Ontario City Council
March 17, 2026

6.4 Analysis of Alternatives to the Proposed Project
No Project/No Build Alternative
Section 15126.6(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires analysis of the No Project Alternative. In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, the No Project/No Build Alternative for a development project on an identifiable property consists of the circumstance under which the Project does not proceed as provided by Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) provides that, “In certain instances, the no project alternative means ‘no build’ wherein the existing environmental 681
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 6-6 6.0 | Alternatives
setting is maintained.” Under the No Project/No Build Alternative, the Project would not be developed, and no new development would occur; however, the existing conditions would remain in operation.

The Project site is occupied by existing agricultural uses, including the raising of livestock, field crop farming, dairy farming activities, and rural residences scattered throughout the area. Rural residential housing, farm buildings and other ancillary facilities occupy those areas not in active agricultural production. The natural vegetation and soil conditions that once occurred throughout the Project area have been significantly altered through agricultural uses, leaving little or no native vegetation.

Biological Resources
The No Project/No Build Alternative would continue the existing agriculture and residential uses on the Project site. No grading or development would occur under this alternative, and there would be no potential impacts to sensitive wildlife species and migratory and nesting birds that may be present on the Project site. Therefore, the No Project/No Build Alternative would avoid on-site disturbances to biological resources. Ownership Area 1 of the Project would have a less than significant impact on biological resources after implementation of mitigation measures. However, because the extent of impacts within Ownership Area 2 cannot be known at this time, Project impacts relating to biological resources within Ownership Area 2 are considered potentially significant and unavoidable even with the implementation of recommended mitigation. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be reduced compared to the proposed Project.

Historic Resources
The No Project/No Build Alternative would continue the existing agriculture and residential uses on the Project site. There are several dairy farm related buildings and structures within the Project site that are considered potential historic resources by the City of Ontario. Dairy farm related buildings and structures over 45 years or older have been identified, documented, and evaluated for national, state and local historic significance as part of the environmental review for the Project.

Properties with buildings and/or structures that have been surveyed and determined to meet local and state designation criteria, will be considered for adaptive reuse, relocation or other mitigation measures as required by the City of Ontario Historic Preservation Commission.

Existing uses surrounding the Project site are similar to those on the site, consisting of ongoing crop farming, dairy operations, a nursery, and rural residences. Accordingly, the No Project/No Build Alternative provides a comparison between the environmental impacts of the Project as compared to the current environmental conditions, resulting from not approving or denying the Project.

The No Project/No Build Alternative would continue the existing agriculture and residential uses on the Project site. No grading or development would occur under this alternative, and there would be no potential impacts to the five historic resources properties. Therefore, the alternative would avoid the Project’s significant and unavoidable impact on historic resources and its less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated on historic resources. Impacts would be reduced compared to the proposed Project.
682
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 6-7 6.0 | Alternatives
Avoidance Alternative
The Avoidance Alternative would avoid eligible historic structures identified in Section 4.2: Historic Resources.

Biological Resources
The Avoidance Alternative would cover the same impact area as the Project site. For Ownership Area 1, impacts to sensitive wildlife species and migratory and nesting birds would continue to occur, and similar mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce impacts to such resources to a less than significant level for Ownership Area 1. For Ownership Area 2, impacts to sensitive wildlife species and migratory and nesting birds would have significant and unavoidable impacts, because the extent of impacts within Ownership Area 2 cannot be known at this time even with the implementation of recommended mitigation. Therefore, impacts would be the same to those of the proposed Project.

Historic Resources
The Avoidance Alternative could reduce impacts to historic resources on site by orienting the pattern to avoid historic structures, discussed in more detail in Section 4.2. See Figure 4.2-1: Ontario Ranch Road Widening, Historic Resources Map for locations of eligible historic resources. For the specifics of each address, see below:
7587-7697 Edison Ave (Craftsman Bungalow style residence, Ranch-style residence and milk parlor): At the halfway point between Bon View and Campus, 7587-7697 Edison fronts Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road from the south. A residential development is planned for that area, and 7587 Edison occupies the most logical entry point into the tract. As discussed in Section 4.2, 7587-7697 Edison Ave, which is an eligible resource, contains three eligible historic structures including a Craftsman Bungalow, Ranch-style residence and Ranch-style milk parlor adjacent to Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road. Under this alternative, development would be restricted in the immediate area of the historic structures, immediately adjacent to the Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road right-of-way. 8185 Edison Ave (Streamline Moderne Milk Parlor): East of Grove and fronting Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road from the south, 8185 Edison occupies the City’s TOP 2050 planned location of a mixed-use residential and retail/office center as well as a regional park that would extend beyond the Project site to the south. As discussed in Section 4.2, 8185 Edison Ave, which meets local landmark designation and other City criteria for historic resources, contains two eligible historic structures including a Ranch- Style residence and Streamline Moderne milk parlor. Under this alternative, development would be restricted in the immediate area of the historic structure, at the corner of Grove Avenue and Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road.
8335-8381 Edison Ave (Craftsman Bungalow style residence): Fronting Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road from the south, 8335-8381 Edison Ave occupies the City’s TOP 2050 planned location of a mixeduse residential and retail/office center as well as a regional park that would extend beyond the Project site to the south. As discussed in Section 4.2, 8335-8381 Edison Ave contains one eligible historic structure, a Craftsman Bungalow style residence. Under this alternative, development would be restricted 683
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 6-8 6.0 | Alternatives
in the immediate area of the historic structure, immediately adjacent to the Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road right-of-way.

Under the Avoidance Alternative, the above-mentioned historic buildings would be avoided. However, the integrity of the setting1around these historic resources (i.e., historic dairy farm/agriculture uses associated with the structures that lend itself to the historic significance of these resources) may be compromised, including loss of portions of the parcels associated with each historic structure (the parcels themselves are considered historically significant). Therefore, the Avoidance Alternative would avoid impacts to existing historic structures but would have similar impacts as the Project concerning the three historic resources properties, which would not be fully avoided, with a potential to adversely affect any undiscovered historic resources on the Project site. As such, the alternative would not avoid the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts on historic resources. Impacts would be similar compared to the proposed Project.

Reduced Development Area Alternative
The Reduced Development Area Alternative proposes an approximately 21 percent reduction (approximately 55 acres) in building area of the proposed medium-density residential, mixed-use residential, and open space parkland/non-recreation uses within Planning Areas (PAs) 7, 11, 13, 14, 17, and 18. Compared to the proposed Project, the Reduced Development Area Alternative would completely avoid Assessor Parcel Numbers 1053-371-01, 0216-321-03, 0216-322-03, and 0216-322-04. Under this alternative, a total of 162,183 square feet (SF) of commercial retail/office uses; up to 3,137 residential units across medium-density and mixed-use residential uses; and 44.32 acres of open space parkland/nonrecreation uses would occur.

Biological Resources
The Reduced Development Area Alternative would result in similar impacts to biological resources, compared to the proposed Project. The Reduced Development Area Alternative would disturb approximately 21 percent less land than the Project; however, similar biological resource impacts would occur as similar level of disturbance would occur. For Ownership Area 1, impacts to sensitive wildlife species and migratory and nesting birds would continue to occur, and similar mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce impacts to such resources to a less than significant level. For Ownership Area 2, impacts to sensitive wildlife species and migratory and nesting birds would have significant and unavoidable impacts, because the extent of impacts within Ownership Area 2 cannot be known at this time even with the implementation of recommended mitigation. Therefore, impacts would be the same as those of the proposed Project.

Historic Resources
The Reduced Development Area Alternative would result in reduced impacts to historic resources compared to the proposed Project. The Reduced Development Area Alternative would completely avoid Assessor Parcel Numbers 1053-371-01, 0216-321-03, 0216-322-03, and 0216-322-04, as these parcels 1 Under PRC Section 5024.1 and 14 CCR Section 4852(c), a cultural resource must retain integrity to be considered eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources. Refer to Section 4.2: Historic Resources for more information and definition of “setting”. 684
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 6-9 6.0 | Alternatives
contain historic resources; refer to Section 4.2 for more information. Under this alternative, a total of 162,183 SF of commercial retail/office uses; up to 3,137 residential units across medium-density and mixed-use residential uses; and 44.32 acres of open space parkland/non-recreation uses would occur.

That is, compared to the proposed Project, the Reduced Development Area Alternative would develop approximately 521 fewer medium density residential dwelling units (DUs) within PA 7, 384 fewer mixeduse residential units within PA 11, and 251 fewer medium density residential DUs within PA 13 (1,156 total residential DUs). Additionally, the Reduced Development Area Alternative would develop 40,955 SF fewer mixed-use retail uses, and 47,781 fewer mixed-use office uses compared to the proposed Project. The development impact area would generally remain the same as the Project, except for those areas that are considered eligible historic resources and contain eligible structures: 7587-7697 Edison Avenue, 8185 Edison Avenue, and 8335-8381 Edison Avenue; refer to Figure 4.2-1 for further information. Access to the Project site would be similar to the proposed Project along Edison Avenue, Bon View Avenue, Cucamonga Avenue, Grove Avenue, Parco Avenue, and Walker Avenue. However, access via Campus Avenue would be eliminated under this alternative. Additionally, internal access through the Project site between Campus Avenue and Walker Avenue would be eliminated. Given the infrastructure costs, including off-site improvements, a 21 percent reduction is considered aggressive and further reduction is likely not financially feasible.

The Reduced Development Area Alternative would result in lessened impacts to existing historic resources with a potential to adversely affect any undiscovered historic resources on the Project site. Under the Reduced Development Area Alternative, there would be no potential impacts to the three historic resources properties. Therefore, the alternative would avoid the Project’s significant and unavoidable impact on historic resources and its less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated on historic resources. Impacts would be reduced compared to the proposed Project.

6.5 Comparison of Alternatives
No Project/No Build Alternative Conclusion
Ability to Reduce Impacts
The No Project/No Build Alternative would reduce impacts related to biological resources and historic resources that would occur from implementation of the proposed Project.

Ability to Achieve Project Objectives
Implementation of the No Project/No Build Alternative means that new development would not occur on the Project site, and none of the Project objectives would be achieved under this alternative. Under the No Project/No Build Alternative, the Project would not design the project specific plan as a living community, the Project would not create a Comprehensive Circulation System for Multiple Modes of Travel; the Project would not provide for City-Planned Public Community Facilities and Services; the Project would not integrate Parks and Trails into the Framework of the Project Specific Plan; and the Project would not compose “A Genius of Place” through Exceptional Planning and Distinct Architecture.

Therefore, this Alternative is not under further consideration. 685
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 6-10 6.0 | Alternatives
Avoidance Alternative Conclusion
Ability to Reduce Impacts
The Avoidance Alternative would cover the same impact area as the Project site. For Ownership Area 1, impacts to sensitive wildlife species and migratory and nesting birds would continue to occur, and similar mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce impacts to such resources to a less than significant level for Ownership Area 1. For Ownership Area 2, impacts to sensitive wildlife species and migratory and nesting birds would have significant and unavoidable impacts, because the extent of impacts within Ownership Area 2 cannot be known at this time even with the implementation of recommended mitigation. Therefore, biological resource impacts would be the same to those of the proposed Project.

The Avoidance Alternative would avoid impacts to existing historic structures, but would have similar impacts as the Project to eligible historic resources properties with potential to adversely affect any undiscovered historic resources on the Project site. However, the Avoidance Alternative would not avoid the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts on the three resources that are recommended eligible for listing under the California Register of Historic Resources and/or for designation as a City of Ontario Historic Landmark. Potentially significant impacts would occur to historic resources under the Avoidance Alternative. Therefore, impacts on historic resources under the Avoidance Alternative would be similar compared to the Project.

Ability to Achieve Project Objectives
Implementation of the Avoidance Alternative would achieve the Project objectives, but not to the extent as would be achieved by the proposed Project. In avoiding these five historic resources, located within PA 7, 11, and 13 of the Project’s Specific Plan, circulation into and out of these tracts would be disrupted.

In addition, installation of utilities to serve the remaining Specific Plan area would be complicated.

Furthermore, 8185 and 8335-8381 Edison Ave occupies the City’s TOP 2050 planned location of a retail center in the mixed-use zoning. The retail center is an important draw for the planned City TOP 2050 park, maintaining its character and placing its retail tenants in ideal locations for visibility and accessibility. As the historic structures block potential entry points, marketing visibility, and tenant locations, leaving them in place limits this Alternative’s attainment of certain Project objectives: Create a Comprehensive Circulation System for Multiple Modes of Travel and Compose “A Genius of Place” through Exceptional Planning and Distinct Architecture.

Lastly, the planned Ontario Ranch Road widening, as shown in TOP 2050, would expand the right-of-way of Edison Ranch/Ontario Ranch Road, which traverses the Project site in a north-south direction. The widening of this roadway has the potential to negatively affect eligible historic buildings and properties and is cumulatively considerable, in combination with the proposed Project, with respect to historic resources; refer to Section 4.2 for further discussion on cumulative impacts. That is, vibrations from construction (e.g., grading, excavation, drilling, auguring, use and movement of heavy equipment, and other construction activities to remove the existing sidewalk and construct sidewalk, curb, and other roadway infrastructure) could potentially physically impact historic resources given the proximity of this work to eligible historic buildings adjacent to Edison Ranch/Ontario Ranch Road. Although this Alternative 686
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 6-11 6.0 | Alternatives
seeks to avoid impacts to historic structures, the integrity of the setting2around these historic resources (i.e., historic dairy farm/agriculture uses associated with the structures that lend itself to the historic significance of these resources) may be compromised. As depicted on Figure 4.2-1, the planned Ontario Ranch Road widening would physically impede at least one of the historic buildings (Craftsman Bungalow) within 7587-7697 Edison Ave as well as the historic Streamline Modern Milk Parlor within 8185 Edison Ave. Even if this Alternative were implemented, the historic structures and properties would likely be impacted by planned Ontario Ranch Road widening, rendering the effectiveness of the Alternative in reducing impacts to historic resources moot.

Reduced Development Area Alternative Conclusion
Ability to Reduce Impacts
The Reduced Development Area Alternative would result in similar impacts to biological resources, compared to the proposed Project. The Reduced Development Area Alternative would disturb approximately 21 percent less land than the Project; however, similar biological resource impacts would occur as similar level of disturbance would occur. For Ownership Area 1, impacts to sensitive wildlife species and migratory and nesting birds would continue to occur, and similar mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce impacts to such resources to a less than significant level. For Ownership Area 2, impacts to sensitive wildlife species and migratory and nesting birds would have significant and unavoidable impacts, because the extent of impacts within Ownership Area 2 cannot be known at this time even with the implementation of recommended mitigation. Therefore, biological impacts would be same to those of the proposed Project.

The Reduced Development Area Alternative would result in lessened impacts to existing historic resources with a potential to adversely affect any undiscovered historic resources on the Project site. Compared to the Project, potentially significant impacts would not occur to historic resources under the Reduced Development Area Alternative. Therefore, impacts on historic resources under the Reduced Development Area Alternative would be reduced compared to the Project.

Overall impacts under the Reduced Development Area Alternative would be reduced compared to the Project.

Ability to Achieve Project Objectives
Implementation of the Reduced Development Area Alternative would achieve the Project objectives, but not to the extent as would be achieved by the proposed Project. The 21 percent Project reduction would provide less residential and mixed-used retail/office uses. This alternative would not fully meet the objective of City-Planned Public Community Facilities and Services as with the 21 percent reduction, as this alternative would contribute approximately 23 fewer acres towards the conceptual neighborhood park, a large public regional park around which the Project’s open space concept and pedestrian circulation is oriented. See Figure 3-13: Conceptual Landscape Plan. Additionally, the Reduced Development Area Alternative would result in reduced internal circulation throughout the Project site, 2 Under PRC Section 5024.1 and 14 CCR Section 4852(c), a cultural resource must retain integrity to be considered eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources. Refer to Section 4.2: Historic Resources for more information and definition of “setting”. 687
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 6-12 6.0 | Alternatives
compared to the proposed Project. As shown in Figure 6-1: Reduced Development Area Alternative, the exclusion of PAs 7, 11, 13, 14, 17, and 18 (Alternative Reduction Areas) would eliminate local connectivity throughout the entirety of the Project site. As a result, this alternative would not fully meet the objective of a Comprehensive Circulation System for Multiple Modes of Travel, as the local street system envisioned by the proposed Project (see Figure 3-10: Conceptual Circulation Plan) would not be achievable under this alternative. Furthermore, the 21 percent Project reduction would attract fewer or smaller businesses and less employment opportunities to area residents. In addition, the smaller development would provide less flexibility to meet the needs of an ever-changing business market.

The City’s Housing Element identifies the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) target for the 2021 to 2029 cycle at 20,854 units which is inclusive of Extremely/Very Low Income, Low Income, Moderate Income, and Above Moderate-Income housing. The proposed Project would create an additional 4,293 units of housing within the City, which would be completed prior to and after 2029. As such, implementation of the Project would aid the City in reaching its 2029 RHNA goal. The Reduced Development Area Alternative would contribute 1,156 fewer residential DUs to help meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment goals, compared to the proposed Project. Therefore, this alternative may also affect the City’s ability to meet certain housing objectives identified in TOP 2050.

Lastly, the planned Ontario Ranch Road widening, as shown in TOP 2050, would expand the right-of-way of Edison Ranch/Ontario Ranch Road, which traverses the Project site in a north-south direction. The widening of this roadway has the potential to negatively affect eligible historic buildings and is cumulatively considerable, in combination with the proposed Project, with respect to historic resources; refer to Section 4.2 for further discussion on cumulative impacts. That is, vibrations from construction (e.g., grading, excavation, drilling, auguring, use and movement of heavy equipment, and other construction activities to remove the existing sidewalk and construct sidewalk, curb, and other roadway infrastructure) could physically impact historic resources given the proximity of this work to eligible historic buildings adjacent to Edison Ranch/Ontario Ranch Road. Additionally, under this alternative, the eligible historic buildings would be left in place. However, the integrity of the setting3around these historic resources (i.e., historic dairy farm/agriculture uses associated with the structures that lend itself to the historic significance of these resources) may be compromised. As depicted on Figure 4.2-1, the planned Ontario Ranch Road widening would physically impede at least one of the historic buildings (Craftsman Bungalow) within 7587-7697 Edison Ave as well as the historic Streamline Modern Milk Parlor within 8185 Edison Ave.

As with the Avoidance Alternative, even if the Reduced Development Area Alternative were implemented, the historic structures and properties would likely be impacted by planned Ontario Ranch Road widening, rendering the effectiveness of the Alternative moot.
3 Under PRC Section 5024.1 and 14 CCR Section 4852(c), a cultural resource must retain integrity to be considered eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources. Refer to Section 4.2: Historic Resources for more information and definition of “setting”. 688
Not to scale CenterPark Specific Plan, City of Ontario
Figure 6-1: Reduced Development Area Alternative

RIO, CALIFORNIA
5-31
Source: CenterPark Specific Plan Exhibit 5-2 Conceptual Circulation Plan, 2025. ONTA

SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY

FULL ACCESS

POTENTIAL ACCESS POINT

BACKBONE ARTERIAL STREET

BACKBONE COLLECTOR STREET

BACKBONE LOCAL NEIGHBORHOOD STREET

BACKBONE PRIVATE NEIGHBORHOOD STREET

NEIGHBORHOOD PARK (CONCEPTUAL LOCATION)

ROUND-A-BOUT (CONCEPTUAL LOCATION)

SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY

ALTERNATIVE REDUCTION AREAS
Grove Ave
Cucamonga Ave
Parco Ave
Eucalyptus Ave
Campus Ave
Edison Ave/
Ontario Ranch Rd
Cucamonga Ave
Sultana Ave
Bon View Ave
Grove Ave
Parco Ave
Walker Ave
Campus Ave
Bon View Ave
Cucamonga Ave
Grove Ave
Parco Ave
Walker Ave
Baker Ave Baker Ave
Sultana Ave
Edison Ave/
Ontario Ranch Rd
7587-7697 Edison Avenue
8335-8381 Edison Avenue 8185 Edison Avenue
■
1 I
1 1
•ll
I I
Kimley»Horn
►
_ 2
689
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 6-14 6.0 | Alternatives

6.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA requires a lead agency to identify the “environmentally superior alternative” and, in cases where the “No Project” Alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed Project, the environmentally superior development alternative must be identified. The Reduced Development Area Alternative has been identified as “environmentally superior” to the proposed Project.

Reduced Development Area Alternative
The Reduced Development Area Alternative has been identified as the environmentally-superior alternative because it would result in lessened impacts related to historic resources such that the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level under this alternative. Additionally, impacts related to biological resources would be similar to the proposed Project under the Reduced Development Area Alternative. However, while the Reduced Development Area Alternative would reduce impacts related to historic resources, compared to the proposed Project, the Reduced Development Area Alternative would be less effective at accomplishing the Project objectives.

CEQA does not require the lead agency (the City of Ontario) to choose the environmentally superior alternative. Instead, CEQA requires the City to consider environmentally superior alternatives, weigh those considerations against the environmental impacts of the proposed Project, and make findings that the benefits of those considerations outweigh the harm. “Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[c]).
690
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 7-1 7.0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant

7.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT

7.1 Introduction
California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21003 (f) states: “…it is the policy of the state that…[a]ll persons and public agencies involved in the environmental review process be responsible for carrying out the process in the most efficient, expeditious manner in order to conserve the available financial, governmental, physical, and social resources with the objective that those resources may be better applied toward the mitigation of actual significant effects on the environment.” This policy is reflected in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15126.2(a), which states that “[a]n EIR [Environmental Impact Report] shall identify and focus on the significant environmental impacts of the Project” and Section 15143, which states that “[t]he EIR shall focus on the significant effects on the environment.” State CEQA Guidelines Section 15128 requires that an EIR contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant and were therefore not discussed in detail in the Draft EIR.

Table 7-1: Impacts Addressed in the 15183 Consistency Analysis prepared for the Project lists all the impacts that were found to have no impact or a less than significant impact based on the analysis conducted during the Draft Focused EIR preparation process. The following sections provide the environmental impact, and the determination based on the Project’s CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Consistency Analysis (on file at the City of Ontario Planning Department and provided as Appendix F:

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Consistency Analysis). Threshold letters correspond to the lettering in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.

Table 7-1: Impacts Addressed in the 15183 Consistency Analysis Environmental Issues 15183 Exemption Determination
AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No New Impact b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No New Impact
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?)
No New Impact
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
No New Impact
691
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 7-2 7.0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant Environmental Issues 15183 Exemption Determination
AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No New Impact
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No New 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))?
No New Impact
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No New Impact
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?
No New Impact
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?
No New Impact
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? No New Impact
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
No New Impact
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
No New Impact
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Peculiar Project Impact (not
substantially mitigated by the imposition
of uniformly applied development
policies or standards); See Section 4.1:
692
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 7-3 7.0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant Environmental Issues 15183 Exemption Determination
Biological Resources of the Draft
Focused EIR.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Peculiar Project Impact (not
substantially mitigated by the imposition
of uniformly applied development
policies or standards); See Section 4.1:

Biological Resources of the Draft
Focused EIR.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Peculiar Project Impact (not
substantially mitigated by the imposition
of uniformly applied development
policies or standards); See Section 4.1:

Biological Resources of the Draft
Focused EIR.
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?
Peculiar Project Impact (not
substantially mitigated by the imposition
of uniformly applied development
policies or standards); See Section 4.1:

Biological Resources of the Draft
Focused EIR.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Peculiar Project Impact (not
substantially mitigated by the imposition
of uniformly applied development
policies or standards); See Section 4.1:

Biological Resources of the Draft
Focused EIR.
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?
Peculiar Project Impact (not
substantially mitigated by the imposition
of uniformly applied development
policies or standards); See Section 4.1:

Biological Resources of the Draft
Focused EIR.

CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Peculiar Project Impact (not analyzed in
prior EIR and not substantially mitigated
by the imposition of uniformly applied
development policies or standards); See
Section 4.2: Historic Resources of the
Draft Focused EIR.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
No New Impact
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
No New Impact
693
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 7-4 7.0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant Environmental Issues 15183 Exemption Determination
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?
No New Impact
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
No New Impact
GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:

No New Impact
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.

No New Impact
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? No New Impact
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? No New Impact iv) Landslides? No New Impact
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No New Impact 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?
No New Impact
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
No New Impact
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No New Impact
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
No New Impact
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
No New Impact
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases? No New Impact
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?
No New Impact
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?
No New Impact
694
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 7-5 7.0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant Environmental Issues 15183 Exemption Determination
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
No New Impact
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No New Impact
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?
No New Impact
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No New Impact
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? No New Impact
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any other water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or potential for discharge of storm water
pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas? No New Impact
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
No New Impact
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:

No New Impact
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; No New Impact ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; No New Impact
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
No New Impact
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? No New Impact
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No New Impact
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? No New Impact
695
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 7-6 7.0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant Environmental Issues 15183 Exemption Determination
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? No New Impact a) 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 New Impact
MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? No New Impact
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?
No New Impact
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?
No New Impact
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
No New Impact
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??
No New Impact
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)?
No New Impact
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
No New Impact
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? No New Impact
ii) Police protection? No New Impact
iii) Schools? No New Impact
iv) Parks? No New Impact
696
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 7-7 7.0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant Environmental Issues 15183 Exemption Determination
v) Other public facilities? No New Impact
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?
No New Impact
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No New Impact
TRANSPORTATION. Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
No New Impact
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
No New Impact
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
No New Impact
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? No New Impact TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 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:
i) 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
No New Impact
ii) 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 § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

No New Impact
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects??
No New Impact
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and No New Impact 697
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 7-8 7.0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant Environmental Issues 15183 Exemption Determination
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?
No New Impact
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?
No New Impact
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No New Impact
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?
No New Impact
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?
No New Impact
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
No New Impact
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? No New Impact
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?
Peculiar Project Impact (not analyzed in
prior EIR and not substantially mitigated
by the imposition of uniformly applied
development policies or standards). See
Section 4.1: Biological Resourcse and
Section 4.2: Historic Resources of the
Draft Focused EIR.
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.)?
No New Impact
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
No New Impact
698
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 8-1 8.0 | EIR Consultation and Preparation

8.0 EIR CONSULTATION AND PREPARATION
This section is consistent with the requirements set forth in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21153 and Section 15129 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states: “The EIR shall identify all federal, state, or local agencies, other organizations, and private individuals consulted in preparing the draft EIR, and the persons, firm, or agency preparing the draft EIR, by contract or other authorization.” Refer to Section 2.2:

Notice of Preparation/Early Consultation, for a summary of public notification and consultation.

The Notice of Preparation (NOP) and NOP comment letters are provided in Appendix A: Notice of Preparation & Public Scoping Meeting, of this Draft Focused EIR. The City of Ontario (City) provided multiple opportunities for public input, both as part of the CEQA process and as part of Project scoping.

In addition to required public notifications under CEQA, the City has engaged in extensive consultation with the Native American tribes, pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 18, as discussed further in the Project’s CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Consistency Analysis.

8.1 EIR Consultation
Lead Agency
City of Ontario
303 East B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
Contact: Henry K. Noh, Planning Director
David F. Eoff IV, Principal Planner
Diane Ayala, Senior Planner
Luis Batres, Senior Planner
Kimberly Ruddins, Sustainability Program Manager
Rafael Torres, Assistant Planner
Project Applicant
Ontario Ranch Venture I and II, LLC
C/O Sares Regis Group
3501 Jamboree Road, Suite 3000
Newport Beach, CA 92660
699
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 8-2 8.0 | EIR Consultation and Preparation

8.2 List of Preparers
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Address: 3801 University Avenue, Suite 300
Riverside, CA 92501
Contacts: Kevin Thomas, CEP - Project Director
Sabrina Wallace – Project Manager
Cameron Bauer – Environmental Analyst/Assistant Project Manager Meghan D. Karadimos – QA/QC
Jessica Mauck – Technical Expert (Cultural Resources)
Amanda McCallum – Document Production Specialist
Technical Subconsultants
Albert A. Webb Associates
(Water Supply Assessment and Written Verification of Sufficient Water Supply) 3788 McCray Street
Riverside, CA 92506
Contact: Autumn DeWoody, Senior Environmental Analyst
Sam I. Gershon, RCE, Senior Vice President
Cadre Environmental
(Biological Resources Technical Report)
701 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300
Carlsbad, CA 92011
Contact: Ruben Ramirez
City of Ontario Engineering Department
(Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan)
303 E B Street,
Ontario, CA 91764
Converse Consultant
(Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation & Organic Soil/Manure Evaluation Report) 2021 Rancho Drive, Suite 1
Redlands, CA 92373
Contact: Hashmi S.E. Quazi, PhD, GE, PE, Principal Engineer 700
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 8-3 8.0 | EIR Consultation and Preparation ELMT Consulting, Inc.
(Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Habitat Suitability Assessment) 3501 Jamboree Road, Suite 3000
Newport Beach, CA 92620
Contact: Patrick Russel
JLC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
(Preliminary Hydrology Report)
41660 Ivy Street, Suite A
Murrieta, CA 92562
Contact: Joseph L. Castaneda, RCE 59825
Roux Associates, Inc.
(Phase I Environmental Site Assessment)
5150 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 450
Long Beach, CA 90804
(310) 879-4900
Contacts: Mauricio Escobar, Principal Geologist/Vice President Kasia Anderson, Project Geologist
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
(Traffic Analysis) / (Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis)
20341 SW Birch Street, Suite 230
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(949) 660-1994
Contacts: Charlene So, PE, Principal
Jared Brawner
Aric Evatt, PTP
701
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 9-1 9.0 | References

9.0 REFERENCES
Cadre Environmental. 2024. Biological Resources Technical Report Center Park Specific Plan City of Ontario, California. (Appendix C1)
California Department of Conservation. 2023. California Williamson Act Enrollment Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/WilliamsonAct/.

City of Ontario. 2009. The Ontario Plan Draft EIR, Appendix J: Land Use Modeling Methodology.

City of Ontario. 2020. Ontario Ranch Business Park Final Subsequent EIR. https://www.ontarioca.gov/government/community-development/planning/governingdocuments/specific-plans.

City of Ontario. 2022. The Ontario Plan 2050. https://www.ontarioca.gov/OntarioPlan.

City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR. https://www.ontarioca.gov/government/community-development/planning/ontarioplan#environmental-impact-report.

City of Ontario. 2024. Ontario Development Code, Chapter 7.0: Historic Preservation. https://content.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/2025-01/Chapter%207%200%20- %20Historic%20Preservation_Rev%2012-03-2024.pdf.

City of Ontario. 2024. Ontario Development Code. https://www.ontarioca.gov/government/communitydevelopment/planning/governing-documents/development-code.

City of Ontario. 2025. Ontario Municipal Code.
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/ontarioca/latest/ontario_ca/0-0-0-35678.

City of Ontario. ND. Fire Stations. https://www.ontarioca.gov/government/fire.

Converse Consultants. 2024. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation & Organic Soil/Manure Evaluation Report. (Appendix D)
ELMT Consulting, Inc. 2024. Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Habitat Suitability Assessment. (Appendix C2) Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2022. FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer. https://hazardsfema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa 9cd.

Galvin and Associates. 2004. The City of Ontario’s Historic Context for the New Model Colony Area.

Prepared for City of Ontario Planning Department.

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2025. CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Analysis. (Appendix F) 702
CenterPark Specific Plan Project Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report December 2025 9-2 9.0 | References
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2025. Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report, Center Park Specific Plan Project, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California. (Appendix B) Roux Associates, Inc. 2025. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. (Appendix E) San Bernardino County. 2020. Countywide Plan. https://countywideplan.sbcounty.gov/.

Southern California Association of Governments. 2024. Connect SoCal: The 2024-2050 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). https://scag.ca.gov/connect-socal.

State of California. ND. Health and Safety Code, Division 13 – Part 2.7, Sections 18950 to 18962 of the California Historic Building Code.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&division=13.&ti tle=&part=2.7.&chapter=&article=.

Structural Focus. 2025. Relocation of Five Structures – Feasibility Study 7587 Edison Ave, 9811 Edison Ave, 8381 Edison Ave, 8485 Edison Ave, and 14117 Grove Ave Ontario, California. (Appendix D of Appendix B)
703
RESOLUTION NO. PC26-016

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE THE CENTERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN (FILE NO. PSP24-002),

TO ESTABLISH THE LAND USE DISTRICTS, DEVELOPMENT

STANDARDS, DESIGN GUIDELINES, AND INFRASTRUCTURE

IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO
4,293 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS, 115,809 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL USES, 135,110 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE USES, AND 68

ACRES OF OPEN SPACE (PARKLAND/NON-RECREATIONAL USES)
ON APPROXIMATELY 258 ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY BOUNDED

BY THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON (SCE) EASEMENT
ROUGHLY 500 FEET NORTH OF ONTARIO RANCH ROAD, WALKER

AVENUE TO THE EAST, CAMPUS AVENUE TO THE WEST, AND
SOUTHERN BOUNDARY ROUGHLY 1,300 FEET NORTH OF

EUCALYPTUS AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF – APNS: 1053-301-01, -02; 1053-311-01, -02, 1053-321-01, - 02, -03; 1053-331-01, -02, -03, -04; 1053-341-01, -02; 1053-351-01, -02; 1053-361-01, -02, -03; 1053-371-01, -02; 0216-311-01,-02, -09; 0216-321- 03, -08; 0216-322-03, -04, -10
WHEREAS, RCCD, INC. (“Applicant”) has filed an Application for the approval of a Specific Plan, File No. PSP24-002 (CenterPark Specific Plan), as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as “Application” or “Project”); and WHEREAS, the Application applies to 258 acres of land with 29 parcels and is generally bounded to the north by a Southern California Edison (SCE) easement, to the west by Campus Avenue, to the east by Walker Avenue, to the south by Eucalyptus Avenue, and bisected by Ontario Ranch Road, within the SP (Specific Plan) AG (Agricultural Overlay)) zoning district, and is presently improved with agricultural, dairy, recreational vehicle storage, residential and vacant land uses; and WHEREAS, the properties surrounding the project site are generally established with agricultural uses. To the north of the Project site, the area is within the Specific Plan (SP) zoning district and is developed with dairy farms, livestock, a truck terminal, a nursery, and vacant land. The properties to the south of the Project site are within the SP zoning district and include dairy farms, a truck terminal storage and single-family residential uses. The properties to the east of the Project site are within the SP zoning district and are developed with single-family residential uses and dairy farms. The properties to the west of the Project site are within the SP zoning district and are developed with single-family residential uses, dairy farms and vacant land; and 704
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSP24-002
February 24, 2026

WHEREAS, the CenterPark Specific Plan, attached hereto as "Attachment A", establishes a comprehensive set of design guidelines and development regulations to guide and regulate site planning, landscape, and architectural character, and ensuring that excellence in community design is achieved during project development. In addition, the Specific Plan will establish the procedures and requirements to approve new development within the project site to ensure The Ontario Plan 2050 (“TOP 2050”) goals and policies are achieved; and
WHEREAS, the CenterPark Specific Plan consists of approximately 258 acres of land, which includes potential development of up to 4,293 residential dwelling units, 115,809 square feet of retail uses, 135,110 square feet of office land uses, and 68 acres of open space (parkland/non-recreational uses); and
WHEREAS, the land use intensity of the CenterPark Specific Plan anticipated in 22 planning areas is consistent with TOP 2050. The Specific Plan proposes a potential buildout of up to 4,293 dwelling units with a land use intensity of 22 dwelling units per acre for Medium-Density Residential (MDR) and Mixed-Use (MU) residential designations. The Specific Plan also proposes ten (10) percent of the office uses with a maximum floor area ratio (“FAR”) of 0.70, twenty (20) percent retail uses with a maximum FAR of 0.30, and seventy (70) percent of residential development with a maximum density of 35 dwelling units per acre, within the Mixed-Use land use areas (Planning Areas 4, 5, 10, and 11). Planning Areas 19, 20, 21, and 22 are designated Open Space – NonRecreational land use and no development is planned for these areas; and WHEREAS, the CenterPark Specific Plan has been prepared in conformance with the goals and policies of the City of Ontario Policy Plan (General Plan). The policy (General Plan) analysis in “Section 9. General Plan Consistency” of the Specific Plan describes the manner in which the CenterPark Specific Plan complies with the Policy Plan goals and policies applicable to the CenterPark Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, commencing with Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. (hereinafter referred to as "CEQA"); and
WHEREAS, a Focused Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) (State Clearinghouse No. 2025060731), including the adoption of a Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, have been prepared in accord with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Guidelines to address the environmental effects of the Specific Plan (CenterPark Specific Plan); and
705
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSP24-002
February 24, 2026

WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the Planning Commission the responsibility and authority to review and make recommendation to the City Council on the subject Application; and WHEREAS, the Project has been reviewed for consistency with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan 2050, as State Housing Element law (as prescribed in Government Code Sections 65580 through 65589.8) requires that development projects must be consistent with the Housing Element, if upon consideration of all its aspects, it is found to further the purposes, principals, goals, and policies of the Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and is subject to, and must be consistent with, the policies and criteria set forth in the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (hereinafter referred to as "ALUCP"), which applies only to jurisdictions within San Bernardino County, and addresses the noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Chino Airport, within the City of Ontario boundary, and is subject to, and must be consistent with, the policies criteria set forth in Reference I, Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (CNO ALUCP), which applies only to jurisdictions within City of Ontario, and addresses the 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 February 24, 2026, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the FEIR, MMRP, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

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

SECTION 1: Environmental Determination and Findings. As the recommending body for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the FEIR, MMRP, and Statement of Overriding 706
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSP24-002
February 24, 2026

Considerations prepared for the Project and supporting documentation. Based upon the facts and information contained in the FEIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2025060731) and the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
(1) The CenterPark Specific Plan FEIR, MMRP, and Statement of Overriding Considerations contain a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project; and
(2) The CenterPark Specific Plan FEIR, MMRP, and Statement of Overriding Considerations have been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and (3) The CenterPark Specific Plan FEIR, MMRP, and Statement of Overriding Considerations reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission.

SECTION 2: Housing Element Compliance. Pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 3, Article 10.6, commencing with Section 65580, as the recommending body for the Project, the Planning Commission finds that based upon the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation, at the time of Project implementation, the Project is consistent with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan (General Plan) component of The Ontario Plan 2050. The Project site includes properties listed in the Housing Element Sites Inventory contained in Tables B1 and B-2 of the Housing Element Technical Report, and the proposed Project is consistent with the number of dwelling units (4,293) and densities (22 du/ac for Medium Density Residential and 35 du/ac for Mixed-Use Residential) specified in the Housing Element Sites Inventory.

SECTION 3: Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ("ALUCP") Compliance.

The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
(1) On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the Ontario International Airport Land use Compatibility Plan, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. As the recommending body for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting 707
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSP24-002
February 24, 2026

documentation against the ONT ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-2) and Safety Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the Planning Commission finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ONT ALUCP; and (2) On August 2, 2022, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted a Development Code Amendment to establish the Chino Airport ("CNO") Overlay Zoning District ("OZD") and Reference I, Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ("CNO ALUCP"). The CNO OZD and CNO ALUCP established the Airport Influence Area for Chino Airport, solely within the City of Ontario, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. The CNO ALUCP is consistent with policies and criteria set forth within the Caltrans 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. The proposed Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Chino Airport and was evaluated and found to be consistent with the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and the CNO ALUCP. As the recommending body for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the CNO ALUCP compatibility factors, including Safety, Airspace Protection, Overflight. As a result, the Planning Commission finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and the Chino ALUCP.

SECTION 4: 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 the Sections above, the Planning Commission hereby concludes as follows:
(1) The proposed Specific Plan, or amendment thereto, is consistent with the goals, policies, plans and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan 2050. The approximately 258- acre CenterPark Specific Plan is suitable for residential and mixed-use developments and is consistent with the goals and policies, plans and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of TOP 2050. “Section 9. General Plan Consistency” of the CenterPark Specific Plan describes the manner in which the Specific Plan complies with the Policy Plan goals and policies; and 708
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSP24-002
February 24, 2026

(2) The proposed Specific Plan, or amendment thereto, would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City. The proposed CenterPark Specific Plan is in conformance with the Land Use Policies and Goals of the Policy Plan and will provide standards and guidelines for the harmonious development within the districts, in a manner consistent with the Policy Plan.

The Specific Plan is proposing residential and mixed use (office, retail and residential) type development for the approximately 258-acre site, which is what is mandated by the land use plan of the Policy Plan; therefore, the proposed residential and mixed-use land uses will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City because it will provide land uses that are consistent with the existing and future development of the surrounding area; and
(3) In the case of an application affecting specific property(ies), the proposed Specific Plan, or amendment thereto, will not adversely affect the harmonious relationship with adjacent properties and land uses. The proposed Specific Plan will modify the land use from agricultural, dairy farm, recreational vehicle storage, residential and vacant land uses to Residential and Mixed Use, which aligns with surrounding land uses planned in TOP 2050 and allows for similar development intensities under the Residential and Mixed-Use designation; and (4) In the case of an application affecting specific property(ies), the subject site is physically suitable, including, but not limited to, parcel size, shape, access, and availability of utilities, for the request and anticipated development.

The proposed Specific Plan will allow for residential and mixed-use on the subject site.

When in conformance with the Specific Plan, the project site is suitable in size and shape, and the project site design allows for sufficient access and availability of utilities to accommodate the anticipated development.

SECTION 5: Planning Commission Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in the Sections above, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES 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.

