City Council - Regular Meeting

Welcome to a meeting of the Ontario City Council. The first order of business, Madam City Clerk, is roll call.

The record will reflect that all members are present for the meeting tonight.

Okay, so before we move on with the agenda, does anybody have any conflicts of interest tonight? Seeing none, we'll move on to the Pledge of Allegiance led by Mayor Pro Tem Wapner. Our invocation, tonight's invocation will be led by Senior Pastor Gressford Thomas, Ontario Seventh-day Adventist Church. Thank you.

Please join me in a pledge to our great flag. 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.

Let us pray. Gracious God, with thankful hearts, we begin this meeting by recognizing the privilege and responsibility of public service. Thank you for the freedoms we enjoy, for the opportunity to work together for the good of our community. We want to remember our mayor, our council members, and those standing on the dais. We pray for wisdom as decisions are made this evening. We pray for clarity where there is uncertainty, understanding where there are differences, and perseverance in addressing the needs of the people of Ontario. Protect those who serve our city each day, including our police officers, our firefighters, healthcare professionals, public works employees, teachers, and volunteers. And Lord, we pray for those standing behind me and those watching online. Bless every family represented throughout our community and guide us all toward choices that build trust, strengthen neighborhoods, and leave a positive legacy for future generations. May today's work be carried out with integrity, fairness, and respect. Amen.

Thank you. So that moves us into our public comments portion of the meeting. Comments are limited to three minutes. Speakers will be alerted when you have one minute remaining. In accordance with state law, remarks during public comments are to be limited to subjects within council's jurisdiction. All those wishing to speak, including council and staff, need to be recognized by the chair. Madam City Clerk, do we have any email public comments?

Yes, Mr. Mayor, there were. emailed comments, printed, placed at the days, and will be entered into the record.

All right, thank you. Then any, we do have cards, do you have any extra cards over there?

Not at the moment.

So you bring one, so.

Yes.

Okay, thank you. So we'll start with Matt Munson?

Yeah.

Been a while, Matt.

Yeah, it has. All right. Hello, city council members, mayors, staff and audience. I'm here to address the issue of a potential half cent sales tax in our city. I understand the city manager may be worried that Prop 43 has the potential to pass and the city is worried that they have a more difficult time raising taxes in the future under a two-thirds requirement. The residents should know and understand our fiscal condition before a ballot measure like this is placed on the ballot, even if Proposition 43 fails or was not on the ballot. Our sales taxes only increased almost four years ago, and they have the audacity to consider asking for more money. It seems like we're living in LA County. If I wanted those type of politicians, I would have voted for the progressive slate in our city. And sadly, right now, they have more integrity right now. School districts have historically called high propensity voters before placing a bond on the ballot. It seems the same tactics are done for sales tax increases where the people in our city have been called about potential sales tax in 2022. They did right before the deadline. And I do protect our council and city manager will place it on the next meeting because the deadline is August 7th. I stand in deep opposition and I will stand here again next meeting if reality does happen. We have a cost of living crisis where many things that we use day to day have increased in price. Even our state government is getting greedy right now where digital services will be taxed next year. Perhaps we just need to live within our means and stop promising the world at the same time. If we do have fiscal problems, this proposed sales tax increase should be short-term only and be subject to the reauthorization or repeal after a period of years. However, cities rarely do that. Thank you.

Thank you, Matt. Randy Beckendam.

Good evening, Mayor, Council. So even though today's my birthday, I'm still celebrating the 4th of July. I can't get over being invited to be in the parade and then win the grand prize through a team effort. So anyway, been reflecting a lot on our nation's 250 years and realizing how much work is yet to be done. One person that I really admire early on in our nation is William Penn, the founder of Philadelphia. And he was quite bold to put his name in the state's name, called the main city a city of brotherly love. Adopt the motto, let's see what love can do. A lot to live up to. But as you know, Pennsylvania was the first state to outlaw slavery well before the Civil War. So I've been reflecting on the city of Ontario. Imagine if we could do our own You know, our 250 years has been called the grand experiment. What if Ontario could launch its own grand experiment, aspire to be a city of brotherly love, adopt the motto, let us see what love can do, and even have a citizens' oversight committee to make sure that every city decision is filtered through a template of love and compassion. So to that end, I... have a handout, I'll leave with the clerk. This is a summary of the Charter of Compassion. Three of our neighboring cities have already signed on to it, Pomona, Upland, and Rancho Cucupanga. A further neighbor is Redlands. So I strongly urge the council to undertake a study to see what it would take for Ontario to qualify as a city of compassion. And so I'm going to hand these over. Thank you very much. Happy birthday.

Our next speaker is Dale Roberts.

Good evening, one and all. And if you're looking for me to complain tonight, it's not going to happen. OK, I'm going to make everybody go home happy tonight. No stress. What I'm going to talk about tonight for just about a minute is I want to, I am remiss if I didn't compliment the departments that cleaned up the trash canisters on I Street. I complained about it, complained about it, But it took, once everybody was on board that it was illegal where the canisters were on the street, everyone jumped in there and they had it taken care of in two days. That's the fire department, the waste management, planning, code enforcement. There was a lot of people that I spoke to over time trying to get the cans off the street. Now I don't have to be concerned about any kid walking in front of that canister. and getting hit by a car, besides it being illegal parked in a red zone. Now the problem is everyone is taking up those spots to park in the red zone. And any day you go by there, you can probably run between 10 and 15 vehicles parked on I Street west of Mountain at those apartment complexes parked in those red zones. Which leads me to another thing. I'm curious as to why the police department would have only one person working in the city as part of a, I'm going to call it code enforcement if you're writing tickets, okay, why they only have one person. Now, what I would call it is having someone between yourself and the crime so you don't get blamed for it.

OK, like one minute remaining.

