Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. It's now 06:30 p. M. Welcome to the 07/22/2025 meeting of the Ontario Planning and Historic Preservation Commission. Agendas for the meeting tonight are in the back of the chambers and contain the procedures we will follow tonight. Please turn off all electronic communication devices or put them on non audible mode. Please do not engage in any private conversations during the meeting. If you wish to speak during public comment or on a particular 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.

Ms. Anderson? Present. Ms. Dedemar? Present. Mr. Gage?

Here.

Mr. Lamkin?

Present.

Mr. Marks is absent and Chairman Ritchie.

Present. And now if you'll please stand and join us for the pledge of allegiance which will be led by Commissioner Lampkin.

Thank you.

Thank you Commissioner Lampkin. So this evening we have Ms. Kimberly Rudden sitting in for Henry Null. So for agenda items Ms. Rudden are there any changes to tonight's agenda?

I have two announcements. Number one is that the minutes for the 06/24/2025 meeting have been provided to you. And second, we received a public comment on item F that should be in front of you. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Commissioner items. Do any commissioners have any general announcement not related to an item on the agenda?

Mister chair.

Commissioner Lampkin.

Thank you, mister chair. As many of you know, I serve as a deputy sheriff for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and we experienced a great loss this past Friday. It's been a very, very difficult weekend. It's been a very difficult beginning to this week. And, you know, every day when we go to work, we show up early, put our items in our car, we ensure that our equipment is prepared for whatever might get thrown at us.

And sometimes we even take a step back and we say a prayer sometimes to ourselves, thanking God that we are so fortunate to be in a position to respond to crisis when needed. But Friday certainly was not a day we were not ready for. It certainly was not. It was hours long of investigation, hours long of just simply trying to figure out what happened. And I think we're a little bit closer to there.

One of the most difficult things I had to do was unload those deputies from the coroner vans. It's a responsibility that I don't take pride in. It's a responsibility that I never want to take on and we do this collectively as a team after a lot of organizing. But one of the things that I realized is those families were standing there around our fellow deputies is that behind every single deputy sheriff, and we can say this about in general by any public servant, there are a million, it feels like a million people behind them. Family and a lot more other people.

And so it was very difficult to

see the large crowd of family members, friends and loved ones of these deputies. But one of the true examples of that is the Ontario PD officers who showed up as well. We did a procession for the family as they drove in and I was extremely humbled to see Ontario Police Department's presence. I was also very, very humbled by the number of residents, business people, just people throughout Ontario who called to not only check on my well-being but to express their condolences and well wishes as we navigate this tragedy. These deputies go to work every day, often criticized.

There's a lot of negative things that are said out in the media. These deputies go through and I was speaking from experience, put up with a great deal of abuse. Twenty five years of being criticized for not doing their job properly. But very rarely do we see public displays of thanks. And so one of the things I would like to ask is how do we say thank you to these individuals?

What do we say about them? One of the things I would like to ask is that we just simply just, as a show or a display of thanks, just simply give them a round of applause for a job well done because they won't be here with us anymore. And we don't know how many lives they saved working for our Special Enforcement Bureau Arson Explosives Detail, the number of lives they saved because they were just that good at their job. So, if you guys could please just join me in a round of applause as an expression of thanks for all the great work that they did, much of which was twenty, thirty, forty, fifty years, sixty years combined. Thank you.

Thank you Commissioner Lampkin and our prayers and hearts are with the families that are affected by that tragedy. Now we'll move on to public comments. This is the time for anyone in the audience who wishes to speak on any topic that's not on tonight's planning commission agenda. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak on a non agenda item? Okay.

As there is no one who wishes to speak, we will now consider 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 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 summary motion and then those items removed for a separate vote will be heard. So with that, is there a motion to adopt the consent calendar as presented?

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to pull a O2. Okay. And

so is there, we received the minutes today from the secretary. Is there a motion to approve the minutes or the remainder of the commencement calendar?

Mr. Chairman.

Yes, Commissioner Anderson.

Motion to approve the minutes as written.

Okay, do we have a second? Second. Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Anderson and a second by Commissioner Didemer and with the exception of A02. Madam Secretary, can you please take a roll call vote?

Ms. Anderson. Yes. Ms. Didemer. Yes. Ms.

Lampkin?

Yes.

Chairman Ricci?

Yes.

The minutes are approved five to zero.

And now Ms. Rudins, if we will have someone do a presentation for A02 please.

Yes. For clarification, is there something specific you'd like to address Commissioner Gage?

I just think it's a pretty important project and I'd just like to hear it overall and ask questions after that.

Thank you. Ms. Torres will now present the staff report.

Miss Torres?

Yes. Thank you and good evening. We'll just give it a minute for it to come up on the screen over here. There we go. The project site is located North Of Holt Boulevard, South Of Stone Ridge Court, and West Of Mountain Avenue within the HCR 45 High project site currently contains several commercial and industrial buildings, including a single family residence that will be demolished.

The project site is surrounded by multifamily residential residential to the North. To the East is an eating establishment. To the South are commercial buildings. And directly west, we have multifamily residential and commercial buildings as well. The project proposes the construction of a four story, l shaped, multi family residential building consisting of 68 units which will include 37 studios, twelve one bedrooms, nineteen two bedroom units.

The units will range in size and will be approximately 600 square feet to a thousand square feet in area. The project sites will be gated and the vehicular gates are shown with the blue circles. Vehicle access to the sites will be provided from Stone Ridge Court to the North and Holt Boulevard to the South. A total of a 131 parking spaces are required and the project provides a 131 parking spaces including two guest parking spaces on Stone Ridge Court meeting the minimum parking requirements. The project is also consistent with the required setback requirements and is set back 10 feet from Holt Boulevard, 70 feet from the eastern property line, approximately a 166 feet from Stone Ridge Courts, and 10 feet from the Western property line.

The proposed amenities that will be located within the building will include a gym, a community room, and a business center. The proposed building has designed with a mid century modern architectural style. The south and the east elevations are shown on the screen. The exterior features that the building incorporates includes stucco, horizontal horizontal plank siding with a wood grain finish, black trim for the windows, a perforated metal wall panel will be located at the southeast corner of the building. We also have vertical metal wall panels, metal railings for the balconies, balconies, and decorative breeze blocks for the 1st Floor private balconies.

