Agenda packet — Ontario City Council, February 6, 2024 (part 1 of 3)

CITY OF ONTARIO
Regular City Council/Housing Authority
Meeting

FEBRUARY
6, 2024
City Hall
303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764

MAYOR PAUL S. LEON • MAYOR PRO TEM DEBRA DORST-PORADA
COUNCIL MEMBERS ALAN D. WAPNER, JIM W. BOWMAN AND RUBEN VALENCIA CITY CLERK SHEILA MAUTZ • TREASURER JAMES R. MILHISER
CITY MANAGER SCOTT OCHOA • CITY ATTORNEY RUBEN DURAN

WELCOME TO A MEETING OF THE ONTARIO CITY COUNCIL

All documents for public review are on ﬁle with the Records Management/City Clerk's Department located at 303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764.

Anyone wishing to speak in person during public comment or on a particular item will be required to ﬁll out a blue slip. Blue slips must be turned in prior to public comment beginning or before an agenda item is taken up. The Clerk will not accept blue slips after that time. To comment by email, submit your comments no later than 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting by emailing your name, agenda item you are commenting on and your comments to
[email protected].

All
comments received by the deadline will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration before action is taken on the matter and will be entered into the record.

Comments will be limited to 3 minutes. Speakers will be alerted when they have 1 minute remaining and when their time is up. Speakers are then to return to their seats and no further comments will be permitted.

In accordance with State Law, remarks during public comment are to be limited to subjects within Council's jurisdiction. Remarks on other agenda items will be limited to those items.

Remarks from those seated or standing in the back of the chamber will not permitted. All those wishing to speak including Council and Staff need to be recognized by the Chair before speaking.

CITY OF ONTARIO Regular City Council/Housing Authority Meeting CITY HALL 303 EAST B STREET, ONTARIO CA 91764 • www.OntarioCA.gov 1

ATTACHMENT:

20240206 Closed Session

ACCOMODATIONS

If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's oﬃce at 909-395-2009. Notiﬁcation of 48 hours prior to the meeting will help the City make reasonable arrangements. Equipment for the hearing impaired is available in the Records Management Office.

ORDER OF BUSINESS

The regular City Council and Housing Authority meeting begins with Closed Session and Closed Session Comment at
6:00 p.m.
, Public Comment at 6:30 p.m. immediately followed by the Regular Meeting and Public Hearings. No agenda item will be introduced for consideration after 10:00 p.m. except by majority vote of the City Council.

CALL TO ORDER
(OPEN SESSION)

ROLL CALL

Dorst-Porada, Wapner, Bowman, Valencia, Mayor/Chairman Leon

CLOSED SESSION PUBLIC COMMENT

The Closed Session Public Comment portion of the Council/Housing Authority meeting is limited to a maximum of 3 minutes for each speaker and comments will be limited to matters appearing on the Closed Session. Additional opportunities for further Public Comment will be given during and at the end of the meeting.

CLOSED SESSION
GC 54956.9(d)(1), CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL, EXISTING LITIGATION Ruben Valencia v. City of Ontario, Case No. CIVSB2302751

GC 54956.9(d)(1), CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL, EXISTING LITIGATION Inland Oversight Committee v. City of Ontario, Case No. CIVSB2310190

GC 54956.9(d)(1), CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL, EXISTING LITIGATION Southwest Jet Fuel Co. v. CDTFA, Case No. 22CECG01224

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council Member Wapner

CITY OF ONTARIO Regular City Council/Housing Authority Meeting CITY HALL 303 EAST B STREET, ONTARIO CA 91764 • www.OntarioCA.gov 2

INVOCATION
Dr. Maribel Zacapa, The Church of God of Prophecy

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney
PUBLIC COMMENTS 6:30 P.M.

The Public Comment portion of the Council/Housing Authority meeting is limited to 30 minutes with each speaker given a maximum of 3 minutes. An opportunity for further Public Comment may be given at the end of the meeting. Under provisions of the Brown Act, Council is prohibited from taking action on oral requests.

To comment by email, submit your comments by email no later than 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting by emailing your name, agenda item you are commenting on and your comment to [email protected]. All Comments received by the deadline will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration before action is taken on the matter and entered into the record. As previously noted -- if you wish to address the Council, fill out one of the blue slips at the rear of the chambers and give it to the City Clerk.

AGENDA REVIEW/ANNOUNCEMENTS

The City Manager will go over all updated materials and correspondence received after the Agenda was distributed to ensure Council Members have received them. He will also make any necessary recommendations regarding Agenda modiﬁcations or announcements regarding Agenda items to be considered.

INFORMATION RELATIVE TO POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Agenda item contractors, subcontractors and agents may require member abstentions due to conflict of interests and financial interests. Council Member abstentions shall be stated under this item for recordation on the appropriate item.

CONSENT CALENDAR

All matters listed under CONSENT CALENDAR will be enacted by one motion in the form listed below – there will be no separate discussion on these items prior to the time Council votes on them, unless a member of the Council requests a speciﬁc item be removed from the Consent Calendar for a separate vote.

CITY OF ONTARIO Regular City Council/Housing Authority Meeting CITY HALL 303 EAST B STREET, ONTARIO CA 91764 • www.OntarioCA.gov 3

1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

ATTACHMENT:

20240102 Minutes (not official until approved)

2. BILLS & PAYROLL

3. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR THE RELINQUISHMENT OF STATE ROUTE 83 (EUCLID AVENUE)

ATTACHMENT:

Coop. 08-1759 Clean HQ.docx

ATTACHMENT:

Resolution^02^RESO^RM

ATTACHMENT:

Euclid Ave Treatment & Management Plan.pdf

ATTACHMENT:

HPTMP Appendix A Photos.pdf

ATTACHMENT:

HPTMP Appendix B Historic Euclid Ave CDF Map.pdf

ATTACHMENT:

HPTMP Appendix C Previous Determinations of Eligibility.pdf

ATTACHMENT:

HPTMP Appendix D Ontario King Standard Lamppost & Masonry Curb Plan & Historic Preservation Ordinance.pdf

4. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE TO APPROVE FILE NO. PUD21-002, A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A 0.48-ACRE PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED AT 413 WEST EMPORIA STREET
Each member of the public wishing to address the City Council on items listed on the Consent Calendar will be given a total of 2 minutes.

Minutes for the regular meetings of the City Council and Housing Authority of January 2, 2024, and approving same as on file in the Records Management Department.

Bills December 22, 2023 through January 18, 2024, and Payroll December 17, 2023 through January 13, 2024.

That the City Council adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Cooperative Agreement with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to relinquish State Route 83 (Euclid Avenue) to the City.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR RELINQUISHMENT 508-S WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO RELINQUISH STATE ROUTE 83 (EUCLID AVENUE) WITHIN THE CITY OF ONTARIO FROM THE SOUTH CITY LIMIT AT MERRILL AVENUE TO THE NORTH CITY LIMIT AT THE INTERSTATE ROUTE 10 FREEWAY EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY PORTIONS WITHIN THE STATE ROUTE 60 FREEWAY.

That the City Council consider and adopt an Ordinance approving File No. PUD21-002, the Emporia Work/Live Lofts Planned Unit Development, establishing development standards and design guidelines to facilitate joint work/live quarters at 413 West Emporia Street.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FILE NO. PUD21-002, A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT AND CITY OF ONTARIO Regular City Council/Housing Authority Meeting CITY HALL 303 EAST B STREET, ONTARIO CA 91764 • www.OntarioCA.gov 4

ATTACHMENT:

File No. PUD21-002 Emporia Work Live Lofts PUD^ORD^RM

ATTACHMENT:

File No. PUD21-002 PUD Emporia Live Work^03

5. AN AMENDMENT TO THE GOODS AND SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH FORD OF UPLAND, LLC

FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF FORD ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER PARTS AND

REPAIR SERVICES

ATTACHMENT:

Amendment No. 5 Ford of Upland .pdf

6. AN AMENDMENT TO THE GOODS AND EQUIPMENT PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH ALL

AMERICAN ASPHALT FOR ASPHALT MATERIALS

ATTACHMENT:

Amendment No. 1 FY 23-24.pdf

7. AN AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH WINDSONG

PRODUCTIONS, LLC FOR VIDEO PRODUCTION SERVICES

ATTACHMENT:

Windsong Productions LLC Revised

8. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ADOPTION OF PUBLIC AGENCIES POST-EMPLOYMENT

BENEFITS TRUST ADMINISTERED BY PUBLIC AGENCY RETIREMENT SERVICES (PARS) PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR 0.48-ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 413 WEST EMPORIA STREET WITHIN THE LUA-2N (ARTS DISTRICT- NORTH) OF THE MU-1 (DOWNTOWN MIXED USE) ZONING DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1049-059-03.

That the City Council authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute Amendment No. 5 to the Goods and Services Agreement with Ford of Upland, LLC, of Upland, California, in the amount of $70,000, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount to $370,000 for the procurement of Ford original equipment manufacturer (OEM) parts and repair services.

That the City Council authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute Amendment No. 1 to the Goods and Equipment Purchase Agreement with All American Asphalt, of Corona, California, in the amount of $146,000, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $1,111,970 to complete the residential street overlay program for Fiscal Year 2023-24.

That the City Council authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute Amendment No. 2 to the Professional Services Agreement with Windsong Productions, LLC, of Fresno, California to extend the scope of services and increase funding for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $812,302.

That the City Council take the following actions:

A
.

Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Post-Employment Beneﬁts Trust to be administered by Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS); and
B
.

Authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement for administrative services with Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS).

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE CITY OF ONTARIO Regular City Council/Housing Authority Meeting CITY HALL 303 EAST B STREET, ONTARIO CA 91764 • www.OntarioCA.gov 5

ATTACHMENT:

Adoption of Public Agencies Post-Employment Benefits Trust Administered By PARS^01^RESO^RM

ATTACHMENT:

20240206 Agreement for Administrative Services PARS^02 AGR.docx

9. AN AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH UNIVERSAL

PROTECTION SERVICES LP

ATTACHMENT:

Universal Protection Services Amendment No. 4

10. AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (FILE NO. PDA21-012)

BETWEEN THE CITY OF ONTARIO AND RICHLAND MEADOWLAND, LTD, STRACK FARMS

LAND, LLC, AND RMD INLAND INVESTORS, LLC

ATTACHMENT:

File No. PDA21-012 Richland Ontario Developers LLC^01 EXH A&B

ATTACHMENT:

File No. PDA21-012 Richland Ontario Developers LLC 02^ORD^RM

ATTACHMENT:

File No. PDA21-012 SC Richland Ontario Developers LC^03 DEV AGR

ADOPTION OF THE PUBLIC AGENCIES POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS TRUST ADMINISTERED BY PUBLIC AGENCY RETIREMENT SERVICES (PARS).

That the City Council authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute Amendment No. 4 to the Professional Services Agreement with
Universal Protection Services LP, dba Allied
Universal Protection Services, of Atlanta, Georgia,
to extend the term by one year and increase
the scope of services and total not-to-exceed amount to $3,765,714.

That the City Council consider and adopt an Ordinance approving a Development Agreement (File No. PDA21-012) between the City of Ontario and Richland Meadowland, LTD, Strack Farms Land, LLC, and RMD Inland Investors, LLC.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FILE NO. PDA21-012, A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ONTARIO AND

RICHLAND MEADOWLAND, LTD A TEXAS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, STRACK FARMS LAND, LLC, A

DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AND RMD INLAND INVESTORS, LLC, A DELAWARE

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, TO ESTABLISH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20472 (FILE NO. PMTT21-018), A 47.16 ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED AT

THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EUCALYPTUS AVENUE AND HAVEN AVENUE, WITHIN PLANNING AREA 30 MIXED RESIDENTIAL AND PLANNING AREA 31 MIXED RESIDENTIAL OF THE SUBAREA 29 SPECIFIC PLAN (FILE NO. PSPA21-005), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN(S): 0218-331-31 AND 0218-331-52.

STAFF MATTERS

City Manager Ochoa

COUNCIL MATTERS

Mayor Leon
Mayor pro Tem Dorst-Porada
CITY OF ONTARIO Regular City Council/Housing Authority Meeting CITY HALL 303 EAST B STREET, ONTARIO CA 91764 • www.OntarioCA.gov 6 Council Member Wapner
Council Member Bowman
Council Member Valencia

ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF ONTARIO Regular City Council/Housing Authority Meeting CITY HALL 303 EAST B STREET, ONTARIO CA 91764 • www.OntarioCA.gov 7 1 of 2

CITY OF ONTARIO

CLOSED SESSION REPORT
City Council // Housing Authority // Other // (GC 54957.1) February 6, 2024
ROLL CALL: Dorst-Porada _, Wapner _, Bowman _, Valencia _, Mayor / Chairman Leon _.

STAFF: City Manager / Executive Director __, City Attorney __ In attendance: Dorst-Porada _, Wapner _, Bowman _, Valencia _, Mayor / Chairman Leon _.  GC 54956.9(d)(1), CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL, EXISTING LITIGATION Ruben Valencia v. City of Ontario, Case No. CIVSB2302751 No Reportable Action Continue Approved
/ / / / / /
Disposition: _________________________________________________________________ In attendance: Dorst-Porada _, Wapner _, Bowman _, Valencia _, Mayor / Chairman Leon _.  GC 54956.9(d)(1), CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL, EXISTING LITIGATION Inland Oversight Committee v. City of Ontario, Case No. CIVSB2310190 No Reportable Action Continue Approved
/ / / / / /
Disposition: _________________________________________________________________ 8 2 of 2

CITY OF ONTARIO

CLOSED SESSION REPORT
City Council // Housing Authority // Other // (GC 54957.1) February 6, 2024
(Continued)
ROLL CALL: Dorst-Porada _, Wapner _, Bowman _, Valencia _, Mayor / Chairman Leon _.

ONTARIO HOUSING AUTHORITY

MINUTES
JANUARY 2, 2024
(not official until approved)

JOINT MEETINGS
The Regular Joint Meetings of the Ontario City Council and the Ontario Housing Authority scheduled for January 2, 2024, were cancelled.

Respectfully submitted,
___________________________________________________
CLAUDIA Y. ISBELL, MMC,

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK/SECRETARY

APPROVED
___________________________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR/CHAIRMAN
10 Department: Engineering
Prepared By: Jay Bautista
Staff Member Presenting:

Scott Murphy, Executive Director Community
Development
Reviewed By: Khoi Do
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 3
SUBJECT:

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR THE RELINQUISHMENT OF STATE ROUTE 83 (EUCLID AVENUE)

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
February
6, 2024
SECTION:

CONSENT CALENDAR

RECOMMENDATION:

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Invest in the Growth and Evolution of the City's Economy Pursue City's Goals and Objectives by Working with Other Governmental Agencies Focus Resources in Ontario's Commercial and Residential Neighborhoods FISCAL IMPACT:

The Relinquishment Agreement will transfer full ownership of Euclid Avenue from Caltrans to the City and the City will receive a one-time lump-sum payment of $23,449,000 to be authorized by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) at their May 2024 meeting. The transfer of ownership is anticipated to occur in July 2024. The City is currently reviewing maintenance records and anticipating annual expenses to be incorporated into the Fiscal Year 2024-25 budget. Ongoing maintenance costs will be absorbed through the current Citywide maintenance programs.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS:

The City approached Caltrans and formally initiated the relinquishment of Euclid Avenue in August 2020. Assembly Bill No. 744 was passed in September 2021 indicating that the CTC may make a determination to relinquish portions of Euclid Avenue contained within the City provided that Caltrans and the City enter into a Relinquishment Agreement.

The area of relinquishment of Euclid Avenue is from the northern City limit at Interstate Route 10 to the southern City limit at Merrill Avenue. The relinquishment does not include the areas within State Route 60 nor the west side of Euclid Avenue between Riverside Drive and Merrill Avenue as this area is within the City of Chino.

11 Caltrans conducted and approved Relinquishment Assessment Reports (RARs) in 2023. The purpose of the RARs is to determine if relinquishment is appropriate from a state transportation perspective. According to the RARs, highways under Caltrans jurisdiction that do not serve regional or statewide transportation needs should be considered for relinquishment, allowing local agencies more control in the operation of the transportation system to better represent community interests.

In order for the City to assume control of Euclid Avenue, a Relinquishment Agreement must be executed between Caltrans and the City. The terms of the Agreement provide that once the roadway is relinquished to the City, the City will assume full maintenance, ownership, responsibility, control and liability of Euclid Avenue.

Caltrans, in partnership with the City, has prepared a Historic Property Treatment and Management Plan (HPTMP) which fulﬁlls regulatory compliance for the relinquishment of the historic segment of Euclid Avenue. The public right-of-way from Philadelphia Street to the I-10 was designated as Local Landmark No. 67 by City Council on January 16, 2001. On August 10, 2005, the public right-of-way from Philadelphia Street in Ontario to 24th Street in Upland was listed on the National Register of Historic Places as a signiﬁcant cultural landscape. Contributing character-deﬁning features of the resource include the 60-foot wide median, historic rock curb, scored sidewalks, King standard light posts, double planting of California pepper trees (Schinus molle), silk oaks trees (Grevillea robusta), and other mature vegetation such as deodar trees (Cedrus deodara) and Canary Island palms (Phoenix canariensis). The HPTMP will provide guidance to the City on appropriate maintenance practices and future improvements in a manner that is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Implementation of the HPTMP will preserve, protect and enhance the historic character and quality of Euclid Avenue, streamline environmental review for future improvement projects, and safeguard Euclid Avenue’s position on the National Register of Historic Places.
12 46700.00120\42000148.1
08-SBD-083-PM 3.92/11.06
EA 1J280
Project ID 0818000013
Agreement 08-1759
1 STATE HIGHWAY

RELINQUISHMENT AGREEMENT
This AGREEMENT, executed from effective from _____(date)_____, is between the State of California, acting through its Department of Transportation, referred to as CALTRANS, and:

City of Ontario, a municipal corporation of the State of California, referred to hereinafter as CITY.

RECITALS

1. CALTRANS and CITY, pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Sections 73 and 383, are authorized to enter into a cooperative agreement in order to relinquish to CITY a portion of a State Highway within CITY’s jurisdiction.

2. CALTRANS intends to relinquish to CITY that portion of State Route (SR) 83 from Merrill Avenue to SR 10 as shown in Exhibits A-1 through A-4, which are attached to and made a part of this agreement, referred to hereinafter as RELINQUISHED FACILITIES. This relinquishment is based on legislative enactment. CITY is willing to accept said RELINQUISHED FACILITIES upon approval by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) of a Resolution of Relinquishment and CALTRANS’s recording of said Resolution with the County Recorder’s Office.

3. CALTRANS and CITY agree that RELINQUISHED FACILITIES are currently in a state of good repair. CALTRANS and CITY have negotiated an understanding that CITY will accept and assume full maintenance, ownership, responsibility, control and liability in perpetuity over the RELINQUISHED FACILITIES in exchange for the payment of $23,449,000 or some other allocation made by the CTC that is deemed to be in the best interest of CALTRANS

4. CALTRANS and CITY, individually referred to as PARTY and collectively referred to as PARTIES, herein intend to define the terms and conditions under which relinquishment of the RELINQUISHED FACILITIES is to be accomplished.

SECTION I
CITY AGREES:

1. Execution of this AGREEMENT constitutes CITY’s waiver of CALTRANS’s obligation to provide ninety (90) days prior notice of CALTRANS’s "Intention to Relinquish" as set forth in Streets and Highways Code Section 73.
13 46700.00120\42000148.1
08-SBD-083-PM 3.92/11.06
EA 1J280
Project ID 0818000013
Agreement 08-1759
2 2. To accept the allocation determined by the CTC as CALTRANS' only payment obligation for the RELINQUISHED FACILITIES.

3. To accept ownership, including all of CALTRANS’s current obligations, rights, title, and interest in RELINQUISHED FACILITIES upon recordation of the CTC’s Resolution of Relinquishment in the County Recorder’s Office and to thereafter operate, maintain, and be liable for RELINQUISHED FACILITIES at no additional cost to CALTRANS.

4. To accept the RELINQUISHED FACILITIES in their current environmental condition and setting, including but not limited to, the presence of hazardous materials as described in the “Environmental Disclosure Memo: Relinquishment Rel - #508-S” (EDM) dated June 6, 2023, and Caltrans CEQA Determination form Categorically Exempt (CE) dated 11/13/2023. CITY has received and reviewed a copy of the above-referenced EDM and CE. It is understood that within one year prior of the CTC date of approval of the resolution of relinquishment, CALTRANS will conduct a review of the above-referenced EDM and CE and if it determines that there is substantive or potentially substantive adverse change to the environment that did not exist at the time of the above-referenced EDM and CE, CALTRANS shall immediately notify CITY of said changes. If no substantive or potentially substantive adverse change to the environment is found to exist, acceptance of the relinquishment in its current environmental condition shall remain in effect. Copies of the above-referenced EDM and CE and any updates are available at the district environmental office. Upon recordation of the CTC’s Resolution of Relinquishment in the County Recorder’s Office, CALTRANS will not be responsible for any present or future remediation of said hazardous materials.

SECTION II
CALTRANS AGREES:

1. To relinquish, upon the approval of the CTC’s Resolution of Relinquishment, the RELINQUISHED FACILITIES.

2. To forward and support CITY’s request to the CTC for the allocation of $23,449,000 with the expectation that the CTC will determine that this or some other allocation is in the best interest of CALTRANS. CALTRANS agrees to pay CITY, within thirty (30) days of funding approval by the CTC, the amount of $23,449,000 or any other allocation approved by the CTC. The payment of those funds will represent CALTRANS' only payment obligation for the purpose of the RELINQUISHED FACILITIES. 14 46700.00120\42000148.1
08-SBD-083-PM 3.92/11.06
EA 1J280
Project ID 0818000013
Agreement 08-1759
3 3. To submit the CTC Resolution of Relinquishment to the County Recorder’s Office for recording.

4. Upon CITY’s specific request, to transfer to CITY within sixty (60) days of such request, copies of available CALTRANS records and files for the RELINQUISHED FACILITIES, such as plans, survey data and right-of-way information.

SECTION III
IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED:

1. All portions of this AGREEMENT, including the Recitals Section, are enforceable.

2. All obligations of CALTRANS under the terms of this AGREEMENT are subject to the appropriation of resources by the Legislature, State Budget Act authority, programming and allocation of funds by the California Transportation Commission (CTC).

3. CALTRANS reserves the right to enter, at no cost to CALTRANS, the RELINQUISHED FACILITIES, to modify signage, drainage, and other improvements if any necessary for State Highway operations. CITY agrees to allow CALTRANS access to operate, maintain, remove, or modify CALTRANS’ facilities if any retained in those RELINQUISHED FACILITIES.

4. CITY shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless CALTRANS and all of its officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions related to environmental theories or assertions of liability, including but not limited to, claims or lawsuits related to the presence of hazardous materials as described in the Environmental Disclosure Memo (EDM) dated June 6, 2023 and Categorically Exempt (CE) dated 11/13/23, provided that the actions, events, injuries, damages, or losses giving rise to any claims, suits or actions occurred on or arise after the date of the recordation of the CTC’s Resolution of Relinquishment.

5. CALTRANS shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless CITY and all of its officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions related to environmental theories or assertions of liability, including, but not limited to, claims or lawsuits related to the presence of hazardous materials as described in the EDM dated June 6, 2023 and CE dated 11/13/23, provided that the actions, events, injuries, damages, or losses giving rise to any claims, suits or actions occurred or arose before the date of recordation of the CTC’s Resolution of Relinquishment.
15 46700.00120\42000148.1
08-SBD-083-PM 3.92/11.06
EA 1J280
Project ID 0818000013
Agreement 08-1759
4 6. Neither CALTRANS nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY, its contractors, sub-contractors, and/or its agents under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction conferred upon CITY under this AGREEMENT. It is understood and agreed that CITY, to the extent permitted by law, will defend, indemnify and save harmless CALTRANS and all of its officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought forth under, but not limited to, tortious, contractual, inverse condemnation or other theories or assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY, its contractors, sub- contractors, and/or its agents under this AGREEMENT.

7. Neither CITY nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CALTRANS, its contractors, sub-contractors, and/or its agents under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction conferred upon CALTRANS under this AGREEMENT. It is understood and agreed that CALTRANS, to the extent permitted by law, will defend, indemnify and save harmless CITY and all its officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought forth under, but not limited to, tortious, contractual, inverse condemnation or other theories or assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CALTRANS, its contractors, sub-contractors, and/or its agents under this AGREEMENT.

8. No alteration of the terms of this AGREEMENT shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the PARTIES hereto. No oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall be binding on any of the PARTIES hereto.

9. This AGREEMENT shall terminate upon recordation of the CTC’s Resolution of Relinquishment for the RELINQUISHED FACILITIES in the County Recorder’s Office and payment by CALTRANS of $23,449,000 any other allocation made by the CTC to CITY, except for those provisions which relate to indemnification, ownership, operation, and maintenance, which shall remain in effect until terminated or modified in writing by mutual agreement.
16 46700.00120\42000148.1
08-SBD-083-PM 3.92/11.06
EA 1J280
Project ID 0818000013
Agreement 08-1759
5 CONTACT INFORMATION
The information provided below indicates the primary contact information for each PARTY to this AGREEMENT. PARTIES will notify each other in writing of any personnel or location changes. Contact information changes do not require an amendment to this AGREEMENT.

CITY OF ONTARIO
Project Manager: Jay Bautista___________________________ Phone Number: (909) 395-2120
E-mail: [email protected]
Billing Address: 303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764

CALTRANS
Project Manager: Mohammed H. Rahman
Phone Number: (909) 501-9320
E-mail: [email protected]
17 46700.00120\42000148.1
08-SBD-083-PM 3.92/11.06
EA 1J280
Project ID 0818000013
Agreement 08-1759
6 SIGNATURES
PARTIES are authorized to enter into this AGREEMENT and have delegated to the undersigned the authority to execute this AGREEMENT on behalf of the respective agencies and hereby covenants to have followed all the necessary legal requirements to validly execute this AGREEMENT. By signing below, the PARTIES each expressly agree to execute this AGREEMENT electronically.

The PARTIES acknowledge that executed copies of this AGREEMENT may be exchanged by facsimile or email, and that such copies shall be deemed to be effective as originals.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION
By:

District 8 Director
VERIFIED OF FUNDS & AUTHORITY:

By:

Corina Harriman
District 8 Budget Manager

APPROVED AS TO FORM &
PROCEDURE:

By:

Attorney
Department of Transportation

CERTIFIED AS TO FINANCIAL TERMS
& POLICIES:

By: ______________________________
HQ Accounting Supervisor

CITY OF ONTARIO
For Electronic or Digital Signature Only
By:

Scott Ochoa
City Manager
Attest:

City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM &
PROCEDURE:

By:

Best, Best & Krieger, LLP
City Attorney
18 46700.00120\42000148.1
08-SBD-083-PM 3.92/11.06
EA 1J280
Project ID 0818000013
Agreement 08-1759
7 EXHIBIT A-1 Relinquishment Map
19 46700.00120\42000148.1
08-SBD-083-PM 3.92/11.06
EA 1J280
Project ID 0818000013
Agreement 08-1759
8 EXHIBIT A-2 Relinquishment Map
20 46700.00120\42000148.1
08-SBD-083-PM 3.92/11.06
EA 1J280
Project ID 0818000013
Agreement 08-1759
9 EXHIBIT A-3 Relinquishment Map
21 46700.00120\42000148.1
08-SBD-083-PM 3.92/11.06
EA 1J280
Project ID 0818000013
Agreement 08-1759
10 EXHIBIT A-4 Relinquishment Map
22 RESOLUTION NO.________

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

CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR RELINQUISHMENT 508-S WITH THE

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO RELINQUISH
STATE ROUTE 83 (EUCLID AVENUE) WITHIN THE CITY OF ONTARIO

FROM THE SOUTH CITY LIMIT AT MERRILL AVENUE TO THE NORTH CITY LIMIT AT THE INTERSTATE ROUTE 10 FREEWAY EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY PORTIONS WITHIN THE STATE ROUTE 60 FREEWAY.

The City Council of the City of Ontario does hereby resolve as follows:

WHEREAS, the State of California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) is authorized to relinquish certain areas of right of way pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 73 within a local agency’s jurisdiction, with the local agency’s consent, and with the approval of the California Transportation Commission (“CTC”); and WHEREAS, Caltrans and the City of Ontario (“City”), pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Sections 73 and 383, are authorized to enter into a Cooperative Agreement providing for relinquishment by Caltrans to the City of a portion of State Highway 83 (“SR-83”) also known as Euclid Avenue. Said portion referred to hereinafter as Relinquished Facilities; and
WHEREAS, Caltrans desires to relinquish to the City those portions of SR-83 (Euclid Avenue) within City limits from Post Mile 3.92 to Post Mile 7.15 (South City limit at Merrill Avenue to State Route 60) and from Post Mile 7.24 to Post Mile 11.06 (State Route 60 to the North City Limit and the I-10 Freeway), as depicted in Exhibits A-1 through A-4, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference; and WHEREAS, Caltrans is willing to make a lump sum payment to the City to satisfy its obligations set forth in the Cooperative Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to accept the Relinquished Property from Caltrans upon approval by the CTC of a Resolution of Relinquishment and Caltrans’ recording of said Resolution in the County Recorder’s Office as a means to fulfill its obligations under the Cooperative Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City is willing to accept and implement the Historic Property Treatment and Management Plan for the segment of Euclid Avenue that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places; and
WHEREAS, upon recordation of the CTC’s Resolution of Relinquishment in the County Recorder’s Office, City will accept and assume full maintenance, ownership, responsibility, control, and liability in perpetuity over the Relinquished Facilities in exchange for the payment of $23,449,000 with the expectation that the CTC will determine that this or some other allocation made by the CTC is in the best interest of Caltrans; and 23 WHEREAS, relinquishment will occur upon both the approval by the CTC of a Resolution of Relinquishment and recording of said Resolution in the County Recorder's Office; and
WHEREAS, with the intention of facilitating ongoing negotiations between the Parties, the City Council desires to authorize the City Manager to execute the Cooperative Agreement; and
WHEREAS, prior to relinquishing any portion of a state highway, Caltrans must provide ninety (90) day written notice of its intention to relinquish said highway to the city council under Section 73 of the Streets and Highways Code unless the council waives this requirement; and
WHEREAS, the execution of this Resolution constitutes City's waiver of the ninety (90) day notice of "Intention to Relinquish" requirement contained in Section 73 of the Streets and Highways Code; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

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

SECTION 1. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the Recitals of this Resolution are true and correct and hereby incorporated into this Resolution as though fully set forth herein.

SECTION 2. The City of Ontario desires to accept the Relinquished Property upon approval by the CTC of a Resolution of Relinquishment and Caltrans’ recording of said Resolution in the County Recorder’s Office.

SECTION 3. The City Council of the City of Ontario hereby waives the ninety (90) day notice of intention to relinquish pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section

73. SECTION 4. The City Manager, or designee, is authorized to take all steps needed to accept the relinquishment, including, without limitation, accepting and executing any certificates of acceptance, relinquishments, grant deeds, any other documents, and any other actions as may be necessary in furtherance of the relinquishment.

SECTION 5. This activity is exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the relinquishment in question may have a significant effect on the environment.

SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of the Resolution. 24 The City Clerk of the City of Ontario shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 6th day of February 2024. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
25 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. 2024- was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Ontario at their regular meeting held February 6, 2024 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. 2024- duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held February 6, 2024. _____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
26 EXHIBIT A-1 Relinquishment Map
27 EXHIBIT A-2 Relinquishment Map
28 EXHIBIT A-3 Relinquishment Map
29 EXHIBIT A-4 Relinquishment Map
30 Euclid A venue
City of Ontario San Bernardino County
Hi stori c Property T reatment and M anagement Pl an
Prepared by:

Caltrans District 8
Environmental Planning
Cultural Studies (M S 825)
464 W . Fourth Street, 6th Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92401 -140

The City of Onta rio
303 E B St, O ntario, C A 91764

D ecember 2023
Figure 1 Ontario L ithograph 1880 ’s, Caltrans District 8 L ibrary. 31 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 202 3 T abl e of C ontents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Purpose and Objectives ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 2

1.2 Proj ect T eam Q ualifications ............................................................................................................................................................................... 3

1.3 Methodology ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3

1.4 Stakeholder I nput .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 4

1.5 Regulatory Framework ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 5

1.6 Definitions……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….7

2.0 DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY .................................................................................................................................................. 9

2.1 Physical D escription .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 9

2.2 Alterations to the Historic Property ................................................................................................................................................................... 10

2.3 Summary of NRHP Significance ......................................................................................................................................................................... 4

2.4 Loca lly Designated Euclid A ve. Historic District………………………………………………………………………………………………………12

2.5 Historical Background ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 6

3.0 CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES (CDFS) ......................................................................................................................................................... 18

3.1 Explanation of Te rms & Ranking Use d in CDF Table s ........................................................................................................................................ 20

3.2 C haracter-D efi ni ng Features (C D F) T abl es ....................................................................................................................................................... 30

4.0 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS/IMPACTS AND SOIS COMPLIANCE ........................................................................................................................... 41

4.1 A dv erse E ffect Per Secti on 106 of the NHPA .................................................................................................................................................... 42

4.2 Substantial A dv erse C hange Per C E Q A ............................................................................................................................................................. 43

4.3 Impacts Per PRC 5024 .................................................................................................................................................................................... 43

4.4 SOIS Standa rds for Re ha bilita tion ..................................................................................................................................................................... 44

4.5 Application of the SOIS on Historic Euclid A venue ............................................................................................................................................. 45

5.0 L OCA L FRA MEW ORK ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...48

5.1 Ontario as Certified L ocal Government……………………... …………………………………………………………………………………………48

5.2 Historic Preserv ation Ordinance………… ……………………… ..…………………………………………………………………………………..49

5.3 Implementation…………….. …….……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………50 32 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 2

6.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 51

6.1 Alignme nt ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 52

6.2 Me dia n ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 52

6.3 Parkways ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 53

6.4 Drive s .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 54

6.5 T ree Rows ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 54

6.6 Scored C oncrete Sidew alks .............................................................................................................................................................................. 55

6.7 Granite Cobblestone Curbs .............................................................................................................................................................................. 55

6.8 V intage Lighting ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 56

6.9 Other Structures and Objects ........................................................................................................................................................................... 56

7.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 59

7.1 T ree Rows ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 60

7.2 Scored C oncrete Sidew alks .............................................................................................................................................................................. 64

7.3 Granite Cobblestone Curbs .............................................................................................................................................................................. 65

7.4 V intage Lighting ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 68

8.0 PROJECT FEATURES THAT MAY NOT MEET THE SOIS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES .............................................................. 72

8.1 W idening or A dding Turning L anes .................................................................................................................................................................. 73

8.2 Pav ement Rehabi li tation .................................................................................................................................................................................. 75

8.3 Bulb Outs ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 76

8.4 Roundabouts ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 77

8.5 Pav ement M arki ngs ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 79

8.6 Storm Drain & Storm W ater Retention Projects ................................................................................................................................................. 80

8.7 L andscaping ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 82

8.8 Cumulative Effe cts ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 83

9.0 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 86

10.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 87

33 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 3

A PPENDICES
Ap p e n d ix A: Photos
A ppendix B: Ma p s
• Euclid Ave CDF Map
A ppendix C: Pre vious De te rminations of Eligibility:
• NRHP Nomination Form
• Euclid Ave Historic Distric t Local De signation

A ppendix D: City of Ontario Ordinances
• Ontario Historic Preservation Ordinance
• O ntario Permits, A ctions, and D ecisions
• K ing Standard L amppost Plan
• Masonry Curb Plan

34 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Euclid Ave nue is part of California State Route 8 3 (SR-83) and runs from 24th Street in the City of Upland to the C hi no V al l ey Freew ay (SR-71) through the Cities of Upland, Ontario and Chino in the westernmost portion of San Bernardino County. A n 8.4 -mile se gme nt of Euclid Ave nue that spans the cities of Upland and O ntario from 24th Street to the north to Phil adelphi a Street to the south (See Fi gure 1 ) w as determined el i gibl e for listing in the Nationa l Re giste r of Historic Place s (NRHP) in 1977 with concurrence by the K eeper of the National Re gister (see A ppendix C:

Pre vious De te rminations of Eligibility ). As a n NRHP-e ligible historic prope rty, Euclid Ave nue was automa tically liste d in the California Re giste r of Historical Re source s (CRHR) and thus is also an H istorica l Resource subject to the California Environment al Quality Ac t (CEQA). This se gme nt was officia lly liste d in the NRHP on A ugust 10, 2005.

Formerly, the e ntire alignme nt of Euclid A venue was part of State Route

83. Euclid Ave nue north of the I -10 freew ay , (comprising the northern portion of the NRHP -liste d Euclid Ave nue h istoric property ) was relinquished by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to the City of Upland on July 8, 2008. The Euclid Ave nue right-of-way (ROW) from the I-10 Freeway south remai ns SR-83 and is owned and operated by Caltrans. A t the present time, Caltrans is re linquishing Euclid Ave . (SR- 83) , from the I-10 freeway south through the City of Onta rio to Me rrill Ave., including the remaining southern portion of the historic property that spans from the I-10 Freeway to Phil adel phia Street in the City of Ontario.

Because the segment of E ucl i d A v enue betw een Phil adelphia Street and the I -10 Freew ay i s a s tate -owne d historical resource , state -agency actions (projects) on the route are subject to the regulatory requirements under Public Resource Code 5024 and 5024.5 (PRC 5024). W hen prudent and feasibl e, PRC 5024 requi res state agenci es to i nv entory and formulate policie s to preserv e and maintain state -owne d historica l re source s unde r the ir jurisdiction that are liste d in or e ligible for inclusion i n the NRHP or that are regi stered or el i gi bl e for registration as a state historic landmark.

Figure 2. NRHP Historic Euclid Ave L ocation Map
35 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 2 T hi s Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan (HPT M P) is intended to assist Caltra ns in fulfilling regulatory compliance mandated under PRC 5024 for the re linquishme nt of the Euclid Ave nue Historic Property to the City of Ontario . It is also intended to aid the City of Ontario with compliance requirements pursuant to CEQA a n d the City’s historic preservation ordinance to protect the resource’s cha racter -de fining features in the future to the greatest extent feasible . The City of Upland may also use this HPTMP to maintain the portion of the h istoric Euclid A venue under its jurisdiction in a manner consistent with the City of Onta rio.

O ther state and federal agenci es may also uti l ize this HPTMP to guide best management practices for activities that are subject to the regulatory re sponsibilitie s unde r Se ction 106 of the Nationa l Historic Pre se rvation A ct (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 800) .

1.1 Purpose and O bj ecti v es
Caltrans District 8 Environmental Planning, Cultural Studies Department (Cultural Studies) engaged Statistical Research, Inc. (SRI) and GPA Consulting (GPA ) to coauthor this HP TMP for State Route 83 (SR-83) / Euclid Ave nue. This effort include d conducting background research on the history a nd significance of Euclid Ave nue , e ngaging Consulting Parties and Stakeholders that have an interest in the preservation of historic Euclid Ave nue, and de ve lop ing treatment measures and guide line s to guide the maint enance and preserv ation of the character defining features along h istoric Euclid Ave nue.

More spe c ifically, the purpose of the HPTMP is to:
• Pre se rve , maintain and protect the historic character of Euclid A venue.
• Prov ide general historic preserv ation guidance and appropriate treatments for the historic property in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings .1
• I nv entory and prov ide speci fi c treatment recommendations for indiv idual character -defining features (CDFs) along Euclid Ave nue to guide best management practi ces on future projects that may affect the historic property .
• Facilitate agreement among stakeholders such as Caltrans, the Citie s of Ontario and Upland , and local groups such as Ontario He ritage, Downtown Ontario Improvement Association, Historic Downtown Upland, and Upland Heritage on how to preserve, protect, i mplement mai ntenance and manage the ex i sti ng C D Fs along the corridor.
• D ev elop best management practices for guidance on future proje c ts along Euclid A venue that ensures the long -term prese rvation of the historic property .
• Compile e xisting information on the corridor to serv e as a basel ine for future preservation efforts.
• Cre ate consensus for the preservation of Euclid A venue.

The overall goal of the HPTMP is to provide guidance for future improvements on Euclid A venue in a manner consistent with the SOIS to a void or minimize causing an adv erse effect on the historic property through implementation of project conditions . An a d d itiona l goal of the HPTMP is to facilitate relinquishment of Euclid A venue to the City of O ntario for which the HPT M P would function as a protectiv e cov enant/agreement to protect the historic property in the future and to supplement the requirements of the City’s e xisting historic pre se rvation ordinance.

1 Anne E. Grimmer, T he Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the T reatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for P reserving, Rehabilita ting, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings (W ashington, DC: US D epartment of the I nterior, National Park Serv ice, T echni cal Preserv ation Serv ices, 2017).
36 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 3 This HPTMP is organize d into e ight se ctions that inc lude :
• Chapte r 2 - provides a physic al de sc ription of Euclid Ave nue , a summary of its signficance, a chronology of its alterations , and an ove rvie w of its history and e volution,
• Chapte r 3 - catalogs, categorizes and ranks the CDFs that contribute to the significance of historic Euclid Ave nue in illustrated tables that rank the importance of each feature based on a syste m of grading craftsmanship, c onve yed significa nce , public benefit, visibility, and integrity .
• Chapte r 4 - outlines the regulatory requi rements as w el l as general preserv ation guidance and provides brief tre atment
recommendations.
• Chapte r 5 - outlines the l ocal framew ork of the City of Ontario for preserving the histoirc property,
• Chapte r 6 - provides more detailed reccomendations for treatments for each CD F for compliance with the SO I S • Chapte r 7 - This I mpl ementation of M anagement and Re linquishme nt Re sponsibilitie s chapte r addresses the overall potenti al effects to the hi stori c property and prov ides av oi dance, treatment, project conditions that comply with the SOIS to minimize effects to the property ’ s CDFs . This section include s detailed plans, step-by -step processes to replace the contri buti ng features i n ki nd, a menu of al ternati v e repl acement features and materials that are compatible with the historic character of the property , as w el l as ex ampl es of compatible new features an d materials to consider using with new construction along the corridor.
• Chapte r 8 – Prov ides examples of proj ect features and actions that may not meet the SOIS without implementation of conditions or mitigation measures, provides options for mitigation m easures and includes a discussion of cumulativ e effects
The HPMTP will serve as an agreement betw een Caltrans, the City of Ontario, OHP, stakeholders and local preservation groups on appropriate measures to preserve, protect, maintain and manage the ex isting CDFs along historic Euclid Ave .

1.2 Proje ct Te a m Qua lifica tions
T he members of the proj ect team w ho w ere responsi bl e for prepari ng this HPTMP are as follows:
• Nicholas Thompson, A ssociate Environmental Planner , and A ndrew W al ters, Senior Environmental Planner, Caltrans District 8 • Diane Ayala, Senior Planner, City of Ontario
• A ndrea Galvin, Jenna K achour and A udrey von A hrens, GPA • K en Becker, Scott T hompson, and Patrick Stanton, SRI

Caltrans, the City of Ontario , GPA , and SRI worked closely to develop this HPMTP. Nicholas Thompson, A ssociate A rchitectural Historian at C altrans D istrict 8 performed the majority of the work for the plan, conducting and rev iewing cultural compliance on 6 local proj ects and 3 C altrans projects wit hin the last 5 years, authored the initial draft of the HPTMP, rev iew and edi ting. A udrey von A hrens, A ssociate A rchitectural Historian at GPA, used the information provided by Mr. Thompson and conducted research to draft the historical section , CDFs tables, and plan formatting . An drew W alters, Caltrans Senior Environmental Planner, also conducted substantial work, prov ided rev i ew, e diting and oversight .

Andre a Ga lvin, Principa l Archite ctural Historian , GPA, provided review , e diting and oversight . M r. W al ters also worked wi th D iane A yala, Se nior Planner with the Ontario Planning Department, who provided valuable perspective and review on behalf of the City of Ontario to draft the L ocal Framew ork secti on and edi t other chapters .

All the team members meet the Secretary of the I nterior’ s Professi onal Qualifications Standards as outlined in 36 CFR 800 Part 63.

1.3 Methodology
Initia lly this HPTMP began dev el opment as part of the NHPA Secti on 106 process for a Caltrans federally assisted proj ect to rehabilitate Euclid A venue. Caltrans determined that the project, which consisted of ex tensi v e masonry curb replacement, pav ement rehabi li tation, curb ra mp upgrades, sign replacement, and restriping among other things, would 37 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 4 have an adverse effect on Euclid A venue. The stakeholder input process discusse d in the ne xt se ction wa s initia te d to assist in de ve loping the HPTMP a s mitigation for this adv erse effect caused by the project. See Section 1.5 for an explanation of the NHPA Section 106 process.

During the environmental review for the project , howe ve r, C altrans decided to relinquish the Euclid Ave nue historic prope rty to the City of Onta rio in lie u of c ontinuing the project . Therefore , the compl iance effort shifted from an NHPA Section 106 driven focus to Caltrans compliance re sponsibilitie s with Public Re source s Code (PRC) 5024, whic h is re quire d to transfer State ow ned Hi stori cal Resources (such as E ucl i d A venue) out of state ownership. Once the relinquishment is completed, Caltrans will no longer be the owner/administrator of any part of the Euclid A venue historic property, the norther portion of the historic property already having been relinquished to the City of Upland in 200 8. T herefore, the purpose of this HPTMP shifted to become a supplement to the City of Onta rio’s e xisting historic preserv ation ordinance to guide the City of Ontario in protect ing and preserv ing the character defi ni ng features of the historic property in perpetuity .

Caltrans initiate d the Euclid Ave nue HPTMP process by holding a Stakeholder meeting on January 26, 2022 and invite d va rious stakeholders to parti ci pate. A follow up me e ting was he ld February 9, 2022. Once the decision to relinquish the southern portion of SR -83 / Euclid Ave . to the City of Ontario occurred , C altrans contacted the stakeholders via e mail on June 28, 2022, to update them on the change from a build project to the relinquishment and invite d the m to participate in a follow-up meeting.

Caltrans held a meeting on June 28, 2022 , with the City of Ontario to discuss the relinquishment, and how C altrans would approach the Euclid A venue HPTMP. Ca ltrans sent follow-up le tte rs to consulting partie s on June 30, 2022, to notify them on the relinquishment and solicit any comments or concerns that they may have . No responses w ere receiv ed from any of the stakeholders at that time.

1.4 Stakeholder Input
T he fol low i ng i nternal and ex ternal stakeholders provided input on the HPTMP in me e tings he ld on January 26, 2022, and February 9, 2022:

I nternal Stakeholders (C al trans)
 Planning – Re yna Bae xa Baeza -Ore ge l, District Strate gic Initiative Branch Chief; T atiana T orres, E nv ironmental Planner G eneral ist  Proj ect M anagement – M ohammed Rahman, Caltrans D istrict 8 Proj ect M anager; C hristopher Smith, A ssistant Proj ect M anager  L andscape – M iriam Bishop, C altrans L andscape A ssociate; T risha L amm, C altrans D istrict 8 L andscape A rchitect  Cultural – Andrew W alters, Senior Environmental Planner, Branch Chie f; Nicholas Thompson, A rchitectural Historian, Ca ltrans District 8 Cultural Studies
E x ternal Stakeholders
 City of Upland – Robert Dalquest , D ev el opment Serv i ces D i rector; Joshua W inter, A ssociate Planner
 City of Ontario – Diane A yala, Senior Planner; Elly A ntuna, As s oc ia t e Planner ; Je nnife r Hiramoto, Economic De ve lopme nt Dire c tor; Philip Marino, Parks and Maintenance Supervisor; Craig Cruz, Senior A ssociate Engineer; Jay Bautista,
T raffic/T ransportation M anager
 Downtown Ontario Improvement Association – Ishmae l Aria s, Exe cutive Dire ctor
 Historic Downtown Upland, Inc. – T ammy Rapp, Presi dent  Ontario Heritage – Pe trina De lman, Presi dent
 Upland Heritage – Kati Parker, President; Nancy Mannon, Board M ember
38 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 5 The purpose of the me e tings wa s to discuss historic Euclid Ave nue’s historical significance , NRHP registration, CRHR listing , and local designation . During the meeti ng, C al trans and the project team presented its CDFs and discussed the preserv ation, maintenance, rehabilitation, restoration, and potential re placement of significant features in the future .

C altrans asked the stakeholders to ide ntify any c ontributing features that were not included in NRHP nomination as well as any concerns they may hav e w ith the preserv ation, mai ntenance, rehabil i tation, restoration, or replacement of CDFs . A fter introductions, each stakeholder group identified features along the co rridor they fel t are i mportant to preserv e and v oiced their concerns regarding the ongoing preservation of the corridor. Caltrans documented a ll the additional fe atures identified during this process and included them as CDFs in the HPTMP.

1.5 Regulatory Framework
T here are a v ari ety of State and Federal laws and regulations that relate to historic pre se rvation tha t may be applica ble to proj ects, mai ntenance or other actions performed on Euclid A venue. The applicability of the se various laws is dependent on the type of project approval needed, pe rmitting, which State or Federal A genci es are i nv olv ed , and funding.

T hi s section i s meant to be a broad ov erv i ew of the potential regulatory framework that could influence preservation efforts on Euclid A venue .

The Federal Government enacted the Nationa l Environme ntal Policy Act (NEPA) in 1970. This law establ ished a national pol i cy regardi ng the environment that requires Federal A gencies to consider the effects of thei r actions (Projects) on all aspects of the “human environment” prior to making decisions. NEPA includes historic properties as part of the human environment that should be protected. The NEPA proc e ss involve s agencies evaluating the env ironmental and related social and economic effects of their proposed actions through making a determination that the proje ct classifie s as a ca te gorica l e xclusion (CE) a nd doe s not individua lly or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human envi ronment, or through pre paration of an Environme ntal Asse ssme nt (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that discloses potential project impacts and decision -maki ng to other state and federal agencies and to the public. NEPA is often described as an “umbre lla ” law as its ana lysis incorporates a broad range of federal laws, regulations, and ex ecutiv e orders.
2 Federal agencies typically utilize the National Historic Preserv ation A ct, Section 106 process to influence or substantiate their NEPA findings regarding cultural resources or historic properties . A gencies are encouraged to consi der their Section 106 responsi bi l iti es as earl y as possible in the NEPA proce ss, and pla n the ir public participation, analysis, and rev i ew i n such a w ay that they can meet the purposes and requirements of both statutes in a timely and efficient manner.

The National Historic Preservation A ct of 1966 is perhaps the strongest historic pre se rvation la w with the most developed guidance . NHPA Section 106 requires that federal agencies identify and asse ss the effects that actions (projects) they carry out, assist, fund, permit, license, or a p prove may have on historic properties . If a fe de rally a ssiste d project has the potential to affect historic properties , a Section 106 rev iew will occur.

Under the Section 106 rev i ew process, the federal agency initia te s a consultativ e process with the State Historic Preserv ation O fficer (SHPO ), Nativ e A merican T ribes, other federal and state agencies, and individua ls and organizations with a demonstrated interest in the undertaking . The L ead A gency ide ntifie s, assess effects on, and if necessary, de ve lops av oi dance or mi ni mi zation measures to av oi d adv erse effects on hi stori c properties that may be adversely affected by it s action. A gencies must also consider public views and concerns about historic preservation issues when making final project decisions. This HPTMP may be used to assist Federal agenci es i n their Section 106 responsibi li ti es for ex ampl e, for projects on Euc lid A venue that require Federal funding or permit approval.

2 C altrans Standard E nv ironmental Reference (SE R) V olume 1 Guidance for Compliance :

Cha pte r 1 : Federal Requi rements : We b s it e , https://dot.ca.gov/programs/environmental- analysis/standard -environmental -reference -se r/volume-1-guidance -for-comp li ance/ch-1- f ederal-requirements#C h1NHPA 1966
39 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 6 In fact, this HPTMP was developed heavily relying on guidance and te rminology originally de ve lope d to a ssist in NHPA Se ction 106 re vie w.3 Similarly, California pa sse d the California Environme ntal Quality Ac t (CEQA) a s a Ca lifornia statue in 197 0 re quiring age ncie s to asse ss the environmental effects of their propose d actions prior to making decisions.

CEQA include s historical resources as part of the environment that should be protected. P rojects with discretionary actions (requiring permits, design review, or subject to the City of Ontario's Historic Preservation Ordinance) require some le ve l of CEQA re vie w. Projects that comply with the treatment measures outli ned in this HPTMP would meet the requi rements of the C i ty’ s histori c preserv ation ordi nance and all ow for proj ects to be cl eared wi th a C E Q A C ategori cal E x emption (C E ) rather than a highe r le ve l CEQA docume nt such as an Initial Study (IS) or Environme ntal Impact Report (EIR) .

T he C al i fornia State L egislature enacted Publ i c Resources C ode (PRC ) § 5024 and § 5024.5 as part of a larger effort to establish a state program to preserv e hi stori cal resources. T hese secti ons of the code requi re state agencies to tak e a number of actions to ensure preserv ation of state - owned historical resources under their jurisdictions.

For proj ect activ ities and permits that affect Caltrans -owned cultural resources, PRC § 5024 is currently handled under the Caltrans 2015 PRC 5024 Memorandum of Understanding Between the California Department of T ransportation and the California State Hist oric Preservation Officer .

The MOU ide ntifie s Caltrans role and compliance re sponsibilitie s, delegates some of State Historic Preservation Officer’s (SHPO’s) PRC 5024 responsi bi l iti es to C al trans, and ex pedites compl iance. 4 Caltrans, as
part of the ir PRC 5024 responsi bil i ties, must ensure that state-owne d

3 Advisory Council on Historic Pre se rvation (ACHP ) websi te, https://www.achp.gov/protecting -historic -properties/section -106-process/introduction - se ction-106; ACHP , Integrating N HPA and Section 106 , https://www.achp.gov/integrating_nepa_106
4 Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference (SER) V olume 2 Cultural Studies: Public Resources C ode 5024 W ebsi te, https://dot.ca.gov/programs/environmental - analysis/cultural -studies/public -resources -code -5024 historical resources such as Euclid A venue are protected by a cov enant or historic preserv ation ordinance upon relinquishment out of state -control.

Therefore, this HPTMP can be used to ensure that the Euclid Ave nue corridor is protected in the future once relinquished to the City of Ontario.

A ccording to Public Resources C ode, Section 5024.5 , state agencies such as Caltrans cannot a lte r the origina l or significa nt historical fe ature s or fabric, or tra nsfer, relocate, or demol ish histori cal resources under its re sponsibility without, e arly in the planning proce sse s, first giving notice and a summary of the proposed action to the SHPO for review and comment. I f the SHPO determines that a proposed action will have an adv erse effect on a li sted histori cal resource, the state agency hav i ng jurisdiction over the historical resource and the SHPO shall adopt prudent and feasi bl e measures that wi l l el i mi nate or mi ti gate the adv erse effects.

T he 1980 amendments to the National Historic Preservation A ct of 1966, establi shed the C erti fi ed L ocal G ov ernment (C L G ) Program to encourage the dire ct participation of loca l gove rnme nts in the ide ntification, evaluation, registration, and preservation of historic properties within the ir jurisdictions and promote the integration of local preservation interests and concerns into local planning and decision-making processes. The C L G program i s a partnership among l ocal gov ernments, the State of California Office of Historic Pre s ervation (OHP), and the National Park Se rvice (NPS) which is re sponsible for a dministe ring the National Historic Preservation Program.
5 Ontario is a CL G and as such, they have responsibilities under their ordinance to inventory and protect their historic prope rtie s , including Euclid Ave nue. T herefore, thi s HPT M P can be used as a gui de to assist the City in complying with their requirements under their CL G program.

5 O f f i ce of Hi stori c Preserv ati on W ebsi te: C erti f i ed L ocal G ov ernment Program (C L G ), https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21239 . According to the De finitions Se ction IV .A C ertified L ocal G ov ernment (C L G ): A s defi ned in PRC 5020.1(b), a C L G “means a local government that has been certified by the NPS to carry out the purposes of the NHPA of 1966.”
40 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 7 G eneral l y speaki ng, though using slightly differing terminology, these va rious laws and programs re quire applic ation of best practices and me thodology to de te rmine which prope rtie s are historic and should be protected , provide requirements for consideration of effects on historic properties or historical resources by proje c t a ctivitie s, and p rovide requi rements for av oi dance, minimiza tion, or mitigation of effe cts. T hese l aws are referred to v ari ousl y throughout thi s HPT M P and are bri efl y discussed again in the Conclusion chapter.

1.6 De finitions
The purpose of this section is to provide a brief discussion of the simila ritie s and diffe re nce s in te rminology use d by the va rious env i ronmental rev i ew processes discussed i n the prev ious section. I n sum, NHPA uses the terms such as historic property and adverse effect , while CEQA use s the te rms historical resource and substantial adverse change . PRC 5024, while a state law, uses the terms state owned historical resource , but uses the Secti on 106 affect termi nol ogy . How ev er, al l three processes make use of the Secretary of the interior Standards to reduce or av oid significant impacts or adv erse effects .

Historic Property – a property determi ned el i gibl e for the NRHP w i th SHPO concurrence, or a property registered i n the NRHP.

Historical Re source – a propert y de te rmine d e ligible for the CRHR with SHPO concurrence, or a property registered i n the C RHR.

Character defining feature (CDF) – the features of an hi storic property that are most important to preserve in order avoid or minimize harm, to develop appropri ate mitigation measures, or to determine whether proposed rehabilitation, preservation, maintenance and other activities are consistent w i th the Secretary of the I nteri or’ s T reatment of Hi stori c Properties . See C hapter 3 for a more detai l ed discussion of C DFs.

Adve rse Effect – A n adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics (CDFs) of a historic prope rty tha t qualify the prope rty for inclusion in the Nationa l Re giste r of Historic Places (National Register) in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or a ssociation. A dv erse effects may include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur l ater i n ti me, be farther remov ed in distance, or be cumul ativ e. See Chapter 4 for a more detailed discussion of adverse effects.

Signific ant Impact / substantial adv erse change - Substantial adv erse change to the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an hi storical re source would be mate rially impa ire d.

SOIS – T he Secretary of the I nterior's Standards for the T reatment of Historic Prope rtie s. The Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties address four treatments: preservation, rehabilitation, restora tion, and reconstruction. A s stated in the regulations (36 CFR Part 68) promulgating the Standards, “one set of standards …will apply to a property undergoing treatment, depending upon the property’s significance , e xisting physical condition, the e xte nt of documentation available , and inte rpre tive goals, whe n applic able . The Standa rds will be applied taking into consideration the economic and technical feasibility of each project.” These Standards apply not only to historic buildings but also to a wide v ari ety of hi stori c resource ty pes eli gi bl e to be l isted i n the National Re gister of Historic Places. This includes buildings, sites, structures, objects, and districts.

NRHP – National Register of Historic Places. The National Register of Historic Plac e s is t he official list of the Nation' s historic places worthy of preservation. Authorized by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the National Park Serv i ce's Nati onal Register of Historic Places is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, ev aluate, and protect A merica's historic and archeological resources.
41 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 8 CRHR – California Register of Historical Re sources. T he State Hi stori cal Resources Commission has designed this program for use by state and loca l agencies, priv ate groups and citi zens to identi fy , ev al uate, register and protect C al i fornia's hi stori cal resources. T he Regi ster i s the authoritative guide to the state ' s significant historic al and a rche ologica l resources. T he C ali forni a Regi ster program encourages public recognition and protection of resources of architectural, historical, archeological and cultural significance, identifies historical resources for state and local planning purpose s, de te rmine s e ligibility for sta te historic pre se rvation grant funding and affords certain protections under the California Environme ntal Quality Act.
42 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 1

2.0 DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY
Historic Euclid A venue traverses the cities of Upland and Ontario in the we ste rnmost part of San Be rnardino County, a pproximate ly 35 mile s due east of L os A ngel es. E ucl id A v enue ex tends approx i matel y 8.4 mi l es from 24th Street on the north in the City of Upland (at the foothills of Mount Baldy and the San Gabriel Mountains) to Phila de lphia Stre e t (historically Ely Street) on the south in the City of Ontario. It traverses Downtown O ntario (betw een M ai n Street and G Street) and D ow ntow n Upland (betw een 8th Street and A rrow Hi ghway ) w here dev el opment along E ucl i d A v enue is characte rized by one - to three -story commercial and institutional buildings abutting the parkways. The rest of Euclid A venue is developed with a mix of residential, institutional , and commercial buildings. Blocks of single -family residences are characterized by continuous front yard setbacks. W ithin these areas, commercial dev elopment ty pi cal l y consists of auto -orie nte d comme rcial use s concentrated at maj or intersections.

2.1 Physica l De scription
Throughout its extent, Euclid A venue is a spacious, tree -line d boule vard with a 200-foot -wide right-of-way ( ROW) compr ising two 55 -foot-wide drive s—one northbound and one southbound —separated by a 60 -foot- wide landscaped median and bordered by 15 -foot-wide landscaped parkways. It has six lanes of traffic (three lanes running south and three lanes running north) in Ontario and four lanes of vehicle traffic (two lanes running south and two lanes running north) in Upland with bike lanes and street parki ng . A t major intersections are turning lanes with connective crosswalks.

The 6 0-foot-wide medians e xte nd the full le ngth of Euclid A venue. They are predominantl y passi v e open space flanked by rows of trees. W i thi n the City of Ontario, the medians are primarily landscaped with manicured grass lawns and in Upland, with compacted earth and mulch. T he medi ans are each bordered w i th mason ry curbs constructed with e ithe r ori gi nal concrete and grani te or repl acement concrete. W here there are east -west pedestrian crosswalks along Euclid A venue, the north and south edges of the medi ans hav e scored concrete sidewal ks.

T rees w i thi n the median ar e primarily California pepper ( Schinus molle) trees, 50 feet on center, ori gi nall y pl anted i n 1883. Some date palm (Phoenix dactylifera ) tre e s, origina lly plante d in 1 883 alte rnating with the peppers but l argel y remov ed w i thi n the fi rst decade of thei r ex i stence, typica lly re main at inte rse ctions. Many of the original tre e s re main, most notably north of Foothill Boulevard to 24th Street, that re main the ir ori gi nal condi ti on. O ther tree speci mens hav e been pl anted ov er the y ears in varying amounts throughout the median. They include southern magnolias ( Magnolia grandiflora ), cedar deodar ( Cedrus deodara ), A meri can sw eet gum ( Liquidamber styraciflua ), scotch pines ( Pinus sylvestris), carob (Ceratonia siliqua), and citrus trees.

Als o, there are curv ed concre te plant be ds, loc ate d pe riodica lly along the outside edges within the medians of Euclid A venue in Ontario . T hey are planted with a variety of A rmstrong registered roses, most notably the Charlotte Armstrong Rose, which is the official flower of the City of Onta rio.
6 Some of the medi ans hav e strips of compacted earth at the north and south ends, which are occasionally landscaped with large boulders or arroyo stones.

In the Downtown commercial portion of Ontario, between Holt Boulevard (originally A Street) on the south and F Street on the north, the center medi ans feature concrete sidew alks around the enti re peri meters.

