
that available water supply and demands be
balanced.
• ER-1.6 Urban Run-off Quantity. We encourage
the use of low impact development strategies,
including green infrastructure, to intercept runoff, slow the discharge rate, increase infiltration, and ultimately reduce discharge volumes to
traditional storm drain systems.
• ER-1.7 Urban Run-off Quality. We require the
control and management of urban run-off,
consistent with Regional Water Quality Control
Board regulations.
• ER-1.8 Wastewater Management. We require
the management of wastewater discharge and
collection consistent with waste discharge
requirements adopted by the Regional Water
2941
Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development | 15
Objectives
Quality Control Board.

Goal ER-3 Energy
Cost-effective and reliable energy system
sustained through a combination of low impact
buildings, site and neighborhood energy
conservation, and diverse sources of energy
generation that collectively helps to minimize
the region’s carbon footprint.
• ER-3.3 Building and Site Design. We require new
construction to incorporate energy efficient
building and site design strategies, which could
include appropriate solar orientation, maximum
use of natural daylight, passive solar, and
natural ventilation.

Goal ER-4 Air Quality
Improved indoor and outdoor air quality and
reduced locally generated pollutant emissions.
• ER-4.1 Land Use. We reduce GHG and other local
pollutant emissions through compact, mixed
use, and transit-oriented development and
development that improves the regional jobshousing balance.

Community Economics Element
Goal CE-1 Complete Community
A complete community that provides for all
incomes and stages of life.
• CE-1.6 Diversity of Housing. We collaborate
with residents, housing providers, and the
development community to provide housing
opportunities for every stage of life; we plan
for a variety of housing types and price points
to encourage the development of housing
supportive of our efforts to attract business in
growing sectors of the community while being
respectful of existing viable uses.
• CE-1.7 Retail Goods and Services. We seek to
ensure a mix of retail businesses that provide
the full continuum of goods and services for the
community.

Goal CE-2 Placemaking
A City of distinctive neighborhoods, districts,
corridors, and centers where people choose to
be.
• CE-2.1 Development Projects. We require new
development and redevelopment to create
unique, high-quality places that add value to the
community.
• CE-2.2 Development Review. We require those
proposing new development and redevelopment
to demonstrate how their projects will
create appropriately unique, functional, and
sustainable places that will compete well with
their competition within the region.

Safety Element
Goal S-1 Seismic & Geologic Hazards
Minimized risk of injury, loss of life, property
damage, and economic and social disruption
caused by earthquake-induced and other
geologic hazards.
• S-1.1 Implementation of Regulations and
Standards. We require that all new habitable
structures be designed in accordance with the
most recent California Building Code adopted
by the City, including provisions regarding
lateral forces and grading.
• S-1.2 Entitlement and Permitting Process.

We follow state guidelines and the California
Building Code to determine when development
proposals must conduct geotechnical and
geological investigations.

Goal S-2 Flood Hazards
Minimized risk of injury, loss of life, property
damage and economic and social disruption
caused by flooding and inundation hazards.
• S-2.5 Stormwater Management. We maintain
the storm drain system to convey a 100-
year storm, when feasible, and encourage
environmental site design practices to minimize
flooding and increase groundwater recharge,
including natural drainage, green infrastructure,
and permeable ground surfaces.

Goal S-3 Fire & Rescue Hazards
Reduced risk of death, injury, property damage
and economic loss due to fires, accidents and
normal everyday occurrences through prompt
2942
16 | Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development
and capable emergency response.
• S-3.1 Prevention Services. We proactively
mitigate or reduce the negative effects of fire,
hazardous materials release, and structural
collapse by implementing the regularly adopted
California Fire Code and California Building
Code.
• S-3.8 Fire Prevention through Environmental
Design. We require new development to
incorporate fire prevention consideration in the
design of streetscapes, sites, open spaces, and
buildings.

Goal S-4 Noise Hazards
An environment where noise does not adversely
affect the public’s health, safety, and welfare.
• S-4.1 Noise Mitigation. We utilize the City’s Noise
Ordinance, building codes, and subdivision and
development codes to mitigate noise impacts.

Goal S-5 Wind-Related Hazards
Minimize the risk of injury, property damage, and
economic loss resulting from windstorms and
wind-related hazards.
• S-5.1 Dust Control Measures. We require the
implementation of Best Management Practices
for dust control at all excavation and grading
projects.

Goal S-7 Law Enforcement
Residential neighborhoods, commercial areas,
and industrial districts that are kept safe
through a multi-faceted approach of prevention,
suppression, and community involvement in
public safety.
• S-7.4 Crime Prevention through Environmental
Design (CPTED). We require new development
to incorporate CPTED in the design of
streetscapes, sites, open spaces, and buildings.

Community Design Element
Goal CD-1 Image & Identity
A dynamic, progressive city containing distinct
and complete places that foster a positive sense
of identity and belonging among residents,
visitors, and businesses.
• CD-1.2 Place Types. We establish Place Types
in urban, mixed use, and transit-oriented
areas to foster the City’s identity as a premier
community and require new development within
each Place Type to incorporate prescribed
urban patterns, forms, and placemaking
priorities.

Goal CD-2 Design Quality
A high level of design quality resulting in
neighborhoods, commercial areas, public spaces,
parks, and streetscapes that are attractive, safe,
functional, human- scale, and distinct.
• CD-2.1 Quality Building Design and Architecture.

We encourage all development projects to
convey visual interest and character through:

1. Building volume, massing, and height to
provide context-appropriate scale and
proportion;

2.A true architectural style which is carried
out in plan, section, and elevation through all
aspects of the building and site design and
appropriate for its setting; and

3.Exterior building materials that are
articulated, high quality, durable, and
appropriate for the architectural style.
• CD-2.4 Urban, Mixed Use, and Transit-oriented
Areas. We establish Place Types to require
mixed use, urban, and transit-oriented areas
to be designed and developed as pedestrian
oriented areas that are integrated with
adjacent neighborhoods and promote a vibrant,
comfortable, and functional environment, as
defined for each Place Type.
• CD-2.7 Sustainability. We collaborate with the
development community to design and build
neighborhoods, streetscapes, sites, outdoor
spaces, landscaping, and buildings to reduce
energy demand through solar orientation,
maximum use of natural daylight, passive
solar and natural ventilation, building form,
mechanical and structural systems, building
materials, and construction techniques.
2943
Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development | 17
Objectives
• CD-2.8 Safe Design. We incorporate
defensible space design into new and existing
developments to ensure the maximum safe
travel and visibility on pathways, corridors,
and open space and at building entrances
and parking areas by avoiding physically and
visually isolated spaces, maintaining visibility
and accessibility, and using lighting.
• CD-2.9 Landscape Design. We encourage
durable, sustainable, and drought-tolerant
landscaping materials and designs that enhance
the aesthetics of structures, create and define
public and private spaces, and provide shade
and environmental benefits.
• CD-2.13 Entitlement Process. We work
collaboratively with all stakeholders to ensure a
high degree of certainty in the efficient review
and timely processing of all development plans
and permits.

Goal CD-3 Urban, Mixed Use, and Transit-Oriented
Place Types
Vibrant urban environments that are organized
around intense buildings, pedestrian and transit
areas, public plazas, and linkages between and
within developments that are conveniently
located, visually appealing and safe during all
hours.
• CD-3.1 Unique Identity. We promote
development that heightens the unique
character and identity of each Place Type
by requiring compatible land uses and land
planning, site design, and building design that
promotes an active public realm.
• CD-3.4 Context-Aware and Appropriate Design.

We require appropriate building and site design
that complements existing development,
respects the intent and identity of the Place
Type, and provides appropriate transitions and
connections between adjacent uses to ensure
compatibility of scale, maintain an appropriate
level of privacy for each use, and minimize
potential conflicts.
• CD-3.5 Active Frontages. We create lively
pedestrian streetscapes by requiring primary
building, business, and residential entrances,
outdoor dining, and storefronts be located
on ground floors adjacent to sidewalks or
public spaces and designed to maximize
CD-3.1 Unique Identity
CD-3.4 Context Aware and
Appropriate Building Design
CD-3.5 Active Frontages
CD-3.6 Managed Infrastructure
2944
18 | Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development

2.2 Euclid Avenue (EA) Overlay District
and Historic Resources
The EA Overlay zoning district was established
to recognize, protect, and enhance the visual
character and quality of Euclid Avenue as a
major scenic and historic resource in Ontario
as well as its position on the National Register
of Historic Places. Properties located within
the EA require approval of a Certificate of
Appropriateness to ensure no adverse impacts
to designated historic resources occur as a result
of new development and buildings. This PUD
includes design criteria within Chapter 5 for site
and building design that strengthen the overall
character of Euclid Avenue.

The public right-of-way of Euclid Avenue from
Philadelphia Street northward to the Interstate
10 was designated as Local Landmark No. 67 on
January 16, 2001 by the Ontario City Council. On
August 10, 2005, the public right-of-way of Euclid
Avenue from Philadelphia Street in Ontario
northward to 24th Street in Upland was listed
on the National Register of Historic Places as a
significant cultural landscape. One contributing
character defining-feature of the right-of way is
the 60-foot-wide median separating the north/
southbound vehicular lanes of Euclid Avenue.

This PUD does not propose to alter or affect this
character-defining feature.

Although the parcels within this PUD have
Euclid Avenue frontage, the location of this
PUD is separated from the southern boundary
(Philadelphia Street) of this Local Landmark/
National Register of Historic Places designation
by a distance of approximately 0.4 miles. The
extended view of the Euclid Avenue corridor,
when viewed northward from the parcels or
southward towards the parcels of this PUD, is
also visually disrupted within the immediate
foreground view as a result of the Pomona
Freeway (SR-60), which is elevated above Euclid
Avenue. Additionally, this PUD is separated from
the closest boundary of an historic district,
the Downtown Historic District, by a distance
of approximately three miles. Based upon the
City’s Historic Preservation records, there are no
potential or proposed historic resources within
the immediate surrounding area of the parcels
within this PUD.

Historic Euclid Avenue
2945
Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development | 19
Objectives

2.3 Euclid / Walnut PUD Objectives
The Euclid/Walnut PUD establishes a set of planning and design principles, development regulations, and performance standards to guide and govern the development of a defined project site. This PUD will facilitate redevelopment of the project site with structures and related improvements that support residential and non-residential land uses within the same project site. In addition to facilitating achievement of many City goals and policies as outlined herein, this PUD has the following objectives:
• Develop and provide new, high-quality rental housing combined with a mixed-use component. • Provide transition between new mixed-use development and surrounding residential neighborhoods and commercial properties.
• Provide areas of private and passive open space for each residential unit, as well as community gathering and active open spaces.
• Promote development that is consistent with the MU-NH – Mixed Use Neighborhood Activity Hub land use designation.
• Promote revitalization of commercial uses on the project site by establishing new ground-floor retail and similar uses that serve on-site residents and those in surrounding neighborhoods.
• Provide outdoor gathering places adjacent to commercial storefronts, such as outdoor patio or bench seating with inviting/attractive landscape elements. • Orient non-residential, ground-floor uses towards Euclid Avenue. • Incorporate site design solutions to allow for phased development. • Satisfy the build-out projections for residential dwelling units within the MU-NH (EuclidWalnut) sub-area, as defined in TOP 2050. 2946
20 | Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development 2947
Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development | 21
Land Use Plan
Land Use Plan

3.1 Land Use and Zoning
The Euclid/Walnut PUD applies to the parcels
shown on Exhibit 3-1: Land Use/Zoning Map. The
map establishes a single zoning district of PUD
- Planned Unit Development providing for a mix
of commercial and residential uses consistent
with TOP 2050 MU-NH land use designation.

This PUD allows both horizontal and vertical
mixed-use development in buildings of three and
four stories. Buildings with direct Euclid Avenue
frontage will contain ground-floor commercial
uses and residential units directly above. All
other buildings will contain residential units
on all floor levels. A combination of garages,
tandem spaces, carports, and surface parking
spaces will be provided, with gated access limited
to residents and residents’ guests. Unrestricted
access to surface-level parking will serve the
commercial uses and provide additional resident
guest parking spaces. Residents will enjoy a lowmaintenance, urban lifestyle with conveniently located shopping, dining, and personal service
businesses in combination with convenient
access to established transportation routes and
employment hubs.
3 2948
22 | Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development

3.2 Phasing and Building Out
Implementation of the land use plan and the
build-out allowable under this PUD will be
achieved through two redevelopment phases.

Exhibit 3-2: Phase 1 Conceptual Site Plan
illustrates the development plan for the initial
phase.

The first phase will retain the fast-food,
drive-through restaurant use, occupying an
approximately 4,100-square-foot building and
its related site improvements. The remaining
area within the boundaries of this PUD will be
developed with two four-story buildings and
six three-story buildings, providing a combined
total of 346 dwelling units, 5,400 square feet
of ground-floor commercial space, associated
on-site parking areas for both residential and
non-residential land uses, and landscaping and
recreational amenities for residents1
.

The second phase will implement the full
build-out of the PUD area with demolition of
the restaurant and related site improvements;
replacing them with an additional mixed-use,
four-story building. Completion of the second
phase will provide up to an additional 23 dwelling
units and up to an additional 6,600 square
feet of ground-floor commercial space, plus
associated site improvements.

This PUD, inclusive of all development standards
and requirements, applies to both phases.

Ultimate build-out will result in a maximum of
369 dwelling units and approximately 12,000
square feet of commercial land uses.

1. Demolition of approximately 100,950 square feet of older commercial buildings will occur before project construction proceeds.

Exhibit 3-1: Land Use/Zoning Map
2949
Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development | 23
Land Use Plan
Exhibit 3-2: Phase 1 Conceptual Site Plan
2950
24 | Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development

3.3 Permitted Uses
Table 3-1: Permitted Uses lists the allowable land use, activity, or facility permitted within this PUD.

A land use that is not listed shall be considered a prohibited land use unless otherwise allowed by the Zoning Administrator in accordance with the requirements and procedures outlined in the ODC.

The land uses established in this table are consistent with those listed uses and land use definitions of the ODC. The ODC relies upon the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) for non-residential land uses, utilizing the NAICS website definitions for each business establishment classification. The “Notes or ODC Regulations” column provides reference to the location of any specific regulations, operating conditions, and/or development standards applicable to the corresponding land use, activity, or facility; as well as exception to any standards or requirement as modified within this PUD. The “Permit Type” column symbols shall have the same meaning and utilize the same permit type, process, and approvals as contained in the ODC.

Table 3-1: Permitted Uses
Land Uses, Activities, and
Facilities
Permit Type
“P” - Permitted by Right
“C” - Conditional Use Permit
“A” - Administrative Use Permit
Notes or ODC
Regulations
Residential
Accessory Dwelling Units P ODC Section 5.03.010
Animal Keeping (accessory)
Household Pets - 4 or fewer pets
P
Community Gardens (accessory) A ODC Section 5.03.410
Home Occupation (accessory) A ODC Section 5.03.240
Multiple-Family Dwellings P
Mixed Uses
Residential Mixed-Use Developments P ODC Section 5.03.285 Non-Residential Uses - Limited to Ground Floor and Euclid Avenue Frontage Alcoholic Beverage Sales (off-premise) C ODC Section 5.03.025 Art Dealer P
Clothing, Shoes and Jewelry Store P
Consignment Shop P
Convenience Store P
Document Preparation Services P
Drycleaning and Laundry Services -
Limited to Drop-off and Pick-up
P Drive-thru prohibited
Electronics and Appliance Store P ODC Section 5.03.175
Finance and Insurance Services P Check Cashing, Advanced Payday, and Pawnshops
prohibited
2951
Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development | 25
Land Use Plan
Table 3-1: Permitted Uses
Land Uses, Activities, and
Facilities
Permit Type
“P” - Permitted by Right
“C” - Conditional Use Permit
“A” - Administrative Use Permit
Notes or ODC
Regulations
Florist P
Furniture and Home Furnishings Store P ODC Section 5.03.210 General Merchandise Store P
Health and Personal Care Store P
Investigative and Security Services P
Office Administrative Support
Services
P
Office Supplies, Stationary and Gift
Store
P
Personal and Household Goods Repair P
Personal Care Services
With Massage Services
P
A ODC Section 5.03.270
Personal Fitness Training Studio P Limited to 10,000 sq. ft.