And we also have here a view of the east elevation, which is where the main entrance to the building will be located. Here we have the north and the west elevations. The northeast and the northwest corners of the buildings include increased parapet heights to enhance character of the building. The proposed metal wall panels that are located between the balconies will be projected to provide some additional privacy between the residents. And the metal wall panels have been designed with colors to complement the building.

The elevations also include the same building materials as the front of the building, and it includes the horizontal plank siding, the metal wall panels, and the decorative blocks for the 1st Floor balconies. Here, we have some renderings of the project site. The top left image is a view from Holt Boulevard, and we can see what the building will look like from Holt Boulevard. We then have a view for a view east of the building. We can see the proposed gate that would be located and the parking spaces and the building material that the building will incorporate.

The bottom left picture is a view from Stone Ridge Court. A six foot high tubular steel fence with decorative pilasters is proposed along Stone Ridge Court. And lastly, we have a view of the southwest quadrant, which will be the area where the majority of open space amenities will be located. Landscaping is proposed throughout the project site and a total of 24.4% of the project sites will be landscape. The landscaping plan includes a combination of 24 inches, 36 inches and 48 inches box trees as well as a variety of shrubs, ground cover and accent trees.

The project has exceeded the common and private open space requirements and has provided a total of 20,746 square feet of common approximately 7,000 square feet of private open space. The common open space that the project has provided includes a decomposed granite trial, play a play equipment area, pool with lounge seating, amphitheater style seating, a built in barbecue counter and fire elements, decorative pavement, and seats and tables. And with that, that concludes Todd's presentation. We are available for any questions and the applicant is also present. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Gage, there any questions of staff or?

Yes. I had a couple of questions. First, I noticed there's 37 studios. Can you give a description of the studios? 37 of the 68 units are studios. And I don't know that we've seen many studios in our apartment complexes and so I'm just interested in them what they would look like and what their square footage is maybe and how.

Yes. So the studios range in size. They are approximately square feet in area. And the reason why a vast majority of the units are studios is because we have a very tight site. And when we add more of the one bedroom and the two bedroom units, it increases overall parking ratio.

Okay. And I also had a question about the parking. I see that we allow 12% tandem parking, but this is over that. Can you explain that part?

Yes, correct. So our development code allows a maximum 12% of on parking spaces. But to achieve a better site design, better on-site circulation, better common open space amenities, we allowed an increase in the maximum 10 parking spaces allowed through administrative exemption. So with the administrative exemption, it allows a maximum of 22% tandem parking spaces and the project has provided a total of 16% tandem parking spaces. But this allows for a better overall site design for this project.

Okay. That answers my questions. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Is there any other questions of staff from the commission? Seeing none, we'll move on. So Madam attorney with this we just take a vote on the consent counter. Do we have to open public comment?

The commission need not do a formal public hearing process as was a consent item so if you're ready to vote or make a motion or discuss all of that is fine.

Okay. Deliberation. So is there any motions to approve or deny A02?

Mr. Chairman.

Commissioner Gage.

Know, looking at this, I'm not real happy with the 37 studio apartments and or that many tandem spots, but it does adhere to our codes and so forth. So overall, I'm happy with the design of it and all the amenities, the pool and that sort of thing. So there is a trade off for the parts I'm not real happy with. So I'll be voting for this. With that, I'd like to make a motion to approve development plan file PDEV21.

No, that's not it. Twenty three-twenty one. P D E V twenty three-twenty one. Okay,

do I have a second?

Second.

Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Gage and a second by Commissioner Diedemeyer. Madam Secretary, roll call vote please.

Ms. Diedemeyer? Yes. Mr. Gage?

Yes.

Mr. Lampkin?

Yes. Ms. Anderson? Yes. Chairman Ritchie?

Yes.

It is approved five to zero.

Okay. Thank you very much. And with that we'll now move on to consider the public hearing items. So the procedure for the public hearings will be as follows. We'll 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'll provide the applicant or their representative three minutes to make a presentation. After the applicant I will then open the meeting to comments by 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 spoken on the matter, the applicant will be given three minutes for the purposes 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 agreed by the decision of the Commission, an appeal may be filed within ten days with the Ontario Planning Department. The appeal must be in writing. Ms. Rudins, item B please.

Thank you chairman. Item B, an environmental assessment and development plan review for file number p dev 21046. A public hearing to consider a development plan to construct a 24 unit multifamily residential apartment complex on approximately 1.37 acres of land located at 207 And 219 East Buds Street within the MDR 18 medium density residential 11.1 to 18 dwelling units per acre zoning district. The project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA, pursuant to fifteen three thirty two, class 32 infill development projects of the CEQA guidelines. The project has been submitted by Brian Hung, and Ms.

Etuna will now provide us with the staff report. Thank you.

Thank you Ms. Reddins. Good evening chair and members of the commission. The project site is located at 207 And 2117 East Budd Street on a 1.37 acre of land. It's located just East Of Euclid Avenue and South Of Phillips Street surrounded by medium density residential to the north, south, east and west.

De Anza Park is to the West and De Anza Middle School is to the East. The site is currently developed with three residential units. The front unit is presently vacant and the rear two units are occupied. The western parcel is vacant. However, it was previously developed with a single family residence in a detached garage, but permits were issued in 2019 to demolish those buildings.

The front unit was originally a craftsman architectural style. However, over the years there have been alterations. The siding has been covered with stucco and windows have been changed out. And the rear units were constructed at a later date in a simple post war track style. The surrounding properties are developed with mix of architectural style including a craftsman bungalow, simple minimal traditionals and again post war track style.

The applicant is proposing to develop the site with twenty four two bedroom, two bath units ranging in size from ten fourteen square feet to twelve forty four square feet. The project is designed in a motor court layout with all access from Budd Street via central drive aisle. Uncovered parking, trash enclosures and amenities are located at the rear of the site. Landscaped Paseos provide circulation throughout the site. The project requires 54 parking spaces and 56 have been provided.

Six of those spaces are tandem spaces within an enclosed garage making up 11% of the required parking. The development code allows for the use of up to 12% of tandem spaces to satisfy unenclosed parking requirement. The project meets the parking requirement with use of the tandem spaces. The project is proposing carriage style units with two units on the Ground Floor and four units on the 2nd Floor. The 2nd Floor units are accessed via an enclosed staircase.