Situated along the sidewalks are v arious spaces pav ed with brick and concrete with masonry planters and metal park ben ches. The medians in Downtown Ontario also feature lampposts located along the perimeters as we ll a s se ve ral built structure s and obje cts. The se include the Mule Car

6 John S. A rmstrong founded Armstrong Nurseries in 1889 after purchasing three lots from Charle s Chaffe y at Euclid Ave nue and D Stre et. Spe cializing in Eucalyptus and Olive trees, as wel l as roses and other ornamental s, he establ i shed a mail-order cat alog business in 1902. He introduced his first series of rose v arieties in the 1920s and became world -famous in the 1930s with the establishment of a research and dev el opment department headed by D r. W al ter L ammerts, w ho created hy bri di zed f arm roses, such as ‘Chrysle r Impe rial’ and ‘Charlotte Armstrong’ (Ontario’s official flowe r).

Armstrong Nursery, now A rmstrong Garden Centers , continues to be in service for over 130 ye ars. J. Boyajian, “Finding Aid: John S. Armstrong Nurse ry Colle ction, 1889 - 1984,”Ontar io City Library Robert E. Ellingwood Model Colony History Room, October 2007.
43 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 2 di splay (located at the north end of the median betw een Hol t Boul ev ard and B Street); the V eterans M emorial (l ocated at the south end of the medi an betw een B and C Streets); and the W omen's C hri sti an Temperance Union (W CTU) drinking fountain and reconstructed community band stand with reconstructed lampposts (located at the south end of the med i an betw een C and D Streets).

I n Upland, the median primarily consists of landscaped open space, edged with 6 -inch stone set -in-concrete curbs. Some portions of the curb are cast -in-place concrete. T he M adonna of the T rail M onument (a State Historical La ndmark) is in the median north of the intersection of Euclid A venue and Foothill Boulevard. Immediately north of the Monument is the entrance to the bridal path, a dirt and mulch path down the center of the medi an, whi ch ex tends to 24th Street. C oncrete benc hes and the occasional arroyo stone drinking fountain are located along the path. In addi tion to the tree row s, the east side of the medi an i s li ned w i th w ood tel ephone pol es (prev i ously remov ed from the medians i n O ntario).

The parkways borde r the two dri v es and are each approx i mately 15 feet w i de. T hey are edged w i th masonry curbs and predomi nantl y landscaped with a single row of Silk Oak Trees (or Australian Silver Oak Trees, Grevillea robusta ) 30 feet on center , continuous concrete sidewalks, and turf.

The curbs along Euclid Ave consist of original granite c obble stone masonry curbs, in -kind granite cobble stone re place me nt curbs and modern cast -in-place curbs along the median and parkways. In Upland, the parkways also feature la rge cobblestone -line d gutt ers flanking the roadbed. T hey are constructed from grani te rocks set i n concrete. T he rocks are set in a random rubble pattern. The gutters vary in width and depth. I n some l ocation s, they are trav ersed by driv ew ay bridges, some of which are constructed o f arroyo stone, other of which are cast -in-place concrete.

T he trees withi n the parkw ay s are pri mari l y sil k oak (Grevillea robusta ), pl anted 30 feet apart; how ev er, other tree speci mens are also planted throughout the extent of the parkways. They include date palms ( Phoenix dactylifera ), southern magnolias ( Magnolia grandiflora ), cedar deodar (Cedrus deodara ), A merican sweet gum ( Liquidamber styraciflua), scotch pine s ( Pinus = sylvestris), carob ( Ceratonia = siliqua), a s we ll as citrus trees.

The c ontinuous sidewalks along the parkways consist of a combination of original scored concrete and replacement concrete sidewalks with v arious concrete mix tures and pav ing patterns. T he original scored concrete sidewalks hav e a square scoring pattern found in many of the older neighborhoods of Ontario and Upland. The sidewalk scoring is approx i mately 2 feet by 2 feet for each square and is 2 squares w ide, or approximate ly 4 fe e t wide total.

Some areas of the parkway dev i ate from the ty pi cal pattern, most notab ly through Downtown Ontario and at the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR; formerly the Southern Pacific Railroad [SPRR]) crossing. In Downtown O ntario, the parkways w ere fully pave d in concre te and m any of the original trees we re remov ed. W here trees di d exist, they were planted within tre e we lls c onsisting of me tal grills and/or compacte d e arth.

Howe ve r, the recent City of Ontario Urban C anopy T ree proj ect continuously planted Chinquapin Oak along the parkways in the downtown a re a, thus re -e stablishing t he tree l i ne w i th a di fferent, but compatible species of oak. A t the UPRR crossing, the parkways slope upwards away from the driv es to accommodate the UPRR overpass. The parkways are compacted earth, sparsely landscaped with shrubs and few trees.

2.2 Alt e ra tions to the Historic Property
The origina l de sign of Euclid Ave nue is la rge ly intact de spite alte rations that hav e occurred ov er time. K nown alterations include:
1920-
1925
Replacement of the origi nal cast -iron lampposts with Kings Standard cast -Iron lampposts (mid -1920s).

Removal of the original community bandstand.
44 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 3 Transformation of Holt Boulevard (formerly A Street) from a two- lane sce nic road line d with citrus tre e s a nd grand V ictoria n homes into a modern four -lane highway. 7
1928 Abandonme nt of the Pacific Ele ctric Ra ilroa d Euclid Ave nue L ine and the remov al of the tracks from the median (1928). 1950s Construction of I -10 Freew ay, which passes under Euclid A v enue (Bridge No. 54 0445) (early 1950s ).

Construction (late 1950s) and reconstruction (1970) of the Freeway Interchange Bridge (Bridge No. 54 0445).

Installation of larger concrete light poles (retrofitted with replacement arms and lights in the 1980s).
1968 Re moval of wood distribution pole s from Euclid Ave nue in Ontario as part of Edison's undergrounding program. 8
1970 Reconstruction of the Freeway Interchange Bridge: alteration of abutting medians, parkways, side walks, and landsca ping; al terati on of the median betw een the bri dge and 7th Street to al low for an eastbound turn pocket (median w as also
hardscaped in the same manner as the deck of the extant bridge , whic h is not in ke e ping with the historic characte r of the Euclid Ave nue ).
1975 Re loc ation of the WCTU drinking fountain (originally built at the northwest corner of Euclid A venue and Holt Boulevard in 1901) to its present location north of the intersection of Euclid A venue and C Street.
1982-
1984
Recon struction of a portion of Euclid Avenue below grade betw een Park and T ransit Streets i n O ntario to accommodate the new SPRR (now UPRR) rai lroad track ov ercrossi ng. A s a

7 Ocean to O cean Highway.pdf.
8 “The 1968 Re mova l of Distribution Pole s From Euclid Ave nue In Onta rio Wa s Done As Pa rt of Edison's Undergrounding Program ,” The Huntington Digita l L i brary , accessed M arch 2022. https://hdl.huntington.org/digital/collection/p16003coll2/id/5603 result, some cross -streets w ere reconfi gured i nto cul -de -sacs and the Chaffey fountain was moved to in front of the Onta rio Muse um of History & Art (Old City Ha ll) at 225 S. Euclid Ave nue , approximately 150 feet from its original location.
1990s C onstruction of new Route 30 Freeway betw een 19th and 21st Streets in Upland. The Route 30 F reeway passes beneath Euclid Ave nue .9

2020
Replacement of some K ing Standard L ampposts with Cobra light fixtures by the City of Ontario and Caltrans to improve the safety for vehicular traffic along Euclid A venue which is State Highway Route 83.

City of Onta rio Urban Canopy Tree project continuously planted Chinquapin Oak along the parkways in the downtown area
betw een Holt Boul ev ard and G Street
A dditional alterations, the ex act dates of which are unknown, include:
• Reconstruction and replacement of some of the cobblestone curbs and gutters.
• L ight modification of the intersection at Euclid and Holt. • Construction of concrete slabs with benches and planters. • Remov al of many of the cast -iron lampposts.
• Painting of portions of original masonry curbs.
• There are portions of masonry curb s along Euclid Ave nue , predominately located south of G Street, that hav e been replaced ov er ti me with modern curb s. In some areas north of G Street, smaller sections of modern curb s hav e also repl aced the granite cobble stone. Some sections of the original granite cobblestone

9 Y ear 2000 D raft Re-Eva lua tion Of De te rmina tion Of Eligibility For Euclid Ave nue 45 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 4 masonry curbs hav e been replaced ov er time with in -kind cobblestone masonry curb replacements as w e ll.10
• Replacement of dead and diseased landscaping, including replacement of trees due to thei r natural senescence cy cl es (some of the repl acement trees hav e not been repl anted i n ki nd but hav e general l y been pl anted i n keepi ng w i th the ov erall landscape de sign).11
• Remov al of si l k oak trees from the dow ntow n area betw een G Street to Holt Boul ev ard and parkw ays li ned w i th concrete. T he scored concrete path is not obscured, but concrete w i th tree planters has been added around the path .

2.3 Summary of NRHP Significance
Euclid Ave nue wa s initia lly surve ye d and de te rmine d e ligible for listing in the NRHP by C al trans i n 1977 as part of an i ntensi v e l ev el surv ey for a proposed project. The SHPO concurred with this determination of e ligibility in June of 1977 ( see A ppendix C: Previous Determinations of Eligibility).12 In September of 2004, the City of Ontario Planning Department prepared a NRHP nomination for the property, which was amended on A ugust 8, 2005. A s a result, Euclid A venue was officially listed in the NRHP on A ugust 10, 2005.

Euclid Ave nue is liste d in the NRHP under Criteri on A i n the areas of Community Planning and Development and Social History for its significant association with the history of the Ontario Irrigation Colony and the significant contributions of George Chaffey Jr. and W illiam Benjamin (W.B.) Chaffey as well as Charles Frankish to the broad patterns of local hi story . I t i s also li sted under C ri teri on C i n the area of L andscape

10 Nicholas Thompson , “A ttachment B: Finding of No A dv erse Effect 1K 790 Enhance C lass III Bike Facilities Along SR-83 / E ucl i d A v enue Proj ect” (On t a rio , CA: April 2021), 4-8. 11 C altrans, “Finding of No A dverse Effect with Non-Standard Conditions Interstate 10 Corridor Project ” (San Bernardino and L os A ngeles Counties: May 2015), 20. 12 RonaI d M . G reenberg to Omar L . Homme, “De te rmination of Eligibility Notification National Re giste r of Historic Places : E ucl i d A v enue,” O ctober 25,19 77, National Park Se rvice Office of A rcheology A nd Historic Preservation.

Archite cture for its significance as an e xce lle nt e xample of historic l andscape desi gn.

The pe riod of significance for Euclid A v enue is 1882 to 1940. T he beginning date, 1882, coincides with the date the Ontario Irrigation Colony and Euclid A venue was established by George and W illiam Chaffey.

T he end date, 1940, coincides with a change in historical dev elopment trends in Ontario and Upland, which transitioned away from Euclid A v enue after W orld W ar I I (1941–1945) due to the population boom and suburban sprawl across Southern California, as well as the establishment of the i nterstate hi ghway system. T he rol e of E ucl i d A venue as the backbone of the citi es and mai n transportation route as w el l as a significant social e le me nt of community diminishe d.

The historic se gme nt of Euclid Ave nue is a historic prope rty for the purposes of CEQA as we ll a s Section 106 of the NHPA and NEP A because it is liste d on the NRHP. Prope rtie s tha t a re liste d on or formally de te rmine d e ligible for the NRHP are automatic ally include d in the CRHR and therefore the property i s also a histori cal resource for the purposes of C EQ A compliance and is subject to the City' s local historic preservation ordinance as a local landmar k.

2.4 Loca lly De signa te d Euc lid Ave . Historic District The NRHP h istoric property which includes the ROW and is the subject of this HP TMP, trave rse s a loca lly de signate d historic district. In 2013, the C i ty of O ntari o, a C erti fied L ocal G ov ernment (CLG), de signa te d Euclid A venue and fronting properties from I -10 to G Street in the City of Ontario as a local historic district , the Euclid Ave nue Historic District. T herefore, the Euclid Ave nue Historic District is a lso e ligible for the CRHR. W ithin the Euclid Ave nue ’s ROW, the loca lly de signate d district ove rla ps that of the NRHP designation but extends well beyond the boundaries of the NRHP designation and contains a diversity of other resources, including the properties that front Euclid A venue from north of G Street to south of I -10 at the Onta rio City limit. The buildings e mbody distinct re side ntial architectural styles that v ary from the V ictorian era to the Post W ar Era (post -1945) and col l ectiv el y represent the C i ty ’ s pattern of dev el opment starting from 1887 through the 1960s. T he historic district is 46 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 5 Figure 3: Locally De signate d Historic District
pre dominate ly re side ntial with single and multi -fami l y resi dences as w ell as the G othic Rev iv al First United Methodist Church and the Spanish Re vival Chaffe y Highschool. The pattern of c omme rcial buildings and use s betw een G and I Streets represent a shi ft i n dev el opment patterns that occurred during the 1950s and is a “transition area” from the downtown commercial area to the re side ntial area s that exists today. The significance of the local district relates to each period of dev elopment w hi ch is ex empl i fi ed through the resi denti al archi tectural sty l es of the buildings. The district contains 102 prope rtie s , of which 75 contribut e to and 29 do not contribut e to the district . Of the 102 properties within the loca l district, 30 a re also individually de signated as City of Ontario L andmarks. It is important to note the loca lly designated Euclid A venue Historic District (CRHR) includes the CDFs identified in the NRHP nomination for the 200ft right of way for Euclid Ave . including the me dian, the trees, masonry curbs and also includes the scored concrete sidewalks, open spaces of and front yard setbacks. T he locally designated Euclid Ave nue Historic District also include s 1 02 prope rtie s fronting Euclid Ave . from I-10 to G Street, of which 75 of them are contributors (Figure 3).

The Euclid Ave nue Historic District include s various periods of growth and development that occurred from 1888 through 1965 , e ach e xe mplifying diffe re nt arc hite ctural style s signific ant during e ach pe riod . The first Period of Settl ement occurred from 1888 -1900 whe n V ictorian architectur al styl es became popular . During this era there are grand and modest ex ampl es including V ictorian Queen A nn and V ictorian Stick homes along Euclid Ave nue . T he Pe riod of Solidification occurre d from 1901- 1920 whe n Ontario became established and C raftsman architecture became prominent with grandiose A merican Four Square and modest bungalows often boasting cobblestone features on the façades . The Progressive Era took place from 1920 through 1930 during a boom in Southern California as industries in oil production, citrus, and tourism increased substantially . Many middle -class homes we re desi gned during this period that included the decorative arts movement to conjure romantic times and portray faraway places including French E clectic and Spanish Rev iv al architectural styles. During The Great Depression and into WWII from 1930 to 1936, D epression E ra homes w ere constructed more modestly with smaller scale v ernacular bungalows lacking any particular architectural style. In t he late 1930s, the Cha ffe y High School was constructed in honor of the Chaffey Brothers in a Spanish Revival architectural style with W orks Progress Administration (W PA) funding, as we ll as othe r civic buildings and infrastructure throughout the city. A s the population grew in Onta rio, a surge of building new homes occurred, despite the supply shortage s and re striction s on mate ria ls during WWII.

The Post -W ar Era, in the 1940’s saw a decline in new construction and remodeling until about 1944 when the war ended and industry in the US shifted from war production to post -war production. G eneral Electric and Exchange Orange Products expanded, constructing new buildings, a nd 47 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 6 adding new jobs. By 1946, 743 new homes were constructed in the Early Post W ar T ract housing including Minimal Traditional, and Ranch architectural styles. 13
During the 1950s, the City’s urban population ex peri enced a substanti al increase, reaching 23, 000 and millions of dollars ’ worth of ne w construction including new housing w as i nv ested i n Ontario. This pe riod of ex tensi v e development made the greatest i mpact to E ucl id A v enue. T he downtown expanded from its original center core north to I Street displacing V ictorian era single family homes. Ma ny of t hese homes w ere either converted to commercial uses, relocated to other parts of the city, or demolished and replaced with mid- century modern buildings and commerci al uses. During this period new commercia l buildings utilize d architectural styles that were typically use d on re side ntia l buildings to be compatible with the se tting including two me dic al office buildings tha t have elements of the Ranch and the Early Post -W ar archi tectural sty l es which feature l ow pitch hipped roofs, large windows, and open front yard setbacks .14
Euclid A venue itself along with the contributing buildings within the Euclid Ave nue Historic District conve y the historical significance of Euclid Ave i ncl udi ng these di fferent periods of dev elopment, ex empl i fyi ng di fferent architectural styles prominent t o each time period.

2.4 Historic a l Ba ckground
The following section includes an hi stori cal ov erv i ew of the earl y development of Ontario and Upland, followed by a more detailed history of Euclid Ave nue .

T he communities of O ntario and Upland trace their ori gin to the Southern California land boom of the late 1880s, sparked by completion of the A tchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad (A TSF) and SPRR lines through the region. A round this time, the A TSF a dve rtise d the cost to ship freight for a few cents less t han the SPRR. The ensuing rate war drove fares to an

13 The Euclid Avenue Historic District Local Designation, The City of Ontario 2013. 14 Ib id
unprecedented low, bringing thousands of passengers to Southern California.15
L and inv estment and speculation was stimulated by the railway competition and new depots, fueling an economic boom. By 1887, 25 townsites had been subdivided in a span of 36 miles between L os A ngeles and San Bernardino, including Ontario and Upland. 16 From the 1880s through the late 1970s, Upland and Ontario were part of the ''O range E mpi re," so named for i ts ex tensi v e ci trus groves, that ex tended from Pasadena to San Bernardi no through a seri es of sma lle r communitie s. The Orange Empire communitie s originate d with agricultural colonies founded in the 1870s and 1880s. These settl ements ev olv ed to form a uni que cul ture that w as nei ther urban nor compl etel y rural . W hi l e they l acked the congestion of ci ties and were set amongst unending, uniform rows of citrus orchards, they w ere not as isol ated as more tradi ti onal farmi ng settl ements. T hey frequently possessed many of the institutions of small cities, such as colle ge s or unive rsitie s, art galle rie s, muse ums, and luxury hote ls.

These were also among the first communities in the W est to adopt urban planning ordinances and modern infrastructure such as electric lights.
17 Ontario was founded by two Canadian brothers, George and W illiam C haffey , i n the earl y 1880s. T he i rrigati on system, el ectri cal pow er sy stem, and certai n communi ty planni ng aspects w ere i nnov ati v e for that time, including the centralized main thoroughfare of Euclid A venue. These innovations made Ontario a “Model Colony” for those after it.
18 De ve lopme nt of Onta rio

15 William Manle y Consulting, “Euclid Avenue .” HABS No. CA-188, Historic Ame rican Buildings Surv ey (HA BS), National Park Serv i ce, US D epartment of the I nterior, Jul y 1997, 7, accessed A pril 2022, https://til e.loc.gov /storage - services/master/pnp/habshaer/ca/c a2300/ca2323/data/ca2323data.pdf. 16 William Manle y Consulting, 7.
17 William Manle y Consulting, 3.
18 William Manle y Consulting, 3.
48 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 7 The Ontario Irrigation Colony (1882– 1886)
T he C haffey Brothers
The mode rn-day cities of Ontario and Upland were initially founded by George Chaffey, Jr. (George) and William Benjamin (W.B.) Chaffey in 1882 as the Ontario Irrigation Colony. The brothers were born in Brockville, Ontario, Canada and were both employed at the shipyards in K ingston, Ontario, Canada in the 1860s and 1870s. Educated as an engi neer, George designed and built over 20 ships with his younger brother, W .B., in hi s empl oy . I n 1878, thei r father, G eorge C haffey , Sr. retired and mov ed to Rive rside , California with his wife Annie , W.B., a nd his third son Charle s.

T here, the C haffey’s planted citrus orchards. I n 1880, George joined the family in Rive rside .19
W ith George’s background as an engineer and W .B.’s background in agri cul ture, the brothers formed a partnership for the purpose of de ve loping an irriga te d agricultura l colon y . T hei r fi rst colony w as established in early 1882 as the 2,500- acre Etiwanda I rrigation Colony, and included a ground -bre aking irrigation syste m calle d the Holt -Chaffe y Mutual W ater Company System.
20 It wa s one of Ca lifornia' s e arlie st mutual
water compani es, created by the C haffey s and L uther M . Hol t, a local new spaper publi sher w ho had ex peri mented w i th mutual water companies in Pomona and A rtesia. 21 T hei r new sy stem ensured that that ev ery landow ner i n the settl ement had a share of the w ater based on t he amount of land they owned. This system became a model for future irrigation developments, including their next project started that same year, the Ontario Irrigation Colony.
22 19 G eoffrey Starns and C athy W ahlstrom, “E uclid A v enue,” National Register of Historic Places Supple me ntary Listing Record, Cit y of Ontario Planning Department, A ugust 10, 2005, Se ction 8 , 1.
20 Starns and W ahlstrom, Section 8 , 2.
21 The Ontario City Library, Images of A merica: Early Ontario (Charle ston, SC:

A rcadia Publ ishing, 2014), 10.
22 Starns and W ahlstrom, Section 8 , 2.

Figure 4. Willia m Be nja min (W.B.) C haff ey (left) and G eorge C haffey Jr. (right), n.d. Source: City of Ontario.

Founding the Ontario Irrigation Colony
Using money earned from Etiwanda, the Chaffey brothers acquired lands for a second colony. They named this new colony Ontario after their ho me prov ince in Canada. I n 1882, they purchased 6,216 acres of the Cucamonga Rancho at a cost of $60,000. They supplemented this purchase of l and w ith v ari ous rai l road and gov ernment lands, as w el l as the 114 -acre K incaid Ranch at the mouth of the San A nton io Creek for $11,000.
23 I n total, the Chaffeys amassed approx imately 10,000 acres and formed the Ontario L and Company in 1883 to develop and sell Ontario Colony lands. 24 T hat same year, the SPRR created a stop in Ontario, and the Ontario L and Company offic e was built on the median of Euclid A v enue j ust north of the railroad tracks. I t also serv ed as O ntario's train depot (see Figure 4 and Figure 6).25

23 Starns and W ahlstrom, Section 8 , 2.
24 William Manle y Consulting, 5.
25 The Ontario City Library, 14.
49 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 8 The Chaffe y brothe rs se t out a plan for the Ontario Irrigation Colony base d on four fundamental principles:

1. D istribute the w ater ov er the whol e tract to each farm l ot i n concrete pi pes, each holder to share i n the w ater proportionatel y to his holding irrespective of distance from the source.

2. Construct a main thoroughfare from one end of the settl ement to the other and lay it out in such a way that it will be a thing of beauty forever.

3. Prov ide a coll ege for the agri cul tural education of the peopl e of the colony and for the general education of their children.

4. Secure the b est possible class of settlers by a reversionary clause in the de e ds to e ach allotme nt forbidding absolute ly the sale of intoxic ating liquor.
26 Concerning the first principle, the Chaffey brothers created the San A ntonio W ater Company on October 25, 1882 a nd be gan laying mile s of underground conduit to bring water from San A ntonio Creek. 27 The
Chaffey’s knew that irrigation was key to a successful agricultural settlement. A s a self -taught expert in irrigation, George Chaffey surmised that the creeks on the land flowed “inside out,” meaning there was much more water underground than on the s urface. W hen the dev el opers of nearby Pomona also claimed water rights to the San A ntonio Creek, the Chaffey brothers negotiated that Pomona and Ontario would each receive half the water from within the creek, knowing most of Ontario’s water would come from below ground.
28 The Ontario Colony was unique
because the water intended not only to irrigate the land but also to generate el ectri ci ty to operate pow er pumps for l ighti ng and other pow er needs.
29 26 William Manle y Consulting, 5.
27 William Manle y Consulting, 4-6.
28 Starns and W ahlstrom, Section 8 , 2.
29 William Manle y Consulting, 6.

Creating Euclid A venue as the main thoroughfare achieved the brothers' se cond principle . The 2 00-foot-wide boulevard was planned to run from one end of the Ontario Colony to the other, consisting of two parallel av enues separated by a spacious median and e dged by parkways, all l andscaped w i th row s of trees (see
History and De ve lopme nt of Euclid
A venue bel ow for more detai ls).30
To meet the third principle , the Chaffe y Agricultural Colle ge wa s established on a 20 -acre campus donated by the brothers at the corner of Euclid A venue and 5th Street. In addition to the campus, the Chaffeys created an endow ment for the col l ege by deedi ng i t 320 acres of lots in the colony. L astly, the brothers met their fourth principle by including a clause in the land deeds stating that if liquor was sold on the property at any ti me during the nex t 50 y ears, its titl e could be rev oked. 31 The subdivision of the Ontario Colony s et a new standard for rural communities. It included three different lot sizes: town lots, villa lots, and farm lots. Euclid A venue was the main boulevard, intersected by numbered cross streets running east -west at 0.25 -mi l e i nterv al s. T hese inte rvals formed ten -acre farm lots. One of the most striking features of the subdi v ision w as that ev ery ten-acre lot had street frontage. A dj acent to the farm lots was a belt of villa lots two -and -a-half acres in size, separated by intersecting streets at 0.125 -mile intervals. The Town of Ontario at the southern end of the tract, between 4th Street and the SPRR included 640 acres of lots measuri ng 33 feet by 150 feet. W i thi n the tow nsite, i ntersecti ng cross streets w ere placed at i nterv als of 375 feet. T ow n l ots originally sold from $125 an acre, v illa lots brought $250 an acre, and the agricultural lots were priced at $200 an acre.
32 30 William Manle y Consulting, 6.
31 William Manle y Consulting, 6.
32 William Manle y Consulting, 5.
50 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 9

Figure 5. L ithograph showing the early development of the Ontario Irrigation Colony with The Ontario L and and Improvement Company office,1883. Source:

Onta rio City Libra ry.

Figure 6. T he O ntario L and and I mprov ement C ompany office, ca.1883. Source:

Onta rio City Libra ry.

T he C haffey Brothers L eav e T heir M ark on O ntario Wo r d o f t h e "Model Colony" soon spread, attracting many settlers from throughout the United States and Canada. 33 I n 1885, an A ustralian politician named A lfred Deakin was in the United States conducting research on w ater supply for the A ustral ian state of V i ctoria. He heard about the C haffey’ s irrigation colonies and came to O ntario. I mpressed by the Ontario Colony, he invited George and W .B. to come to Australia and establish irrigation colonies there. A lthough their plans for the Ontario Colony were not fully complet e, i ncl udi ng a w ater -powered cable car operating down the center of Euclid A venue, 34 the C haffey brothers w ere enticed by the prospect of developing new irrigation colonies in dry areas of Australia. 35 In 1886, the Chaffey brothers sold their interests in the Ontario L and Company (established in 1882) to the newly formed Ontario L and and Improvement Company, which included a small group of i nv estors headed by local resi dent and dev el oper, C harl es Franki sh, (see Growth a nd Development Under Charles Frankish (1886– 1910s) , below) and move d to Austra lia to de ve lop ne w irrigation c olonie s.36 The beauty and function of the Chaffey’s Euclid A venue plan set the standard for future settlements within the United States and A ustralia. On January 17, 1903, the U.S. government chose Ontario as the standard for all U.S. irrigation colonies. I n 1904, a model of the colony was prepared for and presented at the St. L ouis W orld's Fair (hence the name, "The Model Colony").
37 33 William Manle y Consulting, 6.
34 Willia m Ma nle y Consulting, 6-9.
35 Starns and W ahlstrom, Section 8 , 4.
36 Starns and W ahlstrom, Se ction 8, 4.
37 Starns and W ahlstrom, Section 8 , 4.
51 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 10

Figure 5. The Ontario Colony lands, 1882. Source : Huntington Digital Library

G row th and D ev elopment Under C harl es Franki sh (1886– 1910s) C harl es Franki sh mov ed from Ri v erside to
O ntario in 1885 and purchased 80 acres
of land on Euclid A venue, south of the
SPRR tracks. A firm be lie ve r in the
Chaffey brothers’ Ontario Irrigation
Colony, he foresaw its potential for growth
and development. A ft er learning that
theC haffey brothers planned to sel l thei r
inte re st in the Mode l Colony, Frankish
joined with a small group of investors to
organize the Ontario L and and
I mprov ement C ompany and assumed the
role of president and manager. I n M arch
of 1886, t he company purchased al l of
the Chaffey brothers’ Ontario holdings.
38 Figure 6. Charle s Frankish n.d. Source : Daily Bulle tin.

Franki sh immediatel y commissioned the constructi on of a w ater fountain 39 to be located on the median of Euclid A v enue near the railroad tracks as a symbol of prospe rity to a ll visitors that pa sse d through Onta rio.
40 The water fountain, known today as the Frankish Fountain, was completed in 1886 at the original location of the land office and SPRR depot building, which was moved to the west side of Euclid A venue to

38 V ickie K. Alexande r, “Fra nkish Building,” Na tiona l Re giste r of Historic Pla ce s Inventory Nomination Form, A ugust 11, 1980, Se ction 8. 39 W hen the Euclid A venue underpass was constructed in the 1980s, the fountain was moved to the grounds of the Ontario Museum of History and A rt, where it stands toda y. Starns and W ahlstrom, Section 7, 2.
40 City of Ontario Planning Department, “Historic Downtown Ontario: Self -Guided Walking Tour,” acce sse d April 2022,
https ://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario - File s/Planning/Historic_Pre se rvation/historic_walking_tour_map_0.pdf. 52 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 11 accommodate the fountain (see Figure 7).41 I n 1887, a new, l arger SPRR depot was built on East Main Street. 42

Figure 7. The Frankish Fountain (middle -ground, right of center) and relocated land office building (fore ground, le ft), 1886. Source : Ontario City Library.

Frankish also took an active role in the continued planning and development of Ontario, including San A ntonio Heights in the foothills of the San G abriel M ountains. He designed the landscape into circles and crescents to make effi cient use of the hil l y terrai n (see Figure 8). The layout was completed in 1887. 43 Frankish also had stone gutters installed along Euclid A venue for flood management, carrying out much of t he construction himself. 44
Frankish also orchestrated the development of the area south of the original colony. In 1886, he purchased the property south of the SPRR to the Rancho Santa A na Del Chino, and named it the South Side Tract. The South Side Tract be gan at Holt Boule vard (originally A Stre e t) and extended south to California Street, bounded on the east and west by Sultana and V ine A venues.
45 Frankish then extended Euclid A venue south

41 The Ontario City Library, 18.
42 I n 1917, the depot was completely remodeled. The building was demolished in 1971. T he O ntario C ity L ibrary, 26.
43 The Ontario City Library, 19.
44 A lexander, Section 8.
45 The Ontario City Library, 21.
to Philade lphia Stre e t (originally Ely Stre e t), through his ne w tract. Under his supervision, the extension was laid out and constructed to conform with the Chaffey brothers’ original Euclid A venue plan. 46

Figure 8. Plan for San A ntonio Heights. 1887. Source: Ontario City L ibrary.

Incorporation
W ith a population of approximately 550, Ontario incorporated on D ecember 10, 1891. T he fi rst meeting of the fi v e- man Board of Trustees (known today as the City Council) was held on December 22 that same ye ar.
47 I n cel ebration of the new C i ty , a community bandstand was built in the center median at the intersection of Euclid A venue and Holt Boulevard (originally A Stre e t) in 18 92 (se e Figure 9).48

46 Starns and W ahlstrom, Section 8 , 4.
47 City of Ontario Planning Department , “Walking Tour.” 48 City of Ontario Planning Department , “Walking Tour.” 53 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 12 Despite losing some of his influence over the community when Ontario incorporated, Frankish remained an important figure and continued to deal i n real estate and other local enterprises. 49 I n 1895, Frankish ov ersaw the installation of the first system of electric lights in Ontario, which remained under his management until it was sold in 1901 (see Figure 10 ).

