Ontario City Council
July 16, 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 placebased, 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 wide 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] the 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 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, appended to the attached Resolution as "Attachment A,” identifies the following components:
2580
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 City 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 retail, 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 EH), 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.
2581
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 setbacks 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, the 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 2582
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 projects 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 2583
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 to facilitate social activities. Moreover, leveraging the West 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 2584
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 Commission, 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.
2585
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:
2586
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 2587
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, aesthetics, 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.
2588
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 (MU1), 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 (MU1), 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)
2589
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PUD23-004
May 28, 2024

Exhibit A: PROJECT LOCATION MAP
2590
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PUD23-004
May 28, 2024

Exhibit B: LAND USE SUBDISTRICTS/ZONES
2591
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PUD23-004
May 28, 2024

Exhibit C: GROUND FLOOR LAND USE
2592
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PUD23-004
May 28, 2024

Exhibit D: ALLOWED HEIGHTS
2593
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PUD23-004
May 28, 2024

Exhibit E: STREET SETBACKS
2594
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PUD23-004
May 28, 2024

Exhibit F: CONCEPTUAL URBAN DESIGN
2595
RESOLUTION NO. PC24-014

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

ONTARIO APPROVING 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 WHEREAS, 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
WHEREAS, 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
WHEREAS, 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 WHEREAS, 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 WHEREAS, 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 WHEREAS, 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
2596
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 Ontario or its agents, officers, and employees from any 2597
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
2598
)
)
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
2599
Planning Commission Resolution File
No. PUD23-004 MND
May 28, 2024

ATTACHMENT A:

Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program
(Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program follows this page)
2600

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 located 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
2601
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 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 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
2602
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 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.

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 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 historicera 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
2603
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
2604
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.
2605
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, which
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, curtain, 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
2606
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 vibration 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 onsite.

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
2607
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.
2608
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
2609
Printed on 30% post
-consumer recycled material.
2610
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 2611
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 2612
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
2613
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE IV OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2614
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 residents, 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 Code [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]. 2615
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]
2616
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 connecting 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 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 wide 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.

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 Principles, (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 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. Proposed development and private investments would include new mixed use/infill and façade improvements. 2617
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 any 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 Development Code Division 2.02 (Application Filing and 2618
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 conjunction 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.
2619
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 building 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.) 2620
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 MixedUse)
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
2621
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
2622
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 applicable 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
2623
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 referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project 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 Significant 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 conditions for the project.

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 2624
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 nonagricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
2625
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,
2626
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.
2627
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?
2628
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?
2629
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
2630
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
2631
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
2632
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 selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially
reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal, or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when 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 2022a). The PUD project area is currently developed with mixed use and residential uses. The proposed Downtown West PUD contains height limits that are consistent with the Ontario Development Code development standards. Additionally, the San Gabriel Mountains peaks rise to 7,000 feet above 2633
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 20 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
mean sea level (City of Ontario 2022a); 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 2022a). 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 2020). 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, ensures 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 TransitOriented 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 2634
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 CD4.2) (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 2022a). The Downtown West PUD would not be located on land classified as Farmland pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program and would therefore 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 2022a). 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.
2635
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 defined 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 2636
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 project 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 of 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. 2637
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 have 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 air 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.
2638
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 NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
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, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, or PM2.5 during the 5% construction scenario, and shortterm construction impacts would be less than significant. 2639
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 PUD project area. Operation of the Downtown West PUD, due to future development within the PUD project area, could potentially generate VOC, NOx, 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 NOx CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
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; 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; <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, 2640
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 two 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 be 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.
2641
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 respiratory 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 NO2 CO PM10 PM2.5
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 SourceReceptor Area 33 (southwest San Bernardino Valley).

As shown in Table 5, proposed construction activities would not generate emissions more than sitespecific 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. 2642
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 Inuse 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 PM10 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 PM10 emissions are anticipated to be minimal and well below the SCAQMD threshold. Furthermore, the nearest sensitive receptors are located upwind of the PUD 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 generated 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 PUD project area, and the Downtown West PUD would result in indirect impacts. Development allowed 2643
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). The project would not include these land uses. However, any development within the PUD project area would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, which prohibits the discharge of air pollutants 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 PUD 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 snakes, and various sensitive bird species, as shown in Figure 5.4-1 in the TOP Supplemental EIR (City of Ontario 2022a). 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.
2644
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 2023). 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-inchbox 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, 2645
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 the Downtown West PUD is to approve the PUD document, which sets forth development standards, design guidelines, and regulations for future development of an eightand-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 2646
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 properties within the PUD boundary have been assessed and evaluated for historic significance.

As previously stated, all plans and development projects 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 findings to lessen or avoid potential impacts to historic resources (the property or proposed downtown historic district) and make 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 altered 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 avoided 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 2647
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, determined 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-CUL2, 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
2648
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
2649
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 2650
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
2651
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
2652
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, REMremoved from inventory, S- Surveyed. CA status codes are available at ohp.parks.ca 2653
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 40 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
Mitigation Measures:

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 located 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, 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 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 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 2654
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, description, 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 recovered 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 2022a). 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 county coroner determines that the remains are, or are believed to be, 2655
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 efficiency. 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 zeroemission 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 2656
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 groundup, 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.
2657
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 2022a). 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. 2658
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 2022a). 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 2022a).

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.
2659
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 46 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
a) Would the project generate 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 the 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 2022d). 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 efficiency 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. 2660
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 47 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
Table 6. Estimated Annual Construction GHG Emissions
Year
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
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 CO2e) 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 CO2e 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 footage. 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 from 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 2661
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
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Metric Tons per Year1
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; CO2e = 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 CO2e) 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 CO2e per year as a result of Downtown West PUD operation. Estimated annual projectgenerated 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 CO2e/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 CO2e/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, 2662
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
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Metric Tons per Year1
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; CO2e = 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 CO2e per year as a result of Downtown West PUD operation. Estimated annual projectgenerated 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 approximately 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. 2663
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 50 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
b) Would the project generate 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 transport, 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 urban environments for both construction and operation of typical projects. Further, these materials would be transported, handled, and disposed in accordance with all federal, 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.
2664
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 sites 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 satisfaction of the Building Department (City of Ontario 2018). Additionally, the City provides disaster preparedness and outlines hazard specific preparation through the 2665
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 potential 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 2022a). 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. 2666
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 2022a). 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 2667
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 alley 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
2668
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
NonResidential
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
2669
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 the 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 existing 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 Supplemental EIR would therefore 2670
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 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.

9. During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noiseproducing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only. The construction manager shall use smart back-up alarms, which 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.
2671
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 compared 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 significant. Adherence to mitigation 2672
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.
2673
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 displace 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 impacts, 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 2674
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 61 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
Services, and Administrative Services (City of Ontario 2023d). 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, implementation 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 2022a). 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 the 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 2022a).

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 2675
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 lessthan-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 2022a). 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 2022a). Therefore, with the addition of 2676
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 2677
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, the 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. The 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 replacing 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
2678
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 VMTgenerating 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, traffic 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 identified for development. The Downtown West PUD may allow for 2679
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 source 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 2680
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-CUL5, 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 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.

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 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.

MM-TCR-2.
2681
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 2022a). 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.
2682
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 2022a). 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 2022 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 2022a). 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 ER2.3, 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 2022 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. 2683
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 eliminating 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 2023a); 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.
2684
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-CUL2, 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 effects 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, MMCUL-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.
2685
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 72 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD
c) Does the project have 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. 2686
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 2687
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-TablesMARCH%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/0903fconnectsocalplan_0.pdf?1606001176.

SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 2688
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
2689
DOWNTOWN WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO.: PUD23-004 PAGE 76 OF 85 DOWNTOWN WEST PUD

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2690
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 1,000 ,000
Feet
Project Boundary
FIGURE 1
74 91 71
79 78
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
SAN Arizona

BERNARDINO
COUNTY
Project Site
2691
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
0 150 300Feet
Project Boundary
FIGURE 2
2692
Site Plan
Downtown West PUD
FIGURE 3
Path: Z:\Projects\j1494101\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\MND
2693
PUD ProjectArea
Historic Resources
Downtown West PUD
FIGURE 4
Path: Z:\Projects\j1494101\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\MND
2694
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. PUD23-004, 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 2695
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PUD23-004
May 28, 2024

office, retail and residential uses. The properties to the east and south are within the MU1 (Mixed Use Downtown) zoning district which are developed with office, retail and residential. The properties to the west are located within the MDR-11 (Medium Density Residential) HDR-45 (High Density Residential) and are developed with a school, church, and multiple-family and single family residential; and
WHEREAS, an existing bus stop is located on the northeast corner of Euclid Avenue and D Street for Omnitrans Route 83. Additionally, located near Euclid Avenue on Holt Boulevard is Omnitrans Route 61 which has been identified as the future West Valley Connector Bus Rapid Transit (BRT); and
WHEREAS, 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 Project area; and
WHEREAS, the PUD includes components that regulate land use, urban design, development and design standards for new (infill) construction, redevelopment of underutilized sites, and adaptive reuse of historic and existing buildings, architectural character and design and historic preservation; and
WHEREAS, the LUA-1/MU-1 (Downtown Mixed Use) zoning district 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. Consistent with the LUA-1/MU-1 zoning district and TOP Downtown District Place Type, the Downtown West PUD grants a maximum intensity of

2.0 Floor Area Ratio and a density range of 25.0 to 75.0 dwelling units per acre; and WHEREAS, the PUD establishes the Downtown Mixed-Use Retail Core (MU-RC) zone that is comprised of 4 city 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 west-east connection from the Ontario International Airport/Hospitality district to the downtown; and

WHEREAS, 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 retail, 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 is encouraged, and to transform the north-south running public alley into a pedestrian-friendly enhanced alley with entrances, outdoor dining, and “greening” 2696
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PUD23-004
May 28, 2024

(landscape and enhanced paving) that collectively creates a lively and dynamic atmosphere; and
WHEREAS, 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; and
WHEREAS, the goals of the MU-T zone is 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; and
WHEREAS, 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 to ensure compatible housing types with the surrounding residential; and
WHEREAS, the PUD includes Block-specific standards created to respond to place-based conditions and goals which include allowable range of building heights of 40 feet (3 stories) to 65 feet (5 stories), 0 to 10 feet of building setbacks, 10 and 15 feet of stepbacks for upper level additions to existing buildings at certain locations, and parking requirements; and
WHEREAS, the PUD requires a minimum of 1 resident parking space per bedroom, 0.20 guest parking per dwelling unit, and 1 parking space per 250 square feet of Gross Floor Area of commercial; and
WHEREAS, in order to achieve the preferred density and building intensities, the PUD allows for a combination of on-site and on-street parking to provide an adequate parking supply to meet the anticipated parking demand for the Project. All resident parking is provided on site, while guest parking and retail visitor spaces are allowed on-street; and
WHEREAS, the PUD includes architectural design standards and guidelines, specific to the downtown location and variety of building types, and establishes the following design principles:
(a) Create an architectural character that reflects the various styles within the historic downtown. New buildings should appear to fit in contextually with 2697
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PUD23-004
May 28, 2024

existing historic buildings by using similar proportions, articulation, building details and building material.
(b) The overall character should feel like a modern interpretation of a traditional American small town.
(c) 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; and
WHEREAS, the PUD requires a Certificate of Appropriateness, in conjunction with a Development Plan, in order to safeguard identified historic resources listed on the Ontario Register of Historic Places and any unknown historic resources yet to be discovered; and
WHEREAS, the PUD relies upon the Secretary of Interior Standards, for the Treatment of Historic Properties, the Ontario Development Code (Certified Local Government), Ontario Downtown Design Guidelines, and best practices for preservation to guide appropriate design for new (infill) construction, redevelopment of underutilized sites, and adaptive reuse of historic and existing buildings; and WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, commencing with Public Resources Code Section 21000 (hereinafter referred to as "CEQA"); and
WHEREAS, an initial study has been prepared which analyzed the environmental impacts of the proposed Project. 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, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (hereinafter referred to as "MND") and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (hereinafter referred to as "MMRP") were prepared pursuant to CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the MND was made available to the public and to all interested agencies for review and comment pursuant to CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the Planning Commission the responsibility and authority to review and make recommendation to the City Council on the subject Application; and 2698
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PUD23-004
May 28, 2024

WHEREAS, the Project has been reviewed for consistency with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan, as State Housing Element law (as prescribed in Government Code Sections 65580 through 65589.8) requires that development projects must be consistent with the Housing Element, if upon consideration of all its aspects, it is found to further the purposes, principals, goals, and policies of the Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and is subject to, and must be consistent with, the policies and criteria set forth in the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (hereinafter referred to as "ALUCP"), which applies only to jurisdictions within San Bernardino County, and addresses the noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity; and
WHEREAS, City of Ontario Development Code Division 2.03 (Public Hearings) prescribes the manner in which public notification shall be provided and hearing procedures to be followed, and all such notifications and procedures have been completed; and
WHEREAS, on May 28, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the MND and MMRP, and the Project and concluded said hearing on that date; and
WHEREAS, as the first action on the Project, on May 28, 2024 the Planning Commission approved a resolution recommending to City Council the adoption of a MND and MMRP, each prepared pursuant to CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines, which indicated that all potential environmental impacts from the Project were less than significant or could be mitigated to a level of significance, and concluded said hearing on that date; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

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

SECTION 1: Housing Element Compliance. Pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 3, Article 10.6, commencing with Section 65580, as the recommending authority for the Project, the Planning Commission finds that based on the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation, at the time of Project implementation, the Project is consistent with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan (general plan) component of The Ontario Plan, as the project site is not 2699
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PUD23-004
May 28, 2024

one of the properties in the Housing Element Sites Inventory contained in Tables B-1 and B-2 of the Housing Element Technical Report.

SECTION 2: Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ("ALUCP") Compliance.

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

On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the Ontario International Airport Land use Compatibility Plan, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. As the 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 Commission, therefore, finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ONT ALUCP; and SECTION 3: Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above-referenced hearing, and upon the specific findings set forth in Sections 1 through 2, above, the Planning Commission hereby concludes as follows:
(1) The proposed PUD, or amendment thereto, is consistent with the goals, policies, plans and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (general plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan. The Project is consistent with Vision, Policy Plan (general plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan. Section 1.1, The Ontario Plan Objectives of the Downtown West Planned Unit Development, describes the manner in which the PUD complies with the Policy Plan goals and policies.
(2) The proposed PUD, or amendment thereto, would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City.

The Planning Commission has required certain safeguards through conditions of approval, which have been established to ensure that: [i] the purposes of the Planned 2700
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PUD23-004
May 28, 2024

Unit Development are maintained; [ii] the project will not endanger the public health, safety or general welfare; [iii] the project will not result in any significant environmental impacts; [iv] the project will be in harmony with the area in which it is located; and [v] the project will be in full conformity with the Vision, City Council Priorities and Policy Plan components of The Ontario Plan.
(3) In the case of an application affecting specific property(ies), the proposed PUD, or amendment thereto, will not adversely affect the harmonious relationship with adjacent properties and land uses. The Downtown West PUD area is situated in the heart of Ontario’s downtown and is adjacent to residential and commercial land uses and development. The surrounding development supports the objective of the Downtown West PUD further commercial, residential and mixed-use development. The Project does not affect the harmonious relationship with adjacent properties and land use.
(4) In the case of an application affecting specific property(ies), the subject site is physically suitable, including, but not limited to, parcel size, shape, access, and availability of utilities, for the request and anticipated development. In preparing the proposed Downtown West PUD, a thorough review and analysis of the proposed Project and the subject site’s physical suitability for the Project was completed, including analysis of the project size, shape, intensity of development, building height, building setbacks, site access, site landscaping and drainage, fences and walls, vehicle circulation, pedestrian connections, availability of mass transit, necessary street dedication and easements, public right-of-way improvements, availability of utilities and other infrastructure needs, off-street parking and circulation, building orientation and streetscapes, architectural character, building materials and color, and site signage.

Based upon this review and analysis, the subject site has been deemed physically suitable, including but not limited to parcel size, shape, access, and availability of utilities, for the proposed Planned Unit Development and the proposed development. (5) The proposed PUD is superior to that which could be obtained through the application of the Development Code or a specific plan. The Downtown West PUD will establish minimum building setbacks, parking and open space requirements, allow on-street parking, and establish a planting palette. These standards will facilitate the commercial, residential, and mixed-use development. The proposed Downtown West PUD will allow for subsequent development that is superior to that which could be obtained through the application of the Development Code by itself.