The 1st Floor units have direct access to two car garages. The project proposes a craftsman architectural style featuring a cross cabled roof with board and band siding at the cable ends, horizontal plank and stucco siding with a brick base, tapered porch supports and carriage style doors. The project proposes over 18,000 square feet of combined private and open space exceeding the 12,000 square feet requirement. Private open space is provided with enclosed patios and balconies ranging in size from 100 square feet to 300 square feet. Project amenities include a barbecue area, top lot and landscaped Paseo throughout the site.

On June 16, the development advisory board reviewed the subject application and recommended the Planning Commission approve the project as proposed. This concludes staff's presentation and I can answer any questions the commission may have at this time.

Thank you Ms. Antuna. Are there any questions of staff by the commissioners? Okay. As there are none, I will now open the public hearing and I ask the applicant to please come forward.

And please state your name and address for the record.

Yes. My name is Brian and I'm the designer for the project at 207219 East Path Street in Ontario.

Okay. Do you agree with the conditions of approval that have been set forth by staff?

Yes.

Okay. Would you like to add anything or? No. Okay. Any commissioners have any questions of the applicant? Okay. Thank you for coming forward sir. I'll now open the public hearing to the audience. Audience. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak on this agenda item?

As there is no one wishing to speak, I'll close the public comment and turn the matter over to the Planning Commission for discussion and action. Is there a motion to approve or deny the development plan? Do I have to hold you guys' hand? No worries.

Thank you. I was looking at this design and I was really happy to see that there was still some type of attempt to keep the architectural design consistent with kind of the history of this property with the craftsman style and the wood siding and the shiplap along with the doors. And was really happy to see it. The doors on appear, the garage doors on appear to be so generic that it just looks like just this big block of building there. So I want to applaud the applicant for doing that.

And then also too, this lot's been empty for quite some time. So I think it would be a welcome addition to the neighborhood and added some variety and also be a huge improvement to Butt Street. So with that said, I'd like to make a motion to approve the development plan file number PDEV21Dash046 subject to the resolution and attached conditions of approval.

Thank you. I second the motion.

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

Mister Gage?

Yes.

Mister Lampkin?

Yes.

Ms. Anderson?

Yes.

Ms. Dedemara? Yes. Chairman Ritchie?

Yes.

It is approved five to zero.

Thank you very much. So file number PDE B21-forty six. The development plan has been approved. Miss Redhams, item C please.

Thank you, chairman. Item C, an environmental assessment plan unit development and development plan review for file numbers PUD 23Dash001 and P. Dev. 20 three-eighteen. A public hearing to consider a planned unit development file number P.

U. D. 20 three-one to establish development standards and design guidelines and a development plan, file number P. Dev 23,018, to facilitate the construction of a five thousand seven hundred and ninety eight ninety five square foot two story commercial building on approximately point three seven acres of land located at 111 North Monterey Avenue within the mixed MU 6 East Holt mixed use zoning district. The project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA, pursuant to section one five three three two, class 32, infill development project of the CEQA guidelines.

The project has been submitted by Ernest Wong, and Ms. Atuna will now provide us with the staff report. Thank you.

Thank you. The project site is located at the Northwest corner of Holt Boulevard and Monterey Avenue. It's also located just East of Sultana and West of Campus Avenue. The site is surrounded by residential to the North and the West, a gas station to the East and commercial center developed with a single family residence and detached garages. Previous buildings on the site include a radio repair shop and a grocery store during the 1920s.

Those were later demolished to accommodate a gas station in the 1950s. The gas station was demolished in the 1970s. The existing single family residence is located at the Northeast corner of the site. Canary Island Palm is located in the adjacent parkway along Monterey Avenue. Surrounding development is mixed with historic multifamily property to the West and gas station to the East and recent commercial development to the South.

The mixed use zoning designation requires approval of a planned unit development for the development of the site and the applicant has submitted the Monterey Avenue PUD to fulfill this requirement and to establish standards related to the land use and development of the site, landscaping, parking requirements and architectural character. The PUD will require final approval by the city council so the Planning Commission would be considering a recommendation for the PUD today. The proposed development plan proposes to construct a two story multi tenant commercial building situated at the southeast corner of the site with 15 parking spaces on the west end of the property and one space at the northeast corner of the site for a total of 16 on-site parking spaces. Three street parking spaces are available along the Monterey Avenue project frontage. The project requires 19 parking spaces.

The PUD allows for the use of shared street parking to satisfy the parking requirement. So the project does meet the 19 space parking requirement. Access to the site will be from Monterey Avenue and the alley to the north of the site. The building will be set back 10 feet from both Monterey Avenue and Holt Boulevard. 1st Floor units will have access from both the front and rear of the units.

2nd Floor units will be accessed from an open staircase that leads to a shared corridor. Units will range in size from approximately 500 to 600 square feet. The building is constructed in a modern commercial architectural style with heavy cornices, horizontal plank siding, a stone treatment along the base and up the corner tower elements. The building also features large expanses of glazing and decorative metal awnings. The building was designed to create a statement at this prominent corner with unobstructed views into the 1st Floor units.

The building features three sixty degree architecture with enhancements on each elevation. The project proposes landscaping in all setback areas and trees dispersed through the parking lot for a total landscape coverage of 18.9% exceeding the 18% required by the PUD. An existing Canary Island palm in the Monterey Avenue Parkway is considered a heritage tree and will be protected in place when other parkway and public right of way improvements are completed. With that, staff is recommending that the commission recommend to the city council approval of the PUD and that the Planning Commission approve file number PDF 23,018 for the development plan. This concludes staff's presentation and I can answer any questions the commission may have.

Thank you Ms. Antuna. Are there any questions to staff by the commissioners?

Mr. Chair.

Commissioner Lampkin.

When we talk about the street improvements that are being made, can you confirm that these are the improvements that are being made by San Bernardino County in expanding Holt Boulevard or is there anything that the city is required to do at this time?

The improvements along Monterey Avenue will be the responsibility of the applicant. If there are any, improvements along Holt have not been completed at the time of construction, the applicant would be completing interim improvements and then SBCTA would come in and do the final improvements. It depends on the timing of the construction along Holt Boulevard.

