City Council - Regular Meeting

What sets us apart, I would say, being a Marriott hotel, we more focus on service as well as local community, what we support, and more hospitality, I would say. So it's not only just a basic room and, you know, guests can come and sleep, but we focus as a whole hospitality, more warmth and welcoming. That's what our goal normally we follow. business grown every year pretty much I would say since opening December 6 2023 right now we are at about one and a half year plus but every year we see significant growth this year is much more I would say 10 to 20 percent more than what we were in the first year and surrounding area what we see a lot of opportunity still considering our location and one of the biggest location i would say about the baps swaminarayan temple that helps a lot a lot of weddings and a lot of Events happening there, guests do come and stay here. Besides that, we do get a lot of teams. That gives us a good growth opportunity and we are still seeing a lot of opportunity around the businesses in the area, which we are trying to explore too.

Thank you.

Well, interestingly, I opened up the very first LA Fitness that was the very first ground up they'd ever built here in Chino in December of 96. and I just had become a new yoga teacher and decided I wanted to open up my own studio and Fit Body was nice enough to let me sublease space from them and it grew from there. About 11 years ago we opened up the space you see here behind me and this weekend we celebrate our 14th year anniversary and this just has become my home community. Most of our advertising is simply word of mouth. And so the fact that people continue to tell their friends to come here is something that we're eternally grateful for beyond words. Not only do we have yoga, but we have heated kettlebell classes where people do barefoot kettlebell to good music in hour-long heated room. And we have ice bath classes in the backyard where people come together and get into the ice. We have sauna and lockers and showers. But I think really what sets us apart more than anything is this vein of mindfulness that we try to thread throughout our offering. You know, to go from a small boot camp spot, subleasing behind Sprouts to this large 4,000 square foot space with lockers and showers and two big yoga rooms is beyond our original vision and literally a dream come true. We're just super grateful that the community continues to show up for us. As long as they do, we're so excited about continuing to show up for them. Continue to persevere. Grit, work ethic is something that goes a long way when you own your own business. We're just super grateful to be here. So I would say more than anything, just the sense of humility that the challenges have brought created this grit and gratitude for what it is we do.

Chino has both modern side and countryside charm. My husband, he likes the countryside. I like the modern side. He loved eating here. He'll even bring his clients here. And when it was up for sale, he took the opportunity and we bought it. And we're very happy because we get to eat food here more often for free and I don't have to cook as much. First, I really need to thank Larry and Shelly. They're the ones who started the Avocado House, and they're the ones who made this a Chino favorite. When we took over, we kept the same recipes. We just upgraded ingredients, switched oil to the avocado oil, and added new menu items. The support from community is awesome. Police officers, city staff, residents from Chino and all around cities, they come and support us, so we're very grateful.

What sets your business apart?

First, food. It's homemade food made with love, like grandma would. And that was Shelly's motto, and we really like it, and we're keeping it, too. And second is the high-quality ingredient, especially the avocado oil. It costs us $3,000 more per month to use avocado oil instead of canola oil. But we made the decision to do it because we care for the health of our customers, our employees who eat our food every day, and for our family. If you want cozy countryside warm feeling, you could eat inside the restaurant. And if you want to like a more modern feel, you can eat at a veranda and the backyard, which is everyone's favorite. It's like having a picnic. You can relax and enjoy, you know, nice Southern California weather. We're very grateful as we continue to grow. So we plan to increase ours, and we're going to open for dinner. So people can now enjoy Avocado House all day long. We started a coffee shop called Rabbit and Bean in La Habra, and it's really doing well. So we want to open a second coffee shop here so customers enjoy specialty coffee and matcha. We're very excited. First, you know, don't focus on money, profit, but just focus on giving joy and happiness to your customers and employees. Always serve high quality food that you would serve your own family. People will notice and they'll come back. And also take good care of your employees because they'll take good care of your customers.

So my dad came like 45 years ago to the city of Chino. He thought the city of Chino was a good opportunity to open a new business and he was right. First of all, I want to thank the community of the city of Chino because all these years they support us and they love us and I want to say a big thank you to them. Quality, the good quality for the products, the good customer service and I think they love what we're doing for that. So we opened the first location four years ago and now we moved like two years ago over here with a bigger, nicer location and we drive through. Because it was the first project for us, it was a little bit hard at the beginning. Thank God, we make it. With the help of the city of Chino, the help of the people of Chino, we are here now to serve them.

Thank you.

We knew Chino was in demand for more restaurants, but we also knew that the location that we were gonna be going into, that there was a lot of growth and there was gonna be a lot that was gonna come in. But we also knew it was gonna take time to get there, but still just with it, like how it is right now, we're still doing really good. Like we knew coming into it, we were gonna be busy right off the bat. It seemed like a great place for the second location for us to grow and, you know, make our name bigger. The customers have been awesome with us. We've been busy. It's been a year, and we've been busier and busier every day. We've sponsored a lot of the youth baseball teams, football teams. We know customers on a first-name basis, and we have a good set of regulars. So the community has supported us tremendously, and they're keeping this place open. They're keeping it going. We always knew that this is what we wanted to do. Both the owners always wanted to own their own restaurants. I knew them closely. I wanted to own restaurants as well. And that was just the goal behind it was, hey, let's turn Kenwoods into a household name. We love when the kids that come in here, hey, we want to go to Kenwoods. That was the goal to be the next big thing. I would say what sets us apart, one thing is we are a scratch kitchen, so everything is recipe-based, everything is made fresh, everything is made fresh daily. One thing that we really preach is giving the best service possible. Again, it all falls back to, you know, you can have great food, which we do, and a great atmosphere, but at the end of the day, the customers are coming back. for the experience for the service part and we try to teach our staff you know every day hey make each visit count put a smile on someone's face get to know them on a personal level you know when that customer comes in we want them saying hey is so-and-so working today You know, we have a lot of good things going on, live music, we do a taco special, we have a brunch, we have a happy hour from 3 to 6, Monday through Friday. So as, you know, the community, you know, hears about us and finds these things out, we just continue to grow. My name is Matt Mraz. I am the general manager of Kenwood's Kitchen and Tap in Chino, located in the Preserve Shopping Center off of Chino and Main.

Thousands of baseball fans from across Southern California gathered on the Chino City Hall lawn to celebrate the grand opening of Oral Hershiser Chevrolet. The day kicked off with a procession down 7th Street from the dealership's City Hall, followed by a ribbon-cutting with Mayor Eunice Ulloa, the Chino City Council, Oral Hershiser, and his team. Fans enjoyed live music, DJ entertainment, food trucks, and a live broadcast of ESPN Radio, along with appearances by some of the biggest names in baseball and professional sports, creating an unforgettable day for fans of all ages. Oral Fersheiser Chevrolet, taking the reign of longtime local dealership MK Smith Chevrolet, which has served Chino and the surrounding region since 1941. It was a memorable day for Chino, welcoming a new chapter for a legacy business and celebrating the kind of community pride that makes this city special. Welcome to Chino, Oral Fersheiser Chevrolet.

Chino is an absolute beautiful community. My husband and I are from Los Angeles. And so we were trying to get closer to family. We have a little toddler and in LA there's wellness bars on every corner. Whereas here we kind of noticed that there was missing link. You know, there's lots of big corporations and franchises. And so we decided this would be the absolute perfect location to bring a little bit of that here. The community in Chino has been the most important part, I think, of growing this business. Word of mouth in this community is so major. Everybody knows somebody and it's such a tight-knit community, especially in the wellness world. And so it's just been incredible to, you know, grow with the community. You know, there's smoothie bars everywhere, but do they truly, you know, care about the ingredients? What's in it? Are they organic? And so really, I don't think there's anywhere here in the area that really brings that to the community. So that's truly what sets us apart. And the aesthetic, of course. Sana in Arabic means brilliant praise, and in Spanish it means healthy or healing, and mana is the bread that God made rain, the nourishment, God's nourishment. And so altogether it means praise God's healing nourishment, which is really just taking it back to the root of how he intended us to eat, not the processed foods, really just nurture our bodies with whole food ingredients. And then really the intention behind Santa Monica, there's such a bigger picture with the community and how we want to grow. This is our first location and we have exceeded what our expectation was within the community. And so it's so beautiful to see. Yeah. stay rooted in faith, stay rooted in your beliefs. And when it gets tough, keep going because there was tons of times where we wanted to give up, but just stay true to your calling and what you believe in your vision and you'll succeed.

I chose Chino because I was born and raised in Chino and grew up here. So Chino has a special place in my heart. My parents still live here and it's just nice to be able to service the community that I grew up in. One of the ways that the Bronze Beauty Bar supports our local community is we partner with a lot of non-profit organizations here at the Bronze Beauty Bar. We're a part of the 100 Women that is a collective that donates $10,000 quarterly to Each nonprofit that is selected, we work with Relay for Life, which is another nonprofit that's here in Chino. And being an impact on our local community is really important to me. And I feel like when we're able to give back to the local community, they give back to us by choosing us to provide them with all of their services. One of the main things that I feel like sets our business apart is just the service that we give to our clients. From the moment that our clients walk in to the end of their treatment, they are just filled with positive and pampering experience. We have body positive messages all over the salon. We don't allow our clients to talk down about themselves. In a world full of tabloids and stigmas, people that feel like they're not worthy of getting beauty treatments, we want to shatter that expectation with them because everybody deserves to feel beautiful and be pampered. Advice that I would give to other business owners is just keep going. Business ownership is hard and it's not easy. And there is no perfect guide to how you should be a business owner. And a lot of it is learning along the way. So you have to be resilient and not give up because you opened your business for a reason. There's a dream and a mission behind every business that has started. So being able to just continue to do what you love and When you do what you love, you don't feel like it's work.

Hey there, I'm Samantha. I'm the community engagement manager here at the Animal Resource Center of the Inland Empire. We're the new animal services agency for this region. We serve Ontario, Montclair, Chino, and the unincorporated areas of West San Bernardino County. We provide all animal services for this area, things like pet licensing, microchipping your pets, supporting the community when they find stray animals, adoptions, foster opportunities. We also have volunteer opportunities. Come on down, come meet some of our very cute animals.

me

Check, check.

Okay, welcome to the September 1st Council Meeting. We have several ceremonials this evening. Our first, obviously, is our flag salute. I'd like to ask Council Member Flores to lead us in the flag salute. If you'd please join us. Thank you very much. You may be seated. Our first ceremonial this evening is Suicide Prevention Awareness Month. It's my honor this evening to proclaim September 2026 as Suicide Prevention Awareness Month here in the City of Chino. I'd like to call up Monica Tisnato, our Clinical Program Supervisor with the Community Services Parks and Recreation Department. Monica. And the proclamation reads, whereas, on behalf of the citizens of Chino, we recognize the month of September 2026 as Suicide Prevention Awareness Month, shedding light on those suffering with depression or other mental or behavioral health issues. The health and well-being of all of our citizens is of the utmost importance, and the City of Chino, San Bernardino County Department of Behavioral Health, and Chino Valley Unified School District recognize suicide as a human tragedy that transcends socioeconomic status, age, gender, and ethnicity. Suicide is the leading cause of death among youth and adults in the United States. For every American who dies by suicide, many more make a plan or attempt suicide and may seek care in an emergency department. Suicide has an everlasting impact on the survivors who are left to process the loss of their loved one and who are at the increased risk of suicide themselves. Suicide is preventable through increased knowledge about warning signs, timely intervention, and by limiting access to lethal means for those at risk. Suicide prevention efforts should be developed and encouraged to the maximum extent possible. And the city of Chino offers mental health services to youth, adults, and families. Now, therefore, I, Eunice Emulo, Mayor of the City of Chino, do hereby proclaim September 2026 as Suicide Prevention Awareness Month in the City of Chino and urge all citizens to continue to work to prevent suicide and to take action, know the signs, reach out, and know there is help and hope.

Thank you, Mayor. I just want to say thank you. On behalf of the Mental Health Society, We urge everyone if you need help here at the city, we offer a counseling center and we are more than willing to connect you to either our services or if you need more intensive services, we can definitely connect you to outside resources. Please don't feel that you're alone. There's also a hotline, 988. You can always use as an anonymous form of reaching out for help. All right, thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, National Childhood Obesity Awareness Month. It's my honor this evening to also recognize the month of September 2026 as National Childhood Obesity Awareness Month in the City of Chino. I'd like to call up Rachel Phelps, CSPR Coordinator, and Jen Cervantes, Executive Branch Director of the Chino Valley YMCA. Please join me up in front. Whereas, September 2026 marks the 16th Annual National Childhood Obesity Awareness Month. The City of Chino, along with its community partners, Chino Valley Unified School District, Chino Valley YMCA, and Focus on Youth Collaborative, work to prioritize the health and well-being of Chino's children by supporting programs such as Healthy Chino, Healthy Chino Kids, Healthy Family Day, and Chino Valley Unified School District Health Center. The city of Chino works in conjunction with youth sports leagues to provide space for physical activities and team sports for children in the community. Whereas approximately 15.2 million youth ages two through 19 years old in the US have obesity. Children with obesity are significantly more likely to become adults with obesity and face the increased risk of developing chronic diseases, including hypertension, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and stroke. Participating in physical activities is important for children and teens and has many beneficial effects, not only on body weight, but also on blood pressure, bone strength, and mental well-being. Proper nutrition is important for all youth as it impacts their physical and mental health, body weight, and is important in the prevention of chronic diseases. Whereas childhood obesity is preventable, yet it does not appear to be declining. Now therefore, I, Eunice M. Ulloa, Mayor of the City of Chino, do hereby proclaim the month of September 2026 as National Childhood Obesity Awareness Month and urge all residents to take advantage of the programs and services that are available in the City of Chino.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, members of the council. It's always an honor to accept this proclamation in September on behalf of Healthy Chino. We have a lot of fantastic programs that help combat childhood obesity, Healthy Chino Kids being one of them, as the mayor mentioned. We partner with our local after school programs, High Five and Soar, so kids can get out and get active. And then we also have Healthy Grilling, which is a great program where families can learn how to make healthy recipes. And I also want to give a big shout out to Jen from the YMCA. The YMCA is one of our partners. They help fund and program events for us like Bark Round Ayala Park and Healthy Family Day for the community.

Thank you so much, Mayor, for this award, and thank you, Rachel, for inviting us here. On behalf of the Chino Valley YMCA, I want to thank the city of Chino for always reaching out to us and helping partner with all the programming we have here in the community. Thank you so much.

Okay, the next one is a big one. Next, we have recognition of Chino National Little League Junior District 23 and 57 District 23 Tournament of Champions and District 23 Intermediate All-Star Champion winners. First, I'd like to recognize the 5070 District 23 players and coaches. I'd like to call up Coach Vincent Alamil. Please join me up in front. The Chino National Little League Cubs captured the 2026 District 23 Tournament of Champions title after an impressive run through the single elimination tournament. In their opening game against Montclair, the Cubs battled to a hard-fought 65 victory to advance to the championship game. In the championship game, Chino National faced Upland, the tournament champion for the previous three years. The Cubs delivered an outstanding all-around performance, earning a decisive 10-2 victory behind strong pitching, excellent defense, and timely hitting. We want to congratulate the 2026-5070 District 23 Tournament of Champions, head coaches, assistant coaches, and players.

Vince, you want to call up your players? Sure.

Oh, sure. The first player that's not present is Erin Amaya. Next player is Maximus De Santiago. Ricky Goulette. Landon Gonzales. Aiden Lechuga who's not present. Lucas Martinez who's not present. Alexander Perez who's not present. Football. Nicholas Rodilla. Brody Roach, who's not present. Levi Roy, not present.

Yes, those other sports.

Madison Scott. Jason Smith. Ricky Valteis. Definitely my partner in crime, Tyrone Scott. And then my assistant coach, my godson, Brian Scott.

Thank you.

You're welcome. We also have a certificate from Senators Grovio congratulating you. Thank you very much. So absolutely phenomenal job. I appreciate it. We're very proud of you. Boys, gather around for a picture.

Congratulations.

Oh, we've even got a banner.

You guys hold that.

Let's give them another big hand.