SECTION 6: Indemnification. The Applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Ontario or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Ontario or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul this approval. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify the Applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding, and the City of Ontario shall cooperate fully in the defense.
709
710
711
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSP24-002
February 24, 2026

ATTACHMENT A:

File No. PSP24-002
CenterPark Specific Plan
(Document to follow this page)
712

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA

SPECIFIC
PLAN
MONTH 2026
ORDINANCE NO. 0000
713
This page intentionally left blank
714

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA

SPECIFIC PLAN
CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MONTH DAY, 2026
FILE NO. PSP24-002
ORDINANCE NO. XXXX
715
This page intentionally left blank
716

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA

SPECIFIC PLAN
Submitted to:

CITY OF ONTARIO
303 East B Street
Ontario, California 91764
Submitted by :

SARES REGIS
3501 Jamboree Rd, Suite 3000
Newport Beach, California 92660
717
This page intentionally left blank
718

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA

SPECIFIC PLAN
Consultant Team:

T&B PLANNING, INC.
3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100
Irvine, California 92602

FUSCOE ENGINEERING
3257 E. Guasti Rd, Suite 300
Ontario, California 91761
719
This page intentionally left blank
720

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
i
table of contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-1

1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW 1-1

1.2 COMMUNITY VISION 1-1

1.3 RELATIONSHIP TO THE ONTARIO PLAN 1-5

1.4 GOVERNING DOCUMENTS 1-8

1.5 SPECIFIC PLAN COMPONENTS 1-8
SECTION 2: INTRODUCTION 2-1

2.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN 2-1

2.2 SPECIFIC PLAN VISION AND OBJECTIVES 2-2

2.2.1 Objective: Design CenterPark as a Living Community 2-2

2.2.2 Objective: Create a Comprehensive Circulation System for Multiple Modes of Travel 2-3

2.2.3 Objective: Provide for City-Planned Public Community Facilities and Services 2-3

2.2.4 Objective: Integrate Parks and Trails into the Framework of CenterPark 2-4

2.2.5 Objective: Compose “A Genius of Place” through Exceptional Planning and Distinct Architecture 2-4

2.3 PROJECT SUMMARY 2-5

2.3.1 Mixed-use Development 2-5

2.3.2 Residential Uses 2-5

2.3.3 Parks, Trails and Open Space 2-6

2.4 AUTHORITY AND REQUIREMENTS 2-7

2.4.1 Authority 2-7

2.4.2 Statutory Requirements of the Specific Plan 2-7

2.5 RELATIONSHIP TO THE ONTARIO PLAN (TOP) AND ZONING 2-8

2.5.1 The Ontario Plan (Policy Plan) 2-8

2.5.2 Zoning 2-8

2.6 DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL 2-9

2.6.1 Specific Plan 2-9

2.6.2 Development Agreement 2-9

2.6.3 Subdivision Maps 2-9

2.6.4 Development Plan Review 2-10
721
ii

2.7 CEQA COMPLIANCE 2-10

2.8 AIRPORT INFLUENCE AREAS 2-10
SECTION 3: EXISTING CONDITIONS 3-1

3.1 PROPERTY OWNERSHIPS 3-1

3.2 WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACTS 3-2

3.3 EXISTING ON SITE IMPROVEMENTS 3-3

3.4 SURROUNDING LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS 3-3

3.5 TOPOGRAPHY 3-11

3.6 EXISTING CIRCULATION AND ACCESS 3-12

3.7 EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE /UTILITIES / PUBLIC SERVICES 3-13

3.7.1 Potable Water 3-13

3.7.2 Recycled Water 3-13

3.7.3 Sewer 3-13

3.7.4 Drainage 3-14

3.7.5 Electricity 3-14

3.7.6 Natural Gas 3-14

3.7.7 Communication Systems 3-14

3.7.8 Solid Waste 3-14

3.8 HYDROLOGY 3-14

3.9 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3-14

3.10 SEISMICITY 3-15

3.11 VEGETATION 3-15

3.12 EXISTING NPDES COMPLIANCE 3-15
SECTION 4: LAND USE PLAN 4-1

4.1 COMMUNITY DESIGN 4-1

4.2 MIXED-USE PLANNING AREAS 4-1

4.3 RESIDENTIAL PLANNING AREA 4-4

4.4 RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE 4-4
722

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
iii
table of contents
SECTION 5: INFRASTRUCTURE 5-1

5.1 CIRCULATION 5-1

5.1.1 Master Plan Roadways 5-2

5.1.1.1 Ontario Ranch Road 5-6

5.1.1.2 Grove Avenue 5-7

5.1.1.3 Walker Avenue 5-8

5.1.1.4 Campus Avenue 5-9

5.1.1.5 Bon View Avenue 5-10

5.1.1.6 Parco Avenue and Cucamonga Avenue 5-11

5.1.2 Local Streets 5-12

5.1.2.1 Private Streets 5-13

5.1.2.2 Common Drives, Private Drives and Alleys 5-14

5.1.3 Traffic Calming 5-15

5.1.3.1 Traffic Circles 5-16

5.1.3.2 Intersection Chokers 5-16

5.1.4 Pedestrian Circulation 5-16

5.1.5 City Master Planned Trails and Bikeways 5-16

5.1.6 Proposed Local Trails and Paseos 5-17

5.1.7 Parks 5-17

5.2 PUBLIC UTILITIES 5-20

5.3 POTABLE WATER PLAN 5-21

5.4 RECYCLED WATER PLAN 5-24

5.5 SEWER PLAN 5-28

5.6 DRAINAGE 5-32

5.6.1 NPDES Compliance 5-32

5.7 FIBER OPTICS 5-36

5.8 GRADING CONCEPT 5-38

5.9 SCHOOLS 5-40

5.10 NATURAL GAS 5-40

5.11 ELECTRICITY 5-40

5.12 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL 5-42
723
iv
SECTION 6: DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 6-1

6.1 INTRODUCTION 6-1

6.2 DEFINITION OF TERMS 6-1

6.3 APPLICABILITY 6-1

6.4 ADMINISTRATION 6-1

6.5 GENERAL SITE DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA 6-2

6.6 PERMITTED USES AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 6-3

6.6.1 Permitted Uses 6-3

6.6.2 Residential Development Standards 6-8

6.6.3 Use and Benefit Easements 6-24

6.7 MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 6-25

6.8 RESIDENTIAL PARKING STANDARDS 6-25

6.8.1 Off-Street Parking Requirements 6-26

6.9 OPEN SPACE/AMENITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 6-28

6.10 LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 6-30

6.10.1 General Provisions 6-30

6.10.2 Landscape Standards 6-31

6.11 SIGNAGE 6-32

6.11.1 Master Sign Program Contents 6-32

6.12 LIGHTING 6-33

6.12.1 Street Lights along Public Streets 6-33

6.12.2 Alley Lighting Fixtures 6-33

6.12.3 Lighting within Parks, Paseos, Tot Lots, and Other Recreational Areas 6-33

6.13 PARK FURNITURE 6-33

6.14 BUS SHELTERS 6-33

6.15 MAILBOXES 6-33
724

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
v
table of contents
SECTION 7: COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES 7-1

7.1 INTRODUCTION 7-1

7.2 GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER 7-1

7.2.1 Sustainability 7-1

7.2.2 Architectural Character 7-2

7.3 ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT 7-3

7.3.1 Traditional Influences 7-5

7.3.2 Spanish Influences 7-6

7.3.3 Southern California Influences 7-10

7.3.4 Art Deco/Modern Influences 7-12

7.3.5 Adaptive Traditional Influences 7-14

7.3.6 Transitional Southern European Influences 7-16

7.3.7 Transitional Southern California Influences 7-18

7.4 MASSING PRINCIPLES 7-20

7.4.1 Front Articulation 7-20

7.4.2 Side Articulation 7-21

7.4.3 Rear Articulation 7-21

7.4.4 Roof Forms 7-22

7.4.5 Balconies and Projections 7-22

7.4.6 Building Composition 7-23

7.4.7 Front Porches and Entry Courtyards 7-23

7.5 GARAGE PLACEMENT 7-24

7.6 MATERIALS AND DETAILS 7-25

7.6.1 Wall Materials/Finishes 7-25

7.6.2 Accent Materials 7-26

7.6.3 Doors and Windows 7-26

7.6.4 Roofing Materials and Slope 7-27

7.6.5 Eaves, Fascias and Rakes 7-28

7.6.6 Exterior Colors 7-28

7.7 ADDITIONAL DESIGN ELEMENTS 7-28

7.8 MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL/OFFICE GUIDELINES 7-29

7.8.1 Architectural Design 7-30

7.8.1.1 Guiding Principles 7-30

7.8.1.2 Site Planning 7-31

7.8.1.3 Building Design 7-32
725
vi

7.9 COMMUNITY STRUCTURES 7-34

7.10 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER 7-34

7.11 FRAMEWORK STREETSCAPE DESIGN 7-35

7.12 LANDSCAPE STREETSCAPE TREATMENT 7-37

7.12.1 Ontario Ranch Road 7-38

7.12.2 Grove Avenue 7-40

7.12.3 Walker Avenue 7-42

7.12.4 Campus Avenue 7-44

7.12.5 Bon View Avenue 7-46

7.12.6 Cucamonga Avenue 7-46

7.12.7 Parco Avenue 7-48

7.12.8 Grand Park Avenue 7-48

7.12.9 Neighborhood Streets 7-48

7.12.10 Private Drives 7-50

7.12.11 Common Drives/Alleys 7-52

7.13 ENTRIES AND MONUMENTATION 7-56

7.13.1 Community Entry and Monumentation 7-57

7.13.2 Mixed-Use Intersection Monumentation and Signage 7-60

7.14 PARKS, PASEOS, AND PRIVATE RECREATION AREAS 7-63

7.14.1 City of Ontario Grand Park 7-63

7.14.2 Neighborhood Parks 7-64

7.14.3 Local Parks 7-66

7.14.4 Landscape Design 7-68

7.14.4.1 Minimum Landscape Requirements 7-68

7.14.4.2 Landscape and Open Space Design 7-70

7.15 COMMUNITY WALLS AND FENCING 7-72

7.15.1 Community Walls 7-72

7.15.2 Solid Walls and Fencing 7-72

7.15.3 Open View Fencing 7-72

7.16 OUTDOOR LIGHTING 7-75

7.17 COMMUNITY PLANT PALETTE 7-75

7.17.1 Plant Matrix 7-75

7.17.2 Prohibited Plant Material 7-75
726

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
vii
table of contents
SECTION 8: IMPLEMENTATION 8-1

8.1 METHODS AND INTERPRETATION 8-1

8.2 APPLICABILITY 8-1

8.3 INTERPRETATION 8-1

8.4 SEVERABILITY 8-1

8.5 IMPLEMENTATION OF DESIGN GUIDELINES 8-1

8.6 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS 8-2

8.6.1 Subdivision Maps 8-2

8.6.2 Development Plan 8-2

8.6.3 Development Agreement 8-2

8.7 TRANSFER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS 8-2

8.8 SPECIFIC PLAN MODIFICATIONS AND AMENDMENTS 8-3

8.8.1 Minor Modifications 8-3

8.8.2 Specific Plan Amendments 8-3

8.9 VARIANCES 8-4

8.10 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 8-4

8.11 COMPLIANCE WITH MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN 8-4

8.12 PROJECT PHASING 8-4

8.12.1 Mixed-Use Development 8-4

8.12.2 Residential Development 8-4

8.12.3 Infrastructure 8-6

8.12.4 Public Regional Park 8-6

8.12.5 Private Parks 8-6

8.12.6 Community Facilities and Services 8-6

8.13 APPEALS 8-6

8.14 PROJECT FINANCING 8-7

8.14.1 Facilities and Services 8-7

8.14.2 Operation and Maintenance 8-7

8.15 MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES 8-7

8.15.1 Public Maintenance 8-7

8.15.2 Homeowners Association 8-9
727
viii
SECTION 9: GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY 9-1
LAND USE ELEMENT 9-1
COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT 9-3
COMMUNITY ECONOMICS ELEMENT 9-8
MOBILITY ELEMENT 9-9
HOUSING ELEMENT 9-10
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ELEMENT 9-11
SAFETY ELEMENT 9-14
PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT 9-15
SOCIAL RESOURCES ELEMENT 9-16
COMMUNITY ECONOMICS ELEMENT 9-17
728

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
ix
table of contents

EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1-1 REGIONAL LOCATION MAP 1-2
EXHIBIT 1-2 VICINITY MAP 1-3
EXHIBIT 1-3 LAND USE PLAN 1-6
EXHIBIT 2-1 CHINO AIRPORT INFLUENCE AREA 2-11
EXHIBIT 3-1 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS 3-1
EXHIBIT 3-2 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACT STATUS 3-2 EXHIBIT 3-3 EXISTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES 3-4
EXHIBIT 3-4 EXISTING CONDITIONS KEYMAP 3-5
EXHIBIT 3-5 EXISTING SITE TOPOGRAPHY 3-11
EXHIBIT 4-1 LAND USE PLAN 4-2
EXHIBIT 5-1 CITY OF ONTARIO ROAD CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM 5-4 EXHIBIT 5-2 CONCEPTUAL CIRCULATION PLAN 5-5
EXHIBIT 5-3 ONTARIO RANCH ROAD 5-6
EXHIBIT 5-4 GROVE AVENUE 5-7
EXHIBIT 5-5 WALKER AVENUE 5-8
EXHIBIT 5-6 CAMPUS AVENUE 5-9
EXHIBIT 5-7 BON VIEW AVENUE 5-10
EXHIBIT 5-8 PARCO AVENUE AND CUCAMONGA AVENUE 5-11
EXHIBIT 5-9 LOCAL STREETS 5-13
EXHIBIT 5-10 COMMON DRIVES, PRIVATE DRIVES AND ALLEYS 5-14 EXHIBIT 5-11 CONCEPTUAL PEDESTRIAN AND REGIONAL TRAIL CIRCULATION PLAN 5-18 EXHIBIT 5-12 INTERNAL PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION PLAN 5-19
EXHIBIT 5-13 CONCEPTUAL POTABLE WATER PLAN 5-22
EXHIBIT 5-14 CONCEPTUAL POTABLE WATER SYSTEM 5-23
EXHIBIT 5-15 CONCEPTUAL RECYCLED WATER PLAN 5-26
EXHIBIT 5-16 CONCEPTUAL RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM 5-27
EXHIBIT 5-17 CONCEPTUAL SEWER PLAN 5-30
EXHIBIT 5-18 CONCEPTUAL SEWER SYSTEM 5-31
EXHIBIT 5-19 CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE PLAN 5-34
EXHIBIT 5-20 CONCEPTUAL STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 5-35
EXHIBIT 5-21 FIBER OPTIC MASTER PLAN 5-36
EXHIBIT 5-22 FIBER OPTIC PLAN 5-37
EXHIBIT 5-23 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN 5-39
EXHIBIT 5-24 EXISTING ON-SITE FACILITIES 5-41
729
x
EXHIBIT 6-1 CONVENTIONAL SFD 6-9
EXHIBIT 6-2 Z LOT/ZERO LOT SFD 6-10
EXHIBIT 6-3 LARGE CLUSTER SFD 6-11
EXHIBIT 6-4 SMALL CLUSTER SFD 6-12
EXHIBIT 6-5 COURTYARD SFD 6-13
EXHIBIT 6-6 COTTAGE SFD 6-14
EXHIBIT 6-7 DUPLEX/TRIPLEX SFD 6-15
EXHIBIT 6-8 TOWNHOME/ROWTOWN SFA 6-16
EXHIBIT 6-9 AUTOCOURT SFA 6-17
EXHIBIT 6-10 COURTYARD TOWNHOMES 6-18
EXHIBIT 6-11 3 STORY PODIUM SFA 6-19
EXHIBIT 6-12 TUCK UNDER APARTMENT/CONDOMINIUM 6-20
EXHIBIT 6-13 MOTORCOURT APARTMENT/CONDOMINIUM 6-21
EXHIBIT 6-14 WRAP MULTI-FAMILY 6-22
EXHIBIT 6-15 PODIUM MULTI-FAMILY 6-23
EXHIBIT 6-16 USE AND BENEFIT EASEMENTS 6-24
EXHIBIT 7-1 TRADITIONAL INFLUENCES 7-7
EXHIBIT 7-2 SPANISH INFLUENCES 7-9
EXHIBIT 7-3 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INFLUENCES 7-11
EXHIBIT 7-4 ART DECO/MODERN INFLUENCES 7-13
EXHIBIT 7-5 ADAPTIVE TRADITIONAL INFLUENCES 7-15
EXHIBIT 7-6 TRANSITIONAL SOUTHERN EUROPEAN INFLUENCES 7-17 EXHIBIT 7-7 TRANSITIONAL SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INFLUENCES 7-19 EXHIBIT 7-8 GARAGE PLACEMENT 7-24
EXHIBIT 7-9 LANDSCAPE FRAMEWORK PLAN 7-36
EXHIBIT 7-10 ONTARIO RANCH ROAD STREETSCAPE 7-39
EXHIBIT 7-11 GROVE AVENUE STREETSCAPE 7-41
EXHIBIT 7-12 WALKER AVENUE STREETSCAPE 7-43
EXHIBIT 7-13 CAMPUS AVENUE STREETSCAPE 7-45
EXHIBIT 7-14 BON VIEW AVENUE STREETSCAPE 7-47
EXHIBIT 7-15 NEIGHBORHOOD STREET STREETSCAPE 7-49
EXHIBIT 7-16 PRIVATE DRIVES SECTIONS 7-51
EXHIBIT 7-17 PRIVATE DRIVE PARKING 7-53
EXHIBIT 7-19 ENHANCED DRIVEWAY/COMMON DRIVES AND ALLEY PAVING DETAIL 7-55 EXHIBIT 7-18 COMMON DRIVES/ALLEYS 7-55
EXHIBIT 7-20 COMMUNITY MONUMENTATION (LEFT SIDE) 7-58
EXHIBIT 7-21 COMMUNITY MONUMENTATION (RIGHT SIDE) 7-59
730

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
xi
table of contents
TABLES
TABLE 1-1 LAND USE PLAN SUMMARY 1-7
TABLE 4-1 LAND USE PLAN SUMMARY 4-3
TABLE 5-1 STUDENT POPULATION 5-40
TABLE 6-1 ALLOWABLE LAND USES 6-4
TABLE 6-2 MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 6-25
TABLE 6-3 OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS 6-27
TABLE 6-4 OPEN SPACE/AMENITIES STANDARDS 6-28
TABLE 7-1A PLANT MATRIX - TREES 7-76
TABLE 7-1B PLANT MATRIX - SHRUBS 7-77
TABLE 7-1C PLANT MATRIX - GROUNDCOVERS AND VINES/ESPALIER 7-78 TABLE 7-2 PROHIBITED PLANT LIST 7-78
TABLE 8-1 MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES 8-8
TABLE 9-1 POLICY PLAN CONSISTENCY 9-1
EXHIBIT 7-22 MIXED USE INTERSECTION MONUMENTATION AND SIGNAGE 7-61 EXHIBIT 7-23 CONCEPTUAL NEIGHBORHOOD PARK 7-65
EXHIBIT 7-24 ILLUSTRATIVE LOCAL PARK 7-67
EXHIBIT 7-25 COMMUNITY WALL AND FENCE PLAN 7-73
EXHIBIT 7-26 WALL AND FENCE DETAILS 7-74
EXHIBIT 8-1 PHASING PLAN 8-5
731
xii
This page intentionally left blank
732

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
1-1
executive summary
SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The CenterPark Specific Plan is a proposal for a new planned community on approximately 257.34 acres within the City of Ontario. The community of CenterPark will provide a pedestrian friendly mixed-use retail/office center and up to 4,293 new residential dwelling units within thirteen distinct planning areas designed in conjunction with a comprehensively planned open space system consisting of regional and neighborhood park facilities. The Specific Plan area is bounded to the north by a Southern California Edison (SCE) Easement corridor located approximately 330 ft. north of Ontario Ranch Road, the planned Grand Park to the south, Campus Avenue to the west, and Walker Avenue to the east. The regional context and local setting of the CenterPark Specific Plan are illustrated in Exhibit 1-1, Regional Location Map and Exhibit 1-2, Vicinity Map.

1.2 COMMUNITY VISION
The relationship between man and nature; between the human spirit and the transcending effect that open space has on every human sense – is the inspiration for CenterPark. Alexander Pope, an English poet of the 18th century, penned a satirical prose to describe the British aristocracy and their landscape treatment on large estates and public open spaces that tried to emulate Versailles and other ornamental garden designs that were popular at the time. Instead, he advanced the idea that landscape design should respond to nature.

His advice: “Consult the genius of place in all”. This ideology is widely used in discussions about the sense of place or inherent character of the landforms, landscapes and environmental conditions and systems to describe our relationship with our surroundings.
“Genius of Place” describes the concept of learning from nature’s genius in a specific area or location.

In design, it is applied to the vision of reflecting on the landscape character of the past and, in some cases, reintroducing or integrating nature into the built environment. In other cases, the natural history and landscape character can be replicated in design to create a unique sense of place rooted in nature. The vision for the CenterPark Specific Plan embraces the positive relationship between people and open space, the benefits of one’s environment and surrounding beauty on the human condition.

Fredrick Law Olmstead, the co-creator of
Central Park in Manhattan, the grounds of
the 1893 Chicago World’s Fair and several
other regional and destination parks of
national prominence and considered to be a
pioneer in the field of landscape architecture,
claimed late in his career:
“The root of all my good work is
an early respect for, regard and
enjoyment of scenery”
Fredrick Law Olmstead
733
1-2
N

NOT TO SCALE
EXHIBIT 1-1 REGIONAL LOCATION MAP

PROJECT
SITE
734

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
1-3
executive summary
EXHIBIT 1-2 VICINITY MAP

PROJECT
SITE
N

NOT TO SCALE
735
1-4
Olmstead developed a series of Design Principles in his ambition to use landscape design to meet deep human needs extending the influence of landscape beyond garden decoration within a process he termed the “elegance of design” – the creation of a composition in which all parts were subordinate to an overall, single, coherent effect. The master planned vision for CenterPark is to create an elegant composition of homes and neighborhoods, combined with mixed-use opportunities for employment, retail, dining, entertainment experience, and recreational open space and scenery into a singular balance.

Throughout his career, Olmstead sought to exploit benefits of open space on society in general with his understanding of the relationship between community and recreational and cultural needs. He had visions of vast recreational and cultural achievements in the hearts of cities. He did not see parks as just vast meadows, but rather he saw them as places of harmony; places where people would go to escape life and regain their sanity. He wanted these parks to be available to all people. “If we analyze the operations of scenes of beauty upon the mind, and consider the intimate relation of the mind upon the nervous system and the whole physical economy, the action and reaction which constantly occur between bodily and mental conditions, the reinvigoration which results from such scenes is readily comprehended. The enjoyment of scenery employs the mind without fatigue and yet exercises it; tranquilizes it and yet enlivens it; and thus, through the influence of the mind over the body gives the effect of refreshing rest and reinvigoration to the whole system.”
The master planned community at CenterPark is reminiscent of Olmstead’s vision for parks and recreational spaces integrated into the city core and available to all people. The community framework follows his principles of elegant design where development and open space are subordinate elements within an overall balance. CenterPark offers parks, trails and landscaped open spaces within walking and biking distance of all residential neighborhoods.

The plan for CenterPark establishes individual neighborhoods sited with tree-lined streets that encourage walking within and between neighborhoods. Residences are planned to front onto streets and open spaces including larger regional facilities and local neighborhood parks, recreational features and passive open space/gathering areas. A collection of smaller residential enclaves are intended to seamlessly integrate into overall character and “genius of space” envisioned for the CenterPark Community.
736

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
1-5
executive summary

1.3 RELATIONSHIP TO THE ONTARIO PLAN
The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP) Exhibit LU-01, Land Use Plan designates the CenterPark Specific Plan area (Specific Plan area) as Mixed-Use, Medium Density Residential (11.1 - 25.0 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space/Parkland. The Specific Plan Area is within the Chino Airport Overlay Zone. The Specific Plan area is zoned SP/AG (Specific Plan AG preserve), requiring approval from the City for development within the CenterPark Specific Plan area.

Based on the land use designations established with The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP) Land Use Element, the following development requirements apply to the Specific Plan area:
• Mixed-Use. Mixed-Use development comprised of 10% Office with a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.70, 20% Retail with a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.30 and 70% Residential with a maximum density of 35 dwelling units per acre, is allowed. The Ontario Plan (TOP) allows up to 135,110 sq. ft. of office development, 115,809 sq. ft. of retail development and a maximum of 1,086 residential dwelling units within the Mixed-Use Planning Area of the CenterPark Specific Plan. • Residential. Residential Medium Density development at 11.1 - 25.0 dwelling units per acre per The Ontario Plan adjusted gross acre is allowed. The TOP proposes 93.6 acres of Medium Density Residential land uses. At a target density of 22.0 du/ac, the TOP allows up to 3,207 total units. • Open Space - Parkland. The TOP Land Use Plan depicts approximately 67.26 adjusted gross acres of Parkland.
• Parks. A minimum of 2 acres of Parkland per 1000 residents is required as part of the proposed residential development. The actual on-site park acreage requirement will be established with approval of future Tentative Tract Maps.

The CenterPark Land Use plan is illustrated in Exhibit 1-3, Land Use Plan. The CenterPark Specific Plan serves as the land use, zoning regulations and guidelines governing development of a new master planned community within the 257.34 acre Specific Plan area.
737
1-6
Eucalyptus Ave
Campus Ave
Edison Ave/
Ontario Ranch Rd
Cucamonga Ave
Sultana Ave
Bon View Ave
Grove Ave
Parco Ave
Walker Ave
Campus Ave
Bon View Ave
Cucamonga Ave
Grove Ave
Parco Ave
Walker Ave
Baker Ave Baker Ave
Sultana Ave
Edison Ave/
Ontario Ranch Rd
1 MDR

15.91 AC
2 MDR

15.57 AC
3 MDR

7.70 AC
4 MU

7.13 AC
5 MU

7.41 AC
6 MDR

7.33 AC
10 MU

14.10 AC
11 MU

15.67 AC
7 MDR

23.67 AC
8 MDR

24.20 AC
9 MDR

12.18 AC
12 MDR

15.46 AC
13 MDR

23.75 AC
14 OS-R

13.33 AC
15 OS-R

13.11 AC
16 OS-R

9.90 AC
18 OS-R

13.44 AC
17 OS-R

6.20 AC
19 OS-NR

2.26 AC
20 OS-NR

2.68 AC
21 OS-NR

2.96 AC
22 OS-NR

3.38 AC
Specific Plan Boundary
MDR Medium Density Residential
MU Mixed-Use
OS-R Open Space-Recreation
OS-NR Open Space-Non Rec

FULL ACCESS

POTENTIAL ACCESS POINT
EXHIBIT 1-3 LAND USE PLAN
N
738

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
1-7
executive summary
TABLE 1-1 LAND USE PLAN SUMMARY
PA LAND USE TOP 2050

ACREAGE

DENSITY PER
EIR

MAXIMUM
UNITS

MAXIMUM
RETAIL

MAXIMUM
OFFICE
1 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 15.91 AC 22.0 DU/AC 350 DU
2 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 15.57 AC 22.0 DU/AC 343 DU
3 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 7.70 AC 22.0 DU/AC 169 DU
4 MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL 4.99 AC 35.0 DU/AC 175 DU
4 MIXED-USE RETAIL 1.43 AC 18,635 SF
4 MIXED-USE OFFICE 0.71 AC 21,741 SF
5 MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL 5.19 AC 35.0 DU/AC 182 DU
5 MIXED-USE RETAIL 1.48 AC 19,367 SF
5 MIXED-USE OFFICE 0.74 AC 22,595 SF
6 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 7.33 AC 22.0 DU/AC 161 DU
7 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 23.67 AC 22.0 DU/AC 521 DU
8 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 24.20 AC 22.0 DU/AC 532 DU
9 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 12.18 AC 22.0 DU/AC 268 DU
10 MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL 9.87 AC 35.0 DU/AC 345 DU
10 MIXED-USE RETAIL 2.82 AC 36,852 SF
10 MIXED-USE OFFICE 1.41 AC 42,994 SF
11 MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL 10.97 AC 35.0 DU/AC 384 DU
11 MIXED-USE RETAIL 3.13 AC 40,955 SF
11 MIXED-USE OFFICE 1.57 AC 47,781 SF
12 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 15.46 AC 22.0 DU/AC 340 DU
13 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 23.75 AC 22.0 DU/AC 523 DU
RESIDENTIAL TOTAL 176.79 AC 24.3 DU/AC 4,293 DU
RETAIL TOTAL 8.86 AC 115,809 SF
OFFICE TOTAL 4.43 AC 135,110 SF
14 OS-R (PARKLAND) 13.33 AC
15 OS-R (PARKLAND) 13.11 AC
16 OS-R (PARKLAND) 9.90 AC
17 OS-R (PARKLAND) 6.20 AC
18 OS-R (PARKLAND) 13.44 AC
19 OS-NR (NON-RECREATION) 2.26 AC
20 OS-NR (NON-RECREATION) 2.68 AC
21 OS-NR (NON-RECREATION) 2.96 AC
22 OS-NR (NON-RECREATION) 3.38 AC
OPEN SPACE TOTAL 67.26 AC
PROJECT TOTAL 257.34 AC 16.7 DU/AC 4,293 DU 115,809 SF 135,110 SF RETAIL in Mixed-Use areas = 20% of Mixed-Use acreage x 0.30 FAR OFFICE in Mixed-Use areas = 10% of Mixed-Use acreage x 0.70 FAR 739
1-8

1.4 GOVERNING DOCUMENTS
Development of CenterPark will be governed by the following planning and zoning documents:
• The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP) which establishes policies governing land use, circulation, housing, conservation and open space, noise, safety and public facilities within the CenterPark Specific Plan area. • The CenterPark Specific Plan which serves as the zoning regulations for the Specific Plan area and includes a Land Use Plan, Infrastructure Plan, Design Guidelines, Development Regulations and plans for implementation of development within CenterPark.
• The City of Ontario Development Code which shall govern where the CenterPark Specific Plan is silent. • ONT/Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Document.
• The City of Ontario Subdivision Ordinance which shall regulate the subdivision of land within CenterPark.
• Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R’s) to be established by the developers of CenterPark which shall provide a means of ensuring and enforcing quality design and development of the master planned community.
• Development Agreements which establish assurances that regulations contained within the Specific Plan will be in force during approved timelines and that development of public facilities within the CenterPark Specific Plan will occur pursuant to the terms and conditions approved by the City. • The CenterPark Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report which evaluates the environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the development proposal and identifies methods to eliminate or reduce impacts to a less than significant level and a means for monitoring the methods through the development and operation of the project.

1.5 SPECIFIC PLAN COMPONENTS
In addition to Section 1, Executive Summary, the CenterPark Specific Plan is organized into the following sections:

SECTION 2 - INTRODUCTION
The Introduction serves to acquaint the reader with:
• The Specific Plan vision and objectives,
• The purpose of the Specific Plan,
• A general description of the project proposal,
• The authority and requirements of the Specific Plan,
• The entitlements required to implement development within the Specific Plan; and • The relationship of the CenterPark Specific Plan to The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP) and Ontario Development Code.
740

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
1-9
executive summary
SECTION 3 - EXISTING CONDITIONS
The physical setting for CenterPark is described in this section outlining the existing physical conditions in and around the Specific Plan area.

SECTION 4 - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
This section describes the land use plan proposal and the necessary infrastructure and public services required as part of development of the proposed project. A summary of the City’s land use and planning policies and regulations governing development of the Specific Plan area is provided with a description of the CenterPark land use plan including a detailed description of each residential and mixed-use planning area, the type and number of residential dwelling units and other uses allocated to each planning area and the areas allocated to the site, park sites and the system of trails planned within the community.

SECTION 5 - INFRASTRUCTURE
This section provides information in circulation improvements, planned backbone water, sewer, and storm drain systems, the grading concept for the project and a discussion of public facilities to serve the project site.

Information on the infrastructure improvements to be constructed as part of project development is provided in this section to include a description of the planned circulation improvements, water, sewer, storm drain and water quality improvements, the grading concept for the development of the project, and a discussion of public utilities and services planned for CenterPark
SECTION 6 - DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Development Regulations to govern allowable uses and regulate development of allowable land use within the Specific Plan are established in this section. The relationship of the CenterPark Specific Plan development regulations to the City of Ontario Development Code is also discussed. The policies and procedures for the City’s review and approval of specific development projects proposed within CenterPark subsequent to Specific Plan approval are established in this section.

SECTION 7 - DESIGN GUIDELINES
The CenterPark Design Guidelines, which are intended to direct the site planning, landscaping, and architectural quality of the development are established in this section. Streetscapes, entries, edge treatments, walls and fencing, lighting, signage and architectural design are some of the features to be addressed in the Design Guidelines.

SECTION 8 - IMPLEMENTATION
The policies and procedures for the City’s review and approval of specific development proposals, within the CenterPark Specific Plan, are established in this section. This section provides the methods and procedures for interpreting and amending the CenterPark Specific Plan as necessary. A summary of project financing and project maintenance responsibilities for new development within the Specific Plan area is provided in this section.

SECTION 9 - GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
This section provides a matrix comparing the goals and policies of The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP) applicable to the Specific Plan and the consistency of the CenterPark Specific Plan to each policy of The Ontario Plan 2050. 741
This page intentionally left blank
742

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
2-1
introduction
SECTION 2: INTRODUCTION
The CenterPark Specific Plan is a comprehensive plan for development of a balanced community consisting of neighborhood commercial, varied residential and a variety of open space uses on approximately 258 acres in the City of Ontario. The site is located within a region known as the Ontario Ranch, which is transitioning from historical agricultural uses to urban development. The site is bounded by a SCE Easement located approximately 330 ft. north of Ontario Ranch Road, and by Campus Avenue on the west and Walker Avenue on the east.

CenterPark is designed in a village concept comprised of several distinct residential neighborhoods, all located within walking and biking distance to mixed-use areas and public and private parks. The Community is focused around a large centrally located regional park that comprises approximately 56.0 acres and extends from Campus Avenue on the western boundary across the entire site to the eastern boundary at Walker Avenue. This central regional park is part of a larger, City-wide parkland element that connects the City’s Grand Park on the eastern end of the Ontario Ranch to the future Mixed-Use activity area designated on The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP) at the southeast corner of Ontario Ranch Road and Euclid Avenue.

2.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN
The purpose and intent of the CenterPark Specific Plan is to comprehensively describe the proposed commercial, residential and open space/recreational land uses planned for the project site. An ordinance adopting the CenterPark Specific Plan establishes the zoning for the proposed planned development and defines the permitted uses, development regulations, design guidelines governing future development as well as the procedures and requirements to approve and implement that development in a manner consistent with the City of Ontario Plan (TOP) General Plan.

The purpose and intent of the CenterPark Specific Plan is established on the following guiding principles:
• Establish a comprehensive land use plan and development standards designed to address the unique features of the Specific Plan area;
• Implement the City’s goals and policies as established in The Ontario Plan (TOP) for the Specific Plan area and establish a mechanism for the implementation of the AG/SP zoning designation for the Specific Plan area;
• Establish design guidelines to guide the City’s review and approval of subsequent development applications for Mixed-use and residential development projects such as subdivision maps, development plans, landscape plans, grading plans, and building plans; and • Provide a plan that ensures development of the Specific Plan area is accomplished in a uniform and cohesive manner.
743
2-2

2.2 SPECIFIC PLAN VISION AND OBJECTIVES
The vision for CenterPark is established through the following key objectives which will result in the design and development of a traditional, walkable community that encourages an outdoor lifestyle, promotes interaction among neighbors and provides a sense of place and community identity for residents.

2.2.1 Objective: Design CenterPark as a Living Community CenterPark is designed as a livable community consisting of unique neighborhood commercial and retail development, distinct residential neighborhoods and a park and open space system that are functional, emphasize social interaction and are identifiable through implementation of the following community design features:
• Locally serving commercial neighborhood designed to be identifiable to the surrounding community and integrated into the overall planned development, visually and physically connected. • A traditional village setting comprised of a series of neighborhoods designed with a pattern of smaller, walkable blocks that promote access, activity and safety. • Neighborhood streets designed in a simple grid-like system creating short blocks to promote a neighborhood feeling.
• Streets incorporating traffic-calming techniques such as landscaped areas adjacent to roadways and City approved intersection chokers intended to encourage drivers to reduce their speed and create a pedestrian friendly environment.
• Landscaped parkways adjacent to sidewalks separated from the curb to create a pedestrian friendly environment.
• Diversity in architectural design and homes fronting the street with varying lot sizes to enhance the pedestrian experience and instill a sense of place and belonging for residents. • A choice of housing types provided to address a diversity of lifestyles and varying economic segments of the marketplace.
• Residential floor plans that encourage views onto the street, de-emphasize the visual and physical dominance of garages and provide front porches and courtyards along the street to encourage interaction and activity along streets and sidewalks.
• A system of parks providing active and passive recreation facilities, passive open space areas and walkway connections for informal neighborhood interaction. • Pedestrian and bicycle connectivity among all residential neighborhoods, areas and parks within CenterPark through a comprehensive network of pedestrian walkways and bicycle trails offering opportunities for walking and biking throughout the entire community and to destinations outside of the community.
744

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
2-3
introduction

2.2.2 Objective: Create a Comprehensive Circulation System for Multiple Modes of Travel
Street design within CenterPark strengthens connectivity and enhances community identity through improvements to the public right of way such as entry monuments, street trees, landscaped parkways, decorative street lighting and street furniture. Parks and open space areas are connected with the surrounding neighborhoods by walkways and trails providing connectivity and accessibility to future residents and the general public. The plan for CenterPark provides a system of streets designed for the safe and efficient movement of automobiles while also improving walkability and biking opportunities through the following community design features:
• Neighborhood street patterns that provide access between neighborhoods and discourage through traffic. • A local street system that is logical and understandable for the user avoiding circuitous and confusing travel paths between internal neighborhood areas and adjacent arterials. • Streets designed to include landscaped parkways and pedestrian walkways separated from the street encourage walking and social interaction.
• Local streets designed to slow vehicular traffic to promote walkability through the use of traffic-calming devices, landscaped areas adjacent to streets and narrowed intersections to influence a driver’s peripheral vision and encourage drivers to proceed more slowly.
• A system of City-wide and local bike ways integrated into the design of the community to encourage bicycle travel as an alternative to the automobile.
• Neighborhoods and parks that are linked by pedestrian paths and greenways which also serve to establish connective and gathering features within and between neighborhoods in the CenterPark Specific Plan area.

2.2.3 Objective: Provide for City-Planned Public Community Facilities and Services The CenterPark Specific Plan provides for the development of required public facilities to serve the community as follows:
• New water, sewer, storm drain and water quality facilities consistent with City’s Technical Master Plans. • Development of new bike paths as part of project development providing links of a public bike trail system consistent with the City’s Bikeway Master Plan.
• Provision of 56 acres of regional open space – parkland to allow for a centrally located regional public open space facility.
• Development of new on-site parks at a ratio of 2 acres of developed park space per 1,000 residents including the development of private parks within the community and smaller pocket parks within each neighborhood.
745
2-4

2.2.4 Objective: Integrate Parks and Trails into the Framework of CenterPark The master plan for CenterPark will provide new parks, trails and landscaped open space areas to enhance the public realm and provide outdoor recreational opportunities for residents of CenterPark and the surrounding community as follows:
• Provision of a central regional park to include recreational amenities such as playgrounds, gathering areas, walking trails and other public amenities consistent with the City of Ontario programming for future public parks and subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. • Development of privately maintained neighborhood parks, community facilities, pocket parks and open space trails and walkways within each neighborhood.
• Proposed amenities will include open park spaces, passive and active park areas and greenbelts to provide a diversity of open spaces that meet the needs of the community. • Improvement of landscaped open space within the neighborhood edges to include pedestrian trails adjacent to public arterial and collector streets.

2.2.5 Objective: Compose “A Genius of Place” through Exceptional Planning and Distinct Architecture
Diverse and varied architecture combined with comprehensive site planning within CenterPark will produce neighborhoods that have aesthetic and functional harmony, preserve residents’ privacy and encourage neighborhood interaction. The Design Guidelines for CenterPark provides a strong sense of place through the following community design features.
• Architectural theme and place-making incorporated into buildings, streetscape furniture/ design elements, lighting and signage creating an overall community character. • Individual interpretation of the overall intended community character within the commercial center and individual neighborhoods to encourage diversity of architecture within an overall planned aesthetic theme. • Homes designed at a human scale with porches, stoops and walkways providing gathering places for neighbors and encouraging interaction among neighbors.
• A variety of home styles within the Specific Plan area, all of which are located within walking and biking distance to the parks.
• Homes oriented to the street and comprised of a variety of architectural styles adding interest to the street scene, creating a unique walking experience and encouraging neighborhood interaction along the street. • Traditional building types with views of garage doors minimized through setback requirements, location, design elements and landscaping.
• Streets linked together in a manner which is pedestrian-friendly but also auto-accessible enabling residents to either walk or bike from neighborhoods to the parks. 746

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
2-5
introduction

2.3 PROJECT SUMMARY
The CenterPark Land Use Plan is outlined in Section 1’s Table 1-1, Land Use Plan Summary and described below.

2.3.1 Mixed-use Development
Mixed-Use development comprised of 10% Office with a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.70, 20% Retail with a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.30 and 70% Residential with a maximum density of 35 dwelling units per acre, is allowed. The Ontario Plan (TOP) allows up to 135,110 sq. ft. of office development, 115,809 sq. ft. of retail development and a maximum of 1,086 residential dwelling units within the Mixed-Use Planning Area of the CenterPark Specific Plan.

2.3.2 Residential Uses
A variety of residential housing types may be developed up to 5 stories maximum height. The maximum allowable units within the CenterPark Specific Plan is not to exceed 4,293 units. The blending of residential densities within the plan is encouraged as long as the density within any one planning area does not exceed 35 du/ac in the mixed-use zone and does not exceed 25 du/ac in the overall Specific Plan area.

The following housing types are allowed within the Specific Plan area:
• Conventional SFD - 2 Story. This housing type includes conventional single family neighborhoods, traditional single-family and cluster SFD neighborhoods, including condominium developments, with 1 and 2 story buildings.
• Small Lot/Cluster SFD - 2/3 Story. This housing type includes conventional single-family neighborhoods, traditional single-family and cluster SFD neighborhoods, including condominium developments, with buildings up to 3 stories tall.
• Attached SFA - 2 Story. This housing type includes duplexes/paired homes, triplexes, townhomes/ rowtowns and stacked flats, including condominium and apartment developments, with buildings up to 2 stories tall.
• Attached SFA - 3 Story. This housing type includes duplexes/paired homes, triplexes, townhomes/ rowtowns and stacked flats, including condominium and apartment developments, with buildings up to 3 stories tall.
• Attached SFA/Multi-Family - 3+ to 5 Story. This housing type includes attached homes, including condominium and apartment developments, with buildings greater than 3 stories tall with a maximum of 5 story buildings.
747
2-6

2.3.3 Parks, Trails and Open Space
The CenterPark open space concept is oriented around a large public regional park comprised of

55.98 acres. The plan includes a system of private parks that will be well distributed throughout the Specific Plan area, within the residential neighborhoods. Each private park will have a minimum of

0.25 acres and include a variety of facilities to serve the needs of the future residents.

Enhanced neighborhood edges will include pedestrian walkways providing connectivity to and from the Specific Plan area and to the street, separated public sidewalks, private pedestrian walkways and pathways to be developed within the community, connecting all residential neighborhoods to the central park and several private parks.

Parks provided on-site will be consistent with TOP. Actual required park acreage will be determined at the time of tentative tract map approval.

An overall Conceptual Open Space Plan and Program will be developed and approved concurrently with each subdivision map in each Planning Area. At a minimum the plan will indicate the location and size of parks proposed within the map area and will include proposed amenity features within the area to be mapped as well as amenity program listing the proposed facilities for the private amenities within the remainder of the Specific Plan area.

The Grand Park will be designed and constructed per the Ontario Grand Park Conceptual Master Plan.

The developer and the City of Ontario will work together to ensure that the public regional park will be constructed concurrently with the build-out of the Specific Plan in a phased manner. The details of this partnership will be included in the development agreement accompanying the approval of the Specific Plan. 748

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
2-7
introduction

2.4 AUTHORITY AND REQUIREMENTS

2.4.1 Authority
State of California Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Section 65453 and 65353 grants authority to cities to adopt Specific Plans for purposes of implementing the goals and policies of their General Plans. The Government Code specifies that Specific Plans may be adopted either by resolution or by ordinance and that the Specific Plan is required to be consistent with the General Plan. When adopted by the City of Ontario by ordinance, the CenterPark Specific Plan shall establish the land use and zoning regulations for development of the Specific Plan area.

2.4.2 Statutory Requirements of the Specific Plan
California Government Code Section 65451 mandates that a Specific Plan be structured as follows:

1. A Specific Plan shall include a text and a diagram or diagrams, which specify all of the following in detail:
• The distribution, location and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by the plan;
• The proposed distribution, location, extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan;
• Standards and criteria by which improvements will proceed, standards for the conservation, development and utilization of natural resources, where applicable; • A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects and the financing measures necessary to carry out 1, 2 and 3 above; • A statement of the relationship of the Specific Plan to The Ontario Plan (TOP) - General Plan.

The CenterPark Specific Plan meets the requirements of the State of California Government Code. 749
2-8

2.5 RELATIONSHIP TO THE ONTARIO PLAN (TOP) AND ZONING

2.5.1 The Ontario Plan (Policy Plan)
The Ontario Plan (TOP) designates the Specific Plan area for the following land uses:
• Mixed-use development comprised of 10% Office with a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.70, 20% Retail with a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.30 and 70% Residential with a maximum density of 35 dwelling units per acre, is allowed. The Ontario Plan (TOP) allows up to 135,110 sq. ft. of office development, 115,809 sq. ft. of retail development and a maximum of 1,086 in mixed-use units. • Medium Density Residential (11.1 to 25.0 dwelling units per acre) with a minimum of 1,603 residential units and a maximum development capacity of 3,207 residential units. The CenterPark Specific Plan proposes a maximum average overall density of 22.0 units per the TOP Adjusted Gross Acreage consistent with the City’s TOP policies. The table below provides a breakdown of the number of units allowed per Planning Area.
• A 55.98 acre public regional park within the CenterPark Specific Plan. • Private improved parks at a ratio of 2 acres per thousand population. The CenterPark Specific Plan provides for development of private parks, greenbelts and trails consistent with the City’s TOP policies.

The CenterPark Specific Plan Land Use Plan is consistent with The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP). For more detailed information, see the Policy Consistency Matrix in Section 9.