Pet Supply Store P Animal Sales prohibited
Pharmacies and Drug Store P Drive-thru prohibited
Police Storefront/Community Services P
Private Mail Centers and Postal
Supply
P
Professional and Technical Services P Limited to non-medical Real Estate, Rental, and Leasing
Services
P
Restaurants, Fast Food
With Drive-Thru
P
P ODC Section 5.03.150
Restaurants, Limited Service
With Alcoholic Beverage Sales
With Live Entertainment
P
C
C
ODC Section 5.03.025
ODC Section 5.03.257
Restaurants, Snack and Nonalcoholic
Beverage Bar
P
Specialty Food and/or Beverage Store
With Alcoholic Beverage Sales
P
C ODC Section 5.03.025
Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book, and
Music Store
P
Supermarket and Grocery Store P
Travel Arrangement Services P
2952
26 | Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development 2953
Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development | 27
Development Regulations
Development
Regulations
This section sets forth standards that govern
the placement, height, and bulk of permitted
buildings and other structures; establishes
locational criteria for vehicular access to
development sites; establishes parking and
loading requirements; and specifies minimum
requirements for recreational amenities for
residential uses. Unless otherwise modified
herein, development within this PUD
shall comply with the ODC standards and
requirements as may apply generally to MultipleFamily Dwellings and Commercial development, as determined appropriate by the Director.

Table 4-1: Summary of Development Standards
provides an at-a-glance reference to the
regulations for the various standards, and is to
be used in combination with the descriptions and
specific criteria listed for each of the standards.
4 2954
28 | Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development
served by a drive aisle, up to a maximum
building setback of 80 feet.
g. The building edge along Walnut Street shall
provide a minimum setback of 10 feet.
h. Building setbacks shall be measured from
the ultimate property lines or ultimate
right-of-way width, whichever is greater.
i. Placement of buildings and structures shall
conform with other specifications of Table
4-1: Summary of Development Standards.
j. Any yard areas provided between the
buildings and the right-of-way may be
finished with hardscape, including walls/
fences, or landscape.

4.4 Vehicle Access
Vehicular access from any public right-of-way
shall be limited to two locations along Euclid
Avenue and a maximum of three locations along
Walnut Street, as approved by the City Engineer.

4.1 Intensity
The intensity of non-residential development
shall not exceed a maximum 0.5 floor area
ratio (FAR) based upon the net site area. The
calculation shall be derived by dividing the gross
square footage of the commercial space of the
vertical mixed use buildings by the net site area.

In determining FAR, this square footage should
not include indoor common amenity space
or other interior square footage serving the
residential land uses.

4.2 Density
The density of residential development shall not
exceed a maximum 40 dwelling units per acre
based upon the net site area. In no case shall
the total number of residential units exceed 369
units upon build-out of Phase 2.

4.3 Building Envelope
a. Non-residential land uses shall be on the
ground-floor level of vertical mixed-use
buildings.
b. Residential dwelling units may be located
on any floor level.
c. The height of four-story buildings shall not
exceed 60 feet. The height of three-story
buildings shall not exceed 50 feet. Height
shall be measured as specified in the ODC
and is inclusive of architectural projections.
d. Any rooftop mechanical venting or
communications equipment shall be built
within or otherwise screened by the roof
structure so that they do not project above
parapets and are not visible from any public
right of way, or neighboring building.
e. The location of vertical mixed-use buildings
shall be limited to buildings with frontage
along Euclid Avenue.
f. The building edge along Euclid Avenue may
vary. It may occur a minimum of 10 feet
behind the public right-of-way line or at a
point that allows for up to two parking bays
2955
Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development | 29
Development Regulations

4.5 Parking Facilities, Supply, and
Design
On-street parking on Euclid Avenue and Walnut
Street adjacent to this PUD shall not be allowed.
a. Non-residential uses shall be provided with
parking at a minimum ratio of one parking
space per 250 gross square feet of building
area. Such parking shall be located on site,
and shall be accessible during operating
hours of the businesses being served.
b. Residential uses shall be provided with
parking at a minimum ratio of 1.2 parking
spaces per bedroom in each dwelling unit,
inclusive of providing guest or unassigned
parking spaces. Resident parking shall
be located on site, and may have access
restricted by gated entrance. Resident
parking for each dwelling unit or guests of
that dwelling unit may be provided within
a garage space, as a tandem space, within
a carport, as surface level parking, or in
combination. Tandem spaces are restricted
to those directly in front of a garage door
and shall be assigned to the same dwelling
unit as the garage space.
c. A parking management plan shall be
submitted for the Planning Director
approval prior to the issuance of building
permits. The plan shall address the
assignment, distribution, and functionality
of all parking spaces among the various
uses, including the use of non-residential
spaces providing overflow resident guest
spaces when businesses are closed.
d. Parking spaces shall not obstruct access to
building entrances, pedestrian paths, trash
storage areas, or loading areas.
e. Parking space dimensions, drive aisles, etc.
shall generally conform to the standards set
forth in the ODC unless modified herein.

4.6 Residential Open Space and
Common Amenities
Open space for the residential component shall
be provided at a minimum ratio of 250 square
feet per dwelling unit. Such space can be a
combination of residential private open space
and common amenities, subject to the following:
a. A minimum of 50 square feet of individual
private open space, in the form of balcony
or patio area directly accessible from the
interior of each dwelling unit, shall be
provided. Individual balcony or patio areas
shall have a minimum dimension for length
and width of five feet.
b. Common amenities shall be provided
at the minimum ratio of 175 square feet
per dwelling unit. This may include a
combination of passive and active, indoor
and outdoor spaces, roof-top or upper
floor decks, as well as landscaped and
hardscaped ground surfaces providing
paseos between or adjacent to buildings.

Up to 15 percent of the overall common
amenity square footage may consist
of indoor area and be grouped into a
single building that is accessible to all
residents. Such indoor area shall provide
opportunities for fitness, lounge/gathering
space, business/mail center, and similar
amenities. The remaining common
amenities provided shall be in the form of
outdoor common areas consisting of both
programmed and unprogrammed spaces.

Programmed space may provide specific
amenities: such as a dog park, seating/
conversational areas, outdoor cooking
facilities with table seating areas, etc.

Unprogrammed space may provide passive
use such as landscaped paseos.
2956
30 | Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development

4.7 Service Facilities
Service areas and facilities shall comply with the
following:
a. Loading and unloading in proximity to
both the residential and non-residential
uses shall be addressed as part of the
parking management plan submitted to the
Planning Director to ensure coordination of
operational hours and occupancy/vacancy
of parking areas.
b. Trash receptacles/recyclable container
storage areas shall be provided for all
residential and non-residential uses. Such
receptacle/storage area may receive trash
from commercial and residential sources.

Locations, sizes, and design of such areas
shall be readily accessible by trash disposal
company equipment and work crews, as
approved by the Planning and Public Works
Directors, in consultation with the trash
disposal vendor.
c. Individual storage units shall be provided
for the occupants of each dwelling unit,
exclusive of any closets in the units. The
total amount of cubic feet provided shall
average 150 cubic feet per dwelling unit.

4.8 Signs
A Master Sign Program shall be submitted
for approval by the Planning Director prior to
issuance of a building permit to provide design
and standards applicable to both residential and
non-residential land uses within this PUD. The
program will include specific sign criteria for
gated access points. All signs shall comply with
standards in the ODC. Any signage within the
Euclid Avenue Caltrans right-of-way will require
Caltrans review and approval.

4.9 Landscape/Hardscape
a. A detailed plan shall be submitted with the
Development Plan specifying all landscape
and hardscape elements of the residential
open space and common amenities, as well
as the perimeter yards abutting the street
rights-of-way and all street trees.
b. Water conservation shall be provided
through low water using plant materials,
hydro zones, water efficient irrigation and
weather-based controllers as required
by City codes. Landscaped areas may be
used for storm water infiltration through
vegetated swales, retention basins, or dry
wells as needed with the use of appropriate
planting materials.
c. The landscape design shall generally
satisfy the requirements of the Landscape
Development Standards outlined in the
ODC and shall create well-functioning
spaces within a sustainable design utilizing
materials as provided in Table 5-1: Master
Plant Palette.
d. Within parking areas, the following
landscape areas and standards apply:

1. For each row of parking spaces located within
the restricted access (gated) parking areas,
planter islands of at least six feet in width
that extend the full length of the abutting
parking space shall be located at a minimum
rate of every 15 spaces. This rate shall be
increased to every 10 spaces for parking areas
with unrestricted access and/or adjacent to
Euclid Avenue.

2. Tree wells, tree diamonds, or center planter
strips shall be provided to allow for the
planting of shade trees at a minimum ratio
of one tree for each five parking spaces. Tree
wells shall not have a minimum dimension
less than five feet.

3. All landscape planters within parking
areas shall be delineated with a six-inchwide curb regardless of parking space configuration. The use of a 12-inch-wide curb
may be provided to allow for a “step area”
in circumstances where there is increased
frequency of passengers exiting or entering a
vehicle.
2957
Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development | 31
Development Regulations

4.11 Public Right-of-Way Improvements
As determined by the City Engineer, design
and construction of any street improvements
adjacent to the property frontage of Euclid
Avenue and Walnut Street shall be conditioned
and may include, but not be limited to, concrete
curb and gutter, sidewalk, LED street lights,
signing and striping, and parkway landscaping.

Any improvements within the Euclid Avenue
Caltrans right-of-way will require Caltrans review
and approval.

4.12 Infrastructure
The parcels within the boundary of this PUD
shall be served by existing water lines and
wastewater flows and/or upgraded to satisfy the
required capacities as determined by the City
and its service purveyors/agencies, including the
Fire Department.

On-site stormwater drainage facilities shall be
provided consistent with the San Bernardino
County Stormwater Program’s Water Quality
Management Plan (WQMP) requirements for new
development projects. Stormwater capture and
infiltration facilities may include the utilization
of vegetated swales, depressed landscaped
basins, pervious concrete pavement, and/or
underground stormwater retention/infiltration
vaults.

The parcels within the boundary of this PUD are
considered a Priority Land Use (PLU). A PLU
shall comply with the statewide Trash Provisions
adopted by the State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB) and trash requirements in the
most current San Bernardino County Area-Wide
MS4 Permit. Drainage from the PLU shall be
designed with conveyance tributary to a Full
Trash Capture System which has been approved
by the SWRCB.

4. Bordering the Euclid Avenue frontage, a
minimum 10 foot in depth planter area shall
be provided between the public right-of-way
and a parking space oriented perpendicular to
the right-of-way.

5. A minimum 20-foot deep planter area shall
be provided at a driveway between any public
right-of-way to the first parking space to allow
for a minimum 20-foot drive aisle throat.
f. Street trees shall comply with the variety,
size, and spacing as directed by the City of
Ontario Master Street Tree Plan.

4.10 Fences and Walls
a. Fences and walls shall be an integral design
or compatible with the building architecture
and shall comply with the height and
materials shown in Exhibit 5-6: Fence/Wall
Concepts.
b. Fences and walls may be setback zero
feet from property lines except where
such fence or wall is required to comply
with Engineering Corner Sight Distance
Standards and other applicable standards.
c. Decorative walls, monuments, and/or other
similar features shall not encroach into the
public right-of-way.
2958
32 | Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development

4.13 Summary of Development Standards
Table 4-1: Summary of Development Standards provides the quantitative development standards set forth in previous Sections 4.1 through 4.12 and any additional requirements for development within this PUD.

Table 4-1: Summary of Development Standards
Development Standard Requirement Notes
Maximum Intensity - Floor Area Ratio 0.50 FAR Gross building square footage of commercial space
Density Range - Minimum and Maximum 20.1 - 40 Up to a maximum of 369 dwelling units
Maximum Building Height by Number of
Stories
Four Stories
Three Stories
60 ft.
50 ft.

Inclusive of architectural
projections and equipment
screening
Building Setbacks - From Right-of-Way 10 ft. minimum
Setbacks - Interior Property Line
Buildings Adjacent to Residential
Buildings Adjacent to Non-Residential
Carport or Trash Enclosure
50 ft. minimum
5 ft. minimum
5 ft. minimum
Building Separation
Building to Building
Building to Drive Aisle or Parking Areas
Building to Carport
Patio to Patio
25 ft. minimum
5 ft. minimum
25 ft. minimum
15 ft. minimum
Individual driveway depth limited
to 5 ft. or less, or 18 ft. or more
Minimum Number of Parking Spaces
Ratio for Residential Uses
Ratio for Non-Residential Uses

1.2 spaces/bedroom
1 space/250 sq. ft.

Inclusive of guest spaces
Residential Open Space and Common
Amenities - Combined Minimum Ratio
Minimum Private Open Space Ratio
Minimum Common Amenity Ratio
250 sq. ft./du
50 sq. ft./du
175 sq. ft./du
5 ft. minimum width and length
15% maximum indoor
Residential Storage Units 150 cubic feet/du minimum Does not include closets or cabinets interior to the unit
2959
This page was intentionally left blank.
2960
34 | Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development 2961
Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development | 35
Design Criteria
Design Criteria
New development implemented under this PUD
will generate new uses and design aesthetics
in a way that fulfills many of the design goals
and policies discussed previously in Chapter

2. The Community Design Element in TOP
2050 outlines specific “Place Types”; this PUD
is categorized under Place Type 8e, which
is considered “Neighborhood Center – Infill”
type development, where the commercial and
residential parcels were largely developed
in an incremental manner prior to 2020.

Redevelopment could result in either horizontal
or vertical mixed use and are envisioned to
incorporate site design that prioritizes safe,
attractive, and well-shaded pedestrian access
from the public rights-of-way and adjacent
neighborhoods.
5 2962
36 | Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development
The parcels within this PUD site do not contain
significant buildings, structures, or locations
subject to historic preservation. While the first
phase of development retains an existing fastfood restaurant structure, this building is not considered historic. The new infill development
will include architecture that creates a dynamic
visual environment and increases the pedestrian
experience. The design criteria for the buildings
provide articulation, dynamic materials and
colors, and avoid bulky and monotonous
elevations. Street trees and landscaped streetfacing setback areas will provide opportunities to frame the street, create a pleasant pedestrian
pathway, and minimize the building bulk from the
public right-of-way.

The following sections provide guidance to
City staff and private developers in the design
of buildings, yards, and streets. Variations
from strict interpretation of the standards
are permitted, provided that the integrity of
the urban design is not compromised. The
following criteria shall be incorporated into the
Development Plan for each phase of this PUD,
subject to final interpretation by the Planning
Commission.

5.1 Building Orientation
a. Buildings along Euclid Avenue shall provide
storefronts that invite pedestrian activity.
b. Architectural focal treatments such as taller
elements, textured surfaces, and unique
fenestration shall be provided on frontage
facing public streets.
c. Buildings located at the street corner shall
be designed to incorporate architectural
features that respond to the corner location
by having directed entries and/or tower
elements.
d. Multiple shop entrances and display
windows with clear glazing, shall be
provided along Euclid Avenue facades.

5.2 Access and Parking Facilities
a. Vehicular access and on-site parking shall
be designed to reduce visual impact along
Euclid Avenue and Walnut Street.
b. On-site parking facilities serving nonresidential uses shall be readily accessible, screened, and separated from the public
right-of-way views with landscaping,
including shade trees.
c. On-site parking facilities serving residential
uses may be located behind gated ingress/
egress points. Gate access points from
Euclid Avenue shall be set back to allow
stacking of at least two vehicles, with
sufficient space configured to allow a
vehicle to turn around without backing into
the street. The primary entry gate serving
residential uses shall be designed to be
easily recognizable to visitors.
d. Carports and individual garage entries
shall be designed to be compatible with the
building architecture and use similar colors,
materials, and details.

5.3 Service Facilities
a. Service, loading and, storage facilities
shall be located away from public streets,
outdoor spaces, and adjacent residential
uses.
b. Electrical equipment shall be located on
the interior of a building. When interior
locations are not practical, electrical
equipment shall be enclosed and screened
from public streets with walls, fencing, and/
or landscaping that allows for sufficient
ventilation, or buried in vaults.
c. Service areas shall be screened and gated.
d. All types of loading doors within view of
public streets shall be screened with walls,
berms, or plant materials.
2963
Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development | 37
Design Criteria

5.4 Pedestrian Linkages
a. Pedestrian pathways shall be designed
and located for clear and comfortable onsite pedestrian circulation. Sidewalks and pedestrian paths shall provide convenient
connections between storefronts, outdoor
spaces, and parking, as well as portals to
adjacent residential uses.
b. Landscape paseos shall be used to reinforce
pedestrian connections. For instance,
attractive paving and planting design may
identify and highlight these connections by
establishing a visual separation between
vehicular and pedestrian routes and provide
passive open space opportunities for
residents.

5.5 Architectural Character
a. The architectural character shall reflect
the various styles within the City and
along Euclid Avenue and shall fit in
contextually without matching. The use
of complementing proportions, building
details, and building materials shall be
employed.
b. Compatibility between the vertical and
horizontal mixed-use architecture shall
be achieved through the use of unifying
elements such as similar materials and
colors.
c. A schematic illustration of acceptable
architectural character is shown in Exhibit

5.1: Architectural Character - Vertical
Mixed-Use, Exhibit 5-2: Architectural
Character - Three Story Residential, and
Exhibit 5-3: - Four Story Residential.