Thank you. Like if I raise a stink about my car being towed, the police didn't tow it. Another company towed it. But why do we only have one? Why are they only spending money for one person or one vehicle driving around here looking for people parking fire hydrants with the city having almost 200,000 people? And you've got one person? I see all over the city the people parking in illegally. But let me get back to it. Thank each and every one from the fire department, the police department, code enforcement, planning department for getting it cleaned up over there on I-Street. I greatly appreciate it. And thank you for your time.

All right, thank you. Our next speaker is Deja Lopez.

Hello everybody and thank you for having me here today. I'm actually here to represent our housing health crisis. For many families in Ontario, California, having to place a call home is becoming more difficult every year. As housing costs continue to rise, many of our families are forced to make impossible decisions between paying rent, groceries, and paying for childcare. Or even seeking medical attention or mental health care. Housing is no longer an economic issue, it's a public health issue. This issue is personal to me because I have experienced the impact of housing cost firsthand. I was evicted because of the cost of housing continued to rise, and it increases beyond what I could afford. Losing stable housing was more than just a lost place to live. It brought overwhelming stress. uncertainty and emotional hardship. I gave it a deeper understanding of how quickly families can find themselves in crisis, even when they're working hard and doing everything they can to stay afloat. Just to mention, I am a USC student at USC right now. And as a social work student and someone who works directly with vulnerable populations, I have also seen how housing instability affects every aspect of a person's life. Individuals experiencing financial hardship often report increased stress, anxiety, and depression and hopelessness. Parents work multiple jobs just to keep a roof over their child's head, while older adults and individuals living with disabilities struggle to survive on fixed incomes. Stable housing provides safety, security, and a foundation for people to maintain their physical and mental wellbeing. Ontario is a grown city with expanding businesses and employment opportunities, yet many residents can't even afford to live in the community that they serve. Without affordable housing options, families are pushed farther away from schools, healthcare and support systems. And even financial burdens of high costing contributes to chronic stress and increasing the need for mental health services. While making these services harder to access.

30 seconds remaining.

Housing should not be considered as a privilege reserved for those in the highest incomes. It is a basic human need that allows individuals and families to thrive. I encourage our city leaders to continue investing in affordable housing, expanding housing needs and supportive housing and creating policies that help working families remain in the communities that they all call home. Housing is more than a roof over someone's head. It's a foundation for health, dignity, and opportunity. And my experience with eviction reinforced that reality. And I hope you guys take that into consideration. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Adriana Roda-Stewart.

Hello. My name is Adriana. I'm here today because my friend Randy, who spoke a little bit earlier over there, has requested that I speak tonight for his 74th birthday today and to advocate for some of the work that has brought us together. For 25 years, Randy served the people of Ontario at Amy's Farm, sharing food, green community space, and education on organic and regenerative agriculture with anyone who wanted to visit. Amy's Farm was never able to raise the funds needed to buy their land from their landlord. and some years ago their land was sold off to developer and the farm was evicted causing a great loss to the community randy's work has never stopped and nowadays you can find him assisting in a multitude of community farming projects around ontario and pomona that's how i met him i have grown up in an age of climate anxiety which has affected me every day of my adult life according to the world metrics.org website 81 of 16 to 24 year olds globally report high levels of climate anxiety so i know that i am not alone Recognition is growing now that this anxiety is a rational emotional response to a genuinely destabilizing global threat that threatens our health, food systems, economic security, and much more. The good news is that there is much we can do locally to adapt to the climate change that has already occurred and prevent the situation from worsening. The city of Ontario has enough vacant land that we can feed every citizen using the organic regenerative production methods already in use at some farms locally. For those unfamiliar with the terms regenerative agriculture, it is a conservation and rehabilitation approach to food and farming systems that prioritizes topsoil regeneration. It increases biodiversity and improves the water cycle. Degrading soil and water quality are our greatest threats to our national food system, but we can protect ourselves locally with city support for tree planting and local agriculture. Urban trees have been shown to reduce temperatures locally by 12 degrees. On a week like this, it is easy to see the benefit. How we steward our land matters. What we choose to build makes a difference. My ask is that the City of Ontario would support local agriculture and our native ecosystems.

One minute remaining.

Every dollar invested in climate mitigation and preparedness can save $13 down the line. So it's more than just a dream. It is actually practical and common sense. And I'm just here to say I'm a young person that is here because I want to do the work. It matters very, very much to me. There's a lot more people like me who are also wanting to do this type of work. And any support that City Council can offer for the young people of Ontario and the neighboring areas, would be very appreciated in addressing our problems. Thank you.

Mr. City Manager, could you have somebody inform her about Huerta del Valle and Seeds of Joy?

Sure, Helen McElary, our CLC director, would probably be most instructive. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Chris Robles.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, City Council. My name is Chris Robles and I am founder of Fair Ontario. And one of the things I've recognized over the last two, three years is how much you have leveraged our tax money for private venture. And I'm not going to say that that's neither good nor bad. It's what what is bad is how it's been done with no transparency. Tonight is no exception where you're giving out loans. So it was kind of interesting that two weeks ago a poll was done about a sales tax measure when we just had one. And in this poll they actually asked How would you vote if you knew how Fair Ontario thought about it? Which was really interesting. I guess Fair Ontario has landed. The thing is, it isn't about Fair Ontario. It's about the taxpayers. And it's about the lack of transparency by this city council and this city. When you pass budgets, most of the time, except this current one, but I'll get to that in a minute, when you pass budgets in Ontario, a back conference room, not with cameras present, when you hold these budget meetings to pass 1.65, and now it's 1.2, I think, billion, billion with a B, dollar budgets, and you do them on days that are not city council meetings, and at hours like 9 a.m. when working people can't attend, that's not transparency. So I'm hoping that residents, before they even consider another tax increase on themselves, that they look at how this council has operated in the, dare I say, 30 plus years most of you have been here.