Next, I'd like to recognize the junior district 23 players and coach. I'd like coaches, I'd like coach Frank Donaldson to please join me up front. Facing single game elimination, the Chino National Little League Junior Dodgers began their tournament run against the Ontario Western. The Dodgers put together an impressive performance and advanced with a commanding 14-1 victory. In the Junior Division Championship game, Chino Nationals secured the title with an exciting five to four walk-off victory. Congratulations to the 2026 Junior District 23 Tournament of Champions, head coach, assistant coaches, and players.

If you'd like to call your players.

First player is Lucy Alonzo.

Is she going to smile?

Yeah, she's going to smile. Smile, Lucy.

Smile, Lucy. Come on. Congratulations.

Damian Campos.

Congratulations.

Frank Donaldson. Jacob Guevara is not here today, but we'll accept it on his behalf. Then we got Jayden Ibanez. Jessie Leals. Ethan Lopez. Aiden Perez. Christian Ramirez. Roman Rivera. Carlos Zamudio. And first assistant coach, Anthony Alonso. Our other coach, Ruben Guevara, is not here today, but we'll accept it on his behalf. And our other assistant coach, Rosendo Rivera.

Thank you very much.

We also have a certificate from Senator Rubio.

Let's give them another hand. And they want a picture. All the logistics of the picture, right? Congratulations again.

Great job, great job.

Thank you very much. You're welcome, great job.

Thank you, appreciate it, thank you.

Okay, and finally, I'd like to recognize the District 23 Intermediate All-Star players and coaches. I'd like to call up, once again, Vince Jalamillo. We're gonna start over on this side. Chino National Little League delivered an outstanding performance throughout the 2026 District 23 Intermediate All-Star Elimination Tournament. Chino National opened tournament play against Ontario Eastern United and came away with an impressive 16-1 victory. earning a spot in the championship game. In the championship game, Chino National faced a formidable Montclair Little League team. In the end, Chino National secured a 23 to 11 victory and proudly raised the District 23 champion flag. Congratulations to the 2026 District 23 Intermediate All-Star champions, head coach, assistant coaches, and players.

Now present, Aaron Amaya. Maximus D. Santiago. Ricky Goulette. Not present, Aiden Lechuga. Not present, Zayden Moreno. Not present, Alexander Perez. Nicholas Radilla. Roman Rivera. Now present, Brody Roach. Now present, Levi Roy. Madison Scott.

She has to smile this time.

Yes.

Jason Smith. Ricky Valtese. Coach Tyrone Scott. Coach Brian Scott.

And again, we have another certificate from Senator Rubio. So congratulations, let's give him another hand.

I just want to let you guys know that the format changed this year for us, for all the upper divisions, and it was single game elimination, so there was no chance for error at all. And this lady and gentleman, they fought and worked very hard for this to bring the flag back to us. So thank you for the city of Chino for providing our field. Thank you, Eunice. Thank you, Ms. Comstock for the sponsorships. Thank you, sir. And thank you to our president, Ms. Scott.

Okay, next we have our business of the month. Our first business of the month has operated in the city of Chino for nearly 50 years. For the month of September 2026, I would like to congratulate Lawrence Glass as one of our businesses of the month. I'd like to call up Vice President Valerie Streaksma and any guests that are with you. providing window repairs, window installations, shower glass enclosures and more. Lauren's Glass has proudly served the Chino community for decades. The team at Lauren's Glass offers donations to students, particularly art majors. Items for students are offered at a discount and on occasion offered for free. Lauren's also offers discounts to churches in our local area. Lauren's also supports fellow local businesses by referring customers as needed. They also utilize local glass suppliers to keep business in Chino as much as possible. When providing team lunches, they make sure to visit our local restaurants. Lauren's Glass is all the time. Sorry. Lauren's Glass is also a family business. Valerie took over the business from her uncle, Lauren, and continues the tradition of great service. Please join me in congratulating one of our September 2026 Businesses of the Month recipients, Lauren's Glass. I'd like to present you with this certificate of congratulations. We're so very grateful that you're in our city. You've done such a great job for many years. Please introduce your partner.

I'm Valerie. This is Kevin. Like you said, we've been here almost 48 years. We want to thank you for this opportunity and the City Council. We also want to thank the Chino PD. We get a lot of calls when you guys go out to break-ins, people needing their houses secured right away. We do the best we can to get out there as soon as possible to help them. And it's also a love story. I met him there in 1981. Oh, you did? But thank you, everyone.

Now tell them where you're located.

Oh, we're located at 5913 Riverside Drive at the corner of Oaks, a really old little two-story building. Kevin's uncle actually is the one that started the business, Lauren Struxma. And then Kevin and I took it over about 15 years ago.

I've known Lauren for a long time. Yeah. Yeah, great guy.

Well, thank you very much. Thank you.

You provide a very important service to our community.

Thanks. And you know what? We appreciate all the word of mouth. That's how we survive. Yeah, of course.

Our second business of the month, Carry Out Burgers, they could not be here this evening, so we'll be recognizing them at our next council meeting. Next, we have the Mayor's Home Beautification Award. It's my pleasure to give the Mayor's Home Beautification Award of September 2026 to Shawn Luck of Guilford Avenue. Are you here, Shawn? Come on up, please. And bring your family if you brought family with you. Your wife doesn't want to come up with you. She's shy. We have a certificate thanking you for your continued improvement of your property. We have a beautiful picture that is shown on the screen. We also have an individual picture for you. We have two lapel pen sets for you. See, you should have come up with them and helped him. We have two pen and pencil sets. And we have the coveted yard sign for all your neighbors to see that all of your hard work paid off.

Okay, great.

It's my honor receiving this award. Thank you so much. You're welcome.

Thank you very much.

All right, on three. One, two, and three.

Thank you very much. You're welcome.

Prior to the meeting this evening, we did have a closed session. I'd like to ask our attorney to give us a report out of any action that was taken.

Thank you, Mayor, members of the council, and all those present. The city council met in closed session, as announced by the mayor, and held a discussion as to each of the three items listed on the closed session portion of the agenda. Namely, item number one, conference with legal counsel. One item of existing litigation, the matter of Mary Ingrid Culp versus City of Chino. City Council received a briefing as to the status of that matter, provided direction, and no further reportable action was taken. The Council then held a discussion on item number two, public employee performance evaluation, titled City Manager. Pardon me, the council conducted the performance evaluation of the city manager, provided feedback, and no further reportable action was taken. Finally, the council met on item number three, conference with labor negotiator concerning the unrepresented employee titled city manager. City Council considered the negotiations related to the city manager's contract, provided direction, and no further reportable action was taken. That concludes the report. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, under public announcements, on September 19th, visit our free compost and mulch giveaway from 8 a.m. to noon at the Public Works Services Yard located at 5050 Schaefer Street. Chino residents are invited to stop by to receive compost and mulch from the front parking lot at no charge while supplies last. Mulch is available on first-come, first-served basis, and you must bring your own shovel and durable containers to load. For more information, please call 909-334-3289. In celebration of Labor Day holiday, City Hall and most city facilities will be closed on Monday, September 7th. We will be back to our regular business hours on Tuesday, September 8th. Finally, we would like to adjourn tonight's meeting in memory of Nikki Mullins, a champion for the Chino Boxing Club who passed away on July 22nd. Nikki joined the Chino Boxing Foundation Board in 2022 and was a valued member. During her time on the board, Nikki served as treasurer for the executive board and in 2025 stepped in to serve as secretary. Nikki was a huge supporter of the Chino Youth Boxing Foundation and generously gave her time to help make countless events and activities successful. She volunteered at Saturday night fights, gobbler gloves, the Chino Youth Boxing Christmas Parade entry float, the Chino Youth Boxing Foundation banquet, and their holiday potluck. Whether assisting with guest check-ins, the merchandise table, the snack bar, the raffle table, or wherever else Nikki was needed, she would always be counted on to lend a helping hand. She approached every responsibility with generosity, dedication, and a genuine desire to support the organization and the youth it serves. Nikki's contributions to the Chino Youth Boxing Foundation will always be remembered and deeply appreciated. Our condolences go out to Nikki's family, loved ones, and the entire Chino boxing community. Tonight's meeting will be adjourned in memory of Nikki Mullins. Next on the agenda, we have changed our order a little bit. Tonight we are going to have our director reports. Do we have any directors that have reports this evening? You're not coming on.

Yeah, there we go. This evening, I'd like to introduce our newest director to the city of Chino, and that is the Director of Development Services, Swati Meshram, Dr. Swati Meshram.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Swati Meshram. I have actually been working with the City of Chino for almost four weeks now, and I can honestly say I'm so blessed to be a part of Team Chino. I have met the team here. Everyone is dedicated to their work and are embodying the values that are the City of Chino. So I'm very blessed to be a part of this team. A little bit about myself, I have a couple of decades of experience in development services, half of which has been in local government and the other half in private sector. And I'm really excitedly looking forward to serving this council and the community of Chino. Thank you.

Welcome aboard, Swati. Any other directors, Jackie?

Good evening, Mayor and Council. So we want to invite the community to the third annual Inclusion Community Celebration scheduled on Saturday, September 26 from 10 to 2 at the Neighborhood Activity Center. The Community Services, Parks and Recreation is teaming up with Adrian's World Inc. and Chasing Seven Dreams Nonprofits for an exciting block party specifically designed for Chino special needs and neo-diverse community. Festivities include 48 resource vendors, face painting, a petting zoo, inclusive skateboarding, a game track, free lunch, and ice cream. In addition to the festivities, the Chino Youth Museum will provide a free admission to all participants and will offer interactive exhibits for children and families of all abilities, including a sensory room in partnership with Behavioral Highway. Registration is required. For more information about the event and to register or volunteer, please visit cityofchino.org inclusion. Thank you. Thank you very much, Sylvia.

Our next report will be by the Chief.

Good evening, Mayor, members of Council. I've got a couple events I want to talk about. The first I'm just going to read, otherwise I'll end up missing something on it. So September is National Preparedness Month, and I invite our residents to learn about how you can stay ready during a disaster at our annual Chino Cares Emergency Preparedness Fair happening on Saturday, September 8th. I'm sorry, September 19th at the Chino Police Department. The Chino Cares Emergency Preparedness Fair is a fun, family-friendly event focused on empowering the community to prepare for disasters and emergencies. The event will feature a variety of exciting activities, including emergency preparedness demonstrations, touch-a-truck displays, informational booth giveaways, and more. For additional information, please visit cityofchino.org slash ccpf. And then the second event I want to talk about on... Saturday, September 12th at 5 p.m. at Ayala Park, we are going to be hosting our first annual charity softball game where members of the Chino Police Department will be going against members of the Chino Valley Fire Department for a charity softball game. All the funds that we raise for this event are going to be donated to the City of Hope Pediatric Cancer Unit. So we've been practicing. We're ready for this big event. We're actually selling T-shirts online. You can access that through our social media. We're going to be selling patches there, also accepting donations. There will be a booth set up by the City of Hope. You Choose will be out there with the dessert booth. It should be a really good event. And we've heard Oral Hershiser is going to be there and going to throw out the first pitch. Right, sure. So it should be a fun event. So we invite everyone to come out on Saturday, September 12th, 5 o'clock at Ayala Park. That concludes my report, unless I have any questions.

Fantastic. Thank you, Kevin. Yes. Next, we have the fire chief.

Good evening, Mayor. I'm trying out these new contact things. I'm not real sure I'm liking it, but I'll try my best. Please do announce that the Fire District has again received the recognition as a fire risk reduction community. This achievement reflects our ongoing commitment to reducing wildfire risk, protecting lives and property, and creating a safer, more resilient place to live through the best practices of fire planning. The achievement is valid from July 1 to June 30 of 2028. The fire risk community list is part of a safer from wildfires initiative that can assist residential and commercial policyholders obtain discounts on their insurance. So for those that have a concern, have had some challenges, especially as of late, please reach out to your insurance companies. Explain that we are now a or we continue to with our fire risk reduction Program and see if they can help you with your rates and that's all I have unless you have any questions Is there any kind of like certificate that you provide them or anything for their insurance? I don't know that we have that I would defer you to our community risk department So feel free to call the fire district 909-902-5260 Ask for the community risk reduction department and if there's any certificates, we will certainly provide those for you

Good information. Now, are you up for this baseball tournament?

Well, I mean, we saw how the boxing went. I don't want to put it out there, but we're there.

Oh, I think PD will win this one, I hope. Thank you very much. Okay, next we have public communication. This is the time and the place for the general public to address the council about items that do not appear elsewhere. While we cannot take action on anything that you bring up, we would appreciate your concerns. Our first written request to speak is Pastor Danny Unterkoffler from Crosspoint Church. He's gonna lead us in an invocation. All those who wish to join us, please stand.

It's a great blessing to be with you all this evening. Let's pray together. Almighty God, we come before you with thanks and praise and requests because we believe and trust that you hear us. In your mercy, hear our prayers for the people and for the community of Chino. We praise you for the wonderful things that you're doing in our community. We praise you for jobs and for homes, for celebrations, and for the protection that you bring each and every day. We thank you for the love, hospitality, and care that the people of Chino display each and every day. We thank you that we get to work, play, and live in such a vibrant and wonderful community. And we thank you for the men, women, youth, and children that make this city what it is. We can see that your grace is at work here and we're grateful for it. But we also come with heavy hearts. The people of Chino are also experiencing pain and struggle and loss, and we grieve with those who've lost loved ones, those who've lost their jobs and have financial problems, those who feel like they have little to live for. We pray for those who are battling disease, cancer, illness. We pray that you would heal them. Almighty God, bring comfort and hope to those who are in need and send people into their lives to support them and strengthen them. Have mercy on those who stand in need of your strength and your power. God, we pray that you would strengthen the people of Chino. Teach us what it means to stand with one another, to fight for one another, and to seek the best for our neighbors. May we be a city that is known for the way that we treat one another. Make us a city that is not just united with our words, but with our actions. Tonight, I pray that you give this council wisdom as they discern how to make this city safe, strong, and good forever. May they stay focused on the vision for Chino to be a safe place where everything and everyone grows. May they lean on one another and the voices of the citizens so that every person in this city can thrive. Thank you for their dedication, for their sacrifice, for their commitment. May they feel honored and supported in their efforts to make Chino the best that it can be. You have blessed this community abundantly, and we pray that you would continue to do so. Thank you for the opportunity to gather as a community tonight, and we pray this in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen.

Amen. Thank you, Danny. Let's see. Our next written request to speak is Joan Jennings.

