Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. It's now 06:30PM. Welcome to the 06/24/2025 meeting of the Ontario Planning and Historic Preservation Commission. Agendas for the meeting are in the back of the chambers and contain the procedures we will follow for tonight. Please turn off all electronic communication devices and put or put them on a non audible mode. Please do not engage in private conversations during the meeting. If you wish to speak during public comment or on a particular item or matter, please fill out a green card and submit it to the secretary at the end of the dais. Thank you for your cooperation. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

Miss Anderson? Present. Miss Dedemar? Present. Mister Gage? Here. Mister Lamkin?

Present.

Mister Marks?

Present.

Chairman Ritchie?

Here.

All are present. And

now, please stand and join us for the pledge of allegiance, which will be led by commissioner Diedemeyer.

Please cover your heart with your hand. Ready? Begin.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay. Thank you, commissioner Diedemeyer. And now we're on to agenda items. Director No, are there any changes to tonight's agenda?

No changes and no announcements.

Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner items, do any Commissioners have any general announcements that's not related to an item on the agenda? Okay. Seeing none, we'll now move on to public comments. This is the time for anyone in the audience to speak on any topic that is not on tonight's Planning Commission agenda. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak on a non agenda item? Okay. Please come forward and state your name and address for the record.

Good evening. My name is Marta McBride, and I'm a resident of Ontario. Fairly new. I moved here during COVID, and it I haven't really been involved in city governance until very recently. I was prior to moving here, I was working with Habitat for Humanity for fifteen years.

And so my focus, and you know, I would say it's a big priority for me to have affordable housing in our neighborhoods. And when I talk about affordable housing, I don't talk about affordable rentals. I'm more concerned with opportunities for purchasing affordable housing in Ontario. So I looked through the city website and I didn't really find anything there about how the city is providing opportunities for affordable housing in the city for purchase, not just affordable rentals. So, if if I could get some information about that or where to find that on the city website, that'd be great. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you for coming up, miss McBride. We'll see if we can get someone to speak to you about those things. And so we don't take action on anything, but you have the option of making that public comment. So is there anyone else who wishes to speak to the Planning Commission?

Thank you. So as there is no one else wishing to speak, we'll now move

on to the consent calendar. All matters listed under the consent calendar will be enacted by one summary motion in the order listed below. There will be no separate discussion on these items prior to the time the commission votes on them unless a member of the commission or the public requests a specific item be removed from the consent calendar for a separate vote. In that case, the balance of the items on the consent calendar will be voted on in one summary motion, and then those items removed for a separate vote will be heard. Is there a motion to adopt the consent calendar as presented? Or do we have Mr. Chair. Commissioner I

would like to pull item A two.

Okay. So for the rest of the consent calendar, we will take a motion to adopt the consent calendar for the minutes. Do I have a motion for the

Mr. Chairman.

Commissioner Dedeman.

I move to adopt the consent calendar including item number eight zero one but not item eight zero two.

Okay. Do I have a second?

Second.

We have a second by Commissioner Anderson. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Mr. Lamkin?

Yes.

Mr. Marks? Yes. Ms. Anderson? Yes. Ms. Diedemeyer? Yes. Mr. Gage?

Yes.

Chairman Ritchie?

Yes.

The consent calendar including a o one is adopted.

Okay. Thank you. So, commissioner Lamkin, is there specifics on the item a zero two that you would like to address with staff?

Yes, mister chair. Thank you. Item a two is the environmental assessment development review for file number PDEV24Dash019. I'd like to have staff present on some issues with that or questions that I have regarding the articulation, the plan for the articulation of the project, specifically the frontages, the front facing areas of the project. Also, had questions and for the developer and the staff regarding the landscape plan for the walkway that will connect the two communities together.

Thank you, chairman. So item a o two is environmental assessment and development plan review for file number PDV24Dash019. Discussion item to consider a development plan approval to construct 67 detached single family dwellings, 129 detached motor court units, and 154 attached townhomes on 51.1 acres of land located at the Southwest corner of Eucalyptus Avenue and Haven Avenue within planning areas thirty and thirty one of the sub area 29 specific plan. The environmental impacts of this project were previously reviewed in conjunction with an amendment to the sub area 29, specific plan for which a, subsequent environmental impact report was adopted by the city council on 11/21/2023. This application introduces no new significant environmental impacts and the application is submitted by KB Home Coastal Incorporated and associate planner Ms.

Aguilo will provide the presentation based off of the questions and comments that commissioner Lampkin had.