5.6 Massing & Scale
a. Simple, yet varied massing shall be used,
with wall openings that create shadow line
and provide visual relief.
b. Massing and height of corner elements
shall be emphasized by using strong and
identifiable building forms such as taller
building mass, tower element, or cupola.
c. Building increments shall employ various
architectural devices such as changes in
colors/finish material, horizontal breaks and
offsets, upper building portion reflecting
the same increment of articulation as the
ground level, and use of trim and moldings
at the top of facades that reflect the
vertical massing of the building.
d. Where buildings will be of varying heights,
they shall be designed to promote
transition in massing and avoid abrupt
changes in scale within the development.

5.7 Articulation & Fenestration
a. Buildings shall have three-dimensional
qualities.
b. The base and upper levels of a vertical
mixed use building shall be differentiated
with features for storefronts such as a
bulkhead, display windows, and/or transom
and detailed trim.
c. Buildings shall be articulated on all sides.

Fenestration, changes in wall plane,
material, texture, color, etc. shall be used to
create shadow lines and articulate building
walls.
d. Highly visible public entrances shall be
provided where buildings are oriented
towards Euclid Avenue to provide individual
shop entrances featuring recesses,
overhangs, special materials, and/or
detailing.
2964
38 | Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development
Exhibit 5-1: Architectural Character — Vertical Mixed-Use 2965
Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development | 39
Design Criteria
Exhibit 5-2: Architectural Character — Three-Story Residential Exhibit 5-3: Architectural Character — Four-Story Residential 2966
40 | Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development

5.8 Architectural Details
a. Architectural details shall be used to
enhance a building’s appearance at the
base, eaves, parapets, and around entries
and windows.
b. Human-scaled details such as canopies and
awnings, transparent windows and window
displays shall be provided facing Euclid
Avenue.
c. Architectural features and details shall be
an integral part of the building without an
appearance of being “tacked on.”

5.9 Storefronts
a. Storefronts for each commercial
establishment shall have a unifying
architectural aesthetic, but may include
alteration of exterior treatments on the
individual frontage of the space where
such modifications compliment the overall
design quality of the development.
b. Storefronts shall incorporate desirable
building materials such as brick, stone, tile,
exterior cement plaster, or fiber cement
siding.
c. Storefront glazing shall be clear glass to
permit clear views into the interior space.

The amount of such glass shall provide a
balance between high visibility into the
store interior and architectural quality.
d. Entrance doors shall be of a traditional style
and as transparent as possible.

5.10 Material & Colors
a. Materials shall be those of permanence
and quality and that unify a building’s
appearance on all sides.
b. Materials and colors shall accentuate the
architectural details of the building and
promote visual harmony.
c. To create visual interest, at least three
different building materials shall be used.

5.11 Roof/Rooftop Equipment
a. At least one break in roof plane shall be
provided on each building
b. Rooftop equipment, including ladders and
antenna devices, shall be screened so as
not to be visible from streets and adjacent
buildings. Methods of rooftop screening
should be integral to the building’s form.

5.12 Non-Residential Outdoor Dining
Areas
Outdoor dining areas adjacent to a groundlevel eating or drinking establishment shall be oriented toward Euclid Avenue.

5.13 Residential Outdoor Space,
Common Recreational Amenities
a. Private balcony and/or patio enclosures
shall consist of materials that are
complementary to materials and colors
used on the building elevations. Each
balcony shall be oriented or enclosed
sufficiently to increase privacy between
balconies of adjacent units.
b. Common outdoor spaces providing passive
recreation shall include either shade
elements and/or trees providing shade
canopy.
c. Indoor recreation/fitness/community
facilities shall be of the same architectural
style and materials that match or
complement the primary building
architecture with a layout as shown in
Exhibit 5-4: Typical Common Recreational
Amenity.
d. Outdoor seating, tables and umbrellas,
gazebos, barbecues, natural or artificial
lawn area, and/or other place-making
features that are provided shall be
compatible with the architectural style of
the buildings with a layout as shown in
Exhibit 5-5: Typical Courtyard.
2967
Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development | 41
Design Criteria
Exhibit 5-4: Typical Common Recreational Amenity
Exhibit 5-5: Typical Courtyard
2968
42 | Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development

5.14 Landscape / Hardscape Elements
a. Landscaping elements shall contribute and complement the aesthetic quality and character of the public and private spaces.
b. Table 5-1: Master Plant Palette shall guide the selection of materials for street trees, perimeter trees and shrubs, courtyard and common area trees, vines, screening and hedge plants, and groundcover.
c. Landscaping shall be provided to define and enrich courtyards and walkways and shall include specimen trees of minimum size 24 inch box.
d. Hardscaping shall be composed of decorative paving materials and patterns, rather than a single, continuous surface.
e. Fences/walls shall complement the building materials similar to those depicted in Exhibit 5-6:

Fence/Wall Concepts.

Table 5-1: Master Plant Palette
Botanical Name Common Name Minimum Size
Street Trees
Grevillea robusta Silk Oak (Euclid) 24” Box
Platanus wrightii Arizona Sycamore
Site Trees and Palms
Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 48” Box
Platanus racemosa California Sycamore
Ulmus parvifolia 'True Green' Evergreen Elm
Koelreuteria paniculata Golden Rain Tree 36” Box
Lagerstroemia hybrids 'Muskogee' Crape Myrtle (Lavender) Chilopsis linearis Desert Willow
Aloe bainesii Tree Aloe 24” Box
Arbutus ‘Marina’ Strawberry Tree
Cercis occidentalis Western Redbud
Platanus acerifolia 'Bloodgood' London Plane Tree (anthracnose res.)
Podocarpus gracilior Fern Pine
Quercus wislizeni Interior Live Oak
Tristania conferta Brisbane Box
Phoenix dactylifera Date Palm 16’ Brown Trunk
Height
2969
Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development | 43
Design Criteria
Table 5-1: Master Plant Palette
Botanical Name Common Name Minimum Size
Shrubs
Agave 'Blue Flame' Blue Flame Agave 5 Gallon
Agave desmettiana ' Variegata' Variegated Dwarf Century Plant Alyogne huegelii 'MONleon' Leon's Purple Delight Lilac Hibiscus Arbutus unedo 'Elfin King' Elfin King Strawberry King
Buxus microphylla japonica Japanese Boxwood 1 Gallon
Calandrinia spectabilis Rock Purslane
Carex tumulicola Foothill Sedge
Carissa grandiflora 'Green Carpet' Natal Plum
Dianella revoluta 'DR5000' Little Rev Flax Lily
Dianella tasmanica 'Silver Streak' Silver Streak Flax Lily Ilex crenata 'Sky Pencil' Sky Pencil Ilex 5 Gallon
Juniperus scopulorum 'Skyrocket' Skyrocket Juniper
Lantana montevedensis 'Monma' White Lightin' Lantana 1 Gallon Ligustrum japonicum 'Texanum' Wax Leaf Privet 5 Gallon
Lomandra longifolia 'LM300' Breeze Dwarf Mat Rush
Muhlenbergia capillaris 'Regal Mist' Regal Mist Muhly
Myoporum parvifolium No Common Name 1 Gallon
Philodendron x 'Xanadu' Dwarf Philodendron 5 Gallon
Pittosporum tobira Tobira
Podocarpus elongatus 'Monmal' Icee Blue Yellow-Wood
Prunus caroliniana 'Bright n' Tight' Carolina Cherry
Rhaphiolepis indica 'Clara' Dwarf Indian Hawthorne
Rhaphiolepis x. 'Montic' Majestic Beauty Indian Hawthorne Rosa 'Flower Carpet var. Noatraum' Pink Carpet Rose 2 Gallon Rosa f. 'Ice Berg' White Shrub Rose 5 Gallon
Trachelospermum asiaticum Asian Jasmine 1 Gallon
Vines and Espaliers
Clytostoma callistegioides Violet Trumpet Vine 5 Gallon Distictus buccinatoria Blood Red Trumpet Vine
Ficus pumila (repens) Creeping Fig 1 Gallon
Parthenocissus tricuspidata Boston Ivy
2970
44 | Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development
Exhibit 5-6: Fence/Wall Concepts
2971
Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development | 45
Design Criteria
2972
46 | Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development 2973
Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development | 47
Administration
6Administration

6.1 Items Not Addressed in PUD
Any terms not defined herein and any issues
affecting the design and development of the
subject project area not specifically addressed in
this PUD shall be governed by the provisions of
the ODC.
2974
48 | Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development

6.2 Development Plan and Other
Applications
A Development Plan shall be submitted
for each phase of this PUD for approval by
the Development Advisory Board and the
Ontario Planning Commission, pursuant to the
requirements and procedures outlined in the
ODC.

To ensure proper implementation of the EA
Overlay district, an application for a Certificate
of Appropriateness shall be submitted in
conjunction with the Development Plan required
for each phase of this PUD, pursuant to all
requirements and procedures outlined in the
ODC.

Lot line adjustments or the combining of
parcels within this PUD shall comply with all
requirements and procedures outlined in the
ODC. Such actions may be conditioned for
compliance as part of the Development Plan
approval process.

6.3 Administrative Exceptions
Deviation from the development standards
set forth in this PUD may be granted up
to a maximum of 10 percent by the Zoning
Administrator. Any deviation that is greater
than 10 percent shall require Variance approval
pursuant to the requirements and procedures
outlined in the ODC.
2975
This page was intentionally left blank.
2976
2977
ATTACHMENT B:

File No. PUD22-004
Conditions of Approval
(Document to follow this page)
2978

Page 1 of 4 ends

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

LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Date Prepared: 7/11/2023 Revised: 8/21/2023
File No: PUD22-004
Related Files: PDEV22-027 and PHP22-015
Project Description: A Planned Unit Development (File No. PUD22-004) to establish development standards and design guidelines for the overall 10.6-acre Project site, in conjunction with a Development Plan (File No. PDEV22-027) to construct 346 apartment units and 5,400 square feet of commercial space on 9.4 acres of the Project site and a Certificate of Appropriateness (File No.

PHP22-015) to determine whether the Project site is an historic resource. The Project site is located at the northwest corner of Euclid Avenue and Walnut Avenue, within the Mixed Use – Neighborhood Hub 8e – Euclid and Walnut (MU-NH 8e) zoning district; (APNs: 1051-271-67, 1051- 271-06, and 1051-271-66); submitted by Legacy/Collier Residential LLC.

Prepared By: Alexis Vaughn, Associate Planner
Phone: 909.395.2416 (direct)
Email: [email protected]
The Planning Department, Land Development Section, conditions of approval applicable to the above-described Project are listed below. The Project shall comply with each condition of approval:

1.0 Standard Conditions of Approval. The Project shall comply with the Standard Conditions for New Development, adopted by City Council Resolution No. 2017-027 on April 18, 2017. A copy of the Standard Conditions for New Development may be obtained from the Planning Department or City Clerk/Records Management Department.

2.0 Special Conditions of Approval. In addition to the Standard Conditions for New Development identified in condition no. 1.0, above, the Project shall comply with the following special conditions of approval:

2.1 Planned Unit Development. The final City Council approval date and ordinance number shall be added to the title page (the October and May dates shall be removed) and the following items submitted to the Planning Department within 30 days following City Council approval of the Planned Unit Development:
(a) Two copies of the final Euclid Walnut Planned Unit Development document – color, double-sided, and bound; and
(b) One CD or flash drive containing a complete copy of the final Planned Unit Development document in Microsoft Word and/or its original and accessible file format, such as InDesign, and a complete PDF copy of the final document, optimized for the web. 2979
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PUD22-004

Page 2 of 4 ends

2.2 Signs.
(a) All Project signage shall comply with the requirements of Ontario Development Code Division 8.1 (Sign Regulations).
(b) On-site posting of large public notification signs was required for this Project, pursuant to Code Section 2.03.010.C.4, which consists of one or more large, 6-foot-tall, freestanding public notification signs. The signs, which were posted no later than ten calendar days prior to the Planning Commission hearing date, shall be removed no later than fourteen calendar days following the City Council hearing date, unless an extension is required by the Planning Director.
(c) Per the provisions of the Planned Unit Development, a Sign Program shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits for the Project site.

2.3 Sound Attenuation. The Project shall be constructed and operated in a manner so as not to exceed the maximum interior and exterior noise levels set forth in Ontario Municipal Code Title 5 (Public Welfare, Morals, and Conduct), Chapter 29 (Noise).

2.4 Covenants and Lease Agreement Terms., Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs)/Mutual Access and Maintenance Agreements.
(a) A current covenant shall be recorded for the properties (generally, Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Project site, as described in the Euclid Walnut Planned Unit Development) that provides for reciprocal access between the two properties. CC&Rs shall be updated for the Project site (including, but not limited to, amendment of maps/exhibits to reflect the proposed Project and removal of any items no longer applicable to the site such as leases for K-Mart) and shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit. The CC&Rs shall be in effect until such time that the remaining piece of land included as part of the Planned Unit Development but not Development Plan File No. PDEV22-027 is developed (phase 2). (b) A parking management plan and any lease agreement/terms shall be submitted to the City for review and approval, prior to issuance of a building permit for the Project.

The lease agreement/terms shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(i) The CC&Rs shall be in a form and contain provisions satisfactory to the City. The articles of incorporation for the property owners association and the CC&Rs shall be reviewed and approved by the CityClauses prohibiting public nuisances, including but not limited to, excessive noise, parking of vehicles on driveways to garages that are less than 18 feet in length, excessive storage of personal items on balconies, and the hanging of personal items over balcony railings (such as clothes lines, towels, etc.); and.
( )(ii) Personal property storage shall not preclude the intended number of vehicles from being parked within the garage. Carports shall not be used for personal property storage but solely vehicle parking.
(c) CC&Rs shall ensure reciprocal parking and access between land uses (residential pass-thru of commercial lease areas) and parcels (phase 1 and 2 parcels), and common maintenance of:
2980
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PUD22-004

Page 3 of 4 ends

(i) Landscaping and irrigation systems within common areas; (ii) Landscaping and irrigation systems within parkways adjacent to the Project site, including that portion of any public highway right-of-way between the property line or right-of-way boundary line and the curb line and also the area enclosed within the curb lines of a median divider (Ontario Municipal Code Section 7-3.03), pursuant to Ontario Municipal Code Section 5-22-02;
(iii) Shared parking facilities and access drives; and
(iv) Utility and drainage easements.
(d) CC&Rs shall include authorization for the City’s local law enforcement officers to enforce City and State traffic and penal codes within the Project area. (e) The CC&Rs shall grant the City of Ontario the right of enforcement of the CC&R provisions.
(f) A specific methodology/procedure shall be established within the CC&Rs for enforcement of its provisions by the City of Ontario, if adequate maintenance of the development does not occur, such as, but not limited to, provisions that would grant the City the right of access to correct maintenance issues and assess the property owners association for all costs incurred.
(g) The CC&Rs application and filing fees are available on the City’s website.

CC&Rs shall be approved prior to issuance of a Building permit.

2.5 Disclosure Statements.
(a) A copy of the Public Report from the Department of Real Estate, prepared for the subdivision pursuant to Business and Professions Code Section 11000 et seq., shall be provided to each prospective buyer or renter of the residential units and shall include a statement to the effect thatThe following information shall be provided to each prospective renter of the residential units:
(i) This site is subject to noise from the Ontario International Airport and may be more severely impacted in the future.
(ii) Some of the property adjacent to this site is zoned for agricultural uses and there could be fly, odor, or related problems due to the proximity of animals. (iii) The area south of Riverside Drive lies within the San Bernardino County Agricultural Preserve. Dairies currently existing in that area are likely to remain for the foreseeable future.

2.6 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 any approval of the City of Ontario, whether by its City Council, Planning Commission or other authorized board or officer. 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.

2.7 Additional Fees.
2981
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PUD22-004

Page 4 of 4 ends

(a) Within 5 days following final application approval, the Notice of Determination (“NOD”) filing fee shall be provided to the Planning Department. The fee shall be paid by check, made payable to the "Clerk of the Board of Supervisors", which shall be forwarded to the San Bernardino County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, along with all applicable environmental forms/notices, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Failure to provide said fee within the time specified will result in the extension of the statute of limitations for the filing of a CEQA lawsuit from 30 days to 180 days.

2.8 Related Applications. Planned Unit Development (File No. PUD22-004) approval shall not be final and complete until such time that related File Nos. PHP22-015 and PDEV22-027 have been approved by the Planning Commission. A Lot Line Adjustment/Lot Merger is also required to be approved prior to issuance of Building Permits, pursuant to Engineering Department conditions of approval.