SECTION 4: Planning Commission Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 through 3, above, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE the herein described Application, subject to each and every condition set forth in the Department reports attached hereto as "Attachment A," and incorporated herein by this reference. 2701
2702
2703
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PUD23-004
May 28, 2024

ATTACHMENT A:

File No. PUD23-004
Downtown West Planned Unit Development
(PUD to follow this page)
2704

VERSION (DRAFT)
Downtown West Planned Unit Development
DRAFT
MAY 2024
Prepared for:

CITY OF ONTARIO
Prepared by:
2705

VERSION (DRAFT)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Objectives................................................................................................................................................................... 3

1.2 Background and Related Efforts.............................................................................................................................................................................. 11

1.2.1 Downtown Ontario Design Guidelines ...................................................................................................................................................... 11

1.2.2 Downtown Civic Center Planned Unit Development................................................................................................................................. 11

1.2.3 West Euclid Activation............................................................................................................................................................................... 11

1.2.4 Euclid Avenue Relinquishment and Historic Property Treatment and Management Plan ....................................................................... 12

1.3 Community and Stakeholder Engagement.............................................................................................................................................................. 13 2 Vision and Guiding Principles .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16

2.1 Land Use, Urban Design, and Public Realm Concept .............................................................................................................................................. 19

2.1.1 Euclid Avenue ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 20

2.1.2 Holt Boulevard........................................................................................................................................................................................... 23

2.1.3 B Street ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 24

2.1.4 The Alley .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26

2.1.5 Laurel Avenue ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 28 3 District and Block Plan ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 29

3.1 Downtown Mixed-Use Retail Core (Blocks A-D)...................................................................................................................................................... 30

3.2 Downtown Mixed-Use Transitional (Blocks E-H)..................................................................................................................................................... 31

3.3 Downtown Residential (Block I) .............................................................................................................................................................................. 32 4 Zoning and Land Use Plan................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 33

4.1 Zoning Districts........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 33

4.1.1 Downtown Mixed-Use Retail Core (MU-RC).............................................................................................................................................. 33

4.1.2 Downtown Mixed-Use Transitional (MU-T)............................................................................................................................................... 34

4.1.3 Downtown Residential (DR)....................................................................................................................................................................... 35

4.2 Permitted Land Uses............................................................................................................................................................................................... 37 5 Development Regulations and Guidelines....................................................................................................................................................................................... 40

5.1 Applicability............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 40

5.2 Density and Intensity............................................................................................................................................................................................... 43 2706

5.3 Building Height........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 44

5.3.1 Upper-Level Stepbacks.............................................................................................................................................................................. 46

5.4 Setbacks................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 47

5.5 Building Design........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 50

5.5.1 Entrances................................................................................................................................................................................................... 50

5.5.2 Modulation ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 50

5.5.3 Transparency ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 50

5.5.4 Building Façades........................................................................................................................................................................................ 51

5.5.5 Ground Floor.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 51

5.5.6 Varied Roofline .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 52

5.5.7 Roof Decks................................................................................................................................................................................................. 52

5.5.8 Open Space ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 53

5.5.9 Landscaping ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 54

5.5.10 Vehicle Access and Parking........................................................................................................................................................................ 54

5.6 Signs......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 57

5.7 Service Facilities ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 58

5.8 Infrastructure .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 58

5.9 Historic Preservation............................................................................................................................................................................................... 59

5.9.1 Brief Development History of Ontario and the PUD Area ......................................................................................................................... 59

5.9.2 Relevant Regulatory and Guidance Document References....................................................................................................................... 60

5.9.3 Review of Resources in the PUD Area ....................................................................................................................................................... 65

5.9.4 Historic Preservation - Certificates of Appropriateness and Demolition .................................................................................................. 73

5.9.5 Historic Architectural Guidelines............................................................................................................................................................... 75

5.10 Public Art................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 83

5.10.1 Landmark Sculptures................................................................................................................................................................................. 83

5.10.2 Murals........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 83

5.10.3 Streetscape Amenities............................................................................................................................................................................... 84

5.10.4 Private Development................................................................................................................................................................................. 84

5.10.5 Temporary Programming........................................................................................................................................................................... 84 6 Public Realm Standards and Guidelines.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 85

6.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 85

6.2 Design Standards..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 86

6.2.1 Sidewalk Clearance.................................................................................................................................................................................... 86 2707

6.2.2 Outdoor Dining .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 88

6.3 Design Guidelines.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 90

6.3.1 Street Furniture ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 90

6.3.2 Pedestrian Connections............................................................................................................................................................................. 92

6.3.3 Public Realm Signage and Wayfinding....................................................................................................................................................... 92

6.3.4 Parkways and Street Trees ........................................................................................................................................................................ 93 7 Administration and Implementation............................................................................................................................................................................................... 94

7.1 Development Code.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 94

7.2 Development Applications...................................................................................................................................................................................... 94

7.3 Certificate of Appropriateness................................................................................................................................................................................ 94

7.4 Exceptions ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 94

7.5 CEQA Compliance.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 94

7.6 Implementation....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 95 8 Section References and Additional Resources ................................................................................................................................................................................ 96

8.1 Historic Preservation............................................................................................................................................................................................... 96

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1: Land Use, Urban Design, and Public Realm Concept for the PUD Area ........................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 2-2: Conceptual Illustration for Euclid Avenue........................................................................................................................................................................ 21 Figure 2-3: Conceptual Illustration for Euclid Avenue........................................................................................................................................................................ 22 Figure 2-4: Conceptual Illustration for Holt Boulevard....................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 2-5: Conceptual Illustration for B Street.................................................................................................................................................................................. 25 Figure 2-6: Conceptual Illustration for B Street.................................................................................................................................................................................. 25 Figure 2-7: Conceptual Illustration for the Alley ................................................................................................................................................................................ 27 Figure 2-8: Conceptual Illustration for Laurel Avenue........................................................................................................................................................................ 28 Figure 5-1: Downtown Ontario Design Guidelines Historic Districts - PUD Area ............................................................................................................................... 63 Figure 5-2: Historic Landmarks Map - South Section ......................................................................................................................................................................... 65 Figure 5-3: District 3 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 66 Figure 5-4: Historic Resources............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 67 Figure 6-1: Typical Layout of Outdoor Sidewalk Dining Space (Downtown Design Guidelines) ....................................................................................................... 89 2708

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: TOP 2050 Land Use Designations Summary – High-Density Residential and Mixed-Use - Downtown................................................................................ 4 Table 4-1: Permitted Land Uses by Zoning District...............................................................................................................................................................................38 Table 5-1: Development Regulations Summary Table .........................................................................................................................................................................41 Table 5-2: Minimum Setbacks..............................................................................................................................................................................................................48 Table 5-3: Parking Requirements .........................................................................................................................................................................................................56 Table 5-4: Historic Resources ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................68 Table 6-1: Recommended Street Trees in the PUD Area.....................................................................................................................................................................93

LIST OF MAPS
Map 1: PUD Area Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Map 2: PUD Area Location Map ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Map 3: TOP 2050 Land Use Mixed Use – Downtown District Place Type .............................................................................................................................................. 4 Map 4: PUD Sub-Districts and Blocks ...................................................................................................................................................................................................29 Map 5: Zoning Districts.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................36 Map 6: Ground Floor Land Use.............................................................................................................................................................................................................39 Map 7: Allowed Density and FAR .........................................................................................................................................................................................................43 Map 8: Allowed Heights........................................................................................................................................................................................................................45 Map 9: Street Setbacks.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................49 2709
1 1 Introduction
The Downtown West Planned Unit Development (PUD) is
intended to function as a set of planning and design principles, development regulations, and performance standards to guide and govern the development of the blocks between E Street to the north and Holt Boulevard to the south, and between Palm Avenue to the west and Euclid Avenue to the east, in addition to the portion of the block between D Street and the alley connecting Fern Avenue and Palm Avenue (PUD area). The PUD area is situated within the City of Ontario’s historic downtown and is adjacent to the City’s Civic Center, as shown in Map 1 (PUD Area Vicinity Map) and Map 2 (PUD Area Location Map). This PUD will facilitate the revitalization of downtown Ontario, streamline development, emphasize historic preservation and adaptive reuse, and provide development flexibility to achieve the City’s goals to economically revitalize and aesthetically enhance the project area.

This document is organized to fulfill the requirements for a PUD, as set forth in the Ontario Development Code. As such, this PUD will replace the existing zone district designations and zoning standards that apply to the affected properties. Unless otherwise defined herein, definitions and interpretations contained in the Development Code shall apply.

City staff and private developers will rely upon this PUD to determine whether precise plans for development (Development Plans) will adequately meet the City’s land use and design objectives for this key part of Ontario’s original downtown. The objectives have been defined through The Ontario Plan (TOP) (2020), summarized in the following sub-section.

Map 1: PUD Area Vicinity Map
2710
2 Map 2: PUD Area Location Map
2711
3 1.1 The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Objectives
The Downtown West PUD builds upon the vision and development and design principles for Downtown Ontario as outlined in The Ontario Plan (TOP). The Ontario Plan (TOP) Community Design Element 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 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 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 wide 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.

The TOP land use designation for the PUD area is Mixed-Use - Downtown (MU-Downtown) as shown in Map 3 (TOP 2050 Land Use Mixed Use – Downtown District Place Type) and summarized in Table 2-1 (TOP 2050 Land Use Designations Summary –Mixed-Use – Downtown). MU-Downtown 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. In addition, in MU-Downtown, there is an intention to enhance historic character. Maximum intensity is 2.0 Floor Area Ratio and allowed density is 25.0 to 75 dwelling units per acre.
2712
4 Table 2-1: TOP 2050 Land Use Designations Summary – High-Density Residential and Mixed-Use - Downtown Land Use Designation Residential Density & NonResidential IntensityIntention Mixed-Use -
Downtown (MU -
Downtown)

25.0 to 75.0 dwelling units per acre

2.0 FAR for retail and office uses
Envisioned as an intensive vertical and horizontal mixture of retail, office, and residential uses in a pedestrian friendly atmosphere. The historic character is enhanced. The most intensive uses are envisioned along Euclid and Holt Avenues.

Map 3: TOP 2050 Land Use Mixed Use – Downtown District Place Type 2713

VERSION (DRAFT)
5 The TOP Plan Policy Plan (General Plan) establishes a long-term vision for Ontario: “a sustained, community-wide prosperity which continuously adds value and yields benefits.” In addition to this overarching vision, the following four components establish by City Council serve as the basic building blocks that set the foundation for a unified and prosperous community:
 A Dynamic Stability that enables our community to confront the continued dynamic growth of the region and technological change with confidence and a sense of opportunity.
 A Prosperous Economy that sustains the perception and reality of prosperity across our entire community that positively impacts all the people of Ontario and is broadly – though not uniformly – shared.
 Distinctive Development that integrates our varied and diverse focal points, districts, centers, corridors, and neighborhoods to provide a feeling of coherence without sacrificing uniqueness.
 Recognized Leadership in local governance that stimulates excellence and serves to unify the people of Ontario in support of best practices in conducting public endeavors.

The Downtown West PUD 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 this PUD are as follows:

City Council Goals
 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 Governance
 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.

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.
 A system of vibrant retail, town, and neighborhood centers responsive to market demands and woven into the fabric of the community.  A demonstrated ability to attract housing in pursuit of our acknowledged responsibility to balance housing with the job growth that drives our quality of life.
 One of the most comprehensive and diverse housing stocksin the region that offers broad choices for its diverse workforce and their families, ranging from entry level housing to executive level development; from semi-rural to highly urban. 2714
6  Distinctive and well-maintained neighborhoods that offer exceptional variety in lifestyles, with convenient access to schools, recreation and cultural facilities, places of worship, places of employment and shopping.

Vision: Distinctive Development - Development Quality
 Unique and authentic districts, centers, and corridors of varied scales that establish Ontario as one of the most vital and diverse locales in Southern California.
 Superior quality and design of the built environment and open spaces through careful attention to detail at every scale, including public and private spaces and structures.

Vision: Distinctive Development - Leisure and Cultural Activities  Strong historic districts and cultural resources matching interests of a population with diverse cultural backgrounds, as well as offering a range of arts and entertainment venues of international significance.

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.  Goal LU-3: Flexibility: Staff, regulations, and processes that support and allow flexible response to conditions and circumstances in order to achieve the Vision.
- LU-3.1: Development Standards. We maintain clear development standards which allow flexibility to achieve our Vision and provide objective standards that ensure predictability and deliver the intended physical outcomes. - LU-3.2: Design Incentives. We offer design incentives to help projects achieve the Vision. - LU-3.3: Land Use Flexibility. We consider uses not typically permitted within a land use category if doing so improves livability, reduces vehicular trips, creates community gathering places and activity nodes, and helps create identity.  Goal LU-4 Phased Growth: Development that provides short-term value only when the opportunity to achieve our Vision can be preserved. - LU-4.4: Shared Infrastructure. We encourage and facilitate the use of shared infrastructure (including shared or managed parking) in urban, mixed use, and transit-oriented Place Types.
2715
7 Housing Element
 Goal H-2 Housing Supply & Diversity: Diversity of types of quality housing that are affordable to a range of household income levels, accommodate changing demographics, and support and reinforce the economic sustainability of Ontario. - H-2.1: Corridor Housing. We revitalize transportation corridors by encouraging the production of higher density residential and mixed-uses that are architecturally, functionally, and aesthetically suited to corridors. - H-2.2: Historic Downtown. We foster a vibrant historic downtown through facilitating a wide range of housing types and affordability levels for households of all ages, housing preferences, and income levels. - H-2.5: Housing Design. We require architectural excellence through adherence to City design guidelines, thoughtful site planning, environmentally sustainable practices, and other best practices. - H-2.6: Infill Development. We support the revitalization of neighborhoods through the construction of higher-density residential developments on underutilized residential and commercial sites.  Goal H-3 Government Regulations: A City regulatory environment that balances the need for creativity and excellence in residential design, flexibility and predictability in the project approval process, and the provision of an adequate supply and prices of housing. - H-3.1: Incentives. We maintain incentive programs that can be offered to projects that provide benefits to the community such as exceptional design quality, economic advantages, environmental sustainability, or other benefits that would otherwise be unrealized. - H-3.2: Flexible Standards. We allow flexibility in the application of residential and mixed-use development standards in order to gain benefits such as exceptional design quality, economic advantages, sustainability, or other benefits that would otherwise be unrealized. - H-3.3: Development Review. We maintain a residential development review process that provides certainty and transparency for project stakeholders and the public yet allows for the appropriate review to facilitate quality housing development. - H-3.4: Financial Incentives. We consider financial incentives to facilitate and encourage the production, rehabilitation or improvement of housing, or provision of services where such activity furthers housing and community-wide goals.  Goal H-5 Special Needs: A full range of housing types and community services that meet the special housing needs for all individuals and families in Ontario, regardless of income level, age, or other status. - H-5.1: Senior Housing. We support the development of accessible and affordable senior housing and provide financial assistance for seniors to maintain and improve their homes.
- H-5.2: Family Housing. We support the development of larger rental apartments that are appropriate for families with children, including, as feasible, the provision of services, recreation, and other amenities.

Parks and Recreation Element
 Goal PR-1 Planning & Design: A system of safe and accessible parks that meets the needs of the community. - PR-1.1: Access to Parks. In all new residential development areas, we strive to provide a park and/or recreational facility within walking distance (¼ mile) of every residence and prioritize the establishment of parks in environmental justice areas that do not have adequate access to parks.
- PR-1.14: Multi-family Residential Developments. We require that new multi-family residential developments of five or more units provide recreational facilities or open space, in addition to paying adopted impact fees. 2716
8 Community Economics Element
 Goal CE-1 Complete Community: A complete community that provides for all incomes and stages of life. - CE-1.6: Diversity of Housing. We collaborate with residents, housing providers, and the development community to provide housing opportunities for every stage of life; we plan for a variety of housing types and price points to encourage the development of housing supportive of our efforts to attract business in growing sectors of the community while being respectful of existing viable uses. - CE-1.7: Retail Goods and Services. We seek to ensure a mix of retail businesses that provide the full continuum of goods and services for the community.
 Goal CE-2 Placemaking: A City of distinctive neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and centers where people choose to be. - CE-2.1: Development Projects. We require new development and redevelopment to create unique, high-quality places that add value to the community.
- CE-2.2: Development Review. We require those proposing new development and redevelopment to demonstrate how their projects will create appropriately unique, functional, and sustainable places that will compete well with their competition within the region. - CE-2.4 Protection of Investment. We require that new development and redevelopment project existing investment by providing architecture and urban design of equal or greater quality.