Good evening, Mayor, Council, I'm back. I'm just here tonight to bring awareness of an action that a city in another county has taken to try and address a homelessness issue that they have been facing. I think what this city did is important for other cities to hear, especially with the Olympics coming to LA and some of the concerns the neighboring cities and counties have with the possibility of displacement of unhoused individuals into surrounding communities. The City of Riverside recently established an ordinance in July called the Drop-Off Ordinance. The ordinance requires city and county agencies, law enforcement, social service agencies, hospital and medical facilities to provide at least 24-hour advance notice before transporting or dropping off an individual experiencing homelessness within the City of Riverside. This will allow the city to arrange the different degrees of support needed for the individual. I know Chino is proactive in addressing the homeless problem with the Quality of Life team. I'm grateful for this team because they did interact with my son on a couple occasions. When I heard about this ordinance talked about on a couple TV news sources and in the newspaper caught my attention and here's why. As I have shared with you previously about my son, who was homeless for three years. During that time, he struggled with a severe mental illness, a serious meth addiction, and was also neurodivergent. For those three years, I advocated tirelessly for him. I did everything I could to try to get him off the streets. Eventually, the Department of Behavioral Health accepted him for an assistant outpatient treatment under Laura's Law. Once the court process begun, the judge ordered an AOT evaluation to be completed at Arrowhead Regional Medical Center, in which the judge was upset when she received the evaluation due to it being incomplete. Two Department of Behavioral Health staff members and a sheriff deputy located my son, detained him, and transported him to A.R.M.C. for that evaluation. Three days later, he was discharged. His records indicated he was experiencing significant mental health issues and was considered gravely disabled. Yet when he was discharged, A.R.M.C. gave him a bus pass and sent him 31 miles back towards his encampment in Chino Hills. He had no money, he had no cell phone, and absolutely no one was notified that he was being discharged. This greatly upset the judge, especially when she later learned that my son had been killed just seven days later after he was discharged by a hit-and-run driver while crossing the street. He wasn't paying attention to his mind. When I learned about Riverside's drop-off ordinance, I couldn't help but see a connection, and here's why. I realized that my son was not technically a drop-off under Riverside's ordinance, but in many ways, that is exactly what happened to my son. He was discharged from a hospital in an unfamiliar city and left to make his own way back to an encampment 31 miles away without any meaningful resources or support. The only instruction he had given upon discharge was to contact MESA Counseling Services in Rialto. There was no handoff, there was no notification to the judge, there was no one waiting for him, and apparently there was no coordination plan for what would happen next. So I asked myself, if an ordinance like Riverside's had been placed in San Bernardino County or even statewide, could someone have been notified? Could there have been better coordination? Could someone have intervened? Could Cody still be alive today? I will never know the answer to those questions, and I don't want another family to have to ask these questions I am left asking. The City of Riverside's drop-off ordinance won't solve the root causes of homelessness, but I give them credit for trying to address some of the problems associated with it. Maybe our lawmakers need to pass a statewide statute similar to this ordinance. By the way, at the last hearing we attended, where AMC was ordered to attend, the Department of Behavioral Health Council provided the judge with template outlining changes that both the hospital and DBH would be implementing as part of the AOT process. I sincerely hope that they follow through with these changes and that they help improve the process so there are no more incidents like Hody. It's heartbreaking that it took the death of a beloved individual to bring about these changes. And I think because we were so proactive at every single hearing we attended, they knew that they had to make changes. And it'll be a year next month that Chief Minson brought that dreaded knock to our door. It might be a year ago, but it seems like yesterday. Thank you. And I actually went to the Board of Supervisors meeting and shared this with them too because this is a good ordinance and it has to be addressed because we have so many mental illness out on the streets. And I've heard from other outreach teams that they bring them in and then they just release them. Things need to change. But thank you. Thank you for listening. Thank you, Joanne, very much.

And thank you for the information. Philip, is it Chen?

Good evening, Madam Mayor, esteemed council members. My name is Phil Chen. I'm here tonight to formally address a severe procedural and legal error made by the Director of Development Services. On April 8th, of this year, the director quietly approved the extended, sorry, directly approved and extended the expiration date of the Eden project adopted under resolution 2025-048. This extension was granted behind closed doors without public notice and without a hearing. The community only discovered this decision on August 26th, 2026. This administrative approval directly violates Chino zoning code section 20.23.120.B.5 and is also inconsistent with sections 20.23080 and 20.23090. Our local zoning code explicitly denies the director of development services authority to administratively approve a project that is controversial. Section 20.23.120.b.5 mandates that, and I quote, should the director determine that an administratively approved project would result in a substantial opposition or controversy within the neighborhood or the community as a whole, the director shall refer the application to the Planning Commission for review and action at a public hearing. Council members, the word used here is shall, not may. The city council records from July 15th, 2025 appeal hearing before this council explicitly documented overwhelming extreme community opposition to this exact project. The public loudly opposed the layout that subdivides this property into five lots and allows 100% commercial development on four out of the five lots. Because substantial neighborhood controversy was already an established recorded fact, the director had zero legal authority to hand out a quiet staff extension. This application belongs right here in front of the city council at a noticed public hearing. But the error isn't just procedural. It is fundamentally deemed illegal under state law. Between this time And sorry, between the time of this project that was first adopted by the resolution and the time that this extension was granted the california supreme court finalized the landmark redondo beach decision and that ruling made it clear cities cannot use mixed use or housing overlays to meet state housing mandates if the underlying base zoning allows a developer to build zero residential units on the subdivided parcels By extending an entitlement that permits 100% commercial build-outs on four out of these five subdivided parcels within a housing overlay, it is argued that this administrative action authorizing a zoning configuration that California courts have declared illegal. To grant an extension, the director is legally required to find that no major changes in law have occurred. The Redondo Beach ruling is a massive binding change in law. The required legal findings for this extension could not justifiably be made and was an invalid discretionary decision. We are asking the City Council to enforce our local ordinances, honor the rule of law, and immediately schedule an agenda item to vacate and void the April 8th administrative extension. Do not allow a developer to bypass state housing laws and ignore the Chino zoning code through a backroom staff approval kept secret from the public. Force this project back into the light of public hearing where it must be redesigned to comply with current law. Thank you.

We can't take action on this item, but Fred, I would ask you to follow up, please.

Provide responses?

I'd like you to follow up with the report.

Separately? Yeah, this is important. Thank you. I do have some initial responses.

Let's see, we have Assemblymember Michelle Rodriguez report. Roxana Garcia.

good evening mayor council members staff and the public my name is roxana gracia and i'm the district director for assembly member michelle rodriguez i'm here to invite you all to assembly member rodriguez's upcoming event it's called pink with purpose and i'll put it on camera so if anybody's watching I will send out an invite to all the council and it's up on our social media. It's on our website. It's called pink with purpose It's a woman's health fair and resource fair and it's on Saturday, October 17th from 11 to 1 p.m We're gonna be having free mammograms, which is really really important for the community We will be it will be open to the community So we will not turn anyone away if you have insurance if you don't have insurance Health screenings will be provided. It'll have resource booths and we'll have free food. This event will be happening at the Anthony Munoz Park in the city of Ontario. And we would love for all of you to spread the word, share this important event with anyone who may need it, especially right now during difficult times. Health insurance is really high. So if you can come out and get your free mammogram, please feel free to share this information with anyone who may need it. I also wanted to share that in the meantime, please reach out to myself. My contact information is Roxanna, and that's spelled R-O-X-A-N-N-A, period, Gracia, and that's G-R-A-C-I-A at A-S-M, That is my email. Anything that you need from our office, please don't hesitate to reach out. We are right across the street too. We provide state resources. So if you know anyone who is experiencing any issues with state departments, You can call our office and we work as case workers, essentially. So if you know anyone that's dealing with unemployment, state disability insurance, I mean, the list goes on and on, paid family leave, issues with the DMV, any state departments, if you need assistance, please utilize us. A lot of people don't know that they can go to their state representative's office to get assistance. We get calls telling us that they go to the Chino Hills EDD office and that they wait in hours. They call our office, we can get their cases solved within a couple of days. Our phone number is 909-902-9606. Thank you so much for allowing me to speak tonight and beautiful, beautiful city council. Thank you.

Roxanna, where is the Anthony Munoz Park?

The address is 1240 West Ford Street in the city of Ontario, California. And if you go to our website, you can scan the QR code, which is found right here, the flyer's on our website under events, and you can sign up for your slot. We will take walk-ins, but we prefer folks to sign up beforehand so that it guarantees your exam.

Great, thank you very much. Thank you. Maybe, Jackie, maybe we can provide a link to that flyer. That's important information. Thank you, Roxanna. Let's see next, Mr. Michael Sherman.

Hello, Council. Michael Sherman, address 11828 Monte Vista Avenue, Chino. I'm calling today regarding a citation I received. I'm not calling. I'm here. About a citation I've been on the phone a lot today. a citation I received Friday in the mail about my front yard food forest, my garden, my landscape. I've tried two occasions, one on July 8th, one on August 12th. I reached out to everybody, including you guys, regarding clarity onto which plants I need to cut back. I'm not going to just pretend to know what you guys want. I want clarity on what plants I need to cut back. A lot of them, all of them, are food producing, and by cutting them back, I will reduce the amount I produce. I'm a poet and didn't know it. And so, I paid already a fine back in April, I think, It was $500 and you guys blessed me with another one of $500 with the stipulation that if I don't comply by the 16th of this month, it'll be another $500 for a landscape that everyone I've talked to in person who has been there enjoys quite a lot. You have pictures I sent. Can you guys tell what plants I should cut back exactly and by how much and all of that stuff? The code instructions on the ticket actually say, let me get them for you. It says, the two codes they got me for, substandard front or side yard landscape, and then protection of visibility. The corrections required, remove all overgrown vegetation. Cool, which ones? Maintain all landscape and vegetation in good condition to present a healthy, comma, which plant in there is not healthy. I take a lot of pride in how healthy my yard is. And I welcome any of you, all of you, to come inspect it. I will give you a tour. Neat and orderly area. Define that. By whose standards is that? I think it looks great. A lot of my neighbors do too, except for one, which is the cause of all my headaches. So yeah, you guys are updating the codes. I submitted several, three actually, code amendments. One of them is for landscape for the purposes of allowing citizens to have a more robust front yard garden. I don't know if it's been submitted. I asked Chris about it would make sense to me that if, hey, the codes are being amended, he told me in person at my house that the codes may go, some of them, the changes may go in my favor. If that's the case, why can't we just put a stay on causing me a lot of financial hardship and fining me all the time and just wait until that change goes through and then we can work out whatever I gotta work out at that time? That would make sense. He told me he'd advocate for me. I don't know if he has. I'll leave that to you to figure out. what else the reasons i do it really quick sorry my cultivation of edible plants is not merely an aesthetic landscaping preference it is a peaceful productive use of my own residential property to provide my family with fresh food grown under my direct control and without synthetic pesticides herbicides fungicides post-harvest antimicrobial treatments Yes, like Sprouts uses Proteus Max on their vegetables that are on the shelf. Waxes or commercial coatings. I don't want to have to ask all the time, hey, is this treated with something? Hey, is this treated with something? I don't want to have to deal with that. The production of food, a basic human necessity, is closely connected to life, health, liberty, privacy, self-reliance, and the beneficial use of private property. I do not claim a right to create an actual traffic obstruction, health hazard, or legally established nuisance. I do assert, however, that the city should not substantially burden personal food cultivation based solely on conventional aesthetic preference. the fact that the plants are edible, or an undefined determination that the landscaping is substantially different from neighboring properties. I took 310 photographs today of what I think, as a landscape contractor, are substandard landscapes. And I took pictures of people's yards for the purpose of identifying same violations that I've been fined for And so I have 310 pictures of that. Some of them are unfortunately on city property as well.

Mr. Sherman, I'm going to have to ask you to wrap it up.

Okay, I'm done. That's it. Thank you for your consideration.

If we are going through a code amendment, we need to look at suspending those if indeed we are looking at changing the code. Next written request to speak. Mr. Nigg, Bob Nigg.

good evening madam mayor and council members i think we can all agree we all want to do what's best for the city i think we can also agree that there are different opinions of how to make chino a great city to live in The problem is that there needs to be better transparency and improved communication between the public and the planning division so we can achieve our goals. I had the pleasure to meet with the new director of development service last week, and we had a very positive meeting. We spoke about how many of our citizens feel there is a lack of transparency and open communication with the planning division. I came away from that meeting with a very positive understanding that our new director also had similar goals of improving interactions with the public. I personally wish to thank her for spending the time to meet with me. My disagreement with the Eden project is well known to this council. I just discovered last Friday that the former director had issued an administrative approval of the eating project to receive a one-year extension on April 8th, 2026. This extension was made without any public notice or hearing. I can't find any record of the notice. The director's approval of the extension of the exploration of the development constitute what I deem to be a prejudicial abuse of discretion and a violation of state land use laws in our local zoning code. The critical mistake was a proper public notice was not made to the public of the director's determination which lawfully should have occurred. An extension request cannot be made undisclosed and be used as a routine administrative mechanism to insulate a legally deficient project from landmark court decision. The Supreme Court's finalization of the Redondo Beach framework represented a massive change in state law. The Eden Project's configuration could directly violate government code section 65583.2 by allowing base zoning with zero residential units. It's an overlay, but it's still zoned as commercial. This could violate the legal status of our housing element. The administrative decision was conducted, as one of the previous speakers said, behind closed doors. And there is substantial opposition and controversy involving this project. The Planning Commission should have been the one to make the decision to extend the expiration date. There are new and revised state laws regarding the overweight districts. That was, in its sense, enough to send it to the Planning Commission for a decision instead of just doing it on his own prerogative. And those sections would be section 20-23-080-H3 and 20-23-090-H3, that was zoning code. Again, the director chose not to make such a referral and again, did not provide adequate notice of his decision to the public. is this asserted the determination made by the former director was an abuse of authority and required public notice and a hearing of the disputed fraud decision. At a minimum, notice of the decision should have been made available to the public. I couldn't find anything. And again, now that then referred to the city attorney, I would hope at least at the minimum, how was public informed of this decision? We should have been. Thank you.

Mr. Gaunt, he has asked to respond.

Thank you, Mayor. In response to both of those speakers, with all due respect, I totally disagree that it violated your municipal code or state law. Your municipal code, the section that was quoted in the municipal code where it said that if there is a project that has some opposition or controversy that the Director of Development Services shall not approve that. That has nothing to do with an extension request. That section, which is section 20.23.120, speaks of administrative review of land uses and minor development projects. This project was approved. An extension is dealt with under a different section in your municipal code. That section is 2023.080. And if you look at subsection H as in Henry number four, I'd like to read from that. It says special conditional use permits. That section is called expiration. Subsection H4 says if the director of community development determines that no new or revised conditions of approval are warranted, the director may extend the expiration date for a one-year period a maximum of three times. The planning commission shall review any subsequent time extension requests beyond the three one-year periods. That's the section that applies. That's the section that your former development services director followed. As to the argument that state law has somehow been violated because a court in the DTLA new commune matter against Redondo Beach invalidated that city's That housing element, it has no bearing on the City of Chino's approved and HCD certified housing element. Our housing element was not challenged within the time period to challenge that, and that stands in contrast to the Redondo Beach opinion, where the challengers brought a timely challenge. HCD has not and nor does that case say all cities housing elements are invalidated if they followed a similar structure. Nothing in that case says that and I have previously advised the council that taking that kind of an action would violate vested rights.

Thank you very much, Mr. Galante. Those are all the written requests I have to speak under public communication. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address the council on any item not on the agenda? Stubby? Natalie's going to help you, Stubby.

Thank you. Good evening. So I would like to respond to the last two speakers and to the city attorney. I've written you and copied you guys twice a letter concerning this. I requested an official response from the city and got a response back from Matthew Bramlett. Basically saying that the new commune decision does not affect the city of Chino. The new commune decision is binding on everyone in the city, or in the state. The fact that we have an approved housing plan does not negate the fact that the new commune decision did not create new law. If you read the decision, it states that it is merely an interpretation of the existing law as it was passed as the original housing law. The city of Chino, when it approved the Eden Project, violated that law. The city of Chino, on our planning commission, when it, excuse me, I'm having spasms, when it passed the 7-Eleven project recently, you got a copy of the same letter, I sent it to you, I sent it to the planning commission, again, violated that law. The law says, as was stated by both of these gentlemen, that you cannot have an overlay that permits any parcel under the overlay to be developed without housing and it also clarified that it must be developed with the minimum number of housing units which for the city of chino is 20 units per acre if you don't have that letter that i sent or if you don't have the response to uh to matthew brownlett um please reach out to me i'll send you another copy this is a serious issue, and it is also a very simple issue, because the city can comply with both its housing element and the housing law by doing a simple thing, and that is only approving projects that comply with both.

Thank you. Thank you, Steffi.

Any comment, Fred?

I would just say the city has a certified housing, HCD certified housing element. If you take action to basically, the argument is you can only approve certain projects if they meet both the overlay and the underlying zone. that would go against the HCD certified housing element. I do understand the suggestion that the Redondo Beach decision clarified existing law. It clarified in a way that had not been made abundantly clear hcd knew of the martinez v clovis decision that that the redondo beach clear decision clarified it approved the city of chino's housing element as well as hundreds of other elements that follow the exact same pattern denying projects based on interpretation of that case where the city of Chino's housing element has not been challenged I think would be would put the city at legal risk so for that reason I have said before and I continue to say your housing element is valid It is in place for the next round. I suspect HCD will come out with guidance that will suggest compliance along the lines of the Redondo Beach decision. You have an approved housing element. HCD has not said one word about the hundreds of other housing elements that remain active and taken the position as taken just now that you should only approve certain projects if they meet both the underlying and the overlay zone. I think that would be dangerously...

When is the next housing element?