So just to And so I guess my question was regards to Holt Boulevard, the improvements there. So SBCT SBCT. SBCTA is the entity that is making those improvements which is not the city of Ontario, correct?

Right. That would be SBCTA.

Okay. Which is the San Bernardino County Transit Authority. Okay. So if applicant completes the project first that means that parking they will not be they will be intermittently not meeting the parking improvement because street parking will not be available, correct?

We are not counting any parking on Holt Boulevard. There's no street parking on Holt. So that would not impact that.

Perfect. And I understand that these spaces are primarily being used for office. Can you just spend a little bit of time talking about where the region is in terms of a return to office spaces opening up in commercial spaces? I know for a while it was on a decline. But do you have any insight into the reasoning other than the Ontario plan why office space would be appropriate at this time?

So these are smaller units and they are labeled as office units but they would also accommodate other smaller service type uses. So the land uses that are permitted on this property defer back to those that are allowed within the underlying zoning which would be the downtown mixed use. So there would be a variety of uses besides just office that would be permitted there. The only use that was omitted as an allowed use would be a medical use and that's because of the increased parking demand that that may require. But as far as where the region stands on the demand for office perhaps the applicant or Ms. Reddens would be able to speak to that a bit more. Thank you Ms.

Antuna. So the Hope Boulevard is a corridor, a regional corridor, it's our bus rapid transit. As part of that is the Ontario plan. We intensified that corridor with a mixture of uses. A lot of that will be residential to the north. As part of having that residential, we still need more localized commercial along there to service those areas that we anticipate coming in the next several years. You can see it with Vista Verde. We have other plans coming in. We're expanding the downtown. We have plans there.

We have the Hutton project that was just built. And we're starting to see this transition of more residential. And this will support that growth along the BRT line but also the immediate area in the neighborhood providing these more localized services.

Great. And so I guess I'm getting the impression that this is in preparation for increasing intensive use of this area once the bus rapid transit comes through?

Correct. That and also the plan for the Ontario growth along that area within the downtown and within our arts district too.

Great. And that's all the questions I have for now. Will reserve the rest of my questions for the applicant.

Okay. Is there any other commission ers that have any questions of staff? I just had one and it was just related to I know it's been a while but in the 1970s there was a gas station there. Has there been any geological studies on the soil recently or is everything up to par with that?

We can ask the applicant that question. I don't have an answer to it.

All right. In that case, as there are no further questions for staff, we'll all open the public hearing and ask the applicant to please come forward. Please state your name and address for the record.

Chair and the member of the Planning Commission, my name is Maury Ma and the address is 1221 South Helsinki Boulevard, Helsinki Heights, California. Okay.

Do you agree with the conditions of approval contained in the staff report? Yes. Okay. Do you have anything you would like to add? Go ahead. No. Okay. So one of the questions I had like I said with staff was this was a previously a gas station. I know it was in the 1970s and it's probably been a long time. But have there been any geological studies on the soil just to see if there's any contaminants in the soil or anything remaining from the previous uses?

Yeah. No. We don't have discovered any hazardous material underground below our property. I guess the reason is that the gas station in the nearby property and don't have influence on our property in the recent couple of century.

Are there any other questions, Ashupa, the applicant?

I just wanted to make sure I understand that clearly. It's because of the type of you said it was because of propane on the property? Or what was the reasoning behind not doing the study?

Our property is a single family and the nearby property is gas station before. So our solar report doesn't show any hazard material below our property right now.

So there was I see. Had to be one because there's still two residents there.

So there

had to be one. Okay. That makes complete sense to me. Guess my question is in regards to the types of materials that are being used. Staff can please place back on the screen the elevations east, west, north and south. Actually can you go back to the other one? I don't think that one was in the packet there. The one you just showed just now. It was over one. Okay. This one here? That one there. Can you tell me about the material that is being used in I guess the light gray? You can see a majority of it at the top. It's almost like a taupe kind of color.

Maybe my eyes are just bad here. But it's, correct. What you were just pointing at, not the material that looks like brick or stone, but next to it that's no light, like that lighter gray, almost that one there. What material is that?

We have two color of stucco and so only the tower elements is the top element is stoma near and other material showing the side floor gray color is another color of stucco other than the yellow color.

Okay. So it is stucco. And is it set to be gray, another tone of gray?

Yeah, we have similar color quality for the second color stucco with snow veneer currently.

Okay. I understand that one of the strategies when working with staff is to have a kind of a layered approach to make it appear that a building is built over time. It's a strategy, especially when you're dealing with larger buildings that take up entire blocks. Have you explored the possibility of maybe changing the color to differentiate it from the stonework that's being placed on there? Or is this a color that you're set on?

Yes. It's current our preferred color style for the material of the stucco. As a sense, the stucco mania, we can maybe deploy more possibility of the stucco color in the future.

Okay.

Mr.

Chair, I'd like to go back to staff and see if they can provide some more insight into the discussions that were had in choosing the color palette.

Sure. So the I'm going to go to this slide. This might tell the story a little bit better. So there are two separate colors of stucco, and that's to create some blocking here over the plank siding and then the stone treatment along the base. So what the applicant was stating was that the color palette is being drawn from that stone material to create a complementary effect throughout the project.

We can certainly work with the applicant through the plan check process to refine that a little bit more to maybe create a little bit more contrast so that we can better define those changes. As you can see that's they're lined up to where there's changes in height on the building. Right.

Okay, good. And then on the 1st Floor where the smaller windows are, I did notice that did the staff between the staff and the applicant, there was a choice to put the stone blocking below those smaller windows. Is there a reason why those windows don't go down to Ground Level?

That's the restroom window.

Those are restrooms. Okay. All right. Good job. Okay. Those are all the questions I have, Mr. Sher. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Thank you for coming up and answering those questions. And now I'll open the public hearing to the audience. Is there anyone who wishes to speak or make any comments on this item? Okay. Seeing none, I will now close the public comment period and turn the matter over to the Planning Commission for discussion and action. Commissioner Lampkin.