Okay. So as an overview, the proposed development plan will facilitate the construction of three fifty residential units with three product types and will be presented in this order. The western portion of the site will consist of 67 conventional single family residential cottage homes. The Southeast portion of the site will consist of 129 mortar court SFD cluster homes typically in a six or eight pack and the Northeast portion will consist of 154 row townhomes. Lots a, b and c will include the recreational and open space parks and pool area.

And lastly, as shown the SCE easement bisects the project site. So a series of multipurpose trails will be installed to provide a pedestrian connection to the parks from lots b and and c as well as a 10 foot wide DG trail path from Eucalyptus to the North and connect to Parkview Street to the South. And primary access will be taken from Eucalyptus Avenue to the North, Haven Avenue to the East, and Parkview Street and there are two entrances along Parkview Street to the South. In terms of the architecture, the cottage homes will consist of 67 conventional single family homes. The entire project site will be include Spanish colonial craftsman traditional architectural styles, and there will be a total of four two story plan types each with all three architectural styles.

And here are the plan types. As you can see, there is the different variations for plans one, two, three, and four in all craftsman, Spanish and traditional. So you can see the differences in where the door placements are, some of the materials for the gable and detailing, the pot shelves and the shutters. The mortar court SFD homes will consist of 129 units and there will be a total of five two story plan home types each with three architectural styles. And as you can see there's plans one through four, so we have similar to the single family conventional homes.

They have the varied craftsman, Spanish and traditional architectural styles. And plan three, there's an asterisk there because for the most part these cluster homes, these will be the end units for the cluster homes, so this will be facing the street. So these elevations right here are what's visible along the motor court and along the street side street facing elevations. This is what has been provided for. This elevation will face the street and is most visible.

Staff has worked with the applicant to provide additional architectural features to the side entries to further enhance the streetscape. Here are some examples of the motor court SFD cluster product type, and these are all from the Torrey project in Sunset Ranch located in the Esperanza specific plan. And lastly, terms of the architecture, there are the townhomes and the third product type, the Rowtown homes consisting of 154 units ranging from three, four, five and six plex attached units. The majority of the Rowtown homes are six plex buildings as shown and as you can see a mix of one to two story massing, articulation and architectural details are provided. And KB has this particular product type in construction now again in Esperanza's Sunset Ranch project, which is called Moonstone and it's been well received.

In terms of the trail, here's an example of the existing trail markers that's installed within Sub Area 29. The trail marker to the left is in front of the SCE Trail along at Park Lane, which is directly south of the current project site. The image in the middle is the proposed trail marker for the project and to the right is an improved SCE trail looking south on Merrill adjacent to the Fairhaven project site. Our landscape division works directly with SCE and the home builder on the trail design and meet to meet both the SCE and city standards, especially regarding tree height restrictions and the appropriate plant material. And that concludes my presentation.

If you have any other questions, I'll be happy to answer. Thank you.

Thank you, miss O'Neill. Commissioner Appian, do you have any questions of staff?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to I guess what we'll do is we'll work backwards here. Starting with the trail marker, is the image in the middle a conceptual design of the trail marker that Ontario will be receiving?

Correct.

Okay. And it's indicative of or symbolic of what we've been seeing throughout Ontario Ranch, correct?

Correct.

Okay. Going further back, the project that was shown, the project that was done elsewhere, where the home types were supposed to be similar, Does this also accurately reflect the type of landscaping that will go into the in front of the homes in the project that is proposed for the City Of Ontario?

Correct. Yes.

Okay. And then my other question is in regards to the design of the entryways. During your presentation, you started off with discussing with the developer plans to enhance the entryways. Will that include enhancing the cap pieces on top of the stonework in the example in picture number one in the upper left hand corner? And I guess I'll clarify or be very specific.

The cap pieces on top of the pillars on the entrance, they appear to be a lot more robust than what is shown in the renderings and for the project proposed in Ontario. The white cap pieces there on top of the stone.

Okay. Are you asking for like a a stone material on the top where Genie is pointing at that would

No. If you're looking Well, if either picture is fine. It's either the the one that Genie is pointing at down in the lower right hand side or even the one that's in the upper left hand side. The cap piece on top of the stone Mhmm. It looks like it's almost like a double layer, like a layered cake I guess.

That's the best way to describe it. You go back to the picture you were at where you were before and then we can go back to the one where you were just at. But if you notice this kind of like a stared or layered kind of design at the top of the stone, correct, right where you're pointing. If you go to the picture you were just at before, at the rendering, it does not appear it has that same detail, including in the single family single family designs as well.