One minute remaining.

So let's do far better. Before you get anyone's support, in the city as opposed to outside the city like last time, you need to show a bigger, better effort.

Thank you. All right. Our final speaker is Tommy Muschigan.

I'd like to remind everybody that the city seal shows that there's a balance between schools and churches and business and agriculture. I suggest you use Lee and Associates instead of CBRE for dealing with eucalyptus and Bonnevue. And I hope you keep that agriculture and not develop it. The county gives you a gift, an opportunity, and you can use our tax money and just leave it alone. Don't pawn it off to some developer and keep it agriculture. I'm sure there's a well on site. I don't know why you have to keep building and building and building. It makes me sick. And I'd like to remind you that... I bought a brand new Lennar house and they use low quality building materials. So I'm just letting you know, whatever you're building in the new and the south end of town, it's crap. It's not good quality. It's not anything like my parents' house on South Magnolia. And another thing is, I still have no answers about the gray container that was defined in the city's municipal code. Nobody from solid waste can give me a good answer. So I'd like to remind you again, you need to dissolve the city's integrated waste department and allow franchises to come into the city. And so much you should put the residential out for bid. You can put in the contracts to keep the city employees, but it would be more cost effective if you wouldn't haul the city's trash It's not worth it. You're making too much money on it. You bring in some private companies. It'll save us a lot of money since you've got to go all the way to Fontana to tip anyway. It's like cold burn never drove anyway. And another thing is I need my university-accessible playground equipment. Hopefully Candace Smith is doing something about it over here at, what is it? The park right there on Euclid you're redoing. But you could bring that in. If you need another clear example, go look at the Park of Dreams in East LA on South Bondi Beach Place and Union Pacific Avenue. That's what I'd like out here. And when are you going to open up Chino Avenue again between Ontario Avenue and Banda? One minute remaining. Because I'm waiting, I could see you put in your storm drains and waiting on your sewers, but it's taking too long. It takes me forever to get from my house over to the ranch. And that's it.

Okay. Thank you. That ends public comment. And so I'll go into agenda review and announcements. Mr. City Manager.

Yes, Mr. Mayor. For item number three on the consent calendar, each resolution attached to the item will have a separate section for updated to reflect changes as requested by the County of San Bernardino. A sample has been placed at the dais for your review as well as all the other council members and copies are available to members of the public. You'll see this caveat and change go again with item number 24 and item number 25 under public hearings.

All right, so- Mr. Mayor. Yes, sir.

I apologize. If you're about to announce the consent calendar, we'll have an announcement related to that as well at your- Yeah, sure.

Okay, well, I am announcing the consent calendar, so please.

Thank you, sir. Item 22 on the consent calendar is an approval of MOUs between the city and various employee groups. Under government code section 54953 subsection C3, one of the recommended actions is to amend the executive management compensation and benefits profile to add the deputy city manager classification. The classification will remain within the department head profile and will also be included in the executive management profile. where it will be assigned to executive salary group EX1 with a monthly salary range of $16890 to $22462. The deputy city manager appointed to the executive management group will receive the compensation and fringe benefits applicable to the executive management profile. After this oral report, the council will consider final action on this recommendation in compliance with the government code. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

All right. We do have blue cards to the consent calendar, which we'll hear before I entertain a motion from the council and a vote. So we'll begin with, and also you'll have two minutes, but you have one bite at the entire consent calendar. I see that some people have lined up for multiple different issues, but the consent calendar is just one continuous item. So we'll begin with Mr. Robles.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And once again, I respectfully disagree with you. It is not. That's why each one's numbered. They're all items and they should have time for each. So I am speaking on item 23 and five in that order. So item 23 is about our Prop 70 land. So it's interesting, again, that After years of myself and others bringing up this item of Prop 70 land, which is our agricultural preserve that the state of California funded and that the people of California own, that all of a sudden now the city is saying that They recognize that they're trying to go after it. So it's in your staff report. You're not preserving the land. You're moving to take protections away from the agricultural preserve. Now you're asking taxpayers to fund $300,000 to hire CBRE to market and sell it. In there, CBRE actually describes it as vacant industrial land. It's far from the truth. It is not vacant, and it's not industrial land. It is an agricultural preserve, and there's agricultural activities actually happening on it. If anybody bothered to go see it, as I have, then you would know that it is not vacant industrial land. So don't create this loophole that allows you to swap protections and cash in for developers. and hand them over are preserved lands. So that's 23, let's see in 28 seconds I can do item five. Item five is replacing Ontario's CEQA guidelines. The documents total over 200 pages. There's no staff report explaining the projects that are affected or how public participation would change. And this should not be buried on consent. This should be polled, hold a public presentation, give residents an opportunity to review the changes before adoption. And I made it. Thank you.

Perfect. Okay, our next speaker is Marty McBride.

Good evening, Mayor, Council, staff, my fellow residents. I see that I only have two minutes today, so I'm not gonna waste a lot of time. First, I want to object to the statement that speakers must speak on multiple topics within the allotted time. Given the number of topics on the consent calendar, it would be unreasonable, if not impossible, to expect any resident to comment intelligently and comprehensively on multiple items within such a short amount of time. That said, I'm here tonight to talk about the proposal before the City Council to replace Ontario's current CEQA rules with the new 218-page set of environmental review guidelines. We've already seen that the current CEQA rules do not provide strong enough protections in this city, yet the new rules add more exemptions and a streamlined review for future projects, making it even easier for the city to avoid intense scrutiny on any development projects in terms of the impact to residents, current and future, the air quality, the water infrastructure, et cetera. In closing, I ask this Council to pull item number five from the consent calendar, give the public a realistic opportunity to attend a full public presentation, and publish a red line document showing the changes, and explain which Ontario projects may be affected, and allow the residents time to review and comment, and take those comments into account. The staff and the City Council planning department, every person involved in those decisions when making the final decisions regarding development for major projects. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Alec Aragon. Alec Aragon? All right, our next speaker then is... Okay. Okay.