2.9 Additional Requirements.
(a) In-line tenant spaces shall contain a high-quality food service establishment.
2982
2983
2984
2985
2986
2987
2988
2989
2990
2991
2992
2993
2994
2995
2996
2997
2998
2999
3000
3001

CITY OF ONTARIO

MEMORANDUM
TO: Scott Murphy, Community Development Director (Copy of memo only) Rudy Zeledon, Planning Director (Copy of memo only)
Diane Ayala, Advanced Planning Division (Copy of memo only) Charity Hernandez, Economic Development
James Caro, Building Department
Raymond Lee, Engineering Department
Jamie Richardson, Landscape Planning Division
Dennis Mejia, Municipal Utility Company
Heather Lugo, Police Department
Paul Erhman, Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal
Jay Bautista, Traffic/Transportation Manager
Lorena Mejia, Airport Planning
Jeff Tang, Engineering/NPDES
Angela Magana, Community Improvement (Copy of memo only) Jimmy Chang, IPA Department
Blaine Ishii, Integrated Waste
FROM: Alexis Vaughn, Associate Planner
DATE: May 31, 2023
SUBJECT: FILE #: PUD-22-004 Finance Acct#: PU006
The following project has been resubmitted for review. Please send one (1) copy and email one (1) copy of your DAB report to the Planning Department by .

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Planned Unit Development establishing land use designations, and development standards and guidelines, which will govern the development of 10.6 acres of land generally located at the northwest corner of Euclid Avenue and Walnut Street (APNs: 1051-271-67, 1051-271-06, 1051-271-66). Related Files: PDEV22-027, PHP22-015)
The conditions contained in the attached report must be met prior to scheduling for Development Advisory Board.

The plan does not adequately address the departmental concerns.

Standard Conditions of Approval apply
Report attached (1 copy and email 1 copy)
No comments
The plan does adequately address the departmental concerns at this time.

See previous report for Conditions
Department Signature Title Date
Revision #2
3002

CITY OF ONTARIO

MEMORANDUM
TO: Alexis Vaughn, Associate Planner
Planning Department
FROM: Paul Ehrman, Sr. Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal
Fire Department
DATE: November 7, 2022
SUBJECT: PUD-22-004 - A Planned Unit Development establishing land use designations, and development standards and guidelines, which will govern the development of 10.6 acres of land generally located at the northwest corner of Euclid Avenue and Walnut Street (APNs: 1051-271-67, 1051-271- 06, 1051-271-66). Related Files: PDEV22-027, PHP22-015).

The plan does adequately address Fire Department requirements at this time.

No comments.
3003
3004

CITY OF ONTARIO

The plan does not adequately address the departmental concerns.

Standard Conditions of Approval apply
Report attached (1 copy and email 1 copy)
No comments
The plan does adequately address the departmental concerns at this time.

See previous report for Conditions
Department Signature Title Date
Revision #2
3005

AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLANNING
ĔēĘĎĘęĊēĈĞĊęĊėĒĎēĆęĎĔēĊĕĔėę
Project File No.:

Address:

APN:

Existing Land
Use:

Proposed Land
Use:

Site Acreage:

ONT-IAC Project Review:
$LUSRUW,QÀXHQFH$UHD

This proposed Project is: Exempt from the ALUCP Consistent Consistent with Conditions Inconsistent Reviewed By:

Date:

Contact Info:

Project Planner:

CD No.:

PALU No.:

The project is impacted by the following ONT ALUCP Compatibility Zones:

Safety Noise Impact Airspace Protection 2YHUÀLJKW1RWL¿FDWLRQ Zone 1
Zone 1A
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4
Zone 5
75+ dB CNEL
70 - 75 dB CNEL
65 - 70 dB CNEL
60 - 65 dB CNEL
High Terrain Zone
)$$1RWL¿FDWLRQ6XUIDFHV
Avigation Easement
Dedication
5HFRUGHG2YHUÀLJKW
1RWL¿FDWLRQ
Real Estate Transaction
'LVFORVXUH
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5
$LUSRUW3ODQQHU6LJQDWXUH

CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION
3URSRVHG6WUXFWXUH+HLJKW

Airspace Avigation
Easement Area
Allowable
Height:
$LUVSDFH2EVWUXFWLRQ
6XUIDFHV
The project is impacted by the following Chino ALUCP Safety Zones:

Page 1 ends

Zone 6
Allowable Height:

PDEV22-027 & PUD22-004
NWC of Euclid Ave and Walnut Street
1051-271-67, 06 & 66
Commercial shopping center with vacant/underutilized buildings Development Plan to construct 346 multi-family units and 6,000 SF of commercial

10.63 N/A
ONT
The proposed project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport (ONT) was evaluated and found to be consistent with the policies and criteria of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for ONT. ✔
Lorena Mejia
909-395-2276
Alexis Vaugn
1/30/2023
2022-051
N/A
55 FT
200 FT+
3006
RESOLUTION NO.________

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

CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE USE OF AN ADDENDUM TO THE
ONTARIO PLAN 2050 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

REPORT, PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AS AMENDED, FOR FILE NOS.

PUD22-004, PDEV22-027, AND PHP22-015.

WHEREAS, LEGACY/COLLIER RESIDENTIAL LLC (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant") has filed an Application for the approval of the Euclid Walnut Planned Unit Development, File No. PUD22-004, establishing the development standards and design guidelines for the overall 10.6-acre Project site, in conjunction with a Development Plan, File No. PDEV22-027, to construct 346 apartment units and 5,400 square feet of commercial space on 9.4 acres of the Project site and a Certificate of Appropriateness, File No. PHP22-015, to determine whether the Project site is an historic resource, on land located at the northwest corner of Euclid Avenue and Walnut Street, in the City of Ontario, California (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and WHEREAS, The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364) was certified on August 16, 2022, (hereinafter referred to as "Certified SEIR"), in which development and use of the Project site was discussed; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director of the City of Ontario has prepared and approved for attachment to the certified Environmental Impact Report, an Addendum to the Certified SEIR (hereinafter referred to as "SEIR 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 SEIR Addendum concluded that implementation of the Project could result in a number of significant effects on the environment that were previously analyzed in the Certified SEIR, and that the Certified SEIR identified mitigation measures that would reduce each of those significant effects to a less-than-significant level; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a), a lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified SEIR if some changes or additions are necessary to a project, but the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental SEIR is not required; 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
3007
WHEREAS, the City determined that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR would occur from the Project, and that preparation of an Addendum to the Certified SEIR was appropriate; and WHEREAS, the City of Ontario is the lead agency on the Project. 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 the requested approval to construct and otherwise undertake the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the SEIR Addendum for the Project, has concluded that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent of supplemental EIR have occurred, and intends to take actions on the Project in compliance with CEQA and state and local guidelines implementing CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the SEIR Addendum for the Project is on file in the Planning Department, located at 303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764, and is available for inspection by any interested person at that location and is, by this reference, incorporated into this Resolution as if fully set forth herein; 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 August 22, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario voted to continue the item to the September 26, 2023, hearing date; and WHEREAS, on September 26, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the SEIR Addendum and the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to issue Resolution No. PC23-074, recommending the City Council adopt the SEIR Addendum, and voting to issue Resolution No. PC23-075, recommending the City Council approve the Application; and 3008
WHEREAS, as the first action on the Project, on October 17, 2023, the City Council issued a Resolution adopting the SEIR 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 October 17, 2023, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 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.

On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the Ontario International Airport Land use Compatibility Plan, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. As the decisionmaking body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ONT ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-2) and Safety Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the City Council, therefore, finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ONT ALUCP; and
SECTION 3. Environmental Determination and Findings. As the decisionmaking body for the Project, The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for the Project. Based upon the facts 3009
and information contained in the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented, the City Council finds as follows:
(1) The environmental impacts of this Project were reviewed in conjunction with an Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364), certified by the Ontario City Council on August 16, 2022, in conjunction with File No. PGPA20-002; and
(2) The SEIR Addendum and administrative record have been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
(3) The City's "Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" provide for the use of a single environmental assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed. This Application introduces no new significant environmental impacts; and (4) All previously adopted mitigation measures shall be a condition of Project approval, as they are applicable to the Project, and are incorporated herein by this reference; and
(5) The SEIR Addendum contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council; and
(6) There is no substantial evidence in the administrative record supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant environmental impacts.

SECTION 4. Additional Environmental Review Not Required. Based on the Addendum, all related information presented to the City Council, and the specific findings set forth in Sections 1 through 3, above, the City Council finds that the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact Report is not required for the Project, as the Project:
(1) Does not constitute substantial changes to the Certified SEIR that will require major revisions to the Certified SEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and
(2) Does not constitute substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Certified SEIR was prepared, that will require major revisions to the Certified SEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects; and (3) Does not contain new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Certified SEIR was certified/adopted, that shows any of the following:
3010
(a) The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the Certified SEIR; or
(b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the Certified SEIR; or
(c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the City declined to adopt such measures; or (d) Mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed in the Certified SEIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but which the City declined to adopt.

SECTION 5. City Council Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 through 4, above, the City Council hereby APPROVES the herein described Addendum, attached hereto as "Attachment A," and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 6. 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 7. 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 17th day of October 2023. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
3011
ATTEST:
_________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________

BEST, BEST & KREIGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
3012

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 October 17, 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 October 17, 2023. _________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
3013
ATTACHMENT A:

Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
(Document follows this page)
3014
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015

Page 1 of 70 ends

Project Title/File No.: Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development Mixed-Use Project (File Nos. PDEV22- 027, PUD22-004, and PHP22-015)
Lead Agency: City of Ontario, 303 East “B” Street, Ontario, California 91764, (909) 395-2036 Contact Person: Alexis Vaughn, Associate Planner, 909.395.2416, Email: [email protected] Project Sponsor: Legacy/Colliers Residential, LLC
Project Location: The 10.6-acre project site is located in southwestern San Bernardino County, within the City of Ontario (City) as shown in Figure 1 below. The City of Ontario is located approximately 40 miles from downtown Los Angeles, 20 miles from downtown San Bernardino, and 30 miles from Orange County.

As illustrated in Figure 2 below, the project site is almost square shaped and located north of W. Walnut Street and west of Euclid Avenue in the southwest portion of the City (just south of SR-60). The project site includes Assessors’ Parcel Numbers; 1051-271-67, 1051-271-06, 1051-271-66. All full rights-of-way for public streets that are required for this project have already been dedicated and granted to the City.

Figure 1: REGIONAL LOCATION MAP
City of Ontario
Planning Department
303 East B Street
Ontario, California 91764
Phone: 909.395.2036
Fax: 909.395.2420
California Environmental Quality Act
Addendum to The Ontario Plan
Environmental Impact Report

PROJCT SITE
3015
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015

Page 2 of 70 ends

June 28, 2023
Figure 2: PUD VICINITY MAP
3016
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015

Page 3 of 70 ends

General Plan/Zoning. The Ontario Plan (TOP) is the City’s comprehensive plan for the community over the next thirty years. TOP 2050 is the City’s established framework for development and has three policy level components, the Vision, a Governance Manual and the Policy Plan. The most current version of TOP and its environmental impact report (EIR) are dated August 16, 2022 (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364). Figure LU-01 of The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 is the City’s current Land Use Plan which indicates the project site is designated as Mixed Use but is further classified as a Neighborhood Community Hub (NH). The site is currently zoned Mixed-Use (MU-8e) within the Euclid Avenue (EA) overlay corridor as shown below:

General Plan Designation: Existing – Mixed Use Neighborhood Community Hub (MU-NH) Proposed – Mixed Use Neighborhood Community Hub (MU-NH) Zoning: Existing – Mixed-Use 8e (Euclid and Walnut)
Proposed – Planned Unit Development (PUD) with Commercial/ Residential Mixed Use within Euclid Avenue Overlay Zoning District (EA) The Mixed-Use Neighborhood Hub (MU-NH) designation allows low-rise buildings (3-5 stories) with a mixture of retail and residential uses that will create identity and place and serve the surrounding residents.

This category allows for residential densities ranging from 20 - 75 dwelling units per acre and non-residential intensity of 1.00 Floor Area Ratio.

The TOP shows a total of five locations within the City with the MU-NH land use designation. The Future Buildout Projections Table of the Land Use Element provides further details for each of these five MU-NH sub-areas. The three parcels subject to this PUD make up 10.6 acres (“PUD site”) of the overall 16 acres that comprise the “MU-NH” sub-area. The remaining 5.4 acres of the MU-NH area include approximately 28,000 square feet of existing businesses (gas station, pre-school, and 2 small businesses) and 15 single family homes between the PUD site and the SR-60 Freeway to the north. The PUD site currently contains a Carl’s Jr. restaurant, former Kmart Shopping Center, and a strip retail building. The TOP indicates the projected buildout for the entire 16 acres of this sub-area will eventually have a total of 369 dwelling units and 142,840 square feet of non-residential development. Development of the proposed PUD would slightly exceed the total number of residential units for this area under the TOP (369 MF+15 SF=384 total units vs. 369 projected total units). However, development of the PUD would substantially reduce the amount of anticipated non-residential growth in this sub-area (12,000 SF in the PUD plus 28,000 existing = 40,000 SF vs. 142,840 SF). Therefore, development of the “PUD project” would result in a 4% increase in residential impacts but a 28% decrease in commercial impacts. While this Addendum only covers impacts of the new residential and commercial uses currently proposed under the PUD Project described below, the preceding analysis demonstrates the anticipated impacts of growth in this MU-NH sub-area with the PUD are considered to be equivalent or less than those identified in TOP EIR for this sub-area.

Description of PUD Project: The Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development (PUD) project proposes to demolish the existing commercial center and construct a total of 369 apartment units with 12,000 square feet (SF) of ground floor retail uses. The PUD project is expected to be completed in two phases. Phase 1 would leave the existing Carl’s Jr. site in its current condition, demolish the other existing commercial structures, and develop 5,400 SF of ground floor retail space and 346 apartment units consisting of 18 studio units, 190 one-bedroom units, and 138 two-bedroom units. Phase 2 would consist of demolishing the existing Carl’s Jr. and constructing an additional 23 apartment units and 6,600 SF of ground floor retail space. Table 1 shows the building characteristics of the proposed project as part of the PUD while Figure 3 shows the proposed zoning of the PUD project.
3017
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015

Page 4 of 70 ends

Table 1: Proposed PUD Project Land Uses

AREA/TIMING ACRES UNITS SQUARE FEET
Existing Uses
(to be demolished)

10.6 0 105,050
Euclid/Walnut PUD
Phase 1
Phase 2

10.6 9.4

1.2 369
346
23 12,000
5,400
6,600
Remainder of MU-NH Area 5.4 0 130,840
TOTAL 16.0 369 142,840
Source: PUD May 2023 NA = acres not applicable due to mixed use development Figure 3: PROPOSED PUD ZONING
Source: PUD May 2023
Planned Unit Development (PUD). The PUD provides planning and design principles, development regulations, and performance standards to guide the redevelopment of an existing commercial shopping center. The PUD will facilitate mixed-use development of high-density apartments, restaurants, retail shops, and other commercial services. The PUD is intended to achieve the City’s goals to economically revitalize and aesthetically enhance an underutilized parcel located along the Euclid Avenue corridor.

The PUD is organized to meet the requirements of the Ontario Development Code (ODC) and will replace the existing zoning district designation and ODC regulations applicable to the affected properties. The PUD site also falls within the “Euclid Avenue Overlay” Zoning District (EA) and any applicable requirements of the EA will remain in effect. City staff and private developers will rely on this PUD to determine whether future precise plans for development ("Development Plans") adequately meet the City's land use and design objectives as outlined in The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050.
3018
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015

Page 5 of 70 ends

The PUD establishes a singular zoning district of Commercial/Residential Mixed Use consistent with TOP 2050 MU-NH land use designation. The PUD allows both horizontal and vertical mixed-use buildings with a combination of three- and four-story buildings. Buildings with direct Euclid Avenue frontage will contain ground-floor commercial uses and residential units directly above. All other buildings will contain residential units on all floor levels. A combination of garages, tandem spaces, carports, and surface level parking spaces will be provided onsite with gated access limited to residents and residents’ guests. Unrestricted access to surface level parking will serve the commercial uses and provide additional resident guest parking spaces.

It should be noted the TOP EIR addendum is required in order for the PUD project’s density to exceed the TOP 2050 land use assumptions for the site (i.e., Mixed-Use – Neighborhood Activity Hub 8e - Euclid & Walnut) which designates the site at 75% of the area at 30 du/ac and 25% of the area at 0.80 FAR retail.

The proposed PUD would slightly exceed the total number of residential units for this area under the TOP (384 total units with PUD vs. 369 projected total units). However, development of the PUD would substantially reduce the amount of anticipated non-residential growth in this sub-area (40,000 SF with the PUD vs. 142,840 SF under TOP growth). Therefore, development of the “PUD project” would result in a 4% increase in residential impacts but a 28% decrease in commercial impacts compared to what was analyzed in TOP EIR.