So, for there's different types of column designs. And for this one, and and the applicant can come and clarify even further. But I believe these are wood columns.

Correct.

The ones that were shown on the other were stucco columns. So, they were a little more substantial in in width. These ones are a little more thin to be more appropriate for the elevation.

What about in a single family design though? I didn't notice it. I don't think I really had any concerns with this one, but in the single family renderings, single family home renderings, it looks like they had that same stucco design with less articulation on the columns.

Yeah. I think it's

Okay. Maybe I think it's

more of a thinner

Yeah. It is.

Column to be more appropriate again. We can we can work with the architect and the applicant

Okay.

Just to to verify that there will be the articulation that you're you're looking for. It's hard to tell if there is a band above that, the stone cap, above the stones.

Give give me one second here. So, Elevation B Craftsman. Yeah. Elevation B Craftsman. Let me see what page this is. It's page 17 of 36. Sorry, had to use my colleague's photo there because I have to pull this back up on my screen.

What we can do though is we can work with the applicant, like I mentioned, at the plan check just to make sure that there's sufficient articulation in that column to provide the taper and kind of the effect that you're looking for. We can do that at at plan check and I'll read into the at the end of the presentation, a proposed revision to the conditions just to make sure that we can incorporate that.

Great. I appreciate that. And I trust that that will happen. I just want to make sure that we're we have enough articulation on these on the development proposed for Ontario, so it doesn't look as plain as it does in the renderings. And I think in fairness to the applicant and in fairness to staff, without the landscaping being shown in the renderings, it does make it a little bit more plain.

But I assume that after landscaping goes in, you'll start to see some of those layers of height as the green fills in near And the front then the last question I have by the way, I appreciate you showing an example of prior projects where the SCE easement is developed in a way that is, I guess, aesthetically friendly to residents. Because a lot of times, they're blighted because the property truly is owned by SCE. I guess my last question is, are there any renderings or any examples of prior projects where you could show that connectivity between the two communities, what those entrances look like from one community to the next? Not necessarily from the street, as was shown in the photo, but from one community to the next. The gates, the walls, anything like that.

Yeah.

Unfortunately, don't have an example of that existing. But what they typically have is you'll have the enhanced wall, the split face wall. And then sometimes, I don't know if this has been proposed, but sometimes there's an arbor maybe. Is that what you're you're looking for to to make it more pedestrian friendly with those? But typically Where's this marker being placed?

This is along the street, right? Yeah. So, typically, what we have is the 10 to 12 foot DD trail, and then we'll have landscaping like it's showing here, 10 feet of landscape on either side of the trail. And that's how they connect the two Paseos, the two communities through the SEE Trail. That's typically what we've done throughout Ontario Ranch.

Okay. I'd just like to ask that staff work with the developer should the project be approved on the entrance into the community from one community to the next, the pedestrian entrance. Whether it be an arbor or just work with the developer to ensure that it is something that is going to be aesthetically pleasing to the pedestrian and not something that's so plain, something that's welcoming, something that signals to a resident that they're just moving from one community to the next in a way that's aesthetically pleasing.

Sure. We can work with the applicant on that. Thank

you. I have a question. On the trail, what type of lighting would there be? Just curious. I didn't see any unless I missed it.

So SCE doesn't allow for lighting within their easements. So there wouldn't be lighting on the actual trails themselves. There's certain there's a lot of restrictions that SCE has within these easements. As Jeannie mentioned, even the the trees, if we're if we propose trees, they have to be trees that have a maximum height of 15 feet and they have to be a minimum of 10 feet away from the drip line of the electrical wires of the towers. And they even they like to limit the amount of irrigation actually within these trails too.

So there's there's just a lot of restrictions that we have to work with, not only the applicant but SCE to make sure that it is a welcoming trail that our community can enjoy, but also abide by some of those standards and regulations that SCE has.

Got it. Thank you.

Sure.

Applicant is here if you wanted to have her if you have any questions for her.

Sure. She's waving So at is the applicant present? We can we okay. Did you wanna Sure.

Ask? Can She was waving at us.

Okay. I don't think She

figured out we don't have

to open public comment on in a consent calendar. I so could you yeah. Could you please just state your name and address for the records?

Sure. My name is Heidi McBroom. My address in representing KB Home is 36310 Inland Valley Drive.

Thank you. And commissioner Lamkin, you have some questions for the applicant?

Sure. I'd like to hear your perspective on your vision for the access between the two communities and when you go from one gate to the next, how how do you envision that Of course.

