Northwest 1/4 of said Section 24, lying in the Jurupa Rancho and in Riverside County, according to the Official Plat thereof. Excepting therefrom that portion conveyed to the City of Ontario by Deeds recorded July 8, 2008 as Instrument No. 2008-0307387 and 2008-0307388 and be Deed recorded May 25, 2017, as Instrument No. 2017-216939, all of Official Records.
Parcel 3: The South 30 acres of the North 60 acres of the West 80 acres of the land comprised of Lots 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7, Section 24, Township 2 South, Range 7 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Ontario, County of San Bernardino, State of California, and the fractional Northwest 1/4 of Section 24, Township 2 South, Range 7 West, San Bernardino Meridian, as shown by Sectionized Survey of the Jurupa Rancho, recorded in Book 9, Page 33 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County, said fractional Northwest 1/4 being all that portion of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 24, lying in the Jurupa Rancho, and in Riverside County, according to the Official Plat thereof. Except therefrom that portion conveyed to the City of Ontario by Deed recorded May 25, 2017 as Instrument No. 2017-216939 of Official Records.
Parcel 3:
The west 80 acres of the following described property: Lots 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7, Section 24, Township 2 South, Range 7 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the County of San Bernardino, State of California, according to the Official Plat of said land filed in the District Land Office July 9, 1887 and the fractional northwest quarter, Section 24, Township 2 South, Range 7 West, San Bernardino Meridian, as shown by Sectionized Survey of the Jurupa Rancho, recorded in Book 9 of Maps, page 33 in the office of the County Recorder of San Bernardino, State of California, said fractional northwest quarter being all that portion of the northwest quarter of said Section 24, lying in the Jurupa Rancho and in Riverside County, EXCEPTING from said 80 acres the North 60 acres thereof. ALSO EXCEPTING any portion lying with the boundaries of Tract 30633 as filed in book 350, page(s) 51 through 61, inclusive, of maps records of Riverside County, State of California.
397
43 Assessor's Parcel Numbers(s):
1: 1073-171-04
2: 1073-171-08
3: 1073-171-09
4: 0218-331-14
398
44 EXHIBIT "B"
TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Map showing Property and its location
399
45 EXHIBIT "C"
TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Existing Development Approvals
On September 26, 2006, the Planning Commission:
a) Issued Resolution No. PC06-095 recommending City Council adopt and certify the Subarea 29 (Park place) Environmental Impact Report; b) Issued Resolution No. PC06-096 recommending City Council approval of the General Plan Amendment (PGPA06-003); and
c) Issued Resolution No. PC06-097 recommending City Council approval of the Subarea 29 (Park Place) Specific Plan (PSP03-003).
On October 19, 2006, the City Council:
a) Issued Resolution No. 2006-089 certifying the Subarea 29 (Park place) Environmental Impact Report; and
b) Issued Resolution No. 2006-090 approving the General Plan Amendment (PGPA06-003).
On November 7, 2006, the City Council:
a) Issued Ordinance No. 2845 approving of the Subarea 29 (Park Place) Specific Plan (PSP03-003).
On March 27, 2007, the Planning Commission:
a) Issued Resolution No. PC07-036 recommending City Council approval of an amendment to the Subarea 29 Specific Plan (PSPA07-007).
On May 1, 2007, the City Council:
a) Issued Resolution No. 2007-053 approving an amendment to the Subarea 29 Specific Plan.
On August 28, 2013, the Zoning Administrator:
a) Issued Decision No. 2013-025 approving a minor amendment to the Subarea 29 Specific Plan (PSPA13-002).
400
46 EXHIBIT "C"
TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Existing Development Approvals (Continued)
On March 24, 2015, the Planning Commission:
a) Issued Resolution No. PC15-035 recommending City Council approval of an amendment to the Subarea 29 Specific Plan (PSPA14-002).
On April 21, 2015, the City Council:
a) Issued Resolution No. 2015-030 approving an amendment to the Subarea 29 Specific Plan.
401
47 EXHIBIT "D"
TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Existing Land Use Regulations
These documents are listed for reference only:
1. Subarea 29 (Park place) Environmental Impact Report, Resolution No. 2006-089
2. Subarea 29 (Park Place) General Plan Amendment (PGPA06-003), Resolution No. 2006-090
3. Subarea 29 (Park Place) Specific Plan (PSP03-003), Ordinance No. 2845
4. Amendment to the Subarea 29 Specific Plan (PSPA07-003), Resolution No. 2007-053
5. Amendment to the Subarea 29 Specific Plan (PSPA13-002), Decision No. 2013- 025
6. Amendment to the Subarea 29 Specific Plan (PSPA14-002), Resolution No. 2015-030
7. City of Ontario Municipal Code
a. Six – Sanitation & Health
b. Seven – Public Works
c. Eight – Building Regulations
d. Nine – Development Code
e. Ten – Parks & Recreation
402
48 EXHIBIT "E"
TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Description of Required Infrastructure Improvements
OWNER shall design, construct, and complete all improvements including but not limited to Sewer (SW), Potable Water (PW), Recycled Water (RW), Storm Drain (SD), Fiber Optic (FO), and Street (ST) improvements necessary to serve the Property, prior to the request of any Production Units.
PHASE 1 IMPROVEMENTS
1. PW on Haven Avenue, between Eucalyptus Avenue and Bellegrave Avenue.
2. RW on Haven Avenue, between Eucalyptus Avenue and Bellegrave Avenue.
3. FO on Haven Avenue, between Eucalyptus Avenue and Bellegrave Avenue.
4. FO on Streets “A”, “B”, “C”, “D”,“E”, “F”, and “G”.
5. ST improvements on Haven Avenue, between Eucalyptus Avenue and Bellegrave Avenue.
6. SD on Haven Avenue and Street “A”.
7. Traffic Signal at Haven Avenue and Street “D”.
8. Traffic Signal at Haven Avenue and Street “A”.
9. Traffic Signal at Haven Avenue and Eucalyptus Avenue.
PHASE 2 IMPROVEMENTS
1. All Phase 1 Improvements are required for Phase 2.
2. SW on Eucalyptus Avenue, between Haven Avenue and Street “G”
3. ST improvements on Eucalyptus Avenue, between Haven Avenue and Street “G”.
4. Traffic Signal at Eucalyptus Avenue and Street “G”.
PHASE 3 IMPROVEMENTS
1. PW on Bellegrave Avenue, between Haven Avenue and Mill Creek Avenue.
2. RW on Bellegrave Avenue, between Haven Avenue and Mill Creek Avenue.
3. ST improvements on Bellegrave Avenue, between Haven Avenue and easterly tract boundary.
4. ST improvements on Bellegrave Avenue, between Haven Avenue and easterly tract boundary.
5. Traffic Signal at Bellegrave Avenue and Haven Avenue.
6. Traffic Signal at Bellegrave Avenue and Delicious Way. 403
49 EXHIBIT “F”
TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Depiction of required Infrastructure Improvements
(SEE ATTACHED EXHIBITS)
404
50 405
51 406
52 407
53 408
54 EXHIBIT “G”
TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Form of Plume Disclosure Letter
409
Department: Recreation & Community Services
Prepared By: Danielle Guevara
Staff Member Presenting: Nicholas S. Gonzalez,
Recreation & Community Services Director
Reviewed By: Lacey A Rightmer
Approved By:
Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 16
SUBJECT:
STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE APPOINTMENTS TO THE RECREATION & PARK COMMISSION FOR FY 2024-2025
CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
July
2, 2024
SECTION:
CONSENT CALENDAR
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council confirm Krisha Shah, Ontario resident and student at Colony High School as the Student Representative and Alyssa Marquez, Ontario resident and student at Chaffey High School as the second Student Representative to the Recreation & Parks Commission for the term set to expires on June 30, 2025.
THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:
Encourage, Provide or Support Enhanced Recreational, Educational, Cultural and Healthy City Programs, Policies and Activities
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with this action.
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS:
The City Council approved the Student Representative to the Recreation & Parks Commission Program on March 5, 2002. The Student Representative is a non-voting member of the Recreation & Parks Commission. Since its inception, thirty-seven (37) students have participated in the program.
A recruitment was conducted through all local high schools, various city-wide teen programs and multiple social media platforms. The Recreation & Community Services Department interviewed candidates and made recommendations to the Recreation & Parks Commission. At a meeting held on June 24, 2024, the Recreation & Parks Commission voted 7-0 to recommend the City Council ratify the appointments of Krisha Shah and Alyssa Marquez as non-voting members of the Recreation & Parks Commission for FY 2024-25.
CANDIDATE’S INFORMATION:
Krisha Shah
–
Krisha is an Ontario resident and student at Colony High School entering her junior year. She is involved in various activities in her high school, such as soccer, tennis, key club, AP funding, Red Cross, Asian Pacific Alliance Club, and Academic Decathlon. She has also maintained 410
on Honor Roll since elementary school. Krisha is eager to represent the teen community and voice the concerns of the community. Upon graduation, Krisha plans to attend college to obtain a bachelor’s degree in engineering and computer science.
Alyssa Marquez –
Alyssa is an Ontario resident and student at Chaffey High School, entering her senior year. Additionally, she is a dual-enrollment student at Chaffey College. Alyssa actively participates in the City of Ontario’s Recreation & Community Services Department programming and is a member of Promise Scholars and the National Honor Society for her high school. Alyssa is extremely passionate about helping youth in foster care and hopes to bring programming to those in need. She is also eager to be a voice and advocate for her peers. Upon graduation, Alyssa plans to attend college in Pennsylvania, where she hopes to receive her bachelor’s degree and become a social worker so that she can continue to help those in need. 411
Department: Recreation & Community Services
Prepared By: Danielle Guevara
Staff Member Presenting: Nicholas S. Gonzalez,
Recreation & Community Services Director
Reviewed By: Lacey A Rightmer
Approved By:
Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 17
SUBJECT:
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY SETTING FORTH THE
APPLICATION AND SELECTION PROCESS, TERM, AND DUTIES OF NON-VOTING
STUDENT MEMBERS OF THE RECREATION & PARKS COMMISSION
CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
July
2, 2024
SECTION:
CONSENT CALENDAR
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council approve the Administrative Policy setting forth the application and selection process, term, and duties of non-voting student members of the Recreation & Parks Commission.
THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:
Encourage, Provide or Support Enhanced Recreational, Educational, Cultural and Healthy City Programs, Policies and Activities
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with this action.
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS:
The City Council approved the Student Representative to the Recreation & Parks Commission Program on March 5, 2002. The Student Representative is a non- voting member of the Recreation & Parks Commission. The student member provides valuable input and unique perspectives that assist the Recreation & Parks Commission in making decisions affecting recreation and parks in Ontario.
On March 24, 2024, the Recreation & Parks Commission voted to recommend a revision to the application process and duties to the Non-Voting Student Representatives to the Recreation & Parks Commission. This new policy updates to the application process, age requirements, term, duties, and benefits of the non-voting student representatives. The student representative will serve a one- year term and is expected to attend regular meetings of the Commission. The administrative policy incorporates the Recreation & Parks Commission recommendation and allows for relative ease of administration.
The Non-Voting Student Representatives to the Recreation & Parks Commission are expected to follow the guidelines outlined in the City Boards, Commissions and Committees Handbook, as well as the Recreation & Parks Commission Bylaws.
412
RESOLUTION NO. __________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY PERTAINING
TO THE SELECTION AND PARTICIPATION OF NON-VOTING STUDENT REPRESENTATIVES ON THE RECREATION & PARKS COMMISSION.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ontario desires to establish an administrative policy pertaining to the selection and participation of non-voting student representatives serving on the City’s Recreation and Parks Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Ontario as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby approves the Administrative Policy attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit “A”,” as may be amended from time to time, setting forth the application process, term, duties, and benefits pertaining to the participation of non-voting student representatives on the Recreation & Parks Commission.
SECTION 2. The City Council finds this Resolution is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty, as in this case, that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.
SECTION 3. If any provision of this Resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications, and to this end the provisions of this Resolution are declared to be severable.
SECTION 4. This Resolution shall become effective immediately.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk of the City of Ontario shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of July, 2024. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
413
Resolution No. 2024-072
ATTEST:
____________________________________
SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
CITY ATTORNEY
414
Resolution No. 2024-072
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. 2024-072 was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Ontario at their regular meeting held July 2, 2024 by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: LEON, PORADA, BOWMAN AND
VALENCIA
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: WAPNER
____________________________________
SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
The foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2024-072 duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held July 2, 2024. _____________________________________
SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
415
Resolution No. 2024-072
Exhibit “A”
Non-Voting Student Representatives to the Recreation & Parks Commission – Application Process
(Following this Page)
416
City of Ontario Recreation & Community Services Department www.OntarioCA.gov/Recreation • (909) 395-2020 • [email protected] Non-Voting Student Representatives to the Recreation
& Parks Commission – Application Process
Application process and duties related to the Non-Voting Student Representatives to the Recreation & Parks Commission.
In 2002, the Ontario City Council approved an application process to add non - voting student members to the Recreation & Parks Commission. The student members provide valuable input and unique perspectives that assist the Recreation & Parks Commission in making decisions affecting recreation and parks in Ontario. This new policy provides an update to the application process, age requirement, term, duties, and benefits of the non-voting student representatives.
Application Process
1. Applications are sent to superintendents, principals, and advisors of local public and private high schools, Teen Action Committee boards, and staff.
2. Interested applicants ages 13-18 enrolled in high school or applicants 18-20 years old enrolled in college and are residents of Ontario may submit an application to the Recreation & Community Services Department expressing their desire to serve as a student representative member on the Recreation & Parks Commission.
3. Candidates will then be schedule d for their first interview, and candidates selected to move forward in the process will be scheduled for their second interview.
4. The Recreation & Community Services department will select two students from the above process to be appointed, upon ratification by the Mayor & City Council, to serve as members of the Recreation & Parks Commission for a one-year term.
Term
The term of the student representative shall be a year term from July 1 – June 30.
Duties
It shall be the duty of the student representative to:
1. Attend the monthly and special meetings of the Recreation & Parks Commission;
417
2. Attend special Recreation & Community Services events and ceremonies in the City of Ontario;
3. Express opinions and participate in discussions regarding matters that affect Recreation & Community Services programs, facilities, and parks;
4. Participate in Recreation & Community Services programs; and
5. Not miss more than two (2) consecutive meetings.
Benefits
The student representative shall benefit by receiving:
1. An invitation to the annual California Parks & Recreation Society Conference;
2. An invitation to the annual Volunteer Recognition Banquet;
3. Recognition by the Mayor & City Council at an official meeting; and
4. A Recreation & Parks Commissioner Badge.
418
Department: Public Works
Prepared By: Manuel Rebolledo
Staff Member Presenting: Tito Haes, Executive
Director Public Works
Reviewed By: Andrea Ampig, Bonnie Tam
Approved By:
Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 18
SUBJECT:
AN AMENDMENT TO THE GOODS AND SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH LONG BEACH
BMW MOTORCYCLES FOR PARTS AND REPAIRS OF POLICE MOTORCYCLES
CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
July
2, 2024
SECTION:
CONSENT CALENDAR
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute Amendment No. 5 to the Goods and Services Agreement with Long Beach BMW Motorcycles, of Long, California, for the procurement of parts and repairs for Police BMW Motorcycles in the amount of $50,000, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $300,000, and extend the agreement to June 30, 2025.
THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:
Maintain the Current High Level of Public Safety
Operate in a Businesslike Manner
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Fiscal Year 2024-25 Adopted Budget includes appropriations in the Equipment Services Fund for the procurement of parts and repairs of Police BMW Motorcycles. The proposed Amendment will increase the contract amount by $50,000 for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $300,000.
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS:
The Public Works Agency maintains the vehicles and equipment used by various City departments including the Police BMW Motorcycle fleet. To ensure these vehicles and equipment are safe to operate, maintenance and repairs are needed on a regular basis. Due to the specialized parts on the Police BMW Motorcycle, there is a limited number of authorized vendors that can provide them.
On July 2, 2019, the City Council approved Long Beach BMW Motorcycles as a pre-authorized vendor for the supply of parts and repairs of Police BMW Motorcycles and approved a five-year Goods and Service Agreement. Since then, Long Beach BMW Motorcycles has provided excellence service to the Fleet Services Department for both parts supply and repairs of the Police BMW Motorcycle Fleet. Staff recommends increasing the total authorized compensation and extend the agreement for an additional one-year term to ensure the Fleet Services Department can continue to maintain and repair vehicles and keep them operational so they can provide services to the City of Ontario residents.
419
46700.00100\33287662.1
BB&K 2020
AM
ENDMENT NO. 5 TO THE GOODS AND SERVICES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ONTARIO AND
LONG BEACH BMW MOTORCYCLES
1. P
arties and Date.
Th
is Amendment No. 5 to the Agreement (as defined herein) is made and entered as of ____________, by and between the City of Ontario (“City”) and Long Beach BMW Motorcycles , Inc, a Corporation (“Contractor”). City and Contractor are sometimes individually referred to as “Party” and collectively as “Parties.”
2. R
ecitals.
2.1 A greement. The City and Contractor have entered into an agreement entitled “Goods and Services” dated July 1, 2019 (“Agreement”).
2.2 A mendment Purpose. T he City and Contractor desire to amend the A greement to extend term to June 30, 2025 and increase compensation by Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000).
The Parties have heretofore entered into Amendment No.1 dated July 1, 2020, Amendment No.2 dated June 15, 2021, Amendment No.3 dated March 7, 2022, and Amendment No.4 dated August 4, 2023.
2.3 A mendment Authority. This Amendment No. 5 is authorized pursuant to Section 2.1,
12.9, and 12.17 of the Agreement.
3. T
erms.
3.1 Amendment . S ection 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
"Term 2.1 The term of this Agreement shall be from July 1, 2019, to June 30, 2025, based on needs and offeror’ performance, unless earlier terminated as provided herein. Vendor shall provide all Goods and complete the Services within the term of this agreement and shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines. The parties may, by mutual, written consent extend the term of this agreement, if necessary, to complete the work." 420
46700.00100\33287662.1
BB&K 2020
“Compensation. 3.1 Contractor shall receive compensation, including authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement at the rates set f orth in Exhibit “C” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The total compensation shall not exceed Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000) without written approval of City Manager. Extra Work may be authorized, as described below, and if authorized, will be compensated at the rates and manner set forth in this Agreement.”
Exhibit “C” is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with Attachment “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
3.2 Continuing Effect of Agreement . Except as amended by this Amendment No. 5, all other provisions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect and shall govern the actions of the parties under this Amendment No. 5. From and after the date of this Amendment No.5, whenever the term “Agreement” appears in the Agreement, it shall mean the Agreement as amended by this Amendment No. 5.
3.3 Adequate Consideration. The Parties hereto irrevocably stipulate and agree that they have each re ceived adequate and independent consideration for the performance of the obligations they have undertaken pursuant to this Amendment No. 5.
3.4 Severability. If any portion of this Amendment No. 5 is declared invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect.
3.5 Integration. This Amendment represents the entirety of the Parties’ understanding relating to the subject of this Amendment, including written or verbal communications between the Parties, which s hall have no relevance unless expressly incorporated herein. This is an integrated amendment.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
421
46700.00100\33287662.1
BB&K 2020
SIGNATURE PAGE FOR AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO GOODS AND SERVICES
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ONTARIO
AND LONG BEACH BMW MOTORCYCLES
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have entered into this Amendment No. 5 as of the day and year first above written.
CITY OF ONTARIO LONG BEACH MOTORCYCLES, INC.
By:
Its:
Printed Name:
By:
Its:
Printed Name:
Approved By:
Scott Ochoa
City Manager
Approved as to Form:
_____________________________________
Best Best & Krieger LLP
City Attorney
A
ttested By:
City Clerk
422
46700.00100\33287662.1
BB&K 2020
ATTACHMENT “A”
Compensation
A. R
ate per Hour Compensation
No. Labor Rate Per Hour
1. Labor Rate per Hour $142.00
B. V
endor Mark Ups / Discounts
P
arts markup percentage or discount percentage -10%
423
Department: Public Works
Prepared By: Manuel Rebolledo
Staff Member Presenting: Tito Haes, Executive
Director Public Works
Reviewed By: Andrea Ampig, Bonnie Tam
Approved By:
Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 19
SUBJECT:
AN AMENDMENT TO THE GOODS AND SERVICES AGREEMENTS WITH CITRUS MOTORS ONTARIO, INC., MARK CHRISTOPHER CHEVROLET, INC., AND FORD OF
UPLAND FOR FORD, GMC, AND CHEVROLET PARTS AND REPAIRS
CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
July
2, 2024
SECTION:
CONSENT CALENDAR
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council take the following actions:
A
.
Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute Amendment No. 4 to the Goods and Services Agreement with Mark Christopher Chevrolet, Inc., of Ontario, California, for the procurement of GMC and Chevrolet OEM parts in the amount of $100,000, for a total not-to- exceed contract amount of $460,000, and extend the agreement to June 30, 2025, and B
.
Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute Amendment No. 6 to the Goods and Services Agreement with Citrus Motors Ontario, Inc., of Ontario, California, for the procurement of Ford Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) parts and repair services in the amount of $300,000, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $990,000, and extend the agreement to June 30, 2025; and
C
.
Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute Amendment No. 6 to the Goods and Services Agreement with Ford of Upland, of Upland, California, for the procurement of Ford original equipment manufacturer (OEM) parts and repair services in the amount of $130,000, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $500,000, and extend the agreement to June 30, 2025.
THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:
Maintain the Current High Level of Public Safety
Operate in a Businesslike Manner
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Fiscal Year 2024-25 Adopted Budget includes appropriations in the Equipment Services Fund for purchase of Ford, GMC, and Chevrolet OEM parts and repairs.
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS:
The City owns, operates, and routinely maintains and repairs over 700 vehicles and pieces of equipment to keep them safe and operational. The Fleet Services Department relies on its vendors to supply parts and perform certain repairs to our fleet. 424
In July 2019, the City solicited bids for GMC and Chevrolet OEM parts and repairs for the City’s fleet. 139 vendors were notified but no bids were received through the City’s electronic bid management system. Under title 2 Chapter 6 Section 2-6.20 of the Ontario Municipal Code, if no bids are received through the formal or informal procedure, the project may be performed by the employees of the City force account or negotiated contract without further complying with this Chapter. After researching several firms and performing reference checks, Staff recommended awarding a one- year agreement with four (4) additional one-year terms to Mark Christopher Chevrolet, Inc. for GMC and OEM Parts and Services.
In August 2019, the City Council awarded Bid No. 1151 for Ford OEM parts and repair services to Citrus Motors Ontario, Inc., of Ontario, California, and Ford of Upland, of Upland, California. Since then, they have met or exceeded expectations of the Fleet Services Department for Ford OEM parts and repair services.
Staff recommends increasing the total authorized compensation and extending the agreements with Mark Christopher Chevrolet, Inc., Citrus Motors Ontario, Inc., and Ford of Upland for an additional one-year term to ensure the Fleet Services Department can continue to maintain and repair vehicles and keep them operational so they can provide services to the City of Ontario residents.
425
46700.00100\33287662.1
BB&K 2020
AMENDMENT NO. 6 TO THE GOODS AND SERVICES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ONTARIO AND
CITRUS MOTORS ONTARIO, INC.
1. P
arties and Date.
Th
is Amendment No. 6 to the Agreement (as defined herein) is made and entered as of ____________, by and between the City o f Ontario (“City”) and Citrus Motors Ontario, Inc ., a Corporation. City and Contractor are sometimes individually referred to as “Party” and collectively as “Parties.”
2. R
ecitals.
2.1 A greement. The City and Contractor have entered into an agreement entitled “Goods and Services” dated July 1, 2019 (“Agreement”).
2.2 A mendment Purpose. T he City and Contractor desire to amend the A greement to extend term and increase compensation by Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000) . The Parties have heretofore entered into Amendment No.1 dated July 1, 2020, Amendment No. 2 dated June 28, 2021, Amendment No. 3 dated September 23, 2022, Amendment No. 4 dated August 4, 2023. and Amendment No. 5 dated January 16, 2024.
2.3 A mendment Authority. This Amendment No. 6 is authorized pursuant to Section 2.1,
12.9, and 12.17 of the Agreement.
3. T
erms.
3.1 Amendment . S ection 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
"The term 2.1 of this Agreement shall be from July 1, 2019, to June 30, 2025, based o n needs and offeror’s performance, unless earlier terminated as provided herein. Vendor shall provide all Goods and complete the Services within the term of this agreement an d shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines. The parties may, by mutual, written consent extend the term of this agreement, if necessary, to complete the work."
426
46700.00100\33287662.1
BB&K 2020
“Compensation. 3.1 Contractor shall receive compensation, including authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement at the rates set fo rth in Exhibit “C” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The total compensation shall not exceed Nine Hundred Ni nety Thousand Dollars ($990,00) without written approval of City Manager. Extra Work may be authorized, as described below, and if authorized, will be compensated at the rates and manner set forth in this Agreement.”
Exhibit “C” is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with Attachment “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
3.3 Continuing Effect of Agreement. Exc ept as amended by this Amendment No.6, all other provisions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect and shall govern the actions of the parties under this Amendment No. 6. From and after the date of this Amendment No. 6, whenever the term “Agreem ent” appears in the Agreement, it shall mean the Agreement as amended by this Amendment No.6.
3.4 Adequate Consideration. The Parties hereto irrevocably stipulate and agree that they have each received adequate and independent consideration for the performance of the obligations they have undertaken pursuant to this Amendment No. 6.
3.5 Severability. If any portion of this Amendment No. 6 is declared invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect.
3.6 Integration. This Amendment represents the entirety of the Parties’ understanding relating to the subject of this Amendment, including written or verbal communications between the Parties, which shall have no relevance unless expressly incorporated herein. This is an integrated amendment.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
427
46700.00100\33287662.1
BB&K 2020
SIGNATURE PAGE FOR AMENDMENT NO. 6 TO GOODS AND SERVICES
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ONTARIO
AND CITRUS MOTORS ONTARIO, INC.
I
N WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have entered into this Amendment No. 6 as of the day and year first above written.
CITY OF ONTARIO CITRUS MOTORS ONTARIO, INC.
By:
Its:
Printed Name:
By:
Its:
Printed Name:
If Corporation, TWO SIGNATURES,
President OR Vice President AND Secretary
OR Treasurer REQUIRED
Approved By:
Scott Ochoa
City of Ontario
Approved as to Form:
_____________________________________
Best Best & Krieger LLP
City Attorney
A
ttested By:
City Clerk
428
46700.00100\33287662.1
BB&K 2020
ATTACHMENT “A”
Compensation
Description Unit of Measure Unit Price
Option A: Ford OEM Parts and Repairs with Pick-Up and delivery of vehicles Hourly Labor Rate Hours $180.00
Parts and Materials Mark Up
%
Each 8%
Option B: Ford OEM Parts and Repairs without Pick-Up and delivery of vehicles Hourly Labor Rate Hours $180.00
Parts and Materials Mark Up
%
Each 8%
Price and Fee
Below Is a sample price list. Prices shall Include, but not be limited to, overhead costs, freight, and delivery. No additional cost will be paid except applicable taxes.
1. BRAKE ROTOR Front INTECEPTOR EXPLORER Each $122.04
2. BRAKE ROTOR REAR INTECEPTOR EXPLORER Each $79.38
3. FRONT DISC PADS Each $49.80
4. REAR DISC PADS INTECEPTOR EXPLORER Each $72.04
5. SWAY BAR LINK KIT RIGHT PASS EXPLORER Each $39.20
6. GASKET CATALYTIC CONVERTER Each $15.90
7. WHEEL EXPLORER INTERCEPTOR Each $397.53
8. DISC BRAKE REAR CALIPER EXPLORER PIN KIT Each $11.45
9. DISC BRAKE CALIPER PIN KIT EXPLORER Each $18.58
429
46700.00100\33287662.1
BB&K 2020
AM
ENDMENT NO. 6 TO THE GOODS AND SERVICES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ONTARIO AND
FORD OF UPLAND
1. P
arties and Date.
Th
is Amendment No. 6 to the Agreement (as defined herein) is made and entered as of ____________, by and between the City of Ontario (“City”) and Ford of Upland, LLC, a Proprietorship. City and Contractor are sometimes individually referred to as “Party” and collectively as “Parties.”
2. R
ecitals.
2.1 A greement. The City and Contractor have entered into an agreement entitled “Goods and Services” dated July 1, 2019 (“Agreement”).
2.2 A mendment Purpose. T he City and Contractor desire to amend the A greement to extend term and increase compensation by One Hundred Thirty Thousand Dollars ($130,000).
The Parties have heretofore entered into Amendment No.1 dated July 1, 2020, Amendment No. 2 dated June 15, 2021, Amendment No. 3 dated June 13, 2022, Amendment No. 4 dated August 4, 2023. and Amendment No. 5 dated February 6, 2024.
2.3 A mendment Authority. This Amendment No. 6 is authorized pursuant to Section 2.1,
12.9, and 12.17 of the Agreement.
3. T
erms.
3.1 Amendment . S ection 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
"The term 2.1 of this Agreement shall be from July 1, 2019, to June 30, 2025, based on needs and offeror’ performance, unless earlier terminated as provided herein. Vendor shall provide all Goods and complete the Services within the term of this agreement and shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines. The parties may, by mutual, written consent extend the term of this agreement, if necessary, to complete the work."
“Compensation. 3.1 Contractor shall receive compensation, including authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement at the rates set forth in Exhibit “C” 430
46700.00100\33287662.1
BB&K 2020
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The total compensation shall not exceed Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) without written approval of City Manager. Extra Work may be authorized, as described below, and if authorized, wi ll be compensated at the rates and manner set forth in this Agreement.”
Exhibit “C” is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with Attachment “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
3.2 Continuing Effect of Agreement . Except as ame nded by this Amendment No. 6, all other provisions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect and shall govern the actions of the parties under this Amendment No. 6. From and after the date of this Amendment No. 6, whenever the term “Agreement” appears in the Agreement, it shall mean the Agreement as amended by this Amendment No.6.
3.3 Adequate Consideration. The Parties hereto irrevocably stipulate and agree that they have each received adequate and independent consideration for the performance o f the obligations they have undertaken pursuant to this Amendment No. 6.
3.4 Severability. If any portion of this Amendment No. 6 is declared invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions sha ll continue in full force and effect.
3.5 Integration. This Amendment represents the entirety of the Parties’ understanding relating to the subject of this Amendment, including written or verbal communications between the Parties, which shall have no relevance unless expressly incorporated herein. This is an integrated amendment.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
431
46700.00100\33287662.1
BB&K 2020
SIGNATURE PAGE FOR AMENDMENT NO. 6 TO GOODS AND SERVICES
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ONTARIO
AND FORD OF UPLAND
I
N WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have entered into this Amendment No. 6 as of the day and year first above written.
CITY OF ONTARIO FORD OF UPLAND, LLC.
By:
Its:
Printed Name:
By:
Its:
Printed Name:
Approved By:
Scott Ochoa
City of Ontario
Approved as to Form:
_____________________________________
Best Best & Krieger LLP
City Attorney
A
ttested By:
City Clerk
432
46700.00100\33287662.1
BB&K 2020
ATTACHMENT “A”
Compensation
Description Unit of Measure Model # Unit Price
Option A: Ford OEM Parts and Repairs with Pick-Up and delivery of vehicles Hourly Labor Rate Hours $90.00
Pick-up and delivery charge, per vehicle Per $0.00
Parts and Materials markup percentage Each 15%
Option B: Ford OEM Parts and Repairs without Pick-Up and delivery of vehicles Hourly Labor Rate Hours $90.00
Parts and Material mark-up percentage Each 15%
Price and Fee
BRAKE ROTOR Front INTECEPTOR
EXPLORER Each BRRF318 $72.51
BRAKE ROTOR REAR INTECEPTOR
EXPLORER Each BRRF92 $59.33
FRONT DISC PADS Each BRF1475 $49.80
REAR DISC PADS INTECEPTOR
EXPLORER Each BRF1383 $61.24
SWAY BARK LINK KIT RIGHT PASS
EXPLORER Each GB5Z-5K484-A $33.12
GASKET CATALYTIC CONVERTER Each DG1Z-9448-A $10.90
WHEEL EXPLORER INTERCEPTOR Each DG1Z-1015-A $155.60
433
46700.00100\33287662.1
BB&K 2020
DISC BRAKE REAR CALIPER PIN KIT
EXPLORER Each BKCF9 $10.34
DISC BRAKE CALIPER PIN KIT
EXPLORER FRONT Each BKCF8 $10.58
434
46700.00100\33287662.1
BB&K 2020
AME
NDMENT NO. 4 TO THE GOODS AND SERVICES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ONTARIO AND
MARK CHRISTOHER CHEVROLET
1. Pa
rties and Date.
Thi
s Amendment No. 4 to the Agreement (as defined herein) is made and entered as of ____________, by and between the City of Ontario (“City”) and Mark Christopher Chevrolet , a Corporation ‘Contractor”. City and Contractor are sometimes individually referred to as “Party” and collectively as “Parties.”
2. Reci
tals.
2.1 Ag reement. The City and Contractor have entered into an agreement entitled “Goods and Services” dated July 1, 2019 (“Agreement”).
2.2 Am endment Purpose. T he City and Contractor desire to amend the A greement to extend term , and increase compensation by $10 0,000. The Parties have heretofor e entered in to Amendment No. 1 d ated July 1, 2020, and Amendment No. 2 dated June 1, 2021, and Amendm ent No. 3 dated January 16, 2024.
2.3 Amendment Authority. This Amendment No. 3 is authorized pursuant to Section 2.1,
12.9, and 12.17 of the Agreement.
3. Term
s.
3.1 Amendment . Se ction 2.1 of the Agreement is her eby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
"The te
rm of this Agreement shall be from July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2025, based on needs and offeror’ performance, unless earlier terminated as provided herein. Vendor shall provide all Goods and complete the Services within the term of this agreement and shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines. The parties may, by mutual, written consent extend the term of this agreement if necessary, to complete the work."
3.2 Amendment . Section 3.1 of the Agreement is her eby amended in its en tirety to read as follows:
435
46700.00100\33287662.1
BB&K 2020
"“Compensation. Vendor shall rec ei ve compensation, including authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement at the rates set forth in Exhibit “C” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The total compensation shall not exceed Four Hundred and Sixty Thousand Dollars ($460,000) without written approval of City Manager. Extra Work may be authorized, as described below, and if authorized, w ill be compensated at the rates and manner set forth in this Agreement.”
E
xhibit “C” is hereby del eted in i ts entirety and replaced with Attachment A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
3.3 C
ontinuing Effect of Agreement . Except as amended by this Amendment No. 4, all other provisions of the Agreement rema in in full force and effect and shall govern the actions of the parties under this Amendme nt No. 4. From and after the date of this Amendment No. 4 whenever the term “Agreement” appears in the Agreement, it shall mean the Agreement as amended by this Amendment No. 4.
3.4 A
dequate Consideration. T he Parties hereto irrevocably stipulate and agree that they have each received adequat e and independent consideration for the performance of the obligations they have undertaken pursuant to this Amendment No. 4.
3.5 S
everability. If any portion of this Amendment No. 4 is declared invalid, ille gal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect.
3.6 I
ntegration. This Amendment represents the entirety of the Parties’ understanding relating to the subject of this Amendment, including written or verbal communications between the Parties, which shall have no relevance unless expressly incorporated herein. This is an integra ted amendment.
[
SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
436
46700.00100\33287662.1
BB&K 2020
SIGNATURE PAGE FOR AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE GOODS AND SERVICES
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ONTARIO
AND MARK CHRISTOPHER CHEVROLET
I
N WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have entered into this Amendment No. 4 as of the day and year first above written.
CITY OF ONTARIO MARK CHRISTOPHER CHEVROLET
By:
Its:
Printed Name:
By:
Its:
Printed Name:
If Corporation, TWO SIGNATURES,
President OR Vice President AND Secretary
OR Treasurer REQUIRED
Approved By:
Scott Ochoa
City Manager
Approved as to Form:
_____________________________________
Best Best & Krieger LLP
City Attorney
A
ttested By:
City Clerk
437
46700.00100\33287662.1
BB&K 2020
Attachment A
Compensation
DESCRIPTION UNIT OF
MEASURE
UNIT PRICE
Option A: OEM Parts and Repairs with Pick-Up and Delivery of vehicles
Hourly Labor Rate Hours $191.00
Pick-up and delivery
charge, per vehicle
Per $0.00
Parts and Materials
Mark up percentage
Each 25%
Option B; OEM Parts and Repairs without Pick-Up and delivery of vehicles
Hourly Labor Rate Hours $191.00
Parts and Material
mark up percentage
Each 25%
Price and Fee
Front Disc Brake Pad
PD Tahoe Spec
Each $223.49
Front Disc Brake
Rotor
Each $140.15
Spark Plug Wires Each $79.94
Rear Disc Brake Pad
Kit Tahoe
Each $111.14
438
Department: Public Works
Prepared By: Manuel Rebolledo
Staff Member Presenting: Tito Haes, Executive
Director Public Works
Reviewed By: Andrea Ampig, Bonnie Tam
Approved By:
Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 20
SUBJECT:
AN AMENDMENT TO THE GOODS AND SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH AMREP
MANUFACTURING COMPANY FOR PARTS AND REPAIRS OF REFUSE TRUCK BODIES
CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
July
2, 2024
SECTION:
CONSENT CALENDAR
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute Amendment No. 4 to the Goods and Services Agreement with AMREP Manufacturing Company, of Ontario, California, for the procurement of parts and repairs of refuse truck bodies in the amount of $500,000, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $2,510,000, and extend the agreement to June 30, 2025.
THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:
Maintain the Current High Level of Public Safety
Operate in a Businesslike Manner
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Fiscal Year 2024-25 Adopted Budget includes appropriations in the Equipment Services Fund for the procurement of parts and repairs of refuse truck bodies. The proposed Amendment to the Goods and Services Agreement with AMREP Manufacturing Company will increase the contract amount by $500,000 for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $2,510,000.
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS:
The Public Works Agency maintains the vehicles and equipment used by various City departments including the Integrated Waste fleet. To ensure these vehicles and equipment are safe to operate, maintenance and repairs are needed on a regular basis. Due to the specialized parts on the Integrated Waste fleet and equipment, there is a limited number of authorized vendors that can provide them.
On July 2, 2019, City Council approved AMREP Manufacturing Company as a pre-authorized vendor for the supply of parts and manufacturing of refuse truck bodies and approved a five-year Goods and Services Agreement. Since then, AMREP Manufacturing Company has provided excellence service to the Fleet Services Department for both parts supply and repairs of the Integrated Waste fleet. The goods and services can only be procured directly from the manufacturer. Staff recommends increasing the total authorized compensation and extend the agreement for an additional one-year term to ensure the Fleet Services Department can continue to maintain and repair vehicles and keep them operational so they can provide services to the City of Ontario residents.
439
46700.00100\33287662.1
BB&K 2020
AMENDM
ENT NO. 4 TO THE GOODS AND SERVICES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ONTARIO AND
AMREP MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LLC
1. Part
ies and Date.
This Amendm ent No. 4 to the Agreement (as defined herein) is made and entered as of ____________, by and between the City of Ontario (“City”) and AMREP Manufacturing Company, LLC. City and Contractor are sometimes individually referred to as “Party ” and collectively as “Parties.”
2. Recit
als.