Phasing. The PUD project will be completed in two phases. Phase 1 comprises the entire PUD site except for the existing drive-thru restaurant site (Carl’s Jr.) which is occupied by an approximately 4,100 square foot building and its related site improvements. Phase 1 will require the demolition of a combined 100,950 square feet of commercial/retail buildings (not including the Carl’s Jr.) and related site improvements. Phase I will be redeveloped with two four-story buildings and six three-story buildings, providing a combined total of 346 dwelling units; 5,400 square feet of ground floor commercial space, associated on-site parking areas for both residential and non-residential land uses, and landscaping and recreational amenities for residents.

Figure 4 shows the Phase 1 Conceptual Site Plan.

Phase 2 will finish implementation of the total build-out of the area within the PUD project by demolishing the Carl’s Jr. restaurant building and related site improvements and replacing them with additional vertical mixed-use development, constructing an additional four-story building. Completion of the second phase would provide up to an additional 23 dwelling units and up to an additional 6,600 square feet of groundfloor commercial space, and the associated site improvements.

The PUD is applicable to both phases of the project, which will construct a horizontal and vertical mixeduse development, with a maximum of 369 dwelling units and up to 12,000 square feet of commercial land uses occupying the ground floor of buildings with Euclid Avenue frontage.

Construction. All construction activities, including site demolition, regrading, building construction, paving, and the application of architectural coatings, are expected to take approximately 28 months for Phase 1.

The specific timing of development of Phase 2 has not yet been determined but will include similar activities as those listed for Phase 1. The overall construction of the PUD project is consistent with the level of development outlined in TOP and its EIR and would only differ by having +4% more units but 28% less non-residential square footage with the PUD. While no additional specific information on Phase 2 construction is presented at this time, overall development and construction of the 10.6-acre MU-NH subarea would be similar with or without the PUD in terms of land area developed. 3019
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015

Page 6 of 70 ends

Figure 4: PHASE 1 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
Development Regulations. Development within this PUD will comply with Ontario Development Code (ODC) standards and requirements applicable to Multiple-Family Dwellings and Commercial development, as determined appropriate by the City Director of Community Development. Table 2 provides a summary of development standards for the PUD project. The PUD project will not exceed a maximum 40 dwelling units per acre and will not exceed 369 dwelling units upon build-out of Phase 2. The overall building height of four-story buildings will not exceed 60 feet and all other buildings will not exceed 50 feet (max. 3 stories), inclusive of architectural projections. Non-residential development is subject to a maximum 0.5 floor area ratio based upon the net site area.

Access and Improvements. Vehicular access from the public right of way will be limited to two locations along Euclid Avenue and a maximum of three locations along Walnut Street as approved by the City Engineer. As determined by the City Engineer, design and construction of street improvements, adjacent to the property frontage of Euclid Avenue and Walnut Street will be conditioned and may include, but are not limited to concrete curb and gutter, sidewalk, LED streetlights, signing and striping, and parkway landscaping.
3020
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015

Page 7 of 70 ends

Table 2: Summary of PUD Development Standards

DEVELOPMENT STANDARD REQUIREMENT NOTES
Maximum Intensity – Floor Area Ratio 0.50 FAR Gross building square footage of commercial
space
Density Range – Minimum and Maximum 20.1 – 40 Up to a maximum of 369 dwelling units
Maximum Building Height by Number of
Stories
Four Stories
Three Stories
60 feet
50 feet
Inclusive of architectural
projections and equipment
screening
Building Setbacks – From Right-of-Way
10 feet minimum
Setbacks – Interior Property Line
Buildings Adjacent to Residential
Buildings Adjacent to Non-Residential
Carport or Trash Enclosure
50 feet minimum
5 feet minimum
5 feet minimum
Building Separation
Building to Building
Building to Drive Aisle or Parking Areas
Building to Carport
Patio to Patio
25 feet minimum
5 feet minimum
25 feet minimum
15 feet minimum
Individual driveway depth
limited to 5 ft. or less, or 18
ft. or more
Minimum Number Parking Spaces
Ratio for Residential Uses
Ratio for Non-Residential Uses

1.2 spaces/bedroom
1 space/250 square feet
Inclusive of guest spaces
Residential Open Space and Common
Amenities – Combined Minimum Ratio
Minimum Private Open Space Ratio
Minimum Common Amenity Ratio
250 square feet/dwelling unit
50 square feet/dwelling unit
175 square feet/dwelling unit
5 feet min. width and length
15% maximum indoor
Residential Storage Units 150 cubic feet/dwelling unit
minimum
Does not include closets or
cabinets interior to the unit
Source: PUD Table 4-1, Summary of Development Standards Grading and Drainage. The PUD site is already developed and essentially flat so its development is not expected to require substantial grading and earthwork is generally expected to be balanced onsite (i.e., no substantial import or export of soil). Under the PUD, onsite stormwater drainage facilities will be provided consistent with the San Bernardino County Stormwater Program's Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) requirements for new development projects. Stormwater capture and infiltration facilities may include the utilization of vegetated swales, depressed landscaped basins, pervious concrete pavement or underground stormwater retention/infiltration vaults.

Landscaping. The PUD site will be fully landscaped according to a detailed Landscaping Plan that will be submitted with the Development Plan. The Landscaping Plan will specify all landscape and hardscape elements of the residential open space and common amenities, as well as the perimeter yards abutting the street rights-of-way and all street trees. The Plan will provide water conservation through low water using plant materials, hydro zones, water efficient irrigation and weather-based controllers. Landscaped areas will also be used for storm water infiltration through vegetated swales, retention basins, or dry wells as needed with appropriate planting materials. The Landscaping Plan will satisfy the requirements of the City’s Landscape Development Standards outlined in the ODC. Street trees shall comply with the variety, size, and spacing as directed by the City of Ontario Master Street Tree Plan.

Open Space/Recreation. The PUD indicates each residential unit will have 50 square feet of private open space (i.e., balcony or patio) and will have 175 square feet per residential unit of common amenities. The PUD project proposes a total of 369 units so the overall development will have a minimum of 64,575 square feet of common open space amenities. This may include a combination of passive and active, indoor and 3021
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015

Page 8 of 70 ends

outdoor spaces, roof top or upper floor decks, as well as landscaped and hardscaped ground surfaces providing paseos between or adjacent to buildings. Up to 15 percent of the overall common amenity square footage may consist of indoor area and be grouped into a single building that is accessible to all residents; providing opportunities for fitness, various lounge/gathering space, business/mail center and similar amenities. The remaining common amenities provided shall be in the form of outdoor common areas consisting of both programmed and unprogrammed spaces. Programmed space may provide specific amenities such as a dog park, seating/conversational area, outdoor cooking facilities with table seating areas, etc. while unprogrammed space may provide passive use, such as landscaped paseos.

Fences and Walls. Exhibit 5-6 in the PUD provides a comprehensive plan for walls and fences that is compatible with the proposed building architecture and will not encroach into the public right-of-way.

Lighting. The PUD project includes security and decorative lighting for the new proposed commercial and residential buildings, parking areas, and access routes consistent with the PUD and the City’s Development Code. The lighting plan shows that all lighting is shielded and directed toward the ground to the extent necessary to minimize potential impacts on neighboring residential uses.

Utilities. The PUD project site is already developed so its redevelopment will be served by existing water lines and wastewater flows and/or upgraded to satisfy the required capacities as determined by the City and its service purveyors/agencies.

Requested Approvals. The PUD project requires approval of the PUD and subsequent approval of site plans and improvement plans consistent with the PUD. The project application includes a Development Plan (File No. PDEV22-027, a Planned Unit Development (File No. PUD22-004), and an Addendum to the EIR prepared for TOP which was certified by the City Council on August 16, 2022. The EIR Addendum will allow the PUD project to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

PUD Objectives. The proposed PUD will facilitate the redevelopment of the project site with structures and related improvements that support both residential and non-residential land uses within the same project site. In addition to facilitating achievement of many City TOP goals and policies, this PUD establishes the following objectives:
 Develop and provide new, high-quality rental housing combined with a mixed-use component.  Provide transition between new mixed-use development and surrounding residential neighborhoods and commercial properties.
 Provide areas of private and passive open space for each residential unit, as well as community gathering and active open spaces.
 Promote development that is consistent with the MU-NH – Mixed Use Neighborhood Activity Hub land use designation.
 Promote revitalization of commercial uses on the project site by establishing new ground-floor retail and similar uses that serve on-site residents and those in surrounding neighborhoods.  Provide outdoor gathering places adjacent to commercial storefronts, such as outdoor patio or bench seating with inviting/attractive landscape elements.  Orient non-residential, ground-floor uses towards Euclid Avenue.  Incorporate site design solutions to allow for phased development.  Satisfy the build-out projections for residential dwelling units within the MU-NH (Euclid- Walnut) sub-area, as defined in TOP 2050.

Project Setting: The PUD project site consists of approximately 10.6 acres of land within western Ontario.

The site is almost square in shape and is located at the northwest corner of Euclid Avenue and W. Walnut Street just south of the SR-60 Freeway. The site is currently developed with a 4,100-square foot Carl’s Jr. drive-through restaurant and 100,950 square feet of commercial buildings including a former Kmart building) plus a small retail building with several tenants. The site is relatively flat with elevations ranging 3022
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015

Page 9 of 70 ends

from 818 feet above mean sea level (amsl) in the northeast corner down to 810 feet amsl at the southeast corner with a gentle slope of less than one percent to the southwest. Runoff from the site generally flows toward the adjacent roadways (Euclid to the east and Walnut to the south).

The site is in a built-up urbanized area with existing residential uses to the west, south, and southeast, commercial uses to the east, and mixed residential and commercial uses to the north up to the freeway.

The location and extent of existing land uses are shown in the previous Figure 2.

Project Background: The PUD project site was developed in the later part of the 20th Century with a variety of commercial uses, many of which are now vacant. No major planning, development, or environmental work has been done in the past 10+ years on this site. However, the City’s TOP and its EIR was most recently adopted in 2022 and contain current and accurate environmental information about the project site and applicable mitigation as explained below and as summarized at the end of this document.

On August 16, 2022, the Ontario City Council adopted the latest version of TOP, which serves as the City’s General Plan under state law and provides a foundation for the City to operate as a municipal corporation.

The TOP consists of six (6) distinct components: 1) Vision; 2) Governance Manual; 3) Policy Plan; 4) Council Priorities; 5) Implementation; and 6) Tracking and Feedback. The Policy Plan component of TOP meets the functional and legal mandate of a municipal General Plan and contains nine elements; Land Use, Housing, Parks and Recreation, Environmental Resources, Community Economics, Safety, Mobility, Community Design and Social Resources.

The City Council certified TOP EIR (SCH # 2021070364) which analyzed the direct and physical changes in the environment that would be caused by implementation of TOP; focusing on changes to land use associated with the buildout of the proposed land use plan and impacts from population and employment growth in the City. The project proposes land uses consistent with TOP 2050. The significant unavoidable adverse impacts that were identified in TOP EIR included: agriculture resources, air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, noise and transportation/traffic.

CEQA requires lead agencies to use the most current and accurate environmental information in analyzing project impacts. Therefore, consistent with the requirements of CEQA, the proposed project has been analyzed relative to current technical studies and TOP EIR. These uses will be consistent with the residential uses to the west, south, and southwest, the commercial uses to the east, and the mixed residential and commercial uses to the north.

CEQA Requirements for an Addendum: If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of an EIR or negative declaration, the lead agency may: (1) prepare a subsequent EIR if the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) are met, (2) prepare a subsequent negative declaration, (3) prepare an addendum, or (4) prepare no further documentation. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(b)). When only minor technical changes or additions to the EIR (or negative declaration) are necessary and none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred, CEQA allows the lead agency to prepare and adopt an addendum. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(b).) Under Section 15162, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration is required only when:
1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR or negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
3023
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015

Page 10 of 70 ends

a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

Thus, if the PUD project does not result in any of the circumstances listed in Section 15162 (i.e., no new or substantially greater significant impacts), the City may adopt an addendum to TOP EIR.

CEQA Analysis: According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum to a previously certified EIR may be used if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 requiring the preparation of a subsequent negative declaration or EIR have occurred. The CEQA Guidelines require that a brief explanation be provided to support the findings that no subsequent EIR or negative declaration are needed for further discretionary approval. These findings are described below:
1) Required Finding: Substantial changes are not proposed for the project that will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new, significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

Substantial changes are not proposed by the project compared to what is allowed in TOP, and project implementation will not require revisions to TOP EIR. TOP EIR analyzed the direct and physical changes in the environment that would be caused by TOP; focusing on changes to land use associated with the buildout of the proposed land use plan. The site is located within the Mixed Use – Neighborhood Community Hub (MU-NH) designation of TOP. The PUD project will provide both mixed uses and be an activity hub for the surrounding neighborhoods.

Under TOP, projected buildout of the entire 16 acres of MU-NH overlay property would have a total of 369 dwelling units and 142,840 square feet of non-residential development. The PUD project proposes 369 units and approximately 12,000 square feet of the non-residential development on 10.6 acres, leaving 130,840 square feet of non-residential development to be built in the remainder of the MU-NH area adjacent to the SR-60 Freeway.

Since the anticipated buildout resulting from the PUD project will be equivalent to or less than that originally analyzed in TOP EIR, no revisions to TOP EIR are required.

In addition, all previously adopted mitigation measures of TOP EIR are conditions of project approval or mitigation measures and are incorporated herein by reference. This document provides an analysis of the project and verification that the project will not cause any new or more significant environmental impacts.
2) Required Finding: Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, that would require major revisions of the previous Environmental Impact Report due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project was undertaken, that would require major revisions to TOP EIR. TOP EIR evaluated the site as a mixture of land uses up to 369 residential units and 142,840 square feet of non-residential development. The PUD project proposes 369 units and approximately 12,000 square feet of the non-residential development, leaving 130,840 square feet of non-residential development to be built in the remainder of the MU-NH area adjacent to the SR-60 Freeway.
3024
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015

Page 11 of 70 ends

Therefore, no proposed changes or revisions to TOP EIR are required. In addition, all previously adopted TOP EIR mitigation measures are incorporated herein by reference. This document provides an analysis of the project and verification that the project will not cause any new or more significant environmental impacts.
3) Required Finding. No new information has been provided that would indicate that the proposed project would result in one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR.

No new information has been provided that would indicate the proposed project would result in any new significant effects not previously discussed in TOP EIR. TOP EIR evaluated the site as a mixture of land uses up to 369 residential units and 142,840 square feet of non-residential development. The PUD project proposes 369 units and approximately 12,000 square feet of the non-residential development, leaving 130,840 square feet of non-residential development to be built in the remainder of the MU-NH area adjacent to the SR-60 Freeway.

TOP Figure LU-01, Land Use Plan, and TOP EIR Figure 1-3, Proposed Land Use Plan, indicate the proposed PUD project is consistent with the surrounding residential, commercial, and mixed uses.

Since adoption of the 1992 General Plan, 2022 TOP, and certification of the 2010 TOP EIR, the subject site has been planned for a mixture of residential and commercial uses.

Conclusion: TOP EIR, certified by the City Council on August 16, 2022 was prepared as a Program EIR in accordance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines section 15121(a), and the City’s Rules for the Implementation of CEQA. TOP EIR considered the direct physical changes and reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environment that would be caused by TOP. Consequently, TOP EIR focused on impacts from changes to land use associated with buildout of the City and impacts from the resulting population and employment growth in the City. The proposed project is consistent and compatible with existing and planned uses in the surrounding area and would only differ by having +4% more units but 28% less non-residential square footage with the PUD. While no additional specific information on Phase 2 construction is presented at this time, overall development and construction of the 10.6-acre MU-NH subarea would be similar with or without the PUD in terms of land area developed. The overall construction of the PUD project is generally consistent with the level of development outlined in TOP and its EIR The amount of development anticipated at PUD project buildout as shown in the previous Table 1 and outlined in the Project Description will be equivalent to the development analyzed in TOP EIR.

The proposed PUD differs from the TOP’s assumptions for this project site, so this addendum and supplemental studies are required to ensure the project introduces no new significant environmental impacts that were identified in TOP EIR. The City's "Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" provide for the use of a single environmental assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed. Should no new significant environmental impacts arise as a result of this project and related analyses, all previously adopted mitigation measures shall be a condition of project approval.

Accordingly, and based on the conclusions of the previously certified TOP EIR, the analysis in this document, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, including Sections 15164 and 15162, the PUD project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary, nor is there a need for additional mitigation with implementation of the number of conditions of approval required by the City based on the results of the site-specific technical studies for burrowing owl and airport safety.

Surrounding Land Uses: The project site is in a built-up urbanized area with existing residential uses to the west, south, and southeast, commercial uses to the east, and mixed residential and commercial uses to the north up to the freeway. See Table 3 for onsite and surrounding land uses and zoning designations.