Well, the process is starting. It's... and i i believe that may be right yes so 2028 but the process starts well ahead of time so by next year it will be underway and we'll go through that process again and i suspect hcd will come out with guidance that will be consistent with the radon of each decision okay is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address the council on that item now you've already spoken stubby we have a huge agenda tonight

very quickly please very quickly thank you major flaw in mr. Galante's opinion is the fact that HCD is an executive branch it is not a legislative branch it's just like the city of chino cannot break a law hcd cannot violate the law so even though they approve the housing element even though the law says it has to be approved by hcd it cannot violate state law state law demands that housing be provided 20 units per acre minimum under an overlay thank you

Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address the council on any item that is not on the agenda? Okay, we're going to move on then. Under information within our packet is the external agency report for September 1st. I encourage you to access that through the web and read that report. Next, we have an appointment. Community Services Parks Recreation Commission appointment. This is to approve the appointment of Community Services Parks and Recreation Commissioner, newly appointed Natalie Sanders. I would like to ask for a motion and a second, please. Is there a motion? Motion from Mayor Pro Tem Burton, second from Councilman Lucio. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposition? Okay, Natalie will provide the oath. Where are you going? Oh, up on the stage. She's leaving. We're not used to having a stage.

I, Natalie Sanders, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I'm about to enter. Thank you. Thank you, Natalie. Thank you, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, the council, and the Community Services Parks and Recreation Commission. I just want to give a little background on myself. I'll make it really brief and then I got a little commercial. I grew up in LA. I'm not a native of Chino. I've been married 33 years. I've got two daughters, 30 and 32. One lives in Dallas, one lives in Atlanta. They both grew up here and went through all Chino Valley Unified from kindergarten through high school. I live in District 2. I've lived here for 33 years. I retired in 2024 and spent over 40 years in the grocery industry. I currently volunteer at Chino PD as a VIP, a volunteer in policing, and I enjoy visiting with my kids, going to the beach, monthly family dinners, and the Dodgers. Go Dodgers! I applied because I wanted to be an integral part of managing and shaping our city and helping the responsibility for the maintenance and improvement and the quality of life in Chino. And my little commercial is our connections magazine that our department puts together. And I guarantee there's something in here for everybody. So I encourage you to get one of these. They're at the Carolyn Owen Center, the Senior Center, the NAC, and the Preserve Community Center and online. I just want to encourage everybody to get involved. Just get involved and share your opinion, good or bad, right or wrong. Share your opinion. Obviously, the City Council meets twice a month, the first and third Tuesdays. The Planning Commission meets on the third Wednesday, and Community Services, Parks, and Recreation Commission, easy for me to say, the fourth Monday of the month. They're all at 6 p.m. in the City Channel Council chambers. i've got a lot to learn be patient i want to thank the city the city council the community services parks and recreation commission for giving me this opportunity and confidence in me thanks to my husband for his love patience and support and thanks to my village my neighbors i'm committed to do my best and represent our community best i can thank you very much thank you

I think it's pretty obvious why we picked her. She is gonna be fantastic. Okay, next item on the agenda is a consent calendar. Do any community members wish to have any items pulled? Or do any council members wish to have any items pulled? Seeing none, then I need a motion and a second. Motion from Mayor Pro Tem Burton. Second. Second from Councilman Lucio. Any opposition? None. then the consent calendar passes unanimously. Next, under public hearings, prior to the vote of the city council, any member of the audience will have an opportunity to address the council on any item listed under public hearing. Council requests, but it's not required that you state your name and address prior to making any remarks. Item number 14. Consider the applicant's appeal of public works condition of approval number 3.2, which requires the undergrounding of existing overhead utility lines and denies the applicant's requested concession pursuant to state density bonus law for the housing project consisting of 100 for sale housing units located at the southwest corner of Riverside Drive and Magnolia Avenue, 6033 and 6041 Riverside Drive. I'd like to declare the public hearing open and ask for a staff report from Maria Starr, our senior planner, and Jesus Placencia, our assistant city engineer.

Good evening, mayor and members of the city council. Tonight you're being asked to consider the applicant's appeal of public works condition number 3.2, which requires the undergrounding of overhead lines for a project located at the southwest corner of Riverside Drive and Magnolia Avenue. The project includes 100 for sale homes with 10 units for moderate income households, which qualifies the project for one concession. To be clear, the project itself is not being appealed, only the condition of approval. The Planning Commission approved the project on June 17th by a four to one vote. The applicant accepted the project approvals but appealed one condition, the requirement to underground applicable existing overhead utility lines along Riverside Drive and Magnolia Avenue. the applicant is requesting that the city grant relief from this requirement as its one concession under the state density bonus law allowing the existing overhead lines to remain a concession is intended to provide identifiable and actual cost reductions associated with affordable housing and the question before the council tonight is whether to grant this concession or whether the city can make the necessary findings as stated in State Density Bonus Law. I wanted to provide an overview of State Density Bonus Law when a developer Voluntarily includes affordable housing units in a project. State law provides certain benefits, which are intended to offset the cost of providing those affordable units, including development flexibility. This includes increased density, concessions, and incentives, and waivers or reductions of development standards in exchange for providing quality, qualifying affordable housing. This is meant to encourage the production of affordable housing throughout the state. The city may deny a requested concession or incentive only if it makes the specific findings required by state density bonus law. One exception is where the concession would result in a specific adverse impact to public health, safety, the physical environment, or qualifying historic resources that cannot feasibly be mitigated or avoided without rendering the development unaffordable. With that legal and policy framework in mind, I'd like to briefly summarize the applicant's position and then staff's response. Because the project provides affordable units, the applicant is requesting that the city grant relief from the undergrounding overhead utility lanes, and the applicant argues generally that the city has not identified a sufficient specific adverse impact to public health or safety to justify denying the concession. The applicant also provided studies addressing the existing utility poles and lines and suggested that alternatives are available to allow the overhead lines to remain. Though these studies were provided after the appeal period, the staff has carefully reviewed those arguments and materials. Staff's position is that the record supports the retaining of condition 3.2. The city has determined that undergrounding utilities is necessary to protect Public health, safety, and welfare by reducing risk to life and property during emergencies such as earthquakes, fires, severe weather events, reducing hazards associated with downed or damaged lines, and maintaining safe visibility and access within the public right-of-way for pedestrians, motorists, and emergency responders. The City further finds that alternative mitigation measures, including protective barriers, relocation of facilities, or other design modifications would not satisfactorily avoid or mitigate the identified public health and safety impacts associated with retaining the above ground lines. Also, the addition of residential units for the project would create a new traffic to and from the project site and thus exacerbate the traffic collision risk to the utility poles in question. At this point, I would like to turn over the presentation to Public Works to discuss in greater detail.

Good evening, mayor and council members. I'll now walk through additional information that supports staff's position. The City's undergrounding requirements in the City Code are intended to reduce the risks associated with overhead electrical lines and establish a consistent standard for new development. Overhead utilities can be damaged by vehicle collisions, high winds, falling trees and vegetation, equipment failures, and other events. Undergrounding does not prevent every power outage, but it removes the utility lines and poles from many of these risks and provides other long-term benefits by eliminating overhead facilities from the adjacent roadways. That is especially important for a new residential development where residents may depend on reliable electricity for medical equipment, refrigerated medications, mobility equipment, and other essential services. This project also provides an opportunity to address these existing overhead facilities while the development and associated improvements are being constructed. Addressing the facilities now is less disruptive than attempting to address them after the development and the surrounding improvements are fully built out. The city's records include 23 traffic collisions between 2021 and 2025 in which vehicles struck Southern California Edison poles within Chino and damaged the poles. The table and map on this slide summarize those events. Based on this information, staff concluded that vehicle impacts involving utility poles are a real and measurable public safety risk. To clarify, none of these collisions impacted poles located along the project site. The data is not intended to suggest that these particular poles have a history of being struck. Rather, it demonstrates that vehicle impacts involving utility poles are a documented risk that has occurred repeatedly within Chino. The photos on this next slide provide examples of the types of incidents included in that data. When a vehicle strikes a utility pole, the result can be more than damage to the pole. It can lead to power outages, block roadways, and damage electrical equipment that can create additional safety hazards. These examples illustrate why the city's undergrounding requirements in the code are intended to reduce these risks. So how does that apply to this project? This aerial photo shows the existing overhead utility lines along the project frontage. The red lines and dots show the facilities that must be fully removed and placed underground. And the blue lines and dots show the facilities that would only be placed partially underground. Along Riverside Drive, all of the existing overhead utilities are required per the city code to be placed underground. So everything shown along Riverside Drive would be underground. Magnolia Avenue is different. There are larger electrical transmission lines along the street located at the top of the poles that are exempt from the city's underground requirement. Those lines can remain overhead per the code. However, the lower utility lines along Magnolia Avenue are not exempt and must be placed underground. So the difference is simply that everything goes underground on Riverside while some lines remain overhead on Magnolia. Additionally, there are also two existing poles at this project site that are located very close to the curb along Riverside Drive near the Magnolia Avenue intersection. As shown on this slide, they are much closer to the curb than the city would typically allow per our standards for other facilities such as street lights and fire hydrants. The proximity of these poles to the roadway is one of the factors staff considered in evaluating the safety implications of retaining the overhead facilities. With the additional traffic that will be generated by the new residential development, staff believes addressing the vulnerability of these poles is an important part of the project's public safety considerations. Staff is looking at the long-term condition of the site. The project provides an opportunity to eliminate the overhead facilities as part of the development rather than carrying the existing condition moving forward. As part of considering ways to reduce risk, the use of bollards and other barriers was discussed as a possible measure to protect the poles. A properly designed barrier may reduce the chance of a vehicle directly striking a pole, however, that would address only the risk of a direct vehicle impact. It would not address the other risks associated with keeping the utilities overhead, including high winds, falling trees or vegetation, equipment failure, deterioration, or causes of other power outages. Rigid barriers can also create an additional roadside concern, and depending on where they are placed, may interfere with pedestrian access. For these reasons, staff believe that measures such as bollards or barriers may reduce some of the risk, but they would not eliminate the risks associated with retaining the overhead utility system. The applicant has also submitted studies regarding the existing poles and overhead utilities, and staff has reviewed those materials. Those studies provide information about the current condition of the poles. They indicate among other things that the poles appear to be installed and maintained in accordance with applicable standards, that they are not located in an area prone to wildfires, and that there is no documented history of vehicle collisions involving these poles at this particular location. staff acknowledges those findings however those studies do not establish that the overhead utilities present present no public safety risk and they do not show that underground aim would provide no additional safety or reliability benefit the study the studies look primarily at the condition of the facilities today they cannot eliminate the possibility of a future vehicle collision high winds falling vegetation equipment failure, or other event affecting the overhead system. Basically, the studies tell us that the poles are in an acceptable condition today. They do not demonstrate that keeping the poles provides the same level of safety and reliability as putting them underground. That concludes the Public Works portion of the presentation. I'll now turn it back to Maria for the rest of the presentation.

thank you um notice of this hearing was mailed to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the site the notice was also published in the chino champion staff received comment letters from residents in the community a letter from californians for home ownership also a letter from hcd in support of the project and appeal have been provided for your review and consideration based on the administrative record and analysis presented tonight staff recommends that the city council deny the applicant's appeal and adopt resolution number 2026 056 affirming public works condition of approval 3.2 to be clear denying the appeal does not deny the residential project the Planning Commission approval of the 100-unit project would remain in effect. It would simply require that the applicant comply with the applicable undergrounding requirement as part of the approved project. Thank you, and staff is available to answer any questions that the council may have.

Okay, before I ask for the applicant's presentation, are there any council questions? that you need nothing okay then i would offer an opportunity for the applicant to make a presentation uh good evening uh mayor and city council my name is joe afterley from warmington residential thank you for having me and hearing our appeal tonight

Why are we here? We're in a housing crisis. We're in an affordable housing crisis, an affordability crisis in California, and our state legislators have decided that they're gonna use some carrots and some sticks to try to convince local jurisdictions to build more housing. We're gonna talk a little bit about the carrot on this one, and that's an incentive. So when we're gonna be building 10% of our homes, we're gonna be subsidizing those homes to be an affordable house for a period of time. They'll be sold at an affordable rate and maintain that for, I think, 45 or 55 years. Because of that subsidy, we're entitled to various things. Staff went over those various things. Waivers and a concession is the one item that's related to costs. When we're talking about that one, we're asking about these overhead utility lines. Would I prefer to have the overhead utility lines down? Of course. But in order for us to make this project financeable, we need this concession. In order to provide the subsidy to the affordable homes, we need this concession. I was... I'm somewhat surprised at some of the things staff had to say tonight. They said themselves that the polls are not a documented risk. They said that they might reduce risks, that it would be less disruptive, could impact. But what quantifiable, objective standard are we not meeting? That's the standard they have to meet, not just less or may cause or potentially. There has to be an objective, quantifiable standard we're not meeting. There's nowhere to be found. Let me see. Standard of objective and quantifiable is important. In your code, which staff relies heavily on, under the undergrounding provision, it gives the city engineer full discretion to decide whether utilities go underground or not. That's not objective. That's fully subjective. There's nothing quantifiable in the code that says if you don't do this or you don't do that, you don't meet this number, then you can't underground. Nowhere quantifiable. I talked about mitigations. I'll just aside from that. The other thing in your code is you allow in lieu fees. So if the overhead utility lines are mandatory, this is something that we can't live without. We have to underground them. Why do you allow for in lieu fees to be paid? If I were a health inspector and I went into a restaurant and they weren't refrigerating their food, could you just say to the health inspector, hey, I'll give you some money. We won't fix that. Of course not. But that's the standard that you're applying here to the undergrounding. You allow in lieu fee to not do the undergrounding. That's the same thing. So reducing traffic, we had this traffic study. The city traffic engineer reviewed it. What did it find? No significant impacts. So the additional traffic that's going down the street, random data about collisions throughout the city is not specific to these polls. And that's the standard you have to meet. That these polls are a hazard to safety. That's the standard you have to meet. And it has to be objective and quantifiable. Tell me where the objective quantifiable standard we're not meeting. That's what we're asking of you tonight. Please approve the concession. It's required under state law. You got a letter from HCD saying you haven't done enough to justify denying this concession. Excuse me. So we're asking you to grant the appeal and approve the concession. I will note there's actually two conditions of approval related to undergrounding. So if there are an approval of our appeal, it would be for both conditions, I would assume. And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Any questions of the applicant? Mark?

You have a total of 100 homes, 90 of them market rate. What's gonna be the market rate?

I don't know that off the top of my head, but we'll sell them for whatever the market rate is. I do know that the discount, I asked this, the discount between a market rate and a affordable home is about 200 to $225,000 difference.

How big are these units going to be?

I'll get our project manager. He has more of the fine details of the project. So the home sizes range from about 1,300 square feet to about 1,700 square feet.

And so based on that, I'm sure you guys have got round numbers. What is market rate for those size homes?

I don't really know. I can give you guys. I would assume around 700,000, but I'm not entirely sure about that.

Okay. So 90 at $700,000, 10 at $500,000?

It might be that. It might be less. That affordable rate is a little high, so maybe it's a little bit lower.

OK. And then when we talk about traffic, We're looking at 100 additional homes with usually at least two cars per home. And then you're looking at another project on the corner of Riverside and Mountain with another 210. So we're talking a minimum of another 620 vehicles added within a quarter mile. You don't think that potentially that additional traffic could cause a hazard with Tilly Poles being up?

I would say two things to that one is I think the additional Density that in homes that have been produced in the preserve have been increased the traffic collisions in that area, but they're all underground No, they're not there are still existing overhead poles that have the higher utility lines and our home our poles on Magnolia are gonna be there no matter what and There are some, but there's been no increased traffic collisions to those poles. So that's one thing. And the other side of that is, that's not the standard that you're required to meet under the law. Not would it be better, or could it be a potential impact? Is it an impact? And if it is, what is the objective standard that we have to comply with? And what is, it has to be quantifiable, not just an assumption that it could be a problem.

And then you talk about in loo fees, Are you guys willing to pay in lieu fees?

Sure, if you would grant us an in lieu fee, we would use that as our concession, but you're making the argument that these are a hazard and that we can't underground them. You wouldn't approve that because they're a public health and safety hazard.