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

Community Design Element
 Goal CD-1 Complete Community: A dynamic, progressive city containing distinct and complete places that foster a positive sense of identity and belonging among residents, visitors, and businesses.
- CD-1.2: Place Types. We establish Place Types in urban, mixed use, and transit-oriented areas to foster the City's identity as a premier community and require new development within each Place Type to incorporate prescribed urban patterns, forms, and placemaking priorities.
- CD-1.3: Existing Neighborhoods. We require the existing character of viable residential and non-residential neighborhoods be preserved, protected, and enhanced.
- CD-1.4: Transportation Corridors. We will enhance our major transportation corridors within the City through landscape, hardscape, signage and lighting. The extent of enhancement should be appropriate to the use, type, and context of each corridor.  Goal CD-2 Design Quality: Goal: A high level of design quality resulting in neighborhoods, commercial areas, public spaces, parks, and streetscapes that are attractive, safe, functional, human- scale, and distinct. - CD-2.1: Quality Building Design and Architecture. We encourage all development projects to convey visual interest and character through:
- Building volume, massing, and height to provide context-appropriate scale and proportion; 2717
9 - A true architectural style which is carried out in plan, section, and elevation through all aspects of the building and site design and appropriate for its setting; and
- Exterior building materials that are articulated, high quality, durable, and appropriate for the architectural style. - CD-2.4: Urban, Mixed Use, and Transit-oriented Areas. We establish Place Types to require mixed use, urban, and transit-oriented areas to be designed and developed as pedestrian oriented areas that are integrated with adjacent neighborhoods and promote a vibrant, comfortable, and functional environment, as defined for each Place Type. - CD-2.5: Streetscapes. We design new and, when necessary, retrofit existing streets to improve walkability, bicycling and transit integration, strengthen connectivity, and enhance community identity through improvements to the public right-of-way such as sidewalks, street trees, parkways, curbs, street lighting and street furniture.
- CD-2.7: Sustainability. We collaborate with the development community to design and build neighborhoods, streetscapes, sites, outdoor spaces, landscaping, and buildings to reduce energy demand through solar orientation, maximum use of natural daylight, passive solar and natural ventilation, building form, mechanical and structural systems, building materials, and construction techniques. - CD-2.8: Safe Design. We incorporate defensible space design into new and existing developments to ensure the maximum safe travel and visibility on pathways, corridors, and open space and at building entrances and parking areas by avoiding physically and visually isolated spaces, maintaining visibility and accessibility, and using lighting. - CD-2.9: Landscape Design. We encourage durable, sustainable, and drought-tolerant landscaping materials and designs that enhance the aesthetics of structures, create and define public and private spaces, and provide shade and environmental benefits. - CD-2.10: Parking Areas. We require all development, including single-family residential, to minimize the visual impact of surface, structured, and garage parking areas visible from the public realm in an aesthetically pleasing, safe and environmentally sensitive manner. Examples include:
- Surface parking: Shade trees, pervious surfaces, urban run-off capture and infiltration, and pedestrian paths to guide users through the parking field.
- Structured parking: facade articulation, screening, appropriate lighting, and landscaping. - Garage parking: providing access to single-family residential garages through alley access, recessing garages from the frontage to emphasize front doors or active living spaces.
- CD-2.11: Entry Statements. We encourage the inclusion of amenities, signage, and landscaping at the entry to neighborhoods, commercial centers, mixed use areas, industrial developments, and public places that reinforce them as uniquely identifiable places. - CD-2.12: Site and Building Signage. We encourage the use of sign programs that utilize complementary materials, colors, and themes. Project signage should be designed to effectively communicate and direct users to various aspects of the development and complement the character of the structures.
 Goal CD-3 Urban, Mixed Use, and Transit-Oriented Place Types: Vibrant urban environments that are organized around intense buildings, pedestrian and transit areas, public plazas, and linkages between and within developments that are conveniently located, visually appealing and safe during all hours.
- CD-3.1: Unique Identity. We promote development that heightens the unique character and identity of each Place Type by requiring compatible land uses and land planning, site design, and building design that promotes an active public realm. 2718
10 - 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 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, aesthetics, and the intended functionality (as defined by the Place Type). - CD-3.6: Managed Infrastructure. We collaborate with developers and property owners to facilitate development that realizes the envisioned character and functionality of the Place Type through the use of green and shared infrastructure within each Place Type.  Goal CD-4 Historic Preservation: Historic buildings, streets, landscapes, and neighborhoods, as well as the story of Ontario’s people, businesses, and social and community organizations, have been preserved and serve as a focal point for civic pride and identity. - CD-4.5: Adaptive Reuse. We actively promote and support the adaptive reuse of historic sites and buildings to preserve and maintain their viability.
2719

VERSION (DRAFT)
11 1.2 Background and Related Efforts
In addition to the TOP, there are several previous plans and efforts focused on Downtown Ontario that served as background for the development of this PUD, shaping the vision and guiding principles. These previous plans and efforts are summarized in the following section. In addition, the City of Ontario’s ongoing focus on the Downtown area has resulted in several related efforts that seek to improve the historic character, urban design, mobility conditions, among others, all of which strengthens Downtown Ontario and complements this PUD. These efforts are summarized in Chapter 7 (Administration and Implementation) as part of the implementation of the PUD.

1.2.1 Downtown Ontario Design Guidelines
The Downtown Ontario Design Guidelines, adopted by City Council in 1998 as 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. The PUD area is encompassed within the Downtown Design Guidelines project area and straddles the Historic Retail and the Residential Districts as defined in the guidelines. This PUD aims to reinforce the concept plan and associated guidelines included in the Downtown Design Guidelines and further strengthen Downtown Ontario’s identity and character. The Downtown Ontario Design Guidelines should continue to be used as a guide for the PUD area to ensure that properties continue to enhance the City’s historic original downtown area.

1.2.2 Downtown Civic Center Planned Unit Development
The Civic Center Planned Unit Development, adopted in 2006 and amended in 2011 and 2021, includes planning and design principles, development regulations, and performance standards to guide and govern the development of a 6-block area of the City of Ontario, which consists of a portion of the City’s original downtown and its current civic center area.

The PUD area lies directly west of the Civic Center Planned Unit Development project location, as shown in Map 1, creating opportunities to define complementary regulations, standards, and guidelines along Euclid Avenue to ensure a cohesive corridor experience.

1.2.3 West Euclid Activation
The West Euclid Activation effort, which concluded in Spring 2022, focused on defining activation goals for West Euclid Avenue and developing strategies for the activation of properties in the Downtown area, 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. Goals for the effort that influence this PUD include: (1) A vibrant and walkable district with rich historic and architectural The Euclid Avenue median divides the west side of Euclid Avenue, shown on the left and part of this PUD area, and the east side of Euclid Avenue, shown on the right and part of the Downtown Civic Center Planned Unit Development area.
2720
12 character, (2) a regional tourist destination, (3) the heartbeat of Ontario’s thriving arts and culture scene, and (4) an 18-hour downtown with a variety of uses that support residents, visitors, and business owners. As part of the effort, existing and proposed projects were identified and focused projects for further study were determined. Several urban design studies were also included to re-envision specific sites within the downtown area, which are also located within the PUD area, including:
• Gemmel’s Pharmacy, a historic building with an opportunity to be subdivided into multiple tenants to activate the Euclid Avenue and B Street ground floor frontage through active uses such as a café or entertainment club with upper floor residential units. The design study envisions façade improvements that enhance the existing historic character as well as a parklet along B Street to support adjacent restaurants, in addition to a suite of other placemaking strategies.
• Granada Theater, a 1926 historic theater, envisioned as an anchor of a revitalized Downtown with an opportunity to be restored and infused with new uses, such as retail shops, creative offices, and arts-related uses. The design study envisions active ground floor design treatments and façade improvements.
• 123 W D Street, an Art Deco style building with an opportunity for adaptive reuse into a quasi-industrial use such as a brewery or other maker-space operation, or entertainment venue. The design study envisions reuse of existing surface parking lot as outdoor space with enhancements like shade, lighting, and art.

A new concept for B Street is also included, which envisions the street as an active, pedestrian-focused street with a variety of placemaking elements, in addition to a concept to transform existing alleys in into activated, pedestrian-focused alleyways. The vision and activation concepts from the West Euclid Activation document serve as background and context for the development of the PUD guiding principles and the land use and urban design concepts, discussed in Chapter 2-4.

1.2.4 Euclid Avenue Relinquishment and Historic Property Treatment and Management Plan In 2020, the City approached the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and formally initiated the relinquishment of State Route 83 (Euclid Avenue) to the City. Caltrans conducted and approved Relinquishment Assessment Reports in 2023 to determine if relinquishment is appropriate from a state transportation perspective and found that Euclid Avenue does not serve regional or statewide transportation needs, thereby allowing the City the control in the operation of the transportation system to better represent community interests.

As part of the relinquishment of Euclid Avenue, Caltrans and the City prepared a Historic Property Treatment and Management Plan (HPTMP) which fulfills regulatory compliance for the relinquishment of the historic segment of Euclid Avenue. The public right-of-way from Philadelphia Street to the I-10 was designated as Local Landmark No. 67 by City Council on January 16, 2001. On August 10, 2005, the public right-of-way from Philadelphia Street in Ontario to 24th Street in Upland was listed on the National Register of Historic Places as a significant cultural landscape. Contributing character-defining features of the resource include the 60-foot wide median, historic rock curb, scored sidewalks, King standard light posts, double planting of California pepper trees (Schinus molle), silk oaks trees (Grevillea robusta), and other mature vegetation such as deodar trees (Cedrus deodara) and Canary Island palms (Phoenix canariensis). The HPTMP provides guidance to the City on appropriate maintenance practices and future improvements in a manner that is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Implementation of the HPTMP will preserve, protect and enhance the historic character and quality of Euclid Avenue, streamline environmental review for future improvement projects, and safeguard Euclid Avenue’s position on the National Register of Historic Places. 2721
13 1.3 Community and Stakeholder Engagement
Community and stakeholder engagement for the Downtown West PUD included three rounds of community outreach and two rounds of targeted stakeholder conversations via roundtable sessions. The community outreach was conducted through in-person pop-up events as part of existing community events and online via virtual workshops. The roundtable sessions consisted of key stakeholders, including property and business owners, residents, representatives from the downtown Ontario Improvement Association, developers, and others.

An overview of the three rounds of engagement is summarized in the following pages, along with a summary of the feedback shared by the community and stakeholders:
 Round 1 Visioning and Goals aimed to share the PUD vision and goals, as well as capture community ideas, aspirations, and priorities. - Feedback from broader community: 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 options to promote accessibility and active transportation infrastructure for safer connections.
- Feedback from the stakeholder roundtable: Discussions highlighted the Granada Theater as an important historical asset, emphasizing the need for consistent programming to activate it. 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 to facilitate social activities. Moreover, leveraging the West 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.

The community engaged with a pop-up art installation to provide their input on the vision and goals for the PUD. The pop-up was part of the larger State of the City event in March 2023.
2722
14  Round 2 Land Use and Urban Design Concept focused on capturing community feedback for preliminary land use and urban design concepts.
- Feedback from the stakeholder roundtable: Stakeholders tasked the PUD with providing clarity on design standards for private development and recommendations for improvements for alley enhancements and public art. In addition, the PUD should provide recommendations for the location and management of the trash facility.

Furthermore, to enhance connectivity, stakeholders suggested the exploration of an east-west connection on the block between B and C street along Euclid Avenue. - Feedback from broader community: The community was enthusiastic about a comprehensive and interconnected network, particularly with enhancements to the public realm, pedestrian safety, and landscaping. The concept of an open garden with pop-up food vendors was well liked due to its potential to establish family-friendly spaces. There was continued support for the adaptive reuse of historic buildings on B Street and Laurel Avenue to promote more active uses. Community members enjoyed the idea of transforming alleyways into a pedestrian-centric area that would potentially create shopping and dining destinations downtown. To accommodate for the influx of people, they recommended extending business hours and increasing the frequency of public transportation.

Common Themes across Engagement
• Maintain historic character.
• Adaptive reuse of historic structures with
active uses, such as shopping and dining.
• Pedestrian infrastructure to make it safer
and more comfortable to get around.
• Prioritize the success of local businesses
through improved waste management and
ample parking.
• Enhanced transportation infrastructure that
supports mobility options and makes it
easier to get around in the district by foot or
bike.

The community responded to
the Land Use and Urban Design
Concept and conceptual
illustrations for key sites within
the downtown. The pop-up was
part of summer concert series
in the park in July 2023.
2723
15  Round 3 Draft PUD Showcase focused on sharing the draft contents of the PUD with the community and answering questions. The Showcase was designed as an open house with topical stations, including:

1. About the Project, which covered the PUD area, about PUDs, project timeline, and relationship to the TOP.

2. Vision and Guiding Principles, which highlighted the overall vision and the six guiding principles for the project, as well as the land use, urban design, and public realm concept for the PUD area. The concept also included corridor-specific concepts for Euclid Avenue, Laurel Avenue, Holt Boulevard, B Street, and the Alley.

3. Historic Overview, which covered the historic-focused components of the PUD, including key standards, relationship to the Downtown Ontario Design Guidelines, and the PUD-specific Historic Architectural Guidelines.

4. Height and Setbacks, which highlighted allowed heights and setback standards in the PUD area.

5. Land Use and Ground Floor Environment, which included a map of zoning districts with intent statements, a summary of ground floor use standards for B Street, Holt Boulevard, and Euclid Avenue, and ground floor design standards.

6. Next Steps, which highlighted key projects that address mobility, historic preservation, culture, wayfinding, and future development that are separate from the PUD and will be implemented over the next few years.
2724
16 2 Vision and Guiding Principles
The Downtown West PUD vision describes the future of the PUD area to provide direction for how the area will grow and evolve over time. The vision is consistent with the TOP and builds off the West Euclid Activation effort, discussed in Section 1.2. The vision is supported by guiding principles that aim to provide additional detail on how to achieve the vision.

Downtown West PUD Vision
As the historic center of Ontario, Downtown West, is envisioned as the placed-based, people-focused, commercial, and cultural "heart" of the city and features several designated historic buildings and landmarks.

Downtown West will support a variety of businesses, housing opportunities for residents with a variety of income levels, creative spaces, entertainment options, and institutional uses while preserving its historic character, buildings, neighborhoods, and places.

Complementing the wide 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. 2725
17 GUIDING PRINCIPLES

COMPLETE & CONNECTEDNETWORK
Downtown West’s robust grid pattern network connects the retail core seamlessly to surrounding neighborhoods, Holt Boulevard, and the future Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) station for the West Valley Connector. The layout of the street system provides for a variety of choices across travel routes and modes for each trip. Downtown West’s simple, open network of pedestrian-friendly streets and blocks is the ideal built environment and framework for any urban, mixed use, or transit-oriented area, and the existing block structure should be maintained and enhanced through mid-block paseos and improved alleys.

To support the vision, the following guiding principles apply:

UNIQUE IDENTITY
Downtown Ontario is the economic, cultural, and civic hub of Ontario, organized by a simple, walkable network of tree-lined streets, laid out as a new “Model Colony” in the 1880s. Downtown West’s history, historic buildings, and distinct urban form define downtown’s unique identity. This is especially true onthewestside of EuclidAvenue where a continuous streetwall of quality buildings, many of which are historic resources, create an irreplaceable sense of place and history. Downtown’s historic character and architectural styles should be celebrated and enhanced through appropriate infill development and adaptive re-use of historic and non-historic structures to reinforce the area’s identity.

HUMANSCALE PUBLICREALM
Downtown West’s public realm is a traditional network of sidewalks and public open spaces that are lined with a rich variety of buildings. The district’s streets,sidewalks, and alleysshould be enhanced as “outdoor rooms of community,” providing an attractive, comfortable, safe, and lively environment to walk, explore, shop, dine, meet friends and neighbors, and participate in community events. Each newpublic and privatepublic realm improvementshould reinforce a “pedestrians first” intent, and complement existing character, with a focus on strengthening the public realm character along Euclid Avenue through an enhanced sidewalk environment with elements that match the east side of the street.
2726
18 Within Downtown West, historic buildings from various time periods comfortably mix with newer buildings. Along Euclid Avenue, buildings are unified by active ground floors with transparent storefronts and accessible pedestrian entries from the sidewalk aligned with a historic “main street” character. Across the district, new buildings are welldesigned, with appropriate height based on location, with façade enhancements that also provide opportunities for public art. Future infill development and renovations should respect and reflect established facade patterns to preserve Downtown’s historic character. The architecture of new buildings should not try and replicate historic styles, but be contemporary while harmonizing with the scale, rhythm, and character of their historic predecessors.

Within the heart of Downtown West, a variety of active uses built right up to the sidewalk “blur the line” between the outdoor public realm and the indoor private businesses. Restaurants, cafes, and shops enliven the sidewalk environment through activities and outdoor dining. On side streets and as one moves toward surrounding residential neighborhoods, frontages are designed with ground floor commercial uses and residences that quitter in nature and promote privacy from passersby. Buildings here are set back from the sidewalk, reducing visibility into the residence or office, while offering views outward to the street and other public spaces, improving public safety and pedestrian comfort.

Successful downtowns require active and coordinated management of infrastructure, services, and activities, including parking, trash, public realm maintenance, special events, business recruitment, and on-going promotional activities. For Downtown Ontario, the active and coordinated management of the area’s variety of infrastructure and services can help the district to remain competitive. Of note is a managed system of trash collection along the north-south alley between Euclid Avenue and Laurel Avenue within Downtown West that seeks to balance the desire for an enhanced, pedestrian alley with the opportunity to consolidate trash collection across tenants.

MANAGEDINFRASTRUCTURE

ACTIVE& CONTEXT-SENSITVE FRONTAGES

APPROPRIATE CONTEXTUAL

BUILDING DESIGN & PRESERVATION
2727
19 2.1 Land Use, Urban Design, and Public Realm Concept The Downtown West PUD vision and guiding principles are visualized in Figure 2-1 (Land Use, Urban Design, and Public Realm Concept) with a focus on demonstrating land use, urban design, public realm-related possibilities, and potential development opportunities within the PUD area. As a companion to the overall concept for the PUD area as shown in Figure 2-1, the following section highlights several illustrative concepts showcasing development opportunities for the PUD area focused on the following key corridors: (1) Euclid Avenue, (2) Holt Boulevard, (3) B Street, (4) the Alley, and (5) Laurel Avenue. These concepts aim to provide additional detail around future conditions and on-the-ground views of the PUD area to illustrate the implementation of land use, urban design, future development, and public realm-related outcomes of the project. It is important to note that participation by a variety of City of Ontario departments is needed to fully implement the land use, urban design, and public realm concepts for the PUD.

Figure 2-1: Land Use, Urban Design, and Public Realm Concept for the PUD Area 2728
20 2.1.1 Euclid Avenue
As the historic and preeminent boulevard in the city, as well as the north-south major spine and eastern boundary of the PUD area, the future vision for Euclid Avenue is centered on protecting and strengthening this important corridor through promoting a diverse array of destinations where residents and visitors can comfortably walk, shop, explore, dine, and meet friends. Historic buildings fronting Euclid Avenue are protected with additional opportunities for new development through adaptive reuse to further infuse the street with a mix of retail shops, restaurants, and entertainment venues, as well as new housing opportunities, as shown in Figure 2-2 (Conceptual Illustration for Euclid Avenue). The continuous street edge and urban form is preserved, ensuring that any new development complements and enhances historic resources to further celebrate the unique identity of downtown.