2.1 Agr eement. The City and Contractor have entered into an agreement entitled “Goods and Services” dated July 1, 2019 (“Agreement”).
2.2 Ame ndment Purpose. T he City and Contractor desire to amend the A greement to extend term and increase compen sation by $500,000. The Parties have heretofore ent ered int o Amendment No.1 dated January 9, 2021, Amendment No. 2 dated July 19, 2022, and Amendment No. 3 dated February 29, 2024.
2.3 Amendment Authority. This Amendment No. 4 is a uthorized pursuant to Section 2.1,
12.9, and 12.17 of the Agreement.
3. Terms
.
3.1 Amendment . Sec tion 2.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
""T
he term of this Agreement shall be from Ju ly 1, 2019 to June 30, 2025, based on needs and offeror’ performance, unless earlier t erminated as provided herein. Vendor shall provide all Goods and complete the Se rvices within the term of this agreement a nd shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines. The parties may, by mutual, written consent extend the term of this agreement if necessary, to complete the work."
440
46700.00100\33287662.1
BB&K 2020
3.2 Amendment . Section 3.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended in its entir ety to re ad as follows:
“Compensation. Contrac tor shall r eceive compensation, including authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered unde r this Agreement at the rates set forth in Exhibit “C” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The total compensation shall not exceed Tw o Million Five Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars ($2,510,000) without written approval of City Manager. Extra Work may be authorized, as described below, and if authorized, will be compensated at the rates and manner set forth in this Agreement.”
Exhibit “C” is hereby deleted in its e ntirety and replaced with Attachment “A” at
tached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
3.3 Continuing Effect of Agreement. Except as amended by this Amendment No.4, all other provisions of the Agreement rema in in full force and effect and shall govern the actions of the pa
rties under this Amendment No. 4. From and after the date of this Amendment No. 4, whenever the term “Agreement” appears in the Agreement, it shall mean the Agreement as amended by this Amendment No. 4.
3.4 Adequate Consideration. The Parties hereto irrevocably stipulate and agree that the y have each received adequate and independent consideration for the performance of the obligations t
hey have undertaken pursuant to this Amendment No. 4.
3.5 Severability. If any portion of this Amendment No. 4 is declared invalid, illegal, or ot
herwise unenforceable by a c ourt of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect.
3.6 Integration. This Amendment represents the entirety of the Parties’ und erstanding relating to the subject of this Amendment, including written or verbal co mmunications between the Parties, which shall have no relevance unless expressly incorporated herein. This is an integra t ed amendment.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAG E]
441
46700.00100\33287662.1
BB&K 2020
SIGNATURE PAGE FOR AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE GOODS AND SERVICES
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ONTARIO
AND AMREP MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LLC.
I
N WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have entered into this Amendment No. 4 as of the day and year first above written.
CITY OF ONTARIO AMREP MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
LLC
By:
Its:
Printed Name:
By:
Its:
Printed Name:
If Corporation, TWO SIGNATURES,
President OR Vice President AND Secretary
OR Treasurer REQUIRED
Approved By:
Scott Ochoa
City of Ontario
Approved as to Form:
_____________________________________
Best Best & Krieger LLP
City Attorney
A
ttested By:
City Clerk
442
46700.00100\33287662.1
BB&K 2020
A
ttachment “A”
Compensation
P
rices charged to the City are based on a percentage discount from to the attached manufacturer's price list. Percentage discount is to remain firm for the duration of the contract.
S
ubsequently, any price increase must be in writing and received by the City a minimum of thirty (30) days prior to scheduled expiration date of the annual agreement te rm and approved by the City prior to implementation. If City agrees, vendo r may be al lowed to adjust prices provided proof of manufacturer's price increase can be furnished to the City. A new manufacturer's price list must be sent, emailed or portal access must be granted to City Staff if any changes are made.
A
ny service, parts or materials not identified in this agreement that are required by the City to ensure the safe operation of its fleet shall be available for purchase at an equivalent discount.
Parts, Refuse Collection Body, O.E.M., Amrep
PRICE LIST DISCOUNTS/MARK UPS:
Percentage discount (-) offered to the City: - 14%
Manufacturer: Amrep Price list no./date: LA2014
The "Price Agreement Conditions" herein shall apply to discounts/mark ups quoted.
Remanufactured Amrep Cylinders
PR
ICE LIST DISCOUNTS/MARK UPS:
Percentage discount (-) offered to the City: - 14%
Manufacturer: Amrep
Price list no./date: LA2014
The "Price Agreement Conditions" herein shall apply to discounts/mark ups quoted. 443
46700.00100\33287662.1
BB&K 2020
Labor , Regular Working Hours, Repair of Amrep Refuse Collection Body L
ABOR: Labor for work performed in accordance with the RFO/Contract specifications and requirements.
Regular rate: $100/hr.
Overtime& rate: $100/hr.
Labor
rates shall be subject to change in accordance with the applicable prevailing wage, living wage, or minimum wage, and upon Vendor’s written notification to the City. 444
Department: Financial Services
Prepared By: Stephanie Castro
Staff Member Presenting: Armen Harkalyan,
Executive Director of Finance
Reviewed By: Claudia Hernandez
Approved By:
Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 21
SUBJECT:
A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION REGARDING THE FORMATION OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 71 (NEUHOUSE PHASE 2); ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DEEMING IT NECESSARY TO INCUR BONDED INDEBTEDNESS; AND INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE LEVYING
SPECIAL TAXES
CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
July
2, 2024
SECTION:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council consider and:
A
.
Adopt a Resolution of Formation of Community Facilities District No. 71 (Neuhouse Phase 2), proposing that the community facilities district be authorized to levy a special tax and proposing that an appropriations limit of the community facilities district be established; B
.
Adopt a Resolution deeming it necessary for the district to incur bonded indebtedness within Community Facilities District No. 71 (Neuhouse Phase 2); C
.
Adopt a Resolution calling a special election for City of Ontario Community Facilities District No. 71 (Neuhouse Phase 2);
D
.
Adopt a Resolution declaring the results of the special election and directing the recording of a Notice of Special Tax Lien;
E
.
Introduce and waive further reading of an ordinance levying special taxes within City of Ontario Community Facilities District No. 71 (Neuhouse Phase 2); and F
.
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the execution and delivery of an acquisition and funding agreement with LS-ONTARIO II LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.
THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:
Operate in a Businesslike Manner
Focus Resources in Ontario's Commercial and Residential Neighborhoods Invest in the City's Infrastructure (Water, Streets, Sewers, Parks, Storm Drains and Public Facilities)
Ensure the Development of a Well Planned, Balanced, and Self-Sustaining Community in Ontario Ranch
FISCAL IMPACT:
The use of Mello-Roos financing in the Neuhouse Phase 2 residential development 445
is projected to generate approximately $415,627 per year, at buildout, to fund administrative fees and municipal services; and approximately $15.9 million in bond proceeds to be used to fund a portion of the public infrastructure improvements needed to serve the project. Mello-Roos bonds are not a direct obligation of the City and are paid from special taxes levied on each taxable parcel in the district; therefore, there is no fiscal impact to the General Fund from the issuance of Mello- Roos bonds. City Council approval will be required in future years to process annual special tax levies.
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS:
The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 provides local government, with the consent from a majority of the property owners, the authority to establish community facilities districts for the purpose of levying special taxes to finance various kinds of public infrastructure facilities and municipal services. Under the Mello-Roos Act, the initial steps in the formation of a community facilities district to finance public improvements and municipal services are to adopt resolutions declaring the intention to establish a community facilities district, authorize the levy of special taxes, and issue bonds. Accordingly, on May 21, 2024, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2024-031, a Resolution of Intention to establish City of Ontario Community Facilities District No. 71 (Neuhouse Phase 2) and authorize the levy of special taxes; and Resolution No. 2024-032 declaring the City Council's intention to issue bonds for the district. The Resolution of Intention set the public hearing date for the regularly scheduled City Council meeting on July 2, 2024, to consider formation matters.
In the First Amended and Restated Agreement for the Financing and Construction of Limited Infrastructure Improvements to Serve an Easterly Portion of the New Model Colony ("First Amended and Restated Construction Agreement") between the City and NMC Builders, LLC, the City agreed to cooperate with the members of NMC Builders, LLC in the formation of community facilities districts to assist in the financing of the public improvements included in the agreement. The Neuhouse Phase 2 project addresses the development of two zones: Zone 1 is a pproximately 9.18 gross acres
located west of Mill Creek Avenue, east of Twinkle Avenue, south of Chino Avenue, and north of Schaefer Avenue; and Zone 2 is approximately 19.73 gross acres located west of Haven Avenue, east of Clover Place, south of Riverside Drive, and north of Chino Avenue. At build-out, the project is expected to include a total of 335 residential units, comprised of 144 attached units in Zone 1, and 191 units in Zone 2 (96 attached and 95 detached).
Included, as part of the Resolution of Formation, is the proposed Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax for the District. Under the proposed Rate and Method of Apportionment, the portion of the maximum annual special tax rates, which will be used to fund debt service payments on the bonds, is fixed and will not increase over time. As proposed, the amount of bonds authorized for the district ($65 million) is set intentionally higher than the current estimated bond amount (approximately $15.9 million) in order to allow future City Council, the option, without increasing the amount of the annual special taxes, to issue additional bonds to replace and/or construct new public infrastructure improvements in the future, or to fund municipal services. The term and structure of the Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax for the Neuhouse Phase 2 project is consistent with those of previously adopted Rates and Methods of Apportionment for Ontario Ranch community facilities districts. This ensures that the special tax rates levied on all residential property owners in community facilities districts in Ontario Ranch are developed in a consistent and equivalent manner. In addition, under the provisions of 446
the Mello-Roos Act, to ensure that home buyers are making an informed decision, all residential builders in the Ontario Ranch districts will be required to disclose the maximum annual special tax amount to each homeowner before entering into a sales contract.
Attached are five Resolutions and one Ordinance. The first attached Resolution establishes the community facilities district, with the rate and method of apportionment of special taxes and authorizes the levy of special taxes within the district. The second attached Resolution is deeming it necessary to incur bonded indebtedness for the district. The third attached Resolution calls for a special landowner election to be held on July 2, 2024. The fourth attached Resolution declares the results of the election, including a statement from the City Clerk as to the canvass of ballots, and directs the recording of the Notice of Special Tax Lien. The attached Ordinance authorizes the levying of special taxes, and the attached final and fifth Resolution authorizes the execution and delivery of an acquisition and funding agreement with LS-ONTARIO II LLC. 447
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-073
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO,
CALIFORNIA, OF FORMATION OF CITY OF ONTARIO COMMUNITY
FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 71 (NEUHOUSE PHASE 2), PROPOSING
THAT THE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT BE AUTHORIZED TO
LEVY A SPECIAL TAX AND PROPOSING THAT AN APPROPRIATIONS
LIMIT OF THE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT BE ESTABLISHED WHEREAS, on May 21, 2024, the City Council (the “City Council”) of the City of Ontario (the “City”), pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (the “Act”), adopted a resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Ontario, California, of Intention to Establish a Community Facilities District Proposed to be Named City of Ontario Community Facilities District No. 71 (Neuhouse Phase 2) and to Authorize the Levy of a Special Tax Therein” (the “Resolution of Intention”), stating its intention to establish City of Ontario Community Facilities District No. 71 (Neuhouse Phase 2) (the “Community Facilities District”), to authorize the Community Facilities District to levy a special tax within the Community Facilities District for the purpose of financing certain public facilities and services and setting the date for a public hearing to be held on the establishment of the Community Facilities District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Resolution of Intention, notice of said public hearing was published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin , a newspaper of general circulation published in the area of the Community Facilities District, in accordance with the Act; and WHEREAS, on this date, the City Council opened, conducted and closed said public hearing; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Resolution of Intention, each officer of the City who is or will be responsible for providing one or more of the proposed types of public facilities or services to be financed by the Community Facilities District was directed to study, or cause to be studied, the proposed Community Facilities District and, at or before said public hearing, file a report with the City Council containing a brief description of the public facilities and services by type that will in his or her opinion be required to adequately meet the needs of the Community Facilities District, and his or her estimate of the cost of providing such public facilities and services; such officers were also directed to estimate the fair and reasonable cost of the public facilities proposed to be purchased as completed public facilities and of the incidental expenses proposed to be paid; and WHEREAS, said report was so filed with the City Council and made a part of the record of said public hearing; and
WHEREAS, at the hearing, the testimony of all persons for or against the establishment of the Community Facilities District, the extent of the Community Facilities District and the furnishing of the specified types of public facilities and services was heard; and
448
Resolution No. 2024-073
WHEREAS, written protests against the establishment of the Community Facilities District, the furnishing of any specified type or types of facilities and services within the Community Facilities District or the levying of a specified special tax were not made or filed at or before said hearing by 50% or more of the registered voters, or six registered voters, whichever is more, residing within the territory proposed to be included in the Community Facilities District, or the owners of one-half or more of the area of land in the territory proposed to be included in the Community Facilities District and not exempt from the special tax; and
WHEREAS, there has been filed with the City Clerk of the City a letter from the Registrar of Voters of the County of San Bernardino indicating that no persons were registered to vote within the territory of the proposed Community Facilities District as of May 28, 2024, which demonstrates that 12 or more persons have not been registered to vote within the territory of the proposed Community Facilities District for each of the 90 days preceding the close of said public hearing; and
WHEREAS, Section 53314.9 of the Act provides that, at any time either before or after the formation of a community facilities district, the legislative body may accept advances of funds from any source, including, but not limited to, private persons or private entities and may provide, by resolution, for the use of those funds for any authorized purpose, including, but not limited to, paying any cost incurred by the local agency in creating a community facilities district; and
WHEREAS, Section 53314.9 of the Act further provides that the legislative body may enter into an agreement, by resolution, with the person or entity advancing the funds, to repay all or a portion of the funds advanced, as determined by the legislative body, with or without interest, under all the following conditions: (a) the proposal to repay the funds is included in both the resolution of intention to establish a community facilities district adopted pursuant to Section 53321 of the Act and in the resolution of formation to establish a community facilities district pursuant to Section 53325.1 of the Act, (b) any proposed special tax is approved by the qualified electors of the community facilities district pursuant to the Act, and (c) any agreement shall specify that if the qualified electors of the community facilities district do not approve the proposed special tax, the local agency shall return any funds which have not been committed for any authorized purpose by the time of the election to the person or entity advancing the funds; and WHEREAS, the City and LS-ONTARIO II LLC (“LS-ONTARIO II”), have entered into the Deposit and Reimbursement Agreement, dated as of June 1, 2023 (the “Deposit Agreement”), that provides for the advancement of funds by LS-ONTARIO II to be used to pay costs incurred in creating the Community Facilities District and the incurrence of bonded indebtedness thereby, and provides for the repayment to LS-ONTARIO II of such funds advanced, without interest, from the proceeds of any such bonded indebtedness incurred by the Community Facilities District; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to include in this Resolution, in accordance with Section 53314.9 of the Act, the proposal to repay funds pursuant to the Deposit Agreement;
449
Resolution No. 2024-073
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Ontario as follows:
SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct, and the City Council so finds and determines.
SECTION 2. The Community Facilities District is hereby established.
SECTION 3. The name for the Community Facilities District is “City of Ontario Community Facilities District No. 71 (Neuhouse Phase 2).” SECTION 4. The public facilities (the “Facilities”) proposed to be financed by the Community Facilities District pursuant to the Act are described under the caption “Facilities” on Exhibit A hereto, which is by this reference incorporated herein. Those Facilities proposed to be purchased as completed public facilities are identified under the caption “Facilities to be Purchased” on Exhibit A hereto. The services (the “Services”) proposed to be financed by the Community Facilities District pursuant to the Act are described under the caption “Services” on Exhibit A hereto. The incidental expenses proposed to be incurred are identified under the caption “Incidental Expenses” on Exhibit A hereto. All or any portion of the Facilities may be financed through a financing plan, including, but not limited to, a lease, lease-purchase or installment-purchase arrangement.
SECTION 5. The proposed special tax to be levied within the Community Facilities District has not been precluded by majority protest pursuant to Section 53324 of the Act.
SECTION 6. The City Council proposes that, except where funds are otherwise available, the Community Facilities District be authorized to annually levy within the Community Facilities District a special tax (the “Special Tax”) sufficient to pay for all Facilities and Services, secured by recordation of a continuing lien against all nonexempt real property in the Community Facilities District. The rate, method of apportionment and manner of collection of the Special Tax in sufficient detail to allow each landowner or resident within the proposed Community Facilities District to estimate the maximum amount that he or she will have to pay, is specified in the Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax (the “Rate and Method”) attached hereto as Exhibit B, which is by this reference incorporated herein. The conditions under which the obligation to pay the Special Tax to be levied to pay for Facilities may be prepaid and permanently satisfied are specified in the Rate and Method. The Special Tax will be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes or in such other manner as the City Council shall determine, including direct billing of the affected property owners.
SECTION 7. The Special Tax may only finance the Services to the extent that they are in addition to those provided in the territory of the Community Facilities District before the date the Community Facilities District is created. The Services may not supplant services already available within that territory when the Community Facilities District is created. Bonds of the Community Facilities District may not be issued to fund any of the Services.
450
Resolution No. 2024-073
SECTION 8. The tax year after which no further Special Tax to pay for Facilities shall be levied against any parcel used for private residential purposes is specified in the Rate and Method. Under no circumstances shall the Special Tax to pay for Facilities in any fiscal year against any parcel used for private residential purposes be increased as a consequence of delinquency or default by the owner or owners of any other parcel or parcels within the Community Facilities District by more than 10% above the amount that would have been levied in that fiscal year had there never been any such delinquencies or defaults. For purposes of this paragraph, a parcel shall be considered “used for private residential purposes” not later than the date on which an occupancy permit for private residential use is issued. The Special Tax to pay for Services will be levied in perpetuity, as provided in the Rate and Method.
SECTION 9. Pursuant to Section 53344.1 of the Act, the City Council hereby reserves to itself the right and authority to allow any interested owner of property within the Community Facilities District, subject to the provisions of said Section 53344.1 and to those conditions as it may impose, and any applicable prepayment penalties as prescribed in the bond indenture or comparable instrument or document, to tender to the Community Facilities District treasurer in full payment or part payment of any installment of the Special Tax or the interest or penalties thereon that may be due or delinquent, but for which a bill has been received, any bond or other obligation secured thereby, the bond or other obligation to be taken at par and credit to be given for the accrued interest shown thereby computed to the date of tender.
SECTION 10. The name, address and telephone number of the office, department or bureau that will be responsible for preparing annually a current roll of Special Tax levy obligations by assessor’s parcel number and that will be responsible for estimating further Special Tax levies pursuant to Section 53340.2 of the Act are as follows: Management Analyst, Financial Services, City of Ontario, 303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764, (909) 395-2341.
SECTION 11. Upon recordation of a notice of special tax lien pursuant to Section 3114.5 of the California Streets and Highways Code, a continuing lien to secure each levy of the Special Tax shall attach to all nonexempt real property in the Community Facilities District and this lien shall continue in force and effect until the Special Tax obligation is prepaid, permanently satisfied and canceled in accordance with law or until the Special Tax ceases to be levied and a notice of cessation of the Special Tax is recorded in accordance with Section 53330.5 of the Act.
SECTION 12. The boundary map of the Community Facilities District has been recorded in San Bernardino County in Book 91 at Pages 64 through 66 of Maps of Assessments and Community Facilities Districts in the San Bernardino County Recorder’s Office (Document No. 2024-0119793).
SECTION 13. The City Council proposes that the annual appropriations limit, as defined by subdivision (h) of Section 8 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution, of the Community Facilities District be established at $65,000,000. 451
Resolution No. 2024-073
SECTION 14. Pursuant to the provisions of the Act, the propositions to authorize the Community Facilities District to levy the Special Tax and to establish the appropriations limit of the Community Facilities District specified above shall be subject to the approval of the qualified electors of the Community Facilities District at a special election. The City Council hereby finds and determines that no persons were registered to vote within the territory of the proposed Community Facilities District as of May 28, 2024, and that 12 or more persons have not been registered to vote within the territory of the Community Facilities District for each of the 90 days preceding the close of the public hearing held by the City Council on the establishment of the Community Facilities District.
Accordingly, pursuant to Section 53326 of the Act, the vote shall be by the landowners of the Community Facilities District and each person who is the owner of land as of the close of said public hearing, or the authorized representative thereof, shall have one vote for each acre or portion of an acre that he or she owns within the Community Facilities District not exempt from the Special Tax. The voting procedure shall be by mailed or hand- delivered ballot.
SECTION 15. LS-ONTARIO II has heretofore advanced certain funds, and may advance additional funds, that have been or may be used to pay costs incurred in creating the Community Facilities District and the incurrence of bonded indebtedness thereby. The City Council has previously approved the acceptance of such funds for the purpose of paying costs incurred in creating the Community Facilities District and the incurrence of bonded indebtedness thereby. The City Council proposes to repay LS-ONTARIO II all or a portion of such funds so advanced, without interest, solely from the proceeds of any such bonded indebtedness incurred by the Community Facilities District, pursuant to the Deposit Agreement. The Deposit Agreement is hereby incorporated herein as though set forth in full herein.
SECTION 16. The City Council hereby finds and determines that all proceedings, up to and including the adoption of this Resolution, were valid and in conformity with the requirements of the Act. In accordance with Section 53325.1 of the Act, such finding shall be final and conclusive.
SECTION 17. All actions heretofore taken by the officers, employees and agents of the City with respect to the establishment of the Community Facilities District, or in connection with or related to any of the matters referred to herein, are hereby approved, confirmed and ratified.
SECTION 18. The officers, employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized and directed to take all actions and do all things that they, or any of them, may deem necessary or desirable to accomplish the purposes of this Resolution and not inconsistent with the provisions hereof.
SECTION 19. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
The City Clerk of the City of Ontario shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.
452
Resolution No. 2024-073
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of July 2024. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________________
SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
CITY ATTORNEY
453
Resolution No. 2024-073
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. 2024-073 was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Ontario at their regular meeting held July 2, 2024 by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: LEON, PORADA, BOWMAN AND
VALENCIA
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: WAPNER
____________________________________
SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
The foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2024-073 duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held July 2, 2024. _____________________________________
SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
454
Resolution No. 2024-073
EXHIBIT A
FACILITIES, SERVICES AND INCIDENTAL EXPENSES
Facilities
The types of public facilities to be financed by the Community Facilities District are street and bridge improvements, including grading, paving, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street signalization and signage, street lights and parkway and landscaping related thereto, domestic and recycled water distribution facilities, sewer collection facilities, solid waste facilities, storm drainage facilities, park and recreation facilities and equipment, aquatic facilities and equipment, fire facilities and equipment, police facilities and equipment, library facilities and equipment, fiber optic telecommunication, wireless communication and public safety camera facilities and equipment, general governmental office, administrative and meeting facilities, and land, rights-of-way and easements necessary for any of such facilities.
Facilities to be Purchased
The types of public facilities to be purchased as completed facilities are street and bridge improvements, including grading, paving, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street signalization and signage, street lights and parkway and landscaping related thereto, domestic and recycled water distribution facilities, sewer collection facilities, solid waste facilities, storm drainage facilities, and land, rights-of-way and easements necessary for any of such facilities.
Services
The types of City services to be financed by the Community Facilities District are police protection services, fire protection and suppression services, ambulance and paramedic services, maintenance and lighting of parks, parkways, streets, roads and open space, flood and storm protection services, maintenance and operation of fiber optic telecommunication, wireless communication and public safety camera systems and maintenance and operation of any real property or other tangible property with an estimated useful life of five or more years that is owned by the City.
Incidental Expenses
The incidental expenses proposed to be incurred include the following:
(a) the cost of planning and designing public facilities to be financed, including the cost of environmental evaluations of those facilities; (b) the costs associated with the creation of the Community Facilities District, issuance of bonds, determination of the amount of taxes, collection of taxes, payment of taxes, or costs otherwise incurred in order to carry out the authorized purposes of the Community Facilities District; and
(c) any other expenses incidental to the construction, completion, and inspection of the authorized work.
455
Resolution No. 2024-073
EXHIBIT B
RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAX
456
City of Ontario CFD No. 71 1 April 17, 2024
CITY OF ONTARIO
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 71
(NEUHOUSE PHASE 2)
RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAX
Special Taxes shall be levied on all Assessor’s Parcels in the City of Ontario Community Facilities District No. 71 (Neuhouse Phase 2) (“CFD No. 71”) and collected each Fiscal Year, commencing in Fiscal Year 2024-25, in an amount determined by the City Council of the City of Ontario through the application of the Rate and Method of Apportionment, as described below.
All of the real property in CFD No. 71, unless exempted by law or by the provisions hereof, shall be taxed for the purposes, to the extent, and in the manner herein provided.
A. DEFINITIONS
The terms hereinafter set forth have the following meanings:
“Acre” or “Acreage” means the land area of an Assessor’s Parcel as shown on an Assessor’s Parcel Map, or if the land area is not shown on an Assessor’s Parcel Map, the land area shown on the applicable Final Subdivision Map, parcel map, condominium plan, or other recorded County map.
“Act” means the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended, being Chapter 2.5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the California Government Code. “Administrative Expenses” means the following actual or reasonably estimated costs directly related to the administration of CFD No. 71: the costs of computing the Special Taxes and preparing the annual Special Tax collection schedules (whether by the City or CFD No. 71 or both); the costs of collecting the Special Taxes (whether by the County or otherwise); the costs of remitting the Special Taxes to the Trustee; the costs of the Trustee (including its legal counsel) in the discharge of the duties required of it under the Indenture; the costs to the City or CFD No. 71 of complying with arbitrage rebate requirements; the costs to the City or CFD No. 71 of complying with City, CFD No. 71, or obligated persons disclosure requirements associated with applicable federal and state securities laws and of the Act; the costs associated with preparing Special Tax disclosure statements and responding to public inquiries regarding the Special Taxes; the costs of the City or CFD No. 71 related to the analysis and reduction, if any, of the Special Tax A on Single Family Property in accordance with Section C.1 herein; the costs of the City or CFD No. 71 related to an appeal of the Special Tax; the costs associated with the release of funds from any escrow account; the City’s administration fees and third party expenses; the costs of City staff time and reasonable overhead relating to CFD No. 71; and amounts estimated or advanced by the City or CFD No. 71 for any other administrative purposes of the CFD, including attorney’s fees and other costs related to commencing and pursuing to completion any foreclosure of delinquent Special Taxes. 457
City of Ontario CFD No. 71 2 April 17, 2024
“Assessor’s Parcel” means a lot or parcel shown in an Assessor’s Parcel Map with an assigned Assessor’s Parcel Number.
“Assessor’s Parcel Map” means an official map of the Assessor of the County designating parcels by Assessor’s Parcel Number.
“Assessor’s Parcel Number” means, with respect to an Assessor’s Parcel, that number assigned to such Assessor’s Parcel by the County for purposes of identification.
“Assigned Special Tax A” means the Special Tax A for each Land Use Class of Developed Property, as determined in accordance with Section C.1.a.2 below.
“Backup Special Tax A” means the Special Tax A for each Land Use Class of Developed Property, as determined in accordance with Section C.1.a.3 below.
“Bonds” means any bonds or other debt (as defined in Section 53317(d) of the Act) issued by CFD No. 71 under the Act and payable from Special Tax A.
“Buildable Lot” means an individual lot, within a Final Subdivision Map or an area expected by CFD No. 71 to become Final Mapped Property, such as the area within a Tentative Tract Map, for which a building permit may be issued without further subdivision of such lot.
“CFD Administrator” means an official of the City responsible for determining the Special Tax A Requirement and Special Tax B Requirement, providing for the levy and collection of the Special Taxes, and performing the other duties provided for herein.
“CFD No. 71” means City of Ontario Community Facilities District No. 71 (Neuhouse Phase 2).
“City” means the City of Ontario, California.
“City Council” means the City Council of the City, acting as the legislative body of CFD No. 71.
“Contractual Impositions” means (a) a voluntary contractual assessment established and levied on an Assessor’s Parcel pursuant to Chapter 29 of Part 3 of Division 7 of the California Streets and Highways Code (commencing with Section 5898.10 et seq.), as amended from time to time, (b) a special tax established and levied on an Assessor’s Parcel pursuant to Section 53328.1 of the California Government Code and related provisions of the Act, as amended from time to time, and (c) any other fee, charge, tax, or assessment established and levied on an individual Assessor’s Parcel pursuant to a contractual agreement or other voluntary consent by the owner thereof (e.g., property owner association assessments).
“County” means the County of San Bernardino.
458
City of Ontario CFD No. 71 3 April 17, 2024
“Designated Buildable Lot” means a Buildable Lot for which a building permit has not been issued by the City as of the date of calculation of the Backup Special Tax A.
“Developed Property” means for each Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property, exclusive of Final Mapped Property, Taxable Property Owner Association Property, and Taxable Public Property, for which a building permit or other applicable permit for new construction was issued after January 1, 2023, and before May 1 of the prior Fiscal Year.
“Expected Residential Lot Count” means 144 Buildable Lots of Single Family Property in Tax Zone 1 and 191 Buildable Lots of Single Family Property in Tax Zone 2, or, as determined by the CFD Administrator, the number of Buildable Lots of Single Family Property based on the most recent Tentative Tract Map(s) or most recently recorded Final Subdivision Map(s) or modified Final Subdivision Map(s).
“Facilities” means the public facilities authorized to be financed, in whole or in part, by CFD No. 71.
“Final Mapped Property” means, for each Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property, exclusive of Developed Property, Taxable Property Owner Association Property, and Taxable Public Property, which as of January 1 of the previous Fiscal Year was located within a Final Subdivision Map. The term Final Mapped Property shall include any parcel map or Final Subdivision Map, or portion thereof, that creates individual lots for which a building permit may be issued, including Parcels that are designated as a remainder Parcel (i.e., one where the size, location, etc., precludes any further subdivision or taxable use).
“Final Subdivision Map” means a final tract map, parcel map, or lot line adjustment approved by the City pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code Section 66410 et seq.) or a condominium plan recorded pursuant to California Civil Code Section 4285 that, in either case, creates individual lots for which building permits may be issued without further subdivision.
“Fiscal Year” means the period starting July 1 and ending on the following June 30.
“Gated Community Attached Dwelling Unit” means, with respect to Special Tax B, a Unit within any residential building containing two or more dwelling units (including attached condominiums, townhouses, duplexes, triplexes, and apartments) within a gated community that, within such community, is primarily served by private interior streets.
“Indenture” means the indenture, fiscal agent agreement, resolution, or other instrument pursuant to which Bonds are issued, as modified, amended, and/or supplemented from time to time.
“Land Use Class” means any of the classes listed in Tables 1, 2, and 3 below.
“Lower Income Household Welfare Exemption Property” means, for each Fiscal Year, an Assessor’s Parcel within the boundaries of CFD No. 71 that is subject to a welfare exemption under subdivision (g) of Section 214 of the California Revenue and 459
City of Ontario CFD No. 71 4 April 17, 2024
Taxation Code (or any successor statute), as indicated in the most recent County assessor’s roll finalized prior to such Fiscal Year.
“Maximum Special Tax A” means, with respect to an Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property, the Maximum Special Tax A determined in accordance with Section C.1 below that can be levied in any Fiscal Year on such Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property.
“Maximum Special Tax B” means, with respect to an Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property, the Maximum Special Tax B determined in accordance with Section C.2 below that can be levied in any Fiscal Year on such Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property.
“Minimum Sale Price” means the minimum price at which Units of a given Land Use Class have sold or are expected to be sold in a normal marketing environment and shall not include prices for such Units that are sold at a discount to expected sales prices for the purpose of stimulating the initial sales activity with respect to such Land Use Class.
“Multiple Family Dwelling Unit” means, with respect to Special Tax B, a Unit within any residential building containing two or more dwelling units, including attached condominiums, townhomes, duplexes, triplexes, and apartments, but excluding Gated Community Attached Dwelling Units.
“Non-Residential Property” means all Assessor’s Parcels of Developed Property for which a building permit was issued by the City permitting the construction of one or more non-residential structures or facilities.
“Other Residential Property” means, with respect to Special Tax A, all Assessor’s Parcels of Developed Property for which a building permit was issued by the City for purposes of constructing Units, excluding Single Family Attached Property and Single Family Detached Property.
“Outstanding Bonds” means all Bonds which are outstanding under and in accordance with the provisions of the Indenture.
“Price Point Consultant” means any consultant or firm of such consultants selected by CFD No. 71 that (a) has substantial experience in performing price point studies for residential units within community facilities districts established under the Act or otherwise estimating or confirming pricing for residential units in such community facilities districts, (b) has recognized expertise in analyzing economic and real estate data that relates to the pricing of residential units in such community facilities districts, (c) is in fact independent and not under the control of CFD No. 71 or the City, (d) does not have any substantial interest, direct or indirect, with or in (i) CFD No. 71, (ii) the City, (iii) any owner of real property in CFD No. 71, or (iv) any real property in CFD No. 71, and (e) is not connected with CFD No. 71 or the City as an officer or employee thereof, but who may be regularly retained to make reports to CFD No. 71 or the City.
“Price Point Study” means a price point study or a letter updating a previous price point study prepared by the Price Point Consultant pursuant to Section C herein.
460
City of Ontario CFD No. 71 5 April 17, 2024
“Property Owner Association Property” means, for each Fiscal Year, any property within the boundaries of CFD No. 71 that was owned by a property owner association, including any master or sub-association, as of January 1 of the prior Fiscal Year.
“Proportionately” means (a) for Developed Property in the first step of Section D.1 below, that the ratio of the actual Special Tax A levy to the Maximum Special Tax A is equal for all Assessor’s Parcels of Developed Property; however, for Developed Property in the fourth step of Section D.1 below, Proportionately means that the amount of the increase above the Assigned Special Tax A, if necessary, is equal for all Assessor’s Parcels of Developed Property, except that if the Backup Special Tax A limits the increase on any Assessor’s Parcel(s), then the amount of the increase shall be equal for the remaining Assessor’s Parcels; (b) with respect to Special Tax B, that the ratio of the actual Special Tax B levy to the Maximum Special Tax B is equal for all Assessor’s Parcels of Developed Property; (c) for Final Mapped Property, that the ratio of the actual Special Tax A levy to the Maximum Special Tax A is equal for all Assessor’s Parcels of Final Mapped Property; (d) for Undeveloped Property, that the ratio of the actual Special Tax A levy to the Maximum Special Tax A is equal for all Assessor's Parcels of Undeveloped Property; (e) for Taxable Property Owner Association Property, that the ratio of the actual Special Tax A levy to the Maximum Special Tax A is equal for all Assessor’s Parcels of Taxable Property Owner Association Property; and (f) for Taxable Public Property, that the ratio of the actual Special Tax A levy to the Maximum Special Tax A is equal for all Assessor’s Parcels of Taxable Public Property.
“Public Property” means, for each Fiscal Year, property within the boundaries of CFD No. 71 that is (a) owned by, irrevocably offered to, or dedicated to the federal government, the State, the County, the City, or any local government or other public agency or (b) encumbered by an easement for purposes of public or utility right-of-way that makes impractical its use for any purpose other than that set forth in such easement; provided that any property leased by a public agency to a private entity and subject to taxation under Section 53340.1 of the Act shall be taxed and classified according to its use.
“Rate and Method of Apportionment” means this Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax.
“Residential Floor Area” means all of the Square Footage of living area within the perimeter of a Unit, not including any carport, walkway, garage, overhang, patio, enclosed patio, or similar area. The determination of Residential Floor Area shall be as set forth in the building permit(s) issued for such Assessor’s Parcel, or as set forth in other official records maintained by the City’s Building Department or other appropriate means selected by CFD No. 71. The actual Square Footage shall be rounded up to the next whole square foot. Once such determination has been made for an Assessor’s Parcel, it shall remain fixed in all future Fiscal Years unless an appeal pursuant to Section F below is approved that results in a change in the actual Square Footage.
“Residential Property” means, for each Fiscal Year, an Assessor’s Parcel for which a building permit for new construction of one or more Units was issued after January 1, 2023, and before May 1 of the prior Fiscal Year.
461
City of Ontario CFD No. 71 6 April 17, 2024
“Services” means the services authorized to be financed, in whole or in part, by CFD No.
71. “Single Family Attached Property” means all Assessor’s Parcels of Developed Property for which a building permit or use permit was issued for construction of a residential structure consisting of two or more Units that share common walls, have separate Assessor’s Parcel Numbers assigned to them (except for a duplex unit, which may share an Assessor’s Parcel with another duplex unit), and may be purchased by individual homebuyers (which shall still be the case even if the Units are purchased and subsequently offered for rent by the owner of the Unit), including such residential structures within a condominium project as defined in Civil Code Section 4125.
“Single Family Detached Dwelling Unit” means a Unit of Single Family Detached Property.
“Single Family Detached Property” means all Assessor’s Parcels of Developed Property for which a building permit was issued for construction of a Unit, on one legal lot, that does not share a common wall with another Unit.
“Single Family Property” means all Assessor’s Parcels of Single Family Attached Property and Single Family Detached Property.
“Special Taxes” means, collectively, Special Tax A and Special Tax B.
“Special Tax A” means the special tax authorized by the qualified electors of CFD No. 71 to be levied within the boundaries of CFD No. 71 to pay for Facilities and Services.
“Special Tax A Requirement” means for any Fiscal Year that amount required, after taking into account available amounts held in the funds and accounts established under the Indenture, for CFD No. 71 to: (i) pay debt service on all Outstanding Bonds which is due in the calendar year that commences in such Fiscal Year; (ii) pay periodic costs on the Bonds, including, but not limited to, credit enhancement and rebate payments on the Bonds; (iii) pay a pro rata share of Administrative Expenses; (iv) provide any amounts required to establish or replenish any reserve fund for the Bonds; (v) pay directly for acquisition or construction of Facilities, or the cost of Services, to the extent that the inclusion of such amounts does not increase the Special Tax A levy on Final Mapped Property or Undeveloped Property; and (vi) provide an amount equal to Special Tax A delinquencies based on the historical delinquency rate for Special Tax A as determined by the CFD Administrator.
“Special Tax B” means the special tax authorized by the qualified electors of CFD No. 71 to be levied within the boundaries of CFD No. 71 to pay for Services.
“Special Tax B Requirement” means for any Fiscal Year that amount required, after taking into account available amounts in any funds and accounts established to pay for Services, to pay the cost of Services, a pro rata share of Administrative Expenses, and an 462
City of Ontario CFD No. 71 7 April 17, 2024
amount equal to Special Tax B delinquencies based on the historical delinquency rate for Special Tax B as determined by the CFD Administrator.
“Square Footage” or “Sq. Ft.” means the floor area square footage reflected on the original construction building permit, or as set forth in other official records maintained by the City’s Building Department or other appropriate means selected by CFD No. 71, issued for construction of Residential Property or Non-Residential Property, plus any square footage subsequently added to a building of Non-Residential Property after issuance of a building permit for expansion or renovation of such building.
“State” means the State of California.
“Taxable Property” means, for each Fiscal Year, all of the Assessor’s Parcels within the boundaries of CFD No. 71 that are not exempt from the Special Taxes pursuant to law or Section E below.
“Taxable Property Owner Association Property” means, for each Fiscal Year, all Assessor’s Parcels of Property Owner Association Property that are not exempt from the Special Taxes pursuant to Section E below.