In 1912, Frankish bought out the Ontario L and and Improvement Company and formed his own corporation, the Frankish Company. He also serv ed as V i ce Presi dent of the O ntario Peopl e's M utual Buil di ng and L oan A ssociation and as D irecto r of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, referred to as a "O ne M an C hamber of C ommerce.”
50 By the end of his
career, Franki sh had serv ed the C i ty of O ntario for ov er 40 y ears.51

Figure 9. Original Community bandstand at Euclid A v enue and A Street (Holt Boulevard)’ 1895. Source: Ontario City Library.

49 The Ontario City Library, 7.
50 A lexander, Section 8.
51 A lexander, Section 8.

Figure 10. Syste m of e le ctric lights along Euclid Avenue , 1900. Source : Ontario City Library.

Deve lopment of Upland
I n 1887, Edmund and A lfred Bedford purchased 200 acres of land north of the Ontario townsite from the Ontario L and and Improvement Company.

T ogether w ith their four brothers, they formed a partnershi p and began laying out the town of Magnolia. They immedia tely began dividing the land into lots. Soon after, the Magnolia V illa Hotel was constructed, and the Bedfords sold $50,000 worth of lots in the first auction in M ay 1887. 52 I n the same y ear, a man named N. W . Stow el l , ow ner of a tract cal l ed “Stowell” sou th of the A TSF depot, also subdivided his holdings. A general store i n Stow el l housed the fi rst post offi ce, w hi ch w as named North Ontario. Soon, both the Magnolia and Stowell tracts were known as North Ontario. In 1888, the streets of North Ontario were g raded and sidewalks w ere lai d.
53 How ev er, the Bedfords ran into financial trouble and by May of 1888, they had gone bankrupt and were in foreclosure. Their interests were sold to another set of brothers, Charles and Alfred Harwood, in

52 William Manle y Consulting, 7-8.
53 William Manle y Consulting, 7-8.
54 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 13 1891. 54 The San A ntonio Power and L ight Company furnished electricity to North Ontario in 1892. 55
The community’s success was aided in part by the Upland Citrus A ssociation, one of the most active packing plants in the community. By 1902, North Ontario's population had reached 1,000 and would more than double by 1910. I n order to better distinguish their growing community from nearby Ontario, the residents petitioned the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors to change North Ontario's name to Upland in 1902.
56 In 1901, Ontario had attempted to annex the neighboring town, but i ts residents opposed annexation, causing a legal battle that would eventually land in the State of California Supreme Court. The fight between Ontario and Upland continued until May 5, 1906, when the residents voted to i ncorporate i n order to av oi d annex at ion, including much of the surrounding citrus groves in the city boundary.
57 History and Development of Euclid A venue
Planning and Construction of Euclid A venue (1882 – 1885) Euclid A v enue, named after G eorge Chaffey’ s fav orite mathematician, was conceiv ed a nd planned by the Chaffey brothers as the centerpiece and main thoroughfare of their Ontario Colony. 58 E ucl i d A v enue w as to ex tend between the north and south ends of the colony and was planned as a grand boulev ard for horses and carriages and an electric trolle y line tha t would travel down the median. 59

54 The Ontario City Library, 8.
55 William Manle y Consulting, 7-8.
56 William Manle y Consulting, 7-8.
57 William Manle y Consulting, 7-8; The Ontario City Library, 8. 58 The Ontario City Library, 15.
59 Starns and W ahlstrom, Section 8 , 5.

Figure 11. Y oung date palms and fast -grow i ng pepper trees l i ne E ucl i d A v enue, ca.1882. Source: L os A ngel es Publ ic L ibrary (L A PL ).

Construction of Euclid A venue began in 1882 under the direct supervision of George and W.B. Chaffey.
60 Of the two brothers, W .B. was the
experienced horticulturist and was responsible for the plant selections.

Species of trees native to Australia were chosen for the ir drought tolerance and resistance to heat. Original plans called for a double row of date palm trees ( Phoenix dactylifera ) along the center median; however, in order to provide landscaping while the young date palms grew, the Chaffey brothers decided to incorporate a double row of fast-growing California pepper trees ( Shinus molle), to be planted 50 feet on center (see Figure 11).
61 Along the pa rkways, silk oak ( Grevillea robusta ) trees w ere chosen for thei r ornamental quali ti es.62
Four miles of Euclid A v enue were graded by January 1883. I n 1884, the enti re stretch of E ucl i d A v enue to 24th Street w as compl ete. 63 T ree planting began in 1883 and was overseen by Edward J. Jacquet, a na tive of Switzerland who had worked with the Chaffey brothers at Etiwanda.

60 Starns and W ahlstrom, Section 8 , 3.
61 Most of the palms were later remov ed by the C haffey brothers . Sev eral of the palm tree s still exist at stre e t inte rse ctions. Starns and W ahlstrom, Section 7, 1. 62 Starns and W ahlstrom, Section 8 , 4.
63 Starns and W ahlstrom, Section 8 , 4.
55 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 14 Planti ng of the trees took a total of tw o y ears and was compl eted by 1886. 64
Early Transportation on Euclid A venue (1888 – 1910s)
The transportation aspect of Euclid A venue was an important and influential part of the Ontario Colony’s development. The Chaffey brothers originally pla nne d and de signe d an e le ctric trolle y line that would tra ve l down the median of Euclid A venue but departed for A ustralia before the construction of th e trolley l i ne began. Pi cki ng up w here they l eft off, Frankish organized the Ontario and San A ntonio Heights Railroad Company in 1887 as a subsidiary to the Ontario L and and Improvement Company.
65 Figure 12. Gra vity Mule Ca r trolley, ca. 1887. Source : USC Digital Library.

In 1888, the first trolle y se rvice ran along Euclid Ave nue . It wa s calle d the "Gravity Mule Car" (see Figure 12 ). Mule s pulle d the c ar up the hill, the n the mules were loaded on a pull -out platform at the rear of the car to ride back down the hill. 66 A round 1895, the mule car was replaced by electric trolleys (see Figure 13 ) and the trolley line was extended through San A ntonio Heights to a station on Mountain A venue between 24th and 25th

64 William Manle y Consulting, 9.
65 William Manle y Consulting, 9-10; A lex ander, Secti on 8. 66 William Manle y Consulting, 10.

Streets. 67 The Ontario & San A ntonio Heights Railroad Company was later purchased by the Pacific L ight & Power Company, and the line operated as part of the Pacific Ele ctric Re d Ca r Line s be ginning in 1912. 68 Figure 13. The e le ctric trolle y, ca. 1905. Source : USC Digital Library.

Euclid Ave nue and the Automobile (1920 s– 1930s)
The introduction of the automobile in the early 1900s would force several changes on Euclid A venue and surrounding streets as the need for additional r egul ations and modern surfaci ng became ev ident.

I n December 1919, the Upland City Council adopted a paving plan for the A venue. Each lane would have a 5 -inch -thick and 30 -foot-wide concrete roadway covered with a 2 -inch asphalt "wearing surface.” Between 19th and 23rd Streets, cobbl estone gutters 7 feet w ide and 2 feet deep li ned the ex teri or edges of the roadway . T he east roadw ay was l i ned w i th an approx imately 4 -inch -high poured concrete curb along the interior median. The interior median of the west roa dway was a lso line d with a 4- inch-high poured concrete curb, as well as a cobblestone gutter that was

67 Starns and W ahlstrom, Section 8 , 5; William Manley Consulting, 10. 68 Starns and W ahlstrom, Section 8 , 5.
56 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 15 7 feet w ide and approx imatel y 1 foot deep. T he gutters connected to a cul v ert that flow ed east dow n 19th Street to C ucamonga C reek.69 I n 1923, Holt Boule v ard (ori gi nal l y A Street) w as transformed from a two- lane scenic road lined with citrus trees and grand V ictorian homes into a modern four -lane highway
70 as part of the O cean -to-Ocean Highway
which spanned from New Y ork City to L os A ngeles.71
T he most rem arkable change to Euclid A venue, however, was the disc ontinuation of the trolle y se rvice . Due to incre asing popula rity of personal automobi l es, the troll ey l i ne w as considered obsol ete. T he tracks were removed in 1928 and public transportation along the av enue was i nstead prov i ded by bus. A fter the tracks w ere remov ed, O ntario and Upland de ve lope d Euclid Ave nue ’s ce nte r me dian into a park. The 2 mile s in Ontario were planted with grass, and Upland planted 1 mile of grass south of Foothill Boulevard and esta blished a bridle path along the old rail road bed betw een the pepper trees to the north. T hat same y ear, the east lane of Euclid A v enue became a one -way street for northbound traffic and the west lane for southbound.
72 Automobile trave l made it possi bl e f or more peopl e to v i si t the area, and Euclid Ave nue be gan to gain re gional re cognition for its be auty in the 1920s. T he L os A ngeles T imes acknowledged the street as an outstanding ex ample of landscape architecture stating, "I t is a boulev ard of n ationa l and even world renown and is unmatched for its beauty. ... It is ‘raved ove r’ by e ve ry visitor to Southe rn Ca lifornia."
73 69 William Manle y Consulting, 11.
70 C ity of O ntari o Planning D epartment, O cean-to-Oce an Highway presentation, fil e dated 2015.
71 Most of this highway was not incorporated into the Federal I nterstate Highway system (such as Route 66) which was developed in the late 1920s. City of O ntario Planni ng D epartment, O cean-to-Ocean Highway presentation. 72 William Manle y Consulting, 11.
73 Hugh H. Frankish, “Euclid Ave nue a Ge nuine Asse t to All of California,” Los A ngeles T imes, O ctober 24, 1926.

Figure 14. Euclid Ave nue paving, ca. 1920s. Source : Ontario City Library.

Figure 15 All-State s Picnic, 1939. Source : Ontario City Library.

In 1939, the community hosted its first annual “A ll -States Picnic,” an ev ent that would attract national attention. T he picnic was a celebration of the different states that Ontario’s residents were from. A long, narrow tabl e was arranged i n the medi an of E ucl i d A v enue (see Figure 15 ). In 57 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 16 1948, the event was featured in a L IFE M agazine article and had an estimated 120,000 attendees. T he A ll -States picnic continues today in tandem w i th the O ntario I ndependence D ay Parade.”74 Recognition of the unique landscaping of the boulevard continued to grow. I n 1941, an international committee of landscape architects se le cte d Euclid Ave nue one of the world' s most be autiful boule va rds, along with the Champs -Élysé e s in Paris, France ; th e Ringstrasse in V ienna, A ustria; Unter Den L inden in Berlin, Germany; Passeig de Gràcia in Barcelona, Spain; and Paseo de L a Reforma in M ex ico City, M ex ico. 75 Euclid A venue in the Postwar Y ears (1940s – Present) From the turn of the 20th century until W orl d W ar I I, Euclid A venue was an important feature in the community. However, after the war, development patterns in Ontario and Upland began to change as they transformed from agricultural towns to mode rn -day citie s, which also transforme d the role of Euclid A venue.

W orld W ar II was a watershed moment, not only for the history of the United States, but also for development across Southern California, as the expansion of the defense industry attracted many settlers to the region.

Ontario and Upland were no e xception. In response to the population boom, acres of orange grov es w ere sol d and subdiv ided for resi dential tract development to meet the increasing demand for housing. 76 Some of
the e a rlie st housing tracts we re locate d within the vicinity of Euclid A v enue. How ev er, once these areas w ere ful l y bui l t out, dev elopers l ooked

74 Michelle Shanahan, “Uniting Past, Present, and Future a long the Historic Backbone of Ontario,” (M aster of L andscape A rchitecture Capstone Proj ect, Cal Pol y Pomona, 2021), 7, accessed A pri l 2022,
https://issuu.com/michelleshanahan/docs/shanahan_thebackboneofontario - print/1.
75 William Manle y Consulting,11-12.
76 Galvin Pre se rvation Associate s [GPA Consulting], Historic Context for the City of Onta rio’s Citrus Industry (City of Ontario Planning Department: 2007), 42. to undeveloped lands farther away from the original town centers and thus, farther away from Euclid A venue. 77
As the citie s rapidly e xpa nde d away from Euclid Ave nue , its significance to the c ommunity was dra matic ally re duce d. The final blow to the role of Euclid A venue as the area’s main thoroughfare was the development of the Interstate Highway Sy stem. E nabled by the Federal -A id Highway A ct of 1956, the San Bernardino Freeway (I -10)
78 was constructed through
the are a in the e a rly 195 0s. While it was still cla ssifie d as a state highway, E ucl i d A v enue w as now a part of a l arger regional system rather than the primary route. 79
By 1965, residential development had replaced orange groves on both sides of Euclid A venue south of 19th Street. The increased population created more traffic congestion, and a traffic light was added at the inte rse ction of Euclid A venue and 19th Street in 1973. A few years later in 1977, a serv i ce road was added along the east lane of E ucl i d to i mprov e access to residential neighborhoods that had developed north of 19th. 80 A t nearly 100 years old by the 1960s, the trees that line d Euclid Ave nue w ere begi nning to deteri orate, parti cul arl y the pepper trees. I n Upl and, the pepper trees w ere replaced w i th tw o row s of camphor trees planted i n the same configuration. In 1970, Ontario adopted a plan to remove unhealthy trees and plan t new ones in a more informal pattern.
81 Despite the changes to its surroundings, Euclid A venue remained a point of pride for the Ontario and Upland communities. In 1979, the Ontario Historical L andmarks Society successfully nominated the stretch of Eucl id A venue from 24th Street in Upland to Philadelphia Street in Ontario for listing in the NRHP. The de signation re cognize d the signific a nt role the

77 Starns and W ahlstrom, Section 8 , 6.
78 C al ifornia D epartment of T ransportation (C altrans), A Historical Context and Methodology for Evaluating Trails, Roads, and Highways in California (Sacra mento: Caltrans Cultural Studie s Office , Division of Environme ntal An a lys is, 2016), 113.
79 Starns and W ahlstrom, Section 8 , 7.
80 William Manle y Consulting, 13.
81 William Manle y Consulting, 13.
58 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 17 thoroughfare played in the history of the area, as well as its influence on the design of other agricultural colonie s, a nd as an e xce lle nt e xample of pe riod l andscape desi gn. 82

Figure 16. V iew of Euclid A venue, looking north, 1955. Source: LA PL.

82 William Manle y Consulting, 13-14; Starns and W ahlstrom, 1. 59 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 18 Figure 17: Cross Se ction: Historic Euclid Ave . & CDF' s

3.0 CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES (CDFS)
W hen determi ni ng w hy properti es are si gni fi cant, and when assessing e ffe cts on historic prope rtie s , it is necessary to first determine w hi ch features are most important to preserve to avoid or minimize causing adve rse effe cts and diminishing the ir inte grity . K nowing the character defi ni ng features (C D Fs) of a hi stori c property also helps to de ve lop appropriate mitigation me asure s, or to determi ne w hether proposed rehabilitation, preserv ation, maintenance or other activ ities are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards ( SOIS). C D Fs are the physi cal components that contribute to a historic property’s sense of time and place . The te rm CDF is use d in re lation to the NRHP, as well as for CEQA, PRC 5024 and L ocal Ordinance discussions of historic properties.

This section of the HPTMP includes a detailed inventory of each of the e xtant CDFs that conve y the signific a nce of Euclid A venue. The NRHP nomination, prepared in 2005, does not contain a comprehensive list of the CDFs of the prope rty; howe ve r, it doe s e xplicitly me ntion ce rtain characteristics and features that should be preserved. It is important to note the l ocally de signate d Euclid Ave nue Historic District (CRHR) includes the CDFs identified in the NRHP nomination including the 200 - foot right of way for Euclid Ave . including the me dian, the tre e s, masonry curbs, and scored concrete sidewalks, open spaces of and front yard se tbacks. The loc ally de signate d Euclid Ave nue Historic District also include s 10 2 prope rtie s fronting Euclid Ave . from I -10 to G Street, of which 75 of them are contributors. However, for the purposes of this HPTMP, the ide ntifie d fe ature s are limite d to those within the boundarie s of the NRHP -designated property only and does not include the contributing historic buildings in the Euclid Ave nue Historic District.

60 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 19

Effe cts to the se buildings should be analyzed in a manner consistent with the City of Ontario’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and the SOIS on an individual basis. Nev er -the -less, the inventory of CDFs included in this HPTMP is an updated list based on the aforementioned documents, as w el l as stakeholder i nput. C al trans used a basel ine of the 2005 NRHP nomination CDFs and included features of concern from stakeholders.

Stakeholders i denti fi ed v ari ous features that were i mportant to the community to preserve, ev en i f the y we re not e xplicitly stated as contributing in the NRHP nomination; therefore, those additional f eatures

hav e been included in this HPTMP a s CDFs and should be preserved and protected as w el l.

A s seen in Figures 16 & 17, t he CDFs of Euclid A venue include the 200ft alignment, the 60ft landscaped median with open spaces for pedestrian use with a continuous dual row of C al i forni a Pepper T rees (Schinus Molle) 50ft on center, Armstrong Rose Beds bordered with granite cobblestone masonry curbs, the 55ft drives, the 15ft parkways with a continuous single row of Silk Oaks ( Grevilla Robusta ) 30ft on center , vintage K ing Standard L ampposts (or Cobra Replacements) 100ft on center and bordered with Figure 18: A erial D iagram of Historic Euclid Ave . & CDF' s 61 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 20 grani te cobbl estone masonry curbs. O ther ty pes of infill tre e s include Southern Ma gnolia’s (Magnolia Grandflora grandiflora ) and most recently planted Chinkapin Oaks (Quercus muehlenbergii ) in the downtown median area, a s w el l as occasional D ate Palms , D eodar C edar ( Cedrus Deodara deodara ), and Scotch Pines (Pinus Sylvestris sylvestris ) as w ell as others . Other CDFs include the Frankish Fountain, W omen’s Christian Temperance Union Fountain, the Madonna of the Trail Monument (Upland) , and the Bridal Path (Upland) . O ther features that w ere recognized by the Stakeholders include the Reconstructed Bandstand , the G rav i ty M ul e C art D isplay, and the V eterans Memorial . (See T abl e 1 CDFs be low)
The tables included on the following pages include a photograph and ranking for each feature that conv ey s the significance of the historic property. The CDFs along Euclid A v enue w ere ranked accordi ng to guidance provided in E x hibit 6.1 of Caltrans’ Standard E nvironmental Reference, (SER) V olume 2. 83 (see the ex planation of terms in the following se ction)
Ta ble 1 include s an inve ntory of the ove ra ll visual characte ristic of the alignme nt, Ta ble 2 includes an inventory of the materials and features of the medians , and Ta ble 3 includes an inventory of the materials and features of the parkways. T he associated photographs include v arious representativ e ex ampl es of each of the C D Fs ide ntifie d; e ve ry instance of each feature was not photographed or included.

The documentation of the CD Fs is thorough and includes a detailed map of the limits and locations of each fe ature within the southern portion of Euclid A venue under Caltrans ownership (see A ppendix C: Euclid A venue C haracter D efining Features M ap).

83 C altrans, “E x hibit 6.1: Ranking C haracter-De fining Fe atures,” in Standard Environmental Reference, vol. 2, (C alifornia Department of T ransportation , updated January 27, 2020) .

3.1 Expla na tion of Te rms & Ra n kin g Use d in CDF Ta ble s This section provides definitions related to CDFs and an explanati on of the ranking system used in this HP TMP.

Euclid Ave. is a liste d historic property liste d in the NRHP, but for the purposes of this HPTMP the term s “historic property” and “historical resource” are e sse ntia lly inte rchange able and “historic resource” is often use d in re fe rring to CEQA, PRC 5024 and the relinquishment of the State - owne d historical resource. (Se e De finitions)
T he C D Fs can be general l y grouped i nto three categori es: 1) the ov eral l v isual character of a property, 2) materials and craftsmanship, and 3) spaces and features. Some CDFs are more important than others in conv ey i ng the si gni fi cance of a property . T he rel ativ e i mportance of C D Fs ge ne rally de pe nds on the le ve l of craftsmanship, visibility, and inte grity. In addition, some CDFs are more important than others in conveying the significance of the prope rty. Caltrans, in consultation with SHPO, dev eloped a sy stem for assessi ng and ranki ng character defi ning features based on the Nati onal Park Serv ice (NPS) “ Preservation Brief 17 :

A rchitectural Character - Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving Their Character ” and NPS National Re giste r Bulle tin “ How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.” T he three ranks of C D F are defi ned as follows:

MS: Most Significant (strongly conve ys se nse of time and place ) S: Significant (conv eys sense and place)
LS: L ess si gni fi cant (stil l conv ey s sense of ti me and pl ace, but to a l esser degree)
n/a: Historical fa bric, not CDF
T he abov e ranks are determined based on a point system for ranking C D Fs dev eloped by C altrans. Each feature is ranked according to a set of five ranking criteria, outlined below. Points in each of the ranking criteria are “high” equals 3 points, “medium” equals 2 points, and “low” e quals 1 point.
62 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 21 A. Craftsmanship
• High (3 points): high artistic va lue , craftsmanship, de sign, materials
• Medium (2 points): expected feature linked to contributing architectural style or method of construction
• L ow (1 point): standard historic fabric (com monly found during pe riod of significance )
B. Conveying Significance
• High (3 points): quinte sse ntial & indispe nsable (without it significance is lost)
• Me dium (2 points): important (without it signific ance is diminishe d)
• Low (1 point): little e ffe ct (but a dve rse effects could be cumulative )
C. Public Be ne fit
• High (3 points): public has the opportunity to use or enjoy with little or no e ffort (outdoor public space , fe ature or a cce ss, public building, e tc.)
• Medium (2 points): public has the opportunity to use or enjoy but w i th some effort (semi-public outdoor space, building or feature with occasional access)
• L ow (1 point): public has little or no opportunity to use or enjoy (mostly private spaces)
D. V isibility and Transpare nc y
• High (3 points): Primary, salie nt f eature (e.g., something you can see from the street or publ i c space)
• Medium (2 points): Secondary, somewhat obscured (e.g., something you can see through doors or windows)
• L ow (1 point): Tertiary/obscured (e.g., private space that is not visible )
E. Integrity
• High (3 points): Intact as de signe d/original
• Me dium (2 points): Some what a lte re d but still conve ys significance
• L ow (1 point): Substantially altered; no longer conv eys significance

Total points for the combined ranking criteria are “high” equa ls 15 points, “medium” equals 10 points and “low” equals 5 points.

MS: 13- 15 points:

S: 9-12 points
LS: 5-8 points
n/a: 0-5 points
63 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property M anagement Plan
D RA FT A pril 2022 Page 22

3.2 C haracter-D ef i ni ng Features (CDF) Ta b le s
T able 1: Character -Defining Features of the A lignment Type Feature Photograph Ranking A B C D E Tota l
O v erall V isual C haracter Alignme nt
(Ove rall Design)
200 feet wide
North-south alignment
Highly visible
North-south/east -we st
grid pattern

MS 3 3 3 3 2 14
Medians
(Ove rall Design)
60 feet wide
North-south alignment
Highly visible , ce ntral
location
Open space
Tree rows

MS 3 3 3 3 2 14

Parkways
(Ove rall Design)
15 f eet wi de each
North-south alignment
Highly visible
Tree rows
Continuous sidewalks

MS 3 3 3 3 2 14
64 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property M anagement Plan
D ecember 2023 Page 23 Type Feature Photograph Ranking A B C D E Tota l

Drive
(Ove rall Design)
55 feet wide
Two total
North-south orientation
Pa ving
Frame d by masonry
curbs and tree rows

S 2 3 3 3 1 12

Tre e Rows
(Ove rall Design)
Single row of Silk Oaks
along the parkways
30 f eet on center
(Chinquapin Oaks in
the downtown area
Holt Blvd to G St.)
Double row of Pepper
T rees al ong the
medi an 50 f eet on
center (Southern
M agnolias hav e
replaced Pepper
T rees i n the medi an
most notably from D
St to Holt Blvd.)
Highly visible
Continuous

MS 3 3 3 3 2 14

T able 2: M aterials and Features of the M edian
65 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property M anagement Plan
D ecember 2023 Page 24 Type Feature Photograph Ranking A B C D E Tota l
L andscape Curbs
G ranite cobblestone
and concrete

MS 3 3 3 3 2 14

Open Space
Manicure d lawns
Throughout center of
me dian (Ontario) or
mulche d walking
path (Upland)
Open space for
pedestri an
access

MS 3 3 3 3 2 14

Bridle Pa th
(Upland: north of Foothill
Boule va rd)
Open space
landscaped with
compacted earth and
mulch
Throughout center of
me dian

MS 3 2 3 3 3 14
66 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property M anagement Plan
D ecember 2023 Page 25 Type Feature Photograph Ranking A B C D E Tota l

California Pe ppe r
Tre e s (Shinus Molle
molle)
Originals and in -kind
replacements

MS 3 3 3 3 3 15

D ate Palm T rees
(Phoenix Dactylifera
dactylifera)
Originals and in -kind
replacements

MS 3 3 3 3 2 14

Scotch Pines ( Pinus
Sylvestris sylvestris)
Originals and in -kind
replacements

MS 3 2 3 3 2 13
67 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property M anagement Plan
D ecember 2023 Page 26 Type Feature Photograph Ranking A B C D E Tota l

Southern Magnolias
(Magnolia Grandflora
grandiflora )
(Ontario)
E arl y repl acement trees

n/a n/a 0 1 2 n/a 3

Curved Plant Beds
with Armstrong Roses
(Ontario)
C oncrete edges
C ompacted earth and
mulch
Located along edges of
me dian
Charlotte Armstrong
roses Roses
LS n/a 1 3 3 n/a 7
Structures/Objects
WCTU Drinking
Fountain
(Downtown Ontario:
north of C Street and
Euc lid Ave nue
inte rse ction)
Prev i ousl y rel ocated

MS 3 2 3 3 2 13
68 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property M anagement Plan
D ecember 2023 Page 27 Type Feature Photograph Ranking A B C D E Tota l
K ing Standard
L ampposts
(Downtown Ontario)

S 2 2 3 3 2 12
Reconstructed
L ampposts
(Downtown Ontario:
north of C Street and
Euc lid Ave nue
inte rse ction)

S 3 1 3 3 2 12
Community
Bandstand
(Downtown Ontario:
north of C Street and
Euc lid Ave nue
inte rse ction)
Reconstructed

S 3 1 3 3 2 12
69 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property M anagement Plan
D ecember 2023 Page 28 Type Feature Photograph Ranking A B C D E Tota l

Gra vity Mule Ca r
Re plica
(Downtown Ontario:
south of C Street and
Euc lid Ave nue
inte rse ction)

S 3 1 3 3 2 12

V eterans Memorial
(Downtown Ontario:
north of B Street and
Euc lid Ave nue
inte rse ction)
Modern Construction

S 3 1 3 3 2 12

Madonna of the Trail
Monument
(Upland: north of Foothill
Boulevard and Euclid
A venue I ntersection)
Original location
State Historical
L andmark

MS 3 2 3 3 2 13
70 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property M anagement Plan
D ecember 2023 Page 29 Type Feature Photograph Ranking A B C D E Tota l

Bridle Path Entrance
(Upland: north of Foothill
Boulevard and Euclid
A venue intersection)
W ood posts and lintel
Hanging wood sign

MS 3 2 3 3 3 14

T able 3: M aterials and Features of the Parkways
Type Feature Photograph Ranking A B C D E Tota l
L andscape G ranite and C oncrete
Curbs
Originals and in -kind
replacements

MS 3 3 3 3 2 14
Gutte rs
(Upland)
G ranite cobblestone
and concrete
L ocated along the sides
of the sloped
roadways at the
curbs of the
parkways.

Originals and in -kind
replacements
MS 3 3 3 3 2 14
71 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property M anagement Plan
D ecember 2023 Page 30 Type Feature Photograph Ranking A B C D E Tota l

Scored Concrete
Side walks
4 f eet wi de
Square scoring pattern
(approx i matel y 2 f eet
by 2 f eet)
Originals and in -kind
replacements

MS 3 2 3 3 2 13

Silk Oak Trees
(Grevillea Robusta
robusta )
Originals and in -kind
replacements

MS 3 3 3 3 3 15

D ate Palm T rees
(Phoenix Dactylifera
dactylifera)
Originals and in -kind
replacements

MS 3 3 3 3 2 14
72 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property M anagement Plan
D ecember 2023 Page 31 Type Feature Photograph Ranking A B C D E Tota l

Deodar Cedar ( Cedrus
Deodara deodara )
Originals and in -kind
replacements

MS 3 3 3 3 3 15
Structures/Objects K ing Standard
L ampposts
(Ontario)
Ea rly repl acements

S 2 2 3 3 2 12
Frankish Fountain
(Ontario)
Prev i ousl y rel ocated

MS 3 2 3 3 2 13
73 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property M anagement Plan
D ecember 2023 Page 32 Type Feature Photograph Ranking A B C D E Tota l
Drive way Bridge s
(Upland)
Originals and in -kind
replacements

S 3 2 2 3 2 12
Double lantern
lampposts
(Upland)
E arly replacements

S 2 2 3 3 2 12

74 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property M anagement Plan
December 2023 Page 33

4.0 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS/IMPACTS AND SOIS

COMPLIANCE
The purpose of this section is to provide a framework for assessing proj ect effects/i mpacts for future projects along historic Euclid Ave nue.

This discussion is a continuation of the regulatory framework disc uss ion begun in Se ction 1.5 .

Future projects may include fede ral or state funded transportation proje c ts, development, and capital i mprov ement proje c ts subje c t to discretionary approval by the City of Ontario, regular maintenance, or other types of projects or activities that have the potential to affec t the historic Euclid Ave nue . The recommendations outlined in t his HPTMP are based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards (SOIS) for the T reatment of Historic Properties , which is the most widely accepted historic preserv ation standard to preserv e the ov eral l character of histori c properties .

The SOIS w ere ori gi nal l y dev eloped by the National Park Serv ice Under the NHPA as guidance on the preservation of the nation’s historic properties and is the go -to standard as part of the Section 106 Process.

For non -federal agencies , t he SOIS g uide line s we re intended to prov ide ge ne ral guidance for work on any historic building /property but hav e been adopted by many States and local governments as a threshold for assessi ng and av oi di ng effects or impacts.

T herefore, if a project follows the recommend ed measures /conditions outline d in this HP TMP, the proje ct will also comply with the SOIS. W hen effects cannot be avoided, they should be minimized to t he greatest extent feasible and/or appropriate mitigation measures should be imple me nte d. For more information on managing effects to historic Euclid Ave nue , se e Chapte r 7. Implementation of T reatment Recommendations .

T here are mul ti pl e scenari os i n w hi ch the SO I S are uti l ized. Under the Section 106 process, proj ects that comply with the SO I S are generally considered to av oid causing adv erse e ffects on the significance of historic properties , The Section 106 implementing regulations state that a Federal A gency can determine that an undertaking will result in a no adverse effect finding when a project is “modified or conditions are imposed, suc h as the subsequent review of plans for rehabilitation by the SHPO/THPO to ensure consistency with the Secretary's standards for the treatment of historic properties ( 36 CFR part 68) and applic a ble gui del i nes, to av oi d adv erse effects.” (36 CFR 800.5[b]).

Similarly, NRHP c ompliance standa rds are ofte n utilize d or influe nce CEQA and PRC 5024 compliance . Whe n imple me nting its PRC 5024 compliance responsibilities, C altrans considers that a proj ect or activ ity’ s effects to a state -owned historical resource may be considered not adverse if the work is consistent with the SOIS. I n accordance with Caltrans current PRC 5024 MOU (2015) with the SHPO , c ompliance with the SOIS is a standard condition that allows Caltrans to make a finding of no adv erse effect f inding without further SHPO review.