Historic Euclid Avenue
Euclid Avenue plays an important role in Ontario’s historic downtown and the overall character of the PUD area. Euclid Avenue is a major scenic and historic resource of the city given its status as Local Landmark No. 67 with character defining features, such as the 60-foot-wide landscaped median, scored sidewalks, King standard light posts, and a California pepper tree and silk oak tree canopy. Additionally, the rightof-way and median from 24th Street in Upland to Philadelphia Street in Ontario are listed on the National Register of Historic Places as a significant cultural landscape historic district. Many buildings that line Euclid Avenue within the downtown are historic resources with a Existing Public Realm along Euclid Avenue
Euclid Avenue is a major scenario and historic resource in the city. 2729
21 Continuous commercial uses and active storefronts fronting Euclid Avenue generate a constant flow of pedestrian traffic and are complemented by a vibrant and welcoming public realm with generous sidewalks, street trees, and streetscape furniture that reflects the existing street character on the east side of Euclid Avenue.

Euclid Avenue seamlessly blends indoor and outdoor public spaces to create a series of “outdoor rooms” and green spaces for the community, allowing activities, events, temporal programming and kiosks, and outdoor dining to spill out onto sidewalks and into plazas, blurring the line between the public and private spaces.

Landscaping along Euclid Avenue is designed to achieve harmony and unity between the indoor and outdoor spaces and softens hardscape areas, enhancing the pedestrian experience. Mid-block paseos provide connections between Euclid Avenue and the alley to promote greater pedestrian access and connectivity within downtown, as shown in Figure 2-3 (Conceptual Illustration for Euclid Avenue).

The public right-of-way of Euclid Avenue has an opportunity to be enhanced with the relinquishment of the historic corridor from California Department of Transportation to City of Ontario’s ownership, as discussed in Section 1.2, allowing the street to transform into a multi-modal corridor, with mid-block pedestrian connections, high-visibility crosswalks, on-street parking, and bicycle lanes.

Local businesses with active storefronts along Euclid Avenue Figure 2-2: Conceptual Illustration for Euclid Avenue
2730
22 Precedent Imagery for Euclid Avenue
Existing open space, referred to as the Cactus Garden, that fronts Euclid Avenue
Figure 2-3: Conceptual Illustration for Euclid Avenue
2731
23 2.1.2 Holt Boulevard
The future vision for Holt Boulevard, which serves as a key east-west corridor for the downtown and the southern boundary of PUD area, is centered on further establishing it as the southern gateway to downtown. To further define a sense of arrival to the downtown from Holt Boulevard, transit-oriented development and taller buildings frame the street and contribute to a distinctive skyline, serving as a visual beacon. The facades of the buildings are canvases for public art and murals, highlighting the rich history and identity of Ontario, as shown in Figure 2-4 (Conceptual Illustration for Holt Boulevard).

With the future Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) station for the West Valley Connector at the intersection of Holt Boulevard and Lemon Avenue, Holt Boulevard is transformed into a multi-modal corridor that provides connections between downtown Ontario and major activity centers within San Bernardino County. First-last mile improvements, such as enhanced crosswalks, are in place to promote safe and convenient access for pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit users. Holt Boulevard also has a comfortable public realm with streetscape elements, such as pedestrian-scaled lighting, landscaping, and a mature tree canopy.

Figure 2-4: Conceptual Illustration for Holt Boulevard
Precedent Imagery for Holt Boulevard
2732
24 2.1.3 B Street
B Street serves as pedestrian-oriented, east-west corridor within the PUD area, with a future vision as a vibrant “main street” where local businesses thrive.

Historic facades and enhanced storefronts offer a setting for a diverse range of community-serving uses and amenities and housing. The upper floors of buildings fronting B Street, whether existing or new, create versatile spaces that can accommodate commercial and residential uses, as shown in Figure 2-5 (Conceptual illustration for B Street).

B Street has a unique public realm with overhead lighting spanning the street to create a pedestrian-scaled environment, parklets to provide outdoor dining to support restaurants, landscaped bulb-outs, enhanced crosswalks, and signage to guide visitors to the alley and Euclid Avenue. B Street is also lined with mature street trees that frame the street and offer shade for pedestrians. Pedestrian and bicycle mobility and safety are enhanced on B Street as a bicycle boulevard with intersection improvements.

Existing Condition of B Street Existing Public Realm on B Street 2733
25 Precedent Imagery for B Street Figure 2-5: Conceptual Illustration for B Street Figure 2-6: Conceptual Illustration for B Street
2734
26 2.1.4 The Alley
The alley provides north-south access in the PUD area as a parallel path to Euclid Avenue, connecting east-west streets between E Street and Holt Avenue. The mix of active ground floor uses fronting Euclid Avenue extend their vibrancy to the enhanced alley with entrances, storefronts, outdoor dining, and greening that collectively create a lively and dynamic atmosphere, as shown in Figure 2-7 (Conceptual illustration for the Alley). The enhanced alley features a special asphalt treatment to create a sense of place and human-scale and lighting that helps to distinguish it from other walkways. The alley also creates a flexible venue that can be temporarily closed to vehicular traffic to accommodate a variety of uses and activities, such as entertainment and music, cultural events, and community programming. Downtown Ontario’s cultural identity is represented through interactive public art installations, murals, and sculptures that line the alley.

A pedestrian-focused and enhanced alley serves many purposes for the project area, depending on its specific block and the needs of the surrounding context.

The alley is a space that integrates shared infrastructure, such as waste and trash services that are centrally located and accessible to support local commercial businesses. The alley is a preferred green and walkable path for pedestrians, connecting residents and visitors to parking, housing, and other destinations. To support this balanced and flexible vision, the alley segment between A block and B block is envisioned to support more functional alley infrastructure, while the segment between D block and C block adjacent to the Granada Theater is envisioned as a vibrant, active pedestrian-focused alley.

Existing Condition of the Alley Existing Alley Gateway at Holt Avenue 2735
27 Precedent Imagery for the Alley
Precedent Imagery for the Alley
Figure 2-7: Conceptual Illustration for the Alley
2736
28 2.1.5 Laurel Avenue
As a neighborhood greenway, Laurel Avenue is focused on the comfort and safety of pedestrians and cyclists by providing a local connection and route from the Mixed-Use Retail Core and Mixed-Use Transitional subdistricts to the heart of downtown.

Laurel Avenue’s public realm design includes improvements of pedestrian-friendly features such as enhanced crosswalks, a mature tree canopy, pedestrian lighting, and landscaping, as shown in Figure 2-8 (Conceptual illustration for Laurel Avenue).

Laurel Avenue has a mix of three to four story mixed-use or residential buildings with active ground floor uses that contribute to the character of the street.

Precedent Imagery for Laurel Avenue
Figure 2-8: Conceptual Illustration for Laurel Avenue
2737
29 3 District and Block Plan
The District and Block Plan for the PUD area
establishes the following sub-districts and
blocks as shown in Map 4 (PUD Sub-Districts
and Blocks) and described in the following
subsection:
 Downtown Mixed-Use Retail Core
sub-district encompasses Blocks A-D
located between E Street to the north,
Holt Boulevard to the south, Euclid
Avenue to the east, and Laurel Avenue
to the west.
 Downtown Mixed-Use Transitional
sub-district encompasses Blocks E-H
located between E Street to the north,
Holt Boulevard to the south, Laurel
Avenue to the east, and Palm Avenue
to the west.
 Downtown Residential sub-district
includes Block I located between D
Street to the north, an alley
connecting Palm Avenue and Fern
Avenue to the south, Palm Avenue to
the east, and Fern Avenue to the west.

Map 4: PUD Sub-Districts and Blocks
2738
30 3.1 Downtown Mixed-Use Retail Core (Blocks A-D)
The Downtown Mixed-Use Retail Core sub-district encompasses Blocks A–D located between E Street to the north, Holt Boulevard to the south, Euclid Avenue to the east, and Laurel Avenue to the west. This sub-district includes blocks that front Euclid Avenue, the major north–south corridor within the PUD area that is envisioned as an 18-hour entertainment, shopping, and dining destination, and Holt Boulevard, a future multi-modal corridor. The purpose of the sub-district is to:
• Enable a mix of commercial uses with strategic multifamily residential infill development to support the creation of a vibrant mixed-use district where people can walk to a variety of neighborhood destinations.
• Require active uses and active frontages along Euclid Avenue, B Street, Holt Boulevard, and the north–south
alley located between Euclid Avenue and Laurel Avenue
through uses that generate pedestrian foot traffic, such as retail, restaurant, and entertainment, as well as design treatments that support a lively and comfortable public realm.
• Along Euclid Avenue, maintain the visual character and development scale of up to 45 feet (4 stories)not to exceed the height of historic buildings, such as the Granada Theatre to further protect and enhance the corridor as a major
scenic and historic resource of the city.
• Create an enhanced, vibrant, and active public realm and streetscape along Euclid Avenue that is consistent with the existing elements located on the east side.
• Promote safe and convenient multi-modal access with enhanced public and private right-of-way that improves pedestrian and bicycle connectivity and encourages car-independent visits to and within downtown. • Provide a southern gateway on Holt Boulevard and first-last mile improvements to support connections from the West Valley Connector Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) station at Holt Boulevard and Lemon Avenue to downtown. • Integrate shared infrastructure facilities,such as parking, trash services, and open space opportunitiesto support new development and uses downtown. • Transform the north–south alley located between Euclid Avenue and Laurel Avenue, and the open space fronting Euclid Avenue on Block A referred to as the “cactus garden” into publicly accessible open spaces for downtown users with activation, public art, and programming. • Create mid-block connections along Euclid Avenue to provide greater porosity and pedestrian access to the alley. • Orient public artwork as part of new development within the public realm to be visually and/or physically accessible to the public to showcase the culture and identity of downtown Ontario.
2739
31 3.2 Downtown Mixed-Use
Transitional (Blocks E-H)
The Downtown Mixed-Use Transitional sub-district encompasses Blocks E–H located between E Street to the north, Holt Boulevard to the south, Laurel Avenue to the east, and Palm Avenue to the west.

The purpose of the sub-district is to:
• Enable a mix of commercial uses and multi-family residential infill development that accommodates various housing
typologies that support the creation of a complete
community and act as a transition from Downtown MixedUse Retail Core to existing residential neighborhood west of Palm Avenue. Support residential-only, multi-family infill housing in Block H.
• Support development flexibility by allowing vertical and horizontal mixed-use projects, as well as commercial and entirely residential projects. Allow for variations in building height that respond to the surrounding context, including lower heights along Palm Avenue in proximity to existing residential uses.
• Enable greater height within the core of the sub-district along Laurel Avenue of up to 50 feet (4 stories). • Encourage the transformation of Laurel Avenue into a neighborhood greenway with pedestrian-scaled lighting, crosswalks and bicycle infrastructure, enhanced landscaping, and tree canopy to provide a safe and local connection for residents to downtown. • Introduce placemaking elements, such as new suspended lighting, parklets, signage, landscape bulbouts, and enhanced crosswalks on B Street to enhance the sub-district and create an east–west “main street” with retail shops and services. • Orient public artwork as part of new development within the public realm to be visually and/or physically accessible to the public to showcase the culture and identity of downtown Ontario.
• Integrate shared infrastructure facilities, such as parking and open space opportunities to support new development and uses in downtown. • Designate Block H exclusively for residential uses to support additional multi-family housing that accommodates a variety of housing typologies. • Provide first-last mile improvements along Holt Boulevard to support pedestrian and bicycle connections from the West Valley Connector Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) station at Holt Boulevard and Lemon Avenue to downtown. 2740
32 3.3 Downtown Residential (Block I)
The Downtown Residential sub-district includes Block I located between D Street to the north, an alley connecting Palm Avenue and Fern Avenue to the south, Palm Avenue to the east, and Fern Avenue to the west. The purpose of the sub-district is to:
• Support additional multi-family infill housing that
accommodates various housing typologies.
• Ensure compatible development with surrounding lowscale residential neighborhood through development and design standards.
• Create height districts that respond to the surrounding residential neighborhood and create transitions between new and existing development.
2741
33 4 Zoning and Land Use Plan
The Land Use Plan for the PUD is organized by zoning districts which use the same boundary as the sub-districts established in Chapter 2. Zoning districts are defined and described in the following sub-section and shown in Map 5 (Zoning Districts).

4.1 Zoning Districts

4.1.1 Downtown Mixed-Use Retail Core (MU-RC)
The MU-RC Zone intends to:
a. Provide a variety of shopping,
restaurant, entertainment, cultural
offerings, and multi-family housing
options within a mixed-use setting
that promotes a vibrant district and
pedestrian activity.
b. Reinforce and enhance Euclid
Avenue’s historic commercial
character within Downtown Ontario
through tailored ground floor uses
that also support an active pedestrian
environment, including retail,
restaurant, and entertainment.
c. Support a diverse ground floor
environment along Laurel Avenue
through a mix of residential units and
commercial uses, including
residential units directly accessible
from the sidewalk along all streets,
except Euclid Avenue.
2742
34 4.1.2 Downtown Mixed-Use Transitional (MU-T)
The MU-T Zone intends to:
a. Provide for a variety of neighborhood
services and amenities and multifamily housing options within a mixeduse setting that promotes pedestrian activity.
b. Support a diverse ground floor
environment through a mix of
residential units and commercial uses
that focus on the provision of
community-serving uses that support
a complete neighborhood.
c. Support projects that are entirely
commercial, entirely multi-family, or a
mix of the two, either horizontally or
vertically configured.
d. Require new development on Block H
to be residential-only projectsthrough
the establishment of a distinct subarea
to support more multi-family housing
in downtown within walking distance
to destinations and amenities.

Insert 4 story residential or mixed-use building
with façade articulation (not boxy)
2743
35 4.1.3 Downtown Residential (DR)
The DR Zone intends to:
a. Provide a variety of multi-family
residential housing options that
create additional housing
opportunities within Downtown
Ontario and support residents who
are within walking distance of services
and amenities.
2744
36 Map 5: Zoning Districts
2745
37 4.2 Permitted Land Uses
Permitted land uses, activities, and facilities in the PUD area which are not addressed in the Ontario Development Code are listed in Table 4-1 (Permitted Land Uses by Zoning District). Details and full descriptions of specific land uses, activities, and facilities within each land use category are found in the Ontario Development Code Section 5.01 Land Use Matrix; definitions are included in Division 9.01 (Definitions) of the Ontario Development Code.

The Downtown West PUD defers to existing allowed land uses, activities, and facilities for those parcels located within the boundaries of the LUA-1 (Euclid Avenue Entertainment) sub-district of the MU-1 (Downtown Mixed Use) and Euclid Avenue (EA) Overlay Zoning Districts established by the Ontario Development Code.

The EA Overlay District is established to protect Euclid Avenue as a major scenic and historic resource of the City. Within LUA-1/MU-1, the Euclid Avenue Protection Corridor is established by the Ontario Development Code to restrict ground floor uses fronting Euclid Avenue to retail, restaurant, and entertainment uses per Table 5.02 Land Use Matrix and Figure 5.01-2: MU-1 (Downtown Mixed Use) Zoning District Land Use Map of the Ontario Development Code. Uses not allowed on the ground floor along Euclid Avenue but permitted within the MU-1 Zoning District may occupy the upper floors to create a mixed-use corridor.

This PUD extends the Euclid Avenue Protection Corridor ground floor use restrictions per Table 5.02 Land Use Matrix of the Ontario Development Code to B Street, Holt Boulevard, and sections of Laurel Avenue as identified in Map 6. In addition, this PUD establishes a ground floor use restriction for residential uses as listed in Table 4-1.

The symbols shown in Table 4-1 have the following meanings:

Symbol Description ODC Section
P Permitted -
C Conditionally Permitted Section 4.02.025 (Conditional Use Permits) of the Ontario Development Code
L1 Residential land uses are not permitted on the ground floor within 35 feet of the property line in specific locations indicated by Map 6.

Entries to upper floor or ground floor spaces behind the 35 feet are allowed.
-
Promoting Ground Floor Land Use Flexibility
Aligned with the Euclid Avenue Protection Corridor, allowed ground floor uses along Euclid Avenue are limited to retail, restaurant, and entertainment uses per the Ontario Development Code. To further support and complement Euclid Avenue, this PUD establishes the same ground floor use allowances to portions of B Street, Holt Boulevard, and Laurel Avenue as shown in Map 6. However, to promote additional residential development in the PUD area and flexibility, this PUD establishes an additional ground floor restriction, L1, which indicates that residential uses are allowed on the ground floor beyond 35 feet of the property line as indicated in Table 4-1. L1 is intended to support development flexibility while ensuring that uses lining the sidewalk encourage pedestrian

2746
38 Table 4-1: Permitted Land Uses by Zoning District
Uses Zoning District
MU-RC MU-T DR Additional
Blocks E-G Block H Block I Regulations/Notes
Residential
Multiple Family Dwellings P (L1) P (L1) P P
Senior Housing P (L1) P (L1) P P
Townhomes P (L1) P (L1) P P
Mixed-Use Developments (commercial developments
incorporating single-family and/or multiple-family dwellings)

P P - -
Work/Live Unit C C - -
2747
39 Map 6: Ground Floor Land Use
2748
40 5 Development Regulations and Guidelines
This chapter sets forth standards to govern the placement, height and bulk of permitted buildings and other structures, and to establish requirements for vehicular access, parking and loading, open space, landscaping, and signs for commercial uses to be incorporated into Development Plans. Unless otherwise stated herein, all development within the PUD area shall meet the applicable standards and requirements of the Ontario Development Code.