“Taxable Public Property” means, for each Fiscal Year, all Assessor’s Parcels of Public Property that are not exempt from the Special Taxes pursuant to law or Section E below.
“Tax Zone” means a mutually exclusive geographic area, within which particular Special Taxes may be levied pursuant to this Rate and Method of Apportionment.
Attachment 1 identifies the two Tax Zones in CFD No. 71.
“Tax Zone 1” means the geographic area designated in Attachment 1 of this Rate and Method of Apportionment as Tax Zone 1, is consistent with the boundaries of TTM 20530, and was commonly referred to as the Neuhouse II project at the time of formation of CFD No. 71.
“Tax Zone 2” means the geographic area designated in Attachment 1 of this Rate and Method of Apportionment as Tax Zone 2, is consistent with the boundary of TTM 20452, and was commonly referred to as the DUSA project at the time of formation of CFD No.
71. “Tentative Tract Map” means a map: (i) showing a proposed subdivision of an Assessor’s Parcel(s) and the conditions pertaining thereto; (ii) that may or may not be based on a detailed survey; and (iii) that is not recorded by the County to create legal lots.
“Total Tax Burden” means, for a Unit within a Land Use Class, for the Fiscal Year in which the Total Tax Burden is being calculated, the sum of (a) the Assigned Special Tax A for such Land Use Class for such Fiscal Year, plus (b) the Special Tax B for such Land Use Class for such Fiscal Year, plus (c) the ad valorem property taxes, special assessments, special taxes for any overlapping community facilities districts, and any other governmental fees, charges (other than fees or charges for services such as sewer and trash), taxes, and assessments (which do not include Contractual 463
City of Ontario CFD No. 71 8 April 17, 2024
Impositions) collected by the County on ad valorem tax bills, plus (d) property owner association assessments (but excluding the refuse collection portion of such assessments), and that the CFD Administrator estimates would be levied or imposed on such Unit in such Fiscal Year if the residential dwelling unit thereon or therein had been completed and sold, and was subject to such fees, charges, taxes, and assessments in such Fiscal Year.
“Trustee” means the trustee or fiscal agent under the Indenture.
“TTM 20452” means Tentative Tract Map No. 20452, the area of which is located within CFD No. 71.
“TTM 20530” means Tentative Tract Map No. 20530, the area of which is located within CFD No. 71.
“Undeveloped Property” means, for each Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property not classified as Developed Property, Final Mapped Property, Taxable Public Property, or Taxable Property Owner Association Property.
“Unit” means an individual single-family detached or attached home, townhome, condominium, apartment, or other residential dwelling unit, including each separate living area within a half-plex, duplex, triplex, fourplex, or other residential structure.
B. ASSIGNMENT TO LAND USE CATEGORIES
Each Fiscal Year, beginning with Fiscal Year 2024-25, all Taxable Property within CFD No. 71 shall be organized into Tax Zone 1 or Tax Zone 2, and then classified as Developed Property, Final Mapped Property, Taxable Public Property, Taxable Property Owner Association Property, or Undeveloped Property, and shall be subject to Special Taxes in accordance with the Rate and Method of Apportionment as determined pursuant to Sections C and D below.
Assessor’s Parcels of Developed Property shall be further classified as: Single Family Property (and further classified as Single Family Attached Property or Single Family Detached Property, as needed) or Other Residential Property (for Special Tax A); Single Family Detached Dwelling Unit, Multiple Family Dwelling Unit, or Gated Community Attached Dwelling Unit (for Special Tax B); or Non-Residential Property. For Special Tax A, Assessor’s Parcels of Single Family Property in Tax Zone 1 shall be assigned to Land Use Classes 1 through 7, and Single Family Property in Tax Zone 2 shall be assigned to Land Use Classes 10 through 18, as listed in Tables 1 and 2 below based on the Residential Floor Area of the Units on such Assessor’s Parcels. Also for Special Tax A, Other Residential Property and Non-Residential Property shall be assigned to Land Use Classes 8 and 9, respectively, in Tax Zone 1, and to Land Use Classes 19 and 20 in Tax Zone 2.
464
City of Ontario CFD No. 71 9 April 17, 2024
C. MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX
1. Special Tax A
At least 30 days prior to the issuance of Bonds, the Assigned Special Tax A on Developed Property (set forth in Tables 1 and 2 below) shall be analyzed in accordance with and subject to the conditions set forth in this Section C. At such time, CFD No. 71 shall select and engage a Price Point Consultant and the CFD Administrator shall request the Price Point Consultant to prepare a Price Point Study setting forth the Minimum Sale Price of Units within each Land Use Class.
If based upon such Price Point Study the CFD Administrator calculates that the Total Tax Burden, excluding property owner association assessments, applicable to Units within one or more Land Use Classes of Single Family Property to be constructed within CFD No. 71 exceeds 1.95% of the Minimum Sale Price of such Units, the Assigned Special Tax A shall be reduced to the extent necessary to cause the Total Tax Burden, excluding property owner association assessments, that shall apply to Units within such Land Use Class(es) not to exceed 1.95% of the Minimum Sale Price of such Units.
Each Assigned Special Tax A reduction for a Land Use Class shall be calculated by the CFD Administrator separately, and it shall not be required that such reduction be proportionate among Land Use Classes. In connection with any reduction in the Assigned Special Tax A, the Backup Special Tax A shall also be reduced by the CFD Administrator based on the percentage reduction in Maximum Special Tax A revenues within the Tentative Tract Map area(s) where the Assigned Special Tax A reductions occurred. Upon determining the reductions, if any, in the Assigned Special Tax A and Backup Special Tax A required pursuant to this Section C, the CFD Administrator shall complete the Certificate of Modification of Special Tax substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Certificate of Modification”), shall execute such completed Certificate of Modification, and shall deliver such executed Certificate of Modification to CFD No. 71. Upon receipt thereof, if in satisfactory form, CFD No. 71 shall execute such Certificate of Modification. The reduced Assigned Special Tax A and Backup Special Tax A specified in such Certificate of Modification shall become effective upon the execution of such Certificate of Modification by CFD No. 71.
The Special Tax A reductions required pursuant to this section shall be reflected in an amended notice of Special Tax lien, which CFD No. 71 shall cause to be recorded with the County Recorder as soon as practicable after execution of the Certificate of Modification by CFD No. 71. The reductions in this section apply to Single Family Property, but not to Other Residential Property or Non- Residential Property.
465
City of Ontario CFD No. 71 10 April 17, 2024
a. Developed Property
1) Maximum Special Tax A
The Maximum Special Tax A that may be levied in any Fiscal Year for each Assessor’s Parcel classified as Developed Property shall be the greater of (i) the amount derived by application of the Assigned Special Tax A or (ii) the amount derived by application of the Backup Special Tax A. The Maximum Special Tax A shall not increase in future years, other than as calculated pursuant to Section C.1.a.3 below.
2) Assigned Special Tax A
The Assigned Special Tax A that may be levied in any Fiscal Year for each Land Use Class is shown below in Tables 1 and 2.
TABLE 1
TAX ZONE 1
ASSIGNED SPECIAL TAX A – DEVELOPED PROPERTY
Land
Use
Class
Description
Residential
Floor Area
(Square
Footage)
Assigned
Special Tax A
1 Single Family Property < 901 $3,037 per Unit
2 Single Family Property 901 – 1,050 $3,063 per Unit 3 Single Family Property 1,051 – 1,200 $3,628 per Unit
4 Single Family Property 1,201 – 1,350 $3,798 per Unit
5 Single Family Property 1,351 – 1,500 $3,879 per Unit
6 Single Family Property 1,501 – 1,650 $4,083 per Unit
7 Single Family Property > 1,650 $4,229 per Unit
8 Other Residential Property $96,400 per Acre
9 Non-Residential Property $96,400 per Acre
466
City of Ontario CFD No. 71 11 April 17, 2024
TABLE 2
TAX ZONE 2
ASSIGNED SPECIAL TAX A – DEVELOPED PROPERTY
3) Backup Special Tax A
The Backup Special Tax A shall be $3,693 per Unit for Single Family Property in Tax Zone 1 and $4,598 in Tax Zone 2.
However, if the Expected Residential Lot Count of Single Family Property does not equal 144 in Tax Zone 1 and 191 in Tax Zone 2, and the City has not issued Bonds, then the Backup Special Tax A for Designated Buildable Lots of Single Family Property in each Tax Zone shall be calculated according to the following formulas:
Tax Zone 1 = $531,840 Expected Residential Lot
Count in Tax Zone 1 for Single
Family Property
Tax Zone 2 = $878,188 Expected Residential Lot
Count in Tax Zone 2 for Single
Family Property
Land
Use
Class
Description
Residential
Floor Area
(Square
Footage)
Assigned
Special Tax A
10 Single Family Property < 1,101 $3,686 per Unit
11 Single Family Property 1,101 – 1,300 $3,888 per Unit 12 Single Family Property 1,301 – 1,500 $4,058 per Unit 13 Single Family Property 1,501 – 1,700 $4,163 per Unit 14 Single Family Property 1,701 – 1,900 $4,229 per Unit 15 Single Family Property 1,901 – 2,100 $4,956 per Unit 16 Single Family Property 2,101 – 2,300 $5,080 per Unit 17 Single Family Property 2,301 – 2,500 $5,376 per Unit 18 Single Family Property > 2,500 $5,676 per Unit
19 Other Residential Property $86,658 per Acre
20 Non-Residential Property $86,658 per Acre
467
City of Ontario CFD No. 71 12 April 17, 2024
If any portion of a Final Subdivision Map, or any area expected by CFD No. 71 to become Final Mapped Property – such as the area within TTM 20452, TTM 20530, or any other Tentative Tract Map – changes any time after the City has issued Bonds, causing an adjustment to the number of Designated Buildable Lots, then the Backup Special Tax A for all Designated Buildable Lots of Single Family Property subject to the change shall be calculated according to the following steps:
Step 1: Determine the total Backup Special Tax A that
could have been collected from Designated
Buildable Lots of Single Family Property within the
applicable Tax Zone, prior to the Final Subdivision
Map or expected Final Mapped Property change.
Step 2: Divide the amount determined in Step 1 by the
number of Designated Buildable Lots of Single
Family Property that exists in the applicable Tax
Zone after the Final Subdivision Map or expected
Final Mapped Property change.
Step 3: Apply the amount determined in Step 2 as the
Backup Special Tax A per Unit for Single Family
Property in the applicable Tax Zone.
The Backup Special Tax A for an Assessor’s Parcel shall not change once an Assessor’s Parcel is classified as Developed Property.
b. Final Mapped Property, Taxable Public Property, Taxable Property Owner Association Property, and Undeveloped Property
The Maximum Special Tax A for Final Mapped Property, Taxable Public Property, Taxable Property Owner Association Property, and Undeveloped Property shall be $96,400 per Acre in Tax Zone 1 and $86,658 per Acre in Tax Zone 2, and shall not be subject to increase or reduction and, therefore, shall remain the same in every Fiscal Year.
2. Special Tax B
The Maximum Special Tax B for each Assessor’s Parcel classified as Developed Property shall be determined by reference to Table 3 below.
468
City of Ontario CFD No. 71 13 April 17, 2024
TABLE 3
MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX B – DEVELOPED PROPERTY
Land Use Class Maximum Special Tax B
Fiscal Year 2024-25
Residential Property
Single Family Detached Dwelling Unit $1,501.46 per Unit Multiple Family Dwelling Unit $1,301.51 per Unit
Gated Community Attached Dwelling Unit $1,091.38 per Unit Non-Residential Property
$0.273800 per Sq. Ft.
On January 1 of each Fiscal Year, commencing January 1, 2025, the Maximum Special Tax B to be applied in the next Fiscal Year shall be subject to an automatic increase at a rate equal to 4.0% of the amount in effect for the prior Fiscal Year.
3. Multiple Land Use Classes on an Assessor’s Parcel
In some instances an Assessor’s Parcel of Developed Property may contain more than one Land Use Class. The Maximum Special Tax A levied on such Assessor’s Parcel shall be the sum of the Maximum Special Tax A for all Units of Single Family Property and Acres of Other Residential Property and Non- Residential Property (based on the pro rata share of Square Footage between Other Residential Property and Non-Residential Property, according to the applicable building permits, Final Subdivision Map, parcel map, condominium plan, or other recorded County map) located on that Assessor’s Parcel. The Maximum Special Tax B levied on such Assessor’s Parcel shall be the sum of the Maximum Special Tax B for all Units of Residential Property and all Square Footage of Non-Residential Property (based on the applicable building permits, Final Subdivision Map, parcel map, condominium plan, or other recorded County map) located on that Assessor’s Parcel.
4. Developed Property Special Tax Obligation
Once an Assessor’s Parcel has been taxed in any Fiscal Year as Developed Property, the Assessor’s Parcel shall continue to be taxed as Developed Property regardless of changes to or expiration of the original building permit, and regardless of revisions to or destruction of the structure that was, or was expected to be, constructed pursuant to the original building permit.
469
City of Ontario CFD No. 71 14 April 17, 2024
D. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF THE SPECIAL TAX
1. Special Tax A
Each Fiscal Year, beginning with Fiscal Year 2024-25, the CFD Administrator shall determine the Special Tax A Requirement for such Fiscal Year. The Special Tax A shall then be levied as follows:
First: If needed to satisfy the Special Tax A Requirement, Special Tax A shall be levied Proportionately on each Assessor’s Parcel of Developed Property up to 100% of the applicable Assigned Special Tax A;
Second: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Special Tax A Requirement after the first step has been completed, then Special Tax A shall be levied Proportionately on each Assessor’s Parcel of Final Mapped Property up to 100% of the Maximum Special Tax A for Final Mapped Property;
Third: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Special Tax A Requirement after the first two steps have been completed, then Special Tax A shall be levied Proportionately on each Assessor’s Parcel of Undeveloped Property up to 100% of the Maximum Special Tax A for Undeveloped Property;
Fourth: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Special Tax A Requirement after the first three steps have been completed, then the levy of Special Tax A on each Assessor’s Parcel of Developed Property whose Maximum Special Tax A is determined through the application of the Backup Special Tax A shall be increased Proportionately from the Assigned Special Tax A up to the Maximum Special Tax A for each such Assessor’s Parcel;
Fifth: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Special Tax A Requirement after the first four steps have been completed, then Special Tax A shall be levied Proportionately on each Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property Owner Association Property up to the Maximum Special Tax A for Taxable Property Owner Association Property;
Sixth: If additional monies are needed to satisfy the Special Tax A Requirement after the first five steps have been completed, then Special Tax A shall be levied Proportionately on each Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Public Property up to the Maximum Special Tax A for Taxable Public Property.
Notwithstanding the above, under no circumstances shall Special Tax A levied in any Fiscal Year on any Assessor’s Parcel of Single Family Property or Other Residential Property for which an occupancy permit for private residential use has been issued be increased as a result of delinquency or default by the owner or owners of any other Assessor’s Parcel or Assessor’s Parcels within CFD No. 71 by more than ten percent above the amount that would have been levied in that Fiscal Year had there never been any such delinquencies or defaults.
470
City of Ontario CFD No. 71 15 April 17, 2024
2. Special Tax B
Each Fiscal Year, beginning with Fiscal Year 2024-25, the CFD Administrator shall determine the Special Tax B Requirement. The Special Tax B shall then be levied Proportionately on each Assessor’s Parcel of Developed Property up to 100% of the applicable Maximum Special Tax B for such Assessor’s Parcel, until the Special Tax B Requirement is satisfied. However, the Special Tax B levied in any Fiscal Year shall not increase by more than 4.0% of the amount of the Special Tax B levied in the prior Fiscal Year.
E. EXEMPTIONS
In Tax Zone 1, no Special Tax shall be levied on up to 3.06 Acres of Property Owner Association Property. In Tax Zone 2, no Special Tax shall be levied on up to 4.25 Acres of Public Property and up to 4.22 Acres of Property Owner Association Property. Tax- exempt status in each Tax Zone will be assigned by the CFD Administrator in the chronological order in which property becomes Public Property or Property Owner Association Property.
Property Owner Association Property or Public Property that is not exempt from the Special Tax A under this section shall be subject to the levy of Special Tax A and shall be taxed Proportionately as part of the fifth or sixth step, respectively, in Section D above, up to 100% of the applicable Maximum Special Tax A for Taxable Property Owner Association Property and Taxable Public Property. No Special Tax A shall be levied in any Fiscal Year on Assessor’s Parcels that have fully prepaid the Special Tax A obligation pursuant to the formula set forth in Section H.
No Special Tax shall be levied on Lower Income Household Welfare Exemption Property; provided, however, that if, in any Fiscal Year, applicable law does not require that Lower Income Household Welfare Exemption Property be exempt from some portion, or all, of the Special Tax, such portion, or all, of the Special Tax shall be levied on such property in accordance with this Rate and Method of Apportionment based on the Land Use Class to which the Assessor’s Parcel is assigned.
F. APPEALS
Any property owner may file a written appeal of the Special Tax with CFD No. 71 claiming that the amount or application of the Special Tax is not correct. The appeal must be filed not later than one calendar year after having paid the Special Tax that is disputed, and the appellant must be current in all payments of Special Taxes. In addition, during the term of the appeal process, all Special Taxes levied must be paid on or before the payment date established when the levy was made.
The appeal must specify the reasons why the appellant claims the Special Tax is in error.
The CFD Administrator shall review the appeal, meet with the appellant if the CFD Administrator deems necessary, and advise the appellant of its determination.
471
City of Ontario CFD No. 71 16 April 17, 2024
If the property owner disagrees with the CFD Administrator’s decision relative to the appeal, the owner may then file a written appeal with the City Council whose subsequent decision shall be final and binding on all interested parties. If the decision of the CFD Administrator or subsequent decision by the City Council requires the Special Tax to be modified or changed in favor of the property owner, then the CFD Administrator shall determine if sufficient Special Tax revenue is available to make a cash refund. If a cash refund cannot be made, then an adjustment shall be made to credit future Special Tax levy(ies).
This procedure shall be exclusive and its exhaustion by any property owner shall be a condition precedent to filing any legal action by such owner.
G. MANNER OF COLLECTION
The Special Taxes shall be collected in the same manner and at the same time as ordinary ad valorem property taxes; provided, however, that the Special Taxes may be collected in such other manner as the City Council shall determine, including direct billing of affected property owners.
H. PREPAYMENT OF SPECIAL TAX A
The following definitions apply to this Section H:
“CFD Public Facilities” means $17,673,000 for each Prepayment Period, or such lower number as determined by the City Council to be sufficient to fund the Facilities and Services to be provided by CFD No. 71.
“Expenditures Fund” means funds or accounts, regardless of their names, that are established to hold moneys that are available to acquire or construct Facilities and to fund Services.
“Future Facilities Costs” means the CFD Public Facilities minus (i) Facilities and Services costs previously paid from the Expenditures Fund during the Prepayment Period in which the prepayment is being made, (ii) moneys currently on deposit in the Expenditures Fund from deposits made during the Prepayment Period in which the prepayment is being made, and (iii) moneys currently on deposit in an escrow fund that are expected to be available to finance Facilities costs. In no event shall the amount of Future Facilities Costs be less than zero.
“Prepayment Period” means one of three periods of time during which a Special Tax prepayment may be made.
“Prepayment Period 1” means July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2058.
“Prepayment Period 2” means July 1, 2058, through June 30, 2091.
“Prepayment Period 3” means July 1, 2091, through June 30, 2125.
472
City of Ontario CFD No. 71 17 April 17, 2024
Only Special Tax A may be prepaid; Special Tax B shall continue to be levied on an annual basis on all Developed Property in CFD No. 71.
1. Prepayment in Full
The obligation of an Assessor's Parcel to pay the Special Tax A may be prepaid as described herein, provided that a prepayment may be made only for Assessor’s Parcels for which a building permit for new construction was issued after January 1, 2023, and only if there are no delinquent Special Taxes with respect to such Assessor's Parcel at the time of prepayment. An owner of an Assessor's Parcel intending to prepay the Special Tax A obligation shall provide the CFD Administrator with written notice of intent to prepay. Within 30 days of receipt of such written notice, the CFD Administrator shall notify such owner of the prepayment amount for such Assessor's Parcel. The CFD Administrator may charge a fee for providing this service. Prepayment in any six month period must be made not less than 45 days prior to the next occurring date that notice of redemption of Bonds from the proceeds of such prepayment may be given to the Trustee pursuant to the Indenture.
The Special Tax A Prepayment Amount (defined below) shall be calculated as summarized below (capitalized terms as defined below):
Bond Redemption Amount
plus Redemption Premium
plus Future Facilities Amount
plus Defeasance Amount
plus Administrative Fees and Expenses
less Reserve Fund Credit
Total Prepayment Amount
As of the proposed date of prepayment, the Special Tax A Prepayment Amount (defined below) shall be calculated by the CFD Administrator as follows:
Paragraph No.
1. Confirm that no Special Tax delinquencies apply to such Assessor’s Parcel, and determine the Prepayment Period for the proposed prepayment.
2. Compute the Assigned Special Tax A and Backup Special Tax A for the Assessor’s Parcel to be prepaid based on the Developed Property Special Tax A which is, or could be, charged in the current Fiscal Year. For Assessor’s Parcels of Final Mapped Property (for which a building permit has been issued but which is not yet classified as Developed Property) to be prepaid, compute the Assigned Special Tax A and Backup Special Tax A for that Assessor’s Parcel as though it was already designated as Developed Property, based upon the building permit which has already been issued for that Assessor’s Parcel. 473
City of Ontario CFD No. 71 18 April 17, 2024
3. (a) Divide the Assigned Special Tax A computed pursuant to Paragraph 2 by the total estimated Assigned Special Tax A for CFD No. 71 based on the Developed Property Special Tax A which could be charged in the current Fiscal Year on all expected development through buildout of CFD No. 71, excluding any Assessor’s Parcels which have been prepaid, and
(b) Divide the Backup Special Tax A computed pursuant to Paragraph 2 by the estimated total Backup Special Tax A at buildout of CFD No. 71, excluding any Assessor’s Parcels which have been prepaid.
4. Multiply the larger quotient computed pursuant to Paragraph 3(a) or 3(b) by the Outstanding Bonds to compute the amount of Outstanding Bonds to be retired and prepaid (the “Bond Redemption Amount”).
5. Multiply the Bond Redemption Amount computed pursuant to Paragraph 4 by the applicable redemption premium (e.g., the redemption price minus 100%), if any, on the Outstanding Bonds to be redeemed (the “Redemption Premium”).
6. Compute the Future Facilities Costs for the applicable Prepayment Period.
7. Multiply the larger quotient computed pursuant to Paragraph 3(a) or 3(b) by the amount determined pursuant to Paragraph 6 to compute the amount of Future Facilities Costs to be prepaid (the “Future Facilities Amount”).
8. Compute the amount needed to pay interest on the Bond Redemption Amount from the first bond interest and/or principal payment date following the current Fiscal Year until the earliest redemption date for the Outstanding Bonds.
9. Determine the Special Tax A levied on the Assessor’s Parcel in the current Fiscal Year which has not yet been paid.
10. Add the amounts computed pursuant to Paragraphs 8 and 9 to determine the “Defeasance Amount”.
11. Verify the administrative fees and expenses of CFD No. 71, including the costs to compute the prepayment, the costs to invest the prepayment proceeds, the costs to redeem Bonds, and the costs to record any notices to evidence the prepayment and the redemption (the “Administrative Fees and Expenses”).
12. If reserve funds for the Outstanding Bonds, if any, are at or above 100% of the reserve requirement (as defined in the Indenture) on the prepayment date, a reserve fund credit shall be calculated as a reduction in the applicable reserve fund for the Outstanding Bonds to be redeemed pursuant to the prepayment (the “Reserve Fund Credit”). No Reserve Fund Credit shall be granted if reserve funds are below 100% of the reserve requirement on the prepayment date or the redemption date.
474
City of Ontario CFD No. 71 19 April 17, 2024
13. The Special Tax A prepayment is equal to the sum of the amounts computed pursuant to Paragraphs 4, 5, 7, 10, and 11, less the amount computed pursuant to Paragraph 12 (the “Prepayment Amount”).
14. From the Prepayment Amount, the amounts computed pursuant to Paragraphs 4, 5, 10, and 12 shall be deposited into the appropriate fund as established under the Indenture and be used to retire Outstanding Bonds or make debt service payments. The amount computed pursuant to Paragraph 7 shall be deposited into the Expenditures Fund. The amount computed pursuant to Paragraph 11 shall be retained by CFD No. 71.
The Special Tax A Prepayment Amount may be sufficient to redeem other than a $5,000 increment of Bonds. In such cases, the increment above $5,000, or integral multiple thereof, will be retained in the appropriate fund established under the Indenture to be used with the next prepayment of Bonds or to make debt service payments.
As a result of the payment of the current Fiscal Year’s Special Tax A levy as determined under Paragraph 9 (above), the CFD Administrator shall remove the current Fiscal Year’s Special Tax A levy for such Assessor’s Parcel from the County tax rolls. With respect to any Assessor's Parcel that is prepaid during Prepayment Period 3, the CFD Administrator shall cause a suitable notice to be recorded in compliance with the Act to indicate that Special Tax A has been prepaid and that the obligation of such Assessor's Parcel to pay Special Tax A shall cease.
With respect to Special Tax A for any Assessor’s Parcel that is prepaid during Prepayment Period 1 or Prepayment Period 2, the obligation of such Assessor’s Parcel to pay Special Tax A shall be tolled, or suspended, through the end of such Prepayment Period, but shall resume in the first Fiscal Year of the subsequent Prepayment Period.
The CFD Administrator shall cause a suitable notice to be recorded in compliance with the Act to indicate that Special Tax A has been satisfied for the remainder of the applicable Prepayment Period but has not been permanently satisfied and the obligation to pay Special Tax A will resume in the first Fiscal Year of the Prepayment Period following the Prepayment Period in which the prepayment was made. Once the obligation of an Assessor’s Parcel to pay Special Tax A resumes, Special Tax A for the then applicable Prepayment Period may be prepaid.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Special Tax A prepayment shall be allowed unless the amount of Maximum Special Tax A that may be levied on Taxable Property within CFD No. 71 (after excluding 4.25 Acres of Public Property and 7.28 acres of Property Owner Association Property) both prior to and after the proposed prepayment is at least 1.1 times the maximum annual debt service on all Outstanding Bonds.
2. Prepayment in Part
The Special Tax A on an Assessor’s Parcel for which a building permit for new construction was issued after January 1, 2023, may be partially prepaid. The amount of 475
City of Ontario CFD No. 71 20 April 17, 2024
the prepayment shall be calculated as in Section H.1, except that a partial prepayment shall be calculated by the CFD Administrator according to the following formula:
PP = (PF – AE) x % + AE.
The terms above have the following meaning:
PP = the partial prepayment
PF = the Prepayment Amount (full prepayment) for Special Tax A calculated according to Section H.1
AE = the Administrative Fees and Expenses determined pursuant to paragraph 11 above % = the percentage by which the owner of the Assessor’s Parcel(s) is partially prepaying Special Tax A
The Special Tax A partial prepayment amount must be sufficient to redeem at least a $5,000 increment of Bonds.
The owner of any Assessor’s Parcel who desires such prepayment shall notify the CFD Administrator of such owner’s intent to partially prepay Special Tax A and the percentage by which Special Tax A shall be prepaid. The CFD Administrator shall provide the owner with a statement of the amount required for the partial prepayment of Special Tax A for an Assessor’s Parcel within thirty (30) days of the request and may charge a fee for providing this service. With respect to any Assessor’s Parcel that is partially prepaid, the CFD Administrator shall (i) distribute the remitted prepayment funds according to Section H.1, and (ii) indicate in the records of CFD No. 71 that there has been a partial prepayment of Special Tax A and that a portion of Special Tax A with respect to such Assessor’s Parcel, equal to the outstanding percentage (100% - “%”, as defined above) of the Maximum Special Tax A, shall continue to be levied on such Assessor’s Parcel pursuant to Section D during the Prepayment Period in which the partial prepayment is made.
For partial prepayments made during Prepayment Period 1 or Prepayment Period 2, the full amount of Special Tax A shall resume in the first Fiscal Year of the Prepayment Period following the Prepayment Period in which the partial prepayment was made.
Once the obligation of an Assessor’s Parcel to pay Special Tax A resumes, Special Tax A for the then applicable Prepayment Period may be prepaid.
I. TERM OF SPECIAL TAX
The Fiscal Year after which no further Special Tax A shall be levied or collected is Fiscal Year 2124-2125, except that Special Tax A that was lawfully levied in or before such Fiscal Year and that remains delinquent may be collected in subsequent years. Special Tax B shall continue to be levied indefinitely on an annual basis on all Developed Property in CFD No. 71.
476
Tax Zone 1
Tax Zone 2
Legend
477
EXHIBIT A
CERTIFICATE OF MODIFICATION OF SPECIAL TAX A
(PAGE 1 OF 3)
CITY OF ONTARIO AND CFD NO. 71 CERTIFICATE
1. Pursuant to Section C.1 of the Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax (the “Rate and Method”) for City of Ontario Community Facilities District No. 71 (Neuhouse Phase 2) (“CFD No. 71”), the Assigned Special Tax A and the Backup Special Tax A for Developed Property within CFD No. 71 has been modified.
a. The information in Tables 1 and 2 relating to Assigned Special Tax A for Developed Property within CFD No. 71, as stated in Section C.1.a.2 of the Rate and Method of Apportionment, has been modified as follows:
TABLE 1
TAX ZONE 1
ASSIGNED SPECIAL TAX A – DEVELOPED PROPERTY
Land
Use
Class
Description
Residential
Floor Area
(Square
Footage)
Assigned
Special Tax A
1 Single Family Property < 901 $[ ] per Unit
2 Single Family Property 901 – 1,050 $[ ] per Unit 3 Single Family Property 1,051 – 1,200 $[ ] per Unit 4 Single Family Property 1,201 – 1,350 $[ ] per Unit 5 Single Family Property 1,351 – 1,500 $[ ] per Unit 6 Single Family Property 1,501 – 1,650 $[ ] per Unit 7 Single Family Property > 1,650 $[ ] per Unit
8 Other Residential Property $[ ] per Acre
9 Non-Residential Property $[ ] per Acre
478
EXHIBIT A
CERTIFICATE OF MODIFICATION OF SPECIAL TAX A
(PAGE 2 OF 3)
TABLE 2
TAX ZONE 2
ASSIGNED SPECIAL TAX A – DEVELOPED PROPERTY
b. The Backup Special Tax for Developed Property, as stated in Section C.1.a.3, shall be modified as follows:
The Backup Special Tax A shall be $[___] per Unit for Single Family Property in Tax Zone 1 and $[___] in Tax Zone 2.
However, if the Expected Residential Lot Count of Single Family Property does not equal 144 in Tax Zone 1 and 191 in Tax Zone 2, and the City has not issued Bonds, then the Backup Special Tax A for Designated Buildable Lots of Single Family Property in each Tax Zone shall be calculated according to the following formulas:
Tax Zone 1 = $[_____] Expected Residential Lot
Count in Tax Zone 1 for Single
Family Property
Land
Use
Class
Description
Residential
Floor Area
(Square
Footage)
Assigned
Special Tax A
10 Single Family Property < 1,101 $[ ] per Unit
11 Single Family Property 1,101 – 1,300 $[ ] per Unit 12 Single Family Property 1,301 – 1,500 $[ ] per Unit 13 Single Family Property 1,501 – 1,700 $[ ] per Unit 14 Single Family Property 1,701 – 1,900 $[ ] per Unit 15 Single Family Property 1,901 – 2,100 $[ ] per Unit 16 Single Family Property 2,101 – 2,300 $[ ] per Unit 17 Single Family Property 2,301 – 2,500 $[ ] per Unit 18 Single Family Property > 2,500 $[ ] per Unit
19 Other Residential Property $[ ] per Acre
20 Non-Residential Property $[ ] per Acre
479
EXHIBIT A
CERTIFICATE OF MODIFICATION OF SPECIAL TAX A
(PAGE 3 OF 3)
Tax Zone 2 = $[_____] Expected Residential Lot
Count in Tax Zone 2 for Single
Family Property
2. The Special Tax A for Developed Property may only be modified prior to the first issuance of CFD No. 71 Bonds.
3. Upon execution of this certificate by CFD No. 71, CFD No. 71 shall cause an amended notice of Special Tax lien for CFD No. 71 to be recorded reflecting the modifications set forth herein.
Capitalized undefined terms used herein have the meanings ascribed thereto in the Rate and Method. The modifications set forth in this Certificate have been calculated by the CFD Administrator in accordance with the Rate and Method.
GOODWIN CONSULTING GROUP, INC.
CFD ADMINISTRATOR
By:_________________________________ Date:______________________
The undersigned acknowledges receipt of this Certificate and of the modification of the Assigned Special Tax A and Backup Special Tax A for Developed Property as set forth in this Certificate.
CITY OF ONTARIO
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 71
(NEUHOUSE PHASE 2)
By:_________________________________ Date:______________________
480
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-074
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO,
CALIFORNIA, DEEMING IT NECESSARY FOR CITY OF ONTARIO
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 71 (NEUHOUSE PHASE 2) TO INCUR BONDED INDEBTEDNESS.
WHEREAS, on May 21, 2024, the City Council (the “City Council”) of the City of Ontario (the “City”), pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (the “Act”), adopted a resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Ontario, California, of Intention to Establish a Community Facilities District Proposed to be Named City of Ontario Community Facilities District No. 71 (Neuhouse Phase 2) and to Authorize the Levy of a Special Tax Therein,” stating its intention to establish City of Ontario Community Facilities District No. 71 (Neuhouse Phase 2) (the “Community Facilities District”) and to authorize the Community Facilities District to levy a special tax (the “Special Tax”) within the Community Facilities District for the purpose of financing certain public facilities (the “Facilities”) and services; and
WHEREAS, on May 21, 2024, the City Council also adopted a resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Ontario, California, Declaring it Necessary for City of Ontario Community Facilities District No. 71 (Neuhouse Phase 2) to Incur Bonded Indebtedness” (the “Resolution Declaring Necessity”), declaring it necessary for the Community Facilities District to incur bonded indebtedness and setting the date for a public hearing to be held on the proposed debt authorization; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Resolution Declaring Necessity, notice of said public hearing was published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin , a newspaper of general circulation published in the area of the Community Facilities District, in accordance with the Act; and
WHEREAS, on this date, the City Council opened, conducted and closed said public hearing; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, any person interested, including persons owning property within the area and desiring to appear and present any matters material to the questions set forth in the Resolution Declaring Necessity appeared and presented such matters; and
WHEREAS, oral or written protests against the proposed debt issue were not made or filed at or before said public hearing by 50% or more of the registered voters, or six registered voters, whichever is more, residing within the territory proposed to be included in the Community Facilities District, or the owners of one-half or more of the area of land in the territory proposed to be included in the Community Facilities District and not exempt from the Special Tax; and
481
Resolution No. 2024-074
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it necessary for the Community Facilities District to incur bonded indebtedness; and
WHEREAS, on this date, the City Council adopted a resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Ontario, California, of Formation of City of Ontario Community Facilities District No. 71 (Neuhouse Phase 2), Proposing that the Community Facilities District Be Authorized to Levy a Special Tax and Proposing that an Appropriations Limit of the Community Facilities District Be Established;” and WHEREAS, the City Clerk of the City (the “City Clerk”) is the election official that will conduct the special election on the proposition to authorize the Community Facilities District to incur bonded indebtedness; and
WHEREAS, there has been filed with the City Clerk a letter from the Registrar of Voters of the County of San Bernardino indicating that no persons were registered to vote within the territory of the Community Facilities District as of May 28, 2024, which demonstrates that 12 or more persons have not been registered to vote within the territory of the Community Facilities District for each of the 90 days preceding the close of said public hearing; and
WHEREAS, there has been filed with the City Clerk consents and waivers of all of the landowners of record in the Community Facilities District consenting to the waiver of, and waiving, any time limit specified by Section 53326 of the Act and any requirement pertaining to the conduct of said special election, including any time limit or requirement applicable to an election pursuant to Article 5 of the Act (commencing with Section 53345 of the Act), consenting to the holding of said special election on July 2, 2024, and consenting to the waiver of, and waiving, any impartial analysis, arguments or rebuttals, as set forth in Sections 53326 and 53327 of the Act; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk has concurred in said waivers and has concurred in holding said special election on July 2, 2024;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Ontario as follows:
SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct, and the City Council so finds and determines.
SECTION 2. The City Council deems it necessary for the Community Facilities District to incur the bonded indebtedness.
SECTION 3. The bonded indebtedness will be incurred for the purpose of financing the costs of the Facilities, including all costs and estimated costs incidental to, or connected with, the accomplishment of said purpose, including, but not limited to, such costs and estimated costs as are described in Section 53345.3 of the Act.
SECTION 4. In accordance with the previous determination of the City Council, the whole of the Community Facilities District will pay for the bonded indebtedness. 482
Resolution No. 2024-074
SECTION 5. The maximum amount of debt to be incurred is $65,000,000.
SECTION 6. The maximum term the bonds to be issued shall run before maturity is 40 years.
SECTION 7. The maximum annual rate of interest to be paid shall not exceed the maximum interest rate permitted by applicable law at the time of sale of the bonds, payable semiannually or at such times as the City Council or its designee shall determine, the actual rate or rates and times of payment of such interest to be determined by the City Council or its designee at the time or times of sale of the bonds.
SECTION 8. The proposition to authorize the Community Facilities District to incur the bonded indebtedness shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the Community Facilities District.
SECTION 9. The City Council hereby finds and determines that no persons were registered to vote within the territory of the Community Facilities District as of May 28, 2024, and that 12 or more persons have not been registered to vote within the territory of the Community Facilities District for each of the 90 days preceding the close of the public hearing held by the City Council on the proposed debt issue for the Community Facilities District. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 53326 of the Act, the vote shall be by the landowners of the Community Facilities District and each person who is the owner of land as of the close of said public hearing, or the authorized representative thereof, shall have one vote for each acre or portion of an acre that he or she owns within the Community Facilities District not exempt from the Special Tax.
SECTION 10. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the qualified electors of the Community Facilities District have (a) unanimously consented to the waiver of, and have waived, any time limit specified by Section 53326 of the Act and any requirement pertaining to the conduct of said election, including any time limit or requirement applicable to an election pursuant to Article 5 of the Act (commencing with Section 53345 of the Act), (b) unanimously consented to the holding of said election on July 2, 2024, and (c) unanimously consented to the waiver of, and have waived, any impartial analysis, arguments or rebuttals, as set forth in Sections 53326 and 53327 of the Act. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the City Clerk has concurred in said waivers and has concurred in holding said election on July 2, 2024.
SECTION 11. The date of the special community facilities district election (which shall be consolidated with the special district election to authorize the Community Facilities District to levy the Special Tax) at which time the proposition to authorize the Community Facilities District to incur the bonded indebtedness shall be submitted to the voters is July 2, 2024.
SECTION 12. As authorized by Section 53353.5 of the Act, the propositions to authorize the Community Facilities District to incur such bonded indebtedness, to authorize the Community Facilities to levy the Special Tax and to establish an appropriations limit of the Community Facilities District shall be combined into one ballot proposition.
483
Resolution No. 2024-074
SECTION 13. Pursuant to Section 53326 of the Act, the election shall be conducted by mail or hand-delivered ballot. The voted ballots are required to be received in the office of the City Clerk no later than 7:30 p.m. on July 2, 2024; provided, however, that if all of the qualified electors have voted prior to such time, the election may be closed with the concurrence of the City Clerk.