In our discussion I talked about maybe revisiting the color palette there. I mean, think we've seen in the past where staff have worked with applicants and it doesn't seem like a change that would be super hard to adjust to if they came up with something else. I guess my main concern is it just appearing just gray all over and appearing to be this big block of gray to the point where that beautiful stonework on there, the details of it would be hidden. Ideally what I'd like to see is a discussion or the staff continue to work with the applicant on making a decision on color palette as the development goes along, once they have a better idea of how it appears in the area. I am happy that we are seeing a development go up.

It's been empty since the 1970s. But it doesn't look like this is something that's just going up for the sake of filling in space. I completely understand what staff are informing us about when it comes to the bus rapid transit coming in. There will eventually be a need for office spaces there, being that there's really none there at this time. So I'm really happy to see that we're thinking ahead.

We're planning for the future versus potential users of this space having to look more interior from Holt for office spaces. So they'll be able to provide services to residents who will be using the Holt Avenue corridor. I'm also satisfied with the answer and the reasoning given by the applicant in regards to the environmental study or the study done to ensure that there's no toxins in the ground. Completely forgot the fact that there are currently two residents there. So it's likely that it is safe.

And with that said, I'd like to recommend that we approve the planned unit development under the file number PUD 20 three-one subject to the resolution and attached conditions of approval. And just for a point of clarification, that is the approval of the planned unit development.

And so that would

be a recommendation. Recommendation, correct?

To City Council.

Then I'm going to, are we going to take the

Because other item one is recommending to City Council. Yes. The other one is for the approval of the development plan.

Perfect. Okay. So I would like to make a motion that we make a recommendation to council for the approval of the plan unit development.

Okay. I'll second it. Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Lampkin and a second by Commissioner Anderson. Madam Secretary, roll call vote please.

Mr. Lampkin?

Yes.

Ms. Anderson?

Yes.

Ms. Dedemar?

Yes.

Mr. Gage? Yes. Chairman Ritchie?

Yes.

It is recommended to City Council five to zero.

Okay thank you. And that would also go with the recommendation to staff to work with the applicant. Well now that we're moving on to the development plan we'd like to make the recommendation that staff work with the applicant maybe to look at different color schemes or color palettes for the stucco portions so that it'll kind of be a little variation in the color. And with that correct Commissioner Landry?

That is correct.

Okay, So if we can get a motion for the development plan.

So I'd like to make a motion that we approve the development plan subject to resolutions and attached conditions of approval. But I would also like to add that we just take that extra step to confirm that no study is needed in regards to the soil being that the gas station was there previously. Is that appropriate?

As part of the entitlement process and then further on, they will have to have done a phase one environmental assessment. So that will be completed as part of the process of the project.

Thank you. And I just want to make sure we have that on record so we all understand what we're supposed to do going forward.

Thank you. So do we have a second? I'll second that. Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Lamkin and a second by commissioner Anderson. Madam secretary.

Ms. Anderson.

Yes.

Ms. Diedemire. Yes. Mr. Gage.

Yes.

Mr. Lamkin.

Yes.

Chairman Ritchie.

Yes.

It is approved five to zero.

Okay. City council. And now, Rudden's item D, please.

Thank you, chairman. Item D, environmental assessment development plan and conditional use permit review for file numbers P. Deb 23040 and PCUP 20 Three-nineteen. A public hearing to consider a development plan file number p dev twenty three zero four o and p CUP23DashO19. A public hearing to consider the development plan file number p dev twenty three zero four o to construct a 5,261 square foot industrial building on point nine two acres of land in conjunction with a conditional use permit file PCUP23DashO19 to establish a truck maintenance and equipment rental service facility at 2130 South Cucamonga Avenue within the IL Light Industrial Zoning District.

The project is category exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA, pursuant to section one five three three two, class 32 in field development projects of the CEQA guidelines. The project is submitted by Ahmad Serafi, and mister Torres will now give the staff report. Mr. Torres.

Thank you Ms. Rudins and good evening members of the commission. The project is located along the northwest corner of Cucamonga Avenue and Philadelphia Street north of State Route 60. The project site is comprised of two parcels that are currently improved by existing non conforming residential uses. The subject site is surrounded by residential uses to the North, to the East, to the South and by a religious facility to the West.

These are the existing conditions of the subject properties. The applicant proposes to demolish all structures in order to facilitate the construction of industrial building. This is the Ontario land use plan showing the land use designation within the area. The project site is situated at the South Southwest edge of the industrial land use district as highlighted in purple. As you can see the proposed project will continue to transition the transition of non conforming uses to industrial to comply with the Ontario plan as shown on the exhibit.

The proposed 5,261 square foot industrial building will be oriented in a north to south configuration and situated on the southeast portion of the property. The applicant proposed to establish a truck maintenance and equipment rental facility which is the purpose for the condition use permit. The project site is general maintenance for trucks and equipment only. The building will include thirteen seventy one square feet of office space. Entrance to the office is located on the north side of the building.

The building also features four truck garage base that are located at the rear of the building. One point of vehicle and truck access is provided along Cucamonga Avenue. The project site is designed with employee visitor parking along the north side of the property in front of the building facing north. And truck parking at the northwest portion of the property, meeting the required parking for the project. An internal 30 foot wide drive aisle is provided on the project site allowing trucks to adequately maneuver on the property.

The project project provides various trees and water tolerant planting throughout the site, exceeding the required landscape coverage of 10%. The project provides 20%. Masonry screen walls will be provided at the perimeters of the site, providing adequate screening for all outdoor activities. The proposed building design incorporates a contemporary architectural style with enhanced elements and treatments throughout the building such as decorative metal awnings, the vertical horizontal metal sidings of earth tone colors, metal bandings and metal roof lines, and the tower element that features wood grain metal siding and inset windows to help break up the building's massing. This three elevation illustrates the proposed walls and gates facing Cucamonga Avenue.

The applicant proposes to construct an eight foot high decorative masonry wall with view obscuring gates. The walls will be complementary to the architecture of the building. These perspective demonstrate the decorative elements and material used for the building, articulating the material movement and high variations, making the project aesthetically pleasing. Staff does not anticipate any land use compatibility issues with the proposed use based on on-site and off-site improvements, parking and circulation, and the proposed screening of all outdoor activities. Prior to the hearing staff mailed out notices to the surrounding property occupants and owners asking for questions related to the project.