Similarly, the SIOS is ofte n utilize d by C altrans and l ocal L ead agenci es i n the ir CEQA compliance . Se ction 150 64.5 of the CEQA guide line s state s that :
“Generall y , a proj ect that fol low s the Secretary of the I nterior’ s Standards for the Tre atme nt of Historic Prope rtie s with Guide line s for Pre se rving, Re habilitating, Re storing, a nd Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Inte rior’s Standards for Re ha bilitation and Guide line s for Re ha bilitating Historic Buildings sha ll be conside re d a s mitigate d to a lev el of less than a significant impact on the historical resource. ”
84 C EQ A considers proj ects and activ ities that are consistent with the Secretary of I nteri or Standards for the treatment of histori c properties meet the requi rements to be considered mi ti gated to a le ve l of le ss than a

84 C alifornia Env ironmental Q uality A ct, Section 15064.5(b)(3), 1995. 75 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 34 significant impact on the historical resource and therefore can qualify as a Categorical Ex emption (CE).

Un d e r CEQA Class 31 CEs consist of proje cts limite d to ma inte nanc e, re pa ir, stabilization, re habilitation, re storation, pre se rvation, c onse rvation or reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the SO I S for the T reatment of Historic Properti es w i th G uidel i nes for Pre se rving, Re ha bilitating, Re stor ing, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (We e ks and Grimme r, 1 995), and shall be c onside re d as mitigate d to a le ve l of le ss than a significant impact on the historic a l resource.

At the local le ve l, t he City of Ontario also has an existing Historic Preservation Ordinance that relies heavily on the SOI S in providing gui del i nes for the treatment of the Hi stori c Properties. The City of Ontario require s a C erti fi cate of A ppropriateness for any proposed alteration, change or maintenance to historic prope rtie s . C lass 31 proj ect fi ndi ngs are requi red to meet the SO I S. M aj ori ty of proj ects i n the C ity meet the SOIS (with or without conditions). (See C hapter 5 L ocal Framew ork & A ppendix D).

Because the SO I S are the most w idely accepted standards for assessi ng and m anaging e ffe cts on Historic Prope rtie s, this docume nt will re ly he avily on the SOIS.

4.1 A dv erse E f f ect Per Section 106 of the NHPA
T he defi ni tion of an effect is contai ned w ithi n 36 C FR Part 800: An effect means alteration to the characteristics of a historic property qualifying it for inclusion in or e ligibility for the Nationa l Re giste r.85 According to 36 CFR 800.5(a)(1), an A dv erse Effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the NRHP in a manner that would diminish the inte grity of the prope rty’s loc a tion, de sign, setting,

85 36 C FR 800.5(a)(1).
materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. 86 Thus, application of the cri teri a of adv erse effect i s largel y an assessment of an undertaki ng’ s impacts on the historic integrity of a historic property and how an undertaking would affect those features of a historic property that contribute to its e ligibility for listing in the NRHP. Effe cts can be dire ct, indire ct, and cumulative . Dire ct e ffe c ts include physic al de struction or damage and can include a lte rations to the origina l de sign of a his toric property. I ndirect effects include the introduction of visual, auditory, or v ibration impacts as well as neglect to a historic property, and cumulativ e effects are the i mpacts of a single undertaking , while taking into account the cumulative impacts caused by know n past or present proj ects as w el l as foreseeabl e future proj ects. A s l isted i n 36 C FR 800.5(a)(2), ex ampl es of adve rse e ffe cts may include , but are not limite d to, the following:
i. Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the prope rty; ii. Alte ration of a prope rty, including re storation, re habilitation, repair, mai ntenance, stabil izati on, hazardous material remediation, and provision of handicapped access, that is not consistent with the Secretary’s Standards for the T reatment of Historic Properties (36 CFR Pa rt 6 8) and applica ble guide line s; iii. Removal of property from its historic location;
iv. Change of the character of the property’s use or of physical features within the property’s setting that contribute to its historic significance ;
v. Introduction of visual, atmospheric or audible elements that diminish the inte grity of the prope rty’s signific ant historic features;
vi. Negl ect of a property w hi ch causes its deterioration, ex cept w here such negl ect and deterioration are recognized quali ti es of a property of religious and cultural significance to an Indian tribe or Nativ e Hawaiian organization; and
vii. Transfer, l ease, or sal e of property out of federal ow nershi p or control without adequate and legally enforceable restrictions or

86 36 C FR 800.5(a)(1).
76 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 35 conditions to ensure long -term preservation of the property’s historic significance . 87

4.2 Substantial A dverse Change Pe r CEQA
Unde r CEQA California Code of Regulations 14 CCR § 15064.5.b , D etermi ni ng the Si gni fi cance of I mpacts to A rchaeologi cal and Hi stori cal Resources:
(b) A proj ect with an effect that may cause a substantial adv erse change in the significance of an historical resource is a proj ect that may hav e a significant effect on the environment.
(1) Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical reso urce means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significa nce of an historic al re source would be mate ria lly impaire d.
(2) T he significance of an historical resource is materi ally impaired when a project:
(A ) D emol ishes or materi al l y al ters in an adv erse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that conv ey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or e ligibility for, inclusion in the Ca lifornia Re giste r of Historical Re source s; or (B) D emol i shes or materi al l y al ters in an adv erse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public R e source s Code or its ide ntification in an historical resources surv ey meeti ng the requi rements of secti on 5024.1(g) of the Publ i c Resources C ode, unl ess the publ i c agency rev i ew ing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of ev i dence that the re source is not historically or cultura lly significant; or

87 36 C FR 800.5(a)(2)(i through v ii).
(C ) D emol ishes or materi al l y al ters in an adv erse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that conv ey its historical significance and that justify its e ligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.

4.3 I mpacts Per PRC 5024
The definition of adverse effect under PRC 5024 i ncl udes fewer criteria for impacts than Section 106 and CEQA . Secti on 106 has sev en ex ampl es of adv erse effects to histori c properti es, w hereas CEQA a n d PRC 5024 only ha ve four. Se ction 10 6 calls out Physic al De struction (i), Alte ra tion (ii), Re mova l (iii), Change of Use (iv), Introduction of V isual, Atmosphe ric or Audible Ele me nts (v), Ne gle ct (vi) and Tra nsfe r (vii).

CEQA calls out Physical De molition, De struction, Re location and Alte ra tion. Simila rly, PRC 5024 calls out A lteration, T ransfer, Relocation or De molition in its de finition.

This list of ty pes of adv erse ef f ects as cited
in PRC 5024(b) and PRC 5024.5, includes alteration of the original or significant historic al fe a ture s or fabric, or the transfe r, re loc ation, or de molition of a historica l re source on the Master L ist.

Howe ve r, all three relev ant laws , NHP A Section 106, CEQA and PRC 5024 consi der proj ect acti v i ti es that are carried out in conformance with the Secretary of Interior Standards for the T reatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings to mitigate effects/impacts on any historic prope rtie s/historical re source s to be not adverse/less than significant .

Chapter 5 address the City of Ontario process f or assessing impacts and compli ance w i th these abov e referenced laws, spe cific ally CEQA in greater de tail though the implementation of the City’s historic preservation ordinance .
77 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 36

4.4 SO I S Standards for Rehabil i tation
The imme dia te goa l of this HPTMP is to provide preservation guidance and recommended treatments for future projects along Euclid A venue in order to preserv e and maintain its historic character . Future projects may i ncl ude dev el opment proj ects subj ect to discreti onary approv al by the City of O ntari o, those rel ated to ensuri ng i ts upkeep and operabil i ty , i mpl ementi ng i mprov ements requi red to meet ev olv i ng safety requirements, or rehabilitating the historic property based on current planning principles, design standards, or development goals to ensure its continued use.
88 T he SO I S are a seri es of best practices i ssued by the National Parks Se rvic e (NPS) for maintaining, repairing, and replacing historic materials, as well as designing new construction or making alterations to historic properties. The SOI S are accompanied by Guidelines for four types of treatments for histori c properti es: Preserv ati on, Re ha bilita tion, Restoration, and Reconstruction. W hi l e geared tow ards histori c buildings, t hese Standards also apply to a w i de v ari ety of histori c resource types. This includes buildings, sites, structures, objects, and districts.

Choosing an appropriate tr eatment involves many factors, including type of historic prope rty, le ve l of signific a nce, physical condition, proposed use, and local codes and other regul ati ons. It should also be noted that the treatments have simi l ar sets of standards . For ex ampl e, the Preservation treatment has sev en (7) standards that focus on protecting and stabilizing the property through ongoing maintenance and repair of hi stori c materi al s and features rather than ex tensi v e repl acement and

88 Anne E. Grimmer, T he Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the T reatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Reha bilita ting, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings (W ashington, D C : US D epartment of the I nterior, National Park Serv ice, T echnical Preserv ation Serv ices, 2017). https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/secretary - standards -treatment -historic -properties.htm
new construction. The Sta ndards for Preservation require retention of the gre ate st amount of historic fabric along with the building’s historic form. Rehabilitation has a similar set of 10 standards that e ssentially i ncl udes the core Preserv ation standards but include standards re l ated to new additions to a property. T he defi niti on of Rehabi li tati on assumes that at l east some repai r or alterati on of the histori c property woul d be needed to prov ide an effi ci ent, contemporary use; how ev er, repai rs and al terati ons should not damage or destroy materi als, features, or fi ni shes that are important in defining the property’s historic and architectural (landscape) character.

The remaining treatments focus on restoration or reconstruction of an historic prope rty to a spe cific time . Re storation focuses on the depiction of an hist oric property at a particular time in its history by preserving materials, features, finishes, and spaces from its period of significance and removing those from other periods. Simila rly, Re construction involve s new construction of a non-surviving site , landscape, building, structure, or obj ect for the purpose of repl i cati ng i ts appearance at a spe cific period and in its historic loc ation. The Reconstruction Standards establish a limited frame work for recreating a vanished or non -surviving building with new materials, primarily for interpretive purposes.

Due to the nature of Euclid A venue a s a c ontinually e volving and maintaine d transportation corridor, Preservation and Rehabilitation would be the more appli cabl e and v i abl e treatment options ove r Restoration or Reconstruction. Further, due to the nature of projects that often require upgrades to transportation facilities to meet changing design standards and the safety and other needs of the constituents they serv e, the flexibility of the Reh abilitation tre atme nts would ge ne rally be preferred. Because Rehabil i tation emphasizes the protection of ex i sti ng historic fabric while allowing for compatible change , the most appropriate treatment for historic Euclid Ave nue is Re ha bilita tion. W hile any of the treatment option coul d theoreti cal l y be used, the remai ni ng di scussion will focus on the standards for Rehabi li tati on, as they are the treatment most commonly a pplie d to historic tra nsportation facilitie s. 78 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 37 The Standards for Rehabilitation are as follows:

1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships.

2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. T he removal of distinctive materi als or alterati on of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.

3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Change s that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.

4. Changes to a property that have acquired significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.

5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.

6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. W here the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.

7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. T reatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.

8. A rcheological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be d isturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.

9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. T he new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.

10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

It is important to note that the SOIS are not i ntended to be prescri pti v e, but instead provide general guidance. T hey are i ntended to be fl ex i bl e and adaptable to specific proj ect conditions to balance continuity and change, while retaining materials and features to the maximum extent feasible. Their interpretation requires exercising professional judgment and balancing the various opportunities and constraints of any given proj ect. Not ev ery Standard necessaril y appli es to ev ery aspect of a proj ect, nor is it necessary to comply with ev ery Standard to achiev e compliance.

A pplying the SOIS to historic infrastructure el ements such as roads rather than buildings requires some interpretation, and some standards are more important to apply to infrastructure projects than others. Of the standards, 2, 5, and 6 are perhaps the most appl i cabl e to preserv i ng Euclid A venue. These standards foc us on limiting or c omple te ly avoiding the remov al of CDFs, or historic materials , features and spaces that characterize a property (Standard 2), preserving the d istinctive fe atures and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property (Standard 5), and prioritize repair over replacement, and i f replacement i s necessary ensuri ng that i t is done i n - kind or as c lose to the original a s possible (Standard 6).

4.5 Applica tion of the SOIS on Historic Euclid A venue By following this HPTMP’s treatment recommendati on outlined in Chapte rs 6 and 7 , proje c ts implemented on historic Euclid A venue will also c omply with the SOIS for Re ha bilitation as follows:
1) Euclid Ave nue sha ll be continued to be use d a s it was historic ally (Standard 1). The beautifully designed avenue will continue to be used as the mai n thoroughfare for the city of Ontario for automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians. T he treatment measures allow for multi -moda l mod ifications to be made to the historic property, such as adding walking paths to the me dian , bi ke lanes, or similar activitie s that are w i thi n the general scope of histori c transportation uses .
79 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 38 2) T he histori c character of E ucl i d A v enue w i l l be retai ned and preserved ( Standard 2). This HPTMP has identified and ranked the Euclid A venue CDFs that are e sse ntial to pre se rving its ove rall historic character. The ove ra ll alignme nt, me dians , and parkway s, as w el l as tree rows and open spaces , for e xample, will be pre serv ed to the max i m ex tent feasibl e through implementation of the treatments outlined in Chapter s 6 and 7 . 3) Euclid Ave nue will be re cognize d a s a physica l re cord of its time , place, and use. No changes shall be made to Euclid A venue that would create a fal se se nse of historical de ve lopme nt, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties or emulati ng hi stori c features that nev er ex isted historically (Standard 3).
4) No modern developments shall be added a long Euclid Ave nue that c ould create a false sense of histori cal dev elopment, such as introducing new features that look l i ke they coul d hav e been originally from the 1882 -1940 pe riod of signific ance . Howe ve r, any c hanges to Euclid A venue that have acquired significance in the ir own right (such as those features identified by the stakeholders that have been added to the CDF tables for the purpose of this HPTMP) shall be retai ned and preserv ed .

Features that have acquired significance in their own right include the reconstruc ted bandstand, mule cart replica, fountains and monuments ( Standard 4).
5) The distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques and examples of craftsmanship that characterize Euclid A venue shall be preserved (Standard 5 ). This HPTMP ha s ide ntifie d and ranked the Euclid A venue CDFs . Distinctive materials and examples of craftmanship such as the
quintessential landscape features -- cobblestone curbs, sc ored concrete side walks, trees, median and parkways , lampposts --will be preserved through i mpl ementation of the t reatments outlined in Chapter 6 and 7 .
6) D eteriorated hi stori c features of E ucl id A v enue shall be repai red rather than repl aced. W here the sev eri ty of deterioration requires replacement of a di sti nctiv e feature, the new feature shal l match the ol d i n desi gn, color, tex ture, and w here possi bl e, materials.

Replacement of mi ssi ng features w i l l be subs tantiated by documentary and physical evidence . D eteriorated features including the granite cobblestone masonry curbs, vintage lighting, scored concrete sidewalks, monuments, fountains, trees and rose plants will be repaired and rehabilitated rather than replaced. I f the sev erity of deteriorating is beyond repair , the features will be re placed in -kind (Standard 6).
7) Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic mate rials of Euclid Ave nue will not be used ( Standard 7). Chemical or physical treatments including graffiti or paint re mova l on the masonry curbs, side wa lks, monument or fountains shall use the gentlest means possible not to cause damage.
8) Standard 8 ap plie s to pre se rving arc hae ological re source s. This HPT M P does not specifically address how to treat archaeological resources as none hav e currentl y been i denti fi ed as bei ng part of the historic property. H ow ev er, i f archeological resources are found during any project’s construction, the resources shall be protected and preserved in place if possible . If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will like ly ne e d to be undertaken.
9) If the Implementation measures outlined in Chapter s 6 and 7 are followed, n ew additi ons, ex terior alterations, or related new construction sha ll not destroy Euclid A venue ’s historic mate ria ls, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the historic property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old a nd will be compatible with the historic ma te ria ls, fe ature s, size , sca le and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the historic property (Standard 9).
80 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 39 10) If the Implementation measures outlined in Chapter 6 and 7 are followed, new additions, al terations and rel ated new construction shall not destroy historic materials such as granite cobblestone masonry curbs, vintage lighting, monuments, fountains, trees or l andscape archi tecture. I f histori c features are destroy ed, they will be re pla ce d in kind. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that if remov ed i n the future, the essenti al form and integri ty of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired (Standard 10). New additions and adj acent new construction adj acent to historic materials shall be constructed in a manner that can be remov ed in the future without causing damage to Euclid Ave nue ’s historic fe ature s.

81 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 40

5.0 LOCAL FRAMEWORK – CITY OF ONTARIO
Wh ile the p rev ious chapter provided a general discussion of affects assessment and the general appl i cation of the SO I S for av oi ding adv erse effects or significant impacts under v arious state and federal laws, this chapter focuses on the implementation of the City of Ontario’s Historic Preserv ation Program as it relates to Euclid A v enue. The City’s e xisting Historic Preservation Ordinance relies on the use of the SOIS to determi ne recommended appropriate treatments for historic properties.

T he fol low i ng C hapters are i ntended to focus on prov idi ng an ov eral l set of guidelines for planning for the preservation of Euclid A venue (Chapter 6), followed by specific treatment measures that can be applied to spe cifi c C D Fs to ensure proj ects meet the SO I S (C hapter 7), and prov i de proje c t-specifi c desi gn scenarios where the SO I S may be appli ed to av oi d effects or as part of proj ect -spe c ific mitigation (Chapte r 8).

A s discussed briefly in the introductory chapter, this HPTMP began dev elopment as part of the NHPA Section 106 process for a C altrans fe de ra lly assiste d proje ct to re ha bilitate Euclid Ave nue . As such, this plan was originally intended to be developed as project -spe cific mitigation to provide a comprehensive plan for Euclid A venue that focused on avoiding direct, indirect and particularly cumulativ e effects on the totality of Euclid A venue in both the City of Upland as well as Ontario. However, the decision to relinquish the last section of historic Euclid A venue to a local jurisdiction changed the timing, funding, and compliance context for the HPTMP. Caltrans decided to focus the plan more narrowly on the portion of the historic property that was subject to relinquishment to Ontario while attempting to preserv e as much of the holistic discussion in the prev ious chapters as possi bl e. T herefore, the remainder of this document will focus more he avily on Euclid Ave nue within the City of Ontario.

How ev er, i ts gui deli nes and general pri nci pl es can al so be used by the C i ty of Upl and for its preserv ation purposes. T he fol low i ng chapters can be used to supplement the City of Ontario’s e xisting historic pre se rvation ordinance to guide the City of Ontario in protecting and preserving the character defining features of the historic prope rty in pe rpe tuity . (See Appendix D for Ontario’s Historic Preservation Ordinance)

5.1 O ntario as C erti fi ed L ocal G ov ernment
A s menti oned bri efl y i n C hapter 1, the NHPA establ i shed a C ertifi ed L ocal Government (CL G) Program in 1980 . Th e CLG program is a dministe re d by the National Park Serv ice (NPS), and is a partnership among local governments, State Offices of Historic Preservation , and the NPS . CLGs are municipalities that hav e demonstrated a commitment to local preservation and saving the past for future generations. The Office of Historic Pre se rvation (OHP) ove rse e s the CLG program in California. 89 L ocal gov ernments can apply to be certified to participate in the CL G program by establishing an historic preservation program that compli es with the following requirements:
• Enforce appropriate state or local legislation for the designation and protection of historic properties:
• Esta blish an a de quate a nd qualifie d historic pre se rvation re vie w commission by local law;
• Maintain a system for the survey and inventory of historic properties;
• satisfactorily pe rform the re sponsibilitie s de le gate d to the CLG; and
• T he C L G shal l assume certain re sponsibilitie s for re vie wing a nd recommending properties within its jurisdiction to the National Re giste r of Historic Place s.

Esse ntially, a CLG must e stablish a n historic pre se rvation c ommission and adopt a local histori c preserv ation ordi nance w i th provisions to enforce the designation and protection of historic and archeological

89 The information presented in this chapter is predominantly derived from : California O f f i ce of Hi stori c Preserv ati on websi te, https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21239 ; National Park Se rvice we bsite , https://www.np s.gov/subjects/clg/index.htm ; City of Ontario Historic Pre se rvation we bsite ,
https://www.ontarioca.gov/Planning/HistoricPre se rvation ; City of Ontario Planning Department, Certified Lo cal Government City of Ontario A nnual Report, 2020 -21 Reporting Period, September 2021.
82 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 41 resources that i s consi stent w i th the i ntent and purpose of the National Historic Preserv ation A ct of 1966. T he CL G enforces State and local le gislation for the de signa tion of historic propertie s and maintains a list of designated properties/districts. The CL G historic preservation commi ssion ov ersees parti cipati on i n the env i ronmental rev i ew of speci fi c federall y sponsored proj ects, to ensure compl iance w ith Section 106 pro visions of the NHPA and participates in the environment review of l ocal proj ects i n accordance wi th the requi rements C E Q A . T he commission may rev iew and comment on permit actions affecting significant liste d historic prope rtie s and othe r re source s e ligible for listing, in accordance with loc al ordina nce re quire me nts and with CEQA.

5.2 Historic Pre se rva tion Ordina nce
T he C i ty of O ntario's Hi stori c Preserv ati on Program seeks to preserv e and prote ct the significant a rchite ctural, historical, a nd cultural re s ources, which reflect Ontario's unique character and heritage. In 2003 OHP desi gnated the C i ty of O ntario a C L G . T he City of Ontario Planning De partme nt is re sponsible for a dministe ring the City' s Historic Preservation Program and the City’s Historic Prese rv ation O rdinance.

Ontario’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, the core of the historic preserv ation program, establi shed the O ntario Regi ster of Histori c Resources, which includes an inventory of buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts worthy of preservation due to the ir significance in history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and/or culture of the City.

The ordinance also contains provisions for a historic re ha bilita tion financing program, incentives for historic preservation, an historic preservation mit igation fe e , a Historic Pre se rvation Trust Fund, enforcement and penalti es, prov ision for use of the State Hi stori c Building Code , and Guide line s for the Tre atme nt of Historic Prope rtie s.

On January 16, 2001, the Ontario City Council adopted a resolution designating the Euclid A venue right -of-way, including the me dian, parkways, and sidewalks, from I nterstate 10 ( I-10) to Philadelphia Street, within the City limits, a loc al historic landma rk. In 2005, the Euclid A venue right-of-way, from 24th Street in Upl and to Phi ladelphi a Street i n O ntario, was listed on the National Register of Historic Places as a historic district. In 2013, the Ontario City Council de signa te d the Euclid A venue neighborhood, located north of G Street and south of the I -10, a loca l historic district. Thus, Euclid A venue maintains status as an NRHP liste d historic prope rty, a CRHR liste d historical re source , and an Onta rio Re giste r liste d historical re source .

Sev eral of the O rdi nance’ s prov isions are rel ev ant to E ucl i d A v enue w i thin the context of this management plan. These include the historic preservation mitigation fee component that established that the impacts re sulting from the de molition (e ithe r in pa rt or whole ) of historic re source s may be l essened by the col l ection of fees that will provide a source of funds for the conservation, preservation, restoration, and rehabilitation of historic resources within the City. Such a provision allows for the use of compensatory or in -lie u mitigation for re ducing proje ct spe cific or e ve n cumul ative impacts on Euclid Ave nue (se e Cha pte r 8). This provision in the ordinance for a mitigation trust fund can be used as mitigation for proj ects that adv ersel y affect/si gni fi cantl y i mpact E ucl i d A v enue i n the same manne r the City alre ady utilize s it, or the idea i tsel f can be used to develop a separate mitigation fund spe cifically for Euclid Ave nue .

T he O rdi nance i ncl udes prov ision for enforcement and penal ti es that makes substantial alteration or demolition of a Historic Resource in V iola tion of the ordinanc e : “Any a lte ration or de molition (including pa rtial de molition) of a historic re source in violation of this Division is e xpre ssly declared to be a nuisance and shall be abated by restoring or reconstructing the property to its original condition prior to the violation.

Any person or entity who demolishes or substantially alters or causes substantial alteration or demolition through deferred maintenance of a structure in violation of the provisions of this Division, shall be lia ble for civil pe na ltie s.” Euclid Ave nue is an Historic Re source that should be subject to this provision. The guidelines provided in Chapter 6 and suggested treatments i n C hapter 7 should be used to assi st the C i ty i n imple me nting this provision a s it re la te s to Euclid Ave nue .

83 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 42 Most rel ev ant to this management plan is the ordi nance prov isi on providing guidelines for the treatment of historic properties. The Ordinance requires use of the SOIS: “In order to ensure that Ontario’s hi stori c resources are preserv ed for future generations , any proposed work on a historic resource shall follow the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the T reatment of Histori c Properti es wi th G uidel i nes for Pre se rving, Re habilitating, Re storing and Re constructing Historic Buildings.” The Ordinance provi des design guidelines intended to assist the designers or property owners in understanding the City’s goals and obj ecti v es for histori c preserv ation by prov idi ng ex ampl es of potenti al design solutions and recommendations. Essentially, the ordinance outline s treatment guidelines influenced by the SOIS and other sources for buildings, including additions, roofs, doors, windows, and building materials (wood, metal, stucco, etc.). These recommended treatments are de signe d to be applie d primarily to buildings or prope rtie s with multiple buildings, rather than infrastructure such as complex properties such as Euclid A venue. The intent of the treatment recommendations in the following chapters is to adapt the SOIS guidelines to Euclid A venue Historic Prope rty in a manne r that is complime ntary to the Existing Onta rio hi stori c preserv ation ordinance.

5.3 I mpl ementati on
As a CLG, the City of Ontario is re sponsible for maintaining a program to assist with the consistent application of local, State, and Federal historic prese rvation efforts within its jurisdiction. Ontario Planning staff, along with the Historic Preservation Sub -Committee and Historic Preservation Commission, re vie w all historic pre se rvation applic ations, including proposed alterations to the exterior of historic buildings and alterations to publ i c i mprov ements, such as streets, street trees, sidewal ks, li ght fixtures, curb and gutter, and storm drains within Ontario's historic neighborhoods through issuance of a Certificate of A ppropriateness or Wa ive rs for minor a lte rations, re storation, and re habilitation. A Ce rtificate of A ppropri ateness wi l l be requi red for a ll maintenance, preservation, restoration, alterations, rehabilitation and new construction projects locate d within the public right -of-way of the historic ally de signate d segment of Euclid A venue.

A ll projects that have the potential to affect historic E uclid A venue (betw een Phi l adelphia Street and I nterstate 10) must be rev i ew ed by the City of Ontario’s Planning Department prior to commencement of the proj ect. A l l proj ects are subj ect to the O ntario D ev elopment C ode, i n accordance with California Env iron me ntal Qua lity Act (CEQA), and the City’s local ordinance and design review processes.

The City’s Historic Pre se rvation Commission (HPC), Historic Preservation Subcommitte e (HPSC), or Planning Dire ctor will de te rmine if the proje ct would cause a substantial adv erse change to the significance of historic Euclid A venue. Substantial adverse change includes demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of an historical re source would be impaire d, a s outline d in PRC 50 20.1(q). T o av oid or mitigate causing a substantial adv erse change to the significance of the historic al re source , any propose d proje ct sha ll conform to the SOIS. The HPC, based on the recommendation of staff or consultants meeting the professional qualifi cations for historic pre se rvation (outline d in CFR 800 Part 63 ) will analyze whe the r any proposed project complies with the SOIS. Projects that meet the SOIS may be implemented without further review and shall be reported in the City’s CL G A nnual Report, in accordance with the CL G requirements. City staff coordinates and collaborates with the local non -profit Ontario Heri tage Historic al Socie ty and other organizations to promote, inform, educate, and celebrate O ntario’ s historic preserv ation and the program .

84 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 43

6.0 EX ISTING CONDITIONS AND TREATMENT

RECOMMENDATIONS
T his chapter focuses on providing treatment recommendations for the most important Euclid Ave nue CDF s. First it lays out the existing conditions of the CDFs to provide a ba se line for assessing affects/impacts . Second, it provides general treatment recommendations that can be used to av oid adv erse effect/impacts to each major C D F.

A ccording to the Standards for Rehabilitation, CDFs that are important to defining a property’s historic character should be retained thought the prese rvation of e xisting mate rials t o the greatest ex tent feasibl e. If deterioration or damage requires interv enti on, repai r of ex isti ng character defining fe atures should be considered first. W here deterioration necessi tates replacement, feature s should be replace d in-kind or with a compatible substitute material . Following re pair in this hierarchy, Rehabilitation guidance allows for replacing an entire character -de fining feature w ith new material because the l ev el of deteri orati on or damage of materials precludes repair. For such repair, it is essential that the replacement match es the original historic feature based on physical or documented ev idence.
90 The cobblestone curbs provide a good example of the a pplica tion of the Standards and their translation from focusing on buildings to focusing on landscape or infrastructural properties (also see secti on 6.7 bel ow ) . The treatment recommendation first require s preservation of existing curbs, followed by repair of mino r damage if fe asible . This would be within the purview of existing or routine maintenance. W hen retention or repair is not fe a sible, or hence a “proj ect” becomes necessary , the standard approach is to replace the curb section in -kind based on plans developed based on ex iti ng ex ampl es and documentary ev idence by the City . A ke y

90 Anne E. Grimmer, T he Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the T reatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Reha bilita ting, Restoring & Recons tructing Historic Buildings (W ashington, D C : US D epartment of the I nterior, National Park Serv ice, T echnical Preserv ation Serv ices, 2017). https://www.nps.go v /orgs/1739/secretary - standards -treatment -historic -properties.htm .
aspect of the replacement is to re-use as much of the original cobblestones as possible or to source simila r stone repl acements. This approach has been used on sev eral recent C altrans an d City of Ontario Projects on Euclid A venue. 91
W here missing, feature s shoul d be restored based on phy si cal or documentary ev i dence or replaced with new features that are compatible with the historic character of the property. In ge ne ral, inc ompatible features and materials can or should be removed. Non -CDFs or features from outside the period of significance may be remov ed, and new compatibl e repl acements may be i nstal l ed as requi red for continued use.

Continuing with the cobbl estone curb ex ampl e, w hen a proj ect remov es sections of mod ern concrete curb that replaced the ori gi nal cobbl estone curbs , the treatment recommendation that is consistent with the SOIS Standards would be to replace with cobblestone curbs per City plan rather than concrete curbs .

Some alterations to a historic property may be needed as part of a proj ect to ensure its continued use, such as code related safety requirements .

Howe ve r, it is most important that such a lte ra tions do not ra dica lly change, or destroy character -defining spaces, materials, and features.

A lterations may include changes to the site or setting, such as the se le ctive re moval of buildings, fe atures or el ements of the setting that are intrusive, not character defining, or that are outs ide the property’s period of significance may also be remov ed .

A nother example of the general application of the Standards on landscaped infrastructure such as Euclid A venue is to look at the median trees. M odern code or desi gn standards may requi re large trees to be planted at a greater setback from the trav elled way than wa s origina lly required when the trees were planted. A plan should be developed that require s that as new trees are planted to replace the older trees, they can

91 Caltrans proje ct file s are availa ble at the Caltra ns District 8 office , San Be rnardino, CA.

T hese i ncl ude the I nterstate 10 C orridor Proj ect (E A 0C 250 , 2015), the SR -83 Safety Enhancements Proj ect (EA 1K 790, 2021), the SR -83 Install Signals at Phillips Stre e t Proj ect (EA 1N600, 2023-24), and E ncroachment Permit Proj ects (08 -N-LC-0468, 08- 20-N -LC-0468, 08-20-6 -MC-0393, 08-20-N -BS-1333).
85 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 44 be planted at a slightly greater setback (36” as opposed to 24” for ex ampl e). W hi l e the differing setback may be noticeable at first, as trees grow i n ov er ti me the di fference i n setback would be hardl y noti ceabl e, y et the ov erall scal e of the medi an and doubl e tree row w oul d be preserved.

W hat follows is a discussion of treatment recommendati ons for the most sa lie nt CDFs most like ly to be impacte d by various type s of future proje c ts.