2.5.2 Zoning
The City of Ontario has zoned the Specific Plan area as SP/AG (Specific Plan/AG preserve).

The zoning designation of “SP” requires approval of a Specific Plan to implement the goals, policies and objectives of The Ontario Plan. The CenterPark Specific Plan is designed to meet the requirements of the State of California Government Code and The Ontario Plan. The City of Ontario will adopt the CenterPark Specific Plan by ordinance, thereby establishing the land use and zoning regulations for the development of the Specific Plan area. The requirements of the Specific Plan shall take precedence over the City of Ontario Development Code. In instances where the Specific Plan is silent, the City of Ontario Development Code shall prevail.
750

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
2-9
introduction

2.6 DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL

COMPONENTS
The components of the development approval process for projects within CenterPark are discussed below.

2.6.1 Specific Plan
The CenterPark Specific Plan, when adopted, provides the land use and development standards and zoning regulations for the Specific Plan area. It serves as a “blueprint” for development by establishing the distribution of land use and criteria for development as set forth herein. The CenterPark Specific Plan also serves as the legal document to implement the General Plan goals, objectives and policies established in The Ontario Plan for the Specific Plan area.

2.6.2 Development Agreement
Unless developed in a coordinated manner and with adequate fiscal planning, development projects within the City are likely to present a challenge in their implementation due to the lack of existing public facilities that include streets, sewage, transportation, drinking water, schools and utility facilities. California law establishes a mechanism for ensuring the adequate provision of such facilities while providing assurances to applicants that, upon project approval, applicants can proceed with their projects.

Approval of the CenterPark Specific Plan will be followed by an application for approval of development agreements to encourage investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning as envisioned by the City, which seeks to maximize efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public. A statutory development agreement, authorized pursuant to California Government Code Sections 65869.5 et seq., shall be required as part of the approval of the CenterPark Specific Plan.

The development agreements shall include, but not be limited to, methods for financing acquisition and construction of infrastructure, acquisition and development of adequate levels of parkland and schools, as well as the provision of adequate housing opportunities for various segments of the community consistent with the City’s regional housing needs assessments.

The above mentioned development agreements must be fully approved prior to or concurrent with the approval of any Tentative Tract Map submitted within this Specific Plan area.

2.6.3 Subdivision Maps
A tentative tract map(s) will be submitted by the applicant for approval by the City of Ontario for the CenterPark Specific Plan area indicating the approximate location of lot lines, streets and proposed grading.

Following approval by the City of the tentative tract map(s), a final map(s) will be prepared for acceptance by the City. The final map(s) becomes a legal document that is recorded and defines legal parcels and lots that can be sold for development.
751
2-10

2.6.4 Development Plan Review
All development proposals for individual Planning Areas within the CenterPark Specific Plan will be subject to the Development Plan Review process pursuant to the City’s Development Code.

2.7 CEQA COMPLIANCE
A Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the City of Ontario for the CenterPark Specific Plan, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), evaluates impacts associated with the Specific Plan and subdivision map(s). The EIR recommends mitigation measures to reduce impacts of the project to a less than significant level. The EIR serves as the required CEQA environmental review for the Specific Plan and provides a basis for the required CEQA environmental review of all subsequent discretionary and ministerial actions.

2.8 AIRPORT INFLUENCE AREAS

ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
The Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ONT ALUCP) was adopted by the Ontario City Council on April 19, 2011. The purpose of a compatibility plan is to avoid conflicts between airport operations and surrounding land uses. The Specific Plan area is not within the safety, noise impact or airspace protection zones of the ONT ALUCP; however, it is within the Airport Influence Area, as is the entire City of Ontario.

CHINO AIRPORT
On August 2, 2022, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted a Development Code Amendment to establish the Chino Airport (“CNO”) Overlay Zoning District (“OZD”) and Reference I, Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (“CNO ALUCP”). The CNO OZD and CNO ALUCP established the Airport Influence Area for Chino Airport, solely within the City of Ontario and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to safety, airspace protection and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. The CNO ALUCP is consistent with policies and criteria set forth within the Caltrans 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. The Specific Plan is located within the Airport Influence Area of Chino Airport, Overflight Notification Zone and Airspace Protection Zone.
752

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
2-11
introduction
EXHIBIT 2-1 CHINO AIRPORT INFLUENCE AREA
N

SEAGULL A

MALCOLM ST

PINTO PL

OAK HILL ST

TAM O' SHANTER CT

BON VIEW AVE

GOLDCREST AVE

GARFIELD AVE

HOPE AVE

CALDWELL
PL

TAYLOR PL

PHOENIX

PL BANYAN ST
C
GOLD

CREST PLBANYAN ST

MALCOLM
AVE

GARFIELD
PL

RAYMOND PL

CHERRY HILL ST

HAZELTINE
CT

HAZELTINE
CT
GREEN

WOOD PL

CALAVER A S PL

TAM O SHANTER

PARKSIDE DR

V RI GIN AI WY

MARIGOLD WAY

ST ANDREWS ST

DEERFIELD ST VIRGINIA PL

MERION S T

MARIGOLD WY DORAL CT

MERION CT
AMADOR

CALDWELL AVE

PHOENIX AVE

MERION ST

DORAL CT

MILDRED PL

PARCO AVE

COTTONWOOD ST COTTONWOO D ST

MERION CT

DORAL CT

SANDPIPER AV DEERFIELD ST E
D

MILDRED PL

EL NORTE AVEMAIDSTONE ST

ST ANDREWS ST IMPE RIAL

LASSEN AVE

BERMUDA
DUNES
ST

WALKER AVE

BERMUDA DUNES STHARBOUR AVE CASTLE MAIDSTONE
ST

COTTONWOOD ST

CA RNOUSTIE CT

PALM AVE

FERN AV
P
T
H
G
G
GH

MARIGOLD PL

HOLMES PL
MILD
BANYAN

DEL NORT E AVE

OAK HILL

SANDPIPER P

IMPE RIAL PL

BANYAN ST

LAKE AVE

BERMUDA DUNES ST

TAM O SHANTER

LASSEN AVE

SPYGLASS CT
DORAL
CT

INVERNESS
CT

COSTACT

MERION DR

CASTLE HARBOUR PL

MEADOW B ROOK PL

CASCADES CASCADES TR PINEHURST CT AUGUSTA AVE

DORAL ST

MERION ST

RIVERSIDE DR

M RI AMONTE A

OAKHILL ST
BANYAN
CT

PLEASANT A

MALCOLM AV

SULTANA AVE

TAM O'SHANTER ST

MONTEREYPL

MIRAMONTE
PL

TAM O'SHANTER ST

BERMUDA DUNES ST MONTEREY

CHERRY HILL
ST

DORAL ST

DUNES CT

MERION ST MALCOLM AVE

CONCORD PL

OAK HILL CT

BANYAN ST

CHERRY HILL ST

OAK HILL CT

P NI EHURST

BANYAN CT

TAM O SHANTER

HAZELTINE ST

AUGUSTA AVE

BROOKSIDE ST

ST ANDREWS PL
BANYAN

QUAKER RIDGE PL

OAK HILL CT

CHERRY HILL ST PRARIE DUNES PL

BANYAN ST

HILL ST

BOCA RATON CT

TIARA AVE

BALBOA AVE

VALENCIA AVE
CHERRY

SAN DIEGO PL

SACRAMENTO
PL

WHISPERING
BALBOA
PEBBLE
BEACH
CT
LAKES

INVERNESS

BROOKSIDE DR

ST ANDREWS DR

BAKER AVE

DIVERSA DR

TAM A RASK DR W H ISPERING LAKES LN

SANDPIPER AVE HAZELTINE ST

DEL NORTE PL

ST ANDREWS CT

MILDRED PL

AMADOR PL

OAKH I LL DR
V ERAS
TE PL

FIRECRES
W
AR
WA
HA
BROOK

COTTONWOOD TR

COTTONWOOD
S
SHORES
RD

ARCADIAN

COLON AI L AVE

COG HIL

DUNES ST

CYPRESS POINT PL CYPRESS POINT PL

PINE VALLEY AVE

ARCADIAN SHORES RD

SURREY WY
N
ORTH S

LONGHORN

WRA N GLER PL

OL D A RC HIBALD RAN

LEMON AVE

PLUM AVE

CHERRYPL CHERRY AVE

CHERRY HILL
CT
WY

DORAL ST

PLUM LN

COTTONWOOD ST CHERRY

PLUM LNBANYAN ST C
P

OAKHILL ST

FERN AV
E R
CT

BER M UDA DUNES CT

CORMORANT DR

BLUE JAY WAYLAUREL ST

BERMUDA DUNES ST BERMUDA DUNES ST BERMUDA DUNES ST

VINEYARD AVE BERMUDA DUNES CT

HARBOUR TOWN TR

CANTERBURY

COLONIAL AVE CANTERBURY

RICHMOND ST

BROOKSIDE ST

O AK HILL DR

WALNUT ST

W I L MINGTON DR

COLON AI L AVE

SEA SI LAND PL

DOVER PL

LEXINGTON PL
TAM O'

SHANTER

HAZELTINE ST

COGHILL ST

DUNES ST PINE VALLEY AVE

CEDAR RIDGE DUNES ST DESERT FOREST AVE CEDAR RIDGE
ST. ANDREWS ST

OAKMONT ST

T URNSTONE AVE

TAM O SHANTER

WALNUT ST

DUNLIN WY

BI G RANGE RD

WRANGLER PL WRANGLER PL

PALOMINO PL

MUSTANG DR

BLACK HORSE DR

BURNING T

MUSTANG PL

PALOMINO PL

PINTO PL

TUMBLEWEED ST

CHAPARR AL ST

EUCLID AVE

RIVERSIDE DR

GROVE AVE

RIVERSIDE DR

ARCHIBALD

ARCAD AI N SHORES RD

OAK HIL
TURNS

ARCHIBALD AVE

LEMON PL

CHINO AVE CHINO AVE CHINO AVE CHINO AVE CHINO AVE

ONTARIO

EUCALYPTUS AVE

MERRILL AVE MERRILL AVE BON VIEW AVE CUCAMONGA AVE

CHINO AVE CHINO AVE

CHINO AVE

BAKER AVE

CHINO AVE

GROVE AVE GROVE AVE GROVE AVE GROVE AVE

BON VIEW AVE

EDISON AVE

BON VIEW AVE BON VIEW AVE

CAMPUS AVE

BON VIEW AVE

EDISON AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE

EUCLID AVE EUCLID AVE EUCLID AVE EUCLID AVE EUCLID AVE

DEERFIELD ST

CHERRY AVE
GOLDEN
SILVER

OLD ARCHIBALD RANCH RD STALLION W
RO

RODEO PL

ARCADIAN
SHORES
RD
JOSHU

DUNES ST

LAUREL VLY LN

SEA ISLAND TR

CONCORD AVE

MERION ST

PLUM LN

DEERFIELD CT
ST. ANDREWS ST

DORAL ST

MONTEREY AVE

DEERFIELD ST

TAM O'SHANTER ST
ST. ANDR EWS ST

PLEASANT AVE

HAZELTINE ST

BLUE JAY WAY

HAZELTINE ST

WINDSOR ST CONCORD AVE

CHERRY AVE

COTTONWOOD ST GOLDCREST PL DORAL CT

DEERFIELD ST

HOLMES AV
G

HOLMES PL

ARFIELD AVE

DUNES ST

HOPE AVE

DEERFIELD ST

CUCAMONGA AVE

GREENWOOD ST

TAYLOR AVE

AR A B IAN PL

CLYDESDALE ST

ARCADIAN SHORES AV

BURNING TREE DR

NORTH SHORE

GROVE AVE

WALKER AVE

ARCHIBALD AVE

CARPENTER AVE

ARCHIBALD AVE

ARCHIBALD AVE ARCHIBALD AVE

MERRILL AVE

CARPENTER AVE

ONTARIO RANCH RD

EUCALYPTUS AVE

MERRILL AVE

EDISON AVE

WALKER AVE WALKER AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE

EDISON AVE

VINEYARD AVE

WALKER AVE

ONTARIO AVE ONTARIO AVE

COTTONWOOD CT PARKSIDE AV

VIRGINIA PL

COTTONWOOD CT
ST. ANDREWS ST
R
P

WALNUT ST

WALNUT ST WALNUT ST

SCHAEFER AVE SCHAEFER AVE SCHAEFER AVE SCHAEFER AVE SCHAEFER AVE

VIA RUA RIO

VIA RUA FL ORES

VIA BELAMARIA

ARBOR LN

MERRIL AVE

KENSINGTON AVE ROSE PETAL WY

WICKFORD ST

OXFO RD L N

M CCLEVE W Y WEST
M

CENTE NNIAL CI WEST C E

VICTORY LN

HE RI TAG E PAS
CROWN

CT PRIMROSE PL

SALISBURY WY

DEVONSHIRE LN

PARKPLACE AVE PARKV

PARKPLACE AVE
L

VICTORIA ST COTTAGE

GARDEN WY

PLYMOUTH AVE NEWTON AVE

COLONIAL AVE

SALEM ST

NORWICH ST

DANBURY ST

COLCHESTER ST

BENNINGTON ST

LEWISTON ST

DARIEN ST

BOUNTIFUL TR

GRAPEVINE TR

ROSEMARY WY

THOMPSON ST

DERBY LN

WILLIAMSBURG LN BARNVELDER

WYANDOTTE

ORPINGTON

TANGERINE WAY

APRICO T W A

AGRARIAN ST Y

BORDEAUX DR

BOWERY PL

WILSHIRE RD
PEN
BOU
ABB
GRA

BROADWAY AV

CANAL WY

SC OTT WY

ROGERS WY

WAYNE AV

KEN T W Y

DIAN A WY

BAN NER ST

MUR DOC K LN

PARKER LN

HOWLET T LN DRYDEN AV

KINGSTON AV

MANITOBA PL

OTTAWA AV

CORNWALL ST

EDMONTON ST

ALBERTA ST

SARNIA ST

WINNIPEG AV
SILVER

COPPERH

SU SSEX

BR ESSEPASEO

JAVAPASEO

CLEMENTINE
DR

AVOCADO
TR

STAR K LN

BODEGA WY

KENDALL LN

TRELLIS WY

CELLARS
WY

HELLMAN AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE

OLIVIA WY

BLAIRE WY

CHARLOTTE AV

STELLA AV

LOLA AV

ELLIE AV

CORA WY

SCARLETT LN SCARLETT LN

MABEL LN MABEL LN

CLARA LN CLARA LN

HARPER ST HARPER ST

PENELOPE LN PENELOPE LN

PARKVIEW ST

REESE WY

ANSLEY AV

AVERY AV

TATUM LN

HARLOW LN
MAE WY

EMBRY LN

IVY AV IVY AV

PIPER WY

HAZEL ST

VIOLET LN

PHEASANT
CRANE
KIWI

MEADOWLARK
WREN

TANAGER

HALTON PRIV

BASANITE AV

SHALE AV

DOLOMITE ST

BROCKRAM DR KINGLET AV

MADELEINE

PRIVADO
JOSEPH

PRIVADO
LENA

PRIVADO

SCHMIDT PRIVADO

SU NST ONE
8j
8i
5 4
8h
8g

S GROVE

S EUCLID

E CHINO

E RIVERSIDE

E MERRILL

E EDISON

E SCHAEFER
S VI

E EUCALYPTUS

E EUCALYPTUS

E EDISON E EDISON
y

8f
8e
CHINO

AIRPORT

PROJECT SITE
N

RANCIS ST

CHABLIS AVE

CLARK ST

ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY

ELPHIA ST

ETIWANDA AVE ETIWANDA AVE ETIWANDA AVE

S ETIWANDA

N ETIWANDA

NTA ANA
is
rea
www.ontarioplan.org
LEGEND
Retail/Service
General Commercial (0.4 FAR)
Neighborhood Commercial (0.4 FAR)
Mixed Use
Districts

1. Downtown

2. Airport Metro/Entertainment

3. Guasti

4. South Euclid

5. South Employment
Corridors

6. East Holt Blvd

7. Inland Empire Blvd
Neighborhood Centers
8a. Mountain and 6th
8b. Mountain and 4th
8c. Mountain and Holt
8d. Euclid and Francis
8e.Euclid and Walnut
8f. Euclid and Riverside
8g. Grove and Chino
8h. Grove and Edison
8i. Vineyard and Edison
8j. Parkside
Mixed Use
Residential
High Density (25.1 - 45 du / ac)
Medium Density (11.1 - 25 du / ac)
Low-Medium Density (5.1 - 11 du / ac)
Low Density (2.1 - 5 du / ac)
Rural (0 - 2 du/ac)

CHARDONNAY CT
(private drainage road)

ROCHESTER AVE
OP
CREEK
D

Y CREEK

GRAEAGLE

MILL CREEK

M A D R VR RD

KINGS RVR LN

AMERICAN RIVER RD

SAN LORENZO RVR RD

GREYSTONE DR

BRENTSTONE ST

HARTFORD ST MONO CK

SH ERWIN CK PL WY

SALMON RIVER DR OWENS RIVER
LN
McGEE CK LN

YUBA RIVER
DR
WY
CK PL

HOLCOMB
T
WAY

EEL RIVER PL

BRU S H CK PL SALT CK WY
McCLOUD RVR LN

RUSSIAN RVR DR

YUBA RIV DR

BOISE CK PL

DOUBLEDAY AVE
R

YUBA RIVER DR
MERCED RIVER RDMcCLOUD RIVER RD

TRUCKEE RVR

MILLIKEN AVE

STANFORD AVE

DUPONT AVE

COLORADO RVR RBUTTE CK PL D
McCLOUD RIVER RD

STONE CK

SILVERADO

CREEK PL

KLAMATH RIVER DR

FOX CK LN

E CREEK DR

DOUBLEDAY AVE

JURUPA ST

ZINFANDEL CT

VANDERBILT ST

HUDSON AVE

FRANCIS ST FRANCIS ST

CHAMPAGNE AVE FRANCIS ST

CHABLIS AVE

CLARK ST

JURUPA ST

VINTAGE AVE

VINTAGE AVE

SANTA ANA ST

MALAGA PL

SARAH PL SARAH PL

JURUPA ST

AUTO C ENTER DR
McNAMARA ST

WINEVILLE AVE

AUTO CENTER DR

ROCHESTER AVE

WANAM AKER AVE

WALL ST

WOODR U FF WAY

ROCKEFELLER AVE

LOWELL ST

SANTA ANA ST

DUPONT AVE

DO UB LED AY AVE

SANTA ANA ST

NY ST SEQUOIA AVE

AIRPORT DR

CLEVELAND AVE

GUASTI RD

BRICKELL ST

AIRPORT DR

BRICKELL ST

BRICKELL PRIVADO WANAMAKER AVE

ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY

GIBRALTAR ST

AIRPORT DR

ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY

VINTAGE AVE

FRANKLIN
AVE

ONTARIO
MILLS
DR

MILLS CIRCLE

ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY

AND EMPIRE BLVD

FERRARI L N
MALL
DR

MILLS CIRCLE
GURNEE
AVE

FR A N KLIN AVE

ONTARIO M IL LS DR ROCHESTER AVE

WINEVILLE AVE
DR

MISSION BLVD

DUPONT AVE
ST

MILLIKEN AVE
ONTARIO FWY (I-15)

MILLIKEN AVE MILLIKEN AVE
ONTARIO FWY (I-15)

PHILADELPHIA ST

WINEVILLE AVE

BURGUNDY PL

PHILADELPHIA ST

ETIWANDA AVE ETIWANDA AVE ETIWANDA AVE

FOURTH ST BARRINGTON AVE
ONTARIO FWY (I-15)
SAN BERNARDINO FWY (I-10)

SHEA DR
T

PACIFIC

PRIVADO
SLATER
CIR

MILL CK

GUASTI RD

MOTOR LN
NE DR

CLEVELAND AVE

CHINO AV

VIA ASTI

VIA ALBA

VIA PIEMONTE

VILLAGIO

VIA TURIN

IO CENTER PARKWAY

KETTERING DR

MERCE PARKWAY COMMERCE PARKWAY

TOYOTA WY

CONCOURS ST

CONCOURS ST

CONCOURS ST

EDENGLEN AVE

AUBURN WY

DNI L CALLAWAY DR

ENWOOD DR

HERITAGE LN

GROVELAND DR

COTTAGE WY

EDENGLEN AVE

QUINCY WY

EDENGLEN AVE

HAMPSHIRE DR BETHANY WY

EMORY LN

OAKWOOD DR EDENGLEN AVE

TULANE WYHAMPTON WY

BRADLEY LN CLAREMONT DR

WESTMONT LNHAMILTON WY

CAMBRIDGE DR

HAMNER AVE HAMNER AVE

ONTARIO RANCH RD

MILL CREEK AV
TNER

ALMOND BLOSSOM ST

CRISANTA PRIVADO PEONY PASEO

SAGE PASEO

CLIFTON AV

HO LLYHOCK PASEO

HISBISCUS PASEO

MILL CREEK AV

HEATHER PRIVADO

CRISANTA PRIVADO

AMHERST AV

VENTURA AV

SUNSET ST

LA JOLLA ST

CATALINA ST
RIA

ENCINITAS AVE
AVILA

PRIVADO

CHATHAM ST

CLIFTON ST
2 2

E AIRPORT

S MILLIKEN S HAMNER

S ETIWANDA

E PHILADELPHIA

E INLAND EMPIRE

S VINTAGE

N MILLIKEN

N ETIWANDA

S WINEVILLE

E SANTA ANA

E JURUPA
ON
IT LU-01

USE PLAN
Note: The City of Ontario in its entirety is
located within the Airport Influence Area
of Ontario International Airport.

An area in which current or future
airport-related noise, overflight, safety,
or airspace protection factors may
significantly affect land uses or necessitate
restriction on those uses.

Refer to the Ontario Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan for further
information.

Note: The location of the 350 plus acre
Great Park designatedas Open Space –
Parkland in Ontario Ranch
(area south of Riverside Drive) and the
approximate 5- acre Lakes (designated
as Open Space – Water) are conceptual.

Refer to Figure PR- 1 – Park Facilities for
further detail on existing and conceptual
park locations in Ontario Ranch.
www.ontarioplan.org
LEGEND
Other
Landfill
Rail
Airport
Public School
Public Facility
Open Space - Water
Open Space - Parkland
Open Space - Non-Recreation
Employment
Industrial (0.55 FAR)
Business Park (0.6 FAR)
Retail/Service
Hospitality (1.0 FAR)
Office Commercial (0.75 FAR)
General Commercial (0.4 FAR)
Neighborhood Commercial (0.4 FAR)
Mixed Use
Districts

1. Downtown

2. Airport Metro/Entertainment

3. Guasti

4. South Euclid

5. South Employment
Corridors

6. East Holt Blvd

7. Inland Empire Blvd
Neighborhood Centers
8a. Mountain and 6th
8b. Mountain and 4th
8c. Mountain and Holt
8d. Euclid and Francis
8e.Euclid and Walnut
8f. Euclid and Riverside
8g. Grove and Chino
8h. Grove and Edison
8i. Vineyard and Edison
8j. Parkside
Mixed Use
Residential
High Density (25.1 - 45 du / ac)
Medium Density (11.1 - 25 du / ac)
Low-Medium Density (5.1 - 11 du / ac)
Low Density (2.1 - 5 du / ac)
Rural (0 - 2 du/ac)

CHARDONNAY CT
(private drainage road)

DRIFTWOOD PL

NORTHSHORES PL

ROCHESTER AVE

SEAGULL AVE

FAIRFIELD ST

CRYSTAL SPGS PL

ROCK SPGS PL

OAK SPRINGS PL

FOX GLEN LP

ACORNGLENN PL

GLENNPLBADGER

FO X GLEN LP LYTLE CREEK LP

BEAR CK

LYT LE C R EEK LOOP

H ONEYGLENN WY

ALISO CREEK
CREEK

OA K HILL DR PONY DR

PINTO PL

CRYSTAL
LK CT

PA R K GLENN WY
CT

COLD CK WY

TIARA AVE
CT

DIVERSA DR
ASK DR
KES LN

FIRECREST CT

WOODLARK DR

ARCADIAN SHORES RD

WALNUT ST

HAZELTINE ST DRPEACHTREE PL PEACHTREE PL

BROOKSIDE CT

COTTONWOOD TR

COTTONWOOD CT

ST ANDREWS DR PEACHTREE PL DUNES ST

MERION ST PEACHTREE PLPLAINFIELD DR
NORTH

SHORES DR
NORTH
SHORES
SHORES
RD

ARCADIAN

TURNER AVE

PLAINFIELD DR

COLON AI L AVE

COG HILL CT COG HILL CT

DUNES ST

CYPRESS POINT PL CYPRESS POINT PL

PINE VALLEY AVE

ARCADIAN SHORES RD

SURREY WY

GREENBRIAR DR
N

BRONCO DR

ORTH SHORE D

LONGHORN ST R

PEACHTREE PL

NORTH SHORE DR

PLAINFIELDDR

BLACK HORSE DR

TURNER AVE

PONY DR STA LLION WY

COLT WY

WRA N GLER PL

BLACK HORSE DR

CHAPARRAL ST ROCKY PL

CLOVER WY

PEACHTREE
LN

OL D A RC HIBALD RANCH RD

G R EY F OX LN

HARBOUR TOWN TR

CANTERBURY

COLONIAL AVE CANTERBURY

RICHMOND ST

BROOKSIDE ST

O AK HILL DRPINE VALLEY

WALNUT ST

W I L MINGTON DR

COLON AI L AVE

SEA SI LAND PL

DOVER PL

LEXINGTON PL
TAM O'

SHANTER

HAZELTINE ST

COGHILL ST

DUNES ST PINE VALLEY AVE

CEDAR RIDGE DUNES ST DESERT FOREST AVE CEDAR RIDGE
ST. ANDREWS ST

OAKMONT ST

T URNSTONE AVE

TAM O SHANTER

WALNUT ST

DUNLIN WY

BI G RANGE RD

WRANGLER PL WRANGLER PL

PALOMINO PL

MUSTANG DR

BLACK HORSE DR

CENTURION WY

LAGO ST
WOOD

OAKLEAF
CT
RD

POPLAR DR

WOOD CT

MORNING
ST. TROPEZ DR

BISON WY

FAWN CT

BLUE FOX DR
WY

ANTEL OPE

REINDEER LN
PL
DE
CRYS

ER CREEK LOOP TAL LK RD

PINECONE
WY

REDPINE PL

RIPPLING BROO K PL CARIB OU PL

CLEAR LA KE RD

ELSINORE W Y

ANTLER RD
GINGER

GLENN RD
CEDAR
SHADOW
WARM
SODA

SPRINGS
CT
CK WY

SPGS CT

ASH G ATE WY

MI L ANO ST
GENOA

ASHGATE PL

ASHGATE CT

S U MMER ISLAND

APPLEWOOD DR
NECTAR

CREEKSIDE DR

ALDER CREEK DR

OAK C REEK DR

O A K C R EEK

OAK CREEK

STRAWBERRY CREEK PL ADLER CK TUOLUMNE

CT CEDARGLEN

LAURELTREE DR GINGERWOOD RD

OAKLEAF RD
MORNINGWOOD CT

SCOUT CT

PEACHTREE PL

BURNING TREE DR MUSTANG PL

PALOMINO PL

PINTO PL

TUMBLEWEED ST

CHAPARR AL ST

COLD SPRINGS PL
R
WAY

USH CREEK SAN LORENZO RVR RD

YUBA RVR RD

B GI CREEK STRAWBERRY CREEK
SNOW

GRAEAGLE

TUOLUMNE PL

COUNTRY OA K S LOOP

MILL CREEK

M A D R VR RD

KINGS RVR LN

AMERICAN RIVER RD

SAN LORENZO RVR RD

GREYSTONE DR

BRENTSTONE ST

HARTFORD ST MONO CK

SH ERWIN CK PL WY

SALMON RIVER DR OWENS RIVER
LN
McGEE CK LN

YUBA RIVER
DR
WY
CK PL

HOLCOMB LIVEOAK CK CT

SANT IAGO CRK WAY

EEL RIVER PL

BRU S H CK PL SALT CK WY
McCLOUD RVR LN

RUSSIAN RVR DR

YUBA RIV DR

BOISE CK PL

WHITE ST A G RD AN TLER RD

EV E R GREEN DR

MOOSE DEER DR

ANTLER RD

ALDER DR

CANARY CT ACORN PL

CAPRI ST

DAY CREEK DR

HONEYBROOK WY

DEER CREE K L O OP

CLEAR LAKE RD

BUFFALO RD

BLACKPINE PL

CT SUGAR MAPLE

MONTE G O AVE

TURNER AVE

DOUBLEDAY AVE

GINGERWOOD RD

COUNTRY OAKS

OAK CR E EK DR

EAGLE CK PL

MOOSE CK LN

CARIBOU CK CT

GRIZZLEY CK CT CONDOR CK LN
BEAVER
CK LN

EL K CREEK DR

BIG CREEK RD

YUBA RIVER DR
MERCED RIVER RDMcCLOUD RIVER RD

TRUCKEE RVR

MILLIKEN AVE

STANFORD AVE

DUPONT AVE

EXCISE AVE

PO NI TE AVE

SPRUCE ST

CEDAR ST

STERLING ST

PO NI TE AVE

TURNER AVE
POMONA FWY (SR-60)

POINTE AVE

BUSIN ESS PARKWAY

CEDAR ST

FRANCIS ST

PROFORMA AVE

DE SOTO PL

PROFORMA AVE

SPRUCE CT DEL RIO WYCEDAR STHELLMAN AVE

CARLOS AVE

COLORADO RVR RBUTTE CK PL D
McCLOUD RIVER RD

STONE CK

SILVERADO

CREEK PL

KLAMATH RIVER DR

FOX CK LN

ANTE L O PE CREEK DR
ST

LOCUST CT

MAPLE PRIVADO

CARLOS AVE

FRANCIS ST

AVION PL

TOWER DR

JURUPA ST

LINDSAY PRIVADO

JURUPA ST

TURNER AVE

DOUBLEDAY AVE

CARNEGIE AVE

LA SALLE ST

FRAN CIS ST M ETRO WAY

JURUPA ST JURUPA ST

ZINFANDEL CT

VANDERBILT ST

HUDSON AVE

FRANCIS ST FRANCIS ST

CHAMPAGNE AVE FRANCIS ST

CHABLIS AVE

CLARK ST

JURUPA ST

VINTAGE AVE

VINTAGE AVE

SANTA ANA ST

MALAGA PL

SARAH PL SARAH PL

JURUPA ST

AUTO C ENTER DR
McNAMARA ST

WINEVILLE AVE

AUTO CENTER DR

ROCHESTER AVE

WANAM AKER AVE

WALL ST

WOODR U FF WAY

ROCKEFELLER AVE

LOWELL ST

SANTA ANA ST

DUPONT AVE

DO UB LED AY AVE

SANTA ANA ST

ER WAYDEARBORN CT

GUASTI RD

AIRPORT DR

PEPPER TREE LN

SYCAMORE RDTURNER AVE

GUASTI RD

CENTRELAKE
DR

EBONY ST SEQUOIA AVE

PONDEROSA AVE

AIRPORT DR

CLEVELAND AVE

GUASTI RD

BRICKELL ST

AIRPORT DR

BRICKELL ST

BRICKELL PRIVADO WANAMAKER AVE

ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY

GIBRALTAR ST

AIRPORT DR

ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY

VINTAGE AVE

FRANKLIN
AVE

ONTARIO
MILLS
DR

MILLS CIRCLE

ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY

INLAND EMPIRE BLVD

FERRARI L N

POR SCHE WY

INLAND EMPIRE BLVD

LOTUS AVE

SHELBY ST

TRIUMPH LN

CORVETTE DR

JAGUAR WY

TURNER AVE

INLAND EMPIRE BLVD
ST

ISADORA WAY

HACIENDA DR

LAMANCHA WY

DEL RIO WY

LA DENEY ST

HELLMAN AVE

DEL RIO PL

CENTER AVE
MALL
DR

MILLS CIRCLE
GURNEE
AVE

FR A N KLIN AVE

ONTARIO M IL LS DR ROCHESTER AVE

WINEVILLE AVE

SIXTH ST

ARROYO DR
AVE

CARLO S
A

AMORE CT

HACIENDA DR
NE DR
R ST

ISADORA WAY
ST

RIVERSIDE DR

PHILADELPHIA ST

FOURTH ST

ARCHIBALD AVE ARCHIBALD AVE ARCHIBALD AVE

PHILADELPHIA ST

ARCHIBALD AVE

ARCAD AI N SHORES RD

OAK HILL DR

FAIRFIELD ST TURNSTONE

ARCHIBALD AVE

RIVERSIDE DR

MISSION BLVD

HAVEN AVE

MISSION BLVD

DUPONT AVE

HAVEN AVE

FOURTH ST

HAVEN AVE

MILLIKEN AVE
ONTARIO FWY (I-15)

MILLIKEN AVE MILLIKEN AVE
ONTARIO FWY (I-15)

PHILADELPHIA ST

WINEVILLE AVE

BURGUNDY PL

PHILADELPHIA ST

ETIWANDA AVE ETIWANDA AVE ETIWANDA AVE

FOURTH ST BARRINGTON AVE

EXCISE AVE

ONTARIO RANCH RD
T

MERCEDES LN

CHINO AVE CHINO AVE
ONTARIO FWY (I-15)
SAN BERNARDINO FWY (I-10)

SHEA DR

PONDEROSA AV

SEQUOIA AV

FRANCIS ST

PACIFIC

PRIVADO
SLATER
CIR

GOLDEN TRAILS

SILVER SADDLE ST

PALOMINO CT

CENTURION PL

PLAINFIELD PL

OLD ARCHIBALD RANCH RD STALLION W Y

ROAN ST

RODEO PL

ARCADIAN
SHORES
RD

JOSHUA TREE RD

CENTURION PL

JOSHUA TREE ST
AUTUMN
RIDGE

RDROCKY LN

GREENBRIAR
DR
PONY
WY

CLOVER PL

STALLION ST

SWEETWATER
DR

ROCKYWY

CLOVER LN

DUNES ST

LAUREL VLY LN

SEA ISLAND TR

LOCUST CT

MILL CK

GUASTI RD

CARRILLO PRIVADO

JOHN BANGS DR

MOTOR LN

EAR L STONE DR

AR A B IAN PL

CLYDESDALE ST

ARCADIAN SHORES AV

BURNING TREE DR

THOROUGHBRED ST

BIG RANGE RD

NORTH SHORES DR

CHINO AV

TURNER AV

ARCHIBALD AVE

CARPENTER AVE

CLEVELAND AVE EUCALYPTUS AVE

HAVEN AVE HAVEN AVE

EDISON AVE

ARCHIBALD AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE

HAVEN AVE

ARCHIBALD AVE ARCHIBALD AVE

MERRILL AVE

CARPENTER AVE

ONTARIO RANCH RD

ONTARIO AVE ONTARIO AVE

SMIDERLE LP

CHINO AV

VIA ASTI

VIA ALBA

VIA PIEMONTE

VIA VILLAGIO

VIA TURIN

ONTARIO CENTER PARKWAY

GOLDE N OA K RD
HOFER RANCH RD.

KETTERING DR

OLD GUASTI RD

GUASTI RD

COMMERCE PARKWAY COMMERCE PARKWAY

AIRPORT DR

TOYOTA WY

CONCOURS ST

CONCOURS ST

CONCOURS ST

CONCOURS ST
ION ST

TA H OE DR

AS H GAT E WAY

SEDONA CT

DUES E N BE RG DR

EDENGLEN AVE

AUBURN WY

DNI L CALLAWAY DR

ENWOOD DR

HERITAGE LN

GROVELAND DR

COTTAGE WY

EDENGLEN AVE

QUINCY WY

EDENGLEN AVE

HAMPSHIRE DR BETHANY WY

EMORY LN

OAKWOOD DR EDENGLEN AVE

TULANE WYHAMPTON WY

BRADLEY LN CLAREMONT DR

WESTMONT LNHAMILTON WY

CAMBRIDGE DR
ELM CT

HAMNER AVE HAMNER AVE

VIA TERRANO VIA CORVINA

VIA FIANO

VIAMOLINARA

VIA DOLCETTO

VIA BAROLO

ARBOR LN ARBOR LN

MERRIL AVE MERRIL AVE

KENSINGTON AVE ROSE PETAL WY

WICKFORD ST

OXFO RD L N

M CCLEVE W Y WEST

MC CLE VE WY EAST

CENTE NNIAL CI WEST C ENTE N NIA L CI EAST VICTORY LN

HE RI TAG E PASE O
CROWN

CT PRIMROSE PL

SALISBURY WY

DEVONSHIRE LN

DISCOVERY ST

CELEBRATION AVE

PARKPLACE AVE PARKVIEW ST

HOPKINS ST GROWER AVE

DULISSE AVE

GREEN AVE

HYCHE AVE

WING ST

KLASSEN ST

CELEBRAT OI N AVE

PARKPLACE AVE

TURNER AV

NEW HAVEN DR

ONTARIO RANCH RD

ONTARIO RANCH RD ONTARIO RANCH RD

SCHAEFER AVE

RUTHERFORD DR

LA AVENIDA DR

ALEXANDER AVE

YOUNTVILLE DR

O A K V ILLE AVE

EDISON AVE

LA AVENIDA DR

SCHAEFER AVE

CHIP SMITH WYALBRIGHT LN

VICTORIA ST COTTAGE

GARDEN WY

PINE RIDGE LP SOMERSTON WY MONDAVI WY MERRYVALE
WY

TRINITAS WY

MAYACAMA WY

SILVER OAK WY STERLING
ST

ARTESSA
WY

CLOVERDALE WY

INGLENOOK WY

CARNEROS AV
QVC WY

PLYMOUTH AVE NEWTON AVE

COLONIAL AVE

SALEM ST

NORWICH ST

DANBURY ST

COLCHESTER ST

BENNINGTON ST

LEWISTON ST

DARIEN ST

BELLEGRAVE AVE

BOUNTIFUL TR

GRAPEVINE TR

ROSEMARY WY

THOMPSON ST
MT. RAINIER DRIVE

GLACIER TRAIL BISCAYNE ST

ZION TRAIL

DENALI DRIVE

ACADIA AVE YELLOWSTONE DRIVE

YOSEMITE DRIVE

GRAND PARK ST

ACADIA AVE

ARCHES TRAIL

ROCKY MOUNTAIN ST TURNER AVE

OLYMPIC DRIVE

DERBY LN

WILLIAMSBURG LN BARNVELDER

WYANDOTTE

ORPINGTON

TANGERINE WAY

APRICO T W A

AGRARIAN ST Y

PAIN TED C RESC ENT ST

PERENNIAL DR STARRY NIGHT LN MASTERPIECE ST OPHELIA LN PASTEL LN

SWALLOWTAIL LN

MONARCH PL

BUTTERFLY LN

LAVEND ER DR

LILAC LN OR CH ARD ST

SAGEW OOD LN

KINGS DRCASTLE LN

GARD EN G AT E L N MO N TE P RI VA D O

BELLA PRIVADO

SALIDA PRIVADO

ESTRELLA PRIVADO

PERDIDO PRIVADO

AFTON PRIVADO

CIELO PRIVADO

SON RISA PRIVADO

LUNA PRIVADO

AM HER ST PRIVAD O

BORDEAUX DR

BOWERY PL

WILSHIRE RD

PENNY LN

BOURBON ST

ABBEY RD

GRAFTON ST

BROADWAY AV

BEALE WY OCEAN WY

CANAL WY

AMIGOS PRIVADO

TESORO PRIVADO

PERDIDO PRIVADOPLAYA PR IVAD O

AMANECER PRIVADO

COLIBRI PRIVADO

CORAZON PRIVADO

MILL CR EEK AV

ALMENDAREZ

PRIVADO

MONETA PRIVADO

ARVADA PRIVADO

MONTROSE PRIVADO

SC OTT WY

ROGERS WY

WAYNE AV

KEN T W Y

DIAN A WY

BAN NER ST

MUR DOC K LN

PARKER LN

HOWLET T LN DRYDEN AV

KINGSTON AV

MANITOBA PL

OTTAWA AV

CORNWALL ST

EDMONTON ST

ALBERTA ST

SARNIA ST

CALGARY ST

WINNIPEG AV

WELLAND AV

SILVER SKY DR

COPPERH ILL STFLAGSTON E AV

REFLEC TION LN

SU SSEX PR IVADO

JASMINE
LN

BAN TAMPASEO

BR ESSEPASEO

BR AHM APASEO

JAVAPASEO

CLEMENTINE
DR

AVOCADO
TR

STAR K LN
EC HO
C T

BODEGA WY

KENDALL LN

TRELLIS WY

CELLARS
WY

MIDSUMMER

PRIVADO WILD HORSE PRIVADO

CARDINALE

PRIVADO

PARADUXX

PRIVADO

QUINTESSA

PRIVADO

HAVEN AVE

HELLMAN AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE

OLIVIA WY

BLAIRE WY

CHARLOTTE AV

STELLA AV

LOLA AV

ELLIE AV

CORA WY

SCARLETT LN SCARLETT LN

MABEL LN MABEL LN

CLARA LN CLARA LN

HARPER ST HARPER ST

PENELOPE LN PENELOPE LN

PARKVIEW ST

REESE WY

ANSLEY AV

AVERY AV

TATUM LN

HARLOW LN
MAE WY

EMBRY LN

IVY AV IVY AV

PIPER WY

HAZEL ST

VIOLET LN

SUNRISE AV

DAYLIGHT AV

MOONLIGHT ST ROSY PKWY
SUNSET
DR

CHEERFUL PASEO

MILL CREEK AV

TREE BLOSSOM ST

ASPEN ST

HEARTWOOD ST

SUMAC ST

CALERA ST

ATTALA ST

FINCASTLE ST

CALISTOGA AV

MENDOCINO AV

AMHERST AV

ANNISTON AV

NELSON DR

POLLOCK ST

EAMES ST

WRIGHT AVE

TWINKLE AVE

GARRICK ST

PRINCE WY

GRAYSON WY

ANDERSON AV

WILSON AVJORDAN AV

KANE DR
AUSTIN

CURRY ST
STEED

JACOBSON

LAUTNER

ALLSTON PASEO

PHEASANT
CRANE
KIWI

MEADOWLARK
WREN

TANAGER

ALMOND BLOSSOM ST

CRISANTA PRIVADO PEONY PASEO

SAGE PASEO

CLIFTON AV

HO LLYHOCK PASEO

HISBISCUS PASEO

MILL CREEK AV

HEATHER PRIVADO

CRISANTA PRIVADO

BR IGH T PASEO

DELIGH T PASEO

HAPPY PASEO

SU NN Y PASEO

LAN TER N PASEO

OASIS PASEO

SPARKLE PASEO

JOLLYPASEO

RADIANT D R

AMHERST AV

VENTURA AV

SUNSET ST

LA JOLLA ST

CATALINA ST

CAMBRIA

PRIVADO

ENCINITAS AVE
AVILA

PRIVADO

HALTON PRIVADO

BASANITE AV

SHALE AV

DOLOMITE ST

BROCKRAM DR KINGLET AV

CHATHAM ST

CLIFTON ST

CANTONA PASEO

FERGUSON PRIVADO

KANE DR

SU NST ONE ST
3 7
3 2 2
8j
7 7

E CHINO

E RIVERSIDE

S ARCHIBALD

S HAVEN

E AIRPORT

N HAVEN

S MILLIKEN S HAMNER

S ETIWANDA

E PHILADELPHIA

E INLAND EMPIRE

E JURUPA

S VINTAGE

N MILLIKEN

N ETIWANDA

S WINEVILLE

N ARCHIBALD

E SANTA ANA

S SUMNER

E JURUPA

E EUCALYPTUS

E INLAND EMPIRE

E EDISON E EDISON

E EDISON
±
Approved by City Council on January 27, 2010
0 1 2
Miles
EXHIBIT LU-01

LAND USE PLAN
Note: The City of Ontario in its entirety is
located within the Airport Influence Area
of Ontario International Airport.