Guidelines and informational text are woven throughout this chapter to communicate design principles and desired features for the PUD area for relevant topic areas. Guidelines, which are recommendations, are listed in a separate box adjacent to the relevant development regulations, which are required, to provide guidance to business owners, property owners, homeowners, City staff, and design professionals for the development and/or rehabilitation of properties in the PUD area. The design guidelines included in this chapter are complementary to the Downtown Ontario Design Guidelines, which are included as Reference “C” of the Ontario Development Code, which establishes a set of architectural, graphic, and lighting design principles within the City’s historic original downtown area, which includes the PUD area.

5.1 Applicability
The standards and guidelines established by this chapter shall apply to Development Projects (Project) within the PUD area for any new construction, addition, remodel, or reallocation requiring a building permit, encroachment permit, or other similar entitlement by the City. 2749
41 Table 5-1 (Development Regulations Summary) provides an overview of development standards for the PUD area with references to specific sections, where applicable, for more detailed regulations and information.

Table 5-1: Development Regulations Summary Table
Standard Zoning District

MU-RC MU-T DR
Density and Intensity
Dwelling Units per
Acre
25–75 DU/Acre
Floor Area Ratio 2.0 FAR Commercial
Building Height
Allowed Height Map 8
Upper-Level
Stepbacks
See Section 5.3.1
Setbacks
Street Setbacks Map 9
Other Setbacks
Block A-G None required
Block H and Block I Table 5-2 (Minimum Setbacks)
Minimum Building
Separation
Individual buildings on the same lot must have a minimum separation of 10’ clear between structures. Other requirements for clearance between buildings as regulated by the Uniform Building Code.

Allowable
Encroachments into
Required Setbacks
- ODC Sec. 6.01-D.2 (Block H
only)
ODC Sec. 6.01-D.2
Building Design
Entrances
Entrances
Commercial Along Euclid Avenue, Holt Boulevard, and B Street, all primary entrances for commercial uses shall be distinguished by architectural features or overhead projections, such as an awning or canopy.

Residential See Section 5.151
Modulation
Modulation Projects shall provide a horizontal change in plane in the building façade of at least 1.5’ every 50’ linear.

Transparency
Blank Walls Windowless expanses of walls shall not exceed 20’ length.

Façade Articulation
Façade Articulation See Section 5.5.4
Ground Floor
2750
42 Materials A durable base material (12- 15 inches high min./max.) such as brick, tile, exterior cement plaster, or pre-cast architectural concrete shall be used.

Transparency
Commercial Glazing shall be clear glass to permit clear views into the interior space for a minimum of 70% of the ground floor.

Residential Glazing shall be clear glass to permit clear views into the interior space for a minimum and 15% for residential units on the ground floor.

Doors All glass doors are prohibited. Glass doors with kickplates are required. No part of any open doors shall extend into the public rightof-way.

Varied Roofline
Varied Roofline See Section 5.156
Roof Decks
Roof Decks Shall be stepped back a min. depth of 5’ from the roof edge.

Open Space
Private and Common Open Space
Minimum Average
Amounts
Min. average 200 sq. ft. combined open space per residential unit required through a combination of either private open space or common open space. At least 90 percent of residential units shall provide private open space at a minimum of 40 square feet.

Types Private open space: balconies, patios, and rooftops decks with direct access from residential unit. Common open space: passive and active, indoor, and outdoor spaces, open landscaped and hardscaped areas, and roof decks and patios if available to building community.

Minimum
Dimensions
Private open space: 40 sq. ft., min. of 6’ for any dimension thereof. Common open space: 15 sq. ft.

Paseos
Requirements See Section 5.158 (2)
Landscaping
Requirements Detailed Landscape and Irrigation Plan required for each Development Plan; see Section 5.5.9.

Vehicle Access and Parking
Vehicle Access
Vehicle Access Driveway locations shall be consistent with the City of Ontario’s Traffic and Transportation Guidelines. Max. of 1 vehicle access point permitted per parcel as approved by the City Engineer unless required by the Fire Department. No vehicle access shall be taken from Euclid Avenue, B Street, or Holt Boulevard.

Off-street Parking and Loading
Surface Parking Setback a min. of 20’ from primary frontage, 10’ from open space, and 7’ from back of sidewalk Layout and Design See Section 5.1.11 (2.a.i)
Required Number
of Parking Spaces
Table 5-4 (Parking Requirements)
2751
43 5.2 Density and Intensity

1. Density and Intensity. Residential
densities (dwelling units per acre
[du/ac]) and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) are
defined for the PUD area by The Ontario
Plan and designated as follows by
zoning district, and shown in Map 7
(Allowed Density and FAR):
a. Within the MU-RC, MU-T and DR
Zones, the residential density range
shall be 25–75 du/ac and maximum
FAR shall be 2.0 for commercial
uses; residential uses are only
permitted on Block H and I.

Map 7: Allowed Density and FAR
2752
44 5.3 Building Height

1. Allowed Heights. Total building height (to flat roofline or eave of roof) shall not exceed the heights specified in Map 8 (Allowed Heights) above the highest existing sidewalk elevation.
a. Architectural Projections. Architectural projections, such as parapets, roofed towers and gable roofs, or elevator towers may extend up to 15 feet above the highest permitted height.
i. Rooftop Equipment. Any rooftop mechanical, venting or communications equipment shall be built within or otherwise screened by the roof structure, so that they do not project above parapets and are not visible from any public rights- of-way or neighboring buildings. b. Temporary Construction and/or Maintenance Machinery. Temporary construction and/or maintenance machinery shall not exceed a height of 122 feet, measured from existing grade, unless approved by the Federal Aviation Administration.

Context Sensitive Building Heights
To implement the TOP and support the established maximum densities and intensities, block-specific height districts were created, which also respond to place-based conditions and goals. They include:
• 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 maintaining existing character.
• 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.
2753
45 Map 8: Allowed Heights
2754
46 5.3.1 Upper-Level Stepbacks

1. Upper-Level Stepbacks.
a. Alley. Projects with property lines that front the alley between C Street and D Street, connecting Palm Avenue and Fern Avenue,shall not exceed the height established in Map 8 (Allowed Height) before stepping back a minimum depth of 10 feet as measured from the existing façade. b. Uses allowed within the stepback include:
i. Private Open Space (e.g., balconies, terraces);
ii. Shade structures, trellises, and similar;
iii. Green roofs and photovoltaic panels (screened by parapet roof); and iv. Other open space features per the Approving Authority.

2. Upper-level Additions to Designated Historic Buildings. Upper-level additions to buildings that have been identified as historic resources shall stepback a minimum depth of 15 feet as measured from the existing façade.

See Section 5.3.1 (1.b) for the list of uses allowed with the stepback. 2755
47 5.4 Setbacks

1. Street Setbacks. Projectsshall comply with the street setbacks set in Map 9 (Street Setbacks).

Street setback ranges establish a minimum and a maximum. Street setbacks are measured from the property line (back of sidewalk) to the building or structure. Property line(s) along public streets are subject to right of way dedication as required per the City Master Plan of Streets and Highways and Street Standard Drawings.
a. Minimum Setback for Ground Floor Residential Units. Where residential units on the ground floor are allowed per Table 4-1 (Permitted Land Uses by Zoning District), a minimum setback of 5 feet is required.
b. Setback Features. Features allowed within the street setback may include:
i. Landscaping and planters;
ii. Hardscape (e.g. stoops, patios);
iii. Shade structures;
iv. Arcades and galleries;
v. Walls and fences per ODC Sections 6.02.020 and 6.02.025; vi. Seating and furniture;
vii. Outdoor dining; and
viii. Other open space amenities per the Approving Authority.

2. Other Setbacks.
a. Blocks A-G. None required.
b. Blocks H and I. All other required setbacks are listed in Table 5-2 (Minimum Setbacks and Building Separation).

3. Minimum Building Separation. Discrete buildings on the same lot must have a minimum separation of 10’ clear between structures. Other requirements for clearance between buildings as regulated by the Uniform Building Code.

Street Setbacks
Street setbacks are established as ranges to support
flexibility while responding to sub-district visions and the allowed uses on each block. They include:
• 0-3 feet setback to support existing
commercial-only ground floor character and
active public realm while promoting some
variation.
• 3-10 feet min/max setbacks to support a
commercial or residential ground floor
character while promoting some variation.
• 5-10 feet min/max setbacks to support a
residential-only ground floor character.
2756
48 Table 5-2: Minimum Setbacks
Location Requirement
All Blocks
Street Setbacks See Map 9 (Street Setbacks)
Blocks A-G
Other Setbacks None required
Block H and Block I
Interior Side 5’
Rear Setback 5’
Porches, Patio Covers, and Similar Architectural
Projections1
See ODC Sec. 6.01 (Exceptions to Development Standards – Encroachments into Required Setback Areas)
Private Drives/Alleyways (from edge of drive aisle)
Living Area 10’
Garages and other Nonhabitable Structures 5’
Dwellings to Parking Spaces
Living Area 10’
Garages and other Nonhabitable Structures 5’
Parking Space or Drive Aisle to Wall or Fence 5’
1 No projection may encroach into any required easements. 2757
49 Map 9: Street Setbacks
2758
50 5.5 Building Design

5.5.1 Entrances

1. Entrances. A minimum of one primary entrance shall be located on the primary frontage of each building and open onto a sidewalk or other public space. All primary entrances shall include a minimum of one lighting fixture designed to provide illumination of pathways for pedestrians. a. Commercial. Along Euclid Avenue, Holt Boulevard, and B Street, all primary entrances for commercial uses shall be distinguished by architectural features or overhead projections, such as an awning or canopy.
b. Residential. In locations where dwelling units are allowed on the ground floor abutting a public or private street per Table 4-1 (Permitted Land Uses by Zoning District) and Map 6 (Ground Floor Land Use), the primary entryway (front door) shall be oriented toward the street.

Where there is a physical site constraint, provide a clearly identifiable pedestrian entry to the site from the street.
i. Upper Floor Entries. Entries to upper floor residential uses shall not front Euclid Avenue. When located on other street frontages with ground floor use restrictions per Table 4-1 (Permitted Land Uses by Zoning District) and Map 6 (Ground Floor Land Use), the visible entry shall be no wider than 15 feet to avoid disturbing the rhythm of the retail spaces.

5.5.2 Modulation

1. Modulation. Projects shall provide a horizontal change in plane in the building façade of at least 1.5 feet every 50 linear feet. The Approving Authority may approve alternate exterior building designs that achieve the City’s desired variation in building massing.

5.5.3 Transparency

1. Blank Walls. Windowless expanses of walls shall not exceed 20 feet in length.

Designing Visual Interest and Complementary Building Materials Building façades that articulate a mixture of horizontal and vertical projections help to visually break up the building mass into varying modulations and identified clusters to create visual interest.

Building exterior treatments including brick and smooth stucco finishes that complement the historic character of the PUD area are encouraged.
2759
51 5.5.4 Building Façades

1. Window Treatments. All windows shall have a recess minimum of 2 inches from the building wall plane. Window trim shall not be counted towards recessed minimum.

2. Façade Articulation. Façades facing a public or private street, the project perimeter, and all portions of exterior building elevations shall provide a minimum of two (2) of the following façade articulation techniques:
a. Change in exterior building materials to include at least two high quality building façade materials that accentuate or correspond to variations in building massing. Building materials may include, but are not limited to wood, glass, brick, metal spandrel, cement board siding, tile, or other material acceptable to the Approving Authority.
b. Porticos, awnings, terraces, balconies, eyebrows, or trellises of at least 12 inches in depth that provide variations in the building plane. c. A break in the façade plane of at least 8 inches in depth, which is applied to at least 10 vertical feet of the facade.
d. Other additional architectural enhancements that create a human scale to the building. Examples include handrails, fixed planters, and ornamental details such as lighting, molding, tiles, or other similar design elements acceptable to the Approving Authority.
e. Encroachment. Awnings, canopies, residential balconies, commercial signs, and decorative architectural elements may encroach into the public rights-of-way for a maximum of 4 feet.

5.5.5 Ground Floor

1. Materials. A durable base material (12- 15 inches high min./max.) such as brick, tile, exterior cement plaster, or pre-cast architectural concrete shall be used.

2. Transparency.
a. Commercial. Glazing shall be clear glass to permit clear views into the interior space for a minimum of 70% of the ground floor to create a traditional storefront.
b. Residential. Glazing shall be clear glass to permit clear views into the interior space for a minimum and 15% for residential units on the ground floor.

Traditional Building Style
Traditional building styles are common in Downtown Ontario. To align with this traditional style, glass doors with a kickplate are encouraged for new development.
2760
52 3. Doors.
a. All glass doors are prohibited.
b. No part of any open doors shall extend into the public right-of-way.

5.5.6 Varied Roofline

1. Any Project with a façade exceeding two stories in height, which faces a public or private street, shall be provided with an articulated roofline incorporating at least two of the following design elements:
a. A roof with a slope equal to or greater than 3 inches of rise for every 12 inches of run, including but not limited to a sloped or curved roofline at the top of the dwelling.
b. An open deck having a minimum clear area of 6 feet in depth and 8 feet in width. c. A flat roof with a minimum of 2 feet vertical height difference for a minimum of 10 horizontal feet along the roofline of each building façade. d. A vertical break in the façade plane of at least 1.5 feet in depth, which extends up and through the roofline. e. Any form of roofline variation incorporating a change or break in roof plane, such as horizontal recesses, incorporation of dormers, or other similar design elements acceptable to the Approving Authority.

5.5.7 Roof Decks

1. Roof decks shall be stepped back a minimum depth of 5 feet from the roof edge to prevent direct views of abutting residential neighbors.

5.5.8 Open Space

1. Private and Common Open Space. Private and common open space shall be provided for passive and active recreation opportunities within each project site intended for the use of the on-site residents and their guests. a. Minimum Average Amounts. A minimum average of 200 square feet of open space per residential unit is required through a combination of either private open space or common open space. At least 90 percent of residential units shall provide private open space at a minimum of 40 square feet. i. Off-street parking spaces, drive aisles, driveways, loading areas, service areas, or street setbacks shall not be included in minimum open space calculations.
2761
53 b. Types.
i. Private open space may include balconies, screened patios, and rooftop decks or in any combination thereof, and shall have direct access from each residential unit, intended for the exclusive use by the occupant of the residential unit and their guests. i. Common open space may include passive and active, indoor, and outdoor spaces, recreational spaces, open landscaped and hardscaped areas with fountains, seating, fire pits, or play structures, pool, and indoor fitness center. Other open space provided can include roof-top decks and patios available to the building community.
c. Minimum Dimensions.
i. A minimum area of 40 square feet with a minimum dimension of 6 feet in each direction shall be required for private open space. ii. A minimum dimension of 15 feet in each direction shall be required for common open space.

2. Paseos.
a. Dimensions. Paseos shall have an average width of 22 feet, a minimum width of 15 feet, and a minimum clear pedestrian path of 5 feet. b. Access. Paseos shall be physically and visually accessible from the connecting public sidewalk.
c. Elevation. Paseos shall be at ground level and ADA accessible. d. Blank Walls. Windowless expanses of walls lining paseos shall not exceed 20 feet in length, or be mitigated using one the following techniques:
i. Green wall, vines, or other vertical landscaping element that covers a minimum of 75 percent of the non-conforming blank wall area.
ii. Public art, including but not limited to, murals.

Residential Paseos
Paseos are encouraged for townhomes in the PUD area to provide internal access for pedestrians and break up building massing. 2762
54 5.5.9 Landscaping

1. Detailed Landscape and Irrigation Plan. A detailed Landscape and Irrigation Plan, fulfilling the requirements listed in the City of Ontario Landscape Development Guidelines and the Ontario Development Code, shall be submitted with each Development Plan. The plan shall specify all landscape and hardscape elements of the common open space area, as well as the perimeter yards abutting the street rights-of-way and all street trees and irrigation.

The final plan shall also show the location of all ground level utility boxes and mechanical equipment, along with methods of screening such devices from the public right-of-way and adjacent residences, where possible. A detailed Landscape and Irrigation plan shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits.
a. Water Conservation in Landscaping Act Requirement. The detailed Landscape and Irrigation Plan shall comply with the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881), commencing with the California Government Code Section 65591.

5.5.10 Vehicle Access and Parking

1. Vehicular Access. A maximum of 1 vehicular access point is permitted per parcel per the City of Ontario’s Traffic and Transportation Guidelines as approved by the City Engineer unless required by the Fire Department. a. No vehicular access shall be taken from Euclid Avenue, B Street, or Holt Boulevard.

2. Off-Street Parking and Loading. Off-street parking and loading shall conform to the standards set forth in Division 6.03 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) of the Ontario Development Code.
a. Exceptions:
i. Layout and Design.

1. Surface Parking.
a. Location. Off-street surface parking shall be located to the rear of the interior side of a building and away from public streets. b. Screening and Landscaping. Parking areas shall be screened from public streets and adjacent parcels, except for access and driveways, using one or any combination of the methods listed below:
i. Walls and fences. Low profile walls or fences consisting of brick, stone, or stucco for a minimum of 3 feet and a maximum of 3.5 feet in height. Plain concrete blocks, chain-link, or vinyl fencing are prohibited for screening purposes. ii. Planting. Plant materials consisting of compact evergreen plants that form an opaque screen that achieves a minimum height of 2 feet within 18 months after initial installation.