Onsite and surrounding land uses are also shown in the previous Figure 2. 3025
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015

Page 12 of 70 ends

Table 3: Existing Land Uses and Zoning Designations
Location Existing
Land Uses
TOP
Designation
Zoning
Designation
PUD Site Vacant older retail commercial
and fast-food restaurant
Mixed Use-Neighborhood
Community Hub (MU-NH)
Mixed-Use 8e (Euclid and Walnut)
within Euclid Avenue Overlay (EA)
North Mixture of residential and
commercial uses
Mixed Use-Neighborhood
Community Hub (MU-NH)
Mixed-Use 8e (Euclid and Walnut)
within Euclid Avenue Overlay (EA)
South Single Family Residential Low Density
Residential (2.1-5 du/ac) Low Density Residential (LDR-5) East Commercial shopping center Neighborhood
Commercial (0.4 FAR)
Neighborhood Commercial (CN)
within Euclid Avenue Overlay (EA)
West Multi-Family Residential Medium Density Residential (11.1-25 du/ac) Medium Density Residential (MDR-18)
Source: City Website 2022 and Google Earth 2022 du/ac = dwelling units per acre Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement): None
Tribal Consultation: Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? Yes No If “yes”, has consultation begun? Yes No Completed
NOTE: Consultation was already conducted as part of TOP EIR and no new consultation is required for this Addendum to TOP EIR
Additional Studies: The following additional studies have been or are being prepared in support of the analysis in this document regarding potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. These studies are in the Appendices to this document and include:
 Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development (PUD) (Appendix A)  Health Risk Assessment (Appendix B)
 Hydrology and Water Quality (Appendix C)
 Trip Generation (Appendix D)
3026
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015

Page 13 of 70 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture/Forestry
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology / Water Quality
Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population / Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance
Tribal Cultural
Resources
Wildfire Energy
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

July 5, 2023
Signature Date
Alexis Vaughn, Associate Planner City of Ontario
Printed Name and Title For
3027
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015

Page 14 of 70 ends

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.

A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from the “Earlier Analyses” Section may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063I(3)(D).

In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. For this project, reference will be made to TOP EIR as appropriate.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. 3028
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015

Page 15 of 70 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed in

TOP FEIR

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

2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. In
determining whether impacts to agricultural resources
are significant environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Department of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest
resources, including timberland, are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to
information compiled by the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s
inventory of forest land, including the Forest and
Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement
methodology provided in Forest protocols adopted by
the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by
Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland
zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?
3029
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015

Page 16 of 70 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed in

TOP FEIR
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or nature,
could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to nonforest use?

Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
d. Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
3030
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015

Page 17 of 70 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed in

TOP FEIR

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

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

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of
the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18 1 B of the Uniform Building Code, creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of waste water?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
3031
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015

Page 18 of 70 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed in

TOP FEIR

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the
project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emission of greenhouse gases?

9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.

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

10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would
the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
3032
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015

Page 19 of 70 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed in

TOP FEIR
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
i. result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site;
ii. substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii. create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?

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

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

13. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Generation of excessive ground-borne
vibration or ground-borne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
3033
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015

Page 20 of 70 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed in

TOP FEIR

14. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly
(for example, through extension of road or other
infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?

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

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

17. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
3034
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015

Page 21 of 70 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed in

TOP FEIR

18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the
project cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in
Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe, and that is
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code section 5020.1(k)?
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in
its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subsection(c) of Public Resources Code section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subsection (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of the resource
to a California Native American tribe.

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

20. WILDFIRES. If located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
3035
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015

Page 22 of 70 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed in

TOP FEIR
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?

21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, substantially reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects.)
c. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Note: Authority cited: Public Resources Code sections 21083, 21083.05, 21083.09.

Reference: Gov. Code section 65088.4; Public Resources Code sections 21073, 21074, 21080(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083, 21083.3, 21083.5, 21084.2, 21084.3, 21093, 21094, 21095 and 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296; Leonoff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337; Eureka Citizens for Responsible Govt. v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357; Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1109; San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656. 3036
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015

Page 23 of 70 ends

EXPLANATION OF ISSUES

1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR concludes… “the scale and design of the City under TOP 2050 would not deter views of the San Gabriel Mountains which are the dominant scenic resource in the City of Ontario.

Regulations such as the City’s Municipal Code and policies [of TOP] would ensure that increased development would not impact scenic vistas” (SEIR p. 5.1-5). TOP Policy CD1-5 requires all major northsouth streets be designed and redeveloped to feature views of the San Gabriel Mountains.

The project site is located at the northwest corner of Euclid Avenue and Walnut Street just south of the SR60 Freeway. Surrounding roadways and public areas have views of the mountains to the north. The PUD project proposes 3 and 4-story buildings with the taller buildings along the west side of Euclid to accommodate commercial uses on the ground floors. The residential uses to the south are across Walnut Street from the site so the new buildings would not block public views from this area as well. The future buildings would be consistent in terms of mass and height with what is allowed in TOP and current zoning although they would be controlled by the PUD. The new uses are already allowed under TOP and do not obstruct views of the San Gabriel Mountains from onsite or surrounding north-south streets. No adverse impacts are anticipated in relation to the project.

Therefore, the project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR states “…The Euclid Corridor and the Mission Boulevard Corridor are the primary scenic corridors in Ontario. These are not State-designated scenic highways, and Ontario does not have any State scenic highways through or in the vicinity of the City” (SEIR 5.1-6). The City is served by three freeways: I-10, I-15, and SR-60. I-10 and SR-60 traverse the northern and central portion of the City, respectively, in an east–west direction. I-15 traverses the northeastern portion of the City in a north–south direction. The project site is just south of SR-60 and west of the I-15 freeway. These segments of I-10, I15, and SR-60 have not been officially designated as scenic highways by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) or the City.

The project site currently supports commercial buildings of various types and sizes but the largest buildings on the west side of the property (former Kmart) are vacant. The site does not contain any visual or scenic resources or historic buildings. Therefore, it will not damage any scenic resources and not result in any adverse environmental impacts.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to the EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR characterized this area as having existing commercial development and the area contained urban land uses including both residential and commercial development planned on and around the project site. TOP EIR concluded that future development in the City, which includes the mixed uses planned on the PUD project site, would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings and no mitigation was required (SEIR p. 5.1-7). 3037
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015

Page 24 of 70 ends

TOP EIR also states:
…future development under the [TOP 2050] would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code, which includes general development requirements for development density, screening and setback, signing, landscaping, lighting, height limitations, and other aspects related to the aesthetic of the City. Finally…the Development Code is enacted to assist implementation of planning, zoning, development, subdivision, and environmental laws and the TOP and to achieve the proper arrangement of land uses envisioned in TOP. Because it is the overriding planning document for the City, and because it is intended to improve consistency with existing regulations and conditions, the…TOP 2050…would not have a significant impact with respect to being inconsistent with policies or regulations governing scenic quality. (SEIR p. 5-1-7) The project site is located in a completely urbanized area with developed uses surrounding the site. The PUD project would introduce new buildings onto the site which would have a suburban/urban appearance consistent with newer uses and buildings along the Euclid Avenue corridor to the north. Therefore, the project is consistent with TOP land uses and zoning so it would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings.

The proposed project will be required to comply with the policies of the Community Design Element of TOP Policy Plan and zoning designations on the property, as well as the design requirements of the Euclid/Walnut PUD. Therefore, no adverse visual impacts are anticipated, and the project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR.

No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR concluded that new development throughout the City would increase ambient light levels over time as development occurred, but that compliance with Development Code lighting requirements would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels, and no mitigation was required (SEIR p. 6.1-7).

The project proposes the development of several residential and mixed-use buildings on the site, with the mixed uses (retail commercial on the ground floor and residential above) along Euclid Avenue and the residential buildings in the central and western portions of the site.

New development will have architectural and security lighting on buildings and in parking lots, and streets will have new lighting installed or existing street lighting continue in place. Pursuant to the requirements of the Euclid/Walnut PUD and the City’s Development Code, onsite lighting will be shielded, diffused or indirect, to avoid glare to onsite users, pedestrians, and motorists. In addition, lighting fixtures will be selected and located to confine the area of illumination to within each building site and minimize light spillage. Site lighting plans will be subject to review by the Planning Department and Police Department prior to issuance of building permits (pursuant to the City’s Building Security Ordinance). Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. 3038
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015

Page 25 of 70 ends

2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR states that the City is underlain by prime agricultural soils in a number of areas but that the City envisions a natural transition of these lands to suburban and urban uses over time based on market forces and the desires of property owners. The EIR concluded TOP “… would have no direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use” (SEIR p.

5.2-12). The EIR concluded this because those changes had already been evaluated in the 2010 TOP which represents the baseline condition for the 2050 TOP. TOP EIR did not anticipate these changes to be a significant adverse impact and as a result did not recommend mitigation.

The project site is presently fully developed and does not contain any agricultural uses. Although the general area supported agriculture long ago, the site is identified as Urban and Built-up Land on the map prepared by the California Resources Agency as part of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). Based on the information above, no adverse environmental impacts from the project related to prime farmland are anticipated.

Therefore, the project will have no significant impacts on agricultural resources and no mitigation is required. The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR indicates that some areas of the City were used for agriculture in the past, including the general project area. However, the City currently has no agricultural land use or zoning designations. Figure 5.2-2 of TOP EIR indicates there are a number of Williamson Act contracts in the City but they are in the southern portion of the City which also is transitioning to suburban land uses. The project area long ago transitioned from agriculture to suburban and urban land uses, and no Williamson Act contracts are active in this area at present. In this regard, no significant impacts were anticipated in TOP EIR and no mitigation was recommended.

The PUD project site is not zoned for agricultural use and the site is designated for mixed residential and commercial uses which are permitted under TOP. Future development will be consistent with the development standards and land uses allowed under TOP and the proposed Euclid/Walnut PUD.

Therefore, no impacts to agricultural uses are anticipated, nor will there be any conflict with Williamson Act contracts. The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR indicated there were no forest resources in the City, so development of planned land uses in the City, including the mixed uses of the PUD project site, would not result in any impacts related to rezoning of forest or timberland to non-forest use. 3039
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015

Page 26 of 70 ends

The PUD project proposes residential and commercial buildings consistent with the mixed-use land use designation in TOP and the Euclid/Walnut PUD. The PUD project would not result in the rezoning of forest land, timberland, or land zoned Timberland Production because such land use designations do not exist within the City.

Therefore, no impacts to forest or timberland are anticipated and the PUD project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR indicated there were no forest resources in the City, so development of planned land uses, including the mixed uses of the PUD project site, would not result in any impacts related to the conversion of forest land to non-forest use (SEIR p. 5.2-13).

There is currently no land in the City that qualifies as forest land as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g), including the project site. Neither TOP nor the City’s Zoning Code provide designations for forest land anywhere in the City.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss or conversion of forest land. The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. e. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR indicated future development would not conflict with agricultural uses and would not result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. It also concluded there is no forest land in Ontario, and therefore the project would not result in conversion of forest land to non-forest use (SEIR p.

5.2-14). TOP envisions a natural transition of these lands to suburban and urban uses over time based on market forces and the desires of property owners. TOP EIR indicated there were no forest resources in the City, so development of planned land uses, including the mixed uses of the PUD project site, would not result in any cumulative impacts related to loss of forest land.

Implementation of the PUD project would not result in changes to the existing environment other than those previously addressed in TOP EIR. While conversion of farmland increases the potential for adjacent areas to also be converted from farmland to urban uses, there are no agricultural uses occurring onsite or in the vicinity and the project will not directly or indirectly result in conversion of farmland. No new cumulative impacts beyond those identified in TOP EIR would result from project implementation. As a result, the project will not result in loss of farmland to non-agricultural use.

Additionally, there is currently no land in the City that qualifies as forest land as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g). Neither TOP nor the City’s Zoning Code provide designations for forest land.

Based on available data, the proposed PUD project would not result in changes to the existing environment that would affect forest land. There will be no impacts and no mitigation is required. The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. 3040
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015

Page 27 of 70 ends

3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Discussion of Effects: The project site was analyzed in the current (2022) and previous (2010) TOP EIR as a mixture of residential and commercial uses, consistent with the surrounding mixture of similar land uses.

TOP EIR concluded future land uses, including the proposed project, may conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). TOP EIR concluded that future development and the cumulative air pollutant emissions would exceed the SCAQMD daily thresholds. As noted in the previous TOP EIR (Section 5.3) from 2010, pollutant levels in the City already exceeded Federal and State standards at that time. To reduce pollutant levels, the City is actively participating in efforts to enhance air quality by implementing control measures in the AQMP for local jurisdictions within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB).

TOP EIR in 2022 evaluated the development of a maximum of 369 residential units and approximately 142,840 square feet of non-residential development on the Overlay Planning Area. The PUD project proposes 369 units and approximately 12,000 square feet of non-residential development in Phases 1 and 2, leaving 130,840 square feet of non-residential development to be built in the remainder of the MU-NH area adjacent to the SR-60 Freeway.

The TOP indicates the projected buildout for the entire 16 acres of this sub-area will eventually have a total of 369 dwelling units and 142,840 square feet of non-residential development. Development of the proposed PUD would slightly exceed the total number of residential units for this area under the TOP (369 MF+15 SF=384 total units vs. 369 projected total units). However, development of the PUD would substantially reduce the amount of anticipated non-residential growth in this sub-area (12,000 SF in the PUD plus 28,000 existing = 40,000 SF vs. 142,840 SF). Therefore, development of the “PUD project” would result in a 4% increase in residential impacts but a 28% decrease in commercial impacts. While this Addendum only covers impacts of the new residential and commercial uses currently proposed under the PUD Project, the anticipated impacts of growth in this MU-NH sub-area with the PUD are considered to be equivalent or less than those identified in TOP EIR for this sub-area. The proposed project is therefore generally consistent with TOP land use designations upon which the AQMP is based. Furthermore, the project is consistent with the City’s participation in the AQMP and will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the plan. The project will be required to implement TOP EIR Mitigation Measures AQ 3- 1, 3-2, and 3-3 which include fugitive dust control measures pursuant to SCAQMD’s Rule 403, use of Tier 3 construction equipment, proper service and maintenance of construction equipment, limiting nonessential idling of construction equipment, use of Super-Compliant volatile organic compounds (VOC) paints for coating and architectural surfaces, providing non-vehicular access options, and calculate and reduce any significant health risks from future development on nearby sensitive receptors (MM 3-1 through 3-3, respectively).

At the request of City staff, a health risk assessment (HRA) was prepared for the project to determine if air pollutant emissions from the nearby freeway would result in any significant impacts to human health including cancer and non-cancer related deaths of project residents. The HRA concluded that freeway emissions would not result in any significant human health risks for project residents. Minimum Efficiency Rating Value (MERV) 13 filters, which are required for the residential buildings by the CalGreen Code, are sufficient to reduce risks below SCAQMD thresholds. (see Appendix B).

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required but the following measures from TOP EIR are applicable to the proposed project:

AQ 3-1: Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Ontario for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts to the City of Ontario Planning Department for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology for assessing air quality impacts. If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the 3041
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015

Page 28 of 70 ends

potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD–adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Ontario Building Department shall require feasible mitigation measures to reduce air quality emissions. Potential measures shall be incorporated as conditions of approval for a project and may include:
• Require fugitive dust control measures that exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 403, such as:
− Requiring use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion. − Applying water every four hours to active soil disturbing activities. − Tarping and/or maintaining a minimum of 24 inches of freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials.
• Using construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 4 interim or higher exhaust emission limits.
• Ensuring construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer’s standards • Limiting nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five consecutive minutes. • Using Super-Compliant VOC paints for coating of architectural surfaces whenever possible. A list of Super-Compliant architectural coating manufactures can be found on the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s website at: http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/brochures/SuperCompliant_AIM.pdf.

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

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

AQ 3-3: Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Ontario for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operation-phase-related air quality impacts to the City of Ontario Planning Department for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If operation-related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD–adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Ontario Planning Department shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions could include but are not limited to the following:
• For site-specific development that requires refrigerated vehicles, the construction documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical service connections at loading docks for plug-in of the anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce idling time and emissions. • Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy storage and combined heat and power in appropriate applications to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use.
• Site-specific developments with truck delivery and loading areas and truck parking spaces shall include signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles while parked for loading/unloading in accordance with California Air Resources Board Rule 2845 (13 CCR Chapter 10 sec. 2485). • Provide changing/shower facilities as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures).
• Provide bicycle parking facilities per Section A4.106.9 of CALGreen (Residential Voluntary Measures). • Provide preferential parking spaces for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles per Section A5.106.5.1 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures). • Provide facilities to support electric charging stations per Section A5.106.5.3 and Section A5.106.8.2 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures; Residential Voluntary Measures). 3042
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015

Page 29 of 70 ends

• Applicant-provided appliances shall be Energy Star–certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency (e.g., dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers). Installation of Energy Star–certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified by the City during plan check. b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR in 2022 evaluated the development of a maximum of 369 residential units and approximately 142,840 square feet of non-residential development on the Overlay Planning Area. The PUD project proposes 369 units and approximately 12,000 square feet of non-residential development in Phases 1 and 2, leaving 130,840 square feet of non-residential development to be built in the remainder of the MU-NH area adjacent to the SR-60 Freeway. The remainder of the MU-NH area is currently built out with 15 single-family dwellings and approximately 28,000 square feet of commercial uses.