Excuse me, what item is this again?

You have two minutes to speak to the consent calendar. You put your name down on item number five.

Sweet.

Your time is going by, sir.

Yes, I see it. One sec. Good evening, Mayor Leon and members of the City Council. I am speaking tonight to urge you to pull item five from the consent calendar. Item five replaces Ontario's current local CEQA rules with a massive 218-page set of environmental review guidelines. These are the rules that determine how the city studies traffic, air quality, land use, and public health impacts before approving projects. A 218 page rewrite of Ontario's environmental rules should not be quietly approved as a routine consent calendar item with no staff presentation, no separate debate, and no clear public explanation. The new rules add more explanations and streamlined reviews for various developments. Notably, near-miss housing projects could receive much narrower environmental reviews, potentially leaving out vital analyses of alternatives, cumulative impacts and growth-inducing deficits, FFX. Furthermore, these rules narrow what internal staff notes and communications must be included in the administrative further reducing transparency. We're not opposing state law. We understand that Sacramento requires some of these updates. The issue tonight is transparency. The city has not explained which pending Ontario projects could benefit from these new exemptions or streamline procedures. Ontario should explain what these changes mean locally before adopting them. Ask the council to pull item five from consent, continue it to a later meeting, provide a full public presentation, publish a red line showing what changed, and allow residents time to review and comment. Follow the law, but do it in public, pull item five, explain the changes, and give Ontario residents a real chance to be heard. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Joaquin Casalejos.

Good evening, city council, mayor, and staff, community. My name is Joaquin Castillos. I am with the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice. And I'm here today to speak on item 23 and item 5. The proposition in item 23 to get a land broker to negotiate between the sale of the Prop 70 land is very intransparent to the community that has been coming to these meetings, showing up, making public comment and trying to be part of the decision making process. Now they get shown that this was never a public process to begin with and the city doesn't really care what the community has to say, especially when this is on the consent calendar and there's no opportunity to learn more about this, why you're doing it. And why is it going through this process? But we know why you're doing it is because it's obvious that the city has made up its mind and wants to sell the land and does not care what the city has to say and what the community has to say and the reasoning behind it. And I asked the city council to move this out of the agenda and create a stronger, more community based transparent process where folks can have the opportunity to have a real intentioned attempt to be part of the public decision making. which is their right. Also on item number five, I also asked for that item to be moved for the city council to decide to move that item out of the agenda. This is a huge change to the city and it's important for the community to know exactly why it's happening what's being changed. I've been to these meetings so many times, and now I never see very thorough presentations. Like, why don't you want the community to know what's being changed or how it's being changed? The city needs to do better. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Our next speaker is Randy Beckendam. Birthday, Beckendam.

Good evening again. Sometimes we probably sound like a broken record, but we feel so strongly about this Prop 70 issue. 1988, the state passed Prop 70. The spirit of the law is to preserve land in danger of development, not way out wherever. And in San Bernardino County specifically, The $20 million that was received were to preserve land within the agriculture preserve. That's where the land is. There's no reason that land can't be conserved right where it is. The county's been in violation of the public trust for 38 years by never putting the conservation easements on the land. Even when they passed two different bills to give them loopholes to consolidate or sell or whatever, each of those bills required that permanent conservation easements be placed on the property. And it's not been done to this date. And we've stated many, many times that those lands are actually being used for agriculture as we speak. Our vision has always been beyond dairies. where that land could be converted to regenerative farming, growing fruits and vegetables for the city. It could be done right where they are. They don't have to be contiguous. They can be conserved right where they stand. They can coexist just fine with warehouses, with houses. It's an incredible asset, and we're vehemently opposed to 23.

Okay, our next speaker is Claudia Cuevas. Not here.

Good evening, my name is Claudia Cuevas, and I'm an organizer for the Center of Action and Justice. I am here to share my opinion regarding consent item number 23.

After reviewing the information related to this item, I want to express that I oppose this proposal and I respectfully ask that you vote against this item on the agenda.

in the meetings of the municipal council and the planning commission to express their concern for the possible sale of the land protected by proposal 70. Residents have the right to participate in decisions related to public land. However, the city continues to advance without significant community participation. The land of proposal 70

In addition, I would like to point out the following. This decision is being made without meaningful public transparency. The community has consistently attended City Council and Planning Commission meetings to express its concerns about the possible sale of the lands protected by Proposition 70. As residents, we have the right to participate in decisions involving public lands. However, the city continues moving forward without meaningful community participation. Lands protected by Proposition 70 belong to the public and should not be treated like any other commercial transaction.

Y una vez más, vuelvo a hacer mi comentario de que no nos sentimos parte del meeting. Para poder estar con el idioma español, tenemos que hacer esto, tener en el teléfono y estar afuera para poder escuchar y no interrumpir la junta que está procediendo el día de hoy. Entonces, nos sentimos excluidos nuevamente al no estar presente participando la comunidad latina.

In addition to that, I'd like to point out that we also feel excluded from the council meetings. We had to sit outside and look at the meeting notes on a telephone, which wasn't working correctly at the time.

Thank you for your time, good night.

All right, our next speaker and final speaker on this issue on the consent calendar is Tommy Mush again.