6.1 Alignme nt
Existing Conditions
The Euclid Ave nue alignme nt re ma ins in its original loc ation a nd re tains its ove ra ll original design. The design represents the uniqueness and importance of the Chaffey brothers’ planning of the Ontario Irrigation C olony w ith E ucl i d A v enue as i ts centerpi ece. T he al i gnment consists of the enti re 200 -foot-wide right -of-way with a 6 0 -foot-wide landsca pe me dian, 5 5 -foot-wide roadways and 15 -foot-wide parkwa ys. While portions of the al i gnment hav e been al tered si nce ini ti al l y constructed, its original de sign re mains e vide nt and intact.

The overall integrity of setting of Euclid A venue has been di mi ni shed ov er time due to ongoing de ve lopme nt since it wa s initially constructe d. Most of the agri cultural land and larger V i l la L ots hav e now been conv erted i nto residential subdivision s and comme rcial town lots. Originally , the outermost i ntersecti ng streets w ere at an i nterv al of 0.25 mil es w i th the stre e ts in the V illa Lot are a at an inte rva l of 0.125 mile s and in the town w ere 375 feet. M any new streets hav e been constructed, but the north - south and east -west grid pattern has remained , a s we ll as the 375 -foot i nterv al s i n the tow n, wi th a few ex ceptions. How ev er, most of the alignme nt is original to its 1882 de sign, and it re ta ins inte grity of location, design, workmanship, associatio n and fe e ling as a highly visible north - south transportation corridor and centerpiece of Ontario and Upland.

T reatment Recommendati ons
Looking at the alignme nt of Euclid Ave nue is a lso in some ways looking at the totality of the resource, or in other words, the big picture. T he ov erall design, spatial relationships, and v isual character of the Euclid A v enue alignment should be preserved a nd mai ntai ned to the greatest ex tent fe asible , including:
• L ocation of the alignment through the cities of Upland and Onta rio
• Continuous north -south line ar axis, 2 00 fe e t in width • Uniform spacing of pa ralle l line a r fe ature s along the Euclid A venue ROW that comprise the a lignme nt (60-foot-wide me dian, 55- foot-wide drives and 15 -foot-wide parkways)
• Orthogonal grid street plan with north -south axis and east -west streets intersecting the alignment at generally regular intervals • Generally flat grading throughou t, following the natural topography
• Continuous, uninterrupted north -south viewshed from within the alignme nt
• Retain and preserv e landscape features that are important in defining the overall historic character of the setting. Such features can include circulation systems, such as roads and streets; features such as light posts or benches; vegetation, such as rose beds and tree rows ; open space, such as the median; and important views or visual relationships.
• Protect and maintain historic features in the setting through regularly scheduled maintenance and landscape managemen t

6.2 Me d ia n
Existing Conditions
T he median remai ns in its original loc ation and re tains its ove rall de sign.

The 6 0-foot-w i de center medi an on Eucl i d A v enue i s heav i l y l andscaped with a double row of trees. The center median is planted with predominately California pepper ( Schinus molle) trees, 50 feet on center, with date pa lm (Phoenix dactylifera ) tre e s, originally alte rnating with the pe ppe rs, typica lly e xisting at inte rse ctions; both originally plante d in 86 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 45 1883. T he date pal ms were remov ed shortl y after they w ere pl anted to gi v e the street a more uniform look, and therefore have no impact on the i ntegri ty of the street. M any of the ori gi nal trees remai n, most notabl y north of Foothill Boule vard to 24th Stre e t, which re mains in origina l condition. Some southern magnolias ( Magnolia gradiflora) have been pl anted along E ucl i d A v enue to repl ace pepper trees that had di ed and had to be remov ed. T here are also the occasional cedar deodar ( Cedrus deodara ) and other tree speci mens that hav e been planted ov er the ye ars. The entire median throughout Ontario is landscaped with turf and beds of Armstrong Roses. The median is edged with masonry rock curbs.

T here are peri odi c breaks i n the medi an for cross traffi c maneuv eri ng.

The Euclid Ave nue me dia n is original and highly visible . While portions of the me dian ha ve be e n alte re d since initia lly c onstructe d, its original desi gn remains ev ident and i ntact.

T reatment Recommendati ons
T he ov eral l desi gn, spatial re lationships, and v isual character of the Euclid A venue median should be preserved and m aintained to the greatest ex tent feasi bl e, incl udi ng:
• Retai ni ng and preserv e landscape features such as light posts , vegetation, such as rose beds and tree rows , and open space • Protect and maintain these historic features in the setting through re gularly schedul ed maintenance and landscape management.

Such efforts may i ncl ude establ ishi ng a pl an for assessi ng tree health, trimming, and replacement and regular watering
• L ocati on of the medi an at the center of the E ucl id A v enue RO W within the c itie s of Upland and Ontario
• Continuous north -south line ar axis
• G eneral l y uniform width (60 feet) throughout
• G eneral l y flat grading throughout, following the natural topography
• Continuous, uninterrupted north -south viewshed from within the alignme nt
• Continuous double row of California Pepper Trees ( Schinus mol le) trees planted 50 feet apart (Refer to Section 5.3.1 for more detai l ed i nformati on about tree planting i mpl ementation) • Center open space – maintain either manicured lawn, mulched walking path , or similar use
• Masonry rock curb bordering the median

6.3 Parkways
Existing Conditions
T here are m ature Silk Oaks that line both the east and west parkways of E ucl i d A v enue. E ach parkw ay is 15 feet w ide, bordered w i th masonry curb . I n some areas the masonry curb is replaced and is landscaped with a continuous scored sidewalk or ha ve turf and a single row of mature silk oaks pl anted 30 feet apart. Some of these trees hav e become qui te large ov er ti me, l i ke those that hav e been constantl y watered i n front of C haffey High School that have trunk diameter s of 3 to 4 fe e t. All the se original historic trees along Euclid A venue were planted in 1883 and are now over 137 years old. How ev er, there are areas w here ori gi nal tree rows hav e been modi fied or replanted . The most ev i dent ex ample is in the downtown are a from G Street to the UPRR, where most of the Silk Oaks hav e been remov ed and the parkw ay s hav e been l ined w i th concrete. T he scored concrete path is not obscured; rather concrete has been added around it with tree planters. The recent City of Ontario Urban Canopy T ree proj ect w as completed i n 2020 , and has continuously planted Chinquapin oaks (Quercus muhl enbergi ) along the parkways in the downtown a re a betw een Holt Blv d. and G Street, thus re -establishing the tree li ne wi th a di fferent, but compatible species of oak. Due to this replacement that was done in accordance with the SO I S Standards, these trees should now be considered part of the contributing element to the historic prope rty.

The Euclid A venue parkways are original and highly visib le . While portions of the parkways ha ve be e n alte re d since initially c onstructe d, the original desi gn remains ev ident and i ntact.

T reatment Recommendati ons
A s with the median , the parkways are among the most important part of the ov eral l ali gnment. T he ov eral l design, spatial re lationships, and visual 87 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 46 character of the Euclid A venue parkways should be preserved and maintaine d to the gre ate st e xte nt fe asible , including:
• Re taini ng and preserv e landscape features s uch as light posts and tree rows
• Protect and maintain the trees through regularly -scheduled maintenance and landscape management. Such efforts may include establishing a plan for assessing tree health, trimming, and rep lacement and regular watering
• L ocation of the parkways framing the Euclid A venue ROW throughout its extent within the cities of Upland and Ontario • Continuous north -south line ar axis
• Uniform width (15 feet each) throughout
• G eneral l y flat grading throughout, following the natural topography
• Continuous single row of Silk Oak tre e s (Grevillea robusta ) planted 30 feet apart
• Masonry rock curbs along inside edges
• Continuous scored sidewalks throughout the entire length • Ma ture Silk Oaks lining both the east and west parkways along Euclid Ave nue

6.4 Drive s
Existing Conditions
The two 5 5-foot-wide roadways va ry slightly in width, lane patte rn and parking. In total, they comprise six lanes of traffic (three lanes running south and three lanes running north) in Ontario and four lanes of vehicle traffic (two lanes running south and two lanes running north) with bike lanes and street parking in Upland. They are paved with asphalt with various striping throughout, including pedestrian crosswalks and major intersecti ons.

T he physical materials of the driv es (pav ement, stripi ng, l ane markers) do not contribute to the character of Eucl i d A v enue as they hav e been substanti all y al tered ov er ti me and replaced as needed for ongoi ng maintenance. However, they do contribute t o the ov erall v isual character and their ov erall spatial arrangement should be retai ned to the greatest ex tent feasibl e.

T reatment Recommendati ons
The ove ra ll de sign and v isual character of the Euclid A v enue drive s should be preserved and mai ntai ned to the greatest ex tent feasibl e, including:
• Maintain the continuous north-south l i near ax i s and general l y uniform width (55 feet) throughout
• M aintain masonry rock curbs along the median and parkways . • Avoid new pavement markings with bright color s other than that standard white, that may detract from the ov erall v isual character and feeling avoiding the use of non -standard markings and limit the number of markings to avoid visual clutter.

6.5 T ree Row s
Existing Conditions
T he tree rows contri bute to the ov eral l v i sual character of E ucl id A v enue, and have already bee n addressed as part of the median and parkways .

T he parkways each feature a single row of trees, planted 30 feet apart, and the medi ans feature a doubl e row of trees, planted 50 feet apart. T he i ndi v i dual speci es of trees speci fi c to the parkw ay s and medi an are ide ntifie d in Section 3.2 C haracter-D efi ni ng Features T abl es. The y a re primarily species nativ e to A ustralia, a historic characteristic of the landscape architecture and design of Euclid A venu e.

T reatment Recommendati ons
The ove ra ll de sign, spatia l relationships, and v isual character of the tree rows along the Euclid A venue parkways and median should be preserved and maintained to the greatest extent feasible, including:
• Protect and maintain the trees through regularly -scheduled maintenance and landscape management. Such efforts may
include establishing a plan for assessing tree health, trimming, and replacement and regular watering
88 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 47 • I ndividual trees that are severely damaged and require replacement should be replaced in kind or with a species compatible with the historic character of the historic property • W here portions of the otherwise continuo us tree row s are missi ng due to prev i ous al terations, it is recommended that new tees that are compa tible spe cie s be plante d following the original l andscape desi gn of the parkway s and median, as appli cabl e, to restore the ov eral l v isual character of the historic prope rty • Non-original tre e s that are incompatible with the historic character of the property may be retai ned or remov ed . (I ncompatible trees may incl ude species that w ere not histori call y located along Euclid Avenue, or those planted in locations that dev iate from the historic landscape design of parkways and me dian). If re m ove d , non-compatible trees should be replaced w i th compatibl e tree speci es

6.6 Scored C oncrete Si dew al ks
Existing Conditions
The continuous sidewalks along the parkways of the historic portion of Euclid A venue are scored, with a square scoring pattern found in many of the older neighborhoods in Ontario. The sidewalk scoring is approx i mately 2 feet by 2 feet for each square. T he path is tw o squares wide and is approximately 4 feet w ide. T he conti nuous, scored concrete si dewal ks are an earl y desi gn feature of the parkw ay s. A l though some portions have been replaced with various paving types, their location within the parkways is re ta ine d a nd the ove rall inte grity and visua l char acter of the sidewalks remains intact.

T reatment Recommendati ons
T he ov erall design, spatial relationships, and v isual character of the scored concrete si dewalks al ong the E ucl i d A v enue parkw ay s should be preserv ed and mai ntai ned to the greatest ex tent fea sible , including:
• Maintain e xisting side walk width
• Retain ex tant sidewalks with historic scored concrete pattern throughout
• Repair any damaged concrete by patching with new concrete that duplicates the old in strength, composition, color, and texture
• Repla ce severely deteriorated or missing portions of historic side walk in kind to ma tch the ex tant hi stori c concrete sidew alks in composition, color, and texture
• New concrete sections that emul ate the ol d shoul d be stamped with the new date as to be compatible with but diffe re ntiate d from the old, as to clearly be a record of its time and place as a later repai r

6.7 Granite Cobblestone Curbs
Existing Conditions
The curb material found along historic Euclid A venue and in early Ontario historic neighborhoods is constructed with indigenous rock. The curbs along Euclid Ave nue we re originally made of la rge granite cobble stone s and concrete. The majority of the original masonry curbs along the historic portions of Euclid Ave nue still e xist toda y. How ev er, there are portions of masonry curb along Euclid A venue that have been replaced over time with modern curb. Some sections of the original granite cobbl estone masonry curbs hav e been repl aced ov er time with in -kind cobblestone masonry curb replacements . T he granite cobbl estone masonry curbs boarder the parkway s as w ell as the medi an and are a unifying feature of the historic property.

T reatment Recommendati ons
T he ov erall design, spatial relationships, and v isual character of the granite cobblestone cu rbs aligning the Euclid A venue parkways should be preserv ed and mai ntai ned to the greatest ex tent feasi bl e, i ncl udi ng:
• Retain ex isting granite cobblestone and concrete curbs throughout
• Repai r damaged concrete by patching w i th new that dupl i cates the old in strength, composition, color, and texture
• Replace sev erel y deteriorated or mi ssi ng porti ons of grani te cobblestone and concrete curbs in kind to match extant originals 89 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 48 • Replacement cobblestone curbs should be replaced consistently with a plan developed by the City.
• W hen sections of modern concrete curb that replaced the ori ginal cobbl estone curbs requi re replacement, these should be replaced with cobblestone curbs per City plan to re -establish historic continuity as much as possible
• Do not paint the existing historic cobblestone and concrete curbs; remov e paint from such features as appropriate

6.8 V inta ge Lighting
Existing Conditions
The historic portions of Euclid A venue displ ay a v ariety of v intage stre e tlight style s. The original ca st-i ron l ampposts w ere replaced i n the mid-1920s with King Standard lampposts. Ove r time , some of the se lights have been replaced by Cobra light fixtures by the City of Ontario and C altrans to impr ove the safety for vehicular traffic along Euclid A venue w hi ch is State Hi ghway Route 83. L arger v i ntage concrete l ight pol es, l i kel y erected i n the 1950s and retrofi tted wi th replacement arms and lights in the 1980s, also line the pa rkways of Euclid Ave nu e. How ev er, these concrete l i ght poles are not i n -kind replacements of the originals and do not date from the period of significance and therefore do not contribute to the character of Euclid A venue. Als o, t h e r eplica v intage lighting around the reconstruc ted band stand are not original fe ature s and therefore we re not ide ntifie d a s CDFs in the NRHP nomination; however, based on stakeholder input and for the purposes of this HPT M P, they hav e been incl uded as a C D Fs.

T reatment Recommendati ons
Recommended treatments for the vinta ge light fixture s include:
• Re taining the historic King Standard lampposts , Cobra lampposts and re plica lampposts surrounding the community bandstand.

These existing lampposts should be retained throughout
• Any damaged o r deteriorated lampposts should be repaired and cl eaned of corrosi on as needed. Replace broken or missi ng gl ass within the la nte rns in kind
• For consistency, lampposts re quiring re place me nt or ne w light post should conform to the standard plan developed by the City • W here deteri orati on necessi tates replacement, i ndi v idual l ampposts should be repl aced i n ki nd. W here necessary to meet new safety requi rements, compati ble l i ght fi x tures shoul d be added to the greatest ex tend feasibl e.

6.9 Othe r Structures and Ob je c ts
Existing Conditions
V arious built structures and objects are located throughout the parkways and median ; some of these hav e been ide ntifie d as CDFs in this HPTMP (see Section 3.2 C haracter-D efi ni ng Features T abl es). In Ontario these include the W CTU Drinking Fountain, Community Bandstand, Gravity Mule Car Re plica, Frankish fountain and V eterans M emorial. CDF s in Upl and shoul d be treated the i n the same manner, and i ncl ude the Bridal Path, Madonna of the Trail Monument, driveway bridges, and gutters .

T hese are original and e arly fe ature s that contribute to the historic significance of Euclid Ave nue that reflect its association with the social history of the community as we ll a s its association with the Chaffey brothers and Charles Frankish and their contributio ns to the development of Ontario and Upland.

However, because some of the features, such as the Frankish Fountain and W CTU drinking fountain have been relocated multiple times since they w ere i ni ti al l y constructed, I f future relocati on becomes necessary , these features may be mov ed to new l ocations that are equal l y v isi bl e within the Euclid Ave nue ROW. Several of the monuments, structures and fountains that have been added to the historic Euclid A venue over time have acquire d significa nce in the ir own righ t, including the W CTU Fountain, re plic a bandstand, mule cart re plica display, and the V eteran’s Me moria l. For the purposes of thi s HPT M P, they are considered significant and should be retai ned and preserv ed.

Some features, such as the mul e cart repl i ca and V eterans M emorial w ere constructed outside of the peri od of si gni fi cance identi fi ed for historic Euclid Ave nue . The y we re not ide ntifie d a s CDFs in the NRHP 90 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 49 nomination, however, based on stakeholder input and for the purposes of this HPTMP, they have been included as CDFs and should be retained in their existing locations to the greatest extent feasible. The Chaffey Brothers erected the small fountain in the median at the southern end of Euclid Ave ne ar A Stee t (Holt Blvd.) during Euclid' s ince ption in the late 1880s as a symbol of prosperity and to show new arrivals Onta rio’s ample water supply and unique system of delegat ing wate r within the agricultural colony. In 1886, when Charles Frankish and a group of investors acquired the Chaffey’s holdings in the Ontario L and and Improvement Company, Frankish constructed a new fountain that replaced the Chaffey’s fountain. T he sel f -contained round fountain is approx imately 6 -feet tall with a tri -tie re d de sign and a b ottom bowl approx imately 10 -feet wide. The Charles Frankish Fountain was moved from its original location in the median to the area it stands today on the southeast corner of Transit A ve nue and Euclid Avenue, just outside of the parkway in front of the Ont ario Art Museum of History & Art.

The W omen’s Christian Temperance Union (W CTU) Drinking Fountain was erected on the corner of Euclid A venue in front of the Citizens Bank building on the corner of A Street (Holt Boulevard) on July 4th, 1908. The WCTU fo u ntain stands a pproximate ly 7 -feet tall and is constructed with small granite cobblestones. The fountain tower has a square massing and a square cobblestone masonry base with a plaque that reads W CTU 1908. Four cobblestone masonry pilasters with four windows with keystone rounded arches provide access to the drinking fountain. The fountain is topped with a pyramidal or square hipped cobblestone cap. I t was moved twice in the past, once on September 6
th, 1975, by the
O ntario Parkway K iwanis C lub to commemorate their Bicentennial and late r in 199 8 it was move d to its pre se nt loc ation in the me dian ne ar C Street.

Figure 19 Original Community bandstand at Euclid A venue and A Street (Holt Boulevard)’ 1895. Source: Ontario City Library.

The first original bandstand was constructed on Euclid A venue in 1892.

How ev er, the bandstand has been rebui l t and mov ed often ov er the years. The bandstand was once located in the Euclid A venue median, just north of A Street (Holt Boulevard.), at B Stree t. The original Euclid bandstand was designed as a two -story octagonal structure with a closed shiplap sided first story for storage and an open second story with timber staircase, deck, and handrail. T he bandstand was originally constructed with timbe r in an octagonal open design with decorativ e lathed timber columns supporting a steeply pitched curv ed roof that came to a tall point. The bandstand was relocated south on the median at Emporia Street and remodeled in 1905, removing the bottom story. The band stand fe ll into disre pair. It wa s e ve ntually dismantle d and take n down i n 1931 . In 1997 the K iwanis Club of Ontario funded the construction of the replica bandstand. T he replica bandstand was rededi cated w i th i ts new name, the R. Jack M ercer C ommuni ty Band stand, on July 4
th, 2001. T he repl i ca was designed after the second
bandstand on Euclid A venue, with the singe -story bandstand design and a le ss ste e p, straight pitche d roof.
91 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 50

Figure 20 Relocated Bandstand, Date Unknown (Source Ontario City Library) T he mul e cart repli ca displ ay is held i n a rectangular buil di ng approx imately 20 -feet by 15-feet w i th 10-foot ceilings and a low -pitched gable d roof. The building ha s la rge picture frame windows on all side s allowing vie we rs to vie w the mule cart re plica inside . The mule cart re plic a wa s built in the mid-1950s to celebrate Ontario’ s 75th anniv ersary of its founding. It was refurbishe d in 1974 and placed at its current location. T he repl i ca display is loca te d in the median across from the bandstand.

O ntario’ s V eteran’ s M emorial obelisk located on Euclid’ s median at B Street was constructed and dedicated on May 13, 1999 to honor our local v eterans. D uring the G reat D epression, as part of a Euclid A v enue be autificati on proj ect, the C hamber of C ommerce w orked wi th the ci ty i n 1934 to obta in SERA (Sta te Eme rge ncy Re lie f Administration) funding to pay local men to erect a “Court of Honor.”
The Court of Honor was located on Euclid’s median at A Street. There we re two obelisks that faced one another: one on the north side of Holt to honor veterans, another on the south side of Holt to honor the city’s pi oneers. T he obeli sks were 13 feet tal l and 2 ½ feet deep, each on a 6 x 6 square base and w ere constructed of steel an d concrete, weighing in at 13 tons each. T he memori al w as demol i shed 5 y ears later.

T reatment Recommendati ons
SO I S compl iance for these C D Fs shoul d fol l ow the general treatment hie rarchy outline d in Se ction 6.0 at the be ginning of this chapte r. T hese CDFs should be preserv ed and mai ntai ned to the greatest ex tent feasi bl e, including :
• In general, the other structures and objects that were identified in the CDF tables in this HPTMP should be retained in their existing l ocati ons to the greatest ex tant feasi ble.
• I dentify CD Fs or features that are important to each indiv idual structure or object for priority in maintenance and preservation • Pre se rvation of e xisting historic mate ria ls t o the greatest extent feasible
• Re pa ir rathe r than re plac e if fe asible
• I f replacement is necessary, use in -kind or close ly compatible materials that are similar in color, t ex ture, scal e, etc. • Code or standard requirements should be met such that alterations do not radically change, or destroy the ov erall character -defi ni ng spaces, materi al s, and features • New work should be differentiated from the old

92 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 51

7.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF TREATMENT

RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of this section is to provide more detailed guidance on how to develop more specific measures to ensure that the ma jor Euclid A venue CDFs are preserved to the greatest extent possible and that alterations to the hi storic transportation corridor are consistent with the SOIS. A s it is di ffi cul t to anti ci pate ev ery foreseeable future improvement or proje c t and how they could affect/impact historic Euclid Avenue, this se ction will focus on the tre atme nt of the most -like ly-affected CDFs.

Based on proj ect ex peri ence, the most comm only affected CDFs a re the tree rows, the scored concrete sidewal ks, g ranite cobblestone curbs, and vintage lighting. The following se ctions will provide spe cific guide line s for each of these features. W here appli cabl e, C al trans has prov ided photographs and drawings to illustrate de sign de tails.

It should be noted that some of the CDFs ide ntifie d in the CDF Table s in Se ction 3.2 and discussed in the previous chapter are not discussed in this section in the same depth because they are unl i kel y to be affected (e.g. the alignment ) or they are larger features that i ncl ude other C D Fs within them that are discussed separately (e.g. median and parkways) .

Howe ve r, sev eral general observ ati ons about these l arger ov erarchi ng CDFs that contain other contributing elements can be made.

First, the ove rall a lignme nt itse lf can be v i ew ed as the sum of all the other CDFs and is ofte n not significantly alte re d by a ny individua l proje ct.

Rather, maintain ing the integrity of the overall alignment is synonymous with ensuring that cumulative effects do not occur over time from individual projects. This goal can be attained by ensuring that individual proje c ts meet the SOIS recommendations outlined her ein, particularly to those C D Fs that are commonly impacted by projects such as curbs, trees side walks, a nd lampposts (a ll di scussed i n detai l bel ow ). On the other hand, projects that directly affect the ov erall alignmen t would tend to be large r proje cts tha t would like ly re quire mitigation for an adv erse effect/significant impact as opposed to SOI S measures ai med at av oidi ng adv erse effects/impacts. For ex ample, a proj ect that change d the orthogonal street plan with its north -south axis and east -west streets i ntersecti ng the ali gnment at general l y regul ar i nterv als would likely be of such scale that mitigation would be required. In these i nstances , it is difficult to lay out project specific measures that would depend on the particulars of the project.

Second, t he driv es can also be v i ew ed as part of the ov eral l al i gnment i n that their ov erall width and ov erall v isual character are a major visible feature of and contribute to the character of historic Euclid A venue, but the ir physic al mate ria ls (pa ve me nt, stripin g, lane markers) do not contribute. L i ke the ov erall al i gnment, proj ects that affect the driv es would most likely affect other features such as the curbs or median more significantly or would have an effect on the v isual or character of the overall histori c property. Such a v isual affect such as painting road markings with bright colors or adding bright reflective signs is a lre ady addressed general l y i n the treatment measures in C hapter 6 with the recommendation to avoid new pavement markings with bright colors other than that standard white that may detract from the ov erall v isual character and feeling . Avoiding the use of non -standard markings and limiting the number of markings will he lp avoid visual clutte r and affect the historic prope rty/historical resource less .

Finally, a few general observ ati ons can be made about the parkw ay s and me dian i n additi on to thei r di scussion i n relation to tree row s, sidew al ks, and cobbl estone curbs (see below ) . W hil e these are large features that are clearly part of the ov erall alignment, proje c t-spe c ific measures or conditions that meet the SOIS can be derived from the treatment recommendations in Chapter 6 . Per those recommendations, maintaining the tree rows and cobblestone curbs are the most important priorities for the median and parkways . T hese are addressed i n thei r respecti v e secti ons below . Second, maintaining the width of the median and parkways is important . W idth reduction i s someti mes a proj ect component, for example when a turn lane is installed requiring widening into the median or parkway. D etermi ni ng l ev el of effect and dev elopi ng measures, be they SO I S measures to av oi d adv erse effects/si gni fi cant impacts or mitigation me asure s for adverse e ffe cts/signific a nt impacts would be subjective and depend on project variables. A s such, these 93 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 52 scenarios are discussed further in C hapter 8 in the discussion of project features that potentially cannot meet the SOIS.

7.1 T ree Rows
T he tree row s —both those in the medians and in the parkways -- contribute to the ov erall v isual character of Euclid A v enue and are among the most significant CDFs of the historic property/ historical resource. The ori gi nal trees w ere planted i n 1883, maki ng them ov er 140 y ears old, and some hav e trunks ov er three feet w ide. Preserv ing the trees i s of the upmost importance to the preservation of Euclid A venue . The medians feature a doubl e row of C al i fornia Pepper T rees (Schinus molle), planted 50 feet apart and the parkw ay s feature a si ngl e row of Si l k O ak T rees (Gre vilia Robusta) planted 30 feet apart.

O ri gi nall y the C haffey Brothers planted D ate Pal m T rees ( Phoenix dactylifera ) in betw een the Pepper T rees al ong the median because t he Pepper T rees w ere y oung and w ould need ti me to grow and the p alm trees grew qui ckl y to prov i de a more compl ete l ook. Shortl y after , the Pal ms w ere remov ed, but a few of the ori gi nal Pal ms remai n. Southern Magnolias ( Magnolia grandiflora ) hav e been pl ant ed in the median replacing the original Pepper Trees , most notably in the downtown area from D Street to Holt Boulevard.

The City of Ontario planted Chinquapin Oaks ( or Chinkapin , Quercus muehlenbergii) along the parkways in the downtown area from G Street to Holt Boule va rd w here the Si l k O aks w ere no longer ex tant. Thus, there are now continuously planted Chinquapin Oaks along the downtown parkways , thus re -e sta blishing the tre e line with a different, but compatible species of oak. D ue to this replacement that was done in accordance with the SO I S Standards for a proj ect in 2020, these trees should now be considered part of the contributing element to the historic property. T here are al so spor a dic Cedar D eodar ( Cedrus deodara ) and other tree speci es that hav e been planted ov er ti me, how ev er , according to the 2006 NRHP nomination, these trees do not contribute to the significance of the historic property/historical resource . The Ca lifornia Peppe r and Silk Oak Trees are significant to the historic de sign of the corridor as the species were speci fi cal l y chosen by the C haffey Brothers because they are resilient to drought and are native to Australia . The C al i fornia Pepper and Si l k O ak T rees are a hi storic ally significant characteristic of Euclid Ave nue ’s historic landscape design signif ying its inte rnational influence as the Chaffey Brothers constructed and mode le d two other Euclid Ave nue s, with the same name , and tree rows in the median a s we ll a s parkw ay s, in Mildura in northern V ictoria, and Renmark in southern Au s t ra lia .

To re tain the historic cha racte r of historic Euclid Ave nue , the re moval or replacement of c haracter -de fining trees or spaces and spatial re lationships betw een l andscape features that characterize the property shall be avoided. If repl acing a character -de fining tre e ide ntifie d in the CDF ta ble s is requi red, the new tree shall match the old in a s close ly a s possible . The following can be used as guidance to develop project - spe cific measures or conditions that are consistent with the SOIS or used as measures or condi ti ons directl y :
• Contributing or character defining trees should be defined as the original tre e s or the ir mature re place ment
• If character -de fining trees must be remov ed, they should be replaced in -kind at a ratio of 1:1 or greater when removing an original 140 -ye ar-old tre e with a young 5 -ye ar-old one , more should be replanted to fill in vacant spots in the tree rows nearby . • In-kind replacement trees in the median should be California Pepper T rees ( Schinus mol le)
• In-kind replacement trees in the parkways should be Silk Oak trees ( Grevillea robust a)
• The Chinkapin Chinquapin Oaks ( Quercus muehlenbergii) along the parkways in the downtown area from G Street to Holt Boule va rd are acceptable in -ki nd repl acements i n the parkway s • Wh e n non-contributing trees such as Southern Magnolias , cedar deodar , or c amphor require replacement, they should be replaced with e ither California pepper, Silk Oak, or Chinquapin Oa ks, depending on location .
94 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 53 • O ther tree speci es may be determi ned to be compati bl e i nfil l in the tre e line s by the City in consultation with consulting or interested parties who have a demonstrated interest in the historic prope rty. To be consistent with the SOIS, consideration shoul d be giv en to tree type s of simila r appearance, si ze, and growing requirements
• In-ki nd tree replacement rati os should be a mi nimum of 1:1 or gre ate r, whe n re moving a n original adult 140-ye ar-old tree with a young 5 -y ear-ol d one, more shoul d be replanted to fil l i n v acant spots i n the tree row s nearby i f possible.
• T ree spacing and rows of tree s within in the median and pa rkways should be re taine d . (A single row of Silk Oak Trees along each parkway 30 -feet on center, a doubl e row of C al ifornia Pepper T rees within the me dian 50-feet on center)
• In-kind tree replacements should be replanted in the same l ocati on. W hen replacement i n the same l ocation is not possi ble, a location as close as possi ble to the original loca tion should be chosen
• W hen replacement in the same location is not possible, consideration can be gi v en to repl acing trees el sew here al ong the historic prope rty, with c onside ration give n to re placing missing tre e s within e xisting tree rows.
• The median and parkway trees should be maintaine d through regul arl y schedul ed maintenance and landscape management.

Such efforts should i ncl ude establ ishing a pl an for assessi ng tree health, trimming, and replacement , and regul ar wateri ng

Figure 21 Euc lid Ave . CDF Ma p
95 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 54 The a b ove image shows a portion of the inventory of extant CDFs including trees within the median and parkways of historic Euclid A venue. The inventory map of CD Fs can be found in A ppendix 2. The red trees indic ate the locations of contributing hi stori c Pepper trees, the pink trees i ndi cate the l ocations of i n-ki nd replacements of Pepper T rees, the green trees indi cate the location of contri buti ng Si lk O ak T rees, the bl ue trees i ndi cate the l ocation of i n-kind re placements of Si l k O ak T rees, the grey trees i ndi cate the locati ons of M agnol ia trees, the dark green trees

i ndi cate the l ocati ons of Pal m T rees, the purple trees i ndicate the l ocati ons of C edar T rees, and the green and purpl e trees i ndicate Pi ne T rees. I n addi tion, the City of Ontario has a tree plan that depicts the locations and he a lth of e xtant and infill tr ees that can be consulted when proj ect considerations regradi ng trees need to be made.