SECTION 14. All actions heretofore taken by the officers, employees and agents of the City with respect to the incurrence of bonded indebtedness by the Community Facilities District, or in connection with or related to any of the matters referred to herein, are hereby approved, confirmed and ratified.
SECTION 15. The officers, employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized and directed to take all actions and do all things that they, or any of them, may deem necessary or desirable to accomplish the purposes of this Resolution and not inconsistent with the provisions hereof.
SECTION 16. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
The City Clerk of the City of Ontario shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of July, 2024. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________________
SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
CITY ATTORNEY
484
Resolution No. 2024-074
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. 2024-074 was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Ontario at their regular meeting held July 2, 2024 by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: LEON, PORADA, BOWMAN AND
VALENCIA
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: WAPNER
____________________________________
SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
The foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2024-074 duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held July 2, 2024. _____________________________________
SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
485
4132-9649-2879.1
CITY OF ONTARIO
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 71
(NEUHOUSE PHASE 2)
CONCURRENCE OF ELECTION OFFICIAL
I, Sheila Mautz, City Clerk of the City of Ontario (the “City”), hereby certify as follows:
(a) that I am the election official responsible for conducting special elections in the City; and
(b) that, pursuant to Section 53326(a) of the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (the “Act”), I do hereby concur in (i) the holding on the date hereof of the special election to submit to the qualified electors of City of Ontario Community Facilities District No. 71 (Neuhouse Phase 2) (the “Community Facilities District”) the combined ballot proposition to authorize the Community Facilities District to incur bonded indebtedness, to authorize the Community Facilities District to levy a special tax and to establish an appropriations limit of the Community Facilities District, as provided in the resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Ontario, California, Calling Special Election for City of Ontario Community Facilities District No. 71 (Neuhouse Phase 2),” proposed to be adopted by the City Council of the City on the date hereof, and (ii) the waiving by the unanimous consent of the qualified electors of the Community Facilities District of any time limit specified by Section 53326 of the Act and any requirement pertaining to the conduct of the election, including any time limit or requirement applicable to any election pursuant to Article 5 of the Act (commencing with Section 53345 of the Act).
Dated: July 2, 2024
Sheila Mautz, City Clerk
486
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-075
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO,
CALIFORNIA, CALLING SPECIAL ELECTION FOR CITY OF ONTARIO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 71 (NEUHOUSE PHASE 2).
WHEREAS, on this date, the City Council (the “City Council”) of the City of Ontario (the “City”), pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (the “Act”), adopted a resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Ontario, California, of Formation of City of Ontario Community Facilities District No. 71 (Neuhouse Phase 2), Proposing that the Community Facilities District be Authorized to Levy a Special Tax and Proposing that an Appropriations Limit of the Community Facilities District Be Established” (the “Resolution of Formation”), establishing City of Ontario Community Facilities District No. 71 (Neuhouse Phase 2) (the “Community Facilities District”), proposing that the Community Facilities District be authorized to levy a special tax (the “Special Tax”) within the Community Facilities District for the purpose of financing certain public facilities (the “Facilities”) and services and proposing that an appropriations limit of the Community Facilities District be established at $65,000,000; and WHEREAS, on this date, the City Council also adopted a resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Ontario, California, Deeming it Necessary for City of Ontario Community Facilities District No. 71 (Neuhouse Phase 2) to Incur Bonded Indebtedness” (the “Resolution Deeming Necessity”), deeming it necessary for the Community Facilities District to incur bonded indebtedness in a maximum amount of $65,000,000; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Act and said resolutions, the propositions to authorize the Community Facilities District to incur such bonded indebtedness, to authorize the Community Facilities District to levy the Special Tax and to establish such appropriations limit of the Community Facilities District are to be submitted to the qualified electors of the Community Facilities District at a special election; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to designate the City Clerk of the City (the “City Clerk”) as the election official for such special election; and WHEREAS, there has been filed with the City Clerk a letter from the Registrar of Voters of the County of San Bernardino indicating that no persons were registered to vote within the territory of the Community Facilities District as of May 28, 2024, which demonstrates that 12 or more persons have not been registered to vote within the territory of the Community Facilities District for each of the 90 days preceding the close of the public hearings on the establishment of the Community Facilities District and the proposed debt issue for the Community Facilities District; and WHEREAS, there has been filed with the City Clerk consents and waivers of all of the landowners of record in the Community Facilities District consenting to the waiver of, and waiving, any time limit specified by Section 53326 of the Act and any requirement 487
Resolution No. 2024-075
pertaining to the conduct of said special election, including any time limit or requirement applicable to an election pursuant to Article 5 of the Act (commencing with Section 53345 of the Act), consenting to the holding of said special election on July 2, 2024 and consenting to the waiver of, and waiving, any impartial analysis, arguments or rebuttals, as set forth in Sections 53326 and 53327 of the Act; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk has concurred in said waivers and has concurred in holding said special election on July 2, 2024;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Ontario as follows:
SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct, and the City Council so finds and determines.
SECTION 2. Pursuant to Sections 53351, 53326 and 53325.7 of the Act, the propositions to authorize the Community Facilities District to incur bonded indebtedness, to authorize the Community Facilities District to levy the Special Tax and to establish the appropriations limit of the Community Facilities District shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the Community Facilities District at an election called therefor as provided below.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk is hereby designated as the official to conduct said election.
SECTION 4. As authorized by Section 53353.5 of the Act, the propositions to authorize the Community Facilities District to incur such bonded indebtedness, to authorize the Community Facilities District to levy the Special Tax and to establish such appropriations limit of the Community Facilities District shall be combined into one ballot proposition.
SECTION 5. The City Council hereby finds and determines that no persons were registered to vote within the territory of the Community Facilities District as of May 28, 2024, and that 12 or more persons have not been registered to vote within the territory of the Community Facilities District for each of the 90 days preceding the close of the public hearings heretofore held by the City Council on the establishment of the Community Facilities District and the proposed debt issue for the Community Facilities District. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 53326 of the Act, the vote shall be by the landowners of the Community Facilities District and each person who is the owner of land as of the close of said public hearings, or the authorized representative thereof, shall have one vote for each acre or portion of an acre that he or she owns within the Community Facilities District not exempt from the Special Tax.
SECTION 6. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the qualified electors of the Community Facilities District have (a) unanimously consented to the waiver of, and have waived, any time limit specified by Section 53326 of the Act and any requirement pertaining to the conduct of said election, including any time limit or requirement applicable to an election pursuant to Article 5 of the Act (commencing with 488
Resolution No. 2024-075
Section 53345 of the Act), (b) unanimously consented to the holding of said election on July 2, 2024, and (c) unanimously consented to the waiver of, and have waived, any impartial analysis, arguments or rebuttals, as set forth in Sections 53326 and 53327 of the Act. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the City Clerk has concurred in said waivers and has concurred in holding said election on July 2, 2024.
SECTION 7. The City Council hereby calls a special election to submit to the qualified electors of the Community Facilities District the combined ballot proposition to authorize the Community Facilities District to incur bonded indebtedness in a maximum amount of $65,000,000, to authorize the Community Facilities to levy the Special Tax and to establish the appropriations limit of the Community Facilities District at $65,000,000, which election shall be held at 303 East B Street, Ontario, California, on July 2, 2024, provided, that, in the event the July 2, 2024 City Council meeting is held via teleconference and/or videoconference only, the means by which the public may observe such public hearings and offer public comment would be as prescribed in the notice and agenda for such City Council meeting. The City Council has caused to be provided to the City Clerk, as the official to conduct the election, the Resolution of Formation, the Resolution Deeming Necessity, a certified map of sufficient scale and clarity to show the boundaries of the Community Facilities District and a sufficient description to allow the City Clerk to determine the boundaries of the Community Facilities District.
The voted ballots shall be returned to the City Clerk not later than 7:30 p.m. on July 2, 2024; provided, however, that if all of the qualified electors have voted prior to such time, the election may be closed with the concurrence of the City Clerk.
SECTION 8. Pursuant to Section 53326 of the Act, the election shall be conducted by mail or hand-delivered ballot pursuant to Section 4000 et. seq. of the California Elections Code. Except as otherwise provided in the Act, the provisions of law regulating elections of the City, insofar as they may be applicable, shall govern the election.
SECTION 9. The form of the ballot for the election, which sets forth the measure to be submitted to the voters, is attached hereto as Exhibit A and by this reference incorporated herein, and such form of ballot is hereby approved. The City Clerk shall cause to be delivered to each of the qualified electors of the Community Facilities District a ballot in said form, together with all supplies and written instructions necessary for the use and return of the ballot. The number of votes to be voted by a particular landowner shall be specified on the ballot provided to that landowner.
The identification envelope for return of a ballot shall be enclosed with such ballot, shall have the return postage prepaid, and shall contain: (a) the name and address of the landowner, (b) a declaration, under penalty of perjury, stating that the voter is the owner of record or the authorized representative of the landowner entitled to vote and is the person whose name appears on the identification envelope, (c) the printed name and signature of the voter, (d) the date of signing and place of execution of the declaration described in clause (b) above, and (e) a notice that the envelope contains an official ballot and is to be opened only by the canvassing board.
489
Resolution No. 2024-075
Analysis and arguments with respect to the measure submitted to the voters are hereby waived, as provided in Section 53327 of the Act.
SECTION 10. The City Clerk shall accept the ballots of the qualified electors in the office of the City Clerk at 303 East B Street, Ontario, California, to and including 7:30 p.m. on July 2, 2024, whether said ballots be personally delivered or received by mail.
The City Clerk shall have available ballots that may be marked at said location on the election day by said qualified electors.
SECTION 11. The City Council hereby determines that the facilities and services financed by the Community Facilities District are necessary to meet increased demands placed upon local agencies as a result of development occurring in the Community Facilities District.
SECTION 12. The specific purpose of the bonded indebtedness that the Community Facilities District is proposed to be authorized to incur is the financing of the Facilities, including all costs and estimated costs incidental to, or connected with, the accomplishment of such purpose, and the proceeds of such bonded indebtedness shall be applied only to such specific purpose.
Upon approval of the proposition to authorize the Community Facilities District to incur bonded indebtedness, and the sale of any bonds evidencing such indebtedness, the City Council shall take such action as may be necessary to cause to be established an account for deposit of the proceeds of sale of the bonds. For so long as any proceeds of the bonds remain unexpended, the Management Analyst, Financial Services of the City shall cause to be filed with the City Council, no later than January 1 of each year, a report stating (a) the amount of bond proceeds received and expended during the preceding year, and (b) the status of any project funded or to be funded from bond proceeds. Said report may relate to the calendar year, fiscal year, or other appropriate annual period, as the Management Analyst, Financial Services of the City shall determine, and may be incorporated into the annual budget, audit, or other appropriate routine report to the City Council.
SECTION 13. All actions heretofore taken by the officers, employees and agents of the City with respect to the special election called pursuant hereto, or in connection with or related to any of the matters referred to herein, are hereby approved, confirmed and ratified.
SECTION 14. The officers, employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized and directed to take all actions and do all things that they, or any of them, may deem necessary or desirable to accomplish the purposes of this Resolution and not inconsistent with the provisions hereof.
SECTION 15. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. 490
Resolution No. 2024-075
The City Clerk of the City of Ontario shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of July 2024. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________________
SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
CITY ATTORNEY
491
Resolution No. 2024-075
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. 2024-075 was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Ontario at their regular meeting held July 2, 2024 by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: LEON, PORADA, BOWMAN AND
VALENCIA
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: WAPNER
____________________________________
SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
The foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2024-075 duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held July 2, 2024. _____________________________________
SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
492
Resolution No. 2024-075
EXHIBIT A
OFFICIAL BALLOT
CITY OF ONTARIO
July 2, 2024
SPECIAL ELECTION
This ballot is for a special, landowner election. The number of votes to be voted pursuant to this ballot is ____.
INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS:
To vote on the measure, mark a cross (+ or X) in the voting square after the word “YES” or after the word “NO”. All distinguishing marks or erasures are forbidden and make the ballot void. If you wrongly mark, tear or deface this ballot, return it to the City Clerk of the City of Ontario and obtain another.
CITY OF ONTARIO
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 71
(NEUHOUSE PHASE 2)
MEASURE: Shall the measure to authorize City of
Ontario Community Facilities District No. 71 (Neuhouse Phase 2) (the “Community Facilities District”) to incur bonded indebtedness in a maximum amount of $65,000,000, to
authorize the Community Facilities District to levy a special tax in order to finance certain facilities and services and to establish the annual appropriations limit of the Community Facilities District at $65,000,000, as specified in the resolutions adopted by the City Council of the City of Ontario on July 2, 2024 entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Ontario, California, of Formation of City of Ontario Community Facilities District No. 71 (Neuhouse Phase 2), Proposing that the Community Facilities District Be Authorized to Levy a Special Tax and Proposing that an Appropriations Limit of the Community Facilities District Be Established” and “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Ontario, California, Deeming it Necessary for City of Ontario Community Facilities District No. 71 (Neuhouse Phase 2) to Incur Bonded Indebtedness,” be adopted?
Yes:
No:
493
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-076
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO,
CALIFORNIA, DECLARING RESULTS OF SPECIAL ELECTION AND
DIRECTING RECORDING OF NOTICE OF SPECIAL TAX LIEN.
WHEREAS, on July 2, 2024, the City Council (the “City Council”) of the City of Ontario (the “City”), pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (the “Act”), adopted a resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Ontario, California, Calling Special Election for City of Ontario Community Facilities District No. 71 (Neuhouse Phase 2)” (the “Resolution Calling Election”), calling a special election to submit to the qualified electors of City of Ontario Community Facilities District No. 71 (Neuhouse Phase 2) (the “Community Facilities District”) the combined ballot proposition to authorize the Community Facilities District to incur bonded indebtedness, to authorize the Community Facilities District to levy a special tax and to establish the appropriations limit of the Community Facilities District; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of the Resolution Calling Election and the provisions of the Act, the special election was held on July 2, 2024; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk of the City (the “City Clerk”) has certified the canvass of the returns of the election and has filed a Canvass and Statement of Results of Election (the “Canvass”), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Ontario as follows:
SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct, and the City Council so finds and determines.
SECTION 2. The City Council has received, reviewed and hereby accepts the Canvass.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds and declares that the ballot proposition submitted to the qualified electors of the Community Facilities District pursuant to the Resolution Calling Election has been passed and approved by such electors in accordance with Section 53355, Section 53328 and Section 53325.7 of the Act.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk is hereby directed to execute and cause to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of the County of San Bernardino a notice of special tax lien in the form required by the Act, said recording to occur no later than 15 days following adoption by the City Council of this Resolution.
SECTION 5. All actions heretofore taken by the officers, employees and agents of the City with respect to the special election, or in connection with or related to any of the matters referred to herein, are hereby approved, confirmed and ratified. 494
Resolution No. 2024-076
SECTION 6. The officers, employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized and directed to take all actions and do all things that they, or any of them, may deem necessary or desirable to accomplish the purposes of this Resolution and not inconsistent with the provisions hereof.
SECTION 7. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
The City Clerk of the City of Ontario shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of July, 2024. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________________
SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
CITY ATTORNEY
495
Resolution No. 2024-076
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. 2024-076 was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Ontario at their regular meeting held July 2, 2024 by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: LEON, PORADA, BOWMAN AND
VALENCIA
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: WAPNER
____________________________________
SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
The foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2024-076 duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held July 2, 2024. _____________________________________
SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
496
Resolution No. 2024-076
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF ONTARIO
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 71
(NEUHOUSE PHASE 2)
CANVASS AND STATEMENT OF RESULTS OF ELECTION
I hereby certify that on July 2, 2024, I canvassed the returns of the special election for City of Ontario Community Facilities District No. 71 (Neuhouse Phase 2) held on July 2, 2024, that the total number of ballots cast in said Community Facilities District and the total number of votes cast for and against the combined ballot proposition submitted to the qualified electors of the Community Facilities District are as follows and that the totals as shown for and against such proposition are true and correct:
Qualified
Landowner
Votes
Votes
Cast YES NO
City of Ontario Community Facilities
District No. 71 (Neuhouse Phase 2)
Special Election, July 2, 2024
19 19 19 0
MEASURE: Shall the measure to authorize City of Ontario Community Facilities District No. 71 (Neuhouse Phase 2) (the “Community Facilities District”) to incur bonded indebtedness in a maximum amount of $65,000,000, to authorize the Community Facilities District to levy a special tax in order to finance certain facilities and services and to establish the annual appropriations limit of the Community Facilities District at $65,000,000, as specified in the resolutions adopted by the City Council of the City of Ontario on July 2, 2024 entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Ontario, California, of Formation of City of Ontario Community Facilities District No. 71 (Neuhouse Phase 2), Proposing that the Community Facilities District Be Authorized to Levy a Special Tax and Proposing that an Appropriations Limit of the Community Facilities District Be Established” and “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Ontario, California, Deeming it Necessary for City of Ontario Community Facilities District No. 71 (Neuhouse Phase 2) to Incur Bonded Indebtedness,” be adopted? IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MY HAND this 2 nd day of July, 2024.
BY:
SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
497
ORDINANCE NO. ________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO,
CALIFORNIA, LEVYING A SPECIAL TAX WITHIN CITY OF ONTARIO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 71 (NEUHOUSE PHASE 2) WHEREAS, on May 21, 2024, the City Council (the “City Council”) of the City of Ontario (the “City”), pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (the “Act”), adopted a resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Ontario, California, of Intention to Establish a Community Facilities District Proposed to be Named City of Ontario Community Facilities District No. 71 (Neuhouse Phase 2) and to Authorize the Levy of a Special Tax Therein,” stating its intention to establish City of Ontario Community Facilities District No. 71 (Neuhouse Phase 2) (the “Community Facilities District”) and to authorize the Community Facilities District to levy a special tax (the “Special Tax”) within the Community Facilities District for the purpose of financing certain public facilities (the “Facilities”) and services (the “Services”); and WHEREAS, on July 2, 2024, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on the establishment of the Community Facilities District, as required by the Act; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the close of said hearing, the City Council adopted resolutions entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Ontario, California, of Formation of City of Ontario Community Facilities District No. 71 (Neuhouse Phase 2), Proposing that the Community Facilities District Be Authorized to Levy a Special Tax and Proposing that an Appropriations Limit of the Community Facilities District Be Established” (the “Resolution of Formation”), “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Ontario, California, Deeming it Necessary for City of Ontario Community Facilities District No. 71 (Neuhouse Phase 2) to Incur Bonded Indebtedness” and “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Ontario, California, Calling Special Election for City of Ontario Community Facilities District No. 71 (Neuhouse Phase 2),” which resolutions established the Community Facilities District, proposed that the Community Facilities District be authorized to levy the Special Tax within the Community Facilities District, proposed that an appropriations limit of the Community Facilities District be established and called a special election to submit to the qualified electors of the Community Facilities District the combined ballot proposition to authorize the Community Facilities District to incur bonded indebtedness, to authorize the Community Facilities District to levy the Special Tax and to establish the appropriations limit of the Community Facilities District; and
WHEREAS, on July 2, 2024, an election was held in which the qualified electors of the Community Facilities District approved said proposition by more than the two- thirds vote required by the Act; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is the legislative body of the Community Facilities District;
498
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council hereby authorizes and levies the Special Tax within the Community Facilities District pursuant to Sections 53328 and 53340 of the Act, at the rate and in accordance with the method of apportionment set forth in Exhibit B to the Resolution of Formation (the “Rate and Method”). The Special Tax is hereby levied commencing in fiscal year 2024-25 and in each fiscal year thereafter until the last fiscal year in which the Special Tax is authorized to be levied pursuant to the Rate and Method.
Section 2. The City Council may, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 53340 of the Act, provide, by resolution, for the levy of the Special Tax in the current tax year or in future tax years at the same rate or at a lower rate than the rate provided by this Ordinance. In no event shall the Special Tax be levied on any parcel within the Community Facilities District in excess of the maximum tax specified therefor in the Rate and Method.
Section 3. The Special Tax shall be levied on all of the parcels in the Community Facilities District, unless exempted by law or by the Rate and Method.
Section 4. The proceeds of the Special Tax shall only be used to pay, in whole or in part, the cost of providing the Facilities and Services and incidental expenses pursuant to the Act.
Section 5. The Special Tax shall be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes are collected and shall be subject to the same penalties and the same procedure, sale and lien priority in the case of delinquency as is provided for ad valorem taxes or in such other manner as the City Council shall determine, including direct billing of the affected property owners.
Section 6. If for any reason any portion of this Ordinance is found to be invalid, or if the Special Tax is found inapplicable to any particular parcel within the Community Facilities District, by a court of competent jurisdiction, the balance of this Ordinance and the application of the Special Tax to the remaining parcels within the Community Facilities District shall not be affected.
Section 7. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption and shall cause a summary thereof to be published at least once, in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ontario, California within fifteen (15) days of the adoption. The City Clerk shall post a certified copy of this ordinance, including the vote for and against the same, in the Office of the City Clerk, in accordance with Government Code Section 36933.
The City Clerk of the City of Ontario shall certify as to the adoption of this Ordinance.
499
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this ________ day of _________ 2024. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________
SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
CITY ATTORNEY
500
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 Ordinance No. _______ was duly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Ontario held _____________ and adopted at the regular meeting held ___________, 2024 by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
_________________________________
SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
I hereby certify that the foregoing is the original of Ordinance No. _______ duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held ____________ and that Summaries of the Ordinance were published on ___________ and _____________, in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper.
__________________________________
SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
501
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-077
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO,
CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF AN
ACQUISITION AND FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH LS-ONTARIO II LLC WHEREAS, certain real property within the boundaries of the City located generally south of State Route 60 is commonly known as the New Model Colony; and WHEREAS, the City has approved a General Plan Amendment for the New Model Colony, which has been supplemented by certain water, recycled water and sewer master plans (as so supplemented, the “General Plan Amendment”) and has certified an Environmental Impact Report and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration in connection with the General Plan Amendment (together, the “Environmental Impact Report”); and WHEREAS, the City has specified in the General Plan Amendment and the Environmental Impact Report the major backbone transportation, water, sewer, storm drainage, parks, public safety infrastructure and fiber optic systems required to serve the New Model Colony; and
WHEREAS, the New Model Colony is now commonly referred to as Ontario Ranch; and
WHEREAS, LS-ONTARIO II LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“LS- ONTARIO II”), is developing certain of the property within Ontario Ranch (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, certain of such major backbone infrastructure is required to serve the Property; and
WHEREAS, the City and LS-ONTARIO II desire to provide a mechanism to fund, in a timely manner, the costs of certain of such major backbone infrastructure required to serve Ontario Ranch (the “Facilities”) so that such development may occur; and WHEREAS, in order to provide such a mechanism, the City has, pursuant to the provisions of the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (the “Act”), established City of Ontario Community Facilities District No. 71 (Neuhouse Phase 2) (the “Community Facilities District”), the boundaries of which include the Property; and WHEREAS, the Community Facilities District is authorized to levy a special tax (the “Special Tax”) within the Community Facilities District and issue special tax bonds (the “Bonds”) secured by the Special Tax in order to finance certain of the Facilities; and WHEREAS, it is anticipated that the Special Tax will be levied by the Community Facilities District and that, from time to time, Bonds will be issued by the Community Facilities District; and
502
Resolution No. 2024-077
WHEREAS, LS-ONTARIO II proposes to construct, or cause to be constructed, certain of the Facilities proposed to be financed by the Community Facilities District pursuant to the Act, and the City proposes to purchase such Facilities from LS-ONTARIO II pursuant to an Acquisition and Funding Agreement by and between the City and LS- ONTARIO II (such Acquisition and Funding Agreement, in the form presented to this meeting, with such changes, insertions and omissions as are made pursuant to this Resolution, being referred to herein as the “Acquisition Agreement”); and WHEREAS, the City Council is the legislative body of the Community Facilities District;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Ontario as follows:
SECTION 1. The Acquisition Agreement, in substantially the form submitted to this meeting and made a part hereof as though set forth herein, be and the same is hereby approved. Each of the Mayor of the City, and such other member of the City Council as the Mayor may designate, the City Manager of the City and the Executive Director of Finance of the City, and such other officer or employee of the City as the City Manager may designate (the “Authorized Officers”) is hereby authorized, and any one of the Authorized Officers is hereby directed, for and in the name of the City, to execute and deliver the Acquisition Agreement in the form submitted to this meeting, with such changes, insertions and omissions as the Authorized Officer executing the same may require or approve, such requirement or approval to be conclusively evidenced by the execution of the Acquisition Agreement by such Authorized Officer.
SECTION 2. All actions heretofore taken by the officers, employees and agents of the City with respect to the Acquisition Agreement, or in connection with or related to any of the matters referred to herein, are hereby approved, confirmed and ratified.
SECTION 3. The officers, employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized and directed to take all actions and do all things that they, or any of them, may deem necessary or desirable to accomplish the purposes of this Resolution and not inconsistent with the provisions hereof.
SECTION 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
The City Clerk of the City of Ontario shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of July 2024. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
503
Resolution No. 2024-077
ATTEST:
____________________________________
SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
CITY ATTORNEY
504
Resolution No. 2024-077
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. 2024-077 was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Ontario at their regular meeting held July 2, 2024 by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: LEON, PORADA, BOWMAN AND
VALENCIA
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: WAPNER
____________________________________
SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
The foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2024-077 duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held July 2, 2024. _____________________________________
SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
505
Department: Planning
Prepared By: Diane Ayala
Staff Member Presenting: Scott Murphy,
Executive Director Community Development
Approved By:
Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 22
SUBJECT:
A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER FILE NO. PUD23-004, A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR 21.58 ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF E
SREET, NORTH OF HOLT BOULEVARD, WEST OF EUCLID AVENUE, EAST OF PALM
AVENUE AND THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE BLOCK BETWEEN FERN AND
PALM AVENUES AND C AND D STREETS
CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
July
2, 2024
SECTION:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council take the following actions:
A
.
Consider and adopt a Resolution approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and adopting a related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for File No. PUD23-004; and
B
.
Introduce and waive further reading of an Ordinance approving File No. PUD23-004, the Downtown West Planned Unit Development (PUD), to establish a set of planning and design principles, development regulations and performance standards to govern future development of 21.58 acres, generally located south of E Street, north of Holt Boulevard, west of Euclid Avenue, east of Palm Avenue and the northern portion of the block between Fern and Palm Avenues and C and D Streets, within the LUA-1 (Euclid Avenue Entertainment) of the MU-1 (Downtown Mixed Use) zoning district.
THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:
Invest in the Growth and Evolution of the City's Economy Operate in a Businesslike Manner
Focus Resources in Ontario's Commercial and Residential Neighborhoods FISCAL IMPACT:
There is not a direct fiscal impact associated with this action. Implementation of the Planned Unit Development would result in an increase in property taxes from future development and the one-time payment to the City for plan check fees and development impacts fees.
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS:
The City has initiated a PUD to facilitate the revitalization of downtown Ontario, streamline development, encourage historic preservation and adaptive reuse, and provide development flexibility to achieve the City’s goals to economically revitalize and 506
aesthetically enhance the Project area. The MU-1 (Downtown Mixed-Use) zoning district requires the preparation and approval of a PUD to establish a set of planning and design principles, development regulations and performance standards to govern future development. The proposed Downtown West Planned Unit Development is appended to the attached Ordinance as "Attachment A.” The Project area is envisioned as a district with a mixture of retail, office, and residential uses in a pedestrian friendly atmosphere, with the most intensive uses envisioned along Euclid Avenue and Holt Boulevard. A maximum intensity of 2.0 Floor Area Ratio and a density range of 25.0 to 75.0 dwelling units per acre is allowed as provided by the MU-1 (Downtown Mixed-Use) zoning district.
The District and Block Plans of the PUD establishes 3 land use subdistricts and includes context sensitive development standards that are specific to each block and location. The Downtown Mixed-Use Retail Core (MU-RC) zone is comprised of 4 City blocks (Blocks A thru D) that front onto Euclid Avenue from Holt Boulevard to D Street and is envisioned as an 18-hour entertainment, shopping, and dining destination. Holt Boulevard, a future multi-modal corridor, is envisioned as the primary east-west connection from the Ontario International Airport/Hospitality district to the downtown. The goals of the MU-RC zone are to enable a mixture of commercial uses with strategic multiple-family residential infill development to activate storefronts to generate pedestrian foot traffic, create an enhanced, vibrant, and active public realm and streetscape along Euclid Avenue, create mid-block connections along Euclid Avenue to increase walkability and activity where public art and outdoor dining are encouraged, and to transform the north-south running public alley into a pedestrian-friendly enhanced connection with entrances, outdoor dining, and “greening” (landscape and enhanced paving) that collectively creates a lively and dynamic atmosphere.
The Downtown Mixed-Use Transitional (MU-T) zone is comprised of 4 City blocks (Blocks E thru H), bordered by Laurel Avenue to the east, Palm Avenue to the west, D Street to the north and Holt Boulevard to the south and is envisioned to enable a mix of commercial uses, multiple-family residential housing types, and mixed-use development. The goals of the MU-T zone are to support development flexibility by allowing variations in building heights to respond to the surrounding context, identifying B Street as an extension of Euclid Avenue as a more walkable retail “Main Street” atmosphere, enhancing the public realm with decorative crosswalks, “bulb out” curb extensions, public art, bicycle infrastructure, and introducing new “placemaking” elements such as suspended lighting and parklets.
The Downtown Residential (DR) zone is a half city block (Block I) located west of Palm Avenue, east of Fern Avenue, south of D Street and north of the public alley. The primary goal of the DR zone is to ensure compatible housing types with the existing surrounding residential neighborhood and create an appropriate transition of land uses and building scale.
COMMUNITY MEETINGS:
Community and stakeholder engagement for the PUD included 3 rounds of community outreach conducted through in-person pop-up events as part of existing community events, 2 rounds of targeted stakeholder conversations via roundtable sessions and one in-person showcase. The community and participants displayed overall support for the vision and goals, highlighting the unique character of Ontario’s historic downtown. In addition, they advocated for mobility options to promote accessibility, active transportation infrastructure for safer connections, and public realm enhancements.
507
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND ACTION:
On May 28, 2024, the Planning Commission
conducted a public hearing to consider the proposed PUD. Upon conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (5-0) to approve Resolution No. PC24-015, recommending the City Council approve the proposed PUD.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE ONTARIO PLAN:
The proposed Project is consistent with the principles, goals and policies contained within the Vision, Governance, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of TOP. Goals and policies of TOP that are furthered by the proposed PUD are addressed in the attached Planning Commission backup material.
AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN (ALUCP) COMPLIANCE:
The California State
Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ("ONT ALUCP"), establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. Staff has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ONT ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-2) and Safety Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2- 4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, staff has concluded that the proposed PUD is consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ONT ALUCP.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The proposed PUD is a “project” pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA") and an initial study has been prepared to determine possible environmental impacts. On the basis of the initial study, which indicated that all potential environmental impacts from the Project were less than significant or could be mitigated to a level of insignificance, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared pursuant to CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines. Furthermore, to ensure that the mitigation measures are implemented, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared for the Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15097, which specifies responsible agencies/departments, monitoring frequency, timing and method of verification and possible sanctions for non-compliance with mitigation measures.
The environmental documentation for this Project is available for review at the Planning Department.
508
Case Planner: Diane Ayala Hearing Body Date Decision Action Planning Director
Approval:
PC 5/28/2024 Recommend
CC 1st reading 7/2/2024 Introduction
Submittal Date: N/A CC 2nd reading 7/16/2024 Final
F
ILE NO: PUD23-004
SU
BJECT: A Planned Unit Development to establish a set of planning and design principles, development regulations and performance standards to govern future development of 21.58 acres of land , generally located south of E Street, north of Holt Boulevard, west of Euclid Avenue, east of Palm Avenue, and the northern portion of the block between Fern and Palm Avenues and C and D Streets, within the MU-1 (Downtown Mixed Use) zoning district. City initiated. City Council action is required.
PR
OPERTY OWNERS: Various
R
ECOMMENDED ACTION: That the Planning Commission consider and recommend that the City Council approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration , adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Report Program, and approve File No. PUD23-004, pursuant to the facts and reasons contained in the staff report and attached Resolutions.
P
ROJECT SETTING: The Project site is comprised of 21.58 acres of land generally located south of E Street, north of Holt Boulevard, west of Euclid Avenue, east of Palm Avenue, and the northern portion of the block between Fern and Palm Avenues and C and D Streets, within the MU -1 (Downtown
Mixed Use) zoning district (see Figure 1:
Project Location ). The Project area is
situated within the City of Ontario’s
historic downtown and is adjacent to the
City’s Civic Center. The existing
surrounding land uses, zoning, and Policy
Plan ( general plan ) and specific plan
land use designations are summarized in
the "Surrounding Zoning & Land Uses "
table located in the Technical Appendix
of this report.
P
ROJECT ANALYSIS:
(
1) Background — The Downtown
West Planned Unit Development (“PUD”)
builds upon the vision, development and
Figure 1: Project Location
303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764 Phone: 909.395.2036 / Fax: 909.395.2420
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
May 28, 2024
Project
Area
Approval
509
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PUD23-004
May 28, 2024
design principles for Downtown Ontario as outlined in the Policy Plan (General Plan) The Ontario Plan (TOP). The Community Design Element of the Policy Plan establishes “Districts” that have been categorized as “Place Types,” which are geographically large, culturally unique, and regionally significant areas of the City that fulfill different but complementary roles in creating a complete community. As regional destinations, districts serve as the “face of the city.” Each district has a distinct identity that reflects its role within the City context and establishes a defined sense of place through the creation of an amenity -rich, transit-accessible, mixed-use environments where people can live, work, shop, dine, and have many of their daily needs met within a comfortable and convenient walk or bike ride from their residence, transit stop, or parked vehicle.
The PUD area is located within the “Downtown District,” which is envisioned as the place- based, people-focused, commercial, and cultural "heart" of the City and features several designated historic districts and landmarks. Downtown will support a variety of businesses, housing opportunities for residents with a variety of income levels, creative spaces, entertainment options, and institutional and civic uses, while preserving its historic character, buildings, neighborhoods, and places. Complementing the wi de mix of uses are designs, layouts and public spaces that give residents, visitors, and businesses a strong sense of connection and creates a place where people want to spend time.
Other previous City initiated efforts and plans that contribute to downtown revitalization include; 1] The Downtown Ontario Design Guidelines, adopted by City Council in 1998 and is reference to the Development Code, establishes a set of architectural, graphic, and lighting design principles, to provide guidance to business owners, homeowners, City staff, and design professionals, for the development and/or rehabilitation of properties within the City’s historic original downtown area; 2] Historic Resource Surveys completed in 1983 and in 2003 to assess and evaluate historic significance; 3] the Downtown Civic Center PUD adopted in 2006, and the D Block PUD and Laurel Avenue Townhomes PUD adopted in 2023 which replaced the underlying MU -1 Zoning designation to facilitate development; 4] West Euclid Activation Look Book which examined development strategies to the activated properties, many of which are City-acquired, to help achieve the long-term goal of re -visioning the area as the cultural and entertainment heart of Ontario; and 5] t he Euclid Avenue Historic Property Treatment and Management Plan developed by Caltrans in partnership with the City in February 2024 to support the relinquishment of Euclid Avenue to the City.
(2) Downtown West Planned Unit Development — The purpose of the PUD is to facilitate the revitalization of downtown Ontario, streamline development, encourage historic preservation and adaptive reuse, and provide development flexibility to achieve the City’s goals to economically revitalize and aesthetically enhance the P roject area.
The MU-1 (Downtown Mixed-Use) zoning district, requires the preparation and approval of a PUD to establish a set of planning and design principles, development regulations and performance standards to govern future devel opment. The proposed Downtown West Planned Unit Development, appended to the attached Resolution as "Attachment A,” identifies the following components:
510
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PUD23-004
May 28, 2024
(a) Land Use — The Project area is envisioned as an intensive vertical and horizontal district with a mixture of retail, office, and residential uses in a pedestrian friendly atmosphere, with the most intensive uses envisioned along Euclid and Holt Avenues. A maximum intensity of 2.0 Floor Area Ratio and a density range of 25.0 to 75 dwelling units per acre is allowed as required by the MU-1 (Downtown Mixed-Use) zoning district.
(b) Urban Design — The District and Block Plan establishes 3 land use subdistricts. The Downtown Mixed-Use Retail Core ( MU-RC) zone is comprised of 4 C ity blocks (Blocks A-D) that front onto Euclid Avenue from Holt Boulevard to D Street and is envisioned as an 18-hour entertainment, shopping, and dining destination, whereas Holt Boulevard, a future multi -modal corridor, is envisioned as the primary east -west connection from the Ontario International Airport /Hospitality district to the downtown .
The goals of the MU-RC zone are to enable a mixture of commercial uses with strategic multiple-family residential infill development, activate storefronts to generate pedestrian foot traffic, such as re tail, restaurant, and entertainment, as well as design treatments that support a lively and comfortable public realm, create an enhanced, vibrant, and active public realm and streetscape along Euclid Avenue, create mid-block connections along Euclid Avenue to increase walkability and activity where public art and outdoor dining are encouraged, and to transform the north -south running public alley into a pedestrian-friendly enhanced alley with entrances, outdoor dining, and “greening” (landscape and enhanced paving) that collectively creates a lively and dynamic atmosphere.
The Downtown Mixed-Use Transitional (MU-T) zone is comprised of 4 City blocks (Blocks E- H), bordered by Laurel Avenue to the east, Palm Avenue to the west, D Street to the north and Holt Boulevard to the south and is envisioned to enable a mix of commercial uses, a variety of multiple -family residential housing types, and mixed -use development. The goals of the MU-T zone are to support development flexibility with allowing a variation of building heights to respond to the surrounding context, identifying B Street as an extension of Euclid Avenue as a more walkable retail “Main Street” atmosphere, enhancing the public realm with decorative crosswalks, “bulb out” curb extensions, public art, bicycle infrastructure, and introducing new “placemaking” elements such as suspended lighting and parklets.
The Downtown Residential (DR) zone is a half city block (Block I) located west of Palm Avenue, east of Fern Avenue, south of D Street and north of the public alley. The primary goal of the DR zone is to ensure compatible housing types with the surrounding residential neighborhood and create an appropriate transition of land uses and building scale.
(c) Development and Design Standards — The PUD allows for new infill development, redevelopment of underutilized sites , adaptive reuse of historic and existing buildings. Block-specific standards were created that respond to place -based conditions and goals.
511
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PUD23-004
May 28, 2024
(i) Height Limits:
• Up to 65 feet (5 stories) along Holt Boulevard to create a southern gateway and enable additional height along this future multi -modal transit corridor to promote housing near transit, as well as along Laurel Avenue and west of the alley, between B Street (north of east-west running alley) and D Street, to focus height within the downtown core of the PUD area.
• Up to 50 feet (4 stories) along Laurel Avenue in strategic areas to focus height within the downtown core of the PUD area while responding to the existing scale and character.
• Up to 45 feet (4 stories) along Euclid Avenue with required 15’ upper story “stepbacks” to promote additions to historic resources while preserving character defining features.
• Up to 40 feet (3 stories) west of Laurel Avenue and north of D Street (Block H), as well as along Palm Avenue to support mid-rise multi-family residential projects and respect neighboring lower-scale residential.