2. Structured Parking. All off-street and above ground parking structures shall be screened from public streets and designed to be compatible with the architectural character and quality of adjacent buildings. a. Ground Floor. The ground floor level of any off-street and above ground parking structure shall use one or any combination of the methods listed below:
2763
55 i. Wrap. Wrapped by habitable floor area, except for permitted entrances and exits, so that no portion of such facility is visible from adjacent public sidewalks or publicly accessible areas. Such habitable floor area shall have a minimum depth of 35 feet, as measured from the building façade.
ii. Landscaping. Landscaping for a minimum of 60 percent of the ground floor level of the structure’s street frontage, excluding areas occupied by driveways and portions occupied by habitable floor area.
iii. Screening. Screening for a total of at least 50 percent of the ground floor façade, including permitted signs, graphic or sculptural art, decorative screening or latticework.
b. Utility Transfer Boxes. Placement of utility transfer boxes within a parking structure is prohibited.

3. Residential Tandem Parking. Allow up to 50% tandem spaces for required parking for residential uses. Tandem parking shall be limited to a two (2) car maximum. Both spaces in the tandem arrangement shall be assigned to the same dwelling unit. Handicapped and guest parking spaces shall not be in tandem.
ii. Required Number of Parking Spaces. The number of off-street automobile parking spaces required are listed in Table 5-3 (Parking Requirements) based on general use classification, and subject to the following requirements:

1. All required residential parking spaces shall be provided on-site.

2. Commercial and visitor parking may be considered for off-site location within a public facilities or on-street with a parking demand and supply study approved by the Planning Director.

3. Parking for dwellings shall be provided on-site and guest parking may be provided on-street and off-site. a. Off-site parking requirements are subject to the following conditions:

Parking Structure Design
Design standards for parking structures are intended to minimize the visual impact on the public realm. Treatments such as landscaping and screening, as well as wrapping the parking structure with active uses, such as retail or
restaurants, can help to activate the ground floor of the structure adjacent to the sidewalk. Parking structures can also include decorative screening and art, such as murals, to complement the building design.

Source: Loveland Reporter-Herald

2764
56 i. On-street parking shall not be used for required resident parking.
ii. On-street parking shall only be counted along the public streets that are within approximately four blocks from the project site.
iii. On-street parallel parking spaces shall be calculated by the length of unobstructed curb adjacent to the project site. iii. Parking Management Plan: A parking management plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval to ensure that tandem parking spaces will be assigned to residents of the same dwelling unit.

Table 5-3: Parking Requirements
Use Number of Spaces Required
Residential 1 space per bedroom up to two bedrooms
2 spaces per unit for three bedrooms and above

0.20 spaces per unit for guest/visitor parking
Commercial 1 space per 250 square feet gross floor area for all permitted or conditionally permitted use Parking in Downtown Ontario
A park once strategy is encouraged in Downtown Ontario in which business patrons and visitors park in a single location and make multiple trips on foot, given the pedestrian-oriented nature of the area. Public transit is also available in Downtown Ontario, with an existing bus stop located in the northeast corner of Euclid Avenue and D Street for Omnitrans Route 83. Additionally, located near Euclid Avenue on Holt Boulevard is Omnitrans Route 61 which has been identified as the future West Valley Connector Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).

2765
57 5.6 Signs

1. Master Sign Program. A Master Sign Program shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Department, prior to issuance of a building permit, for new development or adaptive reuse projects. The sign program should be consistent with the Downtown Ontario Design Guidelines and the Development Code, and shall include tenant signs, pedestrian signs, directional signs, historical markers, etc. as needed.

Signs for Downtown Ontario
Sign programs that utilize complementary materials, colors, and themes that draw from existing buildings and Downtown Ontario, and consistent with the Downtown Ontario Design Guidelines, are encouraged. Specifically, themes for sign programs should be aligned with the Downtown Ontario Design Guideline’s Historic Preservation Retail Subdistrict for the PUD area. Signage should be designed to effectively communicate and direct users to various aspects of the development, including amenities, such as publicly accessible open space or paseo connections, and complement the overall character of the buildings. Examples of existing buildings and signs that represent the existing character of Downtown are shown below for reference.

2766
58 5.7 Service Facilities

1. Electrical Equipment. Electrical equipment shall be mounted on the interior of a building or mitigated through being enclosed and screened from public streets with walls, fencing, and/or landscaping that allows for sufficient ventilation or buried in vaults.

2. Antenna Pole or Dish. No antenna pole or dish shall be placed on any structure so that it is visible from ground level.

3. Service and Storage Areas.
a. Locations, sizes and design of service and storage areas shall be readily accessible by trash disposal company equipment and work crews, as reviewed and approved through the Development Plan Approving Authority. i. Commercial. Trash receptables/recyclable container storage areas shall be provided for all commercial uses. When located within the ground floor parking structure area, storage areas may be partially enclosed. ii. Residential. Trash receptacles/recyclable container storage areas shall be provided for all residential uses, within the ground floor parking area or within an enclosed room inside the buildings. When located within the ground floor parking structure area, storage areas shall be full enclosed.

5.8 Infrastructure
It is important that projects maintain and enhance the quality of life for residents and consumer alike, and that new projects enhance the community within which it is built. To that end, all projects constructed within the City shall be properly served by a full array of utilities – water, sanitary sewer, storm drain, electrical, gas, telecoms, data, etc. The properties within the boundary of this PUD shall be served by existing water lines and wastewater flows and/or upgraded to satisfy the required capacities as determined by the City and its service purveyors/agencies, including the Fire Department. If existing utilities do not exist to service the project, the project may be required to install new utilities and/or extend existing utilities as needed to provide service. Existing utilities are also subject to improvement, such as removal and replacement or upsizing, to meet demand. On-site stormwater drainage facilities shall be provided consistent with the San Bernardino County Stormwater Program’s Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) requirements for new development projects. Stormwater capture and infiltration facilities may include the utilization of vegetated swales, depressed landscaped basins, pervious concrete pavement, and/or underground stormwater retention/infiltration vaults.

The properties within the boundary of this PUD are considered a Priority Land Use (PLU). A PLU shall comply with the statewide Trash Provisions adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and trash requirements in the most current San Bernardino County Area-Wide MS4 Permit. Drainage from the PLU shall be designed with conveyance tributary to a Full Trash Capture System which has been approved by the SWRCB. 2767
59 5.9 Historic Preservation

5.9.1 Brief Development History of Ontario and the PUD Area The City of Ontario was established in 1881 when George and William Chaffey purchased 6,218 acres of land to develop a community called the Ontario Colony.

Initially the colony was surrounded by undeveloped land, Southern Pacific Railroad tracks to the south, and the Kincaid Ranch and San Antonio Canyon to the north. The two-hundred-foot-wide Euclid Avenue and landscaped parkway were developed along eight miles through the community from San Antonio Heights at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains south to the Southern Pacific Railroad Tracks. The median was landscaped Pepper trees and Palm trees and the street and curb were made of granite cobble stones. Likewise, miles of cement pipes were laid to provide water to the town.

Land in the community became available for purchase by November 1882. Settlers were given a provision of water that is proportional to their land acreage, an innovation in city planning that alleviated problems settlers faced elsewhere. By 1886, the Chaffey brothers sold their interest in Ontario to Charles Frankish and moved to Australia to develop similar planned community. Frankish expanded the town and formed the Ontario Land and Improvement Company. The Downtown Area of Ontario encompassing the PUD area developed as an extension of the original irrigation system and subdivision grid established by the Chaffey Brothers in 1881 (City of Ontario 2023a; City of Ontario 2013: 1; Arroyo Group 1998: 4).

In 1891, Ontario was incorporated as a city and adopted a City Council. The City’s industry was primarily focused on agriculture and much of the area contained citrus groves. In addition to citrus, the harvest of peaches, walnuts, and grapes were prominent in Ontario (City of Ontario 2023a). The City’s location included a gradual incline that provided the ideal landscape for gravity irrigation that supported the areas agricultural. As an Act of Congress of the Unites States, Ontario was declared the “Model Colony” in 1903 because of its high standard of urban development and innovative planning (City of Ontario 2023b).

5.9.1.1 Commercial Development
The majority of Ontario was agricultural during the late 1880s into the 1930s, when much of the city was undergoing large-scale residential, commercial, manufacturing and civic development. Commercial buildings from this period, such as the Old City Hall (built in 1937), Citizens Bank Block (built in 1895) and the Frankish Building (built in 1916), display the Period Revival styles such as the Italianate and Mediterranean style as well as brick commercial buildings (City of Ontario Planning Department 2012). The major commercial throughfares running east to west or north to south through the community were established to accommodate the infrastructure needs of a growing population and the inhabitants of the new single-family residential tracts, to the north, east and west of the downtown, constructed during the 1920s, to the 1940s.

Development of the city’s downtown and the PUD area during the 1950s saw the construction of single-story Modern style commercial buildings or facade rehabilitation of existing storefronts to “modernize” the aesthetics in downtown in an attempt to compete with new low-rise strip commercial style centers Downtown Ontario and Euclid Avenue - 1885

2768
60 located outside of the downtown. Some of the former residential buildings constructed in the Victorian style were converted to commercial use. It was common that styles typical for residential buildings were used for the new construction of commercial buildings. Commercial buildings located near residential neighborhoods often exhibit a small scale, one-story height, a front yard setback, low-pitched roof, and large windows (City of Ontario 2013: 2).

5.9.1.2 Residential Development
Early residential development in Ontario began with the establishment of the Ontario Colony in 1881. After land became available for purchase in 1882, a purchaser would buy a lot within the tract and construct residences in whatever architectural style and size of their choosing. Often these rural residences were associated with agricultural property as well, and an electric railway along Euclid Avenue provided efficient travel between the scattered properties (City of Ontario 2023a; City of Ontario 2013: 1; City of Ontario 2005: 1).

After the Ontario Land and Improvement Company in 1886, the development of Victorian style large single-family residences occurred along Euclid Avenue, Holt Boulevard (A Street), and on Emporia Avenue (known as Developer’s Row). During the early 1900s, small and large sized Victorian style homes were constructed in the neighborhoods located north and west of the project area. Soon the Craftsman style homes became the predominant style until 1920. The boom of the 1920s saw an increase in residential development further away from the downtown core as the oil, citrus, and tourism industries increased. During the Great Depression, homes were generally constructed with less decoration in a more modest style. Although jobs associated with construction funded by the WPA spurred population growth during the late 1930s, the 1940s saw a decline in construction until 1944 when the city’s industry shifted to post-war production.

Nearly 743 new residences were constructed by 1946 often in the Early Post War Tract, Minimal Traditional, and Ranch styles (City of Ontario 2013: 2).

By the 1950s, development of the city’s downtown saw the demolition and replacement of many of the Victorian style residences along Euclid Avenue, the retail corridor. Some homes were converted to commercial uses while other were replaced with mid-century modern commercial buildings or relocated elsewhere in the city (City of Ontario 2013: 2). However, many of the historic Victorian and Craftsman homes located in the Downtown West neighborhood have been preserved and are present today.

5.9.2 Relevant Regulatory and Guidance Document References The following section provides an overview of the relevant documents that are utilized by the City to determine findings related to the suitability of construction activities in the plan area. To ensure that any proposed project within the plan area involving new construction (infill), addition, alteration or demolition (full or partial), a Certificate of Appropriateness is required to ensure the preservation of the historic resource and any surrounding resources including their character defining features and integrity (see section 6.9.3.3 below). Additional reference documents and resources for historic preservation guidance are provide in Section

8.1. 5.9.2.1 Local Historic Preservation Ordinance
Ontario’s Historic Preservation Program seeks to preserve and protect the significant architectural, historical, and cultural resources, which reflect Ontario’s unique character and heritage. Planning staff along with the Historic Preservation (HP) Commission and the Historic Preservation Sub-Committee, who are appointed from the HP Commission, review all historic preservation applications, including proposed alterations to the exterior of historic buildings and alterations to public improvements, such as street treesthat are located within Ontario’s historic neighborhoods. The Historic Preservation Program implements the Historic Preservation Ordinance by processing Certificates of Appropriateness or Waiversfor minor alterations, restoration, and rehabilitation, Landmark Designations for 2769
61 local, state, and national registers, historic property evaluations, historic property surveys, and ensuring environmental compliance. The Program offers incentives for historic preservation such as the Mills Act Contract (Preservation Agreements), bronze plaques, the use of the California Historic Building Code, and the City Council hosted Model Colony Awards for historic resources within the City. Staff is currently preparing an Adaptive Reuse Ordinance (ARO) to further incentive preservation of historic buildings. Additionally, the City coordinates and collaborates with the local non-profit Ontario Heritage and other organizations to promote, inform, educate, and celebrate historic preservation and the program.

In 1983, a group of volunteer citizens, under the leadership of a qualified historic resource consultant, and funded by the State of California Office of Historic Preservation, surveyed nearly three thousand properties within the City that were at least fifty years of age at the time. Intensive level surveys and nominations were completed and submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation and the National Register of Historic Places for hundreds of properties thought to be historically eligible for designation. In 1991, the City Council had adopted the City’s first Ordinance intended to preserve historic resources through identifying processes for nomination, designation and appropriate treatment for alterations and additions of historic resources. Through the mid-1990s, a few amendments to the Ordinance were approved which further developed the program. During the late 1990s, the Planning Commission was assigned the duties of the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning Department allocated staff to the historic preservation program. During this period, the program grew at a rapid rate designating nearly 60 landmarks and 5 historic districts. Additional updates were made in 2001, 2003 and in 2015, with a comprehensive Development Code update dividing the Ordinance into 2 sections. The Ontario Development Code Chapters 4 and 7 establish the City’s scope of historic preservation activities and is the primary body of local law relating to historic preservation. Division 7.01 includes the purpose and authority for historic preservation, and Division 4.02 includes criteria for local historic designation and procedures for the alteration or demolition of historic properties.

On August 7, 2001, the City became a Certified Local Government (No. 46) by the State of California. To date, there are approximately 69 local governments within the State of California that participate in the CLG program. Pursuant to the National Preservation Act of 1966 and as amended in 1980, the Certified Local Government (CLG) program encourages the preservation of cultural resources by promoting a partnership among local governments, the State of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), and the National Park Service. Becoming a CLG, through the development and implementation of the local historic preservation program which is based on federal (The Secretary of Interior Standards) and state standards, provides the local jurisdiction the tools, technical training, and more meaningful leadership roles in the preservation of the community's cultural heritage. The six (6) basic requirements to maintain certification are listed below:

1. Maintain a comprehensive local historic preservation plan that identifies the preservation mission, goals, and priorities of the local government.

2. Enforce appropriate local legislation for designation and protection of historic properties.

3. Establish and maintain an adequate and qualified historic preservation review commission and non-commissioned staff.

4. Maintain a system for the survey and inventory of historic properties.

5. Provide for adequate public participation in the local historic preservation program.

6. Review and recommendation of historic properties within the local jurisdiction to the National Register of Historic Places.

The State of California conducts the annual review from each period beginning October 1st and ending September 30th to ensure that each CLG continues to meet the minimal requirements for participation and is satisfactorily performing its responsibilities. Pursuant to the CLG requirements, the HP Program oversees reconnaissance and intensive level surveys and is responsible for maintaining a Historic Resource Inventory (HRI) which includes surveyed properties, potential, proposed, designated and eligible properties. Staff works directly with the Historic Preservation Subcommittee, who are the keepers of the Ontario Register of Historic Properties, to review surveys and determine levels of historic significance and eligibility to the Ontario Register. 2770
62 5.9.2.2 Downtown Design Guidelines
The Downtown Design Guidelines (adopted in 1998) feature a set of architectural, graphic, and lighting design principles that provide guidance on rehabilitation of historic resources and makes recommendations on new infill construction that is located within the City’s historic original downtown area. The Guidelines were prepared to recognize and enhance the character of downtown. The recommendations are grounded in best practices and are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Section 1. Concept Plan identifies seven element districts, including the Euclid Avenue median, Historic Retail District, Civic Center, Museum/Transit Center, Education center, Residential neighborhoods, and Neighborhood commercial, within the downtown area. The PUD area straddles the Historic Retail District and the Residential Neighborhoods areas defined in the guidelines, each of which are summarized below, and shown in Figure 5-1. The Guidelines should be referred to throughout project development.

5.9.2.2.1 Historic Retail District
Section 2A. Architectural Design Guidelines: Retail Districts, establishes three subdistricts within the Historic Retail District based on the ages of buildings in the subdistrict as they relate to major architectural development periods within the overall area:
1 Historic Turn-of-the-Century Subdistrict (1880s to 1910s), 2 Historic 1920s -1940s Subdistrict, and the
3 Historic 1950s Subdistrict
The section also establishes three categories of buildings that appear throughout the each of the subdistricts within the Historic Retail District, and specific guidelines that should be followed for the preservation, rehabilitation, and restoration of the buildings within each category:
 Designated Buildings: Presently Listed on the Ontario Historic Building List and maintain a high degree of historic integrity,  Significant Buildings: Buildings constructed before 1950 for which historical development information is available. The original architectural features and elements of the building are intact but may be obscured by new additions, and  Context Buildings: Buildings constructed before 1950 for which no historical development information is available and/or no original architectural features and elements remain.

For Designated and Significant Buildings within the Historic Retail District, the guidelines provide architectural design guidelines in the areas of design, materials, color, signage, and lighting.

For Context Buildings and new infill construction within the Historic Retail District, the architectural design guidelines are discussed in terms of their associated subdistrict in the areas of building usage, massing, setbacks, storefront modulation, entrances, roof design, mechanical equipment, building elements, awnings, materials, and colors.