Well, as staff was mentioning, we do have challenging restrictions when dealing with Edison. And in this case, these two communities are part of the same master plan. So the trail gates will be key fobbed for only those members of this community to go from one side to the other. So if outside communities are going through the trail, they can't access these facilities that are privately maintained by the HOA. So I think an arbor would be very appropriate. It would be simple but also inviting as you had mentioned, eye catching as well. And I also think this is unique because I don't know if there's many trails where there's gates going across. Really, are there?

No. And I don't, I believe these gates might have been required by Edison to be removed. So they don't like gates even or this fencing.

So so that's a very good point, Henry. We are in review, first review with Edison. So they have the ability to come back to us and effectively tell us to get rid of the gates, to get rid of many things. So we have proposed them, but I do not know that Edison will ultimately allow us to keep them.

I appreciate that. And one of the things I do want to recognize is exactly what you just said. Is that this is something that is not being done, and this is not just for Ontario. This is throughout California. This is something very unique.

I guess the way I see it is, if we're going to make the attempt, let us do so in a way where it sets the standard. And I want to say thank you for at least making the attempt. We don't know where we're going to land with the approval, if But Edison decides to go with it or I feel like we at least need to do something that is going to set the tone for, in the event we try to do this again in the future, we're setting the tone and we're making

the

example for everybody else to follow afterwards. So, I'm I want excited. Thank you

for

The timing is good. We actually are going in with a revision anyway to Edison. So we can add the arbor and just see what they say and and, you know, we'd be happy to make sure staff keeps you in the know on that. And then just to touch on the architecture and the elevations, certainly, can take another look at bolstering those enhanced entrances. But I did want to just assure you this is my these are my ninth, tenth, and eleventh neighborhoods with the city of Ontario working with this staff specifically. So we have a a long history of providing really great collaboration even on the design and past entitlement on making sure that we're providing a really great product to the city.

Great, thank you.

You're welcome. Any other questions?

Any other questions of the applicant? Thank you very much.

Thank you.

With that, I guess we can turn the matter over to the commission for discussion and action.

So prior to the action, I just wanna to make a a recommendation for a revision to the condition just to to provide a little more ability between the applicant and staff to to collaborate with the final architectural design and plan checks. So it would be condition number 2.16 subsection c. And the revised condition would be the applicant shall coordinate with the planning department to incorporate additional architectural detail and variations including but not limited to decorative tile, outlookers, pot shells, carriage lights and siding on all product types.

Okay. So the motion will include that provision

Correct.

Whenever the motion is made. So do any commissioners have a motion for item a zero two?

Mister chair, just a point of order. It's gonna be a recommendation to the council. Correct? No. No. Is a consent.

This is consent calendar. Approve it by us.

Commission. Okay. Great. With that said, I'd like to make a motion that the commission approves item a two with revisions to the conditions outlined in provision 2.16 subject section c.

Okay. So we have a motion by commissioner Lampkin to approve PDEV two four dash zero one nine with subsection with 2.16 subsection c. Do we have a second?

I second.

And second by commissioner Marks. Madam secretary, call the roll.

Mister Marks. Present. I'm sorry.

Present.

Yes. Miss Anderson. Yes. Miss Dedemark. Yes. Mister Gage? Yes. Mister Lampkin? Yes. Chairman Ruchi?

Yes.

It is approved six to zero with the revised condition.

Okay. So that's PDEV 20 four-nineteen has been approved. Thank you very much. And now we'll move on to public hearing items. We'll now consider the public hearing items. The procedure for the public hearing will be as follows. We will first hear a staff report on the matter, followed by questions of staff by the Planning Commission. I will then open the hearing for comments from the public. I will provide the applicant or the representative three minutes to make a presentation. After the applicant, I will open the meeting to comments to anyone in the audience who wishes to speak on the matter.

Each person will be given three minutes for this purpose. After all persons have spoke on the matter, the applicant will be given three minutes for the purpose of rebuttal or clarification if necessary. Once all persons have spoken, I will close the public portion of the hearing and turn it over to the Planning Commission for discussion and final action. If anyone is aggrieved by the decision of the commission, an appeal may be filed within ten days to the Ontario Planning Department. The appeal must be in writing. Item B, Director Null.

Thank you, Chairman. Item B is environmental assessment and certificate of appropriateness review for file number PHP25Dash004. A certificate a certificate of appropriateness to construct a 525 square foot addition to an existing two thousand one hundred nine two square foot single family residence known as the Willard Willard p Stover House, a contributor to the Armsley Square Historic District on point two seven acres of land located at 425 Armsley Square within the R E 4 residential estate zoning district. The project is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to section fifteen three three one historical resource restoration and, rehabilitation. The application is submitted by EPIC design build and our associate planner, Ms.