• Transitional height districts are in place to reduce height of development surrounding residential neighborhood to the west of the PUD boundary for parcels fronting Palm and Fern Avenues.
(ii) Street Setbacks:
• Three feet maximum setbacks to support commercial-only ground floor character and active public realm while promoting some variation on blocks that front Euclid Avenue, Holt Boulevard, and B Street.
• Three to five feet setbacks to support a commercial or residential ground floor character while promoting some variation.
• Five to ten feet setback s to support a variety of residential product types and to preserve residential ground floor character on blocks that front Fern Avenue, Palm Avenue, D Street and Laurel Avenue.
(ii) Building Stepbacks: Upper level stepbacks or terracing of 15 feet from the façade are required for additions to historic buildings and 10 feet for new residential development on Block I.
(vi) Parking : Residential uses require one parking space per bedroom, 2 parking spaces per 3 bedroom -units, and 0.20 parking spaces per unit for guests and commercial uses require one parking spaces per 250 square feet of gross floor area. In order to achieve the preferred density and building intensities, t he PUD allows for a combination of on -site, street, and off -site parking to provide an adequate parking supply to meet the anticipated parking demand for new development . All required resident parking will be provided on site, while guest parking and retail visitor spaces may be provided on -street. Up to 50 percent of required residential on -site parking may be 512
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PUD23-004
May 28, 2024
provided for in a tandem parking configuration with an approved parking management plan.
(d) Architectural Character and Design — The PUD includes architectural design guidelines, specific to the downtown location and residential building type, and establishes the following design principles:
(i) Create an architectural character that reflects the various styles within the historic downtown. New buildings should appear to fit in contextually with existing historic buildings by using similar proportions, articulation, building details and building material.
(iii) The overall character should feel like a modern interpretation of a traditional American small town.
(iv) Create compatibility between the mixed-use, residential , and commercial architecture within the downtown area; the introduction of unifying elements such as similar materials
and colors should be considered; however,
“sameness” is discouraged.
(e) Historic Preservation — Approximately 57 of the 76 properties located within the Project area have been surveyed and evaluated for historic significance or are eligible for survey. There are 50 properties that are listed on the Ontario Register of Historic Resources and 14 properties that have been designated by City Council as local landmarks. Additionally, the Project area is part of a proposed local historic district.
The guiding architectural principles in the PUD are ingrained Section 7.01.065: Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Properties of the Development Code, which are supported by the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards), and the Downtown Design Guidelines and intended to provide appropriate design solutions that avoid adverse impacts to historic resources located within the PUD area.
To ensure that project s within the plan area that propose new construction (infill) or additions, alterations or demolition (full or partial) to existing buildings are appropriate, a Certificate of Appropriateness is required. This will further promote the preservation of the historic character of the downtown.
COMMUNITY MEETINGS: Community and stakeholder engagement for the PUD included 3 rounds of community outreach , 2 rounds of targeted stakeholder conversations via roundtable sessions and one in-person showcase. Broad community outreach was conducted through in-person pop-up events as part of existing community events. The community displayed overall support for the vision and goals, highlighting the unique character of Ontario’s historic downtown . In addition, they advocated for mobility 513
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PUD23-004
May 28, 2024
options to promote accessibility, active transportation infrastructure for safer connections, and public realm enhancements.
The roundtable sessions consisted of key stakeholders, including property and business owners, residents, representatives from the downtown Ontario Improvement Association, developers, and others. Stakeholders stressed the importance of effective waste management systems and ample parking to support local businesses in downtown Ontario. Suggestions from stakeholders included the enhancement of community parking accessibility and reimagining alleys t o facilitate social activities. Moreover, leveraging the We st Valley Connector Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project, a 19- mile zero emission BRT that is estimated to open in 2026 connecting the Ontario International Airport (ONT) to two Metrolink lines (San Bernardino and Riverside), and multiple major activity centers , including Downtown Ontario via Holt Boulevard, would promote connectivity to mass transit and encourage the use of alternative transportation methods, reducing car-dependence in the area.
On January 30, 2024, staff conducted an in-person community meeting to present and receive comments on the PUD. Approximately 20 community members that resided or owned property located within the Project area or within a minimum of 300 feet from the boundaries of the Project attended. Overall, participants were excited about the vision outlined in the plan and the opportunity to improve their property with flexible development standards and key design elements.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: The subject application was advertised as a public hearing in at least one newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ontario (the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper). In addition, notices were mailed to all owners of real property located within a minimum of 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property that is the subject of the hearing, as shown on the records of the County Assessor.
CORRESPONDENCE: As of the preparation of this Agenda Report , Planning Department staff has not received any written or verbal communications from the owners or occupants of properties surrounding the Project site or from the public in general, regarding the subject application.
AGENCY/DEPARTMENT REVIEWS: Each City agency/department has been provided the opportunity to review and comment on the subject application.
AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN (ALUCP) COMPLIANCE: The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the ONT ALUCP, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport, which 514
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PUD23-004
May 28, 2024
encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. As the recommending authority for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ONT ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2 -2) and Safety Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2 -2), [2] Noise Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2 -4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2 -5). As a result, the Planning Co mmission, therefore, finds and determines that the Project , when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ONT ALUCP.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE ONTARIO PLAN: The proposed Project is consistent with the principles, goals and policies contained within the Vision, Governance, Policy Plan (general plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan ("TOP"). More specifically, the goals and policies of TOP that are furthered by the proposed Project are as follows:
(1) City Council Goals.
Invest in the Growth and Evolution of the City's Economy Maintain the Current High Level of Public Safety
Operate in a Businesslike Manner
Pursue City's Goals and Objectives by Working with Other Governmental Agencies
Focus Resources in Ontario's Commercial and Residential Neighborhoods Invest in the City's Infrastructure (Water, Streets, Sewers, Parks, Storm Drains and Public Facilities)
Encourage, Provide or Support Enhanced Recreational, Educational, Cultural and Healthy City Programs, Policies and Activities
Ensure the Development of a Well Planned, Balanced, and Self-Sustaining Community in the New Model Colony
(2) Vision.
Distinctive Development:
Commercial and Residential Development
Development quality that is broadly recognized as distinctive and not exclusively tied to the general suburban character typical of much of Southern California.
(3) Governance.
515
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PUD23-004
May 28, 2024
Decision Making:
Goal G1: Sustained decision-making that consistently moves Ontario towards its Vision by using The Ontario Plan as a framework for assessing choices.
G 1-2. Long-term Benefit . We require decisions to demonstrate and document how they add value to the community and support the Ontario Vision.
(4) Policy Plan (General Plan)
Land Use Element:
Goal LU-1 Balance: A community that has a spectrum of housing types and price ranges that match the jobs in the City and that make it possible for people to live and work in Ontario and maintain a quality of life.
LU-1.1 Strategic Growth. We concentrate growth in strategic locations that help create place and identity, maximize available and planned infrastructure, foster the development of transit, and support the expansion of the active and multimodal transportation networks throughout the City.
LU-1.6 Complete Community. We incorporate a variety of land uses and building types in our land use planning efforts that result in a complete community where residents at all stages of life, employers, workers, and visitors have a wide spectrum of choices of where they can live, work, shop and recreate within Ontario.
Goal LU-2 Compatibility: Compatibility between a wide range of uses and a resultant urban patterns and forms.
LU-2.6 Infrastructure Compatibility . We require infrastructure to be aesthetically pleasing and in context with the community character.
Housing Element:
Goal H-2 Housing Supply & Diversity : Diversity of types of quality housing that are affordable to a range of household income levels, accommodate changing demographics, and support and reinforce the economic sustainability of Ontario.
H-2.5 Housing Design . We require architectural excellence through adherence to City design guidelines, thoughtful site planning, environmentally sustainable practices, and other best practices.
Community Economics Element:
516
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PUD23-004
May 28, 2024
Goal CE-1 Complete Community: A complete community that provides for all incomes and stages of life.
CE-1.6 Diversity of Housing . We collaborate with residents, housing providers, and the development community to provide housing opportunities for every stage of life; we plan for a variety of housing types and price points to encourage the development of housing supportive of our efforts to attract business in growing sectors of the community while being respectful of existing viable uses.
Goal CE-2 Placemaking: A City of distinctive neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and centers where people choose to be.
CE-2.1 Development Projects . We require new development and redevelopment to create unique, high-quality places that add value to the community.
CE-2.4 Protection of Investment . We require that new development and redevelopment protect existing investment by providing architecture and urban design of equal or greater quality.
Community Design Element:
Goal CD-1 Image & Identity : A dynamic, progressive city containing distinct and complete places that foster a positive sense of identity and belonging among residents, visitors, and businesses.
CD-1.1 City Identity. We take actions that are consistent with the City being a leading urban center in Southern California while recognizing, enhancing, and preserving the character of our existing viable neighborhoods.
CD-1.2 Growth Areas . We establish Place Types in urban, mixed use, and transit-oriented areas to foster the City's identity as a premier community and require new development within each Place Type to incorporate prescribed urban patterns, forms, and placemaking priorities.
CD-1.3 Existing Neighborhoods. We require the existing character of viable residential and non-residential neighborhoods be preserved, protected, and enhanced.
Goal CD-3 Urban, Mixed Use, and Transit-Oriented Place Types: Vibrant urban environments that are organized around intense buildings, pedestrian and transit areas, public plazas, and linkages between and within developments that are conveniently located, visually appealing and safe during all hours.
CD-3.2 Comfortable, Human-Scale Public Realm . We require that public spaces, including streets, parks, and plazas on both public and private property be 517
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PUD23-004
May 28, 2024
designed to maximize safety, comfort and aesthetics and connect to the citywide pedestrian, vehicular, and bicycle networks.
CD-3.3 Complete and Connected Network . We require that pedestrian, vehicular, and bicycle circulation on both public and private property be coordinated to provide connections internally and externally to adjacent neighborhoods and properties (existing and planned) through a system of local roads and trails that promote walking and biking to nearby destinations (including existing and planned parks, commercial areas, and transit stops) and are designed to maximize safety, comfort, and aesthetics.
CD-3.4 Context-Aware and Appropriate Design . We require appropriate building and site design that complements existing development, respects the intent and identity of the Place Type, and provides appropriate transitions and connections between adjacent uses to ensure compatibility of scale, maintain an appropriate level of privacy for each use, and minimize potential conflicts.
CD-3.5 Active Frontages . We create lively pedestrian streetscapes by requiring primary building, business, and residential entrances, outdoor dining, and storefronts be located on ground floors adjacent to sidewalks or public spaces and designed to maximize safety, comfort, aesthe tics, and the intended functionality (as defined by the Place Type).
HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE: The Project is consistent with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan (general plan) component of The Ontario Plan, as the Project site is not one of the properties in the Housing Element Sites contained in Tables B- 1 and B-2 (Housing Element Sites Inventory) of the Housing Element Technical Report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Application is a “ project” pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA") and an initial study has been prepared to determine possible environmental impacts. On the basis of the initial study, which indicated that all potential environmental impacts from the Project were less than significant or could be mitigated to a level of insignificance, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared pursuant to CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines. Furthermore, to ensure that the mitigation measures are implemented, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared for the Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15097, which specifies responsible agencies/departments, monitoring frequency, timing and method of verification and possible sanctions for non -compliance with mitigation measures. The environmental documentation for this Project is available for review at the Planning Department public counter.
518
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PUD23-004
May 28, 2024
TECHNICAL APPENDIX:
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
Existing
Land Use
Policy Plan
Designation
Zoning
Designation
Site Mixed Uses- residential, office, commercial
and retail
Mixed Use (MU)-
Downtown
Downtown Mixed-Use
(MU-1) and High Density
Residential (HDR-45)
North Mixed Uses- office, and
residential
Mixed Use (MU)-
Downtown, Office
Commercial (OC), and
HDR
Downtown Mixed-Use (MU-
1), Low Intensity Office
(OL), and High Density
Residential (HDR-45)
South Mixed Uses- office, retail, commercial Mixed Use (MU)- Downtown
Downtown Mixed-Use
(MU-1)
East Mixed Uses- office, retail, commercial Mixed Use (MU)- Downtown
Downtown Mixed-Use (MU-
1), Civic Center PUD, D
Block PUD, and the Euclid
Avenue Overlay (EA))
West Mixed uses- school, church, and
residential
Mixed Use (MU)-
Downtown, Low
Medium
Density Residential
(LMDR), Medium
Density
Residential (MDR), and
High Density Residential
(HDR)
Medium Density
Residential (MDR-25), and
High Density Residential
(HDR-45)
519
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PUD23-004
May 28, 2024
Exhibit A: PROJECT LOCATION MAP
520
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PUD23-004
May 28, 2024
Exhibit B: LAND USE SUBDISTRICTS/ZONES
521
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PUD23-004
May 28, 2024
Exhibit C: GROUND FLOOR LAND USE
522
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PUD23-004
May 28, 2024
Exhibit D: ALLOWED HEIGHTS
523
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PUD23-004
May 28, 2024
Exhibit E: STREET SETBACKS
524
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PUD23-004
May 28, 2024
Exhibit F: CONCEPTUAL URBAN DESIGN
525
RESOLUTION NO. PC24-014
A
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ONTARIO A PPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT, AS AMENDED, AND ADOPTING A RELATED MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR FILE NO. PUD23-004 W
HEREAS, prior to the adoption of this Resolution, the Planning Director of the City of Ontario prepared an Initial Study , and approved for circulation , a Mitigated Negative Declaration for File No. PUD23 -004 (hereinafter referred to as "MND"), all in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with state and local guidelines implementing said Act, all as amended to date (collectively referred to as "CEQA"); and
W
HEREAS, File No. PUD23-004 analyzed under the MND consists of a Planned Unit Development to establish planning and design principles, development regulations and performance standards to govern future development of 21.58 acres of land, generally located south of E Street, north of Holt Boulevard, west of Euclid Avenue, east of Palm Avenue, and the northern portion of the block between Fern and Palm Avenues and C and D Streets, within
the LUA-1 (Euclid Avenue Entertainment) of the MU-1 (Downtown Mixed Use) zoning district, in the City of Ontario, California (hereinafter referred to as the "Project"); and
W
HEREAS, the MND concluded that implementation of the Project could result in a number of significant effects on the environment and identified mitigation measures that would reduce each of those significant effects to a less-than-significant level; and W
HEREAS, in connection with the approval of a project involving the preparation of a MND that identifies one or more significant environmental effects, CEQA requires the approving authority of the lead agency to incorporate feasible mitigation measures that would reduce those significant environment effects to a less-than-significant level; and W
HEREAS, whenever a lead agency approves a project requiring the implementation of measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment, CEQA also requires a lead agency to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation, and such a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared for the Project for consideration by the approving authority of the City of Ontario as lead agency for the Project (hereinafter referred to as the "MMRP"); and W
HEREAS, the City of Ontario is the lead agency on the Project, and the Planning Commission is the approving authority for the proposed approval to construct and otherwise undertake the Project; and
526
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PUD23-004 MND
May 28, 2024
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the MND and related MMRP for the Project , and intends to take actions on the Project in compliance with CEQA and state and local guidelines implementing CEQA; and WHEREAS, the MND and related MMRP for the Project are on file in the Planning Department, located at 303 East "B" Street, Ontario, CA 91764, are available for inspection by any interested person at that location and are, by this reference, incorporated into this Resolution as if fully set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario, as follows:
SECTION 1: Environmental Determination and Findings. As the recommending authority for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the MND and the administrative record for the Project, including all written and oral evidence provided during the comment period.
Based upon the facts and information contained in the MND and the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
(1) The MND and administrative record have been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
(2) The MND contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project and reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and
(3) There is no substantial evidence in the administrative record supporting a fair argument that the project may result in significant environmental impacts; and (4) All environmental impacts of the Project are either insignificant or can be mitigated to a level of insignificance pursuant to the mitigation measures outlined in the MND and the related MMRP.
SECTION 2: Planning Commission Action. The Planning Commission does hereby find that based upon the entire record of proceedings before it, and all information received, that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment and does hereby recommend the City Council adopt the MND and related MMRP prepared for the Project , attached hereto as "Attachment A ," and incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 3: Indemnification. The Applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of O ntario or i ts agents, officers, and employees f rom any 527
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PUD23-004 MND
May 28, 2024
claim, action or proceeding against the City of Ontario or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul this approval. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding, and the City of Ontario shall cooperate fully in the defense.
SECTION 4: Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Ontario City Hall, 303 East "B" Street, Ontario, California 91764. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk of the City of Ontario.
SECTION 5: Certification to Adoption. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of the Resolution.
The Secretary Pro Tempore for the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario at a regular meeting thereof held on the 28th day of May, 2024, and the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of said Resolution, and has not been amended or repealed.
ATTEST:
NiqsSk{Ricci
Planning Commission Chairperson
Henry K. oh
Planning Director and
Secretary to the Planning Commission
528
)
)
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PUD23-004 MND
May 28, 2024
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
CITY OF ONTARIO )
I, Gwen Berendsen, Secretary Pro Tempore of the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that foregoing Resolution No. PC24-014, was duly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario at their regular meeting held on May 28, 2024, by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Anderson, DeDiemar, Del Turco, Lampkin, Ricci
NOES: None
ABSENT: Dean, Gage
ABSTAIN: None
Gwen Berendsen
Secretary Pro Tempore
529
Planning Commission Resolution File
No. PUD23-004 MND
May 28, 2024
ATTACHMENT A:
M
itigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program
(M
itigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program follows this page)
530
ATTACHMENT A
California Environmental Quality Act
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Project Title: Downtown West Planned Unit D Project File No.:
PUD23-004
Project Sponsor: City of Ontario
Lead Agency/Contact Person: Diane Ayala, Senior Planner, City of Ontario, Planning Department, 303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764 (909) 395-2036 Mitigation Measures/Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
(Initial/Date)
Sanctions for
Non-Compliance
Cultural Resources
MM-CUL-1. Issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness pursuant to City’s Development
Code (Chapter 4, Permits, Actions, and Decisions) is
required for all exterior alterations to existing
buildings, and new construction on vacant or
redeveloped sites that are locat ed within the PUD
boundary area prior to plan or development project
approval.
Planning Dept Building Permit
Issuance
Prior to issuance
of Building
Permit
Plan Check Withhold Building
Permit
MM-CUL-2. Historic or potentially historic
resources located within the PUD boundary shall be
evaluated for historic significance through the City’s
tier system prior to the issuance of plan or
development approvals.
Planning Dept Project Approval Prior to project
approval
Tier
Determination
Withhold
Approval
MM-CUL-3.
A. Partial Demolition of Tier I, II, or III Historic
Resources that do not result in loss of character
defining features or cause adverse impacts to the
integrity of the historic resource shall be documented
pursuant to the Historic American Building Survey
(HABS) standards to include photographs and
cataloging of the exterior and interior of the resource prior to issuance of a building permit.
Planning Dept Project Approval Prior to issuance
of Building
permit
Plan Check Withhold Building
Permit
City of Ontario
Planning Department
303 East B Street
Ontario, California 91764
Phone: 909-395-2036
ontarioca.gov/Planning
531
California Environmental Quality Act – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program File No. PUD23-004- Downtown West PUD
Mitigation Measures/Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
(Initial/Date)
Sanctions for
Non-Compliance
B. As established in the TOP SEIR 2050,
mitigation measures for demolition (full or in part) of Tier III Historic Resources shall include the following:
1) Each historic resource shall be fully
documented and cataloged pursuant to Historic
American Building Survey/Historic American
Engineering Record (HABS/HAER) standards, to
provide a record of the resource, including, but not
limited to: [i] the preparation of site plans, floor plans, exterior and interior elevations, and detail drawings of character defining features (such as moldings, stairs,
etc.); and [ii] photographs of the resource, including
the exterior, interior, and interior and exterior
character defining features (such as mo ldings, light
fixtures, trim patterns, etc.).
2) A mitigation fee established pursuant to
Section 7.01.030 (Historic Preservation Mitigation
Fee) shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for Tier III historic resources.
3) A Certificate of Appropriateness shall not be
issued for the demolition of an historic resource,
either in whole or in part, until such time that a
demolition permit application and a replacement
structure has been approved by the City, and
appropriate permits have been issued for its
construction, a deferral of the replacement structure
requirement is granted pursuant to Subsection
G(Replacement Structure Deferral) of Section
4.02.050; or [iii] demolition is required pursuant to
Section 7.01.050 (Unsafe or Dangerous Conditions) of
this Development Code.
4) In an effort to preserve features and artifacts
from historic resources, a determination whether
items within or on the resource should be salvaged
must be made by the Planning Department and may
include the local historical society prior to the issuance of the demolition permit. The applicant shall be
532
California Environmental Quality Act – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program File No. PUD23-004- Downtown West PUD
Mitigation Measures/Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
(Initial/Date)
Sanctions for
Non-Compliance
responsible for the removal, relocation, storage, and
donation of such items selected for salvaging. The
applicant shall provide an inventory of salvaged items
to the Planning Department, and shall include a list of each item name, description, and dimensi on (as
necessary), and the location of each item on a floor
plan.
C. Full Demolition or partial demolition which
results in loss or adverse impacts to character defining features of a Tier I or Tier II Historic Resource shall require preparation of and EIR or Focus EIR.
MM-CUL-4. In the event that cultural resources are
discovered during project activities, all work in the
immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting
Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the project
outside of the buffered area may continue during this
assessment period. Additionally, the Yuhaaviatam of
San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Department
(YSMN) shall be contacted, as detai led within TCR- 1,
regarding any pre -
contact finds and be provided
information after the archaeologist makes his/her
initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to
provide Tribal input with regards to significance and
treatment.
Planning Dept &
Building Dept
During
Construction
During
Construction
Site Inspection Withhold Building
Permit
MM-CUL-5. If significant pre -contact and/or historic- era cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as
amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance
cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a
Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which
shall be provided to YSMN for review and comment,
as detailed within TCR -1. The archaeologist shall
Planning Dept &
Building Dept
During
Construction
During
Construction
Site Inspection Withhold Building
Permit
533
California Environmental Quality Act – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program File No. PUD23-004- Downtown West PUD
Mitigation Measures/Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
(Initial/Date)
Sanctions for
Non-Compliance
monitor the remainder of the project and implement
the Plan accordingly.
MM-CUL-6. If human remains or funerary objects are
encountered during any activities associated with the
project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100 - foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County
Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health
and Safety Code §7050.5 and that code enforced for
the duration of the project.
Planning Dept &
Building Dept
During
Construction
During
Construction
Site Inspection Withhold Building
Permit
Noise
MM-NOI-1 Construction Noise Abatement.
Construction activities associated with new
development that occurs near sensitive receptors
shall be evaluated for potential noise impacts.
Construction contractors shall implement the
following measures for construction activities in the
City of Ontario. Construction plans submitted to the
City shall identify these measures on demolition,
grading, and construction plans. The City of Ontario
Planning and Building Departments shall verify that
grading, demolition, and/or construction plans
submitted include these notations prior to issuance of
demolition, grading, and/or building permits:
1. Construction activity is limited to the hours
between 7:00 am and 6:00 pm Monday through Friday
and 9:00 am to 6:00 pm Saturdays and Sundays, as
prescribed in Municipal Code Section 5-29.09.
2. During the entire active construction period,
equipment and trucks used for project construction
shall use the best -available noise control techniques
wherever feasible (e.g., improved mufflers,
equipment re -design, use of intake silencers, ducts,
Planning Dept &
Building Dept
During
Construction
During
Construction
Site Inspection Withhold Building
Permit
534
California Environmental Quality Act – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program File No. PUD23-004- Downtown West PUD
Mitigation Measures/Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
(Initial/Date)
Sanctions for
Non-Compliance
engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating
shields or shrouds).
3. Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers and hoe rams)
shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible. Where the use of pneumatic tools is
unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed
air exhaust shall be used along with external noise
jackets on the tools.
4. Stationary equipment such as generators and air
compressors shall be located as far as feasible from
nearby noise-sensitive uses.
5. Stockpiling shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors.
6. Construction traffic shall be limited, to the extent feasible, to approved haul routes established by the
City's Engineering Department.
7. At least 10 days prior to the start of construction
activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, that includes permitted construction days and hours as well as the
telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’ s
authorized representatives that are assigned to
respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint.
If the authorized contractor’s representative receives
a complaint, he/she shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City.
8. Signs shall be posted at the job site entrance(s),
within the onsite construction zones, and along
queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment shall
be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes.
535
California Environmental Quality Act – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program File No. PUD23-004- Downtown West PUD
Mitigation Measures/Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
(Initial/Date)
Sanctions for
Non-Compliance
9. During the entire active construction period and to
the extent feasible, the use of noise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be
for safety warning purposes only. The construction
manager shall use smart back- up alarms, w hich
automatically adjust the alarm level based on the
background noise level or switch off back -up alarms
and replace with human spotters in compliance with
all safety requirements and laws.
10. Erect temporary noise barriers (at least as high as the exhaust of equipment and breaking line -of-sight
between noise sources and sensitive receptors), as
necessary and feasible, to maintain construction noise
levels at or below the performance standard of 80 dBA
Leq. Barriers shall be constructed with a solid material that has a density of at least 1.5 pounds per square
foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the
barrier and may be lined on the construction side with
an acoustical blanket, curt
ain, or equivalent
absorptive material (City of Ontario 2022a).
MM-NOI-2. Construction Vibration Abatement.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, individual
projects that involve vibration intensive construction
activities, such as pile drivers, jack hammers, and
vibratory rollers near sensitive receptors shall be
evaluated for potential vibration impacts. For
construction within 135 feet of fragile structures, such as historical resources, within 100 feet of
nonengineered timber and masonry buildings (e.g.,
most residential buildings), or within 75 feet of
engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster); or a
vibratory roller within 25 feet of any structure, the
project applicant shall prepare a noise and vibration
Planning Dept &
Building Dept
During
Construction
During
Construction
Site Inspection Withhold Building
Permit
536
California Environmental Quality Act – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program File No. PUD23-004- Downtown West PUD
Mitigation Measures/Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
(Initial/Date)
Sanctions for
Non-Compliance
analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and
vibration impacts related to these activities. This noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a
qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or
engineer. The vibration levels shall not exceed Federal Transit Administration (FTA) architectural damage
thresholds (e.g., 0.12 inches per second [in/sec] peak
particle velocity [PPV] for fragile or historical
resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for nonengineered timber
and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for
engineered concrete and masonry). If vibration levels
would exceed this threshold, alternative uses shall be
used, such as drilling piles as opposed to pile driving and static rollers as opposed to vibratory rollers. If
necessary, construction vibratio n monitoring shall be
conducted to ensure vibration thresholds are not
exceeded.
Tribal Cultural Resources
MM-TCR-1. The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation
Cultural Resources Department (YSMN) shall be
contacted, as detailed in CUL-4, of any pre-contact
cultural resources discovered during project
implementation, and be provided information
regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide
Tribal input with regards to significance and
treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as
defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a cultural
resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be
created by the archaeologist, in coordination with
YSMN, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to
this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be
present that represents YSMN for the remainder of
the project, should YSMN elect to place a monitor on-
site.
Building Dept &
Planning Dept
During
Construction
Upon discovery Copy of executed
contract
Withhold grading
permit
MM-TCR-2. Any and all archaeological/cultural
documents created as a part of the project (isolate
Building Dept &
Planning Dept
During
Construction
Upon discovery Copy of executed
contract
Withhold grading
permit
537
California Environmental Quality Act – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program File No. PUD23-004- Downtown West PUD
Mitigation Measures/Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring
Monitoring
Frequency
Timing of
Verification
Method of
Verification
Verified
(Initial/Date)
Sanctions for
Non-Compliance
records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead
Agency for dissemination to YSMN. The Lead Agency
and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with
YSMN throughout the life of the project.
Note: Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation realizes
that there may be additional tribes claiming cultural
affiliation to the area; however, Yuhaaviatam of San
Manuel Nation can only speak for itself. The Tribe has
no objection if the agency, developer, and/or
archaeologist wishes to consult with other tribes in
addition to YSMN and if the Lead Agency wishes to
revise the conditions to recognize additional tribes.
538
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Downtown West Planned Unit Development
APRIL 2024
Prepared for:
303 East B Street
Ontario, California 91764
Phone: 909.395.2036 / Fax: 909.395.2420
Contact: Diane Ayala
539
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.
540
PAGE I OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE
Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................iii Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 1 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance ................................................................................ 1 Public Review Process................................................................................................................................. 1 Project Description ................................................................................................................................................... 3 Project Location .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................................. 3 Project Characteristics ................................................................................................................................ 3 Project Construction and Phasing............................................................................................................. 4 Initial Study Checklist ................................................................................................................................................ 6 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ......................................................................................................... 8 Explanation of Issues ................................................................................................................................. 19 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................................................... 19 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ......................................................................................................... 21 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................... 22 Biological Resources ................................................................................................................................. 30 Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................................... 32 Energy 42
Geology and Soils ..................................................................................................................................... 44 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................................................................................................... 45 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .......................................................................................................... 50 Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................................................................. 52 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................................. 54 Mineral Resources ..................................................................................................................................... 55 Noise 56
Population and Housing ........................................................................................................................... 60 Public Services ........................................................................................................................................... 60 Recreation .................................................................................................................................................. 62 Transportation ............................................................................................................................................ 63 Tribal Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................................... 66 MM-CUL-4. .................................................................................................................................................. 67 MM-TCR-1. .................................................................................................................................................. 67 Utilities and Service Systems ..................................................................................................................... 68 541
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE II OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Wildfire ..................................................................................................................................................................... 70 Mandatory Findings of Significance ....................................................................................................... 71 References and Preparers..................................................................................................................................... 73 References Cited ...................................................................................................................................... 73 List of Preparers .......................................................................................................................................... 75
APPENDICES
A Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Memorandum B Noise Memorandum
C Transportation Memorandum
FIGURES
1 Regional Location
2 PUD Project Area
3 Site Plan
4 PUD Project Areas Historic Resources
TABLES
1 Downtown West Land Use and Urban Design Concept ........................................................................ 4 2 Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions ............................................ 25 3 Estimated Combined Construction and Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions ...................... 26 4 Construction Localized Significance Thresholds Analysis ..................................................................... 28 5 Estimated Annual Construction GHG Emissions .................................................................................... 47 6 Project GHG Efficiency - Commercial .................................................................................................... 48 7 Project GHG Efficiency - Residential ....................................................................................................... 49 8 Downtown West PUD TOP Consistency .................................................................................................. 54 9 TOP Future Buildout Table ......................................................................................................................... 55 542
PAGE III OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
AQMP air quality management plan
BMP best management practice
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CALGreen California Green Building Standards
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CCAP Community Climate Action Plan
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFC California Fire Code
CO carbon monoxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
DPM diesel particulate matter
EIR environmental impact report
GHG greenhouse gas
IEUA Inland Empire Utilities Agency
in/sec inches per second
IS initial study
MND mitigated negative declaration
MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
MT metric ton
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NOx oxides of nitrogen
OPD Ontario Police Department
PM10 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 10 microns
PM2.5 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 2.5 microns
PPV peak particle velocity
PRC California Public Resources Code
PUD Planned Unit Development
SB Senate Bill
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SLF Sacred Lands File
SOx sulfur oxides
TAC toxic air contaminant
TAZ traffic analysis zone
TCR tribal cultural resource
TOP The Ontario Plan
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
543
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE IV OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
544
PAGE 1 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
INTRODUCTION
Project Overview
The City of Ontario (City) is proposing the Downtown West Planned Unit Development (PUD) in Ontario. 1 The Downtown West PUD is intended to function as a set of development regulations and planning and design principles to govern the development or redevelopment of an eight- and-a-half block area in downtown Ontario, California. The Downtown West PUD would support a variety of businesses, housing opportunities for residen ts, open spaces, entertainment uses, and institutional uses while preserving its historic character, buildings, neighborhoods, and places.
California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
The Downtown West PUD is a project subject to compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), with the City serving as the lead agency responsible for the environmental impact review and the approval of the proposed Downtown West PUD. Based on the findings of this initial study (IS), the City has made the determination that a mitigated negative declaration (MND) is the appropriate environmental document to be prepared in compliance with CEQA (California Public Resources Cod e [PRC], Section 21000 et seq.).
The City has directed and supervised the preparation of this MND and is in conformance with Section 15070(a) of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). The purpose of the MND and the IS checklist is to determine any potentially significant impacts associated with the Downtown West PUD and to incorporate mitigation measures into the project design, as necessary, to reduce or eliminate the significant or potentially significant effects. As determined in this IS/MND, there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the Downtown West PUD would have a significant effect on the environment.
Public Review Process
In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, a 30-day public review period for this IS/MND commenced on April 26, 2024 and will conclude on May 28, 2024. The IS/MND was distributed for review to interested and involved public agencies, responsible/trustee agencies, organizations, and private individuals that have requested in writing to be informed of the proposed Downtown West PUD. In addition, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15072, the City is required to provide a notice of intent to adopt this IS/MND to the public, responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and the County Clerk, and will mail a notice of intent to adopt this IS/MND to the last known name and address of all organizations and individuals who have previously requested such notice.
An electronic copy of this IS/MND can be viewed at the following web address:
https://www.ontarioca.gov/Planning
1 All analysis is based on project description and project plans provided by the City as of [Placeholder Date]. 545
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 2 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
During the 30-day public review period, the public will have the opportunity to provide written comments on the information contained within this IS/MND. The City’s discretionary approval/denial of the proposed Downtown West PUD will be based on the information contained in this document.
In reviewing this IS/MND, interested members of the public should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing potential project impacts on the environment, as well as the sufficiency of any mitigation measures proposed to reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. Comments on the IS/MND should be submitted by the end of the 30-day public review period and must be postmarked by May 28, 2024 . Submit written comments by mail or email with the subject line “Downtown West Planned Unit Development” to the following address:
City of Ontario, Planning Department
303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764
Attn: Diane Ayala, Senior Planner
[email protected]
546
PAGE 3 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Location
The Downtown West PUD project area (PUD project area) is located in the City of Ontario and within the “Downtown District Place Type” as defined by The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050. The City is approximately 40 miles from downtown Los Angeles, 20 miles from downtown San Bernardino, and 30 miles from Orange County, as shown in Figure 1, Regional Location . The PUD project area is between E Street to the north , Holt Boulevard to the south, Palm Avenue to the west , and Euclid Avenue to the east, in addition to the portion of the block between D Street co nnecting Fern Avenue and Palm Avenue , as shown in Figure 2, PUD Project Area. The PUD project area is within the City’s historic downtown and is adjacent to the civic center area.
Environmental Setting
The PUD project area consists of eight-and-a-half blocks (21.58 acres) in downtown Ontario, California.
Within certain blocks, the existing building fabric contains potentially historic resources. The PUD project area consists of underlying mixed use development and comprises a mixture of commercial uses, vacant land, paved parking lots, and residential units.
The PUD project area is designated as TOP Mixed Use–Downtown Land Use. TOP 2050 was adopted in August 2022 and includes a Policy Plan (general plan) and defines the intention or vision of the Mixed Use–Downtown Land Use as follows (City of Ontario 2023a):
As the historic center of Ontario, the Downtown District, is envisioned as the placed-based, people-focused, commercial, and cultural "heart" of the City and features several designated historic districts and landmarks. Downtown will support a variety of b usinesses, housing opportunities for residents with a variety of income levels, creative spaces, entertainment options, and institutional and civic uses while preserving its historic character, buildings, neighborhoods, and places. Complementing the wide m ix of uses are designs, layouts and public spaces that give residents, visitors, and businesses a strong sense of connection and creates a place where people want to spend time .
The PUD project area currently contains 66,785 square feet of existing residential in 52 residential units, and 510,347 square feet of existing commercial.
Project Characteristics
The City seeks to further define and create the Downtown West PUD to streamline the PUD process for developers and property owners in efforts to revitalize downtown Ontario. The Downtown West PUD contains the following sections: (1) Introduction , (2) Vision and Guiding Principl es, (3) District and Block Plan, (4) Zoning and Land Use Plan , (5) Development Regulations and Guidelines , (6) Public Realm Standards and Guidelines, and (7) Administration.
The Downtown West PUD w ould facilitate d evelopment of a mix of uses and historic preservation ; transformation of select existing buildings through adaptive reuse ; and d esign guidelines for new development, Euclid Avenue, alleys, managed infrastructure, and the public realm. Proposed development and private investments would include new mixed use/infill and façade improvements. 547
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 4 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
Proposed public realm improvement areas of focus include improvements along B Street, Euclid Avenue streetscape, alley improvements, a consolidated trash area, and public art . The Downtown West PUD encourages “activation,” which can include pop-up events, Euclid Avenue programs, B Street Farmer’s Market, alley art and signage, gateway signage, and a potential paseo connection. The Downtown West PUD establishes blocks A -I, shown in Figure 3, Site Plan. Table 1 shows the proposed land use and urban design concept for each block . The PUD project if fully implemented, has the potential to increase residential square footage by 578,157 square feet and decrease commercial by 472,461 square feet.
Table 1. Downtown West Land Use and Urban Design Concept Site Residential
Units
Density
(du/acre) Residential GSF Commercial
GSF
Parking
Provision
A1 n/a n/a 0 sf 7,500 sf n/a
B 22 75 22,544 sf 1,500 sf 32
C2 90 75 93,260 sf 4,386 sf 219
D3 29 39 52,200 sf 0 sf 58
E 58 75 59,746 sf 2,000 sf 78
F 141 60 144,898 sf 0 sf 4604
G 59 75 60,370 sf 0 sf 80
H 47 30 48,296 sf 0 sf 78
I 35 30 63,628 sf 0 sf 70
Fronting Euclid
Avenue 5 100 75 max. 100,000 sf 22,500 sf 145
Total 581 n/a 644,942 sf 37,886 sf 1,220
Source: Downtown West PUD.
Notes: du = dwelling unit; GSF = gross square feet; n/a = not applicable; sf = square feet. 1 Potential for new retail use/building in existing cactus garden. 2 New development proposed with some public parking (84 stalls). 3 Townhomes.
4 Potential new shared garage with public parking.
5 Potential for new development on top of existing historic structures or redevelopment of non-contributing buildings.
Project Construction and Phasing
The Downtown West PUD contains standards for development and private investments, public realm improvements, activation , and art. Any Project with the PUD The Downtown West PUD would be implemented in phases over time. Project construction and characteristics would be project-specific and not included in the PUD.
Project Approvals
The Downtown West PUD provides development standards and requirements for Projects within the PUD project area.
Development Plan approval, pursuant to the requirements of Ontario Development Code Section
4.02.025 (Development Plans), shall be required for any Project within the Downtown West PUD that entails the physical alteration of a ny lot, construction of a building, or addition or significant alteration of an existing building in the PUD area as required by the Ontario Development Code . For each Project, a Development Plan application shall be submitted to the Planning Department on a City application form pursuant to the requirements of Ontario Developm ent Code Division 2.02 (Application Filing and 548
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 5 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
Processing), commencing with Subsection B (Discretionary Permits and Actions) of Section 2.02.015 (Application Processing Procedures). Development plans are approved by the Planning Commission or Development Advisory Board.
To ensure proper implementation of the historic resource preservation and mitigation measures established in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the PUD, an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (“C of A”) shall be submitted and approved in c onjunction with each private or public project. The C of A is approved by the Historic Preservation Subcommittee or the full Historic Preservation Commission (or the Planning Director may issue waivers for minor projects). Encroachment and easements are processed by the City Engineer.