Additional guidelines are provided for projects related to alley walkways, mid-block pass-throughs in private structures, outdoor dining areas, adding leasable area to existing buildings in the historic retail area, and landscape design. 2771
63 PUD Area
Figure 5-1: Downtown Ontario Design Guidelines
Boundary
2772
64 5.9.2.2.2 Residential Neighborhoods
Section 4. Residential Design Guidelines establishes the process and objectives for residential properties within the residential neighborhoods in the guideline area. The section asserts that there are roughly 17 architectural styles present within the residential neighborhoods and no dominant style overall. The section provides general guidelines that pull from the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (see section 5.14.4.1 below) and are applicable for “additions, renovations, or restorations of all existing homes (154)” within the guideline area. The section also provides specific design guidelines for properties displaying the Craftsman Bungalow, Second Empire, Queen Anne, Colonial Revival, Tudor Revival, Wood Framed Farm or Grove House, Spanish Colonial Revival, and Mediterranean Revival architectural styles, and closes with guidance for non-historic and infill structures and landscape design guidelines.

5.9.2.3 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties(the Standards) are historic preservation principles which promote best practices for the treatment of historic properties. The Standardsinclude four approaches for the treatment of historic properties – Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction – and the choice of which approach best suits a project is dependent on the historical significance, physical condition, proposed use, and the intended interpretation of the historic property. Each approach includes guidelines that assist with the application of the approach to a wide range of property types. The following section provides a brief description of each of the four approaches and their application as quoted from the Standards (NPS 2017:2-3):

Preservation is defined as the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property. Work, including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally focuses upon the ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials and features rather than extensive replacement and new construction. The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a preservation project.

However, new exterior additions are not within the scope of this treatment. The Standards for Preservation require retention of the greatest amount of historic fabric along with the building’s historic form.

Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. The Rehabilitation Standards acknowledge the need to alter or add to a historic building to meet continuing or new uses while retaining the building’s historic character.

Restoration is defined as the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a restoration project. The Restoration Standards allow for the depiction of a building at a particular time in its history by preserving materials, features, finishes, and spaces from its period of significance and removing those from other periods.

Reconstruction is defined as the act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location. 2773
65 The Reconstruction Standards establish a limited framework for recreating a vanished or non-surviving building with new materials, primarily for interpretive purposes.

The selection of an appropriate treatment is dependent on the building’s individual historic significance, character-defining features, and the proposed new use.

The Standards encourage consideration of the building’s level of significance (National, State, and/or Local level), existing physical condition, proposed new use, and code compliance needs when selecting an appropriate treatment approach (NPS 2017: 3).

5.9.3 Review of Resources in the PUD Area

5.9.3.1 Summary of Survey Activities and the Ontario Register of Historic 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 of Ontario continued the survey efforts which resulted in documentation and evaluation of historic significance of nearly 3,000 properties, and the creation of Ontario’s Historic Resource Inventory (HRI) in which 835 properties were formally listed. In 1991, the City retained Architectural Resources Group (ARG) to further analyze historic properties located within the downtown, a former Redevelopment Area, and recommend an improvementstrategy to revitalize the area. Shortly thereafter, 65 local landmarks were designated. An additional survey was conducted in 2003 that updated information on buildings within the downtown. The City currently has 100 designated local landmarks, 14 of which are located within the downtown, 8 designated historic districts, 2 potential historic districts located in the downtown, 5 historic properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places and contains nearly 1,500 historic resources on the Ontario Register (HRI). See Figure 5-2 and the City of Ontario Historic Preservation Program for more details.

Figure 5-2: Historic Landmarks Map - South Section
2774
66 The 2003 survey identified a potential district, District 3, that is associated with the core commercial development in the City. District 3 was divided into geographic regions, or subdistricts, that were identified as they were related to observed patterns of historic urban development, as shown in Figure 5-3. Two of these subdistricts overlap the plan area, District 3-A and 3-D. The overall district record describes the primary architectural character of District 3 as a commercial area where the predominant styles are, “Twentieth Century Vernacular Commercial. These buildings tend to be modest and pragmatic in style. They rarely exceed two-stories and primarily possess one-part commercial block façade compositions. Wood frames, brick, and masonry are the main materials used to construct the buildings. Some notable architectural styles include commercial buildings in an Art Moderne, International Style, Contemporary, and Googie Style.”
Figure 5-3: District 3
2775
67 5.9.3.2 List of Designated/Nominated/Eligible Historic Resources in the PUD Area as of 2023 As of November 2023, the PUD area contains the following designated, nominated, and eligible historic resources. In addition to the high concentration of historic and potentially historic resources within the PUD area, there are a number of properties that have reached 45 years of age since the last survey effort in 2003.

The following map and table provides a list of the Designated (Purple), Nominated (Magenta), and Eligible (Pink) historic resources within the plan area, as well as the properties over 45 years of age that have not been previously surveyed (Green).

Figure 5-4: Historic Resources
2776
68 Table 5-4: Historic Resources
Address
Parcel Number
Current Use/
Description
Year Built Architectura
l Style
Current
Historic Status
Local Landmark Name
1 437 N. Euclid
Ave.
104835403 Unicare
Community
Health Center
1967 - Not Surveyed
2 429 N. Euclid
Ave.
104835404 Immigration
Attorney
c.1948
(NETR)
- Not Surveyed
3 427 N. Euclid
Ave.
104835405 Aktiva Nutrition 1946 Commercial Eligible
4 425 N. Euclid
Ave.
104835406 Downtown
Ontario
Improvement
Association
1948 Commercial Eligible
5 421 N. Euclid
Ave.
104835407 Work Boot
Warehouse
c. 1930 Commercial Eligible
6 417 and 419
N. Euclid Ave.
104835408, -09 Optometrist c. 1950 Commercial Eligible
7 413 and 415
N. Euclid Ave.
104835410 Rogers Flower
Shop and
Barber Shop
c. 1930 - Not Surveyed
8 401 N. Euclid
Ave.
104835411 Gloria's Cocina
Mexicana
1937 Moderne Designated
Landmark
Ontario Laundry Co.
10 123 W. E St.
and 420 N.

Laurel Ave.
104835401,-02,
104835413
Unicare
Community
Health Center,
Parking
c. 1960 Not Surveyed
14 210-220 W. D
St.
104835309 Multiple-family
residential
1946 Minimal
Traditional
Eligible
16 331 and 333
N. Euclid Ave.
104856604 U.S. Bank
Branch
1965 - Eligible
17 317 N. Euclid 104856605 Treasure
Banquet Hall
1950 Eligible
2777
69 Address
Parcel Number
Current Use/
Description
Year Built Architectura
l Style
Current
Historic Status
Local Landmark Name
18 311, 313, 315
N. Euclid Ave.
104856606 Cancha
Verde/Strum
Brewing
c. 1931 Brick
Commercial
Eligible
19 108 W. C St..
301/303 N.

Euclid
104856607 Emmon's
Building/
Granada
Theater
1926 Moderne/Art
Deco
Designated
Landmark
Emmon's Building (Granada
Theater)
24 (123 W. D St)
121 W. D St.
104856602 Associated
Telephone
Company
Building
1936 Art Deco Nominated
27 211 W. D St./
207 W. D St.
104856113 Frontier
Communication
s
c.1959
(NETR)
- Not Surveyed
28 303-305 and
311-315 N.

Laurel Ave.
104856107 Multiple-family
residential
c. 1920 Craftsman
Bungalow
Eligible
30 218 W. C St. 104856109 Single Family
residence
1908 Craftsman
Bungalow
Eligible
32 312 N. Palm
Ave.
104856112 Single Family
residence and
commercial
building
1920 Minimal
Traditional
Eligible
33 228 W. C St. 104856111 Superior Justice
Law Group
1955 - Not Surveyed
34 245 N. Euclid
Ave.
104856503 Valley Dept
Store
1950 Mid-Century
Modern
Eligible
35 233 N. Euclid
Ave. 223 N.

Euclid Ave.
235 N Euclid
Ave.
104856504 The Golden
Web Boutique
store
1916 Brick
Commercial
(Mediterrane
an Revival)
Designated
Landmark
People's Mutual Building and
Loan
36 231 N. Euclid
Av.
104856505 Unique Café 1904 Brick
Commercial
Designated
Landmark
Masonic Hall
2778
70 Address
Parcel Number
Current Use/
Description
Year Built Architectura
l Style
Current
Historic Status
Local Landmark Name
37 219 N. Euclid
Ave.
104856506 Herradura De
Oro
1948 Colonial
Revival
Eligible
38 215 N. Euclid
Ave.
104856507 Newsboy books 1946 Brick
Commercial
Eligible
39 211 N. Euclid
Ave.
104856508 Euclid Family
Dentistry
c.1925 Brick
Commercial
Eligible
40 207 N. Euclid
Ave.
104856509 Vacant
Commercial
Building
1910 Brick
Commercial
Designated
Landmark
W.W. Smith Grocery
41 106 W. B St.
203 N. Euclid
Ave.
104856510 Furniture
Dreams
(Residential on
second floor)
1908 Brick
Commercial
Designated
Landmark
Ostran's Department Store
44 126 W. B St. 104856512 Beautiful Smiles
Ontario
1906 Brick
Commercial
Eligible
45 108 W. C St.
115 W St.
104856502 Vacant Bank 1936 Brick
Commercial
Eligible
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 Commercial Designated
Landmark
Intl Order of Odd Felows
( I.O.O.F)
47 223, 225, 229,
235 N. Laurel
Ave.
104856202 Centro Legal De
Accidentes &
Cedar Pointe
Chiropractic
1947 Minimal
Traditional
Eligible
48 206 ,208, 210,
214, 216, 218,
220 W. B St./
205, 207, 209,
211, 213, 215
N Laurel Ave
104856203 Multiple shops
including
barber, Fitness,
beauty
1947 Commercial Eligible
2779
71 Address
Parcel Number
Current Use/
Description
Year Built Architectura
l Style
Current
Historic Status
Local Landmark Name
50 212, 214, 216,
218 N. Palm
Ave.
104856206 Small shops
(Tax services
and fitness)
1957 - Surveyed
51 215 W. C St. 104856201 Great
Commission
Church
International
(Christian
Church)
1948
(additions
1955,1959,19
66 Mid-Century
Modern
Eligible
52 137, 139, 143,
141 N. Euclid
Ave. and 105
W. B St.
104856403 Old Gemmel's
Pharmacy
1889 Brick
Commercial
Nominated
53 129 and133 N.

Euclid Ave.
104856404 DolEx Financial
Services
c. 1907 Brick
Commercial
Eligible
54 125 N. Euclid
Ave.
104856405 Bravo's Store 1910 Brick
Commercial
Eligible Friend Block / O.O.F. Sommerest
Hall/ People's Store
55 121 and 123
N. Euclid Ave.
104856406 Demolished -
Vacant
1894 Commercial Designated
Landmark
Friend Block / O.O.F. Sommerest
Hall/ People's Store
56 105, 109, 111,
115, 117 N.

Euclid Av.
104856407 Verizon, Bally
Spa, Night club,
Motorcycle run
1889 Commercial Designated
Landmark
Rose Block
57 104,108, 110
& 112 W.

Holt Blvd.
104856410 Botanica, Sabor
Honduren,
Beauty and
Barber
1895 Commercial Designated
Landmark
Citizens Bank Block
58 105 N. Euclid
Av.
104856408 Xolos Birria 1888 Brick
Commercial
Designated
Landmark
Holbrook Block
2780
72 Address
Parcel Number
Current Use/
Description
Year Built Architectura
l Style
Current
Historic Status
Local Landmark Name
59 101 N. Euclid
Av.
104856409 T Mobile 1895 Commercial Designated
Landmark
Citizens Bank Block
60 121, 123,
125,127 W. B
St
104856401 B St.

Professional
Bldg.;
Document
Preparation
Services Inc.,
Logan’s
Candies,
Isaprint,
c. 1930 Eligible
62 115 W. B St..
117 & 119 W.

B St..
104856402 Income Tax
office and
residential
upper floor
1922 Brick
Commercial
Designated
Landmark
Ontario Herald Building
63 114, 116, 118
W. Holt Blvd
104856411 Pirate staffing,
Ontario Boxing
Club
c. 1915 Brick
Commercial
Eligible
64 108 N. Laurel
Ave./ 120,
122, 124, 126
W. Holt Blvd.
104856412 Jobs, Insurance,
Pawnshop,
paved parking
C
1910 (additio
n c. 1950)
Brick
Commercial
Eligible
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)
Brick
Commercial
Eligible
66 207 W. B St. 104856312 Iglesia Fuente
and paved
parking
1949 Commercial Eligible
67 211, 213, 215,
217 W. B St.
104856303   Majestic
Trophy, Boxing
Club, Mary Kay,
office
1953 Commercial Eligible
2781
73 Address
Parcel Number
Current Use/
Description
Year Built Architectura
l Style
Current
Historic Status
Local Landmark Name
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)
Vernacular
wood frame
Eligible
70 120 N. Palm
Ave.
104856311 House c. 1915 Craftsman
Bungalow
Eligible
72 210, 212, 214,
216, 218 W.

Holt Blvd.
104856308 Eagles Aere and
Sams Liquor
1920 Brick
Commercial
Eligible

5.9.4 Historic Preservation - Certificates of Appropriateness and Demolition To ensure that a proposed project involving new construction (infill), addition, alteration or demolition (full or partial) of a historic resource protects the historic character and integrity of the resource and any surrounding resources, an application for a Historic Preservation - Certificate of Appropriateness must be filed pursuant to section 4.02.050: Historic Preservation—Certificates of Appropriateness and Demolition of Historic Resources of the Development Code. Issuance of a Waiver by the Planning Director or a Certificate of Appropriateness approved by the Historic Preservation Subcommittee orthe Historic Preservation Commission shall be required for projects involving any of the following (4.02.050:B.2):
 Alteration, addition, restoration, rehabilitation, remodeling, relocation, repainting, and/or resurfacing of an historic resource.  For any work to the exterior of any noncontributing historic resource located within the PUD area.  Infill development within the PUD area; and
• Any demolition, whether in whole or in part, of a historic resource or a noncontributor within the PUD area.

The following findings need to be met for the Historic Preservation-Certificate of Appropriateness application to be acted upon (4.02.050:D.1):
• The proposed alteration, restoration, relocation, or construction will not detrimentally change, destroy or adversely affect any significant architectural feature of the resource;
• The proposed alteration, restoration, relocation, or construction will not detrimentally change, destroy or adversely affect the historic character or value of the resource;
• The proposed alteration, restoration, relocation, or construction will be compatible with the exterior character-defining features of the historic resource; and
• The proposed alteration, restoration, relocation, or construction will not adversely affect or detract from the character of the historic district. 2782
74 The following findings need to be met for the Historic Preservation-Certificate of Appropriateness and Demolition application to be acted upon (4.02.050:D.2):
• The proposed demolition is necessary because all efforts to restore, rehabilitate, and/or relocate the resource have been exhausted; • The proposed demolition is necessary because restoration/rehabilitation is not practical because the extensive alterations required would render the resource not worthy of preservation;
• The proposed demolition is necessary because failure to demolish the resource would adversely affect or detract from the character of the District; and • The resource proposed to be demolished has been assigned a Tier III designation.

For approval of a Historic Preservation-Certificate of Appropriateness related to infill development within the PUD area, the following infill guidelines need to be incorporated into the design of all new buildings and structures (4.02.050:G.2; 4.02.050:I.1-4):
• New buildings, structures, or improvements constructed shall be designed to be compatible with the architectural style, features, and historic character of the properties within the PUD plan area.
• New buildings shall be compatible with the original style of the contributing buildings within the PUD plan area. The design of the new buildings shall therefore incorporate the following considerations:
o The design features and details of contributing structures; o The height, width, and length of the new construction shall be consistent with the original characteristic of the contributing structures; and o The exterior materials and treatment shall be similar to the contributing structures. • New buildings, structures, and/or improvements constructed on a historic property shall be designed to be compatible with the architectural style and features of contributing historic buildings and/or structures located on the historic property; and • New buildings/structures shall be compatible with the original architectural style of the contributing historic buildings on the historic property. The design of the new construction shall incorporate the following considerations:
o The design shall incorporate the design features and details of the historic structure; o The height, width, and length of the new building shall be consistent with the original characteristic of the historic building; and o The exterior materials and treatment shall be similar to the historic building. 2783
75 5.9.5 Historic Architectural Guidelines
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), is intended to provide appropriate design solutions that avoid adverse impacts to historic resources located within the PUD area. The guidelines provided in Section 7.01.065 of the Development Code should be used for any project in the PUD area.

To recognize and protect the historic significance of an architectural resource, it is important to understand the physical characteristics that are associated with various architectural styles to ensure that appropriate treatment approaches are used during any project involving a historic building, or when developing new buildings on or adjacent to a historic property. The City maintains a list of architectural styles with corresponding descriptions of the features that define each style on the Historic Preservation Program website. See the References and Resources at the end of this section for information on accessing the architectural style list.

New development that promotes context-sensitive and complementary buildings relative to the existing range of historic architectural buildings in Downtown West can help to create a cohesive district. Representative examples of existing historic buildings and their architectural styles in Downtown West and their associated characteristics are included below and on the following pages to help guide developers and architects in understanding the architectural styles and specific features present in the PUD area. While this is not an exhaustive list of the architectural styles present within the PUD area, the architectural styles referenced in the following pages constitute the primary styles present in the PUD area. To promote a cohesive district, new infill in the PUD area should use materials that are appropriate for and found within the district, such as glass, metal, siding, and brick.