For number eight, I'm against any planned unit development by your sports empire complex on the south end of town. I feel it's unnecessary and I feel it's gonna be high density residential in an area that's not zoned for it. And it doesn't look like I'll be able to speak on number 25, which is for the, let's see, 25 is for the, is that for the loan for the hotel? Nope, I'm sorry. Which one is the number? Oh, there it is. My apologies. Number 28. You're giving a $15 million loan to some yahoo out of Watsonville to build a hotel in an area that's not even zoned for it because you decided for your transient families and all the other silly things you're misusing the hotel bed tax for? Mr. Mayor.

I apologize for interrupting you, Mr. Bush. Oh, boy, what now?

Okay, just stop the timer for him.

Yeah, I just wanted to make sure that you understand you have the opportunity to offer these comments during the public hearing on that item as opposed to right now for the consent calendar.

Because it seems like everything is going to be done right now. I'll just shut up because you're the boss. It's a public hearing.

Thank you, sir.

All right, so that's not acceptable behavior. Good. Okay, so we'll go back to Luz Hernandez. Luz Hernandez? Yes. Is she outside, Luz Hernandez? Thank you, Mr. City Attorney. And give an explanation of what happened. He put down something here, but he wasn't speaking on that item. He wanted to speak on something that we haven't even come to yet.

And the real issue, Mr. Mayor, is his comments are important to the council. They're important for the public record. They need to be in the record of the public hearing, not necessarily the consent calendar item. So he certainly is welcome to come back at the appropriate time.

Buenas tardes, mi nombre es Luz Maria Hernandez y soy residente de aquí de la ciudad de Ontario. por lo de los terrenos de la Propuesta 70 que deben protegerse, no convertirse en una expansión de bodegas. Estos terrenos fueron preservados para brindar beneficios permanentes al público mediante espacios abiertos, recreación y protección ambiental. Reemplazarlos con un gran parque es otra ubicación, no sustituye el valor de este terreno. Tiene que ser para la comunidad que vive a su alrededor. La ubicación en Ontario ya ha experimentado una expansión significativa de bodegas, impactos asociados con la contaminación del aire, el tráfico de camiones y la pérdida de espacios abiertos. Este terreno puede ayudar a reducir el calor extremo, mejorar la calidad del aire. Good evening. My name is Luz Hernandez. I am a resident of the City of Ontario.

Proposition 70 lands should be protected, not turned into a warehouse expansion. These lands were preserved to provide lasting public benefits through open space, recreation, and environmental protection. Replacing them with a great park in another location does not replace the value that this land has for the surrounding community. Ontario has already experienced significant warehouse expansion and its associated impacts, including air pollution, drug traffic, and the loss of open space. This land can help reduce extreme heat, improve air quality, capture carbon, and provide the green space that current and future generations so greatly need.

Thank you. All right, thank you. So having heard all the public comments on this, I'll entertain a motion from the council. Motion to approve the consent calendar by Ms. Parada. Second. Second. By Mr. Bowman. We'll go ahead and take a vote. Okay, consent calendar passes 5-0. That moves us to public hearings. And item number 24, Madam City Clerk.

Thank you. This is a public hearing for an annual levy of assessments within Ontario Parkway Maintenance Assessment Districts numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 for fiscal year 2026-27. Notice of public hearing has been duly given. Affidavits of compliance are on file and we have no written communications.

All right, open the public hearing and let the record reflect any written comments. Mr. City Manager, do you have any updates on this item?

Yes, sir. As mentioned earlier, the resolutions attached to the public hearing have been amended to reflect the changes requested by the county, and Exhibit B has been added. The updated materials are available to you as well as the public. Same will be held for item number 25.

All right. So I'll close the public. There are no blue cards here. So we'll close the public hearing. And I'll entertain a motion or discussion from the council. Move the item. Moved by Mr. Bowman. Second by Ms. Macias. Second electronic vote. The item passes 5-0. That brings us to item number 25. Madam City Clerk.

Thank you, this is a public hearing for an annual levy of assessments within street lighting maintenance district numbers one and two for fiscal year 2026-2027. Notice of public hearing has been given. Affidavits of compliance are on file and we have no written communications.

Okay, so I'll open the public hearing and let the record reflect any written comments, which there are none. Mr. City Manager, do you have any updates?

As mentioned, sir, this is the same as the previous item, that the resolutions have been updated to reflect a language requested by the county, and there has been Exhibit B that was added, and all the materials are available for yours in the public review.

Okay, so I'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion from the council or conversation.

Move the items.

Moved by Mr. Bowman, second by Ms. Macias. Take an electronic vote. It passes 5-0. Item number 26, Madam City Clerk.

Thank you, this is a public hearing to consider a development code amendment, file number PDCA26-002, revising and clarifying certain provisions of the City of Ontario Development Code pursuant to an exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act. Notice of public hearing has been given. We have no written communications.

Okay, I'll open the public hearing and let the record reflect any other comments. We have the two minute limit and Mr. Robles, you are first.

Good evening again, Mr. Mayor, City Council. Yes, item 26 is a sweeping change of our rules that determine what gets built in our city and how development is approved. The problem here again is transparency because the public has been given hundreds of pages of revised code, but no redlined version. No clear summary explaining what's actually changed. So are these changes required by state law? Are they policy choices? Do they expand staff authority? Do they affect future development projects or CEQA review? We simply don't know. No one should be expected to compare hundreds of pages of technical code to figure out what's being added, deleted, or modified. This goes back to what I consistently have said for years. There's never any presentations. There's never any workshops. You never explain a thing, especially technical things like this, to your constituents.

Thank you.

All right, thank you. Our next speaker is Alec Aragon. All right, seeing that Mr. Aragon is, okay, where is he? Okay.