An area in which current or future
airport-related noise, overflight, safety,
or airspace protection factors may
significantly affect land uses or necessitate
restriction on those uses.

Refer to the Ontario Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan for further
information.

Note: The location of the 350 plus acre
Great Park designatedas Open Space –
Parkland in Ontario Ranch
(area south of Riverside Drive) and the
approximate 5- acre Lakes (designated
as Open Space – Water) are conceptual.

Refer to Figure PR- 1 – Park Facilities for
further detail on existing and conceptual
park locations in Ontario Ranch.
www.ontarioplan.org
LEGEND
Other
Landfill
Rail
Airport
Public School
Public Facility
Open Space - Water
Open Space - Parkland
Open Space - Non-Recreation
Employment
Industrial (0.55 FAR)
Business Park (0.6 FAR)
Retail/Service
Hospitality (1.0 FAR)
Office Commercial (0.75 FAR)
General Commercial (0.4 FAR)
Neighborhood Commercial (0.4 FAR)
Mixed Use
Districts

1. Downtown

2. Airport Metro/Entertainment

3. Guasti

4. South Euclid

5. South Employment
Corridors

6. East Holt Blvd

7. Inland Empire Blvd
Neighborhood Centers
8a. Mountain and 6th
8b. Mountain and 4th
8c. Mountain and Holt
8d. Euclid and Francis
8e.Euclid and Walnut
8f. Euclid and Riverside
8g. Grove and Chino
8h. Grove and Edison
8i. Vineyard and Edison
8j. Parkside
Mixed Use
Residential
High Density (25.1 - 45 du / ac)
Medium Density (11.1 - 25 du / ac)
Low-Medium Density (5.1 - 11 du / ac)
Low Density (2.1 - 5 du / ac)
Rural (0 - 2 du/ac)
Overlays
Landfill Impact Area
Industrial
Business Park
AH - Affordable Housing
Chino AIA - Chino Airport Influence Area

CHARDONNAY CT

GREENWOOD AVE
(private drainage road)

OLIVE ST
PLACER
CT

CAROLINE

SAN DIEGO
AV

HARVARD PL
CT

DRIFTWOOD PL

NORTHSHORES PL

ROCHESTER AVE

SEAGULL AVE

FAIRFIELD ST

CRYSTAL SPGS PL

ROCK SPGS PL

OAK SPRINGS PL

FOX GLEN LP

ACORNGLENN PL

GLENNPLBADGER

FO X GLEN LP LYTLE CREEK LP

BEAR CK

LYT LE C R EEK LOOP

H ONEYGLENN WY

ALISO CREEK
CREEK

OA K HILL DR PONY DR

PINTO PL

CRYSTAL
LK CT

PA R K GLENN WY
CT

COLD CK WY

OAK HILL ST

TAM O' SHANTER CT

BON VIEW AVE

GOLDCREST AVE

GARFIELD AVE

HOPE AVE

CALDWELL
PL

TAYLOR PL

PHOENIX

PL BANYAN ST

CALDWELL PL
GOLD

CREST PLBANYAN ST

GARFIELD
PL

RAYMOND PL

CHERRY HILL ST

HAZELTINE
CT

HAZELTINE
CT
GREEN

WOOD PL

CALAVER A S PL

TAM O SHANTER

PARKSIDE DR

V RI GIN AI WY

MARIGOLD WAY

ST ANDREWS ST

DEERFIELD ST
M

VIRGINIA PL

ERION S T

MARIGOLD WY DORAL CT

MERION CT
AMADOR

PHOENIX AVE

CALDWELL AVE

MERION ST

DORAL CT

MILDRED PL

PARCO AVE

COTTONWOOD ST COTTONWOO D ST

MERION CT

DORAL CT

SANDPIPER AV DEERFIELD ST E
D

MILDRED PL

EL NORTE AVEMAIDSTONE ST

ST ANDREWS ST IMPE RIAL

LASSEN AVE

BERMUDA
DUNES
ST

WALKER AVE

BERMUDA DUNES STHARBOUR AVE CASTLE MAIDSTONE
ST

COTTONWOOD ST

CA RNOUSTIE CT

PHOENIX PL

CALDWELL
PL

WISTERIA ST TAYLOR PL

SPRUCE ST HOPE PL

BOXWOOD CT

WISTERIA CT

SANDERLING ST

HOPE PL HOPE PL

TAYLOR PL

SANDERLING ST
CEL LO

CEDAR ST

MONTI CEL LO

GREENWOOD

SKYLARK ST SKYLARK ST

PHOENIX AVE

CALDWELL AVE

GOLDCREST AVE

MONTICELLO STBON VIEW

SHEA RWATE R
ST

PHOENIX PL

TAYLOR PL

HOPE PL

GOLDCREST PL

GREENWOOD PL

GARF EI LD PLHOLMES PL

MARIGOLD PL

HOLMES PL

MILDRED PL BANYAN

DEL NORT E AVE

OAK HILL OAK HILL SANDPIPER PL IMPE RIAL PL

BANYAN ST

LAKE AVE

BERMUDA DUNES ST

TAM O SHANTER

LASSEN AVE

SPYGLASS CT
DORAL
CT

INVERNESS
CT

COSTACT

MERION DR

CASTLE HARBOUR PL

MEADOW B ROOK PL

CASCADES CASCADES TR PINEHURST CT AUGUSTA AVE

DORAL ST

MERION ST

RIVERSIDE DR

TAM O'SHANTER ST
T

FAIRFIELD ST

OAK HILL CT

BANYAN ST

CHERRY HILL ST

OAK HILL CT

P NI EHURST PL

BANYAN CT

TAM O SHANTER

HAZELTINE ST

AUGUSTA AVE

BROOKSIDE ST

ST ANDREWS PL
BANYAN

QUAKER RIDGE PL

OAK HILL CT

CHERRY HILL ST PRARIE DUNES PL

BANYAN ST

HILL ST

BOCA RATON CT

TIARA AVE

BALBOA AVE

VALENCIA AVE
CHERRY

SAN DIEGO PL

SACRAMENTO
PL

WHISPERING
BALBOA
PEBBLE
BEACH
CT
LAKES

INVERNESS

BROOKSIDE DR

ST ANDREWS DR

BAKER AVE

DIVERSA DR

TAM A RASK DR W H ISPERING LAKES LN

SANDPIPER AVE HAZELTINE ST

DEL NORTE PL

ST ANDREWS CT

MILDRED PL

AMADOR PL

OAKH I LL DR

CALAV ERAS
PL

DEL N ORTE PL

FIRECREST CT

WOODLARK DR

ARCADIAN SHORES RD

WALNUT ST

HAZELTINE ST DRPEACHTREE PL PEACHTREE PL

BROOKSIDE CT

COTTONWOOD TR

COTTONWOOD CT

ST ANDREWS DR PEACHTREE PL DUNES ST

MERION ST PEACHTREE PLPLAINFIELD DR
NORTH

SHORES DR
NORTH
SHORES
SHORES
RD

ARCADIAN

TURNER AVE

PLAINFIELD DR

COLON AI L AVE

COG HILL CT COG HILL CT

DUNES ST

CYPRESS POINT PL CYPRESS POINT PL

PINE VALLEY AVE

ARCADIAN SHORES RD

SURREY WY

GREENBRIAR DR
N

BRONCO DR

ORTH SHORE D

LONGHORN ST R

PEACHTREE PL

NORTH SHORE DR

PLAINFIELDDR

BLACK HORSE DR

TURNER AVE

PONY DR STA LLION WY

COLT WY

WRA N GLER PL

BLACK HORSE DR

CHAPARRAL ST ROCKY PL

CLOVER WY

PEACHTREE
LN

OL D A RC HIBALD RANCH RD

G R EY F OX LN

BERMUDA DUNES ST BERMUDA DUNES ST BERMUDA DUNES ST

VINEYARD AVE BERMUDA DUNES CT

HARBOUR TOWN TR

CANTERBURY

COLONIAL AVE CANTERBURY

RICHMOND ST

BROOKSIDE ST

O AK HILL DRPINE VALLEY

WALNUT ST

W I L MINGTON DR

COLON AI L AVE

SEA SI LAND PL

DOVER PL

LEXINGTON PL
TAM O'

SHANTER

HAZELTINE ST

COGHILL ST

DUNES ST PINE VALLEY AVE

CEDAR RIDGE DUNES ST DESERT FOREST AVE CEDAR RIDGE
ST. ANDREWS ST

OAKMONT ST

T URNSTONE AVE

TAM O SHANTER

WALNUT ST

DUNLIN WY

BI G RANGE RD

WRANGLER PL WRANGLER PL

PALOMINO PL

MUSTANG DR

BLACK HORSE DR

CENTURION WY

LAGO ST
WOOD

OAKLEAF
CT
RD

POPLAR DR

WOOD CT

MORNING
ST. TROPEZ DR

BISON WY

FAWN CT

BLUE FOX DR
WY

ANTEL OPE

REINDEER LN
PL
DE
CRYS

ER CREEK LOOP TAL LK RD

PINECONE
WY

REDPINE PL

RIPPLING BROO K PL CARIB OU PL

CLEAR LA KE RD

ELSINORE W Y

ANTLER RD
GINGER

GLENN RD
CEDAR
SHADOW
WARM
SODA

SPRINGS
CT
CK WY

SPGS CT

ASH G ATE WY

MI L ANO ST
GENOA

ASHGATE PL

ASHGATE CT

S U MMER ISLAND

APPLEWOOD DR
NECTAR

CREEKSIDE DR

ALDER CREEK DR

OAK C REEK DR

O A K C R EEK

OAK CREEK

STRAWBERRY CREEK PL ADLER CK TUOLUMNE

CT CEDARGLEN

LAURELTREE DR GINGERWOOD RD

OAKLEAF RD
MORNINGWOOD CT

SCOUT CT

PEACHTREE PL

BURNING TREE DR MUSTANG PL

PALOMINO PL

PINTO PL

TUMBLEWEED ST

CHAPARR AL ST

COLD SPRINGS PL
R
WAY

USH CREEK SAN LORENZO RVR RD

YUBA RVR RD

B GI CREEK STRAWBERRY CREEK
SNOW

GRAEAGLE

TUOLUMNE PL

COUNTRY OA K S LOOP

MILL CREEK

M A D R VR RD

KINGS RVR LN

AMERICAN RIVER RD

SAN LORENZO RVR RD

GREYSTONE DR

BRENTSTONE ST

HARTFORD ST MONO CK

SH ERWIN CK PL WY

SALMON RIVER DR OWENS RIVER
LN
McGEE CK LN

YUBA RIVER
DR
WY
CK PL

HOLCOMB LIVEOAK CK CT

SANT IAGO CRK WAY

EEL RIVER PL

BRU S H CK PL SALT CK WY
McCLOUD RVR LN

RUSSIAN RVR DR

YUBA RIV DR

BOISE CK PL

WHITE ST A G RD AN TLER RD

EV E R GREEN DR

MOOSE DEER DR

ANTLER RD

ALDER DR

CANARY CT ACORN PL

CAPRI ST

DAY CREEK DR

HONEYBROOK WY

DEER CREE K L O OP

CLEAR LAKE RD

BUFFALO RD

BLACKPINE PL

CT SUGAR MAPLE

MONTE G O AVE

TURNER AVE

DOUBLEDAY AVE

GINGERWOOD RD

COUNTRY OAKS

OAK CR E EK DR

EAGLE CK PL

MOOSE CK LN

CARIBOU CK CT

GRIZZLEY CK CT CONDOR CK LN
BEAVER
CK LN

EL K CREEK DR

BIG CREEK RD

YUBA RIVER DR
MERCED RIVER RDMcCLOUD RIVER RD

TRUCKEE RVR

MILLIKEN AVE

STANFORD AVE

DUPONT AVE

EXCISE AVE

PO NI TE AVE

SPRUCE ST

CEDAR ST

STERLING ST

PO NI TE AVE

TURNER AVE
POMONA FWY (SR-60)

POINTE AVE

BUSIN ESS PARKWAY

CEDAR ST

FRANCIS ST

PROFORMA AVE

DE SOTO PL

PROFORMA AVE

SPRUCE CT DEL RIO WYCEDAR STHELLMAN AVE

CARLOS AVE

LYNX PL

CEDAR ST

QUAKER R DI GE P

GREVILLEA CT L

VINEYARD AVE

MONTICELLO CT

BAKER AVE

CASTLE HARBOUR PL SHEARWATER ST

FREMONT CT

CEDAR ST

AUGUSTA CT

WALKER AVE

PINEHURST AVE

SPRUCE ST

CEDAR ST

PARCO AVE

WALKER AVE

AUGUSTA PL SKYLARK ST

FRANCIS ST

MONTICELLO ST

FRANCIS ST

CUCAMONGA AVE

TAYLOR PL

LOCUST ST

COLORADO RVR RBUTTE CK PL D
McCLOUD RIVER RD

STONE CK

SILVERADO

CREEK PL

KLAMATH RIVER DR

FOX CK LN

ANTE L O PE CREEK DR

MARIGOLD PL

LOCUST ST

ACACIA CT

WOODLAWN ST

PARKSIDE PL

ACACIA ST

MILDRED AVE

LOCUST ST BAKER AVE
ELM ST

ACACIA ST SACRAMENTO AVE

VINEYARD AVE

VALENCIA ST

BALBOA AVE
ELM ST

LOCUST CT

MAPLE PRIVADO

CARLOS AVE

BALBOA AVE

FRANCIS ST

AVION PL

TOWER DR

JURUPA ST

LINDSAY PRIVADO

JURUPA ST

TURNER AVE

DOUBLEDAY AVE

CARNEGIE AVE

LA SALLE ST

VINEYARD AV

AIRPORT DR

WALKER ST

AIRPORT DR

KERN ST

PEACH AVE

ONTARIO BLVD

GROVE PL

MAIN ST

CUCAMONGA AVE

MAITLAND ST

CALIFORNIA ST CUCAMONGA AVE

JEFFERSON ST

WASHINGTON ST

GARFIELD AVE

STATE ST

HOPE AVE

BON VIEW AVE

BELMONT ST TAYLOR AVE

ONTARIO BLVD

CALDWELL AVE

CALDWELL AVE

CAMPUS AVE

FRAN CIS ST M ETRO W AY

JURUPA ST JURUPA ST

ZINFANDEL CT

VANDERBILT ST

HUDSON AVE

FRANCIS ST FRANCIS ST

CHAMPAGNE AVE FRANCIS ST

CHABLIS AVE

CLARK ST

JURUPA ST

VINTAGE AVE

VINTAGE AVE

SANTA ANA ST

MALAGA PL

SARAH PL SARAH PL

JURUPA ST

AUTO C ENTER DR
McNAMARA ST

WINEVILLE AVE

AUTO CENTER DR

ROCHESTER AVE

WANAM AKER AVE

WALL ST

WOODR U FF WAY

ROCKEFELLER AVE

LOWELL ST

SANTA ANA ST

DUPONT AVE

DO UB LED AY AVE

SANTA ANA ST

BON VIEW AVE

WOODLAWN ST

ACACIA ST CUCAMONGA AVE

EMPORIA ST

WILLOW ST

NOCTA ST

ELMA ST

MUSCATEL AVE

MAIN ST

EMPORIA ST

IMPERIAL AVE

ELMA CT

LASSEN PL

ELMA CT

CORONA AVE

SACRAMENTO AVE

VINEYARD AVE

CONVENTION CENTER WAY

DEARBORN CT

VINEYARD / TERMINAL WAY

GUASTI RD

AIRPORT DR

PEPPER TREE LN

SYCAMORE RDTURNER AVE

GUASTI RD

CENTRELAKE
DR

EBONY ST SEQUOIA AVE

PONDEROSA AVE

AIRPORT DR

CLEVELAND AVE

GUASTI RD

BRICKELL ST

AIRPORT DR

BRICKELL ST

BRICKELL PRIVADO WANAMAKER AVE

ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY

GIBRALTAR ST

AIRPORT DR

ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY

VINTAGE AVE

FRANKLIN
AVE

ONTARIO
MILLS
DR

MILLS CIRCLE

MARIN AVE

MADERA AVE

MADERA AVE
H ST

BAKER AVE

GRANADA CT

PLAZA SERENA

ORANGE AVE

PLACER AVE

SACAMENTO AVE

SAN DIEGO AVE

ROSEWOOD CT
N
JAY ST

APA AVE

MERCED AVEROSEWOOD CT

MARIPOSA AVE

GRANADA CT LASSEN AVE

HUMBOLDT PL

GLENN PL
D ST

FLORA ST HUMBOLDT
CT
F ST

EL DORADO
CT
GLENN
CT

EL MORADO CT

LAKE AVE
E

GLENN AVE

HUMBOLDT CT

IMPERIAL AVE

L DORADO AVE

DEL NORTE AVE

CALAVERAS AVE CALAVERAS AVE
I ST
LASSEN
AVE

LAKE AVE

FRESNO ST

GLENN AVE

HUMBOLT

EL DORADO AVE

ROSEWOOD
CT

FLORA ST ALAMEDA AVE AMADOR AVE

ALAMEDA AVE

PARKSIDE AVE

VIRGINIA AVE

G ST VIRGINIA AVE FLORA ST PARKSIDE AVE
E ST

HOLMES AVE

CUCAMONGA AVE

HOLMES AVE

LA PALOMA AVE

CUCAMONGA AVE

LA PALOMA AVE
J S T
I ST
H ST

EL MORADO CT

GREENWOOD AVE

FLORENCE CT

GRANADA CT
F ST

FLORA STFLORENCE AVE

ALLYN AVE
F ST
E ST

D ST BERLYN AVE

ALLYN AVE

ORCHARD LN
J ST

PLAZA SERENA
J ST

ONTARIO MILLS PARKWAY

INLAND EMPIRE BLVD

FERRARI L N

POR SCHE WY

INLAND EMPIRE BLVD

LOTUS AVE

SHELBY ST

TRIUMPH LN

CORVETTE DR

JAGUAR WY

TURNER AVE

INLAND EMPIRE BLVD
G ST

MARIPOSA AVE

LAKE AVE

HAWTHORNE ST

EL DORADO AVE

HAWTHORNE ST

BONNIE BRAE CT

YALE ST

PRINCETON ST

MANDALAY ST

PRINCETON ST

YALE ST

FIFTH ST ORANGE AVE PLACER AV

HAWTHORNE ST

VINEYARD AVE

FIFTH ST

BRAE CT

M ULBERRY CT BALBOA WAY
BONNIE

HAWTHORNE CT

CARLOS PL

ISADORA WAY

HACIENDA DR

LAMANCHA WY

DEL RIO WY

LA DENEY ST

HELLMAN AVE

DEL RIO PL

YALE ST

CENTER AVE
MALL
DR

MILLS CIRCLE
GURNEE
AVE

FR A N KLIN AVE

ONTARIO M IL LS DR ROCHESTER AVE

WINEVILLE AVE

CORONA AVE

LA DENEY CT

SIXTH ST

ARROYO DR

ALONDRA AVE

CARLO S

SOLANO PL

ALONDRA CT

DEODAR ST

SAN DIEGO
PL

S ACRAMENTO PL

ORANGE PL
ST
ST

HARVARD PL BERLYN AVE

PRINCETON ST COUNCIL AVE

YALE ST

ROSEWOOD CT ORCHARD LN ALLYN AVE ORCHARD LANE

COUNCIL AVE

HOLMES CT

LA PALOMA
CT

HARVARD PL

VIRGINIA AVE

PARKSIDE AVE

BONNIE BRAE CT

FIFTH ST

CAROLINE ST

VIRGINIA AVE

CAROLINE CT VIRGINIA AVE

HOLMES CT

SIXTH ST

DEODAR ST

HAWTHORNE ST HOPE

LA DENEY
CT

MARCELLA CT
ST
ORANGE

PLACER AVE

SACRAMENTO AVE

SAN DIEGO AVE

T R NI ITY LOOP ALVARADOLA PAZ AVE

SEVENTH ST

HIGHLAND CT

OLIVE ST

SYCAMORE ST BARRANCA AVE

CAROLINE CT

HACIENDA

SYCAMORE CT

HACIENDA DR

CAR O LINE DR DEODAR ST

SOLANO AVE

RICHLAND ST

ALVARADO CT

SYCAMORE CT

SEVENTH ST VIRGINIA AVE

HIGHLAND CT

OLIVE CT

RAYMOND ST RAYMOND CT PARKSIDE

EIGHTH ST

AMADOR AVE

CALAVERAS AVE

RAYMOND ST

HIGHLAND
CT

DEL NORTE AVE

EL DORADO AVE OLIVE

CTEL DORADO AVE

GLENN AVE

HUMBOLT AVE

EL DORADO
AV

SYCAMORE ST

SYCAMORE

HUMBOLDT AVE
LAKE
AV
MADERA
AV

CORONA AVE

SEVENTH ST
MADERA

MAR NI AVE

ORANGE CT

PLACER PL

ISADORA WAY

CARLOS AV

LA DENEY DR

LASSEN AVE
C

DEL NORTE CT

ALAVERAS CT

LA DENEY DR

AMADOR AVE

AMADOR AVE

ALVARADO ST

PHILADELPHIA ST

HOLT BLVD
SAN BERNARDINO FWY (I-10)

GROVE AVE

BAKER AV

FOURTH ST FOURTH ST
ST

HOLT BLVD

GROVE AVE

GROVE AVE

MISSION BLVD

GROVE AVE GROVE AVE

RIVERSIDE DR

PHILADELPHIA ST

FOURTH ST

ARCHIBALD AVE ARCHIBALD AVE ARCHIBALD AVE

PHILADELPHIA ST

ARCHIBALD AVE

ARCAD AI N SHORES RD

OAK HILL DR

FAIRFIELD ST TURNSTONE

ARCHIBALD AVE

RIVERSIDE DR

MISSION BLVD

HAVEN AVE

MISSION BLVD

DUPONT AVE

HAVEN AVE

FOURTH ST

HAVEN AVE

MILLIKEN AVE
ONTARIO FWY (I-15)

MILLIKEN AVE MILLIKEN AVE
ONTARIO FWY (I-15)

PHILADELPHIA ST

WINEVILLE AVE

BURGUNDY PL

PHILADELPHIA ST

ETIWANDA AVE ETIWANDA AVE ETIWANDA AVE

FOURTH ST BARRINGTON AVE

EXCISE AVE

CHINO AVE CHINO AVE CHINO AVE CHINO AVE

ONTARIO RANCH RD

EUCALYPTUS AVE

MERRILL AVE BON VIEW AVE CUCAMONGA AVE

DEODAR ST
CT

LA DENEY
DR

DEODAR ST
HOPE

HIGHLAND CT

LEEDS AVE

BAKER AVE
L

LASSEN AVE

AKE AVE
LAKE

HUMBOLT
AV
MADERA
AV
MARIN
AV

CORONA AVE

SOLANO AVE OLIVE CT

MERCEDES LN

MISSION BLVD

CHINO AVE CHINO AVE

CHINO AVE

BAKER AVE

CHINO AVE

GROVE AVE GROVE AVE GROVE AVE GROVE AVE

BON VIEW AVE

EDISON AVE

BON VIEW AVE BON VIEW AVE

CAMPUS AVE

BON VIEW AVE
ONTARIO FWY (I-15)
SAN BERNARDINO FWY (I-10)

SHEA DR

PONDEROSA AV

SEQUOIA AV

FRANCIS ST

PACIFIC

PRIVADO
SLATER
CIR

GOLDEN TRAILS

SILVER SADDLE ST

PALOMINO CT

CENTURION PL

PLAINFIELD PL

OLD ARCHIBALD RANCH RD STALLION W Y

ROAN ST

RODEO PL

ARCADIAN
SHORES
RD

JOSHUA TREE RD

CENTURION PL

JOSHUA TREE ST
AUTUMN
RIDGE

RDROCKY LN

GREENBRIAR
DR
PONY
WY

CLOVER PL

STALLION ST

SWEETWATER
DR

ROCKYWY

CLOVER LN

DUNES ST

LAUREL VLY LN

SEA ISLAND TR

EIGHTH ST

LOCUST CT

MILL CK

GUASTI RD

CARRILLO PRIVADO

MOORE WY

JOHN BANGS DR

MOTOR LN

EAR L STONE DR

COTTONWOOD ST GOLDCREST PL DORAL CT

DEERFIELD ST

HOLMES AV
G

HOLMES PL

ARFIELD AVE

DUNES ST

HOPE AVE

DEERFIELD ST

CUCAMONGA AVE

GREENWOOD ST

TAYLOR AVE

AR A B IAN PL

CLYDESDALE ST

ARCADIAN SHORES AV

BURNING TREE DR

THOROUGHBRED ST

BIG RANGE RD

NORTH SHORES DR

CHINO AV

TURNER AV

GROVE AVE

WALKER AVE

ARCHIBALD AVE

CARPENTER AVE

CLEVELAND AVE EUCALYPTUS AVE

HAVEN AVE HAVEN AVE

EDISON AVE

ARCHIBALD AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE

HAVEN AVE

ARCHIBALD AVE ARCHIBALD AVE

MERRILL AVE

CARPENTER AVE

ONTARIO RANCH RD

EUCALYPTUS AVE

MERRILL AVE

EDISON AVE

WALKER AVE WALKER AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE

EDISON AVE

VINEYARD AVE

WALKER AVE

ONTARIO AVE ONTARIO AVE

SMIDERLE LP

CHINO AV

CEDAR ST

GREEN PRIVADO

PRIVADO
CHIEF

VIA ASTI

VIA ALBA

VIA PIEMONTE

VIA VILLAGIO

VIA TURIN

ONTARIO CENTER PARKWAY

GOLDE N OA K RD
HOFER RANCH RD.

KETTERING DR

OLD GUASTI RD

GREVILLEA CT

GUASTI RD

COMMERCE PARKWAY COMMERCE PARKWAY

AIRPORT DR

TOYOTA WY

CONCOURS ST

CONCOURS ST

CONCOURS ST

CONCOURS ST

AVION ST

AVION ST

BAKER PRIVADO

MARIPOSA PRIVADO

ELMA PRIVADO
D ST

NOCTA PRIVADO MARIN PRIVADO

NOCTA ST

MADERA PRIVADO

COTTONWOOD CT PARKSIDE AV

VIRGINIA PL

COTTONWOOD CT

TA H OE DR

AS H GAT E WAY

LAKE PL

LAKE PL

DEODAR ST

MARIPOSA AV
MARIN
AV
MADERA
AV

HIGHLAND CT

OLIVE ST

RAYMOND ST

MARINAV

MARIPOSA AV

FLORA ST

SEDONA CT

DUES E N BE RG DR

ORANGE PR VI ADO

PLACER PR VI ADO

SOLANO PRIVADO

HARVARD PRIVADO

PLACER PRIVADO PLACER PRIVADO

EDENGLEN AVE

AUBURN WY

DNI L CALLAWAY DR

ENWOOD DR

HERITAGE LN

GROVELAND DR

COTTAGE WY

EDENGLEN AVE

QUINCY WY

EDENGLEN AVE

HAMPSHIRE DR BETHANY WY

EMORY LN

OAKWOOD DR EDENGLEN AVE

TULANE WYHAMPTON WY

BRADLEY LN CLAREMONT DR

WESTMONT LNHAMILTON WY

CAMBRIDGE DR

RAYMOND
PL
ELM CT

WALNUT ST WALNUT ST ELEVENTH AVE

SCHAEFER AVE SCHAEFER AVE

SCHAEFER AVE SCHAEFER AVE

HAMNER AVE HAMNER AVE

VIA TERRANO VIA CORVINA

VIA FIANO

VIAMOLINARA

VIA DOLCETTO

VIA BAROLO

ARBOR LN ARBOR LN

MERRIL AVE MERRIL AVE

KENSINGTON AVE ROSE PETAL WY

WICKFORD ST

OXFO RD L N

M CCLEVE W Y WEST

MC CLE VE WY EAST

CENTE NNIAL CI WEST C ENTE N NIA L CI EAST VICTORY LN

HE RI TAG E PASE O
CROWN

CT PRIMROSE PL

SALISBURY WY

DEVONSHIRE LN

DISCOVERY ST

CELEBRATION AVE

PARKPLACE AVE PARKVIEW ST

HOPKINS ST GROWER AVE

DULISSE AVE

GREEN AVE

HYCHE AVE

WING ST

KLASSEN ST

CELEBRAT OI N AVE

PARKPLACE AVE

TURNER AV

NEW HAVEN DR

ONTARIO RANCH RD

ONTARIO RANCH RD ONTARIO RANCH RD

SCHAEFER AVE

RUTHERFORD DR

LA AVENIDA DR

ALEXANDER AVE

YOUNTVILLE DR

O A K V ILLE AVE

EDISON AVE

LA AVENIDA DR

SCHAEFER AVE

CHIP SMITH WYALBRIGHT LN

VICTORIA ST COTTAGE

GARDEN WY

PINE RIDGE LP SOMERSTON WY MONDAVI WY MERRYVALE
WY

TRINITAS WY

MAYACAMA WY

SILVER OAK WY STERLING
ST

ARTESSA
WY

CLOVERDALE WY

INGLENOOK WY

CARNEROS AV
JAY ST
QVC WY

PLYMOUTH AVE NEWTON AVE

COLONIAL AVE

SALEM ST

NORWICH ST

DANBURY ST

COLCHESTER ST

BENNINGTON ST

LEWISTON ST

DARIEN ST

BELLEGRAVE AVE

BOUNTIFUL TR

GRAPEVINE TR

ROSEMARY WY

THOMPSON ST
MT. RAINIER DRIVE

GLACIER TRAIL BISCAYNE ST

ZION TRAIL

DENALI DRIVE

ACADIA AVE YELLOWSTONE DRIVE

YOSEMITE DRIVE

GRAND PARK ST

ACADIA AVE

ARCHES TRAIL

ROCKY MOUNTAIN ST TURNER AVE

OLYMPIC DRIVE

DERBY LN

WILLIAMSBURG LN BARNVELDER

WYANDOTTE

ORPINGTON

TANGERINE WAY

APRICO T W A

AGRARIAN ST Y

PAIN TED C RESC ENT ST

PERENNIAL DR STARRY NIGHT LN MASTERPIECE ST OPHELIA LN PASTEL LN

SWALLOWTAIL LN

MONARCH PL

BUTTERFLY LN

LAVEND ER DR

LILAC LN OR CH ARD ST

SAGEW OOD LN

KINGS DRCASTLE LN

GARD EN G AT E L N MO N TE P RI VA D O

BELLA PRIVADO

SALIDA PRIVADO

ESTRELLA PRIVADO

PERDIDO PRIVADO

AFTON PRIVADO

CIELO PRIVADO

SON RISA PRIVADO

LUNA PRIVADO

AM HER ST PRIVAD O

BORDEAUX DR

BOWERY PL

WILSHIRE RD

PENNY LN

BOURBON ST

ABBEY RD

GRAFTON ST

BROADWAY AV

BEALE WY OCEAN WY

CANAL WY

AMIGOS PRIVADO

TESORO PRIVADO

PERDIDO PRIVADOPLAYA PR IVAD O

AMANECER PRIVADO

COLIBRI PRIVADO

CORAZON PRIVADO

MILL CR EEK AV

ALMENDAREZ

PRIVADO

MONETA PRIVADO

ARVADA PRIVADO

MONTROSE PRIVADO

SC OTT WY

ROGERS WY

WAYNE AV

KEN T W Y

DIAN A WY

BAN NER ST

MUR DOC K LN

PARKER LN

HOWLET T LN DRYDEN AV

KINGSTON AV

MANITOBA PL

OTTAWA AV

CORNWALL ST

EDMONTON ST

ALBERTA ST

SARNIA ST

CALGARY ST

WINNIPEG AV

WELLAND AV

SILVER SKY DR

COPPERH ILL STFLAGSTON E AV

REFLEC TION LN

SU SSEX PR IVADO

JASMINE
LN

BAN TAMPASEO

BR ESSEPASEO

BR AHM APASEO

JAVAPASEO

CLEMENTINE
DR

AVOCADO
TR

STAR K LN
EC HO
C T

BODEGA WY

KENDALL LN

TRELLIS WY

CELLARS
WY

MIDSUMMER

PRIVADO WILD HORSE PRIVADO

CARDINALE

PRIVADO

PARADUXX

PRIVADO

QUINTESSA

PRIVADO

HAVEN AVE

HELLMAN AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE

OLIVIA WY

BLAIRE WY

CHARLOTTE AV

STELLA AV

LOLA AV

ELLIE AV

CORA WY

SCARLETT LN SCARLETT LN

MABEL LN MABEL LN

CLARA LN CLARA LN

HARPER ST HARPER ST

PENELOPE LN PENELOPE LN

PARKVIEW ST

REESE WY

ANSLEY AV

AVERY AV

TATUM LN

HARLOW LN
MAE WY

EMBRY LN

IVY AV IVY AV

PIPER WY

HAZEL ST

VIOLET LN

SUNRISE AV

DAYLIGHT AV

MOONLIGHT ST ROSY PKWY
SUNSET
DR

CHEERFUL PASEO

MILL CREEK AV

TREE BLOSSOM ST

ASPEN ST

HEARTWOOD ST

SUMAC ST

CALERA ST

ATTALA ST

FINCASTLE ST

CALISTOGA AV

MENDOCINO AV

AMHERST AV

ANNISTON AV

NELSON DR

POLLOCK ST

EAMES ST

WRIGHT AVE

TWINKLE AVE

GARRICK ST

PRINCE WY

GRAYSON WY

ANDERSON AV

WILSON AVJORDAN AV

KANE DR
AUSTIN

CURRY ST
STEED

JACOBSON

LAUTNER

ALLSTON PASEO

PHEASANT
CRANE
KIWI

MEADOWLARK
WREN

TANAGER

ALMOND BLOSSOM ST

CRISANTA PRIVADO PEONY PASEO

SAGE PASEO

CLIFTON AV

HO LLYHOCK PASEO

HISBISCUS PASEO

MILL CREEK AV

HEATHER PRIVADO

CRISANTA PRIVADO

BR IGH T PASEO

DELIGH T PASEO

HAPPY PASEO

SU NN Y PASEO

LAN TER N PASEO

OASIS PASEO

SPARKLE PASEO

JOLLYPASEO

RADIANT D R

AMHERST AV

VENTURA AV

SUNSET ST

LA JOLLA ST

CATALINA ST

CAMBRIA

PRIVADO

ENCINITAS AVE
AVILA

PRIVADO

HALTON PRIVADO

BASANITE AV

SHALE AV

DOLOMITE ST

BROCKRAM DR KINGLET AV

CHATHAM ST

CLIFTON ST

CANTONA PASEO

FERGUSON PRIVADO

KANE DR

SU NST ONE ST
6 7
3 7
3 2 2
8j
8i
5 7 7
8h
8g

E FOURTH

S GROVE
E D
E G

E CHINO

E RIVERSIDE

S ARCHIBALD

S HAVEN

E AIRPORT

E EDISON

N HAVEN

N GROVE

S MILLIKEN S HAMNER

S VINEYARD

E EUCALYPTUS

S ETIWANDA
E HOLT

E EIGHTH

E PHILADELPHIA

E INLAND EMPIRE

E JURUPA

S VINTAGE

N MILLIKEN

N ETIWANDA

S WINEVILLE

N ARCHIBALD

E SANTA ANA

S SUMNER

N VINEYARD

E JURUPA

E EUCALYPTUS

E INLAND EMPIRE

E EDISON E EDISON

E EDISON

E PHILADELPHIA
±
Approved by City Council on January 27, 2010
0 1 2
Miles
EXHIBIT LU-01

LAND USE PLAN
Note: The City of Ontario in its entirety is
located within the Airport Influence Area
of Ontario International Airport.

An area in which current or future
airport-related noise, overflight, safety,
or airspace protection factors may
significantly affect land uses or necessitate
restriction on those uses.

Refer to the Ontario Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan for further
information.

Note: The location of the 350 plus acre
Great Park designatedas Open Space –
Parkland in Ontario Ranch
(area south of Riverside Drive) and the
approximate 5- acre Lakes (designated
as Open Space – Water) are conceptual.

Refer to Figure PR- 1 – Park Facilities for
further detail on existing and conceptual
park locations in Ontario Ranch.
www.ontarioplan.org
LEGEND
Other
Landfill
Rail
Airport
Public School
Public Facility
Open Space - Water
Open Space - Parkland
Open Space - Non-Recreation
Employment
Industrial (0.55 FAR)
Business Park (0.6 FAR)
Retail/Service
Hospitality (1.0 FAR)
Office Commercial (0.75 FAR)
General Commercial (0.4 FAR)
Neighborhood Commercial (0.4 FAR)
Mixed Use
Districts

1. Downtown

2. Airport Metro/Entertainment

3. Guasti

4. South Euclid

5. South Employment
Corridors

6. East Holt Blvd

7. Inland Empire Blvd
Neighborhood Centers
8a. Mountain and 6th
8b. Mountain and 4th
8c. Mountain and Holt
8d. Euclid and Francis
8e.Euclid and Walnut
8f. Euclid and Riverside
8g. Grove and Chino
8h. Grove and Edison
8i. Vineyard and Edison
8j. Parkside
Mixed Use
Residential
High Density (25.1 - 45 du / ac)
Medium Density (11.1 - 25 du / ac)
Low-Medium Density (5.1 - 11 du / ac)
Low Density (2.1 - 5 du / ac)
Rural (0 - 2 du/ac)
Overlays
Landfill Impact Area
Industrial
Business Park
AH - Affordable Housing
Chino AIA - Chino Airport Influence Area
753
This page intentionally left blank
754

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
3-1
existing conditions
SECTION 3: EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section, Existing Conditions, describes the existing physical conditions within and surrounding the CenterPark Specific Plan.

3.1 PROPERTY OWNERSHIPS
The CenterPark Specific Plan area is comprised of approximately 246.1 adjusted gross acres, excluding additional dedications to expand current roadways to the ultimate master planned ROW and required neighborhood edges per the City of Ontario Master Plan of Streets. The Specific Plan area consists of twenty eight parcels under ten different ownerships. The recorded parcels within the CenterPark Specific Plan are shown on Exhibit 3-1, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers.

EXHIBIT 3-1 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS

GROVE AVE

CUCAMONGA AVE

PARCO AVE

WALKER AVE

BON VIEW AVE

CAMPUS AVE

SULTANA AVE

EDISON AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE

SCHAEFER AVE
0216-322-10
0216-322-04 0216-322-03
1053-331-04 1053-341-02
1053-311-01 1053-361-02 1053-351-02
1053-311-02 1053-361-01 1053-351-01
1053-371-01
1053-301-01
1053-301-02
1053-371-01
1053-321-03
1053-361-03
1053-321-02
1053-331-03
1053-331-01
1053-331-02
1053-341-01
0216-311-09
0216-311-01
0216-311-02
1053-321-01
0216-321-03
0216-321-08
1053-371-02
/

ONTARIO RANCH RD
N
755
3-2
EXHIBIT 3-2 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
AND WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACT STATUS

3.2 WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACTS
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, enables local governments to enter into contract with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use. In return, landowners receive property tax assessments that are much lower than normal because they are based upon farming and open space uses as opposed to full market value.

The Williamson Act Program is designed
as a mechanism for the preservation of
agricultural and open space lands in the
State of California. The 258 acres of the
Specific Plan area do not have active
Williamson Act Contracts. The current
property ownership and status of the
agricultural contracts are shown on
Exhibit 3-2, Property Ownership and
Williamson Act Contract Status.

EXPIRATION DATES:
2027
2028
756

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
3-3
existing conditions

3.3 EXISTING ON SITE IMPROVEMENTS
The CenterPark Specific Plan area has historically been used for agricultural purposes, primarily for dairy and field crop farming. The Specific Plan area is generally undeveloped with existing agricultural operations and rural residences scattered throughout the area, as illustrated on Exhibit 3-3, Existing and Surrounding Land Uses. Rural residential housing, farm buildings and other ancillary facilities occupy those areas not in active agricultural production. The natural vegetation and soil conditions that once occurred throughout the project area have been significantly altered through agricultural uses, leaving little or no native vegetation.

There are several dairy farm related buildings and structures within the project site that are considered potential historic resources by the City of Ontario. Dairy farm related buildings and structures over 45 years or older have been identified, documented and evaluated for national, state and local historic significance as part of the environmental review for the project.

Properties with buildings and/or structures that have been surveyed and determined to meet local and state designation criteria, will be considered for adaptive reuse, relocation or other mitigation measures as required by the City of Ontario Historic Preservation Commission.

3.4 SURROUNDING LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS
Land uses adjacent to the Specific Plan area include:
• North: Nursery/Field Crops, Dairy Operations and Rural Residential • South: Dairy Operations and Rural Residential
• West: Field Crops, Dairy Operations and Rural Residential • East: Field Crops, Dairy Operations and Rural Residential The Ontario Plan (TOP) designates the undeveloped areas located north of the Specific Plan area as Low Density Residential (LDR), Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) and Medium Density Residential (MDR).

The area to the west of the Specific Plan area is designated as Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Mixed-Use (MU), and the area to the east of the Specific Plan area is designated as Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Recreational Open Space (OS-R) and is within the Chino Airport Overlay area.

The current TOP land use designations for the undeveloped areas located south of the Specific Plan are Recreational Open Space (OS-R), Mixed-Use (MU) and Medium Density Residential (MDR) and they are within the Chino Airport Overlay area.
757
3-4
EXHIBIT 3-3 EXISTING AND

SURROUNDING LAND USES

EXISTING TOP LAND USE

BOUNDARIES

EXISTING WELLS
758

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
3-5
existing conditions
EXHIBIT 3-4 EXISTING CONDITIONS KEYMAP
N
1 2
3 4
5 6
6 12
11 7
17 8
10 9
13 14
15 16
759
3-6
Views of intersection between Campus Ave and SCE Easement Views of intersection between Cucamonga Ave and SCE Easement Views of intersection between Bon View Ave and SCE Easement Views of intersection between Grove Ave and SCE Easement 1 3
2 4
760

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
3-7
existing conditions
Views of intersection between Parco Avenue and SCE Easement Views of intersection between Bon View Ave and Ontario Ranch Rd Views of intersection between Campus Ave and Ontario Ranch Rd 5 7
6 761
3-8
Views of intersection between Cucamonga Ave and Ontario Ranch Rd Views of intersection between Grove Ave and Ontario Ranch Rd 8 9
762

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
3-9
existing conditions
Views of intersection between Parco Avenue and Ontario Ranch Rd Views of intersection between Campus Ave and (future) City of Ontario Grand Park Views of intersection between Walker Ave and Ontario Ranch Rd Views of intersection between Bon View Ave and (future) City of Ontario Grand Park 10 12
11 13
763
3-10
Views of intersection between Cucamonga Ave and (future) City of Ontario Grand Park Views of intersection between Parco Avenue and (future) City of Ontario Grand Park Views of intersection between Grove Ave and (future) City of Ontario Grand Park Views of intersection between Walker Ave and (future) City of Ontario Grand Park 14 16
15 17
764

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
3-11
existing conditions

3.5 TOPOGRAPHY
The Specific Plan area is relatively flat and generally slopes to the south as illustrated on Exhibit 3-5, Existing Site Topography. The site falls at an average slope of approximately 0.8% to 2.0%. The Specific Plan area generally drains to the south towards Eucalyptus Avenue, and into the Lower Cucamonga Spreading Grounds.

EXHIBIT 3-5 EXISTING SITE TOPOGRAPHY
Eucalyptus Ave
N
Campus Ave
Ontario Ranch Rd/
Edison Ave
Cucamonga Ave
Sultana Ave
Bon View Ave
Grove Ave
Parco Ave
Walker Ave
Campus Ave
Bon View Ave
Cucamonga Ave
Grove Ave
Parco Ave
Walker Ave
Baker Ave Baker Ave
Sultana Ave
Ontario Ranch Rd/
Edison Ave
686
688
692
694
690
698
700
696
765
3-12

3.6 EXISTING CIRCULATION AND ACCESS
• State Route 60 (SR 60) is located two and one quarter miles north of the CenterPark Specific Plan.