Figure 23 In-K ind Replacement of C al ifornia Pepper T rees Figure 22 Original California Pe pper Tre e 96 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 55

Figure 24 Origina l Silk Oak & Da te Palm Tre e s
Figure 25 Southern Magnolia Tree in the Median
97 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property M anagement Plan
December 2023 Page 56

7.2 Scored C oncrete Si dew al ks
The continuous sidewalks along the parkways of the historic portion of Euclid A venue are scored, with a square scoring pattern found in many of the older neighborhoods in Ontario. The sidewalk scoring is approx i mately 2 feet by 2 feet for each square. T he path is two squares wide and is thus approx i matel y 4 feet w i de. T he conti nuous, scored concrete sidewalks are an early design feature of the parkways. A lthough some portions have been replaced with various paving types, their location within the parkways i s retai ned and the ov eral l i ntegri ty and v isual character of the sidewalks remains intact.

To retain the historic character of Euclid A v enue, the remov al or replacement of the scored concrete sidew al k or the ir spatial relationship to the parkways and adj oi ning properties that characterize Euclid A venue should be avoided. An y chemical or cle aning treatments used for maintenance or re habilitation should not damage the scored concrete si dewal k. W hen replacement of the scored concrete sidewal k is required, the replacement concrete sidew al k should match the old in de sign (size ), col or, tex ture, and w here possibl e, materi als . The following measures or conditions are consistent with the SOIS :
• A ny project that includes remov al or repl acement the scored concrete sidewalk should replace the scored concrete sidewalk in-kind with the same scoring pattern dimensions of concrete with ne w tha t is compara ble in stre ngth, composition, color, a nd texture .
• A proj ect that requires remov al or replacement of modern concrete sidew al k i nstal led outside the E ucl i d A v enue period of significance should re pla ce the subje ct se ction of side walk with historically c ompatible scored concrete sidew al k .
• All in-kind replacements should be differentiated from the old whe re possible . A typical way to achiev e this is to date stamp the new concrete sections at beginning and end locations.

T he adj acent fi gure depi cts a secti on of replaced scored concrete side walk tha t re plica te s the origina l.

Figure 26 Scored C oncrete Si dew alk In-K i nd Repl acement

98 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 57

7.3 Granite Cobblestone Curbs
The curb material found along historic Euclid A venue and in early Ontario historic neighborhoods is constructed with indigenous rock. The curbs along Euclid Ave nue we re originally made of la rge granite cobble stone s and concrete. The original granite cobble stone curbs stood about 8 - inches high with concrete mortar in -betw een the v erti cal cobbl estones with a slim concrete curb on top (Figure 25 & 26). The originals also ha d cobbl estone gutters. A di fferent decorativ e grani te cobbl estone curb w as used in the m edian around the bandstand area, that had a distinctiv e pattern with 12 -inch ve rtical granite cobble stone s in-betw een the 8 -inch granite cobblestones. This decorative granite cobblestone curb around the bandstand area i s no l onger ex tant.

The ma jority of the original masonry curbs along the historic portions of E ucl i d A v enue sti ll ex ist today . How ev er, there are portions of masonry curb al ong Eucl i d A v enue that hav e been replaced ov er ti me w i th modern curb. Some se ctions of the original granite cobble stone masonry curbs have be e n re place d with in -kind cobblestone masonry curb replacements. T he grani te cobbl estone masonry curbs border the me dian as w el l as parkw ay s and are a unifying feature of the historic property /historical resource . G rani te cobbl estone masonry curbs are also a prominent feature throughout the locally designated Euclid A venue Historic District ne ighborhoods.

To retain the historic character of Euclid A v enue, the remov al or replacement of granite cobblestone masonry curbs, spaces, spa tia l rel ati onships that characteri ze the property should be avoided and any chemical treatments used for maintenance or re ha bilita tion should not damage the masonry curbs . W hen replacement of the masonry curbs is required, the new masonry curbs shall match the old in de sign, color, tex ture, and w here possi bl e, materials.

Fortunately, both the City of Upland and the City of Ontario have both dev eloped repl acement pl ans for histori c cobbl estone curbs (see fi gures following). I n essence, if curb replacements w ithin the Euclid A venue historic corridor are done according to these plans, they should be considered to meet the SO I S standards (See Figure 31).

T he foll owi ng can be used as guidance to dev el op proj ect -spe cific measures or conditions that are consistent with the SOIS or used as me asure s or conditions dire ctly:
• If the granite cobblestone curbs cannot be rehabilitated then they must be replaced in- kind, with the same dime nsions, simila r granite (reuse of originals preferred) , and concrete that is comparable in strength, composition, color, and texture . • The existing granite cobblestones should be re -used , whe n feasible . The concrete should be broken and removed from the cobblestones, and the cobblestones cleaned and stored to be re - used. I f the co bblestones get damaged or cannot be reused , then loca lly source d granite cobble stone s of similar color a nd dimensions should be used. All ne w in-ki nd repl acements shoul d be able to be differentiate d from the old. Upland and Ontario cobblestone curb replace ment standard plans diffe r slightly from the origina l historic rock curb installation methods sufficie ntly to distinguish the m from the old while still me e ting the SOIS. • The granite cobblestones should be a minimum of 10 -inches ta ll.

If they are 12 -inches or longer than ex cav ation of the curb area shoul d be deeper to bring them to the same height. T he grani te cobblestones should show a minimum of 6 -inches tall of stone face and 1 -to-2-inches tall of concrete curb on top. The granite cobblestones should be p laced 2 -inches apart, the concrete should be remov ed from the stone faces, and hand tools should be used to place the stones and mortar . The maximum grani te cobblestone curb height should be 8 -inches. The maximum granite cobblestone width should be 6 -inches on top and 8 - inches on the bottom with a 2 -i nch taper being w i der at the bottom, angling the curb face outward. The dimensions and in - kind granite cobblestone replacement plans are illustrate d in Figures 31 and 32.
99 EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 58 • Repaving and overlaying the asphalt without grinding it down or remov i ng l ayers can cause the masonry curbs to be buri ed ov er ti me. Proj ects that i nv ol v e repav i ng should grind down or remo ve layers of asphalt during the repaving process to maintain the proper curb height (8 inches, 6 -inches of stoneface with 1-to-2- inches of concrete on top).
• Chemical or physical treatments to remove graffiti or paint from the masonry curbs, if appropriate, should be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. T reatments that cause damage to the masonry curbs should not be used.
• To enhance and restore the historical resource to its original condition, whenev er a curb secti on i s replaced and there is modern curb adjacent within the same section, the entire section should be replaced with granite cobblestone curb in -kind replacements , whe re fe asible and a t a logica l e nd point. • A proj ect that requires remov al or replacement of modern concrete curb i nstall ed outside the E ucl i d A v enue period of significance should replace the subj ect section of curb with historically c ompatible cobblestone curb.

Figure 27 Original Granite Cobble stone Masonry Curb 1920's (Source Ontario Masonry Curb Management Plan )

Figure 28 Original Masonry Curbs 19 10 ’s (Source A rchive.org) 100
EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 59

Figure 30 M asonry C urb Replacement Partial ly Buri ed Figure 31 City of Onta rio Masonry Curb Pla n
Figure 29 Masonry Curb Replacement
101
EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 60

Figure 32 T he C ity of Upland M asonry C urb Plan

Figure 33 Original Masonry Curb & Original Lampposts 1910' s (Source Archive.org)

102
EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property M anagement Plan
December 2023 Page 61

7.4 Vi n t a g e Ligh t in g
The historic portions of Euclid Ave nue display a varie ty of vintage streetl i ght sty l es. T he origi nal lampposts w ere replaced i n the mi d-1920s with cast -iron K ing Standard lampposts (Se e Original Lampposts in Figure 33 above, King Stand ards in Figure 34 & 36 below) . O v er ti me, some of these lights have been replaced by Cobra light fixtures by the City of O ntario and C altrans (Figure 35) . The K ing Standard and Cobra lampposts both are constructed out of iron to be historically compatible with de cora tive lampposts from the e arly 1900’s. T hey both rise about 16- feet tal l w i th decorativ e round curv ed boot s with four straight moldings that boast a floral pendant. The tapered shaft starts about 6 - inches and tapers down to about 3 -inches at the top with fillets before joining a decorative capital with curved stepped molding topped with a large upright acorn bulb with a decorative metal final. The paint has peel ed off many of the K ing Standard lampposts leaving them with a rusty color. T he newer C obra lampposts are painted black.

L arger v i ntage concrete li ght pol es, li kel y erected i n the 1950s and re trofitte d with re place me nt arms and lights in the 1980s, a lso line the parkway s of E ucl i d A v enue. How ev er, these concrete l i ght poles are not in-kind replacements of the originals and do not date from the period of significance and therefore do not contribute to the character of Euclid A venue.

There are also repl i ca v intage lighting that has been installed around the reconstructed band stand, tha t we re not ide ntifie d as CDFs in the NRHP nomination; however, based on stakeholder input and for the purposes of this HPTMP, they hav e been i ncl uded as C D Fs and should be repl aced in-kind. The lampposts around the bandstand are replicas of original lampposts found in Ontario in the early 1900’s. T he lampposts are about 7-feet tall with quad downward round bulb designs with four 2 -foot arms w i th decorativ e corbels. T hey are pai nted green and each one has a small plaque on it , acknowledging different people or businesses who donated to the replica bandstand construction.

To retain the historic character of Euclid A v enue, the remov al or re place me nt of vintage lighting, changing the spaces and spatial re lationships betw een the lampposts that characterize the property should be av oi ded and chemi cal treatments used for the maintenance or re ha bilitation of the lampposts should not damage the vintage lighting.

W hen replacement of the v i ntage li ghti ng is requi red, the new v i ntage l i ghti ng replacements shal l match the original in de sign, color, te xture , and w here possibl e, materi al s. The following me asure s or conditions tha t are co nsistent with the SOIS:
• An y p roje c t activitie s that affect the original vintage lighting should re ha bilita te the vintage lighting. If re ha bilita tion is not possible then the vintage lighting must be re place d with in-kind replacements that match the old in design, color, texture, and w here possi bl e materials.
• King Standa rd in -kind replacements are preferred by the City of Onta rio (se e Plan, Figure 36) . Repl acement shoul d occur when needed. W hen repl aci ng cobra ov erhead sty l e l ights and traffi c signal, spe cial consideration shall be made to install a decorativ e desi gn themed pol e.
• The replica lighting around the replica bandstand should be replaced in -kind. The replica bandstand in -ki nd replacements should match the quad downward round bulb designs that re plic ate the origina l la mpposts found in Onta rio in the e a rly 1900’ s (Figure 39) .
• A proj ect that requi res remov al or repl acement of modern l i ght posts installe d outside the Euclid Ave nue pe riod of significa nce (post 1940) should replace the subject la mp post with historically-c ompatible K ing Standard per city plan .

Images of the origina l (Figure 33 above) , K ing Standard, Cobra and replica bandstand L ampposts and City of Ontario king standard replacement plans are de picte d in Figure s 34, 35, 37 and 39 on the following pages.
103
EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 62 Figure 34 K ind Standard L amppost

Figure 35 Cobra Lam ppost (Replacement)
104
EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 63

Figure 36 City of Ontario King Standard Lamppost Plan

Figure 37 K ing Standard L amppost 1940's (Source Ontario L ibrary) 105
EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 64

Figure 38 City of Upland A pproved L amppost
106
EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 65

Figure 39 Bandstand L amppost

107
EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property M anagement Plan
December 2023 Page 66

8.0 8.0 PROJECT FEATURES THAT MAY NOT MEET

THE SOIS WITHOUT IMPLEMENTATION OF

CONDITIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES
A s discussed in the previous chapters, b y carry i ng out a proj ect i n a manner that is consi stent w i th the SO I S, adv erse effects/si gni fi cant impacts on the historic Euclid Ave nue can be avoide d. H ow ev er, there are instances where SOIS measures or conditions cannot be successfully appl i ed to a proj ect and therefore effects /impacts must be mitigated. The purpose of this section is to identify potential project actions or circumstances where the SOIS cannot be met and w oul d therefore cause an adv erse effect/ significant impact on historic Euclid Ave nue , and to prov ide ex ampl e measures that could be utilized to le sse n or mitigate such effects/impacts when rehabilitation of historic features per the SOIS is not fe asible.

W hile the preferred treatment for preserving CDFs of an historical resource such as E ucl i d A v enue i s to rehabi li tate it, according to the SOI S it is recognized that rehab ilita tion is not always possible or fe a sible.

Based on Caltrans proj ect ex peri ence
92 , t his se ction include s va rious
pote ntia l roa dway i mprov ement scenarios that c ould occur that would like ly cause an adv erse effect/ significant impact to the significance of historic Euclid Ave nue . I t should be noted, however, that proje c t-specific determi nations as to w hether a proj ect or proj ect component causes an adv erse effect/substantial adv erse change are subj ecti v e and depend on many variables such as project type, how many individual CDFs are impacted, degree of impact to in dividual CDFs a s we ll as the whole historic property, and other factors. Therefore, the discussion that follows

92 C altrans proj ect fil es are av ailabl e at t he Caltrans District 8 office , San Bernardino, CA . These include the Interstate 10 Corridor Project (EA 0C250 , 2015 ), the SR-83 Safety E nhancements Proj ect (EA 1K 790, 2021), the SR -83 Install Signals at Phillips Stree t Proje ct (EA 1N600, 2023 -24), and Encroachment Permit Proj ects ( 08- N-LC-0468, 08- 20 -N-LC-0468, 08- 20- 6-MC- 0393, 08- 20 -N-BS-1333).

can only prov ide generalities and strategies rather than concrete determinations that a proposed future project will or will not cause an a dve rse effect/substantial adv erse change on histori c E ucl id A v enue.

I t shoul d al so be acknow l edged that the regulatory contex t of a gi v en proj ect, w hether i t is subj ect to NHPA Secti on 106 rev i ew or C E Q A rev i ew for ex ampl e, determi nes w hi ch factors need to be g ive n c onside ration other than whether or not the project’s components meet the SOIS to determine lev el of effect/impact. For ex ample, as discussed in C hapter 4, the Section 106 C ri teria of adv erse effect are broader and prov i de sev en ex ampl es of adv erse effect that in addition to a project meeting the SOIS include physical destruction, introduction of visual atmospheric or audible elements that dimmish the integrity of a property, and neglect.

CEQA , on the other hand is seemingly more restrictive, focusing on physical destruction, relocation, or alte ration. While it is conce iva ble to argue that the SO I S can be i nterpreted to encompass al l these ty pes of effects , direct and indirect , it can equally be argued that whether a project meets the SOIS is not the on ly factor for de te rmining le ve l of effect.

Oftentimes, projects consist of multiple components that may affect multiple Euclid CDFs. The discussion be low bre aks down proje ct type s or components – widening or adding turn lanes, pavement re habilitation, adding roundabouts or bulb outs, drainage improvement, and landscape proje c ts – and their respecti v e treatment or mitigati on recommendati ons that can be used separatel y or combi ned as needed for a giv en proj ect depending on scope and which CD Fs are impacted.

M any Federal , State, and l ocal agenci es are impl ementi ng or hav e recentl y i mpl emented mul ti -modal and multi -component Complete Streets or Road Di et proj ects. “C ompl ete Streets” are streets desi gned to enable safe use for all users includ ing drive rs, pe de strians, bicyclists, and publ i c transportati on riders. C ompl ete Streets proj ects v ary based on community contex t, and may include elements such as sidewalk enhancements , addition or enhancement of bic ycle lane s, bus lane s, public transport ation stops, street crossing opportunitie s, me dian islands, accessible pedestrian signals, curb extensions, modifie d curb ramps, streetscape, and l andscape treatments. Similarly, “Roa d Die t” 108
EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 67 proje c ts are often a component of or contribute to C omplete Stree ts approaches and involve reducing an e xisting three -lane roadway to a t wo- l ane roadw ay often conv erti ng the third lane i nto a separate bi ke l ane and street parking . Such roadway configurations allow for installation of traffic calming ame nitie s, bike lane s, on -street parki ng, si dewal k ex tensi ons or bulb outs, and other amenities. Such projects have the potential to impact many or Euclid Ave nue ’s large sca le CDFs including uniform spacing of paralle l line ar fe ature s of the alignme nt, drive s, me dian, and par kways as w el l as other smal l er C D Fs such as tree and granite cobblestone curbs. 93
I n a community contex t such as O ntario, such large -scale proj ects or plans/progra ms that may consist of se ve ra l smalle r proje cts would like ly be i mpl emented to maintain and improve the historic downtown’s functionality and usefulness for residents . It is important to consider that transportation corridors, like all infrastructure, must change over time to meet the ev ol v i ng needs of the consti tuenci es they serv e. Such needs should be balanced with historic pre se rvation needs.

8.1 W idening or A dding Turning La n e s
A project to widen or add turning lanes to Euclid Ave nue could affect many of its CDFs including the median, parkways, masonry curbs, trees , and vintage lighting. While a ll proje cts on the Euclid Ave nue historic property should be consistent with all the SOIS Rehabilitation Standards, the importance of some standards stand out more than others. Wide ning or adding turning lanes can be viewed as an alteration that is inconsistent with Re habilitation Standard 2 (see C hapter 4) , regarding retaining the historic character of the property and av oiding remov al of distinctiv e materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property , and Standard 5, regarding preservation of distinctive mate rials. Wide ning or adding tur n lanes can also be considered a new addition to which Re ha bilitation Standard s 9 and 10

93https://www.transportation.gov/mission/health/complete-streets; https://highways.dot.gov/safety/other/road-diets

would c once iva bly apply re garding e nsuring that ne w additions, e xte rior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property.

A s noted before, the determi nati on of l ev el of effect i s subj ecti v e and needs to be determi ned on a proj ect -by-proj ect basis. For ex ample, a proposed project to add a turn lane at a Euclid A venue intersection would like ly not c ause an a dve rse e ffe ct/significant impact if no wide ning occurred into the parkway or median. A project that requires minor widening into the median or parkways may also not cause an adverse effect/significant impact if the widening is of limite d distance, for example a 20 foot or l ess taper of a few feet w i de, any curb remov ed w i ll be rehabilitated per the SOI S standards, and no other CDFs are al tered.

Howev er, a more typical scenario is that impacts from this type of proj ect could not be a voide d or le sse ne d with implementation of conditions that are consistent with the SOIS and therefore should be discouraged.

Additionally, if the re is a ne e d to a dd turning lane s to improve traffic and resolv e safety concerns, then a M itigated Negativ e D eclaration (M ND ) under CEQA for the project would likely be prepared. (See Secti on 1.6 De finitions)
A ffecting multiple CDFs with a project that involves widening or turning lane s may re sult in a n adv erse ef f ect/ substantial adverse change to historic Euclid Ave nue because such projects often cannot be implemented in a manner that is consistent with the SOIS. If the addition of turn lanes or widening the street is determined to be necessary and cannot be avoided due to safety, traffic congestion, or other priority concerns, then the adve rse effect/substanti al adv erse change should be mitigate d by focus ing on both the di rect phy si cal effects as wel l as the visual effects cause d by the widening. Considerations for mitigation may include :
• Whe n affe cting multiple CDFs, the individua l CDFs should be tre ate d in accordance with the recommendations in Chapter 7 to th e ex tent fe asible to re duce the ove rall impact to Euclid Ave nue . • Whe n 1:1 re place me nt of historic fe a ture s in the ir original loca tion is not fe asible , conside r imple me nting compensatory mitigation 109
EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 68 elsewhere such as rehabilitating another section of the his toric al resource, by planting in -ki nd replacement trees in the v acant spots along the tree rows in the median, parkways , or installing ma sonry in- kind replacement curbs in areas where they hav e been replaced with modern curb. The historic pre se rva tion mitigation fee component of the Ontario historic preservation ordinance can be used for this purpose or a se parate simila r fund be se t up spe cific to Euclid A venue.
• Publi c benefi t efforts i n the form of w ebsites/pages w i th histori cal information, photographs , etc., historical society meeting presentations, pamphlets or displays or similar outreach efforts may be utilize d as mitigation for a dve rse e ffe cts/signific a nt impacts. • W hen new features are added (such as turn lanes or parking areas) , ensure that those features are designed to be as unobtrusive as possible , compatible with the historic mate rials of the c orridor’s historic character , such as using cobblestone , planters with trees and /or roses to make vegetation consistent , and retai n the histori c re lationships betw een the features of the l andscape, and are compatibl e w i th the hi stori c character of the property and i ts setti ng (See fol low i ng ex ampl e regardi ng the I-10/Euclid Ave nue Proje ct). • Pote ntia l impacts to tre e root syste ms should be conside re d in t he project design phase and need to be considered when assessing project impacts. This should be done in consultation with project engi neers and landscape archi tects or an arbori st, and resul tant recommendations for proj ect refi nements or modi fi cations be taken into consideration in final design plans to reduce/avoid impacts.

T o i l l ustrate how these considerations may work to arriv e at a no adv erse effect/less than significant impact finding, looking at the Caltrans I -10 Corridor Project (2014 -2024) may be illustrative . This proje ct re quire d replacement of the E ucl id A v enue bridge ov er I nterstate 10 (I -10), minor wide ning of Euclid Ave nue for turn pocke ts, re moval of se ve ral tre e s in the parkways and median and remov al of cobblestone curbs. T his proje c t impacted numerous CDFs, including trees, cobblestone curbs, and the median. However, conditions that were consistent with the SOIS for in-ki nd repl acement of curbs and 1:1 replacement of trees (Pepper trees and Si lk O ak trees, respecti v el y ) w ere dev el oped and i mpl emented.

T he replacement I -10 bridge was constructed with components such as cobblestone curbs and planters with smaller trees using compatible materials to reduce the ov erall impact on the historic transportation corridor by replacing or maintain i ng the tree l i ne to the ex tent feasibl e.

T he fact that the proj ect was localized only affecting a small approx imate two block section of historic Euclid A v enue, and the proj ect location had Figure 40 Proposed Through Turning L ane in Median & Constructed Turning Lane in Me dian at Philade lphia St
110
EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 69 already undergone numerous improvements affecting the historic integrity of the corridor are other project -specific considerations that came into play in de te rmining tha t the proje ct would re sult in a No adv erse effect under Section 106 and less than significant impact under CEQA.

A n al ternate scenario that w ould more li kel y resul t i n an adv erse effect/ significant impact is a future proposed proj ect to install a traffic signal, add ex cl usiv e l eft-turn lanes, add crosswal ks where none prev iousl y existed, and upgrade the curb ramps t o Ame rica ns with Disa bilitie s Act (ADA) standards at a Euclid Ave nue inte rse ction. Alte rnative s or de sign v ariations may va ry but include either cutting the turn lanes diagonally through the median (as was done at Philadelphia Street , Figure 40) or creatin g a taper up to 350 feet l ong and 12 feet w i de i nto the median.

Such a proj ect would hav e a clear impact on the median, its tree line, and possibly impact cobblestone curbs and open space as w ell hav e a v i sual impact on the corridor (Figure 40 & 41). In th is case, the tree li ne l i kel y cannot be retai ned, and trees w oul d likel y be permanentl y remov ed, or at best the tree line would be reduced. The cobblestone curbs may be replaced in kind, and the impact to the open space may or may not be minimize d. Re gardless, the permeant i mpact to the median and trees as w el l as the i ncremental i mpact of the proj ect on the ov erall histori c character and distinctiv e materials would be difficult to av oid . A s such, it would be difficult to condition the project in a manner t hat is consistent with the SOIS Re ha bilita tion Standa rds, particula rly standa rds 2, 5, 9, and 10.

8.2 Pav ement Rehabi l i tati on
Pav ement rehabilitation is an activ ity that may or may not cause an adverse effect/substantial adverse change on Euclid A venue. W hile the ex i sti ng pav ement i s not a character defi ni ng feature of the hi stori c property, the cobblestone curbs that line the me dian and parkways on ei ther side of the pav ement are character defi ni ng. T he greatest i mpact to the cobblestone curbs is l i kel y the result of pav ement rehabil i tation over time either damaging or burying the curbs. W hen existing layers of asphalt and paveme nt are repav ed w ithout remov ing the ex i sting l ay er of pav ement, the roadway increases i n v erti cal hei ght ov er ti me. I n doi ng so, the grani te cobbl estone curbs can ev entual l y get buri ed and potenti al l y cause an adv erse impact to the historic resource.

Pa vement rehabilitation that results in burying the granite cobblestone curbs , even inadvertently, would not be consistent with the SOIS Standard s 2 and 5 regardi ng retaini ng the hi stori c character of the property and avoiding removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property .

More importantly, such a project would be inconsistent with Standard 9, regarding ensuring that new additions or alterations do not destroy historic mate ria ls that ch aracterize the property .

Considerations for mitigation or avoidance may include:
• An y pave me nt re ha bilita tion within the limits of the historic Euclid A v enue must fi rst remov e suffi ci ent ex i sti ng material before Figure 41 Proposed Turning L ane
111
EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 70 ov erl ay i ng new materi al to ensure that the roadway retains the same height and spatial relationship to the masonry curbs bordering the parkways and median. The 8 -inch masonry curb face should be maintained throughout historic Euclid A venue (See I mages 31 and 32, Granite Cobblestone Curbs in Section 7.3 for the design spe cific ations).
• I f the grani te cobbl estone masonry curbs are buri ed (Figure 42:

Buried Masonry Curbs) , the proj ect scope should include focus ing on rehabilitating the masonry curbs, unburying them or reconstructing them with ori gi nal materi al s w i th at l east the same li near feet of reconstruction as the damaged or buried section (See Secti on 7.3 for reconstruction guidance on masonry curbs ).
• If pa ve me nt re ha bilitation occurs within the limits of the Euclid historic corridor, impacts can be avoided by establishing and enforcing a minimum three -inch (3”) buffer between the curb and the proposed pav ement remov al and ov erlay activ ities.
• Public be ne fit or compensatory mitigation outlined in the previous section could als o be utilized as a component of an SOIS action plan or mitigation plan.

Figure 42 Buried Masonry Curbs

8.3 Bulb Outs
Bulb outs or curb extensions may be considered as a component of C ompl ete Streets or road di et proj ects. New bulb outs at the intersections affect the uni form spacing of paral lel l i near features of the al i gnment, width of the drive s , me dian, and parkways and perhaps most significantly, the granite cobblestone masonry curbs. The bulb outs would be considered a new addi tion and alteration to the historic property . It is important to note here that projects such as road diet or complete streets that contain components such as bulb outs, enhanced parking, dedicated bike lanes with buffers, and other features, can result in subs tantial changes to an historic transportation corridor that may easily be v iewed as hav ing an adv erse effect/significant impact. 112
EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 71 A s with other project activities discussed above, to be consistent with the SOIS, a project that includes bulb outs would need to meet Standards 2 and 5 regardi ng retai ni ng the hi stori c character of the property , as w el l as 9 and 10 that ensure that new additions to the historic property do not destroy historic materials that characterize the property, and if removed in the futur e do not impair the e ssential form and integrity of the historic property . De ve loping tre a tme nts for this type of proje ct will like ly involve combi ni ng sev eral measures or treatments to ful ly mi ti gate an adv erse effect/substantial adv erse change. T he follo wing considerations can be dev eloped i nto measures to miti gate adv erse effects/si gni fi cant i mpacts or a s conditions that assist in complying with the SOIS. The se include several that have been previously discussed in previous sections:
• Constructing bulb outs, particularly in multiple loca tions, may disrupt the continuous parallel lines of the driv es and the ov erall al i gnment as a whole creating an indirect or visual effect that is inconsistent with the hi stori c character of the property and disrupts i ts sp ecial re lationships. This c ondition is difficult to dire ctly mitigate and may require other forms of holistic treatment such as public benefit mitigation.
• Whe n affe cting multiple CDFs, the individua l CDFs should be tre ate d in accordance with the recommenda tions in Chapter 7 to the extent fe asible to re duce the ove rall impact to Euclid Ave nue . • Constructing bulb outs would like ly re quire re moval of cobble stone curbs and disrupts the continuous parallel lines of the masonry curbs along the parkways and median. Treating this situation may require a two-fold approach:
o Reconstruction of the curbs around the bulb out per City of O ntario Rock C urbs standard plan.
o In addition, compensatory mitigation whereby sections of cobblestone curb outside the proj ect impact ar ea can be rehabi li tated (see below ).
• Whe n 1:1 re place me nt of historic fe a ture s in the ir original loca tion is not fe asible , conside r imple me nting compensatory mitigation el sew here such as rehabi li tati ng another section of the hi stori cal resource, by planting in -ki nd replacement trees in the v acant spots along the tree rows in the median, parkways , or installing ma sonry in- kind replacement curbs in areas where they hav e been replaced w ith modern curb.
• W hen new features are added (such as bulb outs) ensure that those features are desi gned to be as unobtrusive as possible , compatible with the historic materials of the corridor’ s historic character , suc h as using cobblestone , pl anters w i th trees and /or roses to make v egetation consistent , and retai n the histori c relationshi ps betw een the features of the landscape, and are compatible with the historic character of the property and its setting .

Figure 43 Previously Proposed Bulb Outs

8.4 Roundabouts
Like multi-component compl ete street proj ects, a project that proposes a roundabout would likely be of sufficient scale such that the affect s to numerous Euclid A venue CDFs would be difficult to address with project conditions that meet the SOIS. Such a project would affect the uniform spacing of paralle l line ar fe ature s of the alignme nt, drive s, me dian, and parkways a s we ll as impact othe r CDFs su ch as tree rows and granite cobblestone curbs. Roundabouts also affect the continuous 113
EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 72 uninterrupted north -south viewshed from within the alignment creating or contributing to a v isual effect that is inconsiste nt with the historic character of the property and disrupts its special relationships .

A r oundabout would be considered a new addition to the historic property . To be consiste nt with the SOIS, many standards would come into play, including Standards 1, 2, 5, 9, and 10. Due to the numerous effects, dev e loping tre atme nts for this type of proje ct will like ly involve combi ni ng sev eral measures or treatments to ful ly mi ti gate an adv erse effect/substantial adv erse change. Considerations for mitigation or avoidance would include many of the recommendations pr esented in previous sections, including:
• Treat individua l affe c te d CDFs in accordance with the recommendations i n C hapter 7
• C onsider compensatory mi ti gation w hereby other sections of the hi stori c property are rehabi li tated
• Public benefit mitigation e fforts
• T o the ex tent feasibl e, ensure that the ov erall desi gn i s as unobtrusive as possible and as c ompatible as possible with the historic materials and, historic character , and re ta in the historic re la tionships be twe e n the features of the lan dscape, and are compati ble w i th the histori c character of the property and its setting .

Figure 44 Roundabout Example

114
EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property M anagement Plan
December 2023 Page 73

8.5 Pavement Markings
De ciding w hether a proj ect that propose s to use di fferent pav ement markings, such as high visibility bike lane , crosswa lk, warning, or any othe r highly visible color othe r than white is subjective and depends on proje c t-specific circumstances. While the existing pave ment is not a character defin ing feature of the Euclid Ave nue historic property, addition of incompa tible pave me nt markings to historic Euclid Ave nue could be considered an al terati on to the historic property/ historical resource that is inconsistent with the SOIS because it causes dire ct and v isual effects that are inconsistent with the historic character of the property as we ll a s disrupts its spati al re lationships, or conditions could be imposed on the project that bring the project into conformance with the SOIS.