Good evening again members of the city council. I'm speaking now on item 26 regarding the developmental codes amendments. This item proposes changes to the rules that govern what can be built in Ontario and how that development is approved. It affects hundreds of pages covering zoning regulations, subdivision requirements, parking and landscaping. Yet the city has not provided a plain English summary or a red line version showing what is actually being altered. The residents should not have to parse through hundreds of pages of technical legal language just to figure out if fundamental local policies are shifting. Before a vote is taken, the public deserves answers to basic questions. What exactly is changing? Which of these updates are mandated by state law and which are discretionary choices? Do any of these amendments expand city staff's authority to approve projects behind closed doors? Crucially, how these changes affect the future housing, commercial, and massive warehouse developments? And were any outside developers or stakeholders involved in proposing these amendments? The developmental code is one of the most important documents in local government. It determines how residents and our local environment are protected. We are not asking you to reject the ordinance tonight. We are asking you to continue the item, provide a red line version, publish a clear summary, and hold a public presentation so the community actually understands what is on the table. Good government requires transparency. If the city cannot clearly explain what is changing in plain English, the city should not adopt the changes. Thank you.

All right. So I'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion conversation from council. Motion by Mr. Bowman. Second by Mr. Wapner. We'll take a vote. The item passes 5-0. Takes us to item number 27, Madam City Clerk.

Thank you, this is a public hearing to consider adopting a resolution of necessity for the acquisition by eminent domain of a fee simple interest in certain real property located at 434 North Euclid Avenue. Notice of public hearing has been given. Affidavits of compliance are on file and there is one written communication.

All right. Thank you. So, um, I'll open the public hearing, let the record reflect. There are no written comments and we'll close the public hearing and I will entertain a motion or a discussion from the council. Motion to approve by Ms. Baratta. Second by Mr. Bowman.

Mr. Mayor, I apologize. This is a public hearing requiring certain findings by the council. My colleague Mark Easter is here to present that information to the council for your information. I would beg your indulgence to take that report. Indulge us then.

Thank you. Do I have to call off the motion and everything and go back to the public hearing?

Let's be clean about it. If you could reopen the public hearing, take his information and then close it after he's done. Thank you.

There's nothing written to that. So I'll reopen the public hearing and let's hear it.

Good evening, Mayor, members of the City Council. This is a hearing for the City Council to consider adopting a resolution necessity to exercise its eminent domain power to acquire property located at 434 North Euclid, property needed for public parking. To adopt the resolution of necessity, the city council needs to make four findings. Number one, that the public use of necessity requires the project. Number two, that this project has been planned in a matter that's most beneficial to the public with the least private injury. Number three, that the property is needed for the project. And number four, that the offer required by the government code has been made. To adopt the resolution necessity requires a yes vote by at least four of the five members of the council. Just compensation is not for discussion at this hearing. Rather, it's the four findings. And I'll ask Jennifer McClain Hiramoto to explain the project. And then I'll go into how the findings are established based on her presentation.

Great. Thank you, Mark. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of council. As you know, downtown is in the midst of a revitalization effort right now. And while this property is only 0.1 acres, it is part of the larger transformation. In the past five years alone, the city has invested about $100 million just in downtown. And this is for public parking structures, a new fire station, and improvements along Euclid Avenue. As a way to accelerate development, the City Council has also authorized staff to move forward and acquire property, which we have done. We've acquired about $20 million worth of property as we look to revigorate our beloved downtown. Just in this very busy map here, you can see that on the left-hand side, just looking at the fire station, the City has invested in the civic center we have completed the fire station we have now completed a parking structure and we're now building a civic center administrative offices we are also moving along north euclid avenue we've completed the the c block parking structure and that also supports a new 130 unit mixed-use residential project as a way to have a secondary phase of that. If you look at this map here, it's the former library lot. This is going to displace parking, but it's going to add another 70 units of residential. As a third phase of this project, just going slightly north, this is going to add another 130 units of residential, but as part of that, it will displace further parking. It has been determined that, after much consideration, that we will need the ARCO gas station to fully provide parking that would otherwise be displaced, and this would also help support the 4,600 square feet of ground floor retail. The parking is currently serving the Civic Center patrons as well as employees and local residents. 434 North Euclid has been determined that it's necessary for this project as a way to further support residents, visitors, and shoppers as we see downtown continue to become successful. So tonight the city council is being asked to consider the public hearing, which it has, and at this point it would conclude our public hearing unless Mark has any final comments. Just a couple of things.

I would like to ask the clerk to confirm that notice of the hearing was provided to the property owners.

Yes, notice of the hearing was provided to the property owners.

And I'd also like the clerk to confirm that I believe written objections were received by the property owner and their attorney? That is correct. And those will be made part of the record? Yes, they will. Okay. And then in terms of the findings, I believe staff has just presented the need for the project, why the project's been planned in the manner that's most beneficial to the public with least private injury. and why the property is necessary. The fourth finding is that the offer required by the government code has been made. And as set forth in the staff report, we didn't get an appraisal and make an offer to the property owner back at the end of 2024. Since then, the city was taking steps to comply with CEQA for the acquisition. And in that time, we have not received a counter offer from the property owner. The offer that the city made also gave the property owner the right to be reimbursed up to $5,000 to get their own appraisal. And as of today, as far as I know, the property owner has not availed themselves of that benefit, and as I said, we have not, as of this point, received any counter to the city's government code offer.

So that concludes our presentation, and we would turn it back to the mayor and the city council. Thank you.

All right, thank you. So I'll close the public hearing again, and we already have a motion and a second in place. Or do we have to redo that, too?

Just to make clear, Mr. Mayor, that the motion includes the findings that Mr. Easter discussed with you and that all the council is comfortable with those findings and the evidence that's been presented in the staff report and here today by Mr. Easter and Ms. Hiramoto. All right, thank you. Thank you.

Mr. Mayor, my apologies. I have a motion by Councilmember Parada and I missed the second.