Okay, good. My understanding was you guys never made any offer for any in lieu fees or anything like that. That's not true.

That's categorically false. He wasn't there for that meeting. I don't think Maria was either, but... jackie was there for that meeting i believe you offered to do a community uh donation of about two hundred thousand dollars we agreed yeah no we did uh i think council member burton was in that uh meeting where we talked about that i think you were there too we talked about doing that and in luthi would actually pay the underground utilities we just had a community benefit we didn't have anything directed at any particular uh item you didn't offer to pay in luthi's It could be used for in the fees we didn't. We said this is this is what we were saying. We want to find some meeting of them in the middle ground. We had those meetings. We said staff said hey, these polls along Manila Magnolia are going to stay. What if we don't make you underground the call to under build on Magnolia? That's a savings to us and we said great. Well, underground Riverside, but we need something else. Can you give us a fee credit? Can we do something that will help offset the cost associated with that? Those are the conversations that we had.

May I ask a clarifying question? um the municipal code under section 13.32.070 provides that an in lieu fee could be provided if the city engineer makes certain detailed findings all right

are you suggesting that you would be willing to pay the in lieu fee provided under that section no what i'm saying is in the instance in which you're saying that you would approve an in luffy in this instance is exactly the argument that we're making that it's not a public health and safety issue it's a cost issue but for the record you neither you want uh

The concession granted for both the obligation to underground the poles as well as pay the in lieu fee required.

Well, your code doesn't require both. It requires one or the other. Right.

But you are objecting to both, to either one.

We need the concession for the cost purposes of financing our project. So either way, we would need that waived. And you would not pay the in lieu fee per the code?

Correct. Correct. Thank you.

I don't have anything else.

Anyone have any other questions? Okay. We have one. Thank you. Thank you. We have one public request to speak, Mr. Bobnick.

Good evening again. I thought the study was well performed. I would agree that they should not be allowed to keep them the way they are. going back to the one diagram of Magnolia. You've got to remember this is a very dense development. If there is an emergency, the only exit out of that thing, because there's going to be a brick wall around the other portion, is out on Magnolia. That is a safety issue if there's downed lines right there for the people to escape. As he brought up the traffic study, as I presented this information to the council, that traffic study should be based upon growth in horizon. It's not protected under SB 330 to have just a snapshot. That should be extended growth. Not only are you going to have... the big development on Riverside and Mountain. Going down Riverside, there are numerous other high-density developments planned in the housing element. So those factors should all be built into your decision. I would deny their appeal.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the audience? Anyone else in the audience that would like to address the item number 14? I do have a question before I close the public hearing, and that is because of the state density bonus law, what concessions have been provided this developer that would not normally be provided?

I'll have Maria clarify that but State density bonus law puts things in different categories as far as concession They're allowed one concession and this is the one they're asking for they have requested waivers and that is to standards such as and i don't quote me that's why i defer to ria but like setbacks heights the landscaping you know open space requirement those kind of items are what would be appropriate for a waiver of those standards okay what what um waivers concessions have they been granted because of the 10 supposedly uh affordable units

We need the mic on, please. Still not on.

Okay. uh we did approve eight waivers for this project um i'll list those out for you um there they requested a waiver from the front yard setback which is magnolia avenue the side yard setback on riverside drive and also the south property line and they also requested a waiver from the rear yard setback The height and location of the fence and wall at Riverside, they requested a waiver for that. Also, they requested a waiver for minimum outdoor living area. common area open space requirements, private open space for ground floor units, and they also requested relief. We do require that with the projects in the affordable housing overlay that the floor plate on the third floor be 80% of the ground floor plate area. The third floor actually extends out and it's at 107% of the ground floor plate. So it's bigger? It's bigger on the top than on the bottom. So we did approve this when we approved the project. We request all the waivers. The difference between waivers and a concession is that the waivers they're requesting relief from development requirements for a concession or incentive, they are simply requesting something that will provide a cost savings so that they can provide the affordable units. Okay, and how many of those? Eight, you said? They're allowed to ask for one. So the one that they asked for was to, they wished to not underground the lines.

No, I know, but the waivers that you just, there were 10 of them? Oh, there was eight. Eight of them, okay. Correct. So they were provided eight, I'll call them exceptions, to save money to make up for the lower income waivers.

units they would if they didn't have the affordable units they would not have been able to ask for the waivers correct correct and the development waivers are to make the development feasible because they're building at a higher density than what we would normally see so they're at 20 a little over 26 dwelling units per acre so when they're asking for these waivers what it is allowing them to do is to build to um requirements that will allow them to get that higher density on that site

So they're able to get more units on the site? Correct. Okay. So there's a smaller footprint, there's smaller outdoor living spaces, there's smaller setbacks, making the whole development more crowded under the guise of affordable units.

Yes, and they can ask for unlimited waivers.

Okay. Any questions from council? Karen?

there's a lot of people here in the public and I'd like to say that this is the first like one of the first of its kind projects to come to the city of Chino where we have a project that's you know under the affordable housing act that gets to come to our community lawfully so my background is 34 years of law enforcement I believe in following the law this project yeah Can we close the public hearing? Should I close it?

Was that a question or were you going to?

Are you going to be asking a question or just commenting? No, I'm not asking any comments. I'm making comments. Okay, then I will close the public hearing. Okay, go ahead. Thank you. I said comments, Mayor. So that being said, continuing on with my comments now, is that this is a project that's come to town that doesn't require any input from the community. You heard our engineer, our member of development services today talk about all these waivers that have been given to this developer, rightfully so for them to develop the right way so that they can offset the cost for the affordability of the units and the density bonus, which I understand that we are required to follow by law. But it's almost unimaginable for me for any developer of this scale and nature to come in and buy a parcel of land with any community and get up here and say, hey, we really don't know what the market value is gonna be. We really don't know what they're gonna sell for and to not scout this location and even the requirements of the city under the municipal code for a health and safety issue such as electrical wires and not figure that into the development of the project of itself. These people are very, very intelligent people, very, very intelligent developers, and for them to come in and say, hey, listen, here's the project, but we really don't know what it's going to sell for, and we really don't know about this, and we really don't know about that. I believe they do know, and that's why they purchased the project and are bringing it here, and I believe that they've had to know if they had done any research within the city of Chino to understand that we would want for electrical poles to be underground in these areas as a matter of health and safety for our community. Anytime you put anything up on a sidewalk, it's probably going to get crashed into by a car in my professional experience. It doesn't matter if it's a sign, a tree, a fire heart, or anything else. But power poles are different when you hit them. And the nature of these power poles, the way it was explained, I do believe it's in our best interest for the city to underground those utilities at this time. And I can't for the life of me get my mind around how a developer wouldn't understand that when they purchased this project and looked at it. I think it's terribly unfortunate for them to come and ask for this concession to us. I think we should underground it, and I think that's also not what this letter from HCD says, what this gentleman said up here, if you read the letter, or at least my interpretation of the letter, and I think If we saw an in lieu fee, we're so serious about wanting to do that because it's the right time for us to underground those utilities. It's not just the safest thing for it now, but in the future, you know, in events of wildfires or high wind events or different things that could bother those utilities along a very, very busy street, by the way. This is one of the busiest streets in our community. It's also a truck route. so i i just can't get my mind around why anybody couldn't see that this is a logical and responsible thing to do so if the developer is interested in giving us an in lieu fee we're so serious about it i would suggest to the council that we even say hey listen we'll take that fee and construct it right right now while you guys are doing your development because that's how serious you are because when the rest of the development comes along this area as well we're going to want those utilities underground those electrical utilities for the exact same reason we're asking for today so those are my comments mayor um i i i i i i don't support not undergrounding these utilities for for a multitude of reasons um just because we don't have any data of somebody crashing into one right now we're putting a development in there that's going to impact ingress and egress and travel along that area so that concludes my comments thank you mayor thank you

Just, am I on? Hello? You got me?

Okay.

All right. Just for the record, I wasn't part of the meeting when we discussed community benefit, just for the record there. But I am listening to this and I'm listening to the community benefit issues and housing laws and I just think about building. just building housing and infrastructure as your city grows, areas grow, as does your infrastructure. Things get built up over time to be able to facilitate the needs of the community. And as that goes on, the safety standards increase. I can tell you right now that the safety standards for buildings and housing, there's somebody there always looking at those standards and they're trying to make them better. You can look at earthquake standards. People now have to retrofit buildings in a different way than they did back in the early 1900s. They learn things as time goes on. And this is no different. You have utility poles out on Riverside Drive that were put there, gosh, what do you think? I mean, back in the 50s or 60s, there was nothing out there at that point in time. Now we're building residential units that are going to house families. I think what we need to do now is now is the right time to underground these lines that could potentially blow over, get hit by cars, whatever. It's going to be a denser area than what it is now. Right now, it's just a big field. But I think right now is the right time. I believe we need to underground those lines.

My understanding, is this on?

Not yet.

Is it on now? Okay. So my understanding to underground the poles was gonna be somewhere between a million to maybe a million point eight. And then in looking at the numbers that we got, which I think are probably a little lower than they really are, this is a $68 million project based on the numbers that they've given us. and they've gotten a number of concessions already from the city to allow a higher density amount of houses inside that those that acreage that they have currently and for them to say this doesn't pencil if i gotta pay a million to a million eight when the project looks like it's going to be 68 million or more i think that's that's not reasonable to think that they're not going to make any money this is going to make it completely unfeasible for them to build so i also believe that we're adding significant amount of cars more cars in a truck route i think you're going to have more accidents and you have those utility poles kimball in the preserve is not a truck route but everywhere a developer developed, everything's underground. On the side of the airport, may not be. So I'm not in support of denying their request.

Chris, do you have a comment?

Yeah, may I ask our staff a question, ma'am? Yes, you can. Regarding the loo fees, I guess one of the arguments I heard from the developer was that if this is a true public health and safety issue for you guys and you guys are requiring us to underground, then why are you accepting a loo fee if it's that imperative that it's a health and safety issue why why are you accepting this so my question in regards to loo fees is if that was something that was proposed and that's accepted by the city what are those loo fees typically used for what can they be used for and prior i guess to you answering the question councilwoman comstock actually addressed this and i happen to agree with her that i'm just curious to hear your response but i think this council would be more than willing to say number one we would want to take that money and apply it to this project and underground right away because it is that important to us and it truly is a health and safety concern but with that being said yeah i just want to hear your

Is this on? Yes, okay. So yes, the in lieu fee that would be collected would be utilized for the future undergrounding of those overhead lines. However, in this particular case with this project, the city code says that city engineer has the discretion to accept an in lieu fee when the total linear fee of overhead lines is less than 650 feet. this particular case with this project if you count the total linear feet of riverside drive and magnolia you exceed 650 feet so per the code this project project is not eligible for that in luffy option interesting okay that concludes my question okay karen

Is it wrong? Mayor, not to mention that we are already in an era where we're looking at utilities and power lines, just like Council Member Burton talked about, and the figures that Council Member Lucio just talked about, and I wasn't aware of that section in our ordinance. Thank you, Jesus. There's communities all up and down the state right now demanding that we do power lines and utilities different for this exact reason, for safety. And I, like I said, I just, you know, I want to thank our staff for working so hard on this project, you know, and I want to thank them for, you know, helping to bring those waivers to them to fruition for some of the affordability to that. but i i don't i don't see any benefit that can come from the city of chino and i'm sure that not this developer or other developers have have constructed recently you know to the improved standards that we're doing for health and safety in other communities where there's not the same expectation and i think we would be selling our residents short by not taking this opportunity with with this development to make it safer for our community moving forward and to improve it so thank you

Fred? Thank you, Mayor. I wanted to just make some legal clarifications. I heard the applicant's representative say that if your municipal code found the undergrounding so critical from a public safety standpoint, why is the city engineer given unfettered discretion? I think that comment is... completely contradicted by the language in your municipal code. Your municipal code section 13.32070 makes it very clear. The city engineer shall exempt the following developments or improvements of any property whenever the city engineer finds in his or her discretion that the proposed developments or improvements fit any one of the following criteria. So there are four criteria listed. It's not unfettered. It's very precise. So I think that was an incorrect statement. And your municipal code actually makes findings as to why the undergrounding of utility lines is a public safety issue. So there are adequate legislative findings when this code was adopted. I could see it was... been in place at least since 2002 so certainly when someone purchases property they know that that is a requirement that the city would impose we don't ask about whether that's a negotiation between the applicant and the property owner knowing that that's a condition but That's something that has been in place in your municipal code. The applicant, as well as the applicant's attorney and HCD, all made the following comment. That even though, as your public works staff has demonstrated, there is a showing of a general risk to utility poles by vehicles colliding with them and creating power outages and safety hazards when electrical lines are still on and potentially downed, but that there is no specific finding as to the project or project area that those risks and hazards exist. I think We have heard significant evidence to the contrary. Your public works staff did mention that with the addition and development services staff, with the addition of new units in this area, in this particular project, it will add additional vehicles. You will also be adding units where residents could potentially be relying on medical equipment Equipment that requires ongoing and electrical supply that could be jeopardized that has been Presented also at the Planning Commission meeting there is there was a showing consistent with information provided at the Planning Commission meeting that the proximity of the poles especially around the intersections to the public right-of-way the street is Is very that proximity is very small And that could heighten the risk so your own former police chief councilmember Comstock Based on her experience knows. This is a heavily truck traveled truck route That that is relevant evidence the the other point Is and I think your staff addressed it well that hcd had raised in its initial letter to the city is um essentially city tried to work it out with the applicant look at alternatives and and that's a good that's straight out of the state density bonus law that you have to ascertain whether they're feasible alternatives to mitigate this potential public significant public health and safety risk. The suggestion was put bollards around there. We've heard that that could create their own hazards if vehicles collide with them because they are a fixed object and interfere with pathways in this sidewalk. So just plugging in the state density bonus law requirements, I do believe staff has presented sufficient information to address that.