No responses were provided. Staff then mailed out notifications in regards to the public hearing and no correspondences were provided. Therefore, staff is recommending for your approval tonight for both applications. And this concludes my presentation and I am here to answer any questions and so is the applicant. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Torres. Are there

any questions of staff by the commissioners? Commissioners? Mr. Seeing none, as there are no questions, I'll now open the public hearing and I ask the applicant to please step forward. And please state your name and address for the record.

Good evening commissioner. My name is Ahmed Serafi. My address is 6388 Kolima Road Hacienda Heights California.

And do you agree with the conditions of approval that have been set for? I do. Okay. You have anything you would like to add? Go ahead.

Not really. I'm pretty happy with this. Put a lot of time and effort into the design, the aspects, the materials that were being used to do something which I hope would set a standard for other developers in the city to try and keep up with buildings of the aesthetic that I'm going for.

Okay.

Are there any questions the applicant from commissioners. Thank you, sir. Thank you. I'll now open the public hearing to the audience. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak or comment on this agenda item? Okay. Seeing none, we will now close the public comment period and turn the matter over to the Planning Commission for discussion and action. Is there a motion to approve or deny the conditional use permit and development plan?

Mr. Chair. Commissioner Gage. Yes. I think the applicant's right.

This is a a great example, really nice aesthetically done building here and he even included more landscaping than that we require obviously to get the exemplary look. And I think it's in the right place. And I think it's pretty easy to make a motion to approve conditional use permit file number PCUP23-nineteen and the development plan file number PDEV20Three-forty subject to the resolutions and attached conditions of approval.

Thank you, Commissioner Gage.

I second the motion.

Okay, we have a second by Commissioner Dedemire. Madam Secretary, call the roll.

Ms. Dedemire. Yes. Mr. Gage.

Yes.

Mr. Lampkin.

Yes.

Ms. Anderson.

Yes.

Chairman Ritchie?

Yes.

It is approved five to zero.

Thank you. Ms. Rudins, I'm sorry. Losing my place here. Item E.

Thank you, Chairman. Item E, Environmental Assessment Variance and Tentative Parcel Map Review for file numbers PVAR 20 five-one and PMTT 20 five-three, TPM twenty thousand nine thirty one. A public hearing to consider a variance file number PVAR 20 five-one to deviate from the minimum development code to consider oh, a development code standards for a lot with dimensions for interior lots from 100 to 85 feet in conjunction with the tenant parcel map number 20931, file number PMTT 25Dash003, to subdivide 1.24 acres of land into two parcels. The project site is located at 1656 South Magnolia Avenue within the A R two residential agriculture agriculture zero to two dwelling units per acre zoning district. The project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA, pursuant to section one five three zero five, class five minor alterations in land use limitations of the CEQA guidelines.

The project has been submitted by Andreessen Engineering, and miss Vaughn will now

the site consists of 1.24 acres of land located located at 1656 South Magnolia Avenue within the AR2 or agricultural residential zoning district. The site is surrounded by existing residential land uses also within the AR2 zoning district. The site is currently developed with a single family residential single family residence and accessory structures. It's addressed to Magnolia. Here's some property photos to give you a view from the street.

We have the existing residents facing Magnolia here on the right, and we have the rear of the property facing Elderberry Court Court on the left. The parcel is 85 feet wide and six twenty seven feet long and many properties in the immediate area have similar lot widths under 100 feet wide. The applicant applied for a variance to request relief from the minimum required lot width from 100 feet to 85 feet for each new parcel. The existing lot was legally established as 85 feet wide. However, it is considered substandard under today's development code standards.

While the development code typically does not support the creation of substandard lots, the property is currently constrained by an existing substandard width and strict enforcement of this code would prevent the property owner from enjoying the same subdivision rights as other property owners in the neighborhood and zoning district, which we can see here on this map. The blue lines are the property lines for all of the adjacent properties. The project site is outlined in yellow, and the dashed line here is the proposed new property line to be introduced, which is in line with the properties properties to the north. Staff finds that the requested relief is appropriate and it meets the intent of the development code and the Ontario Plan 2,050 as the lot width is an The etcetera. The proposed proposed parcels parcels will will not not prevent prevent the property owner from successfully developing or redeveloping residential land uses on-site.

The project proposes to subdivide the lot into two parcels. We have parcel one on the left, Parcel 2 on the right. Parcel 1, the easterly parcel, will continue to front onto Magnolia Avenue. It'll consist of 29,000 net square feet and will measure 85 feet wide by three fifty one feet deep. Parcel 2, the Westerly parcel, will be addressed to Elderberry Court and will remain vacant until developed in the future.

The parcel will measure 85 feet wide by two seventy six feet deep and will be 21,700 square feet in size. Each new parcel will exceed the required minimum development code standards of the lot size of 18,000 square feet and the minimum depth of a 135 feet. While equestrian trails are required in the AR 2 zone, no such trails or easements exist in the predominantly built out community that we just saw in the previous slide. As such, the applicant will not be required to include these historic preservation review as the home was constructed sometime around 1955. There are currently no development plans or building plan checks in place at this time.

Staff received one verbal communication from a neighboring resident regarding the project. The resident expressed concerns regarding property maintenance on the project site and inquired about the development timeline and requirements for Parcel 2. Staff explained that any public health, safety or nuisance concerns should be relayed to the community improvement department and that there are no plans currently on file to develop the site but that any future development must follow development code requirements. Staff recommends that pursuant to the facts and reasons contained in the staff report and resolutions and subject to the conditions of approval appended to those resolutions, we recommend that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving file numbers or what do we have? We have file number PVAR25-one for the variance and adopt a resolution approving file number PMTT25Dash003 for the tentative parcel map.

That concludes staff's presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. And we have the applicant and property owner here as well if you have any questions for them. Thank you.

Thank you Ms. Vaughn. Are there any questions of staff by the commissioners?

Mr. Chair. Commissioner Gage. Okay, the width of the lot is 85 feet. We're going for a variance here because our requirement is 100 feet, but the present lot is 85 feet.

That is correct.

Okay. That is all need to

know. Okay.

Mr. Chairman.

Commissioner Dedeman.

And this proposal here is merely to split the lot nothing more. Also correct. Thank you.