Mr. Bowman. Mr. Bowman. So we'll go ahead and take a vote electronically. The item passes five. Yeah, oh yeah, Mr. Bowman.

It's very apparent that the tenants requiring legally the condemnation have been met. It's also. My belief that CEQA and the law requires that fair market value be applied by the city. Whatever that fair market value is, is certainly what the city is going to pay for that. In all fairness to those property owners, they're going to be treated fairly.

Just a moment. Sorry. Go ahead, start over.

If the city adopts a resolution and we proceed with eminent domain proceedings, the property owner have opportunity to obtain their own appraisal and make their own claim for greater compensation and then that will be worked out in the litigation, hopefully settled. Anybody else?

All right, thank you. We'll move on to item number 28. Madam City Clerk.

This is a resolution regarding a loan agreement between the City of Ontario and Ontario Ranch Hotels LLC and an economic subsidy report pursuant to government code section 53083. Notice of public hearing has been given. Affidavits of compliance are on file and we have no written communications.

So I'll open the public hearing. We have three speakers. We'll begin with Mr. Aragon again. There he is. He stayed inside this time. Thank you.

Good evening again, members of the Ontario City Council. Let's be clear about what item 28 is. This isn't a vote on whether Ontario should have a luxury hotel. This is a vote on whether taxpayers should become a $15 million private lender without seeing the financial analysis that supposedly justifies the loan. Staff claims a financial feasibility and community necessity analysis has been completed. So where is it? It was completely excluded from the agenda packet. If the city is going to act like a private bank, underwriting a $15 million loan and taking collateral, we must exercise the due diligence of a bank. Why does this developer need city funding? Did private banks refuse to finance them? More alarmingly, the loan documents provide no personal guarantee. The developer is shielded by a limited liability company, leaving taxpayers to shoulder the risk if the project goes sideways. And we've already heard the defense that this isn't a general fund money. That is irrelevant. It is still public money. Every city fund has a purpose, and taxpayers deserve to know what other community projects are being delayed to bankroll a private developer. Furthermore, there are no performance requirements tied to this money, no local hiring guarantees, No job creation benchmarks, just estimates. I support economic development in Ontario, but I do not support loaning $15 million in public money to a private limited liability company without transparency and meaningful protections. I respectfully ask the council to continue this item until the missing financial and risk analyses are made public. Thank you for your time.

All right. I'll call on Chris Robles. I just want to let everybody know that Tommy Mushkin also pulled a card, but I think he left. So, now Mr. Robles.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, City Council. I just want to take a quick moment to recognize what we just witnessed here. You just took someone's private property and you were, you just, Rushed through it.

Before you even had an opportunity to listen to the public report. I'm sorry, Mr. Robles. Wait a minute, Mr. Robles. Yeah, but that's not, you're not talking about 28. Thank you.

States that financial feasibility and community necessity analysis was performed, yet that doesn't appear anywhere in the public documents. You're being asked to approve $15 million of tax money without seeing the documents or letting us see the documents supposedly to justify it. We also don't know why the private financing isn't being used. Is there a financing gap? Is that what this is? Did lenders refuse the project or is the city simply offering better terms? The loan documents provided that the developer is not personally liable. We just heard that from the other speaker. Taxpayers are assuming the risk while the developer is protected. Finally, we're told this project will create jobs, but there's no projections. This is just no guarantees. It's just a promise of it. I'm asking that the council continue this item until the financial feasibility analysis, funding source, and taxpayer risk analysis are made public. Economic development should never come at the expense of transparency and fiscal responsibility. All right, thank you.

Mr. Aragon, I'd just like to ask a question just for my own clarity. Are you representing an entity or an organization or anybody besides yourself? Thank you. Okay, so that we can close the public hearing. and I will entertain a motion from the council or conversation.

Do you want any context for any of the misstatements that were made? Sure.

Since you're offering.

Sure. I guess first with the economic report that was cited, it's actually the fifth attachment to the agenda. It's there pursuant to the law as it's required. The context for this proposal is that as Council is well aware, litigation over SLA, Surplus Lands Act, and some remaining litigation over some of the initial steps regarding CEQA has delayed this project, has clouded the title, which impacts the ability of a developer to get a market rate construction loan. Rather than allow the project to remain in limbo while the the litigation that the city is party to play out, what we are recommending is that in the interim, the city would provide a non-contingent market rate, fully collateralized loan to get construction working forward. When the litigation subsides, presumably sooner than later, the developer would remove the city, provide a private lender and be able to move forward. As I mentioned, it's fully collateralized. There is property that is well within the value of the $15 million that is being contemplated here. And in reflection of the expectation that we don't expect to be in this position very long, there is no prepayment penalty for this loan as it's being recommended to the council.

All right, so I'll go back and entertain a motion of conversation. Motion by Ms. Barada, second by Ms. Macias. There we go, okay, thank you. That takes us to staff matters, Mr. City Manager.

Nothing tonight, sir.

Council matters, Ms. Macias, Mr. Bowman.

Yes, I'd like to, you know, it's for whatever reason there seems to be a really necessity for groups or individuals to come to meetings and challenge whatever we're doing. I respect that and they're certainly entitled to that and I, for one, encourage that but if this leads to litigation on either side where the city has to participate and defend the dollars of the community taxpayers or there's an individual that suffers because their project has been put on hold for a number of months and their own money is subject to being lost those are damages and I think we need to embrace good input and criticism and meet each other, but in the end, I'm for one in the future, people should kind of bite their tongue when they talk about legally challenging the city because you're going to be challenging, in my estimation, the person who brings a project to the city, who invests their hard money and potentially may lose because they have to hold out until it's And win or lose, well, let's say if we win, well, hopefully we do, then there should be recovery on behalf of the city, on behalf of the constituents of this community that hired, that elected us to make the decisions on their behalf. And we've been around long enough to make some pretty good decisions collectively. And I will tell you just an example, when you look at the mills, we listen to the same concerns. And we move forward. And a city that deliberates and does not move forward when they feel comfortable with information and they have staffs that have worked so hard become the cities that don't have the known knowledge in the community and in an empire as a great city that's setting examples for everyone. The Ontario Mills, for an example, we bought that property for $17 million, 200 acres when we bought it, and we took a lot of bricks, tomatoes, whatever you want to call it, at the time. Over the period of five years, we leveraged that to a return of $350 million on a $17 million investment. We're not all silly up here. We're not all stupid. We know what SeekWay is. We do our homework. We read what we do. And we vote correctly. Some may say it's not their way. I appreciate all that. But that's what courts are for. And we stand prepared to defend our decisions. Amen.