Best practices for historic preservation propose that the architecture of new buildings and additions should not exactly replicate historic architectural styles, but rather be obviously differentiated while harmonizing with the scale, rhythm, and character of historic predecessors. Adjacent new construction, if it is not related to the property, should include clear differentiation. In addition, new construction should incorporate appropriate massing, scale, and buffers when located adjacent to a historic resource. Buffers may include setbacks and upper story stepbacks, for example. If construction is physically attached or located on a historic property, it should be reviewed for conformance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards. 2784
76 Historic Architectural Styles in the PUD Area

MODERNE
2785
77 ART DECO
Historic Architectural Styles in the PUD Area
2786
78 CRAFTSMAN BUNGALOW
Historic Architectural Styles in the PUD Area
2787
79 Historic Architectural Styles in the PUD Area

MINIMAL TRADITIONAL
2788
80 Historic Architectural Styles in the PUD Area

BRICK COMMERCIAL
2789
81 Historic Architectural Styles in the PUD Area

BRICK COMMERCIAL
2790
82 Historic Architectural Styles in the PUD Area

BRICK COMMERCIAL
2791
83 5.10 Public Art
As the City of Ontario continues to define itself as a desirable destination, the arts have taken on a greater role in enriching the lives of residents and enhancing the visitor experience. Public art may serve to delight and surprise, reflect upon the natural world, explore local history, express identity, or celebrate the contributions of important citizens. Ontario’s vision is to expand this dialogue and interaction through site-specific, distinctive landmarks designed by professional artists. With this in mind, in 2022 the City established a new Public Art Program for private and civic development under Title 5 Chapter 33 of the Ontario Municipal Code. For a public art program to be successful, careful consideration must be given to the selection of artists and artwork concepts, materials, locations, and length of display. While the following typologies and applications listed below are intended for the PUD, planning will ultimately be governed by a comprehensive citywide master planning effort which will equitably address all regions and be developed in consultation with the Department of Museum, Arts & Culture’s staff and the Public Art Advisory Commission.

5.10.1 Landmark Sculptures
Iconic and permanent large-scale outdoor works
become inextricably linked with a district or city, and, over time, serve as enduring and cherished
landmarks that are immediately recognizable.

Portals, parklets, plazas and medians warrant special
consideration as prime locations. Lighting helps
showcase the artwork, while also making the space
appear larger, safer, and more welcoming. Lighting
can also serve as an integral part of the sculpture to
captivate pedestrians in evening hours.

5.10.2 Murals
Murals add immediate vibrancy and vitality to
facades, setbacks, and blank walls. While murals may
appear relatively easy and inexpensive to
commission, careful planning needs to be in place in
property-owner agreements, site selection, surface
preparation, material quality, maintenance
responsibilities, and the level of security in
vulnerable areas such as alleys. Murals may be
painted directly on to a surface or mounted on
panels, or fabricated from tile or mosaic, depending
on anticipated length of display.

Cliff Garten. Zuckerberg Medical Center.

David Byrne. NYC.

Ralph Helmick. Pasadena.

2792
84 5.10.3 Streetscape Amenities
Artists bring a unique and original perspective to design. The City can take advantage of this expertise and talent to beautify and energize the pedestrian environment through artist-designed enhancements to functional furnishings such as bike racks, bollards, benches, street poles and transit shelters.

5.10.4 Private Development
Artists bring a unique and original perspective to design. The City can take advantage of this expertise and talent to beautify and energize the pedestrian environment through artist-designed enhancements to functional furnishings such as bike racks, bollards, benches, street poles and transit shelters.

5.10.5 Temporary Programming
Artists bring a unique and original perspective to design. The City can take advantage of this expertise and talent to beautify and energize the pedestrian environment through artist-designed enhancements to functional furnishings such as bike racks, bollards, benches, street poles and transit shelters.

Chris Burden. LACMA.

Sonia Romero. MacArthur Park.

Deborah Ashheim. San Francisco.

Sonia Romero. Grand Park.

2793
85 6 Public Realm Standards and Guidelines

6.1 Overview
Chapter 6 provides standards and guidelines for the public realm aimed at improving the sidewalk experience for all users. The public realm is defined as any publicly owned space, including streets, sidewalks, passageways, plazas, and other spaces that are accessible by everyone. An accessible, comfortable, and well-designed public realm is a crucial component to creating a sense of place, encouraging new development, and supporting the community.

This section will cover the following:
 Design standards for sidewalk clearance and outdoor dining to ensure that the sidewalk space throughout the PUD area can properly accommodate the multiple and simultaneous uses.
 Design guidelines for street furniture, pedestrian connections, signage and wayfinding, street trees, and parkways.
2794
86 6.2 Design Standards

6.2.1 Sidewalk Clearance

1. Minimum Sidewalk Clear Area. A minimum clear area shall be maintained for pedestrian circulation within the public sidewalk zone. This minimum clear area may be reduced to 4 feet in width adjacent to City-approved outdoor dining facilities or tree grates per review authority. Exceptions include:
a. Euclid Avenue. A minimum clear area of 6 feet shall be maintained for pedestrian movement.
b. B Street. A minimum clear area of 4 feet on the southside of B Street shall be maintained for pedestrian movement.
c. Laurel Avenue. A minimum clear area of 5 feet shall be maintained for pedestrian movement.
d. Holt Boulevard. A minimum clear area of 6 feet shall be maintained for pedestrian movement.
e. The Alley A minimum clear area of 5 feet shall be maintained for pedestrian movement.

EXISTING SECTION THROUGH

EUCLID AVENUE

2795
87 EXISTING SECTION THROUGH B STREET

EXISTING SECTION THROUGH LAUREL AVENUE

EXISTING SECTION THROUGH HOLT

BOULEVARD

EXISTING SECTION THROUGH THE ALLEY LOOKING NORTH

TOWARDS D STREET

2796
88 6.2.2 Outdoor Dining

1. Outdoor Dining. Outdoor Dining areas adjacent to a street level eating or drinking establishment along any street frontage will require a permit to ensure sidewalk clearance and ADA
requirements. Any such areas shall be designed in accordance with the provisions set forth in Section 2A.7 of the Downtown Ontario Design Guidelines, plus any additional features that may be required as part of a Conditional Use Permit for on-sale alcoholic beverages. Typical layout of outdoor sidewalk dining space is shown in Figure 6-1 from the Downtown Ontario Design Guidelines.

Outdoor Dining to Promote a Vibrant Euclid Avenue
Outdoor dining along Euclid Avenue is encouraged to promote a vibrant street. Outdoor dining along the sidewalk contributes to an active public realm with “eyes on the street” throughout the day. Providing a clear area on any public sidewalk is critical to ensuring that pedestrian movement is maintained, while allowing sidewalk dining and other uses on the sidewalk, such as street trees, benches, and other amenities.
2797
89 Figure 6-1: Typical Layout of Outdoor Sidewalk Dining Space (Downtown Design Guidelines) Source: Downtown Design Guidelines
2798
90 6.3 Design Guidelines

6.3.1 Street Furniture

1. Street Furniture. Incorporate a high level of street furniture including lighting, bus shelters, benches, tree grates, bike racks, and trash receptables.
a. Location. The selection of appropriate elements
should consider those streets with the heaviest
foot traffic, such as Euclid Avenue, Holt Avenue
and B Street, as well as existing sidewalk widths,
size and spacing of trees, proximity to store
entrances, etc.
b. Identity. Street furniture should reflect the
special character and theme of downtown
Ontario to create a district identity. The use of
repetitive materials and textures will create a
rhythm and consistency that will bring continuity
to the Districts and Blocks within the PUD area.

Bus shelter furniture shall be constructed with
decorative brick,.
c. ADA. All street furniture shall comply with American with Disabilities Act of 1990. d. Lighting. Incorporate pedestrian-scaled lighting fixtures that emit a warm light along the streets and sidewalks; the sidewalks should be well-lit.
i. Euclid Avenue. A combination of standard concrete and “King” standard post-top streetlights (Standard Drawing #5103) with LED lamps should be placed within the public sidewalk zone. ii. Holt Boulevard. A “King” standard post-top streetlights with LED lamps should be placed within the public sidewalk zone.
iii. Local Streets. King standard post-top lights should be placed within the public sidewalk zone. e. Glare. Direct lighting along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways to produce a minimal glare. 2799
91 i. All post-top lamps should incorporate shielding within the luminaire and/or globe to prevent glare into upper-level residential windows.
f. Overhead Lighting. Provide a minimum clearance height as required by City Services and the Fire Department for overhead lighting above local streets, such as B Street and The Alley to accommodate commercial trucks, service and maintenance vehicles, and emergency vehicles. g. Furniture Requirements.
i. Benches should have arms and backs.
ii. A powder-coated, dark finish should be applied to all fixtures and furniture. iii. Bollards may be placed at entrances to bicycle/pedestrian pathways and where controlled emergency, or maintenance access is required or desired. A bottom locking mechanism shall be provided to enable easy removal by authorized City personnel. iv. Litter receptacles should have a fixed top.
v. Design of bus stop benches and shelters should satisfy the criteria specified by the City and local transit agency (currently Omnitrans). vi. Bike racks should be located adjacent to parking areas or bicycle/pedestrian pathways.

Street furniture in the PUD area
is intended to match those
identified in the Downtown
Civic Center Planned Unit
Development, shown at left, to
create a consistent streetscape
identity along the west and east
sides of Euclid Avenue

2800
92 6.3.2 Pedestrian Connections

1. Pedestrian Pathways. Regard sidewalks and paseos as unifying elements throughout the PUD area. Design and locate enhanced pathways and connections to promote walkability within Downtown.

2. Euclid Avenue Pedestrian Paseos. Provide mid-block paseos, where appropriate for clear and comfortable pedestrian circulation between Euclid Avenue and The Alley. Provide midblock paseos and connections between Euclid Avenue to public outdoor spaces and public parking garages. See Section 5.6.2 for required paseo dimensions.

3. Traffic Calming. Where applicable, implement traffic calming measures throughout the PUD area, including bulb-outs, enhanced crosswalks, and others to facilitate safe and comfortable pedestrian connections.

6.3.3 Public Realm Signage and Wayfinding

1. The Alley Gateways. Points of entry to the alley should include gateway elements or signage to create a sense of “welcoming” and wayfinding into the space.

2. Signage. Utilize signage and/or environmental graphics to aid in pedestrian orientation and wayfinding.

Signs and Wayfinding in the Public Realm to Promote Identity Signs and wayfinding within the public realm can provide many functions in a downtown area and can be oriented for pedestrians or vehicles. The types that are encouraged for the PUD area include district markers, banners, monument signage, pedestrian signage (eye level or on the ground), important places, such as historic or cultural resources, and alleys. Themes for signs and wayfinding in the public realm should be aligned with the Downtown Ontario Design Guideline’s Historic Preservation Retail Subdistrict for the PUD area.

2801
93 6.3.4 Parkways and Street Trees

1. Parkways and Street Trees. Parkways and street trees in the PUD area are subject to the City of Ontario Landscape Development Guidelines, the Master Street Tree Plan, and the City of Ontario Development Code. Tree plantings and design, such as tree sizes, irrigation methods, and tree wells require flexibility in the PUD area. a. Euclid Avenue and Laurel Avenue Street Trees. Appropriate street tree species and recommended sizes for Euclid Avenue is provided in Table 6-1.

Table 6-1: Recommended Street Trees in the PUD Area
Botanical Name Common Name Recommended Size Comments
Euclid Avenue
Brachychiton Populneus Bottle Tree 24” Box Standard
Pinus Elderica Afghan Pine 24” Box Standard
Laurel Avenue
Eucalyptus Torquata Coral Gum 24” Box Standard
Importance of Street Trees and Parkways
Street trees and parkways are important components
of the public realm, and help to contribute to shade, a sense of place, and overall pedestrian comfort. The
consistent use of tree species, size, and spacing along a street can help to create a pleasant rhythm and
identify for an area. Species choices should consider
access to both shade and sun along sidewalks.

2802
94 7 Administration and Implementation

7.1 Development Code
Any terms not defined herein and any issues affecting the design and development of Projects in the PUD area that not specifically addressed in this PUD shall be governed by the provisions of the Ontario Development Code and the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval Resolution No. R2017-027 for development.

7.2 Development Applications
Development Plan approval, pursuant to the requirements of Ontario Development Code Section 4.02.025 (Development Plans), shall be required for any Project that entails the physical alteration of any 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 Development Code Division 2.02 (Application Filing and Processing), commencing with Subsection B (Discretionary Permits and Actions) of Section 2.02.015 (Application Processing Procedures).

7.3 Certificate of Appropriateness
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 conjunction with each private or public improvement in the PUD area. Application requirements and required findings for approval of a C of A are pursuant to Section 4.02.050 (Historic Preservation—Certificates of Appropriateness and Demolition of Historic Resources) of the Ontario Development Code.

7.4 Exceptions
Deviation from the development standards set forth in this PUD document may be granted up to a maximum of 10 percent by the Zoning Administrator. Any deviation that is greater than 10 percent shall require an amendment to this PUD.

7.5 CEQA Compliance
The Downtown West PUD Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in coordination with the City and in compliance with the City’s Guidelines for the Implementation of the “California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)” (See Appendix B). In 2022 The Ontario Plan or the City’s General Plan was approved and the SEIR certified which approved updated land use designations through the City. Preparation of this Planned Unit Development or PUD has demonstrated that a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the approval of the PUD should be prepared. The Ontario Plan Final SEIR serves as a guide and many of the policies from the plan have been incorporated by reference. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project includes programmatic and project-level analysis of future land use intensities and changes to the public realm. Issuesidentified included historic resources, transportation, and aesthetics. No unmitigated impacts were present. 2803
95 The City will be responsible for implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program approved for the Downtown West Planned Unit Development project. This may involve application of one or more mitigation measures to implement this PUD, or fair-share proportions thereof.

7.6 Implementation
Implementation of the PUD will be primarily through the adoption of the new land use and development regulations. However, implementation of the holistic vision and guiding principles for the PUD area will require coordination across City departments and regional agencies, as well as funding to plan, design, and construct supportive investments in the public realm. These next steps will be implemented over time and will complement the land use and development regulations included in this PUD.

Integrated shared infrastructure facilities,
such as parking, trash services, and open space
opportunities to support new development and
uses in the downtown area.

Downtown Wayfinding and Signage Program
can help to create a consistent image for the
city; improve navigation for all modes of travel;
guide visitors to landmarks, facilities, and
services; and promote walking, bicycling, and
mass transit.

Active transportation improvements, such as
the planned bike boulevard on Vine Avenue
and B Street that will connect Ontario’s historic
downtown with De Anza Community & Teen
Center and park, funded through the State’s
Active Transportation Program (ATP).

Additional ATP grants can be explored to fund
future active transportation improvements
that benefit the PUD area.

Public transit investments, such as the West
Valley Connector (WVC) project, which will be a
100% zero-emission Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
system that will upgrade a portion of existing
Route 61 which runs along Holt Boulevard,
additional approximately 3.5 miles of center
running, dedicated bus-only lanes, and provide
an improved transit connection to Ontario
International Airport, two Metrolink lines, and
multiple major activity centers.

Downtown Historic Designation which will be
determined through a survey of Ontario’s
historic district using the themes of early
commerce and settlement.

Traffic calming and public realm
enhancements, such as bulb outs, crosswalk
improvements, new street trees, and others.

2804
96 8 Section References and Additional Resources

8.1 Historic Preservation
Arroyo Group, 1998. “Downtown Ontario Design Guidelines.” Produced By The Arroyo Group, Planners, Architects & Associated Disciplines With Patrick B.

Quigley & Associates, Lighting Consultant for the City of Ontario.

City of Ontario, 2005. “Villa Historic District.” City of Ontario (Ontario, CA). Website. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/Historic_Preservation/villa.pdf City of Ontario, 2013. “Euclid Avenue Historic District.” City of Ontario (Ontario, CA). Website. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/Historic_Preservation/euclid_avenue.pdf City of Ontario, 2023a. “History.” City of Ontario (Ontario, CA). Website. https://www.ontarioca.gov/FactsAndHistory.

City of Ontario, 2023b. “Historic Preservation.” City of Ontario (Ontario, CA). Website. https://www.ontarioca.gov/Planning/HistoricPreservation.

City of Ontario Planning Department, 2012. “City of Ontario Historic Landmarks.” City of Ontario (Ontario, CA). Website. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/Historic_Preservation/designated_landmarks.pdf.

Military Museum. 2023. “Ontario National Guard Station: History.” California Military Department (Rancho Cordova, CA). Website.

NETR (Nationwide Environmental Title Research LLC). 2023. Historic Aerial Photographs of the Downtown West PUD, City of Ontario, CA dating from 1938, 1946, 1948, 1959, 1964, 1966, 1980, 1985, 1992, 1994, 1995, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020. Accessed December 23, 2021. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer
NPS (National Park Service). 2017. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings. National Park Service. Website. https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/upload/treatmentguidelines-2017-part1-preservation-rehabilitation.pdf NPS. 2023. “Preservation Briefs.” Preservation Briefs 1 – 50. National Park Service. Website. https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/preservation-briefs.htm State of California. 2022. California Historical Building Code 2022. State of California. Website. https://up.codes/viewer/california/ca-historic-building-code2022 SurveyLA. 2016. Los Angeles Citywide Historic Context Statement, Context: Commercial Development, 1850-1980, Theme: Commercial Development and the Automobile, 1910-1970. Prepared for the Los Angeles Department of City Planning. Los Angeles, California. August 2016. Accessed November 2023. https://planning.lacity.org/odocument/3007ea6e-c4dd-42ec-bede-b109293f2873/CommercialDevelopmentandtheAutomobile_1910-1970.pdf 2805
97 Appendix A
Ordinance Adopting PUD
2806
98 Appendix B
Mitigation Monitoring Program
2807