Mr. Chair.

Commissioner Leptin.

And how is this area currently zoned?

This is the AR2 or agricultural residential zoning district. So that district is intended to have larger lots that could potentially serve agricultural uses like small crops, having a horse, sheep, goats, things like that as long as the lot size is appropriate.

And by requesting this variance, it remove them from or make them exempt from using it as an agricultural property?

They would still be able to use it as an agricultural property. They would just need to abide by all of the size standards that we have in the development code. So, for example, horses require certain lot size.

But

all other uses that would fit according to the new lot sizes are eligible.

That's all I have.

Are there any other questions of staff by the commissioners? No, Very well. As there are no further questions, I'll now open the public hearing and ask the applicant to step forward please.

Please. And

Engineering 195 North Euclid Avenue, Upland. Thank you so much for asking questions on our project. We thought we might not have any of you. We have reviewed the conditions. We totally accept what staff has done. I also have to say that it is a pleasure working with your staff. I work with 25, 30 cities currently. And your staff has just been wonderful going over how we could develop this property. Not develop, how we can subdivide this property for the ownership and things. So I just to compliment them. They are just a wonderful group of people to work with.

Thank you. Any questions of the applicant from commissioners? Thank you sir.

Thank you.

I'll now open the public hearing to the audience. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak on this matter? As there is no one wishing to speak, I'll close the public comment period and turn the matter over to the Planning Commission for discussion and action. Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Dede Meyer.

This seems very straightforward to me. This is one of the simplest actions I have seen in all the years I have been on the Planning Commission. I would like to move to approve the variance file number PVAR20Five-one and the tentative parcel map file number PMTT20Five-three subject to the resolutions and conditions of approval.

Thank you. Is there a second?

I'll go ahead and second that.

Okay. So we have a commission, we have a motion by commissioner Dedemeyer and a second by commissioner Anderson. Madam secretary.

Mr. Gage?

Yes.

Mr. Lampton? Yes. Ms. Anderson? Yes. Ms. Dedemar? Yes. Chairman Ritchie?

Yes.

Projects approved five to zero.

Thank you very much. So file number PMTT 25Dash003 and PVAR 25Dash001. The tenant parcel map and the variance have been approved. And now if it's possible could we just have a five minute break real quick for

Yes, thank you. Five minute break.

Thank you. We'll be right back. We are ready to move back into session. I'll just gavel just for the officialness of it. So with that Assistant Director Rudins item E is it we're on?

F. Sorry.

Last one.

There we go. Last one. I mistyped. Okay. So this should say F.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you.

Item F, environmental assessment and tentative parcel map review for file number PMTT25Dash005. A public hearing to consider tentative parcel map number 21001015 to subdivide 80.81 acres of land into six numbered parcels and six lettered parcels for a property generally located at the Northwest corner of Ontario Boulevard and Grove Avenue located within the IG, General Industrial, and ONT, Ontario International Airport zoning district. Staff has prepared an addendum to the Ontario Plan 2050 supplemental environmental impact report, state clearing house number 2021070364 certified by the city council on 08/16/2022. This application induce in introduces no new significant environmental impacts, and the project has been city initiated and now miss Mejia will give you the staff report. Thank you.

Thank you miss Redens. Good evening chairman and members of the planning commission. The proposed project area outlined in red is generally located East of Ontario International Airport, bounded by the Pacific Union Railroad tracks to the North and South, and Grove Avenue to the East, and to the West, Bondue Avenue. The project area at one point in time was a residential neighborhood, but due to its proximity to the Ontario National Airport, the community was impacted by high noise levels from aircraft flying overhead. To mitigate noise impacted communities, the FAA has a program referred to as the Part 150 noise compatibility program that allows for grant funding in order to relocate or noise insulate homes impacted by noise from proximity to airports.

The Part 150 program in Ontario was known as the Quiet Home Program and was initially approved by the FAA in 1991 and was completed in 2015. The primary goal of the program was to reduce noise and or eliminate incompatible land uses within Ontario's high noise areas. The Quiet Home program was active for twenty four years, and during that time, the city acquired properties, insulated fifteen ninety nine residential units, and over the course of that time sold 30 properties that were converted to airport compatible land uses. The project site before you outlined in red was part of the part one fifty program's acquisition and relocation area. As each residential unit was purchased by the city with grant funds from FAA, the existing homes were subsequently demolished, and today, the majority of the project site is mostly vacant.

The program was a voluntary based program, and the the properties highlighted in yellow are properties not owned by the city and are not part of the actual project area. The zoning for the properties within the project site were changed from residential to industrial uses in the early nineteen nineties to eliminate any future incompatible land uses with Ontario's high noise areas. The properties are currently zoned, as mentioned by Ms. Rudden's General Industrial And Ontario International Airport. The proposed tentative parcel map will consolidate two forty eight parcels totaling 80.81 acres and subdivide them into six numbered parcels that are highlighted in different colors before you.

Here we go. Here we go. So you can see Parcel 12, And 3 on the northern side, and on South Of State Street, we have Parcel 445, And 6. The General Industrial Zoning District does require a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet, and all of the proposed lot size exceed that, and they range in size from 5.6 to 12.9 acres in size. The project site will have one access from Grove Avenue and one access from Bondue.

The existing internal streets, State Street that runs east west and Cucamonga that runs north south will remain in place. The internal public streets and alleys that will be vacated as part of this map include Main Street, Washington Street, Garfield Avenue, and Jefferson Street. However, to maintain access to parcels that are not controlled by the city and are highlighted in yellow here before you, the proposed parcel map is proposing two new public streets that run north and south. Street A, North Of Straight Street, highlighted here, and Street B North Of State Street highlighted here to give access to this parcel here. The project site is also impacted by Ontario compatibility plans, safety zones, noise impact zones, and allowable building heights for this general area range from 15 feet up to a 125 feet.

Future development of the project site will be required to be consistent with the policies and criteria of the ONT ALUCP. And so as mentioned, this parcel map is really just to consolidate and allow for develop able parcels to allow for compatible land uses to be built within this area. But there is no development being proposed as part of this project. Staff has prepared an addendum to the Ontario Plan 2050 supplemental EIR. The addendum concludes the proposed project does not result in any new significant environmental effects, and all previously adopted mitigation measures are a condition of project approval.