549
PAGE 6 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
1. Project Title: Downtown West PUD
2. Lead agency name and address: City of Ontario, Planning Department, 303 East B Street, Ontario California 91764
3. Contact person and phone number: Diane Ayala, Senior Planner, 909.395.2428
4. Project Sponsor: City of Ontario
5. Project Location: The PUD project area is located in the Downtown District of the City of Ontario.
The City of Ontario is approximately 40 miles from downtown Los Angeles, 20 miles from downtown San Bernadino, and 30 miles from Orange County. As illustrated on Figure 2, the project is bordered by Euclid Avenue to the east, Holt Boulevard to the south, Palm Avenue and Fern Avenue to the west, and E Street to the north.
6. General Plan designation: Mixed Use- Downtown
7. Zoning: MU-1 (Downtown Mixed Use)
8. Description of project. The City seeks to create the Downtown West PUD to streamline the PUD process for developers and property owners in efforts to revitalize downtown Ontario. The Downtown West PUD contains guidelines for development and private investments, public realm improvements, and activations and public art.
Building Characteristics and Operations
Section 5 of the Downtown West PUD sets forth development standards to govern the placement, height, and bulk of permitted buildings and other structures, as well as to establish requirements for vehicular access, parking and loading, open space, landscaping, and signs for commercial uses to be incorporated into development plans. The standards and guidelines would apply to future development projects within the PUD project area for any new construction, addition, remodel, or reallocation requiring a build ing permit or other similar entitlement by the City.
Regulations and standards in the Ontario Development Code that are not covered by the Downtown West PUD would continue to be applicable to future development within the PUD project area.
Circulation and Parking
The total parking provided at each site is shown in Table 1 . A total of 1,220 parking stalls would be provided , which is over the required amount for the number of residential units and commercial space. As described in the Downtown West PUD, parking standards are consistent (Residential – 1 space per bedroom up to 2 bedrooms, 2 spaces per unit for 3 bedrooms and above, 0.20 spaces per unit for guest/visitor parking. Commercial – 1 space per 250 sf gross floor area for all permitted or conditionally permitted use.) 550
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 7 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
Implementation of the Downtown West PUD would facilitate improvements to B Street and utilize the addition of a West Valley Connector Bus Rapid Transportation Station at the corner of E . Holt Boulevard and N. Plum Avenue.
Landscaping, Walls, and Lighting
The Downtown West PUD contains various standards and guidelines for development in the PUD project area including within Section 5. 5, Building Design , and Section 6.3 , Design Guidelines.
Landscaping, walls, and lighting standards in the Ontario Development Code that are not covered by the Downtown West PUD would continue to be applicable to future development within the PUD project area.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting:
The PUD project area is currently developed with a mix of commercial uses, vacant land, and residential units. The area surrounding the PUD project area consists of mixed office, residential, commercial, and open space uses (see Table 2).
Table 2. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Existing Land Use General Plan
Designation Zoning Designation
Site: Mixed uses and
residential1
Mixed Use (MU)-
Downtown
Downtown Mixed-Use
(MU-1)and High Density
Residential (HDR-45)
North: Mixed uses, office, and
residential2
Mixed Use (MU)-
Downtown, Office
Commercial (OC), and
HDR
MU-1, Low Intensity Office
(OL), and HDR-45
South: Mixed uses3 Mixed Use (MU)-
Downtown
MU-1 (Downtown Mixed-
Use)
East: Mixed uses and open
space4
MU and Open Space –
Recreation (OS-R)
MU-1 and PUD(Euclid
Avenue Overlay)
West: Mixed uses and
residential5
Mixed Use (MU)
Downtown, Low Medium
Density Residential
(LMDR), Medium Density
Residential (MDR), and
HDR
MU-1, Low Density
Residential (LDR-5),
Medium Density
Residential (MDR-25), and
HDR-45
Sources: City of Ontario 2015a, 2023b.
Notes:
1 MU: Retail stores, dental offices, parking lots, medical offices, bank, restaurant, general offices, residences on commercial, multiple family residential, religious structure, storage warehouse, car lots, vacant land 2 MU: Religious structure, vacant land, fast food, general offices, and retail stores OC: General offices and residences on commercial
HDR: Religious structure
3 MU: Vacant land, retail stores, and car lots
4 MU: Service station, retail stores, parking lots, vacant land, and bank OS-R: Parking lot, vacant land, and Ontario Town Square 5 MU: Triplex, single-family residential, vacant land, duplex, parking lots, and retail stores LMDR: Single-family residential, quad, triplex, and apartments MDR: Duplex, single-family residential, apartments, and vacant land HDR: Religious structure and parking lot
551
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 8 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
10. Other public agencies whose approval is anticipated include (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):
None.
11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? Yes No
If “yes”, has consultation begun? Yes No Completed
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities and Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance
552
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 9 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to appli cable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature: Date:
Printed Name:
Diane Ayala
4/26/2024
553
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 10 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenc ed information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significa nt Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant With Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific condit ions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 554
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 11 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
I. AESTHETICS – Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that are
experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES – In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
555
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 12 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
III. AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state
or federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
556
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 13 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
VI. Energy – Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
557
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 14 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially result
in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
558
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 15 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
d) Be located on a site that is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in the project
area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly
or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving wildland fires?
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground
water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of
the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or
siltation on or off site;
ii) substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on or off site;
iii) create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
559
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 16 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan, or other land use plan?
XIII. NOISE – Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
560
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 17 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES – Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
XVI. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
XVII. TRANSPORTATION – Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities?
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or
561
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 18 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
b) A resource determined by the lead agency,
in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying
the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native American
tribe.
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
waste water treatment, or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the waste water
treatment provider, which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s
existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity
of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste reduction
goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
XX. WILDFIRE – If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
562
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 19 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
breaks, emergency water sources, power
lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate
fire risk or that may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, substantially
reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal, or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Explanation of Issues
Aesthetics
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less-than-Significant Impact . The dominant scenic resource in Ontario is the San Gabriel Mountain range to the north, visible from the Upper Santa Ana River. Other prominent scenic resources are the Jurupa Mountains and the San Bernardino Mountains to the east, the Santa Ana Mountains to the south, and the Chino Hills to the southwest (City of Ontario 2022 a). The PUD project area is currently developed with mixed use and residential uses. The proposed Downtown West PUD contains height limits that are consis tent with the Ontario Development Code development standards. Additionally, the San Gabriel Mountains peaks rise to 7,000 feet above 563
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 20 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
mean sea level (City of Ontario 2022 a); therefore, development with the maximum height of 65 feet would not alter the scenic views of Ontario significantly compared to the existing conditions.
Impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant. b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Less-than-Significant Impact. There are no designated state scenic highways located near the PUD project area. The closest eligible state scenic highway is a portion of State Route 142 in Chino Hills, approximately 7 miles southwest of the PUD project area (Caltrans 2018). The City’s General Plan identifies Euclid Corridor and the Mission Boulevard Corridor as the primary scenic corridors in Ontario (City of Ontario 2022 a). The PUD project area is bordered by Euclid Avenue to the east and would include Euclid Avenue Streetscapes and Euclid Avenue Programs. The Downtown West PUD would contain guidelines for these improvements such as streetscape design standards, historic preservation, and adaptive reuse to ensure scenic resources would not be substantially damaged. Therefore, the Downtown West PUD would have less than significant impacts on state scenic highways.
c) In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less-than-Significant Impact. Per PRC Section 21071, an “urbanized area” is defined as follows:
(a) An incorporated city that meets either of the following criteria:
(1) Has a population of at least 100,000 persons.
(2) Has a population of less than 100,000 persons if the population of that city and not more than two contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least 100,000 persons.
As of the 2020 U.S. Census, the City has a population of 175,265 (U.S. Census Bureau 202 0). The population exceeds 100,000, so the site would be considered an urbanized area for purposes of responding to this impact prompt.
TOP 2050 is the primary planning document for the City and contains various goals and policies governing the scenic quality of the City. Land Use Element Section 2, Compatibility, requires infrastructure to be aesthetically pleasing and in context with the community character (Policy LU-2.6). Community Design Element Section 1, Image & Identity, aims to preserve the existing character of neighborhoods (Policy CD -1.1 and Policy CD -1.3) and preserve the City’s view corridors (Policy CD -1.5). Community Design Element Section 2, Design Quality, ens ures a high level of design quality that is attractive, safe, functional, human-scale, and distinct (Policy CD-2.1 through Policy CD -2.10). Community Design Element Section 3, Urban, Mixed Use, and Transit - Oriented Place Types, promotes development that heightens the unique character of each place type (Policy CD-3.1) and maximizes safety, comfort, and aesthetics (Policy CD -3.2, Policy CD-3.3, and Policy CD-3.5). Community Design Element Section 4, Historic Preservation, aims to preserve 564
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 21 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
the character of the City’s historic buildings, streetscapes, and unique neighborhoods (Policy CD-
4.2) (City of Ontario 2023a). Adherence to the Land Use Element and Community Design Element policies described above would reduce visual impacts.
In addition, the Ontario Development Code includes development requirements related to scenic quality such as development density, screening and setback, signing, landscaping, lighting, and height limitations. The Downtown West PUD would be consistent with the aesthetic requirements outlined in TOP 2050 and the Ontario Development Code. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less-than-Significant Impact. New development facilitated by the Downtown West PUD would result in new sources of light and glare through increased development in the PUD project area.
However, the PUD project area is currently developed and urban, consisting of large amounts of light and glare affecting daytime and nighttime views in the area. Any new development would adhere to the design standards of the Ontario Development Code to ensure that light and glare from new developments would be minimized and that significant impacts would not occur.
Therefore, the Downtown West PUD would not create a significant light or glare impact beyond what already exists, and impacts would be less than significant.
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. According to the California Important Farmland Finder database, the PUD project area is classified as “Urban and Built -Up Land” (DOC 2023a). Additionally, Figure 5.2 -1, Important Farmland, in The Ontario Plan 2050 Final Supplemental EIR (TOP Supplemental EIR) designates the PUD project area and surrounding areas as Developed Land (City of Ontario 2022 a). The Downtown West PUD would not be located on land classified as Farmland pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program and would ther efore not convert any Farmland to non-agricultural use. No impact would occur.
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. As shown in Figure 5.2 -2, Williamson Act Land, in the TOP Supplemental EIR, the PUD project area does not contain land under a Williamson Act Contract (City of Ontario 2022 a). The PUD project area is zoned as MU and HDR (City of Ontario 2015a). Therefore, the Downtown West PUD would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. No impact would occur.
565
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 22 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as d efined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
No Impact. The PUD project area is not zoned for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Therefore, there is no impact.
d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? No Impact. The PUD project area does not contain forest land. Therefore, there is no impact. e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non -agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use?
No Impact. As described above, the PUD project area does not contain farmland or forest land.
Therefore, there is no impact.
Air Quality
This section is based on technical analysis conducted by Dudek and attached to this MND as Appendix A, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Memorandum. See Appendix A for complete results. a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less-than-Significant Impact. The PUD project area is located within the South Coast Air Basin, which includes the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties and all of Orange County, and is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). SCAQMD administers the South Coast Air Basin ’s air quality management plan (AQMP), which is a comprehensive document outlining an air pollution control program for attaining the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). SCAQMD has established criteria for determining consistency with the currently applicable AQMP in Chapter 12, Sections 12.2 and 12.3 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. These criteria are as follows (SCAQMD 1993):
▪ Consistency Criterion No. 1: Whether the project would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of the ambient air quality standards or interim emission reductions in the AQMP.
▪ Consistency Criterion No. 2: Whether the project would exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase .
Regarding Consistency Criterion No.1, it was determined that construction of future development projects from implementation of the Downtown West PUD would not exceed the SCAQMD mass daily construction thresholds for all criteria air pollutants . In addition, the operation of any future development projects, as allowed by the Downtown West PUD, would not exceed the SCAQMD 566
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 23 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
mass daily operational thresholds for all criteria air pollutants for full operational buildout of the Downtown West PUD and for a combined construction and operational scenario.
Because the total anticipated development associated with implementation of the Downtown West PUD would not exceed the SCAQMD mass daily regional thresholds, the Downtown West PUD would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations. As such, the Downtown West PUD would be consistent with Consistency Criterion No. 1 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
While no specific development projects are proposed at this time, implementation of the Downtown West PUD would facilitate additional population growth, additional housing units, and a decrease in density of commercial space within the PUD p roject area. Changes in the population, housing, or employment growth projections associated with the Downtown West PUD have the potential to affect the demographic projections of the Southern California Association of Governments ( SCAG), and therefore, the assumptions o f the SCAQMD’s AQMP. However, development that occurs from implementation of the Downtown West PUD would be consistent with SCAG’s regional goals of providing infill housing, improving the jobs-to-housing balance, and integrating land uses near major transportation corridors.
In the SCAG 2020 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Demographics and Growth Forecast, it was predicted that between 2016 and 2045, the City’s population would increase by 96,900, households would increase by 28,500, and employment would increase by 55,400 (SCAG 2020) . Downtown West PUD implementation, which would facilitate the development of 581 dwelling units and 37,886 square feet of commercial space at buildout in 2045, would not result in growth that would exceed these growth forecasts or change the underlying land use assumptions utilized in the 2022 AQMP. It is important to note that, while the more recent SCAG 2024 RTP/SCS was approved in April 2024, this project uses the 2020 RTP/SCS as a reference for air quality impact analysis because it provides consistency with the relevant AQMP from 2022. As such, the Downtown West PUD would not conflict with Consistency Criterion No. 2 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
While the Downtown West PUD consists of a policy document that does not propose any direct development, the Downtown West PUD ’s proposed land use changes would allow for greater densities than are currently allowed within the PUD project area. Approval of the Downtown West PUD would not provide any goals, policies, or programs that would significantly conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Future development resulting from implementation of the Downtown West PUD would not exceed the SCAQMD’s criteria pollutant mass daily thresholds for construction and operations. Therefore, the Downtown West PUD would not conflict with Consistency Criterion No. 1.
Additionally, the Downtown West PUD would not conflict with Consistency Criterion No. 2, as implementation of the Downtown West PUD would not exceed the demographic growth forecasts in the SCAG 2020 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy .
Potential impacts related to the Downtown West PUD ’s potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan would be less than significant. 567
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 24 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less-than-Significant Impact. A quantitative analysis was conducted to determine whether the project might result in emissions of criteria air pollutants that may cause exceedances of the NAAQS or CAAQS or cumulatively contribute to existing nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. See Appendix A for full analysis.
The Downtown West PUD would result in emissions of criteria air pollutants for which the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have adopted ambient air quality standards (i.e., the NAAQS and CAAQS). Projects that emit these pollutants ha ve the potential to cause, or contribute to, violations of these standards.
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to air quality are based on the recommendations provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. For the purposes of this air quality analysis, a significant impact would occur if the Downtown West PUD would (14 CCR 15000 et seq.):
1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
2. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
3. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
4. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) indicates that, where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to determine whether the project would have a significant impact on air quality.
SCAQMD has established air quality significance thresholds, as revised in April 2019, that set forth quantitative emission significance thresholds below which a project would not have a significant impact on ambient air quality (SCAQMD 2019). The project’s “regional” emissions refer to emissions that will be evaluated based on regional significance thresholds established by SCAQMD, also known as the criteria pollutant mass daily thresholds. The SCAQMD air quality significance thresholds also provide toxic a ir contaminant (TAC) thresholds and ambient air quality standards for criteria pollutants that are to be utilized for localized significance determination. The quantitative air quality analysis provided herein applies the SCAQMD thresholds identified in Appendix A of this MND to determine the potential for the Downtown West PUD to result in a significant impact under CEQA.
568
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 25 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
Construction Emissions
Construction scenario assumptions are detailed in Appendix A. Construction activities resulting from potential future projects developed under Downtown West PUD implementation would result in the temporary addition of pollutants to the local airshed caused by on -site sources (e.g., off -road construction equipment, soil disturbance, and volatile organic compound [VOC] off-gassing from architectural coatings and asphalt pavement application) and off-site sources (e.g., vendor trucks, haul trucks, and worker vehicle trips). Specifically, entrained dust results from the exposure of earth surfaces to wind from the direct disturbance and movement of soil, resulting in emissions of particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 10 microns (PM10) and particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). Internal combustion engines used by construction equipment, haul trucks, vendor trucks (i.e., delivery trucks), and worker vehicles would result in emissions of VOCs, oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOx), PM10, and PM2.5.
For purposes of estimating Project emissions, construction is assumed to start in 2025 and have a duration of 20 years, reaching completion in December 2044. To estimate a single year of construction, the entire Project buildout land use quantities was scaled by 20-years of construction (i.e., 5% of total buildout) and then compressed to a 1 -year period. Construction emissions were calculated for the estimated worst -case day over the construction period associated with each phase and reported as the maximum daily emissions estimated during construction of the 5% development scenario. Table 3 presents the estimated maximum daily construction emissions generated during construction of the 5% construction scenario for the first year of construction.
Details of the emission calculations are provided in Appendix A.
Table 3. Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Year
VOC NO x CO SO x PM 10 PM 2.5
Pounds per day
Summer
1 Year of Construction
(5% of total construction) 1.21 9.35 12.52 0.02 0.79 0.42 Winter
1 Year of Construction
(5% of total construction) 21.22 41.44 29.88 0.17 9.73 3.85 Maximum 21.22 41.44 29.88 0.17 9.73 3.85
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: Appendix A.
Notes: VOC = volatile organic compound; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District.
These estimates reflect control of fugitive dust required by SCAQMD Rule 403.
As shown in Table 3, daily construction emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for VOC, NO x, CO, SO x, PM10, or PM 2.5 during the 5% construction scenario, and short - term construction impacts would be less than significant. 569
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 26 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
Operational Emissions
Operation scenario assumptions are detailed in Appendix A. While the Downtown West PUD consists of a policy document and does not propose any direct development, the Downtown West PUD’s proposed land-use changes would allow for new or more dense development than is currently allowed within the P UD p roject area. Operation of the Downtown West PUD , due to future development within the PUD project area, could potentially generate VOC, NO x, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from mobile sources, including vehicular traffic; energy sources such as natural gas usage; area sources, including the use of landscaping equipment and consumer products; and architectural coatings.
Table 4 presents the maximum daily area, energy, and mobile sources associated with total operational buildout of the Downtown West PUD as compared to the SCAQMD’s thresholds. The SCAQMD operational thresholds are expressed as mass daily thresholds in pounds per day. Details of the emission calculations are provided in Appendix A.
Table 4. Estimated Combined Construction and Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Estimated Maximum Net Daily Operational Emissions for Project Implementation 1 Emission Source VOC NO x CO SO X PM 10 PM 2.5
Pounds per day
Area 3.90 9.04 54.42 0.05 0.39 0.39
Energy 0.11 1.84 0.77 0.01 0.15 0.15
Mobile −4.56 −4.92 −27.62 −0.02 4.87 1.18
Total −0.55 5.95 27.57 0.05 5.41 1.73
SCAQMD Operational Threshold
(Appendix A)
55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Combined Construction and Operational Emissions (Worst -Case) Construction Emissions
(Table 3) 21.22 41.44 29.88 0.17 9.73 3.85
Operational Emissions (above) −0.55 5.95 27.57 0.05 5.41 1.73 Combined Construction and
Operation Emissions 20.67 47.39 57.45 0.22 15.14 5.58
SCAQMD Operational Threshold
(Appendix A)
55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes: VOC = volatile organic compound; NO x = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SO x = sulfur oxides; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM 2.5 = fine particulate matter; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; <0.01 = reported value less than 0.01.
The values shown are the maximum summer or winter daily emissions results from CalEEMod.
See Appendix A for complete results.
1 Emissions were calculated by subtracting the proposed Downtown West PUD’s emissions by the existing scenario emissions. The existing scenario is 5 dwelling units and 56,171 square feet of commercial space.
As shown in Table 4, maximum daily operational emissions from full buildout of the Downtown West PUD would not exceed the SCAQMD daily significance thresholds for all criteria air pollutants during operations. In addition, the combined construction and operational emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD’s operational emissions threshold for all criteria pollutants. Therefore, 570
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 27 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
impacts regarding cumulatively considerable net increases of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment would be less than significant.
Cumulative localized impacts would potentially occur if construction associated with the development future development facilitated by the Downtown West PUD were to occur concurrently with another construction project or with another off -site, unrelated project. In addition to the speculative nature of the Downtown West PUD implementation, construction schedules for potential future projects unrelated to the Downtown West PUD are currently unknown; therefore, potential construction impacts associated with t wo or more simultaneous projects would be considered speculative. Criteria air pollutant emissions associated with construction activity of future projects would be reduced through implementation of control measures required by the SCAQMD, as applicable.
The Downtown West PUD would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions of nonattainment pollutants, and impacts would be less than significant during construction and operation.
Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants
Construction and operation of the project would generate criteria air pollutant emissions; however, estimated construction and operational emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD mass-emission daily thresholds as shown in Tables 3 and 4, respectively.
Because construction and operation of the project would not result in ozone precursor emissions (i.e., VOCs or NOX) that would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds, as shown in Tables 3 and 4, the project is not anticipated to substantially contribute to regional ozone concentrations and their associated health impacts.
As described in threshold (c), below, CO hotspots were determined to be a less-than-significant impact. Thus, the project’s CO emissions would not contribute to the health effects associated with this pollutant.
As with ozone and NOX, and as shown in Tables 3 and 4, the project would not generate emissions of PM10 or PM2.5 that would exceed the SCAQMD’s thresholds. Accordingly, the project’s PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are not expected to cause an increase in related health effects for this pollutant.
In summary, the Downtown West PUD would not result in any potentially significant contribution to local or regional concentrations of nonattainment pollutants and would not result in a significant contribution to the adverse health impacts associated with those pollutants. Impacts would b e less than significant.
c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less-than-Significant Impact. The project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, as evaluated below.
571
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 28 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive receptors are those individuals more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the population at large. People most likely to be affected by air pollution include children, the elderly, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respirator y diseases. According to SCAQMD, sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, long -term healthcare facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes (SCAQMD 1993). The nearest sensitive -receptor land use are residences located approximately 50 feet south and west of the Downtown West PUD site boundary.
Localized Significance Thresholds
The SCAQMD recommends a localized significance threshold analysis to evaluate localized air quality impacts to sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the project as a result of project activities. The impacts were analyzed using methods consistent with those in the SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (SCAQMD 2009). The project is located within Source-Receptor Area 33 (Southwest San Bernardino Valley). The maximum daily on-site emissions generated by construction of the project in each construction year are presented in Table 5 and compared to the SCAQMD localized significance criteria for Source-Receptor Area 33 to determine whether project-generated on-site emissions would result in potential localized significance threshold impacts.
Table 5. Construction Localized Significance Thresholds Analysis NO 2 CO PM 10 PM 2.5
Pounds per Day (On Site)
Maximum 18.87 18.56 3.82 1.96
SCAQMD LST Criteriaa 118 863 5 4
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Source: SCAQMD 2009; Appendix A.
Notes: NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 10 microns (coarse particulate matter); PM2.5 = particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns (fine particulate matter); SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; LST = localized significance threshold.
Represents maximum emissions from summer and winter.
a LST are shown for a 1-acre disturbed area corresponding to a distance to a sensitive receptor of 25 meters in Source- Receptor Area 33 (southwest San Bernardino Valley).
As shown in Table 5, proposed construction activities would not generate emissions more than site- specific localized significance thresholds for NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
Traffic-congested roadways and intersections have the potential to generate localized high levels of CO. As discussed in the transportation memo (Appendix C to this MND) , the proposed project is forecast to generate 13 AM peak hour trips and 16 PM peak hour trips ( passenger car equivalent–adjusted).
Accordingly, CO concentrations at congested intersections would not exceed the 1 -hour or 8 - hour CO CAAQS unless projected daily traffic would be at least over 100,000 vehicles per day. 572
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 29 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
Because the Downtown West PUD is not anticipated to increase daily traffic volumes at any study intersection to more than 100,000 vehicles per day, a CO hotspot is not anticipated to occur.
Based on these considerations, the Downtown West PUD would not generate traffic that would contribute to potential adverse traffic impacts that may result in the formation of CO hotspots. This conclusion is supported by the analysis in the Transportation section, which demonstrates that traffic impacts would be less than significant. In addition, due to continued improvement in vehicular emissions at a rate faster than the rate of vehicle growth and/or congestion, the potential for CO hotspots in the South Coast Air Basin is steadily decreasing. Based on these considerations, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact to air quality with regard to potential CO hotspots.
Toxic Air Contaminants
TACs are defined as substances that may cause or contribute to an increase in deaths or in serious illness or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. The greatest potential for TAC emissions during construction would be diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions from heavy equipment operations and use of heavy-duty trucks.
The following measures are required by state law to reduce DPM emissions:
▪ Fleet owners of mobile construction equipment are subject to the CARB Regulation for In - use Off-road Diesel Vehicles (13 CCR 2449), the purpose of which is to reduce DPM and criteria pollutant emissions from in-use (existing) off-road diesel-fueled vehicles. ▪ All commercial diesel vehicles are subject to Title 13, Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations, limiting engine idling time. Idling of heavy -duty diesel construction equipment and trucks during loading and unloading shall be limited to 5 minutes; electric auxiliary power units should be used whenever possible.
Exhaust PM 10 is typically used as a surrogate for DPM . As shown in Table 5, which presents total PM10 from fugitive dust and exhaust, project -generated construction PM 10 emissions are anticipated to be minimal and well below the SCAQMD threshold. Furthermore, the nearest sensitive receptors are located upwind of the P UD project area, as shown by the most recent Ontario Airport meteorological station data from 2012 –2016 (SCAQMD 2023). Due to the meteorological data and minimal DPM emissions on site, TACs gen erated during construction would not be expected to result in concentrations causing significant health risks.
No residual TAC emissions and corresponding cancer health risks are anticipated after construction, and no long-term sources of TAC emissions are anticipated during operation of the project. As such, the Downtown West PUD would not result in substantial TAC exposure to sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the proposed Downtown West PUD, and impacts would be less than significant. d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less-than-Significant Impact. While the Downtown West PUD consists of a policy document that does not propose and direct development , the land use changes proposed as part of the Downtown West PUD would allow for greater densities than are currently allowed within the P UD project area, and the Downtown West PUD would result in indirect impacts. Development allowed 573
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 30 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
for by the Downtown West PUD would generate odors from vehicles and/or equipment exhaust emissions. As these odors would be short -term (e.g., only emitted during a future development project’s demolition/construction phase), intermittent, limited to on -site or site -adjacent areas, and typically emitted in an outdoor setting subject to wind and other dissipating elements, such odors would disperse rapidly and would generally occur at magnitudes that would not affect substantial numbers of people. Therefore, impacts associated with odors during construction of the Downtown West PUD would be less than significant.
While the Downtown West PUD identifies the general locations (e.g. , zones) where future development is likely to occur, and can make certain assumptions based on the permitted use types, the precise nature (e.g. , the particular tenant[s]) and site -specific location(s) of future development projects implemented under the Downtown West PUD have not yet been identified.
Therefore, odor sources associated with Downtown West PUD buildout and their potential to cause a specific impact to nearby sensitive receptors also cannot be completely identified. However, land uses and operations associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food -processing plants, chemical plants, composting operations, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding facilities (SCAQMD 1993). Th e project would not include these land uses. However, any development within the P UD project area would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, which prohibits the discharge of air pollutan ts from a facility that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to the public or damage to business or property. Further, new development and/or redevelopment projects in the P UD project area requiring a Conditional Use Permit —including new commercial and vehicle -related uses within 500 feet of a sensitive use—would be required to comply with applicable Zoning Code measures related to odor abatement. Therefore, the Downtown West PUD would not result in new or more substantial odor emissions that could adversely affect a substantial number of people, and impacts would be less than significant.
Biological Resources
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The PUD project area consists of developed land, with few vacant parcels. The surrounding areas are also developed with urban uses. The PUD project area is in proximity to known sensitive species locations including Crotch ’s bumble bees , pallid bats , California glossy sna kes, and various sensitive bird species, as shown in Figure 5.4-1 in the TOP Supplemental EIR (City of Ontario 2022 a). Development facilitated by the proposed Downtown West PUD would be located on currently developed land with a mix of commercial uses, vacant land, and residential units. Vacant land in the City may contain habitat; however, because much of it is barren ground and does not support vegetation, and because many areas of vacant land are small, surrounded by developed urban uses, and isolated from other vacant land, the habitat value is low. Because there is very little native habitat remaining in the City and the PUD project area would be located on developed, urban land, impacts to special -status species would be less than significant.
574
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 31 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The PUD project area is not located on or near any riparian areas (USFWS 20 23). The PUD project area is developed, urban land that does not support riparian habitat or other sensitive native habitat. Therefore, there no impacts would occur. c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal , etc .) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact. The PUD project area is not located on or near any wetlands (USFWS 2023). Therefore, no impacts to federally protected wetlands would occur. d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact. The PUD project area is developed and paved and is located within a large urban area. No water features are located on or near the site. Therefore, the site would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or with migratory wildlife corridors or wildlife nursery sites. No impacts would occur. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less-than-Significant Impact. Section 6.05.020 of the Ontario Development Code, Tree Protection Policy and Protection Measures, contains policies and measures to preserve, protect, and maintain established and healthy heritage trees within the City. The Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan requires proposed development that contains an existing Heritage Tree to submit of a Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect, horticulturalist, certified arborist, or other related professional (City of Ontario 2022a).
The City of Ontario Landscape Development Standards contains tree protection notes, such as establishing a Tree Protection Zone around existing trees during construction. Preliminary Landscape Plans shall include a tree report provided by a qualified landscape architect or certified arborist for trees on site proposed to be removed. Replacement trees shall be 60 -inch- box trees or as approved. Two new trees shall be replaced for each removed (City of Ontario 2015b). Development under the Downtown West PUD would be required to comply with local polices or ordinances protecting biological resources and impacts would be less than significant. f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact. The PUD project area consists of developed land with few vacant parcels. As described above, many areas of vacant land are small, surrounded by developed urban uses, 575
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 32 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
and isolated from other vacant land ; therefore, the habitat value is low. Policy ER -5.1 in the General Plan describes the protection of biological resources through the establishment, restoration, and conservation of high -quality habitat areas. The PUD project area is located on land designated as Mixed Use and High Density Residential (City of Ontario 2023a). Therefore, the PUD project area does not contain areas for habitat conservation. The PUD project area would be located on developed, urban land that would not conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. No impact would occur.
Cultural Resources
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The PUD project area is in an area of the City that has several known and potential historical resources. The State of California awarded a grant to fund a citywide survey between 1983 and 1984 to identify potentially historic resources located within the City. Between 1986 and 1987, the City continued the survey efforts, which resulted in documentation and evaluation of the historic significance of nearly 3,000 properties and the creation of the City’s Historic Resource Inventory, in which 835 properties were formally listed. In 1991, the City retained Architectural Resources Group to further analyze historic properties located within Downtown, a former redevelopment area, and recommend an improvement strategy to revitalize the area, which led to the creation and City Council adoption of the Downtown Design Guidelines. An additional intensive level Downtown survey was conducted in 2003 that updated information on buildings and identified four potential historic districts. The City currently has 100 designated local landmarks, 14 of which are located Downtown; 8 designated historic districts; 5 historic properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places; and nearly 1,500 historic resources on the City’s Historic Resource Inventory that have been determined to be eligible, nominated, or designated for landmark or historic district listing.
The Downtown West PUD considers the historic context-sensitivity of Downtown and requires projects to implement the Secretary of Interior Standards (federal preservation standards), the Ontario Development Code (Historic Preservation Ordinance), Downtown Design Guidelines, and best practices for managing development and growth on private property and within the public realm. It also encourages adaptive reuse of buildings and preservation of the potential downtown historic district. Additionally, the Downtown West PUD requires issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness pursuant to City’s Development Code (Chapter 4, Permits, Actions, and Decisions) for all exterior alterations to existing buildings and new construction on vacant or redeveloped sites that are located within the PUD boundary area to lessen or avoid impacts to historic resources. Projects that meet the PUD requirements and the Development Code will be in compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards, thereby avoiding adverse impacts to historic resources.
The purpose of th e Downtown West PUD is to approve the PUD document , which sets forth development standards, design guidelines, and regulations for future development of an eight - and-a-half block area located Downtown. The Downtown West PUD in itself will not result in a direct physical impact on historic resources. However, implementation of the Downtown West PUD land use plan may result in development project impacts to known, potential, or future historic 576
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 33 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
resources if activities propose inappropriate alterations to historical resources including , but not limited to, demolition (in whole or in part) , rehabilitation, or new infill construction. Figure 4 , PUD Project Area Historic Resources , identifies parcels with known historical resources, buildings over the age of 45 years that have not been evaluated for historic significance, and newer buildings that have not yet reached 45 years of age.
Chapter 4 of the Development Code contains significance criteria and procedures for the designation of historic resources such as Historic Landmarks, Historic Districts, Architectural Conservation Areas, and Automatic Designations; however, not all propert ies within the PUD boundary have been assessed and evaluated for historic significance.
As previously stated, all plans and development project s require issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness. Upon acceptance of the application or request, planning staff or the Historic Preservation Subcommittee will evaluate the property for historic significance and eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or the City’s Historic Resource Inventory. The review may also include the preparation of a historic resource survey, at the intensive level, pursuant to the standards set forth by the California Office of Historic Preservation. The proposed plan or project will then be evaluated for compliance with the Downtown West PUD and require fin dings to lessen or avoid potential impacts to historic resources (the property or proposed downtown historic district ) and mak e findings pursuant to Chapter 4. Plans or development projects that propose alterations or demolition that threatened the integrity of the historic resource shall require historic resource tiering prior to approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness.
To provide a greater level of certainty regarding the City’s preservation goals, the Development Code includes a tier system with standard criteria and procedures for evaluating the significance of historic or potentially historic resources that are 45 years old and are threatened by major modifications or demolition.
The Development Code establishes criteria for Tier I, Tier II , and Tier III properties, with Tier I and II being of the highest value. The tier system identifies resources that have the highest preservation value in terms of their architectural and/or historical contribution to the City and the method to evaluate the significance of their loss in the case of major modification or demolition. The tier system also includes minimum mitigation measures and a mitigation fee structure for Tier III. Tier I consists of properties that should not be demolished or significantly alt ered under any circumstances, regardless of their designation status. Tier II consists of properties where demolition of these properties should be avoided. Given this strong policy of the City and the programmatic nature of the Downtown West PUD and this MND, it is not reasonably foreseeable at this time that any projects would be proposed and approved by the City that would require the full demolition of Tier I or Tier II resources or that would not be in compliance with the Downtown West PUD. Thus, on a programmatic level, implementation of the PUD would not result in significant impacts to Tier II or Tier I historic resources. Tier III consists of all properties that are Designated Historic Landmarks, are contributing structures in Designated Historic Districts, or are Eligible Historical Resources, as defined by the Development Code. Demolition of these properties should be av oided where possible, but may be appropriate under certain circumstances. If demolition occurs, the City requires historic resources to be documented and historic features to be salvaged and requires a 577
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 34 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
demolition mitigation fee. Therefore, the Development Code does not provide a high level of protection for Tier III resources.
As a result, on January 27, 2010, TOP 2050, File No. PGPA06 -001, for which an EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2008101140) was adopted by City Council, determin ed that demolition of Tier III historic resources would result in significant and unavoidable impacts that cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant, despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the TOP EIR, for which a Statement of Overriding Consideration was documented. The mitigation measures for historic resources are included as MM-CUL-1, MM-CUL- 2, and MM-CUL-3 below.
Map
ID- See
Figure 4
Associated
Address Parcel Number Current Use/
Description Year Built
Historic
Status Code
(Local/CA)
1 437 N. Euclid Ave. 104835403 Unicare Community
Health Center
1967 NS
2 429 N. Euclid Ave. 104835404 Immigration Attorney c.1948 (NETR) NS 3 427 N. Euclid Ave. 104835405 Aktiva Nutrition 1946 E/5S3 4 425 N. Euclid Ave. 104835406 Downtown Ontario
Improvement Association
1948 E/5S3
5 421 N. Euclid Ave. 104835407 Work Boot Warehouse c. 1930 E/5S3 6 417 and 419 N.
Euclid Ave.
104835408, -09 Optometrist c. 1950 E/5D1
7 413 and 415 N.
Euclid Ave.
104835410 Rogers Flower Shop and
Barber Shop
c. 1930 NS
8 401 N. Euclid Ave. 104835411 Gloria's Cocina Mexicana 1937 OL/5D1 9 120 W. D St. 104835412 Paved Parking
10 123 W. E St. and 420
N. Laurel Ave.
104835401,-02,
104835413
Unicare Community
Health Center, Parking
c. 1960 NS
578
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 35 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
Map
ID- See
Figure 4
Associated
Address Parcel Number Current Use/
Description Year Built
Historic
Status Code
(Local/CA)
11 201 W. E St.
425 N. Laurel Av.
421 N. Laurel Av.
104835304/5/6 Paved Parking
12 221 W. E St. 104835314 Paved Parking
13 206 W. D St. 104835313 Paved Parking
14 210-220 W. D St. 104835309 Multiple-family residential 1946 E/5S3
15 322 W. D St. 104834403 St. George School
Playground
Shared
property with
Church
(c.1920)
16 331 and 333 N.
Euclid Av.
104856604 U.S. Bank Branch 1965 E/5S3
17 317 N. Euclid 104856605 Treasure Banquet Hall 1950 E/5S3 18 311, 313, 315 N.
Euclid Ave.
104856606 Cancha Verde/ Strum
Brewing
c. 1931 E/5D1
19 108 W. C St..
301/303 N. Euclid
104856607 Emmon's
Building/Granada
Theater
1926 OL-T1/5S3/5D1
20 114 W. C St. 104856609 Paved Parking
21 126 W. C St. 104856610 Paved Parking
22 112 W. C St. 104856608 Paved Parking
23 115 W. D St. 104856603 Paved Parking
24 (123 W. D St) 121 W.
D St.
104856602 Associated Telephone
Company Building
1936 Nom-T2/ 5S2
579
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 36 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
Map
ID- See
Figure 4
Associated
Address Parcel Number Current Use/
Description Year Built
Historic
Status Code
(Local/CA)
25 123 W. D St. 104856601 Paved Parking
26 324 N. Laurel Ave. 104856611 Paved undeveloped lot
27 211 W. D St./ 207 W.
D St.
104856113 Frontier Communications c.1959 (NETR) NS
28 303-305 and 311 -
315 N.
Laurel Av.
104856107 Multiple-family residential c. 1920 E/5S3
29 210- 212 W. C St. 104856108 Dental Kidz Club 1954 R/6XM 30 218 W. C St. 104856109 Single Family residence 1908 E/5S3 31 220 W. C St. 104856110 Vacant land
32 312 N. Palm Av. 104856112 Single Family residence
and commercial building
1920 E/5S3
33 228 W. C St. 104856111 Superior Justice Law
Group
1955 NS
34 245 N. Euclid Av. 104856503 Valley Dept Store 1950 E/5S3 35 233 N. Euclid Av.