Thank you. I'm going to keep my comment short because I think most of the council has already spoken and verbalized a lot of my beliefs. But the in lieu fee is the example that the developer gave for a restaurant. I think it's a little ridiculous. An in lieu fee doesn't give you permission to do anything that's illegal. We would use that fee to underground. So an in lieu fee is not buying us off. from not undergrounding. That was ridiculous. Safety issues have already been brought up. You know, when you buy property, whether you're a big developer or a small person, you do your due diligence before you ever purchase something. That's what a good business person does. There's no way that a reputable developer would buy a piece of property without knowing full well what the city's requirements are, and the undergrounding has been a requirement since, what did you say, Fred, 2002? So for 24 years, we've required that this developer knew doggone well what the requirements were. There have been eight concessions given on this property, which allows them to save money, and I'm sure the amount saved more than will cover the undergrounding costs. So I just... There's no way I can support not undergrounding these lines. So with that, our recommendation is to conduct a public hearing, which we have done, adopt Resolution 2026-056, denying the applicant's appeal, to remove public works condition of approval number 3.2, which requires the undergrounding of existing overhead utility lines for the development project located at the southwest corner of Riverside Drive and Magnolia in the affordable housing overlay. That is the recommended action. I would ask for a motion to approve that action. I'll make the motion, Mayor. Motion from Councilman Flores, second from Mayor Pro Tem Burton. Any opposition? Seeing none, the item passes unanimously. Okay, we will go on to item number 15. Item number 15 is consider the applicant's appeal of Planning Commission June 17, 2026 action on the 210-unit rental housing project located at the northwest corner of Riverside Drive and Mountain Avenue, 6210 Riverside Drive, which received a 3-3 vote and therefore did not result in an approval or denial of the project. The applicant is also appealing public works condition of approval number 2.2, which requires the undergrounding of existing overhead utility lines and denies the applicant's requested concession pursuant to the state density bonus law. I will declare the public hearing open and ask once again for a staff report from Maria and Jesus.

thank you as you stated the applicant is appealing two separate items the first being that the applicant is appealing the planning commission three to three vote for this project which resulted in either approval or denial for the 210 unit rental housing project that is located at the northwest corner of riverside drive and mountain avenue The second item the applicant is appealing is the public works condition of approval, which requires the undergrounding over existing overhead lines for the housing project. Because this item follows immediately after the previous item, I want to briefly clarify the key difference between the two appeals. For this project, staff recommends that council grant the appeal in part by approving the housing project while denying the applicant's request to grant a concession for the undergrounding of the overhead lines. There are two separate decisions before you tonight, whether to approve the 210 unit housing project and also whether to grant the applicant's density bonus concession, allowing a portion of the existing overhead utility lines to remain. Staff recommends approval of the project and denial of the request of the underground and concession. I wanted to give a project overview for the first portion of the appeal. This project consists of 210 rental units, including 21 units for lower income households. The project is approximately eight acres and is located within the city's affordable housing overlay. The project proses 25 two and three story residential buildings along with a recreational building at a density of approximately 26.6 dwelling units per acre. The project incorporates a Spanish inspired architectural theme featuring two complimentary architectural styles. Units range from approximately 1300 to 1800 square feet and provide family oriented housing within the community. Amenities include a centrally located recreation building with a fitness center, yoga room, club room, and leasing office. There is also a swimming pool, shuffleboard tot lot, and small dog park at the northwest corner of the project site. The Paseo areas between the buildings include multiple seating areas with shade structures and barbecues. Each unit includes a private outdoor space through either a patio or a balcony. There's an existing block wall along the north property line and a new six foot high block wall will be constructed along the west property line. This shows a section of one of the units to show that special consideration has been given to the project's interface with the existing residential neighborhoods to the north and to the west. To provide a compatible transition, the project incorporates enhanced landscaping, increased setbacks for feasible and building massing that steps down to two stories along the property line adjacent to existing homes. With respect to parking, the proposed community provides a total of 450 parking spaces. 441 parking spaces are required by the Chino Municipal Code. 375 parking spaces are required under the state requirements. Therefore, the project exceeds state minimum requirements by 75 spaces. To help manage parking long term, the applicant has provided a parking management plan that will be implemented as part of the project. The city is not permitted to require additional parking beyond what is allowed under state law, even if a project does not meet local parking standards. California law limits the city's ability to impose parking requirements that exceed state established standards. In this case, because the project includes 10% of the units designated for low income households, it qualifies for the parking ratios provided under state density bonus law. Although the project qualifies for the reduced parking requirements, the applicant is providing 75 additional spaces beyond the state requirement and also exceeds the city parking requirement by nine spaces. I wanted to go over waivers and concessions again. We talked about it briefly with the other project, but because the project does include 10% of the units for low income households, it does qualify for certain waivers under the state density bonus law. The applicant has requested waivers related to building setbacks, the location of parking stalls, open space requirements, and third story building massing. And I can go over that in more detail if you wish. it is important to understand that these waivers are not discretionary exceptions created by the city under state density bonus law when a development standard would physically prevent a qualifying project from being built at the density and level of affordability permitted by the state the applicant may be entitled to a waiver of these standards With respect to concessions, we'll talk about that a little bit later in the presentation. I wanted to provide some background on the project. The Planning Commission considered this application for this project on June 17th. staff recommended approval finding that the project is consistent with the city's general plan zoning affordable housing overlay applicable objective development standards with exception of the waivers and state housing law it is important to understand that the limits of state law places on city's discretion when considering the housing projects under housing account the housing accountability act when a proposed housing project complies with the applicable objective general plan zoning and subdivision standards the required sequoia review has and the required sequel review has been completed the city is required to approve the project unless it can make specific written findings that the project would have a specific adverse impact on public health or safety and that there is no feasible way to mitigate or avoid that impact other than denying the project. In other words, the City cannot deny the qualifying housing project based simply on general concerns or subjective standards. Any denial must be supported by specific findings required under state law. With that framework in mind, the Planning Commission received substantial public testimony primarily regarding traffic, parking, neighborhood compatibility, and pedestrian access. The Commission ultimately considered three separate motions to approve the project. Each motion failed on a 3-3 vote. As a result, the Planning Commission did not adopt a resolution approving the project and also it did not adopt findings denying the project. Following the Commission's action, the applicant appealed the matter to the City Council and is now requesting that the Council approve the project. With respect to traffic and circulation, because traffic was a significant topic before the Planning Commission, I wanted to briefly address that. Traffic impact analysis was prepared in accordance with the city's TIA guidelines and was reviewed and approved by the city traffic engineer. The project includes traffic-related mitigation measures, including improvements at Riverside Drive and Mountain Avenue at the intersection, a dedicated southbound right turn pocket, accessibility improvements, and a right-of-way dedication for future dual eastbound left turn pocket. I did want to talk about, as well, there's a lot of discussion on the pedestrian gate. This is located at the northwest corner of the project site. Part of the project did include this pedestrian connection. That connection is intended to provide residents, particularly children attending Cortez Elementary School, which is located north and west of the project site, with a direct walking connection to the school. The goal is to encourage walking and reduce vehicle trips associated with school drop-off and pick-up. There were also concerns regarding traffic from the recently opened Northgate Market, which is located just to the east of this project. However, staff and city attorney office advise the Planning Commission that SB 330 limits the city's ability to impose new or more restrictive traffic-related development standards after the applicable application baseline date. For this project, that date is September 18th, 2025, which predates the opening of Northgate Market located directly east of this project. Accordingly, SB 330 limits the city's ability to impose new or more restrictive traffic standards based on conditions arising after that date. The applicant's appeal outlined four primary issues, and bear with me please, related to the city's obligations under state housing law and Chino municipal code. So I'll briefly summarize each of those issues in the letter. The first issue is lack of findings. The applicant argues that the planning commission effectively denied the project without making findings required by the state law and the municipal code. Staff's response is that the commission did not take affirmative action to deny the project. It considered three separate motions to approve the project and each failed on a three to three vote. No finding denying the projects were adopted. Staff's own review concluded that the project satisfied applicable requirements and the findings supporting approval were included in the proposed planning commission report. The second issue has to do with the Housing Accountability Act, or HAA. The applicant contends that the project complies with the applicable objective standards and there is no findings of a specific adverse health or safety impact that cannot be mitigated. Staff reviewed the project for consistency with the general plan, zoning affordable housing overlay, applicable objective development standards, and state housing laws and recommended approval. The Planning Commission did not adopt findings identifying a specific adverse health or safety impact that would support a denial under HAA. the third issue involves state density bonus law the applicant argues that the city failed to properly grant the requested density bonus incentive and waivers including the request to retain the existing overhead utility facilities and under rather than undergrounding them staff's response is that the undergrounding requirement is an established city development standard that has been applied to comparable projects staff determined that maintaining the overhead utility system would not be adequately mitigated through proposed protective measures such as bollards because those measures would address only certain risks and would not provide the same reliability and resiliency benefits as undergrounding. Also, the addition of residential units for the project would create new traffic to and from the project site and thus exacerbate the traffic collision risk to the utility poles in question. Based on the evidence in the administrative records, staff determined that the statutory basis exists to retain the undergrounding requirement. Finally, the applicant raises the potential penalties and other legal consequences of violating state housing law. The appeal cites potential statutory penalties, attorney's fees, and other remedies that could apply if a court were to determine that the city unlawfully denies the project. Staff recognizes the importance of these state requirements and the potential consequences of noncompliance. At the same time, staff's review concluded that the Planning Commission did not affirmatively deny the project, rather the motions to approve failed to obtain the required majority. staff also concluded that the project is consistent with the applicable city standards and state housing laws and therefore recommends approval taken together staff's position is that the project meets applicable objective standards and that the record supports approval of the project and that the city's review and decision must be consistent with the limitations and requirements imposed by state housing laws With that background, I will now turn the presentation over to the assistant city engineer, Jesus Placentia, and he'll talk about the second item that is being appealed.

Thank you, Maria. As we just discussed, the undergrounding requirements in the city code are intended to promote public safety and reliable utility service throughout the city. Similar to the previous project, the applicant is requesting a concession from the city's requirement per the city code to underground overhead utilities along the project frontage. Staff does not support that request. This project involves a much smaller amount of undergrounding than the previous project. In this case, the applicant would be required to place existing telecommunication equipment located along Riverside Drive underground as depicted in this photo. To clarify, the applicant has indicated that they are agreeable to addressing this telecommunication equipment. Additionally, the applicant is required to remove an existing utility pole and overhead SCE lines at the northwest corner of Riverside Drive and Mountain. The photo on this slide shows the existing overhead utilities that run along Riverside Drive across the intersection that would be affected by the project. This next slide summarizes how the city's undergrounding requirements apply to the project. The main concern raised by the applicant is the cost of the work needed on the opposite side of Mountain Avenue. Because of the way the existing electrical utilities are connected, completing the undergrounding at the northwest corner of the intersection as depicted in this photo requires additional overhead utility work across Mountain Avenue at the northeast corner of the intersection. The applicant has indicated that this significantly increases the cost to the project. Staff understands that this work adds cost. It is also important to note that the existing development at the southwest corner of the intersection was previously required to underground its overhead utilities along its property frontage as part of that project, and that work was completed back in the early 2000s. However, the City is not requiring additional undergrounding beyond what is necessary to meet the City's requirements. The work on the opposite side of Mountain Avenue is necessary to complete the undergrounding of the existing overhead line. In other words, this is not additional work being required simply because the project is being developed. It is part of the work needed to place the existing overhead utilities underground. For the same reasons discussed during the previous item, staff supports maintaining the City's undergrounding requirement for the project. Although the amount of undergrounding is more limited in this case, the required work is directly related to the project and is necessary to complete the undergrounding required per the City Code. Staff has also communicated with the California Department of Housing and Community Development, or HCD, regarding the requested exception. HCD encouraged the city to consider whether measures could be used to reduce the safety concerns associated with keeping the overhead utilities in place. Staff considered those options, including measures such as protective barriers and relocating the pole. These measures may reduce some of the risk, however they do not address the other risks associated with keeping the utilities overhead, such as high winds, falling trees or vegetation, equipment failure, or other causes of damage or outages. as we discussed during the previous item vehicle impacts involving utility poles are a documented risk in chino the city's records include 23 collisions between 2021 and 2025 in which vehicles struck and damaged southern california edison poles those collisions did not occur at this project site but they demonstrate that there is a real risk that can occur in our community Staff did not identify a mitigation measure that would provide the same overall level of safety and reliability benefits as undergrounding. For that reason, staff continues to support maintaining the city's undergrounding requirement. And with that, I'll turn it back to Maria.

Thank you. I did want to mention staff did meet with representatives from the California Department of Housing and Community Development, HCD, before the Planning Commission meeting. HCD encouraged the city and applicant to continue working in good faith to evaluate potential mitigation measures, including measures such as protective bollards, which is what Jesus was referring to. They did encourage continued evaluation of potential mitigation measures, which we did look at. Since that meeting, City Council received a subsequent letter from HCD on August 31st in support of the project, and that was provided to you. Staff has completed that evaluation and concludes that the proposed measures do not provide an equivalent alternative to undergrounding. This project did qualify for an exemption under CEQA pursuant to public resource code section 21080.66. with respect to public noticing notice of this hearing was mailed to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the site and the notice was also published in the chino champion state staff received comment letters from the applicant's attorney residents and californians for home ownership all of which have been provided to the council for review and consideration um so mayor and members of the council staff recommends a partial grant of the appeal staff recommends that the council first approve pl25-0022 site approval for the 210 unit rental housing project and secondly we recommend denial of the portion of the appeal requesting removal of public works condition number 2.2 And third, adopt resolution number 2026-057 based on the findings contained in the resolution. That concludes my presentation. Staff would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Okay, questions of staff. I'll start with Karen. Karen, do you have any additional questions? Curtis? Mark? Chris? Okay. I already did open the public hearing, didn't I?

Pardon me. The public testimony portion, I should say. One of the items included in the packet is a letter from the applicant's attorney arguing that essentially this appeal is unnecessary. They're taking the position that the Planning Commission didn't act. in response at the public hearing and therefore makes an argument under the Housing and Accountability Act that that failure to act should deem the application approved. I responded to that letter and I We have some copies that are available that should be part of the record. Essentially, I think their argument fails because the provision that is being cited is intended to address scenarios where essentially a city... The public agency does not act and neglects an application and drags its feet. That was not what happened here. This was presented to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission deliberated on it, took several votes. They did not have sufficient votes to approve it, so essentially it's the denial of an application. The applicants, the appeal, as well as its attorney's letter appealing the action makes it clear throughout that the Planning Commission denied the project and they're appealing the denial. So they are now taking what I believe is a very inconsistent position that there was not an action. So my letter addresses that. So I just wanted to make sure that's part of the record.

Okay. Chris? I think Chris had a question. Oh, you didn't. Okay. Mark?

I read that. I think it came in like around 2 o'clock in the afternoon. So does that mean that this applicant is pulling this appeal based on what their attorney is saying and just moving forward? I didn't understand when I got that email and the letter because it made it seem like they were going to go ahead and pull the appeal because they felt that it was already approved.

I suffered from the same confusion. I've spoken with the applicant. We've had a meeting. I said, are you ready to... Put shovels on the ground or should we not have the hearing, but they are. Proceeding they have not withdrawn their application. They're here today. That question can be posed to them because I think that's an inconsistent position.

It's manager callers from the call in studio webinar.

withdraw their application that the since they're proceeding with the application in the hearing tonight that they haven't withdrawn it and use their own wording and their appeal that they believe an action was taken but it would affect effectively a denial well we'll get it clarified yeah um i do have a couple of questions based on what we had asked before uh how many waivers were they granted

Yes, they were granted six waivers. We have a standard in the affordable housing overlay that they're not supposed to have parking in the first half of the lot. With their site plan, they did propose parking. It does make sense. It provides additional parking and it puts the parking near the recreational amenities, which makes perfect sense. So we waived that requirement. They did want a waiver on private open space requirements. They do provide open space throughout, but our standard is a little difficult to meet. So they did ask for a waiver to provide less private open space, but the site is heavily amenitized. So that was a reasonable request.

Common open- Excuse me real quick. I would ask that the audience, whoever is talking, if you're going to have a conversation, to please go out in the hallway because it's distracting. Okay, go ahead, please. Sure.

They did ask for a waiver. We do require 20% of the lot areas required for common open space. They provided 18.7, so that was approved, or one of the waivers that we felt was reasonable. Also, minimum outdoor living area. We require 400 square feet of open space. So that's 84,000 square feet in total. They're provided 78,750. So they wanted a waiver to because they're not quite meeting that standard. Also, they had a similar request. The floor plate standard for the third story we do require in the affordable housing overlay that they the floor plate is 80% of the first floor. They don't quite meet that there. massing is not larger at the top, but they did ask for a waiver because they're not at 80%, they're at approximately 94%. What they did do, as I showed in the slide, was they provided two stories where it really counted. So wherever they're adjacent to existing residential They had the larger setbacks, and they stepped down the building to two stories, wherever you're near any homes that are existing. So we felt that that achieved what we were trying to require by doing the 80%. Also, they did request a sidered setback So they are required to do 15 feet along the sidered setback at the west property line. And the project proposed a 10-foot setback on the west property line. So that is the waivers that they requested.

Okay. You stated that these units were going to be 1,300 to 1,800 square feet. Do you know what the rental rate is? by any chance? Have they told you that?

I do not know that answer.