Currently the Specific Plan area connects to SR 60 through two major streets. These are Vineyard Avenue, located 1/2 mile east of the Specific Plan area, and Grove Avenue, which is located west of the Specific Plan area. Proposed on-site circulation improvements are discussed in greater detail in Section 4, Land Use Plan.
• Ontario Ranch Road is designated as an “8-Lane Other Principal Arterial Road” (160 ft. ROW) in the ‘Functional Roadway Classification’ of the Master Plan of Streets and Highways, which is part of The Ontario Plan and bisects the northern portion of the CenterPark Specific Plan boundary in an east/west direction. The existing Ontario Ranch Road is two paved lanes for east and west bound traffic with unpaved shoulders.
• Grove Avenue is designated as a “4-Lane Other Principal Arterial Road with multipurpose trail” (124 ft. ROW) in the ‘Functional Roadway Classification’ of the Master Plan of Streets and Highways, which is part of The Ontario Plan. It bisects the CenterPark Specific Plan boundary in a north/south direction. The existing Grove Avenue is two paved lanes for north and south bound traffic with paved shoulders on each side.
• Walker Avenue is designated as a “2-Lane Collector Street” (88 ft. ROW) in the ‘Functional Roadway Classification’ of the Master Plan of Streets and Highways, which is part of The Ontario Plan. It borders the CenterPark parcel to the east.
• Campus Avenue is designated as “4-Lane Minor Arterial Road” (108 ft. ROW) in the ‘Functional Roadway Classification’ of the Master Plan of Streets and Highways, which is part of The Ontario Plan. Campus Avenue borders the CenterPark parcel to the west and it’s currently a narrow rural paved roadway.
• Bon View Avenue is designated as “2-Lane Collector Street” (66 ft. ROW) in the ‘Functional Roadway Classification’ of the Master Plan of Streets and Highways, which is part of The Ontario Plan. Bon View Avenue traverses the CenterPark parcel to the west and it’s currently a narrow rural paved roadway. • South Cucamonga Avenue and Parco Avenue are shown on the TOP Land Use plan, but are not part of the City’s street master plan. They will be designed as Local Streets (60 ft. ROW). These streets are not currently paved or are partially paved in the general vicinity of the CenterPark Specific Plan. South Cucamonga Avenue and Parco Avenue are proposed to terminate at the north end of the Grand Park. The existing ROWs will be abandoned within the Grand Park property and to the south. 766

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
3-13
existing conditions

3.7 EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE /UTILITIES / PUBLIC SERVICES

3.7.1 Potable Water
The Specific Plan area lies within the 925 Pressure Zone. An existing 16-inch and 24-inch water main, located in Eucalyptus Avenue, provides water to the existing development to the south of the CenterPark Specific Plan. The developer of the CenterPark Specific Plan is responsible for extending water lines in the City master planned collector streets north to the Specific Plan area. On-site uses within the Specific Plan area are currently served by private wells, as illustrated on Exhibit 3-3, Existing and Surrounding Land Uses.

Upon development of the well site areas, these wells, or any other wells found on the property, will be abandoned per California Department of Water Resources Health Guidelines and the City of Ontario Guidelines. In compliance with the Chino Basin Water Master’s Well Procedure for Developers, a well use/ destruction plan and schedule for all existing private/agricultural wells shall be submitted to the City of Ontario for approval prior to the issuance of permits for any construction activity. If a private well is actively used for water supply, the Developer shall submit a plan to abandon such well and connect users to the City’s water system (residential to the domestic water system and agricultural to the recycled water system) when available. Wells shall be destroyed/abandoned per the California Water Resource Guidelines and require permitting from County Health Department. A copy of such permit shall be provided to the Engineering and Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC) prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits. If the Developer proposes temporary use of an existing agricultural well for purposes other than agriculture, such as grading, dust control, etc., the developer shall make a formal request to the City of Ontario for such use prior to issuance of permits for any construction activity. Upon approval, the Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City of Ontario and pay any applicable fees as set forth by the agreement. Existing wells may be converted to groundwater monitoring wells if feasible, at the City’s discretion.

3.7.2 Recycled Water
The existing rural residential and agricultural development within the CenterPark Specific Plan area has available recycled water. There is an existing 30” IEUA (Inland Empire Utilities Agency) recycled water line in Ontario Ranch Road, within the Specific Plan area, extending from the eastern boundary at Walker Avenue to Bon View Avenue and southerly in Bon View to Eucalyptus Avenue outside of the Specific Plan boundary. The developer of the CenterPark Specific Plan is responsible for connecting to these existing recycled water lines.

3.7.3 Sewer
Existing on-site residences utilize septic tanks and subsurface disposal fields. Prior to grading operations, existing septic tanks and subsurface disposal fields will need to be abandoned in accordance with the State of California Department of Health Services requirements. A City sewer main located in Merrill Avenue connects to the City sewer lines in the City master planned collector streets (Campus, Bon View, Grove and Walker Avenues). The developer of the CenterPark Specific Plan is responsible for extending sewer lines in the City master planned collector streets north to the Specific Plan area. 767
3-14

3.7.4 Drainage
The City of Ontario storm drain system is generally unimproved throughout the Specific Plan area and consists primarily of open earthen swales along area roadways.

Cucamonga Creek Channel, a major flood control channel, provides regional protection for conveying urban storm waters to the Prado Dam Basin.

3.7.5 Electricity
The CenterPark Specific Plan area is located within the service territory of Southern California Edison Company (SCE). Electrical facilities will be underground per Municipal Code.

3.7.6 Natural Gas
The Southern California Gas Company (SCG) provides natural gas service within the area near the Specific Plan.

3.7.7 Communication Systems
Frontier Communications provides telephone service within the CenterPark Specific Plan area.

3.7.8 Solid Waste
The City of Ontario Public Works Agency provides solid waste collection and disposal to newly developed areas by request.

3.8 HYDROLOGY
Since most of the CenterPark Specific Plan area has been in agricultural use, only a limited portion of the site is now covered with impervious surfaces. Normal rainfall to the area is able to percolate through on-site soils and does not result in high volumes of surface runoff, typically associated with urban use.

Ground waters within the area, as a whole, contain high concentrations of salt, attributable to historic agricultural activities such as dairy farming. The high organic content of on-site soils has contributed incrementally to the degradation of surface and groundwater quality.

3.9 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
There are two primary soil deposits present within the boundary of the CenterPark Specific Plan. The youngest surficial deposit, Eolian sands (Qhs), is comprised of wind-blown sands having fine to medium-sized grains.

These loose sands form sheets and low-dune deposits that have been stabilized by vegetation. These deposits are exposed in the eastern portion of the Ontario Ranch area and extend westward to an area defined generally by a diagonal line extending from Harrison Avenue within Riverside County on the south to Vineyard Avenue on the north. The second youngest surficial unit, a mediumgrained Holocene alluvium (Qhm), is present west of the Eolian sand. These are unconsolidated deposits of fine-to-course-grained sand with interbeds of gravel and silt.
768

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
3-15
existing conditions
The Specific Plan area contains delhi and hillmar loamy fine sands, as mapped by the United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in 1971 and 1980. Delhi series soils have been used for agriculture, primarily for grapes and citrus, since the 1800’s. Additional detailed geologic and soils information for the Specific Plan area is contained in the CenterPark Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report.

3.10 SEISMICITY
In accordance with the California Building Code, the development within the CenterPark Specific Plan area will follow procedures and regulations designed to ensure that all development occurs in a safe manner relative to those known hazards. The CenterPark Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report contains detailed seismic information including a seismicity analysis of the Specific Plan area.

3.11 VEGETATION
The Specific Plan area has been extensively used for agricultural operations including dairy and field crop uses. Those areas not in active agricultural production are occupied by rural residential housing or are vacant.

The natural vegetation and soil conditions that once occurred throughout the Specific Plan area have been significantly altered through the agricultural uses, leaving little or no native vegetation. The CenterPark Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report contains additional analysis of the vegetation conditions within the Specific Plan area.

3.12 EXISTING NPDES COMPLIANCE
In the existing conditions, NPDES requirements are enforced under the Agricultural Permit issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (Developer to verify the Agency). 769
This page intentionally left blank
770

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
4-1
land use plan
SECTION 4: LAND USE PLAN
This section of the CenterPark Specific Plan discusses the land uses proposed within the CenterPark development. Land uses include the residential, commercial/mixed-use, retail, office, parks and open space, and community facility components planned for CenterPark.

4.1 COMMUNITY DESIGN
A strong sense of place or community identity is established for CenterPark through comprehensively planned relationships between developed open space and urban development. This Genius of Place creates a designed natural open space framework, interacting with mixed retail and office centers which anchor traditional residential neighborhoods Collectively these neighborhoods provide a variety of housing types designed around a traditional grid pattern of streets and sidewalks. Off-street bike trails and an off-street multi-use trail provide safe corridors for bicycle access throughout the CenterPark community.

Residential and mixed-use developments shall front Grand Park. No walls shall be incorporated on the frontage of the park.

4.2 MIXED-USE PLANNING AREAS
Mixed-use development is allowed in Planning Areas 4, 5, 10 and 11. These Mixed-use Planning Areas will allow for development of neighborhood retail uses at a maximum 0.30 FAR and office uses at a maximum

0.70 FAR, intended to meet the needs of the surrounding community.

The maximum allowable retail development is 115,809 sq. ft. and the maximum office development is 135,110 sq. ft. and the maximum residential development is 1,086 units within the Specific Plan Mixed-Use Planning Areas. Mixed-Use Planning Areas in CenterPark allow for up to 70% of the area to be developed as higher density residential uses with a maximum density of 35 dwelling units per acre.

The residential uses will complement the office and retail development and increase the variety of living choices within the western area of Ontario Ranch.
771
4-2
EXHIBIT 4-1 LAND USE PLAN
Eucalyptus Ave
Campus Ave
Edison Ave/
Ontario Ranch Rd
Cucamonga Ave
Sultana Ave
Bon View Ave
Grove Ave
Parco Ave
Walker Ave
Campus Ave
Bon View Ave
Cucamonga Ave
Grove Ave
Parco Ave
Walker Ave
Baker Ave Baker Ave
Sultana Ave
Edison Ave/
Ontario Ranch Rd
1 MDR

15.91 AC
2 MDR

15.57 AC
3 MDR

7.70 AC
4 MU

7.13 AC
5 MU

7.41 AC
6 MDR

7.33 AC
10 MU

14.10 AC
11 MU

15.67 AC
7 MDR

23.67 AC
8 MDR

24.20 AC
9 MDR

12.18 AC
12 MDR

15.46 AC
13 MDR

23.75 AC
14 OS-R

13.33 AC
15 OS-R

13.11 AC
16 OS-R

9.90 AC
18 OS-R

13.44 AC
17 OS-R

6.20 AC
19 OS-NR

2.26 AC
20 OS-NR

2.68 AC
21 OS-NR

2.96 AC
22 OS-NR

3.38 AC
Specific Plan Boundary
MDR Medium Density Residential
MU Mixed-Use
OS-R Open Space-Recreation
OS-NR Open Space-Non Rec

FULL ACCESS

POTENTIAL ACCESS POINT
N
772

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
4-3
land use plan
TABLE 4-1 LAND USE PLAN SUMMARY
PA LAND USE TOP 2050

ACREAGE

DENSITY PER
EIR

MAXIMUM
UNITS

MAXIMUM
RETAIL

MAXIMUM
OFFICE
1 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 15.91 AC 22.0 DU/AC 350 DU
2 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 15.57 AC 22.0 DU/AC 343 DU
3 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 7.70 AC 22.0 DU/AC 169 DU
4 MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL 4.99 AC 35.0 DU/AC 175 DU
4 MIXED-USE RETAIL 1.43 AC 18,635 SF
4 MIXED-USE OFFICE 0.71 AC 21,741 SF
5 MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL 5.19 AC 35.0 DU/AC 182 DU
5 MIXED-USE RETAIL 1.48 AC 19,367 SF
5 MIXED-USE OFFICE 0.74 AC 22,595 SF
6 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 7.33 AC 22.0 DU/AC 161 DU
7 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 23.67 AC 22.0 DU/AC 521 DU
8 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 24.20 AC 22.0 DU/AC 532 DU
9 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 12.18 AC 22.0 DU/AC 268 DU
10 MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL 9.87 AC 35.0 DU/AC 345 DU
10 MIXED-USE RETAIL 2.82 AC 36,852 SF
10 MIXED-USE OFFICE 1.41 AC 42,994 SF
11 MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL 10.97 AC 35.0 DU/AC 384 DU
11 MIXED-USE RETAIL 3.13 AC 40,955 SF
11 MIXED-USE OFFICE 1.57 AC 47,781 SF
12 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 15.46 AC 22.0 DU/AC 340 DU
13 MDR (11.1 - 25.0 DU/AC) 23.75 AC 22.0 DU/AC 523 DU
RESIDENTIAL TOTAL 176.79 AC 24.3 DU/AC 4,293 DU
RETAIL TOTAL 8.86 AC 115,809 SF
OFFICE TOTAL 4.43 AC 135,110 SF
14 OS-R (PARKLAND) 13.33 AC
15 OS-R (PARKLAND) 13.11 AC
16 OS-R (PARKLAND) 9.90 AC
17 OS-R (PARKLAND) 6.20 AC
18 OS-R (PARKLAND) 13.44 AC
19 OS-NR (NON-RECREATION) 2.26 AC
20 OS-NR (NON-RECREATION) 2.68 AC
21 OS-NR (NON-RECREATION) 2.96 AC
22 OS-NR (NON-RECREATION) 3.38 AC
OPEN SPACE TOTAL 67.26 AC
PROJECT TOTAL 257.34 AC 16.7 DU/AC 4,293 DU 115,809 SF 135,110 SF RETAIL in Mixed-Use areas = 20% of Mixed-Use acreage x 0.30 FAR OFFICE in Mixed-Use areas = 10% of Mixed-Use acreage x 0.70 FAR 773
4-4

4.3 RESIDENTIAL PLANNING AREA
Residential development is allowed in the MDR Planning Areas 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12 and 13. A variety of residential uses are allowed in CenterPark. The maximum number of allowed units within the the Mixed-Use component is 1,086 units and 3,207 units within the Residential planning areas of the Specific Plan for a total maximum of 4,293 units with varied densities encouraged to be developed into smaller neighborhoods.

Several housing types may be developed within a specific planning area and may be blended to allow an overall density up to 25 du/ac. The blending of residential densities within the plan is encouraged as long as the density within any one planning area does not exceed 35 du/ac.The Specific Plan allows for a variety of housing types up to 5 stories maximum height.

The following housing types are allowed within the Specific Plan area:

CONVENTIONAL SFD – 1 & 2 STORY
This housing type includes conventional single family neighborhoods, traditional single-family and cluster SFD neighborhoods, including condominium developments, with 1 and 2 story buildings.

SMALL LOT/CLUSTER SFD – 2 & 3 STORY
This housing type includes conventional detached single-family neighborhoods, traditional single-family and cluster SFD neighborhoods, including condominium developments, with buildings up to 3 stories tall.

ATTACHED SFA – 2 STORY
This housing type includes duplexes/paired homes, triplexes, townhomes/rowtowns and stacked flats, including condominium and apartment developments, with buildings up to 2 stories tall.

ATTACHED SFA – 3 STORY
This housing type includes duplexes/paired homes, triplexes, townhomes/rowtowns and stacked flats, including condominium and apartment developments, with buildings up to 3 stories tall.

ATTACHED SFA/MULTI-FAMILY – 3+ TO 5 STORIES
This housing type includes attached homes, including condominium and apartment developments, with buildings greater than 3 stories tall with a maximum of 5 story buildings.

4.4 RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE
Recreational Open Space uses are planned within Planning Areas 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18. There are 55.98 acres of the Specific Plan which are designated for Recreational Open Space (OS-R). This area has been designated to be part of the City of Ontario Grand Park.

LANDSCAPE PLANNING
Landscape and architectural improvements within the City of Ontario Grand Park, including planting, hardscaping and recreational amenities within these Planning Areas will be consistent with the City of Ontario Grand Park Master Plan. The final improvements within the Grand Park will submitted as part of a Development Plan application to be reviewed and approved by the City. 774

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
5-1
infrastructure
SECTION 5: INFRASTRUCTURE
The infrastructure, utilities and public services to be provided, as part of the development of the CenterPark Specific Plan, are discussed in this section.

5.1 CIRCULATION
The Circulation Plan for CenterPark implements the surrounding Master Plan streets identified by the City of Ontario and provides access to the neighborhood commercial and residential planning areas within the Specific Plan boundaries. Within the site, a traditional, grid-like street system reinforces the overall community character and design. In addition to providing safe and efficient movement of vehicular traffic through the project, the Circulation Plan also provides a safe environment for pedestrian movement and bicycle traffic to reduce the reliance on the automobile as a means of travel. Transit stops and bus turnouts shall be provided as required by the City of Ontario and Omnitrans along the Master Plan streets, which are within the CenterPark Specific Plan area. The Exhibit 5-1, City of Ontario Road Classification System establishes the hierarchy and general location of roadways within CenterPark.

The hierarchy of streets, established by the City’s framework, is further developed within the Specific Plan boundary with a safe and efficient network of public neighborhood streets and private streets. Internal vehicular access and circulation is shown in Exhibit 5-2, Conceptual Circulation Plan. The street alignments shown are conceptual; and the final street alignments within the Specific Plan will be determined with TTM approval.

The minimum design speeds to be used for centerline curve radii, super elevation, corner and approach sight distances, vertical and horizontal alignment and sight distances for the Master Plan streets are listed below:

Grove Ave. 50 m.p.h.

Walker Ave. 45 m.p.h.

Ontario Ranch Rd. 50 m.p.h.

Campus Ave. 45 m.p.h.

Bon View Ave. 45 m.p.h.
775
5-2

5.1.1 Master Plan Roadways
The project site includes three City of Ontario arterial roadways, as identified in Figure M-01, Roadway Classification Plan of the Policy Plan, providing access to and from the site. Ontario Ranch Road bisects the site in an east/west direction, Grove Avenue bisects the site in a north/south direction and Walker Avenue borders the project site on the east. The site also includes two City of Ontario collector roadways, as identified in Figure M-01, Roadway Classification Plan. Bon View Avenue traverses the site in a north/ south direction and Campus Avenue borders the project site on the west.

Phasing and construction of the improvements shall be implemented as required by the City Engineer and pursuant to the mitigation measures identified in the EIR and the conditions of approval adopted with the approval of tentative maps for the project. Locations and construction of bus turnouts are required within the project to the satisfaction of the City of Ontario and Omnitrans.

Additional right-of-way may be required to accommodate additional left turn and right turn lanes at intersections based on required queue lengths per the Traffic Impact Analysis/Specific Plan EIR.

The developer shall construct half-to-full width roadway improvements on project frontage streets including off-site improvements as follows:
776

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
5-3
infrastructure
This page intentionally left blank
777
5-4
EXHIBIT 5-1 CITY OF ONTARIO ROAD CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM GROVE AVE CUCAMONGA AVE PARCO AVE WALKER AVE VINEYARD AVE

CUCAMONGA CHANNEL

CARPENTER AVE

ARCHIBALD AVE

BON VIEW AVE

CAMPUS AVE

SULTANA AVE

EUCLID AVE

MERRILL AVE

ONTARIO RANCH RD

EUCALYPTUS AVE

SCHAEFER AVE

CHINO AVE

RIVERSIDE DR
Other Principal Arterial:
8 Lanes
6 Lanes
4 Lanes
Minor Arterial:
6 Lanes
4 Lanes
Collector Street:
4 Lanes
2 Lanes
Local Industrial Street

CenterPark Specific Plan
LEGEND
N
778

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
5-5
infrastructure
EXHIBIT 5-2 CONCEPTUAL CIRCULATION PLAN
D:\TGG Remote Files\TGG 1996-Present\23011 Sares Regis\Exhibit\CENTER PARK SPECIFIC PLAN\LINKED IMAGES\Centerpark_Conceptual Landscape Plan - Standard\TOP Land Use_040124_N NOTES:

1. Traffic signal locations are based on The Ontario Plan traffic model and the City’s Development Impact Fee (DIF) Program for ½ mile and ¼ mile locations. The potential traffic signal locations may or may not be needed in the locations shown based on the results and recommendations of traffic studies prepared for implementing development projects.

2. Additional traffic signals may be required based on the locations of future tract entries.

3. Enhanced pedestrian crossings will be required along Grand Park Avenue as necessary to facilitate pedestrian connectivity from the Grand Park to the residential developments.

N
779
5-6

5.1.1.1 Ontario Ranch Road
The Mobility Element of the Policy Plan (Figure M-01 Roadway Classification Plan) designates Ontario Ranch Road as an “8-Lane Other Principal Arterial” (160 ft. ROW). Ontario Ranch Road is also considered as a truck route and it extends along the north boundary of the Specific Plan area and will provide access to CenterPark. The proposed improvements to Ontario Ranch Road are illustrated on Exhibit 5-3, Ontario Ranch Road. Parking is prohibited along Ontario Ranch Road. Refer to Exhibit 5-3 for minimum street improvements required by the CenterPark Specific Plan.

EXHIBIT 5-3 ONTARIO RANCH ROAD

NORTH SOUTH
65' 65'
130'
160'
15' 12' 12' 13' 26' 13' 12' 12' 15'
Median
R/WR/W
(A) (B)
15' 15'

WEST EAST
42'
84'
124'
28' 13' 15'
Median
R/WR/W
(A)
20'
42'
13'15'
20'

WEST EAST
42'
84'
108'
12'
42'
12'

PROJECT

PROJECT SITE

PROJECT SITE
5' 10'
Neighborhood Edge
45'
10' 5' 8'
Multipurpose Trail
Neighborhood Edge
45'
5' 7'
Neighborhood Edge
40'
.
(B)
7' 5' 8' Multipurpose Trail .

Neighborhood Edge
40'
NOTES:
(A) Sidewalk to be included on Parkway. See Exhibits 7-11 to 7-14 for specific sidewalks, trails and landscaping within City-planned neighborhood edges and landscape (lettered) lots.
(B) Includes Both Sidewalk and Multipurpose Trail.

GENERAL NOTES:

1. Refer to the City of Ontario standard drawings for more detailed street section requirements. The number of lanes and lane configurations may vary by street and will be determined by City engineering staff through the project Specific Plan approval and/or public improvement plan check process.

2. Refer to the approved Specific Plan documents, as noted hereon or otherwise, for detailed street section information.

3. R/W indicates roadway right-of-way width not including additional “Neighborhood Edge”. 780

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
5-7
infrastructure

5.1.1.2 Grove Avenue
Grove Avenue is a designated “4-Lane Other Principal Arterial Road with multipurpose trail” (124 ft.

ROW). Grove Avenue will provide access to and from CenterPark and traverses the project site in a north/south direction. Grove Avenue will be improved as depicted on Exhibit 5-4, Grove Avenue.

Parking is prohibited on Grove Avenue. Grove Avenue shall provide multi-use trail lanes on the east side of the roadway, within the Specific Plan area. Refer to Exhibit 5-4 for minimum street improvements required by the CenterPark Specific Plan.

EXHIBIT 5-4 GROVE AVENUE
NOTES:
(A) Sidewalk to be included on Parkway. See Exhibits 7-11 to 7-14 for specific sidewalks, trails and landscaping within City-planned neighborhood edges and landscape (lettered) lots.

GENERAL NOTES:

1. Refer to the City of Ontario standard drawings for more detailed street section requirements. The number of lanes and lane configurations may vary by street and will be determined by City engineering staff through the project Specific Plan approval and/or public improvement plan check process.

2. Refer to the approved Specific Plan documents, as noted hereon or otherwise, for detailed street section information.

3. R/W indicates roadway right-of-way width not including additional “Neighborhood Edge”.

NORTH SOUTH
65' 65'
130'
160'
15' 12' 12' 13' 26' 13' 12' 12' 15'
Median
R/WR/W
(A) (B)
15' 15'

WEST EAST
42'
84'
124'
28' 13' 15'
Median
R/WR/W
(A)
20'
42'
15' 13'
20'

WEST EAST
42'
84'
108'
R/WR/W
(A) (B)
12'
42'
12'

WEST EAST
88'

PROJECT
SITE

PROJECT SITE

PROJECT SITE
10'5'
Neighborhood Edge
45'
10' 5' 8' Multipurpose Trail
Neighborhood Edge
45'
5' 7'
Neighborhood Edge
40'
.
(B)
7' 5' 8'
Multipurpose Trail .

Neighborhood Edge
40'
. 5' 7'
Neighborhood Edge
35'
8'
Multipurpose Trail
7' 5' .

Neighborhood Edge
35'
Pkwy SWSW Pkwy
781
5-8

5.1.1.3 Walker Avenue
Walker Avenue is designated in the General Plan as a “2-Lane Collector Street” (88 ft. ROW).

Walker Avenue will provide access to and from CenterPark along the eastern boundary of the project site. Walker Avenue will be improved as depicted on Exhibit 5-5, Walker Avenue. Parking is prohibited on Walker Avenue. Refer to Exhibit 5-5 for minimum street improvements required by the CenterPark Specific Plan.

EXHIBIT 5-5 WALKER AVENUE
NOTES:
(A) Sidewalk to be included on Parkway. See Exhibits 7-11 to 7-14 for specific sidewalks, trails and landscaping within City-planned neighborhood edges and landscape (lettered) lots.
(B) Includes Both Sidewalk and Multipurpose Trail.

GENERAL NOTES:

1. Refer to the City of Ontario standard drawings for more detailed street section requirements. The number of lanes and lane configurations may vary by street and will be determined by City engineering staff through the project Specific Plan approval and/or public improvement plan check process.

2. Refer to the approved Specific Plan documents, as noted hereon or otherwise, for detailed street section information.

3. R/W indicates roadway right-of-way width not including additional “Neighborhood Edge”. 28' 13' 15'
Median
13'15'

WEST EAST
42'
84'
108'
R/WR/W
(A) (B)
12'
42'
12'

WEST EAST
32'
64'
88'
R/WR/W
(A) (B)
12'
32'
12'

WEST EAST
48'
66'
R/WR/W
(A) (A)
9'9'

WEST EAST

PROJECT
SITE

PROJECT
SITE

PROJECT SITE

PROJECT SITE
5' 7'
Neighborhood Edge
40'
.
7' 5' 8' Multipurpose Trail .

Neighborhood Edge
40'
.

Neighborhood Edge
30'
5' 7' 8'
Multipurpose Trail
7' 5' .

Neighborhood Edge
30'
. 5' 7'
Neighborhood Edge
35'
8'
Multipurpose Trail
7' 5' .

Neighborhood Edge
35'
Pkwy SW
Pkwy SW
SW Pkwy
SW Pkwy
WEST
40'
66'
R/W
(A)
13'

PROJECT SITE
782

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
5-9
infrastructure

5.1.1.4 Campus Avenue
Campus Avenue is designated in the General Plan as a “4-Lane Minor Arterial Road” (108 ft. ROW).

Campus Avenue will provide access to and from CenterPark along the western boundary of the project site. Campus Avenue will be improved as depicted on Exhibit 5-6, Campus Avenue. Parking is prohibited on Campus Avenue. Refer to Exhibit 5-6 for minimum street improvements required by the CenterPark Specific Plan.

EXHIBIT 5-6 CAMPUS AVENUE
NOTES:
(A) Sidewalk to be included on Parkway. See Exhibits 7-11 to 7-14 for specific sidewalks, trails and landscaping within City-planned neighborhood edges and landscape (lettered) lots.
(B) Includes Both Sidewalk and Multipurpose Trail.

GENERAL NOTES:

1. Refer to the City of Ontario standard drawings for more detailed street section requirements. The number of lanes and lane configurations may vary by street and will be determined by City engineering staff through the project Specific Plan approval and/or public improvement plan check process.

2. Refer to the approved Specific Plan documents, as noted hereon or otherwise, for detailed street section information.

3. R/W indicates roadway right-of-way width not including additional “Neighborhood Edge”. 15' 12' 12' 13' 26' 13' 12' 12' 15'
Median
(A) (B)

WEST EAST
42'
84'
124'
28' 13' 15'
Median
R/WR/W
(A)
20'
42'
13'15'
20'

WEST EAST
42'
84'
108'
R/WR/W
(A) (B)
12'
42'
12'

WEST EAST
32'
64'
88'
R/WR/W
(A) (B)
12'
32'
12'

WEST EAST
66'

PROJECT
SITE

PROJECT
SITE

PROJECT SITE

PROJECT SITE
10'5'
Neighborhood Edge
45'
10' 5' 8' Multipurpose Trail
Neighborhood Edge
45'
5' 7'
Neighborhood Edge
40'
.
(B)
7' 5' 8' Multipurpose Trail .

Neighborhood Edge
40'
.

Neighborhood Edge
30'
5' 7' 8'
Multipurpose Trail
7' 5' .

Neighborhood Edge
30'
. 5' 7'
Neighborhood Edge
35'
8'
Multipurpose Trail
7' 5' .

Neighborhood Edge
35'
Pkwy SW
Pkwy SW
SW Pkwy
SW Pkwy
WEST
66'

PROJECT SITE
783
5-10

5.1.1.5 Bon View Avenue
Bon View Avenue is designated in the General Plan as a “2-Lane Collector Street” (66 ft. ROW).

Bon View Avenue will provide access to and from CenterPark and traverses the project site in a north/south direction. Bon View Avenue will be improved as depicted on Exhibit 5-7, Bon View Avenue. Parking is prohibited on Bon View Avenue. Refer to Exhibit 5-7 for minimum street improvements required by the CenterPark Specific Plan. Bon View Avenue curb-to-curb is 48 ft. south of Ontario Ranch Road and curb-to-curb 40 ft. north of Ontario Ranch Road.

EXHIBIT 5-7 BON VIEW AVENUE
NOTES:
(A) Sidewalk to be included on Parkway. See Exhibits 7-11 to 7-14 for specific sidewalks, trails and landscaping within City-planned neighborhood edges and landscape (lettered) lots.

Due to utility constraints, Bon View Avenue may need to be constructed as a tilt section.

GENERAL NOTES:

1. Refer to the City of Ontario standard drawings for more detailed street section requirements. The number of lanes and lane configurations may vary by street and will be determined by City engineering staff through the project Specific Plan approval and/or public improvement plan check process.

2. Refer to the approved Specific Plan documents, as noted hereon or otherwise, for detailed street section information.

3. R/W indicates roadway right-of-way width not including additional “Neighborhood Edge”.

WEST EAST
32'
64'
88'
R/WR/W
(A) (B)
12'
32'
12'

WEST EAST
48'
66'
R/WR/W
(A) (A)
9'9'

WEST EAST
24' to 36'
48' to 60'
R/WR/W
(A) (A)
12'12'
72'

WEST EAST
OJECT
ITE

PROJECT SITE

PROJECT SITE
Neighborhood Edge
30'
5' 7' 8'
Multipurpose Trail
7' 5' .

Neighborhood Edge
30'
5' 7'
ood Edge
5'
8'
Multipurpose Trail
7' 5' .

Neighborhood Edge
35'
Pkwy SW
Pkwy SW
SW Pkwy
SW Pkwy

WEST EAST
40'
66'
R/WR/W
(A) (A)
13' 13'

PROJECT SITE

BON VIEW AVENUE

SOUTH OF ONTARIO RANCH ROAD

BON VIEW AVENUE

NORTH OF ONTARIO RANCH ROAD
784

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
5-11
infrastructure
EXHIBIT 5-8 PARCO AVENUE AND CUCAMONGA AVENUE
NOTES:
(A) Sidewalk to be included on Parkway. See Exhibits 7-11 to 7-14 for specific sidewalks, trails and landscaping within City-planned neighborhood edges and landscape (lettered) lots.

GENERAL NOTES:

1. Refer to the City of Ontario standard drawings for more detailed street section requirements. The number of lanes and lane configurations may vary by street and will be determined by City engineering staff through the project Specific Plan approval and/or public improvement plan check process.

2. Refer to the approved Specific Plan documents, as noted hereon or otherwise, for detailed street section information.

3. R/W indicates roadway right-of-way width not including additional “Neighborhood Edge”.

WEST EAST
48'
66'
R/WR/W
(A) (A)
9'9'

WEST EAST
24' to 36'
48' to 60'
R/WR/W
(A) (A)
12'12'
50'
72'
10'
Median
R/W
(A)
20'
R/W
20'
(A)
30'
Bldg. to Bldg.

WEST EAST
30'
Bldg. to Bldg.

PROJECT SITE

PROJECT SITE

PROJECT
SITE
Neighborhood Edge
30'
Neighborhood Edge
30'
WEST
40'
66'
R/W
(A)
13'

PROJECT SIT

5.1.1.6 Parco Avenue and Cucamonga Avenue
Parco Avenue and Cucamonga Avenue are designated in the General Plan as “Local Roadway” (60 ft. ROW). Parco Avenue and Cucamonga Avenue will provide access to and from CenterPark and they traverse the project site in a north/south direction. Parco Avenue and Cucamonga Avenue will be improved as depicted on Exhibit 5-8, Parco Avenue and Cucamonga Avenue. Parking is allowed on Parco Avenue and Cucamonga Avenue within the Specific Plan area. Refer to Exhibit 5-8 for minimum street improvements required by the CenterPark Specific Plan.
785
5-12

5.1.2 Local Streets
Streets (public, private, local, etc.) that provide vehicular and pedestrian access to and through neighborhoods and communities shall provide 5 ft. sidewalks and 7 ft. parkways. Public local streets within residential areas are designed to distribute vehicular traffic from the Master Plan streets adjacent to the project site into and through residential neighborhoods.

Local Backbone Streets. Connecting the above regional backbone roadways, the project’s local backbone streets will connect the project’s various components and provide for safe and efficient vehicular circulation. Internal project access points will be taken from Campus Avenue on the west side of the project and Walker Avenue on the east side. Alternative internal street connections may be allowed subject to the approval of the City Engineer.

Local Neighborhood/Private Streets. Local neighborhood/private streets that carry neighborhood related traffic and be constructed with a 60 ft. right-of-way, which includes a 36 ft. paved section with parking on both sides and a minimum 12 ft. landscaped parkway with sidewalk. Themed streets will have an additional 5 ft. wide lettered lot along the theme street edge, located adjacent to right-of-way, to be maintained by HOA.

If future site plans propose private streets, they should be shown on the proposed tentative subdivision map and should be labeled “Private Streets”, otherwise all local streets will be considered public.

Intersections at public streets shall incorporate chokers in accordance with City of Ontario Traffic & Transportation Guidelines. Any proposed gated access shall be designed with adequate stacking and turnaround facilities.

A modified grid network of local streets will provide internal circulation throughout CenterPark for access to individual neighborhoods and residences. The proposed regional park will be accessible via local public streets. The proposed improvements for interior local streets are illustrated in Exhibit 5-9, Local Streets. 786

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
5-13
infrastructure
EXHIBIT 5-9 LOCAL STREETS
NOTES:
(A) Sidewalk to be included on Parkway. See Exhibits 7-11 to 7-14 for specific sidewalks, trails and landscaping within City-planned neighborhood edges and landscape (lettered) lots.

GENERAL NOTES:

1. Refer to the City of Ontario standard drawings for more detailed street section requirements. The number of lanes and lane configurations may vary by street and will be reviewed by City engineering staff through the project Specific Plan approval and/or public improvement plan check process.

2. Refer to the approved Specific Plan documents, as noted hereon or otherwise, for detailed street section information.

3. R/W indicates roadway right-of-way width not including additional “Neighborhood Edge”.

WEST EAST
24' to 36'
48' to 60'
R/WR/W
(A) (A)
12'12'
50'
72'
10'
Median
R/W
(A)
20'
R/W
20'
(A)
20'
30'

VATE DRIVES

AND ALLEYS
5' 5'
Bldg. to Bldg.

WEST EAST
24' to 26'
30'
3' 3'
Bldg. to Bldg.

Fire Access
1-WAY DRIVE
(Diagonal Parking)

PROJECT SITE

PROJECT
SITE

5.1.2.1 Private Streets
Private streets are encouraged in residential neighborhoods where higher density detached home types and attached buildings are designed with an urban character and front setbacks. These streets, with narrower paved sections, are used to reduce travel speeds within residential neighborhoods and to manage on-site resident and guest parking. Private streets are also intended to provide pedestrian circulation and encourage pedestrian activity within and between adjacent neighborhoods.

Private streets within single family residential neighborhoods reflect a traditional character with landscaped parkways and trees shading sidewalks where homes and front doors face them. Private streets will be designed with a minimum curb-to-curb dimension of 24 ft. with no parking. The minimum curb-to-curb dimension may be increased to allow for public utilities, for on-street parking, and for fire accessibility as required by the city’s latest requirements for public utility mains within public utility easements and subject to city’s discretion. The minimum paved width for private streets with parallel parking on one side is 32 ft. and 36 ft. for private streets with parallel parking on both sides. Private streets shall include 7 ft. landscaped parkways and 5 ft. sidewalks where they provide vehicular and pedestrian within, and between, neighborhoods in the Specific Plan. On-street perpendicular parking is allowed as an alternative to parallel parking. Perpendicular parking stalls shall be a minimum of 9 ft. x 18 ft. in size. The curb-to-curb dimensions for private streets and drives are subject to the approval of the City Planning and Engineering Departments and OMUC.
787
5-14
EXHIBIT 5-10 COMMON DRIVES, PRIVATE DRIVES AND ALLEYS
24' to 36'
48' to 60'
R/WR/W
(A) (A)
12'12'
50'
72'
10'
Median
R/W
(A)
20'
R/W
20'
(A)
20'
30'
RIVES
LEYS
5' 5'
Bldg. to Bldg.
8'24' 10'
gonal
rking
Bldg
Setback

WEST EAST
24' to 26'
30'
3' 3'
Bldg. to Bldg.

Fire Access
8' 24'
4'
Sidewalk

AY DRIVE
nal Parking)
8' 24' 4
Side
Sidewalk
4'
8'
(TYP.)
4'
Sidewalk
(TYP.)

PROJECT
SITE

5.1.2.2 Common Drives, Private Drives and Alleys
Common Drives, Private Drives, and Alleys provide specific access to individual homes. Access is off a public, private, local, or neighborhood street. Private drives and alleys are proposed within the CenterPark Specific Plan and will be constructed with a 20 ft. wide right-of-way. Private drives will be a minimum of 20 ft. paved travel lanes with no parking allowed. A minimum of 30 ft. is required between buildings located on each side of the private drive. The minimum pavement width for private drives may be increased to allow for public utilities as required by the City’s latest requirements for public utility mains within public utility easements, and subject to the City’s discretion. Final design of private drives will be subject to planning, engineering, OMUC and fire department approval concurrent with tentative subdivision map approval.

Common Drives. Common drives will be constructed with a 20 ft. minimum right-of-way. Common drives will contain a minimum 20 ft. travel lane and a 24 ft. travel lane for emergency access roads.

A 30 ft. minimum distance is required between buildings on each side of the common drive. Final alley design shall de subject to review and approval by the planning, engineering, and fire departments. See Exhibit 5-10, Common Drives, Private Drives and Alleys.

Private drives are also proposed within the Specific Plan to provide secondary internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation. These private drives generally include public or private utilities. The minimum width shall be 24 ft. to 30 ft.

Alleys are proposed within the CenterPark Specific Plan. Dead-end alleys shall be a minimum of 20 ft. wide and generally do not include public utilities. These alleys are generally intended to provide access to garages. A minimum of 30 ft. is required between garages on each side of a private drive. - Paved section may be widened to 26 ft. in 3-story neighborhoods or in conditions where the additional paved width is required to accommodate public utilities as required by the City’s latest requirements for public utility mains within public utility easements, and subject to the City’s discretion. 788

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
5-15
infrastructure
Chockers and short residential blocks encourage
pedestrian activity
Convenient parking adjacent to parks
Roundabout
Connectivity with sidewalks and walkways

5.1.3 Traffic Calming
The site plan for CenterPark is designed with a traditional street layout with a modified grid layout allowing for safe and convenient travel choices for future residents and visitors to the regional park.

Traditional streets are attractive and comfortable for pedestrians and bicyclists within the community.

Traffic calming devices incorporated into neighborhood streets may include traffic circles at selected intersections and will include intersection chokers at public street intersections. Traffic calming within CenterPark is designed with the following goals:
• Reduction in vehicular traffic speeds
• Reduction in traffic-related noise
• Reduction in fuel consumption
• Increased efficiency in vehicular circulation
• Improved pedestrian experience and safer intersections that encourage walking • Improved traffic flow and visibility at intersections for bicyclists A few examples of traffic calming devices are shown below:

The City may limit or prohibit parking on public streets that are wide enough to allow for parking at selected locations such as near intersections or crosswalks, at entry locations or higher traffic areas and areas where increased sight lines are required. Restricted parking will be at the discretion of the City Engineer. 789
5-16

5.1.3.1 Traffic Circles
Traffic circles, commonly called roundabouts are used to improve traffic circulation at intersections that would require four-way stop signs or other traffic controlling measure. These features help reduce vehicular speeds and allow for safe and controlled pedestrian crossings. Traffic circles are proposed at the intersections of Bon View Avenue and Grand Park Avenue and Grand Park Avenue and a future public or private roadway approximately midway between Campus Avenue and Bon View Avenue. Additional traffic circles may be proposed along Grand Park Avenue subject to approval by the City Engineer.

Traffic circles within CenterPark will be constructed according to City of Ontario Standard Drawings.

5.1.3.2 Intersection Chokers
Intersection chokers improve intersection visibility, define appropriate parking areas and reduce the crosswalk distance at neighborhood street intersections. These chokers will be incorporated at all four-way and “T” intersections of public streets per Traffic and Transportation Design Guidelines for Chokers Installations. Additional chockers will be constructed as required subject to the discretion of the City Engineer.

5.1.4 Pedestrian Circulation
Off-street pedestrian circulation is available throughout CenterPark by means of the interconnected, paved sidewalk system within the roadway right-of-way, separated from vehicular travel lanes by a landscaped parkway. The CenterPark pedestrian system provides connectivity among residential neighborhoods and to all private parks within CenterPark.

The plan also provides connectivity with off-site areas via City master planned multipurpose trails/ bikeways located within the neighborhood edge along the perimeter of the CenterPark Specific Plan area.

5.1.5 City Master Planned Trails and Bikeways
Multipurpose trails are an integral component in creating accessibility and mobility within and around CenterPark. A multi-use trail site is planned along the south side of Ontario Ranch Road and along the eastern side of Grove Avenue and Campus Avenue. The City also has planned a Class II bicycle lane on the west side of Walker Avenue which bounds the project site on the east, and may be utilized by the public.

CenterPark’s Master Plan for pedestrian and bicycle circulation is illustrated on Exhibit 5-11, Conceptual Pedestrian and Regional Trail Circulation Plan.
790

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
5-17
infrastructure

5.1.6 Proposed Local Trails and Paseos
The site plan for CenterPark may include additional internal trails or paseos that provide additional pedestrian accessibility between neighborhoods, to community parks and amenities and to the regional park in the center of the Specific Plan area. Trails and paseos shall be established within the minimum 30 ft. wide lettered lots.

5.1.7 Parks
The Ontario Plan (Policy PR1-5) has established a standard of 5 acres of parkland (public and private) per 1,000 residents, with a minimum of 2 acres of developed private park space per 1,000 residents (Policy PR1-6). Private parks are required to be within a quarter mile walking/biking distance from each residence.

This private park requirement may be met within any residential development or by satisfying the in-lieu park development impact fee as approved by the City. Fees will be paid to fulfill the balance of the City’s park requirement (the remaining 3 acres per 1, 000 residents).