Antuna, will provide the presentation.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ngo. Good evening chair and members of the commission. The project site is located at the Southeast corner of Armsley Square and Vine Avenue.

This is a contributor within the designated Armsley Square Historic District. The Armsley Square Historic District has a variety of architectural styles, all single family residences that sit on large estate sized lots with styles like Monterey, Mediterranean revival. The house in question, the Willard P. Stover House, is constructed in the Monterey Revival architectural style, has a smooth plaster finish, red tile roof, cantilevered balcony on the primary facade, wood casement windows and French doors are visible throughout. The house was constructed with an attached two car garage, which is shown here, which was unusual for the period of time the house was constructed in 1929, but the two car garage is original to the residence.

In 1991, a separate detached garage was constructed with also an accessory workspace. The intent behind that was in 1991, the homeowner did want to convert the attached garage into living space, but a two car garage is required for a single family residence, so the detached garage was constructed to facilitate that requirement or to fulfill that requirement. The applicant is now proposing to convert the garage into living space and to construct additions and a patio cover to enlarge the single family residence and to facilitate some floor plan modifications. The site here highlighted, you can see where the proposed additions will be. There will be a small addition located at the rear further to the west, and then another small addition at the rear but further to the east.

So here on the floor plan, you can see on the 1st Floor that small addition and the dining room addition on the 1st Floor. So the floor plan modifications will also include conversion of that attached garage to enlarge the kitchen. This will also allow for another bedroom on the 1st Floor and to relocate the dining room to the southeast corner of the residence. And on the 2nd Floor, the addition will facilitate a walk in closet and master bathroom on the 2nd Floor bedroom, and will also enlarge an existing bathroom. In addition to the additions, there will also be a patio cover constructed over the existing garage that functions as a deck.

So that will be seen a little bit more clearly on the proposed elevations. So here you can see the existing and the proposed. So here highlighted, you can see where those additions will be located at the rear of the residence and also the patio cover that will be constructed over that existing deck. So the addition, the west elevation, you can see will be slightly visible. That would be what's facing Vine.

And then the east elevation is facing the interior property line and the south elevation, the rear property line. So the addition is largely concealed, very little visibility from Vine Avenue. The applicant is also proposing to reuse the existing French doors that are currently present at the rear of the residence and they will be reused on the proposed dining room addition. The proposed addition will be constructed of materials that match the existing residence, smooth plaster finish, red tile roof. You will also see details that are visible on the front cantilevered balcony like the corbels and wood post on the porch and patio covers at the rear of the residence.

The certificate of appropriateness is intended to evaluate projects such as these for potential impacts to historic resource. So in this case, not only is the residents individually historic, it is also a contributor to the Armsley Square Historic District. And the project as proposed is appropriate in scale, massing and design. And the Historic Preservation Subcommittee reviewed this project at the June 11 meeting and recommended the commission approve the project as proposed. This concludes staff's presentation. I can answer any questions.

Thank you, miss Antuna.

And mister chairman?

Yes. Commissioner.

I live within 300 feet of this proposed residence, so I need to recuse myself.

Okay.

Come get me.

Somebody will get you. Or actually you could just go home and I'm just playing. It's the last item. No. We'll wait for commissioner Diedemeyer to leave the chambers.

Okay. So are there any questions of staff by the commissioners? Seeing none, I will now open the public hearing and ask the applicant to please come forward. Please state your name for Anne. Well, I guess we know the address, but My

is Greg Weeby.

Okay.

425 Armsley Square

Okay.

Ontario. We've owned the house since 1989. We're the third residence, missus Stover. Mister Stover built the house for his wife, missus Stover, and he to live in originally, and built a lot of historic properties in the communities around. Our addition is so that I can spend my later years living. My wife has passed, but I'll live in the house, and I put one bedroom downstairs in case I can't make it upstairs anymore. And I have walk in showers that I'll have. But basically, we wanted the house to look historic. Even the garage which we built in 1991 was so that we could do an addition like this. I'm not very fast.

This is thirty four years later. Right? But that, we didn't have historic. I didn't have to get historic approval then. But if you look at the property, it's built just to match the house. It has smooth stucco, it has tile, two piece clay tile roof with concrete between the tiles. The four the six by six posts match the six by six posts on the front of the house. We'll be doing all of the same kind of would take those thoughts in the mind in building this. We went to the best design build firm I could find

Mhmm.