GREG BRUDNICKI Thank you. All right, Ms. Parada?

Chairman, I'd like to thank you for those comments. Thank you so much. I would just like to encourage everybody to come out and participate in our Ontario Night Out. That'll be happening on the second Tuesday in August. Hopefully we'll all see you there, and that's all I have.

Thank you. I'd like to take a few minutes to talk about the disruption on Hope Boulevard. I don't think we've done a very good job educating the public. What we're building is a bus rapid transit system. It's called the West Valley Connector. Think of it as a light rail on wheels. The way it came about is there's an organization in San Bernardino County called the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority. They're the ones charged with building all transportation projects in the county of San Bernardino, infrastructure, and they also help fund transit. Another organization, Omnitrans, operates transit in the valley area of the county. I'm the chair, I'm the member of the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority for many years. They came up with a priority list of bus rapid transit systems. And basically, bus rapid transit, you're going to see here in Ontario, it's an express bus. It's going to have center running stations. You probably see the construction going on there, which means that there'll be a third door that you can go in and out on the buses, which will be electric buses. There was a priority list for the BRT projects for the county. Our project was at the bottom of the list because of the relationships it might be able to develop at both SBCT and Omnitrans. We moved that project up to the top. So we have the county investing about $400 million in our community. This route is going to go from the Pomona Metrolink station through the city of Montclair, through Ontario, connecting with the airport, with the mills, and then Rancho Metrolink Station going into Rancho on Foothill. But really, I define transportation and transit as economic development tools that move people. So why is it that I thought it important for the city of Ontario to get this project? It's nice to have transportation to bring people to places, but more importantly, You remember what Holt looks like, right? I mean, it's embarrassing. You pick people up at the airport and you have to kind of drive around. By bringing this project forward, the County Transportation Authority has acquired most of Holt Boulevard. And in turn, they've conveyed that back to the city, been able to purchase it. The city could have never done this project on its own. We're looking at two or $300 million. We have money now come from the County Transportation Authority that we're using to build transit-oriented development and really do a nice development along Holt Boulevard. If you recall, Holt was doing pretty well when the airport entrance was at Vineyard. After they moved it to Archibald, it all dried up and it's splited and it's horrible. So now we're gonna have the funding from an outside organization to improve Holt to what we can be proud of. So that's basically what it is. It was supposed to be done two years ago. There's a lot of obstacles. Right now the reason it's delayed is because Edison can't provide power for the project. That's typical, we're hearing that a lot. So hopefully within the next six to eight months you'll see it Almost at completion, we purchased the buses, the electric buses. They're just about done with the center running stations, and we're going to have to educate everyone how to drive. It's almost like having rail crossing stations throughout Hope Boulevard. There'll be extra satellites that kind of caution you as to when you can make your turns and things like that. But again, that's something that's going to be exciting for the City of Ontario. Besides moving people, we are going to be cleaning up Hope Boulevard.

All right, thank you. I just want to remind everybody that we also make investment in our people. We have street repairs, replacements. I see streets that I used to see 45 years ago that look like alligators that are now smooth. We've also done alleys, which I don't know what other city does alleys. It makes them nice, clean, paved, and have drainage. We've done all of this and other things as well as entertainment, not to mention the buzzers baseball field on field, the concerts that we do, the many things that we do to take care of the people. We do it all for the people of Ontario, the residents. And we have to earn our money. We're not the federal government. We can't just print money and say, you know, just give us more. We have to earn every dollar. And we have to be, as Mr. Bowman so eloquently explained, we have to be very careful how we do it. Yes, we know that there will be some issues that will make us look like we're somehow wrong to some people. But if we go back in history and look at those investments that we made, we were taking it tough on the building of the arena. We took it tough on, as he said, the building of the Ontario Mills building. but all of these, or the convention center, those things, the mills and the convention center were before my time, but let me tell you, the things that go on at both of those venues are bringing millions upon millions, tens of millions to the city that we can then turn around and spend it on the people, and we do. I think we, somebody talked about the balance earlier, and also about affordable homes. We've invested in affordable dwelling units for many years and we have some great ones. I've been in there, I mean, they've been amazing developments for the people of Ontario. And we're gonna continue to do this and make, we took over Euclid so that we could stop having to ask the state what we could do on the major street in our city. We've turned it into a beautiful avenue and they never paid for that. We always have because we wanted to do it. But you don't do that on what you get from the state. You have to earn that money. And we've done a great job over the years, I believe, in investing in our city and in our people. And so like we have these Wednesday night summer concerts that are just gathering thousands. We're gonna start doing it in Celebration Park in Ontario Ranch this Thursday. I think that we do a lot to make sure that we spread around the investments that we've made not only improve businesses, invest in businesses, but also we invest a lot in our people because that's the number one investment that makes the most sense to me. So with all of that being said, we thank you for participating in our meeting and our regular scheduled meeting will be on August 4th. See you then. And don't forget, Ontario Night Out.

green space is taking shape at the