TOP EIR concluded that air pollutant emissions from future development within the City consistent with TOP land uses, including the proposed project, would exceed established SCAQMD thresholds. The proposed PUD project is within the amount of growth planned for the project site under TOP and would make an incremental contribution to the significant air pollutant emissions and impacts identified for TOP.

As outlined in Section 3.a above, development of the “PUD project” would result in a 4% increase in residential impacts but a 28% decrease in commercial impacts from what was analyzed in TOP EIR. While this Addendum only covers impacts of the new residential and commercial uses currently proposed under the PUD Project, the anticipated impacts of growth in this MU-NH sub-area with the addition of the PUD are considered to be generally equivalent or less than those identified in TOP EIR for this sub-area.

Mitigation Measures AQ 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 as outlined in Section 3.a have already been adopted by the City that would facilitate continued City cooperation with the SCAQMD and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to reduce short-term construction emissions, help promote regional air quality improvement goals and energy conservation design and development techniques, encourage alternative modes of transportation, and implement transportation demand strategies. However, TOP EIR concluded that air pollutant impacts would be significant even with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM AQ 3- 1 through 3-3.

The proposed PUD project would implement MM AQ 3-1 through AQ 3-3 and is generally within the limits established for the site in TOP and evaluated in TOP EIR. Therefore, the PUD project itself will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality because the project is consistent with the existing TOP land use designation for the site and the overall air quality impacts of TOP have already been evaluated in TOP EIR and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was prepared and certified along with TOP EIR.

Due to the size of the PUD project site and the amount of development proposed, construction under either Phase 1 or Phase 2 of the PUD, or the combination of both phases, will not exceed the applicable regional significance thresholds and less than significant impacts would occur. No mitigation beyond that identified in TOP EIR is required.

The PUD project will comply with Mitigation Measures AQ 3-1 through 3-3 outlined in TOP FEIR as recommended by the SCAQMD, resulting in project level impacts that are less than significant with mitigation. The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measures AQ 3-1 through AQ 3-3 as described in Section 3.a above, otherwise, no project specific mitigation is required.
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR concluded that development and operation of new land uses accommodated under TOP 2050 proposed land use plan could generate new sources of localized criteria air pollutant and Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) in the City from area/stationary sources and mobile sources.
3043
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015

Page 30 of 70 ends

The Overlay Planning Area was previously analyzed by TOP EIR as a mixture of residential and commercial uses under the MU-MH land use designation. Certain land uses contain persons especially susceptible to air pollutants (children, the elderly, sick persons, etc.). These types of “sensitive” land uses include residences, day care centers, hospitals, etc. and are referred to as sensitive receptors. The SCAQMD recommends that the nearest sensitive receptor be considered when determining the project’s potential to cause an individual or cumulatively significant impact. The PUD project does have sensitive receptors west and north of the site. However, the size of the site and anticipated amount of new development is not expected to result in significant short- or long-term air quality impacts to nearby sensitive receptors.

With implementation of TOP EIR Mitigation Measures AQ 3-1 through AQ 3-3, the proposed PUD project would not result in any new impacts beyond those identified in TOP EIR and no project specific mitigation is required for sensitive receptors. The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR concluded TOP would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to other emissions, such as those leading to odors (SEIR p. 5.3-47). The subject site was previously analyzed by TOP EIR as a mixture of residential and commercial uses which is consistent with the existing land uses surrounding the site. The mixed uses proposed on the project site will not create objectionable odors. Further, the project shall comply with the policies of the Ontario Municipal Code and TOP regarding solid waste storage and disposal which will prevent potential odor impacts. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required.

According to TOP EIR, the Overlay Planning Area (including the PUD project site) is located within an area that has been identified as having the potential to contain species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). These species include: the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (DSFLF), coast horned lizard, burrowing owl, and various species of nesting birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The proposed project is consistent with TOP land use designation and zoning classification for the site of mixed use (MU) as a Neighborhood Community Hub (NH). The project does have a potential to impact nesting birds by removal of landscaping during redevelopment. However, governmental database information and TOP EIR indicate there is little or no potential for any listed or otherwise sensitive species to be present on the project site. With regulatory compliance (e.g., Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Fish and Game codes), TOP EIR concluded that future development in the City would not have significant impacts on listed or sensitive species and no mitigation was recommended.
3044
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015

Page 31 of 70 ends

The PUD project site is currently developed with several commercial buildings. Due to its developed condition and surrounding urban land uses, the project site does not contain or support any listed or otherwise sensitive species of plants or animals. With regulatory compliance, the PUD project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR indicated development “of new, previously undeveloped areas of the City even though it would result in an increase in land use intensity. Individual projects undergoing environmental review under CEQA would be required to determine whether there is potential habitat onsite for sensitive species. If sensitive species were found on-site, the project proponent would be required to consult with the CDFW regarding impacts to sensitive species and ensuing mitigation” (SEIR p. 5.4-31).

The EIR concluded TOP would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to riparian habitat or sensitive natural community. In TOP EIR, the Overlay Planning Area, including the PUD project site, was previously analyzed as mixed use. TOP EIR does not identify any natural drainage features in this portion of the City due to its urbanized condition. With regulatory compliance, the EIR did not recommend any specific mitigation for future development relative to jurisdictional features.

Based on a review of aerial photographs, the site is totally developed and does not contain any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified by CDFW or USFWS (GoogleEarth). Therefore, no adverse environmental impacts are anticipated. In addition, the project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR did not identify any wetland habitat or resources on the project site or in the immediate surrounding area due to its urban condition. The EIR stated TOP “would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to state or federally protected wetlands.

Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the TOP [2050] were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds” (SEIR p. 5.4-33).

According to aerial photographs, the site is developed and no drainage areas or wetland habitat are present on the project site (GoogleEarth). Therefore, project implementation would have no impact on these resources. In addition, the project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR did not identify any drainages or wetland habitat that could support fish on the project site, and the site is not located within an identified wildlife movement corridor due to its physical condition and development of the surrounding area.

TOP EIR found that no regional wildlife movement corridors have been identified in the City, so it did not result in substantial adverse effects to wildlife movement (SEIR p. 5.4-33).

According to aerial photographs, the site is developed with no drainages or native vegetation present (GoogleEarth). As a result, there are no wildlife corridors connecting this site to other areas. The project site and area may support nesting birds but regulatory compliance (e.g., Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Fish 3045
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015

Page 32 of 70 ends

and Game codes) will help assure there will be no impacts to migratory birds. With regulatory compliance, the project will not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife. The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR indicates the City includes the Ontario Recovery Unit for the DSFLF with

21.7 square miles mainly in the eastern and southwestern portions of the City (i.e., not on or adjacent to the project site), The EIR concluded TOP would not conflict with the requirements of the DSFLF Ontario Recovery Unit (SEIR p. 5.4-34).

The City does not currently have any specific policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The City’s Development Code requires replacement of trees removed. With implementation of the ODC requirements for tree replacement, and its proposed Landscaping Plan, no adverse environmental impacts are anticipated.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR only acknowledges a small portion of the City that contains an HCP for DSFLF but this plan does not apply to the proposed Project, and there are no HCPs or NCCPs to protect biological resources that affect the proposed Project site.

The site is not part of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved habitat conservation plan. As a result, no adverse environmental impacts are anticipated. The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation required.

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR concluded that buildout of TOP could result in significant impacts to historical resources or paleontological resources but Mitigation Measure 5-1 would reduce impacts to less than significant levels (SEIR p. 5.5-23). The project site was previously analyzed by TOP EIR as a mixture of residential and commercial uses.

The PUD project site is developed with a number of commercial buildings the largest of which is vacant.

The site does not contain any buildings or structures constructed more than 50 years ago and cannot be considered for eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources.

The Euclid Avenue (EA) Overlay District was established to recognize, protect, and enhance the visual character and quality of Euclid Avenue as a major scenic and historic resource of the City as well as its position on the National Register of Historic Places. Properties located within the EA require approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness to ensure no adverse impacts to designated historic resources occur as a result of new development and buildings. This PUD includes design criteria within Chapter 5 for site and building design that is consistent with the overall character of Euclid Avenue. 3046
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015

Page 33 of 70 ends

The public right-of-way of Euclid Avenue from Philadelphia Street north to the I-10 Freeway was designated as Local Landmark No. 67 on January 16, 2001 by the Ontario City Council. On August 10, 2005, the public right-of-way of Euclid Avenue from Philadelphia Street in Ontario north to 24th Street in Upland was listed on the National Register of Historic Places as a significant cultural landscape. One contributing characterdefining feature of the public right-of way is the 60-foot-wide median separating the north/south bound vehicular lanes of Euclid Avenue. The Euclid/Walnut PUD project does not alter or affect this feature.

Several buildings within the proposed PUD project have frontage on Euclid Avenue. However, the PUD site is 0.4 mile south of the southern boundary (Philadelphia Street) of this Local Landmark/National Register of Historic Places designation. The extended view of the Euclid Avenue corridor, whether viewed northward from the parcels or southward towards the parcels of the PUD, is also visually disrupted within the immediate foreground view as a result of the Pomona Freeway (SR-60), which is elevated above Euclid Avenue. Additionally, the proposed PUD is approximately three miles south of the City’s Downtown Historic District. Based upon the City’s Historic Preservation records, there are no potential or proposed historic resources within the immediate surrounding area of the parcels within the PUD project. Therefore, the PUD will not alter or affect any designated historical districts or resources in the City.

In addition, the project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR (Section 5.5) indicates no archeological sites or resources have been recorded in the City with the Archeological Information Center at San Bernardino County Museum. The CRAs prepared for the project site included a pedestrian survey, a record search, a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search, and a review of existing documentation for the project site and surrounding area. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted for a SLF search as part of TOP EIR preparation which indicated the project site contained no identified archaeological or tribal resources.

The NAHC SLF search also did not indicate any archaeological resources or artifacts associated with Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) were located within the project site. The project site has been highly disturbed by modern human activities including agricultural use in the distant past and development for commercial uses more recently. It is likely these activities could have displaced potential surface and subsurface archaeological resources if any were present. Therefore, it is not anticipated the proposed project will impact archaeological or identified TCRs.

While no adverse impacts to archeological resources are anticipated at this site due to its disturbed nature, the project will implement TOP MM CUL 5-2 to ensure that, in the event of unanticipated archeological discoveries, construction activities will not continue or will be moved to other parts of the project site and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to determine significance of these resources. If the find is discovered to be historical or unique archaeological resources, as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, avoidance or other appropriate measures shall be implemented. The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR.

No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. However, the following mitigation measure from TOP EIR is applicable to the project:

CUL 5-2: In areas of documented or inferred archaeological and/or paleontological resource presence, City staff shall require applicants for development permits to provide studies to document the presence/absence of such resources. On properties where resources are identified, such studies shall provide a detailed mitigation plan, including a monitoring program and recovery and/or in situ preservation plan, based on the recommendations of a qualified cultural preservation expert. The mitigation plan shall include the following requirements:
a) Archaeologists and/or paleontologist shall be retained for the project and will be on call during grading and other significant ground-disturbing activities.
3047
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015

Page 34 of 70 ends

b) Should any cultural resources be discovered, no further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Planning Director or designee is satisfied that adequate provisions are in place to protect these resources.
c) Unanticipated discoveries shall be evaluated for significance by a San Bernardino County Certified Professional Archaeologist/Paleontologist. If significance criteria are met, then the project shall be required to perform data recovery, professional identification, radiocarbon dates, and other special studies; submit materials to a museum for permanent curation; and provide a comprehensive final report including catalog with museum numbers.
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR states there are known Native American gravesites and cemeteries in the City, but none on or adjacent to the project site. Future development and grading of sensitive areas may disturb human remains, including those outside of formal cemeteries (SEIR p. 5.5-20).

The proposed PUD project site is developed and the area has been previously and extensively disturbed by human activity. No known religious or sacred sites exist within the project area. Thus, human remains are not expected to be encountered during any construction activities. However, in the unlikely event that human remains are discovered, existing regulations, including Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, would afford protection for human remains discovered during development activities. Per state law, in the event unanticipated discoveries of human remains are identified during excavation, the area shall not be disturbed until any required investigation is completed by the County Coroner and/or Native American consultation has been completed, if deemed applicable.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. However, the PUD project shall implement TOP EIR Mitigation Measure 5-2 as outlined above.

6. ENERGY Would the project:
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Discussion of Effects: Energy was analyzed at a programmatic level in TOP EIR based on the 2019 revisions to the CEQA Guidelines. TOP EIR concluded TOP would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of fuel use during construction or result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts (SEIR p. 5.6-13).

Implementation of the project would increase the demand for electricity and natural gas at the project site and gasoline consumption in the region during construction and operation, as described below:

Electricity
Construction. Temporary electric power would be required for lighting and electronic equipment (e.g., computers) located in trailers used by the construction crew. However, the electricity used for such activities would be temporary and would have a negligible contribution to the project’s overall energy consumption.

Operation/Occupancy. The proposed PUD project entails the construction of 369 new apartment units and 12,000 square feet of new commercial uses which are consistent with TOP land use and zoning designations for the property. These commercial and residential buildings will be similar in design and operation to existing and planned uses in the surrounding area and will have similar energy use during operation to existing commercial businesses and apartments in the City. Operation of the PUD project would require electricity for multiple purposes, such as: building heating and cooling, lighting, appliances, and electronics.

The PUD project will be required to comply with the CALGreen Building Code (CBC) commercial and residential requirements in effect at the time of development. Typical CBC requirements that would reduce electricity consumption include but are not limited to enhanced window insulation, cool-roofing, improved efficiency heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, enhanced duct insulation, Energy Star commercial appliances, water efficient landscaping and irrigation systems, and water-efficient toilets and 3048
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015

Page 35 of 70 ends

faucets. Although electricity consumption would increase at the site with implementation of the project, the building envelope, HVAC, lighting, and other systems, would be designed to maximize energy performance.

With implementation of these various measures, the electricity that would be consumed by the project is not considered to be inefficient or wasteful, and impacts would be less than significant.

Natural Gas
Construction. Natural gas consumption is not anticipated during construction of the PUD project. Fuels used for construction would generally consist of diesel and gasoline, which are discussed in the next subsection.

Operation/Occupancy. The proposed PUD project is consistent with TOP and zoning designations for the site. Planned commercial and residential uses will be similar in size and appearance to existing and planned uses in the surrounding area and will have similar natural gas use during operation or occupancy. During operation and occupancy, the PUD project would require natural gas consumption for various purposes, such as building heating and cooling.

All future structures developed on the site would be built to the Title 24 CALGreen efficiency requirements in effect at the time of development. These requirements include but are not limited to wall, attic, and window insulation; high efficiency water heaters, and optimized building orientation. Although natural gas consumption would increase at the site under implementation of the project, the building envelope, HVAC, lighting, and other systems, would be designed to maximize energy performance. The project would be subject to statewide mandatory energy requirements as outlined in the CALGreen Code. For these reasons, the natural gas that would be consumed by the project is not considered to be inefficient or wasteful, and impacts would be less than significant.

Diesel and Gasoline Fuel
Construction. Diesel and gasoline fuels, also referred to as petroleum in this subsection, would be consumed throughout construction of the PUD project. Fuel consumed by construction equipment would be the primary energy resource consumed over the course of construction, and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) associated with the transportation of construction materials (e.g., deliveries to the site) and worker trips to and from the site would also result in petroleum consumption. Whereas on-site, heavy-duty construction equipment and delivery trucks would predominantly use diesel fuel, construction workers would generally rely on gasoline-powered vehicles.

The project will be required to comply with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Airborne Toxic Control Measures, which restrict heavy-duty diesel vehicle idling to five minutes. Since petroleum use during construction would be temporary and required to conduct development activities, it would not be wasteful or inefficient, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation/Occupancy. Fuel consumption associated with operation of the PUD project’s commercial uses and occupancy of the project’s residential uses. As regulatory requirements increase (i.e., become more stringent), the amount of petroleum consumed as a result of vehicular trips to and from the project site during operation and occupancy is anticipated to decrease over time.