Who was experienced to building this kind of project. And it's been fairly complex for fairly small addition. I mean, net we have 500 square feet roughly addition plus the conversion of the garage. Okay. So, and I'm here tonight for any questions that anybody might have and maybe after public comments or whatever.

Okay. Well, do you agree with the conditions provided by staff? I do. Okay. Do we have any questions of the applicant from any commissioners? I don't think so. Thank you, sir,

for coming Okay.

Thank you very much.

Okay. And with that, I will now open the public hearing to the audience. And I don't have any green cards. Is there anyone else who wishes to make any comments on this item? Okay. So if there's no one, we'll close the public comment period and turn the matter over to the Planning Commission for discussion and action. Mister chairman? Commissioner Gage.

Yes. Well, was part of the subcommittee, and I heard all the details on this already. And I just want to thank the applicant for having the passion to do this correctly from start to finish. It sure makes it easy working with our outstanding planning staff that are experts at preservation. And it's true, thirty four years ago, the city of Ontario didn't have preservation laws and so forth.

And I just want to compliment to this month is historic preservation month. And so it's appropriate that you're doing some historic preservation to one of our best historic neighborhoods and a home on that corner. And years passed, we didn't have historic preservation, and we had the risk of historic neighborhoods deteriorating as all these homes get older and they need all new things. And it really helps to keep the preservation so people will be doing the right thing and preserve these neighborhoods. I always use the comment, to me, the difference is if you don't preserve the historic neighborhoods, they turn into blight and deteriorate.

So over the years, we've had seven great historic neighborhoods over the Mills Act, which helps people invest in their properties in lieu of some tax incentives. So people will invest and preserve these historic homes in historic neighborhoods. And so I'm real happy that Mr. Wiebe had the passion to do this correctly and worked with our staff and eagerly approved this and hope all the homeowners in our historic neighborhoods do this type of improvements. Thank you.

Thank you, commissioner Gage. Is there anyone else wishing to make a comment from the Planning Commissioner? Mr. Chair. Commissioner Lampkin.

I want to echo similar sentiments as my colleague here. Greg, one of the things I'm very impressed by is a lot of times when you talk about historic preservation, you talk about preserving things in place. Right? There's a feature, there's a building, there's a home, and typically it's about the upkeep and making sure that it doesn't deteriorate. This is one of the very few times I've seen somebody come in and actually try to expand on the legacy of a property.

So, I'm I'm very very happy to see that. And, it also signals to other people who are interested in preserving historic homes and historic locations, if they have ideas to really enhance and bring back to life by expanding on that space, if there's opportunity to do so. I guess the only question I would have ever had for you, if you could answer, is whether or not Mrs. Stover is jealous that her husband didn't do this for her, since he designed it for her. But with that said, I'd like to go ahead and make a motion to approve the certificate of appropriateness under file number PHP 20 five-four, subject to the resolution and attached conditions of approval. I'll second.

Okay. So we have a motion by commissioner Lampkin and a second by commissioner Gage. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Miss Anderson? Yes. Miss Diedemeyer is recused. Mister Gage?

Yes.

Mister Lampkin?

Yes.

Mister Marks?

Yes.

Chairman Ritchie?

Yes.

It is approved five to zero.

Thank you. So file number PHP25Dash004, the certificate of appropriateness has been approved. Thank you very much. And now if we'll call commissioner Diedemeyer back into the meeting. She went home? Home? No. She went She said This is the end of the meeting.

Just went to move her car. It's been an hour.

Welcome back, commissioner Dedemaugh.

Thank you.

Now we'll move forward with the rest of the meeting. Old business. The historic preservation meeting, subcommittee did meet as we heard. Is there a report from subcommittee? Commissioner Gage.

Yes. We we worked on a home in Armsley Square that wanted to do some additions. I don't know if you heard about it.

Maybe we can get a staff report on that. Sounds good. So is there any other new business? Do any commissioners have any new business or any other comments? Okay. Seeing none, any nominations for special recognition

from any commissioners? Okay.

Moving right along. And the monthly activity report. Director Ngo.

Yeah. A copy of the monthly activity report has been provided to the commission and has been attached to the agenda packet.

Thank you, director Ngo. And the next planning historic commission planning preservation commission public hearing is scheduled for 07/29/2025 at 06:30 p PM here in this dais. And thank you, planning staff and commissioners. This public hearing is now adjourned. Good night.