As discussed in the previous Section 4.2, Parks and Recreational Facilities, parks will be provided throughout CenterPark (Exhibit 7-10, Landscape Framework Plan). 791
5-18
EXHIBIT 5-11 CONCEPTUAL PEDESTRIAN AND REGIONAL TRAIL CIRCULATION PLAN GROVE AVE CUCAMONGA AVE PARCO AVE WALKER AVE VINEYARD AVE CUCAMONGA CHANNEL CARPENTER AVE

ARCHIBALD AVE

BON VIEW AVE

CAMPUS AVE

SULTANA AVE

EUCLID AVE

MERRILL AVE

ONTARIO RANCH RD

EUCALYPTUS AVE

SCHAEFER AVE

CHINO AVE

RIVERSIDE DRIVE
Multipurpose Trail
Class I Bicycle Lane
Class II Bicycle Lane
CenterPark Specific Plan Area
LEGEND
N
792

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
5-19
infrastructure
EXHIBIT 5-12 INTERNAL PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION PLAN
N
Eucalyptus AveCampus Ave
Edison Ave/
Ontario Ranch Rd
Cucamonga Ave
Sultana Ave
Bon View Ave
Grove Ave
Parco Ave
Walker Ave
Campus Ave
Bon View Ave
Cucamonga Ave
Grove Ave
Parco Ave
Walker Ave
Baker Ave Baker Ave
Sultana Ave
Edison Ave/
Ontario Ranch Rd
Grand Park Ave Grand Park Ave NEIGHBORHOOD PARK CITY MASTER PLANNED MULTI-USE TRAILS BACKBONE PRIVATE STREET PUBLIC STREET POTENTIAL ACCESS POINT FULL ACCESS SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY (CONCEPTUAL LOCATION) SIDEWALKS / PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION (CONCEPTUAL LOCATION) ROUND-A-BOUT (CONCEPTUAL LOCATION) Eucalyptus Ave Campus Ave
Bon View Ave
Cucamonga Ave
Grove Ave
Parco Ave
Walker Ave
Baker Ave
Sultana Ave
Grand Park Ave Grand Park Ave

SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY

FULL ACCESS

POTENTIAL ACCESS POINT

PUBLIC STREET

BACKBONE PRIVATE STREET

CITY MASTER PLANNED MULTI-USE TRAILS

NEIGHBORHOOD PARK (CONCEPTUAL LOCATION)

SIDEWALKS / PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION (CONCEPTUAL LOCATION)

ROUND-A-BOUT (CONCEPTUAL LOCATION)
Eucalyptus Ave
Campus Ave
Bon View Ave
Cucamonga Ave
Grove Ave
Parco Ave
Walker Ave
Baker Ave
Sultana Ave

SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY

FULL ACCESS

POTENTIAL ACCESS POINT

PUBLIC STREET

BACKBONE PRIVATE STREET

CITY MASTER PLANNED MULTI-USE TRAILS

NEIGHBORHOOD PARK (CONCEPTUAL LOCATION)

SIDEWALKS / PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION (CONCEPTUAL LOCATION)

ROUND-A-BOUT (CONCEPTUAL LOCATION)
793
5-20

5.2 PUBLIC UTILITIES
Potable water, recycled water, sewer and storm drain utilities may be designated as “public utilities” located within a public street. The minimum width of a PUE (Public Utility Easement) for each public utility main is 20 ft. centered on the public utility main. The minimum width of a PUE and curb-to-curb width for two public utility mains (depending on utility sizes) is 24 ft. The minimum width of a PUE and curb-to-curb width for three public utility mains (depending on utility sizes) is 30 ft. Private utilities are not allowed within PUEs.

Any proposed public utilities within private streets shall be subject to City approval and contained within acceptable easements, access, and separation requirements. The CenterPark Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall contain language that requires all proposed work by the Homeowner Association (HOA) within said easements, be plan-checked and inspected by the City, including all applicable fees. Generally, utilities will not be accepted as public within dead-end private alleys, parking areas or driveways.

Master planned utilities serving the development, as identified in the approved respective Master Plan, shall be constructed prior to issuance of first occupancy. Exhibits shall show all frontage improvement requirements per the City adopted Master Plans. The project shall comply with the requirements as set forth in the Standard Conditions of Approval adopted by the City Council (Resolution No. 2017-027). The ultimate sizing and alignment of utilities (potable water, recycled water, sewer, and storm drain) will follow the most current approved Master Plan and/or hydraulic analysis approved by the City. 794

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
5-21
infrastructure

5.3 POTABLE WATER PLAN
Potable water will be provided by the City of Ontario. The City’s Potable Water Master Plan identifies new water facilities to serve the Ontario Ranch area, which will need to be constructed prior to or concurrent with onsite water improvements. Construction of the on-site and off-site Master Plan water service improvements shall be the responsibility of the developer.

Potable water improvements to be constructed in order to serve the CenterPark Specific Plan will consist of the following: a 16-inch water main on Campus Avenue, from Eucalyptus Avenue to the northerly boundary of CenterPark, a 12-inch water main on Bon View Avenue, from Eucalyptus Avenue to the northerly boundary of CenterPark, a 16-inch water main on Walker Avenue, from Eucalyptus Avenue to Ontario Ranch Road, a 16-inch water main on Ontario Ranch Road, from Walker Avenue to Campus Avenue, and a 30-inch master planned water line on Grove Avenue.

The Required Potable Water Infrastructure is subject to change based upon findings of City approved hydraulic studies, master plan updates, and project final designs. Any existing utilities, including IEUA mains, that do not meet minimum depths, standard alignment locations, and/or minimum horizontal and vertical separation requirements shall be subject to relocation/replacement by the developer(s) of the Specific Plan.

Other elements of the Phase 2 Water System are shown on Figure 5-14, Conceptual Potable Water System.

The elements shown north of Chino Avenue will be constructed by others. The balance of Phase 2 Water System will be completed as required by future development of Ontario Ranch. The Project will be required to participate in the future Phase 2 Water System improvements, as detailed in the development agreements with the City.

Phase 2 Water Improvements are required to support all development in the west side of Ontario Ranch including this Specific Plan area, therefore this project is required to participate financially in the Phase 2 Water Improvements. Depending on construction timing of this Specific Plan area in relation to the construction of the rest of the development in the west side of Ontario Ranch, completion of Phase 2 Water Improvements may be required prior to the completion of this Specific Plan area construction.

Master planned potable water main lines serving the development, as identified in the Specific Plan, shall be constructed prior to issuance of building permits.

For wells found within the Specific Plan area, see Section 3.7.

Within the CenterPark Specific Plan, a network of 8-inch and 12-inch water lines will be constructed to serve each neighborhood. All on-site intract improvements are required to have hydraulic studies to determine infrastructure improvements needed to support each area and shall be at the responsibility of the developer.

Any changes in land use not limited to units, density, or intensity, that are not previously accounted for, shall trigger a revised updated hydraulic study and any new findings of infrastructure improvements needed are required at the responsibility of the developer. The proposed on-site water system sizing is subject to the hydraulic criteria in the City’s Water and Sewer Design Guidelines and future hydraulic studies at the time of development. The conceptual public potable water system is illustrated on Exhibit 5-14, Conceptual Potable Water System.
795
5-22

GROVE AVE

CUCAMONGA AVE

PARCO AVE

WALKER AVE

VINEYARD AVE

CARPENTER AVE

ARCHIBALD AVE

BON VIEW AVE

SULTANA AVE

CAMPUS AVE

EUCLID AVE

MERRILL AVE

ONTARIO RACH RD

EUCALYPTUS AVE

SCHAEFER AVE

CHINO AVE

RIVERSIDE DRIVE

WALNUT ST
16”
30”
16”
30”
42” 12”
12”
16”
12”
12”
16”
42”
16” 12”
16” 12”
16” 16” 16”
12”
12”
12”
12”
12”
24” 24”
12” 12” 12”
24”
18” 18”
24” 24”
24” 16” 16”
16” 16”
16” 16”
12”
12” 12” 12” 12”
16” 16” 12”
12”
16” 16”
42”

SPECIFIC PLAN REQUIRED POTABLE WATER MAIN

EXISTING POTABLE WATER MAIN (CITY OF ONTARIO)

ONTARIO RANCH MASTER PLAN IMPROVEMENTS
CONCEPTUAL PHASE 2 REQUIRED POTABLE WATER

INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS

CENTERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN
LEGEND
NOTES:
- Potable water main sizing is dependent on Fire Flow
Results and Fire Department’s requirements.

EXHIBIT 5-13 CONCEPTUAL POTABLE WATER PLAN
N
796

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
5-23
infrastructure
EXHIBIT 5-14 CONCEPTUAL POTABLE WATER SYSTEM GROVE AVE CUCAMONGA AVE PARCO AVE

WALKER AVE

BON VIEW AVE

SULTANA AVE

CAMPUS AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE

SCHAEFER AVE

ONTARIO RANCH RD
16”
30”
16”
30”
16”
12”
24” 16” 16”
16” 16”

SPECIFIC PLAN REQUIRED POTABLE WATER MAIN

EXISTING POTABLE WATER MAIN (CITY OF ONTARIO)

CENTERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN
LEGEND
NOTES:
- Potable water main sizing is dependent on Fire Flow
Results and Fire Department’s requirements.

N
797
5-24

5.4 RECYCLED WATER PLAN
Recycled water for the project site will be supplied by IEUA’s existing recycled water infrastructure as presented in the City’s Recycled Water Master Plan. The master planned 930 Pressure Zone 30-inch recycled water system exists in Bon View Avenue and Eucalyptus Avenue and Ontario Ranch Road and shall service the development of CenterPark.

The developer of CenterPark will construct all recycled water lines required to serve the project site. The off-site improvements include the construction of the 930 ft. Pressure Zone master planned recycled water system consisting of an optional 8-inch main in Campus Avenue from the northern to southern Specific Plan boundaries, if required to support development of parcels not fronting a master planned recycled water main, an 8-inch main in Bon View Avenue from the northern Specific Plan boundary to Ontario Ranch Road, an 8-inch main in Grove Avenue from the northern to southern Specific Plan boundaries, an 8-inch main in Walker Avenue from Ontario Ranch Road, and a 12-inch main in Ontario Ranch Road from Campus Avenue to Bon View Avenue. The off-site recycled water line locations are shown on Exhibit 5-15, Conceptual Recycled Water Plan.

The required Recycled Water Infrastructure is subject to change based upon findings of City approved hydraulic studies, master plan updates, and project final designs. Any existing utilities, including IEUA mains, that do not meet minimum depths, standard alignment locations, and/or minimum horizontal and vertical separation requirements shall be subject to relocation/replacement by the developer(s) of the Specific Plan.

Within the project site, 8-inch recycled water mains are proposed to serve the site. The CenterPark Specific Plan shall comply with City Ordinance 2689 and make use of recycled water for all approved uses, including but not limited to the irrigation of parks, street parkway landscaping, recreational trails, private pocket parks and any other HOA maintained common areas. The developer shall prepare and secure approval of an Engineering Report from the City of Ontario and State Department of Drinking Water Agency prior to the use of recycled water. Sizing of the on-site public recycled water system is subject to the hydraulic criteria in the City’s Water and Sewer Design Guidelines.

The developer of the Specific Plan is required to obtain approvals from IEUA to construct the reclaimed water lines to serve the project, including the regional connections outlined in the CenterPark Specific Plan and additional regional connections as required for the median within Ontario Ranch Road and to support development not fronting a City recycled water main.

The conceptual recycled water system is illustrated on Exhibit 5-16, Conceptual Recycled Water System. 798

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
5-25
infrastructure
This page intentionally left blank
799
5-26
EXHIBIT 5-15 CONCEPTUAL RECYCLED WATER PLAN GROVE AVE CUCAMONGA AVE PARCO AVE WALKER AVE VINEYARD AVE CARPENTER AVE

ARCHIBALD AVE

BON VIEW AVE

SULTANA AVE

CAMPUS AVE

EUCLID AVE

MERRILL AVE

ONTARIO RANCH RD

EUCALYPTUS AVE

SCHAEFER AVE

CHINO AVE

RIVERSIDE DRIVE
8”
8”
8”
8”
8”
8”
12”
20”
8”
8”
8”
8”
16”
8”
8”
20”
12”
8”
12”24”
12”
8” 8”
8”
8”
12”
12”
12”
30”
8”
8”
8”
30” 48” 48” 48”
54”
60”
30” 30” 30”
30” 30”
54”
30”
20” 20” 24” 20”
16” 16”
8” 8” 8” 8” 8”
8”
8”
8”
8” 8” 12” 12” 12” 12”
12” 12”
12”
12”
12” 8” 12”
16” 16”
8” 8” 8” 12” 12” 12” 12”
24” 24” 30” 36”
12”
12”
8”
12”
8”

SPECIFIC PLAN REQUIRED RECYCLED WATER MAIN
(PER MASTER PLAN)

SPECIFIC PLAN OPTIONAL RECYCLED WATER MAIN (MAY BE REQUIRED IF

NEEDED TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT PARCELS NOT FRONTING A MASTER

PLANNED RECYCLED WATER MAIN)

EXISTING RECYCLED WATER MAIN (CITY OF ONTARIO)

EXISTING RECYCLED WATER MAIN (IEUA)
1050 PRESSURE ZONE

ONTARIO RANCH MASTER PLAN IMPROVEMENTS

PRESSURE REDUCING STATION

PRESSURE REDUCING STATION

CENTERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN

PROPOSED POC (IEUA REGIONAL CONNECTION)
LEGEND
N
800

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
5-27
infrastructure

GROVE AVE

CUCAMONGA AVE

PARCO AVE

WALKER AVE

BON VIEW AVE

SULTANA AVE

CAMPUS AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE

SCHAEFER AVE

ONTARIO RANCH RD
8”8”8”
30”
8”
8”
8”
30”
30” 30”
12”
12”
12”

SPECIFIC PLAN REQUIRED RECYCLED WATER MAIN
(PER MASTER PLAN)

SPECIFIC PLAN OPTIONAL RECYCLED WATER MAIN (MAY BE REQUIRED IF

NEEDED TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT PARCELS NOT FRONTING A MASTER

PLANNED RECYCLED WATER MAIN)

EXISTING RECYCLED WATER MAIN (CITY OF ONTARIO)

EXISTING RECYCLED WATER MAIN (IEUA)

CENTERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN

PROPOSED POC (IEUA REGIONAL CONNECTION)
LEGEND
EXHIBIT 5-16 CONCEPTUAL RECYCLED WATER SYSTEM
N
801
5-28

5.5 SEWER PLAN
Sewer service for CenterPark will be provided by the City of Ontario. Off-site sewer improvements to serve the Specific Plan area will be implemented according to the most current version of the City’s Sewer Master Plan. The City’s Sewer Master Plan identifies sewer service to be provided by the existing sewer lines in Eucalyptus Avenue. The mains are in the intersections at Eucalyptus Avenue and Campus Avenue, Bon View Avenue, Grove Avenue and Walker Avenue. Any existing sewer mains not yet accepted by the City that are downstream of CenterPark are required at the responsibility of the developer to support the development of CenterPark.

Sewer Infrastructure improvements to be constructed to serve the CenterPark Specific Plan will consist of the following: 15-inch sewer main in Campus Avenue from the existing point of connection to the northern Specific Plan boundary, 18-inch in Bon View Avenue from the existing point of connection to the northern Specific Plan boundary, 21-inch in Grove Avenue from the existing point of connection to the northern Specific Plan boundary, and 21-inch in Walker Avenue from the existing point of connection to Ontario Ranch Road.

The required Sewer Infrastructure is subject to change based upon findings of City approved hydraulic studies, master plan updates, and project final designs. Any existing utilities, that do not meet minimum depths, standard alignment locations, and/or minimum horizontal and vertical separation requirements shall be subject to relocation/ replacement by the developer(s) of the Specific Plan.

Within CenterPark, a series of a minimum of 8-inch sewer mains are proposed to serve the residential development. Construction of the on-site and off-site sewer improvements shall be the responsibility of the developer. The proposed on-site public sewer system sizing is subject to the hydraulic criteria in the City’s Water and Sewer Design Guidelines.

All on-site intract improvements are required to have a SSAMP to determine infrastructure improvements needed to support each area and shall be at the responsibility of the developer. Any changes in land use not limited to units, density, or intensity, that are not previously accounted for or changes in sewer tributary boundaries shall trigger a revised updated SSAMP and any new findings of infrastructure improvements needed are required at the responsibility of the developer.

Master planned sewer main lines serving, surrounding and within the Specific Plan area, as identified in the adopted Sewer Master Plan shall be constructed prior to issuance building permits.

The conceptual sewer improvements are illustrated on Exhibit 5-17, Conceptual Sewer Plan, and on Exhibit 5-18, Conceptual Sewer System.
802

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
5-29
infrastructure
The off-site public sewer shall be designed to meet all applicable City standards and requirements and designed in such a way so that the proposed on-site private sewer improvements shall be designed to meet all applicable building and plumbing codes. CenterPark’s sewer tributary areas shall be determined in conformance with the latest City Sewer Master Plan while accommodating the off-site and on-site sewer standards, codes, and requirements, etc. If CenterPark’s sewer tributary areas need to be revised to allow the public or private sewer to meet applicable requirements, and a revised SSAMP supports the revised sewer tributary boundaries, as approved at the City’s discretion, then Exhibit 5-18 shall be revised to reflect CenterPark’s new sewer tributary boundaries.

Size will be determined during final design by hydraulic calculations through a Sewer Study or Sewer Sub-Area Master Plan (SSAMP) per City’s most current Sewer Master Plan. All intact sewers need to do a SSAMP.
803
5-30
EXHIBIT 5-17 CONCEPTUAL SEWER PLAN GROVE AVE CUCAMONGA AVE PARCO AVE WALKER AVE VINEYARD AVE

CARPENTER AVE

ARCHIBALD AVE

BON VIEW AVE

SULTANA AVE

CAMPUS AVE

EUCLID AVE

MERRILL AVE

KIMBALL AVE

ONTARIO RANCH RD

EUCALYPTUS AVE

SCHAEFER AVE

CHINO AVE

RIVERSIDE DRIVE
36” 36” 30”
20”
20”
15”21”
21”
18” 18”
16”

SPECIFIC PLAN REQUIRED SEWER MAIN
(PER MASTER PLAN)

SPECIFIC PLAN REQUIRED SEWER MAIN

EXISTING SEWER MAIN (CITY OF ONTARIO)

EXISTING CITY OF ONTARIO POC

DIRECTION OF SEWER FLOWS WITHIN

SEWER TRIBUTARY AREA

CENTERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN
LEGEND
NOTES:
- Colors show tributary areas.

N
804

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
5-31
infrastructure

GROVE AVE

CUCAMONGA AVE

PARCO AVE

WALKER AVE

BON VIEW AVE

SULTANA AVE

CAMPUS AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE

SCHAEFER AVE
ONTARIO RANCH RD15”
18”
21”
21”

SPECIFIC PLAN REQUIRED SEWER MAIN
(PER MASTER PLAN)

SPECIFIC PLAN REQUIRED SEWER MAIN

DIRECTION OF SEWER FLOWS WITHIN

SEWER TRIBUTARY AREA

CENTERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN
LEGEND
NOTES:
- Colors show tributary areas.

EXHIBIT 5-18 CONCEPTUAL SEWER SYSTEM
N
805
5-32

5.6 DRAINAGE
For the eastern portion of the proposed development, the CenterPark will construct a master planned storm drain line in Grove Avenue starting with a 96-inch line from the SCE easement north of Ontario Ranch Road to the intersection of Grove Avenue and Ontario Ranch Road, and a 108-inch storm drain line from the intersection of Grove Avenue and Ontario Ranch Road south to Eucalyptus Avenue and a 108-inch storm drain line in Walker Avenue from the intersection of Walker Avenue and Ontario Ranch Road south to Eucalyptus Avenue.

For the western portion of the proposed development, the CenterPark will construct a master planned storm drain line in Bon View Avenue starting with a 78-inch storm drain line from the SCE easment north of Ontario Ranch Road to the intersection of Bon View Avenue and Ontario Ranch Road, and a 96-inch storm drain line from the intersection of Bon View Avenue and Ontario Ranch Road south to Eucalyptus Avenue and a 60-inch storm drain line in Campus Avenue from the intersection of Campus Avenue and Ontario Ranch Road south to Eucalyptus Avenue.

The City’s Storm Drain Master Plan identifies storm drain improvements to serve the project site.

Completion of these Master Plan improvements will provide permanent storm drain service to the project. That portion of the Master Plan storm drain system that lies within the project site will be constructed as part of the development of the project. The size and location will be based on the Approved Master Plan of Drainage. The City of Ontario Master Plan storm drain improvements are illustrated on Exhibit 5-19, Conceptual Drainage Plan.

On-site storm drains will be sized and constructed to convey the on-site flows to the proposed Master Plan system. The size and location of proposed on-site storm drains may change based on final design. Interim detention basins are not proposed and are not allowed by the City. The developer is required to construct the ultimate storm drain improvements as identified on the Master Plan of Drainage. The Master Plan of Drainage for CenterPark is illustrated in Exhibit 5-20, Conceptual Storm Drain Improvements.

If at the time of construction, Line I in Euclid Avenue in the City of Chino has not been constructed, the developments tributary to this line will need to detain their runoff to 80% of the pre-development flows.

5.6.1 NPDES Compliance
The grading and drainage of the Specific Plan area shall be designed to incorporate the treatment of surface runoff, to retain and infiltrate the Design Capture Volumes (DCV) to comply with the requirements of the San Bernardino County NPDES Storm Water Program. These DCV may be directed to underground storage/infiltration chambers beneath parklets and paseos for infiltration into the ground where site soils do not provide adequate infiltration or other means to control drainage. 806

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
5-33
infrastructure
Low Impact Development (LID) Site Design Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented in accordance with the selection criteria and other requirements outlined in the San Bernardino County NPDES Storm Water Program’s current Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) as well as the City of Ontario’s Water Quality Management Plan requirements. Appropriate pre-treatment BMPs, such as baffle boxes, filters or surface forebays, etc. can be installed upstream of underground storage/infiltration chambers to collect sediments and minimize deposition of sediments in the infiltration zone. The NPDES Areawide Stormwater Program requires the preparation of project specific WQMP.

The objective of the WQMP for the project is to minimize the detrimental effects of urbanization on the beneficial uses of receiving waters, which includes effects caused by increased pollutants and changes in hydrology. These effects shall be minimized through the implementation of on-site and off-site Low Impact Development (LID) Site Design Best Management Practices (BMPs) that provide appropriate treatment of the DCV.

In addition, Non-Structural and Structural Source Control Best Management Practices (BMPs), shall also be implemented and documented in the project’s approved Water Quality Management Plan and Erosion Control with Grading Plan to reduce pollutant generation and transport from the project site.

Prior to the issuance of grading or construction permits for any parcel or area that disturbs 1 acre or more of land, within the CenterPark Specific Plan area, Erosion/Sediment Control Plans and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) shall be prepared. The SWPPP shall be prepared to comply with California State Water Resources Control Board’s (State Water Board) current “General Permit to Discharge Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity” and current “Area Wide Urban Storm Water Runoff” (Regional NPDES) Permits. The SWPPP shall identify and detail all appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented or installed during construction of the project. In addition to the preparation of a construction SWPPP, any tract map or project that disturbs 1 acre or more of land area shall be required to obtain coverage under the State Water Board’s General Permit to Discharge Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity and show evidence of permit coverage to the City of Ontario, prior to the issuance of any grading or construction permits.

NPDES BMPs are not allowed within public right-of-way. All BMPs shall be installed on site and maintained by the HOA. All Priority Land Use (PLU) areas within the Specific Plan Area 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. 807
5-34
EXHIBIT 5-19 CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE PLAN GROVE AVE CUCAMONGA AVE PARCO AVE WALKER AVE VINEYARD AVE

CUCAMONGA CHANNEL

CARPENTER AVE

ARCHIBALD AVE

BON VIEW AVE

SULTANA AVE

CAMPUS AVE

EUCLID AVE

MERRILL AVE

ONTARIO RANCH RD

EUCALYPTUS AVE

SCHAEFER AVE

CHINO AVE

RIVERSIDE DRIVE
24” 24” 24”
24”
120”
120”
24” 24” 13’x8’ RCB 24” 24” 24”-30”
24”
60”
96” 78”
96” 108”
108”
LINE I

SPECIFIC PLAN REQUIRED STORM DRAIN MAIN
(PER MASTER PLAN) (DIF)

SPECIFIC PLAN REQUIRED STORM DRAIN MAIN
(PROJECT SPECIFIC)

EXISTING STORM DRAIN MAIN (CITY OF ONTARIO)
EXISTING 9.5’ X 9.5, RCB

DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY XVI (TRIBUTARY TO LINE I)

DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY XIII

DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY XII

CENTERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN
LEGEND
N
808

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
5-35
infrastructure

GROVE AVE

CUCAMONGA AVE

PARCO AVE

WALKER AVE

BON VIEW AVE

SULTANA AVE

CAMPUS AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE

SCHAEFER AVE

ONTARIO RANCH RD
24” 24” 24”
24”
120”
24” 24” 24” 24”-30” 24” 13’x8’ RCB
24”
60”
96” 78”
96” 108”
108”

SPECIFIC PLAN REQUIRED STORM DRAIN MAIN
(PER MASTER PLAN) (DIF)

SPECIFIC PLAN REQUIRED STORM DRAIN MAIN
(PROJECT SPECIFIC)

EXISTING STORM DRAIN MAIN (CITY OF ONTARIO)

DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY XVI (TRIBUTARY TO LINE I)

DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY XIII

DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY XII

CENTERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN
LEGEND
EXHIBIT 5-20 CONCEPTUAL STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS
N
809
5-36

5.7 FIBER OPTICS
The proposed backbone street fiber optics (conduits, tracer wire, handholes and fiber) will be placed underground within a duct and structure system to be installed by the developer in a joint trench, as illustrated in Exhibit 5-21, Fiber Optic Master Plan. In-tract fiber and conduit shall be installed per the In-Tract Fiber Optic Design Guidelines. Maintenance of the installed system will be the responsibility of the City/Special District. Development of the project requires the installation of all fiber optic infrastructure and peripheral equipment necessary to service the project as a stand-alone development.

EXHIBIT 5-21 FIBER OPTIC MASTER PLAN GROVE AVE CUCAMONGA AVE PARCO AVE WALKER AVE VINEYARD AVE

CUCAMONGA CHANNEL

CARPENTER AVE

ARCHIBALD AVE

BON VIEW AVE

CAMPUS AVE

SULTANA AVE

EUCLID AVE

MERRILL AVE

ONTARIO RANCH RD

EUCALYPTUS AVE

SCHAEFER AVE

CHINO AVE

RIVERSIDE DRIVE
LEGEND
FIBER SIZE:

(2) 432
432
288
144
96 72
36 12
CenterPark Specific Plan N
810

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
5-37
infrastructure
EXHIBIT 5-22 FIBER OPTIC PLAN GROVE AVE CUCAMONGA AVE

PARCO AVE

WALKER AVE

BON VIEW AVE

SULTANA AVE

CAMPUS AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE

SCHAEFER AVE

ONTARIO RANCH RD
LEGEND
FIBER SIZE:

432
96 72
36 CenterPark Specific Plan
N
811
5-38

5.8 GRADING CONCEPT
The project site generally slopes to the south at approximately 1.0% to 2.0%. The grading activities for CenterPark will generally consist of clearing and grubbing, demolition of existing structures and moving surface soils to construct building pads and streets. Where slope conditions are present, the project lot line shall be located at the top of a slope. Dwelling units and structures adjacent to the sloped areas should be sited to:
• Use the natural ridge as a backdrop for structures;
• Use landscape plant materials as a backdrop; and
• Use structures to maximize concealment of cut slope. If retaining walls are required, the following criteria shall be used:
- Exposed walls and fences facing roadways shall be no greater than 3 ft. retaining in height (9 ft. total wall), except as necessary for acoustical purposes as identified by the EIR or as required as a condition of approval.
- Where retaining walls or fences face roadways, they shall be built of decorative materials consistent with the wall theme of the neighborhood.

The Conceptual Grading Plan, as illustrated in Exhibit 5-23, Conceptual Grading Plan, provides a balance of cut/fills for the project. Grading plans for each tract within the project shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Ontario Building, Planning and Engineering Departments prior to the issuance of grading permits.

All grading plans and activities shall conform to the City’s grading ordinance and dust and erosion control requirements.

All landscape areas adjacent to streets, including medians, parkways and neighborhood edges, in the Specific Plan area, shall be finish graded, at a minimum of 1-inch to 2-inch below top-of-curb or sidewalk finish surface, for conservation of irrigation water and increased retention of rainwater runoff. To the maximum extent practicable, all landscaped areas within the project shall be graded as swales and designed to accept runoff water from impervious surfaces.
812

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
5-39
infrastructure
EXHIBIT 5-23 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN
N

GROVE AVE

CUCAMONGA AVE

PARCO AVE

WALKER AVE

BON VIEW AVE

SULTANA AVE

CAMPUS AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE

SCHAEFER AVE
ONTARIO RANCH RD MIN 1% GRADE
MIN 1% GRADE
MIN 1% GRADE
MIN 1% GRADE
MIN 1% GRADE
MIN 1% GRADE
MIN 1% GRADE

DIRECTION OF GRADE

CENTERPARK SPECIFIC PLAN
LEGEND
813
5-40

5.9 SCHOOLS
The CenterPark Specific Plan is within the school districts of the Chino Valley Unified School District.

Chino Valley Unified School District will serve the school age needs of grades K–12, for the Specific Plan area. The nearest Chino Valley Unified School District elementary school location, within the vicinity of the CenterPark Specific Plan, is Dickey Elementary School, located at 2840 Parco Avenue. The nearest Chino Valley Unified School District middle school location is Woodcrest Junior High School, located at 2725 South Campus Drive. The nearest Chino Valley Unified School District high school location is Chino High School, located at 5472 Park Place, in the city of Chino.

Chino Valley has one high school called Chino High School within the vicinity of the CenterPark Specific Plan located at 5472 Park Place, in the city of Chino.

Development of the project will generate an estimated student population as described in Table 5-1 below, based on the student generation numbers supplied by the City of Ontario. The project developer shall be required to pay school fees to mitigate school impacts as required by the State of California.

TABLE 5-1 STUDENT POPULATION
Grades K-5 Grades 6-8 Grades 9-12
Generation Factor 0.38/D.U. Generation Factor 0.22/D.U. Generation Factor 0.20/D.U.

0.38 x 4,293 = 1,631 0.22 x 4,293 = 945 0.20 x 4,293 = 859

5.10 NATURAL GAS
The Gas Company will provide natural gas to the project site and install gas mains to the project site as necessary.

5.11 ELECTRICITY
Southern California Edison Company (SCE) currently provides electrical service in the area. All new lines and all existing lines within the project less than 34.5 kV, shall be placed underground by the developer according to City of Ontario requirements and in accordance to City of Ontario undergrounding Ordinance. 814

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
5-41
infrastructure
Eucalyptus Ave
Campus Ave
Edison Ave/
Ontario Ranch Rd
Cucamonga Ave
Sultana Ave
Bon View Ave
Grove Ave
Parco Ave
Walker Ave
Campus Ave
Bon View Ave
Cucamonga Ave
Grove Ave
Parco Ave
Walker Ave
Baker Ave
Sultana Ave
Baker Ave
Edison Ave/
Ontario Ranch Rd

NEIGHBORHOOD PARK

BACKBONE PRIVATE STREET

PUBLIC STREET
12 KV UNDERGROUND TO BE ADDED12 KV OVERHEAD TO BE RELOCATED UNDERGROUND

POTENTIAL ACCESS POINT

FULL ACCESS

SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY
(CONCEPTUAL LOCATION)

ROUND-A-BOUT (CONCEPTUAL LOCATION)
Grand Park Ave Grand Park Ave
EXHIBIT 5-24 EXISTING ON-SITE FACILITIES
N
• 66 KV OVERHEAD TO BE RELOCATED
• 12 KV OVERHEAD TO BE RELOCATED UNDERGROUND
Eucalyptus Ave
Campus Ave
Bon View Ave
Cucamonga Ave
Grove Ave
Parco Ave
Walker Ave
Baker Ave
Sultana Ave

SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY

FULL ACCESS

POTENTIAL ACCESS POINT
12 KV OVERHEAD TO BE RELOCATED UNDERGROUND
12 KV UNDERGROUND TO BE ADDED

PUBLIC STREET

BACKBONE PRIVATE STREET

NEIGHBORHOOD PARK (CONCEPTUAL LOCATION)

ROUND-A-BOUT (CONCEPTUAL LOCATION)
Grand Park Ave Grand Park Ave
Eucalyptus Ave
Campus Ave
Bon View Ave
Cucamonga Ave
Grove Ave
Parco Ave
Walker Ave
Baker Ave
Sultana Ave

SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY

FULL ACCESS

POTENTIAL ACCESS POINT
12 KV OVERHEAD TO BE RELOCATED UNDERGROUND
12 KV UNDERGROUND TO BE ADDED

PUBLIC STREET

BACKBONE PRIVATE STREET

NEIGHBORHOOD PARK (CONCEPTUAL LOCATION)

ROUND-A-BOUT (CONCEPTUAL LOCATION)
815
5-42

5.12 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
CenterPark shall follow the City of Ontario’s latest “Solid Waste Department Refuse and Recycling Planning Manual”. City crews, through the Ontario Municipal Utilities Company, will provide solid waste collection and disposal service for the project. The project will participate in City sponsored recycle programs and diversion of special wastes such as tires and construction materials. Provisions for solid waste and recycling for the project are as follows:
• Residential – For curbside automated container service, developer shall comply with Municipal Code Section 6-3.308.9(a) and (d), Residential Receptacles, Placement. • Recycling Requirements – The developer shall comply with Municipal Code Article 6 Recycling Requirements for Special Business Activity, Section 6-3.601 Business Recycling Plan and Section 6-602 Construction and Demolition Recycling Plan.
• Site Improvement Plans shall follow the City of Ontario refuse collection standards. • Community trash enclosures (“dumpsters”) may be utilized, dependent upon housing product types/ orientation.
816

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
6-1
development regulations
SECTION 6: DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS

6.1 INTRODUCTION
The provisions contained herein shall regulate design and development within the CenterPark Specific Plan.

The regulations contained herein provide for the development of all land use categories with development regulations established for residential uses, commercial uses, recreational facilities, and landscaping.

6.2 DEFINITION OF TERMS
The meaning and construction of words, phrases, titles and terms shall be the same as provided in the City of Ontario Development Code Article 2, “Definitions”, unless otherwise specifically provided for herein. The definitions of residential types shall be those defined in Section 4, Land Use Plan of the CenterPark Specific Plan within the discussion of each respective residential type. The definition of architectural and design terms shall be the same as those provided in the City of Ontario Development Code.

6.3 APPLICABILITY
The development regulations contained herein provide specific land use development standards for the project. Regulations address residential development and provide for general landscaping regulations.

Application of the following regulations is intended to encourage the most appropriate use of the land, ensure the highest quality of development and protect the public health, safety and general welfare. Whenever the provisions and development standards contained herein conflict with those contained in the City of Ontario Development Code, the provisions of the CenterPark Specific Plan shall take precedence. Where the CenterPark Specific Plan is silent, City of Ontario codes shall apply. All architectural and landscape improvements shall be consistent with the Design Guidelines contained in Section 7, Design Guidelines of the CenterPark Specific Plan. All architectural and landscape plans shall be submitted to the City for approval.

6.4 ADMINISTRATION
The CenterPark Specific Plan is adopted by ordinance and serves to implement the City of Ontario General Plan (TOP) as well as the zoning for the Specific Plan area. The CenterPark Specific Plan addresses general provisions, permitted uses, development standards and design guidelines. The CenterPark Specific Plan Development Regulations address general provisions, permitted uses and development standards for the community. The Specific Plan has been prepared in conformance with the Goals and Polices of the City’s Policy Plan as outlined in Section 9, General Plan Consistency. 817
6-2

6.5 GENERAL SITE DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
The following general site development criteria shall apply to all development projects within CenterPark:

1. Gross Acres – Except as otherwise indicated, gross acres for all development areas are measured to the centerline of streets.

2. Adjusted Gross Acres – For the purpose of determining the proposed intensity of land uses, adjusted gross acres for all development areas are measured outside of the City’s ultimate street ROW and adjoining neighborhood edge as required by the City.

3. Building Modification – Building additions and/or alterations permitted by the CenterPark Specific Plan shall match the architectural style of the primary unit and shall be constructed of the same materials, details and colors as the primary unit.

4. Density Transfer – The CenterPark Specific Plan allocates a target number, type and density of units to each Planning Area as indicated in the Table 4-1, Land Use Summary, in Section 4 of the Specific Plan. Variations in the number and density of dwelling units within each residential Planning Area may occur at the time of final design of the Planning Area depending upon the residential type identified for development. Increases in the number of residential units, up to a maximum of fifteen percent (15%), are permitted among the residential Planning Areas within the project, subject to approval by the City of Ontario and upon agreement of each respective property owner or developer, provided the overall total number of units established for the CenterPark Specific Plan is not exceeded.

5. Grading – Development within the project site shall utilize grading techniques as approved by the City of Ontario. Grading concepts shall respond to the design guidelines included in the CenterPark Specific Plan which guide the development of land use toward the goal of providing for a livable community with streets and entries designed for walking and resident interaction.

6. Maximum Number of Dwelling Units – The maximum number of residential dwelling units permitted within the CenterPark Specific Plan is 4,293.

7. Solid Waste/Recycling - Development within the project shall comply with City requirements for the provision and placement of solid waste and recycling receptacles.

8. Technology – All homes and businesses shall accommodate modern technology for internet access, phone, fax, and television. Broadband fiber optics cable will be installed on all peripheral street per the approved Broadband Master Plan, as defined by the City Standards.

9. Utilities – All new and existing public utility distribution lines of 35.5 kV or less shall be subsurface throughout the CenterPark Specific Plan.
818

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
6-3
development regulations

10. Best Management Practices – Development of storm water runoff improvements within the CenterPark Specific Plan shall adhere to currently adopted Best Management Practices (BMP’s). The Site Design BMP’s may include, but not be limited to, creating landscape strips and landscaped setback areas that can be graded and depressed to retain and infiltrate irrigation water and runoff from smaller storm events, drain rooftops into rain gutters which would drain into an area of porous subgrade and depressing the park areas to provide storm water infiltration and water quality treatment. Common area landscaping and parks shall be designed to function as a series of shallow storm water treatment basins and infiltration zones for storm water runoff from surrounding areas wherever moderately well-draining soils exist.

6.6 PERMITTED USES AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Uses allowed within the Residential Planning Areas of the CenterPark Specific Plan include a variation of residential densities and uses consistent with the City of Ontario General Plan (TOP).

Permitted Uses are allowed by right and may be developed as the primary land use without additional discretionary approval subject to the development standards and guidelines outlined in the Specific Plan.

Conditionally Permitted Uses are allowed subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City of Ontario.

Allowed Uses include the development of residential single-family detached dwelling units including conventional, traditional and cluster detached housing types, and single-family attached and multi-family dwelling units that include townhomes, duplexes, triplexes, apartments and other attached housing types.

Providing a variety of home types allows homeowners the opportunity to move up within the community as their lifestyles and needs change over time.

Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses within the Residential Planning Areas of the CenterPark Specific Plan are described in Table 6-1, Allowable Land Uses.

The development standards for residential development establish the minimum criteria within the CenterPark Specific Plan. Specific standards for each allowed building type are described in Table 6-2, Residential Development Standards.

6.6.1 Permitted Uses
Any land use that is not listed in the CenterPark Specific Plan shall be considered a prohibited land use.

Land uses that are similar to one or more of the uses listed below but are not expressly stated as a Permitted or Conditionally Permitted use may be allowed subject to the approval of the Planning Director of the City of Ontario.

Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses within the Mixed-Use District and Residential Planning Areas of the CenterPark Specific Plan are described in Table 6-1, Allowable Land Uses. 819
6-4
TABLE 6-1 ALLOWABLE LAND USES

LAND USE MEDIUM DENSITY

RESIDENTIAL

MIXED-USE

DISTRICT
“P” = Permitted Land Uses “C” = Conditionally Permitted Land Uses “A” = Administratively Permitted Uses “--” = Prohibited Land Uses

AGRICULTURAL USES
Temporary and Interim Agricultural Uses P P

MANUFACTURING
Apparel Manufacturing -- C
Artisan Crafts (Made by Hand) such as Glassworks, Jewelry and Pottery -- C

HEALTHCARE AND SOCIAL ASSISTANCE
Child Day Care Services (Commercial Facilities) -- P
Child Day Care Services (Employer Provided Services) -- P Medical Office -- P
Urgent Care -- P
Vocational Rehabilitation Services -- C

COMMERCIAL USES

INFORMATION
Broadcasting -- P
Data Processing, Health and Related Services -- P
Publishing Industries -- P
Wireless Telecommunication Facilities -- C

EATING AND DRINKING PLACES AND FOOD SERVICES
Alcoholic Beverage Sales for Consumption on the Premises (includes all Retailer’s On-Sale Licenses issued by the State of California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control)
-- C
Restaurant
- Without Drive-Thru -- P
- With Drive-Thru -- C

PERSONAL SERVICES
Couriers and Messengers -- P
Fitness and Recreational Sports Center
- Gross Floor Area less than 10,000 sq. ft. -- P
- Gross Floor Area 10,000 sq. ft. or more -- C
Pet Boarding and Kennels
- Day Only (e.g. Doggie Daycare) -- C
- Overnight Stays -- C
Postal Services -- P
Passenger Car Rental and Leasing -- C
820

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
6-5
development regulations

LAND USE MEDIUM DENSITY

RESIDENTIAL

MIXED-USE

DISTRICT

OFFICES
Administrative and Support Services -- P
Business Management -- P
Finance and Insurance Offices -- P
General Offices -- P
Government Offices -- P
Management of Companies and Enterprises -- P
Office Ancillary to a Primary Industrial Use (Less than 10% of GFA) -- P Professional, Scientific and Technical Services (e.g. Accounting, Tax Preparation, Architecture, Bookkeeping, Legal, Engineering, Consulting) -- P Real Estate Offices -- P
RETAIL
Antique Shop -- P
Alcoholic Beverage Sales for Consumption off the Premises (includes all Retailer’s Off-Sale Licenses Issued by the State of California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control)
-- C
Appliance Store -- P
Art Supply Store -- P
Auction Houses -- C
Automotive Parts and Accessories (including Tires) -- -- Bakery Retail -- P
Banks/Credit Unions -- P
Banks and Credit Unions with Drive-Thru in accordance with the City of Ontario Development Code and Section 5.5.8.5 herein -- C Barber/Beauty Shops -- P
Beauty Supply Store -- P
Billiard Parlor/Pool Hall -- C
Book Store -- P
Bowling Alleys -- C
Camera Supply Store -- P
Car Wash-Full Service -- C
Car Wash-Self-Service as an Ancillary Use -- C
Catering Services and Facilities -- C
Clothing and Accessory Store -- P
Coffee House/Cafe -- P
Commercial Recreation/Virtual Sports Such as Golf Simulator -- C Computer and Home Electronics Retail -- P
821
6-6

LAND USE MEDIUM DENSITY

RESIDENTIAL

MIXED-USE

DISTRICT
Computer, Electronics Home Repair -- --
Convenience Stores (without Alcoholic Beverage Sales) -- C Cutlery -- P
Dance Hall/Studio Hall -- C
Delicatessen/Cafeteria -- P
Drug Store/Pharmacy with Drive-Thru in accordance with the City Development Code and Section 5.5.8.8 herein -- C
Dry Cleaners (Commercial Off-Site Cleaning Operations Only) -- P Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (Automobiles) -- C
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (Commercial Trucks) -- C Financial Services -- P
Florist Shop -- P
Furniture Sales -- P
Gasoline Fueling Station with Convenience Store (without Alcoholic Beverage Sales) -- C
General Merchandise/Retail Store -- P
Garden Supply/Hardware Store -- P
Grocery Store -- P
Health Clubs -- P
Health/Specialty Food Store -- P
Hobby Supply Store -- P
Hotels -- C
Ice Cream Parlor -- P
Jewelry Store -- P
Jewelry, Watch and Clock Repair -- P
Liquor Store -- C
Live Performance Facility, Night Club -- C
Locksmith/Key Shop -- P
Luggage and Leather Goods -- P
Medical Clinic/Healthcare Center/Urgent Care -- P
Nursery School/Day Care Facility/Child Care Center -- P Office Supplies and Equipment -- P
On-Site Alcoholic Beverage Sales Establishment -- C
Personal Service Shops -- P
Pet and Pet Supply Stores -- P
Photocopy Services -- P
Photography Studio -- P
Places of Worship C C
822

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
6-7
development regulations

LAND USE MEDIUM DENSITY

RESIDENTIAL

MIXED-USE

DISTRICT
Plant Nurseries (Retail) -- C
Recreational Equipment Sales (E-Bikes, Kayaks, etc.) -- P Restaurant, Family Full Service, Specialty and Fast Food -- P Schools, Colleges, Universities, Professional Schools -- C Shoe Store/Repair -- P
Sporting Goods Store -- P
Stationary & Gift Shops -- P
Travel Agencies -- P
Video Arcade -- C

RESIDENTIAL USES
Single-Family Detached /Attached / Multi-Family Residences - Single-Family Dwellings P P
- Attached and Detached Condominiums P P
- Townhomes P P
- Stacked Flats P P
- Multiple Family Dwellings/Apartments P P
Residential Community Care Facility (6 or Less) P P
Home Occupation P P
Public School K-12 in accordance with the City Development Code P P Model Homes and temporary related Signage, Sales and Parking Facilities A A Senior Center C C
Senior Housing P C
Convalescent Facility C C
Live/Work Units C C
Places of Public Assembly (including Places of Worship) C C Residential Day Care Facilities serving up to 14 Children P P Private Recreation C C
Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Facilities -- C
Accessory Residential Structures
- Accessory Dwelling Units P P
- Accessory Residential Structures (Includes Guesthouses, Garages, Carports, Garden and Tool Sheds and Other Ancillary Buildings and Structures determined appropriate by the Planning Director)
P P
Animal Keeping
- 4 or fewer Pets P P
Employee (Farmworker) Housing
- 6 or fewer Employees -- C
Vocational/Trade Schools -- C
823
6-8

LAND USE MEDIUM DENSITY

RESIDENTIAL

MIXED-USE

DISTRICT
Temporary Uses and Interim Uses
Amusement (i.e. Circuses, Carnivals, etc.) -- A
Christmas Tree, Pumpkin and Similar Lots -- A
Outdoor Displays -- A
Parking Lot Sales -- A
Street/Craft Fairs and Farmer’s Markets -- A
Temporary Structures -- A

SPECIALTY USES
Police Store Front/Sub Station/Fire Station/Emergency Services -- P Public Parks, Community Centers and Similar Facilities -- P

6.6.2 Residential Development Standards
A variety of home types, composed of detached and attached residential buildings, are permitted within CenterPark. This variety optimizes a range of choices and a mix of homes within the community. Home types range from single-family detached residences and detached condominiums, to 5-story apartment buildings.