T he most relev ant standards to this type of project are SOIS, Standard 2, regarding preserving the historic character of the historic property and Standard 9 regarding new additions not destroying historic materials that characterize the property. It is not recommended t o introduce high visibility pa ve me nt markings within the limits of the historic Euclid A v enue to av oid causing an e ffect to the v isual character and feel i ng of the historic property. Conside rations for mitigation or a voidance may include :
• W hen new features are added, ensure that those features are designed to be as unobtrusive as possible, compatible with the historic mate ria ls of the corridor, and are c ompatible with the historic character of the property and its setting.

To illustrate how to arrive at a n o adv erse effect/less than significant impact finding for a pav ement marking proj ect, looking at the C altrans Euclid Ave nue Cla ss III Bike Facilitie s Proje ct (20 21) may be illustrative .

This proje ct propose d to e nhance bic ycle facilitie s along historic Euc lid Ave nue by adding compre he nsive high visibility signs, striping and pavement markings. Caltrans determined that the project would cause minor effects to this historic prope rty, but the se e ffects did not rise to the l ev el of bei ng considered adv erse. None of the salient character defining features (C D Fs) of the histori c property w oul d be appreciabl y affected by the proj ect. A ddi ng bike l ane pav ement marki ngs and i nstal l i ng compre ssive signs will minimally affe c t the visua l se tting and fe e ling, but this effect does not ri se to the l ev el to be consi dered adv erse or a substantial adverse change . The historic prope rty will be alte re d (ii), but in a manner not inconsistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards. The undertaking proposes alterations to the his toric property, but these al terati ons w i l l not change the ov eral l use of the property (as a transportation corridor), the ov erall character of the property will be preserv ed (as a tree -line d parkway), distinctive fe ature s of the prope rty will be pre se rve d (parkways and center median, cobblestone curbs, historic pe riod tre e rows) and ne w additions will not de stroy historic materi als and can general l y be consi dered rev ersabl e.

Alte rnative ly, a hypothetical project to restripe the entirety of historic Euclid Ave nue with high visibility pave me nt ma rkings including bright green bicycle lane markings, reflectiv e crosswalks with flashing beacons, and reflective or fluorescent signs throughout the corridor could be de te rmine d to ha ve a visual impact on historic Euc l i d A v enue based on the scale of the proj ect. Such a proj ect that cannot be conditioned to meet the SO I S because i t i s i nconsi stent w i th the histori c character of the property coul d hav e an adv erse effect/si gni fi cant i mpact. T hi s w oul d most like ly be the case if the project had other components such as new streetl i ghts, curb pai nti ng, or other features that potenti all y either contributed to the visual impact or impacted other Euclid A venue CDFs.

Figure 45 High V isibility Bike Pa th & Crosswa lk (C al trans C ompl ete Streets) 115
EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property M anagement Plan
D RA FT A pril 2022 A ppendix E

8.6 Storm Drain & Storm W ater Retention Projects
Storm drain and storm water retention projects could affect sev eral Euclid Ave nue CDFs, including the uniform spa cing of pa ra lle l line ar features of the medi an and parkwa ys, as well as granite cobblestone curbs and potentially trees or tree rows . To be consistent with the SOIS, a project that includes storm drain and storm water retention el ements w oul d need to meet Standards 2 and 5 regardi ng retai ni ng the hi stori c character of the property . Such projects would like ly be considered a new addition that would necessitate meeting Standards 9 and 10 that ensure that n ew additions to the historic property do not destroy historic materi als that characteri ze the property .

De ve loping tre atme nts for this type of proje ct will like ly involve combining sev eral measures or treatments for di fferent C D Fs to ei ther meet the SO I S or to fully mitigate an adv erse effect/substantial adv erse change.

Installing storm drains and/or storm water retention systems in areas w here there i s masonry curb could al ter, damage, or remove part of this significant CDF. Installation could require rem oving vintage lighting or CDF tre e s or may dire ctly or indire ctly impa ct tre e root syste ms potenti al l y affecti ng tree heal th . Storm drains and/or storm water retention systems could also cause or contribute to a visual e ffect that could re sult in a n adv erse effect/ substantial adverse change to historic Euclid Ave nue . If the adv erse effect/ substantial adv erse change cannot be a voide d, the n it should be mitigate d. Example s of mitiga tion me asure s could include :
• Using granite cobble stone s rather than conc rete w here possi bl e i n the design to make l andscape archi tecture as w el l as i ts theme consistent.
• W hen affecting multiple CDFs such as cobblestone curbs or removing/relocating vintage lighting, the individual CDFs should be treated in accordance with the recommendations in Chapter 7 to the ex tent feasibl e to reduce the ov eral l i mpact to E ucl i d A v enue. • In-kind granite cobblestone masonry curbs should be used up to the dra in inste ad of modern concrete curbs . Masonry granite cobblestones should be used for th e top of the drain or retention system . If granite cobblestones cannot be used on top of the drain or basins then an impression of cobblestone masonry should be used on concrete to mi mi c the cobbl estones . Ma sonry gutters are no longer extant in Ontario, and therefore do not hav e to be install ed, how ev er cobblestone masonry curbs and cobblestone masonry top/lid should be used whe n feasible . (Figure s 46 & 47 show what not to do: rock blanket around modern concrete curb and drain top , and field stone masonry c urb and gutter , a stone that is not compatible, going into a modern concrete drai n w i th concrete l id . Figure 48 shows properly what to do: masonry curb going all the way up to a modern storm dra in, however the Ontario Masonry Curb Plan should be followed for the curbs )
• W hen 1:1 replacement of historic features such as trees or stre e tlights in the ir original loc ation is not fe asible , conside r imple me nting compensatory mitigation elsewhere such as re ha bilitating anothe r se ction of the historical re s ource , by planting in-ki nd repl acement trees i n the v acant spots al ong the tree row s i n the median, parkways , or insta lling masonry in -ki nd repl acement curbs in areas where they have been replaced with modern curb. • Potential impacts to tree root systems sh ould be considered in the project design phase and need to be considered when assessing project impacts. This should be done in consultation with project engi neers and landscape archi tects or an arbori st, and resul tant recommendations for proj ect refi nemen ts or modifications be taken into consideration in final design plans to reduce/avoid impacts.

116
EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 75

Figure 46 M odern Storm D rai n w i th Rock Bl anket (D oesn't M eet SO I S)

Figure 47 Fie ld Stone Masonry Curb & Gutter into Storm Drain (W rong Stone, D oesn't M eet SO I S)

Figure 48 Masonry Curb a ll the W ay up to Storm Drain (Meets SOIS)

117
EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 76

8.7 L andscaping
L andscaping proj ects have the potential to affe ct the multiple CDFs depending on where they are located. These include the median, parkways, tree rows and A rmstrong Rose Beds. In most cases the recommendations in Chapter 7 can be applied to a potential project so that the proj ect meets the SO I S. T he most rel e vant of the SOIS Rehabilitation standards that would apply to landscaping projects include Standard 2 regarding retaining the historic character of the property , Standard 4 regarding preserving changes to the historic property that hav e attained significan ce, Standard 5 regarding retaining distinctive materials, Standard 6 regarding replacement of deteriorated features, and Standard 9 regarding new additions.

C ertain landscaping proj ects could inv olv e the remov al of CD F T rees, A rmstrong Rose Beds or rose plants, turf, and other features. If l andscape proj ects i nv ol v e remov al or al terati on of these C D Fs they may not meet the SOIS and could cause a n adv erse effec t/ substantial adverse change to the historical resource. Mitigation should first focus on adding compatibl e features, l i ke:
• Using compatible landscape architecture to keep the theme throughout the historical resource consistent, and replanting of any CDFs like tre e s, rose plants/be ds, and re loc ation of CDFs like vintage lighting, monuments or fountains.
• If direct treatments are not enough, compensatory mitigation elsewhere such as rehabilitating another section of the historic property by planting in -kind replacement trees in the v acant spots along the tree rows in the median, parkways or re placing se ctions of modern curb with granite cobblestone masonry curb should be considered.

Treatments should also focus on replacement in- kind when possible:
• L andscapi ng proj ects shoul d replace the tree row s i n -kind. Trees should be replaced in- kind at a ratio of 1:1 or greater. • L andscaping projects should replace the Armstrong Rose Beds in - kind. A ny A rmstrong Rose plants will be replaced with A rmstrong Rose pl ants of similar size and color at a ratio of 1:1 or greater. The rose beds w ere not ori gi nal to the median but hav e acqui red histori cal significance and should be re ta ine d.

A dditional measures that could be developed into S OIS conditions or mitigation m easures dependi ng on l ev el of effect incl ude:
• The open space in the median between the tree rows should be preserved. W ithin Ontario, the median open space for pedestrian access consists of lawn that should e ithe r be re place d in -kind or continue to promote pedestrian access that requires minimal change to i ts di sti ncti v e materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.

Such a change , for example could be establishing a graveled or mulched walking path down the median.
• W hen affecting multiple CDFs, t he individual CDFs should be treated i n accordance w i th the recommendati ons i n C hapter 7 to the ex tent fe asible to re duce the ove rall impact to Euclid Ave nue . • The median and parkway trees should be maintaine d through regularly scheduled maintenance and lan dscape management. Such efforts should include e stablishing a plan for a sse ssing tre e he alth, trimming, and replacement , and continuous regular w ateri ng.

118
EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 77

8.8 CUMULATIV E EFFECTS
In addition to directly affecting Euclid A venue CDFs, many of the project types discussed in this chapter can also cause or contribute to cumulative effects on Euclid A venue. Several of the laws discussed in C hapter 4 that may become applicable to projects on Euclid A venue depending on project type contain provisions for considering cumulative impacts/effects on historic properties /historical resources . NEPA , CEQA , and NHPA Se ction 106 all re quire some le ve l of conside ration of cumulativ e effects or impacts . Providing a detailed framework for assessing cumulative impacts on historic Euclid A venue under these v ari ous laws is beyond the scope of the present treatment and management pl an, how ev er some general observ ations can be made, and general guidance provi ded.
94 In sum , cumulativ e effects/impacts as defined in NEPA and C EQ A are those effects that resul t from past, present, and reasonabl y foreseeabl e future actions, combined with the potential impacts of a proposed proj ect. For ex ampl e, the C E Q A gui deli nes state that:
“T he cumulativ e impact from sev eral proj ects is the change in the environment which results from the
incremental impact of the project when added to other
cl osel y related past, present, and reasonabl y foreseeable probable future proj ects. C umulativ e impacts can result from individually minor but colle ctive ly significant proje cts taki ng pl ace ov er a peri od of ti me.”
95 While NEPA/CEQA cumulative impa cts conside rs past, pre se nt, and future proj ects, NHPA Section 106 cumulativ e effects analysis focuses on the cumul ativ e effects of a si ngl e proj ect or undertaki ng ov er ti me, or

94 For a more detailed discussion of NE PA and C E QA cumulati v e impacts, see Cal trans’ Guidance for Preparers of Cumulative and Indirect Impact A ssessments , and Guidance for Preparers of Cumulative Impact A ssessments CEQA Guidelines for Cumulative and Indirect Impa cts.
95 Ib id
the e ffe cts of multiple proje cts ove r time on a single historic property . The regulations implementing Section 106 of the NHPA acknowledge that a proj ect’ s potenti al adv erse effects i ncl ude any that are reasonably foreseeabl e, ev en i f they may occur later i n ti me, are farther remov ed i n distance, or are cumulativ e. T he consideration of indirect and cumulativ e effects is requi red when appl yi ng the cri teria of adv erse effect on histori c propert i es as part of the Secti on 106 process. 96
T he method of assessi ng the effects of mul ti pl e proj ects ov er time on a single historic re source w oul d perhaps be the most rel ev ant to the present discussion regarding ongoing management of Euclid A venue.

O v er the ye a rs many proje cts and activ ities hav e affected E ucl id A v enue.

How ev er subj ecti v e the concl usion may be, for the most part, the ov eral l historic character and fabric of the historic resource has been retained.

Between 2018 and 2023, in the years immediacy preceding relinquishment of Euclid A venue, Caltrans was involved in environmental compliance for six small and loc alize d encroachment permit proj ects , and two larger C altrans planned proj ect s on historic Euclid A venue. W hen conside re d or analyze d individu ally on a project -by-project basis , L ead A gency determi nati ons are often made that i ndi v i dual proj ects resul t i n determi nations of no adv erse effect under Secti on 106 or l ess than significant impact under C EQ A . T his is possible because C altrans - involve d projects over th e y ears hav e adhered to the SO I S and hav e avoide d impacts to the e xte nt fe a sible on Euclid Ave nue /SR -83 by imposing conditions on individua l proje cts to a void impacting CDFs or to replace them in -kind when necessary. Thus, the overall histori c character of the property has been preserved. Implementation of conditions or treatments that are consistent with the SOI S to reduce individual project impacts a lso he lp to minimize the c ontribution to cumulative impacts/effects caused by indiv idual proj e cts on Euclid Ave nue .

96 CEQA Guideline s Se ction 15355 Cumulative Impacts; Association of Environme ntal Professionals, 2023 CEQA Ca lifornia Environmenta l Qua lity Act Statute and Guidelines ; 36 C FR 800.5(a)-(b).

119
EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 78 Based on the discussi on of proj ect hi story abov e, i t seems a straightforward ex ercise to arriv e at a conclusion that indiv idual proj ects do not cause a cumul ativ e effect. How ev er, this i s not al way s the case, and the ove rall big pic ture needs to be kept i n mind, or i n other w ords a holistic approach to managing Euclid Ave nue should be followe d.

The SOIS standards c an a ssist with a holistic vision of historic Euclid A venue. For ex ampl e, Standard 2 relates to retaining the ove rall historic character of the property and a voiding the re moval of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property. Ensuring that individual projects do not compromise the ove rall historic character of the A v enue and al low i ng for the re te ntion of distinctive mate rials will a ssist in minimizing c umulative e ffe ct contributions of individua l proje cts. Similarly, Standard 9 focuses on ensuring that new additions or alte rations do not destroy his toric materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. Ensuring that projects are designed to be as unobtrusiv e as possible , use materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the corridor , and retain the his toric rel ati onships betw een the features of the landscape, will help to ensure that projects are compa tible with the historic character of the property and its setting. Focusing on maintaining the ov erall use and historic character of the corridor will hel p avoid or minimize pote ntial cumulative e ffe cts.

A simple practical approach for proj ect driv en historic resource management, particularly on infrastructure such as Euclid A venue, is to consider all proj ects hav e some contri bution to a cumul ativ e effect:
historic fabric is re move d, historic pe riod building stock is re move d a little bit at a time. Howe ve r, thi s si de of the equation needs to be bal anced against the fact that transportation corridors like all infrastructure must change ov er ti me for the benef i t of the constituents they serv e. T herefore, some degree of change should be acknowledged and accepted, but it should be the goal to manage that change in a way that is beneficial or not detrimental to the historic property. A balancing act needs to occur , w hereby it i s recognized that change i s ex pected on a pri nci pal arteri al roadway in an urban setting over time, yet the overall historic character, driv i ng ex peri ence, and i ntegri ty of the roadway needs to remai n.

A quantitativ e approach that looks at im pacts in terms of number or percentages is often used as part of a cumulativ e impacts assessment.

W hil e there are ov er 2000 trees on E ucl i d A v enue, for ex ampl e, a proj ect may only remove five. The resultant effect may be that only a small percentage of trees are affected, and the majority re main. T herefore, the determination is that the effect is not cumulativ e. Such an approach can contribute to an understanding of cumulative effects, but it should not be the onl y metri c. M oreov er, a mul ti-faceted approach should be used that also looks at the issue qualitatively. W hat is the health of the tree line in the i mmediate area, how many other C D Fs hav e been affected i n the i mmediate area, and most i mportantly does the ov eral l historic property still re tain suffici ent i ntegri ty of setti ng, feel i ng, and association to be able to c onve y its significance .

A t a minimum, then, a step that should be included in any analysis of effects or impacts to the historic corridor is a determination of the individual project’s cont ribution to a cumulative impact. Given the overall si ze of the resource, the ex tent of histori c fabri c, and the adherence of individual proje cts to the SO I S standards, indiv idual proj ect cumulativ e effect contribution s will not often rise to the le ve l of b ei ng considered adve rse or significant . How ev er, some of the l arger proj ect ty pes discussed above such as multi -component compl ete streets or road di et proj ects shoul d be giv en deeper consi derati on for cumul ati v e effects.

Also the amount of effe cts from pa st projects in addition to proposed projects should be considered.

Recommendations to enhance the histori c property and av oi d cumul ativ e impacts include:
• A good starting point for any project is to ensure that the recommendations in Chapter 7 are followe d to minimize or avoid adve rse effe cts/significant impacts to individual CDFs. • Use enhancements to offset potenti al cumulati v e effect proj ect contributions. Establish conditions that will re place more historic fabric than remov ed to make a subject s ection of Euclid A venue that has al ready been prev iousl y modi fi ed more consi stent w i th the ov erall corridor. For e xample , this would include implanting conditions 120
EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 79 w hereby w hen sections of modern concrete curb that replaced the original c obble stone curbs re quire replacement, these should be replaced with cobblestone curbs per City plan to re -e stablish historic continuity as much as possible . I deally modern concrete curb se ctions within the limits of the NRHP Euclid Ave prope rty can be re place d with in-kind g rani te cobbl estone masonry curb per the C i ty of Ontario’s Masonry Curb Plan design specifications to lessen the cumulative effects to those considered less than an adverse effect/substanti al adv erse change to the hi stori c property /histori cal resource.
• The goal to mitigate cumulativ e effects from past proj ects along historic Euclid Ave nue could occur incre me nta lly as de te rmine d fe asible by e sta blishing a plan for e nhancing Euclid Ave nue CDFs, such as:
o In-kind tree replacement in v acant areas along the median and parkways is on option.
o Replace modern curb with granite cobblestone in- kind replacements.
o Ere ct in -kind vintage lampposts replacements along the parkways in v acant spots.
o Repai r scored concrete secti ons al ong the parkway s. • In regard to future pro je cts, it is a nticipate d those proje cts would adhere to the SO I S; therefore, potenti al future cumul ativ e adv erse effects /substantial adverse changes would be conditioned or mitigate d.

121
EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 80

9.0 CONCLUSION
Caltrans prepared this HPTMP as a precursor to the relinquishment of the last se c tion of historic Euclid Ave nue to the City of Ontario. As di scussed i n C hapter 1, this HPT M P can be used general l y to assist i n compliance with numerous historic preserv ation laws and regulations, including NHPA Se ction 1 06, CEQA, and NEPA. More importantly, this HPTMP should be used as a guide for the City of Ontario to assist efforts to preserve and protect the CDFs of the historic property /historical resource in pe rpe tuity. Since the City of Ontario is a CLG, a protecti ve covenant is not required for relinquishment of an historical resource outside of State control. How ev er, this HPTMP, a long with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance , will provide historic de sign re vie w processes and measures to protect the histori c property’s CDFs in perpetuity .

Upon relinquishment of SR -83 / Euclid Ave nue , the City of Ontario agre e s to ensure the preserv ation, protection, management and rehabilitation of Historic Euclid Ave nue by following this HPTMP to the extent feasible in conjunction with the e xisting City of Ontario’s H istoric Preserv ation Ordinanc e. The City of Ontario also agree s to report on projects affecting historic Euclid A venue to OHP and the SHPO within their annual GL G reports.

The objective s of this pla n include d c ompiling e xisting information on the corridor to serv e as a basel i ne for future preserv ati on efforts. T hi s was completed and presented in Chapters 2 and 3, as well as in the appendices. T his plan also initiated the process of translating SOIS recommendations from structural building-focused to infrastructure and landsca ping focused measures to provide general historic preservation guidance and appropriate treatments for the historic property in conformance with the SOIS . The pla n a lso include s initia l c oordination among stakeholders such as Caltrans, the Cities of Ontario and Upland, and local groups such as the Ontario Heritage Historica l Socie ty , Downtown Ontario Improvement A ssociation, Historic Downtown Upland, and Up land Heritage Historica l Socie ty to generate consensus for the preservation and management of the existing CDFs along the corridor by colle ctive ly ide ntifying Euclid A v enue’ s CDFs. The plan built on the identification of CDFs and provides specific treatmen t recommendations for individual CDFs along Euclid A venue to guide best management practices on future proj ects that may affect the historic property. T his was compl eted in Chapter 3 . The baseline information and identified CDFs were used to develop best m anagement practices for guidance on future proj ects along E ucl i d A v enue that ensures the preserv ati on of the historic prope rty in perpetuity . T his was compl eted i n C hapter 8 .

Howe ve r, this M anagement and T reatment Plan cannot include ev ery possible project action or ev ery possible affect to the CD Fs and historic resource. E ach proj ect that has the potential to affect the histori c resource and CDFs should be individually rev iew ed by the C i ty of Onta rio’s CLG Historic Preserv ation Commission and staff to anal yze the possible effects, treatment options and if necessary, mitigation options.

E ucl i d A v enue w as v oted one of the most beauti ful boul ev ards i n the United States and its ability to conv ey its local, State, national and inte rnational historic al significan ce will be preserved in perpetuity by following this Historic Property Treatment and Management Plan.

122
EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 81

10.0 REFERENCES
A dv isory C ounci l on Histori c Preserv ation (A C HP) website, https://www.achp.gov/protecting -historic -properties/section -106- proce ss/introduction -section -106; ACHP , In t e gra t in g NHP A a n d Section 106, https://www.achp.gov/integrating_nepa_106
Ale xande r, Vickie K. “Frankish Building.” Na tional Re giste r of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form. August 11, 1980.

Boyaj ian, J. “Finding A id: John S. A rmstrong Nursery Collection, 1889 - 1984.” Onta rio City Libra ry Robe rt E. Ellingwood Mode l Colony History Room, October 2007.

C alifornia D epartment of T ransportation (Caltrans). A Historical Context and Methodology for Evaluating T rails, Roads, and Highways in California. Sacrame nto: Caltrans Cultural Studie s Office , Division of Environme ntal Analysis, 2 016.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans “Finding of No Adverse Effe ct with Non-Standard Conditions I nterstate 10 Co rridor Project.” San Bernardino and L os A ngeles Counties: May 2015.

Caltrans. “Exhibit 6.1: Ra nking Chara cte r-Defining Features.” In Standard Environmental Reference . Vol. 2. Ca lifornia De partme nt of Transportation, updated January 27, 2020.

C altrans Project File s, a va ila ble at the Caltrans District 8 office , San Bernardino, CA . These include the Interstate 10 Corridor Project (EA 0C250, 2015), the SR -83 Safety Enhancements Proj ect (EA 1K 790, 2021), the SR -83 Install Signals a t Phillips Stre e t Proje ct (EA 1N600, 2023- 24), and E ncroachment Permi t Proj ects (08 -N-LC-0468, 08- 20- N-LC-0468, 08- 20 -6-MC-0393, 08- 20- N-BS-1333).

Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference (SER) V olume 1 Guidance for C ompl iance: C hapter 1: Federal Requi rements: W ebsite, https://dot.ca.gov/programs/environmental -analysis/standard - environmental -reference-se r/volu me -1-guidance -for-compliance/ch - 1-federal -requirements#Ch1NHPA 1966
36 CFR Part 800 Protection of Historic Properties.
https://www.achp.gov/sites/default/files/regulations/2017 -02/regs - rev 04.pdf
City of Ontario Planning Department. “Historic Downtown Ontario: Self - Guide d Wa lking Tour.” Acce sse d April 2022.
https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario - File s/Planning/Historic_Pre se rvation/historic_walking_tour_ma p_0.p df.

City of Ontario Planning Department. Ocean- to-O cean Highway presentation. File dated 2015.

Frankish, Hugh H. “Euclid A venue a Genuine A sse t to All of Ca lifornia,” L os A ngeles T imes. October 24, 1926.

Ga lvin Pre se rvation Associate s [GPA Consulting]. Historic Context for the City of Ontario’s Citrus Industry. City of Ontario Planning Department:
2007.

Grimme r, Anne E. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings .

W ashington, DC: US Department of the Interior, National Park Serv i ce, T echni cal Preserv ati on Serv i ces, 2017.

O ffi ce of Hi stori c Preserv ati on W ebsite: C erti fi ed L ocal G ov ernment Program (CLG), https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21239 .

According to the Definitions Section IV .A Certifie d Local Government (CL G ): A s defined in PRC 5020.1(b), a CL G “means a local government that has been certified by the NPS to carry out the purposes of the NHPA of 1966.”
Public Resource Code 5020.1(b).
https://ohp.parks.ca.gov /pages/1069/files/10%20comb.pdf Nel son, L ee H. "Preservation Brief #17: Architectural Character:

Ide ntifying the V isual Aspe cts of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving Their Character.” US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources . September 1998.
123
EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property T reatment and M anagement Plan D ecember 2023 Page 82 The Ontario City Library. Images of A merica: E arly Ontario. Charleston, SC: Arca dia Publishing, 2 014.

T he Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation . US D epartment of the I nterior, National Park Serv ice, C ultural Resources. 1977, rev ised 1990.

Sandul, Paul J. P. “The A griburb: Recalling The Suburban Side Of Ontario, California' s Agric ultural Coloniza tion” in Agricultural History 84, no. 2 (2010): 95– 223. http://www.j stor.org/stable/40607698.

Shanahan, Michelle. “Uniting Past, Present, and Future A long the Historic Backbone of O ntario.” M aster of L andscape A rchitecture Caps tone Proj ect, Cal Poly Pomona, 2021. A ccessed A pril 2022. https://issuu.com/michelleshanahan/docs/shanahan_thebackboneof onta rio-print/1 .

Starns, Geoffrey and Cath y Wahlstrom. “Euclid Ave nue .” National Re giste r of Historic Place s Supple me ntary Listing Re cord. City of Ontario Planning Department. A ugust 10, 2005.W illiam Manley Consulting. “Euclid Ave nue .” HABS No. CA-188. Historic A merican Buildings Surve y (HABS), National Park Serv i ce, US D epartment of the I nterior. July 1997. A ccessed A pril 2022.
https://tile.loc.gov/storage -services/master/pnp/habshaer/ ca/ca2300/ca2323/data/ca2323data.pdf
Thompson, Nicholas. “A ttachment B: Finding of No A dverse Effect 1K790 Enha nce Class III Bike Facilitie s Along SR-8 3 / Euclid Ave nue Proj ect.” Ontario, CA : A pril 2021.

124
EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property Management Plan
DRAFT April 2022 Appendix A

Appendix A:

Photos
125
EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property Management Plan
DRAFT April 2022 Appendix A

Figure 1 Cross Section of Historic Euclid Ave. & CDFs
126
EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property Management Plan
DRAFT April 2022 Appendix E

Figure 2 Aerial Diagram of Historic Euclid Ave. 7 CDFs
127
December 2023 Appendix A

Figure 3 Euclid Ave Alignment 1880's (Source Ontario Library) Figure 4 Euclid Ave Alignment 2020's 128
December 2023 Appendix A

Figure 5 Euclid Ave. Median 1940's Dual Row of California Pepper Trees & Open Space (Source Ontario Library)
Figure 6 Euclid Ave. Median 2023 Dual Row of California Pepper Trees & Open Space
129
December 2023 Appendix A

Figure 7 Parkway

130
December 2023 Appendix A

Figure 9 Masonry Curbs
Figure 8 Masonry Curbs In-Kind Replacement
131
December 2023 Appendix A

Figure 10 Vintage King Standard Lampposts 2023 (Cobra Replacements)

132
December 2023 Appendix A

Figure 11 King Standard Lampposts 1940's (Source Ontario Library) 133
December 2023 Appendix A

Figure 12 Scored Concrete Sidewalk Figure 13 Scored Concrete Sidewalk 134
December 2023 Appendix A

Figure 14 Women's Christian Temperance Union Fountain & Plaque 2023 135
December 2023 Appendix A

Figure 16 Frankish Fountain 2023 Figure 15 Frankish Fountain 1880's (Source Ontario Library) 136
December 2023 Appendix A

Figure 17 Frankish Fountain Move 1983 (Source Ontario Museum)

137
December 2023 Appendix A

Figure 18 Veterans Memorial 2023 Figure 19 Veterans Memorial Plaque 138
December 2023 Appendix A

Figure 20 Replica Bandstand, 2023 Figure 21 Replica Bandstand Plaque, Dedicated October 19, 1997 139
December 2023 Appendix A

Figure 22 Replica Bandstand Lamppost, 2023 Figure 23 Replica Bandstand Lamppost Plaque, Donated by The Drivers of Bell Cab Company
140
December 2023 Appendix A

Figure 24 Original Community bandstand at Euclid Avenue and A Street (Holt Boulevard)’ 1895. ( Source Ontario City Library)

141
December 2023 Appendix A

Figure 26 Armstrong Rose Bed, 2023

Figure 25 Armstrong Rose Bed, 2023
142
December 2023 Appendix A

Figure 28 Madonna of the Trail Monument (Upland)

Figure 27 The Bridal Path (Upland)
143
December 2023 Appendix A

Figure 29 Replica Gravity Mule Cart Display, 2023
144
December 2023 Appendix A

Figure 30 Gravity Mule Cart, Date Unknown (Source Ontario City Library)

145
December 2023 Appendix A

Figure 31 Electrified Cart, Date Unknown (Source Ontario City Library) 146
December 2023 Appendix A

Figure 32 Ontario Lithograph 1880's, Caltrans District 8 Library

147
December 2023 Appendix A

Figure 33 Ontario Land & Improvement Co. Lithograph, 1883. (Source Ontario City Library)

148
December 2023 Appendix A

Figure 34 Ontario Land & Improvement Co. Office, 1883 (Source Ontario City Library)

149
December 2023 Appendix A

Figure 36 The Ontario Colony lands, 1882. (Source Huntington Digital Library) Figure 35 Charles Frankish, Date Unknown (Source Daily Bulletin) 150
December 2023 Appendix A

Figure 37 The Frankish Fountain (middle-ground, right of center) and relocated land office building (foreground, left), 1886. ( Source Ontario City Library)

151
December 2023 Appendix A

Figure 38 Figure 8. Plan for San Antonio Heights. 1887. (Source Ontario City Library) 152
December 2023 Appendix A

Figure 39 System of electric lights along Euclid Avenue, 1900. (Source Ontario City Library)

153
December 2023 Appendix A

Figure 40 Young date palms and fast-growing pepper trees line Euclid Avenue, ca.1882. (Source Los Angeles Public Library)

154
December 2023 Appendix A

Figure 41 Euclid Avenue paving, ca. 1920s. (Source Ontario City Library)

155
December 2023 Appendix A

Figure 42 All-States Picnic, 1939. (Source Ontario City Library)

156
December 2023 Appendix A

Figure 43 View of Euclid Avenue, looking north, 1955. (Source LA Public Library)

157
December 2023 Appendix A

Figure 44 Euclid Ave with Original Masonry Curbs & Lamppost, 1910s (Source Archive.org) 158
DRAFT April 2022 Appendix B
Appendix B
Euclid Ave. CDF Map
EUCLID AVENUE | Historic Property Treatment & Management Plan 159
qpqp
qp
qp
qp
qp
nm
qp
qp
qp
qp
qp
qp
qp
qp
qpqp
qp
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community Historic Euclid Ave. CDF Map
0 140 280 420 560
Feet
0 40 80 120 160
Meters
1:1,200
92 87653 41 11 14 151210 1613
:

Armstrong Rose Beds
Band Stand
Frankish Fountain
Mule Cart Display
WCTU Fountain
Veterans Memorial
CDF Masonry Curb
# CDF Lamp Post
nm CDF Silk Oak Tree
nm CDF Pepper Tree
nm In-Kind Replacement Silk Oak Tree
nm In-Kind Replacement Pepper Tree
nm Magnolia Tree
qp Palm Tree
nm Silver Maple Tree
qp Cedar Tree
qp Pine Tree

Page 1 of 16160 ends

Ontario City CouncilFebruary 6, 2024

Ontario City Council
February 6, 2024