223 N. Euclid Av.
235 N Euclid Av.
104856504 The Golden Web Boutique
store
1916 OL/5D1
36 231 N. Euclid Av. 104856505 Unique Café 1904 OL/5D1 37 219 N. Euclid Av. 104856506 Herradura De Oro 1948 E/5S3 38 215 N. Euclid Av. 104856507 Newsboy books 1946 E/5S3 580
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 37 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
Map
ID- See
Figure 4
Associated
Address Parcel Number Current Use/
Description Year Built
Historic
Status Code
(Local/CA)
39 211 N. Euclid Av. 104856508 Euclid Family Dentistry c.1925 E/5S3 40 207 N. Euclid Av. 104856509 Vacant Commercial
Building
1910 OL/5S1/5D3
41 106 W. B St.
203 N. Euclid Av
104856510 Furniture
Dreams (Residential on
second floor)
1908 OL/5S1/5D3
42 236 N. Laurel Av. 104856501 Paved Parking
43 N/A 104856513,
104856514
Paved Parking
44 126 W. B St. 104856512 Beautiful Smiles Ontario c. 1930 E/5S3/5D1 45 108 W. C St.
115 W St.
104856502 Bank Building (Vacant) 1936 E-T3/5S3
46 120 W. B St.
112 W. B St.
104856511 Nightmare on B Street/
Dance Studio/ Odd
fellows - Eligible
(Aria Kabob, Electric
Beauty Salon - Historic LL)
1922 OL/5S1/5D3
47 223, 225, 229, 235
N. Laurel Ave.
104856202 Centro Legal De
Accidentes & Cedar
Pointe Chiropractic
1947 E/5D1
48 206,208,210,
214,216,218, 220 W.
B St./ 205,
207,209,211,213,21
5 N Laurel Ave
104856203 Multiple shops including
barber, Fitness, beauty,
1947 E/5S3
49 222 W. B St. 104856207 Ministerio Pan de Vida
(Religious Institution)
1945 R/6XM
50 212, 214, 216, 218
N. Palm Av.
104856206 Small shops (Tax services
and fitness)
1957 S
51 215 W. C St. 104856201 Great Commission Church
International (Christian
Church)
1948
(additions
1955,1959,196
6)
E/5S3
581
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 38 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
Map
ID- See
Figure 4
Associated
Address Parcel Number Current Use/
Description Year Built
Historic
Status Code
(Local/CA)
52 137, 139, 143, 141
N. Euclid Ave. and
105 W. B St.
104856403 Gemmel Pharmacy 1889 N/5S3/5D1
53 129 and133 N.
Euclid Ave.
104856404 DolEx Financial Services c. 1907 E/5S3
54 125 N. Euclid Ave. 104856405 Bravo's Store 1910 E/5S3 55 121 and 123 N.
Euclid Ave.
104856406 Demolished- vacant 1894 OL/Demolishe
d in 2001
56 105, 109, 111, 115,
117 N.
Euclid Av.
104856407 Verizon, Bally Spa, Night
club, Motorcycle run
1889 OL/5S1/5D3
57 104,108, 110 & 112
W. Holt Blvd.
104856410 Botanica, Sabor
Honduren, Beauty and
Barber
1895 OL-T2/5S1/5D3
58 105 N. Euclid Ave. 104856408 Xolos Birria 1888 OL/5S1/5D3 59 101 N. Euclid Ave. 104856409 T Mobile 1895 OL-T2/5S1/5D3 60 121, 123, 125,127
W. B St
104856401 B St. Professional Bldg.;
Document Preparation
Services Inc., Logan’s
Candies, Isaprint,
c. 1930 E/5D1
61 N/A 104856414 Paved Parking
62 115 W. B St.
117 & 119 W. B St.
104856402 Income Tax office and
residential upper floor
1922 OL/5S3/5D1
63 114, 116, 118 W.
Holt Blvd
104856411 Pirate staffing, Ontario
Boxing Club
c. 1915 E-T3/ 5D1
64 108 N. Laurel Ave./
120, 122, 124, 126
W. Holt Blvd.
104856412 and
1048564 13
Jobs, Insurance,
Pawnshop, paved
parking
C
1910 (additio
n c. 1950)
E-T3/ 5D1
65 203 W. B St./ 123,
127, 129 N. Laurel
Ave
104856313 Body X Beauty, Pet
grooming, Spa, Karate
1922 (retail
commercial
addition c.
1940)
E/5S3
582
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 39 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
Map
ID- See
Figure 4
Associated
Address Parcel Number Current Use/
Description Year Built
Historic
Status Code
(Local/CA)
66 207 W. B St. 104856312 Iglesia Fuente and paved
parking
1949 E/5S3
67 211, 213, 215, 217
W. B St.
104856303 Majestic Trophy, Boxing
Club, Mary Kay, office
1953 E/5S3
68 N/A 104856302 Paved Parking
69 225-227-229 W. B
St.
and 128 -130 N
Palm Ave.
104856301 Evc Insurance & Services
and the Vault Barbershop
and Home
c. 1915
(commercial
additions c.
1950)
E/5S3
70 120 N. Palm Ave. 104856311 House c. 1915 E/5S3
71 220 W. Holt Blvd. 104856310 and
104856309
Fiesta Motors (Parking Lot) Rem/6W
72 210, 212, 214, 216,
218 W. Holt Blvd.
104856308 Eagles Aere and Sams
Liquor
1920 E-T3/ 5D1
73 202 W. Holt Blvd. 1048563
07 Flores Barber Shop,
Singular Insurance Services
2004
74 N/A 104856306
Paved Parking
75 315 W. D St. 104857601 Paved Parking
76 325 N. Palm Ave 104857602 Paved Parking
Local Key: NS - Not Surveyed, E - Eligible, N- Nominated, OL- Ontario Landmark, T1 - Tier 1, T2 - Tier 2, T3 - Tier 3, REM - removed from inventory, S- Surveyed. CA status codes are available at ohp.parks.ca 583
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 40 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
Mitigation Measure s:
MM-CUL-1. Issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness pursuant to City’s Development Code (Chapter 4, Permits, Actions, and Decisions) is required for all exterior alterations to existing buildings, and new construction on vacant or redeveloped sites that are locat ed within the PUD boundary area prior to plan or development project approval.
MM-CUL-2. Historic or potentially historic resources located within the PUD boundary shall be evaluated for historic significance through the City’s tier system prior to the issuance of plan or development approvals.
MM-CUL-3.
A. Partial Demolition of Tier I , II, or III Historic Resources that do not result in loss of character defining features or cause adverse impacts to the integrity of the historic resource shall be documented pursuant to the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) standards to include photographs and cataloging of the exterior and interior of the resource prior to issuance of a building permit.
B. As established in the TOP SEIR 2050, m itigation measures for demolition (full or in part) of Tier III Historic Resources shall include the following:
1) Each historic resource shall be fully documented and cataloged pursuant to Historic American Building Survey/Historic American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER) standards, to provide a record of the resource, including, but not limited to: [i] the preparation of site plans, floor plans, exterior and interior elevations, and detail drawings of character defining features (such as moldings, stairs, etc.); and [ii] photographs of the resource, including the exterior, interior, and interior and exterior character defining features (such as moldings, light fixtures, trim patterns, etc.).
2) A mitigation fee established pursuant to Section 7.01.030 (Historic Preservation Mitigation Fee) shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for Tier III historic resources. 3) A Certificate of Appropriateness shall not be issued for the demolition of an historic resource, either in whole or in part, until such time that a demolition permit application and a replacement structure has been approved by the City, and appropriate per mits have been issued for its construction, a deferral of the replacement structure requirement is granted pursuant to Subsection G (Replacement Structure Deferral) of Section 4.02.050; or [iii] demolition is required pursuant to Section 7.01.050 (Unsaf e or Dangerous Conditions) of this Development Code.
4) In an effort to preserve features and artifacts from historic resources, a determination whether items within or on the resource should be salvaged must be made by the Planning Department and may include the local historical society prior to the issuance o f the demolition permit. The 584
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 41 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
applicant shall be responsible for the removal, relocation, storage, and donation of such items selected for salvaging. The applicant shall provide an inventory of salvaged items to the Planning Department, and shall include a list of each item name, descr iption, and dimension (as necessary), and the location of each item on a floor plan.
C. Full Demolition or partial demolition which results in loss or adverse impacts to character defining features of a Tier I or Tier II Historic Resource shall require preparation of and EIR or Focus EIR.
Implementation of MM-CUL1, MM -CUL-2, and MM -CUL-3 would reduce potentially significant impacts to cultural resources (historic era-built environment) to a less-than-significant level. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less-than-Significant. The PUD project area consists of developed land with few vacant parcels.
Implementation of the Downtown West PUD could allow development, including grading, that requires more intensive soil exaction than in the past , which could cause the disturbance of archeological resources. However, the potential to encounter subsurface intact deposits within native soils to the depths of proposed ground disturbance within the PUD project area is considered low . In an abundance of caution, Standard Conditions of Approval (City Council Resolution No. 2010 -021) are required for development plan approval , which would address unanticipated archaeological resource discovery during construction by enacting the following (City of Ontario 2010):
If any archeological or paleontological resources are found during project grading/excavation/construction, the area shall not be disturbed until the significance of the resource is determined. If determined to be significant, the resource shall be recover ed by a qualified archeologist or paleontologist consistent with current standards and guidelines, or other appropriate measures implemented.
c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Less-than-Significant Impact. There are known Native American gravesites and cemeteries in the City, including Bellevue Memorial Park on the north side of G Street, between Benson Avenue and Mountain Avenue (City of Ontario 2022 a). These sites are not located in the PUD project area; therefore, there are no known human remains located in the PUD project area. Should human remains be unexpectedly encountered during ground -disturbing activities, they shall be treated consistent with applicable law including, without limitation, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, PRC Section 5097.98, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). In accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, if human remains are found, the county coroner shall be immediately notified of the discovery. No further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains can occur until the county coroner has determined the appropriate treatment and disposition of the human remains. If the c ounty coroner determines that the remains are, or are believed to be, 585
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 42 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
Native American, the county coroner shall follow all required protocols according to PRC Section 5097.98. Compliance with these regulations would ensure that impacts to human remains resulting from the Downtown West PUD would be less than significant.
Energy
This section is based on technical analysis conducted by Dudek and attached to this MND as Appendix A. See Appendix A for complete results.
a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less-than-Significant Impact. The electricity and natural gas used for construction of the proposed Downtown West PUD would be temporary, would be substantially less than that required for project operation, and would have a negligible contribution to the project’s overall energy consumption. Although the Downtown West PUD would see an increase in petroleum use during construction and operation, vehicles would use less petroleum due to advances in fuel economy and potential reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) over time.
Natural gas and electricity usage would increase due to the implementation of the Downtown West PUD; however, the Downtown West PUD would be subject to the State Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Therefore, impacts to energy resources during operation would be less than significant.
Over the lifetime of the Downtown West PUD, the fuel efficiency of the vehicles being used by the residents and employees of the Downtown West PUD is expected to increase. As such, gasoline consumption would initially increase due to the implementation of the Downtown West PUD; however, the amount of gasoline consumed as a result of vehicular trips to and from the PUD project area during operation would decrease over time. There are numerous regulations in place that require and encourage increased fuel eff iciency. For example, CARB has adopted a new approach to passenger vehicles by combining the control of smog -causing pollutants and greenhouse gas ( GHG) emissions into a single coordinated package of standards. The new approach also includes efforts to support and accelerate the number of plug-in hybrids and zero- emission vehicles in California (CARB 2017). Additionally, in response to Senate Bill (SB) 375, CARB has adopted the goal of reducing per-capita GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 8% by the year 2020 and 13% by the year 2035 for light -duty passenger vehicles in the SCAG planning area. This reduction would occur by reducing VMT through the integration of land use planning and transportation. As such, operation of the Downtown West PUD is expected to use decreasing amounts of petroleum over time, due to advances in fuel economy.
The Downtown West PUD would create additional electricity and natural gas demand by adding 581 dwelling units, 37,886 square feet of commercial space, and 1,220 provisional parking spaces.
New facilities associated with the proposed Downtown West PUD would be subject to the State Building Energy Efficiency Standards, embodied in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. The efficiency standards apply to new construction of non -residential buildings and regulate energy consumed for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting. The Downtown West PUD will meet applicable Title 24 requirements. Other renewable energy systems including wind turbine generation, geothermal generation, energy storage , and other renewable energy generation features are not considered technically or economically feasible and/or demonstrated for a similar 586
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 43 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
project. Additionally, site constraints include limited land availability and incompatibility with land use for large scale power generation facilities, as well as unknown interconnection feasibility and compatibility with utility provider systems. For these reasons, other on-site renewable energy systems are not considered feasible for the proposed Downtown West PUD.
In summary, implementation of the Downtown West PUD would increase the demand for electricity and natural gas at the PUD project area and petroleum consumption in the region during construction and decrease petroleum consumption during operation. As the Downtown West PUD would be consistent with current regulations and policies, the Downtown West PUD would not be wasteful or inefficient and would not result in unnecessary energy resource consumption. The project’s energy consumption demands during construction and operation would conform to the state’s Title 24 standards such that the Downtown West PUD would not be expected to wastefully use gas and electricity. Since the proposed Downtown West PUD would comply with Title 24 conservation standards, the proposed Downtown West PUD would not directly require the construction of new energy generation or supply facilities or result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Moreover, vehicle usage associated with the Downtown West PUD would use less petroleum due to advances in fuel economy and potential reduction in VMT over time. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The Downtown West PUD would be subject to and would comply with, at a minimum, the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (24 CCR Part 6). Part 6 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and all applicable rules and regulations would reduce energy demand and increase energy efficiency related to future residential development facilitated by the Downtown West PUD . Part 6 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations establishes energy efficiency standards for residential and non-residential buildings constructed in California to reduce energy demand and consumption. Part 6 is updated periodically (every 3 years) to incorporate and consider new energy efficiency technologies and methodologies.
Title 24 also includes Part 11, the California Green Building Standards, also known as CALGreen, which sets forth voluntary and mandatory energy measures that are applicable to the Downtown West PUD under. CALGreen institutes mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground- up, new construction of commercial, low-rise residential, high-rise residential, state-owned buildings, schools, and hospitals, as well as certain residential and non-residential additions and alterations. On this basis, the Downtown West PUD would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Various existing local plans would reduce energy use including SCAG’s 2024–2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy and CARB’s Scoping Plan. Furthermore, approval of the Downtown West PUD itself, as a policy document update, would not change these regulations and would not provide any goals, policies, or programs that would conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
587
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 44 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
Geology and Soils
a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
and
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The City is not within any Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The southern section of the San Andreas Fault, located approximately 14 to 22 miles from the City, is estimated to be capable of generating the greatest magnitude earthquake (City of Ontario 2022a). However, development facilitated by the Downtown West PUD would be required to comply with seismic safety provisions of the California Building Code ( CBC) (Title 24, Part 2 of the California Code of Regulations). Compliance with the CBC would reduce hazards from seismic ground shaking to less than significant.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less-than-Significant Impact. Groundwater levels throughout the City are greater than 50 feet below ground surface ( City of Ontario 2022 a). Additionally, development facilitated by the Downtown West PUD would be required to meet the most current seismic safety requirements in the CBC. Therefore, the Downtown West PUD would have a less -than-significant impact on seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. iv) Landslides?
No Impact. Landslides typically occur on moderate to steep slopes that are affected by physical factors such as slope height, slope steepness, shear strength, and orientation of weak layers in the underlying geologic units. The PUD project area and surroundings area are generally flat with soils stabilized by development and landscaping. The Downtown West PUD would not result in the creation of moderate to steep slopes that may become susceptible to landslides. As such, no impact would occur.
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less-than-Significant Impact. The PUD project area is mostly developed and paved and is generally on level ground. Proposed development would result in ground surface disruption during grading and excavation, which could result in erosion, siltation, or flooding impacts. Construction activities on the PUD project area larger than 1 acre are required to prepare a stormwater pollution prevention plan that details best management practices (BMPs) to reduce the potential for erosion during construction activities. In addition, compliance with the safety provisions of the CBC would reduce the potential for erosion or loss of topsoil to a level of less than significant. 588
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 45 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less-than-Significant Impact. Unstable geologic units or soils are characterized by materials lacking in sufficient integrity to support urban development (e.g., poorly consolidated fill). The PUD project area, along with majority of the City, is located in a subsidence zone due to groundwater pumping (City of Ontario 2023a). However, the PUD project area consists of existing development, which indicates that geologic conditions in the area can support the proposed development.
Individual projects facilitated by the Downtown West PUD would be required to comply with the CBC and grading plans would be reviewed by the City engineer; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less-than-Significant Impact. The PUD project area is located in the northern portion of the City, which consists of primarily silty sand, sand, and gravel; such sediments are usually non -expansive or have very low expansion potential (City of Ontario 2022 a). Compliance with the CBC and review of grading plans for individual projects by the City engineer would ensure that impacts would be less than significant.
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
Less-than-Significant Impact. Wastewater from the City is treated at wastewater treatment facilities owned and operated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency ( IEUA) (City of Ontario 2022a), and any new development would connect to the existing wastewater treatment facilities. The Downtown West PUD does not include the use of septic tanks. Therefore, no impact to soils relative to supporting use of septic tanks would occur. f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The possibility of finding paleontological resources in the City is moderate to high at depths of 10 feet or more below ground surface (City of Ontario 2022 a).
However, the PUD project area is mostly developed and paved. Proposed development would be infill development on sites that have been previously disturbed. Development would not involve ground disturbing activities at depths of 10 feet or more ; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
This section is based on technical analysis conducted by Dudek and attached to this MND as Appendix A. See Appendix A for complete results.
589
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 46 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
a) Would the project g enerate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The City adopted their Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP) on August 16, 2022. The 2022 CCAP is an update to the City’s 2014 CCAP and accounts for SB 32, which provides statewide targets to reduce GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 (City of Ontario 2022d, 2023e). The 2022 CCAP is consistent with TOP 2050 and with the CEQA Guidelines for Plans for the Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (California Code of Regulations Section 15183.5). Because the 2022 CCAP addresses GHG emissions reductions and is consistent with t he requirements of AB 32, SB 32, and international efforts to reduce GHG emissions, projects that comply with the CCAP Update would have a less -than-significant GHG impact. This allows the 2022 CCAP to support and streamline environmental review of GHG emissions for future development projects in the City.
The 2022 CCAP outlines two pathways to compliance at the project development level. The first pathway consists of screening tables, which aim to provide guidance in measuring the reduction of GHG emissions attributable to certain design and construction measures incorporated into development projects. The second pathway consists of efficiency metric thresholds.
This analysis applies the GHG efficiency metric threshold of 1.53 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)/dwelling unit for residential development completed after 2030, and 3.61 MT CO2e/2,500 square feet of conditioned space developed after 2030 to the Downtown West PUD (City of Ontario 2022 d). These metrics can be used in lieu of the CCAP’s screening tables, which require project -level specific information that is not currently available for the proposed Downtown West PUD. These GHG efficienc y metrics are appropriate in that they would achieve per capita emissions for the City that align with the state’s reduction goals of 40 % below 1990 levels of emissions by 2030 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Because the Downtown West PUD includes both residential and nonresidential space, the residential and nonresidential components were assessed separately against their respective applicable thresholds.
Construction Emissions
Construction of future development that would be facilitated by the Downtown West PUD would result in GHG emissions, which are primarily associated with use of off-road construction equipment, on-road haul trucks, on-road vendor trucks, and worker vehicles. The SCAQMD has not proposed or adopted relevant quantitative GHG thresholds for construction-generated emissions.
Table 6 presents the estimated GHG emissions generated during construction of the 5% development scenario. Details of the emission calculations are provided in Appendix A.
590
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 47 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
Table 6. Estimated Annual Construction GHG Emissions
Year
CO 2 CH 4 N2O CO 2e
Metric Tons
2025 (one full year) 0.02 0.02 0.16 344.67
Total over 20 years1 0.38 0.35 3.22 6,893.40
Total Amortized Emissions 229.78
Residential Amortized Emissions2 217.47
Commercial Amortized Emissions3 12.31
Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent.
See Appendix A for complete results.
Amortized construction GHG emissions represent total construction GHG emissions (in MT of CO 2e) divided 30 years, which is the assumed project operational lifetime consistent with SCAQMD guidance (SCAQMD 2008). 1 Totals may not add due to rounding.
2 The construction emissions associated with the residential land uses was calculated by multiplying total amortized emissions (229.78) by 95%, which represents the residential square footage divided by the proposed project’s total square footage, to get 217.47.
3 The construction emissions associated with the commercial land use was calculated by multiplying total amortized emissions (229.78) by 5%, which represents the commercial square footage divided by the proposed project’s total square footage, to get 12.31.
As shown in Table 6, the estimated total GHG emissions during construction of future projects that would be facilitated by the Downtown West PUD would be approximately 6,893 MT CO 2e over the 20-year construction period. Estimated project-generated construction emissions amortized over 30 years would be approximately 230 MT CO2e per year.
Because the residential and commercial uses of the Downtown West PUD were evaluated separately to determine their respective GHG efficiency metrics, the amortized construction emissions were split between residential and commercial based on square footage of the proposed Downtown West PUD. The 581 residential dwelling units make up 669,342 square feet of the proposed Downtown West PUD , which is 95% of the total proposed Downtown West PUD ’s square footage. The commercial square footage totals 37,886 square feet, which makes up 5% of the total proposed project’s square footag e. Therefore, 95% of the total amortized construction emissions is 217.47 MT CO2e, which was added to the residential operational GHG emissions. The remaining 5% or 12.31 MT CO2e was added to the commercial operational GHG emissions.
Operational Emissions
Operation of the future development that would be facilitated by the Downtown West PUD would generate GHG emissions through motor vehicle trips; landscape equipment operation and hearths (area sources); energy use (natural gas and electricity); solid waste disposal; water supply, treatment, and distribution; and refrigerants. As with the air quality analysis, mobile source GHG emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model ( CalEEMod) based on EMFAC 2021 emission factors. Emissions f rom each category are discussed in the following text with respect to the Downtown West PUD . CalEEMod was used to calculate the annual GHG emissions. Operational year 2045 was assumed to be the first full year of operation following completion of construction.
The operational emissions associated with the commercial portion of the Downtown West PUD were evaluated separately against their respective efficiency threshold. The estimated 591
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 48 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
operational commercial project-generated GHG emissions from area sources, energy usage, motor vehicles, solid waste generation, water usage and wastewater generation, and refrigerants are shown in Table 7.
Table 7. Project GHG Efficiency - Commercial
Emission Source
CO 2 CH 4 N2O CO 2e
Metric Tons per Year 1
Area 0.77 <0.01 <0.01 0.77
Energy 55.45 0.01 <0.01 55.82
Mobile 1,960.07 0.063 0.09 1,988.21
Waste 3.55 0.35 0 12.42
Water 3.15 0.09 <0.01 6.10
Refrigerants 0 0 0 0.04
Total 2,022.99 0.52 0.09 2,063.36
Amortized construction emissions (Table 6) 12.31
Total operational + amortized construction emissions 2,075.67 Existing Emissions2 2,021.06
Total Net Emissions3 54.61
Project Efficiency (MT CO2e/2,500 SF)4 3.60
Ontario CAP Post-2030 Commercial Efficiency Threshold 3.61 Threshold Exceeded? No
Notes: GHG = greenhouse gas; CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; CO 2e = carbon dioxide equivalent; SF = square feet; <0.01 = less than 0.01.
See Appendix A for complete results.
1 The Downtown West PUD emissions reflect operational year 2045. 2 CalEEMod was used to calculate the GHG emissions associated with existing residential and commercial space to be redeveloped as a result of this project . The existing scenario to be redeveloped includes 5 dwelling units and 56,171 square feet of commercial building space.
3 Net emissions were calculated by subtracting the existing emissions from the total operational and amortized emissions associated with the project.
4 Project efficiency is calculated by dividing the net emissions (54.61 MT CO 2e) by 2,500 SF and multiplying by the proposed project’s commercial square footage (37,886 SF) to get 3.60 MT CO2e/2,500 SF.
As shown in Table 7, estimated annual GHG emissions generated by future commercial development that would be facilitated by the Downtown West PUD would be approximately 2,063 MT CO 2e per year as a result of Downtown West PUD operation. Estimated annual project- generated operational emissions in 2045 and amortized Downtown West PUD construction emissions would be approximately 2,076 MT CO2e per year. The estimated annual net operational emissions after removal of existing operational emissions would be approximately 54.61 MT CO2e per year. As explained previously, the efficiency metric threshold used is 3.61 MT CO 2e/2,500 square feet per year. The proposed Downtown West PUD is anticipated to facilitate a maximum of 37,886 square feet of commercial building space by 2045. Accordingly, the proposed Downtown West PUD would result in an efficiency of 3.60 MT CO 2e/2,500 square feet per year, which would not exceed the applied efficiency metric threshold of 3.61 MT CO2e/2,500 square feet per year.
The operational emissions associated with the residential portion of the Downtown West PUD were evaluated separately against their respective efficiency metric threshold. The estimated operational project-generated GHG emissions from area sources, energy usage, motor vehicles, 592
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 49 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
solid waste generation, water usage and wastewater generation, and refrigerants are shown in Table 8.
Table 8. Project GHG Efficiency - Residential
Emission Source
CO 2 CH 4 N2O CO 2e
Metric Tons per Year 1
Area 144.74 <0.01 <0.01 144.94
Energy 901.06 0.10 0.01 906.07
Mobile 1,666.18 0.05 0.08 1,690.41
Waste 38.33 3.83 0 134.11
Water 27.18 0.79 0.02 52.61
Refrigerants 0 0 0 0.77
Total 2,777.50 4.78 0.10 2,928.91
Amortized construction emissions (Table 6) 217.47
Total operational + amortized construction emissions 3,146.38 Existing Emissions2 1,946.38
Total net emissions3 1,200.00
Project Efficiency (MT CO2e/du)4 2.07
Ontario CAP Post-2030 Residential Efficiency Threshold 1.53 Threshold Exceeded? Yes
Notes: GHG = greenhouse gas; CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; CO 2e = carbon dioxide equivalent; du = dwelling unit; <0.01 = less than 0.01.
See Appendix A for complete results.
1 The Downtown West PUD emissions reflect operational year 2045. 2 CalEEMod was used to calculate the GHG emissions associated with existing residential and commercial space to be redeveloped as a result of this project . The existing scenario is 5 dwelling units and 56,171 square feet of commercial building space.
3 Net emissions were calculated by subtracting the existing emissions from the total operational and amortized emissions associated with the project.
4 Project efficiency is calculated by dividing the total operational and amortized construction emissions (3,146.38 MT CO2e) by the Downtown West PUD’s number of dwelling units (581) to get 2.07 MT CO2e/du.
As shown in Table 8, estimated annual GHG emissions generated by future residential development that would be facilitated by the Downtown West PUD would be approximately 2,929 MT CO 2e per year as a result of Downtown West PUD operation. Estimated annual project- generated operational emissions in 2045 and amortized Downtown West PUD construction emissions would be approximately 3,146 MT CO2e per year. The estimated annual net operational emissions after removal of existing operational emissions would be appr oximately 1,200 MT CO2e per year. As explained previously, the efficiency metric threshold used is 1.53 MT CO2e/dwelling unit per year. The proposed Downtown West PUD is anticipated to facilitate a maximum of 581 dwelling units by 2045. Accordingly, the proposed Downtown West PUD would result in an efficiency of 2.07 MT CO2e/ dwelling unit per year, which would exceed the applied efficiency metric threshold of 1.53 MT CO2e/du/year. Therefore, GHG emissions generated by the Downtown West PUD would have a potentially significant impact ; however, future project development proposals under the scope of the Downtown West PUD shall implement screening table measures that achieve the requisite points per the City’s CCAP screening tables. With implementation of the screening tables measures, impacts would be less than significant. 593
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 50 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
b) Would the project g enerate conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less-than-Significant Impact. A project’s consistency with the CCAP is projected to result in emissions that would meet the GHG reduction target established under SB 32 and Executive Order S-03-05 and progress towards the state’s carbon neutrality goal. The Downtown West PUD would be consistent with the CCAP and would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy , or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less-than-Significant Impact. Development facilitated by the Downtown West PUD would increase commercial and residential uses in the City, therefore increasing the amount of hazardous materials being transported, used, or disposed of in the City. These materials would be transported and handled in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws regulating the management and use of hazardous materials. Consequently, use of these materials for their intended purpose would not pose a significant risk to the public or environment. With adherence to state and local regulations, impacts associated with routine t ransport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant.
b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less-than-Significant Impact. Construction and operation under the Downtown West PUD would involve relatively small amounts of commonly used hazardous substances such as gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating oil, grease, adhesive materials, and solvents. These materials are not considered acutely hazardous and are used routinely throughout ur ban environments for both construction and operation of typical projects. Further, these materials would be transported, handled, and disposed in accordance with all feder al, state, and local laws regulating the management and use of hazardous materials. Impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less-than-Significant Impact. The closest school to the PUD project area is St. George School, located approximately 0.02 miles northwest of the PUD project area. As described above, construction and operation under the proposed Downtown West PUD would involve use, storage, and disposal of small amounts of hazardous materials on the PUD. These materials would be transported and handled in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws regulating the management and use of hazardous materials. Consequently, use of these materials for their intended purpose would not pose a significant risk to the public or environment. With adherence to state and local regulations, impacts associated with routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant.
594
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 51 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
d) Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control’s EnviroStor database tracks cleanup, permitting, enforcement, and investigation efforts at hazardous waste facilities and sites with known contamination. According to the database search, no cleanup sites are located in the PUD project area. Three evaluation cleanup sites that have been referred to a local agency are located approximately 0.05 miles south of the PUD project area (DTSC 2023).
The State Water Resources Control Board’s GeoTracker database identifies leaking underground storage tanks, waste discharge sites, oil and gas sites, and other waste or cleanup sites. A review of GeoTracker identified one closed leaking underground storage tank cleanup site within the PUD project area (GTE Ontario ID No. T0607100264). This site was closed in 1993.
Two more closed leaking underground storage tank cleanup sites were identified surrounding the PUD project area including Imperial Thrift and Loan Prop. (ID No. T0607100428), located approximately 0.5 miles west of the PUD project area, and TOSCO/76 Station #5606 (ID No.
T0607100482), located approximately 0.5 miles northeast of the PUD project area (SWRCB 2023).
The PUD project area is not located on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and the nearby sit es are closed cases ; therefore, no impact would occur.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? Less-than-Significant Impact. The PUD project area is located approximately 1.5 miles northwest of the Ontario International Airport. The PUD project area is not within an airport safety zone and is located in the 60-65 decibel community noise equivalent level noise contour zone, as depicted in the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The PUD project area is within the Airspace Avigation Easement Area and the allowable height for the PUD project area is 70 feet to 100 feet, as shown in the Airspace Protection Zones Map in the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Ontario Airport Planning 2018) . The highest height proposed for development under the Downtown West PUD is 65 feet. The proposed development would be similar to the existing uses of the PUD project area and would not introduce new hazards to aircraft operations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The City has prepared the 2018 Hazard Mitigation Plan with the intent of reducing and/or eliminating loss of life and property from natural hazards. Policy S2-3 in the plan requires compliance with state and federal law and does not permit facilities using, storing, or otherwise involved with substantial quantities of on -site hazardous materials to be located in the 100-year flood zone unless all standards of elevation, flood proofing , and storage have been implemented to the s atisfaction of the Building Department (City of Ontario 2018). Additionally, the City provides disaster preparedness and outlines hazard specific preparation through the 595
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 52 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
ReadyOntario website (City of Ontario 2023c). The closest fire station is located approximately 0.3 miles to the east of the PUD project area; therefore, the PUD project area would be served by the nearby station. With compliance with the building standards outlined in the Hazard Mitigation Plan and Municipal Code, impacts would be less than significant. g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The PUD project area is not located in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone, as shown in TOP 2050 Figure S-05, Fire Hazard Severity Zones ( City of Ontario 2023a). In the event of an emergency, fire response services for the PUD project area are provided by the Ontario Fire Department. Proposed development would be constructed in conformance with Title 24, which includes building requirements that prevent and protect against fire ignition and the spread of potential wildland fires. Therefore, impacts to people or structures, either directly or indirectly, from a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires would be less than significant.
Hydrology and Water Quality
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Less-than-Significant Impact. Construction facilitated by the Downtown West PUD would involve ground-disturbing activities for grading that could result in sediment discharge in stormwater runoff. Additionally, construction would involve the use of oil, lubricants, and other chemicals that could be discharged from leaks or accidental spills. These potenti al sediment and chemical discharges during construction would have the potential to impact water quality in receiving water bodies. However, any construction activities disturbing 1 or more acres of land, or less than 1 acre of land if part of a larger development, must comply with the State Water Resources Control Board Construction General Permit , which requires development of a stormwater pollution prevention plan to protect water quality . This requires implementation of construction BMPs such as silt fences, inlet protection, and site stabilization techniques to ensure that stormwater runoff from the construction work areas does not cause degradation of water quality in receiving water bodies. Through the incorporation of BMPs through implementation of stormwater pollution prevention plan requirements, impacts associated with water quality standards during construction would be less than significant.
b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The PUD project area is located within the Chino Creek Watershed.
The Chino Basin Watermaster has determined the safe yield for the basin and has assigned individual pumping allocations to each water purveyor to ensure that the total groundwater production does not exceed the safe yield (City of Ontario 2022 a). Nearly all of the PUD project area is developed with urban uses and not available for groundwater recharge. Therefore, substantial decrease in impermeable surfaces in the City would not result from development of the Downtown West PUD . The Downtown West PUD would not result in substantial impacts that would impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin compared to what is existing. 596
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 53 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
The Chino Groundwater Basin is adjudicated and is considered by the Department of Water Resources to be a very low priority groundwater basin (DWR 2023). Each water purveyor has an allotted amount of water that can be pumped from the basin so that the safe yield is not exceeded; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site; ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site;
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The Downtown West PUD would not result in a substantial change in impervious surfaces within the PUD project area. The majority of the PUD project area is currently developed with mixed uses and residential. Development facilitated by the Downtown West PUD would feature drainage facilities that connect to existing drainage infrastructure . Therefore, implementation of the Downtown West PUD would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a way that would cause substantial erosions, flooding, polluted runoff, or changes to flood flows. Impacts would be less than significant. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The City is located outside a tsunami hazard zone (DOC 2023b). As shown in Figure S-03, Flood Hazard Zones, of TOP 20250 the PUD project area is located outside of a Federal Emergency Management Agency Floodplain Zone . Figure S -04 shows that the PUD project area, and the majority of the City , is in a zone of potential inundation from San Antonio Dam (City of Ontario 2023a), which is located approximately 6.3 miles from the PUD project area.
The PUD project area is currently mostly developed and urban; new improvements and development facilitated by the Downtown West PUD would be similar in use to what exists and would not significantly increase the risk of pollutants due to inundation beyond what currently exists in the City. Impacts would be less than significant. e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
No Impact. The City’s groundwater supplies are from the Chino Groundwater Basin, which is managed by the Chino Basin Watermaster. The Chino Basin is exempt from legislative requirements under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act and is not required to prepare a groundwater sustainability plan ( City of Ontario 2022 a). The Downtown West PUD contains guidelines for development and private investments, public realm improvements, and activations and art. The Downtown West PUD would not involve groundwater extraction or affect 597
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 54 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
recharge in a way that would produce any effect on the local groundwater supply or groundwater table. Operations of the proposed Downtown West PUD would be similar to existing operations on the PUD project area and would not violate any water quality standards or water discharge requirements. Therefore, the Downtown West PUD would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
No impacts would occur.
Land Use and Planning
a) Would the project physically divide an established community? Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed Downtown West PUD would contain guidelines for development and private investments, public realm improvements, activations , and art. The PUD project area is currently developed with a mix of commercial uses, vacant land, and residential units.. All other development or improvements facilitated by the Downtown West PUD would not change the land use or zoning of the PUD project area. The PUD project area is zoned as Downtown – MU and HDR; therefore, revitalizing the downtown area and adding residential units would be consistent with the site’s intended uses. The Downtown West PUD would not result in a removal of an existing means of access, such as a road or bridge, that would impede mobility with an existing community and other areas. The Downtown West PUD includes improvements such as a potential paseo connection and all ey improvements that would increase connectivity in the downtown area. The proposed Downtown West PUD would not physically divide an established community, and impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
No Impact. The PUD project area is designated in the General Plan as MU Downtown and is zoned as MU-1 and HDR-45. All other blocks would be within the allowed proposed density in TOP 2050.
Table 9 shows the existing land use designation of each site, the allowed densities, and required parking per housing unit.
Table 9. Downtown West PUD TOP 2050 Consistency
Block
TOP 2050 Land
Use
Designation
Proposed Land
Use
Designation
TOP 2050
Allowed
Density for
Proposed Land
Use
Designation
Proposed
Density
(du/acre)
Parking
Required
for Housing
Units
Total
Parking
provided
A Mixed Use Mixed Use 25.0 to 75.0 n/a n/a n/a
B Mixed Use Mixed Use 25.0 to 75.0 75 30 32
C Mixed Use Mixed Use 25.0 to 75.0 75 132 219
D Mixed Use Mixed Use 25.0 to 75.0 39 58 58
E Mixed Use Mixed Use 25.0 to 75.0 75 78 78
F Mixed Use Mixed Use 25.0 to 75.0 60 190 460
G Mixed Use Mixed Use 25.0 to 75.0 75 80 80
H Mixed Use Mixed Use 25.0 to 75.0 30 78 78
598
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 55 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
Table 9. Downtown West PUD TOP 2050 Consistency
Block
TOP 2050 Land
Use
Designation
Proposed Land
Use
Designation
TOP 2050
Allowed
Density for
Proposed Land
Use
Designation
Proposed
Density
(du/acre)
Parking
Required
for Housing
Units
Total
Parking
provided
I Mixed Use High Density
Residential 25.1 to 45.0 30 70 70
Fronting
Euclid
Avenue
Mixed Use Mixed Use 25.0 to 75.0 75 max. 145 145
Total 861 1,220
Source: City of Ontario 2022a.
Note: n/a = not applicable.
As shown in Table 9 above, the Downtown West PUD would be consistent with the existing TOP 2050 Land Use Designations’ density and parking requirements. Implementation of the Downtown West PUD would not conflict with the applicable zoning and other regulations.
In addition, TOP 2050 includes future buildout of the City. Table 10 shows the applicable land use future build out assumptions.
Table 10. TOP 2050 Future Buildout Table
Land Use Acres Assumed Density/Intensity TOP 2050 Housing Units for Land Use
TOP 2050
Non -
Residential
Square Feet
for Land
Use
MU
Downtown 128
60% of the area at 35 du/acre, 40% of
the area at 0.80 FAR for office and
retail
2,678 1,777,586
Source: City of Ontario 2022c.
Note: du/acre = dwelling unit per acre; FAR = floor area ratio.
The PUD project area consists of approximately 21.58 acres of proposed MU Downtown. The development allowed under the Downtown West PUD would be within the allowed TOP 2050 buildout housing units and non-residential square feet for the proposed land uses. The Downtown West PUD, at maximum buildout, would result in a fraction of the allowable buildout throughout the City. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Mineral Resources
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
And
599
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 56 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact. According to Figure 5.12 -1, Areas of Mineral Resource Significance, in the TOP Supplemental EIR, the PUD project area is within Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) 2 and 3. MRZ -2 includes zones where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or there is a likelihood of their presence, and development should be controlled. MRZ -3 includes zones where t he significance of mineral deposits cannot be determined from the available data (City of Ontario 2022a). TOP 2050 Policy ER-5.5, Mining Operations, prohibits future mining operations where the resource extraction activities are incompatible with e xisting or proposed adjacent land uses . Areas identified with potential mineral resources have been developed with urban uses and are not suitable for mineral resource extraction (City of Ontario 2023a). The PUD project area is designated as mixed use and high density residential, which are uses that are incompatible with resources extraction activities ; therefore, there would be no impact to loss of available of known mineral resources or mineral resource recovery sites.