Staff received one public comment for the project from SAFR regarding the use of the addendum instead of a project level specific EIR. However, staff has determined that the use of an addendum is adequate for the proposed project. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution approving the addendum to the TOP 2,050 supplemental EIR and adopt a resolution for the tentative parcel map. This concludes staff's presentation on the proposed tentative parcel map and I can answer questions that you may have at this time. Also with here tonight is the consultants that prepared the addendum and they are also available for any questions that you may have on the project or on the addendum portion as well. Thank you.

Thank you Ms. Mahia. Are there any questions of staff by the commissioners? Commissioner Lampkin.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Two questions. The proposed roads to accommodate access to the privately owned properties, would that include room for sidewalks for pedestrian traffic?

Yes.

Okay. And then I want to also thank the staff for the reminder of when this was initially visited back in 2022 and I'm participating in some capacity in process. Can you just very briefly go over the airport influence zone and why, just as a reminder for everyone, why something like residential or parks, a park space can't go there and how the airport influence zone influences what can be placed there in terms of can't have a gathering space, things like that.

So the project site is located right off the end of the runway. And this vicinity map kind of shows that. So it's located within safety zones and high noise zones. The actually even at the state level, it doesn't allow for what we call sensitive land uses. Also, because it is located just off the another runway, it's considered a high risk area for any incidents or any takeoff aircraft incident as part of their takeoff landing procedures.

So we really want to minimize and limit the number of people that we have on-site. So even if you were to have some type of industrial use here in the future, we would be looking at low intensity uses. We wouldn't be wanting to have any type of high manufacturing use that would have type of high concentrations of foundable materials or actual people. So there's a lot of safeguards within here. Also, the allowable building heights within this area.

So on the Southeast corner of the site, it starts at about 10 to 15 feet in height. And then as you go further north, that's where you have your allowable upper height limits that go over 100 feet. So those are gonna be a lot of site planning that goes into play when any development does come here that we'll be looking at to make sure that it's consistent and we're not creating any hazards to aircraft and flight as well.

Great. And thank you for that. Really appreciate it. And the owners of the private pieces of property, just to confirm, they cannot ever go back and try to rebuild residential there. They will have to conform to the new zoning for the TLP, correct?

Correct. They would have to adhere to all development standards and be consistent with plan as well.

Great, thank you. Are there any other questions?

Mr. Chairman.

Commissioner Dedeman.

Would staff please go over again the rebuttal to item to the SAFR comment. I'm not sure I understand it.

So the comment that you received from the SAFR group, they're saying that an addendum isn't an adequate level of environmental review for this project and that a project level EIR should be prepared. And what staff is saying that the proposed project isn't introducing any new impacts that weren't already evaluated as part of that supplemental EIR. So it's all consistent with that.

And is that because no development or anything is planned? Is the first step in something. Correct. But right now we have no plans themselves?

No. So if a project were to come in and would exceed those established thresholds as far from a square footage, FAR standpoint, then it could potentially open up a different level of environmental review. But if it falls below those thresholds, then that would be the addendum would be

adequate. So safer may be a little ahead of time. Correct. In opposition. Thank you.

Okay. Are there any other questions of staff?

One more item really quickly. As part of this development, it's not a project, it's a tenant track map.

Right.

But because of the fact an addendum is prepared, it would also clear a development plan if in fact it came in and it was under the thresholds identified as we stated here that's been covered by the addendum, just to be clear. But this project is not a project under the tenants of CEQA.

So there may never be a need for anything beyond what's already been covered by CEQA? Correct.

But there would be standard studies that would be required as a project would come in.

Okay. But this is not the appropriate time right now to be considering alternatives. Correct. Thank you.

Any other comments or questions to staff?

One last question, sorry. Go ahead. Just to confirm and want to just make sure if the parcel maps are combined consolidated, okay, thank you for that. I wanted to see what roads we were losing. I know we were adding two to accommodate the privately owned properties but I just noticed that we may be losing two roads. So they would be the roads that travel east to west. I can't see the numbers up there but is that parcel two?

It might be a little bit easier to see. So you have Main Street the North Side and then on the South Side you have Washington And Jefferson and then you have a North South that's Garfield Avenue that will be removed in the parcel map.

I see now. Okay, thank you.

But those streets are part of the initial residential fabric. And as part of this effort, consolidating the lots and reconfiguring it was the most efficient way to move forward with providing a project that we could move, potentially someone could move forward with. Otherwise the city would own the two fifty eight lots and have to maintain them and somehow figure out what we would do next. So this is actually facilitating us moving forward into our vision for the 2,050 TOP.

Great, thank you.

Okay, as there are no further questions I'll now open the public hearing and ask the applicant to please step forward.

Oh,

I'm sorry.

He said

he is

the applicant.

David? They've

just moved forward. David, you wanna come forward?

We accept conditions. No,

copy and pasted that's why. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak on this or make any comments? And seeing none, I'll now turn it over to the Planning Commission for deliberation. Sorry guys, I gotta stop coughing.

Mr. Chairman.

All right.

I move approval of the use of an addendum and the tentative parcel map file number PMTT25Dash005 subject to the resolutions and conditions of approval.

Thank you.

Mister chair, I second.

Okay. So we have a motion by commissioner Diedermeyer and a second by Commissioner Lamkin. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Mr. Lamkin?

Yes.

Ms. Anderson? Yes. Ms. Dedemeyer? Yes. Mr. Gage?

Yes.

Chairman Ritchie?

Yes.

It is approved five to zero. And

that's it, right? Okay. That's it. Thank you very much. Okay. With that, we will now move on to matters from the planning historic preservation commission.

We did not meet this month.

No meeting for the historic preservation subcommittee. Any other subcommittees? We did not meet. New business, do any commissioners have any other business or any other comments? Okay, seeing none. Nominations for special Thank

you, Chairman. The monthly activity reports are available in your packet.

Okay. Thank you, Ms. Rudnick.

Thank you.

The next Planning and Historic Preservation Commission public hearing is scheduled for 08/26/2025 at 06:30 p. M. Thank planning staff. Thank you commissioners. This public hearing is now adjourned. Good night everyone. And good job Kimberly. You did an excellent job. Good job.