There are numerous regulations in place that require and encourage fuel efficiency. For example, CARB has adopted an approach to passenger vehicles by combining the control of smog-causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single, coordinated package of standards. The approach also includes efforts to support and accelerate the number of plug-in hybrids and zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) in California. In addition, CARB adopted a regional goal for the SCAG region of reducing per-capita GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 8% in 2020 and 19% in 2035 for light-duty passenger vehicles. Accordingly, operation of the project is expected to decrease the amount of petroleum it consumes in the future due to improvements in state-wide fuel economy over time. Although the project would increase petroleum use in the region during construction and operation, the use would be a small incremental fraction of the statewide use and due to efficiency increases would diminish over time. As such, petroleum consumption associated with the project would not be considered to be inefficient or wasteful so its energy-related impacts would be less than significant. The project will comply with Title 24 and other applicable state energy conservation regulations as recommended in TOP EIR. In November 2014, the City adopted the most current version of the Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP) which includes energy conservation that results from implementation of the recommended GHG reduction measures. The PUD project will be required to comply with applicable portions of the City’s CCAP. Compliance with the CCAP and Title 24 will result in the project not having any new, increased or substantially different impacts not considered and addressed in TOP EIR. 3049
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015

Page 36 of 70 ends

No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project-specific mitigation is required. b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Discussion of Effects: Energy was analyzed at a programmatic level in TOP EIR based on the 2019 revisions to the CEQA Guidelines. The EIR determined TOP would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to conflict with or obstruction of a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency (SEIR p. 5.6-14).

The PUD project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan adopted for the purposes of increasing the amount of renewable energy or energy efficiency. The California Title 24 energy efficiency standards for residential and non-residential buildings address electricity and natural gas efficiency in lighting, water, heating, and air conditioning, as well as the effects of the building envelope (e.g., windows, doors, walls and roofs, etc.) on energy consumption. As described above, the project would be required to comply with the appropriate Title 24 CALGreen standards current at that time. Since each new building will comply with applicable State standards and adhere to the City’s CCAP, which includes energy reductions measures, the PUD project would not conflict with nor obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

This impact would be less than significant and the project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required.

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

42. Discussion of Effects: According to TOP EIR, there are no active faults known on the site and the project site is located outside the Fault Rapture Hazard Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Zone). TOP EIR (Section

5.7/Figure 5.7-2) identifies eight active or potentially active fault zones near the City. The EIR determined TOP would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to seismic-related hazards (SEIR p. 5.7-19).

Given that the closest active fault zone is located over ten miles from the PUD project site, fault rupture within the project area is not likely. All development will comply with the CBC seismic design standards to reduce geologic hazard susceptibility. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated.

The PUD project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR indicates there are no active faults known on the site and the project site is located outside the Fault Rapture Hazard Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Zone). TOP EIR (Section

5.7/Figure 5.7-2) identifies eight active or potentially active fault zones near the City. The closest fault zone is located more than eight miles from the Project site.

The proximity of the PUD project site to the active faults will result in ground shaking during moderate to severe seismic events. All construction will comply with the CBC, the Ontario Municipal Code (OMC), TOP and all other ordinances adopted by the City related to construction and safety. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated.
3050
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015

Page 37 of 70 ends

The PUD project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Discussion of Effects: As identified in TOP EIR (Section 5.7), groundwater saturation of sediments is required for earthquake induced liquefaction. In general, groundwater depths shallower than 10 feet to the surface can cause the highest liquefaction susceptibility. TOP EIR indicates that depths to groundwater in the project site vicinity during the winter months is estimated to be over 200 feet below ground surface.

Therefore, the liquefaction potential within the project area is minimal. Implementation of TOP strategies in the Safety Element regarding seismic building design, the CBC, and the OMC would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

The PUD project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. iv. Landslides?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR did not identify any significant slopes in the City or the project area, so there were no impacts related to landslides and no mitigation is needed.

The project would not expose people or structures to potential adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides because the relatively flat topography of the project site (less than one percent slope) and the chance of a landslide onsite would be remote. The PUD project proposes 369 new apartments and 12,000 square feet of new commercial uses onsite which are consistent with TOP land use and zoning designations.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR concluded that TOP policies and state regulations would ensure that potential impacts from erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant (SEIR p. 5.7-20).

The project site will not result in significant soil erosion or loss of topsoil because of the previously disturbed nature of the project site, its current developed condition (i.e., site is covered by mainly impervious surfaces), and implementation of the project-specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)(see Appendix C) for water quality control (including erosion). Grading increases the potential for erosion by removing protective vegetation, changing natural drainage patterns, and constructing slopes. However, compliance with the CBC and review of grading plans by the City Engineer will ensure no significant impacts will occur. In addition, the City requires an erosion/dust control plan for projects located within this area.

Implementation of a WQMP and Best Management Practices (BMPs), consistent with the federal water quality permitting requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Program (NPDES) program, the Environmental Resource Element of TOP Policy Plan strategies, the CBC, and the OMC, would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR (Section 5.7) indicates that subsidence is generally associated with large decreases or withdrawals of water from an aquifer. The project would use domestic water supplies and would not withdraw water from the existing aquifer. The EIR states that future projects under TOP could 3051
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015

Page 38 of 70 ends

expose structures or persons to potentially significant hazards from lateral spreading, ground subsidence, liquefaction, and compressible soils, However, compliance with the CBC and review of grading plans for individual projects by the City Engineer would ensure no significant impacts would occur (SEIR p. 5.7-21).

The City is relatively flat, including the project site, so the risk of landslides is negligible.

The new commercial and residential buildings would not result in the location of development on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable because as previously discussed, the potential for liquefaction and landslides associated with the project is less than significant. Further, implementation of TOP strategies, the CBC and the OMC would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the project would not create greater landslide potential impacts than were identified in TOP EIR.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR identified limited soil stability impacts of future development if expansive or other soil constraints were present beneath structures. TOP EIR recommended compliance with the CBC and OMC to assure impacts will be less than significant (SEIR p. 5.7-21).

The majority of Ontario, including the project site, is located on alluvial, and in some areas, aeolian (i.e., sandy) soil deposits. These types of soils are not generally considered to be expansive. In addition, specific soil conditions beneath each proposed building will be verified and addressed by specific foundation design to be confirmed by the City Engineering Department as part of the City’s development permitting process.

With this regulatory compliance, no adverse impacts will occur.

Through the City’s development and design review process, the project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR states that TOP policies and state regulations would ensure that the potential impacts from geology and soils hazards would be less than significant. Wastewater from Ontario is treated at wastewater treatment facilities owned and operated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). Use of septic tanks would be limited to existing septic tanks, and new septic tanks would be constricted to areas not in practical proximity to existing sewer mains, dependent on approval by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) on a case-by-case basis (SEIR p. 5.7-22).

The PUD project area is served by the local sewer system and the use of alternative systems is not necessary. Future sewer service is based on planned land uses and sizing of pipes and treatment facilities to accommodate planned growth. Since the project is consistent with TOP land use and zoning designations on the site, there will be no significant impacts to the sewage system.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR indicates the City is underlain by deposits of Quaternary and UpperPleistocene sediments deposited during the Pliocene and early Pleistocene time, Quaternary Older Alluvial sediments may contain significant, nonrenewable, paleontological resources and are, therefore, considered to have high sensitivity at depths of 10 feet or more below ground surface. In addition, TOP EIR (Section

5.5) indicates that only one paleontological resource has been discovered in the City. The project site has surficial sediments composed of younger Quaternary Alluvium, derived as alluvial fan deposits from the 3052
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015

Page 39 of 70 ends

San Gabriel Mountains to the north or as dune sands. These deposits typically do not contain significant vertebrate fossils, at least in the uppermost layers, but they may be underlain by older sedimentary materials at estimated depths greater than 10 feet which could contain paleontological resources.

Project grading may exceed 10 feet in depth in some areas so the project will implement TOP EIR Mitigation Measure 5-2, which is included in Section 5, Cultural Resources, as this measure addresses paleontological resources. The measure requires that, in the event unanticipated paleontological resources are identified during excavation, construction activities will not continue or will be moved to other parts of the project site and a qualified paleontologist shall be contacted to determine the significance of these resources. If the find is determined to be significant, avoidance or other appropriate resource protection actions will be taken.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: The project will be required to implement TOP EIR Mitigation Measure 5-2. No additional project specific mitigation is required.

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR determined TOP would have a significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to the generation of GHG emissions (SEIR p. 5.7-26). The subject site was previously analyzed by TOP EIR as a mixture of residential and commercial uses (i.e., mixed use). The impact of buildout of the TOP on the environment due to the emission of GHGs was analyzed in the EIR for the Policy Plan of TOP. According to TOP EIR, this impact would be significant and unavoidable and a statement of overriding considerations was adopted for this impact. Developing the site with mixed residential and commercial uses will not create significantly greater impacts than were identified in TOP EIR.

The analysis, methodology, and significance determination (thresholds) are based upon the City’s CCAP which includes GHG emission inventories (2008 and 2020 forecasts), a year 2020 emission reduction target, the goals and policies to reach the target, and TOP EIR Addendum prepared for the CCAP. The City will require the PUD project to be consistent and comply with the CCAP. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3, this impact need not be analyzed further because: (1) the proposed project would result in an impact that was previously analyzed in TOP EIR, which was certified by the City; (2) the proposed project would not result in any GHG impacts that were not addressed in TOP EIR; and (3) the proposed PUD project is consistent with TOP. The proposed impacts of the PUD project were already analyzed in TOP EIR and the project will be built to current energy efficient standards. Potential impacts of project implementation will be less than significant and will be supported by compliance with current Title 24 energy efficiency standards of the California Code of Regulations. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary. Regulatory compliance adequately addresses any GHG impacts and there is no need for any project specific mitigation measures.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Discussion of Effects: The EIR determined TOP was consistent with statewide strategies adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions including CARB’s Scoping Plan and SCAG’s Connect SoCal (SEIR p.

5.8-27). The subject site was previously analyzed by TOP EIR as mixed use (residential and commercial).

By implementing TOP EIR Mitigation Measures AQ 3-1 through 3-3 regarding air pollutant emissions, the proposed project is consistent with TOP Goal ER 4 of improving air quality by, among other things, implementation of Policy ER 4-3, regarding the reduction of GHG emissions in accordance with regional, state and federal regulations. In addition, the proposed project is consistent with the policies outlined in Section 5.6.4 of the EIR for TOP, which aims to reduce the City’s contribution of GHG emissions at buildout by implementing energy efficient design, energy efficient irrigation systems, electric vehicle charging 3053
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015

Page 40 of 70 ends

stations, and compliance with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. The PUD project will be required to comply with the City’s CCAP. Therefore, the proposed PUD project does not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of GHGs.

The PUD project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: Project will implement TOP EIR Mitigation Measures AQ 3-1 through 3-3 but no project specific mitigation is required.

9. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR determined that implementation of the policies in the Safety Element, in addition to existing regulations, would ensure less than significant impacts from transport, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials. It further concluded TOP would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, release of hazardous materials, and emission and handling of hazardous materials, substances, or waste (SEIR p.

5.9-37).

The subject site was previously analyzed by TOP EIR as a mixture of residential and commercial uses (i.e., mixed use). As a residential and commercial project, the PUD will not involve the transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials during either construction or project implementation based on the land use restrictions for mixed use in TOP. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. However, in the unlikely event of an accident, implementation of the strategies included in TOP regarding emergency services such as police and fire protection will decrease the potential for health and safety risks from hazardous materials to less than significant levels.

The PUD project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR concluded that implementation of the policies in the Safety Element, in addition to existing regulations, would ensure that development under TOP would not exacerbate hazards associated with existing hazardous materials sites (SEIR p. 5.9-39).

The subject site was previously analyzed by TOP EIR as mixed use (e.g., residential and commercial uses).

Since it is not an industrial use, the proposed PUD project would not involve the use of hazardous materials or volatile fuels. In addition, there are no known stationary commercial or industrial land uses within close proximity to the PUD project site which use or store hazardous materials to the extent that they would pose a significant hazard to visitors/occupants to the subject site. Therefore, upset conditions resulting in the release of hazardous materials are not anticipated.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR concluded that several hazardous material facilities were within a quarter mile of various schools in the City and impacts were potentially significant, such that mitigation was recommended. However, the project site is not within a quarter mile of any school sites so there will be no impacts and no mitigation is required relative to TOP EIR analysis. 3054
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015

Page 41 of 70 ends

The PUD involves residential and commercial uses, so it does not involve the use, emissions or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste that would typically be associated with industrial uses. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. The PUD project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR identified that implementation of the policies in the Safety Element in addition to existing regulations ensured that development of TOP would not exacerbate existing hazards associated with existing hazardous materials sites. The EIR concluded TOP would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to location on a site which is included on a list of hazard materials. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the Proposed Project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft SEIR pg. 5.9-39) The PUD project site is not listed on the hazardous materials site compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, the project would not create a hazard to the public or the environment and no impact is anticipated.

The PUD project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. e. For a project located within the safety zone of the airport land use compatibility plan for ONT or Chino Airports, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Discussion of Effects: Sections 5.9 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials) and 5.11 (Land Use and Planning) of TOP EIR indicated that with proper land-use planning, aircraft safety risks could be reduced, primarily by avoiding incompatible land uses. The FAA and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics provide guidance for land use safety near airports. However, the proposed PUD project is not within the hazard or influence zones of either the Ontario International Airport to the northeast or the Chino Airport to the south. The PUD project will therefore have no impacts relative to airport safety or land use compatibility.

The PUD project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts that were not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary, and there is no need for any project specific mitigation measures.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR concluded TOP would not interfere with an emergency evacuation plan.

According to the Vulnerability Analysis conducted as part of TOP, the threat of flood is the City’s greatest hazard as large portions of the City are within the flood zone (i.e., the project site is within the 500-year flood zone). Figure S-10 of TOP indicates that Haven Avenue to the west, Airport Drive to the north, and Jurupa Street to the south are designated evacuation routes in the City. The City's Safety Element, as contained within TOP, includes policies and procedures to be administered in the event of a disaster. TOP seeks interdepartmental and inter-jurisdictional coordination and collaboration to be prepared for, respond to and recover from disasters or emergencies. The EIR concluded TOP would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to impairment of or interference with adopted emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans (SEIR p. 5.9-41).

The project will comply with the requirements of the Ontario Fire Department and all City requirements for fire and other emergency access. Because the project is required to comply with all applicable City codes, any impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. 3055
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015

Page 42 of 70 ends

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR indicates the City would result in less than significant risks from wildfire hazards. The City is outside of the state responsibility area, and California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has determined that the City contains no areas subject to very high wildfire risk. The EIR concluded TOP would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to wildland fires (SEIR p. 5.9-42). Figure S-04 from TOP indicates the project site is not within any designated wildfire area. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

The PUD project is residential and commercial in nature and not industrial so it will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required.

10. HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR concluded there would be less than significant impacts related to water quality from development activities associated with future development under TOP. Nearly the entire City is developed, and implementation of TOP would not substantially alter the amount of developed land in the City. TOP EIR would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to surface or groundwater quality (SEIR p. 5.10-21).

The PUD project site is already developed and served by City water and sewer service and will not affect water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Discharge of storm water pollutants from areas of materials storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance could result in a temporary increase in the amount of suspended solids, trash and debris, oil and grease, organic compounds, pesticides, nutrients, heavy metals and bacteria pathogens in surface flows during a concurrent storm event, thus resulting in surface water quality impacts. The site is required to comply with the statewide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Activities Stormwater Permit, the San Bernardino County Area-Wide Urban Runoff Permit (MS4 permit) and the Ontario Municipal Code (OMC) Title 6, Chapter 6 (Stormwater Drainage System). This compliance would reduce any impacts to below a level of significance.

A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP) is required to be prepared for the PUD project prior to issuance of grading or building permits. The PWQMP will identify how the site will comply with storm water discharge and water quality management requirements of the City and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The PWQMP includes site design measures that capture runoff and pollutant transport by minimizing impervious surfaces and maximizes low impact development (LID) best management practices (BMPs), such as infiltration, biotreatment and evapotranspiration. The PWQMP would include the use of underground stormwater infiltration systems for both of the PUD project phases of development.

The PUD project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR identified less than significant impacts related to groundwater recharge and supply for TOP. At buildout, TOP is forecast to increase residential units by 25,399 and increase nonresidential square footage by 1,092,508 square feet; future development would increase the amount of impermeable surfaces in the City and reduce the amount of permeable surfaces available for groundwater 3056
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015

Page 43 of 70 ends

Ontario City CouncilOctober 17, 2023

Ontario City Council
October 17, 2023