Okay. All right, then I will now invite the applicant to have a 10-minute presentation.

hi good evening mayor mayor pro tem and commissioner excuse me council members i'm not in front of the commission excuse me i'm karen alves i'm with bct development we're the applicant on this project we're here tonight really to appeal the planning commission item from the june 17th meeting related to our residential project at riverside and mountain at that meeting the commission reviewed a project that was fully compliant with the city's zoning and development standards as well as the affordable housing overlay which was adopted under measure y by the city and the residents of Chino. There was no dispute to whether that project complies with the overlay zone or complies with the city's zoning. And that was proven by the completeness letter that was issued by city staff on May 14th after going through months of vetting the project. And so we have a fully compliant project. During that meeting, several motions were made. There was no denial and there was no approval. There was also no continuance of that meeting. And so HAA requires that a decision be made one way or another within a particular timeframe. So leaving that meeting, the question has come up on the letter that was submitted. Leaving that meeting because there was no continuance, it was our understanding that the next course of action was to file an appeal, which we did in the days following. We also made outreach. with an attempt to meet with council members, administration, so that we can talk through what the next course of action was. We weren't able to do that, and it was our understanding that city council was going dark in the month of August, which also did not have a hearing date in which we could attend. In between that timeframe, the 90-day period in which action needed to take place after the notice of determination had been issued, That date came and went and we still hadn't been able to take a meeting with anyone to discuss the next course of action and so what we did was we notified as I think any applicant would of what those remedies are under HAA we were afforded a meeting last week in which we did tell city attorney that if there was a difference of opinion on whether a decision was made that night or not, which We are under the impression one was not, a resolution was not issued, and we did confirm that there was not a denial on that night. But if the preference was that we continue with the appeal, we would do that. And so that's why we're here tonight. So I just wanna clarify why there's ambiguity, and it's really because of the timing in which it all transpired, having left Planning Commission without a approval or denial or a continuance, which I believe would have been the next step. so again the project itself complies with the standards um and so i don't want us to go too far into that because i think we've already seen the project you've heard the project i think we've brought forth a really high quality neighborhood on a rental basis that fits the overlay zone you know we held community meetings i don't think any of the complaints had to do with the design of the project the finishes of the project so i think we have a quality project that we've brought forward that meets the density. The waivers that we are seeking are really to maintain the minimum density. So oftentimes standards are rolled out, and once you start to apply them, you start to realize that, wait a minute, we can't really actually make everything fit into the box the way we should. And so in order to get to that minimum density, Some of these waivers were used in order for us to get there. So just to be clear, the waivers were not looking for reduction in cost. They were really just intended to make the best livable space we could on the interior of the units while still maintaining the required density. Do we have an exhibit that we've shared? And so as a part of... what is allowable under the affordable housing overlay and state density bonus law. In addition to the waivers, we are afforded one concession that is used to reduce costs on the project. And so I want to be really clear when we're talking about this concession that we're asking for, is that we are really only looking to apply the concession to the undergrounding requirement that crosses over Mountain. I know that was brought up in the last item, how do you look at a site and not know what all the expenses will be? We spent a lot of time doing diligence on this project, and what that's resulted in is everything that you see in green. Everything in green are improvements that this project is taking on. So while we did see that there are overhead lines on the frontage of Riverside Drive, we expected that to be undergrounded and we will be undergrounding those. We're not disputing that. What we couldn't foresee though was a requirement to add a right turn pocket, a requirement to modify the traffic signals, a requirement to relocate a high pressure gas line that's in the existing right of way. Those are all items that this project is taking on and that cost is directly impacting this project. Those were flushed out through the traffic study that was done, where it was discovered that there were already existing impacts to this intersection. The impacts from this project are very minimal compared to the overall general area. Throughout that process, we were asked to modify to include the new residential project across the street and add in their traffic impacts. So I want to be clear that we're not trying to get out of doing what's required of us. But what we are doing is subsidizing 21 affordable units with an additional $3 million burden on this intersection improvement here that we could never have foreseen being asked of us or being required wholly by our project. because it is an impact to the entire neighborhood, not just our project. The traffic coming from our project is very small, and you can confirm that with your traffic engineer. And so what I've highlighted down at the bottom is really that intersection crossing over mountain. What I wanna be clear about is the red arrows are pointing to an existing lines across there. The argument has been made that that's creating a safety issue if someone were to run into that pole on the corner. That pole will remain whether the lines go underground or not because the pole that you see across mountain on the far right is such a heavy pole, it needs to be guy anchored across the street no matter what. It's got too much tension to stand on its own. This isn't a determination we've made ourselves. This has been determined by our civil engineer and by two separate utility consultants who have evaluated this corner and have all said the same thing, that there's no way that you can keep that pole across the street on the residential corner and not have a guy wire and pole supporting that over on your corner so i just want to be clear that that is really the stretch and scope it is a very limited scope that we're looking for relief on hcd allows us to have one concession that's related to cost savings it doesn't matter if the cost savings is a dollar or if it's two million dollars there is no max or minimum to that request i hope you can see here that we are asking for something very limited and it's limited in scope now but it could be a broader scope as we get across the street because there's a lot of unknowns on that residential project and once you start moving those you can't control until the job is done and so while we now have what we think is an estimate that doesn't mean that that won't increase as we start moving into the residential project So I'm just wanting to give you some context on that and ask you to consider that position. So in addition to the improvements that we're doing there, we're also, as I said, subsidizing 21 affordable units. The project is also contributing over $9 million in impact fees that go across the board to schools, law enforcement, parks, infrastructure throughout the city of Chino. So it is substantial. So in addition to what you see on a set of plans, this is additional monetary impacts that will be made to the city of Chino that you don't see on the set of plans. So what we're asking tonight is that you consider the approval of this project. It's a compliant project and should be approved. And so we're asking you to please approve the project and consider the approval of the concession as well for the reasons that I stated. So thank you for your time, and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

Do you have any questions of the applicant? Okay, thank you. Okay, I will open it up to the public. We have one request to speak, and that's Bob Nigg.

Good evening again. I'm gonna get my money's worth tonight. The major objection I have, it's a factual issue. SB 330, the traffic study, does not say that you do not look at future growth if there's a policy already in place. What it says is you can't use a new policy. you have the city of chino has a 2020 traffic impact analysis guidelines it includes the extended period of time that should be included in your study i find it inconsistent that the staff can say well it's a safety issue for the polls because of northgate and all the other traffic which riverside is going to become highly dense But then they say, well, we don't need to look at that for health and safety reasons for the development. It should have been. I'm not saying the traffic study would deny the project. I'm not saying that congestion is the basis to deny the project. What I'm saying is no one knows if a valid traffic study would have been completed if they would have identified another safety or health basis that could then need to be mitigated. Again, what SB 330 does say is you can have five hearings. It's my recommendation that you send it back to the Planning Commission, have a valid study according to the standards in place since 2020, complete it, and then make a determination if a health or safety issue actually exists. Right now, you can't do that. What the law says, the facts are, You had a study guideline in place. You didn't use it. You didn't look at the future growth, the projected growth. You didn't look at Northgate when it was going to be fully dense. Those are all things that would have been included in a valid traffic study. So I'm asking you not to decide if there is a health and safety issue. Send it back to the Planning Commission. Have them have a valid traffic study completed and then make that determination. Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address the council on this item? Yes, sir.

Please come up steady Thank you once again a couple of comments Number one, I've done a little research on this. Our undergrounding policy dates all the way back to 1981 at least when the general plan discussion was going on. So it's established. All of you have spoken out in favor of maintaining the undergrounding. I think that's great. I don't see how undergrounding this one crossover is going to financially bankrupt this project. Contrary to what the applicant said, the pole does not have to remain. There's such a thing as upstream ballasting. In Edison lingo, that's what they call a leaner pole. I'm sure you've seen it. We have several of them throughout Gino. where instead of the guy being downstream from the pool, it's placed as a buttress upstream. So it's always feasible. I don't think it's a huge financial undertaking given the size of this project. do want to make a comment that i appreciate all of you understanding how important undergrounding is and i want to remind you that it's not only important on these types of projects but it's also important on city projects in the past we have not always done it on city projects thank you anyone else in the audience want to address the council on this item okay seeing none i'll close the public hearing

Karen, do you have any questions? I don't have a question at that time.

Okay, go ahead. same project two different issues again uh... according to the applicant's testimony uh... the project in in my perspective the the appeal and listen to our staff report again this is a project that comes in and meets the requirements for development standards you know by state law today uh... mister new all i do appreciate know your comments about the traffic you know study and different things in my experience in you know personally going and speaking to hcd and different things that even if we were to send this back they've already said it's not they've really opined that it's not going to change the perspective on the approval of this project In fact, this applicant has probably done a little bit more with parking and a few things that we've asked our staff and concessions to them and setbacks for the surrounding neighborhood to take into consideration. I don't believe that sending it back for another study would change any of the approval process at this point based off our staff's testimony the applicant and and state law as it stands today um and i do think that's why we're sort of in this position today because sometimes we're looking for all these an interpretation of something and we're sending it back and it's just creating further and further delays for development and other people and it's caused in some ways Sacramento to become frustrated with this and want to impose these mandates upon city to develop. That being said, I agree with the applicant on this and I do support their appeal for development. Again, I've talked to a lot of residents here in this council. It's hard sometimes to get your mind around these developments in our city where we wanna maintain local land use and particular zoning, but in this particular case, this project, in my opinion, meets the requirements however with the undergrounding of the utilities i've said a lot about that tonight i don't change my perspective on this you know well stated by the applicant where they may not have seen you know other other impacts um when we do projects we don't see other issues on impacts as well we call it contingencies right so we we build in a contingency fund we when we do you know local development to hopefully absorb some of those things sometimes they're higher sometimes they're lower and when the applicant was stating about the undergrounding here Although I don't work for Edison, something told me in my mind, hey, there has to be a way to mitigate this, right? You can't just say that pole has to stay there in perpetuity forever, right? No, there's gotta be a way to bring the pole down. It may be a little bit more expensive and make it right for the undergrounding moving forward. And it's weird, I can't prove it, but it's almost like these two developments with the undergrounding this applicant has a different issue because of the planning commission decision but it's almost like they were you know coming to the meetings at the same time and both decided maybe they don't want to trench undergrounding and who knows maybe they talked to each other about and said hey let's let's try to not do this i don't know um but i haven't changed my perspective on undergrounding of utilities for this you know for the reasons i've stated earlier I think it's essential. I think it's the direction of the state. I think people and newer developments want to see this from a health and safety perspective. Again, when trucks crash into utility poles or cars, they knock them down, they knock out power, and knocking over a utility line is a lot different than knocking over a street sign. So I wish to support denying the request to underground the utilities, but I also wish that if this applicant would like to come back to the table and talk to our staff if there was another way to figure this out, I don't know, but I don't support, I would deny the appeal for the concession of the utilities. Those are my comments, Mayor, thank you.

Thank you, Mayor. I was at that Planning Commission that evening. It was a long meeting for sure. Karen, thank you for coming up and giving your comments. I appreciate it. I saw a lot of frustration in your face that evening as well as your attorney and a lot of people in that Planning Commission meeting. Whether we like projects coming into the city or not, our own personal opinions really have to be put on a back burner. Whether we think something is too high of a density or it's gonna take away from our Chino hometown feel maybe even sometimes. But state law now is mandating cities like the city of Chino to abide by certain housing laws. The city cannot deny this project. It meets all the requirements, all the laws, and the standards that the state is saying that it should. As a city, we can't deny it. If we deny it, we're going to end up in court. Whether I like the project or not, We have to approve this project this evening. I would agree with Council Member Comstock. I'm not in agreement with the power utility poles. Those have to be undergrounded. But the first portion of that, I think we need to approve that. The second portion, I don't believe we should. Those are my comments.

Mark. Yeah.

In looking at this project, I will say that obviously a lot of people don't like the density. The density is high. But unlike the 100 unit, here they at least give some amenities to the people that live there, where the other one doesn't give them anything. They do give them more parking spaces than we normally ask for. also when i read this i i went over to to northgate gonzalez market and obviously we all know when it first opened it was completely crowded you couldn't even buy parking across the street it was completely parking all the way around the building very very difficult to get into but i went there this weekend in the morning when they were having an event and it wasn't that crowded I was able to find parking in the regular parking stall. Is it busier than it was at Clark's? Absolutely, which is what we wanted anyway. Clark's was, it wasn't really a functioning market. They were making more money as a warehouse, shipping things out to their other markets, and didn't really care too much to have a market here at Chino. So now we have a market that's actually viable. So I don't think that the traffic study would make much of an impact, even though Northgate is there. I think Northgate looks more crowded than, let's say, like a Stater Brothers because Stater Brothers has a larger parking, has a bigger parking lot. So there's more parking spaces. The one at Northgate is significantly smaller. And just like Council Member Burton said, we can't deny it because this meets all the requirements. So I also would approve this. but I'm not in favor of not undergrounding.

Chris? Sure. Thank you, Mayor. Question for you, Jesus. Regarding that one utility pole, right, that's kind of an issue right now, right at the corner, they had mentioned their engineers had, right, kind of looked at that study and said, hey, well, this one particular pole must stay just to kind of balance out the one across the street. hearing stubby's comment um that no it's absolutely possible um you know some council members have just the gut feeling that hey this can't stay in here in perpetuity um just kind of want your just opinion or thoughts on you know on i guess the applicant's argument there

I do agree that it's feasible to underground that overhead line to the extent that it causes other improvements to be needed. With that undergrounding, I am not sure. It would be something that we would want to consult with an expert as far as utility undergrounding. based on some of the communications that we've had, not only with the applicant, but with experts in this area, it does seem like there is kind of like a snowball effect that happens once you have this overhead line placed underground. There's a lot of additional work that's increasing the cost. So it does mean that the undergrounding cost goes from, let's say, something that's probably more like a six-figure cost to maybe something that's like in the seven-figure range.

I understand. Okay. And, I mean, ultimately, it's feasible. The health and safety issue still would remain, right, if that one particular poll is... I don't know. I guess a couple... Yeah, one other comment I have is... I, and maybe this may be a question for the developer, but just I appreciate, right, the developer, the two particular polls, them agreeing with at least one particular poll, and at least it shows me that, at least in one sense, that they do agree that there is a health and safety issue there, and it's more feasible there, and together it just makes for the perfect opportunity to, okay, we're okay with not, you know, undergrounding that utility poll there. But however, with this other poll that's an issue is, It seems like it's getting more into the cost of the developer or the margins of the developer. But still, it just sounds to me that the health and safety issue still remains. Although, again, the issue is that it's just going to cost a lot more than the other poll. Is that right?

Right. That's correct. Okay. That's all I have, Mayor. Thank you. Any other last comments? Regarding that poll, I find it very interesting, the different information that's come forward on that. Where I live, the majority of the newer homes, everything was undergrounded, even though we were in the county at the time. Across the street from my house is a pole that is very, very, I'll say, overloaded with lines and big boxes and stuff. and at one time it was leaning pretty precariously, and they had to come out and fortify it with these lines that come down. So I know there is a way to stabilize those big poles. Not very pretty, but there is a way to stabilize them. I have to compliment this particular developer because although I personally do not like high density, it appears with the... the waivers, the concessions, that they haven't really asked a whole lot, and they've actually given a little bit with coming up with more parking than what they were required. It appears that they have... attempted to make a very nice project, at least with a pool and a taut lot and extra parking and going two stories next to current homes instead of going with the threes. So it's interesting comparing two developers where one appears to at least... from my vantage point, be a good neighbor for the development and agree to undergrounding, although she did mention they'd rather not do that corner, compared to one that asked for maximum, what I consider maximum, waivers and not willing to underground. I, too, I agree we need to approve this development. And I, again, will support denying the portion to not underground. So we need to do the undergrounding and approve the project. Fred, do you have a comment? Yes, Karen. Thank you.

I meant to add those exact comments, Mayor. I think it's very well stated to the applicant that spoke here tonight. I couldn't agree with it. I just didn't want this meeting to close without her hearing me say that, not to mention that she has a fantastic first name. Oh, my goodness. Thank you. Thank you, Karen.

Is that official on the record? Fred, you had a comment.

So Don, great. Thank you. Just wanted to address a few points that were raised. I know the applicant said that the city did not communicate after the Planning Commission meeting. That was really, I appreciate that the applicant representative mentioned that the council was dark. But more importantly, when we received the appeal letter, it had no less than half a dozen threats of litigation. So staff is very apprehensive and I generally advise that if they're going to speak in the face threats of litigation that I be present. I've worked well with the applicant's attorney for years on various projects and have always been responsive when he's reached out to me, so that was always an option. I do want to address the traffic study comments that were raised by Mr. Nigg. I have expressed that, and it's explained in the staff report as well as Robert Hensley of my office explained at the Planning Commission level that the Housing Accountability Act, once an application is deemed complete under SP 330, we cannot add more requirements. There is an argument that he raises that the environmental baseline is incorrect, but this is a project that's exempt from CEQA. There's legislation for infill projects, AB 130, that makes it clear that these projects are exempt from CEQA reviews, so the baseline is not relevant. It doesn't apply. And he also references what he considers, he describes as a landmark case, California Rendezvous versus San Diego, seems to support the argument. There is no such case. I know the cases in this area. I researched the case. I couldn't find it. I asked the applicant's attorney, and he knows of no case. So it's hard to respond to that because it's a case that doesn't exist. So I think the... The staff has proceeded appropriately using the traffic study that was provided and approved by Urban Crossroads. Thank you.