Providing a variety of home types allows homeowners the opportunity to move up within the community as their lifestyles and needs change over time.

The following development standards for residential development establish the minimum criteria for the development within the CenterPark Specific Plan. The following exhibits depict the typical plotting for the anticipated detached and attached home types within the Specific Plan area.

Important to note: The following exhibits depict conceptual plotting only. The building footprints shown are not intended to represent actual floor plans or building configurations nor do they represent a comprehensive list of allowed home types.

The final product types within the Specific Plan area will be reviewed and determined at future TTM and Development Plan review
Additional residential designs that are consistent with the Specific Plan Development Standards and Design Guidelines may be approved by the City of Ontario Planning Director. 824

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
6-9
development regulations

DEVELOPMENT

STANDARDS

DETACHED
SFD
Lot Dimensions (Minimum)
Net Lot Area 3,500 SF
Setback (Minimum) (1)
Front Yard 10 ft.

Covered Porch 5 ft.

Low Wall (Front) 2.5 ft.

Front Facing Garage 18 ft.

Garage - Side Entry Door 10 ft.

Corner Side Yard (2) 10 ft.

Interior Side Yard 5 ft.

Rear Yard to Living 10 ft.

Rear Yard to Garage 4 ft.

Building Separation (Minimum)
Living to Living 20 ft.

Side to Side (5) 8 ft.

Rear to Rear (Garage to Living) 14 ft.

Building Height (Maximum)
Building Height 28 ft. (2S)
35 ft. (3S)
Accessory Structure 16 ft.

Building Coverage (Maximum)
Building Coverage 60%
Open Space Coverage (Minimum)
Common Open Space Required N/A
Private Open Space/Unit 250 SF
Maximum Wall and Fence Heights (3) (4)
Walls and Fences 6 ft.

Walls/Fences w/Retaining 9 ft.
(1) Setback measured from property line unless otherwise noted. (2) Corner side setbacks are measured from ROW/back of sidewalk. (3) Wall heights shall be a maximum of 3 ft. in front yards setbacks to allow for vehicular minimum sight-line requirements.
(4) If all or any portion of a wall is used for retaining purposes, the maximum height shall be increased to 9 ft.
(5) Interior side yard setback may be reduced to 4 ft. in conditions where there is no side yard wall and the minimum usable side private yard area is 8 ft. min.

Neighborhood Street

LANDSCAPE LETTERED LOT
Neighborhood Street
NTS
EXHIBIT 6-1 CONVENTIONAL SFD

BUILDING

PRIVATE YARD
PATIO

PUBLIC VISIBLE LOT AREA
GARAGE

FRONT PORCH
EXHIBIT DEPICTS CONCEPTUAL PLOTTING ONLY.

NOT ACTUAL FLOOR PLAN/FOOTPRINTS.

DRIVEWAY
STREET

FRONT ENTRY LOCATION

PROPERTY LINE
6’ WALL

LOW WALL
LEGEND:

NOTE:
825
6-10
EXHIBIT 6-2 Z LOT/ZERO LOT SFD

BUILDING

PRIVATE YARD
PATIO

PUBLIC VISIBLE LOT AREA
GARAGE

FRONT PORCH
EXHIBIT DEPICTS CONCEPTUAL PLOTTING ONLY.

NOT ACTUAL FLOOR PLAN/FOOTPRINTS.

DRIVEWAY
STREET

FRONT ENTRY LOCATION

PROPERTY LINE
6’ WALL

LOW WALL
LEGEND:

NOTE:

DEVELOPMENT

STANDARDS

DETACHED
SFD
Lot Dimensions (Minimum)
Net Lot Area 2,500 SF
Setback (Minimum) (1)
Front Yard 10 ft.

Covered Porch 5 ft.

Low Wall (Front) 2.5 ft.

Front Facing Garage 18 ft.

Garage - Side Entry Door 10 ft.

Corner Side Yard (2) 10 ft.

Interior Side Yard N/A
Rear Yard to Living 10 ft.

Rear Yard to Garage 4 ft.

Building Separation (Minimum)
Living to Living 20 ft.

Side to Side (5) 8 ft.

Rear to Rear (Garage to Living) 14 ft.

Building Height (Maximum)
Building Height 28 ft. (2S)
35 ft. (3S)
Accessory Structure 16 ft.

Building Coverage (Maximum)
Building Coverage 60%
Open Space Coverage (Minimum)
Common Open Space Required N/A
Private Open Space/Unit 250 SF
Maximum Wall and Fence Heights (3) (4)
Walls and Fences 6 ft.

Walls/Fences w/Retaining 9 ft.
(1) Setback measured from property line unless otherwise noted. (2) Corner side setbacks are measured from ROW/back of sidewalk. (3) Wall heights shall be a maximum of 3 ft. in front yards setbacks to allow for vehicular minimum sight-line requirements.
(4) If all or any portion of a wall is used for retaining purposes, the maximum height shall be increased to 9 ft.
(5) Interior side yard setback may be reduced to 4 ft. in conditions where there is no side yard wall and the minimum usable side private yard area is 8 ft. min.

Neighborhood Street

LANDSCAPE LETTERED LOT
Neighborhood Street
NTS
826

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
6-11
development regulations
EXHIBIT 6-3 LARGE CLUSTER SFD

BUILDING

PRIVATE YARD
PATIO

PUBLIC VISIBLE LOT AREA
GARAGE

FRONT PORCH
EXHIBIT DEPICTS CONCEPTUAL PLOTTING ONLY.

NOT ACTUAL FLOOR PLAN/FOOTPRINTS.

DRIVEWAY
STREET

FRONT ENTRY LOCATION

PROPERTY LINE
6’ WALL

LOW WALL
LEGEND:

NOTE:

DEVELOPMENT

STANDARDS

DETACHED
SFD
Lot Dimensions (Minimum)
Net Lot Area 2,500 SF
Setback (Minimum) (1)
Front Yard 10 ft.

Covered Porch 5 ft.

Low Wall (Front) 2.5 ft.

Front Facing Garage 18 ft.

Garage to Private Drive 10 ft.

Corner Side Yard (2) 10 ft.

Interior Side Yard 5 ft.

Rear Yard to Living 4 ft.

Rear Yard to Garage 4 ft.

Building Separation (Minimum)
Side to Side 10 ft.

Rear to Rear 8 ft.

Building Height (Maximum)
Building Height 28 ft. (2S)
35 ft. (3S)
Accessory Structure 16 ft.

Building Coverage (Maximum)
Building Coverage 60%
Open Space Coverage (Minimum)
Common Open Space Required N/A
Private Open Space/Unit 250 SF
Maximum Wall and Fence Heights (3) (4)
Walls and Fences 6 ft.

Walls/Fences w/Retaining 9 ft.
(1) Setback measured from property line unless otherwise noted. (2) Corner side setbacks are measured from ROW/back of sidewalk, including a 5 ft. mi. lettered lot.
(3) Wall heights shall be a maximum of 3 ft. in front yards setbacks to allow for vehicular minimum sight-line requirements.
(4) If all or any portion of a wall is used for retaining purposes, the maximum height shall be increased to 9 ft.

Neighborhood Street
NTS
REAR
SIDE
FRONT
827
6-12
EXHIBIT 6-4 SMALL CLUSTER SFD

BUILDING

PRIVATE YARD
PATIO

PUBLIC VISIBLE LOT AREA
GARAGE

FRONT PORCH
EXHIBIT DEPICTS CONCEPTUAL PLOTTING ONLY.

NOT ACTUAL FLOOR PLAN/FOOTPRINTS.

DRIVEWAY
STREET

FRONT ENTRY LOCATION

PROPERTY LINE
6’ WALL

LOW WALL
LEGEND:

NOTE:

DEVELOPMENT

STANDARDS

DETACHED
SFD
Lot Dimensions (Minimum)
Net Lot Area 1,800 SF
Setback (Minimum) (1)
Front Yard 10 ft.

Covered Porch 5 ft.

Low Wall (Front) 2.5 ft.

Front Facing Garage 18 ft.

Garage to Private Drive 3 ft.

Corner Side Yard (2) 10 ft.

Interior Side Yard 5 ft.

Rear Yard to Living 4 ft.

Rear Yard to Garage 4 ft.

Building Separation (Minimum)
Side to Side 10 ft.

Rear to Rear 8 ft.

Building Height (Maximum)
Building Height 28 ft. (2S)
35 ft. (3S)
Accessory Structure 16 ft.

Building Coverage (Maximum)
Building Coverage 60%
Open Space Coverage (Minimum)
Common Open Space Required N/A
Private Open Space/Unit 250 SF
Maximum Wall and Fence Heights (3) (4)
Walls and Fences 6 ft.

Walls/Fences w/Retaining 9 ft.
(1) Setback measured from property line unless otherwise noted. (2) Corner side setbacks are measured from ROW/back of sidewalk, including a 5 ft. mi. lettered lot.
(3) Wall heights shall be a maximum of 3 ft. in front yards setbacks to allow for vehicular minimum sight-line requirements.
(4) If all or any portion of a wall is used for retaining purposes, the maximum height shall be increased to 9 ft.

Neighborhood Street
NTS
REAR
SIDE
FRONT
828

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
6-13
development regulations
EXHIBIT 6-5 COURTYARD SFD

BUILDING

PRIVATE YARD
PATIO

PUBLIC VISIBLE LOT AREA
GARAGE

FRONT PORCH
EXHIBIT DEPICTS CONCEPTUAL PLOTTING ONLY.

NOT ACTUAL FLOOR PLAN/FOOTPRINTS.

DRIVEWAY
STREET

FRONT ENTRY LOCATION

PROPERTY LINE
6’ WALL

LOW WALL
LEGEND:

NOTE:

Neighborhood Street

DEVELOPMENT

STANDARDS

DETACHED
SFD
Lot Dimensions (Minimum)
Net Lot Area 1,800 SF
Setback (Minimum) (1)
Front Yard 10 ft.

Covered Porch 5 ft.

Low Wall (Front) 2.5 ft.

Front Facing Garage 18 ft.

Garage Door to Private Drive 3 ft.

Corner Side Yard 10 ft.

Interior Side Yard 10 ft.

Rear Yard to Living 8 ft.

Rear Yard to Garage 8 ft.

Building Separation (Minimum)
Side to Side 20 ft.

Interior Parking Setback to
Garage 1 ft.

Interior Parking Setback to
Living 5 ft.

Rear to Rear 16 ft.

Building Height (Maximum)
Building Height 28 ft. (2S)
35 ft. (3S)
Accessory Structure 16 ft.

Building Coverage (Maximum)
Building Coverage 65%
Open Space Coverage (Minimum)
Common Open Space Required N/A
Private Open Space/Unit 250 SF
Maximum Wall and Fence Heights (2) (3)
Walls and Fences 6 ft.

Walls/Fences w/Retaining 9 ft.
(1) Setback measured from property line unless otherwise noted. (2) Wall heights shall be a maximum of 3 ft. in front yards setbacks to allow for vehicular minimum sight-line requirements.
(3) If all or any portion of a wall is used for retaining purposes, the maximum height shall be increased to 9 ft.

NTS
REAR
SIDE
FRONT
829
6-14
EXHIBIT 6-6 COTTAGE SFD

BUILDING

PRIVATE YARD
PATIO

PUBLIC VISIBLE LOT AREA
GARAGE

FRONT PORCH
EXHIBIT DEPICTS CONCEPTUAL PLOTTING ONLY.

NOT ACTUAL FLOOR PLAN/FOOTPRINTS.

DRIVEWAY
STREET

FRONT ENTRY LOCATION

PROPERTY LINE
6’ WALL

LOW WALL
LEGEND:

NOTE:

Private Drive

DEVELOPMENT

STANDARDS

DETACHED
SFD
Lot Dimensions (Minimum)
Net Lot Area 6,000 SF
Setback (Minimum) (1)
Front Yard 10 ft.

Covered Porch 5 ft.

Low Wall (Front) 2.5 ft.

Front Facing Garage N/A
Garage Door to Private Drive 3 ft.

Corner Side Yard (2) 9 ft.

Interior Side Yard 4 ft.

Rear Yard to Living 3 ft.

Building Separation (Minimum)
Front to Front 20 ft.

Rear to Rear 30 ft.

Building Height (Maximum)
Building Height 28 ft. (2S)
35 ft. (3S)
Accessory Structure 16 ft.

Building Coverage (Maximum)
Building Coverage 60%
Open Space Coverage (Minimum)
Common Open Space Required N/A
Private Open Space/Unit 250 SF
Maximum Wall and Fence Heights (3) (4)
Walls and Fences 6 ft.

Walls/Fences w/Retaining 9 ft.
(1) Setback measured from property line unless otherwise noted. (2) Corner side setbacks are measured from ROW/back of sidewalk. (3) Wall heights shall be a maximum of 3 ft. in front yards setbacks to allow for vehicular minimum sight-line requirements.
(4) If all or any portion of a wall is used for retaining purposes, the maximum height shall be increased to 9 ft.

NTS
REAR
SIDE
FRONT
830

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
6-15
development regulations
EXHIBIT 6-7 DUPLEX/TRIPLEX SFD

BUILDING

PRIVATE YARD
PATIO

PUBLIC VISIBLE LOT AREA
GARAGE

FRONT PORCH
EXHIBIT DEPICTS CONCEPTUAL PLOTTING ONLY.

NOT ACTUAL FLOOR PLAN/FOOTPRINTS.

DRIVEWAY
STREET

FRONT ENTRY LOCATION

PROPERTY LINE
6’ WALL

LOW WALL
LEGEND:

NOTE:

DEVELOPMENT

STANDARDS

ATTACHED
(2 STORY)

ATTACHED
(3 STORY)
Lot Dimensions (Minimum)
Net Lot Area N/A N/A
Setback (Minimum) (1)
Front Yard 10 ft. 12 ft.

Covered Porch 5 ft. 5 ft.

Low Wall 2.5 ft. 2.5 ft.

Front Facing Garage 3 ft. 3 ft.

Garage - Side Entry Door N/A N/A
Corner Side Yard (2) 10 ft. 12 ft.

Interior Side Yard 4 ft. 5 ft.

Rear Yard 10 ft. 10 ft.

Garage Door to Private
Drive 3 ft. 3 ft.

Building Separation (Minimum)
Side to Side 8 ft. 10 ft.

Side to Rear 14 ft. 15 ft.

Rear to Rear 20 ft. 20 ft.

Building Height (Maximum)
Building Height 28 ft. 38 ft.

Accessory Structure 16 ft. 16 ft.

Building Coverage (Maximum)
Building Coverage 65% 70%
Open Space Coverage (Minimum)
Common Open Space
Required 250 SF/DU 250 SF/DU
Private Open Space/Unit 150 SF (1ST FLR)
75 SF (UPPER FLRS)
75 SF
Maximum Wall and Fence Heights (3) (4)
Walls and Fences 6 ft. 6 ft.

Walls/Fences w/Retaining 9 ft. 9 ft.
(1) Setback measured from property line unless otherwise noted. (2) Corner side setbacks are measured from curb.
(3) Wall heights shall be a maximum of 3 ft. in front yards setbacks to allow for vehicular minimum sight-line requirements.
(4) If all or any portion of a wall is used for retaining purposes, the maximum height shall be increased to 9 ft.

Neighborhood Street
Neighborhood Street
DUPLEX

TRIPLEX
NTS
SIDE

REAR FRONT
NTS
SIDE

REAR FRONT
831
6-16
EXHIBIT 6-8 TOWNHOME/ROWTOWN SFA

BUILDING

PRIVATE YARD
PATIO

PUBLIC VISIBLE LOT AREA
GARAGE

FRONT PORCH
EXHIBIT DEPICTS CONCEPTUAL PLOTTING ONLY.

NOT ACTUAL FLOOR PLAN/FOOTPRINTS.

DRIVEWAY
STREET

FRONT ENTRY LOCATION

PROPERTY LINE
6’ WALL

LOW WALL
LEGEND:

NOTE:

DEVELOPMENT

STANDARDS

ATTACHED
(2 STORY)

ATTACHED
(3 STORY)
Lot Dimensions (Minimum)
Net Lot Area N/A N/A
Setback (Minimum) (1)
Front Yard 10 ft. 12 ft.

Covered Porch 5 ft. 5 ft.

Low Wall 2.5 ft. 2.5 ft.

Front Facing Garage 3 ft. 3 ft.

Garage - Side Entry Door N/A N/A
Corner Side Yard (2) 10 ft. 12 ft.

Interior Side Yard N/A N/A
Rear Yard 3 ft. 3 ft.

Garage Door to Private
Drive 3 ft. 3 ft.

Building Separation (Minimum)
Front to Front (includes
porch) (3) 20 ft. 20 ft.

Front to Side 15 ft. 16 ft.

Side to Side 10 ft. 12 ft.

Side to Rear N/A N/A
Rear to Rear 30 ft. 30 ft.

Building Height (Maximum)
Building Height 28 ft. 38 ft.

Accessory Structure 16 ft. 16 ft.

Building Coverage (Maximum)
Building Coverage 65% 70%
Open Space Coverage (Minimum)
Common Open Space
Required 250 SF/DU 250 SF/DU
Private Open Space/Unit 150 SF (1ST FLR)
75 SF (UPPER FLRS)
75 SF
Maximum Wall and Fence Heights (4) (5)
Walls and Fences 6 ft. 6 ft.

Walls/Fences w/Retaining 9 ft. 9 ft.
(1) Setback measured from property line unless otherwise noted. (2) Corner side setbacks are measured from curb.
(3) Fronts door entries facing onto each other shall have a minimum setback of 24 ft. for 2 story buildings and 30 ft. for 3 story building elements. (4) Wall heights shall be a maximum of 3 ft. in front yards setbacks to allow for vehicular minimum sight-line requirements.
(5) If all or any portion of a wall is used for retaining purposes, the maximum height shall be increased to 9 ft.

NTS
SIDE

REAR FRONT
Neighborhood Street
832

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
6-17
development regulations
EXHIBIT 6-9 AUTOCOURT SFA

BUILDING

PRIVATE YARD
PATIO

PUBLIC VISIBLE LOT AREA
GARAGE

FRONT PORCH
EXHIBIT DEPICTS CONCEPTUAL PLOTTING ONLY.

NOT ACTUAL FLOOR PLAN/FOOTPRINTS.

DRIVEWAY
STREET

FRONT ENTRY LOCATION

PROPERTY LINE
6’ WALL

LOW WALL
LEGEND:

NOTE:

DEVELOPMENT

STANDARDS

ATTACHED
(2 STORY)

ATTACHED
(3 STORY)
Lot Dimensions (Minimum)
Net Lot Area N/A N/A
Setback (Minimum) (1)
Front Yard 10 ft. 12 ft.

Covered Porch 5 ft. 5 ft.

Low Wall 2.5 ft. 2.5 ft.

Front Facing Garage 18 ft. 18 ft.

Garage - Side Entry Door 10 ft. 10 ft.

Corner Side Yard (2) 10 ft. 12 ft.

Interior Side Yard 10 ft. 12 ft.

Rear Yard 10 ft. 10 ft.

Rear Yard to Garage N/A N/A
Building Separation (Minimum)
Front to Front (includes
porch) N/A N/A
Front to Side N/A N/A
Side to Side (3) 20 ft. 24 ft.

Side to Rear 20 ft. 25 ft.

Rear to Rear 20 ft. 25 ft.

Building Height (Maximum)
Building Height 28 ft. 38 ft.

Accessory Structure 16 ft. 16 ft.

Building Coverage (Maximum)
Building Coverage 65% 70%
Open Space Coverage (Minimum)
Common Open Space
Required 250 SF/DU 250 SF/DU
Private Open Space/Unit 150 SF (1ST FLR)
75 SF (UPPER FLRS)
75 SF
Maximum Wall and Fence Heights (4) (5)
Walls and Fences 6 ft. 6 ft.

Walls/Fences w/Retaining 9 ft. 9 ft.
(1) Setback measured from property line unless otherwise noted. (2) Corner side setbacks are measured from curb.
(3) Fronts door entries facing onto each other shall have a minimum setback of 24 ft. for 2 story buildings and 30 ft. for 3 story building elements. (4) Wall heights shall be a maximum of 3 ft. in front yards setbacks to allow for vehicular minimum sight-line requirements.
(5) If all or any portion of a wall is used for retaining purposes, the maximum height shall be increased to 9 ft.

Private Drive
NTS
REAR
SIDE
FRONT
833
6-18
EXHIBIT 6-10 COURTYARD TOWNHOMES

BUILDING

PRIVATE YARD
PATIO

PUBLIC VISIBLE LOT AREA
GARAGE

FRONT PORCH
EXHIBIT DEPICTS CONCEPTUAL PLOTTING ONLY.

NOT ACTUAL FLOOR PLAN/FOOTPRINTS.

DRIVEWAY
STREET

FRONT ENTRY LOCATION

PROPERTY LINE
6’ WALL

LOW WALL
LEGEND:

NOTE:

DEVELOPMENT

STANDARDS

ATTACHED
(3 STORY)
Lot Dimensions (Minimum)
Net Lot Area N/A
Setback (Minimum) (1)
Front Yard 12 ft.

Covered Porch 5 ft.

Low Wall 2.5 ft.

Front Facing Garage N/A
Garage - Side Entry Door 10 ft.

Corner Side Yard (2) 12 ft.

Interior Side Yard 6 ft.

Rear Yard 3 ft.

Rear Yard to Garage 3 ft.

Building Separation (Minimum)
Front to Front (includes porch) (3) N/A
Front to Side N/A
Side to Side 15 ft.

Side to Rear N/A
Rear to Rear 30 ft.

Building Height (Maximum)
Building Height 38 ft.

Accessory Structure 16 ft.

Building Coverage (Maximum)
Building Coverage 70%
Open Space Coverage (Minimum)
Common Open Space Required 250 SF/DU
Private Open Space/Unit 75 SF
Maximum Wall and Fence Heights (3) (4)
Walls and Fences 6 ft.

Walls/Fences w/Retaining 9 ft.
(1) Setback measured from property line unless otherwise noted. (2) Corner side setbacks are measured from curb.
(3) Wall heights shall be a maximum of 3 ft. in front yards setbacks to allow for vehicular minimum sight-line requirements.
(4) If all or any portion of a wall is used for retaining purposes, the maximum height shall be increased to 9 ft.
(5) Porch structure minimum depth and width and clear space size.

Neighborhood Street
Neighborhood Street
NTS

FRONT REAR REAR
SIDE
FRONT
834

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
6-19
development regulations
EXHIBIT 6-11 3 STORY PODIUM SFA

BUILDING

PRIVATE YARD
PATIO

PUBLIC VISIBLE LOT AREA
GARAGE

FRONT PORCH
EXHIBIT DEPICTS CONCEPTUAL PLOTTING ONLY.

NOT ACTUAL FLOOR PLAN/FOOTPRINTS.

DRIVEWAY
STREET

FRONT ENTRY LOCATION

PROPERTY LINE
6’ WALL

LOW WALL
LEGEND:

NOTE:

DEVELOPMENT

STANDARDS

ATTACHED
(3 STORY)
Lot Dimensions (Minimum)
Net Lot Area N/A
Setback (Minimum) (1)
Front Yard 12 ft.

Covered Porch 5 ft.

Low Wall 2.5 ft.

Front Facing Garage N/A
Garage - Side Entry Door N/A
Corner Side Yard (2) 12 ft.

Interior Side Yard 6 ft.

Rear Yard N/A
Rear Yard to Garage N/A
Building Separation (Minimum)
Front to Front (includes porch) (3) 24 ft. / 30 ft.

Front to Side 15 ft.

Side to Side 15 ft.

Side to Rear N/A
Rear to Rear N/A
Building Height (Maximum)
Building Height 38 ft.

Accessory Structure 16 ft.

Building Coverage (Maximum)
Building Coverage 70%
Open Space Coverage (Minimum)
Common Open Space Required 250 SF/DU
Private Open Space/Unit 75 SF
Maximum Wall and Fence Heights (4) (5)
Walls and Fences 6 ft.

Walls/Fences w/Retaining 9 ft.
(1) Setback measured from property line unless otherwise noted. (2) Corner side setbacks are measured from curb.
(3) Fronts door entries facing onto each other shall have a minimum setback of 24 ft. for 2 story buildings and 30 ft. for 3 story building elements.
(4) Wall heights shall be a maximum of 3 ft. in front yards setbacks to allow for vehicular minimum sight-line requirements.
(5) If all or any portion of a wall is used for retaining purposes, the maximum height shall be increased to 9 ft.

Neighborhood Street
NTS

FRONT FRONT
SIDE
SIDE
835
6-20
EXHIBIT 6-12 TUCK UNDER APARTMENT/CONDOMINIUM

BUILDING

PRIVATE YARD
PATIO

PUBLIC VISIBLE LOT AREA
GARAGE

FRONT PORCH
EXHIBIT DEPICTS CONCEPTUAL PLOTTING ONLY.

NOT ACTUAL FLOOR PLAN/FOOTPRINTS.

DRIVEWAY
STREET

FRONT ENTRY LOCATION

PROPERTY LINE
6’ WALL

LOW WALL
LEGEND:

NOTE:

DEVELOPMENT

STANDARDS

ATTACHED
(3 STORY)
Lot Dimensions (Minimum)
Net Lot Area N/A
Setback (Minimum) (1)
Front Yard 12 ft.

Covered Porch 5 ft.

Low Wall 2.5 ft.

Front Facing Garage N/A
Garage - Side Entry Door N/A
Corner Side Yard (2) 10 ft.

Interior Side Yard 6 ft.

Rear Yard 3 ft.

Rear Yard to Garage 3 ft.

Building Separation (Minimum)
Front to Front (includes porch) (3) 24 ft. / 30 ft.

Front to Side 15 ft.

Side to Side 20 ft.

Side to Rear N/A
Rear to Rear 30 ft.

Building Height (Maximum)
Building Height 38 ft.

Accessory Structure 16 ft.

Building Coverage (Maximum)
Building Coverage 70%
Open Space Coverage (Minimum)
Common Open Space Required 250 SF/DU
Private Open Space/Unit 75 SF
Maximum Wall and Fence Heights (4) (5)
Walls and Fences 6 ft.

Walls/Fences w/Retaining 9 ft.
(1) Setback measured from property line unless otherwise noted. (2) Corner side setbacks are measured from curb.
(3) Fronts door entries facing onto each other shall have a minimum setback of 24 ft. for 2 story buildings and 30 ft. for 3 story building elements.
(4) Wall heights shall be a maximum of 3 ft. in front yards setbacks to allow for vehicular minimum sight-line requirements.
(5) If all or any portion of a wall is used for retaining purposes, the maximum height shall be increased to 9 ft.

Private Drive
Private Drive
Private Drive

FRONT REAR
SIDE
SIDE
NTS
836

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
6-21
development regulations
EXHIBIT 6-13 MOTORCOURT APARTMENT/CONDOMINIUM

BUILDING

PRIVATE YARD
PATIO

PUBLIC VISIBLE LOT AREA
GARAGE

FRONT PORCH
EXHIBIT DEPICTS CONCEPTUAL PLOTTING ONLY.

NOT ACTUAL FLOOR PLAN/FOOTPRINTS.

DRIVEWAY
STREET

FRONT ENTRY LOCATION

PROPERTY LINE
6’ WALL

LOW WALL
LEGEND:

NOTE:

DEVELOPMENT

STANDARDS

ATTACHED
(3 STORY)
Lot Dimensions (Minimum)
Net Lot Area N/A
Setback (Minimum) (1)
Front Yard 12 ft.

Covered Porch 5 ft.

Low Wall 2.5 ft.

Front Facing Garage 3 ft.

Garage - Side Entry Door N/A
Corner Side Yard (2) 10 ft.

Interior Side Yard 6 ft.

Rear Yard 10 ft.

Rear Yard to Garage N/A
Building Separation (Minimum)
Front to Front (includes porch) (3) N/A
Front to Side N/A
Side to Side 15 ft.

Side to Rear (3) 20 ft.

Rear to Rear (3) 30 ft.

Building Height (Maximum)
Building Height 38 ft.

Accessory Structure 16 ft.

Building Coverage (Maximum)
Building Coverage 70%
Open Space Coverage (Minimum)
Common Open Space Required 250 SF/DU
Private Open Space/Unit 75 SF
Maximum Wall and Fence Heights (4)
Walls and Fences 6 ft.

Walls/Fences w/Retaining 9 ft.
(1) Setback measured from property line unless otherwise noted. (2) Corner side setbacks are measured from curb.
(3) Fronts door entries facing onto each other shall have a minimum setback of 24 ft. for 2 story buildings and 30 ft. for 3 story building elements.
(4) Wall heights shall be a maximum of 3 ft. in front yards setbacks to allow for vehicular minimum sight-line requirements.
(5) Porch structure minimum depth and width and clear space size.

Neighborhood Street
Neighborhood Street
NTS
REAR
SIDE
FRONT
837
6-22
EXHIBIT 6-14 WRAP MULTI-FAMILY

BUILDING

PRIVATE YARD
PATIO

PUBLIC VISIBLE LOT AREA
GARAGE

FRONT PORCH
EXHIBIT DEPICTS CONCEPTUAL PLOTTING ONLY.

NOT ACTUAL FLOOR PLAN/FOOTPRINTS.

DRIVEWAY
STREET

FRONT ENTRY LOCATION

PROPERTY LINE
6’ WALL

LOW WALL
LEGEND:

NOTE:

Neighborhood Street
Neighborhood Street

DEVELOPMENT

STANDARDS

ATTACHED
(+3 STORY)
Lot Dimensions (Minimum)
Net Lot Area N/A
Setback (Minimum) (1)
Front Yard 15 ft.

Covered Porch 5 ft.

Low Wall 2.5 ft.

Front Facing Garage N/A
Garage - Side Entry Door N/A
Corner Side Yard (2) 15 ft.

Interior Side Yard 15 ft.

Rear Yard 15 ft.

Rear Yard to Garage N/A
Building Separation (Minimum)
Front to Front (includes porch)
20 ft. (2 story)
30 ft. (3 story)
40 ft. (4+ story)
Front to Side N/A
Side to Side 30 ft.

Side to Rear 30 ft.

Rear to Rear 30 ft.

Building Height (Maximum)
Building Height 58 ft.

Accessory Structure 16 ft.

Building Coverage (Maximum)
Building Coverage 75%
Open Space Coverage (Minimum)
Common Open Space Required 250 SF/DU
Private Open Space/Unit 75 SF
Maximum Wall and Fence Heights (4) (5)
Walls and Fences 6 ft.

Walls/Fences w/Retaining 9 ft.
(1) Setback measured from property line unless otherwise noted. (2) Corner side setbacks are measured from curb.
(3) Fronts door entries facing onto each other shall have a minimum setback of 24 ft. for 2 story buildings and 30 ft. for 3 story building elements.
(4) Wall heights shall be a maximum of 3 ft. in front yards setbacks to allow for vehicular minimum sight-line requirements.
(5) If all or any portion of a wall is used for retaining purposes, the maximum height shall be increased to 9 ft.

NTS
REAR
SIDE
FRONT
838

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
6-23
development regulations
EXHIBIT 6-15 PODIUM MULTI-FAMILY

BUILDING

PRIVATE YARD
PATIO

PUBLIC VISIBLE LOT AREA
GARAGE

FRONT PORCH
EXHIBIT DEPICTS CONCEPTUAL PLOTTING ONLY.

NOT ACTUAL FLOOR PLAN/FOOTPRINTS.

DRIVEWAY
STREET

FRONT ENTRY LOCATION

PROPERTY LINE
6’ WALL

LOW WALL
LEGEND:

NOTE:

DEVELOPMENT

STANDARDS

ATTACHED
(+3 STORY)
Lot Dimensions (Minimum)
Net Lot Area N/A
Setback (Minimum) (1)
Front Yard 15 ft.

Covered Porch 3 ft.

Low Wall 2.5 ft.

Front Facing Garage N/A
Garage - Side Entry Door N/A
Corner Side Yard (2) 15 ft.

Interior Side Yard 15 ft.

Rear Yard 15 ft.

Rear Yard to Garage 3 ft.

Building Separation (Minimum)
Front to Front (includes porch)
20 ft. (2 story)
30 ft. (3 story)
40 ft. (4+ story)
Front to Side N/A
Side to Side 30 ft.

Side to Rear 30 ft.

Rear to Rear 30 ft.

Building Height (Maximum)
Building Height 58 ft.

Accessory Structure 16 ft.

Building Coverage (Maximum)
Building Coverage 75%
Open Space Coverage (Minimum)
Common Open Space Required 250 SF/DU
Private Open Space/Unit 75 SF
Maximum Wall and Fence Heights (4) (5)
Walls and Fences 6 ft.

Walls/Fences w/Retaining 9 ft.
(1) Setback measured from property line unless otherwise noted. (2) Corner side setbacks are measured from curb.
(3) Fronts door entries facing onto each other shall have a minimum setback of 24 ft. for 2 story buildings and 30 ft. for 3 story building elements.
(4) Wall heights shall be a maximum of 3 ft. in front yards setbacks to allow for vehicular minimum sight-line requirements.
(5) If all or any portion of a wall is used for retaining purposes, the maximum height shall be increased to 9 ft.

Neighborhood Street
Neighborhood Street
NTS
REAR
SIDE
FRONT
839
6-24

6.6.3 Use and Benefit Easements
In order to optimize usable yard area, decrease the visual impact of the garage from the street or otherwise provide a better quality of life, some single-family detached home types may utilize “use and benefit easements”.

Higher density SFD neighborhoods are typically developed either as detached condominiums or as fee simple lots. The easements are an alternative to conventional “zero lot line” programs. Architecturally, it allows high windows on the non-active side of the house to allow natural light on three sides of the floor plan. Zero lot line programs generally have a large blank wall along one side yard.

The “use and benefit easements” (See Exhibit 6-16, Use and Benefit Easements) shall be recorded on the subject property’s deed and shall be described in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of the respective homeowners association.

EXHIBIT 6-16 USE AND BENEFIT EASEMENTS
840

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
6-25
development regulations

6.7 MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Uses allowed within the Mixed-Use Planning Areas of the CenterPark Specific Plan include a variety of retail, office and higher density residential uses consistent with the City of Ontario General Plan (TOP).

Permitted Uses are allowed by right and may be developed as the primary land use without additional discretionary approval subject to the development standards and guidelines outlined in the Specific Plan.

Conditionally Permitted Uses are allowed subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City of Ontario.

TABLE 6-2 MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

DEVELOPMENT STANDARD RETAIL COMMERCIAL

AND OFFICE
Minimum Lot Size/Area 8,000 sq ft
Floor Area Ratio
(Calculated based on gross site average)
Maximum Commercial 0.3 FAR
Maximum Office 0.7 FAR
Building Height (maximum) (5)
Structures 45 ft
Architectural Projections (including towers,
focal elements, cupulas, etc.) 55 ft
Minimum Landscape Coverage 10%, all setback from right-of-way areas shall be landscaped
Building Setbacks (minimum)
From Ontario Ranch Road Right-Of-Way 35 ft (4)
From Grove Avenue Right-Of-Way 20 ft
From Private or Local Street 10 ft (2)
From residential structures 25 ft
From SCE Property Line/Easements 0 ft
Parking Setbacks (minimum) (1) (3)
From Ontario Ranch Road Right-Of-Way 35 ft
From Grove Avenue Right-Of-Way 20 ft
From Private or Local Street 10 ft
From adjacent property 5 ft
From SCE Property Line/Easements 0 ft
Footnotes:

1. Per the City of Ontario Development Code. Commercial parking standards still apply.

2. Refer to Section 7, Landscape Design Guidelines for further setback/design requirements.

3. Parking stalls perpendicular to street shall be screened by landscaping, berms, or decorative walls that match architectural style of nearest development. Landscape screening shall mature to a minimum height of 36 inches (to screen car grilles).

4. Buildings shall be set back to the Neighborhood Edge or to the given setback from R.O.W., whichever is more restrictive.

Where a Neighborhood Edge condition does not exist, setbacks from R.O.W. shall govern.

5.Maximum building heights shall comply with the requirements of Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ("CNO ALUCP").

6.8 RESIDENTIAL PARKING STANDARDS 841
6-26

6.8.1 Off-Street Parking Requirements
Off-street parking spaces shall be provided pursuant to Table 6-3, Off-Street Parking Requirements. If more than one land use is established on a lot or project site, the number of off-street parking spaces required shall be equal to the sum of the requirements prescribed for each individual land use.

The Omnitrans Bus Rapid Transit Corridor (BRT Corridor) is planned to be implemented along Ontario Ranch Road as a part of future development. The BRT Corridor is expected to provide convenient and accessible public transportation for future residents and visitors of CenterPark; and hence the potential for residents and visitors to have a reduced need for private transportation requirements. In anticipation of the future implementation of the high speed public transport route, developments which exceed the minimum density of 20 DU/Acre, located within 330 ft. of the BRT corridor along Ontario Ranch Road may be allowed to have reduced parking requirements. Refer to the Alternative Multi-Family Standards in the following Table 6-3, Off-Street Parking Requirements.

Minimum Standards
The parking requirements of Table 6-3, Off-Street Parking Requirements are expressed as minimum standards, which should be met and not exceeded. Nevertheless, if additional parking is essential to a project, the minimum parking standard may be exceeded as follows:

1. Residential Uses—Additional Parking Allowed Without Limit. For residential uses, there is no maximum limit as to the number of parking spaces that may be provided. As such, any additional parking may be provided as a matter of right.

2. Attached Residential Uses—The parking requirements for Attached Single Family Uses, including Multi-Family Residential Uses may be met using the City of Ontario Parking Standards for minimum parking or alternative minimum parking standards as defined in Table 6-3.

3. Residential development with a minimum density of 11 DU/AC (Net) including multi-family development, located within 330 ft. of Ontario Ranch Road may use the alternative parking standards as identified in Table 6-3.

4. Nonresidential Uses—Limited Additional Parking Allowed. Additional parking spaces provided in excess of the number required pursuant to Table 6-3 of this Section may be provided for nonresidential uses or the nonresidential portions of mixed-use projects, as follows:
a. Parking spaces may be provided up to a maximum of 10 percent above the required number as a matter of right, without any discretionary review by the City. b. Parking spaces provided in excess of 10 percent above the required number shall be allowed only upon approval by the Planning Commission, based upon proven need.

Gross Floor Area (GFA)
References to spaces per sq. ft. are to be computed based upon GFA, unless otherwise specified, and includes allocations of shared restrooms, and circulation and storage areas, and other similar common facilities. 842

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
6-27
development regulations
Rounding of Off-Street Parking Calculations
If a fractional number results from calculations performed in compliance with this Section, one parking space shall be required for a fractional unit of 0.50 or greater, and no space shall be required for a fractional unit of less than 0.50.

TABLE 6-3 OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS

OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS

REQUIREMENTS NOTES

CONVENTIONAL

SINGLE-FAMILY
• 2 spaces per dwelling within a garage

SINGLE-FAMILY

DETACHED
• 2 resident spaces per dwelling
• 1 guest/visitor space per 4 dwellings
• Guest parking spaces may be
provided on-street, immediately
adjacent to the development
boundary, if available.
• A minimum of 3 guest spaces
shall be provided regardless of the
number of dwellings proposed.

ATTACHED

SINGLE-FAMILY

ONTARIO MULTI-FAMILY STANDARDS
• Studio: 1.5 spaces per dwelling
• 1-Bedroom: 1.75 spaces per dwelling
• 2-Bedrooms: 2.0 spaces per dwelling
• 3+-Bedrooms: 2.5 spaces per dwelling
• Under 100 dwellings: 1 guest/visitor space per 5 dwellings • Over 100 dwellings: 1 guest/visitor space per 6 dwellings • Guest parking spaces may be
provided on-street, immediately
adjacent to the development
boundary, if available.
• A minimum of 3 guest spaces
shall be provided regardless of the
number of dwellings proposed.
• Development may utilize either
standard to to fulfill the minimum
parking requirements

ALTERNATIVE MULTI-FAMILY STANDARDS
• 1-Bedroom: 1.0 spaces per dwelling
• 2-Bedrooms: 2.0 spaces per dwelling
• 3+-Bedrooms: 3.0 spaces per dwelling
• 1 guest/visitor space per 4 dwellings

MIXED-USE

RESIDENTIAL

ONTARIO STANDARD
• Studio: 1.5 spaces per dwelling
• 1-Bedroom: 1.75 spaces per dwelling
• 2-Bedrooms: 2.0 spaces per dwelling
• 3+-Bedrooms: 2.5 spaces per dwelling
• Under 100 dwellings: 1 guest/visitor space per 5 dwellings • Over 100 dwellings: 1 guest/visitor space per 6 dwellings • Guest parking spaces may be
provided on-street, immediately
adjacent to the development
boundary, if available.
• A minimum of 3 guest spaces
shall be provided regardless of the
number of dwellings proposed.
• Development may utilize either
standard to fulfill the minimum
parking requirements

ALTERNATIVE MULTI-FAMILY STANDARDS
• 1-Bedroom: 1.0 spaces per dwelling
• 2-Bedrooms: 2.0 spaces per dwelling
• 3+-Bedrooms: 3.0 spaces per dwelling
• 1 guest/visitor space per 4 dwellings

MIXED-USE
NONRESIDENTIAL

COMMERCIAL
• 4 spaces per 1,000 SF (0.004/SF) of GFA
OFFICE
• 4 spaces per 1,000 SF (0.004/SF) of GFA

BRT CORRIDOR
• Studio: 1.0 spaces per dwelling
• 1-Bedroom: 1.0 spaces per dwelling
• 2-Bedrooms: 1.75 spaces per dwelling
• 3+-Bedrooms: 2.0 spaces per dwelling
• Under 100 dwellings: 1 guest/visitor space per 5 dwellings • Over 100 dwellings: 1 guest/visitor space per 6 dwellings • A minimum of 3 guest spaces
shall be provided regardless of the
number of dwellings proposed.
• Developments located within 330
ft. of the BRT Corridor may utilize
the following standards to fulfill the
minimum parking requirements
Note: Where proposed SP parking standards are not outlined, the City of Ontario parking standards will apply. Allowable uses within the Mixed-Use district are indicated in Table 6-1 and would be required to meet City parking standards. All parking spaces to be within an enclosed garage with a minimum clear dimension of 20 ft. x 20 ft. for two spaces and 10 ft. x 20 ft. for single or tandem spaces. 843
6-28

6.9 OPEN SPACE/AMENITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The development standards for open space and amenities establish the minimum criteria within the CenterPark Specific Plan. Specific standards for detached and attached residential development are described in Table 6-4, Open Space/Amenities Standards. The Amenity Standards shall be followed as prescribed in the City’s Development Code.