Noise
This section is based on technical analysis conducted by Dudek and attached to this MND as Appendix B, Noise Technical Memorandum. See Appendix B for complete results. a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Construction Noise
Less-than-Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The PUD project area is located within TOP 2050 Mixed Use-Downtown land use. As an implementation tool for TOP 2050 on a localized basis, the Downtown West PUD would facilitate development of a mix of uses and historic preservation; transformation of select existing buildings through adaptive reuse ; and design guidelines for new development, Euclid Avenue, alleys, managed infrastructure, and the public realm. The intensity of construction activities and the distance between future construction zones and existing noise -sensitive receivers (i.e., residences, nursing care facilities, hospitals, lodging facilities) under the Downtown West PUD would not be materially different from assumptions regarding construction of future development of the area under TOP 2050.
The TOP Supplemental EIR concluded that construction could generate noise levels in excess of 80 A-weighted decibels equivalent continuous noise level and generate noise disturbances for prolonged periods of time at noise -sensitive receptors. Safety Element Policy S -4.1, Noise Mitigation, would help minimize the construction noise impacts through enforcement of Municipal Code Chapter 29, Section 5 -29.09, which limits construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, or any other related building activity to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekends. The Downtown West PUD would not result in new or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts compared to TOP 2050.
Nevertheless, construction-related noise impacts from the Downtown West PUD would be potentially significant . Adherence to mitigation from the TOP S upplemental EIR would therefore 600
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 57 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
be required in order to avoid significant temporary construction noise impacts. The TOP Supplemental EIR mitigation measure regarding construction noise is presented below.
MM-NOI-1 Construction Noise Abatement
Construction activities associated with new development that occurs near sensitive receptors shall be evaluated for potential noise impacts. Construction contractors shall implement the following measures for construction activities in the City of Ontario. Construction plans submitted to the City shall identify these measures on demolition, grading, and construction plans. The City of Ontario Planning and Building Departments shall verify that grading, demolition, and/or construction plans submitted include these notations prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and/or building permits :
1. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 6:00 pm Monday through Friday and 9:00 am to 6:00 pm Saturdays and Sundays, as prescribed in Municipal Code Section 5-29.09.
2. During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the best-available noise control techniques wherever feasible (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment re-design, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds).
3. Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers and hoe rams) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible. Where the use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used along with external noise jacke ts on the tools.
4. Stationary equipment such as generators and air compressors shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive uses.
5. Stockpiling shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors.
6. Construction traffic shall be limited, to the extent feasible, to approved haul routes established by the City's Engineering Department.
7. At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, that includes permitted construction days and hours as well as the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint.
If the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, he/she shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City.
8. Signs shall be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the onsite construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment shall be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes.
9. During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noise - producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only. The construction manager shall use smart back -up alarms, w hich automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and laws.
601
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 58 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
10. Erect temporary noise barriers (at least as high as the exhaust of equipment and breaking line-of-sight between noise sources and sensitive receptors), as necessary and feasible, to maintain construction noise levels at or below the performance standard of 80 dBA Leq.
Barriers shall be constructed with a solid material that has a density of at least 1.5 pounds per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier and may be lined on the construction side with an acoustical blanket, curtain, or equivalent absorptive material (City of Ontario 2022a).
Operational Noise (Stationary)
Less-than-Significant Impact. New commercial, residential, and mixed -use development under the Downtown West PUD is not anticipated to result in greater density than envisioned under TOP 2050. As described in the Development Code Chapter 6 .0, new development may trend toward taller vertical structures than exist today, but with mechanical systems (principally for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) situated on the roof of such structures, new noise sources would generally be at a further distance to any neighboring noise-sensitive receivers, thus reducing noise at the ground level as compared to lower profile buildings with the same roof -mounted equipment. Adaptive re-use of existing structures would likely involve more modern and efficient mechanical systems, with the same or lower noise generation than equipment associated with the original occupancy of such structures. Impacts would be less than significant.
Traffic Noise
Less-than-Significant Impact. Under the Downtown West PUD, the placement of housing, jobs, and amenities in closer proximity to each other and design strategies focused on the pedestrian and a variety of multimodal options will make walking and other forms of active transportation a desirable alternative to driving. The PUD project area would be served by existing roadway, transit, and pedestrian facilities and proposes improvements along B Street, Euclid Avenue Streetscape, alley improvements, and a West Valley Connector Bus Rapid Transit Station. Such improvements would be expected to counter an increase in the number of single -occupancy vehicle trips that could otherwise be associated with introduction of new housing units and commercial space. As such, implementation of the Downtown West PUD would not be anticipated to generate a greater number of vehicle trips compare d to TOP 2050, and traffic noise level increases due to the Downtown West PUD would be less than significant.
b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Construction Vibration
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The TOP Supplemental EIR concluded that construction of future development allowed under TOP 2050 could generate vibration levels that exceed structural damage thresholds established by the Federal Transit Authority ( e.g., 0.12 inches per second [in/sec] peak particle velocity [PPV] for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for nonengineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). The Downtown West PUD would not result in new or a substantial increase in the magnitude of impacts compared to TOP 2050. Nevertheless, construction-related vibration impacts from the Downtown West PUD would be potentially signific ant. Adherence to mitigation 602
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 59 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
from the TOP Supplemental EIR would therefore be required in order to avoid significant temporary construction-related vibration impacts. The TOP Supplemental EIR mitigation measure regarding construction-related vibration is presented below.
MM-NOI-2 Construction Vibration Abatement
Prior to issuance of a building permit, individual projects that involve vibration intensive construction activities, such as pile drivers, jack hammers, and vibratory rollers near sensitive receptors shall be evaluated for potential vibration impacts. For construction within 135 feet of fragile structures, such as historical resources, within 100 feet of nonengineered timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most residential buildings), or within 75 feet of engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster); or a vibratory roller within 25 feet of any structure, the project applicant shall prepare a noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities. This noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer. The vibration levels shall not exceed Federal Transit Administration (FTA) architectural damage thresholds (e.g., 0.12 inches per second [in/sec] peak particle velocity [PPV] for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for nonengineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). If vibration levels would exceed this threshold, alternative uses shall be used, such as drilling piles as opposed to pile driving and static rollers as opposed to vibratory rollers. If necessary, construction vibration monitoring shall be conducted to ensure vibration thresholds are not exceeded.
Operational Vibration
Less Than Significant . Vibration generation associated with commercial facilities is typically only associated with very large/heavy equipment that includes a rotating component or impact function. Commercial operations envisioned within the PUD would be expected to generate limited levels of ground vibration, which are unlikely to be perceptible beyond the property line of the facility. Therefore, vibration from future commercial operations developed under the PUD would be less than significant.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less-than-Significant Impact. The PUD project area is located approximately 1.5 miles northwest of the Ontario International Airport. The PUD project area is located in the 60 –65 decibels community noise equivalent level noise contour zone, as depicted in the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (City of Ontario 2024). New residential or other noise-sensitive land uses constructed as part of the Downtown PUD would not be exposed to airport-related noise levels in excess of 65 A-weighted decibels community noise equivalent level . Impacts would be less than significant.
603
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 60 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
Population and Housing
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed Downtown West PUD would facilitate 581 residential units. As described above in Table 9, the Downtown West PUD would result in densities less than they allowable TOP 2050 densities. Therefore, the number of residences that would be developed within the PUD project area is consistent with planned growth in the General Plan Land Use Element, and unplanned growth would not occur.
In addition, the City’s Housing Element analyzes existing housing and housing needs within the City and prepares goals, policies, and programs to further the development, improvement, and preservation of housing. The Housing Element was adopted March 1, 2022, and revised August 2022. The PUD project area is located within the Downtown Plan in the Housing Element. The Downtown Plan’s vision is to facilitate new mixed-use and residential development, including 634 units in the Downtown Plan area (City of Ontario 2022b). The Downtown West PUD proposes 581 residential units; therefore, the Downtown West PUD would be consistent with the approved Housing Element. The growth facilitated by the Downtown West PUD is within the previously approved standards and would further define the design standards and guidelines for developers in efforts to revitalize Downtown Ontario.
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The PUD project area contains existing residential units; however, the majority of development would be located on existing commercial or vacant land. The Downtown West PUD would not d isplace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. At full buildout, the Downtown West PUD would facilitate the addition of 581 units; therefore, no replacement housing elsewhere would be needed and impacts would be less than significant.
Public Services
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental im pacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The City of Ontario Fire Department provides fire services throughout the City. The fire department operates out of 10 stations staffed by 186 sworn firefighters and 41 professional staff members serving the community across six bureaus — Operations/Airport Services, Fire Prevention, Support Services, EMS, Training and Professional 604
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 61 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
Services, and Administrative Services (City of Ontario 20 23d). The closest fire station is located approximately 0.3 miles east of the PUD project area.
The proposed Downtown West PUD would allow for 581 additional housing units and therefore would increase the demand for emergency fire services. However, i mplementation of the proposed Downtown West PUD would be required to adhere to the California Fire Code (CFC), as included in the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 4. Future development would be reviewed by the City and the City of Ontario Fire Department on an individual basis and would be required to comply with requirements at the time building permits are issued, including the payment of development impact fees that contribute to funding for additional staffing, facilities, and equipment. Provision of a new or physically altered fire station that could cause environmental impacts would not be required . Therefore, impacts related to fire protection services from the proposed Downtown West PUD would be less than significant. ii) Police protection?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The City of Ontario Police Department (OPD) provides police protection services to the City. The OPD has a standard of having approximately 225 police officers per 100,000 people. As of 2022, the OPD was allotted 300 police officers and met this standard (City of Ontario 2022 a). Buildout of the proposed Downtown West PUD would result in increased population and development and would result in an increased demand on police protection services. Future development facilitated by t he Downtown West PUD would also be subject to development impact fees that pay for police services. In addition, future development would be reviewed by the City on an individual basis and required to comply with regulations at the time building permits are issued. Therefore, with payment of development impact fees, the proposed Downtown West PUD would not result in a substantial adverse impact associated with the provision of additional police facilities or services, and impacts to police services would be less than significant.
iii) Schools?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The PUD project area is served by Chaffey Joint Union High School District (CJUHSD) and Ontario -Montclair School District (OMSD) . The closest school to the PUD project area is St. George School, located approximately 0.02 miles northwest of the PUD project area.
Each school district that serves the City assesses its needs individually based on student generation rates from residential development and charges development impact fees accordingly.
Residential development in the City facilitated by the Downtown West PUD would require payments to corresponding school districts. These payments accommodate the need for new facilities based on the increase in student population in each district (City of Ontario 2022 a).
The majority of school districts within Ontario have existing capacity to accommodate TOP 2050 buildout and population increase , including the CJUHSD. The OMSD indicated that d that any increase in residential development will impact OMSD school facilities; however, information provided by OMSD shows that most of its schools can accommodate the District’s projections for the next 10 years (City of Ontario 2022a); therefore, because the proposed Downtown West PUD is consistent with the land uses and densities in TOP 2050, the school districts would have the existing capacity to 605
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 62 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
accommodate the proposed Downtown West PUD. Therefore, impacts related to school facilities would be less than significant with the Government Code required fee payments. iv) Parks?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The TOP 2050 Parks and Recreation Element contains polices regarding park requirements in the City. Policy PR -1.5 aims to provide 5 acres of parkland (public and private) per 1,000 residents and Policy PR-1.6 aims to provide a minimum of 2 acres of developed private park space per 1,000 residents (City of Ontario 2023a). The proposed Downtown West PUD would not result in a substantial increase in population such that new facilities would be required to serve the Downtown West PUD. In addition, the project applicants would be required to pay development impact fees for parks and recreation facilities. Therefore, with payment of development impact fees, the proposed Downtown West PUD would have a less - than-significant impact related to the provision of park and recreational facilities. v) Other public facilities?
Less-than-Significant Impact. Development facilitated by the proposed Downtown West PUD could also increase demand for other public services, including libraries, community centers, and public health care facilities. However, because the PUD project area is already served by other services and the proposed Downtown West PUD would be consistent with the approved TOP 2050, the proposed Downtown West PUD would not result in the need for new or physically altered facilities to provide other services, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Recreation
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The City uses the established parkland standard of 3 acres per 1,000 residents. The City has approximately 481 acres of parkland (City of Ontario 2022 a). Based on a population of 175,265 (U.S. Census Bureau 2020), the City currently requires 526 acres of parkland.
Future growth facilitated by the Downtown West PUD would increase the demand for parks and increase existing park usage. The Quimby Act is a funding mechanism for parkland acquisition.
Under this act and pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code, residential subdivisions must dedicate parkland or pay in lieu fees to enable the City to acquire a ratio of 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents (City of Ontario 2022a). Therefore, with the inclusion of in lieu fees, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less-than-Significant Impact. The City has 481 acres of parkland, and buildout of TOP 2050 would provide 900 acres of additional parkland (City of Ontario 2022 a). Therefore, with the addition of 606
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 63 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
new parkland throughout the City, the proposed Downtown West PUD would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, and impacts would be less than significant.
Transportation
This section is based on technical analysis conducted by Dudek and attached to this MND as Appendix C, Transportation Technical Memorandum. See Appendix C for complete results. a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Less-than-Significant Impact. The Mobility Element of TOP 2050 mentions that access and connectivity to mobility options will be integrated into neighborhoods, center, corridors and districts in the City (City of Ontario 2023a) . The placement of housing, jobs , and amenities in closer proximity to each other and design strategies focused on the pedestrian and a variety of multimodal options will make walking and other forms of active transportation a desirable alternative to driving. This is consistent with the Downtown West PUD, which is proposing development regulations and planning and design principals to govern the development or redevelopment of an eight-and-a-half block area of the City with residential and commercial uses.
The proposed Downtown West PUD would be consistent with and not impede the implementation of the following Mobility Element goals (City of Ontario 2023a):
1. Goal M1: A system of roadways that meets the mobility needs of a dynamic and prosperous Ontario.
2. Goal M2: A system of trails and corridors that facilitate and encourage active modes of transportation.
3. Goal M3: A public transit system that is a viable alternative to automobile travel and meets basic transportation needs of the transit-dependent.
4. Goal M4: An efficient flow of goods through the City that maximizes economic benefits and minimizes negative impacts.
5. Goal M5: A proactive leadership role in helping identify and facilitate implementation of strategies that address regional transportation challenges (City of Ontario 2023a).
Euclid Avenue, Palm Avenue, E Street , and Holt Boulevard provide primary access to the PUD project area. The City is served by bus services provided by OmniTrans, which operates Routes 61, 83, and 84 in the PUD project area. The City is served by passenger rail services by Amtrak and Metrolink. The Amtrak station is located at 198 E Emporia Street, approximately 0.2 miles southeast of the Euclid Avenue/Holt Avenue intersection. The Ontario East station (Metrolink-Riverside line) is located at 3330 E Francis Street approximately 5.8 miles southeast of the Euclid Avenue/Holt Avenue intersection . The City’s downtown core is well served by pedestrian facilities, with sidewalks provided along most streets and crosswalks provided at all major intersections. There are several existing and proposed bicycle facilities shown in TOP 2050 Figure M-02, Multipurpose Trails and Bikeways, that serve the PUD project area.
The PUD project area would be served by existing roadway, transit, and pedestrian facilities and proposes improvements along B Street, Euclid Avenue Streetscape, alley improvements, and a 607
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 64 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
West Valley Connector Bus Rapid Transit Station. As such, t he Downtown West PUD would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less-than-Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) focuses on VMT for determining the significance of transportation impacts. It is further divided into four subdivisions: (1) land use projects, (2) transportation projects, (3) qualitative analysis, and (4) methodology. T he Updated CEQA Guidelines state that “generally, VMT is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts,” and define VMT as “the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project.” “Automobile” refers to on -road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks. The Office of Planning and Research has clarified in its Technical Advisory (OPR 2018) that heavy -duty truck VMT is not required to be included in the estimation of a project’s VMT. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of a project on transit and non-motorized traveled.
Based on the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority Transportation Analysis Model VMT evaluation tool,2 the individual projects or parcels are located in two traffic analysis zones (TAZs) (i.e., 5364501 and 53645201).
The individual parcels or projects within the Downtown West PUD may be screened from conducting a detailed project-level VMT assessment if they meet at least some of the following screening criteria:
1. Transit Priority Area Screening: Projects located within 0.5 miles of an existing “major transit stop” or an “existing stop along a high -quality transit corridor” may be presumed to have a less-than-significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. In addition to its proximity to transit, the project would meet the following:
1. A minimum floor area ratio of 0.75
2. Provide no more parking than City Development code mandates
3. Be consistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy
4. Do not replace affordable housing units with a smaller number of moderate or high-income residential units
Based on the evaluation tool, several Assessor’s Parcel Numbers in the TAZ would meet the Transit Priority Area screening. The Downtown West PUD would ensure during development plan review that individual projects would also meet the conditions for floor area ratio , parking, consistency with Sustainable Communities Strategy , and not replac ing affordable housing units, as outlined above.
2. Low VMT Area Screening : Projects are presumed to result in less-than-significant VMT impacts if located in low VMT-generating model TAZs. These TAZs generate total daily VMT per service population that is less than the baseline level for the City’s buildout. Based on
2 San Bernardino County Transportation Authority VMT Screening Tool accessed at https://sbcta.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id= 779a71bc659041ad995cd48d9ef4052b
608
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 65 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
the evaluation tool, several project Assessor’s Parcel Numbers are within a low VMT - generating area and would meet this screening criterion.
3. Project Type Screening: Projects that meet the criteria described below can be screened from further VMT review and are presumed to have a less-than-significant impact:
▪ Residential, office, retail or a mix of these land uses within 0.5 miles of an existing major transit stop
▪ Local-serving retail uses not greater than 50,000 square feet in size; ▪ Projects with a Neighborhood Commercial TOP 2050 Land Use designation ▪ Redevelopment of a site to a residential or office that would generate fewer VMT than the existing use
Each project within the Downtown West PUD is likely to meet one of the above-mentioned screening criteria and therefore it is anticipated to have a less than significant VMT impact. If the screening criteria is not met, the applicant would need to submit project level VMT analysis and additional mitigation to mitigate impacts. Therefore, the Downtown West PUD would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.3(b)(1) and 15064.3(b)(3) , and impacts would be less than significant.
c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less-than-Significant Impact. The Downtown West PUD proposes to redevelop several existing residential and commercial parcels ; however, it does not propose any new roads or intersections.
Individual projects including residential and commercial development would be subject to, and designed in accordance with , City standards and specifications that address potential design hazards including sight distance, driveway placement and access, and signage and striping.
Additionally, any new improvements to roadway facilities associated with individual projects would be constructed based on design and access standards consistent with the City’s Traffic and Transportation Guidelines (City of Ontario 2020b).
During construction, if any temporary road closures are anticipated, the contractor will implement a traffic control plan (if required) and standard construction management practices to maintain access for all road users and emergency vehicles. As such, tr affic from the project entering and exiting the individual sites would be able to do so safely at the driveways. Therefore, the Downtown West PUD would not substantially increase hazards due to a roadway design feature or introduce incompatible uses. Impacts would be less than significant.
d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed Downtown West PUD does not propose any new roadways or intersections , and it would not include any standards that would result in inadequate emergency access. The individual project design and access details such as new or modified driveway locations or curb cuts are unknown at the time of this writing. Therefore, this document does not consider impacts to emergency access to properties in the PUD project area or particular streets along which parcels have been ide ntified for development. The Downtown West PUD may allow for 609
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 66 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
greater densities than are currently allowed as proposed in the plan, policies, and zoning standards for Downtown and would facilitate temporary construction activities within the area, which could temporarily result in impacts to the circulation system. The individual projects would be designed and constructed to local standards and comply with the fire code and emergency access requirements of the fire department. Upon completion, the projects or parcels would continue to be accessible via existing or new driveways along streets in the Downtown area. Therefore, the construction or operation of the proposed Downtown West PUD would not result in inadequate emergency access , and impacts would be less than significant.
Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is :
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? Less-than-Significant Impact. A Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) record search for the Sacred Lands File (SLF) for the Downtown West PUD was negative for known Native American heritage resources within the PUD project area. Therefore, the Downtown West PUD would not adversely affect tribal cultural resources ( TCRs) that are listed or eligible for listing in the state or local register. Impacts would be less than significant. b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The SLF is maintained by the NAHC and represents a curation of “sacred lands” or TCRs provided by tribal entities and Native American representatives. While the NAHC SLF records search results were negative for known Native American heritage resources within the PUD project area, for various reasons, tribal entities and Native American representatives do no not always report sacred lands or TCRs to the NAHC.
As such, the NAHC’s SLF is not a comprehensive list, and searches of the SLF must be considered in concert with other research and not used as a sole sou rce of information regarding the presence of TCRs or cultural resources. The NAHC provided a list of 20 individuals/tribal entities who would potentially have specific knowledge as to whether or not other cultural resources are identified within the PUD project area that could be at risk. Future development facilitated by the Downtown West PUD would be required to undergo project-specific tribal consultation.
The City sought to enter into tribal consultation with all tribes listed as a result of the NAHC records request. Two tribes, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation and the San Manuel Nation, requested consultation. Information was provided that the PUD project area exists within Serrano ancestral territory . There were no concerns with the Downtown West 610
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 67 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
PUD’s implementation; however, mitigation measures were requested. MM-CUL-4, MM-CUL- 5, MM-CUL-6, MM-TCR-1, and MM-TCR-2 are provided below.
In addition, in an abundance of caution and in an effort to protect unknown TCRs, the City has developed Standard Conditions of Approval (City Council Resolution No. 2010 -021) to ensure the proper treatment of unknown subsurface cultural and tribal cultural resources in the event of an inadvertent discovery. Significant impacts are not expected. However, City-to-tribal government consultation pursuant to AB 52 and SB 18 will continue for future projects as required by state laws.
MM-CUL-4.
In the event that cultural resources are discovered during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60 -foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period.
Additionally, the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Department (YSMN) shall be contacted, as detailed within T CR-1, regarding any pre -contact finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment.
MM-CUL-5.
If significant pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to YSMN for review and comment, as detailed within TCR -1. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the project and implement the Plan accordingly.
MM-CUL-6.
If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities associated with the project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100 -foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and that code enforced for the duration of the project.
MM-TCR-1.
The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Department (YSMN) shall be contacted, as detailed in CR -1, of any pre -contact cultural resources discovered during project implementation, and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a cultural resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in coordinati on with YSMN, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents YSMN for the remainder of the project, should YSMN elect to place a monitor on-site.
MM-TCR-2.
611
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 68 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to YSMN. The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with YSMN throughout the life of the project.
Note: Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation realizes that there may be additional tribes claiming cultural affiliation to the area; however, Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation can only speak for itself. The Tribe has no objection if the agency, developer, and/or archaeologist wishes to consult with other tribes in addition to YSMN and if the Lead Agency wishes to revise the conditions to recognize additional tribes.
Utilities and Service Systems
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, waste water treatment , or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The Downtown West PUD would contain guidelines for development and private investments, public realm improvements, and activations and art .
Development facilitated by the Downtown West PUD would connect to the existing water, wastewater treatment , stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities surrounding the PUD project area. Construction impacts, such as ground disturbance, to make these utility connections could result in minimal impacts to soil such as soil displacement, erosion, or runoff; however, implementation of BMPs would minimize the amount of erosion and/or siltation that would have the potential to occur during construction.
Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Less-than-Significant Impact. Residential development facilitated by the Downtown West PUD would result in an increase in residential uses and therefore an increase in water usage. The City is served by the Ontario Municipal Utilities Company and IEUA. The IEUA and the cities within its service area plan for increased demand with future development (City of Ontario 2022 a). In addition, the PUD project area is primarily developed; therefore, development facilitated by the Downtown West PUD would be served by existing water infrastructure.
The Downtown West PUD would comply with TOP 2050 Policy LU-1.3, requiring adequate infrastructure and services for all development , and Policy LU-4, requiring that the necessary infrastructure and services be in place prior to or concurrently with development . The purpose of Policies ER-1.1 through ER-1.5 are to ensure that water supplies and demands in the City are met (City of Ontario 2023a). The Downtown West PUD is consistent with the land uses and projected growth in TOP 2050; therefore, sufficient water supplies would be available to serve the PUD project area and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years.
Impacts would be less than significant.
612
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 69 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
c) Would the project result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed Downtown West PUD would be consistent with the approved TOP 2050, which accounts for buildout at the PUD project area. IEUA has two facilities that serve the City: Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 1 (RP-1) and Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 5 (RP-5). RP-5 is currently under expansion and expected to be completed in 2025 (City of Ontario 2022 a). Therefore, with the expanded future wastewater capacity of the City, development under the Downtown West PUD is not expected to exceed wastewater capacity , and impacts would be less than significant.
d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less-than-Significant Impact. Development facilitated by the Downtown West PUD would comply with Section 4.408 of the 20 22 CALGreen building code, which requires that at least 65 % of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. Development would also comply with AB 341, which mandates recycling for commercial and multifamily residential land uses. In accordance with AB 1826, future businesses that generate organic waste in amounts over a certain threshold would be mandated to recycle organic matter (City of Ontario 2022 a). As such, the Downtown West PUD would not impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.
In addition, the Downtown West PUD would comply with TOP 2050 Policies ER-2.1, ER-2.2, and ER-
2.3, which describe a cost-effective, integrated waste management system that meets or exceeds state and federal recycling and waste diversion mandates through meeting or exceeding AB 939 requirements, prohibiting the disposal of hazardous and electronic waste into the municipal waste stream , and purchasing recycled-content products (City of Ontario 2023a).
With compliance of the applicable regulations , the Downtown West PUD impacts would be less than significant.
e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact. The proposed Downtown West PUD would result in new development that would generate an increased amount of solid waste. As described above, development would be required to comply with the 20 22 CALGreen building code, AB 341, and AB 1826. The Downtown West PUD would be consistent with all state regulations, as ensured through the City’s development project permitting process. Therefore, the proposed Downtown West PUD would comply with all solid waste statutes and regulations, and impacts would not occur. 613
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 70 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
Wildfire
a) Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The City has prepared the 2018 Hazard Mitigation Plan with the intent of reducing and/or eliminat ing loss of life and property from natural hazards . The City is located in a Local Responsibility Area. Fire protection for the City is the responsibility of the Ontario Fire Department. The Ontario Fire Department consists of 10 fire stations located throughout the City (City of Ontario 2018). The closest fire station is located approximately 0.3 miles east of the PUD project area. Additionally, the City provides disaster preparedness and outlines hazard specific preparation through the ReadyOntario website (City of Ontario 2023c). Title 9 of the Municipal Code provides development standards and fire reduction strategies including providing for fire access roads, maintaining a defensible space of non -combustible vegetation around structures, and installing indoor sprinkler systems (City of Ontario 2018) . The PUD project area is not located in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone, as shown in TOP 2050 Figure S-05, Fire Hazard Severity Zones (City of Ontario 2023 a); is served by a nearby fire station ; and would comply with the fire regulations and standards outlined in the Hazard Mitigation Plan and Municipal Code.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the project exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The PUD project area is not located in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone, as shown in TOP 2050 Figure S -05, Fire Hazard Severity Zones. However, Santa Ana winds and commercial and industrial facilities could increase the possibilities of fires in the City. Goals and policies in TOP 2050 are aimed at reducing the risks of damage due to fires. Implementation of the CFC and CBC (Policy S -3.1), maintenance of fire and emergency medical services (Policy S -3.3), designing new development with fire prevention considerations (Policy S-3.8), and other measures listed in TOP 2050 would reduce the risk of fire in the City (City of Ontario 2023a). With adherence to the CFC, CBC, and TOP 2050, the Downtown West PUD would not exacerbate risk or result in post-wildfire hazards. Impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines , or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Less-than-Significant Impact. As previously discussed, the Downtown West PUD would not exacerbate fire risk. Construction facilitated by the Downtown West PUD would comply with CFC requirements to manage and minimize fire risk during construction. Operation of the proposed development would not contain potential sources for fire risk. As such, the Downtown West PUD would not result in installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk. Impacts would be less than significant.
614
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 71 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
d) Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Less-than-Significant Impact. As previously described, the PUD project area is not located in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone or a Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Zone and is located in a flat, developed area of the City (City of Ontario 2023a). In addition, the Downtown West PUD would not substantially alter the drainage of the existing site, as the site is mostly developed or paved and connected to existing stormwater systems. Therefore, the Downtown West PUD would not expose people or structures to significant risks from post -fire slope instability or drainage changes. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The PUD area is an urban redevelopment area. Potential impacts related to sensitive and special -status habitat, wildlife species, and plant species are discussed in the Biological Resources section. As discussed in the Biological Resources section, impacts to biological resources would be less than significant. The proposed Downtown West PUD would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment or impact fish or wildlife species or plant communities. As discussed in the Cultural Resources section, potential impacts to cultural resources would be reduced to a level below significance with incorporation of mitigation measures. In addition, as discussed in the Tribal Cultural Resources section, the Downtown West PUD would not result in impacts to TCRs. The proposed Downtown West PUD would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Overall, impacts would be less than significant with incorporation of MM-CUL-1, MM-CUL- 2, and MM-CUL-3 and MM-TCR-1 and MM-TCR-2.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the ef fects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects .) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As indicated in the analysis presented throughout this MND, the proposed Downtown West PUD would not result in significant and unavoidable impacts in any issue area. MM-CUL-1, MM-CUL-2, MM-CUL-3, MM-CUL-4, MM- CUL-5, MM -CUL-6, MM-TCR-1, MM -TCR-2, MM-NOI-1, and MM -NOI-2 would reduce impacts to below a level of significance.
The proposed Downtown West PUD does not propose development, rather it would facilitate future development and improvements in the PUD project area through design guidelines and standards. Cumulative projects would be analyzed at the time that development facilitated by the Downtown West PUD are proposed.
615
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 72 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
c) Does the project h ave environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The potential for adverse direct or indirect impacts to human beings was considered throughout this MND. Based on this evaluation, there is no substantial evidence that construction or operations facilitated by the Downtown West PUD with the proposed mitigation measures incorporated would result in a substantial adverse effect on human beings. Impacts would be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures.
616
PAGE 73 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
REFERENCES AND PREPARERS
References Cited
14 CCR 15000–15387 and Appendices A–L. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended.
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2018. California State Scenic Highway System Map.
Accessed August 16, 2023. https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/ index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa
CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2017. 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update. November 2017. Accessed December 2017. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/ scoping_plan_2017.pdf.
City of Ontario. 2010. Resolution No. 2010-21. March 16, 2010. https://www.ontarioca.gov/ sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/Documents/standard_conditions_of_approval_ a_march_16_2010.pdf
City of Ontario. 2015a. Official Zoning Map. Approved December 1, 2015. https://www.ontarioca.gov/ sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/Zoning%20Map/Zoning_20230606_0.pdf City of Ontario. 2015b. Landscape Development Standards. October 2015. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/landscape/ landscape_development_guidelines.pdf#:~:text=Existing%20trees%20of%20quality%20shall% 20be%20protected%20and,as%20approved.%202%20new%20trees%20for%20each%20removed .
City of Ontario. 2018. City of Ontario, California 2018 Hazard Mitigation Plan. 2018. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Fire/Ready%20Ontario/ city_of_ontario_2018_hmp.pdf
City of Ontario. 2020b. Traffic and Transportation Guidelines, August 2013, Revised January 2020.
City of Ontario. 2022a. The Ontario Plan 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. August 2022. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/ The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf
City of Ontario. 2022b. Ontario Housing Element. Adopted March 1, 2022. https://www.ontarioca.gov/ sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/Housing/ HE%20Adopted%2020220821%20Clean_0.pdf
City of Ontario. 2022c. LU-03 Future Buildout Table. Adopted August 16, 2022. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/ Land%20Use/Figure%20LU-03%20Future%20Buildout%20Table_5.pdf 617
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 74 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
City of Ontario. 2022d. Ontario Community Climate Action Plan, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Screening Tables. Prepared by PlaceWorks. March 2023. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/ Ontario-Files/Planning/CCAP/Screening%20Table/Ontario-CCAP_Screening-Tables- MARCH%202023.pdf
City of Ontario. 2023a. The Ontario Plan. Accessed August 2023. https://www.ontarioca.gov/OntarioPlan
City of Ontario. 2023b. Land Use Element Web Map Figures. Accessed August 2023. https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/99e7a1effa0242218701ac06ca387f9b?data_id=data Source_6-183fd8bf967-layer-57-18574b30078-layer-22%3A17451 City of Ontario. 2023c. Hazard Specific Preparation. Accessed August 2023. https://www.ontarioca.gov/ EmergencyManagement/Procedures
City of Ontario. 2023d. Fire Department. Accessed September 2023. https://www.ontarioca.gov/Fire City of Ontario. 2023e. Ontario Community Climate Action Plan. March 2023. Adopted August 16, 2022. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/CCAP/Screening%20Table/ Ontario-CCAP_Screening-Tables-MARCH%202023.pdf
City of Ontario. 2024. Ontario International Airport – Inter Agency Collaborative. Accessed March 2024. https://www.ontarioca.gov/planning/ont-iac
DOC (California Department of Conservation). 2023a. California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed August 14, 2023. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ DOC. 2023b. California Tsunami Maps. Accessed August 18, 2023. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/ cgs/tsunami/maps
DTSC (Department of Toxic Substances Control). 2023. EnviroStor Database. Accessed August 15, 2023. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.
DWR (Department of Water Resources). 2023. SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard. Accessed September 5, 2023. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp-dashboard/final/ Ontario Airport Planning. 2018. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Amended July 2018. https://www.ont-iac.com/airport-land-use-compatibility-plan/ OPR (Office of Planning and Research). 2018. Discussion Draft CEQA and Climate Change Advisory. http://opr.ca.gov/docs/20181228-Discussion_Draft_Climate_Change_Adivsory.pdf.
SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments). 2020. 2020 Connect SoCal: The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments. September 3, 2020. Accessed September 2023. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal- plan_0.pdf?1606001176.
SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 618
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 75 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
SCAQMD. 2008. Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. October 2008. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/ greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/ghgattachmente.pdf.
SCAQMD. 2009. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. June 2003 first published. July. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/ final-lst-methodology-document.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
SCAQMD. 2023. “Meteorological Data for Dispersion Modeling.” Accessed December 2023. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/meteorological-data.
SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2023. GeoTracker Database. Accessed August 15, 2023. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2020. QuickFacts Ontario city, California. July 1, 2022. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/ontariocitycalifornia/PST045222 USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2023. National Wetlands Inventory. Accessed August 14, 2023 https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/ List of Preparers
Carey Fernandes
Tuesday Christopher
Shane Russett
Ames Knowles
Mark Storm
Sabita Tewani
Katie Haley
619
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 76 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
620
Date: 12/18/2023 - Last saved by: tfriesen - Path: Z:\Projects\j1494101\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\MND\Figure01_ProjectLocation.mxd Regional Location
Downtown West PUD
SOURCE: Bing Imagery 2023, Open Street Maps 2019
02 ,0001,000
Feet
Project Boundary
FIGURE 1
74 9171
7879
178
86 60
173
18 243 111
177
58 247
138
127
395
95 Loma
Linda
Yucca Valley
Twentynine
Palms
Big
Bear Lake
Hesperia
Needles
Highland
Barstow
Apple Valley
15 215
10 40
5 210
Inyo County
Riverside
County
Nevada
ArizonaSAN
BERNARDINO
COUNTY
Project Site
621
Date: 12/18/2023 - Last saved by: tfriesen - Path: Z:\Projects\j1494101\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\MND\Figure02_ProjectSite.mxd PUD Project Area
Downtown West PUD
SOURCE: Bing Imagery 2023, Open Street Maps 2019
0 300150
Feet
Project Boundary
FIGURE 2
622
Site Plan
Downtown West PUD
FIGURE 3
Path: Z:\Projects\j1494101\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\MND
623
PUD Project Area Historic Resources
Downtown West PUD
FIGURE 4
Path: Z:\Projects\j1494101\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\MND
624
RESOLUTION NO. PC24-015
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF FILE NO. PUD23-004, A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO
ESTABLISH PLANNING AND DESIGN PRINCIPLES, DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS TO GOVERN
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF 21.58 ACRES OF LAND , GENERALLY
LOCATED SOUTH OF E STREET, NORTH OF HOLT BOULEVARD,
WEST OF EUCLID AVENUE, EAST OF PALM AVENUE, AND THE
NORTHERN PORTION OF THE BLOCK BETWEEN FERN AND PALM
AVENUES AND C AND D STREETS, WITHIN THE LUA -1 (EUCLID
AVENUE ENTERTAINMENT) OF THE MU-1 (DOWNTOWN MIXED USE)
ZONING DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF— APNS: 1048-566-08, 1048-566-09, 1048-566-10, 1048-566-02, 1048-566- 01, 1048-566-03, 1048-566-04, 1048-566-06, 1048-566-07, 1048-561-07, 1048-561-08, 1048-561-09, 1048- 561-10, 1048- 561-12, 1048- 561-13, 1048-562-01, 1048- 562-02, 1048- 565-01, 1048- 565-04, 1048- 565-05, 1048-565-06, 1048- 566-06, 1048- 566-07, 1048- 354-04, 1048- 354-05, 1048-354-06, 1048- 354-07, 1048- 354-08, 1048- 353-13, 1048- 353-14, 1048-354-01, 1048- 354-02, 1048- 354-03, 1048- 565-14, 1048- 566-05, 1048-566-11, 1048- 561-11, 1048- 562-03, 1048- 562-06, 1048- 562-07, 1048-563-01, 1048- 563-02, 1048- 563-03, 1048- 563-04, 1048- 563-05, 1048-576-01, 1048- 576-02, 1048- 563-07, 1048- 563-08, 1048- 564-07, 1048-564-11, 1048- 564-12, 1048- 564-13, 1048- 564-14, 1048- 565-02, 1048-565-03, 1048- 563-06, 1048- 563-07, 1048- 563-08, 1048- 563-09, 1048-563-10, 1048-565-07, 1048- 565-08, 1048- 565-09, 1048- 565-10, 1048-565-11, 1048- 565-12, 1048-565-13, 1048- 563-11, 1048- 564-01, 1048-564-02, 1048- 564-03, 1048- 564-04, 1048- 564-05, 1048- 564-06, 1048-564-08, 1048-564-09, 1048-564-10
WHEREAS, the City of Ontario ("Applicant") has initiated approval of a Planned Unit Development (“PUD”) , File No. PUD2 3-004, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Application applies to 21.58 acres of land (8.5 City Blocks) generally located south of E Street, north of Holt Boulevard, west of Euclid Avenue, east of Palm Avenue, and the northern portion of the block between Fern and Palm Avenues and C and D Streets within the LUA -1 (Euclid Avenue Entertainment) of the MU -1 (Downtown Mixed Use) zoning district, and is presently improved with a mixture of retail, residential, and office land uses and paved surface parking lots; and
WHEREAS, the properties to the north of the Project site is within the OL (Office Low Intensity) and MU-1(Mixed Use Downtown) zoning districts and is developed with 625
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PUD23-004
May 28, 2024