Okay. Any last comments? Then with that, you have the recommendation to approve the project and deny the appeal to underground. With that, I need a motion and a second. Motion from Mayor Portemberton. Second from Council Member Comstock. any no votes hearing none then the project or the item rather is approved unanimously item number 16 naming of the park yes ma'am oh gosh we only have two items left but yes five minute break bathroom break Okay, everyone if you'll please take your seats so we can get this meeting on the road I don't If everyone would please be seated, we would like to get back to the council meeting. Okay, Natalie, are you ready? Okay, we're reconvening after a short break. Item number 16, naming of the park site located in block one of the preserve. This is to adopt the name Harmony Park as the name of the new park to be part of block one of the preserve. We're gonna have our staff report by Jeffrey Benson, Parks and Facilities Manager, and Sylvia Alos, Director of Community Services, Parks and Recreation.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and council members. The city's park naming guidelines provide several steps during the process, and I'll be going through those this evening. First, a list of potential park names is compiled from suggestions submitted by the public, city staff, and the developer. The suggestions are then forwarded to the Community Services, Parks, and Recreation Commission for review. The commission's final recommendation is then forwarded to the city council for adoption. The park naming guidelines allow a park or facility to be named after an individual living or deceased who has provided a significant contribution to the development or improvement of the quality of life in Chino. Park names can also be based on themes that characterize the individual park sites such as neighborhood street names or significant site landmarks. The development of the preserve area includes the construction of a park required by the development agreement with Lewis Operating Companies. As conditioned by the preserve development agreement, the developer is required to design and construct a park in lieu of paying development impact fees for the site. Lewis Operating Companies is currently developing a three-acre public park within the Preserve community as part of a new development called Block 1 at the Preserve. At this time, there is no estimated start date for construction or an anticipated opening date for the park. The timing of the construction of the park will be largely driven by pace of sales within the community. The project site is located south of Pine Avenue, west of West Preserve Loop, and north of Legacy Park Street. Key features of the park include a walking loop lined with cherry trees, traditional Chinese garden, arbor, chess and board game area, fitness equipment, dog park, a tot lot, and also a restroom. The city received 18 park name proposals from community members. The names submitted were for individuals and others focused on the theme. Some of the suggestions were Dennis R. Yates Park, Cherry Blossoms Park, Eunice Ulloa Community Park, Harmony Park, Russell M. Miller Senior Memorial Park. The park naming subcommittee met on July 2nd, 2026, and is comprised of Chairperson Jerry and Commissioners Cooper and Montenegro Olivas. The subcommittee concluded that commemorating a community member would better be suited for a larger community park where the park's theme and amenities could be thoughtfully designed to honor the individual's legacy and showcase their contributions to Chino. At the July 27, 2026 Community Services Parks and Recreation Committee meeting, the Commission voted in favor of Harmony Park as it best reflects the park's overall theme and design. Staff is requesting City Council adopt Harmony Park as the name of the Block 1 at the Preserve Park site. This concludes my report. I'll be happy to answer any questions at this time.

Great. Any questions or comments? Any comments from the community? Okay.

Kurt.

Just a comment. I appreciate the work that our commission put into this and looking at the names. I would request that they take a look at Russell M. Miller in the future park. Here's a man that was a police officer here that gave his life for our community, and I think that he would be very well suited to be considered. It looks like he was considered, but maybe in the future, maybe a future park for Russ Miller. Again, he did give his life as a police officer to this community. That's all I have on there. Thank you.

You know, if that ever happens, it would be really cool to have a police theme with the park, you know, like a police car and kind of stuff like we've done with the Rancho Park where it's, you know, farm themed.

That would be really cool.

Any other comments? Okay, we need a motion and a second, please.

I'll make the motion.

Motion from Councilman Lucille. I'll make the second one. Second from Councilperson Comstock. Any negative votes? Okay, seeing none, it's passed unanimously. Item number 17. Amendment number two of the Construction Reimbursement Agreement and Personal Acceptance of Improvements for the Ontario Ranch Business Park Project, referred to as the REDA Project. Merrill Avenue Widening, Interconnect, and Euclid Avenue Median Improvements Project R2501. A staff report this evening will be provided by Sylvia Ramos, Contracts and Gift Administrator, and Jesus Placencia, our Assistant City Engineer.

good evening again mayor and council members before you this evening is a request to approve amendment number two to the construction reimbursement agreement agreement with rita in the amount of 984 250 Rita, the developer of the industrial buildings located in Ontario, east of Euclid Avenue between Eucalyptus and Merrill, was required by the City of Ontario to design and construct public improvements around the perimeter of its project, including improvements along Euclid Avenue and Merrill Avenue. These improvements include work within both the City of Ontario and City of Chino jurisdictions. The Merrill Avenue improvements extend along both the north and south sides of the street from Euclid Avenue to just west of Grove Avenue, with the south side being within the city of Chino's jurisdiction. On July 30th, 2024, the city and developer entered into a construction reimbursement agreement establishing a project budget of approximately 15.7 million for eligible improvements within Chino's jurisdiction. As construction progressed, several enforcing field conditions, scope changes, and additional construction costs were identified. These costs were partially offset by project savings, unused contingency, and the developer maintaining 2022 unit pricing with their contractor All American Asphalt. On December 2nd, 2025, the city council approved amendment number one in the amount of approximately 1.98 million, increasing in total not to exceed the reimbursement amount to approximately 17.69 million. Construction of the Merrill and Euclid improvements is now substantially complete. The City of Ontario accepted the improvements within its jurisdiction on April 13, 2026, with the exception of some minor sidewalk and traffic signal-related improvements on Merrill. Within the city of Chino, the remaining work consists primarily of approved change order work, along with the completion of the parkway landscaping, sidewalk, and related improvements along Merrill. As construction has progressed, several additional eligible work items have been identified that were not included in the original project scope. These items resulted from unforeseen field conditions, design and scope refinements, and additional improvements requested or supported by city staff following the relinquishment of Euclid Avenue. Although the current project budget includes contingency funds and savings from work that was ultimately not performed, those funds are not sufficient to cover all of the remaining eligible costs. For that reason, staff is requesting council approval of amendment number two to the construction reimbursement agreement in the amount of $984,250. This amendment would provide the additional funding necessary to reimburse the developer for the remaining eligible improvements and associated costs needed to complete the project. The table on this slide summarizes the remaining change order work and improvement items that are being considered for reimbursement. An important distinction for council is that some of these items can be accommodated with the existing project budget, while others require the additional $984,250 requested through amendment number two. So rather than going through every item, I'd like to focus on several of the larger dollar items and explain how they fit within the available funding. First is additional ADA improvements on the west side of Euclid and Merrill intersection. Since the project already included rehabilitating the pavement on the west side of Euclid, staff requested that the adjacent pedestrian crossing also be upgraded to meet current ADA standards. This work includes reconstructing the curb ramps and crosswalk pavement to achieve compliant cross slopes and running slopes. The estimated cost is approximately $62,900. The second item is additional pavement-based material along Euclid. At the time this work was constructed, Euclid was under Caltrans jurisdiction. Based on the geotechnical investigation performed by the developer's consultant, Caltrans required the pavement base layer to be increased by two inches beyond what was originally anticipated due to the underlying soil conditions. And that added approximately $43,500 to the project cost. So both of these items can be covered within the existing project budget and do not require additional funding through the amendment. The remaining items I'll highlight are among those that cannot be fully covered by the existing project budget and therefore contribute to the need for additional funding. The first is the city's pressure reducing valve vault on Merrill Avenue. The photo on the left shows the vault lid in the street. The city's potable water transmission line along Merrill includes a large pressure-reducing valve housed within the vault. It was originally assumed that the vault could simply be adjusted to match the new roadway elevation with the widening of the street. However, once construction began, it became clear that because of the age of the structure, modifying the existing vault would compromise its structural integrity. Instead, a new concrete enclosure had to be constructed around the existing vault, and the cost of this work was approximately $69,800. Another significant item relates to the expanded improvements behind the curb on the south side of Merrill. Originally, the City of Ontario required the roadway widening only to the face of the curb. However, the City and developers subsequently agreed to expand the improvements to provide a more complete ultimate improvement, including the parkway, sidewalk, streetlights, and traffic signal. As part of that work, new electrical pedestals were installed to house the Southern California Edison meters, serving the streetlights and future irrigation system. That work cost approximately $67,400. These expanded improvements are part of the remaining eligible project costs being addressed through the requested amendment. The largest component of the additional funding request is the parkway improvements along Merrill Avenue. The photo on the left shows the current condition of the south side parkway, which is still dirt, basically. As part of the expanded mayoral improvements, the project includes installation of parkway landscaping along this frontage. The estimated cost to install the landscaping and irrigation is approximately $497,500. There's also long-term maintenance consideration. Unlike the parkway landscaping in front of the FedEx property that's near the intersection of Merrill and Flight, which is privately maintained by the property owner under the project's conditions of approval, the landscaping along this portion of Merrill would ultimately be maintained by the city. This requirement dates back to a 1991 agreement between the city and San Bernardino County related to the annexation of the Chino Airport property. Under that agreement, the city is responsible for maintaining the public right-of-way along the airport frontage. As a result, installing landscaping would create an ongoing maintenance responsibility for public works that would be funded through the city's general fund. This proposed amendment was brought before the Infrastructure and Streets Committee in July of this year, and this particular issue was also discussed. The committee suggested that staff explore whether the county of San Bernardino would be willing to participate in the cost of installing these improvements because they do front for Chino Airport. Staff subsequently contacted the county regarding potential cost sharing. At this time, the county has not provided a definitive commitment to reimburse the city for any portion of the cost. Staff will continue coordinating with the county to determine whether a reimbursement or another cost-sharing arrangement may be available in the future. So the image on the right is just a digital rendering so that you can see what the parkway landscaping would look like on the south side of Merrill. So based on the direction received, staff is recommending that the parkway landscaping proceed as part of this project. This is a change from the recommendation presented previously to the committee, where staff was evaluating alternatives such as mulch or decomposed granite in response to the long-term maintenance concerns. The current recommendation is to proceed with the installation of parkway landscaping with the associated costs included in the additional funding request before council today. While this will create an ongoing maintenance responsibility for the city, staff will continue to preserve potential participation from the county given the location of the improvements along Chino Airport frontage. And as noted, the estimated cost for the landscaping and irrigation system is 497,500. uh there there is before you today uh an additional action that was not presented uh at the previous streets and infrastructure committee and that is the partial acceptance of the completed improvements Construction within the City of Chino is substantially complete and staff is recommending acceptance of the improvements that have been completed within the City's right-of-way up to curb and gutter as shown in this exhibit. These improvements have been constructed in accordance with the City's standards and specifications including applicable accessibility requirements and have been completed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Inspector. improvements being accepted that would be accepted today do not include the sidewalk parkway landscaping street lights traffic signal interconnect and curb ramp improvements that are still under construction those remaining improvements will be brought back to council for acceptance once they are complete Staff conducted a final walkthrough of the improvements proposed for acceptance today, back on July 15th, 2026, and all punch list items identified for those projects have subsequently been completed. So for this reason, staff is agreeable to the developer's request to establish July 15th as the commencement of the one year warranty period. This would allow the warranty period to begin based on the date of the final walkthrough, rather than delaying the start of the warranty period until this meeting, while City Council was dark in August. The developer is required to provide a warranty bond to secure its obligations during the warranty period, and has indicated that the bond is anticipated to be provided by the end of next week. So just for clarification, the staff report incorrectly states that security for the warranty bond had been already provided, the city has not yet received the warranty bond. Therefore, assuming the city council is agreeable to accepting the public improvements, the formal acceptance letter will not be issued to the developer by staff until the warranty bond has been received. Once a warranty bond has been received, this will secure the developer's obligation to correct any defects identified during the warranty period. So upon acceptance, these completed improvements will become the sole and exclusive property of the city, and the city will assume responsibility for their operation and maintenance. The anticipated maintenance responsibilities include basically public street sweeping and storm drain catch basin maintenance, while traffic signals and the Euclid median landscape will remain the responsibility of the City of Ontario. The partial acceptance therefore allows the City to formally accept the improvements that are complete and ready for City ownership, while the remaining improvements can continue through construction and be presented to Council for acceptance at a later date. So in summary, there are five actions before council today. Staff recommends the city council accept the public portion of the, excuse me, accept the completed portions of the public improvements associated with Merrill and Euclid Avenue, approve a budget increase in the amount of $984,250 for a revised total project budget not to exceed $18,677,118, appropriate $868,150 to the Transportation Fund 320 and approve an immediate budget transfer in the same amount from the Preserved Circulation Dip Fund and appropriate $116,100 from the Euclid Relinquishment Program. uh approve an amendment number two to the construction reimbursement agreement between chino and euclid land venture llc increasing the reimbursement amount by 984 250 for a total not to exceed 18 million six hundred seventy seven thousand one hundred eighteen dollars and authorized the city manager to execute all the necessary documents on behalf of the city so with that i'm happy to answer any questions any questions of staff

I have a couple of questions about future development on Euclid. I know we just acquired it, but with the amount of building that we still have going on down in the preserve, the amount of truck traffic, the freight that goes up and down Euclid now, Are there any plans to widen Euclid Avenue to three lanes in both directions to make it consistent with what's north of Riverside Drive?

There is. I think one of the challenges with widening Euclid, specifically south of Merrill, comes from the fact that before you widen the street, you want to build storm drain line I. I think you've heard about storm drain line I. It's a major infrastructure project that's a multi-million dollar project. I think it's like a double 10 by 8 box. It's huge. And so you want to build that first before you widen the street.

Right. I'd like to comment on that. Well, I don't believe there is. Because what would be the point in this, it's just going to move the choke further, right? Because the design construction for the Euclid Bridge is two lanes, right? So I thought the plan was to keep Euclid two lanes in each direction consistent for it to go over the Euclid Bridge. Or am I wrong?

Someone can correct me on that, but I thought at least along Euclid from... Merrill down to south of Pine, the expectation was that it was gonna be in the ultimate condition. Either, I think we could do with three lanes, but I think the general plan specifies four in each direction.

Okay. I thought that we're gonna start looking at making Euclid wider with the development of that one project that's between Bickmore and Pine that was going to help to make that street wider. And then obviously with the farm on Euclid that would also, and the expansion of the airport that I thought that was going to facilitate making it wider and have the developers pay for the improvements on that road.

Yeah, I think that's another project where there's an opportunity to do improvements on Long Euclid. I think the challenge is like When when would that project move forward and do the frontage improvements? Versus when line I gets built Not all of it but where you know, we're looking for opportunities to obtain more funding Any other comments questions

Anyone in the audience have anything to say about this item? I just have one quick question. Yes.

When do you anticipate the rest of the improvements to be done?

So my understanding, and I believe the developers here, and correct me if I'm mistaken, but they're looking to have it completed either later this month or in October.

Okay, with that, then I would entertain a motion and a second.

I'll make the motion.

Motion from Councilman Lucio. Second from Councilperson Comstock. Any opposition? Seeing none, the item passes unanimously. I'm going to forego my council reports this evening due to time. Mayor Pro Tem Burton.

I will also forego my council report as well, Mayor.

Councilmember Comstock. In the interest of time in our staff, Mayor, I will also forego mine. Thank you.

for the long meeting tonight council member flores thank you mayor i'll forego mine i'm happy to be back and we have a lot of work to do council member lucio i will follow suit and forego mine uh city manager is not here this evening i would take this opportunity to ask everyone to keep her in prayer she lost her mother last night that's why she is not here uh assistant city manager jackie no report mayor city attorney galante

or just wanted to express my condolences to our city manager.

Okay, with that, we are adjourning in memory of Nikki Mullins. Our next regular meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 15th at six, with closed session starting no earlier than four.