TABLE 6-4 OPEN SPACE/AMENITIES STANDARDS

MINIMUM ON SITE PARK REQUIREMENTS
2 AC PARKLAND / 1,000 PEOPLE
Single-Family Residential 3.806 PPH
Multi-Family Residential 3.373 PPH

REQUIRED OPEN SPACE AMENITIES
<75 76-100 101-150 151-200 201-250 251-300 301+
Major Amenity TBD (*) 1 1 2 2 3 TBD (**)
Minor Amenity TBD (*) 1 2 2 3 3 TBD (**)
* Amenities to be determined on a case-by-case basis during the entitlement process for the project. ** Amenities to be determined on a case-by-case basis during the entitlement process for the project, with the idea being to allow flexibility in the amenity package to the benefit of the residents.

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
• 2 acres of parkland per 1,000 people (3.806 PPU for SFD, 3.373 PPU for multi-family) • Community Pool (including restrooms/showers) required at >150 units • Clubhouse/amenity center per below at >200 units

MAJOR AMENITIES
• Open lawn amphitheater (min. 100 ft. x 150 ft. or equivalent) OR Active lawn area (min. 150 ft. x 150 ft. or equivalent) • Clubhouse/amenity center with minimum 3 amenities per list below (Larger clubhouses with more amenities - 2 additional amenities within the clubhouse counts towards a minor amenity):
- Multi-purpose room
- Kitchen facility
- Fitness Center
- Child-friendly amenity (Indoor play area, game room or educational center) - Movie room
- Business Center/Co-working spaces
- Library/Study room
- Beverage area or Common meeting space
• Community pool min. 25 ft. x 60 ft. (1,500 sq. ft.) or equivalent; and associated restroom/shower building (Each additional 1,500 sq. ft. added to the size of the pool shall be treated as another major amenity):
- Additional swimming pools (e.g. Adult only, Children pool, Lap pool) - Splash Pad or water play fountain
- Tennis/Pickleball Courts (1 tennis court = 1 amenity, 2 pickleball courts = 1 amenity) 844

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
6-29
development regulations
- Childcare facilities
- Dog Park
- SCE Utility Corridor Trail
- Private parkland/pocket park in excess of 2.5 AC/1,000 People (Public parks count towards Quimby, not private/pocket parks) - Other major amenities requiring significant investment and of appropriate size to serve the project residents, as determined by the City

MINOR AMENITIES
- Open lawn amphitheater (min. 100 ft x 150 ft or equivalent) OR Active lawn area (min. 150 ft. x 150 ft. or equivalent) - Tot Lots for ages 2 to 5 and/or play areas/equipment for ages 5 to 12 - Spa or Saunas
- Picnic tables and barbecue areas
- Cabanas and shade structures
- Basketball courts
- Volleyball courts
- Community gardens
- Internal community trail(s) 13 ft. minimum with a minimum distance of 1/4 mile - Outdoor fitness stations
- Pocket Parks
- Firepit
- Other similar appropriate amenities to serve the project residents, as determined by the City 845
6-30

6.10 LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

6.10.1 General Provisions

1. All landscape and irrigation plans for streetscapes, entry monuments and common open space improvements within CenterPark shall conform to the Design Guidelines and Regulations set forth in this section of the Specific Plan, shall be subject to the review and approval by the City of Ontario.

The form and content of landscape plans for streets, parks and other common areas shall conform to the requirements of the City of Ontario.

2. The landscape streetscape improvements for the Master Plan streets within the Specific Plan shall establish a landscape theme reminiscent of the regional landscape character of the surrounding area and shall conform to the City of Ontario requirements.

3. Landscape streetscape improvements within CenterPark including public and private neighborhood streets, private drives, and alleys shall conform to the landscape treatment described in Section 7.11 Design Guidelines for Landscape Architectural Character of the CenterPark Specific Plan.

4. The design and improvement of all parks within CenterPark Specific Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Ontario and the requirements shall conform to the requirements of the City of Ontario’s Community Development and Public Works Agencies.

5. The installation of landscaping and automatic irrigation systems within the front yards of all residential lots shall be installed by the developer. Various landscape designs shall be provided by the homebuilder to the new homeowner, at a minimum, the builder shall install turf, groundcover and appropriate shrubs, and trees in the front yards of homes within residential areas. Within single-family detached conventional home areas, a minimum of two 24-inch box trees shall be installed of which one shall be a shade tree. Within other single-family detached and single-family attached home type areas, including condominiums, a minimum of one 24-inch box tree per detached home type or one 24-inch box tree for every 30 ft. of the building elevation, shall be installed, where feasible.

6. Within residential multi-family areas, the developer shall be responsible for the installation of full landscape improvements. Areas not used for hardscape shall be planted with landscaping. All landscape plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Ontario.

7. All manufactured and cut/fill slopes exceeding 3 ft. in height shall be planted with an effective mixture of ground cover, shrubs and trees installed by the developer. Such slopes shall also be irrigated as necessary to comply with any required fuel modification requirements established by the City of Ontario erosion control requirements.
846

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
6-31
development regulations

6.10.2 Landscape Standards

1. Landscaping within the Specific Plan shall be provided in accordance with the Design Guidelines for streetscapes and entries utilizing plant materials specified on the Plant Palette Matrix included in Section 7, Community Design Guidelines of the CenterPark Specific Plan.

2. Boundary landscaping shall be required along the perimeter edges of the Specific Plan area.

Landscaping shall generally be placed along the entire perimeter property line and shall conform to the City’s requirements.

3. Landscaping and automatic irrigation systems within the public rights-of-way of the CenterPark Specific Plan shall be installed by the developer.

4. Freestanding, decorative perimeter walls and view fencing shall be provided within and at the perimeter of the project site as specified in the Wall and Fence Master Plan contained within Section 7, Community Design Guidelines of the CenterPark Specific Plan. Such walls and fences will be constructed concurrently with the construction of improvements required for development of the neighborhoods of the project.

5. Walls and Fencing – Walls and fencing within the Specific Plan area shall be constructed of a design consistent with the “Wall Details” exhibits located within Section 7, Community Design Guidelines of the CenterPark Specific Plan. Perimeter walls shall not exceed 6 ft. in height from finished grade, however, if required for sound attenuation, perimeter walls may exceed six 6 ft. in height, subject to the recommendations of an acoustical study and approval by the Planning Department.

6. All perimeter wall and fence materials throughout the project shall be of uniform manufacture with colors specified for the overall design theme as discussed in Section 7.16, Community Walls and Fencing of the CenterPark Specific Plan.

7. Perimeter walls shall be constructed of either decorative masonry or other permanent, durable, low maintenance material. Thematic perimeter fencing shall be constructed of all durable materials, which may include materials with a wood-like appearance or tubular steel subject to City of Ontario approval. Wooden fencing is not permitted along perimeter conditions or where the wall/fence is visible from the adjacent properties.

8. Individual residential lot side and rear yard walls and fencing shall not exceed 6 ft. in height from highest adjacent finished grade. Side and rear walls may exceed 6 ft. in height, if required by the City of Ontario for sound attenuation pursuant to the recommendations of an acoustical report. Walls and fencing within the residential front yard setback area shall not exceed 3 ft., in height. Side and rear yard walls shall be of decorative masonry construction on both sides or of other permanent low maintenance materials as approved by the Planning Department. View fencing may be of a decorative wrought iron, tubular steel/aluminum glass panels or other durable material approved by the City of Ontario.

9. Multi-family areas shall be HOA maintained.

10. Landscape slopes shall not exceed 3:1.
847
6-32

6.11 SIGNAGE
A Master Sign Program shall be submitted by the developer of each land use component of CenterPark and approved by the City of Ontario to address residential project entries, residential neighborhood identification signs, and way-finding signs within the project. No project signs shall be permitted in the public right-of-way.

All other signs shall be subject to the approval of a sign permit pursuant to the City of Ontario’s Development Code.

6.11.1 Master Sign Program Contents
All sign programs shall address, at a minimum, the following:

1. Permitted signs.

2. Prohibited signs.

3. The hierarchy of signage.

4. Definition of types of signs.

5. Locations and dimensions for monument signs, neighborhood identification signs and public facilities signs.

6. Locations and dimensions of directional signage.

7. Provisions for size, location and duration of display of temporary signs.

8. Permitted sign types, styles, construction materials, colors and lettering styles.

9. Requirements for a sign permit application.

10. Procedures for obtaining approval of a sign permit.

11. Procedures for amending the sign program.
848

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
6-33
development regulations

6.12 LIGHTING

6.12.1 Street Lights along Public Streets
Streetlights along public streets within the CenterPark Specific Plan shall be LED lighting. Design of fixtures shall be approved by the City of Ontario as part of the City of Ontario’s Development Plan review.

6.12.2 Alley Lighting Fixtures
Alley lighting fixtures shall be on sensors for automatic nighttime lighting. Style and specifications for alley lights shall be approved by the City of Ontario as part of the City’s Development Plan review.

6.12.3 Lighting within Parks, Paseos, Tot Lots, and Other Recreational Areas Lighting within parks, paseos, tot lots and other recreational areas shall be approved by the City of Ontario as part of the City’s Development Plan review of these facilities.

6.13 PARK FURNITURE
Park furniture, including but not limited to, benches, barbecues and picnic tables shall be approved as part of the City of Ontario’s Development Plan review of parks, paseos and other public gathering places.

6.14 BUS SHELTERS
Bus shelters shall be installed in a number of locations as per Omnitrans, and as approved by the City of Ontario Engineer and shall be compatible with the community character of CenterPark.

6.15 MAILBOXES
Within residential Planning Areas, mailboxes shall be clustered and installed in locations and in a design approved by the City of Ontario as part of the City of Ontario Development Plan review of each residential project within CenterPark. The location of all mailboxes shall be approved by the U.S. Post Office. 849
This page intentionally left blank
850

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
7-1
community design guidelines
SECTION 7: COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES

7.1 INTRODUCTION
The unique location of the project site provides both opportunities and challenges. The design approach for the CenterPark Specific Plan recognizes the opportunities, including several major landscaped arterial roadways, regionally important intersections supporting pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicles and public transit systems and an adjacent 55 acre community park, and it responds to the challenges to balance retail, office and high density residential land uses with open space uses and planning for affordable neighborhoods within a transitional land use area and the Chino Airport influence zone.

The proposed community character for CenterPark will reflect the interactive and synergistic relationship between a planned residential community and a planned expansive open space. The CenterPark Specific Plan Design Guidelines will guide the physical character of all future multi-use and residential development, including retail, office and residential architectural buildings, community and neighborhood features and the overall landscape treatment within the project. The proposed community character will establish a unified aesthetic treatment responding to the community’s location.

7.2 GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER

7.2.1 Sustainability
“Green” or sustainable planning concepts, building designs and landscape treatments are encouraged within the project. The Community Plan for the CenterPark Specific Plan promotes pedestrian connectivity within and between the residential planning areas. The design of residential areas incorporates tree-lined parkways providing shade for pedestrians and parked cars. Safe and efficient pedestrian connectivity is provided throughout the project.

The CenterPark Design Guidelines allow for a variety of architectural styles that respond to the regional climate conditions. All new construction shall utilize design features, fixtures, appliances and heating and cooling controls to conserve energy and water. The landscape concept for CenterPark incorporates a plant palette and a planting and irrigation system designed to conserve water. Park and recreation areas shall include shaded areas, bicycle racks and other amenity features to encourage pedestrian and other non-vehicular activities. The sustainable goals for the CenterPark Specific Plan include:

1. Encourage walking and other non-vehicular modes of travel.

2. Provide pedestrian connectivity throughout the project.

3. Provide shaded outdoor areas.

4. Encourage the use of architectural elements designed to reduce interior heat gain.

5. Encourage the use of recycled, recyclable and environmentally-friendly building materials.

6. Require the use of low energy glass, low water plumbing features and energy efficient appliances.

7. Encourage the use of drought tolerant landscaping and water efficient irrigation methods. 851
7-2
Neighborhood site planning, architecture and building design as well as landscape treatment and maintenance within the project should consider these sustainable goals and further the implementation of sustainable design within CenterPark.

7.2.2 Architectural Character
Architectural design should provide for high-quality neighborhoods.

1. Residential project design should consider the total context of the site with the incorporation of appropriate scale and proportions of building massing and details.

2. Architectural design should relate to human scale.

3. The variation of front, side and rear building elevations should be implemented to create visual variety.

4. The variation of garage placement in single-family neighborhoods is encouraged to provide a more diverse street scene.

5. Cluster detached and attached neighborhoods should emphasize residential design solutions that reduce or eliminate individual garages and driveways oriented onto neighborhood streets.

6. Architectural design themes should reflect historic and emerging Southern California styles.

7. Structures should incorporate architectural details and decorative features that reinforce the intended style.

8. Architectural designs should create a cohesive community without dominating the overall street scene.

9. Neighborhood character should be sustained over time.

Building design should be sensitive to climatic conditions and context.

1. Structures should be compatible with, and responsive to, the environmental setting.

2. Building elevations should include shaded and sheltered areas.

3. Building designs should incorporate spaces that encourage outdoor use.

Architectural design should incorporate materials and techniques that are cost-effective.

1. The use of building materials should reflect the implementation of efficient construction methods.

2. Building elevations should include compatible window and door sizes that create a consistent design theme.

3. Construction techniques should incorporate the use of standard components and dimensions. 852

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
7-3
community design guidelines
Diversity is a fundamental design principle for CenterPark. To ensure that neighborhoods are varied and that blanket uniformity is avoided, the following criteria should be applied to all residential development projects within CenterPark:

Number of Dwelling Units Number of Differing Floor Plans and Elevations
Required Number of Differing
Exterior Elevations
5-10 2 2
11-25 2 3
26-50 3 3
51-75 3 4
76-100 4 4
Over 100 Requirement for 76 to 100 dwellings, plus one additional floor plan with 4 elevations for each additional 25 units exceeding 100 Detached single-family homes configured in a cluster or courtyard, and attached single-family buildings are required to select elevation styles from within the same design influence to ensure compatibility between closely plotted residential homes.

7.3 ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT
The City of Ontario and the surrounding region has a rich agricultural legacy of farming. Farming communities in Southern California established a rural character with houses and neighborhoods utilizing a variety of traditional architectural styles. Architectural styles inherent in the early development of the southwestern United States and traditional East Coast architectural styles were incorporated into the farm houses and early rural neighborhoods. Architectural styles, elements and massing were reinvented utilizing available indigenous building materials. Plan designs and elements, such as window sizes and proportions, were modified to address local climatic conditions which were warmer and drier. Southern California was also influenced by Spanish architectural styles brought to the region by Spanish settlers and missionaries. These homes were well-suited for the temperate climate of Southern California.

The urbanization of coastal and inland areas in Southern California has resulted in another emerging architectural influence often described as transitional or adaptive styles. These styles may involve interpretation of historical architectural styles as well as modern architectural movements occurring within the last decade. A variety of materials were dominant throughout these styles, such as plaster, stucco and siding with brick, stone or other masonry accent materials.

The community vision for CenterPark is based upon the architectural influences found in early rural areas of Southern California. These architectural styles have been selected because of their connection to older Ontario neighborhoods as well as their appropriateness to accommodate innovative adaptive architectural influences.

Each architectural influence outlined in these guidelines should be detailed with elements that represent the character of that particular style.

Together, the styles should be designed to create a neighborhood character that will be sustainable over time. 853
7-4
Each home, building and street should be designed to contribute to the architectural character of the neighborhood. Design elements such as massing, proportions, balance, building and roof forms, entries, porches, window treatments, architectural details and accents, alternate garage configurations/orientations, balconies and roof form/pitch/detailing are should be considered to enhance individual structures and to promote the overall neighborhood character.

DESIGN OBJECTIVES

1. Interpret architectural styles that reflect the historical character of the region.

2. Emphasize styles of architecture that are compatible, yet vary enough to create interest and diversity.

3. Create visually interesting neighborhood streets by varying building plan and elevation plotting.

4. Utilize materials and colors that reinforce the overall design theme.

5. Emphasize front elevations that relate strongly to the street and contribute to pedestrian activity and interaction.

The CenterPark Design Guidelines are to be used as a tool to ensure the character and design quality anticipated and approved for the community is implemented as the Specific plan is implemented. The Guidelines express objectives and approaches rather than formulas and standards, allowing certain architectural creativity and flexibility. The images and sketches illustrated in the Guidelines are intended to be conceptual and are to be used as general visual aids in designing and reviewing the architectural design intent of CenterPark. They are not meant to depict specific floor plans or architectural elevations.

ARCHITECTURAL INFLUENCES
CenterPark strives to create a diverse but harmonious architectural palette. The architectural influences and selected styles share similar design attributes and have been selected in response to the following considerations:

1. They are representative of existing architecture within the City of Ontario and surrounding areas.

2. They are compatible and complementary.

3. They can be interpreted in a variety of ways.

4. They are generally accepted by the market.

5. They can be constructed using current building materials and methods.

The architectural character within each neighborhood shall consist of complementary traditional architectural styles accented or complemented by adaptive interpretations and styles. Architectural influences appropriate within CenterPark include the following:
854

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
7-5
community design guidelines

ONTARIO HERITAGE PALETTE

1. Traditional Influences – including architectural styles such as Colonial, East Coast Traditional and American Farmhouse.

2. Spanish Influences – including architectural styles such as Spanish Colonial, Monterey and Santa Barbara styles.

3. Southern California Influences – including architectural styles such as Ranch and Craftsman styles.

TRANSITIONAL PALETTE

1. Adaptive Traditional Influence – including transitional interpretations of Colonial, East Coast Traditional and American Farmhouse.

2. Transitional Southern European Influence – including adaptive expressions of Spanish, Tuscan and Italianate styles.

3. Transitional California Influence – including transitional interpretations of Ranch and Craftsman styles.

7.3.1 Traditional Influences
Architectural styles such as Colonial, East Coast Traditional and American Farmhouse The Traditional Influences, allowed within the CenterPark Specific Plan area, consist of architectural styles based on classical design principles established during the American Colonial period and interpreted or blended with various regional styles as development moved westward. Massing is horizontal in appearance with vertical proportioned windows and door surrounds. Front porches are common. The houses are composed of simple forms with centered entry elements over the front door.

Massing is simple and often symmetrical. Two-story rectangular masses are typical with added one-story elements such as porches and garages forming more complex building configurations. Both symmetrical and asymmetrical composition of doors and windows are used to create balanced building elevations.

General materials include horizontal siding or stucco with shingle, brick or stone veneer accents. Simple classical details include columns and door surrounds.

Roof forms include steep to medium roof pitch on the main building with shallow roof pitch used over porch elements. Roof materials are historically shake or shingle with more modern interpretations utilizing flat concrete roof tiles and architectural grade asphalt shingles. Roof dormers are often used to reinforce symmetrical elevations.

Typical design detail elements vary from simple to ornate and include shutters accented with color, front porches with wood or brick columns, gable accents and bay windows. Colonial and Traditional styles may include cupolas, weather vanes, decorative fascia details and other decorative roof ornamentations, while Farmhouse styles are generally less ornate, reflecting a more functional approach to architectural decoration.

Compatible alternative styles include Shingle, New England Monterey and Prairie styles. 855
7-6
Colonial style
Colonial style architecture reflects the historical homes originating along the Eastern coastal regions. Homes are characterized by simple building forms and gable roof design with symmetrical window arrangements and classical or simple architectural details. Window shutters, round or square columns and brick and/or decorative wood accents are examples of Colonial details.

East Coast Traditional style
East Coast Traditional styles are characterized by symmetrical building forms and simple rectangular massing. This style evolved across the Midwest States to Southern California, responding to local construction methods and available materials. Roof forms are predominantly gables with dormer accents.

Roof pitches are medium to steep (5:12 minimum). Classical porch columns and enriched wood detailing reinforce the symmetry of the building.

American Farmhouse style
American Farmhouse style homes evolved from the Traditional style to create a more rural interpretation of this popular suburban vernacular. The Farmhouse style utilizes simple window trim accents and a combination of vertical and horizontal siding. This style utilizes medium to steep gable roofs and an occasional gambrel form. American Farmhouse architecture often uses color to accentuate wood details.

Examples of Traditional Influence architectural styles are illustrated in Exhibit 7-1, Traditional Influences.

7.3.2 Spanish Influences
Architectural Styles such as Spanish Colonial, Monterey and Santa Barbara Styles Spanish influenced homes, are based on early California buildings constructed after the great California Gold Rush and are often adapted and blended with traditional building forms and materials from the Eastern United States. Spanish styles reflect strong form and mass, plain wall surfaces and are characterized by low pitched tile roofs. The Spanish Colonial style is often characterized by a semi-formal plan arrangement such as a courtyard design. The Monterey style often includes cantilevered balcony colonnades as a primary design element.

Building massing is generally simple massing. Roof forms are varied and include both gable and hip design.

Overall building forms are generally straightforward rectangular or “L” shaped. Building materials are predominately stucco finished walls with wood or stucco columns. The Monterey style typically has wood siding on the second level. Thick walls with recessed openings and round arched openings are common.

Window proportions are predominately vertical, especially on upper levels.

Roof materials and forms include low-pitched gable and shed roofs with various overhang dimensions. The roof designs generally have tight rake ends and/or extended eaves with exposed rafter tails. Spanish homes historically had clay tile roofs with the exception of Monterey styles, which often had wood shake roofs.

Modern interpretations utilize concrete ‘S’ tile or flat concrete tile roof materials in colors that reference clay or shake roof colors.
856

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
7-7
community design guidelines

TRADITIONAL INFLUENCES - SUMMARY

OF ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES
• Symmetrical or balanced front building elevation.
• Siding and stucco materials with brick/stone
accents.
• Gable roof forms with flat tile or architectural
shingles – accent dormer windows.
• Classical columns or pillars.
• Porches at entries and front doors.
• Decorative window shutters and window boxes, bay
windows.
• Classic detailing such as moldings, window trim,
cornices, pediments and shingle accents.

EXHIBIT 7-1 TRADITIONAL INFLUENCES
857
7-8
Design details and features are characterized by ornate wrought iron accents such as balcony railings, window grills and architectural accents. Balcony railing materials include wood pickets as well as wrought iron. Decorative stucco chimneys, decorative columns and simple wood window shutters are characteristic of the Spanish influenced styles.

Compatible alternative styles include Mission and Adobe Ranch styles.

Spanish Colonial style
Spanish Colonial style is a historic style utilizing strong and simple massing and form as well as plain wall surfaces without heavy ornamentation. Curved profile tile roofs on gently sloping planes (4:12 and less pitch) and gable forms characterize this style, along with arched or recessed window forms with simple wrought iron accents. Spanish Revival style is an early 20th century adaptation of Spanish Colonial architecture utilizing both hip and gable roof forms and curved profile roof tiles. Clean lines and simple massing without masonry accent elements differentiate this style from the similar Spanish Colonial architecture.

Monterey style
Monterey style is a regional derivative of Spanish and Eastern Colonial architecture. An adaptive interpretation of the New England counterpart, the Monterey style is typically characterized by two-story structures of simple massing with extended front balconies, often cantilevered. Gable or hip roof forms with exposed rafters, wood posts and shutters reinforce the Monterey style.

Santa Barbara style
Santa Barbara style is another California regional style with Spanish Colonial influences, interpreted in a more informal expression. Similar to Spanish Colonial architecture, the Santa Barbara style utilizes recessed windows and low-pitched roofs (3 to 4:12 pitch) with extended overhangs to address the temperate climatic conditions. Large arched feature windows and stucco columns are elements of this style.

Examples of Spanish Influence architectural styles are illustrated in Exhibit 7-2, Spanish Influences. 858

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
7-9
community design guidelines

SPANISH INFLUENCES - SUMMARY OF

ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES
• Simple massing and building elevation.
• Thickened stucco walls with simple detailing.
• Low pitched hip and gable roof forms with concrete
mission tile.
• Arched openings and decorative columns.
• Courtyards used at entries and covered patio areas
• Details such as wrought iron railing, ceramic tile and window shutter accents.
• Heavy wood members, extended rafters, simple
and ornate precast window sills and door surrounds.

EXHIBIT 7-2 SPANISH INFLUENCES
859
7-10

7.3.3 Southern California Influences
Architectural Styles such as Ranch and Craftsman Styles Varied architectural styles have evolved from the American Arts and Crafts movement including Ranch, Craftsman and Bungalow vernaculars. These moderately detailed buildings are characterized by the use of handcrafted architectural elements and details. The Ranch style is reminiscent of the early ranches and farms of the Southwestern United States.

Building massing is simple, dominated by horizontal massing and rectilinear forms. The styles, while varied, are all generally characterized by horizontal proportions, often with asymmetrical massing at the second level. Historically, several early architectural styles originated as one-story structures, but have been adapted and reinterpreted to two-story structures, especially in Southern California.

Deep, broad porch elements were developed to respond to warm climate conditions and inspired expressive structural elements such as rafters, posts and columns. A mixture of materials such as stucco, board and batten and horizontal siding, with stone, brick or shingle accents are commonly used. The use of wood, stone or brick at porch columns is typical. Asymmetrical doors and windows with simple wood trim surrounds are characteristic of styles within the Southern California architectural influence.

Roof forms of Ranch, Craftsman and Bungalow styles are predominantly low to medium pitched gable designs with occasional hipped or shed roof accents. Deep overhangs and roof dormers reinforce the overall character of these styles. Modern roof materials range from flat concrete tile to architectural grade asphalt shingle.

Compatible alternative styles include Bungalow and Coastal Cottage styles.

Design and detail elements include large gables, windows with accent mullions, triangular knee braces at porch supports, accent roofs and heavy columns or posts, window shutters, decorative gable vent details, and outdoor trellis features.

Ranch style
Ranch style is reminiscent of early country homes in Southern California. This style was popularized by Cliff May and other local architects. Covered porches and terraces utilize simplified architectural details from Colonial and Monterey styles. Horizontal massing and rectilinear forms with wood window surrounds, heavy wood columns and simple shutters characterize the Ranch style.

Craftsman style
Craftsman style homes evolved from the late 19th Century Arts and Crafts movement. Broad open porches covered with low sloping roofs with deep overhangs supported by tapered wood and masonry columns, decorative window patterns and trim, wooden braces and horizontal proportions reinforce the Craftsman style. Low to medium pitched roofs (5:12 or less pitch) are common.

Examples of Southwestern Influence architectural styles are illustrated in Exhibit 7-3, Southern California Influences.
860

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
7-11
community design guidelines

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INFLUENCES -

SUMMARY OF ARCHITECTURAL

FEATURES
• Emphasis on horizontal massing and proportions.
• Horizontal and vertical siding materials with stucco
walls.
• Low pitched roof forms with flat tile or shingles and extended eaves.
• Simple exteriors with functional ornamentation -
brick and stone used for accent building forms.
• Details such as decorative bracing, brick and stone
wall treatment, window shutter and accent colors.
• Exposed rafters, simple header and window sills
and door surrounds.

EXHIBIT 7-3 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INFLUENCES
861
7-12

7.3.4 Art Deco/Modern Influences
Architectural Styles such as Art Deco and Modern Styles Art Deco architecture emerged during the early 20th century and increased in popularity and influence until the mid-century. The bold geometric lines and rich ornamentation generated a luxurious and lavish character symbolized by the art and fashion of the Bohemian art period and became a representation of progress, modernism and luxury.

As construction technology trended to taller buildings, the Art Deco style, with emphasis on vertical elements such as towers, spires and planted-on column features. Inspired by the technological advancements associated with the industrialized machinery, the architectural forms and details reflected streamlined forms mimicking automobiles and trains of the era. Taller buildings incorporated symmetrical monumental designs while lower profile buildings and residential structures used asymmetrical balance to create interesting and contextual architectural elevations.

Art Deco/Modern style
The Art Deco style became a predominate style in larger, urban structures such as office buildings, large retail and residential skyscrapers that were designed in the first half of the twentieth century. In today’s production building environment, the Art Deco influence has demonstrated to be suitable for larger single-family attached and multi-family buildings.

The streamlined detailing and softened building forms create an iconic character that is compatible with architectural styles, both old and new. Appropriate architectural interpretations within the Art Deco/Modern Influences should be compatible with other selected architectural styles within CenterPark.

Compatible architectural styles include Mid-Century Contemporary and Bauhaus styles.

General materials include stucco with geometric bands or accents. Roof forms are generally flat and roof materials include concrete tile, standing seam metal or a combination of roof materials.

Examples of appropriate architectural styles are illustrated in Exhibit 7-4, Art Deco/Modern Influences. 862

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
7-13
community design guidelines

ART DECO/MODERN INFLUENCES -

SUMMARY OF ARCHITECTURAL

FEATURES
• Emphasis on simple, sleek lines and vertical
proportions with asymmetrical balanced facades.
• Smooth stucco walls with regular or modular forms.
• Flat roof forms with minimal or no cap treatment -
curved roof and corner elements.
• Uncluttered exteriors with geometric ornamentation
- strong building forms provide detail.
• Accents include stylized motifs, intricate reliefs/
patterns – accent materials include terra cotta and
metallic details.
• Bold accent forms, materials and colors to add
visual interest.

EXHIBIT 7-4 ART DECO/MODERN INFLUENCES
863
7-14

7.3.5 Adaptive Traditional Influences
Adaptive Interpretations of the Architectural Styles of the Traditional Influence Twentieth Century construction technology created an evolution of “new” architectural styles. Many of these styles were reinterpretations of classical styles (such as Neo-Classical) while others were simpler expressions that adapted to context and climate conditions. Appropriate architectural interpretations within the Transitional Palette should be compatible with other selected architectural styles within CenterPark.

Building massing within the Adaptive Transitional Palette is defined by its simplicity and follows the rule that “form follows function”. It is intended to introduce style variations to provide a reasonable proportion to buildings that exceed the typical scale of architectural styles that were historically used in single-family detached houses and are suitable for larger buildings generally anticipated for single-family attached and multi-family structures.

Both rectilinear and softened building forms provide the aesthetic balance to this emphasis on function.

Ornamentation is minimized and building character is established by the architectural mass and use of materials. Window patterns are geometrically composed.

The Traditional Influences within the CenterPark Specific Plan area include architectural styles from the American Colonial period. These styles have been reinterpreted or blended with various regional design elements and evolved into a cleaner, simpler overall character, omitting or de-emphasizing details in favor of strong contrasting colors.

General materials include horizontal siding or stucco with minimal or monochromatic accents. Roof materials may include concrete tile, standing seam metal, architectural grade asphalt shingles or a combination of roof materials.

Roof details reflect less ornamentation. Eaves and overhangs may be boxed-in or omitted. Roof materials do not utilize blended colors. Examples of appropriate architectural styles are illustrated in Exhibit 7-5, Adaptive Traditional Influences.
864

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
7-15
community design guidelines

ADAPTIVE TRADITIONAL INFLUENCES -

SUMMARY OF ARCHITECTURAL

FEATURES
• Material and colors reinforce horizontal proportions. • Wood planks, varied siding materials and stucco
walls with accent brick or stone.
• Simplified roof forms with flat tile or shingles.
• Simple exteriors with minimal or light ornamentation
– modern materials used to accent building forms.
• Formal window composition and simple entry doors
reflect classic architectural influence.
• Extended overhangs and shaded windows provide
functional design elements and shade.

EXHIBIT 7-5 ADAPTIVE TRADITIONAL INFLUENCES
865
7-16

7.3.6 Transitional Southern European Influences
Transitional Interpretations of the Architectural Styles from the Spanish Influences The modern interpretations of Southern European architectural styles expressed a wider definition of “Farmhouse” as it infiltrated rural America. The functional simplicity of Spanish and other Southern European styles established a transitional interpretation of Spanish, Tuscan and Italianate architecture.

Appropriate transitional architectural interpretations of Southern European influences should be compatible with other selected architectural styles within CenterPark.

The transitional influence includes several contemporary interpretations of the other historical and period architectural styles selected for CenterPark. It also anticipates modern building forms that provide a reasonable scale to buildings that exceed the typical size and massing of architectural styles that were historically used in single-family detached houses and are suitable for larger buildings generally anticipated for single-family attached and multi-family structures.

Spanish influenced homes, appropriate within the CenterPark Specific Plan area, reflect a blending with the influence of the early Catholic Mission. The simplicity of the historic form and mass is elegantly adapted to reflect a clean and simple design character.

Building massing is generally simple massing, allowing “form to follow function” to address solar orientation and other climatic considerations and to accommodate efficient design. Overall building forms are generally rectangular with simple low-pitched gable or hip roof forms.

Roof materials may include “S” tile and flat concrete tile, standing seam metal roofs or a combination of roof materials. Traditional roof overhang dimensions are often reduced and clean design lines are introduced to support the intended style.

Design details include minimal or simple wrought iron elements and no window surrounds. Examples of appropriate architectural styles are illustrated in Exhibit 7-6, Transitional Southern European Influences. 866

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
7-17
community design guidelines

TRANSITIONAL SOUTHERN EUROPEAN

INFLUENCES - SUMMARY OF

ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES
• Simplified building forms and massing breaks to
replicate traditional influences.
• Stucco walls with simple detailing and complementary masonry accents to reinforce massing. • Low pitched hip and gable roof forms with concrete
tile.
• Colonial details such as arches, precast surround
and columns are omitted or reduced in scale.
• Authentic detailing such as railing, window trim and
ornamentation is simplified or modernized.

EXHIBIT 7-6 TRANSITIONAL SOUTHERN EUROPEAN INFLUENCES
867
7-18

7.3.7 Transitional Southern California Influences
Transitional Interpretations of the Architectural Styles from the Southern California Influences
Varied architectural styles from rural towns from the early development of Southern California around the turn of the 20th century have evolved as new construction technology created an evolution of “new” architectural reinterpretations. Many of these reinterpretations of traditional styles that popularize minimal ornamentation and “non-functional” architectural elements create fresh and clean new expressions of Craftsman and Ranch style houses. Appropriate transitional architectural interpretations of Southern California influences should be compatible with other selected architectural styles within CenterPark.

Several roof forms and materials are characteristic within transitional styles. Appropriate forms in a residential context include traditional hip and gable designs, but also include flat roofs with parapet walls and shed roofs. Roof materials may include concrete tile, standing seam metal, architectural grade asphalt shingles or a combination of roof materials.

Traditional design elements are refined to reflect the simplicity of the building, incorporating material or color changes to provide accents and interest. Enlarged overhangs and sunshades, simple windows with thinner profiles and minimal or no trim details and contemporary metal railing are characteristic of transitional architectural styles. Extended roof and window overhangs and trellis elements are introduced in response to warm climate conditions.

Examples of Transitional Southern California Influence architectural styles are illustrated in Exhibit 7-7, Transitional Southern California Influences.
868

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
7-19
community design guidelines

TRANSITIONAL SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

INFLUENCES - SUMMARY OF

ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES
• Horizontal design emphasis used to reduce scale
of larger buildings to reduce overall massing and
promote single-story proportions.
• Building materials including siding and stucco with
linear stone or brick detailing used as accents.
• Simplified symmetrical or asymmetrical roof forms
and flat roofs - extended overhangs over windows.
• Simple exteriors with reduced ornamentation and
details - brick and stone used for accent building
forms.
• Simple outlookers/wood bracing, brick and stone
accent materials and colored siding used to
reinforce historic Southern California architectural
influences.

EXHIBIT 7-7 TRANSITIONAL SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INFLUENCES 869
7-20

7.4 MASSING PRINCIPLES
This section provides suggestions for creating neighborhoods and street scenes that have a variety of building forms that create an attractive and vibrant streetscape and public realm that is proportionate to a human-scale and inviting to the pedestrian.

GENERAL ELEMENTS:

1. Front Articulation.

2. Side Articulation

3. Rear Articulation.

4. Roof Form.

5. Balconies and Projections.

6. Building Composition.

OBJECTIVES:

1. Establish a residential scale through architectural design and detailing that reinforces the architectural style.

2. Avoid flat, unarticulated two- and three-story walls that do not reinforce the architectural style or add to the overall building composition.

3. Minimize two- and three-story dominance of the street scene, on sidewalks and open spaces.

4. Upper-level units shall include usable outdoor space/balconies.

7.4.1 Front Articulation
The front elevation of the building is an important element in creating a quality community at CenterPark.

Close attention will be placed on all front elevations and how they address the street scene. Emphasis of the location of entries, living areas, and garages will provide a special street appeal.

Emphasis on a variety of building massing will create a diverse street scene.

Guidelines:

1. Building massing should reflect the architectural style.

2. Massing elements should avoid elevations that appear to be “tacked on”.

3. Building details such as doors and windows should be in proportion to the overall massing.

4. Front elevations for two-story buildings should incorporate a single-story element, if feasible. 870

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
7-21
community design guidelines

5. Front elevations for three-story buildings should incorporate one- or two-story elements.

6. All detached homes should have at least two plane variations in the front elevation massing.

7. Blank or unarticulated (uninterrupted) two- and three-story walls are prohibited.

8. Corner homes/buildings should provide massing and details that reflect the visual prominence of this location at a pedestrian scale.

7.4.2 Side Articulation
Four-sided architecture is required throughout CenterPark; however, it is recognized that some buildings sited in close proximity along a street establish a side-to-side orientation where the interior side elevations are less visible from the street. This section shall address this portion of buildings within the context of a specific neighborhood. It is not applicable to side elevations where a front entry door is located (often referred to as a side entry), which should be designed in accordance with the criteria for front articulation.

Guidelines:

1. Architectural articulation should be consistent with the style of the home/building.

2. Vertical and horizontal plane breaks are encouraged.

3. Building details should be proportional to the overall massing.

4. Blank or unarticulated (uninterrupted) two- and three-story walls are discouraged in areas visible from the street and/or common areas.

7.4.3 Rear Articulation
The rear elevation of buildings is an important design consideration, especially with attached home types such as row townhomes and motorcourt buildings, since the rear elevation is often as visually prominent as the front elevation. All building elevations shall address the visual interest and human scale appropriate to the pedestrian activity within the neighborhood.

Special attention shall be given to the design of those dwellings adjacent to, or in close proximity of, arterial roadways, primary local streets, interior local streets, parks, common areas and open spaces.

Whether viewed from distant or close range, massing requirements will be implemented to ensure positive community character in these conditions. Generally, repetitious elements such as similar building profiles and continuous gable ends are to be avoided.

Guidelines:

1. Architectural massing and articulation should be consistent with the style of the home.

2. Vertical and horizontal plane breaks are encouraged.

3. Building details should be proportional to the overall massing. 871
7-22

4. Blank or unarticulated (uninterrupted) two- and three-story walls are discouraged in areas visible from the street and/or common areas.

5. Buildings and homes directly adjacent to arterial roadways, collector roads, entry drives, common areas, lanes (alleys) and open spaces should be given particular attention in their rear articulation.

7.4.4 Roof Forms
Roof forms are another important design element as it relates to the massing and the overall character of the community, when seen from both the external edges and inside the neighborhood. A variety of roof forms along streets creates visual interest. Appropriate massing of roof forms helps to create human scale architecture to the street.

Guidelines:

1. Roof forms/pitch should reinforce the architectural style of the home.

2. Roofs shall be composed of simple roof forms.

3. Primary roof forms should be gable or hip designs or should be characteristic of the represented architectural style.

4. Changes in the primary roof (ridge) orientation are encouraged.

5. Flat roof elements should be incorporated only if appropriate to the architectural style.

7.4.5 Balconies and Projections
As part of the overall design of a two-story or three-story building, balconies and projections provide massing relief and interest at the second story. Balcony projections shall be consistent with the architectural character of the home. Additionally, these elements help to create ideal outdoor spaces.

Guidelines:

1. Balcony design should reinforce the architectural style of the building.

2. In multiple unit buildings, balcony composition should create visual interest and organization of forms.

3. Balconies should be designed to screen stored items. 872

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
7-23
community design guidelines

7.4.6 Building Composition
The composition of a residential building should enhance and reinforce the intended architectural character.

The building composition is a result of careful consideration of several architectural design components such as the overall building form, proportion and scale, fenestration and building offsets. Architectural design components such as the articulation of each elevation, the roof design, design of exterior features including balconies, window seats, dormers and architectural projections, as well as the arrangement of windows and doors contribute to an attractive and well composed building.

Guidelines:

1. The composition of architectural design components should be consistent with the style of the building or home.

2. Visual interest should be established by a variety of design techniques including fenestration, articulation, architectural projections, building offsets and/or architectural details.

3. Windows and other exterior openings should be stacked or otherwise arranged in an attractive manner that reinforces the architectural character of the building.

4. Entries should be articulated as an important architectural feature.

5. Focal windows should be articulated as important design features.

7.4.7 Front Porches and Entry Courtyards
Several of the architectural styles within the Ontario Heritage Architecture Palette and the Transitional Architecture Palette are characterized by front porches, covered entries and entry courtyards. These elements are important design features in the interpretation and reinforcement of the intended aesthetic character.

Guidelines:

1. Porches and covered entries are encouraged to enhance the entries to individual residences.

2. Porches should have a minimum depth of 5 ft.. 7ft. deep porches are encouraged for buildings within the Ontario Heritage Architecture Palette, including American Farmhouse, Ranch and Craftsman styles.

3. Wrap-around porches are encouraged at corner conditions.

4. Covered entries should be used on at least 50% of the entries on front elevations of attached residential housing types and all building elevations that are visible from public or private streets.

5. Entry courtyards, including enclosed patio areas, are characteristic of architecture styles within the Spanish and Southern European Influences. Entry courtyards shall be a minimum of 5 ft. in depth and

7.5 ft. deep courtyards are encouraged along public streets and adjacent to visible open spaces. 873
7-24

7.5 GARAGE PLACEMENT
The configuration, location and orientation of the garage are integral design elements, both for the composition of detached houses and attached residential buildings and for its visual and functional impacts to local neighborhood streets. De-emphasizing the garage is important in order to maintain the overall community design. Emphasizing the living areas of the home as they address the street will help achieve this goal. Single-family homes should orient garages onto private common driveways, wherever possible, to minimize the visual impact of garages facing neighborhood streets and individual driveway interruptions along these streets. Rear loaded homes, courtyard homes and cluster homes are effective home types and are encouraged. Preferred garage orientation onto private drives and driveways as illustrated in Exhibit 7-8, Garage Placement, reinforce the overall pedestrian experience within each neighborhood in CenterPark.

GUIDELINES:

1. Cluster homes and rear loaded homes which eliminate or minimize garages facing neighborhood streets are encouraged.

2. Standard double car garage doors are to be recessed a minimum of 8-inch from the face of the garage wall.

3. Standard street facing 3-car garage configurations are not allowed.

4. Shallow recessed two-car garages shall have a minimum setback of 3 ft. measured from the garage face to the back of the curb.

EXHIBIT 7-8 GARAGE PLACEMENT
874

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA
7-25
community design guidelines

7.6 MATERIALS AND DETAILS
Architectural materials and detailing are fundamental elements to creating quality communities. Appropriate focus should be given to the architectural details the design of the details, and architectural elements of the building.

GENERAL ELEMENTS

1. Wall Materials/Finishes.

2. Accent Materials.

3. Doors and Windows.